homosexual priests and seminarians: your thoughts?

[turtle18]

I think calling people “fools” indicates you have a long way to go to be a good candidate for priesthood. You’ve proven time and again that if someone is against your own personal agenda, then you have no compassion towards them. It seems to be more about your ego and your political agenda than doing the will of God.

 

[TMC]

If a Catholic has homosexual inclinations but does not ACT on them, as was Father Mychal’s case, then why not allow him to be ordained? Hopefully the person is too delved into Christ to be fretting over his sexuality.

We should make sure the priests are of excellent character, but we should not determine that no homosexual may be admitted to the priesthood. Such would be a grave mistake and a betrayal of the Church’s long history of ordained ministers who were of the homosexual orientation.

As I pointed out many posts ago, this is current Church policy. Men who are by nature attracted to other men are not barred from the priesthood if they have controlled those feelings for three years prior to ordination. (Personally, I would think a similar rule should apply to heterosexuals; I can’t see ordaining anyone that was recently sexually active, or seriously struggling to remain celibate.) Celibate homosexuals are also not to be ordained if they support the “gay culture”. A celibate gay man who supports the Church’s teachings and has overcome his sexual urges for at least three years can be ordained. I am sure many are.

Here is the Vatican document on this: Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations
with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies

 

[CradleCath]

I think it means that the illness knows no sex. Kiddie porn as my husband saw way too much of, is male and female and these range from very young to 13 or so. They are deviants and some like both, some like one sex or the other, b ut most are not “homosexuals” that are pediphiles (much research on this from good universities, not conservative groups)
[SIGN]I am curious. Since your husband was in law enforcment, have you ever heard of pederasty? I’m not being confrontational, just wondering.

Pederasty or paederasty (literally ‘boy-love’, see etymology "]below) refers to an intimate or erotic relationship between an adolescent boy and an adult male outside his immediate family. It has found expression from earliest times through a variety of customs and practices within different cultures.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

[/SIGN]

 

[mangy_dog]

Hi everyone,

I was just thinking. Do you really think Pope Benedict XVI made a wise decision when he ruled that homosexual men cannot become priests? Sometimes I wonder.

I truly do believe that a homosexual man can be just as good a priest as a heterosexual; heck, perhaps even better.

Plus, we all know that the church is in a priesthood crisis. I say “priesthood” and not “vocation” crisis because we’re flourishing with permanent deacons, but not with the sacred priesthood. I don’t know… I think I’d much rather attend a Mass celebrated by a homosexual priest than a Communion Service celebrated by a deacon.

Your thoughts?

Lets not interpret “less” than what the Pope intends. I am sure that what Pope Benedict XVI is referring to is the active and actual “lifestyle” of homosexuality. Catholic priesthood requires sexual abstinence and celibacy in every way shape and form.
The declaration by the Pope is a firm and unequivocal statement that leaves no doubt or room for mis-interpretation. However, you seem to have succeeded in (selectively) mis-interpreting his message.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum

 

[debraran]

Yes there are many types of diseases with different names and some cross over…it’s all ugly. But there are many people that believe, and it’s sad, that if someone says they are gay, they feel the same thing these sick people do. It’s like saying all hetrosexual men want to rape little girls or have their 14 year old girlfriend because we read about them in the paper or on TV.

The only “good” thing this mess has started is that the pedestal dropped a bit and hopefully the church wont care about “image” as much as what’s right and wrong. Priests aren’t perfect, some steal from the church, some have affairs with women, some molest children or teens, some don’t do the basic duties they are supposed to do…some are worse and they should address that, but ALL things shouldn’t be ignored. When semenarians see that the church is orthodox and wont tolerate it, we will, as I think is happening now, get good faithful priests.
I feel for all the good ones now, but they are the glue, and I pray for them daily. I could understand their anger though…it was quite a mess and you still hear ripples from it.

 

[Jon_in_Charlott]

I started the first page and jumped to the last, so forgive me if I restate an issue. Here’s an interesting article on the subject in the national reveiw;

nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher031302.asp

This article states it and I’ve heard it from other resources that certain seminaries have become over the years very liberal and been conducive to homosexuality.

I know of one orthodox priest, in his early thirties, who called himself the seminarian submariner because he submerged himself into the teachings of the Church while avoiding the trappings of liberalism promoted within his seminary.

The Church has been damaged greatly by the scandals involving homsexual priests. Imagine how many souls have been placed in jeopardy because families have left the Church as a result of the scandal.

Would a priest who considers himself homosexual be more empathetic to the lifestyle of homosexuals. Would they see the logic in gay marriages? And, if they were more empathetic would they be as sympathetic the importance of the traditional family? What of the importance in promoting the sanctity of life and how homosexuality conflicts directly with the teachings of the Church on the matter?

If, for example, a seminarian student used a contraceptive to protect himself from getting an std during gay sex then isn’t it plausible, given the logic provided him through the indoctrination of using the contraceptive, that this individual could be more empathetic towards embracing and promoting the uses of contraceptive devices for Catholics.

I don’t have the facts on how many or what percentage of priests are homosexual, however, there does seem to be an apparent schism within the American Church betwenn liberalism and orthodoxy. And, I believe that this conflict is also very damaging to the Church.

If any priest holds onto any thought of his human sexuality then he’s not giving himself completely to God. And, if we are dealing with a priest who considers himself homosexual then I believe it is more difficult to adhere to the vocation of priesthood, as not only
does this priest deal with temptation of lust, but, also with the sin of pride.

Just one last point before I get off my soapbox on the matter, If Satan’s objective is to seperate Man from God then he must seperate Man from Christ. To accomplish this feat it must attack the Church, the provider of the Body and Blood of Christ. How will, or Has, it worked towards it’s goal? By infiltrating the body of the Church by way of homosexual priests. In that many of these priests have not given themselves completely to God, but, held onto their lusts which has poisoned their mindset regarding the orthdoxy of the Church. And, as these priests rise through the ranks they can affect the practices of the Church, potentially desecrating the Holy Mass.

Now, could a man who had practiced homosexuality or bisexuality become an effective priest. It’s certainly possible, however, Satan knows your history, he knows what tempts us and he would be relentless towards any priest who had a history of homosexual behavior.

 

[debraran]

Jon, I agree with some of your points, but what of all the alcoholic priests (some numbers close to 40% in one book!) although it’s confidential with names etc. What about the priests who lust for women? Do they go into the seminary? Maybe they think they can do it but then have an affair or leave to get married. What about the gamblers or priests that take church money and go on trips and buy nice cars, etc.
I know Fr. Mychal wasn’t the only gay priest to live chastely (no gossip about that area at all) but Fr. Francis and others like him fall in love with women and have a crisis. I suppose if everyone is an adult, it’s “better” for lack of a better word, but there can still be a lot trouble without the gay issue to cloud it.
I know that wasn’t your point exactly, but I wanted to point out our achilles can be in many areas.

 

[St_Aloysius]

if they have controlled those feelings for three years prior to ordination.

What does this mean or look like? No sex? Shouldn’t there be a similar requirement from heterosexuals? Honestly! Celibacy should be expected indiscrimately.

I’m not looking to glorify homosexuality by any stretch of the imagination or asking the Church to glorify it. Far from it! I’m just asking to be able to enter into the priesthood.

Will I be celibate? Yup. Three years prior? Yup. More? Oh, why not! If that’s really all the Church has to say about this, then I’d say this thread is based on a misconception of mine:

That none with the homosexual inclination can be ordained. If in fact a celibate gay man may be, then I have no problem.

I’m set, and I’ll be planning to head to seminary soon!

Peace much!

 

[Jon_in_Charlott]

Debraran,

There are many types of sins that each of us, including priests, have to deal with on a daily basis. However, not all sins are equal.

What has occured within the American Catholic Church regarding homosexuality is a disgrace. Imagine the delight of Satan watching homosexuals, the same sexual practioners that God destroyed in Sodom and Gommorah, perform the consecration at the altar.

I want you to understand that I believe that we are all subject to our sinful natures. I do believe, however, that our priests should be held to a higher standard. As far as I’m concerned they are the real super heroes in our world. Forget about Superman, he’s figment of someone’s imagination. Our priests have committed themselves to God for our sake. The live to serve God and community in a completely selfless manner. That takes real courage, especially in our present day World.

I am of the opinion that fear is the catalyst to sin, and in many instances it is the fear of being without (As was the case with the fall of man being tempted, the fear of being without knowing what it was to be as God) that drives us to make a self serving choice to alleviate that fear.

My suspicion is that after Vatican II, during the late 60’s and early 70’s, the Church became concerned with vocations to the priesthood as many young men at the time were rejecting the structures provided them by society and their parents, including the conservative nature of the Catholic Church. I suspect that this concern was a fear that could be exploited by Satan. Understanding that the Church was lowering it’s standards for the purpose of self preservation would allow for it to be infiltrated.

During the sexual revolution, homosexuality began to rise, however, at the time it was still considered a perverse act (many states having laws against homosexual acts). To avoid the fear of being ostracized from society homosexual men were able to enter into the Catholic Church and be protected by the integrity of the Church. It was a fit, as each, the Church and Homosexual men were able to serve the need of other in alleviating the proposed fears.

By the 80’s it became widely understood within gay circles that the priesthood was a good career choice for a gay man. So, the percentage of homosexual priests rose throughout the 80’s and
90’s.

I recall that during this period, early 90’s, a friend that I worked with at the time, who was gay, reported to me that a priest, in uniform, made out with him in at a gay bar. I was shocked by the suggestion. He told me that he knew of many priests that went to the gay bars (this was in the Boston area).

Then the trouble began. Priests not living in accordance with God, but, living for themselves as they were driven by their lusts to seduce young men (and in the process destroying these young men’s faith in the Church, as well as, their families faith and eventually the general public faith). In dealing with the issues of pedophilia and molestation the Church handled it by using a program that had originally been established to move priests suffering from alcoholism to new parishes and begin with a new slate.

I can’t say for sure why the Church, in particular the American Catholic Church, resorted to shuffling sex offenders to new parishes. It could have been another case of alleviating a fear, acting towards self preservation, however, I’m of the suspicion that there may have been enough clergy in powerful positions to protect the accused. Remember that it’s Satan’s objective to destroy the Church so he will go to whatever lengths to accomplish this feat, including having the right individuals in the right positions within the heirarchy of the Church. Regardless, the cancer that was within the Church masticized through the shuffling of sex offenders.

 

[CradleCath]

Debraran,

There are many types of sins that each of us, including priests, have to deal with on a daily basis. However, not all sins are equal.

What has occured within the American Catholic Church regarding homosexuality is a disgrace. Imagine the delight of Satan watching homosexuals, the same sexual practioners that God destroyed in Sodom and Gommorah, perform the consecration at the altar.

Then the trouble began. Priests not living in accordance with God, but, living for themselves as they were driven by their lusts to seduce young men (and in the process destroying these young men’s faith in the Church, as well as, their families faith and eventually the general public faith). In dealing with the issues of pedophilia and molestation the Church handled it by using a program that had originally been established to move priests suffering from alcoholism to new parishes and begin with a new slate.

[SIGN]Your post was so insightful that I hestitated to cut any of it, but, in the interest of brevity, I did. One of the BEST articles I’ve ever read about the sexual abuse within the priesthood is called “A Question of Character”. It’s an interview with Dr. Richard Cross Dr. Richard Cross, an active Catholic layman & a trained psychologist with a specialty in testing. He has a PHD from Iniana Universit & has taught an practiced psychology for 13 years. He is currently working as a researcher and educational consultant. I’ll share a portion of his interview & link you to the rest.

I would really appreciate the view of the posters here re this article:

(Interviewer) Could you give us some background about what psychologists have learned about people with a tendency toward pedophilia?

(Dr. Cross) People who molest children fall into two basic types. ***There are pedophiles who are, strictly speaking, heterosexual These would be men who molest girls, or women who molest boys. Then there is the pederast, who is homosexual & molests boys. ***

Perhaps the best data on the matter, outlined in the National Opinion Research Center’s 1994 digest, shows that the most common form of pedophilia involves men molesting girls. The second most common form involves an older girl or a woman molesting a boy. ***Then you have the third form, which is what we are seeing in the press lately: the pederasts; the adult male molesting the younger male. ***
Of those three types, the one that has been most difficult to treat is the last: the pederast, the man who is homosexual by orientation, who molests boys. The treatment for them has not been very successful.

(Interviewer) You mention that the third type of disorder — the most intractable type — is associated with homosexuality. Is it more likely to arise, then, in a culture that accepts homosexuality?

Cross: There are some interesting statistics on that question.*** The most recent data that I have seen suggests that there is more abuse of men against girls than men against boys, as I’ve mentioned. That is, abuse by heterosexuals is more common than abuse by homosexuals, or pederasty. However, there is a much smaller percentage of heterosexuals who are molesters than homosexuals who molest. up to one-third of all homosexuals have pederastic tendencies. ***
.

(Interviewer): What do you make of the fact that we have not heard many reports about priests abusing young girls?

Cross: This is consistent with the surmise that there is a disproportionately large numbers of homosexuals currently in the priesthood.

There is an old distinction about immoral behavior that Aristotle made in his Ethics, and it is one that we should study in psychology. **The intemperate man is one who derives pleasure from a bad habit without guilt. **

The incontinent man may be impulsive, or even have explosive outbursts of bad behavior, but he recognizes the immorality of the deeds and takes steps — albeit often ineptly — to remedy things. The intemperate man may not be so impulsive, and even carefully devises schemes to ensure that he can continue to exploit others for his own pleasures.*** But there is no interior recognition of the sinfulness of the act, and therefore there is no guilt, nor does he try to make amends without the urging of others. The intemperate man may show guilt, when he is caught, but it is in virtue of being caught that he feels it. He may show confusion after being caught, but it is partly due to his being deprived of this pleasures ***

The data suggests that pederasty is a kind of intemperance. Intemperance, as the Church fathers taught us, is much more difficult to deal with, and is at the heart of some character disorders as well the addictions

[/SIGN]

 

[CradleCath]

. [SIGN]One of the BEST articles I’ve ever read about the sexual abuse within the priesthood is called “A Question of Character”. It’s an interview with Dr. Richard Cross Dr. Richard Cross, an active Catholic layman & a trained psychologist with a specialty in testing. He has a PHD from Iniana Universit & has taught an practiced psychology for 13 years. He is currently working as a researcher and educational consultant. I’ll share a portion of his interview & link you to the rest.

I would really appreciate the view of the posters here re this article:

(Interviewer) Could you give us some background about what psychologists have learned about people with a tendency toward pedophilia?

(Dr. Cross) People who molest children fall into two basic types. ***There are pedophiles who are, strictly speaking, heterosexual These would be men who molest girls, or women who molest boys. Then there is the pederast, who is homosexual & molests boys. ***[/SIGN]

SO sorry, I forgot the link to the article “A Question of Character”
catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0013.html

 

[NPC]

If any priest holds onto any thought of his human sexuality then he’s not giving himself completely to God. And, if we are dealing with a priest who considers himself homosexual then I believe it is more difficult to adhere to the vocation of priesthood, as not only
does this priest deal with temptation of lust, but, also with the sin of pride.

No priest - whether he be heterosexual or homosexual- can openly show his sexuality (I mean this in it’s fundamental sense, ie. displaying sexual attraction to any person). Why do you think it would be more difficult for a homosexual to adhere to the vocation of priesthood than a heterosexual - if both are not truly called to the priesthood, then surely the heterosexual is as likely as the homosexual to be faced with the ‘temptation of lust and the the sin of pride’?

I am no apologist for homosexual lifestyles, but some people on this thread seem to think that a heterosexual is more capable than a homosexual of controlling or suppressing their sexual tendencies. Surely this is based on nothing but prejudice. Even though no priest is to act on their sexual impulses, some people are clearly of the opinion that homosexual priests will without doubt end up acting on their sexual attractions and therefore should not be allowed into the priesthood. Absolutely, if this were true - but this is not the case - no more so than saying that a heterosexual priest is necessarily going to have a sexual relationship with a woman.

I think we all agree that homosexual acts are sinful, and so, practicing homosexuals should not be allowed into the priesthood. This would be so hypocritical - if a an actively homosexual priest had, at a particular Mass, to read out one of the several passages in Scripture which denounce homosexuality. The question, then, is about non-practicing homosexuals. Don’t forget, also, that one isn’t necessarily in a state of sin for being homosexual or for having homosexual thoughts - it’s acting on this that is regarded as sinful. If a priest cannot show his sexuality either way - and more importantly, if the priest doesn’t show his sexuality either way, then surely it’s up to the ‘powers that be’ to find out whether such and such a person has a genuine calling from God. If they do and are committed and willing to live and serve according to the Laws of the Church, then they should be admitted…

Just as a final word - I have just recalled a survey that was carried out among priests - it could have been in Ireland, but I’m not sure. One section concluded that most priests believed that there was not enough guidance in the seminary as to how to deal with celibacy. I wonder how much guidance seminaries are giving today- perhaps if there was more in the past, a lot of the trauma of both homosexual and heterosexual sexual ‘relationships’ or abuse could have been avoided.

 

[debraran]

NPC I agree…there are a lot of stereotypes for gay men and woman and some aren’t true. I was guilty of that to some degree and then I went to work for a large hospital in a big city and saw many men and women that didn’t fit any stereotype at all. You couldn’t guess they were gay in a million years. I hate to see them smeared with the same brush as these wayward priests. They were good people, although I will never understand why we are different.

In recent reading, I also read the celibacy thing was always glossed over. They were told about it in one class. But others said it was addressed more in the last 10 years, but it’s just not the same as living it. You can talk to your kids adnauseum about drugs, peer pressure, etc. but being confronted with it is something else.You might let your guard down because you could handle friendships with women and then 10 years down the road, “she walks in the room” We have all probably encountrered someone that effected us differently and being alone, lonely, human, and wanting affection, you are vulnerable. THAT might be harder to address, but they have to have more support. Many priests feel alone and they must have bouts of dryness where prayer feels empty.
There’s a reason many priests wont suggest anyone go into it (I’ve seen that myself) they can’t suggest something when they are suffering. I think that’s why diocesan priests seem to take the biggest hit, they have the most freedom, but it’s a lot of work alone and they don’t have support. My Dominican church has over 7 people “in residence”. Some are retired, 3 are active but most can do mass. One told me he couldn’t imagine being alone, you need the breaks, the communal support. Austere orders like Fr. Groechels grow every year (nuns too!) To each his own, you are called where you are called, but I think they are filling a need others aren’t. We are all craving to grow closer to God. I think the new wave of priests will address that craving more, but just changing rules wont do that.

 

[turtle18]

It is only partially about the vow of celibacy. Again, a “celibate” homosexual is putting himself in an occupation living and being around other men. And let’s face it, there are active homosexuals in the clergy. So even if you start off with the intention of being celibate, you are influenced by them over time. And homosexuality is a grave, grave sin. That is pretty clear in the Bible and if you don’t believe that you are ignoring the Word of God for your own believes. I don’t want people screaming at me that I am bigot because I state the obvious.

But the main reason homosexuals shouldn’t be priests is because they bring their agenda either subconciously or conciously into the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church has decreed that homosexuals can’t be priests, and the poster enters the semniarian anyway, what does that say about his agenda? If the Catholic Church has decreed that women and married men can’t be priests, then we can’t enter the seminary for obvious reasons. Everyone openly knows our status in life. But a homosexual can lie about this and be admitted anyway.

 

[TMC]

It is only partially about the vow of celibacy. Again, a “celibate” homosexual is putting himself in an occupation living and being around other men. And let’s face it, there are active homosexuals in the clergy. So even if you start off with the intention of being celibate, you are influenced by them over time. And homosexuality is a grave, grave sin. That is pretty clear in the Bible and if you don’t believe that you are ignoring the Word of God for your own believes. I don’t want people screaming at me that I am bigot because I state the obvious.

But the main reason homosexuals shouldn’t be priests is because they bring their agenda either subconciously or conciously into the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church has decreed that homosexuals can’t be priests, and the poster enters the semniarian anyway, what does that say about his agenda? If the Catholic Church has decreed that women and married men can’t be priests, then we can’t enter the seminary for obvious reasons. Everyone openly knows our status in life. But a homosexual can lie about this and be admitted anyway.

I’m sorry, but nothing in this post makes any sense to me. The priests I know work just as closely, and probably more closely, with women than with men. Last time I checked, half of Catholics were women. Secretaries and other administrative workers that any priest is around constantly are women. They have to be closely together with men in seminary, but as priests they are among the people like anybody else. Why is this harder for homosexuals than for heterosexuals?

As for the “subconscious agenda”, what is the basis of that? Are heterosexual priests carrying some subconscious agenda promoting married priests? Why do you think they can be OK with celibacy and not gay priests? Gay men can lie about their sexual activity and get ordained under false pretenses. I’m sure that many have. Heterosexual men can lie about their sexual activity and get ordained under false pretenses. I’m sure many of them have, too. Both are something the Church needs to guard against.

Also, you continue to assert that the Church has barred those with homosexual orientation from ordaination, which is untrue. I have posted the link to the Vatican’s instruction on this. It is pretty clear. Men that experience same sex attraction can be ordained if they demonstrate an ability to control those tendencies for three years. The candidate must examine his conscience and both he and his spiritual director must decide if he has the affective maturity and discipline to live a celibate lifestyle. Homosexually oriented candidates are given more scrutiny then heterosexuals, but they are not barred.

 

[Jon_in_Charlott]

…but some people on this thread seem to think that a heterosexual is more capable than a homosexual of controlling or suppressing their sexual tendencies. Surely this is based on nothing but prejudice.

I hope that I can assure everyone that I don’t have any predjudices concerning homosexuals. As I previously posted I have had gay friends in the past and still have friends that are homosexual.

As for controlling sexual tendencies I don’t see it from a personal standpoint, but, rather from the gravity of the sin. Every individual has the same capability in using their will power to defend against sin, however, because the sin of homosexuality is greater and more complex than that of sins involving heterosexuality the burden is more difficult to control or suppress

I’m sure some might react with, “How is one greater than the other”. Firstly, homosexuality goes against God and his design for humanity. Not only is the individual who is engaging in homosexuality submitting themselves to lust, they are also submitting to pride (by consciencely opposing the will of God). It’s the additional sin of pride that is of greater concern because it can affect the mindset of the individual.

This is off topic, but, I’d like to use an example that many might be familiar with regarding how pride is associated to homosexuality and how it can affect the individual. Most persons are probably familiar with Rosie O’donnel, the comedic actress. From my understanding, Ms. Odonnel came out to family and friends about her homosexualilty in her early 20’s, but, for the sake of her career, remained “in the closet” publicly until her late 30’s/early 40s’. Now, the public’s image of Ms. Odonnel was that she was a bubbly, sweet natured, kind and considerate. She was very beloved my many. Then once she came “out the closet” publicly and began to showcase pride in her sexual orientation her entire demeanor and personality altered. Her pride couldn’t allow for heself to fake it any longer, the burden was too great. Now, everything she promotes must be in accordance with her personal lifestyle. The reason for this is because that her own pride in her self image (the ego) is going to protect itself.

The point I’m trying to make through the example is that if a Priest were to be burdened with homosexualilty it could become so great as to affect his decision making regarding Church Doctrine. That places the body of the Church in jeopardy.

 

[JesuitLoyola]

This is a really tough subject; I mean in theory if a priest is in control of his sexual urges whether homosexual or heterosexual, then what is the difference? On the other hand it is a greater temptation to someone who will be around male seminarians and priests and is homosexual rather than a heterosexual. I am not sure entirely how I feel about it. Although is there really a lot of this in the seminaries?

 

[turtle18]

The subconcious agenda is the acceptance of homosexuality, which is a grave sin.

There are other limits to the priesthood, why should a homosexual orientation be any more special than other limits? Why should it be given special consideration over letting married priests in or woman priests in? The Catholic priesthood is not a place to pursue your agenda of “equal” rights.

Priests live with each other, so they may work around woman all day and minister to each other all day but they live in seminary together during formation and with each other after ordination.

 

[NPC]

I hope that I can assure everyone that I don’t have any predjudices concerning homosexuals. As I previously posted I have had gay friends in the past and still have friends that are homosexual.

As for controlling sexual tendencies I don’t see it from a personal standpoint, but, rather from the gravity of the sin. Every individual has the same capability in using their will power to defend against sin, however, because the sin of homosexuality is greater and more complex than that of sins involving heterosexuality the burden is more difficult to control or suppress

I’m sure some might react with, “How is one greater than the other”. Firstly, homosexuality goes against God and his design for humanity. Not only is the individual who is engaging in homosexuality submitting themselves to lust, they are also submitting to pride (by consciencely opposing the will of God). It’s the additional sin of pride that is of greater concern because it can affect the mindset of the individual.

Jon - since you quoted me re prejudices and sexuality, I just want to let you know that I was not ‘targeting’ you with my comments! - I was just getting that feeling from the thread in general that many are of the opinion that homosexuals are necessarily less capable of controlling their sexual tendencies than heterosexuals…

Contributors are frequently referring to ‘the sin of homosexuality’. We need to be clear on this - the Church makes the distinction between homosexual acts (which are gravely sinful) and homosexual tendencies (which are considered to be disordered but not necessarily sinful). As I said before, I don’t think that anyone would argue against barring active homosexuals from the priesthood. If you go to the Vatican Website you can read the guidelines for admitting those with homosexual tendencies to the seminary and Holy Orders www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html
It says that, ‘while profoundly respecting the persons in question, [the Church] cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”.’

So, it will not accept people who are actively practicing homosexuality - and rightly so given Scriptural denouncement of such acts. The Church also will refuse those with deep-seated tendencies - not simply those with homosexual tendencies. I expect they mean by ‘deep-seated’ that the candidate is likely to act on his sexuality at some stage - surely the same must apply even to heterosexuals- and the Vatican document says that it is up to the Spiritual Director to ascertain whether or not the tendencies are ‘deep-seated’.

Finally there is the issue of the candidate supporting ‘gay culture’. I think this ties in with your point, Jon, that homosexuals (which I take to mean practicing homosexuals) will submit to pride. One cannot say, however, that those with homosexual tendencies will necessarily submit to pride - this would be to assume that just because someone has homosexual tendencies, they cannot accept or recognise that to act on such tendencies would be sinful. So it is not accurate for anyone to assume that a homosexual will enter the priesthood with an ‘agenda’. Obviously, if one is openly practicing homosexuality they are necessarily supporting ‘gay culture’, however this is not automatically the case for those with homosexual tendencies. This is why we must make the distinction between acts and tendencies. Jon, I don’t know of the person you mentioned- Rosie O’Donnel - but it seems to me that the difference is that she obviously supported gay culture as an active homosexual, and whether or not she was aware that it was a sinful act, she did not renounce these practices. A homosexual is as capable as anyone of putting God before something which is sinful - if their love for God is so great that they will carry such a burden rather than satisfy it by commit grave sin, then they are potentially excellent role models for our communities.

 

[vocatio]

The subconcious agenda is the acceptance of homosexuality, which is a grave sin.

There are other limits to the priesthood, why should a homosexual orientation be any more special than other limits? Why should it be given special consideration over letting married priests in or woman priests in? The Catholic priesthood is not a place to pursue your agenda of “equal” rights.

Priests live with each other, so they may work around woman all day and minister to each other all day but they live in seminary together during formation and with each other after ordination.

Apparently you haven’t read the momo…that celibacy is not a doctrine or Sacred Tradition, but discipline. Disallowing women to the priesthood falls under Sacred Tradition. Homosexuallity is also different. So you’re trying ot compare apples, oranges and bananas.