Pope approves barring gay seminarians

[JP_Augustine]

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

Gerry,

Excellent points, and definitely thought-provoking ones.

I definitely appreciate your reasoning here, and it helps me understand the situation a bit better…

God bless,
JPA

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Excellent. Homosexuality is a disorder. A disordered person is not qualified for the priesthood.
[/quote]

We are all disordered, though. That’s the meaning of original sin.

Paul: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.”

If Jesus was tempted in every way we are, is it not reasonable to assume that same sex attraction might have been one of those ways? Or would Christ humble himself to be tempted to hatred, but not “disordered” sexuality? Was Christ afraid of lepers, I ask you?

No. And Christ would not fear to make a very leper a disciple, nor a priest.

(Note: same-sex attraction, just like leprosy, is a condition. Not a sin.)

I love the Church, and I love the Pope, and they are truly guided by the Holy Spirit. But they’ve got this one wrong.

And in time, they will admit that.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Prodigal_Son:

We are all disordered, though. That’s the meaning of original sin.

But they’ve got this one wrong.

And in time, they will admit that.

Is that an infallible statement?

 

[JP_Augustine]

E.E.N.S.:

Is that an infallible statement?

Important note: neither is the Pope’s on this one…it is a procedural document produced by the Bishops, but certainly not something that falls into the area of infallibility.

 

[felra]

Prodigal_Son:

We are all disordered, though. That’s the meaning of original sin.

Paul: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.”

If Jesus was tempted in every way we are, is it not reasonable to assume that same sex attraction might have been one of those ways? Or would Christ humble himself to be tempted to hatred, but not “disordered” sexuality? Was Christ afraid of lepers, I ask you?

No. And Christ would not fear to make a very leper a disciple, nor a priest.

(Note: same-sex attraction, just like leprosy, is a condition. Not a sin.)

I love the Church, and I love the Pope, and they are truly guided by the Holy Spirit. But they’ve got this one wrong.

And in time, they will admit that.

A sentimental post. It is only out of love and pastoral care for the flock of the Church that the Pope has reiterated that individuals having a SSA need not apply and insist on a “do ask, do tell” policy of screening seminarian canddiates.

(Note: same-sex attraction, UNLIKE leprosy, is a symptom of a psychological disorder. Not a sin).

 

[Prodigal_Son]

E.E.N.S.:

Is that an infallible statement?

I love it!!!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

felra:

A sentimental post. It is only out of love and pastoral care for the flock of the Church that the Pope has reiterated that individuals having a SSA need not apply and insist on a “do ask, do tell” policy of screening seminarian canddiates.

(Note: same-sex attraction, UNLIKE leprosy, is a symptom of a psychological disorder. Not a sin).

I agree that same-sex attraction is a symptom of a disorder. Anyone with such a disorder needs serious and consistent help. But what if they are getting that help, and they experience significant personal freedom? I simply ask the question.

The issue here is the actual words of the document. If it says, “men who self-identify as homosexual” cannot become priests, well AMEN to that! A man who would call himself “homosexual” has, in my opinion, identified himself as less than he was made to be. He was made to be a man, and he has accepted less than that, in his very self-definition.

But if it says, “Men who have struggled with same-sex attraction” cannot become priests, I have a problem with that. Many men struggle with such attractions. Such a proclamation disposes of the baby with the bathwater.

Let us avoid having painfully effeminate men in the priesthood, but let us invite in those who have manfully struggled against desires that are common to men.

I do agree, however, that the proclamation was issued out of love. Our Papa is sincere, and he will lead us to the truth.

 

[Prometheum_x]

JP Augustine:

Important note: neither is the Pope’s on this one…it is a procedural document produced by the Bishops, but certainly not something that falls into the area of infallibility.

It would seem to be a matter of discipline, not doctrine.

I think it would be really important to know what exactly is meant by “homosexual men”, as the original article used the phrase.

Lacking information on that, I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume that this means those who are truly characterized by homosexual tendencies and not those who have simply entertained homosexual thoughts.

 

[felra]

JP Augustine:

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…

Good point to highlight the interesting nuance in the terminology selected.

The document by purposely choosing to use and emphasize “serious”] the terminology “personality disorder”, “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), a clinical term that whose course of treatment would expressively co notate that “homosexual men” condition is usually not amendable to significant change, only management of ancillary features there of.

“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]

JP Augustine:

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

Not so much a matter of mercy as determining the extent/degree of pathology (diagnostic) through more sophisticated, reliable screening/assessment instruments, based on sound clinical studies. Then, the Church would be in a better position to administer the appropriate “mercy” to both the seminarian candidate and the flock of the Church. I believe that we both are in agreement on this point.

 

[Courtneyjo]

I would not be surprised to eventually see a lawsuit against the Catholic Church, or an individual seminary or diocese, for discrimination, or a hate crime. Consider what is happening in Canada.

 

[JP_Augustine]

felra:

Good point to highlight the interesting nuance in the terminology selected.

The document by purposely choosing to use and emphasize “serious”] the terminology “personality disorder”, “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), a clinical term that whose course of treatment would expressively co notate that “homosexual men” condition is usually not amendable to significant change, only management of ancillary features there of.

“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.”

Ferla,

Your comments had me doing a little Googling on the subject, and I found a very interesting article that discusses the change in diagnosis for homosexuality in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Thought you might find this interesting…I certainly have, and it makes me re-think my understanding of why the diagnosis may have changed over time…

Of course, all of the points made here are debatable, but the points also are also very interesting and thought-provoking.

Needless to say, I’m going to do some more digging on this issue. I’ll let you know what I find out…

Blessings,
JPA

catholicsocialscientists.org/Symposium2–Nicolosi–mss.htm

 

[felra]

JP Augustine:

Ferla,

Your comments had me doing a little Googling on the subject, and I found a very interesting article that discusses the change in diagnosis for homosexuality in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Thought you might find this interesting…I certainly have, and it makes me re-think my understanding of why the diagnosis may have changed over time…

Of course, all of the points made here are debatable, but the points also are also very interesting and thought-provoking.

Needless to say, I’m going to do some more digging on this issue. I’ll let you know what I find out…

Blessings,
JPA

catholicsocialscientists.org/Symposium2–Nicolosi–mss.htm

Thanks.

The author of your above article-- Dr. Joseph Nicolosi – is an astute PhD psychologist who speaks from personal experience and does not cow tow to the political pressures of the scientific community. He has written a few insightful books on the phenomena of SSA and treatment approaches: “Coming Out Straight” and “Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality”.

Here is another interesting link to a book excerpt on the same topic: narth.com/docs/mentaldisorder.html

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I would like someone to address what “Personality Disorder” in this specific context means when applied to a virgin celibate homosexual. What is disordered about their personality here? Is it the fact of their homosexuality? When using the term “personality disorder,” are we having recourse to a clinical definition of “personality disorder” or are we having recourse to a moral definition, i.e., their personhood is disordered? Are we confusing the issue by using clinical terminology to describe a moral disposition? Are we saying that the homosexual condition is akin to a form of psychosis? How does this effect the moral responsibility of the homosexual when it comes to sexual expression? Are they not, then, victims of their condition and not fully morally culpable? Are homosexuals moral cripples?

Can someone explain to me how barring men with SSA from the priesthood at this time is not an indication that the church views these men as more likely to sin than your average heterosexual man and are thus somehow morally crippled? Further, if the church behaves as if men with SSA are morally crippled, I would like someone to explain to me how the distinction between a homosexual act and a homosexual disposition is relevant if it is assumed that the disposition inevitably leads to the act and / or to a complex of sinful living. Are we to believe the church when she makes this distinction, but then behaves as if the distinction does not exist?

In pronouncing this ban, the Roman Church must revise its catechism and clearly state either of these two positions: 1–homosexuals are clinically disordered and are incapable of making the correct moral judgment when it comes to matters of sexuality or sexual expression. Efforts to lead them to live celibate lives are difficult because of the disorder and are likely to fail. OR 2–Homosexuals are objectively sinful–more so than others who struggle with the fruits of original sin.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Prometheum_x]

Deo Volente:

In pronouncing this ban, the Roman Church must revise its catechism and clearly state either of these two positions: 1–homosexuals are clinically disordered and are incapable of making the correct moral judgment when it comes to matters of sexuality or sexual expression. Efforts to lead them to live celibate lives are difficult because of the disorder and are likely to fail. OR 2–Homosexuals are objectively sinful–more so than others who struggle with the fruits of original sin.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Disordered does not mean incapable. As well, this decision is about the suitability of certain men to the ministry and not about how much sin is present in their lives. It may be that some of little to no culpability and others have a great deal, but that is irrelevant to the matter.

It could be stated another way: at the present time, it seems wise to not allow those who are struggling with this particular problem to be ordained. This particular struggle and the demands of the ministry are too much to be dealt with at the same time.

That is no different than a prudential judgment to perhaps not allow a man suffering from severe manic-depression to be ordained. It says nothing about how much is or isn’t his fault, but simply that it is not wise to place such a man under the demands and responsibilities of that ministry.

P.S. Re: your signature. . . are you a Vanauken reader?

 

[Orionthehunter]

Deo Volente:

Grace & Peace!

I would like someone to address what “Personality Disorder” in this specific context means when applied to a virgin celibate homosexual. What is disordered about their personality here? Is it the fact of their homosexuality? When using the term “personality disorder,” are we having recourse to a clinical definition of “personality disorder” or are we having recourse to a moral definition, i.e., their personhood is disordered? Are we confusing the issue by using clinical terminology to describe a moral disposition? Are we saying that the homosexual condition is akin to a form of psychosis? How does this effect the moral responsibility of the homosexual when it comes to sexual expression? Are they not, then, victims of their condition and not fully morally culpable? Are homosexuals moral cripples?

Can someone explain to me how barring men with SSA from the priesthood at this time is not an indication that the church views these men as more likely to sin than your average heterosexual man and are thus somehow morally crippled? Further, if the church behaves as if men with SSA are morally crippled, I would like someone to explain to me how the distinction between a homosexual act and a homosexual disposition is relevant if it is assumed that the disposition inevitably leads to the act and / or to a complex of sinful living. Are we to believe the church when she makes this distinction, but then behaves as if the distinction does not exist?

In pronouncing this ban, the Roman Church must revise its catechism and clearly state either of these two positions: 1–homosexuals are clinically disordered and are incapable of making the correct moral judgment when it comes to matters of sexuality or sexual expression. Efforts to lead them to live celibate lives are difficult because of the disorder and are likely to fail. OR 2–Homosexuals are objectively sinful–more so than others who struggle with the fruits of original sin.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Mark, much of your comments summarize some points I’ve made earlier (obviously considered irrelevant as they have never been addressed). I am uncomfortable with the position that homosexuality is a sinful nature that can’t be overcome by resolve of the will God gifted us with, prayer, and God’s graces enhanced by a sacramental life. It smacks too much like Calvin’s Predistination which is contrary to Church Teaching. And if taken at its face, one could reach the conclusion that this ban is an admission that “these men as more likely to sin than your average heterosexual man and are thus somehow morally crippled” and thus would indicate that homosexuals aren’t accountable for their sinful acts (effectively making such acts no longer sins).

However, the wisdom of this ban is related to the fact the Church has to get a handle on this scandal and sometimes initial action has to be so drastic as to inadvertently draw in its net people who shouldn’t be affected. Some might consider this a contradiction to my other posts but one can’t ignore the homosexual component of the scandal. Furthermore, it seems to be common knowledge that there are “societies” in some seminaries that at minimum hide their eyes to homosexual conduct. This ban will help to root out these “societies.”

Finally, this ban does not require the “amending” of the Catechism. It is fully within the purview of the Church to decide what type of person is fitting to be a Priest. SSA is now just another disqualifying characteristic.

Personally, I’m hopeful that someday the knowledge on this issue and ability to identify candidates is such that the Church will be able to allow men called to be Priests who may have SSA but also undersand and believe in the sinful nature of SSA whether in thought or deed will be able to follow their call. I just can’t bring myself to acknowledge that any sinful nature can’t be overcome with God’s help and I refuse to grant any form of “reduced moral culpability” to people who commit these acts. But, I’m also willing to accept the Church’s wisdom on this.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I hope this isn’t breaking a rule but this is a post that I left on the recently closed thread. It raises issues that I’m having trouble addressed. Are they that irrelevant (fix, you don’t have to answer the question as I know your thoughts that they are irrelevant)?

I guess in the end I see this sex scandal as having three components but the ban potentially will only mitigate one component.

1. Largest component: Homosexual predation
2. Heterosexual predation.
3. Predation where the predator was after prey without regard to the gender of the victim. So many of my comments is my fear this might be larger than we currently imagine. My rationale is simple (but unsubstantiated and untrained): Predation is such a vile and base “disorder” (to use a word that might be over-used and misused by me and others ) that this disorder may transcend the sexual orientation (hetero or homosexual) of the predator.

Regardless of the percentage of each of these components, the current first step announced by Cardinal O’Brien does nothing to address these other two components. And I fear that as our knowledge gets better, these two components might add up to be almost equal to the first component.

P.S. Just so you understand my math of above, if #3 is 33%, statistically, #1 will drop to 54% and #2 will drop to 13% but #2+#3 will now equal 46% and we essentially have taken a step that only impacts a little over half of the problem.

 

[LSK]

What will be zeroed in on is that Catholic teaching regards homosexuality as a disorder.

I really believe this is where the critics will focus their attack - the idea that this is something ‘wrong’ rather than just another aspect of human sexuality will be jumped on by homosexual activists and Kinda-Catholics.

 

[felra]

Deo Volente:

Grace & Peace!

I would like someone to address what “Personality Disorder” in this specific context means when applied to a virgin celibate homosexual. What is disordered about their personality here? Is it the fact of their homosexuality? When using the term “personality disorder,” are we having recourse to a clinical definition of “personality disorder” or are we having recourse to a moral definition, i.e., their personhood is disordered? Are we confusing the issue by using clinical terminology to describe a moral disposition? Are we saying that the homosexual condition is akin to a form of psychosis?

“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.”

“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),

 

[LSK]

what did I tell ya?