Catholic League comments on Vatican document and homosexuals in the priesthood

[St.BJLabre]

Get the whole article here…

There is little doubt that most practicing Catholics will welcome this decision. The Vatican is prudent not to have an absolute ban on admission of homosexuals to the priesthood: there are too many good men with homosexual tendencies who have served the Church with distinction. But there is a monumental difference between someone who is incidentally homosexual and someone for whom the gay subculture is central to his identity. Only those blinded by sexual politics will fail to make this distinction.

I think the Catholic League, a very conservative organization, does a good job at pointing out that the document doesn’t necessarily bar every man who has enduring sex same attractions (SSA). I think what “profoundly deeply rooted” means someone who’s attractions interfere with the way they interact with people or, like this article says, someone for whom the gay subculture is central to his identity. I think that this document was very carefully written as to appease both sides of the debate.

But, who knows, I’m only human so I could be wrong.

 

[Digitonomy]

I find that letter surprising on two counts.

First, as you mentioned, the Catholic League is a rather conservative organization, but the letter seems rather accommodating toward gays.

Second, does the Catholic League make a regular practice of commenting on Vatican documents that have not yet been released? This is the legitimate province of pundits, but those who comment before the fact risk getting egg on their face - I would have thought the Catholic League, like most similar Church-related organizations, would exercise restraint for at least a week or two, until the release of the document.

 

[ChurchMilitant]

Having heard several different takes on this November 29 Vatican document, I am now thoroughly confused. Obviously, homosexuality is a disorientation from God’s design, but one that does not, by itself, entail moral fault, just as any other form of concupiscence is wrong, but does not necessarily entail moral fault. Just as obviously, all homosexual behavior, since it cannot be a genital union of two married persons open to the creation of life, is fully and truly wrong.

So, if a man does indulge in homosexual behavior, then by all means, keep him out of the clergy. If a man approves of homosexual behavior, or the “homosexual agenda,” then by all means, keep him out of the clergy. However, if a man feels called to the celibate vocation and the priesthood, yet suffers from a homosexual orientation, but acknowledges that it is a disorientation from God’s design, does not ever indulge in sexual acts, and simply has not yet been able to overcome that particular form of concupiscence, will he be barred from the priesthood?

If he will, then I’m afraid I don’t understand the Church’s stance on the issue: How can they just randomly pick a form of concupiscence to outlaw in the priesthood, yet allow other forms of concupiscence to stand? This seems to be where the rubber hits the road on the issue, so if anyone could let me know what the Church would say in the afforementioned situation, and why, it would be much appreciated.

 

[St.BJLabre]

I’m afraid I don’t understand the Church’s stance on the issue: How can they just randomly pick a form of concupiscence to outlaw in the priesthood, yet allow other forms of concupiscence to stand? This seems to be where the rubber hits the road on the issue, so if anyone could let me know what the Church would say in the afforementioned situation, and why, it would be much appreciated.

The problem is that homosexuality is not a black a white issue. There is a lot of gray area. I think Fr. Jim Llyod a very holy and respectable priest that works with Courage, an organization that helps people with same sex attractions live a chaste life, put it best when he says:

should a candidate with a flagrant homosexual background, strong same sex urges, and frequent autoerotic behavior be assessed in the same manner as the devout and believing candidate who has little or no same sex experience and minimal Same Sex fantasy life? Factually, both types have applied to seminaries. Does tendency mean the former or the latter? One point does seem patently clear. A seminary and the priesthood should not be clinics for sexually obsessed (or repressed) individuals. However, the candidate with the occasional but managed “tendency” could be ordained (and has been) to become an effective and holy priest. Such men, ordained to Christ’s priesthood have largely remained faithful to the Lord, the Church and the priesthood itself. Ultimately, it is fidelity that matters, not psychosexual orientation. These are not gay priests. They are men of God with a managed SSA quality. The distinction is essential. Gay is a life criterion. It is a lens through which all things are measured and is a form of political activism.

I think that this is pretty much what the document means and the Church’s position.

 

[fix]

Get the whole article here…

I think the Catholic League, a very conservative organization, does a good job at pointing out that the document doesn’t necessarily bar every man who has enduring sex same attractions (SSA). I think what “profoundly deeply rooted” means someone who’s attractions interfere with the way they interact with people or, like this article says, someone for whom the gay subculture is central to his identity. I think that this document was very carefully written as to appease both sides of the debate.

But, who knows, I’m only human so I could be wrong.

The translations I have read said no one should be ordained with these homosexual tendencies. One part of the document says if the tendencies have been gone for at least three years prior to ordinationation to the deaconate, and such tendencies were transitory, then one may be ordained.

That seems much different than what the link you provided says. Perhaps I am reading it wrong?

 

[Brad]

fix:

The translations I have read said no one should be ordained with these homosexual tendencies. One part of the document says if the tendencies have been gone for at least three years prior to ordinationation to the deaconate, and such tendencies were transitory, then one may be ordained.

That seems much different than what the link you provided says. Perhaps I am reading it wrong?

I don’t understand how any organization (conservative or otherwise) can interpret this document not to be an absloute ban on those that identify themselves as homosexuals.

The document says this:

“In light of this teaching, this department, in agreement with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, holds it necessary clearly to affirm that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, may not admit to the seminary and Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, show profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.”

If someone identifies himself as a homosexual then does he not have “profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies”? Surely, I, as a heterosexual have “profoundly deep-rooted heterosexual tendencies”. If one does not have “profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies”, then he would not call himself a homosexual and would not be subject to a ban. I believe that the reason that this phrase is in the document is NOT to allow “homosexuals” that do not “show” their homosexuality to enter the priesthood through some kind of loophole but instead to allow the freedom to exclude those from the priesthood that claim not to be homosexual but their character indicates “profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies”.

If someone identifies himself as homosexual then the case should be closed according to the document. As it says under the section of discerning qualification for the priesthood:

“If a candidate practices homosexuality or present profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director, like his confessor, must dissuade him, in conscience, from proceeding towards Ordination.”

How could someone that calls himself a homosexual not have these deep-rooted tendencies as part of his overall character? If they have been able to be chaste for several years and have every intention to stay chaste then what deep-rooted tendencies could he still have? It would seem any past tendencies have been uprooted and displaced by the process of growing closer to Christ.

As Fix has pointed out, the only homosexual tendency exceptions are these:

“If, however, one is dealing with homosexual tendencies that may be simply the expression of a transitory problem, such as for example an adolescence not yet complete, such tendencies must be overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.”

In which they can demonstrate the tendencies are not deep-rooted and not part of the overall person’s character to the poin that they identify themselves as homosexual but in fact were a “transitory problem” of immaturity. These are character flaws that have been overcome for 3 years. A parallel example is that as an adolescent you were a kleptomaniac but you have not stolen anything for 3 years and you do not identify yourself as a kleptomaniac but do admit that what you did in the past was not correct to do.

 

[fix]

Brad:

I don’t understand how any organization (conservative or otherwise) can interpret this document not to be an absloute ban on those that identify themselves as homosexuals.

The document says this:

“In light of this teaching, this department, in agreement with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, holds it necessary clearly to affirm that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, may not admit to the seminary and Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, show profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.”

If someone identifies himself as a homosexual then does he not have “profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies”? Surely, I, as a heterosexual have “profoundly deep-rooted heterosexual tendencies”. If one does not have “profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies”, then he would not call himself a homosexual and would not be subject to a ban. I believe that the reason that this phrase is in the document is NOT to allow “homosexuals” that do not “show” their homosexuality to enter the priesthood through some kind of loophole but instead to allow the freedom to exclude those from the priesthood that claim not to be homosexual but their character indicates “profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies”.

If someone identifies himself as homosexual then the case should be closed according to the document. As it says under the section of discerning qualification for the priesthood:

“If a candidate practices homosexuality or present profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director, like his confessor, must dissuade him, in conscience, from proceeding towards Ordination.”

How could someone that calls himself a homosexual not have these deep-rooted tendencies as part of his overall character? If they have been able to be chaste for several years and have every intention to stay chaste then what deep-rooted tendencies could he still have? It would seem any past tendencies have been uprooted and displaced by the process of growing closer to Christ.

As Fix has pointed out, the only homosexual tendency exceptions are these:

“If, however, one is dealing with homosexual tendencies that may be simply the expression of a transitory problem, such as for example an adolescence not yet complete, such tendencies must be overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.”

In which they can demonstrate the tendencies are not deep-rooted and not part of the overall person’s character to the poin that they identify themselves as homosexual but in fact were a “transitory problem” of immaturity. These are character flaws that have been overcome for 3 years. A parallel example is that as an adolescent you were a kleptomaniac but you have not stolen anything for 3 years and you do not identify yourself as a kleptomaniac but do admit that what you did in the past was not correct to do.

I agree on all points. As you noted the document, if the translation is accurate, says the tendencies must be overcome. So, no one should be ordained with these tendencies.

 

[beckers]

ChurchMilitant:

Having heard several different takes on this November 29 Vatican document, I am now thoroughly confused. Obviously, homosexuality is a disorientation from God’s design, but one that does not, by itself, entail moral fault, just as any other form of concupiscence is wrong, but does not necessarily entail moral fault. Just as obviously, all homosexual behavior, since it cannot be a genital union of two married persons open to the creation of life, is fully and truly wrong.

So, if a man does indulge in homosexual behavior, then by all means, keep him out of the clergy. If a man approves of homosexual behavior, or the “homosexual agenda,” then by all means, keep him out of the clergy. However, if a man feels called to the celibate vocation and the priesthood, yet suffers from a homosexual orientation, but acknowledges that it is a disorientation from God’s design, does not ever indulge in sexual acts, and simply has not yet been able to overcome that particular form of concupiscence, will he be barred from the priesthood?

If he will, then I’m afraid I don’t understand the Church’s stance on the issue: How can they just randomly pick a form of concupiscence to outlaw in the priesthood, yet allow other forms of concupiscence to stand? This seems to be where the rubber hits the road on the issue, so if anyone could let me know what the Church would say in the afforementioned situation, and why, it would be much appreciated.

THANK YOU for your answer/question. This is one of the main things that i have been arguring.I just don’t think that because you have homosexaul feels that you should be grouped with all gays and considered unfit for the priesthood but you will find that on this board people will do just that. They see this sin as so grave that they can’t look past it. Once a sinner always a sinner and therefore should be barred. I have heard all the arguements that this “disorder” makes these people wrong for the priesthood. i want to know how many people know someone going through the preisthood, the seminary process and who are gay.I know someone who is going through the process and he will make a wonderful priest and I would trust him and any of my childern ( god willing i have some) to be taught by him. He is a great person and a great teacher of faith to me through his actions not just his words. To see his struggle with himself over being actively gay and knowing that it was aganist God’s will and that his new calling was to be celibate and leave the gay culture behind is just breath taking and amazing.This is why it is so hard for me to believe that we should bar all gays from service. I guess for me i have a face to put with the document. It’s not just something in theory but someting real.

I actually like what the catholic league stated "But there is a monumental difference between someone who is incidentally homosexual and someone for whom the gay subculture is central to his identity. " It think this is absouletly true. There are those men who the gay culture is there life and it consume and identifies who they are as people. There are also gays who fight against their feelings and don’t indentify themselves as part of the gay community.They shouldn’t all be lumped together. Those who choose to reject the subculture as an indentity of who they are and choose to be celibate on their own shouldn’t be deined to follow their calling. They could actually be some of our best teachers of the faith. They have lived and have done what GOD has asked us. They have seen their wrongs and have taken steps to right themselves.They are believable. Those who are committed to being celibate on their own and not just because it is doctrine for the priesthood are those men that I have a problem barring from the priesthood be it a man with hetro or homosexual feelings.

GOD BLESS!

P.S I hope this thread can stay nice. These threads in the past have descended into some pretty ugly comments. We all need to remember that we should not point out someones sin as worst then ours simply beause ones’ sin can be seen by more people. We don’t know how many of these men have gone to confession and reconclied themselves with the church and GOD. We shouldn’t jump to conclusions and lump everyone together. We should at all times remember that these are our brothers and not just some nameless men. Any man appplying to the priesthood is someone who has great faith and a calling of some type. We need to pray that those feeling the calling apply and pray that these seminary can in a godly and holy way look at each man on his own merits to figure out if he is acceptable for the priesthood.

 

[Brad]

ChurchMilitant:

If he will, then I’m afraid I don’t understand the Church’s stance on the issue: How can they just randomly pick a form of concupiscence to outlaw in the priesthood, yet allow other forms of concupiscence to stand? This seems to be where the rubber hits the road on the issue, so if anyone could let me know what the Church would say in the afforementioned situation, and why, it would be much appreciated.

It is by no means a random pick.

This specific disorder is fundamental to undermining the necessity of a priest being a spiritual father:

As the document states:

“The candidate for ordained ministry, therefore, must reach emotional maturity. That maturity renders him able to put himself in the proper relation with men and women, developing in him a true sense of spiritual fatherhood toward the ecclesial community entrusted to him.”

 

[Brad]

beckers:

I have heard all the arguements that this “disorder” makes these people wrong for the priesthood. i want to know how many people know someone going through the preisthood, the seminary process and who are gay.I know someone who is going through the process and he will make a wonderful priest and I would trust him and any of my childern ( god willing i have some) to be taught by him. He is a great person and a great teacher of faith to me through his actions not just his words. To see his struggle with himself over being actively gay and knowing that it was aganist God’s will and that his new calling was to be celibate and leave the gay culture behind is just breath taking and amazing.This is why it is so hard for me to believe that we should bar all gays from service. I guess for me i have a face to put with the document. It’s not just something in theory but someting real.

I understand that people have emotions and that some truths are difficult for us to understand but we must be faithful. As the document indicates:

“The desire alone to become a priest is not sufficient and there is no right to receive Ordination. It is the duty of the Church— in Her responsibility to define the necessary requisites for the reception of the Sacraments instituted by Christ— to discern the qualification of he who wishes to enter the seminary, to accompany him during his years of formation and to call him to Holy Orders, if he be judged to be in possession of the requisite qualities.”

Whereas there may be many with homosexual tendencies that have done great work in the Church as a priest, the Church is saying that them acting in this role is also a potentially negative situation. The reality is that there are many married men and women that might be able to do great work in the Church(and do), but being a priest is not one of them. There is indeed no right to receive ordination. There are many that would have wanted to have been hand picked by Christ and many that would have done great good in His name but he picked 12.

 

[fix]

beckers:

I actually like what the catholic league stated "But there is a monumental difference between someone who is incidentally homosexual and someone for whom the gay subculture is central to his identity. " It think this is absouletly true. There are those men who the gay culture is there life and it consume and identifies who they are as people. There are also gays who fight against their feelings and don’t indentify themselves as part of the gay community

This is what I find so surprising about the statement from the Catholic league. The new document, if indicated correctly, says the candidiate must be free of all such homosexual tendencies. If one is fighting these “feelings” I can’t see the document says that is ok for ordination?

 

[beckers]

fix:

This is what I find so surprising about the statement from the Catholic league. The new document, if indicated correctly, says the candidiate must be free of all such homosexual tendencies. If one is fighting these “feelings” I can’t see the document says that is ok for ordination?

I shouldn’t have said fighting…sorry. What I meant is those men who looking at themselves and seeing that these tendences are wrong and have struggled against them. Those who can overcome and accept that these tendences are wrong and decided to live a chasty life shouldn’t be automatically barred from the priesthood. Those are the people I am talking about…Those who have come to terms with themselves and rejected the sub culture and embraced their calling to be chase.I see them more as non-sexaul beings then homo or heterosexuals. After all if you choose not to have sex and don’t define yourselves on your sexaulity then what are you…why do we as a society define oursevles so generically?( oopps. this may be a tangent for another thread) ANYONE who is homosexual active be it emotional or sexually should not be allowed in the priesthood. Ignore the churches position by being active in your sexaulity means you are not ready to nor is being a priest your calling. It shows that you will not be faithful to the church teaching. It also shows clear signs of possible other teachs you might not follow or mental unstability. The priesthood is not a back up plan or a place in society for you to hide yourself from reality or your feelings. Only those men who are secure in their sexaulity sould be admitted to the process of the priesthood. Who knows some of them might come up with other problems. I just think they should be given a shot.

I don’t want it to seem that I am against the document at all. I think it right on about barring active homosexual …I have an issue with a generic barring of those men who are not actively homosexual. What if they haven’t every done anything sexually or have confessed and been free of this sin for years? Should we hold it over there heads forever? Why shouldn’t they just wear a scarlett letter then and being thrown out of society? I think we should treat those who have the want and desire to be in communion with the church as equals not as rejects just because we can judge their sin more readily then the next person.

 

[Brad]

beckers:

I shouldn’t have said fighting…sorry. What I meant is those men who looking at themselves and seeing that these tendences are wrong and have struggled against them. Those who can overcome and accept that these tendences are wrong and decided to live a chasty life shouldn’t be automatically barred from the priesthood. Those are the people I am talking about…Those who have come to terms with themselves and rejected the sub culture and embraced their calling to be chase.I see them more as non-sexaul beings then homo or heterosexuals. After all if you choose not to have sex and don’t define yourselves on your sexaulity then what are you…

Good question. Certainly not homosexual. I don’t see why anyone you described here would be barred due to homosexual tendencies. They don’t have any in this case.

beckers:

ANYONE who is homosexual active be it emotional or sexually should not be allowed in the priesthood. Ignore the churches position by being active in your sexaulity means you are not ready to nor is being a priest your calling. It shows that you will not be faithful to the church teaching. It also shows clear signs of possible other teachs you might not follow or mental unstability. The priesthood is not a back up plan or a place in society for you to hide yourself from reality or your feelings. Only those men who are secure in their sexaulity sould be admitted to the process of the priesthood.

Correct.

beckers:

Who knows some of them might come up with other problems. I just think they should be given a shot.

Who?

beckers:

I don’t want it to seem that I am against the document at all. I think it right on about barring active homosexual …I have an issue with a generic barring of those men who are not actively homosexual.

If they don’t show any deep-rooted tendencies, are not active in the lifestytle, are not active in supporting the lifestyle, and don’t label their person as “homosexual” then they won’t be barred.

It seems like you want to leave room for the philosophy that homosexuality is genetically driven and not controllable or curable. If this were the case(and there is no evidence to say that this is true) then you would certainly have to agree that those that are homosexuals have deep-rooted tendencies towards homosexuality. Thus, they would not be able to be ordained. Similarly, women are not able to be ordained. However, the document seems to be based on solid psychological thought that indicates homosexuality is very addictive but certainly not incurable if someone truly desires to be cured and has the willpower and grace to make it happen.

beckers:

What if they haven’t every done anything sexually or have confessed and been free of this sin for years? Should we hold it over there heads forever? Why shouldn’t they just wear a scarlett letter then and being thrown out of society? I think we should treat those who have the want and desire to be in communion with the church as equals not as rejects just because we can judge their sin more readily then the next person.

Again, you seem to be assuming once a homosexual, always a homosexual. By extension this would imply that the document indicates that God has made people in a disordered fashion rather than they obtained a disorder through the sinful activities of human beings. The document does not indicate this of God. It believes that all men and women have been created in a way that makes them capable to act in a way that God has intended.

Nobody is suggesting what you are indicating. The document doesn’t say to hold anything over anyone’s head.

If I am not clear, please tell what scenario in which this document would not allow the ordination of someone that you are uncomfortable with.

 

[Riley259]

ChurchMilitant:

Having heard several different takes on this November 29 Vatican document, I am now thoroughly confused. Obviously, homosexuality is a disorientation from God’s design, but one that does not, by itself, entail moral fault, just as any other form of concupiscence is wrong, but does not necessarily entail moral fault. Just as obviously, all homosexual behavior, since it cannot be a genital union of two married persons open to the creation of life, is fully and truly wrong.

So, if a man does indulge in homosexual behavior, then by all means, keep him out of the clergy. If a man approves of homosexual behavior, or the “homosexual agenda,” then by all means, keep him out of the clergy. However, if a man feels called to the celibate vocation and the priesthood, yet suffers from a homosexual orientation, but acknowledges that it is a disorientation from God’s design, does not ever indulge in sexual acts, and simply has not yet been able to overcome that particular form of concupiscence, will he be barred from the priesthood?

If he will, then I’m afraid I don’t understand the Church’s stance on the issue: How can they just randomly pick a form of concupiscence to outlaw in the priesthood, yet allow other forms of concupiscence to stand? This seems to be where the rubber hits the road on the issue, so if anyone could let me know what the Church would say in the afforementioned situation, and why, it would be much appreciated.

But they’re putting these men into a situation that for them would be a near occasion of sin - that situation would be to live closely with other men during their seminary formation. In addition, having a same-sex attraction is disordered (although not sinful itself) and the emotional dissonance that these men would likely have would be immense, given that they are obligated to teach that homosexuality is disordered and that homosexual relations are a grave sin. Finally, the idea of celibacy for priests is that they are giving up something very good (namely a sacramental marriage with a woman and having children with her) for the sake of the kingdom. This would not be the case with a priest who has homosexual tendencies - he wouldn’t be giving up that aforementioned good for the sake of the kingdom … the Church teaches that if he has same-sex attractions, he would have to be celibate anyway so there would be nothing to give up. Bottom line: it’s to risky to admit homosexual men to the priesthood.

 

[fix]

Brad:

Good question. Certainly not homosexual. I don’t see why anyone you described here would be barred due to homosexual tendencies. They don’t have any in this case.

Correct.

Who?

If they don’t show any deep-rooted tendencies, are not active in the lifestytle, are not active in supporting the lifestyle, and don’t label their person as “homosexual” then they won’t be barred.

It seems like you want to leave room for the philosophy that homosexuality is genetically driven and not controllable or curable. If this were the case(and there is no evidence to say that this is true) then you would certainly have to agree that those that are homosexuals have deep-rooted tendencies towards homosexuality. Thus, they would not be able to be ordained. Similarly, women are not able to be ordained. However, the document seems to be based on solid psychological thought that indicates homosexuality is very addictive but certainly not incurable if someone truly desires to be cured and has the willpower and grace to make it happen.

Again, you seem to be assuming once a homosexual, always a homosexual. By extension this would imply that the document indicates that God has made people in a disordered fashion rather than they obtained a disorder through the sinful activities of human beings. The document does not indicate this of God. It believes that all men and women have been created in a way that makes them capable to act in a way that God has intended.

Nobody is suggesting what you are indicating. The document doesn’t say to hold anything over anyone’s head.

If I am not clear, please tell what scenario in which this document would not allow the ordination of someone that you are uncomfortable with.

This is exactly the argument I want to make. Thanks. That is a good summation.

 

[Riley259]

Brad:

I understand that people have emotions and that some truths are difficult for us to understand but we must be faithful. As the document indicates:

“The desire alone to become a priest is not sufficient and there is no right to receive Ordination. It is the duty of the Church— in Her responsibility to define the necessary requisites for the reception of the Sacraments instituted by Christ— to discern the qualification of he who wishes to enter the seminary, to accompany him during his years of formation and to call him to Holy Orders, if he be judged to be in possession of the requisite qualities.”

Whereas there may be many with homosexual tendencies that have done great work in the Church as a priest, the Church is saying that them acting in this role is also a potentially negative situation. The reality is that there are many married men and women that might be able to do great work in the Church(and do), but being a priest is not one of them. There is indeed no right to receive ordination. There are many that would have wanted to have been hand picked by Christ and many that would have done great good in His name but he picked 12.

Well said. The priestly vocation is a gift and is chosen by God. It is a vocation of service and no one has a right to it. The Church in Her wisdom knows best in this situation - trust this decision.

 

[beckers]

Brad:

If they don’t show any deep-rooted tendencies, are not active in the lifestytle, are not active in supporting the lifestyle, and don’t label their person as “homosexual” then they won’t be barred.

Thats is what I wanted to make sure people understood. Alot of people on this board and the MSM seem to think that they document throws anyone out with homesexual thoughts, feels, past tendenices or anything else to do with homosexuality from being allowed into the priesthood. I was just cleansing the air so everyone knew what people I was talking about. I have learned that sometimes you can be using the same words and have different means based upon what you believe the defination is.

"It seems like you want to leave room for the philosophy that homosexuality is genetically driven and not controllable or curable… However, the document seems to be based on solid psychological thought that indicates homosexuality is very addictive but certainly not incurable if someone truly desires to be cured and has the willpower and grace to make it happen.

Oh I know that this can be “cured” in some people. I have had many friends struggle with this and give it up. One friend “ALEX” use to be heavenly involved in the gay culture… Was even a drag queen. Today he is married and excepting his first child next year. I have another friend who has totally given himself to be chast and being involoved in the church. And others are very involved in the gay culture (living with their partners etc…) Some people have the will to fight it and some don’t.I have noticed that those who accept Christ fully change and those who don’t just accept what society says is okay… I accept each one for who they are and pray for them all the time.

MY biggest complaint is that we define people on and make generic statments. Look at Riley 529 post.----Bottom line: it’s too risky to admit homosexual men to the priesthood.— Thats pretty tame for what gets said over here.( iam not picking on riley just using it as an example) Go look at past threads and you can see the fighting and name calling people have used. I would hate for people to think that our church rejects people for any reason. Yes my friend was accept to the priesthood and he will officate my marriage some day. He was upfront and truthful to the seminary and they accepted his chasty. They looked at him as a whole person not as a single idea of what a person who is/was a homosexual should be. This is what i want people to understand. I want to make sure things on done a case by case person and not just if you say “hey i use to have homosexual feelings” that they would be barred from the priesthood like some people say. Hope this makes sense if not i apologize and will try to fix it when i get home from work.

God Bless

 

[ChurchMilitant]

My ultimate question would be this: A priest has totally overcome his disordered (homosexual) sexuality, that is to say, has accepted that it is wrong, has completely offered it up to Christ, and no longer indulges in it at all physically or mentally. However, he has not totally shed his homosexual orientation, that is to say, if he were to fall into sexual sin, it would involve other men (though note that the priest in question is far too strong in his faith to fall into such sin), would he be barred from the priuesthood?

The question would be, would the above priest have “profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies”? I would think not, since he is totally detatched from his homosexuality, but has not shed it completely, but I could certainly be wrong.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

ChurchMilitant:

My ultimate question would be this: A priest has totally overcome his disordered (homosexual) sexuality, that is to say, has accepted that it is wrong, has completely offered it up to Christ, and no longer indulges in it at all physically or mentally. However, he has not totally shed his homosexual orientation, that is to say, if he were to fall into sexual sin, it would involve other men (though note that the priest in question is far too strong in his faith to fall into such sin), would he be barred from the priuesthood?

The question would be, would the above priest have “profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies”? I would think not, since he is totally detatched from his homosexuality, but has not shed it completely, but I could certainly be wrong.

I’m thinking that from the context of the missive, yes, the tendency would exclude him from the priesthood. That isn’t the end of the world, you know. There’s other ways to serve Our Lord and the Church. At the very least, a hidden life of prayer is still high and noble.

 

[ChurchMilitant]

Well, yes, absolutely, (deep-rooted) homosexual tendency would exclude anyone from the priesthood, it directly states that in the document. That’s why the question is whether or not the above-described person has a tendency, as distinct from merely an orientation.