Screening The Priests/How do the church's shrinks decide who is gay and who isn't?

[contemplative]

Screening The Priests

How do the church’s shrinks decide who is gay and who isn’t? The first thing they do is ask Thomas Plante asks the question roughly 20 times a year, and if it doesn’t work, he’s ready with the follow-up. “You say, ‘Well, tell me what your dating history is like,’” explains the Santa Clara University psychology professor. “And usually they’ll hand it to you on a silver platter. If they don’t, you say, ‘Well, do you find yourself more interested in involvement with women or with men?’ If they say, ‘I’ve never dated,’ you say, 'Well, when you walk down the street, who catches your eye?” And so, gently but relentlessly, Plante, one of several dozen U.S. therapists who screen candidates for Roman Catholic seminaries, attempts to ensure that the church knows the sexual orientation of one more would-be priest. Read more…

 

[m134e5]

contemplative:

How do the church’s shrinks decide who is gay and who isn’t?

The Church’s shrinks will decide based on what they’re told, which doesn’t do a lot of good- even if they are pretty good at “figuring people out”. Quite often, gay men are “in the closet” to family, and/or to their co-workers, or to everyone. They often stay “in the closet” for many years- or forever (at least to certain people). They are very capable of hiding their sexuality from whomever they please. The ones who won’t hide it are those who love the Church, and refuse to be dishonest or disobediant- even if they feel this is a bad pastoral move. They will be banned from the seminary, but those who don’t care- or who want to change things (like those who advocate for women’s ordination) will slip by.

I’d personally rather a priest who is struggling with homosexuality and trying to live a chaste life, and is honest with himself and with the Church about what he’s going through then a priest who thinks he knows better than the Church, and hides his sexuality from them. As I have said before many times- the sex abuse scandal isn’t so much about homosexual priests- it is about priests who are unfaithful to and dishonest with the Church.

 

[netmilsmom]

I’m sorry, but IMO the reason why this ruling was put in was to keep those men who chose the priesthood on the straight and narrow if they have homosexual tendencies.
The Vatican is saying, if we heard a word, a squeak, a sniff that you are gay, you’re out.
This makes these men do just what they vowed they would, not act on their feelings.

To diagnose, they easily can go back to the DSM diagnostic guide, when homosexuality was a disorder. The guidelines are there.
Catholics are great at rationalizing away sins. Should a man be called, I can see a question like, “Are you attracted to men?” being so subjective that any man could answer yes or no.

It will all come down to acting on attraction. This is a CYA from the Vatican and I love the style and grace they are showing!

 

[JimG]

I can’t help but feel that we might be better off if we dispensed with the psychologists, and let experienced and holy spiritual directors screen the candidates.

 

[genealogist]

I saw a bit on 20/20 wear a man was wired to a computer which showed him sexual images and they were able to determine what “turned him on”. His penis would react to the images he found enticing and the wire around it deteteced it. Might this help us learn which candidates are straight, gay, into kids etc. The guy on tv had been accused of abusing his minor daughters. The test showed he was not turned on by minors but by grown women.

If a candidate is straight he should not years later as pastor be hanging out with the ladies especially the hot ladies.

Likewise the gay priest should not be hanging out with guys from the gym or the stage.

Guys that like boys or girls should never be priests even if they could be celibate.

Identifying who father is turned on by might help us monitor his behavior better. What threat is a gay priest to the girls volleyball team?

Might the Church require such testing?

The premarital classes and annulment courts might consider it too to see who was gay and lying before the marriage?

 

[contemplative]

genealogist:

I saw a bit on 20/20 wear a man was wired to a computer which showed him sexual images and they were able to determine what “turned him on”. His penis would react to the images he found enticing and the wire around it deteteced it. Might this help us learn which candidates are straight, gay, into kids etc.

Do we really need to or want to go there?
Is this neccesary? If a seminarian candidate says that he prefers men should anyone bother hooking his penis up to some monitor for a reading? Doesn’t this seem like a waste of time, energy and money?
Can’t we just assume that if a guy has SSA he will be turned on by fellow seminarians and priests and deacons…and he shouldn’t be a priest…

 

[genealogist]

Clearly people lie. They lie to get in the seminary and they lie to get married. The machine would help catch them in their lies and protect the Church from scandals. You are right if a gay candidate was honest we now need to verify he is not hooking up and using the definition of “celibate” to skirt the rules.

Technically celibate only means he is not married. Chastity means he is not commiting sexual sins but that rule applies to all men. If he thinks sodomy is okay he is not being unchaste and still is celibate. Problem solved for his relativistic conscience.

We should stop these types from being priests. I do believe a gay guy can abstain but it is much harder with the internet and large urban areas with a Gay neighborhood like SF or NYC.

 

[Other_Eric]

genealogist:

Clearly people lie. They lie to get in the seminary and they lie to get married. The machine would help catch them in their lies and protect the Church from scandals. You are right if a gay candidate was honest we now need to verify he is not hooking up and using the definition of “celibate” to skirt the rules.

Technically celibate only means he is not married. Chastity means he is not commiting sexual sins but that rule applies to all men. If he thinks sodomy is okay he is not being unchaste and still is celibate. Problem solved for his relativistic conscience.

We should stop these types from being priests. I do believe a gay guy can abstain but it is much harder with the internet and large urban areas with a Gay neighborhood like SF or NYC.

In the first case, a plethysmograph, the machine about which we are talking, is of doubtful reliability. In the second case, because a test using this device incorporates audio and/or visual pornography, its use is immoral on its face. It not only forces a Christian to look at stimuli that he should avoid, it actively encourages him to lust as a condition of the test. Our new screening method would therefore necessitate that every seminary candidate commit sexual sin as a condition of ordination.

 

[genealogist]

If the only way to utilize the machine is pornographic images then sure it is a non-option. It was a just a suggestion to try and find a more objective determination of who is gay.

I would wonder if the subjects were shown a variety of images of people in clothes and even bathing suits just bathing and not striking sexy poses, would that be enough to cause distinguishing arousal but still use moral photos.

 

[Other_Eric]

genealogist:

If the only way to utilize the machine is pornographic images then sure it is a non-option. It was a just a suggestion to try and find a more objective determination of who is gay.

I would wonder if the subjects were shown a variety of images of people in clothes and even bathing suits just bathing and not striking sexy poses, would that be enough to cause distinguishing arousal but still use moral photos.

It is still morally problematic. The very nature of the test encourages the subject to look upon *whatever *material is used in a sexual fashion. We would be subjecting him to stimuli for the expressed purpose of eliciting a sexual response. In other words, it does not matter if the picture he is looking at is of a woman dressed in a burka. What matters is that that we use this image to encourage the subject to lust, even if only minimally.

 

[m134e5]

contemplative:

Can’t we just assume that if a guy has SSA he will be turned on by fellow seminarians and priests and deacons…and he shouldn’t be a priest…

No, because they won’t be- just like heterosexual men, men with SSA have unique attractions to men- some like men who are older than them, others like men who are younger than them, others like men who are their same age–some like effiminate men, some like masculine men- still others like the thought of having sex with men, but are disgusted by actually doing something sexual with another man. Furthermore, you can’t solve a problem like this by running away from it- you have to face it- and the opportunities for prayer, friendship, community, and selflessness found in the seminary can be of great help to a man who struggles with homosexuality. Also, you don’t conquer your struggles simply by running away from whatever causes you to fall (although you should avoid those situations in which you always fall)- you have to face them and work through them. A life of prayer, penitence, and service to others is essential in dealing with such a struggle- even if that life may pose some risks.

In the secular world, there are gay bars, gay bathhouses, gay porn websites, gay chat rooms, gay cruising spots, PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) and other gay-friendly “support groups”. The religious life gives a person a chance to be away from all that. The seminary life does too (though once they become a diocesan priest, they are out in the world again- that is why I have said on more than one occasion that the religious life is more suitable then the diocesan priesthood for men with SSA)

 

[goofyjim]

Does anyone else other than me see some being done to those who struggle with ssa by discussing it back and forth? Those who experience it have grown up in families and schools and workplaces. They may go through life never acting out. Does that mean they have to leave society because if they did that would be suicide my friends. And that is not an option. There must be a more positive way to support someone who is not able to change the attraction but holds back from immorally acting out(read-lives chastely).

 

[Dr.Bombay]

goofyjim:

Does anyone else other than me see some being done to those who struggle with ssa by discussing it back and forth? Those who experience it have grown up in families and schools and workplaces. They may go through life never acting out. Does that mean they have to leave society because if they did that would be suicide my friends. And that is not an option. There must be a more positive way to support someone who is not able to change the attraction but holds back from immorally acting out(read-lives chastely).

There is support. Prayer, fasting, mortification, the Sacraments, Holy Mass. You know, the same things that have been helping sinners of all types down thru the centuries.

 

[goofyjim]

Dr. Bombay:

There is support. Prayer, fasting, mortification, the Sacraments, Holy Mass. You know, the same things that have been helping sinners of all types down thru the centuries.

Which is what my life consists of. But the ssa has never gone away completely. Is this an absolute necessity or can we accept those who, despite their prayer and sacramental life, experience ssa? After all it is the acting out of sodomy that is an abomination not the attraction in and of itself.

 

[goofyjim]

What actually disgusts me about this whole thread is that we have to start inquiring into people’s minds as to what they find attractive. As I have said before this should be kept between the individual and his/her confessor/spiritual director.

 

[contemplative]

goofyjim:

What actually disgusts me about this whole thread is that we have to start inquiring into people’s minds as to what they find attractive. As I have said before this should be kept between the individual and his/her confessor/spiritual director.

Actually it isn’t the thread that seems to bother you as much as the idea that a shrink can and might actually get into the mind of potential priests. Without this tool/technique there is only a man’s word.

This does sound a bit invasive.

 

[Pentecost2005]

JimG:

I can’t help but feel that we might be better off if we dispensed with the psychologists, and let experienced and holy spiritual directors screen the candidates.

Especially with “Catholic” psychologists like this:

In any case, says Plante, when new rules come down, he will soldier on. His entry into this line of consulting, he recalls, was a little like being an Army reservist: “They called: ‘You’re a shrink. You’re Catholic. You can help us.’ How do you say no?” And he notes that "there are a lot of things we don’t agree with in the church, but we still identify as Catholic."

Did you notice how many times the articles reports disclaimers about how these guys “don’t have a problem with celibate gay priests”? What’s with all the bending over backward to distance themselves from Church teaching?

 

[m134e5]

contemplative:

Actually it isn’t the thread that seems to bother you as much as the idea that a shrink can and might actually get into the mind of potential priests. Without this tool/technique there is only a man’s word.

Men struggling with SSA who are weak, and can’t hide their struggle for very long while being pressured to open up about everything will be found out and weeded out; men struggling with SSA who don’t want to be deceitful won’t have to be “found out”- they’ll be honest, and they’ll be weeded out. Those who say “the Church is wrong” and who want to spread dissent in the Church will slip by- they’ll hide it. As I have said before, many men with SSA have been “in the closet” for years- and are often not “out” at work or to their families- I assure you, they know how to hide it, and they will.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

goofyjim:

Which is what my life consists of. But the ssa has never gone away completely. Is this an absolute necessity or can we accept those who, despite their prayer and sacramental life, experience ssa? After all it is the acting out of sodomy that is an abomination not the attraction in and of itself.

Jim, this might be a cross you’ll have to bear for the rest of your life. People who are struggling with SSA but who love the Church and fully accept her teaching should be supported any way we can.

Believe me, it’s not easy being celibate in our culture, no matter what your attractions. The attraction isn’t the sin. It’s the acting out of the attraction that’s sinful.

God is faithful, who will not permit you to be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also give you a way out that you may be able to bear it. 1Corinthians 10:13

 

[contemplative]

m134e5:

Those who say “the Church is wrong” and who want to spread dissent in the Church will slip by- they’ll hide it. As I have said before, many men with SSA have been “in the closet” for years- and are often not “out” at work or to their families- I assure you, they know how to hide it, and they will.

Even though this testing seems so demeaning, invasive and possibly immoral, the Church should test all potential priests because of these mavericks you describe here? There doesn’t appear to be another method or choice.
Don’t you imagine the men who deny their sexuality and sneak into the priesthood are the most dangerous to others?