Define homosexual "tendency"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ken_Grooms
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Ken_Grooms

Guest
I thought it meant mere sexual attraction to other men, but I read somewhere that it means something else. :confused: I’m asking this in reference to the new Vatican “Instruction” to seminaries regarding gays.

Also, where can I find the official English translation of the new document? I looked at vatican.ca but could’nt find it. 😦

Please help me!
 
Hi Ken. I’m not sure what they mean, either, but apparently there is a distinction between a mere “tendency” and a “deeply rooted tendency” as described in the Instruction. You can read the English translation here. It’s a PDF file, so you will need Acrobat Reader.
 
Ken Grooms:
I thought it meant mere sexual attraction to other men, but I read somewhere that it means something else.
It has something to do with the “gay lifestyle,” whatever that means. Something to do with interior decorating? I believe the seminaries are now going to require each seminarian to have that dogs playing poker print in his bedroom.
 
An interest or preoccupation with:

Judy Garland or Liza w/a Z music …or Joan Crawford movies

Broadway show tunes what so ever… (dead giveaway).

plaid flannel shirts.

Starbuck’s coffee is a big no-no!

AOL subscriptions

gym memberships

Opera / Ballet

Hey!!! When did I become a “senior” member? What’s that about?
 
40.png
Bella3502:
An interest or preoccupation with:

Judy Garland or Liza w/a Z music …or Joan Crawford movies

Broadway show tunes what so ever… (dead giveaway).

plaid flannel shirts.

Starbuck’s coffee is a big no-no!

AOL subscriptions

gym memberships

Opera / Ballet
I don’t know any respectable fashion expert that would wear plaid flannel shirts! 😃
 
Penny Plain:
It has something to do with the “gay lifestyle,” whatever that means. Something to do with interior decorating? I believe the seminaries are now going to require each seminarian to have that dogs playing poker print in his bedroom.
The document was right on the money ( 😃 ) despite your sarcasm. Thank God for the holy authors of this document.
 
Ken Grooms:
I thought it meant mere sexual attraction to other men, but I read somewhere that it means something else. :confused: I’m asking this in reference to the new Vatican “Instruction” to seminaries regarding gays.

Also, where can I find the official English translation of the new document? I looked at vatican.ca but could’nt find it. 😦

Please help me!
These will be helpful:

Vatican document on homosexuals and seminaries-- full text

Vatican prelate explains gay-seminarian ban

Homosexuality destabiizes society: Vatican consultant

Based on this, it seems a tendency means:
  • Call himself homosexual
  • Engages in homosexual acts
  • Supports the homosexual scene
  • Makes inappropriate remarks regarding other men or inappropriate actions towards men
  • Doesn’t preach the truth regarding human sexuality
 
What does it mean to have “deep-seated homosexual tendencies?” The recent instruction from the Congregation for Catholic Education defines this condition as distinct from both the practice of the act and from a condition referred to as “transitory homosexuality.” This implies that the meaning of the term is based entirely upon the temptations that the individual experiences, not conduct. Therefore, to have “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” is to persistently experience any same-sex attraction. The term refers neither to the degree to which it is experienced nor the behavior manifested by the individual in question. It is a simple question of whether the temptation is present or not.
 
Ken Grooms:
I thought it meant mere sexual attraction to other men, but I read somewhere that it means something else. :confused: I’m asking this in reference to the new Vatican “Instruction” to seminaries regarding gays.

Also, where can I find the official English translation of the new document? I looked at vatican.ca but could’nt find it. 😦

Please help me!
Tendency is such an imprecise word, but you might take it to mean ‘majority activty’ bearing in mind majority goes from51% to 100%. I have a tendency to wear black and blue (about 70% of the time, and making up about 70% of my clothes). I’ve done this since I was 10, so that probably makes it a ‘deeply rooted’ tendency. I also wear silver chains, but less than 10% of the time and only in the last 4 years, so it’s highly superficial.

Does this help?

Perhaps it easier to put it this way, you have two interesting, attractive dinner companions, one of either gender. Which do you tend to talk to based on gender given all else is equal?

Of course, having a tendency does not mean you act on it. I sometimes wear yellow.

But what if someone decreed wearing blue as a grave sin and disordered? Would I stop? Who knows? Doubtful, I would judge by my own blue-wearing experiences

More precise language, with definitions would probably be helpful in this document.
 
What about being able to admire a good looking person of the same gender while wanting only sexual relations with the opposite gender? Would this be deep rooted homosexual tendencies or something else all together?:confused:
 
What about being able to admire a good looking person of the same gender while wanting only sexual relations with the opposite gender? Would this be deep rooted homosexual tendencies or something else all together?
To be able to look at someone of the same gender and see in them God’s beautiful design is not sinful, but if such admiration has any sexual element to it at all, then the sexual part is intrinsically disordered. If someone has sexual “admiration” for someone of the same gender, then it would fall under the heading of “deep-rooted homosexual tendency,” but if the admiration for one’s appearence has no sexual element whatsoever to it, then I see no reason why it would be disordered.

When one considers the Church’s new document objectively and without personal prejudice, it is clear that by “deep-rooted homosexual tendency,” the document means “ingrained homosexual orientation.” Many, many people, even faithful Catholics, don’t understand why the Church would bar those with a homosexual orientation from the priesthood, even when they never actually give into lust for people of the same sex, especially because the Catechism makes it clear that a homosexual orientation itself is not sinful, merely disordered.

Because of this, people read into the text what they want it to say: That only those who give into their homoseuxality should be denied entry into the priesthood. However, because the document goes on to contrast their phrase “deep-rooted homosexual tendency” with “transistory tendencies” and declares that homposeuxal orientation must be shed entirely 3 years before entering seminary, it is very clear that the document means even those who struggle with homoseuxal tendencies but do not give into them should not become priests.

This fact strikes a sour note with some Catholics, who can’t understand why the Church would bar such people from the priesthood. However, the Church is not baring those who struggle with homosexual orientation from the priesthood because they have somehow sinned; rather, it is barring them because homosexuality is a serious and central enough disorientation that it would prevent a man from properly carrying out the duties of priesthood. If the Church, in her infinite wisdom, believes that homosexual orientation alone is a serious enough disorder to prevent proper application of the call to priesthood, then we must put our faith in and trust her, and pray that those who have not found a way to overcome this particular form of concupiscence find other ways to serve our Lord.
 
And thanks for the link. I agree with all of you - except for the Starbucks comment (Remember President Clinton had a Starbucks installed in the Oval office - and was anyone more heterosexual than Elvis?).
 
40.png
Digger71:
Perhaps it easier to put it this way, you have two interesting, attractive dinner companions, one of either gender. Which do you tend to talk to based on gender given all else is equal?

.
I don’t think this will work, haven’t you ever notice older married couples who go out to eat in groups? the men all talk together and the women all talk together, no matter how attractive they are.

plaid shirts are not relevant. Every man in Michigan wears plaid flannel shirts at one time or another, they can’t all be gay.
 
Ken Grooms:
And thanks for the link. I agree with all of you - except for the Starbucks comment (Remember President Clinton had a Starbucks installed in the Oval office - and was anyone more heterosexual than Elvis?).
Former President Clinton did a few other things not worth mentioning…

I’m going to trust the Holy Spirit in the fact that the Church will be guided. I’ve always thought that guys with even homosexual tendancies in the priesthood would make a heterosexual priest uneasy. I can imagine it be hard enough of a struggle with the vow of chastity for heterosexual priests. I can only imagine the possibility of having a homosexual one ignore his own vows of chastity and try suggesting something.

I remember some of my friends in college that were lesbians and although I loved them dearly and they knew I didn’t approve of their lifestyle, for some reason, if I went to a party with them and they got drunk, they thought it cute or coy to try to hit on me. Nothing like killing a good time with not only having to worry about drunk guys hitting on you, now ya got drunk gals hitting on you.
 
40.png
ChurchMilitant:
This fact strikes a sour note with some Catholics, who can’t understand why the Church would bar such people from the priesthood. However, the Church is not baring those who struggle with homosexual orientation from the priesthood because they have somehow sinned; rather, it is barring them because homosexuality is a serious and central enough disorientation that it would prevent a man from properly carrying out the duties of priesthood. If the Church, in her infinite wisdom, believes that homosexual orientation alone is a serious enough disorder to prevent proper application of the call to priesthood, then we must put our faith in and trust her, and pray that those who have not found a way to overcome this particular form of concupiscence find other ways to serve our Lord.
I thought this was a good but if you don’t mind I would like to add one thing. One of the integral parts of the priesthood is the renouncement of marriage and all the goods associated with it (i.e. a wife, kids, etc.) through the living of a celibate life. For the heterosexual male this is truly a sacrifice, a total offering of self, to give himself to God and deny himself of something that he could rightfully have had. For the homosexual male the element of sacrifice and offering is extremely tainted or not there in the sense of renouncing marriage and the goods associated with it. The homosexual who has tendencies is more than likely not finding it a real sacrifice to renounce having a wife in marriage if indeed he is not attracted to women in the first place. In other words, in order to renounce something it should be something that the person has an attraction to or a desire for. An example of this would be if I renounced having prune juice on Mondays as a sacrifice offered for the good of my family. Every Monday then I would not have prune juice and it would be a sacrifice for me not to have it, but it would be for the spiritual well being of my family so it is worth it. But let’s say I renounced prune juice for the same reason and same day but I really didn’t like prune juice and there was really no great loss in me not being able to drink it; the element of sacrifice was just not there thus I had not really made a renouncement. What good would my family receive from an empty sacrifice, something I didn’t truly give up? In my hypothetical example, if there is no renouncement then it is hard to see the offering being made in sacrifice. I think this can be applied to the explanation above on the renouncement of marriage; if there is no true renouncement the element of offering and sacrificing one’s self is lacking.

Anyways, just some food for thought.

I really don’t like prune juice – it was the first thing I could think of this morning.
 
Ken Grooms:
And thanks for the link. I agree with all of you - except for the Starbucks comment (Remember President Clinton had a Starbucks installed in the Oval office - and was anyone more heterosexual than Elvis?).
I have to go with Ken on the Starbucks comment. Not concerning BIll but that it is one of my favorite coffees and the Starbucks that I have been to are rather normal - so I don’t see how they made it into this discussion. Anyways … coffee!
 
Ken Grooms:
I thought it meant mere sexual attraction to other men, but I read somewhere that it means something else. :confused: I’m asking this in reference to the new Vatican “Instruction” to seminaries regarding gays.

Also, where can I find the official English translation of the new document? I looked at vatican.ca but could’nt find it. 😦

Please help me!
The translations I have seen said no tendencies. That is very different from those who claim one may have an orientatation, as long as one is celibate.

As an analogy would anyone think it was reasonable for a heterosexual man to be free of heterosexual tendencies and be a good husband?

So, being free of a tendency is no small issue.
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
I don’t think this will work, haven’t you ever notice older married couples who go out to eat in groups? the men all talk together and the women all talk together, no matter how attractive they are.
Suggesting homosociality is compromised by reproductive tendencies, and once these are fulfilled there is a return to the natural state? I had never thought of it like that. Thanks…I think
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top