Poll: majority of Catholics who attend Mass weekly support same-sex marriage, women's ordination [CWN]

[Lion_IRC]

Out of 392 respondents 62% said they do NOT go to Mass weekly. At least they are honest.

Where was the survey question asking if they support **optional Mass attendance **
…as well as SSM and abortion on-demand and women priests and married priests and gay priests etc?

We wanna keep all those Easter and Christmas catholics happy right?

 

[SMGS127]

Out of 392 respondents 62% said they do NOT go to Mass weekly. At least they are honest.

Where was the survey question asking if they support **optional Mass attendance **
…as well as SSM and abortion on-demand and women priests and married priests and gay priests etc?

We wanna keep all those Easter and Christmas catholics happy right?

To be fair, gay priests are currently allowed, and the rule barring married priests is only applicable in the Roman rite and is not doctrinal. So those could be changed, and belief that priests should be celibate or have a heterosexual orientation is not required of Catholics. But the other 3 are doctrinal, yes.

 

[JimG]

Two things come to mind here…

First, if folks are squeamish about the Quinnipiac poll, there’s always this: features.pewforum.org/same-sex-marriage-attitudes/slide3.php

Or this:
publicreligion.org/research/2012/03/march-rns-2012-research/

Second, the claim that most American Catholics who support same-sex marriage are uncatechized or improperly catechized might be the preferable answer but it’s incorrect for many. Knowing and understanding the CCC does not ipso facto result in adherence to it. Unbridled relativism, little to no catechesis post-Vatican II, wild hubris… Again, I think there’s a comfort in accepting these easy answers. But they’re definitely insufficient.

Well, it may simply be a matter of rejection of Church teachings. The phenomenon of Catholics who attend Mass and consider themselves Catholic but do not accept what the Church teaches has always been somewhat puzzling.

I suspect rather, that they have just been more thoroughly catechized into the secular orthodoxy by the media, politicians, public authorities, and opinion makers. So they have been catechized, but wrongly.

In accepting same sex marriage, they not only reject Church teaching; they reject the common teaching of human civilizations since the beginning of history. People figured out very early on that it took a man and woman to make a marriage–I guess, as early as Adam and Eve.

 

[SaintAugustine]

To be fair, gay priests are currently allowed, and the rule barring married priests is only applicable in the Roman rite and is not doctrinal. So those could be changed, and belief that priests should be celibate or have a heterosexual orientation is not required of Catholics. But the other 3 are doctrinal, yes.

What do you mean by “gay priests are currently allowed?”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

In the discernment concerning the suitability for ordination, the spiritual director has an important task. Although he is bound to secrecy, he represents the Church in the internal forum. In his discussions with the candidate, the spiritual director must especially point out the demands of the Church concerning priestly chastity and the affective maturity that is characteristic of the priest, as well as help him to discern whether he has the necessary qualities[20].** The spiritual director has the obligation to evaluate all the qualities of the candidate’s personality and to make sure that he does not present disturbances of a sexual nature, which are incompatible with the priesthood. If a candidate practises homosexuality or presents deep-seated homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director as well as his confessor have the duty to dissuade him in conscience from proceeding towards ordination. **

It goes without saying that the candidate himself has the primary responsibility for his own formation[21]. He must offer himself trustingly to the discernment of the Church, of the Bishop who calls him to orders, of the rector of the seminary, of his spiritual director and of the other seminary educators to whom the Bishop or major superior has entrusted the task of forming future priests. It would be gravely dishonest for a candidate to hide his own homosexuality in order to proceed, despite everything, towards ordination. Such a deceitful attitude does not correspond to the spirit of truth, loyalty and openness that must characterize the personality of him who believes he is called to serve Christ and his Church in the ministerial priesthood.

So, yes, priests should have a “heterosexual orientation.”

 

[InSearchofGrace]

To be fair, gay priests are currently allowed, and the rule barring married priests is only applicable in the Roman rite and is not doctrinal. So those could be changed, and belief that priests should be celibate or have a heterosexual orientation is not required of Catholics. But the other 3 are doctrinal, yes.

Not true. Read Pope Benedict’s 2005 Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders. Link here.

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”[10].

Pope Francis did not reverse or change his predecessor’s instruction.

As to the rest of your post, it is unclear what you are conveying.

ISoG
,

 

[Darryl1958]

The ‘Catholic Come Home’ advertising seems to be having an effect of getting more and more fallen Catholics back into weekly services.

 

[SMGS127]

What do you mean by “gay priests are currently allowed?”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

So, yes, priests should have a “heterosexual orientation.”

Not necessarily. Obviously they can’t be a practicing gay man, but I highly doubt any bishop would stop a man from becoming a priest just because he was attracted to men if it did not create an obstacle to his ability to perform his obligations.

I read “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” to mean someone who is likely to fall by making out with or sleeping with other men, or any other type of homosexual behavior.

And no, they certainly don’t have to be heterosexual. Even if you were correct, an asexual man could still become a priest. Though I disagree with your interpretation of the guidelines. There are many priests who are gay men; being gay does not mean exhibiting same-sex romantic or physical behavior. It just means your attraction is disordered, which isn’t a sin .

 

[SaintAugustine]

Not necessarily. Obviously they can’t be a practicing gay man, but I highly doubt any bishop would stop a man from becoming a priest just because he was attracted to men if it did not create an obstacle to his ability to perform his obligations.

I read “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” to mean someone who is likely to fall by making out with or sleeping with other men, or any other type of homosexual behavior.

And no, they certainly don’t have to be heterosexual. Even if you were correct, an asexual man could still become a priest. Though I disagree with your interpretation of the guidelines. There are many priests who are gay men; being gay does not mean exhibiting same-sex romantic or physical behavior. It just means your attraction is disordered, which isn’t a sin .

You seem to be straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”[10].

So, sure…someone who is “asexual” (I’m assuming you mean a man who doesn’t outwardly show a sexual preference) would certainly be fine. But, if you know a priest is gay, then they have presented deep-seated homosexual tendencies. Otherwise, you wouldn’t even know about their sexual preference, would you?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

**Well, it may simply be a matter of rejection of Church teachings. The phenomenon of Catholics who attend Mass and consider themselves Catholic but do not accept what the Church teaches has always been somewhat puzzling. **

I suspect rather, that they have just been more thoroughly catechized into the secular orthodoxy by the media, politicians, public authorities, and opinion makers. So they have been catechized, but wrongly.

In accepting same sex marriage, they not only reject Church teaching; they reject the common teaching of human civilizations since the beginning of history. People figured out very early on that it took a man and woman to make a marriage–I guess, as early as Adam and Eve.

Except chances are Catholics who sit in the pews during Sunday Mass, regularly or not, and remain disdainful or rejecting of Church teaching do not have a prayer or excuse of invincible ignorance.

God made possible our salvation, the fulfillment made in Jesus the Christ who established the Catholic Church. The grace necessary for salvation continues to come from Christ, through his Church. Her teaching on abortion and active homosexuality have no ambiguity no matter that practitioners and advocates may outnumber those against said practices, and regardless that the state has become their friend, replacing in fact their religion. Those who innocently do not know Church teaching might attain salvation but those who knowingly and willingly choose to reject it, reject their own salvation.
,

 

[Lion_IRC]

To be fair, gay priests are currently allowed, and the rule barring married priests is only applicable in the Roman rite and is not doctrinal. So those could be changed, and belief that priests should be celibate or have a heterosexual orientation is not required of Catholics. But the other 3 are doctrinal, yes.

Who cares about doctrine? I thought you were saying we should;

…Use the statistics as encouragement for better catechesis; don’t deny them.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Remember, the poll is of folk who dont necessarily even attend Mass.

So why bother relying on the Bible to determine doctrine?

Lets just out-source the polling to MSNBC in order to find out whats REALLY POPULAR

 

[SaintAugustine]

Except chances are Catholics who sit in the pews during Sunday Mass, regularly or not, and remain disdainful or rejecting of Church teaching do not have a prayer or excuse of invincible ignorance.

That does depend somewhat on their pastor. I speak from personal experience. I was confirmed in my heterodox beliefs in the parish where I converted to Catholicism. It wasn’t until much later, with the help of Catholics who spoke the truth to me, that I delved deeper into Church teaching.

There are some who do that and still reject Church teaching, but I’m quite certain that there are plenty whose pastors tell them about the “primacy of their conscience” and that is okay to believe certain things if you really, really pray and think about it and still disagree…

 

[SMGS127]

Who cares about doctrine? I thought you were saying we should;

We should improve our catechesis. I was just saying that people are free to have whatever position they want on gay or married priests, as they aren’t doctrinal. The two statements have nothing to do with each other.

You seem to be straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.

So, sure…someone who is “asexual” (I’m assuming you mean a man who doesn’t outwardly show a sexual preference) would certainly be fine. But, if you know a priest is gay, then they have presented deep-seated homosexual tendencies. Otherwise, you wouldn’t even know about their sexual preference, would you?

You wouldn’t necessarily know he was gay…unless he used to be actively gay, converted, and then wanted to be ordained, and had little risk of ever falling back into a male relationship. In which case he wouldn’t have “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” but still be gay. Also you can be gay without anyone knowing. So yes, gay priests are allowed in the Church currently.

 

[One_point]

your response to princess liberal is harsh, condescending, and very judgemental. I pray the Lord judges you in a softer manner.

For someone who claims to be anti-judgment you sure engage in a lot of judgmentalism! Is it OK only when you do it, or is it judgment only when the actions being disapproved of are actions that you apparently agree with (like homosexual lifestyles, contraception etc)?

 

[One_point]

I read “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” to mean someone who is likely to fall by making out with or sleeping with other men, or any other type of homosexual behavior.

I think you are reading what you want to see. Homosexual tendencies are homosexual inclinations. They have only ever referred to the homosexual orientation or attraction itself in any church document I have every read. Deep-seated can only mean something that is strong. It says homosexual tendencies that are deep-seated. This can only mean a strong gay orientation.

There are many priests who are gay men; being gay does not mean exhibiting same-sex romantic or physical behavior. It just means your attraction is disordered, which isn’t a sin .

The church has mentioned the homosexual behaviour, culture and tendency as problematic:all three, not just one or two. It’s not just about the behaviour. Behaviours don’t sprout from the air. They grow out of disordered tendencies. A man who still struggles with a homosexual tendency/inclination, who has not overcome this tendency within himself in a serious way is not suitable for the priest-hood. That is what the document says. How would any priest know he was gay if he was not sexually or romantically inclined towards men? How does one identify being gay apart from sexual inclination towards members of the same sex? Without a homosexual tendency, how would any person think himself gay, priest or layman? How would a heterosexual person deem himself such apart from his or her being sexually or romantically inclined towards members of the opposite sex? What you’re saying doesn’t not make total sense. Homosexual tendency is the homosexual inclination is the homosexual orientation. There can be no other inference if we are to be objective.

 

[Lapey]

We should improve our catechesis. I was just saying that people are free to have whatever position they want on gay or married priests, as they aren’t doctrinal. The two statements have nothing to do with each other.

You wouldn’t necessarily know he was gay…unless he used to be actively gay, converted, and then wanted to be ordained, and had little risk of ever falling back into a male relationship. In which case he wouldn’t have “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” but still be gay. Also you can be gay without anyone knowing. So yes, gay priests are allowed in the Church currently.

For a gay man to get into seminary right now, at least the one I am familiar with, he would have to be very good at lying. He would have to be the type of person we would not want as a priest in the first place. The psychological exam given is quite comprehensive and thorough.

 

[One_point]

Moreover, some attitudes presented here and similar threads are disconnected from the catholic vision of man and his destiny and grace in my view. Disordered tendencies are to be overcome and set aright, not just embraced as if they were ok just because “they are not a sin”. I challenge you to read on the topics of sin, fault and grace. It is not enough for a christian that you do not commit a mortal sin. That is mediocrity. One starts from struggling against mortal sin as a rule because that is usually where the lord finds us. But he graduates to fighting venial sin, to uprooting faults (deep-seated tendencies towards sin), and so on till sanctity. The aim is wholeness and sanctity, the means is grace which is God himself. It is a narrow view of Christianity to regard the flesh and its sinful tendencies as OK as long as one does not commit a sin. That’s no different than regarding illness as OK as long as it doesn’t kill you. Is greed OK as long as we don’t steal? One does not become a saint by treating his faults and dis-ordered incliniations towards sin as if they were neutral. But if the aim of a priest or lay catholic is not to set on that road of sanctity, then what is? And if that is his aim, then why should he treat his illness (something that pulls him towards sin) as if it were not an illness that grace should heal? It’s because that priest or lay person, like those Catholics in the poll, have been educated by the faux wisdom of the world that embraces flesh as good in itself and impossible to change. We should approach disorders of the flesh the same way Christ and apostles advice in the bible and saints practice and church teaches. We dont think they are neutral, they need healing. They are not who we are, they are a distortion of our nature and grace is to make us whole like God intended from the beginning.

 

[SMGS127]

For a gay man to get into seminary right now, at least the one I am familiar with, he would have to be very good at lying. He would have to be the type of person we would not want as a priest in the first place. The psychological exam given is quite comprehensive and thorough.

I don’t see how a psychological exam could show someone was gay.

I think you are reading what you want to see. Homosexual tendencies are homosexual inclinations. They have only ever referred to the homosexual orientation or attraction itself in any church document I have every read. Deep-seated can only mean something that is strong. It says homosexual tendencies that are deep-seated. This can only mean a strong gay orientation.
The church has mentioned the homosexual behaviour, culture and tendency as problematic:all three, not just one or two. It’s not just about the behaviour. Behaviours don’t sprout from the air. They grow out of disordered tendencies. A man who still struggles with a homosexual tendency/inclination, who has not overcome this tendency within himself in a serious way is not suitable for the priest-hood. That is what the document says. How would any priest know he was gay if he was not sexually or romantically inclined towards men? How does one identify being gay apart from sexual inclination towards members of the same sex? Without a homosexual tendency, how would any person think himself gay, priest or layman? How would a heterosexual person deem himself such apart from his or her being sexually or romantically inclined towards members of the opposite sex? What you’re saying doesn’t not make total sense. Homosexual tendency is the homosexual inclination is the homosexual orientation. There can be no other inference if we are to be objective.

I respectfully disagree, and I will throw your words back at you that you are seeing what you want to see. I think it refers to homosexual behavioral tendencies. One who is simply attracted to men [an immutable trait in and of itself], but who has no worldly attachment to relationships, is both gay and suitable for the priesthood.

Oh, and by the way, gay “culture” is not immoral in and of itself either. I’m going to assume you mean the drinking, drugs, etc. that straight people also do in night clubs. I suggest you check out some local art festivals if you want to see gay “culture.”

 

[Tigg]

Moreover, some attitudes presented here and similar threads are disconnected from the catholic vision of man and his destiny and grace in my view. Disordered tendencies are to be overcome and set aright, not just embraced as if they were ok just because “they are not a sin”. I challenge you to read on the topics of sin, fault and grace. It is not enough for a christian that you do not commit a mortal sin. That is mediocrity. One starts from struggling against mortal sin as a rule because that is usually where the lord finds us. But he graduates to fighting venial sin, to uprooting faults (deep-seated tendencies towards sin), and so on till sanctity. **The aim is wholeness and sanctity, the means is grace which is God himself. It is a narrow view of Christianity to regard the flesh and its sinful tendencies as OK as long as one does not commit a sin. **That’s no different than regarding illness as OK as long as it doesn’t kill you. Is greed OK as long as we don’t steal? One does not become a saint by treating his faults and dis-ordered incliniations towards sin as if they were neutral. But if the aim of a priest or lay catholic is not to set on that road of sanctity, then what is? And if that is his aim, then **why should he treat his illness (something that pulls him towards sin) as if it were not an illness that grace should heal? **It’s because that priest or lay person, like those Catholics in the poll, have been educated by the faux wisdom of the world that embraces flesh as good in itself and impossible to change. We should approach disorders of the flesh the same way Christ and apostles advice in the bible and saints practice and church teaches. We dont think they are neutral, they need healing. They are not who we are, they are a distortion of our nature and grace is to make us whole like God intended from the beginning.

(Emphasis mine.) I am thrilled to see a post such as this although it will be a foreign language to the worldly. THIS is evangelization for those who have eyes to see. Man can deceive himself and justify unworthy (and sometimes hidden) tendencies when Christ invites us to something higher. We are always called to spiritual growth - why ignore the voice when Christ wants something better for us - for our humanness to be fully integrated? I will only add that inherent disordered inclinations can be the very means Christ uses to sanctify if one comes before him acknowledging the weakness (not justifying it) and like Paul cries out he has been given a “thorn in the flesh.”

 

[SMGS127]

(Emphasis mine.) I am thrilled to see a post such as this although it will be a foreign language to the worldly. THIS is evangelization for those who have eyes to see. Man can deceive himself and justify unworthy (and sometimes hidden) tendencies when Christ invites us to something higher. We are always called to spiritual growth - why ignore the voice when Christ wants something better for us - for our humanness to be fully integrated? I will only add that inherent disordered inclinations can be the very means Christ uses to sanctify if one comes before him acknowledging the weakness (not justifying it) and like Paul cries out he has been given a “thorn in the flesh.”

Well this puts me in an odd spot then, because I agree with you, but I disagree with One Point. I definitely think same-sex attractions are a cross to bear, but I highly disagree that those with SSA should seek to have such attractions removed before even contemplating becoming religious. Changing an immutable trait would almost require a miracle, and to hope for something that may not happen and refuse to accept a vocational call until said miracle occurs, when you could instead learn to live with the attractions but reject them for Christ while answering His call, seems foolish to me. Being gay and being religious are not mutually exclusive terms, if one has their priorities straight.