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

[EJ79]

ChristFollower:

So here’s your options:

1. Gay Priest
2. Gay Priest who says he’s not practicing.
3. Gay Priest who is hiding his true indentity as a gay man.
4. Priest.

Choose one, please dont think too long.

#4.

After 4-7 years of seminary training- seminaries should be reasonably expected to screen for orthodox, obedient, emotionally healthy men striving to be holy, and without criminal records. If such men are presented to a bishop for ordination to the presbyterate, I wouldn’t hesitate to kiss their consecrated hands after the ceremony, call them father, and give them the honor and trust they deserve, without feeling the need to gather any more information about them, especially the most intimate details that are none of my business.

St. Matthew, St. Paul and St. Augustine, etc., too had pasts, yet they were bishops.

 

[fix]

EJ79:

Fix,

I’m not at all in favor of personal attacks. But when you felt the need below, seemingly out of left field, to highlight a certain member’s choice to describe his/herself as a “lapsed Catholic” from that person’s profile, and having nothing to do with the validity of the person’s argument, what were you resorting to? Praise?

It was not praise or fault. I have asked him several times and he chooses to ignore my question. I think it is relevant to the positions he takes.

How is it relevant to my positions to accuse me of Donatism when I describe myself as a faithful Catholic and my positions are not contrary to any Church teaching?

 

[Other_Eric]

felra:

Interesting to note how you attempt to segregate and compartmentalize the different aspects of the whole person, as if there exists mutually exclusive facets and functions to the person as an organistic, rational, spiritual and social being. God did make us as sexual beings—male and female He made us. Again, you seem to struggle with and/or deny the obvious: intention, behavior, sexual orientation overlay and overlap in the whole of a person—God made us whole/integral persons, not disjointed/disassociated parts (even if a person is not fully comprehensive of this). You draw erroneous conclusions because of this.

There is no way that a person can get around their sexuality, whether or not it is given physical expression/outlet or not. Our sexuality is integral to our identity as persons, period. To say or act otherwise is ignorance or denial of reality. You are wanting an either/or, all/nothing resolve/disposition/measure to the degree that a priest’s/seminarian’s SSA is an impediment/contra indicator for fitness for assuming and functioning in the priesthood of Jesus Christ. It is not that simple. Until SSA can be safely/conclusively ruled out as a non-issue for priestly ordination/function, should not ordination/function be suspended until otherwise indicated? Better to err on the side of safety/assurance, would you not agree?

**2332 ***Sexuality *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)

**2337 **Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift. (CCC)

**2395 **Chastity means the integration of sexuality within the person. It includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery. (CCC)

1579Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to “the affairs of the Lord,” they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church’s minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God. (abbr) (CCC)

Hi felra!

I would agree that until SSA can be safely/conclusively ruled out as a non-issue for priestly ordination/function, that ordination/function be suspended until otherwise indicated. I think that this is the type of thing that should be investigated on an individual basis. I do not deny the authority of the ordinary to make prudential judgments about individual candidates nor do I think that a candidate with SSA should not be scrutinized more closely than a candidate who is not inclined in this way. This is different than adopting a universal prohibition from Holy Orders based on nothing other than the presence of SSA.

You are correct in that the question is not simple. I do not deny that intention, behavior and sexual orientation overlap, but that is different then saying that sexual orientation predetermines either intention or behavior.

 

[fix]

Bishop urges gay ban in clergy

'We must be very careful of who we accept in the seminary and who we ordain as priests," D’Arcy told parishioners at Our Lady of the Presentation Church, the Brighton parish in which he grew up. ''It’s time to ordain men of quality, not to just look for numbers." During yesterday’s 10 a.m. Mass, D’Arcy, now bishop of the Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese in Indiana, said the church must look for men whom children can respect – ''men who would be good husbands, men who would be good fathers," he said.

In an interview after the service, D’Arcy acknowledged that his reference to ''good husbands . . . good fathers" conveyed his belief that only heterosexual men should be allowed to become priests. He said men in the priesthood must embrace celibacy.

To put a gay man in the priesthood, in a mostly male environment, is unfair, given the potential attractions, D’Arcy said. ''We don’t put these [heterosexual] men in with attractive women," he said, referring to seminarians. ''You’re putting him in with men. It’s not fair to him, it’s not fair to them, it’s not fair to the church."

D’Arcy said that if the church can bring men to seminaries who have the right temperament for the job, those priests will attract more good men to work for the church.

''If we ordain men with pathologies and difficulties, they will draw the same kind," he added. ''Don’t just pray for priests, pray for priests of good quality."

boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/07/19/bishop_urges_gay_ban_in_clergy_1090213404/

 

[ChristFollower]

EJ79:

St. Matthew, St. Paul and St. Augustine, etc., too had pasts, yet they were bishops.

• Are we talking hard past or homosexuality ? I don’t think one equals the other.

 

[EJ79]

- Are we talking hard past or homosexuality ? I don’t think one equals the other.

I’m talking about conversion - these men were converted and gave their very being to Christ and His gospel. I’ll leave getting into what sins they committed, degree, number, nature, sexual or not, mortal or venial, sexual orientation - to you if you wish.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Are we talking hard past or homosexuality ? I don’t think one equals the other.

Are you saying that a person who is same-sex attracted is incapable of living according to the teachings of the Church? Are same-sex attracted people like minks who have no free-will and are incapable of self-control and self-mastery and living in chastity and are compelled to have sex with everyone of the same sex that they can? Sounds like you think that people who are same-sex attracted are somehow predestined for hell because they’re incapable of living Christian lives. I’m talking in a general sense here, not just in the priesthood.

 

[felra]

Bishop urges gay ban in clergy

boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/07/19/bishop_urges_gay_ban_in_clergy_1090213404/

[D’Arcy, now bishop of the Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese in Indiana, said the church must look for men whom children can respect – ''men who would be good husbands, men who would be good fathers," he said.*

In an interview after the service, D’Arcy acknowledged that his reference to ''good husbands . . . good fathers" conveyed his belief that only heterosexual men should be allowed to become priests. He said men in the priesthood must embrace celibacy.]

Exactly my whole point and contention: that unless a seminarian candidate would make a good father and husband, why in the world would he be seriously considered as a candidate for priestly ordination? A man will have enough crosses to bear in his priestly vocation lifetime, why start out incumbent with a cross (SSA) so integral to his identity?*

 

[Other_Eric]

felra:

Exactly my whole point and contention: that unless a seminarian candidate would make a good father and husband, why in the world would he be seriously considered as a candidate for priestly ordination?

Hi felra!

Because if you’d read the testimonies from Courage you’d know that the presence of a degree of SSA negates neither the possibility for being a good husband nor of being a good father.

 

[felra]

Other Eric:

Hi felra!

Because if you’d read the testimonies from Courage you’d know that the presence of a degree of SSA negates neither the possibility for being a good husband nor of being a good father.

I have read many of the testimonies from Courage and Narth (narth.com/menus/interviews.html) from those who had the desire to and were successful in overcoming their SSA disorder. After extensive (and ongoing) therapy/support group involvement, they have repaired/re-oriented their SSA to the point that they are able to comfortably, happily (“ego-syntonic”) function in a heterosexual orientation.

I am getting the strong suspicion that you enjoy disagreeing for the sake of argument, although, from your last few posts, I hear you coming around some in greater clarity and agreeing more with my position/contentions.

 

[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.

Regardless, let me see if I can understand your position more. These seem to be your theses:

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

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.

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

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

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).

Are these your assumptions? Please correct me where I have erred in my perception

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[EJ79]

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.

Regardless, let me see if I can understand your position more. These seem to be your theses:

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

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.

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

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

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).

Are these your assumptions? Please correct me where I have erred in my perception

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

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.

 

[Other_Eric]

felra:

I have read many of the testimonies from Courage and Narth (narth.com/menus/interviews.html) from those who had the desire to and were successful in overcoming their SSA disorder. After extensive (and ongoing) therapy/support group involvement, they have repaired/re-oriented their SSA to the point that they are able to comfortably, happily (“ego-syntonic”) function in a heterosexual orientation.

I am getting the strong suspicion that you enjoy disagreeing for the sake of argument, although, from your last few posts, I hear you coming around some in greater clarity and agreeing more with my position/contentions.

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:

What’s overlooked is the hidden assumption that simply to live without Same Sex Attraction is to somehow necessarily put one closer to Grace and more likely to enter heaven. And I don’t believe that to be the case.

How we respond to God’s grace and our own temptations has more to do with our choices and priorities than it does with whether we neccesarily live with SSA or not.

Simply being heterosexual is no guarantee of necessarily living a moral life, hence I can’t see the Church ever making therapy to become heterosexual a moral requirement.

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?

Also I do not believe that I am arguing for the sake of enjoyment. I have not changed my mind on any of the issues involved here. It’s just that I’m not scared to note that we do agree on a few things.

 

[felra]

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.

Let me get out my Catholic decoder device: “so extreme a view” => faithful to Rome; synonym => orthodoxy.

 

[Promotor_Fidei]

I was in a seminary in the early '80s, and I can tell you personally that clergy-student sexual harassment is a severe distraction to the search for holiness.

My roommate suffered from student-student sexual harassment and was falsely accused by that student. That seminary has since been closed. Read “Goodbye, Good Men” for a peek into what it was like.

Given my personal experience, and the crimes against youths and children by unchaste priests, the widespread shame the Church has incurred, and the BILLION DOLLARS of settlements that the Church is having to pay out… in my own opinion…

Those with an objectively disordered inclination, whether towards children or other men, should not seek priesthood.

 

[Other_Eric]

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.

Regardless, let me see if I can understand your position more. These seem to be your theses:

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

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.

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

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

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).

Are these your assumptions? Please correct me where I have erred in my perception

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Hi Deo Volente!

To be fair, I would point out that I have not read that fix would support defrocking an individual with SSA who has already been ordained.

 

[Other_Eric]

Promotor Fidei:

I was in a seminary in the early '80s, and I can tell you personally that clergy-student sexual harassment is a severe distraction to the search for holiness.

My roommate suffered from student-student sexual harassment and was falsely accused by that student. That seminary has since been closed. Read “Goodbye, Good Men” for a peek into what it was like.

Given my personal experience, and the crimes against youths and children by unchaste priests, the widespread shame the Church has incurred, and the BILLION DOLLARS of settlements that the Church is having to pay out… in my own opinion…

Those with an objectively disordered inclination, whether towards children or other men, should not seek priesthood.

Hi Promotor Fidei!

I’m sure that sexual harassment in the seminary does indeed hinder the search for holiness. I’m also sure that simply equating these abuses with same-sex attraction is not quite the truth either.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!
Other Eric:

To be fair, I would point out that I have not read that fix would support defrocking an individual with SSA who has already been ordained.

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

This reminds me of a wonderful story. Maybe Buddhist, I don’t remember. It doesn’t matter. Two monks, young and old, are about to cross a river when a crippled woman approaches them. She says, “I too need to cross the river. Can you help me?” Before the young monk has a chance to say, “No, we cannot touch women,” the older monk says, “Of course. Climb onto my back.” She does so, they cross the river, the woman thanks them and departs. The monks walk in silence for some time. Hours roll by. The young monk is furious. Hours pass. How could the older monk have touched that woman? Silence. Finally, the young monk blurts out, “Brother monk, have you not sinned by carrying that woman across the river? How could you do it?” The older monk says, “I carried her across the river and let her go her way. You, however, have carried her all these miles and hours. If there is a sin here, whose is greater?”

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Promotor_Fidei]

Other Eric:

Hi Promotor Fidei!

I’m sure that sexual harassment in the seminary does indeed hinder the search for holiness. I’m also sure that simply equating these abuses with same-sex attraction is not quite the truth either.

Hi Other Eric, good to speak with you again!

The seminary used a textbook that excused homosexuality, “Human Sexuality” by Kosnick (condemned by the CDF). The overall atmosphere was hostile to the faithful. My friends who went on to ordination hid out and tried to endure, I simply could not. The experience damaged me and it took years to recover. The institution never fully recovered and now is closed. Vocations are still very, very low in that region.

 

[Promotor_Fidei]

Deo Volente:

You, however, have carried her all these miles and hours. If there is a sin here, whose is greater?"

I’ve heard that, but I’m not sure it has much bearing here when talking about criminal actions and a hostile environment. Many excused such actions, to the eternal shame of God’s people.