Do you think a person who suffers from same-sex attractions should become a celibate priest if they wanted to?

[The_Rock]

Pope Benedict XVI:
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004842.htm

“Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation. Otherwise, celibacy itself would lose its meaning as a renunciation. It would be extremely dangerous if celibacy became a sort of pretext for bringing people into the priesthood who don’t want to get married anyway,” the pope said.

The pope cited a 2005 Vatican document that drew a sharp line against priestly ordination of homosexuals. He said the document emphasized that homosexual candidates cannot become priests because their sexual orientation interferes with “the proper sense of paternity” that belongs to the priesthood.

 

[The_Rock]

The Vatican document the Pope cited:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION
**Instruction
Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations
with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies
in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders **

Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter[8].

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”[10].

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

 

[Tighty_Whitey]

Isn’t the entire premise of this question faulty? The whole notion of a person becoming a priest because, “they wanted to” ignore the fact that the priesthood is a calling! Which requires discernment!

This isn’t a choice of careers.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I said “No”, because if I’m not mistaken it’s now forbidden by the Church.

Whatever you think of a particular requirement for a particular vocation, it’s still important for one’s discernment. To use another example, there might be a religious community that has a maximum age of 55 for new members. You are 56 and feel like you have a call to that community, but they tell you no, they don’t make exceptions to their age requirement. This is as good a proof as you can find that you are not called to that community. Though that rejection may be painful, it’s also a cause for rejoicing, since God obviously wasn’t calling you there and you have escaped accidentally pursuing a false vocation.

Same thing with same sex attraction and the priesthood. Whether or not the policy is rightheaded, if the Church refuses to accept someone to the priesthood because of their sexual orientation that shows the individual was never called to the priesthood in the first place, since God gives people the attributes necessary to live their vocations in conformity with the laws of the Church (or order, etc.). Yes, there have been holy same-sex attracted priests in the past like St. Aelred (apparently he gave himself ice baths to avoid lusting at his novices), but such historical figures are at best arguments for a change in Church law (and there are other good arguments for keeping the current policy); they don’t change the fact that in this day and age if a young man has deep-seated homosexual attraction it’s pretty clear he does not have a vocation to the priesthood, at least at this time.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Do I think a **homosexual **should be a priest? Um…no. I don’t think a **homosexual **should be a priest. Bad idea. Horrible idea. Would said homosexual - or SSA, as CAF people call it - be around kids? If so, would children be susceptible to that SSA - or homosexuality?

:dts:
SSA is not contagious, it doesn’t show up in any form of mental illness test and a priest should never bring up their attractions anyway.

Caused by homosexual priests, or SSA priests? I wish whoever started the notion of “SSA” realized how much confusion it causes. It’s called homosexuality. And you’re right - we are still reeling from the problems caused by homosexual priests. Why on earth would anyone want to encourage a **homosexual **to enter the priesthood? Why?

There’s more than enough blame to go around and heaps can easily be placed at the Church’s feet too.

That’s as may be. I don’t see a massive push on the part of celibate people with SSA to normalize homosexual activity; they are not the ones running around saying everything which would in our sex-saturated culture be considered evidence of sexual attraction is evidence that the person who wrote it was homosexual.

Sorry, that just doesn’t fly.

When did I ever imply that homosexual acts aren’t mortal sin?

Sorry, that isn’t very clear, esp without context.

People used to use very flowery language in their letters and address the recipient in very affectionate tems. They also used romantic terms to express their feelings.

When this occurs between men, homosexual activists seize upon it as evidence that the correspondents were either attracted to each other or involved. In their efforts to normalize homosexuality, they suggest that saints were homosexual if they wrote like this or had close friendships with persons of the same sex. Basically, they are slandering Catholic saints inorder to bolster their own sexual orientation.

I agree, they used very vivid language to illustrate how they longed to be in another’s arms or their yearning to feel another’s touch. In Middle Ages England one could hug, kiss, write love letters and sleep in the same bed as other men. I’ve never implied them ever being sexually involved with someone

 

[Julia_Mae]

I mean they’re not having sex with same gender so…shouldn’t they?

There are fine gay priests. Chastity is chastity and vows of celibacy are just that. However, some young gay men, who have trouble resisting their impulses, sometimes try and escape into the priesthood as a way of avoiding temptations, not because they have a true vocation. So discernment is critical in terms of this possibility, IMO.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I agree, they used very vivid language to illustrate how they longed to be in another’s arms or their yearning to feel another’s touch. In Middle Ages England one could hug, kiss, write love letters and sleep in the same bed as other men. I’ve never implied them ever being sexually involved with someone

wait…what are you talking about… who wrote these letters and what men were sleeping together when…?

I’m lost and confused.

Probably just my normal state.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I voted no.
Too many homosexual priests ended up having sexual relationships. There have been studies that have shown this, but I’m afraid I don’t have any links at hand to paste here.

 

[freddo]

I voted no.
Too many homosexual priests ended up having sexual relationships. There have been studies that have shown this, but I’m afraid I don’t have any links at hand to paste here.

Errrrr…and heterosexual priests don’t?

I don’t understand all of the posts about the problems caused by homosexual priests. If the paedophile problems are what is meant, that is not a homosexual problem. One of the priests here was picked up for molesting girls. It’s sick and wrong, but it’s not confined to homosexuals.

I’m of the opinion that celibacy is celibacy. I don’t think it really matters what sexual orientation the priest has, as long as he isn’t acting on it.

 

[St_Francis]

I)…Yes, there have been holy same-sex attracted priests in the past like St. Aelred (apparently he gave himself ice baths to avoid lusting at his novices), but such historical figures are at best arguments for a change in Church law…

Evidence?

 

[St_Francis]

Errrrr…and heterosexual priests don’t?

I don’t understand all of the posts about the problems caused by homosexual priests. If the paedophile problems are what is meant, that is not a homosexual problem. One of the priests here was picked up for molesting girls. It’s sick and wrong, but it’s not confined to homosexuals.

I’m of the opinion that celibacy is celibacy. I don’t think it really matters what sexual orientation the priest has, as long as he isn’t acting on it.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, society is arranged to protect men from the temptation offered by women. For example, priests live in community with other men, and generally are careful around women (having people around when they meet with them and the like). These sorts of protection are not in place wrt other men. Therefore, the whole set-up is geared for heterosexual men and cannot really be changed since the priesthood is male.

In short, the priesthood is structured to reduce temptation to heterosexual men, but the teptations would be higher for homosexual men. Why would the Church imperil men’s eternal souls?

 

[pollycarp]

I voted no. Homosexuals don’t give up wife and family like heterosexual men. Where’s the self sacrifice for them? They don’t have that cross to pick up when they follow Him.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

wait…what are you talking about… who wrote these letters and what men were sleeping together when…?

I’m lost and confused.

Probably just my normal state.

Hold on, I said sleeping in the same bed not “sleeping together” in the modern sense. Ever heard of the term bedfellows? The bed was also a place of deep conversation. When I stumbled onto this I responded with the extremely immature and childish “That’s so gay”, of course after I understood the context I learned that it’s not what it appears from a modern perspective.

I voted no.
Too many homosexual priests ended up having sexual relationships. There have been studies that have shown this, but I’m afraid I don’t have any links at hand to paste here.

Like heterosexual priests don’t

Evidence?

Not so sure about the icy part, I do recall him having a tank constructed for him to cool his passions in. Since we are being charitable and assuming he isn’t attracted to animals that leaves other males.

 

[St_Francis]

Not so sure about the icy part, I do recall him having a tank constructed for him to cool his passions in. Since we are being charitable and assuming he isn’t attracted to animals that leaves other males.

Our modern language uses passion to refer pretty exclusively to sexual passions, but anger is another “passion.” Even if the passions he wanted to cool were sexual, the fact that he was in an all-male situation does not show that the passion he felt was towards men. People do have imaginations, you know, and the devil can introduce ideas into it.

 

[havana1]

Aren’t we obligated to obey the Magisterium? I don’t see much obedience when there are threads asking if homosexuals should be priests - the Magisterium correctly describes the condition as homosexuality and “homosexual tendencies” - not “SSA.” I’m surprised the forum moderator is even allowing this thread when someone posted the Vatican “rules” (on Page 2).

 

[LemonAndLime]

The CC also teaches that the proper term for it is homosexuality. I wish I knew why so many people were so quick to run to that certain river in Egypt to flee the h-word and jump on the “SSA” bandwagon. Makes no sense to me at all. It’s called homosexuality. Not SSA.

Not on this forum it isn’t. Here, the term homosexuality/homosexual carries all the imagery that goes along with someone who’s openly “gay”. To identify as a homosexual implies that its a sexual orientation. The Church teaches there is no such thing as sexual orientations.

 

[michelleds]

Not on this forum it isn’t. Here, the term homosexuality/homosexual carries all the imagery that goes along with someone who’s openly “gay”. To identify as a homosexual implies that its a sexual orientation. The Church teaches there is no such thing as sexual orientations.

right.

perhaps this will help; i think it verbalizes the distinction nicely.

**Same-sex attraction **is an intense interest in others of the same gender. This interest may include desires for their attention, friendship, intimacy, and/or a fascination with their bodies and other gender traits. It may also include erotic thoughts, feelings, and behaviors directed toward the same gender.

The psychological community uses the term **homosexuality **to refer to the entire complex that includes attractions, feelings, desires, sexual behavior, identity, and all its associated aspects, such as problems with masculinity, self-perception, emotional dependencies, and relationship issues.

I do not believe that anyone is attempting to soft-peddle homosexuality, havana, if that’s your concern. most of the posters, i believe, are trying to distinguish between someone who has the inclinations or attractions from someone who has fully embraced the lifestyle and all that entails.

If a poster writes that they are SSA, that, to me, means that they suffer the disordered attraction/inclination, but are placing themselves within God’s care and Grace by accepting and following His commandments.

If someone posts that they are gay or homosexual, then I will assume (until told otherwise by the OP) that they are actively homosexual and living outside of God’s commandments.

I do not believe that a person’s sexuality needs to come into every conversation. but if a person’s testimony would be helpful to a discussion, then it is likely to be helpful in light of the information of what road they have travelled.

 

[havana1]

The word used in the Catechism is homosexuality. I don’t know where “all this imagery” comes from. I do know it’s terribly confusing when people can’t simply use the H-word. It’s in the Catechism for a reason. Are you suggesting that the Catechism is in error by using the word homosexuality? Because that’s what it sounds like to me.

 

[havana1]

If a poster writes that they are SSA, that, to me, means that they suffer the disordered attraction/inclination, but are placing themselves within God’s care and Grace by accepting and following His commandments.

And it means to me that, if they are “SSA,” there’s a strong likelihood they are **homosexual **and are therefore according to the Magisterium unfit for a vocation like priesthood. I cannot begin to fathom how anyone with quote, unquote “SSA” could be fit for priesthood. **Homosexual **priests, for those who have forgotten, have done enough harm already. “Soft-pedalling” terms like “SSA” won’t change that.

 

[90Domer]

I just finished a biography of Fr Michyal Hedge, the chaplain of the NYFD. He died on 9/11. He had SSA, and yet was considered a wonderful, spiritual leader by the whole fire department; he was not considered so wonderful by the Cardinal at the time, mainly for his independent spirit. He also did great work with the AIDs community and with people associated with the friary. The world would have been less wonderful with out Fr Hedge.

I think you meant Father Mychal Judge, just in case someone chooses to Google him.