Rochester bishop: Vatican isn’t against homosexuals entering priesthood

[StPeterFan]

All these Bishops and the USCCB supporting pro gay and pro abortion groups through the CCHD just tears my heart - what are they doing with the money I offer during mass ? Am I guilty of funding the murder of babies ?

I sometimes wonder if I should start going to a SSPX church - I know they are guilty of the sin of disobedience, but atleast it isnt as sinful as having to put up to the statements of Bishops who preach contrary to the Church. Or am I wrong ?

Or probably I should relocate to Rome and exclusively attend the Holy Father’s mass. I know all masses are equally valid - but I fear being part of a sacrilege and offending my Lord.

Jesus, these Bishops confuse me so much. Lord help me.

 

[Suudy]

It’s more complicated than that. And I don’t see why a SSA priest has any more natural trouble remaining chaste than a straight one. When a person is just as upset at a priest breaking his vows by sleeping with a woman as they would be if it was a man, then I think they are being consistent.

I think the issue is that acts of homosexuality are considered greater sins than acts of fornication. And this isn’t totally groundless. Aquinas considered sins against nature more damaging than sins against people. From *Summa Theologicae II-II, q154 *(source):
I answer that, In every genus, worst of all is the corruption of the principle on which the rest depend. Now the principles of reason are those things that are according to nature, because reason presupposes things as determined by nature, before disposing of other things according as it is fitting. This may be observed both in speculative and in practical matters. Wherefore just as in speculative matters the most grievous and shameful error is that which is about things the knowledge of which is naturally bestowed on man, so in matters of action it is most grave and shameful to act against things as determined by nature. Therefore, since by the unnatural vices man transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter this sin is gravest of all. After it comes incest, which, as stated above (Article 9), is contrary to the natural respect which we owe persons related to us.
With regard to the other species of lust they imply a transgression merely of that which is determined by right reason, on the presupposition, however, of natural principles. Now it is more against reason to make use of the venereal act not only with prejudice to the future offspring, but also so as to injure another person besides. Wherefore simple fornication, which is committed without injustice to another person, is the least grave among the species of lust. Then, it is a greater injustice to have intercourse with a woman who is subject to another’s authority as regards the act of generation, than as regards merely her guardianship. Wherefore adultery is more grievous than seduction. And both of these are aggravated by the use of violence. Hence rape of a virgin is graver than seduction, and rape of a wife than adultery. And all these are aggravated by coming under the head of sacrilege, as stated above (10, ad 2).
So perhaps the greater aversion to priests with homosexual backgrounds, or those that violate their vows of celibacy in homosexual acts, are grounded in the view that those sins are greater than sins of fornication.

 

[jdnation]

It is a sad reality that there indeed could be celibate and moral men who do not give in to their same sex attraction disorder and humbly follow Catholic teachings.

Some of them may desire to be priests. But the sad reality is that there are also devious individuals who wish to infiltrate the Church and seek to undermine and cause division and change moral teachings to justify their own sinful ideals. Don’t believe for a second that ther aren’t a grea number of people who wish to take advantage of the Church’s desire to be gentle and humble.

It is risky to appoint such men to the priesthood, just as there are other risks involved in appointing other heterosexual men to the priesthood due to some concern or the other.

Those with SSA who follow Church teachings are also humble to know when an option is closed to them. They can serve the Church in other ways that are probably more beneficial such as speaking to other homosexuals to encourage them to turn away form sin and follow their example.

As unfair as it may seem, it is prudent to deter those suffering from SSA into the priesthood just as we wouldn’t allow someone who is struggling with alcoholism or womanizing or something else that can be a stumbling block or lead to scandal. The idea is to reduce such things from happening.

Those who are wise will see this. It is not uncommon that those who are discerning the priesthood may be reluctant to enter because they are afraid that some failing of theirs may damage and scandalize the Church if they are weak. Any man with SSA who truly tring to follow the Lord and may be considering the priesthood will no doubt also realize this, and so understands the implications and risks of the Church appointing men such as himself.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I agree, his comment needs to be cleared up. The Church needs to use the term celibate or chaste SSA. Not the words “gay” or “homosexual” when speaking about SSA priests.

There are Catholic priests who I preceive as being same sex attracted.

And my perceptions may be wrong, I’m primarily cueing into their feminized speech habits, their displayed range of emotions and their body language.

However, those that I think are SSA, are also great priests. They are faithful, chaste and well balanced in their behaviors with men and they are caring toward women.

I agree with this. I have the same perception. Priests who have managed to live chaste lives --especially with a struggle over SSA, when in an all-male environment – have shown the rest of us how discipline in the natural order can promote discipline in the spiritual order. Some of these men are so compassionate and sensitive (and yes, especially attuned toward women ) that they are of great value to the church. The key is the discipline, and unfortunately at some times in the past (especially during the '80’s and '90’s) too few of them exhibited that discipline. So I also support those among the laity who continue to express caution, since the good priests just spoken of are (like the rest of us!) capable of being corrupted, led astray, by less disciplined priests with SSA.

 

[Tigg]

I’d like to know what Servant of God Fulton J. Sheen would say about this.

And oh, HOW we miss him and the clear strong voice he spoke with!

 

[buffalo]

I’m sorry, I know I’m new to the Catholic Church, but I think this kind of thinking is a problem. You broad-brush all homosexual oriented men as being effeminate fairies and act like all straight men are manly and strong. Has no one here heard of Errol Flynn? What about gay biker types? You’ll find more than a few very masculine acting gays in the NFL or the NBA, and Russell Brand seems like a total queen yet he’s as straight as they come.

It’s more complicated than that. And I don’t see why a SSA priest has any more natural trouble remaining chaste than a straight one. When a person is just as upset at a priest breaking his vows by sleeping with a woman as they would be if it was a man, then I think they are being consistent.

And I’m sorry but I don’t think there’s any evidence that SSA men are more likely to be pedophiles, any more than straight men would be attracted to little girls. Let’s at least keep that issue separate.

You are tight on the pedeophile issue. The priest scandal was one of adult males molesting post pubsecent males, aka homosexuality.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

And just how are they going to know this? when? how? It seems to me that enemies of the Church are more clever than our leaders.

The only person who would be “in the know” most likely would be the candidate’s spiritual director. The spiritual director will then be a lot more “on the lookout” for certain issues. And, of course, in this day and age our past always has a way of making itself known so its not as if everyone will be able to hide…

 

[wisdomseeker]

The only person who would be “in the know” most likely would be the candidate’s spiritual director. The spiritual director will then be a lot more “on the lookout” for certain issues. And, of course, in this day and age our past always has a way of making itself known so its not as if everyone will be able to hide…

with all due respect, just how is the past relevant in this case? I mean if the person is a homosexual, how does this play a role on the decision? Did it work in the past?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

with all due respect, just how is the past relevant in this case? I mean if the person is a homosexual, how does this play a role on the decision? Did it work in the past?

You asked how someone would know that a candidate is SSA. If at some point in the past the individual identified himself as SSA then, in this day and age, there’s a chance it would become known to others.
Its not as if most diocese have the majority of their candidates from around the country or world. Most are local individuals who are well know in their communities.

 

[wisdomseeker]

You asked how someone would know that a candidate is SSA. If at some point in the past the individual identified himself as SSA then, in this day and age, there’s a chance it would become known to others.
Its not as if most diocese have the majority of their candidates from around the country or world. Most are local individuals who are well know in their communities.

Thank you. I dont think my question was that. I was thinking more about the future, how one would know how they will behave in the Church in the future.

 

[andersonbd1]

For more on Bishop Matthew Clark - here’s his tag on our blog:
cleansingfiredor.com/tag/bishop-clark/

and the Catholic World Report article:
cleansingfiredor.com/2011/02/the-barren-fig-tree/

 

[manygift1spirit]

The article containing the speech of the Bishop of Rochester should be sent to the Vatican. He should be relieved of his position. He is directly disobeying the Pope, and he should be removed from office for doing this.

I am personally sending this information to the Vatican. it is my sincere hope that he will be removed very promptly. People like this are destructive to the church.

This bishop has indeed been a lost sheep for some time now.

I have it from a very, very well placed source that when this organization originally had the word “Catholic” in its name, the Bishop asked the founder to remove the word, not stating anything of the sort that “your organization espouses things contrary to the Church” but rather only “I don’t want to get in trouble with the Vatican”. My source then described the Bishop’s response in ways I would describe as “wink wink nudge nudge”.

Fortunately (sorry) Pope Benedict has somewhat of a history with Bishop Clark, even going so far as to retract an imprimateur given by the Bishop and giving him a verbal whupping in the process. The Bishop is scheduled to offer his resignation next summer, and I have no doubt Benedict will be eager to accept. I’d love to buy tickets for the Bishop’s *ad limina *meeting later this year!

About the ambiguities of the requirements for the seminary, there are two huge factors involved here, only one of which I see even being discussed here, and then only implicitly. One is the ambiguities in the language itself; e.g., above posters were arguing about the “H” word, but that illustrates the problem: some use the pertinent words to mean very different things, so it is hard to nail down exactly what the norms are saying (in a sense that, everyone who reads the words would apply them the same way). There are those, of course, who benefit from this confusion, so clearing the air linguistically is harder than it should be.

The other is that the whole nature of SSA has been so obfuscated by political advocacy in the medical and psychological etc arenas that the Magisterium cannot yet know all the relevant implications of having SSA and thus cannot definitively speak about it. They can contraindicate “deep seated tendencies”, but have not (to date) expressly contraindicated (say) “superficial transient tendencies”. I note that Benedict has contraindicated those too (an opinion to be fair, not a work of the Magisterium…yet). Our knowledge of SSA has been set back 50 years or so, but in the next century or so I expect things to crystallize quite nicely. Then perhaps Benedict will be shown to have been prescient, or perhaps not.

I note in passing that this also explains why the Church has been almost totally silent with its take on transexuality etc. Every once in a while on CAF an advocate of such raises a din about not just the Church’s positions on the matter but in the lack of development itself of the positions. I actually sympathize with that, as it is lacking, but also understand where the Church is coming from. Nearly all so called scientific research on the topic is so corrupted (from more than one agenda, BTW) as to be worthless. Thus the Church cannot offer much if any guidance. Again, hopefully in a century or two the advocacy nonsense will subside and we (and the Church) will understand the issue better.