M
meltzerboy2
Guest
“EVIL tendencies to homosexuality”? So the Church interprets homosexuality as not only an affliction and disordered but also evil? This is not very charitable, in my view.
Last edited:
Did Pope suggest Catholic Church should not take homosexuals into the priesthood?
- Status
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
Were not many of the saints sinners, and big time, who had to overcome their sinful inclinations?
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
What is meant by homosexuality is not clear and there is a qualifier.
Last edited:
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
And the inclination of heterosexual priests towards women is not incompatible to a healthy priestly identity, an inclination that almost all heterosexual men have and which they must suppress?
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
I thought homosexuality is understood as a same-sex attraction and desire which may or may not be acted upon. Why is further clarification needed? Tendency is one of these vague terms, which in reality means drive or desire.
Last edited:
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
People use it in different ways that include acts as well.
R
Rau
Guest
The tendency - the inclination - is not a good thing, right? Because the acts to which they tend are not good, right?
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
But is the inclination evil? Bad enough to say it is disordered.
R
Rau
Guest
That inclination is not evil, nor is the end (given right circumstances). For everyone, this inclination must be managed.
R
Rau
Guest
An inclination to sin can reasonably be called an evil inclination I think.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
Surely not reasonably, especially since the inclination is not under one’s direct control.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Control doesn’t matter since this statement isn’t about the individual.
R
Rau
Guest
Hence the reference is to the inclination itself, not the person.
K
kapp19
Guest
The distinction is not between what is possible and impossible, but between what is prudent and imprudent. Pre-conversion Paul would not have been a good candidate for entry into seminary. Yes, he knew Gamaliel and was one of his best students (the best?), yes he was extremely zealous for the glory of God, but… he was leading the Jewish version of ISIS. Go figure, God did something really extraordinary - but that’s just the point. It was extraordinary. It would likewise be extraordinary for a man with SSA to become a good priest. So it should not be tried… it’s presumptuous upon special grace.
O
otjm
Guest
Celibacy is the promise not to marry. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic.
Continence is the issue; and continence is not having sexual relations - either with the opposite sex or the same sex.
Chastity is the virtue which excludes or moderates the sexual appetite. So chastity for an unmarried person would include continence; chastity for a married couple would be the moderation of sexual appetite.
P
Polak
Guest
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you mean by traditionalist position then. Are you talking about Latin mass, women wearing veils in church etc? That kind of traditionalism? Because Latin mass wasn’t around until a certain point in time.
P
Pattylt
Guest
Thank you for clearly defining the terms…it really helps.meltzerboy2:
Celibacy is the promise not to marry. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic.
Continence is the issue; and continence is not having sexual relations - either with the opposite sex or the same sex.
Chastity is the virtue which excludes or moderates the sexual appetite. So chastity for an unmarried person would include continence; chastity for a married couple would be the moderation of sexual appetite.
Question for all…
Since a priest or Nuns for that matter are to never have sex, wouldn’t the determining factor be more along the lines of who will deal with this better than another. The importance and control they can exercise on their sexual urges seems more important than the direction of their desires. An asexual or non sexual would likely be the best candidate followed by those with low libidos followed by moderate but controllable libidos. Anyone with a raging libido would seem to be a setup for failure.
I happen to think that if the church actually did exclude homosexuals from the priesthood, you’d have about 40% fewer priests than you currently have. It’s the strength of the sex drive vs the will of the man that’s the issue…not where exactly his sexual desires lie.
A
AlbMagno
Guest
The argument is that true homosexual candidates would spend too much time with members of the same sex, specially in more cloistered Vocations, but it could also happen in diocesan Seminarians. Only then you have to factor the libido.
Obviously, I think most homosexual men and women don’t have a libido so high so as to not be able to control themselves, but the fact that some do, and that it results in abuse scandals, makes it risky.
So if you add:
Personally, I think true homosexual persons would be the perfect candidate for a Consecrated Lay Vocation, with their own house.
Obviously, I think most homosexual men and women don’t have a libido so high so as to not be able to control themselves, but the fact that some do, and that it results in abuse scandals, makes it risky.
So if you add:
- The cross of maybe falling in love with your fellow “workmate” (priest or nun).
- The risk of homosexuality + high libido = Probable ephebophilia in a Seminary/Boys School.
- The amplyfing factor of living in an all-male or all-female community, with limited communications.
Personally, I think true homosexual persons would be the perfect candidate for a Consecrated Lay Vocation, with their own house.
O
otjm
Guest
Your figure of 40% is interesting, as I know an ex-priest, laicized and now married, who put the proportion in the diocese he had been in at about that point. His comment came in a discussion after he had reflected on diocesan meetings where all the priests gathered together; the breaks they took ended up with about that divide.
As to the future, God is still in charge. After God comes the bishop/archbishop who ultimately is responsible for who is ordained (and presumably his staff, as well as staff of the seminaries). Will all bishops follow exactly the rule put in by Pope Benedict?
I am not going to go there. I will presume and move on.
Part of what was behind the rule was the scandal, by no means confined to the United States, which was driven primarily by homosexual priests.
Part of what drove the rule was that homosexual inclination is viewed by the Church as objectively disordered, a point which has caused a good bit of argument and angst. I am not interested in defending it; I am simply stating it.
And part of it goes to who is going to Mass. The greatest percentage of participation in weekly Mass is those over the age of 50+ (per CARA), and anyone who [pays attention will know that the proportion of that group is skewed positively to women. Whether or not there is a specific study, there certainly is anecdotal evidence that men are not particularly attracted to someone who has SSA; whether or not that causes some men to cease going to church would make for an interesting polling. Having heard comments over the last 50 years of so, I do know there are men who will quietly voice an opinion that they will attend Mass, but find a priest with SSA to be troublesome.
The rule is the rule unless and until some Pope sees fit to remove or change the rule; and the Holy spirit still cares for and nurtures the Church, and ultimately may be responsible for vocations. Which is not to say that we do not share in that responsibility, even if that only means praying for more vocations.
- Status