homosexual priests and seminarians: your thoughts?

[turtle18]

No I am not missing the point. The point is the Vatican has every right and spiritual obligation to bar certain people from the priesthood. To think sexual orientation is somehow worthy of a special exclusion to the bar makes no sense, whether one is celibate or not.
I’ve never understand the saying “comparing apples to oranges” they are both fruits, taste delicious & are healthy for you.

 

[JesuitLoyola]

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.

Since when is accepting homosexuality a sin, unless you mean participating which is, how could love for our fellow man regardless of sexual orientation be anything but righteous? hate the sin not the sinner!

 

[JesuitLoyola]

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.

Now that I think about it I could be misinterpreting what you are trying to say, can you explain it please?

 

[CradleCath]

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?

[SIGN]I hope that this isn’t taken as bigotry, as I believe that homosexuals are children of God & should be treated with dignity & respect. Being gay is not a sin. but acting upon it is.

To answer your question above…the difference between “sexual urges whether homosexual or heterosexual” is that one is “normal” & the other is not. Let me explain what I mean by normal.

Homosexual acts defy the Natural Law by which God runs His Universe. They negate His means of procreation & pervert sexual pleasure. This pleasure was giiven to humankind by our Father in heaven…to bring a man & a woman unity & children.

According to Aquinas, “there belongs to the natural law, first, certain most general precepts, that are known to ALL”. We shouldn’t have to be taught that gay sex acts are wrong, common sense should tell us that they have no purpose for good… Though sodomy is condemned in Scripture…it would not have to be for a moral man/woman to know that these acts aren’t part of God’s plan for either propagating the world or giving “oneness” to a married couple. Two men (or two women) cannot complete the other partner, we can know that by simply knowing our bodies.

If one is truly trying to stay in tune with God’s plan for himself/herself &, more importantly, for the good of His world, they will know that homosexual sex is not part of His purpose.

One can also know that one’s sexuality affects every part of that person. I speak with a higher voice than my husband. My sexuality affects my gestures, the way I walk, the way I think & feel. When one’s sexual urges do not match one’s actual gender, there will be confusion & disorder throughout the total self of the person so affected.

The following words were included in a letter to the Bishops from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
" Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder." We cannot afford to have disordered priests, we cannot afford to ordain men who are subject to chronic depression, either. We cannot continue to keep alcoholic priests indefinitely, anymore. [/SIGN]

 

[imasinner]

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.

Homosexuality is a disorder so it follows that it does not contribute to the goodness of a persons character. we should not try to trivialize this disorder as you seem to want us to to enable homosexuals into the priesthood. If you were purely heterosexual do you think you would have the same opinion? Do you even think that your bi-sexuality is a disorder? No you don’t?. Therein lies the problem

 

[NPC]

Homosexuality is a disorder so it follows that it does not contribute to the goodness of a persons character. we should not try to trivialize this disorder as you seem to want us to to enable homosexuals into the priesthood. If you were purely heterosexual do you think you would have the same opinion? Do you even think that your bi-sexuality is a disorder? No you don’t?. Therein lies the problem

Perhaps you are right that since it is a disorder it does not contribute to the goodness of a persons’ character - however, it certainly doesn’t follow that such a disorder necessarily causes the person to become one of bad character. In my previous post #79], in a discussion on a Vatican document about this topic, I made the point that just because one has homosexual tendencies (i.e. the 'disorder) it does not mean that they cannot understand or accept that to act on these tendencies would be sinful. So having the disorder itself may not better the persons character; how they deal with it might - by realising that God and His Word are more important than acting on disordered tendencies which would cause the person to be in a state of grave sin.

As I said before, I am most certainly not an apologist for homosexual lifestyles, and (like anyone else) they shouldn’t be allowed into the priesthood for any reason other than a true call to serve God - the Vatican says that those who are active homosexuals are certainly barred from the priesthood, but those with homosexual tendencies are not necessarily barred, but will be subject to more rigorous testing by the Spiritual Directors. This is why, as I’ve said before, we must make the distinction between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies - the Vatican makes these distinctions, so surely this is proper practice for us too. The link I gave to the Vatican document in my previous post is well worth reading…

 

[Jon_in_Charlott]

From the Vatican Document:

*By means of the Sacrament of Orders, the Holy Spirit configures the candidate to Jesus Christ in a new and specif
ic way: the priest, in fact, sacramentally represents Christ, the head, shepherd and spouse of the Church[5]. Because of this configuration to Christ, the entire life of the sacred minister must be animated by the gift of his whole person to the Church and by an authentic pastoral charity[6]. *

I believe this is the most significant point, the configuration to Christ, regarding the discussion on homosexualilty. As we know the Church has been infested with homosexual priests that have caused it great damage through the numerous reported scandals. What concerns me is - **If a priest is homosexual does this affect his configuration to Christ and consequently affect his capability to provide the sacrament of the Eucharist.?? **

Our logic might presume that God wouldn’t punish the entire congregation just because the parish priest is in a sinful state. However, as Catholics we understand that we should not receive
Holy communion if we’re in a state of sinfulness. There is a system as to how we Catholics practice our religion and in regards to participating in Holy communion it is neccessary for Catholics to exercise the sacrament of reconciliation. We are in fact instructed to not receive Holy communion if we are in a sinful state.

Is it possible that if a priest is in a disordered state that it affects his capability to act as Christ in providing the sacrament of the Eucharist?

Doesn’t systematic logic apply? There could be a wealth of water, but, if there is a problem with the faucet then you might not be able to wash yourself.

If this logic does apply it seems to present an argument for why the state of the Church is in decline. If the flock is not being properly fed then if affects not only the Church but the state of society.

Now, you can call me crazy, but, I’ve often felt a difference when receiving Holy communion. There have been times when the Eucharist has seemed warm and sweet and others when it has seemed cold and flat. Previous to today (when I considered this theory) I had always presumed the differences came as a result of either my particular state of grace or simply the physical state of the wafer. But, given the logic of the theory, it’s feasible to suggest that a difference could come as a result of who is doing the consecration.

If this theory were applicable, isn’t logical to presume that Satan would make use of it. If Satan’s objective is to seperate man from God then he must seperate man from receiving Christ. Conceivably, Satan’s plan in seperating man from God is by establishing a wedge through the priesthood.

Now, for this plan to be effective the priest must be in a state of serious sin. In the cases of priests succumbing to alcoholism or sexual indiscretions (heterosexual) it’s understood that these are natural failings to gluttony and lust which can be repaired, however, regarding homosexuality because it’s an unnatural disorder and is attached to the sin of pride as well as lust then the repair seems extremely challenging.

Using the logic suggested that in Satan’s efforts to seperate man from God by creating a wedge through disordered priests for the purpose that Christ would not be recieved through Holy communion, it does provide reason to the significant number of homosexual priests, the liberal formation towards homosexuality in the seminaries and to why a large portion of the Catholic population does not embrace, and if fact questions, the teachings and docrtine of the Church.

 

[NPC]

Is it possible that if a priest is in a disordered state that it affects his capability to act as Christ in providing the sacrament of the Eucharist?

I don’t know, but there are any number of ‘disordered states’ which could affect a priest (or any person indeed) at a particular moment in time. The disordered state to which you refer, I expect, is that of having homosexual tendencies, not actually practicing homosexuality. Firstly, such a priest is, as much as any other priest, celebrating the Eucharist in a state of grace. The Church does not consider his ‘tendencies’ to be sinful. However, I have just come across this explanation in a Catholic Answers book that I have: it explains that the very fact that a priest has been ordained validly means that the Masses he celebrates are valid - even if the priest was in a state of sin…‘they would not receive the graces from the sacrament of Holy Orders, or from Masses celebrated, until their sins had been forgiven in the sacrament of Penance.’ This isn’t a way for the Church to ‘get around’ the issue of homosexuality in the priesthood since the candidate at the seminary would have been screened for physical & psychological health, morals, doctrine and piety and soforth.

We cannot assume that a person with a disorder will necessarily be unable to carry out their duties properly - this again, would be an unfair stereotype. Such stereotypes lead people to label people according to the disorder, rather than seeing the person who happens to be afflicted with a disorder. In fact, in Ireland at the moment, there is a campaign to try to get people to stop labelling those with mental health issues according to their illness and rather to see the actual person.

You refer further on to certain sins which are natural failings and which can be overcome - such as alcoholism. Then you separate homosexuality from these as it’s an ‘unnatural disorder’ - surely any disorder is unnatural otherwise it wouldn’t be a disorder. Excessive alcohol consumption and gambling are not natural failings - and granted, they may be overcome, but like anyone who has suffered from an addiction, they will battle the addiction for the rest of their life. There is a difference too, in that, a priest, knowing an action is wrong- such as excessive alcohol consumption, a sexual relationship - still acts on it, and is therefore in a state of mortal sin. On the other hand, a priest with homosexual tendencies, who realises to act on his tendencies would be wrong, but doesn’t, by will and prayer, has saved himself from entering into sin. I hadn’t heard of the priest Fr John Harvey, but he has councelled homosexuals for many years and he has shown that homosexuality can be completely overcome with the combination of counselling, an active spiritual life, and frequent attendance at the sacrament of Penance and Holy Communion. Also, do you really think lust is more common with an active homosexual than it is with a heterosexual priest who doesn’t put any value on the vow of celibacy he made before God - both are just as capable of sinning, just as both are equally capable of rejecting sin by honouring their vows to God of serving Him first.

 

[True_to_Him]

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.

Future Priests who “lust for women” do not ordinarily go into seminaries. A more appropriate verb is “attracted.” However, straight priests surrounded day and night by other men, do not face the temptations as homosexual priests in the same situation. In forbidding future ordinations of homosexual priests, I think the Church wisely prevents them from constant, and what might be unbearable, temptations.

 

[Ridgerunner]

For a long time, it seems, the Church in the U.S. (and elsewhere) seemed to think homosexual involvement with parishioners, students and others was some kind of mental aberration that could be “cured” by going to shrinks, “discerning” and so forth. “Cures” would be claimed and they would be moved to other contexts in which they could abuse others or cause scandals. Obviously, the assumption was wrong, and the Church in the U.S. is paying the price for that wrong assumption.

I think before I declared something harmless in this context or that, I would want to know the nature of what I’m talking about. The fact is, nobody really knows why some people are homosexual, any more than they know why some people are incurable pedophiles. At least the latter is recognized (for now) as being aberrant and harmful, and can be the object of study.

Homosexuality is now “forbidden territory” to those who study mental illness, since it has been officially declared by those who write the DSM, not to be a mental illness at all. It’s clearly disordered, and the Church recognizes that. But okay, then, what is it? Why is it? What are its essential elements? When one is attracted to that to which one’s nature does not, of itself, incline one, and when nobody has any idea at all why something clearly abnormal occurs, then I don’t see how anyone can truly say “oh no, it’s limits are here, not there”. That is particularly true when there’s really no research going on, other than statistical studies about who gets molested by priests the most. Even thse studies are not “intended” to be research into homosexuality. They simply ended up telling us something about one aspect of homosexuality in a particular context.

But there are many contexts. There are flamboyantly homosexual men who revel in that flamboyance. There are “closet” homosexuals. There are homosexuals who have long term partners. There are homosexuals who have had thousands of “partners”. There are homosexuals who think it a “rite of passage” to get AIDS. There are homosexuals who deliberately infect others with AIDS. There are “dominant” and “receptive” homosexuals. There are homosexuals who rape, and homosexuals who don’t. And what do we really know about any of it, such that we can declare it “normal” or “harmless” or “just another sexual expression or attraction”? Nothing, really. And anecdotal stories about, e.g., Fr. Judge, don’t tell us a thing more about homosexuals generally than stories about Sr. Teresa tell us about women, generally.

Are homosexuals “born”, “made”, “self-made”, what? We don’t know. Are homosexual inclinations as “incurable” as pedophilia? We don’t know. Are most homosexuals attracted to pubescent males? We don’t know. Are most homosexuals able to control their inclinations? We don’t know. Are there limits to self-control beyond which they are powerless? We don’t know.

But we do know it’s not something that is a natural inclination.
And we do know its expressions for some seem to go far beyond anything we would ever consider “normal” or even “normal but libertine” in a heterosexual. And we do know the statistics on who most of the victims of the “priest abuse” were. So, is it “safe” to assume that homosexuals who have been celibate for three years will not molest young men? We don’t know. Is it any safer than the assumptions the bishops and their shrinks made that led to the lawsuits? We don’t know.

Having seen the Church terribly damaged by assumptions that proved wrong, why should we be eager to test out yet a new set of assumptions on yet another generation of young males in the Church?

Until we have definitive studies on the nature of homosexuality, studies which are not at all likely now, and may never give us good answers even if they are done, I say we don’t experiment with it again.

 

[CradleCath]

Until we have definitive studies on the nature of homosexuality, studies which are not at all likely now, and may never give us good answers even if they are done, I say we don’t experiment with it again.

Excellent post, Ridgerunner…

 

[nobeerinheaven]

Of course the decision was a good one, as it was guided by the Holy Spirit. What is there to wonder about that?

 

[NPC]

Until we have definitive studies on the nature of homosexuality, studies which are not at all likely now, and may never give us good answers even if they are done, I say we don’t experiment with it again.

Excellent post, Ridgerunner…

Yes indeed - an excellent post. However, there are any number of psychological illnesses or addictions for which no definitive cause has been found. There have been many theories put forward as to why someone develops a homosexual nature - genetics, a particular upbringing, a psychological cause. However no one has come up with a definitive cause ( or a universal one which applies in all cases) - similarly one cannot pin-point the reason why a person becomes dependent on alcohol or gambling. All we can say is that there are disorders which manifest in certain people, and (given particular factors) can do so at various stages of a person’s life.

There are, as far as I can tell, pretty strict psychological and spiritual assesments for seminarians. Like any test it evaluates something at a particular moment in time - they can only be accurate to a certain degree and they are not fortune tellers. I mean, all of our priests - even those who have committed most sinful acts - were approved for ordination by a spiritual director. So, obviously, if any candidate is showing any signs of instability - whether it be in his sexuality, spirituality or psychologically - their vocation and suitability for the priesthood must be seriously investigated. At the end of the day, we really have to trust that the spiritual directors in our seminaries are on constant look-out for those who really shouldn’t be there, and encouraging all whom they believe to have a genuine calling to serve God in the priesthood.

 

[CradleCath]

Of course the decision was a good one, as it was guided by the Holy Spirit. What is there to wonder about that?

You’re right. AND the Vatican didn’t do this without using every bit of information that they could find. The Pope (then Pope John Paul) asked the 10 leading sexuality experts to the Vatican for a 3 day conference on the abuse crisis. There was one American. Here’s part of an article on the meeting:

Harvard doctor attends Vatican talks

By Douglas Belkin, 4/7/2003

A Harvard psychiatrist who returned yesterday from a conference at the Vatican about sexual abuse by clergy said the Holy See’s approach to treatment ‘‘is quite reasonable and very positive.’’

Dr. Martin P. Kafka said the three-day conference, which included American bishops as well as several senior Vatican officials, was set up to help the church screen prospective priests more effectively, understand the effects of victimization on children, and improve treatment for sexual abusers.

’‘The church wanted to know how to improve screening, and they wanted to know what the risk factors were,’’ said Kafka, who is a senior attending psychiatrist at McLean Hospital in Belmont and a specialist on sex offenders. ‘‘The sense I got was that these people are not only conscientious, but had already put in place the integrated treatments used by those of us in the nonclerical community.’’

 

[vocatio]

Yes indeed - an excellent post.

Should have stopped here.

Like any test it evaluates something at a particular moment in time - they can only be accurate to a certain degree and they are not fortune tellers.

The bold speaks for itself.

I mean, allof our priests - even those who have committed most sinful acts - were approved for ordination by a spiritual director.

Spiritual Director What if the spiritual director is the abuser.

So, obviously, if any candidate is showing any signs of instability - whether it be in his sexuality, spirituality or psychologically - their vocation and suitability for the priesthood must be seriously investigated.

Personally I think its a sign of the times so to speak. All of us have been adversely affected by sin and are unstable on many levels. I suspect that the Church might benefit from looking at stable married men who have grown believing children [like in scripture] for ordination to build up the Church and increase the confidence of people that fear the abusers. The Vatican allowed the Anglican’s, so it’s very possible. We’re our own worse enemy in a time of crisis. This kind of thinking is what led the attack on Constantinopal and such creating the Great Schism of 1054.

Who wouldn’t prefer celibate priests? Even I want them because they give so much more than married priests. But sometimes I just wonder if it’s time to join the Eastern Church in allowing married men to the priesthood, beginning in small numbers of course.

Mybe the bishop can color code them by the shade of clericals…Black is ordained, Charcoal Gray is married priest, Gray is deacon. Works for me. Yea! make me Pope for a day

At the end of the day, we really have to **trust **that the **spiritual directors **in our seminaries are on constant look-out for those who really shouldn’t be there, and encouraging all whom they believe to have a genuine calling to serve God in the priesthood.

Like I said…what if it’s your own spiritual director?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes indeed - an excellent post. However, there are any number of psychological illnesses or addictions for which no definitive cause has been found. There have been many theories put forward as to why someone develops a homosexual nature - genetics, a particular upbringing, a psychological cause. However no one has come up with a definitive cause ( or a universal one which applies in all cases) - similarly one cannot pin-point the reason why a person becomes dependent on alcohol or gambling. All we can say is that there are disorders which manifest in certain people, and (given particular factors) can do so at various stages of a person’s life.

There are, as far as I can tell, pretty strict psychological and spiritual assesments for seminarians. Like any test it evaluates something at a particular moment in time - they can only be accurate to a certain degree and they are not fortune tellers. I mean, all of our priests - even those who have committed most sinful acts - were approved for ordination by a spiritual director. So, obviously, if any candidate is showing any signs of instability - whether it be in his sexuality, spirituality or psychologically - their vocation and suitability for the priesthood must be seriously investigated. At the end of the day, we really have to trust that the spiritual directors in our seminaries are on constant look-out for those who really shouldn’t be there, and encouraging all whom they believe to have a genuine calling to serve God in the priesthood.

Actually, we know a great deal about addictions to alcohol and gambling. Those are “permitted” areas of research, and a great deal has been done. Homosexuality is not a “permitted” area of research, having been declared “normal” by the psychological community.

If, indeed, the abusive priests were evaluated by spiritual directors, then why should we now believe evaluations by spiritual directors are going to be more effective than they were in the past?

And why should we trust the psychological world to tell us anything at all about it? Sure, they can tell us “X” is a homosexual who is bipolar, or “Y” is a homosexual who is somewhere on the broad sociopathic scale. But that’s it. The core thing: “what is the nature and dynamic of homosexuality and what are its boundaries?” is unanswered by the psychological community.

So, when it comes to trusting the spiritual directors and the shrinks, we’re right back to square one. We know homosexuals are attracted to members of the same sex. We know that’s “profoundly disordered”. We know the Church and innocent young people have sustained enormous damage because of homosexual abusers in the priesthood. We know psych evals and “discernment” and counselling and spiritual directors’ vetting didn’t work. So we’re going to try the same thing again, supposing, as they did before, that this time we’ll succeed in preventing harm just because we now think the very same people having the very same skills, are better at it than they used to be?

And, not knowing anything more about homosexuality itself than we did before, we’re going to try it out on young people again? The current state of understanding by the Church is that it’s “profoundly disordered”, yet the psychological folks who are supposed to vet these people consider it a “variant of normal”.

“Profoundly disordered” & “normal”, at the same time, and nobody sees a big problem with this?

For myself, I say no, we don’t try the same thing out again on young people. Not at all.

 

[NPC]

The bold speaks for itself.

Of course it speaks for itself!! What I am saying is that a seminary can only examine a candidate’s suitability at one moment in time. This goes for everything in life- if one has gotten all ‘A’ grades throughout school, yes the future looks bright for that person, but it really doesn’t bring any guarantees for the person’s future… So unless our dioceses are operating a system of ‘continuous assessment’ as happens with many other professions, then (inadequate as it may turn out to be) monitoring of seminarians throughout their formation is the best means of rooting out those who really shouldn’t be there.

Spiritual Director What if the spiritual director is the abuser.

Firstly, my apologies for wrongly using the term ‘Spiritual Director’…I should have said ‘rector’. I don’t understand how you can be so sceptical - this seems to be a ‘trust no one’ attitude. I don’t deny that it could be a possibility, and I know that in reality many people are mistrustful of priests because of certain scandals - but I think most people agree that it is nonetheless wrong to tar all priests with the same brush because of the actions of a very small minority. And where do you draw the line with ‘what ifs’ - can we not trust that the President of the Seminary appointed the rector after careful consideration because he genuinely thought this priest was right for the job? Or what about the priests (or perhaps even the Bishop) who appointed the President of the Seminary?

I stand by what I said about us having to trust the rectors of our seminaries who are required by the Code of Canon Law 1051/1 to provide a testimonial “about the qualities required to receive [Holy Orders], that is, about the sound doctrine of the candidate, his genuine piety, good morals, and aptitude to exercise the ministry, as well as, after a properly executed inquiry, about his state of physical and psychic health…”. Following this, according to Canon 1052, the bishop conferring ordination must be provided with the documents of the investigation & be satisfied that the investigation was carried out according ‘to the norm of law’. So effectively, there are at least two investigations before ordination (not forgetting that they didn’t automatically get accepted into the seminary in the first place either), and it seems to me that the state of the candidate’s physical & psychic health are of central importance in the investigation, since they are to be examined be ‘properly executed inquiry’. Unfortunately, there will always be a few who manage to ‘slip through the net’, but I’m sure those psychological tests are no picnic & if carried out properly they can produce quite accurate and telling results.

I accept, then, a logical follow-up to this is to ask why did these tests evidently not work in the 1960’s. I won’t venture to attempt a definitive answer this time but, perhaps it was because some priests were too focused on naming & shaming from the pulpit someone who wasn’t at Mass on Sunday, interfereng constantly in government matters, or patrolling dance halls to make sure a young man and a young woman didn’t come closer to each other than the length of his rosary beads! Strange, but that was a real part of 1960’s Ireland. Hardly surprising, given these goings-on, that unsuitable people slipped through the proverbial net to perpetuate these gross mis-uses of power and blatant denial of the sacred vows made before God.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I stand by what I said about us having to trust the rectors of our seminaries

and it seems to me that the state of the candidate’s physical & psychic health are of central importance in the investigation, since they are to be examined be ‘properly executed inquiry’. Unfortunately, there will always be a few who manage to ‘slip through the net’, but I’m sure those psychological tests are no picnic & if carried out properly they can produce quite accurate and telling results.

But it’s not the rectors you’re trusting. You’re trusting that homosexuality is understood sufficiently that the rector can somehow know that this candidate or that won’t do X or Y. Now, the rector knows that homosexuality is “profoundly disordered”. Why do you expect the rector to know the disorder goes this far and no farther, when nobody else does?

You’re further trusting that homosexuality is of such a nature that its course or its manifestations in this person or that can be understood and predicted.

And again, if the psychological tests ignore the fact that the candidate is homosexual (which the discipline does), then you’re just looking for other things like bipolarity, schizophrenia or other “accepted” categories of mental illness. That’s it. They won’t tell you a thing about what this person’s homosexuality, itself, means.

And why is it so important that we admit homosexuals to the priesthood? Because political correctness has taught us that to think otherwise is bigoted or backward. And out of a regard for that, many of us seem to be willing to risk the lives of young people. It’s just wrong.

 

[vocatio]

But it’s not the rectors you’re trusting. You’re trusting that homosexuality is understood sufficiently that the rector can somehow know that this candidate or that won’t do X or Y. Now, the rector knows that homosexuality is “profoundly disordered”. Why do you expect the rector to know the disorder goes this far and no farther, when nobody else does?

Exactly.

QUOTE=Ridgerunner;3184249]You’re further trusting that homosexuality is of such a nature that its course or its manifestations in this person or that can be understood and predicted.
Very true. I’ve know quite a few homosexuals and wouldn’t trust them with my son on minute. And I can be perfectly fine around homosexuals without “judging” them. I’ve seen to many patterns of distructive sexually agressive behavior. The unknows are way to much. Just like you wouldn’t admit someone who just couldn’t reel it in who was heterosexual making the women potentially the targets…Just met one that cut my hair while she kept saying in broken English bible only and over and over…her priest tried to rape her and chased her to a Pentecostal church.

QUOTE=Ridgerunner;3184249]And again, if the psychological tests ignore the fact that the candidate is homosexual (which the discipline does), then you’re just looking for other things like bipolarity, schizophrenia or other “accepted” categories of mental illness. That’s it. They won’t tell you a thing about what this person’s homosexuality, itself, means. Met bipolar people before…not a good thing for them to be in the clergy. Depression should be taken case by case.

QUOTE=Ridgerunner;3184249]And why is it so important that we admit homosexuals to the priesthood? Because political correctness has taught us that to think otherwise is bigoted or backward. And out of a regard for that, many of us seem to be willing to risk the lives of young people. It’s just wrong.
Has the Church fallen prey to PC? That scares the H E double tootpics out of me… Bishops and priests should never be subject that that worldly sin. Sure we should be civilized about things but not give in to wrong. And we should never subject our children to the dangers of this sin. However, I have a problem with children not having enough contact with priests. We need priests far more than we realize and it’s like this. You can sterylize a child’s environment to the point that they become subject to illness for lack of a healthy immune system. So I have mixed feelings about some of this…that’s why the screening process is so important to me personally.

The only person I truly trust is God. I trust everyday I send my children to school. I trust every time I leave a child in the nursery. But I don’t trust people unconditionally. The Church had problems because it trusted so called “professionals” that were leading psychologist, etc. The problem is that it is a pseudoscience that must be reevaluated periodically from time to time. There was a different mindset prior to today’s methods of dealing with the abusers. But to marginalize and blow off the most innocent or adolescent or vulnerable adults is unconscionable. I think we can sit around a make excuses all day for these deacons, priests and bishops, but the bottom line is “there is no right way to do wrong”. This reminds me of the “Great Schism”…the sack on Constantinople.

Oh, my former spiritual director is now laicized and married. What’s up with that? Another spiritual director asked me “what’s wrong with homosexuality” as I told him my concerns about a friend that I was slowly discovering might be and towards me. I’ve also seen a priest slap a married woman on the butt inappropriately and she looked shocked but didn’t say anything. This all took place within 2 years of each other. An older seminarian was spying on me and apparently tried to get more than I was willing to give. They let him graduate knowing he was ruining other seminarian’s lives. It’s sick and demented to allow such behavior… We must protect our brothers and sisters in Christ by standing up for what is right, not looking the other way.

 

[NPC]

But it’s not the rectors you’re trusting. You’re trusting that homosexuality is understood sufficiently that the rector can somehow know that this candidate or that won’t do X or Y. Now, the rector knows that homosexuality is “profoundly disordered”. Why do you expect the rector to know the disorder goes this far and no farther, when nobody else does?

You’re further trusting that homosexuality is of such a nature that its course or its manifestations in this person or that can be understood and predicted.

And again, if the psychological tests ignore the fact that the candidate is homosexual (which the discipline does), then you’re just looking for other things like bipolarity, schizophrenia or other “accepted” categories of mental illness. That’s it. They won’t tell you a thing about what this person’s homosexuality, itself, means.

And why is it so important that we admit homosexuals to the priesthood? Because political correctness has taught us that to think otherwise is bigoted or backward. And out of a regard for that, many of us seem to be willing to risk the lives of young people. It’s just wrong.

I must respond to your last point first. I am not saying (nor have I in previous posts) said that homosexuals should necessarily be admitted to the priesthood. Of course no one should be admitted because they are homosexual; nor should we simply allow anyone into the seminary because some dioceses are so desparate for more priests. The Church should never allow the priesthood to become a hiding place, a haven, for those who want some sort of escape from something. And indeed, one of the worst things the Church could do is to admit certain people for the sake of political correctness.

One of my main points throughout this thread is that men who have a true vocation to serve God in the priesthood should be allowed to do so. As the Church says, this calling is a gift of divine grace. However, the Church has not ruled out the possibility that a man with homosexual tendencies could be given this gift and hence be admitted to the seminary. As I have said before, I agree with the Congregation for Catholic Education’s document regarding Vocations & those with homosexual tendencies, that those who practice homosexuality, show deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support ‘gay-culture’ cannot be admitted to the seminary - “One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies”. The document goes on to mention the case of those who at one time showed homosexual tendencies of a transitory nature. How do you propose the Church deals with those? The document says that in such persons the tendencies must be overcome at least 3 years prior to ordination. But what do you say if this person had these problems in adolescence, which we know is quite likely at such a stage in one’s life - this person showed homosexual tendencies and so should not be admitted because they might display such tendencies later on in life (or worse still, act on them)? Or do we simply make an exception and put it down to hormones? I imagine if the former was applied universally we would have missed out on a huge number of excellent priests.

As I have said before, there is no fool-proof method of only getting the most saintly and pious men for the priesthood. The fact is that we do have to rely on the better judgement of our bishops and seminary rectors in all cases where there might be doubt hanging over the ordination of a particular candidate. Any man who uses the priesthood to try to escape his sexuality (or for any other reason other than a genuine call from God) is doomed to fail as a priest. I, as much as anyone else, don’t want priests who are going to abuse their power in any way - but the fact is there will always be some as there always has been in ages past. Given the complex nature of homosexuality, I think the Vatican’s guidelines (weak though they may turn out to be in some cases) are really the best they can do without risking the genuine vocation of those who may at some time have had a few homosexual thoughts.