Pope approves barring gay seminarians

[E.E.N.S]

Scout:

I fully agree! This whole arguement isn’t about ordaining homosexuals, but trying to decide who God has chosen to be a priest. Personally, I’m not going to make that call. If a man feels that he is called by God to be a priest, then who’s to tell him he isn’t?

I love the Pope, but I’m sorry to say that this time, I think he got it wrong.

Scout :tiphat:

I can understand what you are saying, but would you feel the same way if someone felt as though they were called by God to be a youth minister, but he was a known child molester? How about if he never molested anyone, but he admitted to be sexually attracted to young children?

 

[felra]

I still don’t like it. A man suffering from SSA shouldn’t be punished.

This is a gross mis-characterization of the Church’s prerogative to determine a man’s fitness and qalification for seminarian formation leading to the priestly vocation.

I’d understand if the seminarian is prancing around as an “outed” homosexual and insisting on speaking out in favor of gay marriage and things like that, but why should a young man who’s quietly praying to overcome SSA be denied his calling to the priesthood?

Again, you are missing the entire point here, that is: it is not about gay activism or the dissenting views of the individual seminarian; it is about a man identified as afflicted in having SSA as a symptom of an underlying psychological disorder which renders him unfit for ordination into the priesthood of Jesus Christ (a fully human heterosexual/non-disordered male).

 

[Scout]

E.E.N.S.:

I can understand what you are saying, but would you feel the same way if someone felt as though they were called by God to be a youth minister, but he was a known child molester? How about if he never molested anyone, but he admitted to be sexually attracted to young children?

Oh, for heaven’s sake! Are we back to that again? How many times does it have to be said that HOMOSEXUALITY AND PEDOPHILIA ARE NOT THE SAME THINGS! THEY ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUES!

Scout :tiphat:

 

[Libero]

Necessarily? Who knows. But let me relate it like this:

It would seem unreasonable to let a known alcoholic to serve as a bartender, am I correct?

Again, wouldn’t you agree that it would be unreasonable to allow a known pedophile to be a youth minister?

If 85% of all sexual abuse in the last 30-40 years was done to males (showing the vast majority of occurances are homosexual offences), it would seem unreasonable to allow known homosexuals to be Priests.

If certain Bishops/Priests/religious/etc were to speak against the Church on this matter, one would have to question their motives.

I can sort of understand what you are saying when talkng about alcoholics being bartenders, however it is cery different circumstances, commiting a homosexual act is different to having a quick drink.

I understand why rhe pope has decided to do this, and yes I would agree that it is probably good given the current situation in the Us, but really that is where I would draw the line. Let America deal with problems, but no need to inflict this everywhere else, therre are no where near as many problems in the majority of other countires. Also what does this mean about the seminary inspection? Is that going to be stopped now.

About questioning a clergy members motives, well they might say that they would rather spread love, equality and tolerance in Jesus’ name, rather than unfair barring and alot of discrimination (even though it is just).

 

[YinYangMom]

Jabronie:

I still don’t like it. A man suffering from SSA shouldn’t be punished. I’d understand if the seminarian is prancing around as an “outed” homosexual and insisting on speaking out in favor of gay marriage and things like that, but why should a young man who’s quietly praying to overcome SSA be denied his calling to the priesthood?

That would be my only concern as well.

First of all, this new document is only restated what has already been stated.

It is mostly there to stop future abuses, as in the 70’s & 80’s the rule was ignored.

Sure would like to see what the penalty for continued ‘ignorance’ of the restated rule would be though…I’d be disappointed if there won’t be any crack-down on bishops who still admit SSAs after this October Synod.

But, given that this is really nothing ‘new’…I still have the question about ‘reformed’ SSAers…
Apparently they exist. Many have spoken about their journey.
Would people who ever had past SSA also be barred or just those who continue to ‘suffer’ from the ‘personality disorder’ as this document now defines it?

 

[mercygate]

When people cite the “unfairness” of banning men with SSA from priesthood, are they considering the “fairness” to the young people who were abused by priests with SSA?

Perhaps honorable men with SSA who feel called to priesthood will offer their disappointment in penance for those who made it necessary for the Church to take this stand.

We have a specific problem here and now, 80% of which was brought to us by men with SSA who showed themselves incapable of managing their situation in conformity with the Gospel or with the promises they made to God and to their Bishop. The fact that others with SSA are living exemplary lives is wonderful but hardly reassuring in view of the overall picture.

Not only is it prudent for the sake of our young people to withhold ordination from men with SSA – at least for a decade or so – but it is “unfair” to complain that this is unfair.

My concern is that U. S. seminaries will pay as much attention to this directive as our pastors have of Redemptionis Sacramentum.

 

[beckyann2597]

E.E.N.S.:

I can understand what you are saying, but would you feel the same way if someone felt as though they were called by God to be a youth minister, but he was a known child molester? How about if he never molested anyone, but he admitted to be sexually attracted to young children?

I think that men who are inclined to molest children are a greater threat to society than a gay man. I think that major analysis for these tendencies should be made on all priests and men wanting to enter the seminary.
I know where this decision is coming from though. In certain diocese and “Catholic” Universities, there are openly gay priests who have relationships. This is scandelous and I think that the Pope’s action is a way of nipping it in the bud. I do feel sorry for men who suffer from SSA and who are called to be priests and who are willing and capable of keeping their vow of Chastity. I wager that they would be great ministers, but will never get the chance. Because of the Scandels of other priests, all these men have been painted by the same brush.

 

[contemplative]

YinYangMom:

Would people who ever had past SSA also be barred or just those who continue to ‘suffer’ from the ‘personality disorder’ as this document now defines it?

article says…
Priests who have already been ordained, if they suffer from homosexual impulses, are strongly urged to renew their dedication to chastity, and a manner of life appropriate to the priesthood.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Scout:

I fully agree! This whole arguement isn’t about ordaining homosexuals, but trying to decide who God has chosen to be a priest. Personally, I’m not going to make that call. If a man feels that he is called by God to be a priest, then who’s to tell him he isn’t?

I love the Pope, but I’m sorry to say that this time, I think he got it wrong.

Scout :tiphat:

It bears repeating again: a person must not only have an interior call to the priesthood but also an external one that is discerned by the Church. A mere feelin of call to priesthood is inadequet on its own.

 

[beckyann2597]

mercygate:

When people cite the “unfairness” of a rule that bans men with SSA from priesthood, are the considering the “fairness” to the young people who were abused by priests with SSA who molested them?

We have a specific problem here and now, 80% of which was brought to us by men with SSA who did not manage their situation in conformity with the promises they made to God and to their Bishop. The fact that others are living exemplary lives is wonderful but hardly reassuring in view of the overall picture.

Not only is it prudent to withhold ordination from men with SSA – at least for a decade or so – but it is “unfair” to complain that this is unfair.

My concern is that U. S. seminaries will pay as much attention to this directive as our pastors have of Redemptionis Sacramentum.

Gay does not equal Child molester. I think it is careless to make that kind of judgement. There are men who consider themselves straight and still molest children.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

mercygate:

When people cite the “unfairness” of a rule that bans men with SSA from priesthood, are the considering the “fairness” to the young people who were abused by priests with SSA who molested them?

You could even be more basic than that. Crying “unfairness” implys that there is some right to priesthood. 'Taint so.

Scott

 

[mercygate]

beckyann2597:

Gay does not equal Child molester. I think it is careless to make that kind of judgement. There are men who consider themselves straight and still molest children.

No. Gay does not equal child molester.

But the current scandals in the Church were largely not about molesting children. More than 80% of them involved adolescent boys. That is a homosexual issue.

And I do affirm the excellent service of those priests with SSA who manage to live in chastity.

 

[E.E.N.S]

beckyann2597:

I think that men who are inclined to molest children are a greater threat to society than a gay man.

And a stick of dynamite is more dangerous that a grenade, but you would let you child play with either, right?

None the less, if you think I am comparing a homosexual to a child molester, you are missing the point. Look at the environments involved:

Alcoholic around alcohol,
Child molester around children,
Homosexual in an all male environment (with extremely high abuse percentages on the side of the homosexual.)

If 80% of children who played with guns died, it would seem unwise, nay, it would be neglect to let the child play with a gun.

Statistics (as well as common sense) state that it is a “bad idea” to have homosexuals in the priesthood. This is not an attack on the person’s dignity any more than not letting an alcoholic work around alcohol, or a child molester work around children, etc.

 

[beckyann2597]

beckyann2597:

I know where this decision is coming from though.  In certain diocese and "Catholic" Universities, there are openly gay priests who have relationships.  This is scandelous and I think that the Pope's action is a way of nipping it in the bud.  I do feel sorry for men who suffer from SSA and who are called to be priests and who are willing and capable of keeping their vow of Chastity.  I wager that they would be great ministers, but will never get the chance.  Because of the Scandels of other priests, all these men have been painted by the same brush.

I’d like to elaborate. My friend went to a “Catholic” University here in CA and left with a very interesting education. It was so very liberal…in a bad way. She left with a degree in feminist studies and took part in many gay rights demonstrations on campus, supported by the faculty. I was her only Catholic friend (from HS), and she siad there were no other Catholics like me at the University. She told me stories about certain faculty (priests) being linked to eachother. How it was kept hush hush, but was let to go on. Scandel is not healthy for the church and I beleive this is why the pope has made the choice he has.

 

[felra]

beckyann2597:

I think that men who are inclined to molest children are a greater threat to society than a gay man. I think that major analysis for these tendencies should be made on all priests and men wanting to enter the seminary.
I know where this decision is coming from though. In certain diocese and “Catholic” Universities, there are openly gay priests who have relationships. This is scandelous and I think that the Pope’s action is a way of nipping it in the bud. I do feel sorry for men who suffer from SSA and who are called to be priests and who are willing and capable of keeping their vow of Chastity. I wager that they would be great ministers, but will never get the chance. Because of the Scandels of other priests, all these men have been painted by the same brush.

You mis-characterize this “decision”, which is actually but a reiteration --" The Instruction does not represent a change in Church teaching or policy. Catholic leaders have consistently taught that homosexual men should not be ordained to the priesthood. Pope John XXIII approved a formal policy to that effect, which still remains in effect."–of pre-existing but not enforced policy of the Church.

Molestation is but evidence of one not being chaste in their walk with Christ. The issue of SSA men not being fit for the priesthood has nothing to do with ability to remain chaste or not, but that these men have been deemed unfit due to SSA as a symptom of an underlying psychological disorder. Period. The Church sex scandal simply brought to light the failure to enact and enforce the criteria/guidelines for determining a seminarian’s qualification and fitness for priestly formation.

Rather than feeling sorry for these SSA afflicted men, feel good that the Church will hopefully not be subject to the bad fruit of ineffectual discernment and screening process for the future Fathers of the flock. Yes, these SSA afflicted individuals need our prayers and ministry, and to consider ordination for them is but a disservice to that psychologically wounded individual and the Church.

 

[Libero]

Alcoholic around alcohol,
Child molester around children,
Homosexual in an all male environment (with extremely high abuse percentages on the side of the homosexual.)

If 80% of children who played with guns died, it would seem unwise, nay, it would be neglect to let the child play with a gun.

Here I have problems, I agree that any priest who is say a homosexual who then breaks vows of chastity should be kicked out of the church, but to prevent any other priests who have SSA from eneting seminaries is not right, why can seminaries not assess priestly candidates more effectively? Then why can they not put in place a one strike and you are out rule. This seems far more reasonable. To ban all homosexuals because people others have broken vows in the past would be wrong.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Libero:

Here I have problems, I agree that any priest who is say a homosexual who then breaks vows of chastity should be kicked out of the church, but to prevent any other priests who have SSA from eneting seminaries is not right, why can seminaries not assess priestly candidates more effectively? Then why can they not put in place a one strike and you are out rule. This seems far more reasonable. To ban all homosexuals because people others have broken vows in the past would be wrong.

I think you misunderstand the gravity of the situation. Do you realize what that “one strike” will cause in the lives of so many (in everyone really)? It’s like playing with fire. It’s best for everybody to avoid this at all costs. Think about the results of “one strike” for a moment, and then tell me it’s worth risking ruining the live(s) of those directly affected, and the priest’s life/soul, and how it puts a huge wound in the Body of Christ, and stains the dress of the Bride of Christ, and how many millions of people it turns away from the True Church of Christ to here of the sex scandal, etc, etc etc. If you truly love these people, do not let them put themselves in this dangerous situation! Just as if you love your child you will not let him play with a loaded firearm.

With all possible respect,
~Lee

 

[mercygate]

Libero:

Here I have problems, I agree that any priest who is say a homosexual who then breaks vows of chastity should be kicked out of the church, but to prevent any other priests who have SSA from eneting seminaries is not right, why can seminaries not assess priestly candidates more effectively? Then why can they not put in place a one strike and you are out rule. This seems far more reasonable. To ban all homosexuals because people others have broken vows in the past would be wrong.

Clearly, we do not have effective ways of assessing candidates effectively. And whom do you want that one strike to be against? Your kid?

I would not say “ban 'em all forever.” I advocate a 10-year moratorium followed by assessment. During that decade of moratorium, if better assessment tools are developed, then we might on a case-by-case basis, limiting the numbers admitted, tiptoe back into allowing men with SSA to be considered for Priesthood.

Again, Libero, you are operating out of a “fairness” model. The fairness model truly does not apply here. Is it “fair” that God calls only a few to priesthood? Is it “fair” that they must be celibate? Is it “fair” that women do not qualify? Is it “fair” that short people can’t play professional basketball?

I would go back to the discarded ‘unblemished male’ standard for priests and admit no sons of divorcees, no one born out of wedlock . . . It may have been “unfair” but it made the point that the priesthood is a privilege demanding the highest standards on all counts, and not just another career option.

 

[Libero]

If we had a good enough assessment then we would not have to employ a one strike idea would we. Rather than take the easy road, and ban the supposed ‘bad apples’ we could actually look at our own faults in the church and see if there is a way to prevent any ‘bad apples’ and also allow in model priests who have SSA.

As for fairness, just because some things in life are unfair, doesn’t make it acceptable for the church to make unfair policies on a gross scale.

God himself is a perfect example of fairness. We commited sin in the Garden of Eden, we directly insulted him; but rather than destroy the entire human race he continued our life with some new conditions made. The church is saying rather than implying new conditions to homosexual seminary candidates, we should just do away with them.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Libero:

As for fairness, just because some things in life are unfair, doesn’t make it acceptable for the church to make unfair policies on a gross scale.

God himself is a perfect example of fairness. We commited sin in the Garden of Eden, we directly insulted him; but rather than destroy the entire human race he continued our life with some new conditions made. The church is saying rather than implying new conditions to homosexual seminary candidates, we should just do away with them.

Who are you to say what is and what is not fair? Leave that to the Church.

I love the priests, as well as those who desire to serve Christ in that manner - and precisely out of this love for them that I desire not to place a loaded pistol in their hands.

—Those who choose the way of the world are at enmity with God.—