G
GloriaPatri4
Guest
I understand it is an old document but unless someone can produce a more recent document stating otherwise I’m pretty sure this one is still valid regardless that it came out before Vat II.
Peace.
THE ELEPHANT IN THE CHURCH a Catholic priest speaks out against homosexual priests
- Status
Peace.
T
tuopaolo
Guest
The Church has a law too.
You are right that the primary meaning is that it is a moral or spiritual disorder, being a more or less strong inclination to an intrinsic moral evil (which is why any expression of it is wrong even when it doesn’t involve any touching). But it is also truly a disorder of the mind and heart and indisputably in that sense a mental health disorder as it is contrary to the physical and spiritual health of the mind and heart. Also, a Vatican glossary – I don’t know how authoritative it is – spoke of it as a psychological disorder.
S
Scout
Guest
Every sin is a disorder of the heart, mind and spirit.
Scout :tiphat:
J
JimO
Guest
No, but neither do you have them living in close quarters with other men, sharing bedrooms, showers, etc. Do you think it would be appropriate for a man to be allowed to live in a convent with women? It’s not much different. This is one of my biggest concerns and I’ve mentioned it on each post, yet it has gone unanswered.
O
Other_Eric
Guest
Hi JimO!
It may be inadvisable for a man to sleep in a convent full of women but how far are you willing to take this analogy? Should the homosexual, in addition to being banned from Holy Orders be similarly restricted from membership in a professional sports team? A college dormitory? A frat house? A single-sex educational institution? What about professions such as firefighting, where the employees are, practically speaking, mostly all of the same sex and forced to live under close conditions as a condition of working their shifts?
J
JimO
Guest
Other Eric:
Look, I’m not advocating wholesale discrimination against homosexuals, which is what I assume you are implying; however, some discrimination (and I use the word in its broader sense) is necessary in society. Is it fair to prohibit men from leading girl scout troops, Muslim clerics from teaching RCIA, women from playing in the NFL? We discriminate every day. If you don’t know accounting, you can’t be a CPA. Every test we take discriminates. Every athletic team discriminates, every fraternity discriminates and every college discriminates. They discriminate against those who are not suited for the institutions. The Church has the right to do the same for the priesthood, for the sake of the faithful.
Those aren’t Church matters and the Church isn’t involved in deciding what is specifically moral behavior in the context of athletic teams, colleges (unless they are Catholic colleges), and certainly not fraternities. In those environments, the participants aren’t focusing on living lives of holiness, avoiding temptation and being formed to be the spiritual leaders of the Church. There is a huge difference. The convent analogy is extremely relevent because it is a similar Church institution and the temptations are similar. The analogy wasn’t meant to be taken further.
Look, I’m not advocating wholesale discrimination against homosexuals, which is what I assume you are implying; however, some discrimination (and I use the word in its broader sense) is necessary in society. Is it fair to prohibit men from leading girl scout troops, Muslim clerics from teaching RCIA, women from playing in the NFL? We discriminate every day. If you don’t know accounting, you can’t be a CPA. Every test we take discriminates. Every athletic team discriminates, every fraternity discriminates and every college discriminates. They discriminate against those who are not suited for the institutions. The Church has the right to do the same for the priesthood, for the sake of the faithful.
F
fix
Guest
It is not only a sin, but a psychological disorder. Until there is convincing evidence that this mental disorder can be properly treated, I cannot see any reason to ordain such men.
O
Other_Eric
Guest
Hi JimO!
Of course we discriminate every day. If an individual has some quality about his being that would directly and negatively effect his ability to participate in the group’s activity, then it is just to exclude them. If, homosexuality is, in itself, an unavoidable impediment to living a life of holiness, then why would we bother to evangelize the homosexual person? It’s hard to see why an argument to keep even a chaste homosexual out of the priesthood cannot logically be extended to keep them out of the Mystical Body.
J
JimO
Guest
Other Eric:
There are many of us in the Mystical Body that are unsuited for the priesthood for a variety of reasons. Someone’s unsuitability for the priesthood does not speak to their suitability as a Christian.
Hi Eric,
There are many of us in the Mystical Body that are unsuited for the priesthood for a variety of reasons. Someone’s unsuitability for the priesthood does not speak to their suitability as a Christian.
O
Other_Eric
Guest
Hi JimO!
Why not? If we are going to define the homosexual inclination as something that prevents the individual from leading the holy life that Christianity requires then the homosexual is unsuitable not just for the priesthood, but for Christianity as well.
J
JimO
Guest
Other Eric:
Then I suppose those with mental illness, physical disabilities and women can’t be Christians either.
O
Other_Eric
Guest
Hi JimO!
Neither being female nor having a physical disability is defined as an impediment simply to leading a holy life. The Church defines reduced culpability for those who have a serious mental illness. None of these conditions apply to homosexuality.
It’s very simple. The homosexual condition itself, even if never expressed, has been defined by you as an impediment to leading a holy life. The homosexual must sin because God does not provide him with graces sufficient to overcome his temptations and lead the holy life that Christianity requires. Moreover, the Church has not defined reduced culpability based on this particular compulsion to sin, so the homosexual remains mortally and spiritually responsible for it.
Membership in the Mystical Body therefore becomes pointless for the homosexual as the Christ has no salvation to offer him.
J
JimO
Guest
Other Eric:
My first point - Like other tendancies toward sinful behavior, homosexuality is problematic because a priest is in a position of teacher of the faithful. If a homosexual renounced homosexual acts as disordered and sinful so that he could defend the teachings of the Church, I would not object to him being a priest. A person in such a state could most certainly live a life of holiness and many do. We’re all sinners and we all struggle with sinful habits. However, this combined with my second point make the practice of inviting homosexuals into the priesthood problematic.
My second point - The practical problems of placing young men in close quarters in a religious community would place the homosexual men in the face of daily sexual temptation and the proximal occasion of sin such that it would be, at the very least, a distraction. And, it would place the heterosexual men in an uncomfortable position. This would not be conducive to training for the priesthood. In addition, priests often have to live in the same quarters in ministry. The same problems would persist. My analogy with men in a convent, or women in a monastery for that matter, stands. Why not put men and women religious together in a community? Because the temptations would be extraordinary and a distraction. Furthermore, the risk to the community of a scandal would be too high.
These are my points. Although I believe homosexual acts to be sinful - as sinful as any other sexual acts outside of marriage - I am making no statement whatsoever regarding the ability of a homosexual to live a devout Christian life like every one of the rest of us sinners. It is the nature of the sin that makes it incompatible with the priesthood for the reasons stated above.
This is a complete mischaracterization of what I have said. My reasons for not wanting homosexual men in the priesthood are twofold and separate and you have blended the two. You seem to insist on trying to characterize my comments as suggesting that homosexuals cannot be Christians.
My first point - Like other tendancies toward sinful behavior, homosexuality is problematic because a priest is in a position of teacher of the faithful. If a homosexual renounced homosexual acts as disordered and sinful so that he could defend the teachings of the Church, I would not object to him being a priest. A person in such a state could most certainly live a life of holiness and many do. We’re all sinners and we all struggle with sinful habits. However, this combined with my second point make the practice of inviting homosexuals into the priesthood problematic.
My second point - The practical problems of placing young men in close quarters in a religious community would place the homosexual men in the face of daily sexual temptation and the proximal occasion of sin such that it would be, at the very least, a distraction. And, it would place the heterosexual men in an uncomfortable position. This would not be conducive to training for the priesthood. In addition, priests often have to live in the same quarters in ministry. The same problems would persist. My analogy with men in a convent, or women in a monastery for that matter, stands. Why not put men and women religious together in a community? Because the temptations would be extraordinary and a distraction. Furthermore, the risk to the community of a scandal would be too high.
These are my points. Although I believe homosexual acts to be sinful - as sinful as any other sexual acts outside of marriage - I am making no statement whatsoever regarding the ability of a homosexual to live a devout Christian life like every one of the rest of us sinners. It is the nature of the sin that makes it incompatible with the priesthood for the reasons stated above.
C
condan
Guest
Are those with mental illness, physical disabilities or women the same as homosexuals? Are they doing something that is contrary to the human condition?
People have to recognize that immutable characteristics are different from behaviors. Being an unrepentant adulterer may preclude someone from the Mystical Vody but being a woman doesn’t. Get it?
O
Other_Eric
Guest
Hi JimO!
I’m afraid I don’t understand your distinction. Either your points stand together in a blended fashion or they do not.
Nevertheless, I have no problem with your first point. I agree a homosexual who renounces unnatural sexual activity so that he can defend the Church’s teaching would be an excellent candidate for the priesthood.
Your second point, I still find problematic. If we take the homosexual from this first example and bar him from Holy Orders because of the temptations involved aren’t we positing an intrinsic incapacity to resist temptation? The proximate occasion of sin is present on every billboard, TV channel, and movie screen nowadays. There is nowhere the homosexual can go where he will be safe from the temptation that will compel him into his mortal sin.
Furthermore, the Church has insisted that “the human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation,” but that is exactly what the Church Herself would do if She were to ban a homosexual from Holy Orders based upon nothing else other than his temptations. It would further encourage the faithful to ostracize the individual known to be afflicted with these temptations since they may put themselves or their children in peril. The Church’s Courage ministry would need to be declared anathema as it puts homosexuals into close contact with other homosexuals, exactly the type of people they should not be around.
Put simply, if the Church is free to assume the inherent inability of a homosexual to resist his temptations as a matter of administrative policy, then one could hardly call the decision of the lay community to do the same unjust. Hence, the homosexual is left adrift with no orthodox community that will not actively seek to avoid him.
B
batteddy
Guest
It’s a tough issue…it really is…
I think we can all agree that active homosexuals should not be ordained, or kicked out if they already are, and that the gay subculture should be supressed in seminaries.
But active heterosexuals should be punished too, though perhaps for them their is a greater sense of hope for ammendment. And a heterosexually promiscuous, licentious, or machoistic attitudes should not be cultivated in priests either.
We need to get rid of the liberal San Francisco gate-keeper feminist lesbian nuns who only let gay-wiccan-transexuals-who-support-the-ordination-of-women into the seminary, who dismiss orthodox candidates. We need to remove from authority and training positions those who promote a heterodox agenda and homosexual subculture of effeminacy and liberalism within the priesthood.
At the same time, I think we can agree that homosexual inclinations, in and of themselves, do not constitute sin. They are objectively disordered under Natural Law, however, and generally recognized in conservative Catholic circles as being a psycho-emotional disorder as well.
So the real issue comes down to what to do with those suffering from same sex attraction who nevertheless are sincere about living chastely and are orthodox in their faith.
And even this can be further divided into those who are openly, even if chastely, homosexual…and those who do not reveal it except perhaps for support in fighting it to a few close friends, family, their psychologist, spiritual director etc…
I would say that the real issue is a decline in Catholic cultural identity, and the attitudes of the sexual revolution and confusion in gender identity in general.
We speak nowadays of “sexual repression” as a bad thing…but frankly…that’s sort of what I would want my priests to be. Asexual. Begnign, unthreatening, nonsexual beings. Angelic creatures above the temptations of the flesh, niether eunuchy, fay, and effeminate, nor machoistic, hyper-masculine, and slobbishly barbarian. Truly strong, sensitive, confident, virtuous, and holy men.
Now, some of this is clearly unrealistic…priests are human males and are bound to feel sexual feelings. But they should show no signs of their problems. A priest should not give any indication of sexuality any more than the writings of any of the great Saints give indication of theirs. A priest should bear temptation privately, with their confessor or psychologist or spiritual director, but should otherwise be a strong, orthodox, and chaste catholic.
But, there is the issue of living in close quarters with other men too…
Ultimately, I think that only individuals should be ordained who can be chaste, un-sexual, and strongly orthodox. If they don’t let any disorders they have effect their behavior…no one can ever know.
And thats an issue too. How would we enforce a ban on all homosexuals? What about those who never tell. Who do nothing. Who have effectively sublimated their sexuality and who are strongly catholic? Would a ban consider them “homosexual”?
I think we need a ban on “gay” priests…that is, those who let their homosexuality show in their personality, behavior, and mannerisms, even if they are celibate and orthodox.
We need a priesthood that is emotionally stable, transcendent of the flesh, and staunchly orthodox.
How we go about this might not be through a broad approach like “ban all gays” but rather through a case-by-case basis process that would start by appointing emotionally stable, staunchly orthodox, truly “priestly” men in the positions of who should be admitted to seminary, and who should be asked to leave.
I dont think we can cast people out with a broad brush. We are looking for holy, orthodox people who truly show it in their lives…and to create a culture within the priesthood of holiness…and eliminate other sub-cultures…be they of Power or of Sexuality…
I think we can all agree that active homosexuals should not be ordained, or kicked out if they already are, and that the gay subculture should be supressed in seminaries.
But active heterosexuals should be punished too, though perhaps for them their is a greater sense of hope for ammendment. And a heterosexually promiscuous, licentious, or machoistic attitudes should not be cultivated in priests either.
We need to get rid of the liberal San Francisco gate-keeper feminist lesbian nuns who only let gay-wiccan-transexuals-who-support-the-ordination-of-women into the seminary, who dismiss orthodox candidates. We need to remove from authority and training positions those who promote a heterodox agenda and homosexual subculture of effeminacy and liberalism within the priesthood.
At the same time, I think we can agree that homosexual inclinations, in and of themselves, do not constitute sin. They are objectively disordered under Natural Law, however, and generally recognized in conservative Catholic circles as being a psycho-emotional disorder as well.
So the real issue comes down to what to do with those suffering from same sex attraction who nevertheless are sincere about living chastely and are orthodox in their faith.
And even this can be further divided into those who are openly, even if chastely, homosexual…and those who do not reveal it except perhaps for support in fighting it to a few close friends, family, their psychologist, spiritual director etc…
I would say that the real issue is a decline in Catholic cultural identity, and the attitudes of the sexual revolution and confusion in gender identity in general.
We speak nowadays of “sexual repression” as a bad thing…but frankly…that’s sort of what I would want my priests to be. Asexual. Begnign, unthreatening, nonsexual beings. Angelic creatures above the temptations of the flesh, niether eunuchy, fay, and effeminate, nor machoistic, hyper-masculine, and slobbishly barbarian. Truly strong, sensitive, confident, virtuous, and holy men.
Now, some of this is clearly unrealistic…priests are human males and are bound to feel sexual feelings. But they should show no signs of their problems. A priest should not give any indication of sexuality any more than the writings of any of the great Saints give indication of theirs. A priest should bear temptation privately, with their confessor or psychologist or spiritual director, but should otherwise be a strong, orthodox, and chaste catholic.
But, there is the issue of living in close quarters with other men too…
Ultimately, I think that only individuals should be ordained who can be chaste, un-sexual, and strongly orthodox. If they don’t let any disorders they have effect their behavior…no one can ever know.
And thats an issue too. How would we enforce a ban on all homosexuals? What about those who never tell. Who do nothing. Who have effectively sublimated their sexuality and who are strongly catholic? Would a ban consider them “homosexual”?
I think we need a ban on “gay” priests…that is, those who let their homosexuality show in their personality, behavior, and mannerisms, even if they are celibate and orthodox.
We need a priesthood that is emotionally stable, transcendent of the flesh, and staunchly orthodox.
How we go about this might not be through a broad approach like “ban all gays” but rather through a case-by-case basis process that would start by appointing emotionally stable, staunchly orthodox, truly “priestly” men in the positions of who should be admitted to seminary, and who should be asked to leave.
I dont think we can cast people out with a broad brush. We are looking for holy, orthodox people who truly show it in their lives…and to create a culture within the priesthood of holiness…and eliminate other sub-cultures…be they of Power or of Sexuality…
C
condan
Guest
82% of the abuse involved male on males. There were very few pre-pubescent girls. Most of the abused males were over the age of puberty, making this most definately a scandal of homosexuality, not pederasty. (And, if the scandal had everything to do with the abuse of minors, as you say, then why is no one looking for the men who fathered the unborn children of the 13, 14 and 15 year old girls who Planned Parenthood counts as its customers? If sexual abuse of minors was something we cared about in this country, we wouldn’t have sex education in the schools.)Everything?? How horrid someone would post that. As if these little girls didn’t matter. As if it was the gender not the age of the “other party” is the cause of the scandal.
The scandal has everything to do with the abuse of minors…
That is the problem with homosexuals, celibate or not, in the seminary or priesthood. If one breaks his vows, he is not only sinning in the traditional definition of the word, he is also acting in a way that is completely contrary to the human condition and coercing a minor to do the same. It is when these youths are initiated into sexuality through a deviant means that is the real crux of the crime. They are violated AND their sexuality is rendered perverse at the same time. That is the reason why people with homosexual proclivities should be barred from religious life. Sorry but that’s the only way to put an end to this once and for all. If we want to have this scourge happen again, let’s just keep doing what we’re doing.
J
JimO
Guest
Other Eric:
Other Eric:
Other Eric:
Other Eric:
Having said all that, although I’ve enjoyed our exchange, I was only following the instructions of the poll here and giving my reasons for the way I voted. I didn’t want a protracted debate on the subject because, frankly, there are other threads that I feel much more passionate about and where I might actually help someone who is struggling in their faith. I’d really like to get back to them, so forgive me for bowing out.
My objection was that you were essentially restating my position with a spin that suggested that I believed homosexuals unworthy of salvation, which is simply not true. Maybe I didn’t make myself clear.
Other Eric:
That is a gracious concession.
Other Eric:
This poor horse is a pile of glue. It’s an opinion, Eric. How about we say that it’s imprudent or is a risk management decision? Certain temptations are unavoidable, others are avoidable. That is the reason for the separation of men and women in religious communities. Short of being unwilling to agree with me on any point, I don’t understand how you can’t see my point on this one. Okay, on this one, let’s agree to disagree.
Other Eric:
I do admit to bias in my opinions but would not want to leave the impression that I think the homosexual is any more a sinner than me or any other person. My bias is the result of my frustration with the radical “in your face” gay lobby that wants to force me to acknowledge that homosexual acts are normal and acceptable and force me to teach my children that opinion. We have taught our children that any sexual activity outside a Sacramental marriage relationship between a man and woman is sinful. I am concerned that the effort to normalize homosexuality is being made on all fronts and that the gay lobby would love for the Catholic Church to announce its acceptance of homosexuals into the priesthood because they would use it to further the normalizaton process. I am certain that just as some pedophiles and others unfit for the priesthood have been ordained, men who professed being homosexual but who had no intention of renouncing the lifestyle as sinful would make their way into the Church and fail to uphold the Church’s teachings.
Having said all that, although I’ve enjoyed our exchange, I was only following the instructions of the poll here and giving my reasons for the way I voted. I didn’t want a protracted debate on the subject because, frankly, there are other threads that I feel much more passionate about and where I might actually help someone who is struggling in their faith. I’d really like to get back to them, so forgive me for bowing out.
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
I think I’ll leave my reasons pro or con out of this. Too many have already expressed my opinon.
T
Tyler_Smedley
Guest
Well said I totally agree.My objection was that you were essentially restating my position with a spin that suggested that I believed homosexuals unworthy of salvation, which is simply not true. Maybe I didn’t make myself clear.
That is a gracious concession.
This poor horse is a pile of glue. It’s an opinion, Eric. How about we say that it’s imprudent or is a risk management decision? Certain temptations are unavoidable, others are avoidable. That is the reason for the separation of men and women in religious communities. Short of being unwilling to agree with me on any point, I don’t understand how you can’t see my point on this one. Okay, on this one, let’s agree to disagree.
I do admit to bias in my opinions but would not want to leave the impression that I think the homosexual is any more a sinner than me or any other person. My bias is the result of my frustration with the radical “in your face” gay lobby that wants to force me to acknowledge that homosexual acts are normal and acceptable and force me to teach my children that opinion. We have taught our children that any sexual activity outside a Sacramental marriage relationship between a man and woman is sinful. I am concerned that the effort to normalize homosexuality is being made on all fronts and that the gay lobby would love for the Catholic Church to announce its acceptance of homosexuals into the priesthood because they would use it to further the normalizaton process. I am certain that just as some pedophiles and others unfit for the priesthood have been ordained, men who professed being homosexual but who had no intention of renouncing the lifestyle as sinful would make their way into the Church and fail to uphold the Church’s teachings.
- Status