Pope approves barring gay seminarians

  • Thread starter Thread starter ble
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello everyone. I thought for a while about what I should write. I’ve got many more feelings than words, but I think that my voice needs to be heard, because I have a feeling that others are feeling the same way. :o

I’m a 19 year-old male college student (second year). My father is and always has been a strong man, whom I love and loves me. A man who taught me what being a man is really about - strong, grounded in the love of christ, humble, giving, kind, and courageous. My mother is loving, nurturing, and encouraging. My entire family has an extremely strong love for Christ, for his Church; Catholicism. My parents are everything I could possibly ask for in parents. I’ve experienced homosexual desires since I was 12 or so, almost exclusively. I do not act feminine. I tried therapy for 4 months or so, to no effect. I have not acted on my temptations with anyone, in any way.

Short conversion story: At age 14, I learned of the church’s position on homosexuality while at the same time having many athiest friends who gave me many questions and critiques of the church. After feeble, childish prayers that were no more than asking God to do a magic trick to prove he existed, I decided I didn’t want to believe in Him. That lasted for about 3 weeks. It was pretty horrible. Anyway, my parents found out about my athiesm - and they sent me to youth group, somewhat against my will. At my parish youth group, I experienced a genuine love from the youth minister and volunteers, who helped show me the love of Christ. On a retreat, when I was 15 years old, I gave my life to Christ, and told him that no matter what, I’d do my best do to what he wanted in my life. For a long time, I felt called to the priesthood. I got involved in the Church as best I could. And here I am, 4 years later, still giving back to the church. (My primary ministry is youth ministry, actually, giving back to the ministry that brought me to Christ… hopefully showing youth the same love that I was shown.)

Okay, so now you know a bit about me. Here are my thoughts.

To be honest, I feel rather … vocationless. I can’t get married. And now, it has been decided for me that I can’t become a priest. Therefore, there is only one option left: single life. I dont know guys, this doesn’t feel right. Is not a vocation a discernment process? At the vocation talks I’ve heard, there is always the theme of “don’t be stuck with your default vocation.” They mean that one shouldn’t just automatically assume that they’re going to be married. They should explore all possibilities and really discern their calling. I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels this way.

This line is the one that disturbs me the most:
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.
Click to expand...
As ministers in what capacity? Does this include lay ministries?

A “serious personality disorder”? I don’t understand.

I’m going to be honest - I feel a little bit lost here. I will always be true to my Lord and I will always adhere to the Church’s teachings, but… I’ve never felt more strained than this. Honestly, it feels like rejection. The spirit that seemed to be with the CCC’s teaching on homosexuality seems to be devoid here.
 
40.png
2perfection:
Anyway, personal research and personal statistical analysis by yours truly contradicts your assertion.
Click to expand...
How droll. Personal research, et cetera, versus what real researchers and statisticians have come up with:

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.
 
According to Scripture…

If we think impure thoughts about a married woman, we have in effect committed adultry.

Would the same not be said here…

If we think impure thoughts about a person of the same sex, we have in effect committed a homosexual act.

I think so. And lest we not forget, homosexual acts are sinful.

This also applies to straight priests as well…

If we think impure thoughts about a person of the opposite sex (when celibate), we have in effect committed an impure act.

This is the teaching of scripture.
 
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,[140] tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”[141] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (CCC 2357)

It may say act, but since when do we not think when commiting acts?
 
I’m a 19 year-old male college student (second year). …I’ve experienced homosexual desires since I was 12 or so, almost exclusively. I do not act feminine. I tried therapy for 4 months or so, to no effect. I have not acted on my temptations with anyone, in any way.

Okay, so now you know a bit about me. Here are my thoughts.

To be honest, I feel rather … vocationless. I can’t get married. And now, it has been decided for me that I can’t become a priest. Therefore, there is only one option left: single life. I dont know guys, this doesn’t feel right. Is not a vocation a discernment process
Click to expand...
? At the vocation talks I’ve heard, there is always the theme of “don’t be stuck with your default vocation.” They mean that one shouldn’t just automatically assume that they’re going to be married. They should explore all possibilities and really discern their calling. I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels this way.

The single vocation is a legitimate and honorable vocation. I have benefited immensely from those living the single vocation, personally and in the body of Christ ministry (ex. Dr. Janet Smith). You are only 19 years old, and God will give you the peace to live the vocation that He calls you to.

The single vocation should not be a “default” vocation if one fully embraces this choice. Nor should the priesthood vocation be a “default” vocation because one is not suitable for the marriage vocation. I personally believe that a man who is not a fit/viable candidate for the marriage vocation should never be considered for the priesthood vocation, as they both require the ability/capacity to enter into a complementary espousal relationship and the role of Father.

I believe that the Church as a faith community has a long way to go to embrace and support and affirm those called to the single vocation. What we in our humanness perceive as a “default”, God often uses to direct us to our vocation and ministry in the Body of Christ. It does always feel good, feel fair, but then God in His infinite love and wisdom does not allow us to always pick and choose the particular cross that he has assigned for the greater good/salvation of each person and the Church.
This line is the one that disturbs me the most:
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
As ministers in what capacity? Does this include lay ministries?
Click to expand...
The document speaks only to the ordained ministry of the priesthood.
A “serious personality disorder”? I don’t understand.
Click to expand...
“By definition, a Personality Disorder is an enduring pattern of thinking, feeling, and behaving that is relatively stable over time”. (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV).
I’m going to be honest - I feel a little bit lost here. I will always be true to my Lord and I will always adhere to the Church’s teachings, but… I’ve never felt more strained than this. Honestly, it feels like rejection. The spirit that seemed to be with the CCC’s teaching on homosexuality seems to be devoid here.
Click to expand...
I think that I can understand your sense of strain. This reaffirmation by the Church can represent a loss of an ideal, hope, dream, desire …of the possibility for you to serve the Church in the ministry capacity of priest. I can see how this can be confused with the sense that the Church is rejecting you personally when it hits home personally (unlike the vast majority of other Catholics).

I will pray for you.
Click to expand...
 
Felra

I respect what you have done and are doing. That is, that you have saught therapy and recognize your tendancies to be sinful. But you are a minority amoung minorities.

That is the problem. When a person accepts their tendancies as their “natural way” then they are accepting a life of sin. A life by bodily definition. Isn’t that the opposite of what we are supposed to do?

If I accidently kill someone in a car accident and am charged with murder, am I to accept this charge as my new natural state of being? Would God also accept what the court hands down and now sees me as a murderer? Not likely.

One’s position in life can be corrupted and their heart stay pure. I believe this goes for homosexuals as well. A person can have homosexual tendancies and keep a pure heart, but this is a life lived in repentance, prayer, and fasting to ask for forgiveness. If a person does not feel they need to ask for forgiveness, then their heart is no longer one of pure intention.

And still I ask to any who accept their tendancies as their label, why? Are we to label ourselves as Christians or as whatever job we have or whatever association we are apart of? It’s our duty as children of God to spend less time thinking about this life and more time thinking about the next.

We all have sinful temptations, they are tests from God to see if we can overcome them. Homosexual tendancies is apparently one of the most severe, but should be battled with appropriate penance and reverence to God. As should promiscuity, adultry, stealing, etc. One who feels bad for having stolen something repents and changes it. They do not accept it as who they are and call themselves a Theif.

Keep fighting the good fight and know that I pray for you. I accept you as you are, a child of God struggling with a great trial (as we all do in one way or another). But just as a religious order discriminates based on illness and age to protect their functioning as a self-reliant community, so must seminaries and the Church discriminate based on sexual preference to protect their functioning as an institution.

If one is truly called to become a Priest, then God will make it happen. If this means battling with homosexual tendancies until one can put them aside, be sure that God will help you.

God does not give us trials we cannot overcome.
 
This whole argument hinges on the meaning, within the document, of the word “homosexual.” So far as “homosexual” refers to a person’s self-identity and actions, no man who calls himself gay should be a priest, nor should any man who participates in homosexual activities.

If “homosexual” refers to substance of temptations, however, there is a crisis. And, in my opinion, a problem.

The Church will clarify this, certainly. (Lord, guide the Church to follow through this discernment process in love, and also in firmness. Purify your people.)

The problem with this conversation, on this forum, is that some people are living in denial. If you think “it’s OK to be gay,” then you’re just not Catholic. Period. That is equivalent to saying, “It’s OK to be a thief.” The gay movement in this country is hijacking what it means to be a man among men, and the Catholic thing is to draw a firm line against these societal developments.

(I speak as a married man who has been, and is, dealing with deep-seated same-sex attractions. I know what you’re going through. Please don’t lose hope, but PLEASE listen to reason).

I think Catholics must believe that all of this – the scandal and the debate and the Vatican statement – will work together in God’s plan, and will make us a stronger and more united body of Christ. We deal with sin because we’re human; we triumph over sin because God’s grace is always by our side.

Note: Even after Israel was a tramp and a harlot, God called his people “virgin Israel.” We are a virgin church, and God is trying to push through this crisis and show us His love.
 
St.Curious said:
Felra
Click to expand...
I respect what you have done and are doing. That is, that you have saught therapy and recognize your tendancies to be sinful. But you are a minority amoung minorities.
I think that you are confusing me with the poster to whom I responded to.
A person can have homosexual tendancies and keep a pure heart, but this is a life lived in repentance, prayer, and fasting to ask for forgiveness
Click to expand...
. If a person does not feel they need to ask for forgiveness, then their heart is no longer one of pure intention.
Please clarify this further. If a person does not readily/willingly enjoin a sinful tendency, resists acting on this sinful tendency, sees it as a temptation to be resisted, then why the need for “a life lived in repentance, prayer, and fasting to ask for forgiveness. If a person does not feel they need to ask for forgiveness, then their heart is no longer one of pure intention.”?
Click to expand...
 
St. Curious,

Following the logic of your position, Jesus was a sinner.

The book of Hebrews states that he was tempted in every way, just as we are.

1 Corinthians 13 talks about us and says, “when you are tempted, God will provide a way out so that you can stand up under it”. It doesn’t say, “if you are tempted, God can forgive you.”

Your position on the relationship between temptation and sin is absolutely unscriptural.
 
40.png
2perfection:
an appaling act of homophobia which gives lie to the concept of love the sinner hate the sin.

it also link homosexuality with peadophilia, the old slur which is known not to be true.

it also gives lie to the vow of celibacy. that vow renounces sex, with this the pope has devalued those vows and reinforced the second class status of gay people,

it is a depraved and evil edict, clearly without mercy, kindness, spirituality or holyness.

it shames us all.
Click to expand...
Loving the sinner and hating the sin has nothing to do with barring homosexual men from the priesthood. Even those NOT sinning the sin of acting out on their homosexual desires are barred.
It has not to do with the “sin” - but the CONDITION itself which is intrinsically disordered that disqualifies them from being a viable candidate for the holy priesthood.
A homosexual person is not psychologically healthy.
Whether he “acts” on it or not.
A pedophile is not psychologically healthy.
Whether he acts on it or not.
And the list goes on. And not just regarding sexual psychological disorders.
How about a kleptomaniac?
A pathological liar?
They could argue that they have these “urges” yet can “control” them and live uprightly.
Yet, the very fact a man would have these “urges” or “compulsions” to steal or lie is a big red flag that this man is not psychologically sound and healthy.
This is the same reasoning and logic used in excluding homosexual men as well.
It goes beyond a man being willing to take a “vow” of celibacy.
So did all the priests who molested take a “vow of celibacy.”
It is the prudent and responsible thing to do BEFORE someone is even offered to take a vow - to very carefully discern those who would have a DIFFICULTY keeping those vows. Heterosexual men included.
There is much more to the homosexual condition that is involved in the disorder than simply a sexual attraction to the same sex.
 
Prodigal_Son

Good Post.

Felra

Sorry, I was referring to the quote you were using, my bad.

As far as repentance goes, I’m referring to those who accept their gay tendancies as the “way they are”. If someone has tendancies and lives out a life of penance, asking God for forgiveness and direction, then their heart is where it should be.

If someone accepts that they are gay, then their heart is not in the right place because they now refuse to denounce these sinful temptations.

Prometheum

I’m simply working from scripture as well, and no I don’t think Jesus was a sinner.
But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Click to expand...
Christ said that.
 
Here is my last contribution to this thread as I think Prodigal_Son summed things up nicely above.

There is a line to cross in this issue. The line is acceptance.

If someone has homosexual temptations and fights them every step of the way, living out penance and prayer, then they are fighting the good fight. This is not sinful unless they are acting on their temptations.

If someone has homosexual temptations and accepts them as natural and therefore defines themself as “gay” or “lesbian”, then that is sinful, reguardless if they are acting on their temptation or not. In their minds they have decided that it is “okay to be gay” and therefore are living a “mental state of sin”.

I will pray for you all.
 
40.png
St.Curious:
In the OT, it states that he who has impure thoughts for someone who is married has already commited adultry. Does it not?
Click to expand...
In the New Testament, Jesus says that. Technically, the phrase is “looks lustfully.”

I think Jesus was pointing out that we ought to look to our own houses, look to our own sin – and if we do so, we see just how sinful we really are. I challenge any man to claim that, using that standard, he is not a hundred times an adulterer (or a homosexual, if he is so tempted).

But there is a difference between lust and temptation. Lust is a disposition to sin, even if you choose to restrain yourself. Temptation is just wanting, and it can be discarded. A man with SSA, just like any other man, will have times when he refuses to let temptation become lust.

We are not accountable before the throne of God for our temptations. (If we were, then I doubt even Jesus could stand to plead for us). We are accountable for our actions, and lust is an action.
 
40.png
St.Curious:
Prometheum

I’m simply working from scripture as well, and no I don’t think Jesus was a sinner.

Christ said that.
Click to expand...
Temptation isn’t lust. Temptation precedes lust. It is that which says, “come now. . . if you think about her as a sexual object, it’ll make you feel good. . .you’ll be happy”.

I took exception to your comments because it seemed you were saying that simply being tempted was sinful. Upon reading your past words more closely, it seems that instead you are using fuzzy terminology – sometimes when you write “tempted” you mean “actively indulging in tempting thoughts”.
 
40.png
St.Curious:
Here is my last contribution to this thread as I think Prodigal_Son summed things up nicely above.

There is a line to cross in this issue. The line is acceptance.

If someone has homosexual temptations and fights them every step of the way, living out penance and prayer, then they are fighting the good fight. This is not sinful unless they are acting on their temptations.

If someone has homosexual temptations and accepts them as natural and therefore defines themself as “gay” or “lesbian”, then that is sinful, reguardless if they are acting on their temptation or not. In their minds they have decided that it is “okay to be gay” and therefore are living a “mental state of sin”.

I will pray for you all.
Click to expand...
This is not true. When a homosexual person “accepts” themselves and their disordered desires as natural - it is simply one more indicator of just how deep their psychological disturbance is.
The “acceptance” of their state of mind is NOT a sin.
The willful participation in fantasizing on those temptations though would be.
This is an important distinction to be made.
 
This is not true. When a homosexual person “accepts” themselves and their disordered desires as natural - it is simply one more indicator of just how deep their psychological disturbance is.
The “acceptance” of their state of mind is NOT a sin.
The willful participation in fantasizing on those temptations though would be.
This is an important distinction to be made.
Click to expand...
I suppose I must once again clarify. I’m not theologian, so bare with my “fuzzy terminology”…

Acceptance is willful participation, not physically, but mentally and by title.

Isn’t the man who lets the thief steal the money and get away just as guilty as the thief?

When one says “I’m gay” then they are accepting a title of sin.
 
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…
Click to expand...
If a seminarian is committed to chastity then this should not be an issue, correct?

The issue is seminarians that practice homosexual acts or allow them to be practiced or make inappopriate remarks or support the agenda etc. etc.

If someone thinks of himself as homosexual but has no intention of doing the above, there is no reason for him to mention what he thinks. If he is truly chaste and wants to unite himself to the Church, then God will provide the grace that he needs. If he isn’t, this may be determined by analysis. This is fair and right.
 
40.png
St.Curious:
I suppose I must once again clarify. I’m not theologian, so bare with my “fuzzy terminology”…

Acceptance is willful participation, not physically, but mentally and by title.

Isn’t the man who lets the thief steal the money and get away just as guilty as the thief?

When one says “I’m gay” then they are accepting a title of sin.
Click to expand...
A man who “lets the thief steal the money?” What? To protect his own life? Of course that would not be a sin. It is impossible to discern this scenario without more information of the circumstances you have in mind.

An alcoholic likes to get drunk.
Getting drunk is a sin.
So all those who join AA to try and stay sober and announce, “Hi, I’m so and so and I’m an alcoholic” are therefore SINNING? Of course not.
They are admitting their condition and weakness. Pure and simple.
Same with accepting the fact that one has homosexual inclinations. It is not a “sin” to accept this fact.
It only becomes a sin when one indulges in fantasizing or acting it out.

I feel like we are beating a dead horse here. Sigh…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top