Pope approves barring gay seminarians

[ble]

Just saw this news from the Catholic World News Brief. What are your reactions and what do you think the reactions from the media will be like? I see heretodox people, like lions, will slash out as discrimination and will bring this up in the media everywhere.

I feel sad though for those priests or seminarians who has homosexual tendencies but are celebate, who keeps this cross to themselves, quietly serving God are weeded out as well. For those already ordained, they will stay ordained but for those in formation, they will probably be let go. For those who have been ordained but advertise the fact that they are gay to everyone, I’m not sure if they have an agenda as they are called to be celebate. In my opinion those priests should be reformed. Barring everyone would be like pulling the wheat up along with the weeds.

Warmest regards,
-TB

---

**POPE APPROVES BARRING GAY SEMINARIANS **

Vatican, Sep. 19 (CWNews.com) - Pope Benedict XVI 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 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]

ble:

Barring everyone would be like pulling the wheat up along with the weeds.

CWNews.com writes
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 ministery.

In light of recent scandalous events in our Church this move is neccesary and should not be likened to pulling up wheat along with weeds. I am sure there will be much discernment before any seminarian is turned away.

 

[LovedOne]

I think this is good, necessary and right. The condition of homosexuality is a psychological disorder. A serious one.
To pick just one disorder from the many that exist and make an exception for it is inconsistent and unnacceptable. This disorder is not limited to merely whom one is attracted to. There are other psychological issues at play as well. If the church is committed to accepting only whole, healthy and holy men to the priesthood (which she should) - then this is a step in the right direction.
Departing from that committment the past 30 years has proven disastrous.

So once again the Catholic Church, as she is called to by Christ, must stand up against the world and proclaim the truth.
Being “in the world but not part of it.”

 

[felra]

LovedOne:

I think this is good, necessary and right. The condition of homosexuality is a psychological disorder. A serious one.
To pick just one disorder from the many that exist and make an exception for it is inconsistent and unnacceptable. This disorder is not limited to merely whom one is attracted to. There are other psychological issues at play as well. If the church is committed to accepting only whole, healthy and holy men to the priesthood (which she should) - then this is a step in the right direction.
Departing from that committment the past 30 years has proven disastrous.

So once again the Catholic Church, as she is called to by Christ, must stand up against the world and proclaim the truth.
Being “in the world but not part of it.”

As this new poster has articulated so well, this can be a real opportunity to educate those who have been indoctrinated with the secular gay agenda to normalize homosexuality and minimize the symptom that SSA is of an underlying psychological disorder.

 

[JP_Augustine]

I have to respectfully disagree with this, even though I consider myself deeply devoted to the Catholic faith.

Yes, it is true that the Church teaches that homosexuality is a disordered condition, yet that the same time, the CCC states that people with homosexual orientation should be welcomed into the Church, provided they maintain a life of chastity.

While I understand that clergy need to be held to a higher standard, I cannot conceive of how a priest who has homosexual tendencies yet is committed to a life of chastity is ineligible for the priesthood.

At this point in human history, we find ourselves being born after hundreds of generations of compounded sin, and it is not unexpected that humans in general will be born with more disorders of either an emotional or physical nature.

I understand that while the Church—in light of the despicable scandal that has taken place in the U.S.–needs to be extra careful, I think it’s important to distinguish between homosexuality and pedophaelia, which are two completely separate issues.

In reality, this issue is: is a seminarian committed to a life of chastity or not? If not, then the priesthood is not an approapriate path to take. If so, then it can (and should be) an amazing and wonderful blessing…

 

[felra]

While I understand that clergy need to be held to a higher standard, I cannot conceive of how a priest who has homosexual tendencies yet is committed to a life of chastity is ineligible for the priesthood.

The willingness and/or acquired ability for chastity in one’s life state does not determine fitness for the priestly vocation. Consider this: A seminarian candidate who posses SSA (same sex attraction) to a degree that he would not "fit’ into the heterosexual vocation of marriage. Why then, would this man be a “fit” canddiate the priesthood vocation which at it’s core is an espousal relationship in persona christi that is one of shepherd and father of the flock?

At this point in human history, we find ourselves being born after hundreds of generations of compounded sin, and it is not unexpected that humans in general will be born with more disorders of either an emotional or physical nature

.
Misnomer. People are not born with psychological disorders per see. Psychological disorders are developmentally acquired, though there is evidence that some carry a genetic predisposition. There is absolutely no conclusive scientific evidence of a “gay” gene.

In reality, this issue is: is a seminarian committed to a life of chastity or not? …

In reality, the issue is: is a seminarian mentally, emotionally, physically, interpersonally, and spiritually fit and qualified for the priestly vocation as determined and discerned by the Church. SSa is a symptom of an untreated underlying psycholigical disorder. Period.

 

[Mt19_26]

Excellent. Homosexuality is a disorder. A disordered person is not qualified for the priesthood.

 

[Bella3502]

This changes nothing. Priests are just not going to admit being gay. With the shortage of Priests as it is, Bishops will continue to look the “other way” like they do on so many other issues.

 

[LovedOne]

Bella3502:

This changes nothing. Priests are just not going to admit being gay. With the shortage of Priests as it is, Bishops will continue to look the “other way” like they do on so many other issues.

THINK about what you just said.
If a candidate for the holy priesthood would LIE and not be honest about being homosexual - that ALONE should disqualify him from the sacrament.

The battle is inevitably going to boil down to whether or not the condition of homosexuality is a psychological disorder or not.
And the church must stand brave and courageous in this battle.
Truth is truth and it is her job to proclaim it. No matter how much the world kicks and screams and rebels.
It won’t be the first time.

 

[felra]

Bella3502:

This changes nothing. Priests are just not going to admit being gay. With the shortage of Priests as it is, Bishops will continue to look the “other way” like they do on so many other issues.

I know that some people would wish this. I believe the pendulum is swinging back toward a more faithful, orthodox, and holy Church, and the old prescriptions and allowance for a “don’t ask, don’t tell, …wink, wink” policy will no longer be tenable to uphold. God is faithful and hears the cries of the faithful.

 

[Madia]

While I understand that clergy need to be held to a higher standard, I cannot conceive of how a priest who has homosexual tendencies yet is committed to a life of chastity is ineligible for the priesthood.

Think of the burden that would be placed on the person with homesexual tendencies trying to live a life of chastity while surronded by other men. Try to imagine a (heterosexual) monk trying to live a chaste life while living with a group of nuns.

 

[JP_Augustine]

Consider this: A seminarian candidate who posses SSA (same sex attraction) to a degree that he would not "fit’ into the heterosexual vocation of marriage. Why then, would this man be a “fit” canddiate the priesthood vocation which at it’s core is an espousal relationship in persona christi that is one of shepherd and father of the flock?

Misnomer. People are not born with psychological disorders per see. Psychological disorders are developmentally acquired, though there is evidence that some carry a genetic predisposition. There is absolutely no conclusive scientific evidence of a “gay” gene.

You contradict yourself in the same sentence!

As a clinical psychologist, I have to disagree with this, since it is a blanket generalization. Many psychological disorders have clear genetic components (schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, alcoholism are four that come to mind off the top of my head) and are not purely ‘developmentally acquired’ conditions. In fact, they represent a combination of both genetic predisposition and developmental/environmental experiences.

While the underying science and genetic linkage with SSA is not documented (and will certainly be a matter of debate for many years), it is premature to assume that no such linkage exists or may be found in the future.

My point in this is not to promote homosexuality, nor to promote the homosexual lifestyle in any way. My point is that to dogmatically state that this is solely a developmental disorder is highly presumptuous at this time.

In reality, the issue is: is a seminarian mentally, emotionally, physically, interpersonally, and spiritually fit and qualified for the priestly vocation as determined and discerned by the Church. ]

I agree…but a candidate who otherwise exitbits sound emotional, mental, interpersonal and spiritual fitness shouldn’t be barred from the priesthood simply because he has a level of SSA.

Certainly, there is a difference between one who admits to having SSA and someone who openly practices and promotes a gay lifestyle. Clearly, someone in the latter situation would not be appropriate for the priesthood.

Besides, where does one draw the line? If a candidate has had SS fantasies, does that mean he’s unqualified for the priesthood? What if he’s never had sexual relations at all, yet might have had some attraction to both genders as part of his own developmental experience? Sinful? Yes. Automatically disqualified for the priesthood: Preposterous…

Under the conditions you outlined, any priest who has ever suffered from depression, anxiety disorder, alcholism, drug addiction should be automatically excluded from the priesthood, regardless of whether they’ve received treatment and are in recovery from these disorders. Based on the people I know who have undergone such recoveries, automatically excluding individuals like this would truly be a loss to the Church.

Thank goodness St. Augustine didn’t have to pass your scruitiny…

 

[JP_Augustine]

Madia:

Think of the burden that would be placed on the person with homesexual tendencies trying to live a life of chastity while surronded by other men. Try to imagine a (heterosexual) monk trying to live a chaste life while living with a group of nuns.

…and no priest has ever had to live in close daily contact with nuns?

How would that be any different challenge to someone trying to live a life of chastity?

 

[buffalo]

JP Augustine:

…and no priest has ever had to live in close daily contact with nuns?

How would that be any different challenge to someone trying to live a life of chastity?

Rectories and convents are not close quarters. Not the same as priests living in the same rectory.

 

[JP_Augustine]

buffalo:

Rectories and convents are not close quarters. Not the same as priests living in the same rectory.

Regardless, commitment to chastity is a pre-condition of the priesthood. Lacking that, a priest with heterosexual tendencies faces the same sorts of temptations…

Besides, if someone isn’t committed to chastity, why would physical proximty make any difference?

 

[buffalo]

JP Augustine:

Regardless, commitment to chastity is a pre-condition of the priesthood. Lacking that, a priest with heterosexual tendencies faces the same sorts of temptations…

Besides, if someone isn’t committed to chastity, why would physical proximty make any difference?

This is the key phrase:

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.

 

[felra]

You contradict yourself in the same sentence!

As a clinical psychologist, I have to disagree with this, since it is a blanket generalization. Many psychological disorders have clear genetic components (schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, alcoholism are four that come to mind off the top of my head) and are not purely ‘developmentally acquired’ conditions. In fact, they represent a combination of both genetic predisposition and developmental/environmental experiences.

I did not mean to contradict myself. My understanding of genetically predisposed/driven psychological disorders is that they most usually (not all) have a chronological age period/window of onset (always exceptions), and that as a compliment to this, or independent of this, there can be triggers, or require triggering factors to onset. These triggers can be environmental, psychosocial/developmental or physical in nature. I hope this is clearer.

While the underying science and genetic linkage with SSA is not documented (and will certainly be a matter of debate for many years), it is premature to assume that no such linkage exists or may be found in the future.

My point in this is not to promote homosexuality, nor to promote the homosexual lifestyle in any way. My point is that to dogmatically state that this is solely a developmental disorder is highly presumptuous at this time.
Please quote me where I have stated that SSA is “solely a developmental disorder”. Please do not mis-represent my comments. At a minimum, SSA is developmentally (as in psycho-social) determined, and if and to what extent there is a genetic component is yet to be determined. But since we do not live in a vacuum, there is no way to prove that SSA is soley derived from genetic factors alone (which is what some homosexual agenda folks would have society believe).

I agree…but a candidate who otherwise exitbits sound emotional, mental, interpersonal and spiritual fitness shouldn’t be barred from the priesthood simply because he has a level of SSA.

Any suggestions as to what “level of SSA” (i.e., symptom of psychological disorder) is acceptable?

Certainly, there is a difference between one who admits to having SSA and someone who openly practices and promotes a gay lifestyle. Clearly, someone in the latter situation would not be appropriate for the priesthood.

Self-honesty and awareness for someone afflicted with SSA is more a guage of openness to reparative therapy/measures in a reality oriented manner than readiness/fitness for priestly formation. “Openly practices and promotes a gay lifestyle”–no brainer–out of here!!

Besides, where does one draw the line? If a candidate has had SS fantasies, does that mean he’s unqualified for the priesthood? What if he’s never had sexual relations at all, yet might have had some attraction to both genders as part of his own developmental experience? Sinful? Yes. Automatically disqualified for the priesthood: Preposterous…

Automatically flags that this SSA afflicted individual needs to be further psychologically assessed and a good indicator that not a ready candidate for seminary admission–absolutely!! It is preposterous that anyone (especially a qualified propfessional) would even suggest that this obviously SSA afflicted individual is currently a qualified candidate for the priesthood. (I hope that you were not suggesting this).

Under the conditions you outlined, any priest who has ever suffered from depression, anxiety disorder, alcholism, drug addiction should be automatically excluded from the priesthood, regardless of whether they’ve received treatment and are in recovery from these disorders.

Please do not draw erroneous conclusions from the comments.

Thank goodness St. Augustine didn’t have to pass your scruitiny…

Thank goodness that St. Augustine may not been have born at a point in human history where your evolutionary theory of accrued sin effect left him resigned to his disorder desires. He is an excellent example of God’s grace and obediently biding his time for God’s readiness for ordination.

 

[JP_Augustine]

felra:

Thank goodness that St. Augustine may not been have born at a point in human history where your evolutionary theory of accrued sin effect left him resigned to his disorder desires. He is an excellent example of God’s grace and obediently biding his time for God’s readiness for ordination.

Your last statement agrees with my position exactly!

I would never suggest that someone would be able to abdicate their responsiblity to live a life of holiness simply because “I was born with” this or that disorder. My point in referencing St. Augustine is that one’s sinful state and disordered behavior (not to mention the thinking, attitudes and spiritual condition that underlies such behavior - which in themselves can be disorders in and of themselves) are indeed open to healing at the hands of God’s grace.

Based on this document, the past existence of such disorders would make one automatically unqualified to serve as a priest.

However, wouldn’t it also be true that automatically eliminating someone from the priesthood because of the past existence of a disorder implies that such healing by God is not “good enough” to make one whole and fit to worship and serve God in the way they are called.

Or, alternately, this document suggests that a homosexual orientation is an incurable disorder. I’d say we’re being somewhat presumputous of God’s grace to make such a declaration…

 

[JP_Augustine]

felra:

Automatically flags that this SSA afflicted individual needs to be further psychologically assessed and a good indicator that not a ready candidate for seminary admission–absolutely!! It is preposterous that anyone (especially a qualified propfessional) would even suggest that this obviously SSA afflicted individual is currently a qualified candidate for the priesthood. (I hope that you were not suggesting this).

No, not at all…what I **am ** suggesting is that clinical judgment needs to be exercised, and that we need to be very careful about the terms we’re using.

What does it mean to be “obviously SSA”? How would that relate to someone who in the past was sexually addicted, where the addiction itself might bring the person to SS fantasies? In such a case, if the person had received treatment and was actively in recovery, does this mean the person is still “objectively disordered” and unfit for the priesthood?

As I read St. Augustine struggle with his issues with lust prior to his conversion, it is certainly possible that he struggled with some form of sex addiction himself. He didn’t note any struggle with SSA, but certainly he was held in the grip of a compulsion that we might classify as an addiction… Is that a serious disorder? Absolutely?

Did God grant him grace and healing?? Absolutely.

Why would we not extend the same mercy today?

JPA

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

The demands of the priesthood are particular and significant in a number of areas, including sexuality, with the discipline of celibacy.

Homosexuality is an objective disorder, BUT it is one that is more than tolerated by society. It has cachet, and a certain fascination for the media. Therefore, one who is so disordered has a lot on his plate to begin with if he seeks to bring his sexuality under God’s plan for it.

We MUST support those who seek to do bring their sexuality under God. But I question whether, today, letting a homosexual into the priesthood, with its particular demands both sexual and otherwise, is at all prudent, and whether doing so would be at all supportive to him.

By analogy, I would certainly welcome the help of a struggling, recovering alcoholic at a parish banquet. I would not ask him to tend the bar, or let him do so.

Blessings,

Gerry