Should homosexual men be allowed to be priests?

[Mijoy2]

fix:

I know of no man who wants sex with another man who does not have SSAD. Be they inmates, or deviants they have SSA. BTW, SSA is a deviant desire. .

SSAD?

 

[fix]

Mijoy2:

SSAD?

Same sex attraction disorder. Please visit courage.com. It is an authentic Catholic ministry to those who suffer from this disorder. They do great work.

As a diagnosis homosexuality was removed, for political reasons, from the diagnostic manual by the psychology elite back in the early 1970s. Too often they tend to combine illegitimate and legitimate science. We need to discern what is authentic and what is secular humanism when speaking of psychological issues. The debate has been hijacked by credentialed misfits.

 

[fix]

katherine2:

Given that, one has to wonder if masclinity is an aberrant mental condition.

No one does not wonder that. Christ ordained two genders and their respective roles. He did not ordain SSAD or sodomy. We do not need illegitimate psychological standards that are agit prop. People with faith and right reason accept that male and female are the natural order for creation.

 

[Edwin1961]

eaManwe:

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

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.”

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.

Temptation can be conquered through God’s Grace. I have stated before on this forums that I am in the same situation as eamanwe. Yet, it is actually easier to talk about it if one is currently in this situattion.
Moreover, I am NOT excluding Heterosexual activity. There are those in world who rape women. It is sad however that these individuals cannot control (or want to control) their sexual urges.

SInce I have posted my ‘Cross’ on these forums, I have been approached by quite a few persons on how do deal with same-sex attraction. My major point of advice…offer it up to God and live a chase life. It will be DIFFICULT but with God ALL things are possible.

Go with God!
Edwin

 

[miguel]

katherine2:

…If you want to look at statistical differences, its not gays, its men that are disproportionately abusers.

Nag, nag, nag…

 

[miguel]

katherine2:

…If you want to look at statistical differences, its not gays, its men that are disproportionately abusers.

Of course, women killing their babies (40 million) doesn’t count.

 

[fix]

miguel:

Of course, women killing their babies (40 million) doesn’t count.

please stop introducing logic and common sense into these posts.

 

[miguel]

fix:

please stop introducing logic and common sense into these posts.

Sorry. It’s the male, rigid, reactionary in me.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

fix:

Same sex attraction disorder. Please visit courage.com. It is an authentic Catholic ministry to those who suffer from this disorder. They do great work.

As a diagnosis homosexuality was removed, for political reasons, from the diagnostic manual by the psychology elite back in the early 1970s. Too often they tend to combine illegitimate and legitimate science. We need to discern what is authentic and what is secular humanism when speaking of psychological issues. The debate has been hijacked by credentialed misfits.

Nota bene: the psychologist who championed the drive to remove homosexuality from the official directory of mental disorders has been doing research and finding that homosexuality is “treatable” in the vast majority of cases. It’s kind of analagous to Bernard Nathanson going from founder of NARAL to Catholic pro-lifer.

 

[fix]

miguel:

Sorry. It’s the male, rigid, reactionary in me.

Every time I hear that word reactionary I think of the old USSR. Those commies called decent Americans reactionary because we love liberty. The secular left calls conservatives that word for the same reasons.

 

[fix]

Andreas Hofer:

Nota bene: the psychologist who championed the drive to remove homosexuality from the official directory of mental disorders has been doing research and finding that homosexuality is “treatable” in the vast majority of cases. It’s kind of analagous to Bernard Nathanson going from founder of NARAL to Catholic pro-lifer.

Yep, I have read that. I have great respect for anyone in the psycho fields who can stand up for the truth. They face all manner of obstacles. Not unlike a faithful bishop today standing with Christ against error.

 

[miguel]

fix:

Every time I hear that word reactionary I think of the old USSR. Those commies called decent Americans reactionary because we love liberty. The secular left calls conservatives that word for the same reasons.

Yeah, how dare you react to the damage we’re doing? We’re trying to create an open society…a tolerant society…one where child molesters, statutory rapists, and baby killers feel at home, where AIDS is transferred freely, where Russian roulette is promoted in the form of condoms, where porn stars rule, where taxpayers and churchgoers happily pay for the ever-increasing social costs. They only folks we need to be rid of are the intolerant. They might want to be told of our baby killing surgeries on their daughters, they might object when their kids are molested, they might call porno pollution. They might even teach their kids to be reactionaries. The gulag for them.

 

[Contarini]

:My answer is that homosexuals should be banned. When a heterosexual enters the seminary he gives up a good. When a homosexual enters he gives up an evil. The two situations are vastly different.:

Sure, but how is this relevant? Qualification for the priesthood is not based on “giving up a good.” That’s a made-up reason constructed just to keep chaste homosexuals out. Furthermore, since evil is disordered good, you can’t contrast “giving up an evil” and “giving up a good” in the way you are doing. Homosexual are also giving up a good–it’s simply that they are giving up a good which (assuming that they are 100% homosexual) they can never legitimately attain.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[fix]

:My answer is that homosexuals should be banned. When a heterosexual enters the seminary he gives up a good. When a homosexual enters he gives up an evil. The two situations are vastly different.:

Sure, but how is this relevant? Qualification for the priesthood is not based on “giving up a good.” That’s a made-up reason constructed just to keep chaste homosexuals out. Furthermore, since evil is disordered good, you can’t contrast “giving up an evil” and “giving up a good” in the way you are doing. Homosexual are also giving up a good–it’s simply that they are giving up a good which (assuming that they are 100% homosexual) they can never legitimately attain.

In Christ,

Edwin

That was not my only argument, but I think my point is fair and important. It is said many of the abusers in the priesthood were homosexuals looking for a life where they could hide their desires. The priesthood may afford them that opportunity.

I accept there have always been homosexuals in the priesthood and always will be. Some lead a chaste life and are holy men. But, why take that chance? Why is it sound reasoning to let in men who desire other men when they will be living in close contact on a daily basis? We would never think of allowing mixed sex living in the priesthood? Why risk the scandal? How will we foster more vocations if a young heterosexual man sees that vocation as a heaven for those with SSA?

 

[Lisa_N]

fix:

That was not my only argument, but I think my point is fair and important. It is said many of the abusers in the priesthood were homosexuals looking for a life where they could hide their desires. The priesthood may afford them that opportunity.

I accept there have always been homosexuals in the priesthood and always will be. Some lead a chaste life and are holy men. But, why take that chance? Why is it sound reasoning to let in men who desire other men when they will be living in close contact on a daily basis? We would never think of allowing mixed sex living in the priesthood? Why risk the scandal? How will we foster more vocations if a young heterosexual man sees that vocation as a heaven for those with SSA?

I think these are the major issues. One, the priesthood actually enabled deviants to hide and maintain a double life–honored and beloved priest in public and acting out his sexual desires in private.

Two, I think that it is far more important to clean up seminaries than to find homosexual priests and try to “out” them. The seminary needs to be a safe place where young men can focus on God and their vocation, not either be dodging aggressive gays or if of the same bent, engaging in sexual behavior. Clearly straight men do not want to be in constant and close contact with a group of homosexuals. Further it’s really asking for trouble, putting a bunch of young men together, with their high levels of testosterone, the physical and emotional closeness of a seminary as well as its isolation from the rest of the world. Add to that some lonliness and disorientation and you have a perfect environment for the more predatory elements to prey upon the weak.

Lisa N

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Lisa N:

I think these are the major issues. One, the priesthood actually enabled deviants to hide and maintain a double life–honored and beloved priest in public and acting out his sexual desires in private.

Two, I think that it is far more important to clean up seminaries than to find homosexual priests and try to “out” them. The seminary needs to be a safe place where young men can focus on God and their vocation, not either be dodging aggressive gays or if of the same bent, engaging in sexual behavior. Clearly straight men do not want to be in constant and close contact with a group of homosexuals. Further it’s really asking for trouble, putting a bunch of young men together, with their high levels of testosterone, the physical and emotional closeness of a seminary as well as its isolation from the rest of the world. Add to that some lonliness and disorientation and you have a perfect environment for the more predatory elements to prey upon the weak.

Lisa N

The other reason to deny them entrance is that once they reach a kind of critical mass in any particular group setting, the heterosexuals don’t want anything to do with it. We’ve seen this happen in some industries, for example hair dressing and florists. I know a man who’s married and has children–he’s in the floral wholesale business. He’s a friend of my husband’s and has told my husband that it’s tremendously difficult in his business. He’s constantly surrounded by deviance while he’s trying to live a Christ-like life and raise his children properly. Most normal men don’t want to be surrounded by a bunch of homosexuals.

 

[Lisa_N]

StJeanneDArc:

The other reason to deny them entrance is that once they reach a kind of critical mass in any particular group setting, the heterosexuals don’t want anything to do with it. We’ve seen this happen in some industries, for example hair dressing and florists. I know a man who’s married and has children–he’s in the floral wholesale business. He’s a friend of my husband’s and has told my husband that it’s tremendously difficult in his business. He’s constantly surrounded by deviance while he’s trying to live a Christ-like life and raise his children properly. Most normal men don’t want to be surrounded by a bunch of homosexuals.

Indeed. There is the theory of the “lavender mafia” in a number of businesses where homosexuals will do business with each other but will ostracize or not do business with straights.

Also as you said certain professions have been so associated with homosexuals that straights who are in the business are simply assumed to be homosexual. I had two totally straight, male hairdressers. Both were married, had kids and clearly masculine. Both said they constantly fought the stereotypes and when they went to conferences, were frequently hit on, pursued and harassed by the homosexuals.

I think the pressure of being a young man, not mature about his identity, would be serious if placed in a very homosexual oriented world. I have a friend who I think could have stayed straight had he not decided to apprentice with a well known professional who was homosexual. He would call and say he was afraid everyone would think him “gay” because he was working for X. I kept telling him the learning experience was the main thing and not to worry about people talking. How foolish of me not to realize how easily the older man (who was incidentally in a decade long ‘committed’ relationship) would be able to wear him down and introduce him into “the life.”

Lisa N

Lisa N

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

GWitherow:

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.

I think that was a model answer.​

And those last two sentences were excellently said.

If alcoholics can be ordained - why not homosexuals ? After all, some people hate alcoholics as much as other people hate homosexuals - even though we are not supposed to hate anyone. I can’t see any difference - one is more “respectable” than the other: that is the only significant difference, AFAICS (not that respectability is of any importance).

Besides, homosexuals are ordained anyway - some have risen very high in the Church. So maybe the whole question is academic.

I would happily see careerists, and those who think of the Church as a means to political and social influence and prestige defrocked, though: if clergy are worldly-minded, and care less for Christ & His People than for their own promotion, they have no place in the Church at all. Let them become Christians, before they serve as priests, let alone as bishops. Christ did not found His Church in order to give his disciples political power or social advantage or wealth. ##

 

[Dj_Roy_Albert]

For the 28 people that voted yes & for the 21 people that lean toward yes I say that you need to read your Bibles. Homosexuality is a sin. We are all born sinners, but we are not bound by sin once we are baptized. Homosexuals live in sin, in disobedience to God without want to change. Many blame God for “being born gay” which is a lie. Our God, the God of love would not create someone to be bound to such sin when it is sin that He dispises.

It would be impossible for a person living in opposition to the will of God to live the will of God, it’s that simple. Jesus said “you can not get good fruit from a bad tree”, it is impossible.

 

[fix]

Gottle of Geer:

alcoholics can be ordained - why not homosexuals ?
Besides, homosexuals are ordained anyway - some have risen very high in the Church. So maybe the whole question is academic.

Because heterosexual men do not want to live with several homosexuals. We want to foster authentic vocations. Men want a manly, authentic male role model to emulate. We have aboandoned those notions. Look around and see the result of the “gate-keepers” allowing in deviants.