Pope approves barring gay seminarians

[Joan_M]

Here we go again, round and round, about why the Church is being unfair, etc., etc.

The ban on persons with SSA being ordained is not unfair.

And it has nothing to do with whether or not the man is actively homosexual.

The priest must be another Christ. Jesus Christ is the bridegroom. The Church (all of us) is the bride. A man with homosexual feelings cannot be the bridegroom. It’s as simple as that.

Some time ago I read a wonderful article that went into depth about the priest being Altar Christus, in persona Christi, and it made the whole thing perfectly clear. Unfortunately, I forget where I read it, and I have been unable to find it again.

As for how will Seminary Rectors find out if Seminarians have SSA - they will be in the Seminary for at least 4 years, and usually more than that - up to 9 years or more. I’m sure that during that time, where all Seminarians are living in close contact, it will become known who has SSA and who doesn’t!

 

[contemplative]

I want to reintroduce an idea than many of you may already be familiar with.

Simple Obedience

Simple obedience is to simply obey the Church even when you don’t fully understand why you are suppose to or not suppose to do something…even when you don’t have the foggiest idea why you should do something.

Years ago I chose to disobey the Church when I didn’t fully understand Her. I knew that I should have simply obeyed the Church but my selfishness and pride would never hear of it. Today I realize my sin. God has His own way of getting to us…in His time…not ours.

Think of all the Holy men who have been denied priesthood and have settled on being a brother or once they were a priest they were not allowed to hear confessions or be the celebrant for Mass. These Holy men simply obeyed when perhaps they didn’t fully understand.

There is a reason for everything. God’s ways are not our ways. If we believe in one Catholic Apostolic Church then we would never give this order from our Pope a second thought.

When the feelings of rebellion rear their wicked heads then ask God to touch all that isn’t Him in you. Ask God to send His saving Grace.

 

[Darrel]

Simple obedience is to simply obey the Church even when you don’t fully understand why you are suppose to or not suppose to do something…even when you don’t have the foggiest idea why you should do something.

Amen!

The Pope says it is so. Last time I checked it’s bound in heaven. Am I correct?

-D

 

[Hildebrand]

The “Instruction” does not represent a change in church teaching or policy, according to the Vatican.

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. However, during the 1970s and 1980s, that policy was widely ignored, particularly in North America.

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46409

 

[Scout]

contemplative:

I want to reintroduce an idea than many of you may already be familiar with.

Simple Obedience

Simple obedience is to simply obey the Church even when you don’t fully understand why you are suppose to or not suppose to do something…even when you don’t have the foggiest idea why you should do something.

I think God created us in such a way that we want to understand-that’s why we keep searching for the truth. I know there is a limit to what the human mind can comprehend, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ask the questions and keep digging deeper.

Besides, a bunch of people back in the 30’s and 40’s used the idea of obedience, too, and no one thought the arguement “I was just following orders” was a good one.

Scout :tiphat:

 

[Chalice]

I wish a Pope would have had the nerve to implement AND enforce such an order about 35 years ago…

 

[contemplative]

Scout:

I think God created us in such a way that we want to understand-that’s why we keep searching for the truth. I know there is a limit to what the human mind can comprehend, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ask the questions and keep digging deeper.

This is true. There are moments. There are days. There are weeks. There can be months and years. Heck! A whole life time can pass without fully understanding ‘why’ God asks me to do something. Would you or anyone hold out and not obey on the chance of knowing ‘why’ first? I wouldn’t want to bet my life in heaven on knowing and understanding.

If you are a father you might might recall the number of times you forced your child to do something.

One very vivid memory I have is of literally pinning my child down (gently of course) to the ground in order to get her limbs and body into a snowsuit and into her car seat so we could get to the doctor’s office safely. Now that child didn’t understand why she needed to be in a snowsuit and buckled in to her carseat but I did.

I tend to view any protesting poster on this thread as a child being gently pushed into a direction they might not neccesarily like.

Every ‘child’ has its own style of rebellion. They might not all throw a temper tantrum. Some might quietly grumble and go off behind a couch. Some might pack a hobo sack and head on down the road. Some might just be a stick in the mud the whole way and quietly grumble. Some are simply going to be very verbose about their concerns. I had another child like that. She has a comment or complaint for everything and she won’t be quiet. She practically came out of my womb talking! She wants to be heard! Whatever their style is God will get to them in His time.

At any rate we are Children of God. If we are to live up to our Faith then we will be obedient. We will also do what we can to understand the Truth. Pray - Listen - Share with others - Read to understand, especially the Bible - and above all obey because you love God and His Church.

 

[Orionthehunter]

In light of what we have just experienced, it is prudent for the Church to adopt this policy to prevent or mitigate the chances of further sexual abuse of minors doesn’t occur. However, I’m not convinced that this will necessarily get at the heart of the problem.

1. While 80% of the victims were male, 20% of the victims were female. We still need to be diligent to make sure our daughters are protected.
2. I think that sexual abuse of minors is less about sex and more about power. Conventional psychiatric wisdom believes rape isn’t about sex but is about the perpetrator lusting for power over the victim. In my humble (but untrained) opinion, sexual abuse of minors seems to more parallel rape than sex. If it was about sex, there would have been alot less risky places for a Priest to engage in his sin than with his own altar boys.
3. If the premise above has merit, the disproportionate male victims could be because the predators had greater access to young boys than young girls and isn’t about homosexuality. Thus, we may be chasing the wrong psychological defect.

I also know that the conventional psychiatric wisdom is that Same Sex Attraction (SSA) is a pathology that is inherently disordered. But relying on this “conventional wisdom” makes me uncomfortable for several reasons.

1. “Conventional wisdom” comes from “secular” psychiatry. This is the same sources who have “intellectualized” and “normalized” so many sins that we now live in an age of relativism. Now that homosexuality is a disorder, is gluttony next? If the lawsuits against McDonalds are an indication, it may be.
2. In my humble opinion, to the secularists whose agenda is to tear down faith and religion, making the sexual abuse of minors scandal about homosexuality and not a parallel to rape serves their agenda. I see it in the arguments they are now saying that “if Priests could marry” or “if the Church was more accepting of human nature” etc. they wouldn’t have had to seduce these young boys. In other words, the secularists argument implies it isn’t the homosexuality that is wrong but the Church.
3. These secular “psychiatrists/psychologists” don’t place alot of reliance on God as the source of the solution (in fact, some of them blame God as part of the problem). If the mental heath industry (and it is an industry) can’t counsel you to health, they will give you a prescription. If neither work, they call it a pathology that is hard-wired for which we need to accept the “patient” as they are. I am one who believes that all sins can be overcomewith God through Confession, prayer and God’s grace. All of us can overcome our sinful nature with God’s help, even homosexuality.

Reliance on the “dogma of Same Sex Attraction (SSA)” as a disorder that is “hard-wired” and can’t be overcome has serious theological implications. Intellectually, I have a hard time distinguishing this “dogma” with Calvin’s predestination argument. Both argue that outcome is “hard-wired” in us at conception and the die is cast. Predestination is a serious heresy condemned by the Church. I would hate to have the Church have to someday “recant” their reliance on “conventional psychiatric wisdom” as they did when the Church admitted that Galileo was right when he said the Earth was round and the Earth revolved around the sun.

Bottom line: I pray that collectively we cease to celebrate this development as a positive but instead weep because we have to specifically select this sinful nature for extra-ordinary remedies for the good of the Church and potentially to protect our young people. (I say potentially because if the ultimate disorder is closer to rape than homosexuality, we may have actually done nothing to protect our young people)

 

[Orionthehunter]

Chalice:

I wish a Pope would have had the nerve to implement AND enforce such an order about 35 years ago…

First, I’m not sure it is proper to chastise a Pope on this or any other subject, especially when the implication that he was too weak to implement the Truth.

Second, I want to qualify my primary remarks to say the following:

1. The Pope is totally within his responsibilities to make this decision. In fact, determining eligibility for the priesthood is a critical responsibility of the Pope.
2. I want nothing that I say to be interpreted that I condone in any way homosexual thoughts, desires or acts.
3. I understand the frustration we all have with the failure of our Church Leaders to effectively deal with the sexual abuse of minors. The impact it has had on teh financial health of our dioceses, fostering the perception that all Priests are sex deviants when 96% of them haven’t committed these heinous acts, and most importantly the long-lasting devastating impact on the victims is a grave monumental tragedy. Each time I reflect on it, I’m moved to tears.

When I read this thread and many about essentially the same subject, my heart is filled with sadness because of the glee some posters seem to exhibit upon the news that we are banning homosexuals from the Priesthood.

As Lust is just one of the 7 Deadly Sins (Pride Envy Anger Sloth Greed Gluttony are the others), it seems that there is a common perception that somehow this sin is worse than the others. All of the Deadly Sins seriously harm our relationship with God to the point it could result in eternal separation from God. I myself struggle with more than one of the other deadly sins and don’t believe that my sins are “less serious” than a homosexual’s. We both need God’s forgiveness and grace to overcome our sinful nature. I am, however, grateful that the crosses I bear are not as difficult to overcome as homosexuality.

(Please don’t go into a monologue saying that Lust is worse because of the impact on the victim. All of the others (with the possible exception of Gluttony) can also have victims who can suffer consequences as serious as from Lust)

I know that part of the reason the sex abuse scandal reached such tragic proportions is that some Bishop’s didn’t have a full understanding of the pathology of those who did these heinous acts but instead relied on these predator Priest’s pledge to refrain from future acts- a pledge the Bishops believed was strengthened by the Sacrament of Reconciliation and the graces gained from Confession.

THE FOLLOWING POST IS A CONTINUATION OF THIS ONE. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE LENGTH.

 

[Shaun]

ByzCath:

Would be nice to read the whole article but I will not register.

I love the church and love our Pope but if he bans gay seminarians, he would be wrong. It is completely unjust and discriminitve to ban a whole class of people based on their orientation and not their behavior. This is a clear example of Bigotry. What about heterosexual priests who work with women on a daily basis and work with the parish secretary on a daily basis? The same argument could be made for heterosexual priests. The temptation is still there for the heterosexual priests as is for the homosexual orientation. The question is can priests live as chaste, celibate men? I don’t see how you can deny someone especially if they truely feel the call by God into the priesthood. Don’t get me wrong here, some of the seminaries are in bad shape and do need to be cleaned up, but you don’t do it by banning a whole entire class of people. The power of God’s grace is strong and it can transform a person so they can live a celibate life regardless of their orientation. Are we saying that God’s Grace is only capable of working in Heterosexual priests to live celibate but not gay orientation priests? To me this is a no brainer and comon logic can show this is discriminitve to a whole class of people. Do you think if Christ were on Earth today he would be banning these men? Lets get back to the Gospel of Christ.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

contemplative:

I am not sure I can copy and paste it.

Text of article (only):

Vatican, Sep. 19 (CWNews.com) - Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) has given his approval to a new Vatican policy document indicating that men with homosexual tendencies should not be ordained as Catholic priests.

The new document-- which was prepared by the Congregation for Catholic Education, in response to a request made by the late Pope John Paul II (bio - news) in 1994-- will be published soon. It will take the form of an “Instruction,” signed by the prefect and secretary of the Congregation: Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski and Archbishop Michael Miller.

The text, which was approved by Pope Benedict at the end of August, says that homosexual men should not be admitted to seminaries even if they are celibate, because their condition suggests a serious personality disorder which detracts from their ability to serve as ministers.

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.

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. However, during the 1970s and 1980s, that policy was widely ignored, particularly in North America. The resulting crisis in the priesthood-- in which one prominent American commentator observed that the priesthood was coming to be seen as a “gay” profession-- prompted Pope John Paul II to call for a new study on the question.

The Congregation for Catholic Education prepared the Instruction after soliciting advice from all of the world’s bishops, from psychologists, and from moral theologians. A draft of the Instruction was then circulated among the Vatican dicasteries concerned with the issue, notably including the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The pending release of the Instruction, in the face of certain criticism from liberal forces in America and Western Europe, demonstrates the determination of the Vatican to improve the quality of priestly ministry, and to protect the Church from some of the scandals that have recently shaken the Catholic community-- and no doubt deterred many men from entering priestly training. Informed sources in Rome indicate that the Instruction probably will be made public after the Synod of Bishops, which meets in Rome from October 2 through 23.

 

[contemplative]

OriontheHunter,
Your post is well written. Unfortunately there will always be some who just are not ready to read, understand and accept.

When I read this thread and many about essentially the same subject, my heart is filled with sadness because of the glee some posters seem to exhibit upon the news that we are banning homosexuals from the Priesthood.

I can’t speak for others but I must say I felt a certain unrestrained sense of relief when this news story came out. The last 3 or so years have been particularly stressful for me in my neck of the woods. I don’t know which diocese you are coming from but I come from one that is simply over run by homosexual priests and it hurts. I wouldn’t be sorry if some of them packed their hobo sacks and took a walk…especially the one who touts and ear ring in his ear in a vocations recruitment video.

 

[Orionthehunter]

contemplative:

OriontheHunter,
Your post is well written. Unfortunately there will always be some who just are not ready to read, understand and accept.

I can’t speak for others but I must say I felt a certain unrestrained sense of relief when this news story came out. The last 3 or so years have been particularly stressful for me in my neck of the woods. I don’t know which diocese you are coming from but I come from one that is simply over run by homosexual priests and it hurts. I wouldn’t be sorry if some of them packed their hobo sacks and took a walk…especially the one who touts and ear ring in his ear in a vocations recruitment video.

Thanks for the comment. I understand your relief. This tragedy is of such huge dimensions it is sometimes unfathomable. While I sympathize with you regarding being “over run by homosexual priests,” I can’t empathize. I seriously don’t believe this small rural diocese has any and if we do, I believe they are living a celibate life adn if they weren’t our Bishop would have identified them and thrown them out. I concur that any man not living his Priestly vocation in public and in private should be sent to monastery where he lives the life of a hermit and can’t be a threat to himself or society.

 

[contemplative]

Orionthehunter:

I concur that any man not living his Priestly vocation in public and in private should be sent to monastery where he lives the life of a hermit and can’t be a threat to himself or society.

This concept was well publicized at the start of the scandal and it was then stated by monasteries that they do not want troubled priests. This was clearly articulated at the pulpit of the monastery I frequent. It was said that monastic life is vocation not a rehab for troubled priests. I agree.

 

[Orionthehunter]

contemplative:

This concept was well publicized at the start of the scandal and it was then stated by monasteries that they do not want troubled priests. This was clearly articulated at the pulpit of the monastery I frequent. It was said that monastic life is vocation not a rehab.

I agree that the existing monasteries shouldn’t be forced to become rehab. I guess I’m advocating forming new cloisters where they are properly supervised such that the monastery doesn’t becomes a den of iniquity. Once a Priest, they can’t recant their ordination and I don’t think that it is right to send Priests (no matter how sinful) out to a world where their “sinful nature” might condemn them to a life of sinful acts.

 

[contemplative]

Orionthehunter:

While I sympathize with you regarding being “over run by homosexual priests,” I can’t empathize. I seriously don’t believe this small rural diocese has any and if we do, I believe they are living a celibate life adn if they weren’t our Bishop would have identified them QUOTE]

My diocese contains the famous 35 who penned a letter to Pope John Paul II scolding him for the wording of
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS
TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION
TO UNIONS
BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

Chicago had 25 ( I believe )

 

[otm]

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?

It might help to consider the perspective differently. Ultimately it is the Church who makes the call; it is the Church who decides who will or will not be ordained.

There would only be punishment for SSA if one were to consider the individual’s determination that they had a call as the determinative factor, and then couple that determination, that, once made by the individual, resulted in a right, and the Church was then withholding this right.

The individual might see it as a punishment, but I would suggest that the individual was seeing himself as a victim; that also would imply somehow that the indvidual had a right to ordination.

 

[contemplative]

Orionthehunter:

Once a Priest, they can’t recant their ordination and I don’t think that it is right to send Priests (no matter how sinful) out to a world where their “sinful nature” might condemn them to a life of sinful acts.

No one will be asked to recant their ordination.

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.

This is not a bad deal. I kinda do this every time my wedding anniversary rolls around. We actually stood at the altar a couple of years ago and renewed our vows. How painful was that? Not

 

[otm]

Libero:

But the problem is that banning homosexuals is not necessrially walking in the way of christ, is it? I do expect alot of negative media, Dignity in particular will issue some strong responses, also what is going to happen when particular bishops and cardinals speak out against this ban, what if some ignore it; that will cause disruption.

Also, I have heard that the pope himself may not sign the ban, but rather a cardinal, as the vatican are keen to try and soften the pope’s image.

The likelyhood of Cardinals and bishops speaking out against the band is minimal. There may be an occasional individual in those ranks who speaks out, but that has been the case for 200 years or so.

It is more likely that the issue will simply be ignored by some, or given a low priority in terms of issues they pay attention to.

 

[otm]

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:

Who’s to tell him?

The same people who have had a say in it for the last 2000 years. The bishops, who do the ordination.

Ordination is not a right, achieved by going through a series of classes in a seminary, one that cannot be denied if, sy, one maintains a “C” average.