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

[michelleds]

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.

I have asked you the following question in other threads but you have not answered me. Please answer the following:

If a person is giving their testimony about their life and struggles to the glory of God, and they were living a homosexual lifestyle, but are not now living a homosexual lifestyle, but are, in fact, celibate or chaste, how do you want them to refer to themselves?

and furthermore, why would you spend energy attacking compliant Catholics–Catholics who are adhering to the Church’s teaching–on the word they use to describe themselves? I believe you’ve also objected fairly strenuously to the term “ex-gay”.

 

[Wardog]

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

Thanks, can I claim a senior moment?

 

[catharina]

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

HUH?

The priesthood is a calling from God.
It has nothing to do with what “they want” to do.
Your question is utterly baffling.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Building on post 22, here is a more extensive explanation from an earlier thread:

It is very important to understand that the Church is not speaking about people who simply have same-sex attractions. She’s speaking about those who have several serious impairments:

1. Actively gay
2. Embrace or support the gay lifestyle/culture
3. Deep seated homosexual tendencies (this means more than same-sex attractions. This is a person who identifies himself or herself as gay). When this becomes your identity, then there is a very serious problem here. Heterosexuals do not identify themselves as heterosexuals. They identify themselves as males and females. A person with same-sex attraction must be able to see himself as a whole person, not identify himself by his sexual attraction. Unless he can see himself as a whole person, he cannot relate to members of both genders in a healthy and appropriate way.
4. Those who struggle to remain chaste. If this is a struggle for the individual, he or she is not a good candidate for either the priesthood or the religious life. Everyone struggles with temptations. The Church is not saying that a priest or religious must be someone who never struggles with temptations. That would be unrealistic. The Church is speaking about the person for whom sexual temptation are a cross.

As to the publicity of the attraction there is something to be considered here. Someone posted it above. If one is celibate and comfortable in one’s celibate state, why should one’s sexual feelings come out into the public forum? Whethere you have same-sex attraction or opposite-sex attractions, this is not a topic for public discussion.

The OP also asked about someone who had come out earlier in life and now wants to become a priest or a brother. That person is disqualified. The very act of coming out is a statement that says to the world that I embrace my sexual attractions, am proud of it, and I don’t care what the world thinks. Otherwise, the person would have exercised some discretion. The act of coming out reveals a deep seated homosexual orientation as well as some difficulties with discretion. Such a person is not a good candidate for either priesthood or religious life.

The Church still loves this person and wants him or her to remain a part of the Church. But the person has identified himself according to his sexual attractions, rather than as a whole man or whole woman. That’s the whole problem with the gay movement. When you identify yourself as gay, you’re making a public display of your sexuality as if that were the defining trait in your humanity and you’re throwing off the balance in your life, because you’re much more than just a sexual being. This is what the Church calls “deep seated”. It becomes an identity, rather than a sexual attraction. I explain it as a sexual orientation that is blown out of proportion.

It’s a very complex issue and there is no perfect answer. Even the guidelines that the Church provides for religious orders and diocesan seminaries, she’s very careful to point out that novice masters for religious and formators of seminarians must really watch what happens in the day to day life in community. In the end, there is not perfect answer that fits every individual. The same struggles with sexuality can be found in heterosexuals. What a formator is looking at is whether there is a struggle. If there is, then the person is not suited for this life or for the priesthood, unless the struggle disappears for at least three years, I believe is the number.

and on another thread:

those who have “deep seated” tendencies have to be excluded, not everyone [with SSA]…The ones to be excluded are those who are not celibate, because they are entrenched in this behavior. …these rules already existed for heterosexual people.

By the way, the Church does not admit anyone to religious life or the seminary who has no sexual attractions. The reason is simple. A person who has no sexual attractions usually lacks the capacity for empathy. The absence of sexual attractions can often be a sign of indifference toward others and too much focussing on self. That kind of person cannot deal with others in a manner that is wholesome and fraternal.

If sexual attraction of any kind is a formidable obstacle for a candidate, such a person is not a good candidate for the priesthood. Temptations – when working with men or women – will be too great, too distracting. Part of the discernment as to the genuineness of the calling is to able to assess the pull of such attractions, as well as the pull, for heterosexual men, of a married life versus a permanently unmarried life.

 

[havana1]

If a person is giving their testimony about their life and struggles to the glory of God, and they were living a homosexual lifestyle, but are not now living a homosexual lifestyle, but are, in fact, celibate or chaste, how do you want them to refer to themselves?

Heterosexual. Specifically, a heterosexual who was never gay - never homosexual - to begin with. There’s no such thing as “ex-gay.”

I think when you give credence to how someone’s feeling - their feelings - that’s a very slippery slope. Are you saying how someone feels is more important than definite Church teaching? That saying “SSA” just feels better than saying homosexual and homosexuality? The Magisterium is quite clear that homosexual BEHAVIORS are a seriously grave matter. There is no teaching in the Magisterium as to the notion of “SSA,” and so, yeah, when people take it upon themselves to invent new ideas and concepts because they feel uncomfortable calling homosexuality for what it is, you’re right - there is a lot of energy wasted in trying to keep up with what exactly we’re talking about.

To the thread topic at hand: Do I think a celibate **homosexual ** should become a priest? No, I don’t think a celibate homosexual should be a priest - and Catholic teaching is quite clear he cannot - even if you toss around confusing phrases and concepts like “SSA” [which does not even appear in the cited church document on Page 2 of the thread]. People say “SSA” when they feel uncomfortable saying homosexuality: like saying SSA somehow makes things “less gay.”

So, again, to answer your question: If someone were engaged in homosexual BEHAVIOR and now decides they’re heterosexual, the appropriate way to describe that person is heterosexual who was never gay to begin with. I’m not sure why that’s so complicated.

 

[followingtheway]

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?

Well, not all homosexuals are pedophiles. I’m straight but studies show there is a higher percentage of straight pedophiles then gay ones.

 

[michelleds]

okay, Havana, work thru this with me. I think I see what you’re saying, and I might even agree with you, but I need to think this through.

if someone identifies themselves as SSA (I know, I know, you hate that term, but bear with me), then they are still doing what I have been saying folks shouldn’t do–if you are in full compliance with the church, don’t call yourself “gay” or “homosexual” because you are identifying yourself with a sin/behavior/sexuality.

I get that. makes sense.

now, about someone saying that they are heterosexual (assuming that it is in some way relevant to the conversation)…does that seem like a lie to you? i’m seriously asking here because I wonder. I mean, i’ve read the stories of people who were in one same sex relationship for two months when they were sixteen and now identify as “ex-gay”. but what i’m talking about is someone who was actively living a homosexual life for decades.

but, stream of consciousness here, if somone was in an adulterous affair for decades and then came back into the fold, so to speak, we wouldn’t expect them to continue to identify as anything other than “married”.

interesting.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Heterosexual. Specifically, a heterosexual who was never gay - never homosexual - to begin with. There’s no such thing as “ex-gay.”

She was referring to herself, havana. How is it that you feel qualified to evaluate her perceptions about herself, her experience (sexual, emotional, and spiritual) about herself and declare those perceptions inaccurate or invalid?

She was previously attracted to females (as opposed to males), and acted on those attractions. Now she is able to separate herself from that. Why is it that you continue to deny her experience, her repudiation of that lifestyle, and her conversion as being genuine and authentic? What is your agenda here?

 

[havana1]

She was referring to herself, havana. How is it that you feel qualified to evaluate her perceptions about herself, her experience (sexual, emotional, and spiritual) about herself and declare those perceptions inaccurate or invalid?

She was previously attracted to females (as opposed to males), and acted on those attractions. Now she is able to separate herself from that. Why is it that you continue to deny her experience, her repudiation of that lifestyle, and her conversion as being genuine and authentic? What is your agenda here?

Proper Catholic doctrine is not based upon ANYONE’S personal experience, “testimony,” feelings, etc. CCC paragraph # 2358 states, “the number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.”

I don’t deny the validity of ANYONE’s “experience,” “testimony,” “transformation,” etc. What I do deny and continue to deny is that it carries the same weight as the teaching set forth in the Catechism, because it doesn’t. When you start to afford EVERYONE’s “feelings,” “personal experience,” etc., the weight of proper Church teaching, and discount the Magisterium, to which we are called to be obedient, that’s a very slippery slope.

I’m sorry you are dismayed that not everyone believes in “ex-gay” or “SSA,” or that I’m somehow denying anyone the right to their feelings. The fact of the matter is, proper Catholic doctrine has never been based upon anyone’s feelings. **That’s part of what separates Catholic Christians from Protestant Christians: we turn to infallible truths, not subjective feelings. **

 

[Elizabeth502]

Proper Catholic doctrine is not based upon ANYONE’S personal experience, “testimony,” feelings, etc. CCC paragraph # 2358 states, “the number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.”

I don’t deny the validity of ANYONE’s “experience,” “testimony,” “transformation,” etc. What I do deny and continue to deny is that it carries the same weight as the teaching set forth in the Catechism, because it doesn’t. When you start to afford EVERYONE’s “feelings,” “personal experience,” etc., the weight of proper Church teaching, and discount the Magisterium, to which we are called to be obedient, that’s a very slippery slope.

I’m sorry you are dismayed that not everyone believes in “ex-gay” or “SSA,” or that I’m somehow denying anyone the right to their feelings. The fact of the matter is, proper Catholic doctrine has never been based upon anyone’s feelings. That’s part of what separates Catholic Christians from Protestant Christians: we turn to infallible truths, not subjective feelings

I’m afraid that you, not I, are the one who misunderstands the Catechism. Neither the Catechism, nor I, states that doctrine is based on “feelings” or “experience.” The Catechism rather evaluates known human experience (including, but not limited to, the experience of same-sex attraction), and places that experience within a certain moral framework. The CCC does not exist to deny human experience, but to understand the moral ramifications of that experience, and in particular, of decisions (such as decisions to act on disordered attractions).

I never said anything about the CCC being based on subjective feelings, let alone individual experience “carrying the same weight as the CCC.” People do have attractions to the same sex. The CCC acknowledges that reality, does not deny it, and states what the doctrine is about those who act on the reality of same-sex attraction. Neither the CCC nor the many approved pastoral units of the Catholic Church agrees with you that it is not possible for one at some point in their lives to experience a disordered attraction, act on that attraction, and later never return to that attraction. I don’t care whether in your opinion that does not equal “ex-gay.” The fact is, a person was once attracted to the same sex and now is no longer. (Some people continue the attraction, but do not act on it after a moral conversion to doctrinal truth; others never succeed in releasing themselves from the attraction.)

In other words, nowhere in Catholic doctrine does it state that “once gay, always gay.” Conversely, Catholic doctrine does not state that “once gay, it is trivial to let it go.” The CCC is not a scientific or psychological document; it does not provide data; nor is that its purpose or scope. The spiritual purpose of the Church Jesus Christ founded is always to be a message of hope, and never to deny the possibility of grace. And the CCC is, again, not a pastoral document. The Church-approved methods of dealing with same-sex attraction (yes, that’s a phrase that orthodox priests and bishops use regularly) include positive, hopeful opportunities for resisting the attraction. It also leaves open the possibility of eventual attraction to the opposite sex, while not assuming any degree of success with that. All of that is embraced by the Catholic ministry of Courage. You are not going to find such ministries discussed in the CCC, because the CCC is a doctrinal summary, not a list of suggestions for ministering to Catholics with various disordered attractions & conditions.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Evidence?

Well, if you do a Google search on St. Aelred you will find the story repeated over and over. Wikipedia says this: “Aelred’s work, private letters, and his Life by Walter Daniel, another twelfth-century monk of Rievaulx, have led some writers to infer that he was homosexual.”

I adopted St. Aelred’s name as the prominent part of my CAF pseudonym because he was a Medieval English Cistercian scholar and historian, not because of claims of homosexuality, which I had heard about but did not take seriously or realize they were what most people now associate him with. I’d be as happy as anyone to find out these claims about him are dubious, since I didn’t want my pseudonym to imply anything about my own sexuality.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I’m going to stay out of this word-fight about homosexual vs. SSA. Personally I generally use whichever term others are using at the time.

I want to mention something about the prohibition against people with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies”. Someone provided a quote, apparently taken from another thread, in which a very respectable poster seemed to say that this only refers to “active homosexuals” rather than those who are chaste but attracted to people of the same sex.

From my discussions with someone who was discerning a possible call to the Society of Jesus I know that this is essentially how the document has been applied in the United States, at least in some cases. However, the document itself clearly distinguishes between acts and tendencies, calling the former grave sins and the latter (specifically, deep-seated homosexual tendencies) “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 fulfill God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter.”

Clearly we are dealing with two different things here, homosexual acts themselves which are sins and objectively disordered homosexual tendencies which do not prevent a person from fulfilling God’s call in his or her life.

In prohibiting different kinds of people from the priesthood, the document maintains the distinction between “those who practice homosexuality” and “[those who] present deep-seated homosexual tendencies” as well as a third category, “[those who] support the so-called ‘gay culture’”. All three are barred from the priesthood.

If it were the intention of the law to prohibit only those who practice homosexuality or support the so-called “gay culture”, only two categories would have been necessary. It’s therefore clear as day to me at least that another group, men who are attracted to people in the same sex in a stable way (the probably deliberately vague wording of “deep-seated” is used, presumably to avoid barring all men who have had transient feelings of attraction for males in the past) are also barred from the priesthood. The Pope’s comments provided earlier in this thread from around the time the document came out provide further evidence that this was the Vatican’s thinking.

Even if one’s local vocations director is applying the law differently, I would think that such a clear (it seems to me) intent to bar people firmly attracted to others of the same sex from the priesthood would be very relevant for an individual discerning their vocation.

Note of course that I have no credentials for interpreting the Church’s laws. It just seems so clear in this case. Here’s the Vatican document by the way.

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

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I’m going to stay out of this word-fight about homosexual vs. SSA. Personally I generally use whichever term others are using at the time.

I do want to mention something about the prohibition against people with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” though. I’ve seen two interpretations that seem aimed at taking the power out of this prohibition, one in my discussions, not on CAF, with someone discerning a vocation to a well-known order of mostly priests and his report of what their vocations director told him, and another that was brought up via quoting a very respectable member’s post from another forum.

First, the reported perspective of the vocations director in this order. His position was essentially that that “homosexual tendencies” are only “deep-seated” if the person is currently acting on them in sexual relationships.

However, the document itself clearly distinguishes between acts and tendencies, calling the former grave sins and the latter (specifically, deep-seated homosexual tendencies) “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 fulfill God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter.”

Clearly we are dealing with two different things here, homosexual acts themselves which are sins and objectively disordered homosexual tendencies which do not prevent a person from fulfilling God’s call in his or her life.

In prohibiting different kinds of people from the priesthood, the document maintains the distinction between “those who practice homosexuality” and “[those who] present deep-seated homosexual tendencies” as well as a third category, “[those who] support the so-called ‘gay culture’”. All three are barred from the priesthood.

If it were the intention of the law to prohibit only those who practice homosexuality or support the so-called “gay culture”, only two categories would have been necessary. It’s therefore clear as day to me at least that another group, men who are attracted to people in the same sex in a stable way (the probably deliberately vague wording of “deep-seated” is used, presumably to avoid barring all men who have had transient feelings of attraction for males in the past) are also barred from the priesthood. The Pope’s comments provided earlier in this thread from around the time the document came out provide further evidence that this was the Vatican’s thinking.

Even if one’s local vocations director is applying the law differently, I would think that such a clear (it seems to me) intent to bar people firmly attracted to others of the same sex from the priesthood would be very relevant for an individual discerning their vocation.

Note of course that I have no credentials for interpreting the Church’s laws. It just seems so clear in this case. Here’s the Vatican document by the way.

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

Next post: the claim that only those who identify themselves as having a homosexual identity are meant.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

For this next point maybe it would be best to provide the quotes in question (my apologies if there is a better way of doing this; I’m not that savy with this site yet). Since it’s long I’ll give my answer in a separate post.

Originally Posted by JReducation 
It is very important to understand that the Church is not speaking about people who simply have same-sex attractions. She’s speaking about those who have several serious impairments:

1. Actively gay

1. Embrace or support the gay lifestyle/culture

1. Deep seated homosexual tendencies (this means more than same-sex attractions. This is a person who identifies himself or herself as gay). When this becomes your identity, then there is a very serious problem here. Heterosexuals do not identify themselves as heterosexuals. They identify themselves as males and females. A person with same-sex attraction must be able to see himself as a whole person, not identify himself by his sexual attraction. Unless he can see himself as a whole person, he cannot relate to members of both genders in a healthy and appropriate way.

1. Those who struggle to remain chaste. If this is a struggle for the individual, he or she is not a good candidate for either the priesthood or the religious life. Everyone struggles with temptations. The Church is not saying that a priest or religious must be someone who never struggles with temptations. That would be unrealistic. The Church is speaking about the person for whom sexual temptation are a cross.

As to the publicity of the attraction there is something to be considered here. Someone posted it above. If one is celibate and comfortable in one’s celibate state, why should one’s sexual feelings come out into the public forum? Whethere you have same-sex attraction or opposite-sex attractions, this is not a topic for public discussion.

The OP also asked about someone who had come out earlier in life and now wants to become a priest or a brother. That person is disqualified. The very act of coming out is a statement that says to the world that I embrace my sexual attractions, am proud of it, and I don’t care what the world thinks. Otherwise, the person would have exercised some discretion. The act of coming out reveals a deep seated homosexual orientation as well as some difficulties with discretion. Such a person is not a good candidate for either priesthood or religious life.

The Church still loves this person and wants him or her to remain a part of the Church. But the person has identified himself according to his sexual attractions, rather than as a whole man or whole woman. That’s the whole problem with the gay movement. When you identify yourself as gay, you’re making a public display of your sexuality as if that were the defining trait in your humanity and you’re throwing off the balance in your life, because you’re much more than just a sexual being. This is what the Church calls “deep seated”. It becomes an identity, rather than a sexual attraction. I explain it as a sexual orientation that is blown out of proportion.

It’s a very complex issue and there is no perfect answer. Even the guidelines that the Church provides for religious orders and diocesan seminaries, she’s very careful to point out that novice masters for religious and formators of seminarians must really watch what happens in the day to day life in community. In the end, there is not perfect answer that fits every individual. The same struggles with sexuality can be found in heterosexuals. What a formator is looking at is whether there is a struggle. If there is, then the person is not suited for this life or for the priesthood, unless the struggle disappears for at least three years, I believe is the number.

those who have “deep seated” tendencies have to be excluded, not everyone [with SSA]…The ones to be excluded are those who are not celibate, because they are entrenched in this behavior. …these rules already existed for heterosexual people.

By the way, the Church does not admit anyone to religious life or the seminary who has no sexual attractions. The reason is simple. A person who has no sexual attractions usually lacks the capacity for empathy. The absence of sexual attractions can often be a sign of indifference toward others and too much focussing on self. That kind of person cannot deal with others in a manner that is wholesome and fraternal.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The second quote above seems to disagree with the first and to present the arguement I delt with in post #52, but perhaps JReducation miscommunicated in the second statement or the quote has been redacted misleadingly.

Moving to the first quote, in this case the claim isn’t as obviously in error because it maintains a difference between each of the categories of people. But is it actually reasonable to hold that “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” means identifying yourself as “gay”?

It seems clear to me that tendencies and self-identification are two distinct things. Sure, self-identification as “gay” or “homosexual” might be a good indication that a person’s homosexual tendencies are probably deeply rooted (the more literal translation of the original Italian words rendered “deep-seated”, from what I’ve read), and perhaps doing so could even make those tendencies firmer. But it would clearly be possible to have one without the other, to have someone who refused on ideological grounds to identify as “gay” but whose sexual attraction was quite firmly directed towards other men, or even someone who identified as “gay” but whose sexuality was actually more fluid.

If the Vatican really only meant only bar from the priesthood those who self-identified as “gay” rather than all those who have a stable attraction to people of the same sex, wouldn’t that be what the document said? I grant that the repetitive use of the term “deep-seated” implies that some people some people with homosexual tendencies may still be admitted to the priesthood (those whose tendencies aren’t deep-seated) and that the term itself may be deliberately vague to allow some latitude in unique cases, but clearly the focus is on the tendencies themselves rather than self-identification.

Again, same caveats that I don’t claim any credentials or authority to be interpreting the Holy See’s documents; this is just what it seems to me that they mean.

 

[SirJack]

Returning to the original topic, I voted no.

In fairness to the seminarian who is attracted to men, he will spend several years living in an intimate community of faith and life. It is an emotionally charged environment and highly stressful too. It is possible that in that time he may become attracted to others emotionally - which will provide him with difficulties as he is formed to become a priest.

(On the matter of the scandal; it is true that the majority of the abuse was homosexual, but IMHO the scandal wasn’t simply the abuse itself but the fact it was eagerly covered up and abusers remained free. To characterize the scandal simply as homosexual underplays the gravity of the betrayal the faithful experienced. It was not just gay priests, it was their collaborators in the episcopate who also violated the victims.)

 

[St_Francis]

Well, if you do a Google search on St. Aelred you will find the story repeated over and over. Wikipedia says this: “Aelred’s work, private letters, and his Life by Walter Daniel, another twelfth-century monk of Rievaulx, have led some writers to infer that he was homosexual.”

I adopted St. Aelred’s name as the prominent part of my CAF pseudonym because he was a Medieval English Cistercian scholar and historian, not because of claims of homosexuality, which I had heard about but did not take seriously or realize they were what most people now associate him with. I’d be as happy as anyone to find out these claims about him are dubious, since I didn’t want my pseudonym to imply anything about my own sexuality.

Hi Aelred Minor,
I could not find the quote about swimming in cold water at all, much less to cool any “passion” he may have felt for young men jn his vicinity.

And this despite the fact that I saw a couple of homosexual sites as well. Nothing that either quoted from his writings went along those lines at all, and one pretty much admitted precisely what I have been saying, that they do not have evidence from his writings, some of which condemned any form of sexual intimacy outside of marriage and homosexual activity.

Without any evidence, I think it is very wrong to impute SSA/homosexual temptations or whatever to a person. I think it is even more wrong to take words written in another time and twist their innocent meanings in order to rationalize one’s own sinful behavior.

As to your quotes from Brother JREducation-- I have such admirarion for him. He was the only person to address my arguments against amnesty for illegal immigrants and he totally changed my mind about that issue.

Pray for him as he is in very poor health.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Hi Aelred Minor,
I could not find the quote about swimming in cold water at all, much less to cool any “passion” he may have felt for young men in his vicinity.

And this despite the fact that I saw a couple of homosexual sites as well. Nothing that either quoted from his writings went along those lines at all, and one pretty much admitted precisely what I have been saying, that they do not have evidence from his writings, some of which condemned any form of sexual intimacy outside of marriage and homosexual activity.

Without any evidence, I think it is very wrong to impute SSA/homosexual temptations or whatever to a person. I think it is even more wrong to take words written in another time and twist their innocent meanings in order to rationalize one’s own sinful behavior.

As to your quotes from Brother JREducation-- I have such admirarion for him. He was the only person to address my arguments against amnesty for illegal immigrants and he totally changed my mind about that issue.

Pray for him as he is in very poor health.

You are aware that only the acts are sinful right? There is physical intimacy that doesn’t involve sex, foreplay etc. It’s entirely possible that he could write strongly about chastity, been in love with another man and been entirely consistent.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Without any evidence, -]I think/-] I know it is very wrong to impute SSA/homosexual temptations or whatever to a person. -]I think/-] I know it is even more wrong to take words written in another time and twist their innocent meanings in order to rationalize one’s own sinful behavior.

[editing mine]

Beyond that, it does not “build up the Body of Christ” to speculate publicly on unconfirmed private inclinations of any kind, of another person of the faith, unless that person has brought those to light. This has nothing to do with whether such inclinations were, are, would have been wrong, bad, immoral, embarrassing, scandalous, etc. (And whether overcoming inclinations would be a matter of positive witness for the faithful.) It is still what is called idle speculation and violates the spiritual counsels.

As to your quotes from Brother JREducation–.

Those were actually my quotes of Brother JR. The other poster merely repasted them.

 

[St_Francis]

[editing mine]

Beyond that, it does not “build up the Body of Christ” to speculate publicly on unconfirmed private inclinations of any kind, of another person of the faith, unless that person has brought those to light. This has nothing to do with whether such inclinations were, are, would have been wrong, bad, immoral, embarrassing, scandalous, etc. (And whether overcoming inclinations would be a matter of positive witness for the faithful.) It is still what is called idle speculation and violates the spiritual counsels.

Precisely! Thank you, and thank you for the corrections as well.

Those were actually my quotes of Brother JR. The other poster merely repasted them.

I am sorry–i thought they looked very familiar!!!