Bishop: "Gays can be priests if they are celibate"

[Elizabeth502]

Actually, FickleFreckled, It would appear that you are not in agreement with teelynn, at least as she/he expressed it. From the way I read your own post (and I do agree with you, being celibate is a cross, especially in the in-your-face (highly sexualized) culture in which we are all seemingly immersed. That’s not the way I read teelynn’s post, which is that being a gay celibate is more “specially” difficult than being a straight celibate. There is absolutely no substantiation for such a supposition.

Celibate is celibate. There is a very small percentage of people (among both gays & straights) who are fairly ascetically inclined from birth. They claim (and their lives verify) that they were born with a below-average quotient of the pleasure drive – across the board, often (food, sex, etc.) Most of us have probably met a person or two like that. But for everybody else, of any orientation, the drive is to like sex and plenty of it.

 

[Teelynn]

How is it more “special” than what celibate straights are asked to carry? This is just propaganda to me. I can name some straight priests for which celibacy has been an enormous cross.

Well, because gay people must remain celibate no matter whether they go into the priesthood or not, if they are following God’s law. A straight person if not going into the priesthood can marry, they aren’t required to remain celibate if they choose to marry. So, yeah, I think gay people carry a special cross if they are lay people. They must remain single and celibate.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Oh, I see what you were referring to. You were broadening the topic outside of the celibate priesthood. Within the priesthood (thread subject), there is no difference in the sacrifice.

 

[v3orb]

I don’t understand. Isn’t homosexuality intrinsically disordered? Regardless of whether one is practicing or not? And if someone viewed themselves as homosexually orientated, whether practicing or not, wouldn’t that still come under deep seated?

Look I might be in the head thinking this, but I do not believe Christ would have expected the Church to have intrinsically disordered priests sheparding the flock.

I know we all might have our various burdens, but heck, if I am to go to someone for spiritual direction, I don’t really want to have to be sitting there wondering if they might be infact intrinsically disordered.

Intrinsically disordered is intrinsically disordered. How does being celibate fix this?

SIN in all its forms is intrinsically disordered.

 

[Teelynn]

Oh, I see what you were referring to. You were broadening the topic outside of the celibate priesthood. Within the priesthood (thread subject), there is no difference in the sacrifice.

Nope, no difference. Sorry I went a little off topic. I have to corral myself in now and then.

 

[frommi]

There was an excellent article on this very topic by Fr. Regis Scanlon in the April edition of Homiletic and Pastoral Review. In it he brings up a good point that if someone with a homosexual orientation were allowed to be admitted to a seminary, that would be placing him in a near occasion of sin. It would be very difficult for him to not act on his homosexual fantasies and urges when he’s surrounded by all males. It would also be wrong for his superiors to place him in that situation where he would likely fail. It would also have a very negative impact on the recruitment and formation of seminarians who do not have a homosexual orientation. A very good article that everyone should read.

You’ve got to be kidding…the thesis of the article presupposes that all the gay man does is lust after every man he is around…which is simply not the case.

 

[Elizabeth502]

frommi,
I agree that lust varies by person, and not by orientation. However, it has unfortunately been true that in the last 15 years such environments have both led to sexual indulgence and have seriously eroded the morale of enrolled seminarians, and those considering enrolling.

How would you feel? Would you consider it fair or appropriate for some to be allowed to indulge their sexual preferences actively while the authorities look the other way, and you, with a different orientation, are forbidden to? I don’t think an inactively gay priest should be similarly made to suffer while actively straight priests are allowed to indulge, either. It cuts both ways.

Active anything is not appropriate to the seminary, as I have said many times. You leave your sexual desires on the other side of the front door when you enter religious life – male and female, gay and straight.

 

[redrosetea]

How is it more “special” than what celibate straights are asked to carry? This is just propaganda to me. I can name some straight priests for which celibacy has been an enormous cross.

I think every cross anyone carries is special to them no matter what it is

 

[tuviskazinai]

Just another suggestion about a way to read the “deeply seated tendencies” part of the document, and I’d be curious to know what people think about this…

A lot of contemporary research has suggested that human sexuality is a spectrum. Some people are firmly, unequivocally heterosexual, some are firmly homosexual (shall we call these “deeply seated homosexual tendencies”?), and yet many people are somewhere in between. In my view, one of the things that the gay rights movement has done in making “coming out” such a big deal is to blow whatever fleeting homosexual tendencies a “normal” person might face way out of proportion. It used to be that a young man growing up who felt curious about other men would outgrow it when he realized that it is heterosexual attraction that points towards the only truly fulfilling expression of one’s sexuality that one can share with another person: marriage. But nowadays there is such pressure on young people to regard those homosexual curiosities, tendencies, or feelings as saying something irrevocable about their orientation. I think that probably a lot of people have become even more confused about their feelings and identity than they would have been in the first place, as a result of some gay rights advocates’ vision of sexuality. This is just a guess…I have no expertise in the matter and could be wrong.

But anyway, I would hazard the suggestion that if this “spectrum” research is correct and if we want to empower men and women to accept fleeting homosexual feelings as conquerable and not as something that defines their psychosexual life, then maybe we shouldn’t be quick to generalize about all gay people as though anyone who is questioning at a given moment is already a slave to this “disorder”? And maybe that is why the Vatican is clear that only those whose homosexual tendencies are “deeply seated” are unfit for the priesthood? (Not that anyone on this forum has been quick to generalize – this has been a very nuanced discussion…it’s been great!)

Just a thought. Human sexuality is so complex, and I am sure there is so much that all of us have to learn about it!!

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[redrosetea]

Just another suggestion about a way to read the “deeply seated tendencies” part of the document, and I’d be curious to know what people think about this…

A lot of contemporary research has suggested that human sexuality is a spectrum. Some people are firmly, unequivocally heterosexual, some are firmly homosexual (shall we call these “deeply seated homosexual tendencies”?), and yet many people are somewhere in between. In my view, one of the things that the gay rights movement has done in making “coming out” such a big deal is to blow whatever fleeting homosexual tendencies a “normal” person might face way out of proportion. It used to be that a young man growing up who felt curious about other men would outgrow it when he realized that it is heterosexual attraction that points towards the only truly fulfilling expression of one’s sexuality that one can share with another person: marriage. But nowadays there is such pressure on young people to regard those homosexual curiosities, tendencies, or feelings as saying something irrevocable about their orientation. I think that probably a lot of people have become even more confused about their feelings and identity than they would have been in the first place, as a result of some gay rights advocates’ vision of sexuality. This is just a guess…I have no expertise in the matter and could be wrong.

But anyway, I would hazard the suggestion that if this “spectrum” research is correct and if we want to empower men and women to accept fleeting homosexual feelings as conquerable and not as something that defines their psychosexual life, then maybe we shouldn’t be quick to generalize about all gay people as though anyone who is questioning at a given moment is already a slave to this “disorder”? And maybe that is why the Vatican is clear that only those whose homosexual tendencies are “deeply seated” are unfit for the priesthood? (Not that anyone on this forum has been quick to generalize – this has been a very nuanced discussion…it’s been great!)

Just a thought. Human sexuality is so complex, and I am sure there is so much that all of us have to learn about it!!

Peace,
+AMDG+

It sounds like you might be on to something…Even 50 years ago many of these people could have channeled their impulses into other outlets and led a completely fulfilled life

I happen to know a few people that have never wed, and they certainly seemed happy enough…They developed hobbies and had a ton of friends of both genders, are quite popular ,and most are regular church attenders…I have no idea what their sexual preferences are it was never discussed nor acted upon as far as I know

Sex isn’t the only thing in this world, there are lots of ways for people to be celibate and still have a full life

I think some of this stuff is fuel by the entertainment industry…

 

[rlg94086]

Just another suggestion about a way to read the “deeply seated tendencies” part of the document, and I’d be curious to know what people think about this…

A lot of contemporary research has suggested that human sexuality is a spectrum. Some people are firmly, unequivocally heterosexual, some are firmly homosexual (shall we call these “deeply seated homosexual tendencies”?), and yet many people are somewhere in between. In my view, one of the things that the gay rights movement has done in making “coming out” such a big deal is to blow whatever fleeting homosexual tendencies a “normal” person might face way out of proportion. It used to be that a young man growing up who felt curious about other men would outgrow it when he realized that it is heterosexual attraction that points towards the only truly fulfilling expression of one’s sexuality that one can share with another person: marriage. But nowadays there is such pressure on young people to regard those homosexual curiosities, tendencies, or feelings as saying something irrevocable about their orientation. I think that probably a lot of people have become even more confused about their feelings and identity than they would have been in the first place, as a result of some gay rights advocates’ vision of sexuality. This is just a guess…I have no expertise in the matter and could be wrong.

But anyway, I would hazard the suggestion that if this “spectrum” research is correct and if we want to empower men and women to accept fleeting homosexual feelings as conquerable and not as something that defines their psychosexual life, then maybe we shouldn’t be quick to generalize about all gay people as though anyone who is questioning at a given moment is already a slave to this “disorder”? And maybe that is why the Vatican is clear that only those whose homosexual tendencies are “deeply seated” are unfit for the priesthood? (Not that anyone on this forum has been quick to generalize – this has been a very nuanced discussion…it’s been great!)

Just a thought. Human sexuality is so complex, and I am sure there is so much that all of us have to learn about it!!

Peace,
+AMDG+

I’ve always been a proponent of the “spectrum” theory. It explains why some people consider themselves “bisexual.” It is also compatible with the idea of people choosing to be “gay.” They may not be choosing the attraction, but they do choose how to identify themselves and live out that attraction. I had a good conversation about this with a lesbian neighbor who had previously been married and had three kids. She chose to divorce her husband and live as a lesbian. It was a sad situation for her kids IMO…even sadder than a regular divorce.