Priesthood and homosexuals

[Hotchkiss]

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.

For instance, if a person uses an exaggerated accent, it doesn’t matter if they’re using a lisp and saying “darling” and “fabulous” every third word or if they are pretending to be Sherlock Holmes or Mr. Spock or someone from the “Hahvahd” Class of 1930. In the absence of an extreme affection for the person or knowledge that there is an honest reason for them to talk like that, the desire to smack them can become intense, and the desire to get away from them almost certainly will be overwhelming. You really, really have to like a person to let them get away with that.

That kind of self-indulgence is problematic in a priest, forget what flavor of affectation is chosen. It isn’t the sexual orientation that is the problem, but the self-centered eccentricity.

I that makes a great deal of sense. I think I also find it repulsive because some priests are in essence saying “none of you like me acting in this manner but there’s not a darned thing you can do about it.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

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?

This response was very unnecessary. There was a discussion started back on page one. I responded to a particular statement in (I think it was) post #7 regarding someone who had made a “just my theory” statement. It was a particular response to a particular statement. That’s all it was. Not a statement about my, your, or anyone else’s prayer life, for heaven’s sake.

Too bad that it bothers you. I get to contribute just like you. So do others.

 

[JReducation]

The thread is not a social science thread. The OP was a simple pastoral question. Why are all over the place with data, books and personal likes and dislikes?

Does any of this answer the pastoral question that was asked at the onset of the thread?

The authority to deal with those statistics and determine their reliability and their usefulness is not in the hands of the faithful, but in the hands of bishops (in the case of seminarians) and in the hands of religious superiors (in the case of consecrated men).

Even those of us who are religious in solemn vows, those who are ordained and those who hold positions in the hierarchy are forbidden from interfering in this matter. In a diocese the bishop is the only one who can make this judgment call. In a religious order of men, the only one who can make this judgment call is the major superior. Formators, seminary rectors, novice masters, confessors, spiritual directors, priests and religious are not allowed to speak on this matter. All we do is guide and direct the individual whose formation is in our care. We have no authoritative voice in deciding who is ordained or professed to vows. We only have a consultative voice and we are not allowed to bring up what has been revealed to us in the internal forum when asked for our opinion. We can only speak about what is openly known, such as a case of someone who has committed a sin against chastity and has been caught. That is open; therefore it is in the external forum.

I don’t know about dioceses, because I’m a religious. But in religious orders, the voice of the laity is not allowed. Religious orders are autonomous in making these decisions. What I’m trying to say is that in religious orders, Christ speaks ONLY through the major superior. He calls men to make vows and to the sacrament of Holy Orders. He is not allowed to consult or take into account the laity. He may consult his confreres. But as I already said, the rule is that the confreres whom he may consult at the formation team. The formation team may not reveal what they know in the internal forum. It’s a very delicate situation with many rules.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[DanteAlighieri]

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

.

But you have not told us what the sources were, where we can find them, or who wrote them – let alone provided links to them. What you did is *not *the same as substantiating your claim.

If I read on Wikipedia that the sun is green and then report that information to you, you might ask, “Where did you hear that?” To which I could reply, “I read it on Wikipedia!”

**That **is substantiating a claim in its most minimal form.

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

Nor did I accuse you of that.

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

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 U]many seminaries included between 60 and 75% of gay-oriented seminarians within them)].

But you have not supported this claim (the one I bolded above). When one makes an assertion, one has a responsibility to support it with evidence and share that evidence. Otherwise, out of charity, one should refrain from making such claims.

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.

First of all, I’m sorry if I’ve given you the impression that I’m persecuting you; that has not been my intention. I have been trying to point out that you have still not shared any of the sources that you claim back up your assertion (i.e., that many seminaries had 60-75% gay membership). This has nothing to do with whether I want to hear these “facts”, if they are so.

I am **NOT **disputing your information; I merely want to know where you got it and thus whether it is reputable. You have not told me what “those books” are to which you are referring – how can I read them?

Again, this is not about whether I agree with your information – you made a stark claim, and I asked you for a source. You didn’t provide one, so I suggested that you retract your claim.

Once again, I’m sorry if I seemed to be picking on you; I didn’t intend that. I only meant to discuss the credibility of an unsubstantiated statement.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Needanswers]

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

Are all formators are spiritual directors? Are all formators bound to silence?

Thanks

 

[Elizabeth502]

.You have not told me what “those books” are to which you are referring – how can I read them?

Please refer to my post #45 on this thread.

Once again, I’m sorry if I seemed to be picking on you; I didn’t intend that. I only meant to discuss the credibility of an unsubstantiated statement.

Apology accepted.

 

[Spirithound]

Are all formators are spiritual directors? Are all formators bound to silence?

Thanks

A seminarian has one spiritual director. It is necessary for certain faculty members of the seminary to make a report to the man’s bishop.

 

[Spirithound]

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?

This response was very unnecessary. There was a discussion started back on page one. I responded to a particular statement in (I think it was) post #7 regarding someone who had made a “just my theory” statement. It was a particular response to a particular statement. That’s all it was. Not a statement about my, your, or anyone else’s prayer life, for heaven’s sake.

Too bad that it bothers you. I get to contribute just like you. So do others.

The point is these stats are 20 years old. Stats are considered unreflective of the current situation after only 10 years.

 

[JReducation]

Are all formators are spiritual directors? Are all formators bound to silence?

Thanks

You only have one spiritual director. Everyone on the formation team is able to serve as a spiritual director, yes. But the seminarian (for seculars) or the junior (for religious) selects one of them as his spiritual director. I think that’s what you’re asking.

As to reporting to the bishop. Every diocese has its own procedure. Generally it is pretty standard. The team dicusses the candidate and the report is sent by the rector to the bishop.

In religious houses the team discusses the candidate and sends the report to the major superior. Among religious the bishop has no role in the decision to ordain or not. He must ordain whomever the major superior calls forth for Holy Orders. This sounds more harsh than what it is. The fact is that religious are not incardinated into a diocese. Therefore, we are not under the jurisdiction of any bishop. Our major superior is the Ordinary, even if he’s not a priest. The law of the Church is that the Ordinary calls you to Holy Orders. As I said before, Christ calls through either the bishop or the major superior, no one else.

As to matters of forum, the spiritual director of the individual is the person who is bound to silence, as is his confessor.

Does this clarify the point?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[CDNowak]

You only have one spiritual director. Everyone on the formation team is able to serve as a spiritual director, yes. But the seminarian (for seculars) or the junior (for religious) selects one of them as his spiritual director. I think that’s what you’re asking.

As to reporting to the bishop. Every diocese has its own procedure. Generally it is pretty standard. The team dicusses the candidate and the report is sent by the rector to the bishop.

In religious houses the team discusses the candidate and sends the report to the major superior. Among religious the bishop has no role in the decision to ordain or not. He must ordain whomever the major superior calls forth for Holy Orders. This sounds more harsh than what it is. The fact is that religious are not incardinated into a diocese. Therefore, we are not under the jurisdiction of any bishop. Our major superior is the Ordinary, even if he’s not a priest. The law of the Church is that the Ordinary calls you to Holy Orders. As I said before, Christ calls through either the bishop or the major superior, no one else.

As to matters of forum, the spiritual director of the individual is the person who is bound to silence, as is his confessor.

Does this clarify the point?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

In my experience (at the monastery and at the seminary, as well as conversations with members of different orders) is that generally it is desired that the Spiritual director and the confessor not be direct superiors, including the members of the formation team.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

In my experience (at the monastery and at the seminary, as well as conversations with members of different orders) is that generally it is desired that the Spiritual director and the confessor not be direct superiors, including the members of the formation team.

I understand what you’re saying, but in practice most spiritual directors are also part of the formation team. Many seminaries have both formation team members and off site spiritual directors available.
The running joke when I was in seminary was that you should pick the formation member most likely to vote against you as your spiritual director so that he can’t vote.

 

[Middleman]

Years ago, a lot of Homosexual men flocked to the priesthood, to use it for a cloak,The Church was full of them, now that it`s ok to be out, the Church is getting no vocations. I have seen many effeminate priests, in my time. I am not condemning them, I am sure some of them were living chastely, while others were not. While they were homosexual, I am sure each of them did a lot of good works. I am not condemning them for something that is not their fault. Just my theory

I agree with your theory. I do think that the majority entered the priesthood with the highest intentions.

 

[CDNowak]

I understand what you’re saying, but in practice most spiritual directors are also part of the formation team. Many seminaries have both formation team members and off site spiritual directors available.
The running joke when I was in seminary was that you should pick the formation member most likely to vote against you as your spiritual director so that he can’t vote.

Just giving my experience, I was fortunate enough to be in houses that had the ability to keep them separate, (ok, the monastery wouldn’t have had enough priests left to vote if we took inside spiritual directors and confessors…). Actually, come to think of it, there was a priest on the seminary formation committee who was a psychologist and would recuse himself if anyone chose to talk to him.

As an aside, I wonder if the situation with the Legionaries of Christ won’t lead to a stricter divide between inner and outer forum in the seminary process?

 

[JReducation]

I don’t know how they do this in diocesan seminaries. In religious houses the superior may never be anyone’s spiritual director or confessor. Other than that, the formation team serves as spiritual directors or confessors at the candidate’s choice, meaning that you choose. There are also rules that are followed by the individual communities. In our community, the constitutions say that those in formation must use one of the friars as spiritual director. They cannot go outside of the order for that ministry. The logic is that you should have someone who knows the spirit, rule, and life of the order.

In practice, I have found this to be very helpful. I have served as spiritual director to young religious from other communities and I don’t have the insight into their rule, constitution and their community. I have to take what they share with me at face value. It makes it more challenging for me. Just as an example, I’m not a Vincentian. Even though I am familiar with Vincent’s spirituality, I’m not familiar with the Vincential constitution, their expectations of their men in formation or their life. I can only speak to a Vincentian novice or junior from the perspective of St. Vincent, but not the perspective of the Congregation of the Mission. They’re not always the same. I also do some work with diocesan seminarians, but that’s much easier. They are not bound to any particular rule of life or spirituality.

Onto another question. As far as the visitation of the Legion of Christ or the religious sisters, the visitators are not going to ask questions about individuals. They are asking questions about life, policies and practices in the community.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Please refer to my post #45 on this thread.

Apology accepted.

Thanks - I’m sorry I overlooked that post. Are these books the ones that allege that many seminaries had 60-75% gay membership?

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Please refer to my post #45 on this thread.

Apology accepted.

I’m running into some negative response about one of your sources, Goodbye, Good Men. According to this 2002 review by Father Robert Johansen, the book points out a few important points but suffers from a credibility problem. The gist of it:

But while Rose may be correct in certain respects, and while his claims have foundation, neither are they entirely accurate, and his methods are at least questionable. The first and most basic problem is his technique: He piles on horror story after horror story, relying on the weight of the indignation aroused in the reader to carry his point.

(snip)

One difficulty in dealing with the allegations of ex-seminarians is that of checking facts. Often when a man leaves or is dismissed from the seminary with good cause, the seminary officials are bound either canonically or by the common duty of charity to remain silent about the reasons for his departure. That leaves the author with only the ex-seminarian’s version of the story. From the standpoint of journalistic accuracy, this is a highly problematic situation. Just as in any other area of reporting, one simply cannot rely on one person’s version of an event.

(snip)

Rose does not take adequate account of these precautions, and can be shown not to have checked his facts in some instances, and thus he has a very serious credibility problem. I know some of the individuals mentioned in the book. Most are known to me as men of integrity and truthfulness, and their stories are presented accurately. But there is also evidence of inaccuracy and perhaps even selective attention to the facts****. I also know individuals that Rose interviewed for this book, again reliable men of integrity, whose version of events would have called into question certain accounts found in the book. Rose omitted their version from his book: one can only conclude that Rose selectively presented only the evidence that tended towards his conclusion. Furthermore, he relies upon testimony which is known to be unreliable or even untruthful.

(snip)

Goodbye, Good Men is in many ways an unfortunate book. It is unfortunate because the story of the problems in American seminaries needed to be told,** but it needed to be told with scrupulous concern for accuracy and truth**. It needed to be told in such a way as to elicit more than righteous indignation from the faithful. It also needed to be told with more nuance and penetration.

Peace,
Dante

 

[bpbasilphx]

\I’m running into some negative response about one of your sources, Goodbye, Good Men. According to this 2002 review by Father Robert Johansen, the book points out a few important points but suffers from a credibility problem. The gist of it:\

This is not the only such review in conservative Catholic periodicals I have read.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I that makes a great deal of sense. I think I also find it repulsive because some priests are in essence saying “none of you like me acting in this manner but there’s not a darned thing you can do about it.”

All you are saying simply boils down to, “I don’t like some behavior.” This is one thing.

But your corollary seems to be, “And they are doing it just to irritate me.” Non sequitur.

Guess what, Hotchkiss? It’s not always about you.

 

[Elizabeth502]

This is not the only such review in conservative Catholic periodicals I have read.

Yes. As bpbasilphx notes, it’s important to read more widely. The key point is not “proving” a particular number, but substantiating that it was a temporary trend, not merely localized, and — most importantly – that it had a significant, while temporary – negative effect on morale & concern from those entering & considering entering seminary. This is why the newer, more recent examination of orientation of candidates is an important change. It doesn’t “purge” any more than other examinations of candidates in different professions result in “purges.” They result in considered decisions, based on experience, as to the appropriate two-way fit.

The seminary certainly (more than the somewhat more independent priesthood) is a corps experience. Thus, the dynamics within the organization are integral to the candidate’s perception & commitment (and thus also morale). Beyond that, the active priesthood, as JR noted, is a state in life which depends partly for its efficacy on the ability of the priest to relate to the widest possible population base.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Yes. As bpbasilphx notes, it’s important to read more widely. The key point is not “proving” a particular number, but substantiating that it was a temporary trend, not merely localized, and — most importantly – that it had a significant, while temporary – negative effect on morale & concern from those entering & considering entering seminary. This is why the newer, more recent examination of orientation of candidates is an important change. It doesn’t “purge” any more than other examinations of candidates in different professions result in “purges.” They result in considered decisions, based on experience, as to the appropriate two-way fit.

The seminary certainly (more than the somewhat more independent priesthood) is a corps experience. Thus, the dynamics within the organization are integral to the candidate’s perception & commitment (and thus also morale). Beyond that, the active priesthood, as JR noted, is a state in life which depends partly for its efficacy on the ability of the priest to relate to the widest possible population base.

You don’t find it problematic that Rose relies on testimony that is known to be untruthful, according to the reviewer? If he does, then how can he substantiate a “temporary trend”, when his information and data are of questionable value?

Peace,
Dante