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

[Christiano]

The vice-president of the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil (CNBB, in the Portuguese abbreviation), bishop Luís Soares Vieira, said yesterday, at the closing of the 47th General Assembly of the entity, in the city of Indaiatuba, in the State of São Paulo, that homossexuals can be priests if they are celibate. “They [homossexuals] are human people. They have this constitution and they have to be treated as people, with respect. Now, what is required from the heterossexual to be priest, it is also required from the homossexual. If he is going to become celibate, he has to live chastity”, he said, when he was questioned about the position of CNBB about this matter.

Around 300 bishops took part of the 10-day meeting of CNBB. The main subject was the document about the new policies of Brazilian priests, aproved by general agreement, which reinforce celibacy.

The subject of homossexuality got to be debated to make to the policies, but the term “homossexualism” was taken off the final content of the document.

The document will be sent for pope Benedict 16’s aproval and may be altered. The directors of CNBB determined that its content will be kept secret untill it’s aproved by the pope.

After the meeting, the vice-president of CNBB defended celibacy when he said that this condiction “isn’t a divine law”, but a “disciplinary one”.

“We have in the Roman Catholic Church some rites in which priests get married. In the Latin rite, which is ours, those who want to become presbyter have to chose for the celibate life. There are people who weren’t made for this. This is a gift from God”, he said.

Bishops also discussed the participation of remarried couples at parishes, but they kept the position that they can’t receive Communion, since divorce is considered an “irregularity”, according to CNBB.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Now, what is required from the heterossexual to be priest, it is also required from the homossexual. If he is going to become celibate, he has to live chastity", he said, when he was questioned about the position of CNBB about this matter.

How about this for a concept? How about priests not ‘share’ publicly their own *personal *sexuality because it is irrelevant to their position as priest? Talk about it all you want with your family and your best buds, but since you are not dating, let alone copulating, with anyone in the congregation, it is a non-topic and non-issue. Public self-identification is quite inappropriate. If you consider discussing your sexuality central to your celibate priesthood, you’re in the wrong profession.

As a priest you can present teachings about homosexuality, SSA and about heterosexual unitive love without identifying yourself as either gay or straight. No one should care except yourself what your private inclinations are. And most of your congregation will be burdened by these disclosures, particularly if you confront them with it, “celebrate” it, or however the heck you plan to derail your ministry over it.

How about this for a headline? “Gays can be priests if, like straight seminarians, they leave their sexuality at the front door of the seminary.”

 

[Benedict108]

The vice-president of the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil (CNBB, in the Portuguese abbreviation), bishop Luís Soares Vieira, said yesterday, at the closing of the 47th General Assembly of the entity, in the city of Indaiatuba, in the State of São Paulo, that homossexuals can be priests if they are celibate. “They [homossexuals] are human people. They have this constitution and they have to be treated as people, with respect. Now, what is required from the heterossexual to be priest, it is also required from the homossexual. If he is going to become celibate, he has to live chastity”, he said, when he was questioned about the position of CNBB about this matter.

Around 300 bishops took part of the 10-day meeting of CNBB. The main subject was the document about the new policies of Brazilian priests, aproved by general agreement, which reinforce celibacy.

The subject of homossexuality got to be debated to make to the policies, but the term “homossexualism” was taken off the final content of the document.

The document will be sent for pope Benedict 16’s aproval and may be altered. The directors of CNBB determined that its content will be kept secret untill it’s aproved by the pope.

After the meeting, the vice-president of CNBB defended celibacy when he said that this condiction “isn’t a divine law”, but a “disciplinary one”.

“We have in the Roman Catholic Church some rites in which priests get married. In the Latin rite, which is ours, those who want to become presbyter have to chose for the celibate life. There are people who weren’t made for this. This is a gift from God”, he said.

Bishops also discussed the participation of remarried couples at parishes, but they kept the position that they can’t receive Communion, since divorce is considered an “irregularity”, according to CNBB.

Please post link to article source.

 

[kyria]

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?

 

[Ocarm]

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?

I think this is an interesting point. To be honest, I’m not entirely sure what ‘intriniscally disordered’ means, but presumably we are taling about the disease model of human behaviour, with the individual being seen as different from others because of some kind of maladaptive development - which seems at odds with the other view sometimes expressed by the church, that homosexuality is a choice than can be resisted.

The Vatican’s most recent statement on this issue can be found at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

It doesn’t address this particular ellipse explicitly, but it does clarify that bishops and religious superiors can and should discern the extent to which a candidate’s sexuality will inhibit their ordination, and states that it is at the discretion of the bishop or superior to accept them for priestly formation or not.

I do not believe Christ would have expected the Church to have intrinsically disordered priests sheparding the flock.

You’d think so, wouldn’t you? Then again, look at the people that he did choose to be his apostles. A scholarly but untrustworthy type (Judas); a moral coward who denied him, panicked because he didn’t believe the messiah could save him from drowning, and who even after the resurrection, shied away from confrontation and so was rebuked by Paul for his apparent fear of the Jewish authorities (Peter); two mommy’s boys who got their mother to ask Jesus if they could have a position of importance in his kingdom (James and John); and a zealot, membership of which party was defined by the candidate approaching a Roman soldier in broad daylight and slitting his throat - not the kind of guy you’d want in your camp at night (Simon). To say nothing of Paul himself, who assisted in the murder of the first Christian martyr.

As my novice master said to me when we were discussing the gospel passage regarding the choosing of the twelve, ‘This bunch wouldn’t have passed the psychological assessment that you had to undergo.’ But they did achieve great things when they turned to God through Jesus Christ, even though this didn’t make them perfect, and even though they may have fallen again at times

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

It won’t fix anything, of course. But I believe we have to trust the bishops and religious orders to manage this and pray that they will accept good candidates and offer them a positive formation. I think case-by-case consideration is best; and if the mere tendency to sin is in and of itself seen as a block to holy orders and religious life, then none of us will ever make it through the door.

 

[Father_of_9]

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.

 

[rlg94086]

Here is an appropriate document from the Vatican which gives guidance in this question:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

1. Homosexuality and the Ordained Ministry

From the time of the Second Vatican Council until today, various Documents of the Magisterium, and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.

Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins. The Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstance can they be approved.

Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter[8].

**In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”[10].

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies. **

Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.

…

In the discernment concerning the suitability for ordination, the spiritual director has an important task. Although he is bound to secrecy, he represents the Church in the internal forum. In his discussions with the candidate, the spiritual director must especially point out the demands of the Church concerning priestly chastity and the affective maturity that is characteristic of the priest, as well as help him to discern whether he has the necessary qualities[20]. The spiritual director has the obligation to evaluate all the qualities of the candidate’s personality and to make sure that he does not present disturbances of a sexual nature, which are incompatible with the priesthood. If a candidate practises homosexuality or presents deep-seated homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director as well as his confessor have the duty to dissuade him in conscience from proceeding towards ordination.

…sounds pretty clear to me. I’m not sure why the Bishop isn’t clear.

 

[Christiano]

Please post link to article source.

Here it is: www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/brasil/ult96u559424.shtml

 

[Benedict108]

Here it is: www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/brasil/ult96u559424.shtml

Thank you

 

[FickleFreckled]

Personally, I don’t have a problem with gay men in the priesthood as long as they’re celibate, which should be a foregone conclusion. It’s naive to think gay men haven’t been in the priesthood all along. If a man is homosexual but denies himself sexual expression because he loves and honors God, why wouldn’t God call him to the priesthood? I’ve only known one priest who admitted it, but have known quite a few I’ve suspected were. They’re good, dedicated priests.

 

[irishpatrick]

I do not get this…

We have thousands of married Catholic men who are currently Deacons, many of them would love to be Priests, yet they cannot. We also have thousands of other faithful Catholic married men who would similarily love to be Priests, but cannot.

However, the Church is saying that a gay man with a disordered condition can be a Priest ahead of a man that is married is already a Deacon and has already proved faithful to the Church?

Sorry, I love Holy Mother Church, yet come on, where did common sense go on these disciplinary rules?

 

[Christiano]

Personally, I don’t have a problem with gay men in the priesthood as long as they’re celibate, which should be a foregone conclusion. It’s naive to think gay men haven’t been in the priesthood all along. If a man is homosexual but denies himself sexual expression because he loves and honors God, why wouldn’t God call him to the priesthood? I’ve only known one priest who admitted it, but have known quite a few I’ve suspected were. They’re good, dedicated priests.

The problem is that many people say that the Bible is against homossexuality: Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:8-11.

 

[FickleFreckled]

Of course it’s against homosexuality! Homosexual behavior is against God’s laws. Being homosexual isn’t a sin. Acting on it is. To remain in God’s law, homosexuals have to remain celibate their entire lives. It’s hard to imagine how difficult that it unless you’re a life-long celibate yourself. God knows how hard it must be, though, and I think He honors the obedience of those who have and can do it by calling some of them to the priesthood.

 

[FickleFreckled]

Oh, I also meant to say that because they have freely given up the homan gift of sexual expression, God offers them a greater gift - the priesthood.

 

[redrosetea]

I think the semnarys are very different paces today than they were back in the 60 and 70s…much stricter about who can get in and who can remain

That was an anything goes time in the church for some, and things seem to be getting back on track once again

I suspect we have always had gay clergy, but we haven’t always had gay clergy that were active in pedophilia…We might have gay saints, but if they were they kept that information to themselves and they didn’t live a life that was unchaste and immoral

 

[Dale_M]

Here it is: www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/brasil/ult96u559424.shtml

The link doesn’t work.

The subject of homossexuality got to be debated to make to the policies, but the term “homossexualism” was taken off the final content of the document.

I think it is worth underlining this point. Homosexuality in the priesthood was discussed, but that discussion didn’t make its way into the document being sent to the Vatican.

Here is a working link which also makes that point:
ansa.it/ansalatina/notizie/notiziari/brasil/20090502162834871086.html

 

[irishpatrick]

Oh, I also meant to say that because they have freely given up the homan gift of sexual expression, God offers them a greater gift - the priesthood.

I do not agree with this. Homsexual have a disorder, and have what they feel to be predisposition or attraction to other men. How can it ever be what God wants to have such a person in His Priesthood, yet health married men cannot?

 

[FickleFreckled]

irishpatrick,
Jesus never said married men couldn’t be priests. At various times during Christian history they have been. Peter was certainly married and he was the first pope. Orthodox priests marry. There are plenty of formerly-protestant Catholic priests currently who are married, although they can’t remarry if their wives die. An unmarried priesthood is a Church decision and I’ve always heard that it was a decision based more on concern about split loyalties and property ownership than on anything else. I don’t know that this is true; it’s just what I’ve heard. However, as far as i know, there is no scriptural prohibition against priestly marriage. Paul did say it’s better not to be married unless remaining single causes you to sin, but that applied to everyone, not specifically those in the ministry.
Homosexuality is not a sin; it’s a condition. It doesn’t have to result in homosexual activity. It doesn’t have to cloud the judgement. It doesn’t cause a homosexual person to be less holy than a heterosexual. Only a sinful decision causes that. An abusive childhood causes a “disordered” condition, too, but people do come to terms with it and learn to live normal, productive, even holy lives. Would you exclude them from the priesthood? Alcoholism is a disordered condition, but there have been many alcoholic priests. I had a personal friend who had been a raging alcoholic for many years before he became sober. He was a good priest. Would you have excluded him from the priesthood? Just because a man is gay doesn’t mean he has a great urge to hang out in gay bars and take guys home, or will be actively sexual in the priesthood. Everyone has their challenges to holiness. Sexuality is a huge one for all religious. They’re not dead; they’re celibate. I agree with you that married men should be allowed to be priests. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Sunflower15]

I think that if whoever wants to be a priest, and is willing and able to be celibate, then we really should never even find out whether they are hetero- or homo-[sexually] -oriented.

Why do we need to know? Why do they need to tell?

Is this not a non-issue?

Whatever their inclination, since birth, due to chemical reactions in their brains, due to social upbringing, due to traumas, due to whatever…to become priests, they must have a call FROM GOD to follow HIM and to LEAD US TO HIM…and what sexual inclination they have means NOTHING to me if they LEAD ME TO HIM!

1. It is GOD who calls into the priesthood…not our Church leaders, they can’t possibly make it so impossible for anyone to be accepted if the call is discerned…

…and sometimes it is the worst sinners who make the best saints, because they understand the need for salvation & have the compassion to guide others to God

Did St. Paul not say he had a “thorn on the side” that he constantly prayed to God about, but He refused to take it because that way Paul would understand that it is in our weakness that God’s greatness is become stronger?

Do we know which “thorn” Paul had? It could be some terrible thing, it obviously grieved him to have it…which is a great model for all of us to follow…

1. Does it matter which sin we are inclined to? Does it matter which sin the priest is inclined to? Why? Does it matter to God, if HE calls sinners to serve others as priests?
2. Do priest not forgive and absolve ANY sin we bring to them as long as we are truly sorry?
   Do they not show compassion having to listen to our worst, one after the other, during Confessions, and then try to encourage us to be better and not “give up”?
   Do they not make is possible for us to be able to take communion?[which otherwise not be possible without confession]
3. Do they, because of being priests, deserve LESS compassion than the rest of us, even after having “cleaned” and forgiven us all thousands of times [collectively]?

I would run away as fast as I can if I were depending on the “holiness” or our pastors, not because of not believing in their sincerity, but because they would be trusting & following their own righteousness, rather than seeking God “like water in the desert” for guidance.

The best human “compass” is quite deficient in comparison to attuning ourselves to God’s “compass”…

 

[Sunflower15]

I do not agree with this. Homsexual have a disorder, and have what they feel to be predisposition or attraction to other men. How can it ever be what God wants to have such a person in His Priesthood, yet health married men cannot?

God’s priesthood doesn’t look to me as the priesthood that appears to be inside your mind…

Priests are servants to sinners who need help in getting to Heaven…

Jesus said He didn’t come for the “healthy” ones, but for the “sick” ones who in need of a “doctor” …what does that mean to you?

Did he ask of any of His Apostles or disciples, to first purify themselves, get rid of their own “issues” *, then go to Him after they were “worthy”? NOT!!!

He took, and still takes, everyone “AS IS” and then works from the “inside - out” with each of us…priests included…

Priests are ALSO on a personal journey to their God…and they have the ability to run their compassion setting on “HIGH”, so that they also are given responsibility for others’ souls to guide to God…that’s all they are…even saints…that’s all they are…

Do we even know whether some saint or another had homosexual inclinations? I doubt they would have told anyone since they were chaste & celibate anyhow!

Priests don’t marry to give more of themselves to us, especially since they are constantly being sent different places. It is more out of a missionary attitude and mindset. Jesus asked Apostles to leave their families behind and sent them to different places. Even the married ones had to leave families behind.

Better not to have them to begin with, right?*