Pope, in Book, Says Homosexuality Incompatible with Priesthood

[NewEnglandPriest]

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?

There’s a time and a place for every discussion. Its not a lie or an omission to wait for the appropriate time and place.

“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.”

Obviously anyone practicing homosexuality is a major problem for celibacy and upholding church teaching. When it comes to “presents deep-seated homosexual tendencies” this is a term that is hotly debated.

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!

The question is how does the Church want the document applied. You say they’re ignoring the Church, they claim they’re applying the document in the spirit the Vatican intends.

 

[rlg94086]

Obviously anyone practicing homosexuality is a major problem for celibacy and upholding church teaching. When it comes to “presents deep-seated homosexual tendencies” this is a term that is hotly debated.

The question is how does the Church want the document applied. You say they’re ignoring the Church, they claim they’re applying the document in the spirit the Vatican intends.

You’ve now switched gears. Previously, you said they don’t ask…now, you are saying they are “applying the document in the spirit the Vatican intends.”

Which is it? DADT or taking their “obligations” and “duty” seriously?

Also, I find your claim that the issue is the meaning of “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” disingenuous. The letter is pretty clear:

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tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded.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.

Clearly, if an adolescent with a “transitory problem” is expected to “clearly overcome” their tendencies for “at least three years before ordination to the diaconate,” then an adult with such tendencies should give some serious concern? If it doesn’t, then I would argue that the confessors/directors are not “applying the document” anywhere near the intent of the Vatican.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

You’ve now switched gears. Previously, you said they don’t ask…now, you are saying they are “applying the document in the spirit the Vatican intends.”

Which is it? DADT or taking their “obligations” and “duty” seriously?

I’m not switching gears at all. Most seminaries do not believe the Vatican intended to prevent all homosexual persons from becoming priests. They believe that DADT in the external forum while having complete honesty in the internal forum is taking their obligations and duty seriously. Its not mutually exclusive.

As was already discussed in this thread, the Italian way of doing business is to make the rules strict and then grant leniency on a case by case basis. This is how many have interpreted the document to be applied.

Also, I find your claim that the issue is the meaning of “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” disengenuous. The letter is pretty clear:

No, its not clear. “Deep-seated homosexual tendencies” is not a psychological term. What its referring to is not exactly clear. The USCCB Presidet at the time, Bishop Skylstad, said he believed it refered to homosexuals who’s orientation dominates their personality. Bishops around the world, including national episcopal conferences, have varrying interpretations of “deep seated.” The simple fact is that each individual Bishop and seminary has been left to its own devices to interpret and apply the document and no Vatican Congregation has rushed in to correct anyone.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m not switching gears at all. Most seminaries do not believe the Vatican intended to prevent all homosexual persons from becoming priests. They believe that DADT in the external forum while having complete honesty in the internal forum is taking their obligations and duty seriously. Its not mutually exclusive.

As was already discussed in this thread, the Italian way of doing business is to make the rules strict and then grant leniency on a case by case basis. This is how many have interpreted the document to be applied.

No, its not clear. “Deep-seated homosexual tendencies” is not a psychological term. What its referring to is not exactly clear. The USCCB Presidet at the time, Bishop Skylstad, said he believed it refered to homosexuals who’s orientation dominates their personality. Bishops around the world, including national episcopal conferences, have varrying interpretations of “deep seated.” The simple fact is that each individual Bishop and seminary has been left to its own devices to interpret and apply the document and no Vatican Congregation has rushed in to correct anyone.

I give up. I will just accept that our clergy don’t care.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I give up. I will just accept that our clergy don’t care.

Just because someone disagrees with you on how to interpret or understand something doesn’t mean they don’t care.

 

[rlg94086]

Just because someone disagrees with you on how to interpret or understand something doesn’t mean they don’t care.

Your posts come through loud and clear in your silence on the matter. It is more than evident that some of the seminaries, confessors, vocation directors, etc. are turning a blind eye to Church teaching and pretending that the teaching isn’t clear. It is crystal clear. The pope says homosexuality is incompatible with the priesthood. There is no way to interpret that any differently, unless someone is purposely looking for a loophole.

 

[Adeodatus]

It is more than evident that some of the seminaries, confessors, vocation directors, etc. are turning a blind eye to Church teaching and pretending that the teaching isn’t clear. It is crystal clear. The pope says homosexuality is incompatible with the priesthood. There is no way to interpret that any differently, unless someone is purposely looking for a loophole.

Well said.

 

[sidbrown]

It is more than evident that some of the seminaries, confessors, vocation directors, etc. are turning a blind eye to Church teaching and pretending that the teaching isn’t clear.

If this is more than evident to you, it is then more than evident to the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church. Since it is more than evident, why then are not the Church authorities putting an end to this?

 

[Inhimthroughher]

Your posts come through loud and clear in your silence on the matter. It is more than evident that some of the seminaries, confessors, vocation directors, etc. are turning a blind eye to Church teaching and pretending that the teaching isn’t clear. It is crystal clear. The pope says homosexuality is incompatible with the priesthood. There is no way to interpret that any differently, unless someone is purposely looking for a loophole.

You are right. There are many seminarians, priests, bishops, and seminaries doing the wrong thing. Do not give up hope though; there are good and faithful bishops, vocation directors, and seminaries, who are, and have been, faithful to Church teaching and have been screening out homosexuals for some years.
The tide is starting to change but it will take time for the unfaithful to go away. It is a biological fact that they cannot stay forever. Seminaries are starting to teach truth and fidelity to the Pope.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Fr. Lloyd has written about this:

frjameslloyd.blogspot.com/

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Your posts come through loud and clear in your silence on the matter. It is more than evident that some of the seminaries, confessors, vocation directors, etc. are turning a blind eye to Church teaching and pretending that the teaching isn’t clear. It is crystal clear. The pope says homosexuality is incompatible with the priesthood. There is no way to interpret that any differently, unless someone is purposely looking for a loophole.

You’re free to cling to your opinion that anyone who disagrees with you is unfaithful to the Church. All I have done is explain how many bishops and seminaries have understood and applied the norms. None of those bishops, national episcopal conferences, or seminaries have been “corrected” and some of those bishops have even gone on to “higher profile” positions. So I stand by my view that not even the Vatican is enforcing a “zero tolerance” policy.

 

[Alan55]

There are several big problems with a zero-tolerance policy with regard to the admission of homosexual men to seminaries.

First, those who know they are homosexual but want to become priests will not self-identify as homosexual. Many, perhaps most, will be difficult to identify as homosexual for obvious reasons: most homosexual men are not easily identifiable and the “gay-dar” of many involved in selection of seminarians is fallible.

Second, many men will identify themselves as homosexual only after entering the seminary.

Third, many seminary directors will question whether it is reasonable and necessary to exclude well-adjusted, celibate homosexual men from the seminary if there is no reason to believe that they won’t make fine priests. I share this view, based on the number of fine priests that I know who happen to be homosexual. They will err on the side of admission, particularly since there is an undersupply of priests in most dioceses.

Therefore, even after a ban on gays in the seminaries is instituted, it is highly likely that the proportion of gay men ordained to the priesthood will not decline substantially.

 

[The_Rock]

The tide has turned in the church. Seminaries are now full of faithful, solid, men. The idea that the priesthood could be compatible with homosexuality is becoming antiquated. Of cource you will see some heterodox old fogies trying to contend that nothing has or will change, but they are grasping at straws. Christ is purifying the priesthood along with the rest of the church. The Pope said what he meant to say…homosexuality is incompatible with the priesthood.

 

[Alan55]

The tide has turned in the church. Seminaries are now full of faithful, solid, men. The idea that the priesthood could be compatible with homosexuality is becoming antiquated. Of cource you will see some heterodox old fogies trying to contend that nothing has or will change, but they are grasping at straws. Christ is purifying the priesthood along with the rest of the church. The Pope said what he meant to say…homosexuality is incompatible with the priesthood.

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.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Third, many seminary directors will question whether it is reasonable and necessary to exclude well-adjusted, celibate homosexual men from the seminary if there is no reason to believe that they won’t make fine priests. I share this view, based on the number of fine priests that I know who happen to be homosexual. They will err on the side of admission, particularly since there is an undersupply of priests in most dioceses.

I agree that this is the salient factor.

I also agree that “gay-dar” can be off, by sensors in and out of seminaries. Sensitive does not = SSA. Tender does not = SSA. Even effeminate does not necessarily = SSA, and SSA itself does not = inevitable acting out, including in the seminary. Remember that the typical priest is more sensitive than the typical lay man. If he weren’t, he wouldn’t be able to relate sufficiently well to parishioners who were suffering, to pentitents in the confessional; he wouldn’t have the necessary ingredients for pastoral work. My confessor is super, super sensitive and tender and intuitive & insightful; yet he is not gay.

Nevertheless, I think the Pope has valid concerns, because in the past, young men non-reflective about their attractions and impulses have entered seminaries with neither sufficient self-awareness nor sufficient scrutiny by superiors. While sexual temptations abound in all environments, in recent history it seems (I have no statistics for comparison) that the temptation to abridgement of celibacy has been more frequent among gay than straight seminarians, due to the all-male environment. I am open to correction if someone has counter-evidence to that.

I think the most important contemporary correction to this problem has been to overhaul the initial screening process and even periodic updates. I know that in my local seminary (and I personally know the Formation Director) candidates are reviewed for their self-scrutiny of their sexuality and how they will integrate that and resolve that with their vocation and their call to celibacy: Is the candidate confident that, whatever orientation he has, he controls his sexuality instead of his sexuality controlling him? Does he have healthy outlets for non-sexual friendships (male-male, male-female)? Does he have a solid dividing line between the secular world’s assumption that sexuality “must” always have physical expression? Or is that dividing line dotted for this candidate?

Therefore, even after a ban on gays in the seminaries is instituted, it is highly likely that the proportion of gay men ordained to the priesthood will not decline substantially.

On that point, I think it’s too early to tell.

 

[Inhimthroughher]

The Pope, the Vicar of Christ, said “Homosexuality is incompatible with the Priesthood.” Those who disobey or interpret this in their way are protestants by definition. End of story. You are obeying the Pope or you are not. You are with Peter or you are not.

 

[Adeodatus]

I remember being at a Novus Ordo Mass that had a reading of the Passion. The priest, who was nearly flaming (and who also emphasized “contradictions” in the Holy Scripture), of course read the part of our Lord. It was not the man’s fault per se (probably couldn’t help it), but it was a mockery.

Gays have no business in the priesthood. And once they’re out, we’ll have less Modernism and ephebophilia there as well.

 

[Alan55]

The Pope, the Vicar of Christ, said “Homosexuality is incompatible with the Priesthood.” Those who disobey or interpret this in their way are protestants by definition. End of story. You are obeying the Pope or you are not. You are with Peter or you are not.

You misunderstand the authoritative nature of the Pope’s statement on homosexuality in his book. He was expessing his private views, which I take seriously. However, they are not an expression of the magisterium of the Church, and certainly are not infallible. It is not the case that persons who disagree with the Pope’s statements in this book are protestants, that is, not entitled to call themselves Catholic.

Your loyalty to the Pope is admirable, but your dismissive attitude toward those who disagree with non-authoritative statements of the Pope is simply misinformed. Please buy and read a book on the magisterium of the Church. I suggest either of the following two excellent books:

“By What Authority: A Primer on Scripture, the Magisterium, and the Sense of the Faithful” by Richard Gaillardetz

“The Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church” by Francis Sullivan, S.J.

 

[sidbrown]

You misunderstand the authoritative nature of the Pope’s statement on homosexuality in his book. He was expessing his private views, which I take seriously. However, they are not an expression of the magisterium of the Church, and certainly are not infallible. It is not the case that persons who disagree with the Pope’s statements in this book are protestants, that is, not entitled to call themselves Catholic.

Your loyalty to the Pope is admirable, but your dismissive attitude toward those who disagree with non-authoritative statements of the Pope is simply misinformed. Please buy and read a book on the magisterium of the Church. I suggest either of the following two excellent books:

“By What Authority: A Primer on Scripture, the Magisterium, and the Sense of the Faithful” by Richard Gaillardetz

“The Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church” by Francis Sullivan, S.J.

I have seen this book by Father Sullivan quoted before. For example, in the case of the question concerning whether or not Humanae Vitae is infallible, which of course, Father Sullivan questions. The problem is that when the name of Father Sullivan is brought up, there are invariably those Catholics who will say that Father Sullivan is a dissenter. And they point to one of his students Fr. Richard McBrien.
Here is the question: What is the best answer or responses to give to those Catholics who say that Father Sullivan is a dissenter?

 

[Inhimthroughher]

You misunderstand the authoritative nature of the Pope’s statement on homosexuality in his book. He was expessing his private views, which I take seriously. However, they are not an expression of the magisterium of the Church, and certainly are not infallible. It is not the case that persons who disagree with the Pope’s statements in this book are protestants, that is, not entitled to call themselves Catholic.

Your loyalty to the Pope is admirable, but your dismissive attitude toward those who disagree with non-authoritative statements of the Pope is simply misinformed. Please buy and read a book on the magisterium of the Church. I suggest either of the following two excellent books:

“By What Authority: A Primer on Scripture, the Magisterium, and the Sense of the Faithful” by Richard Gaillardetz

“The Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church” by Francis Sullivan, S.J.

Twisting his words, and saying he should be disobeyed, are ways of “protesting” him. = Protestant.