Gay men can be Catholic priests if celibate-report

[tenfootpole]

Ok so I haven’t read any personal views on this but I am going to be entering seminary next year and I am certain I will not survive if their is a homosexual population. God help the guys out there that want to serve Him. If one is gay he is giving up nothing by being celibate, a straight man is giving up his family for the family of God. The homosexual is called to chastity and should not be allowed into priesthood, there needs to be a restoration of real, caring men that don’t put up with all this post-modern bull. If you lose some priests in your diocese so what? If you lose some parishes so what? Who cares? I certainly don’t, at the end of the day the servants of God will be more holy people for having a group of priests in their diocese that are respectable men.

 

[amarischuk]

HappyCatholic, if you look back, you used the word bigot before I did. As to your comments no homosexuality, you posted:

Anything that runs contrary to life is a tool of the devil. Satan himself promulgates the notion that “homosexuality is no big deal” because as the saying goes “the greatest trick the devil ever played on the world was getting them to think he didn’t exist.”

in a thread about the ordination of men with same-sex attraction. Either you are incredibly naive or you have the habit of “shooting from the hip” as the saying goes. Saying the same-sex attractions are ‘the tool of the devil’ is quite different from the official church position:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. [2359](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2359.htm’) Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

They suffer from a disorder and are encouraged to unite their suffering with that of the cross. Their sexual identity ([2333](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2333.htm’) Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity) is a disorder, not something from Satan. As Chesterton said, idolatry is not only commited by creating flase Gods, but also by creating false daemons.

And Tenfootpole, I recently left a seminary (I am also Canadian, though from the west coast) and I am interested in what seminary you will be attending.

As for saying that homosexuals should not be allowed into the priesthood because they don’t give up a potential family; you might as well say that people from the third world should not be allowed into the seminary because they don’t give up lucrative economic opportunities. Good luck with the homosexual underculture at the seminary. If your post is any indication, you are in for a rude awakening. Even I was shocked at some things there and I had worked with homosexual men, prostitutes, drug addicts and people who suffered some unmentionable social development problems before going to the seminary.

Adam

 

[HappyCatholic01]

Not to nitpick, but I said "Anything that runs contrary to life is a tool of the devil. Satan himself promulgates the notion that “homosexuality is no big deal” because as the saying goes “the greatest trick the devil ever played on the world was getting them to think he didn’t exist”

Never did I say same-sex attractions were the tool of the devil (see the quote above). I said he attempts to hide and disavow the notion of this behavior is, as the Church teaches, wrong and not conducive to life. Many homsexuals (and those in the adult film industry, users of drugs, and many others) are being used by the larger movement and have been duped by thatt which is behind that movement itself: Satan. And to be honest, Satan uses many of us as his tools on a daily basis, myself included. Are you unwilling to admit that?

And I’d say it is far more naive to downplay the culture of death we find ourselves immersed in than to accept and attempt to defeat it. If I am wrong, certain people get thier feelings hurt. If you are wrong we all die and society ends. I’ll err on my side.

And even things like simple pride, vanity, lust, greed can be used by the devil. He uses many things against us.

That is what happens with homsexuality. Do I think homosexuals are all possesed? Of course not.

Do I think the devil uses the homsexual movement (and many others) to further his agenda of death for the world? Yes, there is no doubt. If you think differently, so be it, that is your right, but I respectfully disagree.

 

[TNT]

amarischuk:

Did you even bother to read my post? The statistics you provided do not deal with homosexuality and you wrongly assume that the abusing priests (because the abused mostly boys) are homosexual (have same sex attractions to men over women):

psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainb…olestation.html

The Vatican is willing to allow homosexual men into the priesthood, the studies you are providing fail to distinguish between homosexual men and pedophiles/ephebophiles. The Vatican is not contemplating allowing the latter two groups in.

And HappyCatholic

The thread is about the Vatican allowing homosexual men into the priesthood if they can show an sustained ability to remain celibate and chaste (the same requirements for heterosexual men). TNT is suggesting that the way to stop the sexual abuse problem is by banning homosexual men from the priesthood. Who here is on the side of the Church and who here is not? You are not only taking a bigoted approach to the issue but you are also not even following the magisterium you claim to love so much.

Adam

I am!.
Pending any document that specifically nullifies the following, I am on the side of the Catholic Church:
Exclusion of homosexuals from the priesthood:

According to a Vatican document issued in 1961, approved by Pope John XXIII on 1961-JAN-23:

“Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.”

The document “was promulgated by the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation for Religious on February 2, 1961. Para30.4. The same document is published in its entirety, in English, in the Canon Law Digest, Volume V (Bruce Publishing Co, 1963), pages 452 to 486.”
This exclusion seems to be totally ignored at most North American seminaries. And, as a direct result, are having to give the treasury of the Faithful away to the point of banruptcy.
I have given at least 8 surveys and studies plus the empirical evidence against homosexuals practicing the priesthood. To say nothing of the worldwide scandal and loss of souls, the squandering of the financial and other patrimony of the faithful and the many generations before them.
The advocates of the the homosexual priesthood have harped on ONE study. Ignored all the others, as well as the empirical evidence and the terrible losses the church have brought upon itself and the faithful it was to protect.

 

[felra]

As for saying that homosexuals should not be allowed into the priesthood because they don’t give up a potential family; you might as well say that people from the third world should not be allowed into the seminary because they don’t give up lucrative economic opportunities.

Not a valid comparison, and in fact a very insulting and derogatory slam against those living in poverty by no choice of their own.

Good luck with the homosexual underculture at the seminary. If your post is any indication, you are in for a rude awakening.

Not a very encouraging and all but cynical post to one discerning the call of God in their life. :tsktsk:

Even I was shocked at some things there and I had worked with homosexual men, prostitutes, drug addicts and people who suffered some unmentionable social development problems before going to the seminary.

You point? If anything, it builds the case for the exclusion of men to the seminary who identify/have been assessed as being afflicted with SSA, which is a symptom of an underlying psychological disorder.

 

[MikeWM]

felra:

You point? If anything, it builds the case for the exclusion of men to the seminary who identify/have been assessed as being afflicted with SSA, which is a symptom of an underlying psychological disorder.

Surely it points to the seminaries being regulated better? If there was a vast amount of heterosexual activity going on in the seminary, would you call for the ban of heterosexual people from seminary, or would you advocate a reform of the discipline of the seminary? I’d choose the latter myself.

Mike

 

[HappyCatholic01]

I think the Magesterium is shrew enough to see the correlation in the obvious statistics posted here and numerous others and the problems we have seen in recent years with the scandal, ergo their differing stances between homosexuals and hetersexuals and seminary.

I am sure if they thought there was a correlation between heterosexuality and these problems, it would be addressed.

As such, it has not, nor will be. Keep in mind - homosexuality is a disorder. Those involved need our support, our prayers, and our love, but make no mistake, it is wrong and disordered.

Heterosexuality is not. We can argue about the rights of seminarians all we want, but at a fundamental level, it comes down to this.

 

[felra]

MikeWM:

Surely it points to the seminaries being regulated better? If there was a vast amount of heterosexual activity going on in the seminary, would you call for the ban of heterosexual people from seminary, or would you advocate a reform of the discipline of the seminary? I’d choose the latter myself.

Mike

The fact is that this poster and no where else has it been noted that there is a “vast amount of heterosexual activity going on in the seminary”. If there was, this would be a sign of immaturity and I would hope unfitness/deferment from the priestly formation process. Whatever the case, illicit heterosexual activity with a seminarian is qualitatively different that homosexual activity which is always illicit. The former is an ordered desire, the latter is a disordered desire and a symptom of an underlying psychological disorder. No, the ban on “homosexuality” still stands, while reform of seminary screening and formation may very well be in order whatever the case may be.

 

[MikeWM]

felra:

The fact is that this poster and no where else has it been noted that there is a “vast amount of heterosexual activity going on in the seminary”. If there was, this would be a sign of immaturity and I would hope unfitness/deferment from the priestly formation process. Whatever the case, illicit heterosexual activity with a seminarian is qualitatively different that homosexual activity which is always illicit. The former is an ordered desire, the latter is a disordered desire and a symptom of an underlying psychological disorder. No, the ban on “homosexuality” still stands, while reform of seminary screening and formation may very well be in order whatever the case may be.

So a sin that happens because of an ‘ordered’ desire is somehow better than that coming from a ‘disordered’ desire? Funny, I’d think if you think homosexuals are psychologically ill, then they would be less culpable for their sin, not more.

Mike

 

[felra]

MikeWM:

So a sin that happens because of an ‘ordered’ desire is somehow better than that coming from a ‘disordered’ desire? Funny, I’d think if you think homosexuals are psychologically ill, then they would be less culpable for their sin, not more.

Mike

Let’s not confuse the issue here: Sin is sin. Human sexually can either be ordered (hetero) or disordered (homo) to a degree. A heterosexual attracted person can sin by being unchaste to one’s vocation in life. A homosexual attracted person can only be chaste through complete abstinence. A person with a psychological disorder can still (and most often does) have ability to know, distinguish, and willfully choose sinful expression/actions associated with their condition–we shall leave the degree of culpability up to God.

 

[MikeWM]

felra:

Let’s not confuse the issue here: Sin is sin.

Right - so acting on the desire for sex, whether ‘ordered’ or ‘disordered’ is sinful, unless one is married. If anyone is having any type of sex in the seminary, it should be clamped down upon.

Mike

 

[HappyCatholic01]

True. But that ISN’T the point in the Vatican’s output here.

They are addressing the fact that there is clearly a tie between the cases of abuse and the persuasion of the offenders. They aren’t saying that hetrosexuals can party it up either, for pete’s sake.

 

[amarischuk]

TNT:
I have given at least 8 surveys and studies plus the empirical evidence against homosexuals practicing the priesthood.

Actually, as has been previously shown, your empirical evidence has no relation to the discussion at hand, such as the quote 70% of homosexual men have had relations with men under 19. I might as well quote VW car sales in Taiwan and say I have provided evidence. Your arguments are completely non sequitor, they not only prove nothing but they do not follow from the statistics you provided.

The article claims that the report allowing homosexual men to continue to be ordained (this says nothing of those already ordained) has been approved by the pope. Since the formation of priests is historically the duty of the local bishop, the Vatican only offers guidelines for Bishops to follow.

HappyCatholic, the Vatican is shrewder than you think, because they seem to have come down against the opinions you have put forward.

Felra, it is a valid comparison because it is an invalid argument to say that homosexual men should be barred from the priesthood since they do not give up a potential family. It had nothing to do with ‘slamming’ the poor other than showing how ridiculous the argument is. By claiming that my comparison is a slam against the poor, you are displaying a remarkable amount of ignorance of my work with and sympathy for the underprivileged.

Furthermore, your use of the word disorder is misleading. It is not the homosexual person who is disordered but the inclination itself, “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, … and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...faith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

*“Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.” The American Psychological Association’s *Statement on Homosexuality, 1994-JUL.

The fact is, the 1961 declaration was based on incomplete scientific knowledge

“the Catholic moral viewpoint is founded on human reason illumined by faith and is consciously motivated by the desire to do the will of God our Father. The Church is thus in a position to learn from scientific discovery” http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...faith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

The congregation for the doctrine of the faith and the pope had both come to the realization that the issue needs to be addressed again hence the current discussion.

As a final note, “as Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago, so powerfully stated in his address to the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian & Gay Ministries: “To deny that the power of God’s grace enables those with homosexual attractions to live chastely is to deny, effectively, that Jesus has risen from the dead.” (George 1999)”

Adam

 

[felra]

Felra, it is a valid comparison because it is an invalid argument to say that homosexual men should be barred from the priesthood since they do not give up a potential family.
Says who? Quite the contrary has been repeatidly asserted by those in positions of ecclesial authority and who understand and appreciate the espousal relationship and covenantal vows of the of priestly ordination.

It had nothing to do with ‘slamming’ the poor other than showing how ridiculous the argument is. By claiming that my comparison is a slam against the poor, you are displaying a remarkable amount of ignorance of my work with and sympathy for the underprivileged.

You are the one that made the invalid comparison.

Furthermore, your use of the word disorder is misleading. It is not the homosexual person who is disordered but the inclination itself, “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, … and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” [vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...faith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html)

You need do a more careful reading of my correct use of wording before accusing and offering a misconstrued critique of a sematic nuance that I always avoid.
*

*“Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.” *

The American Psychological Association’s *Statement on Homosexuality, 1994-JUL.
It is a joke to cite the AMA as a credible, unbiased, objective source regarding the empirically established comorbidity factors AMA incorrectly claims lack of] of the destructive and unhealthy and often fatal consequence of the gay lifestyle. Anyone with any familiarity with the history of the AMA knows that they have long since caved into the political pressure of the pro-homosexual activists.

The fact is, the 1961 declaration was based on incomplete scientific knowledge
“the Catholic moral viewpoint is founded on human reason illumined by faith and is consciously motivated by the desire to do the will of God our Father. The Church is thus in a position to learn from scientific discovery” http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...faith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

Then how about an 8/05 Vatican approved document of Instruction that was compiled with consultation by psychologists who have current up to date scientific knowledge which states that homosexual [oriented] men have a condition which suggests a “serious personality disorder”?

“The text, which was approved by Pope Benedict at the end of August [2005], says that **homosexual men **should not be admitted to seminaries even if they are celibate, because their condition suggests a serious personality disorder which detracts from their ability to serve as ministers.”

The Congregation for Catholic Education prepared the Instruction after soliciting advice from all of the world’s bishops, from psychologists, and from moral theologians.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=39700

 

[felra]

(continued)

The congregation for the doctrine of the faith and the pope had both come to the realization that the issue needs to be addressed again hence the current discussion.

This is not what the latest forthcoming issue of Instruction approved by the magisterium says:

“The Instruction does not represent a change in Church teaching or policy. Catholic leaders have consistently taught that homosexual men should not be ordained to the priesthood. Pope John XXIII approved a formal policy to that effect, which still remains in effect. However, during the 1970s and 1980s, that policy was widely ignored, particularly in North America.”

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=39700

As a final note, “as Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago, so powerfully stated in his address to the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian & Gay Ministries: “To deny that the power of God’s grace enables those with homosexual attractions to live chastely is to deny, effectively, that Jesus has risen from the dead.” (George 1999)”

Yes, throw out this out of context quote in hopes that we will somehow think that the Cardinal is talking about ordination of SSA men to the priesthood–NOT. :nope:

 

[amarischuk]

felra:

This is not what the latest forthcoming issue of Instruction approved by the magisterium says:

“The Instruction does not represent a change in Church teaching or policy. Catholic leaders have consistently taught that homosexual men should not be ordained to the priesthood. Pope John XXIII approved a formal policy to that effect, which still remains in effect. However, during the 1970s and 1980s, that policy was widely ignored, particularly in North America.”

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=39700

Perhaps if you had read the original post, or read a subsequent article on CWN (Oct 7th) from which you just quoted, you wouldn’t be so ignorant of the situation and you would have avoided this embarrassment:

“Vatican*** to leave room for gay seminarians?***

Rome, Oct. 07 (CWNews.com) - An Italian newspaper is reporting that a long-awaited Vatican document will not completely exclude homosexual men from the Catholic priesthood.

According to *Corriere della Sera *, an “Instruction” that will soon be released by the Congregation for Catholic Education will allow the ordination of men who have homosexual tendencies, if they can demonstrate their commitment to chastity by remaining chaste for a minimum of three years.”

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=40046

I guess we will just have to see which report is correct and which decision the papacy takes. But given the level of discussion on the subject, it would seem that the quote from Cardinal George is rather timely since the main argument that has been advanced for barring homosexual men from the priesthood has been their alleged inability to control themselves.

And whether you agree with the AMA or not, it is an association of trained psychologists who have done research and come to different conclusions than what you claim the magisterium, the theologians and the psychologists on the papal commission took.

I am sorry that you decided to embarrasse yourself so thouroughly.

Adam

 

[amarischuk]

felra:

Says who? Quite the contrary has been repeatidly asserted by those in positions of ecclesial authority and who understand and appreciate the espousal relationship and covenantal vows of the of priestly ordination.

You are the one that made the invalid comparison.

Please provide some evidence of this.

As the Most Reverend Thomas Grumbleton, Auxiliary Bishop of Detroit wrote: “To say that the only thing a gay priest has to give up is “an abomination” manifests not only profound ignorance of what celibacy really is, but also is an insult to every homosexual person. Again, while celibacy represents a sacrifice, it is not simply a “giving up.” It is a unique way of loving, a charism given by God to persons who are homosexual or heterosexual. For this reason, it is absurd to suggest that the ordination of homosexual persons is invalid simply because of their sexual orientation.”

americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=2508&issueID=403

Adam

 

[Marian_Carroll]

**ONE TIME CHARITY ALERT:

Please stay on the subject of the thread and resist the temptation to personalize responses to fellow posters.**

 

[felra]

Perhaps if you had read the original post, or read a subsequent article on CWN (Oct 7th) from which you just quoted, you wouldn’t be so ignorant of the situation and you would have avoided this embarrassment:

“Vatican*** to leave room for gay seminarians?***

Rome, Oct. 07 (CWNews.com) - An Italian newspaper is reporting that a long-awaited Vatican document will not completely exclude homosexual men from the Catholic priesthood.

According to *Corriere della Sera *, an “Instruction” that will soon be released by the Congregation for Catholic Education will allow the ordination of men who have homosexual tendencies, if they can demonstrate their commitment to chastity by remaining chaste for a minimum of three years.”

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=40046

I will represent from post #36 which correctly identifies this story as simply more of the pro-homosexual lobby “rumor mill”:

"Father Alphonse de Valk, a Toronto Basilian order priest, historian, and publisher of Catholic Insight magazine told LifeSiteNews.com this latest report is “all a rumor mill.” He expanded, “the pro-homosexual lobby within the Catholic Church is participating in a rumor mill with the hope they can water down a document which rejects a homosexual condition as not suitable for the priesthood.’ "

“It has always been the policy of the Church”, said de Valk, “that homosexuals should not be ordained. Not only since 1961. ‘Particular friendships’ was something that was abhorred in all the spiritual direction books of the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. They called it ‘particular friendships’ by which they meant homosexual. It was to be warned against.”

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/oct/05100707.htm

I guess we will just have to see which report is correct and which decision the papacy takes. But given the level of discussion on the subject, it would seem that the quote from Cardinal George is rather timely since the main argument that has been advanced for barring homosexual men from the priesthood has been their alleged inability to control themselves.

This is a symptom argument, and yes the Church is most interested in preventing further untold damage to the Church by allowing ordination of men with SSA. However, the real issue is not one of ability to remain chaste, it is all about whether a person with an identified psychological disorder (associated with his psychosexual development) is an fit/qualified candiate for seminary. Most astute observers who have the best interest of the Flock in mind correctly rule out such a candidate for the priesthood.

 

[felra]

(continued):

And whether you agree with the AMA or not, it is an association of trained psychologists who have done research and come to different conclusions than what you claim the magisterium, the theologians and the psychologists on the papal commission took.

I am sorry that you decided to embarrasse yourself so thouroughly.

Here is a sampling of the unbiased “research” of those “trained psychologists” affiliated with the AMA:

APA Research is Increasingly Radical, Anti-Family
The American Psychological Association has been publishing research which supports the values of radical feminists, gay activists, and even advocates of the …
APA Promotes Policies Opening the Way to Same-Sex Marriage
The American Psychological Association is using its financial resources to promote policies that will open the way to same-sex marriage. APA’s Public Policy …
APA’s Society for the Study of Gay Issues Urges Psychologists To …
APA’s Society for the Study of Gay Issues Urges Psychologists To Become Political Activists. May 7, 2004 - The Division 44 Newsletter, (Spring, …
www.narth.com/docs/urges.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages
On the Pedophilia Issue: What the APA Should Have Known
When it published a study which found little or no harm in consensual man-boy
sex, the American Psychological Association should have considered the agenda … www.narth.com/docs/whatapa.html - 17k - Cached - Similar pages