M
mark_a
Guest
Isn’t this the same as the USCCB’s position?
- Status
B
bekalc
Guest
We ALL have sinful tendencies. Every single one of us. Some people struggle with some sins more than others.The Church is just trying to make clear when they say that those tendencies are disordered is the idea that even if it’s not someone’s “choice to be attracted to the same sex,” and I don’t think that it is, that it’s still not right. But all of us have desires and tendencies that are disordered and not right in the eyes of God.
As long as a gay person is living a Christian life, and is not involved with the gay culture, I see no reason why they cannot become a priest. I bet you that 'faithful deacon" has his own issues too. We all do.
R
rlg94086
Guest
The priest sex scandals have shown that it is a serious problem. The offending priests were not pedophiles - they were hebophiles. Eighty percent of the victims were post pubescent boys/teenagers.
Because their sexual inclination is disordered, it is a problem. Priests have to have a mature sexuality and ability to relate correctly to men and women. That’s why the Vatican felt compelled to give the instruction I previously posted:
Um…yes, they can.
Super! Then, they can become saints…they just shouldn’t be allowed to be priests.
Indeed. We don’t know what the thorn was. We all are sinners. We all have our thorns.
God doesn’t stamp “priest” on anyone’s forehead. Not everyone is cut out to be a priest. Many are denied during the discernment process. It is important to have priests who are cut out for the job.
Yes…what does this have to do with the topic at hand?
Of course not. However, before they become a priest, they go through a discernment process to weed out those who are not fit to be priests.
The discernment process is not just about their inclination to “holiness.” It is also about their psychological stability, maturity, etc. The Church doesn’t and shouldn’t take all-comers to the priesthood.
B
bekalc
Guest
There are just as many problems in Protestant Churches, and there the pastors area allowed to marry.
So not being attracted to a woman, means that a Priest cannot relate to her? Really? Seeing as priests don’t get to act on their sexuality at all I’m really not understanding how it matters who they are attracted to…
I definetly agree about men who have issues living a chaste life, and also homosexuals that are heavily involved with the gay culture.
S
Sunflower15
Guest
How does maturity and psychological stability have anything to do with homosexuality?The priest sex scandals have shown that it is a serious problem. The offending priests were not pedophiles - they were hebophiles. Eighty percent of the victims were post pubescent boys/teenagers.
Teenagers are still kids. It’s still pedophilia. They could simply find gay men if homosexuality were the problem, there sure plenty of them all over!
Because their sexual inclination is disordered, it is a problem. Priests have to have a mature sexuality and ability to relate correctly to men and women. That’s why the Vatican felt compelled to give the instruction I previously posted:
Homosexuality is not an immature condition. One can be very mature and homosexual if the right chemicals are present in the brain.
Um…yes, they can.
God chooses the priests…and provides the gift for the priesthood. If we as a Church choose to curb God’s gifts to the priesthood, then we as a Church should not complain about lack of priests…God DOES provide…
Super! Then, they can become saints…they just shouldn’t be allowed to be priests.
This would be really funny, it it weren’t SO sad!
Indeed. We don’t know what the thorn was. We all are sinners. We all have our thorns.
What other “thorns” should we exclude from the priesthood, according to you? I’m sure there are worse ones, like self-righteousness and pride…or lust…because being homosexual does not mean a person is lustful anymore than a heterosexual iwould.
God doesn’t stamp “priest” on anyone’s forehead. Not everyone is cut out to be a priest. Many are denied during the discernment process. It is important to have priests who are cut out for the job.
They are denied for lack of the gift…or the call…and I have no idea how they do that…but sure hope they don’t turn away men that God has called, and given the grace to live, just due to sexual orientation when the job description demands celibacy!
Yes…what does this have to do with the topic at hand?
If having homosexual orientation is a sin, which I’m not sure of, then it deserves as much compassion as any other sinful orientation…if a priest sins, whichever the sin, he deserves compassion as well
Of course not. However, before they become a priest, they go through a discernment process to weed out those who are not fit to be priests.
True. Thanks God! I just don’t see why sexual orientation matters when they are NOT to act on it anyhow
The discernment process is not just about their inclination to “holiness.” It is also about their psychological stability, maturity, etc. The Church doesn’t and shouldn’t take all-comers to the priesthood.
You must have a really horrible image of homosexuals. I have met the most caring, stable, mature, deeply spiritual, highly educated, community service-driven, selfless, conservative, and responsible, but with a homosexual tendency, people anyone can imagine. Not the type that is usually portrayed by the media at all.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Can you provide the data showing that 80% of the sexual abuse problems in Protestant churches are post-pubescent boys?
I don’t know the complete reasoning behind the Vatican’s statement, but I know they put a lot of thought and study into the subject. Apparently, the disordered homosexual desires, if they are deep-seated, affect the way they relate to others.
You will note that the adjective “deep-seated” is used in the Vatican’s advice. I believe that if a candidate for the priesthood has had some same sex attraction in the past, but is somewhat ambivalent, they would probably be okayed.
R
rlg94086
Guest
I’m not going to respond to any of your other points because you embedded them in a quote.
You are making false assumptions of my “image of homosexuals.” I have and do know plenty. They are human beings, and I love them the same that I love people who are heterosexual. However, same sex desire is a disordered desire. Regardless of the cause, a strong same sex attraction should preclude someone from being made a priest.
K
kyria
Guest
P
phoenix3212
Guest
My understanding of the phrase “intrinsically disordered” is that it refers to something not entirely reflective of the natural order of things. For example, if I had twelve fingers, that would be “intrinsically disordered” as people more commonly have ten. Having twelve fingers wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing, per se; it would just be unusual. On the other hand, homosexuality is slightly different because it creates a tendency to sin. If a seminarian were able to control such a tendency effectively and demonstrate genuine holiness, I myself would have no problem with such an individual being ordained. Of course, such candidates would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
I think that we sometimes associate every gay person with those promiscuous types who wholly delve into the culture of death, without realizing that there are others who reject that culture and control their temptations. After all, everyone among us has a tendency to sin that we must resist and control. If the tendency to sin bars someone from the priesthood, then Lord knows we’d have no priests!
M
mystagogia
Guest
The priest is technically correct. Sexual orientation has no bearing on the office of priesthood. The office of priesthood requires that such things be checked at the door.
The Catholic Church acknowledges the situation of homosexuals and does not reject them categorically. Homosexuals are welcomed into the Church, but acting on homosexual urges is a categorical sin. That’s a dicey situation, but it is what we have nevertheless. Sexual urges are the Tempter’s greatest friend!
Someone who says to you, “I’m gay” defines himself according to his sexual proclivities. He is telling you that he likes to sleep with men, that he thinks that’s an important thing to share, and that he thinks that puts him a social category worthy of special consideration. Substitute “she” for “he” in the preceeding sentence for lesbian, in my homage to the ridiculous sense of “balance” and “equality” in this matter.
And I malign the sense of “balance” and “equality” in this matter because there is none. Heterosexuals do not ask you to redefine sexual roles and affirm their experimentations with gender by re-engineering social rights. Homosexuals do, and falsely claim that they are only angling for the basic rights that everybody else enjoys. This is not true. Homosexuals are not asking for parity, they are asking for a re-definition of family, something you would not ever conceive of granting another heterosexual. The gay marriage movement is asking for a radical, complex change in our basic understanding of family all the while selling it as a simple, conventional matter of basic equality.
Don’t be fooled. It is easy to be fooled.
That’s what so disheartening about this bishop’s pronouncement. Yes, he is in fact right about his core point. Indisputably so. But his pronouncement lends credence to the false view that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality just with body parts arbitrarily swapped around and everything is hunky-dory. Amazingly, this contradiction is the ascendant view and as Catholics we must combat it. This bishop has done us no service, yet not technically erred.
The Catholic Church acknowledges the situation of homosexuals and does not reject them categorically. Homosexuals are welcomed into the Church, but acting on homosexual urges is a categorical sin. That’s a dicey situation, but it is what we have nevertheless. Sexual urges are the Tempter’s greatest friend!
Someone who says to you, “I’m gay” defines himself according to his sexual proclivities. He is telling you that he likes to sleep with men, that he thinks that’s an important thing to share, and that he thinks that puts him a social category worthy of special consideration. Substitute “she” for “he” in the preceeding sentence for lesbian, in my homage to the ridiculous sense of “balance” and “equality” in this matter.
And I malign the sense of “balance” and “equality” in this matter because there is none. Heterosexuals do not ask you to redefine sexual roles and affirm their experimentations with gender by re-engineering social rights. Homosexuals do, and falsely claim that they are only angling for the basic rights that everybody else enjoys. This is not true. Homosexuals are not asking for parity, they are asking for a re-definition of family, something you would not ever conceive of granting another heterosexual. The gay marriage movement is asking for a radical, complex change in our basic understanding of family all the while selling it as a simple, conventional matter of basic equality.
Don’t be fooled. It is easy to be fooled.
That’s what so disheartening about this bishop’s pronouncement. Yes, he is in fact right about his core point. Indisputably so. But his pronouncement lends credence to the false view that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality just with body parts arbitrarily swapped around and everything is hunky-dory. Amazingly, this contradiction is the ascendant view and as Catholics we must combat it. This bishop has done us no service, yet not technically erred.
O
Ocarm
Guest
This depends on what you mean by ‘intrinsically’ disordered’. As I said in my original post, I’m not clear what the term means, and I worked in psychiatry for 20 years before entering religious life. You can infer meaning, and have to infer meaning because it isn’t properly defined, but that leads to a problem, namely that the meaning you infer may be more or less accurate. For instance, I don’t infer the same meaning from it that you do.
In what sense did they overcome them, and at what time? Peter’s cowardice at Corinth was certainly post-ordination. And history shows us that there is no sin that a validly ordained priest (or pope) hasn’t committed). Hopefully they don’t commit them too often.
And this is my point. Your inference as to the meaning of ‘intrinsic disorder’ seems to be not only that the person has the tendency, but also that they haven’t expunged it to the extent that they no longer consider that it applies to them. Fair enough. I’m not sure context supports that, but it isn’t definitive one way or another.
It depends on what you think a psychological exam is looking to uncover. Sexuality is discussed at length, including ability to live a celibate life and nature of personal attractions, sexual experiences and so on. Again, we have a semantic problem. Inasmuch as ‘intrinsically disordered’ isn’t a recognised psychological condition, the assessor (even if they are themselves a priest or religious as well as a psychologist) doesn’t have a clear clinical entity to look for. Hence they follow the spirit of the document instead, which asks for capacity to live a chaste life and level of involvement/ engagement with a lifestyle that would be problematic.
Typically, in the church and out of it, the mere fact that a person has recognised their attraction to the same sex (and perhaps integrated that into their faith, and never acted upon it) doesn’t qualify as a level of personal chaos, one that would bar them from ordination or religious life. Recent and prolonged engagement in a sexually hedonistic lifestyle - homosexual or heterosexual - would bar them, however; and the inability to give that up would be seen as evidence of a sexual addiction.
I’m not questioning your opinion here, which obviously is as valid as mine. I am saying that the document gives the bishop or superior the power to turn people down because of unsuitable behaviour or self-identification, but also allows them to accept people if it is considered that God is working to help them manage their personal lives in a suitable way.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I’m just curious as to why potentiality is being discussed (when it comes to a commitment to permanent celibacy) and why the present participle is being introduced. “Is working”? How about, “Has worked”? Are priests and seminarians sexual creatures, like the rest of us? Of course! Do they struggle against chastity and celibacy? Definitely. But working out one’s sexual identity within the seminary or priesthood? If so, it should be “worked out” only with a professional, not with other seminarians, and most certainly not (later) with one’s flock. (!)
The main point is that people don’t enter the seminary at 14 or 15 any more, when they would naturally be expected to begin to come to terms with their sexuality. What I object to is the recent situation (over the last 15 years) that has permitted seminaries, theology schools, and priestly ministries in parishes to be used by its members as public “coming out” houses, in addition to “let’s all celebrate my (or more often, our) gay priesthood” houses.
Public self-identification about one’s sexuality is really not relevant to the priestly calling. In fact, since the lifestyle is celibate, the whole self-identification thing, gay or straight, is off-topic. If the candidate wants a platform for his sexuality, he’s joining the wrong profession – and that is the desire that should be nipped in the bud (at the seminary door).
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
…Or to put it another way, you are anointed to represent Christ, not to “represent” gays (or straights). Your role is not to celebrate gayness or straightness, but to celebrate the Mass.
T
Teelynn
Guest
To reiterate Fr. Corapi when he was approached by someone who announced he was gay…“We have a lot in common! Both of us are called to be celibate!”
I don’t see a sin in homosexuality at all unless one is “active”. Actually, I think it is a special cross that celibate gay people are asked to carry. God will always give the grace to those he asks to carry that cross. Sexual “orientation” should have nothing whatsoever to do with one being called to the priesthood. “Celibacy” has everything to do with it.
I think the “intrinsic disorder” has to do with acting on the tendency, not in** having**the tendency.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
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.
O
Ocarm
Guest
Well, that would be a prerequisite since the document specifies at least three years disengagement from any aspect of a problematic lifestyle. But in these kind of interviews it’s always about potential rather than end result because the candidate presumably has a lot of living left to do. When a priest or religious makes undertakings, they can only ever promise intent and desire to meet those vows; no guarantee of success can be given, even if past experience shows their commitment in this respect. Just as would be the case for married people vowing faithfulness: however sincere they are, they can’t guarantee success, but would have to expect significant consequences if they fail in their vows.
For better or worse, a lot of people leave consecrated life because they meet someone and fall heavily for them. Its especially true of people who never had any romances before they entered the celibate life, which is why some exploration of those issues is encouraged in the psychological assessment.
Agreed. The Vatican document says the same thing.
I live in the UK and haven’t encountered that phenomenon. Then again, I haven’t lived in a seminary either.
Public, no; but in the diocese or religious congregation some self-identification is needed, at least with superiors - even if only because the Vatican document says that people must be explicit about this so that they can be validly assessed. How far the issue merits ongoing discussion will vary from one person to another, obviously, and may ultimately be a reason for leaving the life. That’s why the present tense may be more suitable - the issue of managing one’s sexuality, irrespective of orientation, is never ‘finished,’ it’s just being managed better or worse in the present - hopefully better, and well enough that no scandal or reason to leave priesthood or religious life emerges.
F
FickleFreckled
Guest
teelynn,
I agree with you. Every celibate’s sexual needs are a terrible cross, especially today where sexuality, gay and straight, is so in-your-face in advertising and the media. When you’re celibate, you find other ways in which to express that “energy” or “drive” or whatever you want to call it. Being gay doesn’t make it any more inherently difficult for a man to remain celibate than it would be for a heterosexual man. Think how hard it must be for heterosexual priests to hear women’s confessions when the sin is sexual, and these days, they must hear a lot of that. I don’t recall where this is in the scripture history of the early days of the Church, but there was an issue about someone entering the Church who was a eunuch. In Jewish law, that was considered radically “disordered” as well as damaged goods, so to speak, that couldn’t be presented to God. He was welcomed into the Church.
I agree with you. Every celibate’s sexual needs are a terrible cross, especially today where sexuality, gay and straight, is so in-your-face in advertising and the media. When you’re celibate, you find other ways in which to express that “energy” or “drive” or whatever you want to call it. Being gay doesn’t make it any more inherently difficult for a man to remain celibate than it would be for a heterosexual man. Think how hard it must be for heterosexual priests to hear women’s confessions when the sin is sexual, and these days, they must hear a lot of that. I don’t recall where this is in the scripture history of the early days of the Church, but there was an issue about someone entering the Church who was a eunuch. In Jewish law, that was considered radically “disordered” as well as damaged goods, so to speak, that couldn’t be presented to God. He was welcomed into the Church.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Do you know that for a fact, or are you just assuming it is so? I really don’t know if one is “more inherently difficult” than the other.
That said, I also don’t know that the Church’s decision to disallow a discerning man who has deep-seated homosexual desires has anything to do with the ability to remain celibate. It isn’t mentioned in the document I cited.
EDIT ADD: I was mistaken. Chastity is mentioned here:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Ocarm, I think I am in very substantial agreement with you, and thanks for elaborating more on the points I raised. I don’t know about sexuality never being “finished.” Unless one is conflicted about one’s orientation (rather than the state of celibacy – a different issue), a priest or seminarian shouldn’t be some kind of lifelong conflict about this, any more than he should be in long-term internal conflict about a romantic relationship left behind. That would interfere with his fulfillment/happiness in the priestly lifestyle, as well as make him less fully available to those he serves. It would be a significant impediment to a life of focused service.
I’m glad you haven’t seen the phenomenon in the UK. I’ve seen it often here in the States, and it really is quite scandalziing to the faithful. I am particularly aggrieved when I see priests using (and it is using) the priesthood to make some personal sexual journey into self-discovery. You have no idea how burdensome and troubling it is for a congregation to receive statements & homilies from their parish priest who “comes out” to the whole community. That’s exactly why houses of formations and parish priests & priests in orders have superiors. It would be the same thing if a priest announced that he’s still in love with some girlfriend he left behind. What’s the point of the message? What is the congregation supposed to do with that information? From the point of view of the respective roles of pastor and congregant, it is information which causes anxiety and interferes with that dynamic relationship.
I’m glad you haven’t seen the phenomenon in the UK. I’ve seen it often here in the States, and it really is quite scandalziing to the faithful. I am particularly aggrieved when I see priests using (and it is using) the priesthood to make some personal sexual journey into self-discovery. You have no idea how burdensome and troubling it is for a congregation to receive statements & homilies from their parish priest who “comes out” to the whole community. That’s exactly why houses of formations and parish priests & priests in orders have superiors. It would be the same thing if a priest announced that he’s still in love with some girlfriend he left behind. What’s the point of the message? What is the congregation supposed to do with that information? From the point of view of the respective roles of pastor and congregant, it is information which causes anxiety and interferes with that dynamic relationship.
R
rlg94086
Guest
What you think is contrary to what the Catechism states:
Catechism of the Catholic Church said:
- Status