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

[fix]

**"When screening reveals probable SSA, the candidate is not automatically excluded from consideration. If he is willing to do the hard work required to come to freedom from his emotional pain, his same-sex attractions will be resolved and then he can reapply later. The Church should not take the moral risk of allowing someone with SSA to enter the seminary.

If I am reading this correctly these folks are saying those with SSA should not be admitted? If one is “cured” they no longer have SSA and may be admitted?

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

Huh? What does one have to do with the other?

I said those who engage in heteodoxy are more likely to break the moral law and that is accurate. I said it is possible for them to lead a holy life, but that does not intend that should be priests. The standrads for ordination are in place for a reason. What other disorders should we overlook and what other standards ought we eliminate?

The inclination often leads one to act. It is a serious and objectively disordered inclination. Do you support putting in positions of authority over children those with other psychosexual problems? Which ones?

All are called to be baptized. Not all are called to Holy Orders and not all who think they are called have any right to it? The Church decides.

Why does your profile say you are a lapsed Catholic?

Hi fix!

If it is possible for a man to lead a holy life, then it is also possible for him to be a priest. This does not negate the prudential judgment of the seminary. Every candidate for the priesthood is going to be prone to some error, failing or weakness. We do not adopt blanket rules for any of these, instead we find “the Church’s wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases.” The homosexual inclination should be no different. We may wish to pay more attention to such a seminarian’s formation, especially in light of the recent past, but this also does not preclude ordination. After all, “what is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive.”

 

[fix]

If it is possible for a man to lead a holy life, then it is also possible for him to be a priest.

It may be possible, but that does not mean it is prudent.

We do not adopt blanket rules for any of these, instead we find “the Church’s wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases.” The homosexual inclination should be no different. We may wish to pay more attention to such a seminarian’s formation, especially in light of the recent past, but this also does not preclude ordination. After all, “what is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive.”

Where is this quote from?

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

If it is possible for a man to lead a holy life, then it is also possible for him to be a priest.

That it is possible does not mean it is prudent.

This does not negate the prudential judgment of the seminary. Every candidate for the priesthood is going to be prone to some error, failing or weakness. We do not adopt blanket rules for any of these, instead we find “the Church’s wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases.” The homosexual inclination should be no different. We may wish to pay more attention to such a seminarian’s formation, especially in light of the recent past, but this also does not preclude ordination. After all, “what is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive.”

That document was not speaking about admission into a seminary. Rome will speak soon on the matter.

Here is the full quote in context:

Here, the Church’s wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it.What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God’s liberating grace.

 

[felra]

"When screening reveals probable SSA, the candidate is not automatically excluded from consideration. If he is willing to do the hard work required to come to freedom from his emotional pain, his same-sex attractions will be resolved and then he can reapply later. The Church should not take the moral risk of allowing someone with SSA to enter the seminary.

If I am reading this correctly these folks are saying those with SSA should not be admitted? If one is “cured” they no longer have SSA and may be admitted?**

Yes, that is my take. To be “cured” of SSA involves extensive and concerted multifaceted therapy to address/repair the underlying unmet emotional/developmental needs, with SSA attraction (“gender identity disorder” in adolescents) as a “symptom” deviant feature/behavior.

The idea is to “repair” (reparative therapy) the unmet emotional/psychological/developmental needs/wounds, then SSA will abate over time and the heterosexual orientation is allowed to emerge. Then the vocational discernment process can then begin if the person still feels a calling to the priesthood.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

That it is possible does not mean it is prudent.

That document was not speaking about admission into a seminary. Rome will speak soon on the matter.

Here is the full quote in context:

Here, the Church’s wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it.What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God’s liberating grace.

Hi fix!

If we begin with an assumption that the Church terms “unfounded and demeaning,” does it matter what the nature of our conclusion is?

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

If we begin with an assumption that the Church terms “unfounded and demeaning,” does it matter what the nature of our conclusion is?

What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable

Inculpable meaning blameless. Yes, that is critical to understanding the intent of the writer.

Also, the document is addressing theological issues, not medical facts.

 

[Other_Eric]

What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable

Inculpable meaning blameless. Yes, that is critical to understanding the intent of the writer.

Also, the document is addressing theological issues, not medical facts.

Hi fix!

The document is addressing pastoral issues, which means of or relating to spiritual care or guidance especially of a congregation. It’s in the very title. You cannot allow the seminary to pick and choose which pronouncement from the Vatican it will adhere to.

Nevertheless, we immediately arrive right where I started. If it is only unacceptable to note that the homosexual condition is compulsive in regards to removing culpability, but ok to use this in every other assessment, then there is no salvation for these people. They do not have the free will to live a chaste existence and they will be damned for it. After all, it’s a medical fact.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

The document is addressing pastoral issues, which means of or relating to spiritual care or guidance especially of a congregation. It’s in the very title. You cannot allow the seminary to pick and choose which pronouncement from the Vatican it will adhere to.

Who said a seminary should reject the paper. I reject your interpretation of it as it relates to admissibility to seminary.

If it is only unacceptable to note that the homosexual condition is compulsive in regards to removing culpability, but ok to use this in every other assessment, then there is no salvation for these people. They do not have the free will to live a chaste existence and they will be damned for it. After all, it’s a medical fact.

Let us not confuse issues. That SSA is a medical disorder does not mean one is eternally damned. It may mean that such a condition requires treatment before one may function as a priest, or in other positions. It may mean that some are not treatable, that does not imply moral sinfulness.

In any event, homosexual inclination seems to be a problem, medical and spiritual, there are many variables and a significant chance it may be problematic seems reason enough to exclude from seminary.

It seems you intend to obfuscate, why?

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

Who said a seminary should reject the paper. I reject your interpretation of it as it relates to admissibility to seminary.

Let us not confuse issues. That SSA is a medical disorder does not mean one is eternally damned. It may mean that such a condition requires treatment before one may function as a priest, or in other positions. It may mean that some are not treatable, that does not imply moral sinfulness.

In any event, homosexual inclination seems to be a problem, medical and spiritual, there are many variables and a significant chance it may be problematic seems reason enough to exclude from seminary.

It seems you intend to obfuscate, why?

Hi fix!

Either I obfuscate or you begin from a position of profound confusion. The document I linked to articulates guidelines for dealing with homosexual persons. If these guidelines are meant to be observed by pastors and lay persons, I see no reason why the ordinary of a seminary should be exempt. Further, I am not the only one. Fr. John Harvey, who has lived most of his life ministering and counseling those with same-sex attraction (including priests) agrees. In addition to a psychological degree, he also has the clinical experience to back up his point of view. What do you have?

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

Either I obfuscate or you begin from a position of profound confusion. The document I linked to articulates guidelines for dealing with homosexual persons. If these guidelines are meant to be observed by pastors and lay persons, I see no reason why the ordinary of a seminary should be exempt. Further, I am not the only one. Fr. John Harvey, who has lived most of his life ministering and counseling those with same-sex attraction (including priests) agrees. In addition to a psychological degree, he also has the clinical experience to back up his point of view. What do you have?

I never said anyone was exempt from the document. I said I rejected your interpretation that the document was an endorsement from the Vatican to allow SSA folks into seminary.

I am not confused about anything I have said here.

Fr. Harvey I am sure, as I, will accept the Vatican ruling.

Again, I am not a gambler. What other disorders should be overlook?

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

I never said anyone was exempt from the document. I said I rejected your interpretation that the document was an endorsement from the Vatican to allow SSA folks into seminary.

I am not confused about anything I have said here.

Fr. Harvey I am sure, as I, will accept the Vatican ruling.

Again, I am not a gambler. What other disorders should be overlook?

Hi fix!

It’s not a question of overlooking anything. It’s a question of judging individual candidates on an individual basis.

 

[felra]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

Either I obfuscate or you begin from a position of profound confusion. The document I linked to articulates guidelines for dealing with homosexual persons. If these guidelines are meant to be observed by pastors and lay persons, I see no reason why the ordinary of a seminary should be exempt. Further, I am not the only one. Fr. John Harvey, who has lived most of his life ministering and counseling those with same-sex attraction (including priests) agrees. In addition to a psychological degree, he also has the clinical experience to back up his point of view. What do you have?

We are talking about screening for the fitness of an individual to enter/continue seminary formation for the priesthood. This is enitrely different than an already ordained priest first disclosure/being discovered as struggling with SSA as an impediment to living fully and freely the ministry of the priesthood. Surely you are not suggesting that we knowingly admit those with a psychological disorder into the seminary/priesthood without first having independent evidence that such a disorder has been healed to a degree of being a non-issue?

“We have observed many priests grow in holiness and in happiness in their ministry as a result of the healing of their childhood and adolescent male insecurity and loneliness and, subsequently, their same-sex attractions. This healing process has been described in Fr. John Harvey’s book, The Truth About Homosexuality and in the statement of the Catholic Medical Association, Homosexuality and Hope, available at www.cathmed.org.” (http://www.narth.com/docs/catholic.html).

 

[Other_Eric]

felra:

We are talking about screening for the fitness of an individual to enter/continue seminary formation for the priesthood. This is enitrely different than an already ordained priest first disclosure/being discovered as struggling with SSA as an impediment to living fully and freely the ministry of the priesthood. Surely you are not suggesting that we knowingly admit those with a psychological disorder into the seminary/priesthood without first having independent evidence that such a disorder has been healed to a degree of being a non-issue?

“We have observed many priests grow in holiness and in happiness in their ministry as a result of the healing of their childhood and adolescent male insecurity and loneliness and, subsequently, their same-sex attractions. This healing process has been described in Fr. John Harvey’s book, The Truth About Homosexuality and in the statement of the Catholic Medical Association, Homosexuality and Hope, available at www.cathmed.org.” (http://www.narth.com/docs/catholic.html).

Hi felra!

What I am saying is that the admissibility of a seminarian should not depend entirely upon the presence of SSA. Of the priests who actually committed abuse, “these priests either refused to seek spiritual direction or chose a spiritual director or confessor who openly rebelled against Church teachings on sexuality.” It appears then, that those with serious problems with a chastity could be weeded out even before we have to address the issue of SSA. The question is one of the ability and will to live out the Church’s teachings. This is completely independent of a man’s sexual orientation

 

[felra]

felra:

We are talking about screening for the fitness of an individual to enter/continue seminary formation for the priesthood. This is enitrely different than an already ordained priest first disclosure/being discovered as struggling with SSA as an impediment to living fully and freely the ministry of the priesthood (your link article was specific only to those *already *in the priesthood). Surely you are not suggesting that we knowingly admit those with a psychological disorder into the seminary/priesthood without first having independent evidence that such a disorder has been healed to a degree of being a non-issue?

“We have observed many priests grow in holiness and in happiness in their ministry as a result of the healing of their childhood and adolescent male insecurity and loneliness and, subsequently, their same-sex attractions. This healing process has been described in Fr. John Harvey’s book, The Truth About Homosexuality and in the statement of the Catholic Medical Association, Homosexuality and Hope, available at www.cathmed.org.” (http://www.narth.com/docs/catholic.html).

 

[felra]

Other Eric:

Hi felra!

What I am saying is that the admissibility of a seminarian should not depend entirely upon the presence of SSA. Of the priests who actually committed abuse, “these priests either refused to seek spiritual direction or chose a spiritual director or confessor who openly rebelled against Church teachings on sexuality.” It appears then, that those with serious problems with a chastity could be weeded out even before we have to address the issue of SSA. The question is one of the ability and will to live out the Church’s teachings. This is completely independent of a man’s sexual orientation

The question is one of the ability and will to live out the Church’s teachings in the capacity of the priesthood of Jesus Christ. This is completely interdependent of a man’s sexual orientation.

As I stated in an earlier post, sexual orientation in and of itself can be the primary/determining indicator of fitness for priesthood depending on the individual seminarian candidate.

 

[Other_Eric]

felra:

The question is one of the ability and will to live out the Church’s teachings in the capacity of the priesthood of Jesus Christ. This is completely interdependent of a man’s sexual orientation.

As I stated in an earlier post, sexual orientation in and of itself can be the primary/determining indicator of fitness for priesthood depending on the individual seminarian candidate.

Hi felra!

What do you believe the priesthood to be? What unique quality do you believe it to have that would render the individual with SSA inadmissable? I’ve scoured both the Catechism and the Code of Canon Law on this issue and can find nothing that would constitute an impediment to the priesthood that does not also constitute an impediment to faithful observation of the Church’s teachings in general. All I see are rationalizations that have been specifically rejected by Fr. Harvey.

 

[felra]

Other Eric:

Hi felra!

What do you believe the priesthood to be? What unique quality do you believe it to have that would render the individual with SSA inadmissable? I’ve scoured both the Catechism and the Code of Canon Law on this issue and can find nothing that would constitute an impediment to the priesthood that does not also constitute an impediment to faithful observation of the Church’s teachings in general. All I see are rationalizations that have been specifically rejected by Fr. Harvey.

The priesthood requires of a man the ability to give him self fully over to assuming the very priesthood of Jesus Christ. If a man’s predominant sexual orientation is SSA, then I believe that this would pose a serious impediment to his ability/capacity to espouse the Church as his bride in the *in persona Christi Capitis. *If a man is not a good candidate to enter into the espousal relationship of marriage (which a man with a predominant SSA obviously is not), then I am left wondering why this same man would be a good candidate for the priesthood? These are my common sense ponderings, and of course I defer to Rome for the final determination.

Not everyone agrees that Fr. Harvey’s opinion is the end all:

“Celibacy, he says, involves a sacrifice of a good for a greater good. But the homosexual person is not making such a sacrifice in taking a vow or promise of celibacy, because he is not attracted to marriage. The second difficulty is that the homosexual candidate cannot relate to the Church as spouse in the same way as a heterosexual candidate does. Even if the homosexual candidate is chaste, he lacks ‘certain important elements due to SSA,’ and this could be another reason for proper authority to have a prudent doubt about him.” (Msgr. Andrew Baker, from the staff of the Congregation for Bishops in Rome). (http://www.couragerc.org/SSA in the Seminary.htm)

1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis:23

It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi).24 *(CCC) *

**2360 **Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament. (CCC)

**2361 **“Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death.” (CCC)

 

[fix]

Interesting article:

Homosexuals (virginal or non virginal) cannot be ordained to the priesthood. God does not call objectively disordered men to the priesthood. Why do some theologians find it so ‘harsh’ to eliminate the virginal and non virginal homosexual? We eliminate others who are equally unsuitable (women cannot be ordained to the priesthood), why not the homosexual who is most dangerous to the souls of his flock? One of the most divulging news reports appeared in The New York Times in February, 2002. It was revealed that Pope John Paul II’s spokesman told the world that homosexual men were not fit for the ordained priesthood. Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, a Spanish psychiatrist, when questioned whether ordinations of gays were even valid, said “People with these inclinations just cannot be ordained. That does not imply final judgment on people with homosexuality, but you cannot be in the field (priesthood).” No one at the Vatican appeared to support Navarro-Valls’ statement. However, Canon Law does support his statement, saying that men with impediments or irregularities, including psychic disorders, are unqualified and are prevented from receiving Holy Orders (c.1040, 1041).

lifeissues.net/writers/kra/kra_04moralpanic.html

 

[Other_Eric]

felra:

The priesthood requires of a man the ability to give him self fully over to assuming the very priesthood of Jesus Christ. If a man’s predominant sexual orientation is SSA, then I believe that this would pose a serious impediment to his ability/capacity to espouse the Church as his bride in the *in persona Christi Capitis. *If a man is not a good candidate to enter into the espousal relationship of marriage (which a man with a predominant SSA obviously is not), then I am left wondering why this same man would be a good candidate for the priesthood? These are my common sense ponderings, and of course I defer to Rome for the final determination.

Not everyone agrees that Fr. Harvey’s opinion is the end all:

“Celibacy, he says, involves a sacrifice of a good for a greater good. But the homosexual person is not making such a sacrifice in taking a vow or promise of celibacy, because he is not attracted to marriage. The second difficulty is that the homosexual candidate cannot relate to the Church as spouse in the same way as a heterosexual candidate does. Even if the homosexual candidate is chaste, he lacks ‘certain important elements due to SSA,’ and this could be another reason for proper authority to have a prudent doubt about him.” (Msgr. Andrew Baker, from the staff of the Congregation for Bishops in Rome).

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:

Again, Baker is of the opinion that a priest with SSA can not relate to the Church as Mother. Christ is the Bridegroom and the Church is His Bride, and the priest is an icon of Christ and should have a special relationship with the Church. In response, I hold that a priest with SSA can rise above these attractions and on the higher plane of intellect, memory and will, develop a spousal relationship with the Church.

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.

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:

Can. 1041 The following are irregular for receiving orders:

1/ a person who labors under some form of amentia or other psychic illness due to which, after experts have been consulted, he is judged unqualified to fulfill the ministry properly;

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.