Pope, in Book, Says Homosexuality Incompatible with Priesthood

[cyberwolf001]

You are blurring the line somewhat. A chaste, single man running for office wouldn’t be an issue unless he is pushing for homosexual marriage and the like…in which case the issue isn’t his sexual preference, but rather policy.

As far as your soldier statement, I don’t think that is accurate. DADT does not call for people being outed for “not dating or pursuing members of the opposite sex.” That would be the “don’t ask” part of the DADT.

Ask anyone in the service about it. They’ll tell you many people tossed out didn’t tell and at the time where inactive.

 

[rlg94086]

Ask anyone in the service about it. They’ll tell you many people tossed out didn’t tell and at the time where inactive.

Interesting. Other people from the service on CAF have mentioned that DADT isn’t particularly enforced. I honestly don’t know what to believe on that…

 

[Inhimthroughher]

I say it because the Church doesn’t work like an American legal system. It works more like a European, and specifically Italian, legal system. This article by John Allen captures it pretty well:

The Church law is based on Roman law. They never instituted laws they did not expect to be obeyed. The Church does not mandate things they do not expect people to live up to. If we fail to live up to them we go to confession. This is the great problem in the Church today, people think disobeying the Pope is alright. It is not alright; the Pope does not say one thing and mean another. He does not say “no” and mean “maybe”. This idea was spawned by Rahner and the like. Cafeteria catholicism is a problem. No means no!

John Allen is a poor source. He is wrong in this just as he is with most things.

 

[Windfish]

I was ready to disagree with the Pope, but he has an interesting insight. The Priesthood, he says, should not be for already-celibate men who see the Priesthood as a natural role for them because of their celibacy. . In other words, “Well, I am celibate right now, anyway!” shouldn’t be the attitude because it really distorts the Priesthood demands of our men. I still think homosexual men should be allowed to be priests, but that definitely shouldn’t be the attitude.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

If the seminarian doesn’t “out” himself, then he is not being honest. That’s pretty sad.

Not every gay person runs around screaming, “Hey everyone, I’m gay!”

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The Church law is based on Roman law. They never instituted laws they did not expect to be obeyed.

Yes and no. But mostly when we talk about what’s based on the Roman & German schools of thought about law is canon law. The document in question is not canon law. Church “regulations” are heavily based on Italian ways of doing things.

Roman trained clergy are well known for the ideal vs. reality ways of doing things…

The Church does not mandate things they do not expect people to live up to. If we fail to live up to them we go to confession.

Absolutely. But if you think the Vatican actually expects everyone is going to follow everything they say 100% of the time you’re sorely mistaken. The Roman/Italian school of thought is all about the high ideal that needs to be strived for but its expected/understood that most people will fall short of it.

This is the great problem in the Church today, people think disobeying the Pope is alright. It is not alright; the Pope does not say one thing and mean another. He does not say “no” and mean “maybe”.

Sorry but that’s not how the Church works. The Vatican winks and looks the other way on all sorts of things. Archbishop Timothy Dolan is on record that homosexual individuals can still become priests and yet he was appointed Archbishop of New York by the Holy Father.
The Vatican isn’t enforcing a zero tolerance policy on this issue. I stand by my earlier statement that no one, not even the Pope, is going to enforce a total ban on men with homosexual orientations becoming priests, bishops, cadinals, etc.

This idea was spawned by Rahner and the like. Cafeteria catholicism is a problem. No means no!

LOL, sorry. This is pure Roman/Italian way of life/governing.

John Allen is a poor source. He is wrong in this just as he is with most things.

You’re entitled to your minority opinion on John Allen but remember, he’s just quoting from clergy who actually work at the Vatican.

 

[rlg94086]

Not every gay person runs around screaming, “Hey everyone, I’m gay!”

We are talking about a seminarian who is to become a priest. In formation, a person’s sexual maturity is supposed to be considered. It is part of discernment, since the priest is to be celibate. Are you saying that withholding such information from his spiritual/discernment director is an honest, proper thing to do?

 

[Inhimthroughher]

Yes and no. But mostly when we talk about what’s based on the Roman & German schools of thought about law is canon law. The document in question is not canon law. Church “regulations” are heavily based on Italian ways of doing things. According to who?

Roman trained clergy are well known for the ideal vs. reality ways of doing things…
That is a fault not something to brag about.

Absolutely. But if you think the Vatican actually expects everyone is going to follow everything they say 100% of the time you’re sorely mistaken. The Roman/Italian school of thought is all about the high ideal that needs to be strived for but its expected/understood that most people will fall short of it.
Not everything, but statements by the Pope about what disqualifies someone from being a priest, yes. Yes people fall short this is why we have confession.

Sorry but that’s not how the Church works. The Vatican winks and looks the other way on all sorts of things. Archbishop Timothy Dolan is on record that homosexual individuals can still become priests and yet he was appointed Archbishop of New York by the Holy Father.
The Vatican isn’t enforcing a zero tolerance policy on this issue. I stand by my earlier statement that no one, not even the Pope, is going to enforce a total ban on men with homosexual orientations becoming priests, bishops, cadinals, etc.Thoughts like this are why the Church laity are so confused, Clergy are contradicting the Pope and telling the laity it is ok. Remember this line “He who hears you hears me. He who rejects you rejects me.” Give that some thought

LOL, sorry. This is pure Roman/Italian way of life/governing.according to who? John Allen and other dissenters?

You’re entitled to your minority opinion on John Allen but remember, he’s just quoting from clergy who actually work at the Vatican.Right is right even if nobody is right and wrong is wrong even if everybody is wrong.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

We are talking about a seminarian who is to become a priest. In formation, a person’s sexual maturity is supposed to be considered. It is part of discernment, since the priest is to be celibate. Are you saying that withholding such information from his spiritual/discernment director is an honest, proper thing to do?

A few points:

1. Spiritual directors can’t reveal what is said in spiritual direction.
2. Spiritual directors can’t force seminarians to do anything. They can only suggest.
3. As previously stated, unless someone in the external forum publicly declares their sexual orientation most Seminaries are not going to spend time/effort/energy trying to out people.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

According to who?

According to most people who deal with the Vatican. John Allen is one example. Its also what I’ve witnessed over the years as well as what many people who studied/worked in Rome have said. Another example of this interpretation is clearly Archbishop Dolan.
If you choose to disagree then fine. We’re at an impasse.

me: Roman trained clergy are well known for the ideal vs. reality ways of doing things…

you: That is a fault not something to brag about.

Maybe, maybe not but either way its how the clergy trainned in Rome (the culture of the Vatican) opperate.

Not everything, but statements by the Pope about what disqualifies someone from being a priest, yes.

And you know this because? As I said, the Holy Father placed Archbishop Dolan in New York even though he’s publicly on record as saying that not every homosexual is disqualified. Is Benedict the kind of person who puts people who are wrong in highly visible positions to represent the Church?
Oh and guess where Archbishop Dolan went to Seminary? Rome. And where did Archbishop Dolan work for 7 years (before being made bishop)? Rome.

Obviously you’re free to hold your own opinion of what you think should happen. However that’s not necessarily what does happen.

Thoughts like this are why the Church laity are so confused, Clergy are contradicting the Pope and telling the laity it is ok. Remember this line “He who hears you hears me. He who rejects you rejects me.” Give that some thought

Jesus also said to cut off your arm or poke out your eye if they cause you to sin. Have you done that yet? Or do you see in those statements something that is using harsh language to make a point?
Once again, you’re looking at these statements from an American perspective while the Vatican is very much an Italian institution.
And as I previously stated, not even the Pope is going to enforce this policy. Even priests with a homosexual orientation are still going to be named Bishops and and homosexually oriented Bishops will become Cardinals. While there is a definite increased scrutiny for homosexuals, there is no zero tolerance policy in effect.

You’re free to have an opinion of how you think things should be done. However, I am saying that they will not be done that way and the Vatican isn’t all that concerned about it.

 

[rlg94086]

A few points:

1. Spiritual directors can’t reveal what is said in spiritual direction.
2. Spiritual directors can’t force seminarians to do anything. They can only suggest.
3. As previously stated, unless someone in the external forum publicly declares their sexual orientation most Seminaries are not going to spend time/effort/energy trying to out people.

I see. So, if a seminarian has a sexual fascination with 5-year-old children, the spiritual director can’t reveal anything to anyone; can only suggest something to the seminarian; and no one is going to spend time/effort/energy to do anything about it?

Approved! Welcome to the priesthood!

Is this correct?

 

[Alan55]

A large percentage of the priests and bishops of the Catholic Church are homosexual. To dismiss all of them would cause chaos. Most are celibate and functioning well as priests. Many apparently discovered they were gay only after entering the seminary or even after being ordained. If you agree to be celibate, as all priests promise, I see no reason why any male, homosexual or heterosexual, can’t serve well as a priest.

You do realize that heterosexual men who are ordained continue to have sexual fantasies, struggle with lust, and sometimes lose that struggle? Would you throw out any heterosexual man who violates his promises/vows of celibacy?

 

[rlg94086]

From the Vatican letter regarding discernment and homosexuality (bolding mine):

The call to orders is the personal responsibility of the Bishop[17] or the major superior. Bearing in mind the opinion of those to whom he has entrusted the responsibility of formation, the Bishop or major superior, before admitting the candidate to ordination, must arrive at a morally certain judgment on his qualities. In the case of a serious doubt in this regard, he must not admit him to ordination[18].

The discernment of a vocation and of the maturity of the candidate is also a serious duty of the rector and of the other persons entrusted with the work of formation in the seminary. Before every ordination, the rector must express his own judgment on whether the qualities required by the Church are present in the candidate[19].

In the discernment concerning the suitability for ordination,** the spiritual director has an important task. Although he is bound to secrecy, he represents the Church in the internal forum. In his discussions with the candidate, the spiritual director must especially point out the demands of the Church concerning priestly chastity and the affective maturity that is characteristic of the priest**, as well as help him to discern whether he has the necessary qualities[20]. The spiritual director has the obligation to evaluate all the qualities of the candidate’s personality and to make sure that he does not present disturbances of a sexual nature, which are incompatible with the priesthood. If a candidate practises homosexuality or presents deep-seated homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director as well as his confessor have the duty to dissuade him in conscience from proceeding towards ordination.

It goes without saying that the candidate himself has the primary responsibility for his own formation[21]. He **must offer himself trustingly to the discernment of the Church, of the Bishop who calls him to orders, of the rector of the seminary, of his spiritual director and of the other seminary educators to whom the Bishop or major superior has entrusted the task of forming future priests. It would be gravely dishonest for a candidate to hide his own homosexuality in order to proceed, despite everything, towards ordination. **Such a deceitful attitude does not correspond to the spirit of truth, loyalty and openness that must characterize the personality of him who believes he is called to serve Christ and his Church in the ministerial priesthood.

So, I understand the limits of the spiritual director. But, as I mentioned, the candidate would be lying about his sexuality, in order to become a priest. That hardly seems acceptable to me, and I still find it very sad.

In response to the last time I said the seminarian should “out” himself, and that it was sad that they would lie to the Church, it was explained that "Not every gay person runs around screaming, “‘Hey everyone, I’m gay!’”

 

[rlg94086]

A large percentage of the priests and bishops of the Catholic Church are homosexual. To dismiss all of them would cause chaos. Most are celibate and functioning well as priests. Many apparently discovered they were gay only after entering the seminary or even after being ordained. If you agree to be celibate, as all priests promise, I see no reason why any male, homosexual or heterosexual, can’t serve well as a priest.

You do realize that heterosexual men who are ordained continue to have sexual fantasies, struggle with lust, and sometimes lose that struggle? Would you throw out any heterosexual man who violates his promises/vows of celibacy?

Yes, that is true. However, the Church sees a difference with homosexuality:

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].

**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.
**

Apparently, it isn’t just about remaining celibate.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I see. So, if a seminarian has a sexual fascination with 5-year-old children, the spiritual director can’t reveal anything to anyone; can only suggest something to the seminarian; and no one is going to spend time/effort/energy to do anything about it?

Approved! Welcome to the priesthood!

Is this correct?

Spiritual Direction/Internal Forum does have some limits as its not confession. Anything that is criminal or would cause harm to self or others would not fall under the confidentiality of the internal forum.
However, merely having SSA is a far cry from being attracted to 5 year olds. “Outing” someone who merely discussed the fact they have SSA would be highly questionable and borderline a violation of the internal forum.

But, as I mentioned, the candidate would be lying about his sexuality, in order to become a priest. That hardly seems acceptable to me, and I still find it very sad.

They should be honest in spiritual direction, I think we all agree on that. However, as other posts in this thread discuss, most in the Church do not see an absolute ban on homosexuals from the priesthood. Rather they see it as a call for much greater scrutiny and formation. Outside of a few seminaries here and there, in the overwhelming majority of seminaries around the world there simply is no great zero tolerance policy being enacted.

 

[rlg94086]

Spiritual Direction/Internal Forum does have some limits as its not confession. Anything that is criminal or would cause harm to self or others would not fall under the confidentiality of the internal forum.
However, merely having SSA is a far cry from being attracted to 5 year olds. “Outing” someone who merely discussed the fact they have SSA would be highly questionable and borderline a violation of the internal forum.

Fair enough, but you still don’t agree with me that a priest lying about his disordered attraction would be sad? You are okay with a priest who withheld such information from the Bishop and vocational director?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

You are okay with a priest who withheld such information from the Bishop and vocational director?

The bishop and vocation director aren’t asking…

 

[rlg94086]

The bishop and vocation director aren’t asking…

You are evading answering a simple question. Why is that?

As I posted from the letter regarding discernment: "It would be gravely dishonest for a candidate to hide his own homosexuality in order to proceed, despite everything, towards ordination. "

Apparently, you believe in Don’t Ask Don’t Tell when it comes to priestly formation?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

You are evading answering a simple question. Why is that?

How? You said they’d have to withhold info from the Bishop and Vocation Director. I pointed out that they’re not really withholding because they aren’t asked by the Bishop or VD what their sexual orientation is. The Bishop and VD would rather those issues be dealt with in spiritual direction.

As I posted from the letter regarding discernment: "It would be gravely dishonest for a candidate to hide his own homosexuality in order to proceed, despite everything, towards ordination. "

Yes, it should be discussed in spiritual direction.

Apparently, you believe in Don’t Ask Don’t Tell when it comes to priestly formation?

I’m not in seminary formation so I don’t have decide one way or the other. However I do know that DADT is essentially the way the external forum has been working in seminaries since the letter came out (no pun intended).

 

[rlg94086]

How? You said they’d have to lie to the Bishop and Vocation Director. I pointed out that they don’t need to lie because they aren’t asked by the Bishop or VD what their sexual orientation is.

So, sexual orientation is never discussed? If so, are candidates aware that deep-seated same sex desires are not acceptable? Is a lie of omission still considered a lie, or has the Church changed its view on that?

Yes, it should be discussed in spiritual direction.

Indeed: “If a candidate practises homosexuality or presents deep-seated homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director as well as his confessor have the duty to dissuade him in conscience from proceeding towards ordination.”

I’m not in seminary formation so I don’t have decide one way or the other. However I do know that DADT is essentially the way the external forum has been working in seminaries since the letter came out (no pun intended).

Well, in that case, it is the spiritual director and confessor who are in grave error. The Church says it is their “**obligation to evaluate all the qualities of the candidate’s personality and to make sure that he does not present disturbances of a sexual nature,” **and their duty to dissuade the candidate. Shame on the spiritual directors and confessors for ignoring the Church!

And, you apparently have no opinion on the matter, because your only answer is ‘they don’t do it.’

I find all of this very disturbing. If our seminaries are not going to even make the effort to follow Church guidelines in priestly formation, then I am discouraged as a Catholic (despite my quote from Blessed Mother Theresa). I thought the Church was trying to fix the problem, but apparently the priests who are supposed to do it turn a blind eye to Church teaching.