I'm tired of the "Gay Priests Are Evil" stuff

[Promotor_Fidei]

Promotor Fidei:

The seminary used a textbook that excused homosexuality

I quoted the wrong title… it’s been so many years. The seminary manual that celebrated homosexuality was “The Sexual Celibate”, by Donald Goergen, O.P… Goergen now lives in a Hindu-styled Dominican Ashram in Kenosha, Wisconsin. He protected Rev. Matthew “Creation Spirituality” Fox from discipline for years. Even after Fox left the Dominican Order and the Church to become an Episcopal ‘priest’ in California, Goergen continued to defend Fox’s heterodox views on faith and morals. Goergen’s false teachings have led many astray.

You can more about him here: ourladyswarriors.org/articles/damian2.htm

That issue aside, the Church officially teaches that homosexually-oriented candidates are not to be accepted into seminaries. as it says in “Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders”, Sacred Congregation for Religious, February 2, 1961.

ourladyswarriors.org/teach/ordersentry.htm

It is true that many dioceses ignored this order. Much scandal might have been avoided had they done so, and youths spared, and vocations saved, and finances preserved… Some seminaries became hostile places for orthodox, heterosexually-oriented students.

Homosexually-oriented Catholics can be parishioners and lay people in high position, providing they be chaste and do not give scandal. However, clerical orders are and should be closed to them.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Homosexually-oriented Catholics can be parishioners and lay people in high position, providing they be chaste and do not give scandal.

In what capacity? Perhaps sub-janitor in a catacomb? Grave digger?

Don’t get me wrong. Chastity is essential and a requirement for ALL Christians, whether SSA or OSA (Other-Sex Attracted), married, single or celibate. That’s straight out of the Catechism.

But it seems to me that some people think that people who have SSA are not worthy to even enter a Church building and dip their fingers in the holy water font, let alone serve in any way in the Church.

 

[Promotor_Fidei]

LCMS_No_More:

But it seems to me that some people think that people who have SSA are not worthy to even enter a Church building and dip their fingers in the holy water font, let alone serve in any way in the Church.

I am not one of those. And in fact, in most parishes that I’ve been in, as long as someone with SSA isn’t acting as a couple with one of his or her own sex, most parishoners will neither know nor care. What could they accuse such a person of? Behaving in a celibate manner?

But having large numbers of men with SSA at a seminary poisons the atmosphere, in my experience. It’s one of the reason the military fights against this, so that such behavior doesn’t become the norm as it was in Sparta. An all-male environment can encourage homosexual behavior among heterosexuals… as is true in our prisons now

youth-suicide.com/gay-bisexual/prisons.htm.

Widespread sodomy amongst the clergy is not a new problem. It has periodically required reforming the Church. St. Peter Damien is a Doctor of the Church who wrote on this subject in the 11th century:

ourladyswarriors.org/articles/damian1.htm

St. Padre Pio was persecuted by an unchaste homosexual bishop who ruled his diocese. The bishop hated the saint, slandered him, suspended him and tried to drive him out of the Church. The bishop accused St. Pio of the same crimes of which he was guilty:

ewtn.com/padrepio/

Fortunately the magisterium made a ruling about this long ago. Hopefully the North American bishops will start following it.

 

[CheesusPowerKid]

God has given you a great challenge and a great question, one that most of us could never dream of being able to handle. Pray and dedicate yourself to God’s love and grace, and through your faith and His help, you have a great chance to overcome this. God never gives you something you cannot handle, so stay strong to His ministry and fight with everything you have to stay true to His faith. He will deliver you in the very manner He sees fit, but you have to trust Him.

Just trust Him, and fight to stay true to Him with everything you have. God always triumphs, and He will be there to help you with your struggle.

Britty

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Other Eric:

Hi felra!

I am aware that there are many voices in the Church who vary on this issue. I note that Fr. Harvey himself directly responds to this argument on the very page you cite:Further, I wonder how significant this spousal relationship is. Eastern rite Churches still in full communion with Rome validly ordain married priests. By this logic, it would render their spousal relationship with the Church polygamous.

ISTM that one metaphor for what the priesthood involves, is being made to obscure others.​

What also bothers me, is the implication that the lay vocation is not incompatible with SSA - but that the priestly vocation is. For this implies that laity are no less able to fulfill their vocation, even if they have a SSA; whereas priests cannot. But why should that be so ?

What is the differentia, that makes the priesthood - which, like the lay state, is an accidental modification of the vocation common to all Christians, the common vocation to belong to Christ - incompatible with SSA, when the lay form of this common vocation is compatible with SSA ? If laity with SSA are called to take up their Cross and follow Christ - what is to stop Him giving priests the means to do the same ? Priests and laity differ not essentially, but accidentally - if the difference were essential and not accidental, it would follow that there would have to be two wholly different, unrelated, vocations: one for the laity, the other for priests. There would have to be two Churches; and, presumably, two economies of salvation. ##

Similarly, we could also not expect a homosexual to conceive that “just as the Cross was central to the expression of God’s redemptive love for us in Jesus, so the conformity of the self-denial of homosexual men and women with the sacrifice of the Lord will constitute for them a source of self-giving which will save them from a way of life which constantly threatens to destroy them.” because they are not giving up that which is licit to begin with.

We are left with a single canon to justify our broad, general prohibition:However we know that same-sex attraction by itself *does not *create an inability to fulfill the ministry properly, because Father John Harvey (an expert for the purposes of the canon of there ever was one) has ministered to good priests who have the condition. It seems to me we are left grasping at straws trying desperately to justify our moral judgement of the candidate.

In order to be consistent in this respect, we must allow that the Church is wrong. There is no distinction to be made between the man, the condition or the act. We can no longer say that “the human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation,” because that is precisely what we mean the Church to do.

I wonder whether the canon is anything more theological or Christ-centred than an expression of revulsion born of distaste for something which the Church has traditionally disapproved, and vigorously.​

There may be more than a “yuk-factor” here - then again, maybe there is not. I think the question is worth asking - what is to stop the Church trying to rationalise its likes & dislikes & repugnances by giving them a theological justification ?

It looks as if the RCC’s canons, & the CC, may reflect different elements in her attitude to people with SSA and what she thinks they can be allowed to do. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Other Eric:

Hi felra!

I don’t understand this distinction you are trying to make. If a man with SSA has a psychological disorder that prevents him from fulfilling his priestly ministry, then it matters not a whit if he realized it before or after ordination. If the Church justly bars such a man from the seminary than she also justly defrocks the already ordained. She does not do this based on any behavior, so behavior can no longer be the basic standard by which we judge the homosexual condition. If done to merely to protect the flock from predators, then it is an administrative decision with ramifications outside of the Church, not a theological one. If done because the condition renders the man incapable of a correct conception of the theological significance of his sacrifice, then this inability has ramifications even to those who do not wear a Roman collar.

It looks to me as though we may be in tbe presence of a theological-canonical attitude in a search of a justification.​

If the Church had a position on this subject which proceeded from carefully considered, coherent and consistent principles, I don’t think there would be so much (appearance of) confusion in that position.

If the Church’s competent authorities want to have a coherent & consistent position, they must decide what principles they are going to build it on. Either priests are disqualified by SSA from the priesthood - or they are not. We can’t have it both ways. Consistency is terribly important if the CC is to do and think the right things in this matter. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

If we are not going to defrock a validly ordained priest who failed to disclose SSA in his seminary formation, then we can’t be said to be concerned about intentions. Moreover, it seems we intend to remove a candidate with SSA from the seminary even if his genuine intention is to be faithful to the Church’s teachings. Intentions do not come into consideration at all, only the SSA does.

We’ve spent much time in these forums arguing that the mere fact of SSA indicates a predatory character, heterodoxy and an inability to form proper theological conceptions.

In that case, presumably the mere fact of the absence of SSA indicates temperance, orthodoxy, and an ability to form proper theological conceptions.​

I hope no one seriously believes that… ##

Yet, we allow such a man to continue in Christ’s priesthood if already ordained? What possible reason could we have to allow such a man to continue in this way? If he has SSA, he is still a ticking time-bomb regardless of when he discovers it and we do an unjust disservice to the congregation we mean him to minister to. Perhaps you would prefer that such a man just be shuffled from parish to parish?

If the Church finds it just to deny a man with SSA admission to Holy Orders because the mere fact of SSA indicates a predatory character, why can this same judgement not be made by the lay community?

Because knowledge is power - and the ruling elite would be destabilised if the ruled were in a position to judge for itself of the competence and wisdom of its rulers: the Guardians have none to guard them. That is why “the Church is not a democracy” - because it is an oligarchy, which depends for the perpetuation of its rule upon the absence of an underclass strong enough to call it to account; which is presumably why the election of bishops by the laity, though part of the tradition is inadmissible.​

The sociology of power in the CC is fascinating - it’s one of the most interesting things about being Catholic. The CC - and Christianity in general - must be a sociologist’s paradise ##

Certainly parents have as much of a responsibility to their children as the Church does to her flock. This means that the faithful, responsible Christian will look to the disorder first, as the Church does. Behavior means nothing. If the Church decides that the mere fact of SSA impedes the proper understanding of theological concepts, such as the spousal relationship to the Church, why does this not apply more generally to theological concepts such as the nature of self-sacrifice?

If you think that these are merely my opinions, then explain to me in detail why they are wrong. Cite sources that indicate why disorder of SSA vanishes after ordination. Find any Church document or authoritative opinion that alleges that SSA attacks the ability to form correct theological concepts in this peculiarly specific fashion. Explain to me why you are not desperate to justify your own agenda.

Exactly - the only people with “agendas”, are the critics of the established order. The criticised, have, of no course, no agenda - ever. Excuse me while I my eyes. ​

A good case does not need to be backed up by (misplaced) invocations of supernatural authority, still less by threats or sanctions. Someone with a good case will not be afraid for it to be thoroughly discussed. If the Church is reluctant for these matters to be discussed, honestly, fairly, & fully, that does not show much confidence in the power of truth; or in the truth of her own teaching. ##

 

[Promotor_Fidei]

#What is the differentia, that makes the priesthood - which, like the lay state, is an accidental modification of the vocation common to all Christians, the common vocation to belong to Christ - incompatible with SSA, when the lay form of this common vocation is compatible with SSA ?

Gottle of Greer, people are rejected for all sorts of reasons from clerical life. They may be tempermentally unsuited to ministering to others, or unable to live happily in community, or get poor grades in an academic environment. Yet those same individuals are not barred from being laity. Clerical orders are something very few of the laity are suited for.

 

[Promotor_Fidei]

Here’s an excellent article on the topic of ephebophiliac homosexual priests.

nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-dreher042202.asp

‘“I think we have to ask the question: Why are 90 percent to 95 percent, and some estimates say as high as 98 percent, of the victims of clergy [abuse] teenage boys? . . . We need to ask that question, and I think there’s a certain reluctance to raise that issue,” said the Rev. Donald B. Cozzens, author of The Changing Face of the Priesthood, on a recent Meet the Press.’

 

[felra]

Other Eric:

Hi felra!

I’ve already had this conversation with David Morrison over the moral and theological implications of conversion therapy. One of Mr. Morrison’s responses to me was:To me this makes sense and dovetails seamlessly with the Church’s official teaching that the condition of being subject to same-sex attractions is not, in itself sinful.** If homosexuality is not to be thought of as an impediment to Grace, how can it form an impediment to the Graces that God would give to a man to enable him to understand the nature of a spousal relationship with the Church?**

" … to understand the nature of a spousal reationship with the Church" is entirely different and separate from the ability and capacity to enter into, assume and live fully that espousal embrace/union/commitment of the priesthood (and marriage) of Jesus Christ as the Beloved (insert priest) and the Church the Bride.

I believe that men afflicted with the disorder of SSA renders them constitutionally limited (ability/capacity) in their psychological make-up to “couple” (psychologically, affectively, spiritually, relationally) adequately with the Church as the Bride and Christ as the Beloved; just as they are obviously proportionately limited in their ability to enter into marital union. Why would you want/expect/accept less of a priesthood candidate as a starting point/threshold qualification/requirement?

“Male and female He made them…” Our sexuality (sexual orientation) is not an ancillary, segregated, compartmentalized aspect of our identity, but “…affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others”. (CCC 2332).
Applying your logic, any unmarried male who is able to understand the nature of a spousal relationship with the Church is eligible for the priesthood, regardless of degree of assessed psychological disorder? (and in the case of SSA would otherwise render him currently unsuitable for marriage and fatherhood). Again, you seem to be avoiding/denying the obvious.

Your reference to David Morrison comments has no bearing on this discussion of candidate fitness for the priesthood. Of course, SSA affliction is not sinful in and of itself, and does not render that individual defective or without merit in Christ (like the rest of us). However, to erroneously link the conditions for discipleship (SSA individuals=Yes) to the conditions for priestly candidacy (therefore individuals SSA=Yes) as you attempt to do is an oversimplification and shows a lack of appreciation for the priestly vocation and the nature of holy order vows.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Promotor Fidei:

Gottle of Greer, people are rejected for all sorts of reasons from clerical life. They may be tempermentally unsuited to ministering to others, or unable to live happily in community, or get poor grades in an academic environment.

One wonders whether St.John Vianney would be ordained nowadays - or St.Joseph of Cupertino​

Yet those same individuals are not barred from being laity. Clerical orders are something very few of the laity are suited for.

That is quite true (though not difficult to forget). All the same, the rejection of those with SSA seems to be more fraught with emotion than the rejection of (say) epileptics; the reactions are far stronger - I don’t suppose there is a site with the URL www.godhatesepileptics.com - and I hope not too.​

In fact, since epileptics are irregular for ordination, and have been for years, maybe (seeing that epilepsy is less emotive than SSA) it would be worthwhile to ask oneself whether one would say of epileptics what one says or thinks of people with SSA: reactions to the one group, might be a guide to how one should react to the other. There are significant differences, admittedly - but there are also significant similarities. ##

 

[Promotor_Fidei]

Thank you for your response, Geer.

## One wonders whether St.John Vianney would be ordained nowadays - or St.Joseph of Cupertino

At my seminary we were all told that St. Francis could not be ordained as a diocesan priest there, should he show up. They would send him off to an order. Maybe. They used the analogy of a pizza and said that those in the bread outside the circle wouldn’t make it. They wanted people who would fit the role of a parish priest (of course, from their standpoint).

So I would agree with you, given the current state of the Church, candidates for sainthood might have a tough time getting ordained, depending where they go.

That is quite true (though not difficult to forget). All the same, the rejection of those with SSA seems to be more fraught with emotion than the rejection of (say) epileptics; the reactions are far stronger - I don’t suppose there is a site with the URL www.godhatesepileptics.com - and I hope not too.​

In fact, since epileptics are irregular for ordination, and have been for years, maybe (seeing that epilepsy is less emotive than SSA) it would be worthwhile to ask oneself whether one would say of epileptics what one says or thinks of people with SSA: reactions to the one group, might be a guide to how one should react to the other. There are significant differences, admittedly - but there are also significant similarities. ##

I would much rather that my seminary had consisted entirely of epileptics than unchaste clerics and students.

This experiment of ordaining large percentages of men with SSA has been tried. Not once, but many times throughout the history of the Church. The result has always been scandal and corruption.

I have met chaste, holy men with SSA, a deacon stands out in my mind in particular. The Church needs their example desperately.

But right now, the unchaste ones that have violated clerical vows must be cleansed from the Church. They have victimized the flock they were to serve. Since studies indicated that half of the clergy with SSA have been unchaste, the Church must be prudent and bar those with that inclination from clerical vocations.

 

[fix]

Promotor Fidei:

But right now, the unchaste ones that have violated clerical vows must be cleansed from the Church. They have victimized the flock they were to serve. Since studies indicated that half of the clergy with SSA have been unchaste, the Church must be prudent and bar those with that inclination from clerical vocations.

Good point. At this time with so much cultural acceptance of homosexual conduct and with the problem of homosexual abuse in recent years it is a bad idea to ordain those with SSA.

 

[fix]

Deo Volente:

Grace & Peace!

Forgive me, fix. I didn’t mean the comment above as an ad hominem. I have observed in your posts (in your posts mind you, I cannot have observed it directly in you) that your rhetoric tends towards an irresolute legalism that seems more in line with a gospel of predestination and wrath than of grace and the revelation of the Royal Law of Love, as James would call it. Still, I do not cling to this perception, and hope that I am simply mis-reading your posts.

I can’t help that you have misperceptions. My posts are for all to read. I am sure others draw different conclusions.

1–Even in men who choose not to express it in any way, SSA is a sign of a severely disordered soul.

It is a medical disorder and as the CCC says the inclination is objectively disordered.

2–The disorder of SSA is so severe that its mere presence naturally precludes the soul from the reception of certain graces, or, at the least, precludes them from being received properly.

No, I never said that. Please show us where I did?

3–One such grace is that received through Holy Orders.

I never said one could not be ordained, only that one should not be ordained.

4–People with SSA are therefore unfit to receive Holy Orders

They are unfit for several reasons. I have mentioned these reasons her and in other threads. They have a psychological disorder, which I will not rehash here. I, also, agree with Felra’s position in terms of the Church teaching.

5–Those in Holy Orders now who, when pressed, may admit to having SSA, are unfit to remain priests by nature of the SSA which, presumably in itself, consitutes a sin that clings to the soul more deeply than the grace of God is willing to go (presumably, for instance, the sin cannot be washed away in baptism or in confession because to the extent that such attractions remain after baptism or confession–given the nature of the human organism and our understanding of sexuality–the persistence of the attraction gives the lie to the efficacy of either baptism or confession OR simply re-enforces points one and two above).

You are reading too much into my position. If a priest has SSA and does not act out on it or teach that homosexual acts or inclination are virtuous, then they should be “left alone”.

 

[fix]

EJ79:

This is exactly how I am left to interpret fix’s and others’ posts too. They [the posts] are so extreme a view that I doubt even a papal or Vatican pronouncement would stand a chance before them, let alone God’s efficacious mercy and grace. But nevertheless, a Vatican pronouncement is imminent, or so fix says, I’m glad to know we have such an insider among us.

Please do not distort my postions. I have said many times, including in this thread, I will accept whatever Rome proclaims regarding the issue. Keep in mind Rome said in 1961 that homosexuals should not be ordained. Should I infer you think Rome is incorrect?

 

[fix]

Deo Volente:

Grace & Peace!

Eric, you may be right, but I think the territory here is somewhat murky–I get the impression that so long as a priest gives no indication that they have SSA, then they may still exercise their office (however begrudging the permission to do so). The moment that this information slips out, it seems that the priest instantly politicizes himself and separates himself from holiness–however innocent the admission, regardless of the reason, the admission in itself is intractably sinful because now they are a gay priest. I may be wrong, though. I often am

You may be unaware that there are some clerics who openly dissent from Catholic Church teachings. Many want to be like some in the Anglican Church and embrace moral relativism. It is not about a game of gotcha, but a real problem of spreading error and scandal.

 

[Other_Eric]

" … to understand the nature of a spousal reationship with the Church" is entirely different and separate from the ability and capacity to enter into, assume and live fully that espousal embrace/union/commitment of the priesthood (and marriage) of Jesus Christ as the Beloved (insert priest) and the Church the Bride.

I believe that men afflicted with the disorder of SSA renders them constitutionally limited (ability/capacity) in their psychological make-up to “couple” (psychologically, affectively, spiritually, relationally) adequately with the Church as the Bride and Christ as the Beloved; just as they are obviously proportionately limited in their ability to enter into marital union. Why would you want/expect/accept less of a priesthood candidate as a starting point/threshold qualification/requirement?

“Male and female He made them…” Our sexuality (sexual orientation) is not an ancillary, segregated, compartmentalized aspect of our identity, but “…affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others”. (CCC 2332).

**

Applying your logic, any unmarried male who is able to understand the nature of a spousal relationship with the Church is eligible for the priesthood, regardless of degree of assessed psychological disorder? (and in the case of SSA would otherwise render him currently unsuitable for marriage and fatherhood). Again, you seem to be avoiding/denying the obvious.

Your reference to David Morrison comments has no bearing on this discussion of candidate fitness for the priesthood. Of course, SSA affliction is not sinful in and of itself, and does not render that individual defective or without merit in Christ (like the rest of us). However, to erroneously link the conditions for discipleship (SSA individuals=Yes) to the conditions for priestly candidacy (therefore individuals SSA=Yes) as you attempt to do is an oversimplification and shows a lack of appreciation for the priestly vocation and the nature of holy order vows.

Hi felra!

Well, what you don’t seem to understand is that if sexualityeffects “the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others,” then SSA negatively effects the capacity to form communion with Christ as well. This is just another way of saying that a man’s potential for salvation is uniquely diminished as a result of a disordered sexuality. After all, using your logic from the Catechism, this disordered sexuality affects all aspects of the human person so you yourself cannot compartmentalize it in your own way.

It seems to me that your scheme involves an oversimplification of its own. It rests upon equating the condition of SSA with sexual compulsion and the inability to properly give oneself over to Christ. This disability apparently magically disappears if the same person has already been ordained. If not ordained, the condition of predatory sexual compulsion also magically disappears as soon as the candidate sets foot outside the seminary. You accuse me of compartmentalizing?

All I ask is that a fair assessment of the whole candidate be made. It seems to me you wish to make the candidate’s entire identity about his sexuality. This is morality divorced from behavior in contradiction of the Church’s clear teaching on the blamelessness of the condition itself. It seems when the Church “refuses to consider the person as a ‘heterosexual’ or a ‘homosexual’ and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life,” that you find her short-sighted. And while the document I quote does not specifically address the formation of clerics, it’s hard for me to imagine that this is an attitude that the seminary ordinary should be exempt from.

 

[Other_Eric]

Promotor Fidei:

Thank you for your response, Geer.

At my seminary we were all told that St. Francis could not be ordained as a diocesan priest there, should he show up. They would send him off to an order. Maybe. They used the analogy of a pizza and said that those in the bread outside the circle wouldn’t make it. They wanted people who would fit the role of a parish priest (of course, from their standpoint).

So I would agree with you, given the current state of the Church, candidates for sainthood might have a tough time getting ordained, depending where they go.

I would much rather that my seminary had consisted entirely of epileptics than unchaste clerics and students.

This experiment of ordaining large percentages of men with SSA has been tried. Not once, but many times throughout the history of the Church. The result has always been scandal and corruption.

I have met chaste, holy men with SSA, a deacon stands out in my mind in particular. The Church needs their example desperately.

But right now, the unchaste ones that have violated clerical vows must be cleansed from the Church. They have victimized the flock they were to serve. Since studies indicated that half of the clergy with SSA have been unchaste, the Church must be prudent and bar those with that inclination from clerical vocations.

Hi Promotor Fidei!

What bothers me is the assumption that somehow SSA is a condition that inherently prevents a chaste life. If this is the assumption that we mean to use to deny the sacrament of Holy Orders to a candidate, why would we expect chastity from him in any other context?

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

You may be unaware that there are some clerics who openly dissent from Catholic Church teachings. Many want to be like some in the Anglican Church and embrace moral relativism. It is not about a game of gotcha, but a real problem of spreading error and scandal.

Hi fix!

Well, heresies of the left ar not the only ones that we should be wary of. There are also clerics who wish the Church to be more along the lines of SSPX.

 

[felra]

Other Eric:

Hi felra!

Well, what you don’t seem to understand is that if sexualityeffects “the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others,” then SSA negatively effects the capacity to form communion with Christ as well. This is just another way of saying that a man’s potential for salvation is uniquely diminished as a result of a disordered sexuality. After all, using your logic from the Catechism, this disordered sexuality affects all aspects of the human person so you yourself cannot compartmentalize it in your own way.

It seems to me that your scheme involves an oversimplification of its own.** It rests upon equating the condition of SSA with sexual compulsion and the inability to properly give oneself over to Christ**. This disability apparently magically disappears if the same person has already been ordained. If not ordained, the condition of predatory sexual compulsion also magically disappears as soon as the candidate sets foot outside the seminary. You accuse me of compartmentalizing?

All I ask is that a fair assessment of the whole candidate be made. It seems to me you wish to make the candidate’s entire identity about his sexuality. This is morality divorced from behavior in contradiction of the Church’s clear teaching on the blamelessness of the condition itself. It seems when the Church “refuses to consider the person as a ‘heterosexual’ or a ‘homosexual’ and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life,” that you find her short-sighted. And while the document I quote does not specifically address the formation of clerics, it’s hard for me to imagine that this is an attitude that the seminary ordinary should be exempt from.

Again, you continue to erroneously link a man’s fitness/qualifications for priestly ordination with the salvation of their soul. Why is this?

I have never in any of my posts this thread equated SSA with sexual compulsion (i.e., uncontrollable sexual acting out) and the inability to “properly give oneself over to Christ”. Please quote me where I have stated so.

I have never once equated a (seminarian) candidate’s “entire identity about his sexuality”. This is a misrepresentation of my articulated position. To repeat myself a third time this thread: sexual orientation in and of itself can be the primary/determining indicator of fitness for priesthood depending on the individual seminarian candidate (based on honest asnwers and sophisticated screening/assessment tools). It sounds more like you have a problem with the pervasive influence of our sexuality on all aspects of our affective and relationship functioning (see CCC 2332), than determing degree of psychological disorder for a seminarian candidate as a contra indicator for priesthood.

Again, I will re-ask my question to you which you have not yet aswered: if a seminarian candidate has SSA disorder to the degree that he would not be a viable candiate for marriage/fatherhood, why in the world would you (or seminary ordinary) consider this person as a viable candidate for priestly ordination?