Should homosexual men be allowed to be priests?

[fix]

LCMS_No_More:

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

Good, but many who post here are homosexual apologists.

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.

That is your inference, but not necessarily the objective truth.

“Am I my brother’s keeper?”

Seriously, do you pray for people with this issue?

Yes, I do. Do you pray to be more understanding with those who are fed up with the “gay” agenda. Do you pray to be less reactionary to those who argue in good faith?

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?

I have and do work, eat, gone to school , socialized, etc with such people. I associate with all types of folks from varied backgrounds and cultures. Does any of that mean I should be lukewarm? Evangelization takes many forms and that depends on the circumstances. These forums are one way, but not the only way.

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.

I do not think I, or any other poster, “feel” uncomfortable with your words. Some are baffled at your stance.

 

[felra]

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.

I get it, more of a broadcast shot to see if it hits home. The problem with this is that this can easily come across as personal, directive and presumptuous. But, now that you have explained it to me …

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.

Agreed. But, as m134e5 pointed out in his post:

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.

…then we also need to add the qualifiers “chaste”, “struggling” or “active” to eliminate any misunderstanding/misrepresentation when speaking of “homosexual persons”? Perhaps a glossary of universally accepted and respectful terms?

 

[fix]

felra:

I Perhaps a glossary of universally accepted and respectful terms?

That is about right. Is it possible to have a conversation in this age without hiring a lawyer or a board to oversee each word to make sure we are in compliance with some arbitrary standard?

Charity should be the standard, but we all are guilty of assuming the other is attacking us even when the other is being charitable. What is that called?

 

[felra]

fix:

That is about right. Is it possible to have a conversation in this age without hiring a lawyer or a board to oversee each word to make sure we are in compliance with some arbitrary standard?

Charity should be the standard, but we all are guilty of assuming the other is attacking us even when the other is being charitable. What is that called?

Error on the side of presumption … (versus error on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt).

 

[LCMS_No_More]

felra:

I get it, more of a broadcast shot to see if it hits home. The problem with this is that this can easily come across as personal, directive and presumptuous. But, now that you have explained it to me …

If that’s what you’d like to think.

felra:

lcms_no_more:

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.

Agreed. But, as m134e5 pointed out in his post:

m134e5:

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.

…then we also need to add the qualifiers “chaste”, “struggling” or “active” to eliminate any misunderstanding/misrepresentation when speaking of “homosexual persons”? Perhaps a glossary of universally accepted and respectful terms?

Not a whole glossary, just accuracy. Within the set of all “homosexual persons,” you’ll find two or three subsets. Those who live according to the eaching of the Church and those who do not (which you can further divide into the “gay” movement and the rest…not every “gay” person promotes it, contrary to popular belief). If you’re talking about those in the “gay” movement, then you should specify that. In that case, using “gay” with the quotes is eminently the best way of saying it. If you’re talking about persons, like myself and others, who ARE struggling to live in accord with the teachings of the Church, then chaste or struggling is absolutely necessary (of course, no one likes to mention people are doing the right thing…can’t complain about them, can we?).

 

[GloriaPatri4]

Related thread

Bishop Thomas Gumbleton and the homosexual agenda

 

[felra]

I applaud this voice of reason: Bishop who is overseeing the Vatican ordered inspection of U.S. seminaries beginning this month says there is no room for men with strong homosexual inclinations.

http://www.ncregister.com/articulo.php?artkod=NTU-

U.S. Bishops to Begin Inspecting Seminaries
WAYNE LAUGESEN National Catholic Register

WASHINGTON — The bishop overseeing a Vatican-ordered inspection of U.S. seminaries said there is no room there for men with strong homosexual inclinations. And an apostolic visitation that begins this month will seek to determine whether seminaries are enrolling them.

“I think anyone who has engaged in homosexual activity, or has strong homosexual inclinations, would be best not to apply to a seminary and not to be accepted into a seminary,” Archbishop Edwin O’Brien, who’s coordinating the visits of more than 220 seminaries and houses of formation, told the Register.

Archbishop O’Brien, who heads the Archdiocese for Military Services USA, said even homosexuals who have been celibate for 10 or more years should not be admitted to seminaries.

“The Holy See should be coming out with a document about this,” Archbishop O’Brien said.

The visitations were sparked by the sexual abuse scandal that hit the U.S. Church in 2002.

A February 2004 report commissioned by the U.S. bishops’ National Review Board noted that 81% of the reported victims of child sexual abuse by clergy from 1950 to 2002 were boys.

The findings strengthened the argument made by many observers that at the heart of the sexual abuse problem was a strong presence of homosexuals in the priesthood.

 

[Libero]

Archbishop O’Brien, who heads the Archdiocese for Military Services USA, said even homosexuals who have been celibate for 10 or more years should not be admitted to seminaries.

Does nobody think thats a bit steep? I fully understand where the Archbishop is coming from, but how much do homosexuals have to do to prove themselves?

 

[Dolores49]

Miguel posted this:
The empirical evidence as to why they shouldn’t be priests is available in the details of the clergy sex abuse scandal. Most of these cases were not true cases of pedophilia. Pedophilia involves young children (i.e., before adolescence).

80% of all victims were male, most of them were adolescents.

Clearly, this is a homosexual problem as much as it is a statutory rape problem.

The question is whether the CCC’s warning against “unjust discrimination” applies in this case. I think it is possible to treat homosexuals respectfully without necessarily extending ordination to them. And I think the Church is also justified in not ordaining men who have these kinds of mental health issues, especially now, with so much known about the kind of damage that can come from it.

Comment by Dolores49:

As I read over some of the responses I have to wonder whether the Catholics who Post on this Thread are AFRAID OF RIGHTEOUS ANGER, of being “judgmental.”

Miguel is correct to cite the FACTS: 80% WERE B-O-Y-S

A homosexual underground is the ROOT OF THE SCANDAL!

We will never hear a homily about the sins of fornication, adultery, divorce, and sodomy from a homosexual priest.

Clear?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I maintain that if homosexuals are barred from the priesthood simply because of SSA, then the RCC is obliged to reformulate its teaching on homosexuality and make it clear that homosexuals have a constitutional disorder that prevents them from being properly disposed to God’s grace. In other words, it must confess that homosexual men and women cannot, constitutionally, lead lives of holiness. They can come close, but they just can’t get there. If the RCC does not alter the catechism in this way, I think it is a sign of a dangerous duplicity that will undermine the authority of the church.
Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[fix]

Deo Volente:

Grace & Peace!

I maintain that if homosexuals are barred from the priesthood simply because of SSA, then the RCC is obliged to reformulate its teaching on homosexuality and make it clear that homosexuals have a constitutional disorder that prevents them from being properly disposed to God’s grace. In other words, it must confess that homosexual men and women cannot, constitutionally, lead lives of holiness. They can come close, but they just can’t get there. If the RCC does not alter the catechism in this way, I think it is a sign of a dangerous duplicity that will undermine the authority of the church.
Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Why? Ordination is not a right. The Church has the authority to decide on who has a calling and what proscriptions are needed.

God’s grace is not the issue. Those with SSA may still accept God’s grace as we all may, but that does not mean we all need to be ordained.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

fix:

Why? Ordination is not a right. The Church has the authority to decide on who has a calling and what proscriptions are needed.

God’s grace is not the issue. Those with SSA may still accept God’s grace as we all may, but that does not mean we all need to be ordained.

Fix, I agree with you to an extent. But I think where we disagree is that a blanket proscription against a group of people because of the nature of their affection (and not because of something they have actually done) neccessarily compromises their humanity. In the eyes of the church, they will be homosexual people. Not people who are homosexuals.

The authority to decide who has a calling is just that–who individually, on a case by case individual basis, is called.

God’s grace is the issue, or at any rate, how that grace is perceived is at issue because the consistency of the teaching of the church is at issue. Either the sin of homosexuality is a matter of constitution or a matter of action–it is either about being or doing. If the church says it is a matter of action (as it does in the catechism–the act is considered sinful, not the inclination), it cannot then behave as if those who are inclined but not active are morally equivalent to those who are active. It cannot assume that those who are inclined will neccessarily act, because to do so would be to cynically presume against their virtue and give the lie to its own teaching. If the homosexually inclined individual will act on the inclination, then making a distinction between inclination and act is disingenuous.

On the other hand, if the church says that people with SSA are constitutionally sinful, then it is in a better position to deny them holy orders. It must also, then, re-evaluate its doctrine regarding people with SSA and their ability to lead holy lives. And this will have implications for the church’s assertion that grace is available to all–such a statement must then be modified to: grace is more available to some than to others.

If the church is that willing to compromise doctrine to avoid potential scandal, I think we are living in very dark days. It reminds me of the wonderful Ben Franklin quotation that runs something like–those who are willing to give up liberty for security do not deserve either.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[felra]

Deo Volente:

Grace & Peace!

I maintain that if homosexuals are barred from the priesthood simply because of SSA, then the RCC is obliged to reformulate its teaching on homosexuality and make it clear that homosexuals have a constitutional disorder that prevents them from being properly disposed to God’s grace. In other words, it must confess that homosexual men and women cannot, constitutionally, lead lives of holiness. They can come close, but they just can’t get there. If the RCC does not alter the catechism in this way, I think it is a sign of a dangerous duplicity that will undermine the authority of the church.
Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

I am not sure what you believe are the implications for the person with SSA by categorizing this affliction as “constitutional disorder”. From my researched understanding: Is SSA an integral aspect of their psychological make-up? --Yes. Does the degree of effect and severity of SSA disorder vary for each individual? – Yes. Is the deposit of this “constitutional” psychological make-up static and unable to be consciously changed in consitution and effect? – No. Does having a consitutionally endowed disorder as part of one’s psychological make-up (resultant from original sin) limit one’s capacity to receive the fullness of God’s grace? – Yes. Does this mean that a personal with a SSA consitutional disorder cannot lead a life of holiness or is intrinsically sinful? – No. Does a person with a SSA disorder present a limitation to the extent that through holy orders Jesus Christ can assume/occupy/inhabit the fullnes of His priesthood? – I do not know, but I suspect that this would be the case.

Here is a thoughtful article regarding the intricate psychological issues issues at hand for a seminarian candidate afflicted with SSA:

http://www.narth.com/docs/catholic.html – Letter to the Catholic Bishops: The authors offer suggestions for improved methods of screening and training candidates for religious life, including those candidates who are homosexually oriented.

*(Excert): *
*"There is ample evidence that same-sex attraction has many different causes. These lead to significant childhood and adolescent emotional pain and psychological problems. Among males, these could include a weak masculine identity, social isolation and loneliness, peer rejection or a poor body image and in females, a mistrust of male love or a weak feminine identity.

---

*"Bishops would also see this healing if they encourage priests with SSA to pursue appropriate therapy with those loyal to the Church’s teaching. Most males with SSA had painful childhood and adolescent peer relationships. Under the stress of loneliness and insecurity in adult life, there can be an unconscious association to this adolescent and childhood pain. Attractions to children, adolescents or adult males then develop in an unconscious attempt to gain acceptance and lessen the pain of sadness, loneliness and lack of male confidence. The treatment of this emotional pain is essential in order to protect the Church and her children from further sorrow and scandal.

"Our experience over 25 years has convinced us of the direct link between rebellion and anger against the Church’s teaching, and sexually promiscuous behaviors.

*"When screening reveals probable SSA, the candidate is not automatically excluded from consideration. If he is willing to do the hard work required to come to freedom from his emotional pain, his same-sex attractions will be resolved and then he can reapply later. The Church should not take the moral risk of allowing someone with SSA to enter the seminary.

“It should be noted, that many men with SSA will have problems besides their SSA which could make admission to the seminary inadvisable. For example, men with SSA are more likely to have problems with compulsive masturbation, other sexual addictions, substance abuse problems, history of childhood sexual abuse, and depressive illness.”

Richard P. Fitzgibbons, M.D.
Peter Rudegeair, M.A.
Eugene F. Diamond, M.D.,
For the Catholic Medical Association

 

[fix]

Deo Volente:

Grace & Peace!

Fix, I agree with you to an extent.

** Renewed care in selecting candidates for the seminary

     ** It is my duty therefore to recommend a renewed attentiveness in the selection of vocations for the seminary, with the use of all available means for coming to an adequate knowledge of the candidates, above all, from the moral and affective point of view. Let no bishop feel excluded         from this duty of conscience for which *he will have to render an account         directly to God*. It would be deplorable that, by a mistaken act of tolerance, he would ordain young men who are immature or exhibit clear signs of affective disorders, who, as is sadly known, could cause serious confusion in the consciousness of the faithful with obvious harm for the whole Church.

Pope John Paul II
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2brazb.htm

1. What, then, are homosexual persons to do who seek to follow the Lord? Fundamentally, they are called to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross. That Cross, for the believer, is a fruitful sacrifice since from that death come life and redemption. While any call to carry the cross or to understand a Christian’s suffering in this way will predictably be met with bitter ridicule by some, it should be remembered that this is the way to eternal life for all who follow Christ.

It is, in effect, none other than the teaching of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians when he says that the Spirit produces in the lives of the faithful “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness and self-control” (5:22) and further (5:24), “You cannot belong to Christ unless you crucify all self-indulgent passions and desires.”

It is easily misunderstood, however, if it is merely seen as a pointless effort at self-denial. The Cross is a denial of self, but in service to the will of God himself who makes life come from death and empowers those who trust in him to practise virtue in place of vice.

To celebrate the Paschal Mystery, it is necessary to let that Mystery become imprinted in the fabric of daily life. To refuse to sacrifice one’s own will in obedience to the will of the Lord is effectively to prevent salvation. Just as the Cross was central to the expression of God’s redemptive love for us in Jesus, so the conformity of the self-denial of homosexual men and women with the sacrifice of the Lord will constitute for them a source of self-giving which will save them from a way of life which constantly threatens to destroy them…

Given at Rome, 1 October 1986.

JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER
Prefect

newadvent.org/library/docs_df86ho.htm

 

[Topher]

Before I get too far into this post, I would like to point out that I don not think that all homosexuals are pedophiles. That being said, I still believe that the recent scandals in the American Church are the direct result of allowing men with SSA to become priests. The current scandals have unfortunately been labeled pedophelia, but that is a misnomer. Pedophelia is the disordered sexual attraction of an adult to prepubecent children. However, with regaurd to the priest sex abuse scandals this was not the case. The abuse that occured was almost always aimed at children who had already hit puberty. Considering this then, the scandals were not matters of pedophelia but of homosexuality. A homosexuality that prefered pubescent or post pubescent young persons. This does not excuse the abuse or make it any less serious but it does show that since these were not cases of pedophelia, homosexuality was the problem these priests had. That being the case, these scandals should make it clear that homosexuality and the priesthood do not mix.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Topher:

…homosexuality was the problem these priests had. That being the case, these scandals should make it clear that homosexuality and the priesthood do not mix.

Topher, I respectfully disagree–the problem was not homosexuality, the problem was priests willing to compromise their vocation, their vows, their relationship with the church, and the innocence of another for their own gratification. Homosexuality here may be an element, but it is not a cause. The devil did not make them do it. They chose to do it, as individuals. They, individually, could not bear the oaths they took or the faith and trust given them.

Whether or not homosexuality and the priesthood mix is a moot point–the priesthood does not mix with any sexuality. A priest sacrifices his sexuality for the good of the church in becoming celibate. Celibacy is the same regardless of sexual orientation. Is homosexual celibacy a greater sacrifice to make than heterosexual celibacy? The question is ridiculous, I think.

Felra mentions a letter from Catholic Bishops stating that men with SSA are more likely to have a series of sexual and behavioral complexes that may prevent them from honorably discharging the duties of a priest. But likelihood is not reality. Likelihood is not actuality. To treat likelihood as if it were actuality, we might as well lock up the victims of abuse with their abusers as it has been demonstrated that those who are abused are more likely to abuse others. But no one advocates such ridiculous things.

For the church to advocate something like this is for the church to cynically deny Christian hope. It would be akin to the priest at the door of a church saying, “I’m sorry. These holy mysteries won’t avail you very much. You’re just going to sin again. Go home. It’s useless.” Traditionally, the church counters sinful likelihood with hope in Christ. To fail to do this when it comes to men with SSA and the priesthood is for the church to betray its hope.

Let the church deal with candidates on a person by person basis.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[fix]

** ** Ordination and Same Sex Attraction****

                                                                                       By Andrew R. Baker

Thanks to a recent* Circular Letter *in 1997 from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments concerning the suitability of candidates for holy orders, some guidance and assistance from the Holy See have already been given in order to tackle the thorny and difficult issue of suitability.

The letter says that a vocation is based on “a moral certitude that is founded upon positive reasons regarding the* suitability *of the candidate.” Next, it mentions the fundamental reason not to admit a candidate to holy orders. The document says: “Admission may not take place if there exists a prudent doubt regarding the candidate’s suitability (Canon 1052 §3 with Canon 1030). By ‘prudent doubt’ is meant a doubt …

There are a number of significant negative aspects to S.S.A. that contribute to a “prudent doubt” with regard to the suitability of a candidate for holy orders.

First and foremost among them is the possible simultaneous manifestation of other serious problems such as substance abuse, sexual addiction and depression. …

Likewise, there is an increased possibility that persons with S.S.A. may be more familiar with certain patterns and techniques of deception and repression, either conscious or subconscious, which were learned in trying to deal with their tendencies in a largely heterosexual environment…

Another aspect that would contribute to a “prudent doubt” concerning a candidate with S.S.A. is a question about his adherence to church teaching…

Likewise, the spousal dimension of celibacy seems unclear for those with S.S.A… Celibacy is a way of living the spousal character of Christ’s relationship with his bride, the church. Through the celibate life, the priest redirects his sexual attraction to the opposite sex toward another “body,” the church, which is a “bride” in a complementary spousal relationship. He exercises a spiritual fatherhood and lives a supernatural spousal relationship as a sign to the church of Christ’s love for her. Someone afflicted with S.S.A. cannot redirect his inclination toward a complementary “other” in a spousal relationship, because homosexuality has disordered his sexual attraction toward the opposite sex. It then becomes difficult to be genuinely a sign of Christ’s spousal love for the church.

If it can be said that a man with homosexual tendencies can live a celibate life, at the very least it is lacking some important elements due to S.S.A., and it could be another reason to conclude that there exists a prudent doubt as to his suitability for holy orders…

americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=2513&issueID=403

 

[Orionthehunter]

I think that Andrew Baker raises some very interesting points that need to be studied and considered. Does anyone know what his expertise is? Is he a Priest? Psychiatrist? Not that his expertise necessarily qualifies or disqualifies him on this issue but it might enhance the standing of his points.

However, I think one must read carefully his words. He used an awful lot of “could, might, etc.” that left it open that there could be exceptions while also indicating that there must be intense diligence and scrutiny given to person who struggles with homosexuality.

But in addition to subject of this thread, I hope that we don’t become complacent that denying homosexuals from the seminary will irradicate this problem. In the study commissioned by the Bishops, 19% of the victims were female. Additionally, I fear that some of the male victims were victims not becuase of their gender but availability. As someone who once found young girls attractive (while I was 16-18 years old), my impure thoughts are now confined to women who look 40-50. And despite these thoughts, I have no real impulse to act on these thoughts. Thus I am led by my personal situation to to believe that this problem might be about more than sex. My analogy is that rape is about power and not sex and I fear a substantial portion of this problem is related to power and not sex.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

There are a number of significant negative aspects to S.S.A. that contribute to a “prudent doubt” with regard to the suitability of a candidate for holy orders.

First and foremost among them is the possible simultaneous manifestation of other serious problems such as substance abuse, sexual addiction and depression. …

…

Someone afflicted with S.S.A. cannot redirect his inclination toward a complementary “other” in a spousal relationship, because homosexuality has disordered his sexual attraction toward the opposite sex. It then becomes difficult to be genuinely a sign of Christ’s spousal love for the church.

If it can be said that a man with homosexual tendencies can live a celibate life, at the very least it is lacking some important elements due to S.S.A., and it could be another reason to conclude that there exists a prudent doubt as to his suitability for holy orders…

Father Baker certainly has a definite view of the subject–and I’m afraid it’s led him to some empty speculation.

On the speculation side, his assertion that sexual complentarity is the basis for comprehension of complentary otherness is absurd and unreasoned. You may certainly take the metaphor of marriage as a symbol of the union between the church and the priest, but then to assume that there is a sexual element to a relationship with the body of Christ (or a hypostatized institution) that is, as such, best understood by heterosexuals is taking the metaphor to something of an extreme.

And the assertion that homosexual celibacy is qualitatively different from heterosexual celibacy is also unreasoned–what is the basis for this assertion? He doesn’t seem to say.

If “prudent doubt” is based on nothing more than a speculation regarding the “possible simultaneous manifestation” of certain behaviors based solely on the admission of an unexpressed SSA, for instance, then the concept of prudent doubt is spurious. Prudent doubt must be based on more than vain speculation. To my knowledge, I do not have an addictive personality, but alcohol addiction runs in my family. If I went into a bar and was denied a drink based solely on the fact that alcholism runs in my family and not based on any documented predilection to abuse alcohol or other substances on my part, I would be upset. And few people could blame me.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[felra]

Whether or not homosexuality and the priesthood mix is a moot point–the priesthood does not mix with any sexuality.** A priest sacrifices his sexuality for the good of the church in becoming celibate**

.
A priest sacrifices sexual expression in the exclusive relationship of marriage and the potential bearing and raising of offspring. He retains his sexuality whether ordered (or for those already ordained with disordered SSA) orientation. He does not become non-sexual/asexual in embracing celibacy for the kingdom. Your above wording seemed to blur this distinction.

Celibacy is the same regardless of sexual orientation

. Is homosexual celibacy a greater sacrifice to make than heterosexual celibacy? The question is ridiculous, I think.
Celibacy is not simply one denying themself genital sexual expression. Celibacy is a renouncing one good to embrace another good. There is a vast and distinct difference between what a heterosexual and homosexual man renounces and the extent they are able to embrace.

Felra mentions a letter from Catholic Bishops stating that men with SSA are more likely to have a series of sexual and behavioral complexes that may prevent them from honorably discharging the duties of a priest. But likelihood is not reality. Likelihood is not actuality.

Then take a look at these researched co-mordity factors for persons afflicted with SSA:

"Individuals experience same-sex attractions for different reasons. While there are similarities in the patterns of development, each individual has a unique, personal history. In the histories of persons who experience same-sex attraction, one frequently finds one or more of the following:
Dislike of team sports (boys), (Thompson 1973~~)

Lack of hand/eye coordination and resultant teasing by peers (boys), (Bailey 1993~~;

Fitzgibbons 199936; Newman 1976~~)

Sexual abuse or rape, (Beitchman 199138; Bradley 1997~~; Engel 198140; Finkelhor

1984; Gundlach 1967~’)

Social phobia or extreme shyness, (Golwyn 199342)

Parental loss through death or divorce, (Zucker 1995)

Separation from parent during critical developmental stages. (Zucker 1995)

In some cases, same-sex attraction or activity occurs in a patient with other psychological diagnosis, such as:

major depression, (Fergusson 1999~~) suicidal ideation, (Herrell 1999), generalized anxiety disorder, substance abuse, conduct disorder in adolescents,

borderline personality disorder, (Parris 1993~~; Zubenko 1987~~)

schizophrenia, (Gonsiorek 1982)46

pathological narcissism. (Bychowski 1954~~; Kaplan 196748)"

couragerc.net/CMAStatement.html#5)%20THERAPY%20THERAPY) –Catholic Medical Association statement.

Let the church deal with candidates on a person by person basis.

Yes, and let us error on the side of caution and compassion to those identifed as afflcited with SSA.