Pope approves barring gay seminarians

[proud2bcatholic]

Shaun:

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.

SSA is not an “orientation”, nor are people who struggle with this a “class” of people. SSA is a disorder, one of many disorders that the Church has traditionally determined that a person who has struggled with said disorder is not right for the priesthood.

The priesthood is a calling of high esteem, one should be a truly integrated male, for they will be in persona christi. The Church has always taught this, however it has been at times lacking in the enforcement of this ideal for priests. Hopefully, this is the step in the right direction of once again enforcing the disciplines/traditions of the Church in regards to the vocation selection. It is not discrimination, unless you also consider the refusal of women to the priesthood to be discriminatory, and if that is the case then you are saying that Christ himself, discriminated.

 

[Chalice]

Orionthehunter:

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… **

Read the section on the “Truce of 1968” in George Weigel’s The Courage to be Catholic if you have any further questions about past strength.

I think the “Truce of 1968” was the beginning of a long and horrible downhill slide in the Church – at least in the USA.

 

[InnocentIII]

I love the way irrelavent arguments keep getting thrown around this thread. Anything to divert attention away from the real issue. Reminds me of my kids in school.

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.

God also gave us the Church to guide us in faith and morals. Man did not create the Church. She was God’s divinely ordained institution. She cannot err in faith and morals. To question her teachings in these matters is to question God.

Scout:

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.

I am assuming you mean Nazi Germany. This is a red herring. Firstly Germans were not voluntary members of German society. They could not leave if they disagreed. Those who don’t agree with the Church’s teaching are always welcome to find a more comfortable home elsewhere. Secondly, there is a considerable difference between thoughtful disobedience and petulant disobedience when you don’t get your own way. Under the guise of demanding tolerance you are in fact intolerantly demanding the Church conform to your ideas.

beckers:

I am also really sick of people only blaming homosexuals for the problems of molestation. Not all homosexuals are pedophiles. There are LOTS of heterosexual pedophiles.

This is another red herring. No-one blames only homosexuals for the problems of molestation. However the John Jay Report clearly indicates that 80%+ of molestation claims against priests involved homosexual acts on teen boys. Given that gays constitute a minority of priests (even he worst figure - entirely unsupported I might add - is only 50%) yet they constitute an overwhelming majority of the 10,000+ cases of molestation that appears to me fairly conclusive evidence that the problem lies in the SSA of the priests. Further there may be LOTS of heterosexual paedophiles but they don’t seem to make it into the priesthood.

Lets face it. The Church has a right to decide who will be a priest. That I WANT to be a priest (or anything else) does not ipso facto create a right for me to be so.

 

[InnocentIII]

Scout:

Who said it was a “right”? All I’m saying is that it shouldn’t be denied someone who is called by God.

Scout :tiphat:

When I was at university there was a homeless man near the uni entrance who spent all day telling everyone that passed that he had been called by God to pass judgement on the wicked which according to him were catholics in particular. To say that someone is called by God is meaningless unless there is some objective means of determining that call. Wanting it doesn not make it so.

 

[felra]

I would like to make a couple of observations of some posts I’ve read here:

Originally Posted by felra

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. (CCC)
The poster of the CCC citation loves to make talk about how SSA is a sign of a psychological disorder. Fair enough…I guess…if insulting language is your forte, but I digress (I prefer to say that I “have issues”),
How presumptuous and rude of you. In actuality, I use the correct term “symptom” which means “*indicates *evidence of”; your term “sign” means “direct evidence of”. I do not pretend to be presumptuous in drawing 100% conclusions. Since you are the one to poke my shoulder regarding the offensiveness (“insulting language”) of the correct usage of “psychological disorder”, to which SSA is a symptom of, what exactly “politically correct” terminology/nomenclature do you offer/suggest to be able to intelligibly, clearly discuss and label the issues associated with SSA and fitness/qualification for seminarian formation?

yet fails to point out any specifics on that disorder and its causes.

You have got to be kidding, right? According to you I am supposed to be quoting studies and sources regarding the “specifics on that [SSA] disorder and its causes” anytime I have a discussion regarding SSA? I will direct you to the reliable and Catholic friendly website www.narth.com for abundant clinical case studies for symptoms and causality factors if you care to inform yourself. Do your homework before throwing out false insinuations.

Basically, homosexuality is a manifestation of many different things:

Gender identity deficit
Defensive detachment from members of the same sex
Self-pity and unhealthy low self-esteem
A sense of detachment of one’s self from one’s own physical body

Again, homosexuality (SSA) is a manifestation of an underlying psychological disorder. Period. It does no one any service to cloak this affliction in dispersed terminology. All these “many different things” you cite are but more symptoms (the correct terminology for “Gender Identity Deficit” is “Gender Identity Disorder”–>interesting error on your part) of an underlying psychological anomaly/pathology/disorder/disturbance/maladaptation/deviation …

“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.”

Apparantly this is the man that you should be airing your bone of contention with, not me. Personally, I align myself with the Pope in correctly labelling and defining the affliction of homosexuality for what it is.

 

[Libero]

Again, homosexuality (SSA) is a manifestation of an underlying psychological disorder. Period. It does no one any service to cloak this affliction in dispersed terminology. All these “many different things” you cite are but more symptoms (the correct terminology for “Gender Identity Deficit” is “Gender Identity Disorder”–>interesting error on your part) of an underlying psychological anomaly/pathology/disorder/disturbance/maladaptation/deviation …

I have heard you quote this ‘underlying psychological disorder’ many times, what exactly is it? I hope that the deviation and maladaption you have listed is not the disorder, homosexuality is not due to those characteristics. Is this psychological disorder fact and has been proven - by a reliable non biased source, without an agenda, of which religion can not influence?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

felra:

How presumptuous and rude of you. In actuality, I use the correct term “symptom” which means “*indicates *evidence of”; your term “sign” means “direct evidence of”. I do not pretend to be presumptuous in drawing 100% conclusions. Since you are the one to poke my shoulder regarding the offensiveness (“insulting language”) of the correct usage of “psychological disorder”, to which SSA is a symptom of, what exactly “politically correct” terminology/nomenclature do you offer/suggest to be able to intelligibly, clearly discuss and label the issues associated with SSA and fitness/qualification for seminarian formation?

That was my opinion of the term and was intended to be a parenthetical. Don’t be so defensive!

felra:

You have got to be kidding, right? According to you I am supposed to be quoting studies and sources regarding the “specifics on that [SSA] disorder and its causes” anytime I have a discussion regarding SSA? I will direct you to the reliable and Catholic friendly website www.narth.com for abundant clinical case studies for symptoms and causality factors if you care to inform yourself.

I fully support the work of NARTH. Their website, however, leaves much to be desired as the stories are two or three paragraph blurbs about this or that study. Not much in any real detail.

In fact, If I could afford to enter into therapy with a NARTH therapist, I would. It’s not a possibility at this time. It’s one of those, “do I go to therapy or eat” questions.

felra:

Do your homework before throwing out false insinuations.

Oh, I have. My reading list includes:

“The Homosexual Person” by Fr. John Harvey
“The Battle for Normality” by Gerald van den Aardweg
“Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality” by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi
“Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic” by Dr. Elizabeth Moberly
“Beyond Gay” by David Morrison
“The Truth About Homosexuality” by Fr. John Harvey
“Growth into Manhood : Resuming the Journey” by Alan Medinger

Kindly refrain from accusing me of NOT doing my homework.

felra:

Again, homosexuality (SSA) is a manifestation of an underlying psychological disorder. Period. It does no one any service to cloak this affliction in dispersed terminology. All these “many different things” you cite are but more symptoms (the correct terminology for “Gender Identity Deficit” is “Gender Identity Disorder”–>interesting error on your part) of an underlying psychological anomaly/pathology/disorder/disturbance/maladaptation/deviation …

Actually, it’s NOT an error on my part. It’s EXACTLY the term used by Moberly in her book.

felra:

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." Apparantly this is the man that you should be airing your bone of contention with, not me. Personally, I align myself with the Pope in correctly labelling and defining the affliction of homosexuality for what it is.

And I have no bones with the Pope’s proclamation.

My question is now as follows (which I notice you glossed right over):

LCMS_No_More:

On the other hand, I wonder, sometimes, what people expect persons who have SSA to do. What kind of vocation could they have in their lives in order to serve God? Is cleaning the sewer too GOOD for a person with SSA? For some, I think so. Most people have access to six of the seven sacraments (baptism, communion, confirmation, confession, anointing of the sick, and orders OR marriage). As it is, people suffering with SSA are limited to five (remove orders or marriage). So, what kind of vocation does a person with SSA have? Eternal hellfire? Purgatory for all time until judgement day? A life of penance but no ecclesial blessing or assistance in doing so? What?

Additionally, there is only ONE approved ministry to persons struggling with this issue and it doesn’t really deal with the issues that underly SSA, only how to live in accord with the CCC’s teachings on the subject (which, interestingly enough, actually cause the underlying issues to come to the surface with amazing force). Also, that ONE approved ministry is very limited in the number of chapters exist and some chapters only meet twice a month.

I believe that the Church needs to aggressively REACH OUT to people with SSA in order to assist us in dealing with the underlying issues so we can overcome them.

(Note, I changed “speed” to “force”).

 

[Orionthehunter]

Libero:

I have heard you quote this ‘underlying psychological disorder’ many times, what exactly is it? I hope that the deviation and maladaption you have listed is not the disorder, homosexuality is not due to those characteristics. Is this psychological disorder fact and has been proven - by a reliable non biased source, without an agenda, of which religion can not influence?

Libero, I understand where you are coming from. This and threads on the same subject are dominated by the “dogma” of SSA which while a common and most prevalent theory, it is not reached consensus in the psychiatric circles. And even if it was, it doesn’t mean it will pass the test of time. Many other psychiatric theories from even the past 10 years is now in the dust bin. And, finally, as I stated in post #65 or so below, I’m not comfortable relying on “conventional psychiatric wisdom” as a a basis for asserting this as if SSA is almost like an infallible truth (I apologize for using infallible as I don’t mean to equate a human theory with a pronouncement inspired by the Holy Spirit but in this forum people will get the gist of what I’m saying).

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

Libero, I understand where you are coming from. This and threads on the same subject are dominated by the “dogma” of SSA which while a common and most prevalent theory, it is not reached consensus in the psychiatric circles. And even if it was, it doesn’t mean it will pass the test of time. Many other psychiatric theories from even the past 10 years is now in the dust bin. And, finally, as I stated in post #65 or so below, I’m not comfortable relying on “conventional psychiatric wisdom” as a a basis for asserting this as if SSA is almost like an infallible truth (I apologize for using infallible as I don’t mean to equate a human theory with a pronouncement inspired by the Holy Spirit but in this forum people will get the gist of what I’m saying).

I think you have it backward. Most of psychology would reject the view of many of the posters here and embrace your view.

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

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.

Where have you seen this? Most of psychology thinks SSA is normal and good. Their association even endorses “gay” marriage.

 

[felra]

LCMS_No_More:

That was my opinion of the term and was intended to be a parenthetical. Don’t be so defensive!

Note: No acnowledgement of your rude and presumptuous comments directed toward me. Let’s see:

Originally Posted by LCMS_NO_MORE
My question is now as follows (which I notice you glossed right over):

Does anyone detect a double standard at play here?

I fully support the work of NARTH. Their website, however, leaves much to be desired as the stories are two or three paragraph blurbs about this or that study. Not much in any real detail.

They have an extensive bibliography.

In fact, If I could afford to enter into therapy with a NARTH therapist, I would. It’s not a possibility at this time. It’s one of those, “do I go to therapy or eat” questions.

Oh, I have. My reading list includes:

“The Homosexual Person” by Fr. John Harvey
“The Battle for Normality” by Gerald van den Aardweg
“Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality” by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi
“Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic” by Dr. Elizabeth Moberly
“Beyond Gay” by David Morrison
“The Truth About Homosexuality” by Fr. John Harvey
“Growth into Manhood : Resuming the Journey” by Alan Medinger

Kindly refrain from accusing me of NOT doing my homework.

Then why are you asking me to “point out any specifics on that disorder and its causes.”?

Actually, it’s NOT an error on my part. It’s EXACTLY the term used by Moberly in her book.

My reference: *Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. *

And I have no bones with the Pope’s proclamation.

You have a problem with me using the term “psychological disorder”, but not with the Pope’s document using the term “serious personality disorder”? Am I beginning to detect undercurrents of a personality clash here?

My question is now as follows (which I notice you glossed right over):

Give me a break …I chose not to address this portion of your post because it did not directly address my prior posts. Nor do I choose to now.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

felra:

Note: No acnowledgement of your rude and presumptuous comments directed toward me. Let’s see:

I reviewed my original post and I don’t see anything that is objectively rude or presumptuous, but I’m sorry that you took offense at them. It wasn’t my intention.

felra:

Give me a break …I chose not to address this portion of your post because it did not directly address my prior posts. Nor do I choose to now.

Uh. huh. Okay, then. So you don’t have an opinion on the matter. That implies, in my opinion, that you think that people with SSA should just go away and that you don’t believe the Church should do anything to help them fulfill any calling of God in their lives because they don’t have much of one (except maybe to clean sewers or suffer in purgatory until the final judgement). Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s what I’m gathering from the general tenor of your posts on the topic of SSA in general (not just here but in other threads as well).

 

[felra]

Orionthehunter:

Libero, I understand where you are coming from. This and threads on the same subject are dominated by the “dogma” of SSA which while a common and most prevalent theory, it is not reached consensus in the psychiatric circles.

It had at one time before the American Psychiatric Association caved in to the pressures of the gay activists to drop “homosexuality” from its listing of mental disorders.

I will trust the wisdom the the Pope who approved the text which included consultation from psychologists:

“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.

“The Congregation for Catholic Education prepared the Instruction **after soliciting advice **from all of the world’s bishops, from psychologists, and from moral theologians.”

 

[felra]

I reviewed my original post and I don’t see anything that is objectively rude or presumptuous, but I’m sorry that you took offense at them. It wasn’t my intention.

Insincere.

Uh. huh. Okay, then. So you don’t have an opinion on the matter. That implies, in my opinion,

that you think that people with SSA should just go away and that you don’t believe the Church should do anything to help them fulfill any calling of God in their lives because they don’t have much of one (except maybe to clean sewers or suffer in purgatory until the final judgement). Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s what I’m gathering from the general tenor of your posts on the topic of SSA in general (not just here but in other threads as well).
Erroneous.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

felra:

Insincere.

In your opinion.

felra:

Erroneous.

In what way, specifically?

 

[shannin]

sighs I can’t say I’m happy about this, but I understand the Vatican has to do what the vatican has to do, and I support them fully in it. When the public is crying out for a Vatican response to the abuse crisis, and 81% of the abusive priests were homosexual, what else can the Vatican do? And yet the people are going to cry foul on this as soon as it hits the media. People need to learn not to demand something unless they actually want it.
Josh

** I applaud the Holy Father for taking a firm stand**. Something had to be done. :clapping: :clapping: It really doesn’t make any difference to me what the media says. The future of the Church is much more important.

Shannin

 

[contemplative]

LCMS_No_More:

LCMS_No_More

On the other hand, I wonder, sometimes, what people expect persons who have SSA to do. What kind of vocation could they have in their lives in order to serve God? Is cleaning the sewer too GOOD for a person with SSA? For some, I think so. Most people have access to six of the seven sacraments (baptism, communion, confirmation, confession, anointing of the sick, and orders OR marriage). As it is, people suffering with SSA are limited to five (remove orders or marriage). So, what kind of vocation does a person with SSA have?
I am a woman I have an opportunity to receive 6 of 7 sacraments. Do you hear me complaining? No and I won’t.
You can not discount the possibility of sacrmental marriage for all men and women. No way.

Eternal hellfire? Purgatory for all time until judgement day? A life of penance but no ecclesial blessing or assistance in doing so? What?

Dramatics are uncalled for here.

 

[Libero]

I will trust the wisdom the the Pope who approved the text which included consultation from psychologists:

“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.

This whilst being a source from the pope, merely repeats the term you keep using, what underlying psychological disorder does homosexuality occur from? You appear to be well read on the matter, could you enlighten me?

It had at one time before the American Psychiatric Association caved in to the pressures of the gay activists to drop “homosexuality” from its listing of mental disorders.

This may not necesserially be due to pressure, I am confident that the American Psychiatric Association wont have removed their listing solely due to pressure. It may be due to a number of other reasons, such as a improvement in knowledge of homosexuality, We are constantly learning, it would be foolish to claim we know all there is to know on a topic as complex as homosexuality and the human sexual nature.

 

[CanoeCamper55]

The Pope is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in his ban on homosexual seminarians!!!

And, there are lots of other issues that I expect the Vatican “visitation” will uncover as they get feedback on the 50+ questions.

The next few months will be interesting.

 

[felra]

This whilst being a source from the pope, merely repeats the term you keep using, what underlying psychological disorder does homosexuality occur from? You appear to be well read on the matter, could you enlighten me?

A psychological disorder = mental disorder = as evidenced by symptoms = SSA = symptom of a disordered desire.

There is actually no current diagnostic disorder for “homosexuality”, as the universal bible for mental health diagnosis --Diagnositc and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders – voted to remove this diagnosis in 1973 under increasing presure from gay activists groups.

This may not necesserially be due to pressure, I am confident that the American Psychiatric Association wont have removed their listing solely due to pressure.

It may be due to a number of other reasons, such as a improvement in knowledge of homosexuality, We are constantly learning, it would be foolish to claim we know all there is to know on a topic as complex as homosexuality and the human sexual nature.
I am not sure where you derive your “confidence” that the APA and the scientific community is immune from political pressure.

"It is widely known that in 1974 the full membership of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) followed the 1973 recommendation of its board by voting to remove homosexuality as a pathological psychiatric condition as such (or “in itself”) from the DSM, which is the official reference book for diagnosing mental disorders in America (and through much of the world).

“The removal of homosexuality from the DSM was in response to a majority vote of the APA. The original APA vote was called at a time of significant social change and was taken with unconventional speed that circumvented normal channels for consideration of the issues because of explicit threats from gay rights groups to disrupt APA conventions and research.”

narth.com/docs/mentaldisorder.html