Should homosexual men be allowed to be priests?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GWitherow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GWitherow

Guest

The assumption is that these men, like all priestly candidates, will take a vow of chasitity. I asked a Catholic Answers apologist if homosexual men can become priests. Here was his answer.​

This matter is usually dealt with on a diocese by diocese basis. Most and probably all dioceses and religious orders ask candidates to state their sexual orientation. If they are living a celibate life-style, at this time most dioceses and religious orders do accept them (all things being equal).

While most of the examples of clergy abuse appear to be homosexual in nature and such abuse is truly reprehensible, it is important to recognize that there are many, many people in the Church who live daily with the cross of such sexual orientation in a quiet, chaste manner. Further, many of these people are faithful clergy and religious.

The knowledge that there are any homosexually-oriented clergy and religious can be very disturbing to some people—regardless that such clergy and religious are chaste. From what I as a priest have seen, such sexual orientation is far more disturbing to those individuals who are themselves burdened with it. Because of the fidelity of such faithful clergy and religious, Rome has been reluctant to make a blanket restriction. After all such people are chaste because of the Lord’s favor. Without the favor of His grace, no one can be chaste regardless of sexual orientation.
 
My opinion on this has a lot to do with my stance on defining any human being by sexual terms: to me, if a man is a priest, he’s celibate, not (nameyourfavoriteanything)sexual.

If a person is being chaste in celibacy, he is not going to be a homosexual, because he does not have sex. An inclination towards a sexual behavior should not define a man. Likewise, if a man says “I am homosexual” then he should not be a priest, because he uses sexual terms to define himself when he is not supposed to be sexual at all. To me this is common sense. Homosexuality is behavior, not a species or anything biological. To be homosexual, a person would have to do the homosexual action.

So my answer then is no. Just like we would not want any other sexual fetishes in a priest, or one who defined himself by any term exclusive to sexuality. I do think some effort should be made to qualify those aspiring to the priesthood, to be certain that their sexual attitudes and their attitudes towards chastity according to one’s state in life and vocation are in line with the teachings of the Church.
 
**General reminder:

Please do not copy into your posts images that are larger than the standard post-width. If you can save the image on your own space and resize it to a size that will fit the post, that is fine. Otherwise, please use a link.

Also, please remember charity or the thread will have to be closed. Thanks!** 🙂
 
Cherub,

I found your post to be well-thought out and it made me look at things differently. Although, I am not Catholic and don’t have anything “against” homosexuals (although I don’t necessarily support that sort of lifestyle), I would have to say that homosexuals should not be priests as the Catholic Church states that homosexuality is wrong and so it would seem contradictory to allow homosexual priests. However, you do make a good point that a priest should not be any kind of “sexual”.

That also brings up more questions for me, which I should probably bring up in another thread, as I don’t want to bring this one off topic, but I will list them quickly…
  1. Does the Catholic Church say homosexuality is wrong in and of itself (i.e. even just having homosexual feelings), or is it only acting upon those feelings that are wrong (such as homosexual intercourse)? I was brought up learning that homosexuality is wrong in and of itself.
  2. If it is acting on it that is wrong, does it have to be intercourse, or can it be anything (i.e. kissing, etc.)?
 
I voted not sure, because like somebody said regardless of your orientation, they are called to live chastely. That being said, it would be nice to get a group of old school tough ol’ manly men as priests, you know what I mean.

peace
 
40.png
BlessedBe13:
  1. Does the Catholic Church say homosexuality is wrong in and of itself (i.e. even just having homosexual feelings), or is it only acting upon those feelings that are wrong (such as homosexual intercourse)? I was brought up learning that homosexuality is wrong in and of itself.
  2. If it is acting on it that is wrong, does it have to be intercourse, or can it be anything (i.e. kissing, etc.)?
Click to expand...
Blessed, here is perhaps a good explanation of the Church’s position on homosexuality. I hope there will be answers to both of your questions there.
 
  1. Does the Catholic Church say homosexuality is wrong in and of itself (i.e. even just having homosexual feelings), or is it only acting upon those feelings that are wrong (such as homosexual intercourse)? I was brought up learning that homosexuality is wrong in and of itself.
Click to expand...
First, the Catholic definition of homosexuality is: “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.” It does not say that homosexuality is same sex intercourse or actiivity.

Second, the Catholic Church says that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered … Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

Source: “The Catechism of the Catholic Church.” Paragraph 2357-9 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

Well, homosexuality is wrong in and of itself (i.e., just having the temptation, or having a tendancy to feel that way), then I am condemned. And seeing as how
  1. If it is acting on it that is wrong, does it have to be intercourse, or can it be anything (i.e. kissing, etc.)?
Click to expand...
I have a tendency towards homosexuality, and my position is that chasity encompasses the whole person, not just the genitals, but the whole body, mind and soul. Even though it is quite difficult at times, chasity for an exclusively homosexual person means celibacy. That means no kissing, no indulging in impure thoughts or even overly romantic thoughts. The Catholic church advises homosexuals: “By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”
Should homosexual men be allowed to be priests?
Click to expand...
Those men who are at peace with themselves and God and have embrased Chasity and have united with Christ’s cross and are good men but happen to have a tendency towards homosexual temptation moreso than other sexual temptation should be given just as much consideration as a person who has a tendency towards heterosexual temptation. Temptation isn’t sinful; it’s how you deal with that temptation.
 
Thank you, Cherub, that link did clear up my questions on Catholicism’s position on homosexuality.
 
I like that 2nd post best Ghost, but good point.
Chastity is the call for all of us…society cannot handle gay priests, & I wonder if there really is such a thing…I mean … I don’t know…sexual sin is just that , egardless of the bias of the soul in question, but homosexuality bi/ whatever just seems more grievous.
I don’t think I would be at all comfortable w/a gay priest or lesbain nun.
 
Frankly, it amazes me that anyone would even ask this question.
  1. The Church teaches (“On the pastoral care of homosexual persons” from the CDF) not only that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil, but that the very inclination itself is disordered (i.e., there is a psychological/psychiatric problem).
  2. The Bishops of the US were told a long time ago (1961) not to ordain homosexual men to the priesthood. But they didn’t follow orders (as usual).
  3. Over 80% of the victims in the clergy sex abuse scandal were male adolescents.
 
I don’t see how someone who is entrusted with guiding parishioners down the right path and supposed to be a moral compass for others to follow can themselves live an abomnibale lifestyle…which we know is intrinsically evil…that is just my 2 cents though.
 
40.png
miguel:
  1. The Bishops of the US were told a long time ago (1961) not to ordain homosexual men to the priesthood. But they didn’t follow orders (as usual).
Click to expand...
Not true, but another example of the dishonesty people use on this issue.

But more to the point, the question should be, what steps should the Church take?

As applicants to check off either gay or straight? Go ahead.

Subject seminiarians to psychological tests. Liberals will have no problems with that. These tests end up “falsely passing” men who are comfortable with their homosexual orientation while “falsely failing” the rigid, tightly wound types that liberals most worry about being ordained.

I say, bring it on!!!
 
I voted than I’m not sure because I feel that if a man struggles with homosexual desires, but chooses to live a holy life in the clergy, without giving into the sin that entices them, than they are more than welcome to serve the church in that way. On the other hand, if they are actively pursuing that sin, then they should be asked to step down from thier position, and seek help before resuming thier priestly duties.

We all struggle with a sinful nature. Even priests. But active homosexuals should not be priests. It wouldn’t be healthy for the parish they oversee.
 
40.png
katherine2:
Not true, but another example of the dishonesty people use on this issue.

But more to the point, the question should be, what steps should the Church take?

As applicants to check off either gay or straight? Go ahead.

Subject seminiarians to psychological tests. Liberals will have no problems with that. These tests end up “falsely passing” men who are comfortable with their homosexual orientation while “falsely failing” the rigid, tightly wound types that liberals most worry about being ordained.

I say, bring it on!!!
Click to expand...
What’s not true?

lifesite.net/ldn/2002/mar/02032701.html

I realize the difficulty in the screening process. But if people gain ordination under false pretenses, that should be reason for dismissal when later discovered. It should also invalidate the orders. I don’t know if it does. That’s a question for the canon lawyers out there. But it seems to me that it should. Similar to it being grounds for anullment when a person deceives another person into consenting to matrimony.
 
StephiePea said:
I voted than I’m not sure because I feel that if a man struggles with homosexual desires, but chooses to live a holy life in the clergy, without giving into the sin that entices them, than they are more than welcome to serve the church in that way. On the other hand, if they are actively pursuing that sin, then they should be asked to step down from thier position, and seek help before resuming thier priestly duties.

We all struggle with a sinful nature. Even priests. But active homosexuals should not be priests. It wouldn’t be healthy for the parish they oversee.
Click to expand...

Instead of homosexuality, what if a man has some other mental disorder? I mean regardless of whether he intends to lead a chaste life, should the Church knowingly ordain any man with mental health problems? I think it’s unwise, considering the position. (Obviously a person’s mental health can and often does deteriorate after ordination. But that’s a separate issue.)
 
I don’t think it would be fair to restrict them, however if they are openly living with a partner then they have to be stopped and asked to leave. Haven’t you ever guessed someone to be gay and they are not? I just don’t know if they would be open about it and what would a bishop be able to do? You can’t tell someone that you think they act gay. Some manerisms are not completely indicative.

I voted yes, but I am certainly not in favor of an active gay priest.
 
We need to be clear on where mental disease ends and sin begins. Clearly, many people who have same-sex inclinations to the point where we say they are homosexual are suffering from some type of mental disorder.

But I’m of the opinion that the fad of identifying psychologically healthy people by their “sexual orientation” will pass. Truth is, ontologically we’re oriented one way, but mentally and spiritually we don’t live up to that. Some people have more problems with it than others, but it’s a mistake to think of sexuality in black–and-white terms.

So-- I answered, “lean to yes,” assuming that the “homosexual men” we’re talking about are men who occasionally experience same-sex attraction (which is a lot more men than our macho society is willing to admit). But if we’re talking about men who feel that an esssential part of who they are is a fundamental sexual orientation towards other men, well, pending further scientific evidence I think they should be in therapy, not the seminary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top