Guard Our Priesthood. Get better Priests

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Finally we agree! I’ve maintained all along that it can be overcome! But I add that it must needs be overcome. As to the question regarding its sinfulness, well, that’s why I posed the last question in the framework of St Augustine’s confession.

What do you say?

Let us see what the Saints say first,

“Just as it is the work of charity to make us us keep all the Commandments of God in general and without any exception, so it is the work of devotion to make us do so promptly and earnestly. Therefore, whoever does not keep ALL of God’s Commandments cannot be considered good.” -Saint Francis de Sales, Introduction to the Devout Life (just read that part yesterday actually! )

And Jesus says,

“a man who keepeth anger in his heart is guilty of murder”,

and again,

“a man who looketh after a woman with lust in his heart hath already committed adultery”.

Seems to me that entertaining a sin, even if not acting on it directly, is still a sin. Archbishop Fulton Sheen, referencing the sacrifice of a Lamb, said, “sin is in the blood!” So, by way of an analogy, blood is generated by the heart.

Using this, I would say SSA, if it is more than the mere inflicting of a temptation, would be therefore similarly sinful.

Why not then?

But I’ll defer. I’ll wait to hear what you have to say.

You speak of two different things here. SSA is not sinful. Entertaining thoughts that are sinful is a sin.

So a man who is attracted to women who has a lustful thought about a woman he is not married to commits a sin when he entertains that lustful thought just as a man who suffers from SSA who has a lustful thought about another man and entertains it.

You seem to disregard that people can chose not to entertain such thoughts. I am sure you will agree that a man who is attracted to women is capable of not entertaining those lustful thoughts that arise about women he is not married to. If so then why can not a man who suffers from SSA not entertain those thoughts?

It seems that you believe that those who suffer from SSA are incapable of not entertaining those thoughts and therefore SSA is sinful. This is not what the Church Teaches and you show this in the quotes you provided.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Well, I’m glad we shifted awar from the personal attacks. They were becoming quite tiresome.

This is an nteresting topic for me. I see it as one of those issues where the Church relaxed its stance somewhat. I understand it is due to increased understanding of homsexuality.

So I think we have to make a distinction between entertaining a thought and having thoughts.

If a sexual thought enters my mind about someone I’m seeing, I have two choices:

• I can dismiss it from my mind or think about something else or say a prayer or begin an activity that will remove it from my mind. OR
• I can relish it, explore it and take the thought to a more lustful conclusion. That would be sinning while the former would not be sinning.

So this also would apply to thoughts of the same sex.

My issue with the SSA definition has been the following:

The Church says that it is disordered,on the one hand but then says that we are all called to chastity anyway. Okay true we are. I too have my temptations. However there is a difference between me and someone who has SSA. I can choose to become married, in which case, I would be able to have heterosexual sex.

Someone with SSA cannot ever get married and their SSA is a “cross”.

So there is a big difference. It’s more than just being called to be chaste in one’s state of life.

There is nothing that says that someone who suffers from SSA can not marry. They can choose to become married, just as you can, and engage in heterosexual sex.

It seems that some here believe that sexuality is binary, either you are attracted to the opposite sex or to the same sex. That is not the case. There are many studies that show that sexuality is more of a scale, some are more attracted to the same sex, some are more attracted to the opposite sex, others have a more even attraction (which explains bisexuals).

But as you said and I said just before this post.

Suffering from SSA is not sinful in itself. Just as having an urge to steal or murder someone is not sinful in itself. It is when one entertains those thoughts or actively engages those thoughts into actions that is sinful.

 

[DasErlibnis]

I think it comes down to our definition of the SSA. I don’t necessarily say that one “suffers” from SSA, just as one does not “suffer” from sex or sodomy or acting gay or whatever other appropriate description it might be given.

I don’t think that one “suffers” lust.

But in your definition, are you saying that SSA is not the entertainment of a sinful same-sex thought or lust, but that SSA is some force pressed against them? Or that SSA is just the fleeting image of some sexual content?

To me, it doesn’t seem worthwhile to “name” I if it weren’t something persistent. And since you say it is sufferable, then we should agree that it is not merely a fleeting lust or image of arousal.
But, in order to be persistent, within the framework of Saint Augustine’s development of a sinful habit, it seems that at some point the lust, in order to develop into SSA, where it can be classified, has to be entertained.

So, the question I want to answer is how it’s “sufferable”. And I guess what I’m asking is not in the qualitative sense, but quantitative. How does escalate from fleeting" to “sufferable”?

Thanks.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think it comes down to our definition of the SSA. I don’t necessarily say that one “suffers” from SSA, just as one does not “suffer” from sex or sodomy or acting gay or whatever other appropriate description it might be given.

I don’t think that one “suffers” lust.

But in your definition, are you saying that SSA is not the entertainment of a sinful same-sex thought or lust, but that SSA is some force pressed against them? Or that SSA is just the fleeting image of some sexual content?

To me, it doesn’t seem worthwhile to “name” I if it weren’t something persistent. And since you say it is sufferable, then we should agree that it is not merely a fleeting lust or image of arousal.
But, in order to be persistent, within the framework of Saint Augustine’s development of a sinful habit, it seems that at some point the lust, in order to develop into SSA, where it can be classified, has to be entertained.

So, the question I want to answer is how it’s “sufferable”. And I guess what I’m asking is not in the qualitative sense, but quantitative. How does escalate from fleeting" to “sufferable”?

Thanks.

Would you say that “one suffers from temptation”?

 

[DasErlibnis]

This statement seems to be the crux of the matter:

Suffering from SSA is not sinful in itself. Just as having an urge to steal or murder someone is not sinful in itself. It is when one entertains those thoughts or actively engages those thoughts into actions that is sinful.

Having a genuine “urge” to murder, and having a genuine “urge” toward same sex sodomy. Is say that having an urge is stronger than having an impulse.

For a non-imputable act to occur, the will must be complicit, the will comes first. But we’re not going as far as the act itself, we consider first the will. Because it may be that where one who has never entertained the thought has so conditioned himself that the thought can remain fleeting, and therefore not sufferable.

But take the case of Sts Francis and Augustine. Both had lifestyles, previously, that allowed the will to entertain lustful thoughts. Both, upon their conversion, THEN suffered. Before the will had changed, it was not considered sufferable. But then, the new man and the new spirit came to life in them and it was as St Augustine said, “the two fought. And in their battle, they tore my soul apart.” Saint Francis even went so far as to throw himself into a thorny rose bush buttnaked! That was sufferable, but only because the will had changed. Lest it not be said, both did overcome their lust.

Does SSA not develop the same way? Can it not be overcome in the same manner?

 

[TrueLight]

There is nothing that says that someone who suffers from SSA can not marry.

I meant marry someone of the same sex.

 

[DasErlibnis]

Would you say that “one suffers from temptation”?

No. I wouldn’t say that. I have temptations, we all have temptations. They come and go. When I was a kid, I wanted some “big league chew” bubble gum. As I stood in line with my mom the temptation just to take it was present. I didnt, we left the store, and the temptation was gone just as fast as it was there.

If my will had consented, then the temptation would have grown out of temptation and into compulsion. There, since the will was present, if the opportunity too had arisen, then i would have stolen the gum. I would have suffered from the sin, not the temptation. However, if my heart had changed, then the impulse of temptation would have had to battle against my new will. Then also, I would have suffered, but again, not from temptation, I would suffer from sin in the heart, not sin in act.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No. I wouldn’t say that. I have temptations, we all have temptations. They come and go. When I was a kid, I wanted some “big league chew” bubble gum. As I stood in line with my mom the temptation just to take it was present. I didnt, we left the store, and the temptation was gone just as fast as it was there.

If my will had consented, then the temptation would have grown out of temptation and into compulsion. There, since the will was present, if the opportunity too had arisen, then i would have stolen the gum. I would have suffered from the sin, not the temptation. However, if my heart had changed, then the impulse of temptation would have had to battle against my new will. Then also, I would have suffered, but again, not from temptation, I would suffer from sin in the heart, not sin in act.

So how would you state it then if you do not use the word “suffer”?

Here is the definition of suffer;
suf·fer
verb (used without object)

1. to undergo or feel pain or distress: The patient is still suffering.
2. to sustain injury, disadvantage, or loss: One’s health suffers from overwork. The business suffers from lack of capital.
3. to undergo a penalty, as of death: The traitor was made to suffer on the gallows.
4. to endure pain, disability, death, etc., patiently or willingly.

verb (used with object)
5. to undergo, be subjected to, or endure (pain, distress, injury, loss, or anything unpleasant): to suffer the pangs of conscience.
6. to undergo or experience (any action, process, or condition): to suffer change.
7. to tolerate or allow: I do not suffer fools gladly.

When I use the word “suffer” I am using it as #6.

So you would agree that we all “undergo or experience” temptation.

How would SSA be different from your example. Someone who suffers (undergoes or experiences) SSA would have the temptation of having intimate relations with someone of the same sex, if he resisted these as you did by not stealing what you wanted, how can you say he sinned?

You seem to be able to divorce the temptation of wanting what you can not have from the act of taking what you can not have but deny that someone who suffers (now that I have defined this term I am going to continue to use it) from SSA can do the same thing.

Yes SSA may be a learned behavior (this is something that I believe) but it may very well be learned at a very young age and so ingrained into a persons psychological make up that it is indistinguishable from behaviors that are natural.

Lust is natural, one feels it as a temptation, it is when one acts on it or entertains the thought of the act that it becomes sinful, just having the temptation is not sinful.

If having the temptation is sinful then you committed sin when you wanted the big league chew regardless of if you took it or not.

 

[Baelor]

But in your definition, are you saying that SSA is not the entertainment of a sinful same-sex thought or lust, but that SSA is some force pressed against them? Or that SSA is just the fleeting image of some sexual content?

SSA is exactly what it says – same-sex attraction. It is the opposite of opposite-sex attraction. The opposite of straight is gay, or homosexual, or SSA. I define them all the same. I used your definition of SSA, which contained no hint of anything voluntary at all.

But, in order to be persistent, within the framework of Saint Augustine’s development of a sinful habit, it seems that at some point the lust, in order to develop into SSA, where it can be classified, has to be entertained.

No. That is clearly false. By that definition, all saints would be asexual, because they do not entertain sexual thoughts.

 

[DasErlibnis]

So how would you state it then if you do not use the word “suffer”?

Here is the definition of suffer;
suf·fer
verb (used without object)

1. to undergo or feel pain or distress: The patient is still suffering.
2. to sustain injury, disadvantage, or loss: One’s health suffers from overwork. The business suffers from lack of capital.
3. to undergo a penalty, as of death: The traitor was made to suffer on the gallows.
4. to endure pain, disability, death, etc., patiently or willingly.

verb (used with object)
5. to undergo, be subjected to, or endure (pain, distress, injury, loss, or anything unpleasant): to suffer the pangs of conscience.
6. to undergo or experience (any action, process, or condition): to suffer change.
7. to tolerate or allow: I do not suffer fools gladly.

When I use the word “suffer” I am using it as #6.

So you would agree that we all “undergo or experience” temptation.

How would SSA be different from your example. Someone who suffers (undergoes or experiences) SSA would have the temptation of having intimate relations with someone of the same sex, if he resisted these as you did by not stealing what you wanted, how can you say he sinned?

You seem to be able to divorce the temptation of wanting what you can not have from the act of taking what you can not have but deny that someone who suffers (now that I have defined this term I am going to continue to use it) from SSA can do the same thing.

Yes SSA may be a learned behavior (this is something that I believe) but it may very well be learned at a very young age and so ingrained into a persons psychological make up that it is indistinguishable from behaviors that are natural.

Lust is natural, one feels it as a temptation, it is when one acts on it or entertains the thought of the act that it becomes sinful, just having the temptation is not sinful.

If having the temptation is sinful then you committed sin when you wanted the big league chew regardless of if you took it or not.

This is all based on different understandings of the same word. So, we are getting ahead of ourselves. I have asked for a definition of the term SSA. I will wait for your definition. Thank you Byzcath.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This is all based on different understandings of the same word. So, we are getting ahead of ourselves. I have asked for a definition of the term SSA. I will wait for your definition. Thank you Byzcath.

It is a self defining term. SSA = Same Sex Attraction = being attracted to the same sex.

Just as a ‘normal’ person is attracted to a person of the opposite sex, someone who suffers from SSA is attracted to a person of the same sex.

This is what I meant when I stated that you are playing a game of semantics.

It appears that you are using terms and ascribing a different definition to them than what is standard. Most everyone I know understands when I say that we suffer temptation and as I, and Baelor, have pointed out, SSA is self defining.

If SSA is sinful in its basic form, that of being attracted to the same sex, then OSA (opposite sex attraction) is just as sinful as it is being attracted to the opposite sex. The simple fact of being attracted to something is not sinful as your example points out, you were “attracted” to taking the big league chew without paying for it but you did not do it. So either being simply attracted to something is sinful or it is the actual act that this attraction leads to is sinful.

 

[michelleds]

I am never out of my league

I spent quite a bit of time trying to read along and follow this “discussion” until I got to the statement above. Anyone who would make such a statement . . .

Well, I’ll join Br. David in praying for you.

 

[michelleds]

No. I wouldn’t say that. I have temptations, we all have temptations. They come and go. When I was a kid, I wanted some “big league chew” bubble gum. As I stood in line with my mom the temptation just to take it was present. I didnt, we left the store, and the temptation was gone just as fast as it was there.

If my will had consented, then the temptation would have grown out of temptation and into compulsion. There, since the will was present, if the opportunity too had arisen, then i would have stolen the gum. I would have suffered from the sin, not the temptation. However, if my heart had changed, then the impulse of temptation would have had to battle against my new will. Then also, I would have suffered, but again, not from temptation, I would suffer from sin in the heart, not sin in act.

I think it is interesting that you claim, contrary to pretty much every other human, that you do not “suffer temptations”. You say that you have them, but what you describe is so emotionally removed from human experience that I wonder how this can be your actual lived experience of temptation. if it is, if in fact your experience of temptation has been nothing more than the intellectual exercise you’ve described, then I can understand why you are so hard-pressed to understand the nuances of this thread.

We are speaking here of sexual temptations, the temptations of lust and concupiscence, and you offer an analogy of a child wanting bubble gum.

I would like to return to the first posts in this thread, where you took issue with deep-seated homosexuality and, I believe, were saying that persons with SSA should not be accepted into the priesthood or religious life. I agree with you that “deep-seated” seems to be less than ideal, but it does capture what can be a person’s lived experience.

Let’s talk about two different men, Greg and Hank. Both are discerning the priesthood.

Greg is 21 years old and has had feelings of attraction to other males since he was an adolescent. He has never encouraged those feelings, he does not linger on those feelings or emotions, and he goes out of his way to avoid any activities that might inspire or enflame those feelings. (For instance, he did not go see Brokeback Mountain.) Altho he understands that the feelings are not sinful, he does speak of them with his confessor when they occur. the feelings do not feel overwhelming to him.

Hank is also 21 years old. He also has had attraction to other males since he was an adolescent. However, for most of high school he identified as “gay”, watched every gay tv show and movie he could, and looked at gay porn on the internet. He dated another male for 2 years in college. 2 years ago, he reverted to the Church and is now discerning the priesthood. He continues to struggle on a nearly daily basis with lustful thoughts and images involving males he encounters in the course of the day. His feelings are not something that he is aware of and moves on, they are overwhelming.

I would say that Hank has deep-seated homosexuality, in large part because of his own actions (porn, dating, etc). Now, in 5 more years, could that change? Sure, because with God all things are possible. But right now, Hank is not appopriate for the priesthood (or for other avocations).

Greg, on the other hand, does not have deep-seated tendencies.

 

[Baelor]

I would add to Michelle’s post that, with the appropriate changes, a heterosexual Hank would also not be ready for the priesthood.

 

[DasErlibnis]

I should qualify then what I meant by “suffering”, I didn’t mean “to experience” a temptation as the later definition provided in context. I was using the first five definitions which carried a sense if being afflicted. That’s the only kind of suffrage that I knew of. And while I wouldnt say that I “suffer” a temptation in that sense, it does not mean that I don’t have temptations. It doesn’t mean that at all. And I’ve already said, in three different posts already that I am the same like everyone else that I “experience” temptations. So I don’t think the criticism is altogether fair, because you didn’t read those 3 posts.

As for what becomes of temptation, well, if not resisted, it does become habit, and then hardens into compulsion.

As to a definition: I thought it was as obvious that an attraction is an attraction. I’m not “playing” with semantics. But the attraction itself is disordered. And so, not simply the same as a normal attraction. But at this point, I think only the attraction is disordered, and not the person.

So now the question is: at what point does a homosexual attraction become deep-seated? And therefore wholly “disordered”. At habit, or at compulsion? Because at some point, the Church says the person himself is no longer fit for seminary.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I should qualify then what I meant by “suffering”, I didn’t mean “to experience” a temptation as the later definition provided in context. I was using the first five definitions which carried a sense if being afflicted. That’s the only kind of suffrage that I knew of. And while I wouldnt say that I “suffer” a temptation in that sense, it does not mean that I don’t have temptations. It doesn’t mean that at all. And I’ve already said, in three different posts already that I am the same like everyone else that I “experience” temptations. So I don’t think the criticism is altogether fair, because you didn’t read those 3 posts.

As for what becomes of temptation, well, if not resisted, it does become habit, and then hardens into compulsion.

As to a definition: I thought it was as obvious that an attraction is an attraction. I’m not “playing” with semantics. But the attraction itself is disordered. And so, not simply the same as a normal attraction. But at this point, I think only the attraction is disordered, and not the person.

So now the question is: at what point does a homosexual attraction become deep-seated? And therefore wholly “disordered”. At habit, or at compulsion? Because at some point, the Church says the person himself is no longer fit for seminary.

And that is the point I am trying to make. It is not our place to make this decision on when this is so. In my understanding SSA is not the same as homosexual.

I draw the line between SSA and homosexual the line between attraction and action. When one has the disordered attraction but resists then I do not think it is “deep seated”. When one acts on that attraction then they no longer just suffer from SSA but are homosexual.

The Church did not define “deep seated” so I believe it is leave to the competent authority to define this. In this case it would be the bishop or religious superior who makes this decisions for his diocese or religious institute.

What is not “deep seated” is just having SSA with out acting on it.

Another point is that you and I do not have the required authority to make any decision on this. We have no right to tell our bishops how to act. You have no right to tell religious superiors how to act. Member of a religious institute get a limited say in their institute as their constitutions allow.

It is important to understand that the Church does not define every little thing, it leaves many things to the interpretation of the competent authority.

 

[DasErlibnis]

I draw the line between SSA and homosexual the line between attraction and action. When one has the disordered attraction but resists then I do not think it is “deep seated”. When one acts on that attraction then they no longer just suffer from SSAbut arehomosexual.

The Church did not define “deep seated” so I believe it is leave to the competent authority to define this. In this case it would be the bishop or religious superior who makes this decisions for his diocese or religious institute.

If I could try, using only the limitations of text, because we don’t have a chalkboard, to make some kind of illustration, I think it would look like this:

A. Homosexual Person
B. Deep-Seated Same Sex Tendency (the implication is toward behavior)
C. Same Sex Attraction

…and comparing that to the model provided by Saint Augustine:

A. Compulsion
B. Habit
C. Lust

But there is a shift. Jesus says Lust is a sin. Attraction, while disordered, is not sinful. But willfully mental entertainment is.

So, theoretically, in the case of SSA and homosexual desire, we could add those to the model this way:

A. Compulsion
B. Habit ( physical entertainment - in deed)
C. Lust (mental entertainment - in the heart)
D. Disordered Attraction

and

A. Homosexual lifestyle (person embraces all forms of perverted sexuality regarding relationships)
B. Homosexual Person (in the context of this model, this may constitute their acceptance of homosexuality as a necessary action)
C. Deep-Seated Same Sex Tendency
D. Disordered Attraction

Now, I shouldn’t have to say, but seeing some folks let this subject bring out their very strongest passions, let’s hope folks can look at the model and examine it without prejudice, and hope they can make comments without using the word “YOU”. Just treat the problem, not the person.

 

[DasErlibnis]

Let’s talk about two different men, Greg and Hank. Both are discerning the priesthood.

Greg is 21 years old and has had feelings of attraction to other males since he was an adolescent. He has never encouraged those feelings, he does not linger on those feelings or emotions, and he goes out of his way to avoid any activities that might inspire or enflame those feelings. (For instance, he did not go see Brokeback Mountain.) Altho he understands that the feelings are not sinful, he does speak of them with his confessor when they occur. the feelings do not feel overwhelming to him.

Hank is also 21 years old. He also has had attraction to other males since he was an adolescent. However, for most of high school he identified as “gay”, watched every gay tv show and movie he could, and looked at gay porn on the internet. He dated another male for 2 years in college. 2 years ago, he reverted to the Church and is now discerning the priesthood. He continues to struggle on a nearly daily basis with lustful thoughts and images involving males he encounters in the course of the day. His feelings are not something that he is aware of and moves on, they are overwhelming.

I would say that Hank has deep-seated homosexuality, in large part because of his own actions (porn, dating, etc). Now, in 5 more years, could that change? Sure, because with God all things are possible. But right now, Hank is not appopriate for the priesthood (or for other avocations).

Greg, on the other hand, does not have deep-seated tendencies.

Probably a better model for this situation.