What is effeminate behavior and what is masculine behavior are no more than social ideas and personal prejudices.
No. I’m not talking about “tenderness and empathy.” I am talking about acquired affections that are disgusting.
I have better things to do that look at vulgar TV shows.
I think he meant ‘affectations’.
Beautifully said. It’s all in the balance. And while you didn’t happen to mention it, I will add that those who are not macho-heterosexual but what we used to call “over-sexed” or “Ladies’ men” (attracted in the extreme to women) also find themselves in trouble in the priesthood due to the difficulty of the chaste/celibate lifestyle: the strain it would put on such an individual (has put on such individuals) to be essentially at odds with his apparent nature and apparent calling to fulfill God’s plan partly through his sexuality.
I wonder what “agenda” priests have who act like characters in vulgar TV shows?
When you think about it, though, these are affectations that are just as annoying in heterosexual women. It isn’t that the person is being effeminate or feminine that is annoying. It’s that he or she is indulging in eccentric behavior meant to call attention to himself or herself. Even if the person is self-less–and perhaps especially if the person is self-less–the behavoior is still extremely self-centered. That is why it gets old so quickly.
The thing is you can’t assume that that kind of behaviour is an affectation. My friend is engaged to a guy who I would have sworn was gay had I met him under different circumstances. He’s very effeminate and I don’t for a minute think it’s an affectation, it’s just who he is. Having spent time with him I now are sure he’s straight and this is certainly not something he’s ‘put on’.
So if a person is able to exercise self-control over his same sex attraction and is thus able to have healthy relationships with both genders, he can be ordained and hence not automatically excluded? Is this policy the general policy practiced in US seminaries? So “deep-seated tendencies” would refer to a difficulty in exercising self-control over his same sex attraction?Those of us who do formation work are required to help sort out between deep seated homosexual tendencies and same-sex attraction. They are not the same thing.
I use this simple method, but it actually works. Our bodies do not know that our souls and minds are Catholic. Our libido may respond to members of either sex. This is an attraction. If it responds to your own sex, it’s a homosexual attraction and it it responds to the opposite sex, it’s heterosexual attraction.
A deep seated homosexual tendency is a little deeper, a lot deeper actually. The person identifies himself or herself in terms of their sexual attraction and organizes his mental constructs around them. Therefore, the person has difficulty establishing healthy relationships with both genders, but it alwasy drawn to be more attentive and intimate with one gender over the other. Even when the person is not actively havin sex, this difficulty establishing meaningful and respectful relationships with both genders makes him or her an unqualified candidate for the priesthood or religious life.
Though the Church has not written a formal declaration on the subject, we follow the same rule for the admission of heterosexuals to holy orders or to religious life. There are some heterosexual people who do lack a healthy affect. The best example that I can offer is the super macho. This is the man who has difficulties relating to women as equal partners in society and in the faith. Such a person may even tend to be homophobic. This person must also be disqualified from religious life or holy orders.
In essence, what we’re looking at when we study a candidate is for a well balanced personality capable of having meaningful relationships with both genders and capable of exercising discipline over his/her sexual responses to triggers. You cannot do away with the sexual triggers. That’s a given. But you must have the internal discipline to respond to them without a struggle. If these triggers create a struggle for the person, then the feelings can safely be deemed to be deep seated. In charity, we do not want to place anyone in a situation of greater struggle than what he already deals with in daily life.
I hope this helps.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
There is such a thing as being effeminate, and it is not necessarily connected with being homosexual, any more than being a manly-seeming woman is. Having a certain voice type, a certain way of moving, a boyish face, or other individual ways of moving your body or reacting to situations is another thing. I meant that there is also such a thing as gay affectations, just as there are intelligentsia affectations, athletic affectations, red-neck affectations, regional affectations, and all sorts of other affectations that, whether consciously or not, are chosen with the goal of fitting rather loudly into some group stereotype.
Personality is determined partly by nature and partly by nurture. Effeminism is a genetic personality trait and is part of one’s temperament. Whether you regard it as repulsive or not, it’s part of the individual’s makeup. There are many heterosexuals who display effeminate traits.
NeedAnswers, I’m sure that Brother JR will respond, but your last sentence (question) is i.m.o. less than what he explained. Deep-seated would refer not specifically to physical self-control, but to a profound single-minded orientation to psychological intimacy with males as a governing preference. That would (does, I’ve seen it in such men) make it difficult to relate justly, equally, openly, with Christian affection to females in a parish. Ironically, this also, chaste or not, is in direct opposition to the intended freedom that embraced celibacy is meant to confer as a grace upon ordained men. Fr. John Corapi (I’m sure you’ve heard him) speaks often about the efficacy of grace being dependent on the disposition of one receiving the available grace. If psychologically one is cut off from half of the human race by virtue of a deep-seated preference for one gender and an apparent inability to overcome that, there’s no use in vowing oneself to God and hoping for the graces of ordination and the spiritual benefits of celibacy to compensate for such internal opposition.
That may well be true but I’ll never have another one as my pastor again.
Before responding to your question, let’s refer to the original document. Someone posted the link. The rule applies to deep seated homosexual tendencies, not to sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is briefly mentioned in the document. Actually the document quotes the CCC. At this time, it is believed that same sex orientation is a disorder I say at this time, because it is not a statement of faith. The Church is speaking based on the scientific knowledge that it has to date. But we must remember that if you put 100 psychologists and psychiatrists in a room, you will have 250 theories about sam sex attractions. The Church tries to avod speaking in clinical terms. When she says “disordered” she’s speaking in moral terms. What she is saying is that such an attraction, if followed, will lead to sin. That’s what makes it disordered. It can only lead to sin, if you succumb to it. Whereas a heterosexual attraction can also lead to sin, if it is followed outside of the marriage bed, but if followed within the marriage bed, it leads to great graces. While there is a disordered end and a virtuous end to heterosexual attractions, from which man must choose, there is no virtuous choice in the same sex attraction. If you choose to act on it, the only result will be serious sin. I hope that helps clear up the use of the term disordered. It’s not a clinical or medical term. It’s a moral one.
We have to be very careful here to be gentle with people, regardless of our emotional reactions. There was a time when white people would not have a black priest in their parish. Some people actually said that the idea of receiving the Eucharist from black hands turned their stomach and they refrained from going to communion.
With all due respect, Elizabeth, it’s not appropriate to make a claim with such broad implications and then effectively ask us to take your word for it. If you have links to online documentation, or you are in possession of documents of some sort – either of which would be fine if you intend to substantiate your claim – then please share them. In any case, what you remember reading and the statements of a few friends of yours amount to hearsay, as they are not authoritative and do not speak to the experience of others.
