Should homosexual men be allowed to be priests?

[LCMS_No_More]

If you are an individual that is living a chase life, ( that is not having any sexual activeties, with a woman), then you have no worries of being in sin with the Holy Spirit.

I am definitely TRYING to live a chaste life. Your definition is incomplete, if not completely off-base, though. You define celibacy relative to male-female relations only. Chastity is much deeper than celibacy.

Actually, I am a man who has absolutely NO desire to have sexual relations with women whatsoever. It’s MEN that I have problems with.

If you are one to concider yourself a homosexual, then you are not living a chase life.

First, I would not define myself solely on the basis of my temptations and calling a person “a homosexual” does EXACTLY that. I am a same-sex attracted person who is striving to live in accords with the teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to human sexuality.

To be a homosexual is to act out on what your thoughts are.

Actually, that is defining an actively homosexual PERSON. Don’t think that using an adjective as a noun is a good thing…it isn’t and the Church doesn’t do it…neither should her children.

Too many of you wish to believe that homosexuallity is just a person that merely thinks of that type of behavior, wrong.

That’s a same-sex attracted person.

Every person in society has impure thoughts now and then. These impure thoughts do not make them a sinner. It is the actions taken by one that puts them in a sinful position.

That’s pretty much what the Church teaches. However, keep in mind that Chastity, a virtue that ALL Christians, whether single, married or religious, are called to (it’s in the Catechism), includes the inner-life, willingly thinking about sinful things can be, and usually is, sinful.

Example; If you wrer to think of killing somone, does that make you a killer? By no means. The same applies to men who have a tendancy to think of impure thoughts of the same sex. One must continue to pray to overcome the temptations from Satan.

I agree, generally, but I would say that not all temptation comes from satan. People with SSA also have a LOT of issues to deal with and work through, as I am learning. This may not seem quite so obvious (especially to the self-righteous around here who take great delight in throwing stones at people with same-sex attraction and don’t want to even ATTEMPT to help them), but most people who are actively homosexual are trying to treat psychic wounds that they have because of things that happened to them in regards to same-sex relations. When I stopped being active, I noticed after a couple weeks a LOT of things start coming up that I had covered over through my sinful and depraved acts (see, I do condemn those acts and myself in those actions because they were absolutely sinful!).

 

[felra]

LCMS_No_More:

People with SSA also have a LOT of issues to deal with and work through, as I am learning. This may not seem quite so obvious (especially to the self-righteous around here who take great delight in throwing stones at people with same-sex attraction and don’t want to even ATTEMPT to help them), but most people who are actively homosexual are trying to treat psychic wounds that they have because of things that happened to them in regards to same-sex relations. When I stopped being active, I noticed after a couple weeks a LOT of things start coming up that I had covered over through my sinful and depraved acts (see, I do condemn those acts and myself in those actions because they were absolutely sinful!).

I appreciate the candor and courage (and patience with us fellow Catholics on this forum) of this poster. His above comments are very telling about the reality of the struggle associated with SSA. It sounds like the acting out on SSA is more a symptom expression of the underlying intra-“psychic wounds” associated with SSA.

Anyone who would seek to ignore or minimize SSA as a criteria that needs to be assessed for fitness/qualification/readiness for priestly ordination, ought to thoughtfully consider the above words of personal testimony of one who is trying to walk the path of fidelity to the Church’s teaching. His testimony only reinforces my contention that an individual identifying/assessed as having a predominate/unresolved SSA is not a fit candidate for the priesthood.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Anyone who would seek to ignore or minimize SSA as a criteria that needs to be assessed for fitness/qualification/readiness for priestly ordination, ought to thoughtfully consider the above words of personal testimony of one who is trying to walk the path of fidelity to the Church’s teaching. His testimony only reinforces my contention that an individual identifying/assessed as having a predominate/unresolved SSA is not a fit candidate for the priesthood.

In a way, I agree…a person who has not honestly dealt with their SSA in a serious manner (and trust me, an honest person struggling with SSA and striving to be chaste, will find themselves dealing with big-time issues) wouldn’t be a good candidate for the rigors of the priestly life. A person who HAS dealt with them (having resolved most, if not all, of the issues), on the other hand, may be a BETTER priest because they’ve “been there” and can relate to the struggle in a real way.

So, would you say that if the issues causative (or contributory) to SSA have been, for the most part, resolved, would you consider allowing that person to pursue a call to the priesthood or religious life?

 

[fix]

LCMS_No_More:

In a way, I agree…a person who has not honestly dealt with their SSA in a serious manner (and trust me, an honest person struggling with SSA and striving to be chaste, will find themselves dealing with big-time issues) wouldn’t be a good candidate for the rigors of the priestly life. A person who HAS dealt with them (having resolved most, if not all, of the issues), on the other hand, may be a BETTER priest because they’ve “been there” and can relate to the struggle in a real way.

So, would you say that if the issues causative (or contributory) to SSA have been, for the most part, resolved, would you consider allowing that person to pursue a call to the priesthood or religious life?

In the end the Church will decide, but one has to admit one would be hard pressed to make the argument that such folks should be ordained given the times and culture we are in.

Every time a loophole is used it may be abused. Why have so many men with such an affliction been admitted these recent decades? What has changed that leads you to think all the problems are cleared up and the green light should be issued? What is the criteria to be used to satisfy the requirment that one is “cured”? Why is this one class of men so in need of ordaination that we need to have special rules?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

In the end the Church will decide, but one has to admit one would be hard pressed to make the argument that such folks should be ordained given the times and culture we are in.

Every time a loophole is used it may be abused. Why have so many men with such an affliction been admitted these recent decades?

Good question. Ask the people who have been conducting priestly formation.

What has changed that leads you to think all the problems are cleared up and the green light should be issued?

I don’t get your question.

What is the criteria to be used to satisfy the requirment that one is “cured”?

A good, gender-affirmative (as opposed to gay-affirmative) therapist who truly understands homosexuality will know. There are underlying issues that are causitive (or highly contributory) to SSA. Those issues, once worked through, tend to diminish, if not eliminate, same-sex attraction. The drawback is that this kind of therapy is VERY expensive because the number of therapists that are qualified in this field is EXTREMELY low and the therapy is exceedingly unpopular in the field of psychology/psychiatry. I would say that, at the very least, a good gender-affirmative therapist should be on-staff of every formation team in order to evaluate men who are in discernment to see whether they have worked through their issues or not.

DO NOT misconstrue the above paragraph to mean that I believe that every Catholic who has SSA should go through reparative therapy or anything like that. The Church’s teaching is sufficient for the lay person who is struggling with SSA and we should add nothing or take nothing away from that. If a person chooses to work through their issues, they should be ENCOURAGED in their venture but not forced into it…it must be a choice one makes willingly.

Why is this one class of men so in need of ordaination that we need to have special rules?

I’m not talking about a “class of men.” I don’t think in such a deterministic fashion. I’m talking about individual persons.

 

[felra]

LCMS_No_More:

I would say that, at the very least, a good gender-affirmative therapist should be on-staff of every formation team in order to evaluate men who are in discernment to see whether they have worked through their issues or not.

At a minimum. the fact that a candidate who feels called to the priesthood and admits to strugling with SSA is a good starting point for discernemnt (versus non-disclosure).

I know of no standardized psychometric tests that provide measure of degree/severity of SSA from which to make recommendations–this would be useful in the discerment process.

 

[felra]

LCMS_No_More:

So, would you say that if the issues causative (or contributory) to SSA have been, for the most part, resolved, would you consider allowing that person to pursue a call to the priesthood or religious life?

IMO, that man should be allowed to enter the discerment/formation process to discern his calling to the priesthood. Why? Perhaps because I have heard the testimony of Fr. John Corapi, who is a recovering addict and God called to pursue the priesthood. God calls men to the priesthood, the Church in accordance with in the established norms is responsible for the discerment process leading to ordination.

 

[fix]

LCMS_No_More:

Good question. Ask the people who have been conducting priestly formation.

The point is those that have been in charge have intentionally overlooked SSA and in some cases may have encouraged their applications,

I don’t get your question.

I am not sure where you stand. It was my impression you thought SSA may not be an impediment. Rome seems to think otherwise as far back as 1961.

A good, gender-affirmative (as opposed to gay-affirmative) therapist who truly understands homosexuality will know. There are underlying issues that are causitive (or highly contributory) to SSA. Those issues, once worked through, tend to diminish, if not eliminate, same-sex attraction. The drawback is that this kind of therapy is VERY expensive because the number of therapists that are qualified in this field is EXTREMELY low and the therapy is exceedingly unpopular in the field of psychology/psychiatry. I would say that, at the very least, a good gender-affirmative therapist should be on-staff of every formation team in order to evaluate men who are in discernment to see whether they have worked through their issues or not.

Well, I have mixed views on this assertion. I do think there is a need to for qualified proferssionals to give (name removed by moderator)ut, but I cannot see why it is necessary to have an entire “staff” to address this one issue

I’m not talking about a “class of men.” I don’t think in such a deterministic fashion. I’m talking about individual persons.

We are talking of men who have a particular disorder. This one disorder seems to attract a lot of ink.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Originally Posted by LCMS_No_More
Good question. Ask the people who have been conducting priestly formation.

The point is those that have been in charge have intentionally overlooked SSA and in some cases may have encouraged their applications,

And that IS a problem. That’s why I think there should be a professional therapist on staff to help deal with this issue.

I don’t get your question.

I am not sure where you stand. It was my impression you thought SSA may not be an impediment. Rome seems to think otherwise as far back as 1961.

Then let me be clear for you:

A person with UNRESOLVED issues that lead to SSA should not be admitted because they are unprepared. A person with RESOLVED issues should be considered for admission along with everyone else.

I am not deterministic about this, but believe that the decision should be made on an individual, case-by-case basis–under close supervision from Rome, of course.

A good, gender-affirmative (as opposed to gay-affirmative) therapist who truly understands homosexuality will know. There are underlying issues that are causitive (or highly contributory) to SSA. Those issues, once worked through, tend to diminish, if not eliminate, same-sex attraction. The drawback is that this kind of therapy is VERY expensive because the number of therapists that are qualified in this field is EXTREMELY low and the therapy is exceedingly unpopular in the field of psychology/psychiatry. I would say that, at the very least, a good gender-affirmative therapist should be on-staff of every formation team in order to evaluate men who are in discernment to see whether they have worked through their issues or not.

Well, I have mixed views on this assertion. I do think there is a need to for qualified proferssionals to give (name removed by moderator)ut, but I cannot see why it is necessary to have an entire “staff” to address this one issue

Not a staff of therapists, just a good, gender-affirmative therapist “on staff” in formation teams, or whatever they’re called, to assist in this, along with other, issues.

I’m not talking about a “class of men.” I don’t think in such a deterministic fashion. I’m talking about individual persons.

We are talking of men who have a particular disorder. This one disorder seems to attract a lot of ink.

And that term “disorder” has been taken out of context by so many Catholics that it’s almost become accepted. Persons with same-sex attracted are not “intrinsically disordered.” Persons with same-sex attractions are not “homosexuals.” The Church is EXTREMELY careful in how she talks about these issues and I FIRMLY believe that her children should be, too!

The Catechism says that homosexual ACTS are “intrinsically disordered” and that the INCLINATION is “objectively disordered.” That’s not saying that the PERSON is disordered but their ACTS and the INCLINATION that leads to those acts. Also, the Church doesn’t call persons with same-sex attractions homosexuals but homosexual PERSONS.

Can you see the subtle differences that make ALL the difference in the world in how you view a PERSON?

Additionally, using the term in the Catechism is not a psychological diagnosis but a statement of philosophy and theology…in this case, it is a philosophical statement.

That’s just one of my pet peeves because the tendency is for self-righteous, “straigth” “Christian” people to judge others who aren’t as perfect as they are as inherently inferior and lord it over those inferior people. Seems to me that the right response is to recognize that these “inferior” folk are their brothers and sisters in Christ who need prayer and assistance, not bashings over the head.

 

[fix]

And that term “disorder” has been taken out of context by so many Catholics that it’s almost become accepted.

I was using the term in the medical sense as one with a psychological disorder. It is a psychological disorder no matter how politically influenced the issue is within the academy.

Persons with same-sex attracted are not “intrinsically disordered.” Persons with same-sex attractions are not “homosexuals.” The Church is EXTREMELY careful in how she talks about these issues and I FIRMLY believe that her children should be, too!

The Church says the inclination is objectively disordered and She is not talking about a medical diagnosis.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I was using the term in the medical sense as one with a psychological disorder. It is a psychological disorder no matter how politically influenced the issue is within the academy.

While I agree in general, I think that the word has been thrown around WAY too much. Perhaps helping someone with SSA to overcome it would be a better thing. In fact, I think MANY people on these very boards should to that as penance and reparation for their self-righteous attitudes toward people struggling with SSA.

 

[fix]

LCMS_No_More:

While I agree in general, I think that the word has been thrown around WAY too much. Perhaps helping someone with SSA to overcome it would be a better thing. In fact, I think MANY people on these very boards should to that as penance and reparation for their self-righteous attitudes toward people struggling with SSA.

I have two points to make. First, it is no service to those folks afflicted, or to the truth, to nuance a disorder. What other mental disease should we obfuscate for the sake of being PC?

Second, it has been my experience that those who suffer from this ailment tend toward a persecution complex. By that I mean any frank discussion is viewed as uncharitable or mean spirited. Perhaps those who suffer from this affliction may see the other side of the coin? Imagine those of us raising a family having to constantly contend with a neo-pagan culture that embraces the most anti-God behaviors as noble? What about those folks? Are they not entitled to defend virtue and condemn the agendas of the many who would destroy innocence?

Every defense of normality is not an attack of those poor souls who struggle with homosexual attraction. It seems each sentence we make must be prefaced by saying we love the sinner , but hate the sin and we each are sinners.

 

[felra]

fix:

Second, it has been my experience that those who suffer from this ailment tend toward a persecution complex. By that I mean any frank discussion is viewed as uncharitable or mean spirited. Perhaps those who suffer from this affliction may see the other side of the coin? Imagine those of us raising a family having to constantly contend with a neo-pagan culture that embraces the most anti-God behaviors as noble? What about those folks? Are they not entitled to defend virtue and condemn the agendas of the many who would destroy innocence?

Every defense of normality is not an attack of those poor souls who struggle with homosexual attraction. It seems each sentence we make must be prefaced by saying we love the sinner , but hate the sin and we each are sinners.

I concur with the experience and observation of fix that when ever the topic of SSA arises, a herd rush in defense of those afflicted most often occurs and those so afflicted most often take it to be a personal attack/affront. This despite my (and others) concerted effort to seperate the disorder, behavior from the identity and sanctity of the person. This all but shuts down substantial and meaningful discussion.

Most recently I withdrew myself from a SSA topic thread due to the mud slinging that was directed my way for simply stating my observations and thoughts in a forthright manner – Re: Do you struggle with same-sex attraction? . I can understand the reasons for folks feeling hypersensitive, but all too often, it comes across as reactionary and precast to manipulate/control the argument/discussion. And when I refuse to assume a defensive, back down posture, out come the labels (judgmental, homophobic, self-righteous …).

 

[LCMS_No_More]

fix:

I have two points to make. First, it is no service to those folks afflicted, or to the truth, to nuance a disorder. What other mental disease should we obfuscate for the sake of being PC?

And what have YOU done to help people struggling with homosexual attractions to overcome them other than tell them that they have a “disorder?”

fix:

Second, it has been my experience that those who suffer from this ailment tend toward a persecution complex. By that I mean any frank discussion is viewed as uncharitable or mean spirited.

Not always. It depends on the spirit behind it. Is it the Luke 18:11-12 attitude or is it the attitude St. Paul talks about in 1 Cor. 13?

fix:

Perhaps those who suffer from this affliction may see the other side of the coin? Imagine those of us raising a family having to constantly contend with a neo-pagan culture that embraces the most anti-God behaviors as noble? What about those folks? Are they not entitled to defend virtue and condemn the agendas of the many who would destroy innocence?

Um…as one who is struggling with the issue in a personal way, I can tell you that it’s DOUBLY troublesome for me. Not only do I have to struggle with my inner life but I have to struggle with a society telling me that there’s nothing wrong with the urges and feelings that I have You can wrap yourself in your heterosexuality and pray the prayer of Luke 18:11-12. I’m out in the real world struggling with the culture AND myself.

fix:

Every defense of normality is not an attack of those poor souls who struggle with homosexual attraction. It seems each sentence we make must be prefaced by saying we love the sinner , but hate the sin and we each are sinners.

And not every attack on persons with homosexual attractions is a defense of normality. I’m not saying that you have to preface every sentence. I’m saying that clarity in language would do a WORLD of good in helping bring people into the Church.

The Catechism in Paragraphs 2357-2359 is an EXCELLENT example of this. Learn from it.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

felra:

I concur with the experience and observation of fix that when ever the topic of SSA arises, a herd rush in defense of those afflicted most often occurs and those so afflicted most often take it to be a personal attack/affront.

I would say only when an attack on “homosexualS” without differentiating between those struggling to live according to the Church’s teachings and those who are not is when people come in to ensure that those who ARE struggling are represented.

felra:

This despite my (and others) concerted effort to seperate the disorder, behavior from the identity and sanctity of the person. This all but shuts down substantial and meaningful discussion.

It’s rare that I see that. I usually see “homosexuals are evil” and precious little about peope who are struggling to live according to the Church.

felra:

Most recently I withdrew myself from a SSA topic thread due to the mud slinging that was directed my way for simply stating my observations and thoughts in a forthright manner – Re: Do you struggle with same-sex attraction? . I can understand the reasons for folks feeling hypersensitive, but all too often, it comes across as reactionary and precast to manipulate/control the argument/discussion. And when I refuse to assume a defensive, back down posture, out come the labels (judgmental, homophobic, self-righteous …).

And what was the spirit behind your posts? Was it the Pharisee of Luke 18 or that of Christ? I haven’t seen them because I haven’t seen the thread in a while…

 

[fix]

LCMS_No_More:

And what have YOU done to help people struggling with homosexual attractions to overcome them other than tell them that they have a “disorder?”

The first step on the road to recovery is to accept one has a problem. Denial is of no help. Speaking the truth in charity is a big help, the Holy Spirit converts hearts, I do not. As to my personal work it does not include a formal apostolate to those who suffer from homosexual tendencies.

Not always. It depends on the spirit behind it. Is it the Luke 18:11-12 attitude or is it the attitude St. Paul talks about in 1 Cor. 13?

The spirit behind it should be discovered by talking with the person. Why are you so quick to impute base motives to those who defend virtue?

Um…as one who is struggling with the issue in a personal way, I can tell you that it’s DOUBLY troublesome for me. Not only do I have to struggle with my inner life but I have to struggle with a society telling me that there’s nothing wrong with the urges and feelings that I have You can wrap yourself in your heterosexuality and pray the prayer of Luke 18:11-12. I’m out in the real world struggling with the culture AND myself.

I hope and pray you find peace, but please remember we each have our crosses to bear.

And not every attack on persons with homosexual attractions is a defense of normality. I’m not saying that you have to preface every sentence. I’m saying that clarity in language would do a WORLD of good in helping bring people into the Church.

Where have I been unclear?

The Catechism in Paragraphs 2357-2359 is an EXCELLENT example of this. Learn from it.

I study the CCC and many other Church documents. I advise you to do the same.

 

[felra]

LCMS_No_More:

I would say only when an attack on “homosexualS” without differentiating between those struggling to live according to the Church’s teachings and those who are not is when people come in to ensure that those who ARE struggling are represented.

It’s rare that I see that. I usually see “homosexuals are evil” and precious little about peope who are struggling to live according to the Church.

And what was the spirit behind your posts? Was it the Pharisee of Luke 18 or that of Christ? I haven’t seen them because I haven’t seen the thread in a while…

God bless you for your candor and willingnmess to engage on this topic that has mighty personal relevence for you. This faciliates my education and empathy for others experience.In that respect, I am very much an “outsider”, and do not pretend to know another’s experience.

With that said, your above comments back to me take on the exact defensive posture that I just alluded to. You are asking me to examine my “spirit” (motives) behind my posts. All of a sudden, because I addressing the SSA topic from a [orthodox] Catholic point of view, I am being made to explain the nature of my comments. This would seem to prove my contention, that there seems to be a precast, reactionary response to anyone who expresses a forthright thought or opinion regarding SSA.

 

[m134e5]

felra:

God bless you for your candor and willingnmess to engage on this topic that has mighty personal relevence for you. This faciliates my education and empathy for others experience.In that respect, I am very much an “outsider”, and do not pretend to know another’s experience.

With that said, your above comments back to me take on the exact defensive posture that I just alluded to. You are asking me to examine my “spirit” (motives) behind my posts. All of a sudden, because I addressing the SSA topic from a [orthodox] Catholic point of view, I am being made to explain the nature of my comments. This would seem to prove my contention, that there seems to be a precast, reactionary response to anyone who expresses a forthright thought or opinion regarding SSA.

That is because there seems to be no distinction made between those who act on it and those who do not- the distinction must be made.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

fix:

The first step on the road to recovery is to accept one has a problem. Denial is of no help.

You’ll never see me, or any other person who is struggling honestly with this issue, ever deny the depravity of homosexuality.

fix:

Speaking the truth in charity is a big help,

Ah, and herein lies the rub. The way a thing is worded says a lot about whether or not one is speaking in a spirit of charity or not. The undertone of most posts on this topic come off as…well…uncharitable.

fix:

the Holy Spirit converts hearts, I do not.

“Am I my brother’s keeper?”

Seriously, do you pray for people with this issue?

fix:

As to my personal work it does not include a formal apostolate to those who suffer from homosexual tendencies.

I’m not talking about having a ‘formal apostolate.’ I’m talking about what you, as a Christian person do. Do you know anyone or have you met anyone who is struggling with this issue? How do you relate to them? Do you tell them what vile sinners they are and that they will burn in hell or do you encourage them to live according to the teachings of the Church?

By the way, when I post questions like this, I don’t expect an answer…they’re for the reader.

fix:

The spirit behind it should be discovered by talking with the person. Why are you so quick to impute base motives to those who defend virtue?

Not imputing any motive. I’m asking a question. If it makes some uncomfortable, then I would suspect that there’s a good reason for that.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

felra:

God bless you for your candor and willingnmess to engage on this topic that has mighty personal relevence for you. This faciliates my education and empathy for others experience.In that respect, I am very much an “outsider”, and do not pretend to know another’s experience.

Good. I’m glad I could be of some help in educating you. To be completely honest, I wish I knew what it was like to be a “straight” man. When it comes to that world, I’m just as much an “outsider” as you are in mine.

felra:

With that said, your above comments back to me take on the exact defensive posture that I just alluded to. You are asking me to examine my “spirit” (motives) behind my posts. All of a sudden, because I addressing the SSA topic from a [orthodox] Catholic point of view, I am being made to explain the nature of my comments. This would seem to prove my contention, that there seems to be a precast, reactionary response to anyone who expresses a forthright thought or opinion regarding SSA.

Two things: First, my questions are meant to help a person examine their motives behind their post. If a person feels defensive, then there are probably good reasons for WHY that is.

Second, the orthodox Catholic view should always be similar with the CCC when it come to this issue. That means that we talk about “homosexual persons,” not “homosexuals.” This means that we understand that the actions and inclinations are disordered but that persons are humans who are created in the image and likeness of God.

If we stuck with that, I think we’d find more constructive discussions instead of the reaction you’re so used to getting.