Pope, in Book, Says Homosexuality Incompatible with Priesthood

[Elizabeth502]

Sorry but its not black and white. If it was then we wouldn’t have national episcopal conferences around the world defining “deep seated homosexual tendencies” differently. There’s no ready at hand definition.

Father, even though I quoted your phrase about “norms,” etc., I was mainly responding to two other posters who had brought up a very valid concern I (also) have as a lay person regarding any seminarian or priest (gay or straight) who espouses a non-Catholic understanding of the relationship between sexuality and personhood. Two other posters brought up the topic of (human) nature – the singularity of that and the unity of that. I was affirming that viewpoint. It is a Catholic viewpoint: we have a common nature as human beings; that common nature unites as, as does our unity in Christ and our commonality as children of God.

There’s no such thing, in Catholic philosophy, as “a gay nature.” I wasn’t talking about homosexual acts. You appear to be confusing me with someone else, who was. I was talking about seminarians who carry with them – have carried with them; I knew them 12 and 15 years ago – a secular belief that having SSA makes them fundamentally different from other men, and even fundamentally different from other human beings. I’m not going to let this concept go unchallenged (when I see it, whether on a discussion forum or in a parish or in some public Catholic discussion.) Hence, the reference to ‘ontological.’

I also think you have forgotten that I wrote earlier posts on this thread which reveal that it is not “black and white” to me; you appear to have forgotten that important point of mine, too, and again are confusing me with other posters. I never said what you’re claiming I said. I think the problem might have been that I interjected myself after a response you made to someone else. I apologize for any part in the confusion.



What is, however, very black and white to me is that creating a separate class of persons is a clever and convenient trick (on their part) to subtly create separate norms which apply “specially” to them. ('I have to act out my sexuality because otherwise I won’t have the satisfaction of human friendships; uniquely, gay people have to consummate their relationships in order to fulfill themselves, be whole persons; anything less is a thwarting of their “identity.”)

And I think the Church has a right and a duty to examine anyone for the priesthood, gay or straight, who adheres to populist notions of personhood in preference for the concepts of personhood classically understood in Catholic theology. If they believe a contrary philosophy, they will teach that philosophy, even indirectly or casually.

 

[Dranu]

I thought a few things ought to be kept in context:

1.) According to the article the Pope says: "And the persons who are affected must at least try not to express this inclination actively"
This recommendation would seem worthless if the Pope absolutely mandated that those with homosexual tendencies in priesthood should leave (it would be like saying ‘those who get abortions should at least not promote it’). Therefore, the Pope does not APPEAR to demand such removal (at least not unqualifiedly). If the latter contradicts this it is an indication that perhaps he is speaking privately in those contradictory matters

Later in the article the Pope seems to make it rather clear that what he intends to do is to prevent future ordinations from happening that may in effect hinder the full meaning of a sexual disposition. He does not seem to say much in the way of current priests

**2.) He also said “Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation. Otherwise, celibacy itself would lose its meaning as a renunciation. It would be extremely dangerous if celibacy became a sort of pretext for bringing people into the priesthood who don’t want to get married anyway,” **
In this statement the Pope said “homosexuality” (not “those with homosexual tendencies”) is “incompatible” (without qualification) “with the priestly vocation.” One may be afflicted with homosexual temptations without being an embracer of ‘homosexuality’ or even one who has ‘homosexuality’. On ought to reflect also on what ‘homosexuality’ means versus the mere presence of some temptation to homosexual acts, and further, on what it means to be ‘homosexually oriented’.

I would also imagine that deep seated temptations to hate, lust, masturbate, steal, be weak spirited, (and a long list other things) are also incompatible with priesthood. In other words, even if we don’t act on them, we shouldn’t let them lay dormant, we should want the purgation of our very inclination. Thus it seems to me that this statement is simply saying that the evil of homosexuality is not a thing to be ignored after refusing to engage in sexual activity, and the problem of such disorder goes deeper than such overt things (such as substantial effeminacy, etc which is not befiting the male sex). And I think this is very true.

I think he also seems to state that we must also never take something good as an excuse not to combat what we have a duty to combat. For instance, we must not take a life of a hermit monk as a pretext for escaping from people when we have a deep seated inclination to hate the company of others. If it is done so too often, then the very good becomes associated with an excuse for a type of sloth.

Finally, the Pope listed as a justification the following: “Otherwise, celibacy itself would lose its meaning as a renunciation”. That is a discipline connected with priesthood, not a doctrine as, you well know. Therefore, there is evidence the Pope is speaking on issues of discipline, and perhaps only to a specific sub-class in the Latin Rite. As such one is free to disagree correct (but to obey, where ACTUALLY commanded, nonetheless)?

On reflection, it seems, therefore, that the Pope so far has only mentioned standards, not clear bright line rules. Even if he did, I am not sure if it is one of those things that demands the agreement of the conscience (I am unclear on that subject at the moment when it involves more informal pronouncements such as these especially when it tends to matters more of discipline and governance). Of course, if this stuff does demand giving of the conscience anyhow, the standards at least limit the playing field of the dialogue.

Anyhow, this is a very good reason to be charitable in this discussion before calling your brother/sister a dissenter or some other adjective that implies a form of vile heresy (though many such eager finger pointers have good intentions subjectively, I think such a tendency to eagerly seek lines of division is objectively disordered). Such lines should be left to the magisterium, and when they clearly draw them, then the ‘dissenter finger’ might more readily be drawn, and in the meantime there SEEMS some wiggle room for the orthodox laity for wholesome dialogue. Why divide when there is no clear requirement to?

 

[sidbrown]

The bottom line is that none of these issues are black and white.

Not black and white, eh? I thought that if you engaged in the activities mentioned, and then suddenly died, you would go straight to hell, as you had committed a mortal sin and did not repent of that grave offense.
Is this true or false?

 

[Roy5]

A few ransom thoughts

 Gradually, I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that there are three basic positions re sexual orientation. (1) Totally heterosexual. (2) Homosexual because of genes and perhaps reenforced by early experiences or environment. (3) Bisexual possibility.

 Most people don't have the issue. They are attracted to the opposite sex. That is the way it's supposed to be. God obviously made men and women anatomically different to complement one another.

 However, some are born homosexual. It took me awhile to accept this but I've read enough and seen enough to believe it. How come? I'm not sure. Studies offer various suggestions. Then there may be those who are led into homosexuality by one or another person or situation - a male prostituting himself for money, possibly. who becomes, as it were, addicted to the gay life style. For instance, some of those abused altar boys apparently became very confused sexually after a priest violated them. "Sex is sex" someone has written, when the hormones rage or the sexual urge is aroused.  

  Now, as to the priesthood. I think that homosexuals are somewhat more likely to be attracted to the priesthood percentagewise than others. Why? (1) They often believe - hope - that they can overcome their same-sex attraction by devoting themselves fully to God and their vocation. (2) They will not be pushed to marry or quizzed as to why they're not married and having a family. (3) They find an all-male vocational fraternity attractive. (4) There are things about the priesthood - the vestments, for example, and maybe the beauty of the liturgy - that may attract some. (5) And this one is a bit vague, but some men who know they have gay proclivities want a position where they are respected and have some authority, and feel that the priesthood offers a far better possibility than the world at large. This last factor probably plays less of a role than previously, now that gayness has achieved much more acceptance. 

 It's difficult to know what the position of the church should be. Ideally, gays should be ordained and remain celibate. Experience has shown, however, that enough priests have molested youth, especially teen altar boys or male students, to bring scandal to the church. More careful selection needs to be made. It would be a shame, however, if a thoroughly and reliably and able and dedicated celibate gay could never serve as a priest. In many instances - probably most - their sexual orientation is a given, not a pattern they purposefully adopted.

 

[Elizabeth502]

some are born homosexual.

This is just factually incorrect on its face, because it has been demonstrated for decades that sexuality is a dynamic that develops over time, for everybody. You are not “born” with a sexual orientation, even if you are born with specific tendencies. Your sexuality is dependent on relationships, not just inborn tendencies; for everybody, sexuality evolves for you as an individual, based on stages, on influences, and on how those impact whatever fluidities exist in your inborn psyche.

For the vast population of humanity, it is gender which is static, inborn, and not subject to change or external influence. The exceptions are the occasional biological misfirings and rare ambiguities which result in gender-identity-conflict (gender dysphoria) at birth, or later (with hormonal and other physiological changes). And of course the realm of gender is separate from the phenomenon of sexual orientation.

But, unlike the brain-body determinisms of gender, sexuality is not simply a physical development, but a complex response dependent on many things, some conscious, some unconscious. And just because we “can’t remember” when we “felt” or “decided” or “knew” that we “were gay or straight” (quotes not from you but from popular media) does not mean that there was not a point in time, after birth, which was the unconscious turning point for us. An awful lot of things happen during our pre-verbal stage as children, as well as prior to our long-term memory stage, but still after birth: we will never be able to satisfactorily retrace the origins of many of the catalysts that made us what we are today (athletic, dog-loving, preferring oceans to mountains, repelled by certain kinds of people, or scents, or textures). So the argument that unless we have consciousness of all of our tendences and preferences, they are therefore innate, is just a fallacy.

Our sexuality is fluid until our lives intersect with it; over time, it takes shape. And it does not do so in a vacuum.

This part I do agree with, though:

(3) They find an all-male vocational fraternity attractive. (4) There are things about the priesthood - the vestments, for example, and maybe the beauty of the liturgy - that may attract some.

That is actually true for many men who either have been conscious of SSA (whether ever acted upon or not), or who might not have an explicit same-sex-attraction but simply be of a less traditionally ‘masculine’ affect. Linked with sensitivity is often an aesthetic appreciation. Remember that it takes a sensitive man to be a good priest. Some men actually have to really work at that in their priesthood and develop the skills to be a listener and a more receptive person. They are helped in that effort by prayer itself, which requires sensitivity & receptivity, and correspondingly develops that in a man and in a woman. And even to hear The Call itself, some degree of receptivity is essential.

On the #4 above, I have had gay men tell me that that initially attracted them to the priesthood, but that they then realized that the priesthood involved much more than theatrical glamour, and did involve a lot of daily grind that was a lot less aesthetic in its nature. (So they wisely chose not to enter seminary.)

#3 is well-established, and it’s logical that would be a powerful draw for any man much more comfortable with men than with women.

 

[Jenny_M]

Some years ago I had an excellent gay priest as confessor and spiritual director. He told me that about sixty percent of the men in his religious order were gay. He had entered the order just out of high school, but had not realized he was gay until age 36. (He was in his early 50’s at the time I knew him.) He had been celibate the whole time.