Priesthood and homosexuals

[NoWhereMan]

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

Who knows for what real reasons a man enters the priesthood, hopefully it`s for the right reasons

 

[Needanswers]

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

Interesting. So the junior has to chose among the formattors who will be his spiritual director. So if a junior is having some kind of struggle, not just homosexual tendencies, but any other kind of struggle, who is that information revealed to? To the whole formation team or to his spiritual director?

Thanks

 

[Other_Eric]

Can a celibate man faithful to the teachings of the church but with same sex attraction become a priest?

Thanks

If a man is faithful to the teachings of the Church and has a true calling to celibacy, then he necessarily does not possess same-sex attractions.

 

[CradleCath]

I’m joining this thread late, but I’ve read each message at least once. What is shocking to me is:

No one has mentioned Pope John XXIII’s teaching about ordaining homosexuals:
1961: According to a Vatican document approved by Pope John XXIII on 1961-JAN-23 "Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers."

Permitting homosexuals to enter the Seminary where they will live in close proximity to men only, is tantamount to letting a heterosexual man live for years in a Convent filled with nuns.

You might also notice Pope John’s reference to Pederasty. This past sexual abuse crisis was not one of “pedophilia” as many of the members of the media have named it. It was one of Pederasty, one of homosexual priests preying upon young boys. The Boy Scouts dealt with it with courage & hopefully, we will do the same.

I pray that our hierarchy are faithful to Rome, this time. They weren’t in 1961 when the Pope forbid ordination of gays. I’m ashamed to admit it now, but I thought…in the
60’s…that ordination was a good answer for gay Catholic men, but I’m no longer so naive. I have 2 thirteen year old grandsons in Catholic school right now. I pray that the hierarchy in this country are obedient this time around.

Several of you have been taking Pope Benedict’s document apart & substituting what he really said with what you would have preferred him to say. His wishes can be simply understood, by those who WANT to understand them. He wants a priesthood of psychosexually healthy heterosexual men, who can relate to both genders in a normal way & who are good role models for our young boys.

Elizabeth502 gave some percentages. I don’t know if they are correct or not. What I do know is that our priesthood is disproportionately gay. I’ve heard figures that range from 30%- 75%. Niether of these figures are good. The gay population in this country is said to be 3% & 30% gay to straight men in our priesthood??? Something is very wrong about this.

I realize that most men & women who are affected with SSA., would not hurt a child. I also feel compassion for people with this disorder, especially Catholicfs. In order for them to be true to their faith they must live a celibate life. That’s got to be hard & sometimes very lonely. Still, no one has a “right” to become a priest. I’m a woman & I wouldn’t be eligile to become a priest, nor do I believe that people suffering from chronic depression, anxiety disorders, men affected with Bipolar tendencies, etc, should become priests. However, I also believe that all of us can play our part within the Church. We all have our talents…whether they be in the field of music, fundraising, organizing. We can be on the perpetual adoration list, or simply pray for our parish & our fellow parishioners.

 

[Needanswers]

I’m joining this thread late, but I’ve read each message at least once. What is shocking to me is:

No one has mentioned Pope John XXIII’s teaching about ordaining homosexuals:
1961: According to a Vatican document approved by Pope John XXIII on 1961-JAN-23 "Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers."

Permitting homosexuals to enter the Seminary where they will live in close proximity to men only, is tantamount to letting a heterosexual man live for years in a Convent filled with nuns.

You might also notice Pope John’s reference to Pederasty. This past sexual abuse crisis was not one of “pedophilia” as many of the members of the media have named it. It was one of Pederasty, one of homosexual priests preying upon young boys. The Boy Scouts dealt with it with courage & hopefully, we will do the same.

I pray that our hierarchy are faithful to Rome, this time. They weren’t in 1961 when the Pope forbid ordination of gays. I’m ashamed to admit it now, but I thought…in the
60’s…that ordination was a good answer for gay Catholic men, but I’m no longer so naive. I have 2 thirteen year old grandsons in Catholic school right now. I pray that the hierarchy in this country are obedient this time around.

Several of you have been taking Pope Benedict’s document apart & substituting what he really said with what you would have preferred him to say. His wishes can be simply understood, by those who WANT to understand them. He wants a priesthood of psychosexually healthy heterosexual men, who can relate to both genders in a normal way & who are good role models for our young boys.

Elizabeth502 gave some percentages. I don’t know if they are correct or not. What I do know is that our priesthood is disproportionately gay. I’ve heard figures that range from 30%- 75%. Niether of these figures are good. The gay population in this country is said to be 3% & 30% gay to straight men in our priesthood??? Something is very wrong about this.

I realize that most men & women who are affected with SSA., would not hurt a child. I also feel compassion for people with this disorder, especially Catholicfs. In order for them to be true to their faith they must live a celibate life. That’s got to be hard & sometimes very lonely. Still, no one has a “right” to become a priest. I’m a woman & I wouldn’t be eligile to become a priest, nor do I believe that people suffering from chronic depression, anxiety disorders, men affected with Bipolar tendencies, etc, should become priests. However, I also believe that all of us can play our part within the Church. We all have our talents…whether they be in the field of music, fundraising, organizing. We can be on the perpetual adoration list, or simply pray for our parish & our fellow parishioners.

So it’s possible for a heterosexual priest to overcome sexual temptation but it is impossible for a person with SSA to overcome sexual temptation by the grace of God? Are you saying that it is impossible for a person with SSA to ever relate to both genders in a normal way?

Thanks

 

[Elizabeth502]

So it’s possible for a heterosexual priest to overcome sexual temptation but it is impossible for a person with SSA to overcome sexual temptation by the grace of God? Are you saying that it is impossible for a person with SSA to ever relate to both genders in a normal way?

Well I don’t know if CradleCath is saying that, but that’s not how I read JR’s description of the examination process for those asking to be accepted into seminary. (And what distinguishes some of those with SSA to be accepted, and others with SSA to be rejected. It refers to the “deep-seatedness” of some so inclined, which translates to something holistic, comprehensive, & intransigeant about those tendencies. It’s an exclusive and fundamental attraction which affects one’s psyche enough that it interferes with the genuine impartiality required of someone in the active priesthood.) One can hardly make a blanket statement that all those affected with SSA are like that; clearly they’re not. For some, it’s an essential part of how they relate generally; for others, they remain spiritual lovers of men and women, both.

One of the concerns of those who have investigated the time period involved, was how it was especially the deep-seated ones who were being so attracted to the priesthood, and that they were using the priesthood to express mutual validation, which is not the purpose of the priesthood, and as I say, it is instead an abuse. That was true even when/if those seeking it as a refuge were not acting out (or had not yet), but were merely wanting to “identify” with like-minded men.

Heterosexual priests do not enter seminary “in order to” identify with other heterosexual men. That’s absurd. (And what’s the point?) Anyone entering seminary or religious life for the purpose of having a sexual identity catharsis and/or dwelling on sexual identity is in the wrong place. Because listen carefully: the Catholic seminary (as opposed to those men coming in as ordained from other traditions and with wives) is, like female religious life, asexual.

(And I’m not sarcastically addressing NeedAnswers; I’m referring to many members of the public, include some Catholics, who think that it’s perfectly fine if the deep-seated variety get ordained. Well, it’s not fine, because it’s opposed to the very requirements of priesthood – better articulated by JR.)

 

[JReducation]

The team that wrote the document that Pope Benedict signed, deliberately used the term “deep seated”. I recall the reason for this, because I helped translate parts of that for my own order. The reason that deep seated was added is because in John XXIII’s statement there was not sufficient mental health and devleopmental knowlede about thte homosexual condition. John XXIII worked with what we had at the time.

As time passes, we have a little more information that is reliable. We have to sort betweent he three hundred opinions held by one hundred mental health professionsals to find the few reliable parts… That’s a given. Trust me, I was a psychologist befor I became a Franciscan theologian. Get a bunch of scholars in a room and end up with spare parts or should I say more opinions than scholars. Now you know where your sox go when they disappear from your dryer. They carry your thoughts to some scholar’s office. So now he has three sox to present at the next conference on SSA.

Getting back to serious. The term was added because we understand the difference between deep seated tendencies and sexual attractions. Generally, healhty poeople feel sexual attaction. There are few people who do not and classify as healthy. Most of us feel sexual attractions: whether you’re celibate, married or single.

Now, let me use the married state. I can do this very well, because I was married for 12 years. Just because you’re married does not mean that you never find another man or woman attractive. That’s normal. Just get a bunch of women in one room and men in another room., given them several decent pictures of men and women. You will come back to hear them speaking about the merits of this one over the other one. These people are all happily married and in love with their spouses. But they hae sexual attractions beyond their spouses. The healhty part is that they realize several things: 1) those attractions are not love; 2) to pursue them can bring great paint to you and those whom you love; and 3) you are very aware of the moral gravity involved in pursuing those attractions. You can’t hide the moral seriouslness. It’s in your face.

The same thing happens with healthy men who have SSA (gay men). Just as I described above, a healthy gay man can have SSA. But, like their healhty heterosexual counterparts, they can engage in healthy relationships with community and parishioners as well as other people, regardless of gender Those three flags are very much a part of how they think: 1) sex is not love; 2) inapporpriate sex can cause great pain and destruction to you and loved ones; and 3) you can’t deny your conscience that this is morally wrong.

In the case of the deep seated attraction, the same can be true for heterosexuals who are over gifted with testosterone. That’s for another thread.

But let’s break it down for gay men. Deep seated attraction: 1) confuses sex with love; 2) may look for exclusive sexual or non-sexual relationships with members of his own sex as a way to find love; 3) sees nothing morally wrong with this picture.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Elizabeth502]

^ Perfect last paragraph. Sums it up exactly and happens also to be how I have experienced this difference among seeking candidates.

 

[Elizabeth502]

And let me just add that for those of us who know our church history and have some first-hand knowledge of the way things “used to be,” this formation direction is not all that “new” in the following sense: candidates were always examined, previously, for acceptability and fit. Possibly different standards were used at different times, but one thing has remained consistent: Anyone with “a [fundamental] impediment” is not a fit candidate for any form of religious life. (Not that different from marriage, btw.)

Women religious candidates who, as hopeful postulants, were too attached to the opposite sex, too attached to material items, too attached to independence disqualified themselves from the vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience. The point is, religious life requires divestiture from attachments, period. If you’re not ready for detachment, and to instead embrace the path of attachment to Christ, you’re not a fit candidate. Whether that means a political agenda or a personal psychological agenda, a sexual agenda, whatever.

 

[NoWhereMan]

I was in a religious order yrs ago, & I saw many effeminate Priests & Brothers, Even The Superior General was effeminate. I was very surprised at all this, but they were good people, trying to love God. Who knows what its all about& yes like someone said in their post, they can act any way they want & we cant do a thing about it. Don`t think all homosexuals are effeminate though, they are the minority, there are more extremely masculine men who are homosexual, than effeminate ones

 

[agapewolf]

Well

Heterosexual priests do not enter seminary “in order to” identify with other heterosexual men. That’s absurd. (And what’s the point?) Anyone entering seminary or religious life for the purpose of having a sexual identity catharsis and/or dwelling on sexual identity is in the wrong place. Because listen carefully: the Catholic seminary (as opposed to those men coming in as ordained from other traditions and with wives) is, like female religious life, asexual.
.)

This is absolutely untrue. It is NOT asexual. Priests are spiritual FATHERS. In order to be capable of spiritual fatherhood, one must be able to be a physical father.

PLEASE study theology of the body. It is extremely important that priests are men…fathers…they bring the fatherhood of God the Father to us, and re-father us.
They must “woo” their bride too.

 

[Needanswers]

I would like to thank JReducation and Elizabeth for their explanations. I think they have pretty much clarified the difference between mere same sex attraction and a deep seated tendency. From what I understand, a deep seated tendency is the inability to relate to men and women equally and, particularly in the case of men, in a non-sexual way. I think that just as a celibate man is able to possess a healthy sexual attraction to women and yet deal with women in a non-sexual way, a man with SSA can also possess a sexual attraction to men and yet be able to relate to men in a healthy and non-sexual way. Not every heterosexual man has overpowering sexual urges and the same can be said about men who suffer with SSA.

Thanks

 

[bpbasilphx]

\This is absolutely untrue. It is NOT asexual. Priests are spiritual FATHERS. In order to be capable of spiritual fatherhood, one must be able to be a physical father.\

**Male homosexuals have done this all the time. Didn’t you know this?

You seem to be saying that male infertility would be a bar to ordination. It’s not.

To drag strangers into the conversation, Someone greater than anyone who posts to these blogs said, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the spirit is spirit.”

There is no connection between physical and spiritual paternity.

Finally, the First Person of the Trinity is our spiritual Father, but in the general order of things does NOT reproduce physically by sexual means, contrary to what the Mormonoids teach.

Would you like to try again?**

 

[DanteAlighieri]

\This is absolutely untrue. It is NOT asexual. Priests are spiritual FATHERS. In order to be capable of spiritual fatherhood, one must be able to be a physical father.\

**Male homosexuals have done this all the time. Didn’t you know this?

You seem to be saying that male infertility would be a bar to ordination**. It’s not.

To drag strangers into the conversation, Someone greater than anyone who posts to these blogs said, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the spirit is spirit.”

There is no connection between physical and spiritual paternity.

Finally, the First Person of the Trinity is our spiritual Father, but in the general order of things does NOT reproduce physically by sexual means, contrary to what the Mormonoids teach.

Would you like to try again?

With all due respect, these are patently absurd statements.

Agapewolf is absolutely right – it is vital that priests be men because of the “fatherhood” role that they fill. You are correct that Christ is our spiritual father, but the priest acts in His place – in persona Christi – in his pastoral role and in conferring the sacraments.

And, just as in marriage, infertility is not an impediment – but that doesn’t matter, because
this has nothing to do with his ability to reproduce; it has everything to do with his ability to be a father.

Furthermore, it is at best misguided and at worst heretical to separate the physical from the spiritual. To interpret the Scripture you quoted as making that distinction is incorrect.

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

And let me just add that for those of us who know our church history and have some first-hand knowledge of the way things “used to be,” this formation direction is not all that “new” in the following sense: candidates were always examined, previously, for acceptability and fit. Possibly different standards were used at different times, but one thing has remained consistent: Anyone with “a [fundamental] impediment” is not a fit candidate for any form of religious life. (Not that different from marriage, btw.)

Women religious candidates who, as hopeful postulants, were too attached to the opposite sex, too attached to material items, too attached to independence disqualified themselves from the vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience. The point is, religious life requires divestiture from attachments, period. If you’re not ready for detachment, and to instead embrace the path of attachment to Christ, you’re not a fit candidate. Whether that means a political agenda or a personal psychological agenda, a sexual agenda, whatever.

Kudos - good points.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Elizabeth502]

Responding to Post 92:

Absolutely. And what I should have said more clearly with my use of the word asexual is not to imply that one loses one’s sexuality when entering seminary, for that would render the “sacrifice” indicated by celibacy quite non-sacrificial. Rather, what I meant by the use of that term is to emphasize that a different personal plane is being entered – which means acknowledgment (of sexuality) but suspension of the indulgence. One needs to be aware of sexuality to elevate the consecration of self to the level of gift and surrender. But the personal relatedness is without the physical sexual component, nor should there be an interest to redefine the priesthood in sexual (gay, etc.) terms.

Really, some of the best conversations I’ve had with seminarians and priests have been with those free enough to be non-sexually affectionate & warm with females. Lots of straight priests, for example, continue to be healthfully attracted to the opposite sex, and when they are handling it appropriately, it’s a legitimate release of their sexuality without compromise to their celibacy/chastity. Probably the same can be said for priests who harbor an SSA tendency. The main thing is, know yourself, but understand that all forms of religious life have integrity on their own. You are conforming to their norms; they are not conforming to yours.

 

[JReducation]

In my experience of many years working with, studying with, and living with healthy brothers who have either SSA or OSA is that they bring a very special blessing to ministry. The quys with SSA are able to satisfy their sexuality pretty much the same way as everyone ese: sports, friendship. community life. prayer and sacrament. They also a hve a very unique gift, they actually attract manny men, espeically young men back to the Church. I believe it’s because they tend to relate very “affectively” with mombers of their gender, when heterosexual, because of their attraction to women can affectively engage more women and bring tem into the fod. I have no idea why.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[odopa]

wow!! my head is spinning after reading all that! a lot of information yet to me it points back to the basic truth. Self Discipline in order to live a holy life. simple.

 

[CradleCath]

So it’s possible for a heterosexual priest to overcome sexual temptation but it is impossible for a person with SSA to overcome sexual temptation by the grace of God? Are you saying that it is impossible for a person with SSA to ever relate to both genders in a normal way?

Thanks

I have no idea how you got the idea that I said the above. I said what I said:

John XXIII said that homosexuals cannot be ordained. That has been the constant teaching of the Church for 2,000 yrs.

Gay men living together in a Seminary presents a temptation to those with SSA.

Pederasty is the dark side of homosexuality & our recent sexual abuse scandal is one of Pederasty.

Members of our hierarchy have been disobedient to Church teaching in this area.
As a result, they brought terrible pain to many of our young boys, their families & the Church in general.

I believe that many Catholics are reading into Pope Benedict’s word’s “deep seated tendencies” things which he didn’t mean. I have “deep-seated” heterosexual tendencies, Therefore, I am heterosexual. Yes, it can be that simple.

Our priesthood is disproportionately gay.

I feel compassion for those with SSA. Their lives, in order to stay faithful to the teachings of Scripture & the Church, must be hard.

No one has a “right” to become a priest.

There is a place in the Catholic Church for EVERYONE. We do not have to be priests to serve God.

**This is a basic outline of my previous post. Please notice that I said NOTHING about celibacy…whether it be heterosexual celibacy or homosexual celibacy. Nor did I mention the ability of the gay man to relate to both women & men in a natural way. It’s been my experience that most do not, but I don’t believe that was addressed in the post you are referring to. **

 

[Elizabeth502]

Another great post, #97. (The attractions work mutually. Only, it’s not difficult for me to understand “why,” as JR says. Attraction has pragmatic value in the biological world – beyond the sexual act.)