Homosexuality in the seminary

[tractarian]

I read the recent disciplinary rule barring homosexuals from joining seminary and thus becoming priests. Obviously this includes practicing homosexuals, but is it also meant to keep out men who, though they have SSA (same-sex attraction), live chaste lives and are not truly homosexuals in act?
Even trickier: what about bisexuals who do the same? Keep them out of seminary, and chances are they will simply get married and have 2.7 kids, just like a man without SSA would if a seminary denied him entrance. Somehow that does not seem quite right, but i have yet to see a satisfactory clarification.

Your thoughts?

P.S.: notice that this thread is in Sacraments, not Politics, since the central issue is who is and is not fit to receive Holy Orders. Just a friendly reminder to keep this from getting too ugly.

 

[Edwin1961]

My brother entered the seminary in 1995. During his first year, my brother was approaced by a fellow seminary in an unpropper manner. I was really surprised when my brother told me this. I never thought something like this could have happened. (for the record, that other seminarian left that Diocesian order at the end of his term).
Catholic Answers yesterday discussed the sexual scandal and was surprised that the seminarian topic really did not show up. (I tried to call but couldn’t get through).
So what are our seminaries doing to screen applicants? Are the seminaries now teaching more orthodox teachings? Are the priests teacing at the seminaries being monitored?

go with God!
Edwin

 

[Brain]

is the rule barring even people with a same sex attraction? or just people who embrace the lifestyle?

 

[baltobetsy]

I’m kind of tossed up on this one. On one hand, we are never allowed to be tempted beyond our ability to resist, and a man with same sex attraction has the opportunity to live out the virtue of chastity in a saintly, heroic way. I want my priests saintly and heroic, how about you?

However, for men with same sex attraction, many “normal” situations become occasions of sin, for example, living in the dormitory with other seminarians. Is the energy required to resist these temptations going to drain the candidate of the energy needed for his studies and his growth in the other virtues? Also, people with same sex attractions often have other psychological problems which may interfere with the priestly ministry.

I think I’m talking myself into the position that everyone with same sex attraction should be kept out of the seminary. The real issue here, though, is a good, honest, open-to-the-Holy-Spirit discernment process. If we could keep our political views out of this process and prayerfully seek God’s will for each applicant, we would find each one’s true vocation. Whatever God calls a person to has great dignity - there is no shame in not being called to the priesthood!

Betsy

 

[St_Veronica]

Brain:

is the rule barring even people with a same sex attraction? or just people who embrace the lifestyle?

I believe the rule says homosexuals period not just those who embrace the lifestyle. Since homosexuality is considered gravely disordered. I think that rule is from a document from the 60’s.

SV

 

[JimG]

I agree with Karl Keating’s proposed solution to this problem as set out in 3 points near the end of his Feb 3, 2004 newsletter: catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040203.asp

This problem has resulted in such scandal that it seems proper to exclude homosexuals, practicing or not, from the priesthood. No one, after all, has a right to be a priest. We must do what is in the best interest of the Church.

JimG

 

[tractarian]

JimG:

I agree with Karl Keating’s proposed solution to this problem as set out in 3 points near the end of his Feb 3, 2004 newsletter: catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040203.asp
This problem has resulted in such scandal that it seems proper to exclude homosexuals, practicing or not, from the priesthood. No one, after all, has a right to be a priest. We must do what is in the best interest of the Church.JimG

Yes, it was reading that newsletter (i went thru all the archives in 2 days BTW ) that prompted me to start this thread. Where i do see merit and compassion in Keating’s solution,:tiphat: i think that applying the ban too broadly may also have negative consequences e.g. scrupulosity:tsktsk: with regard to the mental state of seminary applicants. Research i have done :nerd:in the past dealing with the “choice vs. nature” debate led me to conclude that SSA, like any other mental disorder, is on a grayscale with some people suffering more severely than others. Analogy: manic-depression can disqualify someone from military service because it can cause erratic (and possibly dangerous) behavior, but if a person suffers from it only minorly, s/he will typically be allowed to serve.

:twocents: I think that a helpful supplement to a “zero tolerance” policy would be a Church-sponsored program for people with or recovering from SSA. This would provide a way for men who have only minor SSA (what the media typically ignores and sometimes labels as bisexual) to meet seminary entrance requirements to the diocese’s satisfaction, and it would be an even greater good for helping men and women with SSA to overcome the condition.:getholy:

 

[ktm]

Read Goodbye, Good Men by Michael S. Rose if you have any doubts as to whether anyone but a heterosexual man should be admitted to seminary.

 

[JimG]

Frankly, I was surprised to hear of the extent of this problem in the seminaries. (Although I believe they are now much improved, but have no personal knowledge of it.)

It just seems that formation in spirituality should be a part of any priestly formation program. Shouldn’t seminarians be going to confession regularly? Shouldn’t they have a confessor? And any good confessor would soon discern whether this was a problem which should cause a seminarian to question the validity of his vocation and advise him accordingly.

Did students and teachers alike abandon any attempt to live a moral life? If so, such seminaries should have been either closed down or re-started from scratch.

If seminarians find that they cannot refrain from routine sexual sin, they really do not have a vocation.

JimG

 

[chimakuni]

Sexual sin…it is available to all of us…even to the heterosexual man who enters the seminary. If a person has SSA, and they are celibate why can’t they enter a seminary? I have a friend who is very dear to me. If any of you were to be around him, you would peg him as having SSA. He is married with two daughters, a grandson and is not in the slightest way a homosexual. He does not have a proclivity for that, either. So - what we see on the outside is not always reality.

I have a hard time with a blanket statement of saying this person will not be admitted due to this reason. Humans are a lot more complex than that.

Admittedly, the sexual scandal has been horrible for the Church and for the people involved. But there may be some men who are celibate, have SSA and would be wonderful priests.

 

[loyola_rambler]

I completely agree with Karl’s points. The only problem…and it’s the lynchpin to the whole issue…is that the gay men running the seminaries aren’t being “quietly resigned”. Instead, at least one (who is openly gay and was the rector of the major seminary in a major “orthodox” archdiocese) was made bishop of a very large diocese that had itself just weathered a terrible storm of scandal.

Make the atmosphere of the seminaries one that does not permit any instance of sexual deviance to go unanswered…and where those running the seminary are above reproach…then we might have a chance to save the seminary system.

But until then, the Orders are receiving some very fine men who don’t have to deal with the sexual perversion and still get to be priests. Maybe the Jesuits really will take over the Church…at least until the PTB shut down the sexual seminaries and hold accountable everyone involved.

 

[tractarian]

JimG, i am afraid that is exactly what happened. As a windfall to the widespread rejection of Humanae Vitae, an apparent “don’t ask don’t tell” practice went into effect regarding seminarians’ opinion on birth control, and instruction on Catholic sexual morality began to be neglected in many seminaries all over the U.S. and possibly elsewhere too. It took the scandals to finally see any real change in this negligence.

 

[Edwin1961]

tractarian:

:twocents: I think that a helpful supplement to a “zero tolerance” policy would be a Church-sponsored program for people with or recovering from SSA. This would provide a way for men who have only minor SSA (what the media typically ignores and sometimes labels as bisexual) to meet seminary entrance requirements to the diocese’s satisfaction, and it would be an even greater good for helping men and women with SSA to overcome the condition.:getholy:

That’s what I thought the group Courage which was started by Fr. Harvey in NYC is all about (to help those with SSA). However, it is convincing those in the seminaries/the Church to go along with this help that is out there. The problem is the local dioceses that still may want to brush this issue under the rug.
Plus not all major cities have a chapter of Courage. The problem is finding bishops who would want to face the possible backlash a group may pose to the liberal communities.

However for the Church as a whole to correct from within, it should be manditory to have a Courage chapter in each major city AND have those in the religious communities who are fighting SSA should make it manditory to attend.

Go with God!
Edwin

P.S. We do not have a Courage Chapter here in Cleveland.

 

[Suzi]

I tend not to be “PC” when it comes to the holiness of God and His “things”. One who has homosexual tendencies should not immerse himself into the service of a priest. There is already too much scandal and impropriety, and opening oneself to the possibility is not wise or discerning. It’s a life lesson for us all. Not to say that this individual cannot serve in so many aspects of religious life through the church, although not practicing that lifestyle, but those goes without saying, since we all need to be in a “state of grace” when in the position of influence, no matter what our particular challenges may be.

 

[Faithful_2_Rome]

Men with SSA must NOT be allowed into the Priesthood…PERIOD

That is like hiring a PEDOPHILE to be a babysitter.

Why put people who have special (serious) crosses to bear in the (exclusive) company of the very thing that causes them to sin?

If a homosexual seminarian/priest falls and sins…he does so TWICE as opposed to a hetersexual…for not only does he sin in fornication…he sins in ABOMINATION as well. NO, for their own good, men who have SSA shouldnt be put into a group of …MEN

and the SAME THING goes for Lesbian SSA …they shouldnt be allowed to be Nuns…there is no hate here…simply charity and caution.