Pope approves barring gay seminarians

[YinYangMom]

ncjohn:

I for one am appalled. My best friend is gay and was this weekend to become the Godfather to one of my twin 3 month old grandsons. Hearing of this last night he is again questioning whether he can even remain in the church at this point and whether he can act in this capacity. I was moved to tears to see him brought to this, a person to whom I would entrust my life. My wife and I are devastated to see him so distraught over such a misguided decision.

I just don’t understand how we can continue to profess the gospel of Love of Neighbor while spreading such hatred and deciding that the way God made someone isn’t good enough for us. This is a sad day indeed.

Lord forgive us for we know not what we do.

Who’s spreading hatred?

Not every male is entitled to become a priest.
Certain criteria need to be met and it is up to the Church to set that criteria based upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

We love all people, particularly our sinners, but if you really love an alcoholic do you arrange for him/her to live above a 24/7 bar with the only way to or from the apartment is to walk past the bar?

No, it is out of our love for those who are affected by SSA that we do everything we can to help them overcome their condition or live celibately with it.

As to your friend, I presume he is living a celibate life and understands what it means to be Catholic to the extent that when your child seeks Catholic advice from him you can be certain he would pass on the truth of the Church, not his interpretation of it - and that is why you selected him to be the godparent of your child. Since he loves the Church so much, and since this document is not a new teaching of the Church just a restating of what is already in effect, then I don’t understand why he would second guess his willingness and ability to help your child grow to be a faithful Catholic.

As for your closing statement…there is nothing for the Lord to forgive. What the council of bishops has declared was revealed to them through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Jesus promised His Church that the Holy Spirit will protect her from teaching in error in matters of faith and morals. Do you not trust the Holy Spirit to keep Jesus’ promise?

 

[ncjohn]

YinYangMom:

We love all people, particular our sinners, but if you really love an alcoholic do you arrange for him/her to live above a 24/7 bar with the only way to or from the apartment is to walk past the bar?

I’ve read and enjoyed many of your posts and find you mostly quite informed. This statement however is the exact fallacy of the entire argument. It presumes that all homosexuals are prone to the problems that are involved here and further that homosexual men are less able to remain celebate that heterosexual men.

There is no proof whatsoever for either of those assertions. Heterosexual males, from the statistics I’ve seen, are just as likely to have these “urges” as homosexuals, yet there is no effort to screen out the improper urges here, only to screen out by sexual orientation.

Our current scandal happens to involve priests and boys, but heterosexual encounters of the same type have also happened all through history, and I’m sure happen today.

As to this being a “faith and morals teaching,” I’ll have to look into whether that is even true. I think it’s a Church discipline teaching, just like the celibacy issue itself, but not having researched that aspect of it, I’m not positive of that.

Also, by the way, a celibate homosexual is not a sinner, at least not for the reason of being homosexual.

 

[mlchance]

mairegrrrl:

But you seem to be missing that adolescence is the time ranging from the beginning of puberty *until *sexual maturation. Therefore, it is not a homosexual activity because the activity is not occuring after sexual maturation.

Absurd.

Homosexuality deals with the issue of gender preference. Pedophilia deals with age preference. The two sins are not mutually exclusive, and the scholarly literature is amply clear on this point. Homosexual men are disproportionately represented among those who sexually victimize children.

Regarding much higher rates of incest committed by homosexual parents, see “Homosexual Parents,” Adolescence 31 (1996): 772.

Regarding child sexual abuse:

Most abusers are men: Sexual Abuse of Young Children: Evaluation and Treatment (New York: The Guilford Press, 1986); The APSAC Handbook on Child Maltreatment (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Press, 1996); “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” *Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy *10 (Fall 1984).

A significant percentage of children abused are boys: “The Sexual Abuse of Male Children and Adolescents: A Review of the Current Research,” Journal of Child Psychiatry 38 (1992). Also, keep in mind sexual abuse of boys is underreported.

Proportions of Male-on-Male Child Abuse:

• One-third of male abusers focus on males. See the aforementioned “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality.”
• Even though homosexuals account for only about 3% of the population, one-third of all abusers are androphiles. See “Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 29 (2000). This and other similiar studies demonstrate that the rate of homosexual attraction is 6 to 20 times higher higher among pedophiles.
• Also in “Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women,” a group of 260 pedophile subjects were divided into three groups based on sexual preference. The results were 152 heterosexual, 43 bisexual, and 65 homosexual. IOW, homosexuals were represented in numbers more than 12 times their representation in the general population.
• Contrary to popular depiction, pedophiles are not simply attracted to children in general. They have sexual preferences, and this is amply attested to in the scholarly literature. See, for example, the above plus the Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa, “The Heterogeneity/Homogeneity of Pedophilia” (1998).

More evidence can be given, noting that about 20% of homosexual men expressly admit to preferring to have sex with underage boys, but I think the points been made.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mlchance]

The points of my previous post are, of course, largely irrelevant to the issue of ordination. Even if it were true that homosexual men aren’t much more likely to sexually abuse underage males, the Church is still well within her rights to forbid ordination to homosexual men.

As has been repeatedly emphasized (and ignored by gay rights apologists), it is not the individual operating in a vacuum who determines if a call to a specific vocation is legitimate. No call to any vocation is merely a matter of private determination.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[felra]

ncjohn:

I for one am appalled. My best friend is gay and was this weekend to become the Godfather to one of my twin 3 month old grandsons. Hearing of this last night he is again questioning whether he can even remain in the church at this point and whether he can act in this capacity. I was moved to tears to see him brought to this, a person to whom I would entrust my life. My wife and I are devastated to see him so distraught over such a misguided decision.

I just don’t understand how we can continue to profess the gospel of Love of Neighbor while spreading such hatred and deciding that the way God made someone isn’t good enough for us. This is a sad day indeed.

Lord forgive us for we know not what we do.

From my take ncjohn, instead of playing into the over dramtic reaction of your good friend in Christ, you basically let pass a golden opportunity to offer this SSA afflicted fellow Catholic a better understanding of the compassion behind the Church’s consistent teaching and reason for setting and enforcing criteria for priestly candidates. It sounds like your reaction (and what you did not do) is more an indicator of what gospel you profess to believe than the actual gospel that the Church professes.

“Lord forgive us for we know not …”

 

[YinYangMom]

ncjohn:

As to this being a “faith and morals teaching,” I’ll have to look into whether that is even true. I think it’s a Church discipline teaching, just like the celibacy issue itself, but not having researched that aspect of it, I’m not positive of that.

Again, not all males are entitled to, nor or they destined for, the priesthood. Heterosexual or homosexual, certain standards need to be met…and remember, the priesthood is a calling by God Himself. Many who didn’t want to be a priest became priests and many who want to become priests do not. God calls, the Church discerns, and vocations become fulfilled - all by God’s standards, not society’s.

 

[YinYangMom]

Continued…

As for your reading, start here and continue on to the next sections:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P24.HTM

some snipettes:

765 The Lord Jesus endowed his community with a structure that will remain until the Kingdom is fully achieved. Before all else there is the choice of the Twelve with Peter as their head.168 Representing the twelve tribes of Israel, they are the foundation stones of the new Jerusalem.169 The Twelve and the other disciples share in Christ’s mission and his power, but also in his lot.170 By all his actions, Christ prepares and builds his Church.

767 "When the work which the Father gave the Son to do on earth was accomplished, the Holy Spirit was sent on the day of Pentecost in order that he might continually sanctify the Church."174 Then "the Church was openly displayed to the crowds and the spread of the Gospel among the nations, through preaching, was begun."175 As the “convocation” of all men for salvation, the Church in her very nature is missionary, sent by Christ to all the nations to make disciples of them.176
768 So that she can fulfill her mission, the Holy Spirit "bestows upon [the Church] varied hierarchic and charismatic gifts, and in this way directs her."177 "Henceforward the Church, endowed with the gifts of her founder and faithfully observing his precepts of charity, humility and self-denial, receives the mission of proclaiming and establishing among all peoples the Kingdom of Christ and of God, and she is on earth the seed and the beginning of that kingdom."178

857 The Church is apostolic because she is founded on the apostles, in three ways:

• she was and remains built on "the foundation of the Apostles,"362 The witnesses chosen and sent on mission by Christ himself;363
• with the help of the Spirit dwelling in her, the Church keeps and hands on the teaching,364 The “good deposit,” the salutary words she has heard from the apostles;365
• she continues to be taught, sanctified, and guided by the apostles until Christ’s return, through their successors in pastoral office: the college of bishops, “assisted by priests, in union with the successor of Peter, the Church’s supreme pastor”:366

You are the eternal Shepherd
who never leaves his flock untended.
Through the apostles you watch over us and protect us always.
You made them shepherds of the flock
to share in the work of your Son…
889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

 

[cathgal]

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:

‘Call by God’…you know how many has simply used that phrase and think it’s enough. Think of Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, who claimed that God spoke to him. How about Muhammed, founder of Islam.

If it’s God’s will, no power on Earth can stop it and barring homosexual from ordination is probably God’s will. Is not the Pope Christ’s Vicar on Earth. Who are we to say otherwise.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Pope approves barring gay seminarians

Unless he also does something to deal with the clericalism in the Church, future scandals will merely take a different form.​

For a very thorough look at clericalism, read Russell Shaw’s book on the subject. Simnce it is published by Ignatius Press, it can hardly be dismissed as left-wing whacko scaremongering dissent literature (or whatever the current phrase may be):

ewtn.com/vcatalogue/pages/itemdetail.asp?itemcode=THTS&source=categories.asp&category=SALE+ITEMS&pgnu=2

catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Igpress/books/thts-p.html

crisismagazine.com/november2002/feature1.htm

The cover-ups are at least as much of a problem as any homosexuality, gay or otherwise, has been (assuming for the sake of argument that one or both of these is the problem). Until the culture of clericalism is corrected, bishops will simply do again what they have done already. Until the clerics can get out of the habit of taking the laity for granted and of treating them as second-class citizens, we are doomed to repeat this cycle of corruption - coverup - pretence at healing - corruption for the indefinite future.

Are homosexual bishops (chaste or otherwise) going to resign: or will it be only the clergy in the lower grades of the managerial structure of the CC (Inc.) who feel the heat ? Unless this measure applies to all gay clergy without distinction, and not just to those of whom the Pope disapproves, it will be seen for what it will be - a hypocritical pretence for the sake of staving off criticism. And that will merely add hypocrisy (of a particularly calculating kind) to the crimes of the clergy against those whom they have molested. Who wants that to happen ?

Or is the measure directed only against seminarians ? If so - what will that achieve, if there are already clerics who are gay ? The measure will then be a perfect example of shutting the stable door long after the horse has bolted. And what is the good of that ?

This is too little, far too late; it’s the equivalent of giving a cancer sufferer a decongestant.

Maybe the Pope should do something stunningly revolutionary - and meet with some of the victims. He is, after all, meant to be a pastor. His predecessor didn’t bother - although he had plenty of time for almost everyone else. If he were to meet them, that could well do a great deal of good, not least because it would send some kind of signal that the faithful were not being trashed for the greater good of Catholicism, Inc. If they are under his jurisdiction - then he has a duty of care towards them. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

contemplative:

I am not sure I can copy and paste it.

Why not quote the first sentence or two ? Those interested can then search for it to see whether it is to be found on some other page as well.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

contemplative:

NO cleansing or removal!!

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.

So why can’t seminarians do the same ?​

A fat lot of good that will do

It was, after all, priests whose zippers were not zipped - not (usually) seminarians. Geoghan, Porter, Gauthe, were all priests - not seminarians.

This does not make sense.

If Paul Shanley or John Geoghan had been required to renew their dedication, that would have meant only that they would have done so, then got up to their usual antics.

All the Pope is doing, is plastering over a massive problem in the same ineffectual and useless way as the US bishops did when they sent offenders for therapy time and time again. It’s a toss-up which of the two remedies is more laughably inadequate - except that the victims of this gigantic episcopal incompetence are most unlikely to laugh .

When will the bishops (Popes included) stop being so short-sighted ? How many scandals will it take, and how gigantic do they have to be, to kick the bishops in the rear end sufficiently hard for them to see that superficial reform is not going to be any good ?

If priests and bishops have “a serious personality disorder” - what is the Pope doing, leaving them in their positions ? What possible reason can there be to retain them, while not allowing men of the same kind to proceed ? If seminarians can be barred from ordination - there is nothing to stop priests and bishops leaving positions they already occupy. ##

 

[LCMS_No_More]

oat soda:

this is great news and why i love being catholic. homosexuals are not fit for the priesthood period. or any leadership position. i love how the church is so counter cultural.

What would a homosesxual person living chastely be fit for in your mind? Is cleaning sewers too GOOD? Are they only fit as kindling for the flames of hell? Perhaps their calling is to be in purgatory until the end of time while holy people like you fly straight to heaven?

 

[ncjohn]

Continued…

As for your reading, start here and continue on to the next sections:

You are the eternal Shepherd
who never leaves his flock untended.
Through the apostles you watch over us and protect us always.
You made them shepherds of the flock
to share in the work of your Son…
889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

This is all very interesting and very familiar, having read these documents many times, but, to the best of my knowledge, also totally irrelevant. To the best of my knowledge this is a matter of Church discipline and is not being advanced as an infallible teaching. My research so far, though not extensive, does not indicate anything else.

If I am correct in that, it is subject to change at any time and does not create any obligation on my part to believe or accept it as true. If I am wrong with that I will pray extensively for acceptance and understanding.

By the way Felra, with all due respect, I’ll make you a deal…I’ll not question your orthodoxy since I have no mindreading powers if you’ll return the favor. People can disagree on things without being less Catholic than you.

Peace to all,

 

[cathgal]

## So why can’t seminarians do the same ?

A fat lot of good that will do

It was, after all, priests whose zippers were not zipped - not (usually) seminarians. Geoghan, Porter, Gauthe, were all priests - not seminarians.

This does not make sense.

If Paul Shanley or John Geoghan had been required to renew their dedication, that would have meant only that they would have done so, then got up to their usual antics.

All the Pope is doing, is plastering over a massive problem in the same ineffectual and useless way as the US bishops did when they sent offenders for therapy time and time again. It’s a toss-up which of the two remedies is more laughably inadequate - except that the victims of this gigantic episcopal incompetence are most unlikely to laugh .

When will the bishops (Popes included) stop being so short-sighted ? How many scandals will it take, and how gigantic do they have to be, to kick the bishops in the rear end sufficiently hard for them to see that superficial reform is not going to be any good ?

If priests and bishops have “a serious personality disorder” - what is the Pope doing, leaving them in their positions ? What possible reason can there be to retain them, while not allowing men of the same kind to proceed ? If seminarians can be barred from ordination - there is nothing to stop priests and bishops leaving positions they already occupy. ##

I think the difference is ‘ordained’ and ‘not-yet-ordained’. Now if the ordained does something scandalous, he would be laicized. These ordained will eventually die out and the seminaries will be back the way it was many centuries ago…at least we hope so!

 

[otm]

Libero:

I heard from one website that the pope may not even sign the document, as the Vatican are trying to soften his ‘rotweiler’ image. Thus a cardinal might sign the document

I do not think that a barring of homosexuals is going to truly solve the issue, it is just pushing the issue aside and then stopping it from getting any closer. I believe that this document will not really help the church, and that it is just as likely that the situation will stay the same or maybe even get worse.

If the issue is to be successfully addressed, then it shall take time, representatives from the church and laity and from bothe homosexuality and heterosexuality should all be capable of putting forward their say on the issue. It may even require compromise on some matters.

Since when have we decided that a moral issue is one that can be compromised; since situational ethics wormed its way into moral theology?

 

[otm]

ncjohn:

I’ve read and enjoyed many of your posts and find you mostly quite informed. This statement however is the exact fallacy of the entire argument. It presumes that all homosexuals are prone to the problems that are involved here and further that homosexual men are less able to remain celebate that heterosexual men.

There is no proof whatsoever for either of those assertions. Heterosexual males, from the statistics I’ve seen, are just as likely to have these “urges” as homosexuals, yet there is no effort to screen out the improper urges here, only to screen out by sexual orientation.

Our current scandal happens to involve priests and boys, but heterosexual encounters of the same type have also happened all through history, and I’m sure happen today.

As to this being a “faith and morals teaching,” I’ll have to look into whether that is even true. I think it’s a Church discipline teaching, just like the celibacy issue itself, but not having researched that aspect of it, I’m not positive of that.

Also, by the way, a celibate homosexual is not a sinner, at least not for the reason of being homosexual.

On the contrary, I think there is at least some limited proof that heterosexual men are capable of living a celibate life more easily than a homosexual man.

Men who’s natural attraction is to women are going to be able to live in a community of men as celibates with no temptation to sexual activity with other men in the community for the simple reason that they are not sexually attracted to them.

Homosexual men living in community with other men, are living with the people they are sexually attracted to; it stands to reason that their sexual attraction, if it were natural, would lead to problems. Given that it is disordered, one would think that there might be evidence that it would lead to more problems than if it wasn’t (and yes, I realize that is not proof, just logic).

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Libero:

Homosexuality is such a complex matter constantly chaning in todays modern world, only recnetly has it come truly into the eyes of everyone (as the age of the church goes). No one can claim they have a truly good understanding on the matter. Also, the church does not have the best track record of listening to homosexuals, and then taking into account what they have to say. There are no figures in the catholic church that can voice an opininon on homosexuality that does not conform completely to the established belief, without being strongly contradicted, forced into silence, or being told they are wrong. There are no homosexual figures in positions of authority in the church, that can talk about the issue to benefit the church.

I thought this quote was worthy of being looked at in a different light, to wit:

**Murder **is such a complex matter constantly chaning in todays modern world, only recnetly has it come truly into the eyes of everyone (as the age of the church goes). No one can claim they have a truly good understanding on the matter. Also, the church does not have the best track record of listening to murderers, and then taking into account what they have to say. There are no figures in the catholic church that can voice an opininon on **murder **that does not conform completely to the established belief, without being strongly contradicted, forced into silence, or being told they are wrong. There are no **murderous **figures in positions of authority in the church, that can talk about the issue to benefit the church.

Or, you can substitute your favorite sin: adultury, masturbation, thievery, lying, etc. :tiphat:

Yes, when will the Church start listening to sinners and change her teachings to accomodate them? :tsktsk:

 

[otm]

cathgal:

I think the difference is ‘ordained’ and ‘not-yet-ordained’. Now if the ordained does something scandalous, he would be laicized. These ordained will eventually die out and the seminaries will be back the way it was many centuries ago…at least we hope so!

I think part of what Gottle is saying is that unless and until we stop sending a fox into the hencoop to take care of the problem, the only thing we will find is that we have more foxes in the coop.

In another thread, I asked who is going to do the house cleaning, and what assurances do we have that the house will be clean when it is done? If we have gay bishops (and I suggest ony a fool would say that we don’t), assuming they don’t resign for the good of the order (anyone seen any letters of resignation floating, other than age-related, of recent?), if they are not already “outed”, will they dare to raise a hand against even a celibate homosexual priest? Let alone an active one?

And what of the bishops who are not homosexual, but have made no record whatsoever about the issue, other than, perhaps, a hand wringing statement or two; are we to suppose that sudeenly they will grow a backbone?

I think not.

That may leave us with some who seem to have some sense of the issue; but they may be somewhat hamstrung by Canon law as to what they can or cannot do.

I suspect that this may come off somewhat like the Mandatum; those who will won’t need to, and those who need to, won’t.

 

[Libero]

Yes, when will the Church start listening to sinners and change her teachings to accomodate them?

Very clever Dr. Bombay, however I think you’ll find that it is thought of in most societies that murder is far worse than homosexuality. They are very different issues, to compare them is wrong. You will know that you can be executed in the United States for murder, you cannot be executed for homosexuality, does that not tell you something.

 

[Libero]

Understanding homosexuality is a complex matter for man, yes.
But for God it is not. No one human can claim they have a truly good understanding on the matter. But the Holy Spirit can and has revealed to the Church, God’s understanding on the matter with regard to His Church and His priests.

This also creates problems for me. All men serving in God’s ministry are one with the holy spirit are they not? Why then are some peoples views about what to do bout homosexual seminarians different to others, if their conclusions are both formed from the same holy spirit? Why would the church consider one attitude better than the other, just because there was a majority attitude between the bishop’s means nothing. I am not even that sure it would have been a huge majority. There are many high ranking clergy men who would not agree with this ban, are they not revealed things by the holy spirit? What about all of the homosexual priests who have done a wonderful job, they have overcome something beyond what some people can understand (that is what you would believe from this thred) they have truly used the holy spirit to hep them? So I suppose we should just ignore them?