Don’t dare to speak its name

[Brendan]

Mike,

You totally misunderstand the purpose of the celibate life.

It is more than 'keeping your pants up", it is a fundamental source of Grace in the the life a priest, a source that is unavailable to those with SSAD.

For a heterosexual canidate, his life is a daily fast, fasting from the moral good of a wife and children.

Fasting, as we know, like prayer and almsgiving, is a source of active Grace.

The homosexual, on the other hand, cannot ‘fast’ in this way, as his desire is intrinsically disordered.

One cannot fast from drinking poison, one can only fast from giving up that which is good for a greater good.

Can one legitimatly say " I’m giving up self multilation for Lent" as a form of fasting?? or

Homosexual acts are just that, self multilation. Those with SSAD have a great cross to bear. That is for certain. But foregoing their lifestyle is what they are called to do just to keep their soul alive, let alone be a priest.

It is not discrimination to reject a canidate that cannot offer themselves to God in the way God requires. And would the Church be doing them any favors, by adding the cross of priesthood to the cross of SSAD?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

MikeWM:

Excellent article in this weeks Tablet:

thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/register.cgi/tablet-01084

The long-awaited Vatican document on homosexuality and the priesthood is expected to be released soon. The signs are that, while it may please a few in the Church, it could cause acute distress to many gay priests who are faithful to their vows of celibacy

…

Finally, a document like the one Archbishop O’Brien predicts would in effect say to gay priests: you should never have been ordained. It would further demoralise a cohort of priests already burdened by the vilification they received in the wake of the abuse crisis. The proposed document would also contradict two positions clearly enunciated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Mike

If it doesn’t address the issue of clerical secretiveness - itself an element in the problem of clericalism in the Church - it’s not going do much more than address a symptom of the problem.​

Being homosexual is not the problem - being predatory, whatever one’s orientation, is.

What is curious - one of several things - is that it seems to be taken for granted that homosexuals can’t contain themselves. Why should it be harder for them than for anyone else ? They seem to be thought of as though they are somehow uniquely problematic - but how is a priest who “acts up” any different from a bishop who runs off with another man’s wife, or a priest who is addicted to alcohol ? IMO that this notion that homosexual priests somehow have a unique status has not helped, to put it mildly.

If the wrong problem is addressed: there is a danger that it will be thought to have been sorted out, when it hasn’t been. Which will likely lead to more trouble in the future. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Pete2:

Mike, thanks for sharing that article. I find it very disturbing…this is evil working in the Church. This quote sums up the article for me:

Pete

If that is quotation is correct - look at what it implies about the bishops .​

I wish this Pope would meet with members of Arcigay, or Dignity, or some other organisation. Then he might have a better understanding of why so many Catholics (and others) are so utterly unimpressed by the Church’s pronouncements on the subject: the approach is too cerebral, & insufficiently personal. It would be counter-intuitive, and could do much to help the Papacy to understand what it is like for people to be homosexual. And it might also do much to disarm suspicion and hatred of the CC. So far, I don’t think the Papacy does understand - not well enough to able to speak convincingly to those who are unpersuaded. And if it can’t do that, it can’t minister to the Church as well as it might.

If animists and medicine-men aren’t beyond the pale - why should homosexuals (many of whom are Catholic) be ? The Good Shepherd did not confine Himself to the sheep who were not lost - so bishops and priests can’t go only to the well-behaved or orthodox. “The Church is the only society founded for the benefit of non-members” (Abp. MIchael Ramsay).

The Church can’t surrender its teaching - but can it do no more to recommend that teaching, and to disarm criticism, than it has ?

mercygate:

The Church does not label as “gay” anybody who is not acting on his SSA impulses. The word “gay” is reserved to those who practice the gay lifestyle and who advocate for it.

Is this a conventional usage, or has it been prescribed that the word should have this meaning ? I’ve wondered about this for some time. Do homosexuals who act up agree with this usage ? It would be confusing, if two groups were to use the same word to mean different things, that’s all.​

A faithful Priest is a faithful Priest. How would anybody know what his sexual proclivities are if he hasn’t made them known?

Fair enough - but: does this not imply that priests who do not “act up” ought to lie to avoid being kicked out ? Why be kicked out, if one has not committed an offence ? I’m not sure that the Vatican agrees with you - unfortunately​

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

The proposed document would also contradict two positions clearly enunciated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Then I suppose it is time for a third edition.

The Catechism and the Canon Law are two separate issues. The latter is binding, the former is not.

 

[MikeWM]

Brendan:

And would the Church be doing them any favors, by adding the cross of priesthood to the cross of SSAD?

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).

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?

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

 

[Hildebrand]

MikeWM:

I agree with the author of the article to this extent - the Catechism calls homosexual people to chastity. This move implies to me that the Catholic Church believes homosexual people can’t be trusted to be chaste. That is a contradiction.

SSA is a serious disorder. The Church has barred people with other lesser psychological disorders from the priesthood. It is NOT a contradiction.

 

[MikeWM]

I found this to be another excellent, well-argued article:

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

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

Hildebrand:

SSA is a serious disorder. The Church has barred people with other lesser psychological disorders from the priesthood. It is NOT a contradiction.

Some psychological orders evidently affect the ability of a priest to do his job. But I have seen nothing to show that homosexual priests cannot be excellent priests - indeed, some the excellent priests we have at the moment are doubtless homosexual.

Mike

 

[GregoryPalamas]

The priestly charism demands more than chastity. It isn’t just that one avoids acting out on ones temptation. The temptation itself expresses an intrinsic disorder. That is the point. If one proclaims oneself to be a homosexual one claims himself to be disordered. For that matter if someone ran around proclaiming his identity to be a heterosexual I would think that the person was so preoccupied with sex that he too should not be a priest.

This really is a no brainer. I’m surprised the Church has put up with those who identify themselves by their sexual temptations rather than by Christ. It’s about time the Church put a stop to this compromise with carnality.

Dan L

 

[Dr.Bombay]

MikeWM:

Some psychological orders evidently affect the ability of a priest to do his job. But I have seen nothing to show that homosexual priests cannot be excellent priests - indeed, some the excellent priests we have at the moment are doubtless homosexual.

Mike

That’s nothing but rank speculation.

Now, since you believe that men with SSA should be admitted to the priesthood…

Should a man who is sexually attracted to dogs be admitted to the priesthood?

Should a man who is sexually attracted to trees be admitted to the priesthood?

Should a man who is sexually attracted to automobiles be admitted to the priesthood?

What other psychological disorders should the Church overlook just so we can have more “excellent” priests?

 

[MikeWM]

Dr. Bombay:

Should a man who is sexually attracted to dogs be admitted to the priesthood?

Should a man who is sexually attracted to trees be admitted to the priesthood?

Should a man who is sexually attracted to automobiles be admitted to the priesthood?

They shouldn’t be automatically excluded. It should be up to the people assessing if their sexual attraction is going to get in the way of doing their job as a priest.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

GregoryPalamas:

This really is a no brainer. I’m surprised the Church has put up with those who identify themselves by their sexual temptations rather than by Christ. It’s about time the Church put a stop to this compromise with carnality.

Sure, if they identify themselves by their sexual temptations. But those whose drive to celibacy is greater, it doesn’t matter if their lesser sexual temptations are heterosexual or homosexual.

Mike

 

[Chris_Jacobsen]

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).

Mike

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.

 

[ChemicalBean]

I’d like to think that the Church understands perfectly well that homosexuality does not equal pedophilia. Is it possible that the Church is using a ban on gay priests to shore up holes in the ban against women priests?

I have no argument with discrimination for a good reason. There are all manner of reasons that women can’t be priests, ditto married people (married to the church, etc.)

But I haven’t heard one good reason I could use to justify to me or my friends as to why homosexuals can’t be priests.

Mike, remember how dumbfounded you feel right now, how you may even feel that the Church is wrong. Don’t forget that feeling when we substitute gay reference words in for women in the proposed explanations against ordaining women.

“I’m supposed to imagine Jesus in the priest during mass. But how can I do that if the priest is a homosexual? Jesus wasn’t a homosexual.”

“We all know that nuns are married to Christ, and priests are married to the Church. And we use the pronoun ‘she’ to the Church, so ‘She’ must be a mystical female. That would invalidate the nuptial relationship if the priest was a homosexual.”

“We call a priest ‘Father’ because he is a spiritual father to us, just like the whole Church is our spiritual mother. We are their spiritual children. But if Father were a homosexual, there could be no children and it would destroy the sanctity of marriage!”

“None of the apostles whom Jesus called were homosexual. Shoot, Peter, the first Pope, had a wife.”

“From the earliest traditions of the Church, she has hever called homosexual priests. We even know from scripture that Paul insisted that priests be married to only one woman and have a good, upright family.”

“A sacrament has two essentials: proper matter and proper formula. Just like we can’t use rice cakes for the Eucharist even though it’s bread, a validly-baptized homosexual would be invalid matter for Holy Orders.”

All of the above are the same old, same old reasons that we have heard against women priests all the while that the Church says “We don’t discriminate. Women have equal dignity before God. After all, God created you with your gender for a purpose and it’s not something you can choose.”

I might expect that we hear some of this applied to gays as well. I just hope that in doing so, the Church would also have the courage to admit “God created you with your homosexuality for a purpose, and it’s not something that you can choose. Therefore, you have just as much dignity as anybody else. Together, let’s earnestly discern what God is calling you to be.”

 

[Hildebrand]

MikeWM:

Some psychological orders evidently affect the ability of a priest to do his job. But I have seen nothing to show that homosexual priests cannot be excellent priests - indeed, some the excellent priests we have at the moment are doubtless homosexual.

Mike

I know of seminarians that were asked during their psychological testing if they ever had visions or inner locutions. First off, having visions or inner locutions is not an intrinsically disordered. Many throughout the world who do hear voices/noises and see visions have some psychological problems, but not all are natural in explanation. If the Church is open to “discriminate” against people who may have had seen a valid vision, etc then it is discriminating against people who may be excellent priests. All throughout the years, psychological testing has been going on and the Church usually errors on the side of caution (I would argue the position of Pope John XXIII & Benedict is not cautious, it is reasonable). Where has the outrage been in the past discriminatory actions against other people with disorders? Now the Pope seeks to conform Church practice with existing Church policy… everyone is in an uproar? I don’t get it.

 

[CatholicCid]

“We all know that nuns are married to Christ, and priests are married to the Church. And we use the pronoun ‘she’ to the Church, so ‘She’ must be a mystical female. That would invalidate the nuptial relationship if the priest was a homosexual.”

Man + Woman = Children no?
I’d take a guess there are happily married homosexuals in heterosexual relationships.

While your point somewhat makes sense, biology won’t let us just switch men (whatever the sexual orientation) with women.

This will be an interesting article if the Church releases such a thing.
Either way, I’m sure the Church has better opinions then myself, so I’ll clam up.

 

[ChemicalBean]

CatholicCid:

Man + Woman = Children no?
I’d take a guess there are happily married homosexuals in heterosexual relationships.

True, I’d take a guess that there are, but it would also be a valid reason for an annulment. It would be a strong indicator that they were not called to married life together in the first place and that their vows were not made with proper intention/disposition/whatever.

CatholicCid:

While your point somewhat makes sense, biology won’t let us just switch men (whatever the sexual orientation) with women.

Exactly. Nor will biology let us just switch heterosexuals with homosexuals (Unless your’re bisexual…now that’s a whole 'nother wrinkle that I doubt the church wants to tackle.)

 

[Dr.Bombay]

MikeWM:

They shouldn’t be automatically excluded. It should be up to the people assessing if their sexual attraction is going to get in the way of doing their job as a priest.

Mike

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

Murder? Habitual lying? Drug addiction?

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?

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.

 

[CatholicCid]

ChemicalBean:

True, I’d take a guess that there are, but it would also be a valid reason for an annulment. It would be a strong indicator that they were not called to married life together in the first place and that their vows were not made with proper intention/disposition/whatever.
Would it not just effect the Maritial Relation portion? Which in itself could still be completed… I’d assume if they were ready to get married, they see more than just sex in a relationship.

Exactly. Nor will biology let us just switch heterosexuals with homosexuals (Unless your’re bisexual…now that’s a whole 'nother wrinkle that I doubt the church wants to tackle.)

More so refering to how you were saying most articles applying to women wanted to enter the priesthood could just be replaced with the word “homosexual”
I’d fail to see how this would prevent God from calling someone to enter the Priesthood, especially since they’d most likely be living a chaste life either way.
I’ll have to ask my local Priest tomorrow… Perhaps he can help me understand.

 

[ChemicalBean]

CatholicCid:

More so refering to how you were saying most articles applying to women wanted to enter the priesthood could just be replaced with the word “homosexual”
I’d fail to see how this would prevent God from calling someone to enter the Priesthood, especially since they’d most likely be living a chaste life either way.
I’ll have to ask my local Priest tomorrow… Perhaps he can help me understand.

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.

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.

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.