Priesthood and homosexuals

[Needanswers]

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.

Now, to answer your question. If the bishop of secular seminarians or the major superior of religious men or women concludes that the person’s attractions are not an impairment to healthy relationships with both genders, are not an impairment to fulfilling one’s role in the Church, are not an impairment to living a celibate life, are not an impairment to living a chaste life in the case of religious, are not an impairment to living in community in the case of religious (diocesan priests do not vow chastity nor live in community), then the bishop or the major religious superior may call a man or woman to holy orders or to religious vows.

The law is not a universal mandate that bishops and major superiors of religious must admit anyone to religious life or holy orders. The Church, even the pope, does not have the authority to decided who the bishop or the religious superior calls to either holy orders or religious vows. Christ speaks only through the local bisohp or in the caes of a religious order, through the major superior. He speaks through no one else, not even the pope. This is an established part of the faith of the Church.

If we read the document very carefully, it mentions that only the bishop or the major superior have the authority to approve an ordination. It does not give this authority to anyone else. What this means on the topic of this thread is that the bishop, in the case of secular men, and the religious superior, in the case of consecrated men, have full discretionary power to decide if someone can live a healthy life as a priest or religious or both.

Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the criteria used to determine whether one has deep seated homosexual tendencies or not is going to vary from one bishop to another or from one religious superior to another. The only criteria that the Church has given for universal application is the ability to have healthy relationships with both genders and the ability to assume the role that comes with holy orders. How does one define healthy relationships or appropriate affective discipline to assume the role of the deacon or priest? The Church has not defined that for us. Each bishop and superior must define that for himself. Unfortunately, no one can help them, because Christ speaks only to them and through them. Even those of us who are involved in formation cannot helpf. The most that we can do is recommend that some be admitted or not. Ours is just a recommendation and we are not allowed to tell why we make that recommendation. We are bound to silence, because as formators we are spiritual directors. Spiritual directors have the same bond to silence as confessors in matters of sin. In other words, I can’t tell my superior that he cannot allow a brother to make vows or to become a priest because he has had gay sex, if that brother revealed it to me in direction. All I can do is to try to persuade the person from going on. Thjis too is in the document.

It’s very complicated.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

So if a person reveals to a formator or spiritual director that they have same sex attraction, they are sworn to silence not to reveal it? So the bishop or the superior does not and cannot know about the same sex attraction? Is this the case in all religious orders?

Thanks

 

[Needanswers]

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.

Celibacy, when one is disposed to receive its effects, enables one – along with charity – to love male & female equally and to see all human beings as worthy of love in themselves, rather than mainly as love-objects relative to the ego.

Thanks. This does clarify a lot. So a deep seated homosexual tendency is not same-sex attraction per se, but the inability to relate in a healthy way to men and women equally. So if a person is able to overcome this same sex attraction to the point that they can relate to men and women equally and in a healthy manner, then they can be ordained even if the same sex attraction remains. The point is that this same sex attraction does not interfere with his abiliity to relate with men and women and hence his responsibilities and duties as a priest.

Thanks

 

[bpbasilphx]

I wonder what “agenda” priests have who act like characters in vulgar TV shows?

All I know is that it’s disgusting…

Most mature adults try to look beyond surface appearances.

 

[Elizabeth502]

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.

My statement was a qualified one. It’s not at all appropriate for you to be suspicious without foundation.

For instance, I knew a few seminarians in college who were drunkards; am I to extrapolate from that experience that the ***majority of seminarians ***are drunkards?

Again proving that you did not read my statements carefully. This is completely non-parallel, as I never said “the majority of seminarians.” Re-read my very moderate posts, rather than asking me to “prove” something repeatedly, things which I never stated even once. The statement was that a percentage of a percentage, within a limited period of time, asserted & celebrated certain desires/tendencies as a matter of identity and inclination, voluntarily – not by court order. It was not a statement about a particular percentage breaking their commitment to chastity, for example.

I have not “extrapolated” information. Again, these were surveys completed. It was also, as I said more than once, a particular time frame. I have not seen research on earlier or later time periods, for example. (Nor did I make assertions about other time frames.)
And this makes sense to me. For a brief period of non-enforcing time, frankly many seminaries were seen as the very refuges that have appealed to the very “deep-seated” among the group, to which JREducation refers & has knowledge of as an insider. It was because not only were there by definition no females there, there were other deep-seated-inclined seminarians who validated by their presence and like-mindedness the identities of those who were seeking extensions of gay peer groups. It was actually an abuse of the seminary by such candidates.

I respectfully suggest that you retract your previous statement if you are not able/willing to substantiate it.

I never “retract” non-errors. Nor should anyone. I respectfully request, not suggest, that you actually read statements carefully before accusing people of wrong statements.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Two books which investigated and evaluated some of the described trends were these:

Goodbye, Good Men
and
The Changing Face of the Priesthood

Notice the publication dates of these two – 2000 and 2002 – validating my previous statements that the trend may have peaked and may have much less relevance today.

There were other surveys in periodicals, etc., contiguous with those publication dates, and which confirmed similar observations contemporary with those. Note that all of my alluded-to trends occurred prior to steps in priestly formation scrutiny overseen by our current Pope.

 

[JReducation]

So if a person reveals to a formator or spiritual director that they have same sex attraction, they are sworn to silence not to reveal it? So the bishop or the superior does not and cannot know about the same sex attraction? Is this the case in all religious orders?

Thanks

Spiritual Directors are bound to silence, even if they are formators. Their role is to persuade and guide the person to find what Christ wants for him. This is universal law. It’s in the document that was posted here earlier.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[bpbasilphx]

Two books which investigated and evaluated some of the described trends were these:

Goodbye, Good Men
and
The Changing Face of the Priesthood

Notice the publication dates of these two – 2000 and 2002 – validating my previous statements that the trend may have peaked and may have much less relevance today.

There were other surveys in periodicals, etc., contiguous with those publication dates, and which confirmed similar observations contemporary with those. Note that all of my alluded-to trends occurred prior to steps in priestly formation scrutiny overseen by our current Pope.

Several reviews of GOODBYE, GOOD MEN were printed in conservative Catholic publications, including National Catholic Register and Our Sunday Visitor.

They all investigated charges raised and incidents related by the author, and found them inaccurate, to put it sweetly.

One review (NCReg, I think) said that they wished the book were true, but they have to admit it was not.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

My statement was a qualified one. It’s not at all appropriate for you to be suspicious without foundation.

My suspicion or lack thereof is not the issue; that you made a “qualified statement” without substantiating it is.

It is not enough to qualify one’s statement when its implications are so sweeping. “I heard” or “I read” or “according to someone I know” does not free one from the responsibility to back up one’s claims.

Again proving that you did not read my statements carefully. This is completely non-parallel, as I never said “the majority of seminarians.” Re-read my very moderate posts, rather than asking me to “prove” something repeatedly, things which I never stated even once. The statement was that a percentage of a percentage, within a limited period of time, asserted & celebrated certain desires/tendencies as a matter of identity and inclination, voluntarily – not by court order. It was not a statement about a particular percentage breaking their commitment to chastity, for example.

No, you didn’t say “the majority of seminarians” – you said “between 60 and 75%” of men in “so many” seminaries were gay. THAT is the claim you must substantiate – and not merely by saying that some friends of yours told you that or that you read it somewhere.

I have not “extrapolated” information. Again, these were surveys completed. It was also, as I said more than once, a particular time frame. I have not seen research on earlier or later time periods, for example. (Nor did I make assertions about other time frames.)
And this makes sense to me. For a brief period of non-enforcing time, frankly many seminaries were seen as the very refuges that have appealed to the very “deep-seated” among the group, to which JREducation refers & has knowledge of as an insider. It was because not only were there by definition no females there, there were other deep-seated-inclined seminarians who validated by their presence and like-mindedness the identities of those who were seeking extensions of gay peer groups. It was actually an abuse of the seminary by such candidates.

I’m not accusing you of extrapolating anything. I’m pointing out that you are making a very serious accusation about the vast majority of seminarians in the 90s, and (apparently) refusing to back your claims up. Your experience, your friend’s experience, and any single seminarian’s experience are irrelevant to the claim that you made – that 60 to 75% of seminarians in the 90s were gay.

If you can back that up with a reputable source, great – if not, it’s irresponsible to make that claim.

I never “retract” non-errors. Nor should anyone. I respectfully request, not suggest, that you actually read statements carefully before accusing people of wrong statements.

Retracting does not mean saying you were wrong; it means withdrawing a statement you should not have made since you can’t support it. I’m not disputing your numbers; I’m objecting to your claiming hearsay as fact.

If you can support your statement (the one about 60-75% of seminarians), then please do so. Otherwise, the only responsible thing to do is to say, “I shouldn’t have made that assertion since I can’t provide proof”.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Monica4316]

I have a question…so if there is a homosexual priest, but without permission from the Bishop; are the Sacraments still valid? (holy orders, Confession, Communion)

 

[Spirithound]

I have a question…so if there is a homosexual priest, but without permission from the Bishop; are the Sacraments still valid? (holy orders, Confession, Communion)

Same as a heterosexual priest.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I have a question…so if there is a homosexual priest, but without permission from the Bishop; are the Sacraments still valid? (holy orders, Confession, Communion)

The spiritual state of the priest does NOT affect the validity of the Sacraments he celebrates.

This applies to a priest who has received valid holy orders though in an illicit manner.

He may, or may not, be celebrating the Sacraments unto his OWN damnation, but these Sacraments are still grace-filled and effective.

 

[Monica4316]

Same as a heterosexual priest.

The spiritual state of the priest does NOT affect the validity of the Sacraments he celebrates.

This applies to a priest who has received valid holy orders though in an illicit manner.

He may, or may not, be celebrating the Sacraments unto his OWN damnation, but these Sacraments are still grace-filled and effective.

thank you!

 

[JReducation]

I have a question…so if there is a homosexual priest, but without permission from the Bishop; are the Sacraments still valid? (holy orders, Confession, Communion)

Did you mean to say that he is homosexual and that the bishop does not know?

If that’s the question, the answer is yes. The sacrament is valid. You do not have to be straight to be ordained. You have to be male and baptized.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Monica4316]

Did you mean to say that he is homosexual and that the bishop does not know?

yes

If that’s the question, the answer is yes. The sacrament is valid. You do not have to be straight to be ordained. You have to be male and baptized.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

thank you!

 

[Elizabeth502]

In response to post 48:

many seminaries had between 60 and 75% gay candidates in them – many of whom were overtly acting out their sexual orientation, “celebrating” it, and advocating for it.

Verified in the two books I referenced, which were the result of research I also alluded to.

Never once did I say that 60-75% of U.S. seminaries were gay.

There were, for example, a number of surveys done inside seminaries in the late '90’s to early '2000’s regarding the proclivities among seminarians, particularly those who had recently joined. We’re talking orientations here. Remember I said that a “number” of them (not 90-100% of the 60-75% figure) were acting out, not that 60-75% of all seminarians were.

The only problem I see (in modifying my earlier statement) was this statement of mine:

But the 60-75% figure was a national U.S. figure

What I meant to say was that the people conducting this research conducted it throughout various regions of the country; it was not confined to some localized area, some “hotbed” of gay behavior, for example. However, I didn’t state that it was a nationally projectible figure (nor did I state that the book authors stated that; they merely stated, as I did, that many seminaries included between 60 and 75% of gay-oriented seminarians within them).

You can stop persecuting me now. You’ve gone way overboard in your inappropriate attempts to humiliate me. Besides the slight under-clarification mentioned above, I’ve not done anything wrong. However, you might want to read those books and then criticize those authors for daring to report observations and facts that they researched, facts which you may not want to hear about. Time to move on.

 

[Hotchkiss]

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.

So, we don’t want to take such a strong position, just because our psychological reaction is negative. We must be gentle with ourselves and remind ourselves that our psychological reactions are neither moral or immoral. They are what they are. They are reactions. Some people react negatively to effeminate males, to blacks, to the handicap, to foreign accents, to a million things.

What is moral or immoral is how far we allow those reactions to take us. If we indulge them to the point where we reject a person becaues “this person’s exterior presentation makes me sick” then we commit a great sin against charity. The CCC is very clear on the importance of treating gay people with love, justice and openness. The same rules apply to any other human being.

If my gut reaction to an effeminate man or a butch like woman is distressing to me, I must gently remind myself that I do not have to follow my gut. Making the choice to ignore my psychological reaction may be a great act of charity on my part and a source of grace for me.

On the other hand, I must also remind myself that I must avoid sin. If I know that I am not yet at that spiritual level where I can impose charity over my emotional reaction, then I must choose what is good. The good would be to avoid the person so as not to sin against him or her.

The object of the spiritual life is to remain at peace so that we may hear the voice of God in the silence of the soul. When we are angry, distressed, rebelling against someone or something, it is very hard to hear God’s loving whisper.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I will NEVER have another pastor who acts in a exaggerated, stereotypically effeminate/ homosexual manner. That is not analogous to racism.

I used to think a lot of priests act in exaggerated, stereotypically effeminate/ homosexual manners because of the atmosphere they live their lives in. Because they are typically very gentle.

After getting a good pastor that comports himself like a man, I no longer believe that.

 

[JReducation]

I have a very simple question. We’re almost in 2010, just a few weeks away. Why are you people pulling out very unreliable numbers from the 1990s about gay seminarians? Does is make any difference in your prayer life, your practice of charity, your life of hope, the union of your soul with the divine in the Eucharist, the forgiveness of your sins or your personal ascent to the mystical life?

Remember, your holiness is not dependent on these numbers or even the moral character or sexual orientation of these men. You need the sacraments that they alone can celebrate, not their moral qualities. Their moral qualities do not alter the Eucharist and the forgiveness of your sins.

If you want to help gay men who want to be priests or religious, pray for them and teach the young about the virtue of chastity. One’s sexual orientation neither saves nor condemns, but ones choices do. Let it go and move on. Take your lead from the saints and become a saint yourself.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I will NEVER have another pastor who acts in a exaggerated, stereotypically effeminate/ homosexual manner. That is not analogous to racism.

I used to think a lot of priests act in exaggerated, stereotypically effeminate/ homosexual manners because of the atmosphere they live their lives in. Because they are typically very gentle.

After getting a good pastor that comports himself like a man, I no longer believe that.

You have discovered that stereotypes do not work. This is true. They do not. As to whether your will ever have a pastor who is effeminate or not, I can’t say. I’m not your bishop. He makes the appointments. However, if such a presence will cause you to sin against charity, if the time comes, you owe it to yourself to move to another parish. No one should place themselves or remain in a place where one will violate charity because they have no control over their reactions. That’s understandable.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hotchkiss]

Several reviews of GOODBYE, GOOD MEN were printed in conservative Catholic publications, including National Catholic Register and Our Sunday Visitor.

They all investigated charges raised and incidents related by the author, and found them inaccurate, to put it sweetly.

One review (NCReg, I think) said that they wished the book were true, but they have to admit it was not.

That book was written by Mike Rose, a book keeper by trade and not a journalist. That book pandered to the challenged. I certainly would not trust it.

 

[Hotchkiss]

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.

Can you prove that?