No priests are "out" as gay

[PumpkinSeed]

I was told that gay men are not allowed to be priests.

 

[LaSainte]

I don’t see any problem with homosexual priests as long as it can be determined that priesthood is their true calling and that they are not just running away from their sexuality.

I think the Church believes that these men may be “hiding” in the priesthood and will be more likely to abuse children.

I think there are probably a lot of gay men who would be wonderful priests. I think it is a mistake to count them out entirely.

 

[Alan55]

I know many homosexual priests. Many are “out,” although generally they do not make a big deal about their sexual orientation. Some are chaste, others are not. The estimates of the percentage of priests (and bishops) that are homosexual vary widely. It is fair to say that they are more frequent in the priesthood and religious life than in the general population. Some states can be found at the following link.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholic_priests

 

[JadeHand]

I know many homosexual priests. Many are “out,” although generally they do not make a big deal about their sexual orientation. Some are chaste, others are not. The estimates of the percentage of priests (and bishops) that are homosexual vary widely. It is fair to say that they are more frequent in the priesthood and religious life than in the general population. Some states can be found at the following link.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholic_priests

Okay, but notice in this part of the article:
"A 2002 nationwide poll in America by the Los Angeles Times of 1,854 Roman Catholic priests reported that 80% of referred to themselves as “mostly” heterosexual, with 67% being exclusively heterosexual, 8% leaning toward heterosexual, 5% completely in the middle, and 6% leaning toward homosexual and 9% saying they are homosexual, for a combined figure of 15% on the homosexual side.

So this poll was taken of only 1,854 priests in America in 2003, when there were about 43,000 priests in the U.S. at that time. It really seems like this isn’t accurate information in that case. I don’t seen how they could get correct percentages when they are taking a poll of only .04 % of the priest population here.

This reminds me of another survey, which says that 98% of Catholic women use or have used contraceptives. However, only women between the ages of 15 and 44 were surveyed, excluding 33% of Catholic women. Only Catholic women who said they had had intercourse in the last 3 months were interviewed, which amounted to the exclusion of 69% of Catholic women from the survey (I wonder how many nuns they bothered to ask? They are certainly Catholic Women). Also only Catholic women that were considered to be ‘at risk’ of an ‘unintended pregnancy’ were surveyed, meaning that overall, 81% of Catholic women were excluded from the survey. In total, 19% of Catholic women were surveyed, and of that 19%, 98% answered that they use birth control. With knowing all that, it would be very erroneous to claim that 98% of all Catholic Women use or have used contraceptive methods.

I include this information because I feel like some similar deceitful motives and eliminatory processes were used in choosing the priests whom would be surveyed.

I think that trying to claim that a large percentage of priests and religious are homosexual is not something that we as Catholic’s should in any way endorse or support. Supporting information that makes such claims is just another way that those who champion ‘same-sex marriage’ want to reinforce that being gay is ‘okay’ and something that is extremely common and should therefore be accepted.
As Catholics we respect our homosexual brothers and sisters, but we do not support them in living a ‘homosexual’ lifestyle, or in publicly ‘coming out’ with this, as it is a disorder and against natural law, and something one should be counseled for. We would not expect everyone with an addiction to pornography to ‘come out’ with it and discuss it with others, and we should not expect those suffering with a a sexual orientation disorder to do so either.

Sources: cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServices/requestedchurchstats.html
washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-98-percent-of-catholic-women-use-contraception-a-media-foul/2012/02/16/gIQAkPeqIR_blog.html

 

[Elizabeth502]

I don’t see any problem with homosexual priests as long as it can be determined that priesthood is their true calling and that they are not just running away from their sexuality.

That is in fact the Church’s position. Someone with SSA (a more accurate term than “a homosexual priest”) is not prevented from Holy Orders, as long as (just as with heterosexual inclinations), the candidate has come to terms with his or her own sexuality in light of the requirements of celibacy and chastity.

I think the Church believes that these men may be “hiding” in the priesthood and will be more likely to abuse children.

No. Not correct. (At least that is not the stated reasoning.) Only men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” are excluded. That would be determined with verbal examination upon entrance, as well as how their seminary training plays out. Those with deep-seated tendencies have difficulty separating themselves from sexual acting out, and/or (in other cases) have difficulty relating generously and openly to the opposite sex. They often identify more strongly with a sexual orientation than with their vocation to the priesthood – a condition which would absolutely compromise the unfolding of, and singular commitment to, a vocation. It would amount to an “attachment” to sexuality. (There have been plenty of priests and seminarians who likewise could not detach from their heterosexuality enough to concentrate solely on priesthood.)

I think there are probably a lot of gay men who would be wonderful priests. I think it is a mistake to count them out entirely.

Again, they are not counted out, and many of them have made and are making productive & admirable priests. One thing you didn’t mention, though, is that there developed in the mid-'80’s to 2000 a subculture of open homosexuality within several seminaries which corrupted the singular purpose of those seminaries, discouraged those not within that subculture from pursuing a vocation, and had a temporary but dramatic effect on vocations and priestly morale. That’s an additional reason for monitoring the “attachment” aspect.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

There is no vow for secular priests. There is a legal requirement for both chastity (remaining in the unmarried state) and continence (refraining from sexual activity).

Obviously all celibates are morally required to be continent, but still both are specifically required by law. That’s why a priest who has extramarital sex is in violation of Church law, even though it’s not a violation of celibacy specifically.

Also it’s possible at least in theory (if and for whom it currently applies in real life is debated) for a cleric to be exempted from the celibacy requirement but not the continence requirement. That is, a married man could be ordained but not permitted to engage in the marital act once he was ordained. This obviously is not an ideal situation, which is one of the reasons for generally linking celibacy to continence.

Obviously I meant “celibacy” here. Oops.

 

[LaSainte]

That is in fact the Church’s position. Someone with SSA (a more accurate term than “a homosexual priest”) is not prevented from Holy Orders, as long as (just as with heterosexual inclinations), the candidate has come to terms with his or her own sexuality in light of the requirements of celibacy and chastity.

No. Not correct. (At least that is not the stated reasoning.) Only men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” are excluded. That would be determined with verbal examination upon entrance, as well as how their seminary training plays out. Those with deep-seated tendencies have difficulty separating themselves from sexual acting out, and/or (in other cases) have difficulty relating generously and openly to the opposite sex. They often identify more strongly with a sexual orientation than with their vocation to the priesthood – a condition which would absolutely compromise the unfolding of, and singular commitment to, a vocation. It would amount to an “attachment” to sexuality. (There have been plenty of priests and seminarians who likewise could not detach from their heterosexuality enough to concentrate solely on priesthood.)

Again, they are not counted out, and many of them have made and are making productive & admirable priests. One thing you didn’t mention, though, is that there developed in the mid-'80’s to 2000 a subculture of open homosexuality within several seminaries which corrupted the singular purpose of those seminaries, discouraged those not within that subculture from pursuing a vocation, and had a temporary but dramatic effect on vocations and priestly morale. That’s an additional reason for monitoring the “attachment” aspect.

Interesting. I am glad to see that the Church is not excluding all men with homosexual inclinations from the priesthood based on that fact alone. Personally, given recent events, I think all candidates should undergo a pretty extensive psych eval before being permitted to take holy orders.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Personally, given recent events, I think all candidates should undergo a pretty extensive psych eval before being permitted to take holy orders.

It’s my understanding that such evals are becoming standard in seminaries now. I.m.o. it is equally important to follow seminarians/priests throughout their careers (not just at entrance), with available counseling and support. It’s a rigorous vocation, demanding a high level of discipline and extraordinary levels of self-giving. A crisis can happen at any point in a priest’s life, and as all know, crises in our lives can bring stress and accompanying temptations to indulge emotionally and/or physically. (There’s a lot of loneliness in the priesthood; at an earlier era, that loneliness was often compensated for through alcoholism. Things appeared fine up to and through ordination. It was much later that unmet needs became apparent.)

I think there’s much more understanding and support for priests now, particularly as it relates to that ‘aloneness,’ so hopefully the Church is shepherding the shepherds better than it once did. For example, there are more efforts now to create informal local communities of diocesan priests to gather for spiritual and social interaction, since many do not live in community because they are not members of an Order and have no fellow priests in-parish.

 

[Alan55]

I think that trying to claim that a large percentage of priests and religious are homosexual is not something that we as Catholic’s should in any way endorse or support. Supporting information that makes such claims is just another way that those who champion ‘same-sex marriage’ want to reinforce that being gay is ‘okay’ and something that is extremely common and should therefore be accepted.

I wasn’t engaging in advocacy but simply sharing my personal experience. I was a Jesuit novice and scholastic in a large U.S. city in the early 1980s, and in my experience a relatively large number of priests and religious in my acquaintance were homosexual and quite a few were sexually active. The stats that you cited reflect a lower percentage of gays than I encountered, although my experience may not reflect the world-wide or nation-wide reality. Since the 1980s, the Church has actively sought to reduce the number of gay diocesan priests, so the numbers may have changed.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Interesting. I am glad to see that the Church is not excluding all men with homosexual inclinations from the priesthood based on that fact alone. Personally, given recent events, I think all candidates should undergo a pretty extensive psych eval before being permitted to take holy orders.

A literalistic interpretation the prohibition on men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” could easily lead one to the conclusion that all men who are really attracted to other men (excluding mere youthful confusion) are barred from the priesthood. This is especially true considering that other Church documents seem to use the word “tendencies” the way the secular world uses the word “orientation” (I can look this up again if challenged, but for now I’m too lazy ).

However, I’ve heard several accounts, including one from a highly respectable CAF member who was once, if I recall correctly, a vocations director, claiming that this is not the proper interpretation, and that guidance from the Vatican itself has indicated that the proper definition of “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” has more to do with identification of oneself as homosexual than the raw fact of who a person is attracted to. I’ve also encountered the claim that Vatican officials were surprised and baffled by how rigorously some people in the English-speaking world were interpreting the directive.

I don’t fully understand the matter myself and I have no firsthand knowledge of any of this, but the situation does seem to be complex, and it may be that the vagueness of the language of the actual document was intentional, in order to provide some room for interpretation in individual cases. Maybe this is something for most of us laypeople to leave to the people directly involved with the process to interpret and apply, rather than proclaiming half-informed judgments ourselves.

 

[Gorillaman]

I had a conversation with some friends recently over gay priests. These friends are very liberal and anti-catholic. One friend said something about a priest being gay and seemed to imply that was bad. I said there is no reason a gay person can’t be a priest, they just can’t act on it. She said, do you know any “out” gay priests?

Well I do not. But I’ve been thinking about it and what does it matter if they are “out” as gay or not? They took a vow of celibacy just like a heterosexual priest did so why would it matter at all if they are gay and if they are “out” or not? They have done nothing wrong, correct? Also she seemed to think there were a large number of priests who are gay. But again, so what? I work with a large number of gay people. How is that any different?

Is my thinking correct for a catholic? I often don’t know what to say about homosexuality when things like this come up. I am also somewhat conflicted myself on teachings about homosexuality and it is very liberal where I live and work. I have noticed at times that if you don’t agree on something like homosexual marriage, they think you are disrespecting them, even if you are not.

First of all let me say that I thnk any type of thinking is ok as a catholic… but furthermore I can say that I went to mass one Sunday, and man oh man was this father effeminate …it was almost hard to pay attention because the same question you asked kept going in my mind, I was also a little resentful for him putting his personality and almost flamboyant demeanor into the words…but then, I stopped judging , and started listening…and you know when you just see a priest and he’s just up there GETTING IT, haha he has the holy spirit, he’s not only saying the words but you can see he FEELS IT, this priest was like that, he was making the people laugh and even got those old couples who you know are more than a little uncomfortable with homosexuals start laughing and enjoying the love he gave. That’s all I have to say about that.

 

[LoyalViews]

A literalistic interpretation the prohibition on men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” could easily lead one to the conclusion that all men who are really attracted to other men (excluding mere youthful confusion) are barred from the priesthood. This is especially true considering that other Church documents seem to use the word “tendencies” the way the secular world uses the word “orientation” (I can look this up again if challenged, but for now I’m too lazy ).

However, I’ve heard several accounts, including one from a highly respectable CAF member who was once, if I recall correctly, a vocations director, claiming that this is not the proper interpretation, and that guidance from the Vatican itself has indicated that the proper definition of “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” has more to do with identification of oneself as homosexual than the raw fact of who a person is attracted to. I’ve also encountered the claim that Vatican officials were surprised and baffled by how rigorously some people in the English-speaking world were interpreting the directive.

I don’t fully understand the matter myself and I have no firsthand knowledge of any of this, but the situation does seem to be complex, and it may be that the vagueness of the language of the actual document was intentional, in order to provide some room for interpretation in individual cases. Maybe this is something for most of us laypeople to leave to the people directly involved with the process to interpret and apply, rather than proclaiming half-informed judgments ourselves.

Indeed. I think that what was implied in the original Latin or Italian, was not translated as such into the English…OR…it is a proper translation, but not a right interpretation as you said.

“Deep-seated” would to me mean the whole deal. Identifies and acts effeminately, not just the mere attraction. You’ve also got to take into account the fact that the document says something along the lines of “or men who support the so-called gay culture, etc” (paraphrase).

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Indeed. I think that what was implied in the original Latin or Italian, was not translated as such into the English…OR…it is a proper translation, but not a right interpretation as you said.

“Deep-seated” would to me mean the whole deal. Identifies and acts effeminately, not just the mere attraction. You’ve also got to take into account the fact that the document says something along the lines of “or men who support the so-called gay culture, etc” (paraphrase).

Remember, only the Latin versions of the documents are absolutely assured in contents.

 

[FaithBuild18]

True. It’s a culturally-loaded term. In reality, many, if not most, people fit on some scale between predominately hetero vs homo-sexual attraction.

Are the majority of men really at least somewhat attracted to other men? I can’t even fathom this being the case. Is this really the case? I mean, have I and all of my guy friends been somehow secretly lying all these years about how disgusting men are and how gorgeous women are? I just can’t even imagine that MOST men are even slightly attracted to other men.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Are the majority of men really at least somewhat attracted to other men? I can’t even fathom this being the case. Is this really the case? I mean, have I and all of my guy friends been somehow secretly lying all these years about how disgusting men are and how gorgeous women are? I just can’t even imagine that MOST men are even slightly attracted to other men.

I think they are confusing recognizing another guy is attractive and being sexual attracted. Most men can tell that some guys are attractive, this doesn’t mean they think they are hot, it means they can size up a competitor.

 

[tarboy]

quote=Dale_M;9374474 I don’t think its part of canon law, however the Vatican issued guidelines in 2005 which says pretty much the same thing.

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies. .

Thanks for sharing Dale
Personally, i find the position to be a bit hypocritical since both straight and gay priests lack experience in marriage etc. What they need to relate is maturity, the skill of empathy, and the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Indeed. I think that what was implied in the original Latin or Italian, was not translated as such into the English…OR…it is a proper translation, but not a right interpretation as you said.

“Deep-seated” would to me mean the whole deal. Identifies and acts effeminately, not just the mere attraction. You’ve also got to take into account the fact that the document says something along the lines of “or men who support the so-called gay culture, etc” (paraphrase).

I doubt acting effeminately is part of the total package the Vatican is thinking about here. There are lots of adamantly homosexual men who are not particularly effeminate.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Remember, only the Latin versions of the documents are absolutely assured in contents.

If I recall correctly the original Instruction was in Italian, and it was from this Italian original that translations were made. I don’t know if an official Latin version was subsequently produced. It’s not uncommon, I believe, for much of the ordinary business of the Vatican to be done in Italian and never translated into Latin. This may fall into that category

Anyway, whatever the language, this is not a teaching document much less an infallible one so I don’t think anything is “absolutely assured,” unless you mean absolutely assured of being the Church’s current policy.

 

[Hadrianus]

If I recall correctly the original Instruction was in Italian, and it was from this Italian original that translations were made. I don’t know if an official Latin version was subsequently produced. It’s not uncommon, I believe, for much of the ordinary business of the Vatican to be done in Italian and never translated into Latin. This may fall into that category

Anyway, whatever the language, this is not a teaching document much less an infallible one so I don’t think anything is “absolutely assured,” unless you mean absolutely assured of being the Church’s current policy.

Whatever the original language, Vatican officials are often bewildered by the rigorist way in which Americans interpret them. This applies to all sorts of norms of canon law and other Vatican instructions. The correct Roman principle is “odiosa sunt restringenda”: meaning that negative penalties are to be restricted to their narrowest sense. The American and Germanic approach seems to be the exact opposite.