Should homosexual men be allowed to be priests?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GWitherow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Feather- The answer is simple: Satan “the great accuser” loves to play word games and place doubts in the minds of God’s loving community. Our liberal, openly secular society has opened this topic up for debate, whereas it has never, in the history of the Church (that I am aware of) been a possibility. It is a lie started by the “father of all lies” and should be shot down in flames every time it is mentioned. Anyone who considers, mulls over, feels within or describes to others thay they desire to have sexual relations with a person of the same sex, a totally unnatural inclination, should be considered a danger to his/her own soul, and by proxy to the Church. No way. . . ever.
 
Anyone who considers, mulls over, feels within or describes to others thay they desire to have sexual relations with a person of the same sex, a totally unnatural inclination, should be considered a danger to his/her own soul, and by proxy to the Church.
Thus, people who are same sex attracted are incapable of salvation and have a vocation to nothing more than eternal hellfire, right? Never mind what the Church says in the Catechism at paragraphs 2357 through 2359.
 
40.png
iserve:
Feather- The answer is simple: Satan “the great accuser” loves to play word games and place doubts in the minds of God’s loving community. Our liberal, openly secular society has opened this topic up for debate, whereas it has never, in the history of the Church (that I am aware of) been a possibility. It is a lie started by the “father of all lies” and should be shot down in flames every time it is mentioned. Anyone who considers, mulls over, feels within or describes to others thay they desire to have sexual relations with a person of the same sex, a totally unnatural inclination, should be considered a danger to his/her own soul, and by proxy to the Church. No way. . . ever.
Well written. I do hope many others wilol read this message of yours and take it to heart. God bless all and hope for many true repentance for their sins.
 
LCMS- I stand by what I said, and if you truly understood the Catechism, you would not be trying to play word games in order to sqeak virtue out of sinful thought and behavior. This is what the Pharasees were doing, and Jesus chastized them whenever He could. Certainly anyone who recognizes that these inclinations are sinful will confess and pray not to even begin to entertain them. In doing so, they will acheive salvation like every other sinner who repents of evil desires and MOVES ON to virtuous thoughts and behaviors and cultivates an atmosphere where others may do the same. Please re-read the Catechism from the beginning, not just the part that you were hoping would exempt sin.
 
LCMS- I stand by what I said, and if you truly understood the Catechism, you would not be trying to play word games in order to sqeak virtue out of sinful thought and behavior. This is what the Pharasees were doing, and Jesus chastized them whenever He could.
Um…Actually, the Pharisees were the ones who were making like more difficult for those who wanted to serve and love God. They also made a big deal about their own holiness and perfection and expressed a great deal of outward religiosity while not cleansing their hearts and minds of sin.
Certainly anyone who recognizes that these inclinations are sinful will confess and pray not to even begin to entertain them.
The inclination is not called sinful in the Catechism. It is called objectively disordered. In itself, it is not sinful and you’d have to show me a magesterial document that says that it is.

I stand by what the Catechism and the CDF say on the subject. Persons who are same-sex attracted are called to chastity, which entails more than mere celibacy. That includes self-control and mastery, including thought life as well as action.
In doing so, they will acheive salvation like every other sinner who repents of evil desires
Again, show from tradition or scripture that a desire, of any kind, is a sin. According to the Church’s teachings, you have to make an informed choice in order to sin mortally. A mere desire, even for something that is evil, is not a sin because you can’t choose to desire something, only say “yes” or “no” to it.
and MOVES ON to virtuous thoughts and behaviors and cultivates an atmosphere where others may do the same.
Absolutely. It’s a process that, in many, if not most persons afflicted with same-sex attractions, will take a lifetime to complete. How does one do it, though? Through frequent prayer, spiritual reading, mass attendance, etc. The part of the mind where these thoughts originate is deeply affected by these holy and pious acts but it takes time. Meanwhile, the person is in a constant battle with his concupiscence (just like YOU) to guard his thoughts and heart against impure thoughts that could lead to impure actions.

Know what, though? That battle builds character and virtue. Trust me, it’s a fight I fight every day and I am thankful to God for the graces that He’s given me toward overcoming my problems in this area.
Please re-read the Catechism from the beginning, not just the part that you were hoping would exempt sin.
While I haven’t yet read the Catechism from cover to cover (I’ve yet to read the Bible from cover to cover), I understand more than you would seem to be giving me credit for.

In no way would I excuse sin. I do, however, insist on people speaking with absolute accuracy when it comes to these kinds of issues. The Church is EXTREMELY careful in how she speaks on this subject and her members should speak witht he same care.

There is so much emotionalism on the topic of same-sex attractions that there is VERY thin line between opposition to homosexual activity and being uncharitable and angry towards the PERSONS who commit them. Unless you don’t want people to come to the Church and change their lives so as to be saved, I’d recommend changing the way you talk about this topic.
 
Most of the sexually disturbed priest’s are homosexual. However I can’t say no straight off I mean Jesus hung out with the lowest rung of society, tax collectors, prostitutes etc. Perhaps they could be very tightly screened maybe even given drugs to counteract their tendencies (as long as it’s morally okay, I haven’t heard anything for or against) but then again it is a “disorder” and priest’s are meant to be sane, healthy and holy so it may be best to strongly discourage such things. Lets leave it to God.
 
LCMS- The Pharisees were accused of haggling over the letter of the law, rather than its intent, which is precicely what you are doing here by trying to squeak virtue out of a proclamation by the Church that homosexuals should be treated with repect for their PERSONHOOD, not their perverse inclinations. Any way you look at it, people who entertain unnatural thoughts for sex with a person of the same sex should not be in charge of teaching morality to others, lest they become bogged down, like the Pharisees and yourself, in the minutae of the law, and ignore its more noble purposes. Take a chance, if you will, but don’t ask the Church and the people they need to teach right from wrong to do so, it is a dangerous business to entertain even the remote possibility that this behavior is good. The bible states that to lust is to sin- not to commit the act, but to ENTERTAIN it. What about this is unclear? You, and all persons who argue this case need to fully understand, and then you will not try to make it okay, whether it is a partial sin or a full sin is immaterial, either one will break your heart and then your soul. Pray for deliverance from the need to defend what is wrong, and I will pray for you to do this, too. I do not wish you to become lost in the quagmire of this argument. God wants us all to be TOTALLY His.
 
iserve, I think you’re missing the point I’m trying to make entirely. My point is that you appeared to be saying that the only thing a person who is same-sex attracted is good for is to stoke the flames of hell and that there is absolutely no grace for them whatseover and they are predestined for hell, no hope whatsoever. I’m talking in a more general sense than only eligibility for the priesthood.

Homosexual persons are afflicted with a difficult burden. VERY few ask for it and those of us who are same-sex attracted and Christians are called to holiness in spite of the cross we are given to bear (same-sex attraction). Does the fact that I, for some reason, am attracted to members of the same sex mean that I am somehow inferior to you (which is a Pharisaical attitude) or does it mean that my temptations are different than yours?

If you or I are confronted with a desire for something that is sinful, we are both called to the same course of action: to battle our concupiscence and to NOT sin. I don’t know what your issues are…perhaps you look at beef on Fridays in lent and your mouth waters…

Instead of accusing me of defending active homosexuality or homosexual thoughts (which I am certainly NOT doing), try listening to what I am saying:

All persons who are same-sex attracted have the exact same call to holiness that you have. That means that they are called to CHASTITY, both interior (in the mind and heart) and exterior (in deeds). That is the basis for my whole argument. I argue that same-sex attracted persons ARE indeed loved by God, that they are called to the same holiness that other-sex attracted persons are and that they must be treated with love and respect, not because of their disordered inclinations but because they are human being who are created in the image of God. This doesn’t mean that the Church should not proclaim the truth, in fact, it makes it even more essential to do so. “Charity rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth.”

Perhaps you could read the CDF’s document on this because it says EXACTLY the same thing I am saying, as does the CCC.

Now, do I think that persons who are BATTLING their same-sex attractions can be priests or religious? I’m not going to say definitely not or definitely yes. God is the one who calls who HE wills based on the mystery of HIS will, not ours. If God is the one who is calling, then He will also provide the means for that calling to be fulfilled.

On the other hand, it hardly seems likely that God would call an active and unrepentant homosexual person to the priesthood or religious life. Their calling is to repentance and salvation first and foremost.

Or does the distinction between the two (person with SSA fighting toward virtue and an unrepentant and active homosexual person) exist for you?
 
A little reminder here…

A sin is
1 - wrong.
2 - freely chosen.
3 - chosen with knowledge of its sinful nature.
 
40.png
LCMS_No_More:
Um…Actually, the Pharisees were the ones who were making like more difficult for those who wanted to serve and love God. They also made a big deal about their own holiness and perfection and expressed a great deal of outward religiosity while not cleansing their hearts and minds of sin.

The inclination is not called sinful in the Catechism. It is called objectively disordered. In itself, it is not sinful and you’d have to show me a magesterial document that says that it is.

I stand by what the Catechism and the CDF say on the subject. Persons who are same-sex attracted are called to chastity, which entails more than mere celibacy. That includes self-control and mastery, including thought life as well as action.

Again, show from tradition or scripture that a desire, of any kind, is a sin. According to the Church’s teachings, you have to make an informed choice in order to sin mortally. A mere desire, even for something that is evil, is not a sin because you can’t choose to desire something, only say “yes” or “no” to it.

Absolutely. It’s a process that, in many, if not most persons afflicted with same-sex attractions, will take a lifetime to complete. How does one do it, though? Through frequent prayer, spiritual reading, mass attendance, etc. The part of the mind where these thoughts originate is deeply affected by these holy and pious acts but it takes time. Meanwhile, the person is in a constant battle with his concupiscence (just like YOU) to guard his thoughts and heart against impure thoughts that could lead to impure actions.

Know what, though? That battle builds character and virtue. Trust me, it’s a fight I fight every day and I am thankful to God for the graces that He’s given me toward overcoming my problems in this area.

While I haven’t yet read the Catechism from cover to cover (I’ve yet to read the Bible from cover to cover), I understand more than you would seem to be giving me credit for.

In no way would I excuse sin. I do, however, insist on people speaking with absolute accuracy when it comes to these kinds of issues. The Church is EXTREMELY careful in how she speaks on this subject and her members should speak witht he same care.

There is so much emotionalism on the topic of same-sex attractions that there is VERY thin line between opposition to homosexual activity and being uncharitable and angry towards the PERSONS who commit them. Unless you don’t want people to come to the Church and change their lives so as to be saved, I’d recommend changing the way you talk about this topic.
Not many people speak the truth about the issue of homosexuality. The truth about this issue is an open and closed case. The Bible clearly states that it is an abomination to do such an act. That is what this thread is all about. Those of you who insist on disagreeing with me on this, disagrees with the Holy Spirit’s commands. Read the book of Leviticus. To clearly come to an agreement on what the New Testament speaks of, read what Jesus said to the people that not one jot or tittle shall be removed from the Laws. That all the Laws and commandments brought onto the people are to be obeyed. Not just one or two to satisfy your own personal desires.
 
Not many people speak the truth about the issue of homosexuality. The truth about this issue is an open and closed case. The Bible clearly states that it is an abomination to do such an act.
I am in complete agreement with this statement.
That is what this thread is all about.
Is it? It seems more like an opportunity to talk about how icky “those people” are and how we must shun them, even if they have answered to call to holiness and wish to live according to the teachings of the Church (why is this point always ignored?).
Those of you who insist on disagreeing with me on this, disagrees with the Holy Spirit’s commands.
Count me out of that company.
Read the book of Leviticus.
I happen to be reading that book right now. Pretty tedious stuff.
To clearly come to an agreement on what the New Testament speaks of, read what Jesus said to the people that not one jot or tittle shall be removed from the Laws. That all the Laws and commandments brought onto the people are to be obeyed.
Be careful with that statement. If you are talking about all the ceremonies, what is clean or unclean for us to eat, dealing with leprosy, how to sactifice a bird or a goat, circumcision, etc., then you are incorrect (read the Acts of the Apostles and the Letter to the Hebrews if you really need to be reminded about this). If you are talking about the moral law, then you are correct.
Not just one or two to satisfy your own personal desires.
You mean the desire to live according to the teachings of the Church? Including the one about “homosexual persons are called to chastity?” You mean those personal desires?

Or could it be that you don’t see a distinction between a person with same-sex attracted battling his concupiscence and living chastely for God and a practicing and unrepentant homosexual person? Could that be it?
 
I think that men who have a predominant same sex attraction, especially men who have acted out sexually as a result of that attraction, should not be admitted to the sacrament of holy orders.

Those who wish to point to saints who fell into sins of impurity and then had conversions, like St. Augustine, should remember that such total conversion is rare. Moreover, St. Augustine’s past did not involve the intrinsically disordered orientation of homosexuality.
 
LCMS_No_More, I congratulate you on living chastely. We could use more examples such as yours.

However, having been through a seminary with a strong gay subculture that forced I and many others to leave, I must say that I’m against accepting for holy orders those with SSA. The seminary has since been closed. How many vocations were lost?

Such a large percentage of homosexually-oriented priests and bishops have been unchaste (I’m not speaking of pedophilia) that the Church must reconsider whom it has been selecting for ordination. These clergy has formed a club of sorts “The Lavendar Mafia” (Greeley coined the term) that promoted and protected ach other.

There are policies against accepting men with such attractions going back 1,000 years to the time of St. Peter Damien. In his time, like ours, unchaste homosexual clergy were flagrant and rampant.

St. Padre Pio suffered indignities from a homosexual archbishop years ago.

More recently, in 1961, an amendment to Canon law came out forbidding selecting those with SSA for clergy.

Then just 3 years ago, in 2002, Pope John Paul the Great said ordaining men with SSA was wrong:

*“It would be lamentable if, out of a misunderstood tolerance, they ordained young men who are immature or have obvious signs of affective deviations that, as is sadly known, could cause serious anomalies in the consciences of the faithful, with evident damage for the whole Church,” the Holy Father said.

The term “affective deviations” is used by priestly formators to describe individuals with disordered sexual orientations - such as homosexuality or ongoing heterosexual activity - that are incompatible with priestly celibacy.’*

opusbonosacerdotii.org/ncr2.htm

Pope Benedict will issue new directives this summer, and I can guess what those might be.

Men with AIDS are not accepted to seminary. The mentally ill are not accepted to seminary. Men who can’t pass all of their seminary courses aren’t ordained. This does not mean that these individuals cannot be great Catholics. But they will not be chosen as priests.

Some people confuse SSA with unchaste homosexuality. I do not. I would encourage anyone with SSA to seek therapy before seeking ordination:

couragerc.net/CMAStatement.html#5)%20THERAPY%20THERAPY)

And I encourage you to noursh the faith that we share.
 
LCMS_No_More, I congratulate you on living chastely. We could use more examples such as yours.
Thank you. I don’t want to take the glory because God is the one who is giving me the graces and understanding which are keeping me on the path.
However, having been through a seminary with a strong gay subculture that forced I and many others to leave, I must say that I’m against accepting for holy orders those with SSA. The seminary has since been closed. How many vocations were lost?
Such a large percentage of homosexually-oriented priests and bishops have been unchaste (I’m not speaking of pedophilia) that the Church must reconsider whom it has been selecting for ordination. These clergy has formed a club of sorts “The Lavendar Mafia” (Greeley coined the term) that promoted and protected ach other.
There are policies against accepting men with such attractions going back 1,000 years to the time of St. Peter Damien. In his time, like ours, unchaste homosexual clergy were flagrant and rampant.
St. Padre Pio suffered indignities from a homosexual archbishop years ago.
More recently, in 1961, an amendment to Canon law came out forbidding selecting those with SSA for clergy.
Then just 3 years ago, in 2002, Pope John Paul the Great said ordaining men with SSA was wrong:
“It would be lamentable if, out of a misunderstood tolerance, they ordained young men who are immature or have obvious signs of affective deviations that, as is sadly known, could cause serious anomalies in the consciences of the faithful, with evident damage for the whole Church,” the Holy Father said.
The term “affective deviations” is used by priestly formators to describe individuals with disordered sexual orientations - such as homosexuality or ongoing heterosexual activity - that are incompatible with priestly celibacy.’
Pope Benedict will issue new directives this summer, and I can guess what those might be.
Men with AIDS are not accepted to seminary. The mentally ill are not accepted to seminary. Men who can’t pass all of their seminary courses aren’t ordained. This does not mean that these individuals cannot be great Catholics. But they will not be chosen as priests.
Like I said before, if God gives a vocation to a man who is willing, He will provide the means for that vocation to be fulfilled. The important thing is that GOD is the one who calls, not the person. Like people have been saying, a vocation isn’t a right, it is the prerogative of the Lord and He will call whom He wills according to His good pleasure.

He also works through the Church and leads the leadership of the Church in the way He wants things done. I will happily submit to the Church because she is God’s faithful servant.
Some people confuse SSA with unchaste homosexuality. I do not.
That puts you way ahead of a lot of people, IMO.
I would encourage anyone with SSA to seek therapy before seeking ordination:
If the person is truly called of God, then God will ensure that they are in a state where it will be to the advantage of both the man and those he will serve in the Church. It won’t happen before.
And I encourage you to noursh the faith that we share.
Thank you. Pray for me as I’m still in need of being formally brought into the Church. During the Mass, I feel a sense of loss because I can’t receive the Blessed Sacrament yet. It’s almost a hunger or a desire.
 
40.png
LCMS_No_More:
Pray for me as I’m still in need of being formally brought into the Church.
Of course, nothing would please me more. :gopray2:
40.png
LCMS_No_More:
During the Mass, I feel a sense of loss because I can’t receive the Blessed Sacrament yet. It’s almost a hunger or a desire.
I can sympathize, but it was a benediction that really made me a believer in the Real Presence. I prayed to God, “If there’s something to this seeming superstition, please let me know.” As the priest swept the monstrance from side to side, it seemed as if a beam of light swept out and overtook me. I was stunned at the reality of God, and still am after all these years.
 
“I must say that I’m against accepting for holy orders those with SSA. The seminary has since been closed. How many vocations were lost?”
Thank you for making that statement. This is what this argument is really about, and I wholeheartedly agree. As someone who has worked for the Church for 25 years, I can also attest to the havoc wrought by SSA priests that I have known; both chaste and unchaste. I also agree that it has caused hundreds of lost vocations, including that of my own son, who questionedf why I would ask him to consider it, since he is “not gay”! The priesthood must be protected by the laity, as God does NOT weed out evil, that is our cross and our vocation. We simply cannot allow sympathy for individuals to cloud this issue and keep us from protecting the truth. (The parable about the watchmen sleeping while the master returns is highly appropriate here.)
 
iserve, I note that you didn’t answer my question.

In your mind, is there a difference between a man who has SSA and is struggling to live chastely and a practicing and unrepentant homosexual?
 
40.png
LCMS_No_More:
Like I said before, if God gives a vocation to a man who is willing, He will provide the means for that vocation to be fulfilled. The important thing is that GOD is the one who calls, not the person. Like people have been saying, a vocation isn’t a right, it is the prerogative of the Lord and He will call whom He wills according to His good pleasure.

He also works through the Church and leads the leadership of the Church in the way He wants things done. I will happily submit to the Church because she is God’s faithful servant.

If the person is truly called of God, then God will ensure that they are in a state where it will be to the advantage of both the man and those he will serve in the Church. It won’t happen before.
I agree to all you have stated above. However, I have to point out that this is contingent on the seminarian candidate fully disclosing his SSA, and sufficient screening performed to screen for the presence of a pscyhological disorder in a seminarian candidate. Based on the past track record on both accounts, there is reason to exercise due caution in the acceptance of seminarian candidates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top