Pope Francis: Who am I to judge gay people?

[markomalley]

So are you saying that the Church has stated that homosexuals cannot be priests?

Or are you saying that the Church has stated that a person’s sexual orientation is in itself sinful? I don’t mean disordered, or something that may lead someone into sin, but in itself sinful.

Show me where the Church has said this?

1. Homosexuality and the Ordained Ministry

From the time of the Second Vatican Council until today, various Documents of the Magisterium, and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.

Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins. The Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstance can they be approved.

Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter[8].

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”[10].

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

Sorry to interject.

Does that answer your question?

 

[fix]

So are you saying that the Church has stated that homosexuals cannot be priests?

Yes, not only recently but back in the early 1960s and before.

Or are you saying that the Church has stated that a person’s sexual orientation is in itself sinful? I don’t mean disordered, or something that may lead someone into sin, but in itself sinful.

Show me where the Church has said this?

The inclination is disordered. It certainly evokes concern in places like seminary formation. Is this new to you?

 

[57thDimension]

Hello Prodigal,

When you have the time could you cite me a source or souces for this statement? “There are hundreds of thousands of people in America who have never committed ANY homosexual acts, and yet experience same-sex ATTRACTION.” Have there been studies in this area? I’m interested in reading this data, and how it was collected, and what were the conclusions drawn.

I hope you’re lack of “feelin’ the love” does not deter you from continuing to contribute to the discussion.

Pax,
Tarpeian

From adolescents in the U.S.

Overall, 8.7% of the full sample reported a same-sex romantic attraction in the first and/or second in-home survey, 7.8% for female adolescents and 9.5% for males (gender difference significant with N = p 18,841). The attraction rates we observe are comparable to those reported for adults by Laumann et al. (1994, p. 297). Overall, 3.1% of the full sample report a same-sex romantic relationship, 3.4% for females and 2.9% for males. Far fewer (1.5%) of all respondents report same-sex sexual behavior (defined as touching under clothes, having intercourse, touching genitals, or reporting a sexual relationship): 1.4% for females and 1.6% for males.

Bearman, Peter S., and Hannah Brückner. “Opposite‐Sex Twins and Adolescent Same‐Sex Attraction.” American Journal of Sociology 107.5 (2002): 1179-1205.

From the general population in Australia:

And, according to: Smith, Anthony, et al. “Sex in Australia: sexual identity, sexual attraction and sexual experience among a representative sample of adults.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 27.2 (2003): 138-145, there are more people who have same-sex sexual experience than there are people who report same-sex attraction.

+Sebastian

 

[The_Bucket]

All the same, In John 8:11, Jesus says to “go and sin no more”. This is hardly a statement that lacks any condemnation.

That statement is the one that is most merciful. He’s God Incarnate. He knows that she was going to sin again. Maybe not that particular sin, but some other sin. That’s the message! The message is that even Christ was not condemning her because her life was still ongoing. It’s not a one-time get out of jail free card.

What was He going to say, “I do not condemn you… but yeah, go and do whatever. It’s all good.” Of course not!

And that’s what our relationship with the Lord is. A series of falls and accepting His help to get back up. “Go and do not sin anymore” is something to which we strive, but the Lord knows we will sin again. And again. And again! Each time we fall and ask for His forgiveness with a sincere heart, He is there without a word of condemnation but instead with rejoicing.

 

[The_Bucket]

The Church’s practice on admitting individuals to the seminary is based out of prudence and is not doctrinal. It’s a practice. It’s a discipline. It can be changed.

The only part I can see worth changing is the “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” thing. As for those who engage in homosexual acts or celebrate the “gay culture,” um… yeah. Of course they can’t be priests… because they don’t support the doctrine of the Church. I wouldn’t want someone in seminary who rejects the Real Presence either.

 

[57thDimension]

The message is that even Christ was not condemning her because her life was still ongoing.

You will recall from the passage that the others did not condemn her, either.

+Sebastian

 

[Glad2behome]

Hello everyone

I know this topic has been discussed before, but I think I found a new and interesting video on the Holy Father’s comments on homosexuals.

youtube.com/watch?v=aMRY50gCHKw

If you don’t fell like watching the video, Mr. Malzberg seems that have a hard time understanding the Catholic Church’s teachings on homosexuality and homosexual acts. In my opinion, this shows how many “conservatives” outside the Catholic Church don’t seem to understand the Church’s teaching on this. They can’t seem to understand one can have homosexual thoughts and feelings, but not act on them. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that? The same rules apply to sexual sin for everyone…

This fundamental understanding of The Church’s teaching comes from the (conservative) Protestant mindset. They pick and choose what they like about current truths, then claim they are orthodox. One example is a “conservative” Protestant ranting and raving about the evil of same-sex “marriage” then going up to fornicate with their spouse(and you should see the look on their face when I tell them it is possible to do so.)

Mr. Malzberg is claims to be a “long time catholic” and I have to say if he does understand the Church’s teaching on sexuality, then either received really bad Catechism or he is willfully ignorant.

 

[fix]

The Church’s practice on admitting individuals to the seminary is based out of prudence and is not doctrinal. It’s a practice. It’s a discipline. It can be changed.

The only part I can see worth changing is the “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” thing. As for those who engage in homosexual acts or celebrate the “gay culture,” um… yeah. Of course they can’t be priests… because they don’t support the doctrine of the Church. I wouldn’t want someone in seminary who rejects the Real Presence either.

It is a long standing policy. Why would you want “deep seated” to be changed? Seeing as how the last Pope re-introduced what was ignored it seems imprudent to change it.

 

[Brendan_64]

Yes, not only recently but back in the early 1960s and before.

Perhaps you ought to make Pope Francis aware of this as to say, “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has goodwill, who am I to judge?” when referring to priests would suggest otherwise.

If the priest is celibate then, homosexual or otherwise, he is chaste.

The inclination is disordered. It certainly evokes concern in places like seminary formation. Is this new to you?

Of course I know this. I acknowledged that the inclination is disordered, but that does not equate with the inclination being sinful. To maintain that the inclination is sinful would be to maintain that a person who is attracted to someone of the same sex is in a permanent state of sin.

 

[The_Bucket]

I think the words of St. Augustine should be brought to bear on this issue.
St. Augustine:

Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin.

This is a nod to the fact that the passage had actually been stripped out of the gospel in certain geographies only to be re-inserted by the time of Augustine. The passage can and should be applied here. Francis in stressing the mercy of Christ and His Church is in no way condoning the sin and neither is anyone in this thread.

 

[fix]

Perhaps you ought to make Pope Francis aware of this as to say, “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has goodwill, who am I to judge?” when referring to priests would suggest otherwise.

If the priest is celibate then, homosexual or otherwise, he is chaste.

I do not see this Pope contradicting the last Pope. If you know better please tell him. Not to mention this policy has been in place for decades and decades. It was ignored to great detriment in the 70s and 80s.

Of course I know this. I acknowledged that the inclination is disordered, but that does not equate with the inclination being sinful. To maintain that the inclination is sinful would be to maintain that a person who is attracted to someone of the same sex is in a permanent state of sin.

Place cite one post where any person has said the inclination is sinful.

 

[The_Bucket]

It is a long standing policy. Why would you want “deep seated” to be changed? Seeing as how the last Pope re-introduced what was ignored it seems imprudent to change it.

People are capable of not acting on their impulses. Many heterosexual priests do not act on their attraction to women, why should it be that those with homosexual inclinations are automatically going to act on theirs? Fair enough that someone with a long history of being actively homosexual should be given great scrutiny, but what about someone who says “I’ve had homosexual attraction since puberty but I have not acted on those desires.” Just because his homosexual tendencies are deeply rooted he should be disqualified? Nonsense.

 

[The_Bucket]

I do not see this Pope contradicting the last Pope. If you know better please tell him. Not to mention this policy has been in place for decades and decades. It was ignored to great determent in the 70s and 80s.

I hope you’re not conflating homosexual tendencies with pedophilia.

 

[fix]

People are capable of not acting on their impulses. Many heterosexual priests do not act on their attraction to women, why should it be that those with homosexual inclinations are automatically going to act on theirs?

Why equate these two things? If a heterosexual person has some serious psychological or moral issue he too would be excluded, but heterosexuality is normal. Homosexuality is a deviation of the norm. Why place them on par? Would you compare heterosexual men with men who have an attraction to pedophilia or some other deviation? The person with a disorder needs to be well vetted and examined.

Fair enough that someone with a long history of being actively homosexual should be given great scrutiny, but what about someone who says “I’ve had homosexual attraction since puberty but I have not acted on those desires.” Just because his homosexual tendencies are deeply rooted he should be disqualified? Nonsense.

Of course each case gets evaluated on its own merits, but such significant deviations require very close scrutiny. It is our political times that color our perception. Not that many years ago a reasonable person would not be so quick to compare homosexual desire with heterosexual desire nor would they poo poo it as no big deal.

 

[fix]

I hope you’re not conflating homosexual tendencies with pedophilia.

Why not compare disorders and deviations? I hope you are not comparing heterosexuality with homosexuality. As to the 70s and 80s a huge homosexual problem in the seminaries has been reported and is now common knowledge.

 

[57thDimension]

I think the words of St. Augustine should be brought to bear on this issue.

Not sure how they have any bearing…

This is a nod to the fact that the passage had actually been stripped out of the gospel in certain geographies only to be re-inserted by the time of Augustine. The passage can and should be applied here. Francis in stressing the mercy of Christ and His Church is in no way condoning the sin and neither is anyone in this thread.

Not so fast. There is very little evidence to suggest that it was removed, but rather inserted later. Beyond that, Augustine had no basis for making that statement, beyond his annoyance with certain other contemporaries. I’ve wondered, a lot, as to why people bring this up, besides inspiring some pseudo-pharisaical persecutory complex from which other statements are to pivot.

+Sebastian

 

[markomalley]

The Church’s practice on admitting individuals to the seminary is based out of prudence and is not doctrinal. It’s a practice. It’s a discipline. It can be changed.

The only part I can see worth changing is the “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” thing. As for those who engage in homosexual acts or celebrate the “gay culture,” um… yeah. Of course they can’t be priests… because they don’t support the doctrine of the Church. I wouldn’t want someone in seminary who rejects the Real Presence either.

Enlighten me: when has it ever been the official practice of the Church to admit homosexuals to the seminary? (I realize, in practice, it has happened…but when has it been the policy to do so? )

 

[Brendan_64]

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture"

Thanks very much for that Mark.

But it is not clearly cut and dried.Let’s have a look at the categories of people excluded.

1. Those who prractise (present tense) homosexuality-
   Fair enough, that is concerned with those presently engaged in carrying out homosexual acts, which are of course gravely sinful
2. Those who present deep-seated homosexual tendencies -
   Why the need to include the term ‘deep-seated’? Why not just state “those who present homosexual tendencies”? Here the Church recognises a degree of tendency, and doesn’t exclude all who have homosexual tendencies. Also what is meant by “present”? Does that mean those who flaunt such tendencies? What about those who keep their tendencies ‘under-wraps’ and do not present themselves as outwardly homosexual?
3. Those who support the so-called “gay culture”.
   That’s fair enough. A priest going on a Gay Pride march, or preaching as such would not be appropriate.

So this is not as clear cut as saying that the Church does not permit any homosexual men to be priests. A homosexual who does not practise homosexual acts, does not support “gay culture”, and does not flaunt his sexual orientation in any way, could be admitted to the priesthood in line with the above instruction.

 

[fix]

Enlighten me: when has it ever been the official practice of the Church to admit homosexuals to the seminary? (I realize, in practice, it has happened…but when has it been the policy to do so? )

I am starting to wonder is this is not so much a moral issue as much as it is politics and ideology. There is an almost platitudinous ring when people say that the inclination and the act are the only difference that matter. That may be true in terms of personal culpability but it fails to speak to the broader issues of the public, children, and the faithful in general.

If we look only at personal culpability for sin as the only determining factor then we are myopic. Can you imagine saying that a pedophile is not sinning by not acting on his inclination? Ok, so that person may be in a state of grace but is that the only factor we need to be concerned about? No, because the inclination evokes concern.

 

[fix]

Thanks very much for that Mark.

But it is not clearly cut and dried.Let’s have a look at the categories of people excluded.

1. Those who prractise (present tense) homosexuality-
   Fair enough, that is concerned with those presently engaged in carrying out homosexual acts, which are of course gravely sinful
2. Those who present deep-seated homosexual tendencies -
   Why the need to include the term ‘deep-seated’? Why not just state “those who present homosexual tendencies”? Here the Church recognises a degree of tendency, and doesn’t exclude all who have homosexual tendencies. Also what is meant by “present”? Does that mean those who flaunt such tendencies? What about those who keep their tendencies ‘under-wraps’ and do not present themselves as outwardly homosexual?
3. Those who support the so-called “gay culture”.
   That’s fair enough. A priest going on a Gay Pride march, or preaching as such would not be appropriate.

So this is not as clear cut as saying that the Church does not permit any homosexual men to be priests. A homosexual who does not practise homosexual acts, does not support “gay culture”, and does not flaunt his sexual orientation in any way, could be admitted to the priesthood in line with the above instruction.

If that is the case he may not be homosexual at all. He simply may have had a passing phase as a youth.

As the doc clearly states:

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.