Don’t dare to speak its name

[Dr.Bombay]

ChemicalBean:

Homosexual orientation is not a psychological illness.

It most certainly is.

ChemicalBean:

This is why it’s ludicrous for us to believe that the Church would say to a gay man who senses a call to priesthood, “We cannot admit you to the priesthood because you are gay.”

And this is also why it’s ludicrous for many to believe that the Church says to women who sense a call to priesthood, “We cannot admit you to the priesthood because you are a woman.”

How dare we restrict and reject the creative, loving power of God! That is sin in it’s most raw, basic form.

Is it also ludicrous for many to believe that the Church would say to a pedophile who senses a call to priesthood, “We cannot admit you to the priesthood because you are a pedophile.”

Just wondering.

 

[ChemicalBean]

Pedophiles pose a significant, proven criminal danger to a population with many children. It’s seems punitive, but that’s also why in some states there are laws that dictate that convicted sex offenders may not live within, say 2000 feet, of a school or licensed child-care provider. They are likely to strike again.

Homosexuals, disgusting as you may find them, do not pose a significant criminal danger to anybody.

 

[Hildebrand]

the current scandals in the Church were largely not about molesting children. More than 80% of them involved adolescent boys. That is a homosexual issue.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

ChemicalBean:

Pedophiles pose a significant, proven criminal danger to a population with many children. It’s seems punitive, but that’s also why in some states there are laws that dictate that convicted sex offenders may not live within, say 2000 feet, of a school or licensed child-care provider. They are likely to strike again.

Homosexuals, disgusting as you may find them, do not pose a significant criminal danger to anybody.

Tell that to all the 16 and 17 year old boys molested by homosexual priests in the past few years.

Or have you not been paying attention?

 

[CatholicCid]

ChemicalBean:

Please clarify what you just said; it was confusing to me. And tell us what your local priest says after you talk; I think we’d all be interested.
+Attempts to clarify+

In reference to “Don’t forget that feeling when we substitute gay reference words in for women in the proposed explanations against ordaining women”
While I do agree somewhat, I don’t think it can be done in most cases, and even if it seems sufficient, the difference between the two groups is to big a difference for it to work.

My original point was to illustrate a concern about this document that we’re all speculating on. It would seem to me that there is a potential alterior motive here. If it were purely to address the child abuse scandal, it would focus only on the sexual abuse of young people and preventing ordination of candidates with those abusive pathologies. Homosexual orientation is not a psychological illness. The Church says that SSA is naturally disordered but it never calls it a disease.

I may be playing with fire here, but I went on to illustrate examples of how common explanations for restricting ordination to men could be tweaked with the same logic to justify restricting ordination to straights. Most all of the explanations result from the metaphor of “wedding heaven and earth” too far, yet they are taught as definitive for all time.
I’d assume any such reasons to exclude anyone would be to try and prevent sexual abuse or the such, hopefully not just to exclude

But I agree with you. Common sense (and scripture) tells us that our ideas of how God calls people to serve cannot prevent God from calling as God wills. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, and your ways are not my ways.”

This is why it’s ludicrous for us to believe that the Church would say to a gay man who senses a call to priesthood, “We cannot admit you to the priesthood because you are gay.”

And this is also why it’s ludicrous for many to believe that the Church says to women who sense a call to priesthood, “We cannot admit you to the priesthood because you are a woman.”

How dare we restrict and reject the creative, loving power of God! That is sin in it’s most raw, basic form.

We must also remember that we ourselves should not do such sins, but the Church, through the Power of Christ and the Guidance of the Holy Spirit can do such things and as it is say, “Rome has spoken. The issue is closed.”

 

[ChemicalBean]

Dr. Bombay:

Tell that to all the 16 and 17 year old boys molested by homosexual priests in the past few years.

Or have you not been paying attention?

I have been paying attention. The term is not homosexuality; the term is ephebophilia, an adult sexual attraction to adolescent persons; or more specifically pederasty, an adult erotic attraction to adolescent males.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

ChemicalBean:

I have been paying attention. The term is not homosexuality; the term is ephebophilia, an adult sexual attraction to adolescent persons; or more specifically pederasty, an adult erotic attraction to adolescent males.

Obsfucating won’t change the fact that we have tolerated homosexualist perversions. This is male on male perversion. Such perversion is an intrinsic disorder and those who are so disordered should never be priests.

Dan L

 

[MikeWM]

GregoryPalamas:

Obsfucating won’t change the fact that we have tolerated homosexualist perversions. This is male on male perversion. Such perversion is an intrinsic disorder and those who are so disordered should never be priests.

Of course. Those who do it should never be priests. Equally priests who play around with young ladies (or old ladies) shouldn’t be priests.

The ability of the potential priest to chastity and celibacy (covering myself there - should be assessed by the people who assess the potential priest at the time he puts himself forward. It matters not what sexual feelings he has, it matters only whether he is likely to act on them. If he isn’t then he fulfils that requirement for the priesthood and shouldn’t be excluded on that ground. If he is likely to act on them, whether with women, men, or animals, then obviously he should be excluded.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

Chris Jacobsen:

A man who thinks of the priesthood as suffering from ‘fasting’ from wife and children would not be a good priest.

He probably would not make a very good husband, either. When things became difficult at home, he would find it hard to be faithful and would start looking for greener pastures.

I agree. The fact that a single life is a required part of the priest’s life is just a fact of the priest’s life, and his ability to cope with that needs to be assessed. I don’t think the desire to suffer from lack of wife and children is an intrinsic part of the desire to be a priest; indeed, the call from God is the key thing in taking the steps to get there.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

Hildebrand:

All throughout the years, psychological testing has been going on and the Church usually errors on the side of caution

Yes, testing and assessment. People aren’t automatically discounted, their experiences are assessed and then indeed may come down on the side of caution. It is the blanket nature of this issue that troubles me.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

Dr. Bombay:

ok then, what exactly should be an automatic exclusion from the priesthood?

Murder? Habitual lying? Drug addiction?

Well, I think all three of those would rather impede the ability to be a good priest, so yes.

But what about say a recovered drug addict with a tendency to addiction but currently clean? Shouldn’t they be given a chance to at least put their case to the assessors? We know very well that some priests are recovered alcoholics, for example.

Seriously. In the postmodern world view that you seem to have bought into completely, if you can’t exclude a man with SSA from the priesthood, you can’t really exclude anyone, now can you?

Of course you can. There is a world of difference between what you feel and what you do.

What about a pedophile? If a man is sexually attracted to children but promises to lead a celibate life, why exclude him? He might just make an excellent priest.

This may not be the popular view - but I’m not convinced he should be excluded automatically. Many paedophiles do live their lives without giving in to their sexual feelings. Again, this is what assessment is for.

Mike

 

[Dr.Bombay]

ChemicalBean:

I have been paying attention. The term is not homosexuality; the term is ephebophilia, an adult sexual attraction to adolescent persons; or more specifically pederasty, an adult erotic attraction to adolescent males.

You can play all the semantic games you want. The pervert priests are attracted to males. That means homosexuality.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

MikeWM:

This may not be the popular view - but I’m not convinced he should be excluded automatically. Many paedophiles do live their lives without giving in to their sexual feelings. Again, this is what assessment is for.

Mike

My, how progressive and forward thinking. How wonderfully tolerant!

Of course, it’s tolerance of homosexuality within the priesthood that’s gotten the Church into the mess it’s in today. But perhaps you’re correct. We need more priests who fantasize about buggering boys. As long as they don’t give in.

 

[netmilsmom]

Dr. Bombay:

My, how progressive and forward thinking. How wonderfully tolerant!

Of course, it’s tolerance of homosexuality within the priesthood that’s gotten the Church into the mess it’s in today. But perhaps you’re correct. We need more priests who fantasize about buggering boys. As long as they don’t give in.

If we continue to be tolerant of Homosexuality, it puts doubt into the mind of every Catholic mother that the new priest is safe. Would any mother trust her child to a man who “might” be homosexual and like boys??? If the Vatican takes a stand, that new priest may still like boys, but he has already been through the screening process for many years.

It’s like the people on this thread do not know how OPENLY homosexual some of our seminaries were.

I’m with the Boy Scouts on this one.

 

[MikeWM]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

If we continue to be tolerant of Homosexuality, it puts doubt into the mind of every Catholic mother that the new priest is safe. Would any mother trust her child to a man who “might” be homosexual and like boys??? If the Vatican takes a stand, that new priest may still like boys, but he has already been through the screening process for many years.

What about the mother’s daughters? Does she trust her child to a priest who ‘might’ be heterosexual and like girls? What about your child’s teachers? Are their backgrounds vetted? Would you block homosexual teachers from the classroom just in case they can’t control themselves? But then what about the heterosexual ones? Better not to trust anyone at all, it seems.

Vigilance and healthy suspicion are good and necessary with your children. But it can be taken too far.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

Dr. Bombay:

My, how progressive and forward thinking. How wonderfully tolerant!

Very kind, thank you

Of course, it’s tolerance of homosexuality within the priesthood that’s gotten the Church into the mess it’s in today. But perhaps you’re correct. We need more priests who fantasize about buggering boys. As long as they don’t give in.

Ah, boys, or young men? This looks like that false conflation of paedophilia and homosexuality again…

Mike

 

[Brendan]

MikeWM:

So in one respect a necessary part of priesthood is the suffering from ‘fasting’ from wife and children, but the fact that homosexuals are suffering from also having to ‘fast’ from partner and children is irrelevant? (we know at least some homosexual people would like children one way or another, another controversy).

One cannot ‘fast’ from something that is poison. Can it be said I am fasting from cyanide right now??

Homosexual acts are mortal sin, cyanide for the soul.

Basically, you’re saying homosexuals aren’t suitable for the priesthood because they would have the wrong type of suffering from it, whereas heterosexual people would have the right type of suffering?

They are incapilble of the require Mode of Spirituality required for priest, that of true Celibacy.

SSAD is a sign of an objectively disordered view of love. The very function of a priest is to demonstrate love to his congregation. Can this adequately be done by a person with a disordered view of love?

Evidently some homosexual people feel they are being called by God to the priesthood. The status quo, where they are assessed in depth to see if that calling is genuine (and if they have the other skills the priesthood desires), seems to be perfectly fine to me.

Mike

Mike, a personal calling does not equate to a True calling. A True Vocation to Holy Orders is a two fold calling, one by the person to Orders, and the other calling by the Church to accept that person. If one of those is missing, there is no true calling.

Just because a person ‘feels’ called is NOT an indication that they truely are.

 

[MikeWM]

Brendan:

They are incapilble of the require Mode of Spirituality required for priest, that of true Celibacy.

I’ll cut and paste from the second article I mentioned, as this guy says it better than I have time to compose right now

americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=2670&issueID=416

Father Baker also argues that gay men cannot be truly celibate for two reasons, each of which has significant negative consequences for the church’s theology.

First, he judges it “superfluous” for a gay man to vow to abstain from something that he is already bound to avoid by the natural law. Unfortunately, this reasoning also renders “superfluous” the vow of celibacy taken by all men and women in religious orders; the church teaches that, as non-married persons, they are already bound by the natural law to abstain from sex.

Second, Father Baker argues that celibacy necessarily involves sacrifice, but that it is no sacrifice for a gay man to give up the heterosexual marriage he does not desire. Hence, he says, they are not truly celibate. This seems a novel and unnecessary doctrine, and not just because it makes even heterosexuals who have no particular desire to get married unsuitable for the priesthood. Here Father Baker also seems to be invalidating the vow of celibacy that gay priests have taken over the centuries. In his judgment, they may have lived chastely, but they did not live celibately. Thus, it would seem, their ordination vows were empty. As a consequence, it would seem that the church has participated in and encouraged fraud.

Surely gay priests often feel they are making a sacrifice. Let me offer an analogy that works within the Vatican assumption that the homosexual orientation is disordered. If one woman gives up chocolate as part of her Lenten fast and another gives up chocolate because of the same Lenten fast but also because she is unhealthily overweight, both persons are making sacrifices and both merit God’s blessing. Straight and gay celibates make similar sacrifices.

Moreover, what celibates chiefly give up is marriage, not simply heterosexual intercourse. Vatican II made it abundantly clear that marriage is in the first place the shared, covenantal life of two sexual persons. The blessings of such a covenant—as with the covenant between God and the church—extend far beyond and may not even include genital activity. Gay celibates forgo such blessings.

Mike, a personal calling does not equate to a True calling. A True Vocation to Holy Orders is a two fold calling, one by the person to Orders, and the other calling by the Church to accept that person. If one of those is missing, there is no true calling.

Just because a person ‘feels’ called is NOT an indication that they truely are.

No, indeed not, and that is part of what the assessors are looking for in determining whether the candidate is suitable to be a priest. Again, I’m not saying the priesthood is any sort of right, I’m just saying that I don’t see any per se impediment to a homosexual person being a good priest (as indeed many are right now) if they are capable of celibacy and chastity.

Mike

 

[netmilsmom]

MikeWM:

What about the mother’s daughters? Does she trust her child to a priest who ‘might’ be heterosexual and like girls? What about your child’s teachers? Are their backgrounds vetted? Would you block homosexual teachers from the classroom just in case they can’t control themselves? But then what about the heterosexual ones? Better not to trust anyone at all, it seems.

Vigilance and healthy suspicion are good and necessary with your children. But it can be taken too far.

Mike

Do you have children?
I do not trust any adult to be alone with my children. I stay with them.
And why do you think that healthy suspicion can be taken too far? It’s healthy afterall. I teach my kids what is inappropriate. What to do if something doesn’t seem right. However, that doesn’t mean that I would stick them into a bad situation. Michael Jackson was found innocent, but I still wouldn’t let my kids go to Neverland to test how well they learned the lesson.

I actually do not have boys. But in our society it is suppose to be okay for men to be trusted with boys. Why do we not feel that it is okay for men to escort young girls for sleepovers?

If the church takes the Homosexuals out of the mix, to the best of their ability, the good priests will not be looked at sideways when they hug a child.

 

[Brendan]

Well Mike,

So we have two differing Moral Theologians. Fr. Baker S.J and Fr. Vanek S.J.

So what do we do in that case. Ask Rome, of course!!

It would seem that Pope Benedict agrees more with Fr. Baker than Fr. Vanek.

So given, that, I would probably trust Fr. Baker’s, and thus Pope Benedict’s over Fr. Vanek’s
Fr. Vanek:

And the Vatican recently confirmed that it is preparing a document on seminary formation, which may ban gay men from orders. One spokesperson said that the time for its promulgation would be up to the Holy Spirit.

My prayer is that the Holy Spirit will take a long, long time

.

I guess the good Father’s prayer were NOT answered.

What is also really interesting is that Pope Benedict personally signed this directive. Under normal circumstances, the Pontif delegates directives such as this to the Congregation for the Clergy, who work in his name.

But the Pope decided to issue this document, not as a Congregational Document, but as a personal directive, bearing his seal and signature.

This is commonly done is insure it’s adoption. So that there is no dissussion of how the Vatican document relates to existing diocesan Norms and what overrides what (such as the case with Redemptionis Sacramentum).

This directive is now Church Law!