Latest: Details emerging on Vatican gay-seminarian ban

[manualman]

I too am impressed with the willingness to suffer heavy burdens for Christ shown by the poster with a SSA. God bless you.

What oat soda is trying to say is that the actual experience of having an SSA is an indicator of a broken relationship with God.

But I think he is stretching the definition of ‘disordered’ too far. An alcoholic has a disorder. But an alcoholic can become a saint. He never stops having an inclination towards the juice, but he learns to master it. But as a consequence, he doesn’t have the same freedom as the rest of us due to his disorder.

A person with a SSA may never change into a heterosexual (not to say it can’t happen, but I’m not so sure it will ALWAYS happen to the holy), but that doesn’t necessarily mean that he can’t come to a point where he has mastered the disordered temptations he experiences and learn how to ensure that he controls his behavior. However, there may always be freedoms (or priviledges) that would inherently be off-limits to those who suffer this disorder.

Is the priesthood one of these things? I dunno. It shouldn’t be dismissed as foolish prejudice. I don’t think a ban would be due to any inherent risk of having a man with SSA be a priest. I think the risk would be more the danger of men becoming priests who are not called by God to do so, but who feel there is no other place for them in catholic culture. If we are honest, we’ll admit that there is a certain skeptical attitude in catholic culture about single, never married men over the age of 30.

The priesthood must be reserved for those called by God to it. The church must ensure those accepting ordination are called to it, not drawn to secondary benefits of it. That can be a hard job.

 

[St.BJLabre]

What oat soda is trying to say is that the actual experience of having an SSA is an indicator of a broken relationship with God.

But I think he is stretching the definition of ‘disordered’ too far. An alcoholic has a disorder. But an alcoholic can become a saint. He never stops having an inclination towards the juice, but he learns to master it. But as a consequence, he doesn’t have the same freedom as the rest of us due to his disorder.

A person with a SSA may never change into a heterosexual (not to say it can’t happen, but I’m not so sure it will ALWAYS happen to the holy), but that doesn’t necessarily mean that he can’t come to a point where he has mastered the disordered temptations he experiences and learn how to ensure that he controls his behavior. However, there may always be freedoms (or priviledges) that would inherently be off-limits to those who suffer this disorder.

Is the priesthood one of these things? I dunno. It shouldn’t be dismissed as foolish prejudice. I don’t think a ban would be due to any inherent risk of having a man with SSA be a priest. I think the risk would be more the danger of men becoming priests who are not called by God to do so, but who feel there is no other place for them in catholic culture. If we are honest, we’ll admit that there is a certain skeptical attitude in catholic culture about single, never married men over the age of 30.

The priesthood must be reserved for those called by God to it. The church must ensure those accepting ordination are called to it, not drawn to secondary benefits of it. That can be a hard job.

I agree with you completely, well said.

 

[koda]

Who is qualified to say which of us is called by God? No one knows what is in our hearts better than we do.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Actually since there has been no document issued, I fail to understand what “details” can be substantially documented. Fur flies, people talk, others speculate and some wish aloud. Best to wait until we see what we get, how it is worded and then there is something to evaluate.

 

[mlchance]

koda:

Who is qualified to say which of us is called by God?

The Magesterium, which is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit, is.

koda:

No one knows what is in our hearts better than we do.

Nonsense.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[HagiaSophia]

koda:

Who is qualified to say which of us is called by God? No one knows what is in our hearts better than we do.

Since the Church is the “transmitter” of the scarament of Holy Orders it does appear that they have the right to determine the qaulifying or non-qualifying aspects of the Sacrament.

JPII (RIP) said quite clearly that after much study, and regardless of the number of women who claim to receive a “call” to ordination, the church siimply did not have the authority to ordain women. Yet we still hear on a regular and continuing basis of people who say they are “called” – someone is dialing a wrong number, some are mistaken and others are confused between wilful wishing and the will of God.

Many young men went to seminary feeling they had a call – since formation is a discernment as well as a training process, a number of them understood later that they had not received the “call” and left the seminary.

As humans too often we confuse what we want and what we think with what God wants.

 

[HagiaSophia]

mlchance:

Nonsense.

A clear and apt summation of that idea.
:clapping:

 

[koda]

mlchance:

The Magesterium, which is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit, is.

Nonsense.

– Mark L. Chance.

So the Church knows my heart better than I do? Maybe I should call them up and ask them what I think.

 

[mlchance]

koda:

So the Church knows my heart better than I do? Maybe I should call them up and ask them what I think.

Maybe you should.

If one is in the process of discerning one’s vocation and does not consult the Church, one is not actually in the process of discerning one’s vocation.

If the Church, which is guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit, decides that homosexual men cannot be ordained, then homosexual men cannot be ordained. Period. If the Church, which is guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit, decides homosexual men can be ordained, then homosexual men can be ordained. Period.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Sherlock]

mlchance:

Maybe you should.

If one is in the process of discerning one’s vocation and does not consult the Church, one is not actually in the process of discerning one’s vocation.

If the Church, which is guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit, decides that homosexual men cannot be ordained, then homosexual men cannot be ordained. Period. If the Church, which is guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit, decides homosexual men can be ordained, then homosexual men can be ordained. Period.

– Mark L. Chance.

I think you need to understand that whatever the Vatican decides, it will be a matter of discipline, not of doctrine. The Vatican could even temporarily ban men with SSA as a prudential judgement in response to the over-sexed culture of our times. (I don’t think the Vatican will, but I’m pointing out that it can). This is similar to the celibacy requirement for Latin Rite priests: it is NOT a matter of doctrine.

 

[koda]

mlchance:

Maybe you should.

If one is in the process of discerning one’s vocation and does not consult the Church, one is not actually in the process of discerning one’s vocation.

If the Church, which is guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit, decides that homosexual men cannot be ordained, then homosexual men cannot be ordained. Period. If the Church, which is guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit, decides homosexual men can be ordained, then homosexual men can be ordained. Period.

– Mark L. Chance.

Perhaps. But there have been many time in history when I’d have to aruge that the Church didn’t listen to the Holy Spirit. Remember that Borgia Pope? and the witch burnings? and the inquisition? etc… So while the Holy Spirit may be trying to guide I don’t think it is always listened too. Bad men can end up in the Church too.

 

[mlchance]

Sherlock:

This is similar to the celibacy requirement for Latin Rite priests: it is NOT a matter of doctrine.

True, but utterly irrelevant (as are tired canards like “that Borgia Pope” or “witch burnings” dredged up in another post). Discipline or doctrine, once the Church has spoken authoritatively, the matter is settled.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[oat_soda]

An alcoholic has a disorder. But an alcoholic can become a saint. He never stops having an inclination towards the juice, but he learns to master it. But as a consequence, he doesn’t have the same freedom as the rest of us due to his disorder.

apples and oranges. you can’t compare alcoholism, which is a physcial and psychological addiction to homosexuality. first off, the desire to have a drink is not inherently disordered. what is sinful is the act of drinking yourself into a stupor because it is harmful to your body the temple. every homosexual act is objectivley sinful. having a drink is not.

besides, sex is something sacred whereas drinking a beer is not. i can only bring up once again JPII’s Theology of the Body. you can’t compare the two.

finally, ontologically, nobody is a homosexual. alcoholics may be born that way- look at the irish or indians, or more predisposed to that condition. and any saint as you said would have to overcome his alcholism, at least have control over it, if they are saints. homosexuality can be redemed with the grace of God and not simply “controlled”. just like lustful thoughts can be overcome. they both have their origin in the objectification of other people.

we are born to love one another as God loves us and not to use one another as objects of our own pleasure. homosexuality is lust or objectivication taken to the next level.

 

[Lorarose]

When an alcoholic stumbles he/she hurts themselves (usually)
When a person with SSA stumbles - he/she necessarily involves another person in grave sin.
When a male homosexual ephebophile stumbles, he necessarily strips the innocence away from a young person and damages their life forever.

 

[manualman]

Lorarose:

When an alcoholic stumbles he/she hurts themselves (usually)
When a person with SSA stumbles - he/she necessarily involves another person in grave sin.
When a male homosexual ephebophile stumbles, he necessarily strips the innocence away from a young person and damages their life forever.

Never heard of drunk drivers? Alcoholics ABSOLUTELY hurt those around them as much (sometimes more) than homosexuals do. Anybody who claims otherwise has never known an alcoholic. For an alcoholic, ONE drink IS a major stumble that is likley to have repercussions on others.

oat soda, again, I do not believe that the church has gone as far as you have. The science is just not yet conclusive enough to make the claims that you are making. We don’t KNOW if there is an inherent genetic disposition or not (apparently honest scientists disagree). We don’t KNOW if trauma during childhood plays a role where the person who develops the SSA is totally NOT at ‘fault.’

Frankly, your position and attitude discourage homosexuals from considering the gospel.

 

[Sherlock]

mlchance:

True, but utterly irrelevant (as are tired canards like “that Borgia Pope” or “witch burnings” dredged up in another post). Discipline or doctrine, once the Church has spoken authoritatively, the matter is settled.

– Mark L. Chance.

I agree. The point I was trying to make is that this is not a doctrinal issue, but one involving matters of discipline. Thus, it would be possible (at least in theory) for the Vatican to impose a ban on homosexuals in the priesthood that could be lifted at a later, less sexualized, era (if that ever happens…). I’m not disputing what you are saying at all, just making a distinction.

 

[oat_soda]

Frankly, your position and attitude discourage homosexuals from considering the gospel.

not just homosexuals, but everyone who has a disordered sexuality, including myself and men who objectify women. was i born this way? is this the way God wants us to love one another? God wants us to be perfect as he is perfect. he’s here to raise us up and redeem us, not keep us in our sins and tell us it is ok.

besides, if you let homosexuals in, then why not pediofiles and necrofiles or men who are into beastiality? where do you draw the line? all of them are inherently evil.

the fact is homosexuality is inherently disordered and over 80% of the sex abuse cases involved homosexuals. that is the reason homosexuals are not fit for the priesthood. if homosexuals would behave themselves, the vatican wouldn’t have to address this crisis in the church.

 

[manualman]

I might agree if I was sure we were using the same definitions.

If I thought you defined a homosexual as somebody who thinks his inclination is ‘natural’, acceptable and ordinary. That it is OK for such people to act on those impulses, then YES. I agree.

But if you define anybody who experiences SSA as a homosexual, then no way do I agree.

I like the story about two bishops walking together who saw a scantily clad prostitute walk towards, then past them. One watched her the whole time, the other averted his eyes. After she had passed, the second said to the first “How could you stare at that woman like that?” The first answered “I was praying that she would learn to see her beauty as a reflection of God.” (my poor paraphrase).

Both men acted properly for where they were at in life. The first HAD to look away since looking would have incited lust in him. The second could look without being tempted because he had conquered his ‘disordered’ inclinations towards lust.

By your logic, the second guy shouldn’t even be a priest, much less a bishop. Right? Doesn’t his inability to look at a provocative woman without lust indicate a disordered sexuality? You seem to be saying that only finished-product saints need apply to seminary. Talk about vocations problems!

 

[oat_soda]

By your logic, the second guy shouldn’t even be a priest, much less a bishop. Right? Doesn’t his inability to look at a provocative woman without lust indicate a disordered sexuality? You seem to be saying that only finished-product saints need apply to seminary. Talk about vocations problems!

it all depends how deep rooted this disorder is. lust means sex sought seperated from its procreative and unitive purposes. so if this man or seminarian can’t look at attractive women without experiencing lustful thoughts (objectively a mortal sin) then he should not be a priest. since his sexual drive is disordered to the point where he objectifies every women.

while provocative dress in of itself isn’t evil, the fact it may lead a weak person to sin makes it unprudent. in the begining, adam and eve were naked -original innocence. it is a concequence of our fallen natures that we suffer from lust and homosexuality.

an ocasional lustful thought is different matter as is an occasional homosexual thought. it all depends on how deep rooted these disorders are. it will be up to the competent authority to decide which means there is room for subjectivity and error. but that is life.

i am not saying that lusting after women is equal to homosexual thoughts. homosexuality is more disordered because it is more unatural and therefore more evil. this is why it is a more serious matter not to say lusting after women can’t be serious.

 

[m134e5]

oat soda:

i am not saying that lusting after women is equal to homosexual thoughts. homosexuality is more disordered because it is more unatural and therefore more evil. this is why it is a more serious matter not to say lusting after women can’t be serious.

As far as the sinfulness of it all is concerned, mortal sin is mortal sin. Sodomy (any kind of unnatural sex- not just homosexual sex) is one of the sins the bible says cries to heaven for vengeance, but it says nothing about just thinking about it (at least of it crying to heaven for vengeance).