Pope, in Book, Says Homosexuality Incompatible with Priesthood

[The_Rock]

It is very clear for those who wish to obey. The arguments to the effect that he didn’t say it ex cathedra, or he said it but he doesn’t really want it implemented etc. etc. will not sway those who wish to obey. For those who prefer their own will rather than the teaching of the Church on such matters as homosexual priesthood, woman priests, contraception, etc. etc. I suspect not even a infallible pronouncement would elicit their obedience. These finely nuanced, precisely stated arguments contradicting or undercutting what the Pope says have become very common on these forms of late. I posted this quotation on a separate thread but I think it is appropriate here:

Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser (17th century, Germany):
Quote:

“During this period, many men will abuse the freedom of conscience conceded to them. It is of such men that Jude, the Apostle, spoke when he said: ‘These men blaspheme- whatever they do not understand; and they corrupt whatever they know naturally as irrational animals do. . . They feast together without restraint, feeding themselves, grumbling murmurers, walking according to their lusts; their mouth speaketh proud things, they admire people for the sake of gain; they bring about division, sensual men, having not the spirit.’”
“During this unhappy period, there will be laxity in divine and human precepts. Discipline will suffer. The Holy Canons will be completely disregarded, and the Clergy will not respect the laws of the Church. Everyone will be carried away and led to believe and to do what he fancies, according to the manner of the flesh.”
“They will ridicule Christian simplicity; they will call it folly and nonsense, but they will have the highest regard for advanced knowledge, and for the skill by which the axioms of the law, the precepts of morality, the Holy Canons and religious dogmas are clouded by senseless questions and elaborate arguments. As a result, no principle at all, however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will remain free of censure, criticism, false interpretations, modification and delimitation by man.” (Yves Dupont, Catholic Prophecy,Tan Books and Publishers, 1973).

And you are quite right, I should not have said “The idea that the priesthood could be compatible with homosexuality is becoming antiquated”. To be considered antiquated the idea would have to have been in vogue a long time, which it has not. It is rather a novel, relatively new idea that has had its day and is thankfully being rejected universally by the church.

 

[The_Rock]

I’m not sure why you think that insulting those who hold different views will be convincing. Seminaries do have faithful, solid men, some of who are homosexual. The view that homosexuals can serve God and God’s people as priests is neither antiquated or heterodox. The campaign of Pope Benedict and the Vatican to root out homosexuals is not founded on dogma, and it ignores the reality of the faithful service of homosexuals as a large fraction of the currently serving priests and bishops of the Church. As I said, if the Church were not so hypocritical, it would go all the way and throw out those priests and bishops, plunging the Church into chaos. A whole lot of closeted (and not-so-closeted) Vatican officials would be on the first train out of Dodge.

I apologize if you were offended by my heterodox old fogies remark. It was not intended as a slight against anyone on this forum (most are probably younger than me). Rather, I was trying (unsuccessfully) to contrast the young, orthodox (lower case o) seminarians of today with the prevalence of heterodox, dissenting members of the church from the past few decades. I would argue however that the view (that homosexuality and the priesthood are compatible), is indeed a heterodox view.

 

[chrysostim83]

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – In his new book, Pope Benedict XVI strongly reaffirmed church teaching that homosexual acts are “disordered” and said homosexuality itself is “incompatible” with the priesthood.

I don’t mean to split hairs or anything, but there’s one thing I haven’t understood ever since I first saw the Holy Father’s remarks on this subject. What does incompatible mean? (Yes, I tried looking it up before posting this.) In particular, if it does not imply that the putative ordination of gay men is always and everywhere invalid (and it obviously can’t imply that), then I fail to see how the word can have any meaning whatever.

 

[Elizabeth502]

^ I thought he did explain it in the context of celibacy, as he mentioned that sacrificing the love of a woman (and consecrating that sacrifice) is not a sacrifice for a homosexual. But as has been said elsewhere, the Pope does not always thoroughly explain himself.

If I read him correctly, that would imply that he does believe that celibacy is essential to priesthood.

In any case, an unbalanced preference for one gender (a disinterest in the other) is certainly incompatible with the scope of charity essential to priesthood, if that would also be a problem. (That was a problem in some seminaries in the '80’s and '90’s: many gay men entered with the assumption that they wouldn’t have to deal very much with the opposite sex, but that’s only true in seminary.)

I don’t know if the Pope was also referring to modern propaganda about homosexuality, to wit: unlike heterosexuality, there is a physical determinism about homosexuality that “requires” it being acted upon, whereas heterosexuals supposedly are less personally compromised (in their “identity”) by absolute celibacy. (Again, thus bringing the discussion, in his view, back to celibacy.)

Universally, throughout time, it has always been true of both male religious life and female religious life, that invalidating reasons for entering a seminary, convent, or monastery include:
(1) escape from unresolved personal problems (or responsibilities), with religious life being the vehicle for continued escape
(2) opportunity for corruption: “using” the religious state as an environment of temptation to compound personal sin

Candidates who have been discovered to be subverting religious life for either of the above motivations have usually been screened during intake or before, sometimes shortly after. Clearly, when there are shortages of personnel, the unconscious temptation on the part of houses is to rationalize inappropriate motivations, and it’s my view that this sometimes happened in some locations during the '80’s and '90’s.

The two above aren’t the only reasons for exclusion; others include mental instability and insufficient spiritual orientation, etc. But escapism and opportunism are two big red flags.

 

[chrysostim83]

^ I thought he did explain it in the context of celibacy, as he mentioned that sacrificing the love of a woman (and consecrating that sacrifice) is not a sacrifice for a homosexual.

Thanks for the patient and detailed answer. I actually had trouble understanding the bit about celibacy as well.

In the first place, it’s not like there aren’t gay men out there who wish they could have married a woman and had children; indeed, it’s not as if there aren’t gay men who did marry women and start families. So it’s not really a foregone conclusion that gay men won’t (want to) get married.

Moreover, we know that gay men do not have a different nature than other men. If it were so, then all the natural law arguments deployed against same sex sexual behaviors would fall flatter than pancakes. But if gay men share the same human nature as other men, then why does the Holy Father ignore the fact that, as G K Chesterton once said, “If marriage is good for Everyman, then it is good for every man”? If what GKC says is correct, then whenever a man renounces marriage, he is sacrificing a good thing regardless of how he himself may feel about it… so unless the Faith is going to start getting all subjective all of a sudden, it really doesn’t matter whether the man is straight or gay. (In the same way, Old Testament sacrifices required first-born animals and not favorite ones.)

Now it looks like I’m arguing against what Benedict says, but I really don’t want to contradict him. I’m just bring out the objections that spring immediately to my mind in order to show why what he said is confusing.

 

[Inhimthroughher]

Thanks for the patient and detailed answer. I actually had trouble understanding the bit about celibacy as well.

In the first place, it’s not like there aren’t gay men out there who wish they could have married a woman and had children; indeed, it’s not as if there aren’t gay men who did marry women and start families. So it’s not really a foregone conclusion that gay men won’t (want to) get married.

Moreover, we know that gay men do not have a different nature than other men. If it were so, then all the natural law arguments deployed against same sex sexual behaviors would fall flatter than pancakes. But if gay men share the same human nature as other men, then why does the Holy Father ignore the fact that, as G K Chesterton once said, “If marriage is good for Everyman, then it is good for every man”? If what GKC says is correct, then whenever a man renounces marriage, he is sacrificing a good thing regardless of how he himself may feel about it… so unless the Faith is going to start getting all subjective all of a sudden, it really doesn’t matter whether the man is straight or gay. (In the same way, Old Testament sacrifices required first-born animals and not favorite ones.)

Now it looks like I’m arguing against what Benedict says, but I really don’t want to contradict him. I’m just bring out the objections that spring immediately to my mind in order to show why what he said is confusing.

Yes and No. Sacrifice is understood in many ways. A drug addict believes it is a sacrifice to give up drugs, and it is hard for him to. You could say this is no sacrifice at all because drug abuse is not a good. The same could be said for alcoholism, fornication, masturbation. For the one giving them up it is a sacrifice, because it is a renouncing of what they want for what God wants. So there are objective sacrifices and subjective sacrifices. Marriage must be both for a Priest. If you are a homosexual you are sacrificing marriage like a little kid is sacrificing broccoli.

The sacrifice is important but an ordered soul is necessary for the sacrifice. The priesthood presupposes an ordered life including sexual appetites. No man with a disordered sex life should be ordained. No man that is attracted to kids, dogs, or other man is ordered enough to be directing others. You cannot give what you do not have. You must be ordered to help order others.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think both posts 65 and 66 have some good points!

One thing, though: If the gifts of priesthood, and its sacrifices, are more than just celibacy, one might want to consider that very senstiive men are an asset to the calling, as well as being more receptive to the calling in the first place. Some of those men might, if liviing 'in the world" long enough, have discovered or suspected SSA about themselves, but were never really put in that opportunity for self-reflection. So, what I’m saying is, I can understand opposing the admission of candidates who are confirmed in SSA, but there are other men who are maybe not “confirmed” as heterosexual but are an asset to the priesthood.

 

[rlg94086]

Thanks for the patient and detailed answer. I actually had trouble understanding the bit about celibacy as well.

In the first place, it’s not like there aren’t gay men out there who wish they could have married a woman and had children; indeed, it’s not as if there aren’t gay men who did marry women and start families. So it’s not really a foregone conclusion that gay men won’t (want to) get married.

Moreover, we know that gay men do not have a different nature than other men. If it were so, then all the natural law arguments deployed against same sex sexual behaviors would fall flatter than pancakes. But if gay men share the same human nature as other men, then why does the Holy Father ignore the fact that, as G K Chesterton once said, “If marriage is good for Everyman, then it is good for every man”? If what GKC says is correct, then whenever a man renounces marriage, he is sacrificing a good thing regardless of how he himself may feel about it… so unless the Faith is going to start getting all subjective all of a sudden, it really doesn’t matter whether the man is straight or gay. (In the same way, Old Testament sacrifices required first-born animals and not favorite ones.)

Now it looks like I’m arguing against what Benedict says, but I really don’t want to contradict him. I’m just bring out the objections that spring immediately to my mind in order to show why what he said is confusing.

I agree that men are men. Homosexality isn’t a different nature; it is a disordered desire.

According to the letter I cited earlier from the Vatican, the issue is not celibacy. I would disagree without the statement that celibacy is easier for a homosexually oriented man. The issue is the ability of a man with strong, same-sex desires to relate properly to men and women. A compulsive masturbator, or a man with any other “disturbances of a sexual nature,” would also be incompatible with the priesthood.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Where this discussion has headed shows the difficulty in applying these norms and terms. What defines a homosexual? Is it someone who does homosexual acts? Well, then how do we classify a married man with children who occasionally engages in homosexual acts on the side? Is he a homosexual? If he stops engaging in homosexual acts is he no longer considered homosexual?
What do you do with someone who refuses to admit to themselves that they are gay?
If someone doesn’t realize they are gay until after ordination, do they need to leave ministry?

 

[rlg94086]

Where this discussion has headed shows the difficulty in applying these norms and terms. What defines a homosexual? Is it someone who does homosexual acts? Well, then how do we classify a married man with children who occasionally engages in homosexual acts on the side? Is he a homosexual? If he stops engaging in homosexual acts is he no longer considered homosexual?
What do you do with someone who refuses to admit to themselves that they are gay?
If someone doesn’t realize they are gay until after ordination, do they need to leave ministry?

As I just posted, a man is a man. Homosexuality is a disordered desire, not a state of being. A married man who engages in homosexual acts on the side is a grave sinner, just as a man who has an adulterous affair.

If a candidate doesn’t have deep-seated same-sex desires, it shouldn’t be a hindrance to entering the priesthood. If he later, as a priest, finds his desires have become stronger, he should seek help, of course. Quite frankly, any priest who identifies with gay culture and condones homosexuality should leave the priesthood IMO.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Where this discussion has headed shows the difficulty in applying these norms and terms. What defines a homosexual? Is it someone who does homosexual acts? Well, then how do we classify a married man with children who occasionally engages in homosexual acts on the side? Is he a homosexual? If he stops engaging in homosexual acts is he no longer considered homosexual?
What do you do with someone who refuses to admit to themselves that they are gay?
If someone doesn’t realize they are gay until after ordination, do they need to leave ministry?

Respectfully, Father, I agree with rlg. The only “difficulty” with “norms and terms” arises if the Church begins accepting the secular propaganda that a homosexual is supposedly “more” defined by his homosexuality than a hetrosexuality is defined by his heterosexuality.

Any homosexual seminarian who believes he is ontologically different from other men will become a priest whose beliefs are out of step with essential Catholic philosophy and theology, and thus problematic as a member of the church militant and teacher and defender of the Faith. There are not three (or more) classes of people: men, women, and homosexuals.

 

[Elizabeth502]

whoops. I meant “a heterosexual defined by his hetersexuality,” obviously.

 

[Inhimthroughher]

As I just posted, a man is a man. Homosexuality is a disordered desire, not a state of being. A married man who engages in homosexual acts on the side is a grave sinner, just as a man who has an adulterous affair.

If a candidate doesn’t have deep-seated same-sex desires, it shouldn’t be a hindrance to entering the priesthood. If he later, as a priest, finds his desires have become stronger, he should seek help, of course. Quite frankly, any priest who identifies with gay culture and condones homosexuality should leave the priesthood IMO.

True, both a man who engages in homosexual activity and one who engages in adultery are both grave sinners. The one who engages in homosexual activities is much more disordered than a man who has an affair with a member of the opposite sex. Sex between a man and a woman can be ordered and it is natural for them to be attracted to one another. It is not natural for a man to be attracted to man and this sin is much more disordered. The person who engages in this activity is not just a person who falls into a vice of too much or too little of a good thing, or a good thing except in the wrong circumstances. Homosexual activities can never be a good they are intrinsically evil. Too engage in an activity this disordered shows severe problems with an individual.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

As I just posted, a man is a man. Homosexuality is a disordered desire, not a state of being. A married man who engages in homosexual acts on the side is a grave sinner, just as a man who has an adulterous affair.

If a candidate doesn’t have deep-seated same-sex desires, it shouldn’t be a hindrance to entering the priesthood. If he later, as a priest, finds his desires have become stronger, he should seek help, of course. Quite frankly, any priest who identifies with gay culture and condones homosexuality should leave the priesthood IMO.

So where are you drawing the line? How would you know the difference between homosexual acts and “deep seated desires”???

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Respectfully, Father, I agree with rlg. The only “difficulty” with “norms and terms” arises if the Church begins accepting the secular propaganda that a homosexual is supposedly “more” defined by his homosexuality than a hetrosexuality is defined by his heterosexuality.

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.

Any homosexual seminarian who believes he is ontologically different from other men will become a priest whose beliefs are out of step with essential Catholic philosophy and theology, and thus problematic as a member of the church militant and teacher and defender of the Faith. There are not three (or more) classes of people: men, women, and homosexuals.

Huh?

 

[rlg94086]

So where are you drawing the line? How would you know the difference between homosexual acts and “deep seated desires”???

Where did I claim there is a line???

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Where did I claim there is a line???

So you believe any sexual desire that is not 100% pure disqualifies anyone from seminary?
If someone had a homosexual act 20 years ago, they are disqualified?
If a seminarian masurbates one night, he should pack and go home?

 

[rlg94086]

So you believe any sexual desire that is not 100% pure disqualifies anyone from seminary?
If someone had a homosexual act 20 years ago, they are disqualified?
If a seminarian masurbates one night, he should pack and go home?

No, no , and no. You are being ridiculous. Perhaps, you need to take a few breaths and consider what you are posting before hitting the “submit” button.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

No, no , and no. You are being ridiculous. Perhaps, you need to take a few breaths and consider what you are posting before hitting the “submit” button.

I asked you where the line was between past homosexual activity and deep seated tendencies. You responded that you never claimed there was a line. So that would mean a single homosexual act 20 years ago is a deep seated tendency according to your logic.

You also stated “a compulsive masturbator, or a man with any other ‘disturbances of a sexual nature,’ would also be incompatible with the priesthood.” So where are you drawing these lines? How often is “habitual”? Twice? Three times? Over how long? What do you define as a “disturbance of a sexual nature?”

The bottom line is that none of these issues are black and white. They require case by case evaulations and there’s no cookie cutter policy that will address all these issues.

 

[rlg94086]

I asked you where the line was between past homosexual activity and deep seated tendencies. You responded that you never claimed there was a line. So that would mean a single homosexual act 20 years ago is a deep seated tendency according to your logic.

No, it means there is not a line.

You also stated “a compulsive masturbator, or a man with any other ‘disturbances of a sexual nature,’ would also be incompatible with the priesthood.” So where are you drawing these lines? How often is “habitual”? Twice? Three times? Over how long? What do you define as a “disturbance of a sexual nature?”

I haven’t drawn any lines. Why do you keep accusing me of drawing lines when I haven’t? A “compulsive masturbator” is someone who regularly masturbates and has little control over it. “Disturbances of a sexual nature” are disordered, unhealthy desires - homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, etc.

The bottom line is that none of these issues are black and white. They require case by case evaulations and there’s no cookie cutter policy that will address all these issues.

Yep. I’ve never claimed otherwise, despite your mischaracterizations. However, that does not change the validity of the Pope’s statement that homosexuality is incompatible with the priesthood or the Vatican’s guidelines for discernment regarding homosexuality. Your attempts to water them down by overplaying the subjectivity of the evaluations is what perpetuates the problems in the priesthood today, when it comes to viewpoints on sexual matters. We need clear teachers in our priests, not relativists.