Did Pope suggest Catholic Church should not take homosexuals into the priesthood?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Polak
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Polak said:
you can also be a Catholic who follows the teaching of the Catholic Church without being a traditionalist Catholic,
Click to expand...
I used to think so. I have come to the conclusion that whatever is not substantiated by Catholic tradition is not Catholic.
 
There is also the story that John XXIII wanted homosexuals excluded from the priesthood. Nothing in writing, just people saying that’s what he thought. You can do a search on it.

I guess my question would be “Would you hire an alcoholic as a bartender? If so, why?”
 
Religious vocations are usually ordered to be single-sex so such a person would be in a bad situation.
 
billsannie said:
I may be wrong, we’ll see what happens, but right now I don’t think that from a practical standpoint this means much at all.
Click to expand...
I 100% agree with this! My main takeaway from what the pope is saying is that priests, regardless of who they are attracted to, need to be priests first.

It’s their vocation. To put something clarifying in front of it lessens it, and to be honest, overinflates the clarification. “Gay priest”, “Blonde accountant”, “Asian nun”…at least for me, I think of a gay person, a blonde person, and an Asian person.
 
When a small percentage of men are gay but a much larger percent of Priests are gay there is something other than a call from God happening. Imo.
 
Unless you stop struggling… there are plenty of resources around, even just here on CAF.
 
One does not choose to be Asian - I suppose one may choose to be blonde - but neither is anything like choosing to “touch other men.” Maybe one has little control over attraction… fine - but that attraction is ordered towards behavior which is seriously at odds with Christian morality as explained by Scripture and millennia of consistent teaching on the point. Only very recently did it occur to people that it is “just like other things.” It’s not.
 
Although I agree with what you say here that celibacy is the main issue rather than homosexuality, I note that one of the points made by another member is that in their seminarian training, (young) men are in close proximity with other men, so that if they are gay, there is temptation due to the environment. Even though there are more seminarians who may have carnal desires for women, they are not in an environment with women. Of course, they might still have affairs outside the environment, but at least they are not exposed to the temptation in the immediate vicinity. How do you respond to this?
 
Last edited:
I say nonsense. After ordination young heterosexual priests provide private counseling to women and girls and build relationships with them and also face temptation… if we were so worried about Humans being tempted as a non qualifier, no man, gay or straight would be considered adequate for the priesthood,
 
You are right there are temptations towards women… part of why no young priest should be taking young, single women on for “counseling” except once or twice in each woman’s case…

Folks who keep talking about “temptation” due to “proximity” are correct but are missing the bigger picture, and the more important point, which is that a man who has an inclination towards men CANNOT become a good spiritual father generally speaking, nor can he be a good spouse of the Church generally speaking, as he can’t even do this with a normal family - grace perfects nature, no? And those who encounter gay priests should be able to pick up on this. There is a distinct psychology that ruins everything… There is no true sacrifice made for the sake of the kingdom… he is a “eunuch from birth,” and so he should not presume to capitalize on it by “entering” the celibate state. He is not choosing something better over something good, he is choosing what is tolerable over what is intolerable, sometimes (often?) for ulterior motives - like four hots and a cot, or more nefarious reasons.
 
Last edited:
Thank you. Yes, my comment was mainly ironical; as pornography is more like an addiction, while homosexuality is something more deep, even suspected to be biological or partly biological.

So I think it doesn’t make sense to refuse a potential seminarian for struggling with porn (unless he is intellectually against considering it a sin) as opposed to refusing a potential seminarian that is homosexual (as the temptation won’t go away with training).
 
One is only slightly worse than the other, in its nature. While a man with transitory lapses might have a hope of a decent formation process and prudently be foreseen to be able to overcome it with the resources provided by a program, if he is hooked on pornography it is arguably much worse than being hooked on hard drugs. Just as the heroin addict should get clean first, so too should the one addicted to sins against the Sixth Commandment.

-K
 
Last edited:
I agree. But I wasn’t talking about pornography alone. I was talking about pronography temptations vs. homosexuality temptations.
 
In real life, however, have there not been gay men who have become priests, in part, because they were homosexual? I admit this alone is not a good reason to become a priest. One must have the calling. But my point is that have there not been GOOD priests, those who have served the Church faithfully and well, who also happen to be gay, but have overcome their temptations, just as heterosexual priests must do? Do you believe that the “disordered nature” of homosexual men simply ruins any aspirations they may have to enter the priesthood?
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
Best if you do so we can see if there is a credible source.
Click to expand...
adoremus.org

Religiosorum Institutio Instruction on the Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders

Religiosorum Institutio Instruction on the Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders Sacred Congregation For Religious February 2, 1961 Contents Purpose, Binding Force, And Extent Of This Instruction 1. The Instruction Quantum Religiones 2. The...
adoremus.org adoremus.org

1961 encyclical (I was wrong about not being in writing): “Advantage to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.”

And why wouldn’t the analogy of hiring an alcoholic to be a bartender be appropriate? In both cases you’re putting someone with a particular tendency in a position of temptation.
 
It would require quite a metanoia… It seems that the inclination towards men is categorically incompatible with the basics of a healthy priestly identity and interior life. With God all things are possible, but not all is advisable to presume upon.
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
1961 encyclical (I was wrong about not being in writing): “Advantage to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.”
Click to expand...
Not an encyclical, but an “Instruction” authored by others and approved by the Pope. From what I read it was privately circulated though not published, but in the part you quote it expresses the same idea as in more recent instructions.

The alcoholic analogy might be somewhat applicable in the seminary phase but much less so late on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top