USCCB support the Pope's document re ordaining homosexuals

[CradleCath]

I’ll probably get in trouble with this thread. I hope not for I’m not opening up a conversation about whether gay men should be ordained…but whether the Bishops in the U.S. will obey their Pope. . On November 29, 2005, an “Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the discernment of vocations with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders,” was issued by the Vatican. It was signed by Cardinal Grocholewski & approved by Pope Benedict.

Regardless of our own personal opinions about this document, it isn’t a suggestion…it’s an order from the Vicar of Christ on this earth & if, one truly believes in the infallibility of the Pope, if one truly believes that he is guided by the Holy Spirit…the policies outlined in this document will be obeyed, regardless of personal opinion.

I, for one, am skeptical that the leadership of the USCCB., will adher to this ban against homosexuals being ordained as priests. I would like to hear back from some of the posters about their opinion on how closely the document will be followed.

The following article discusses whether the Bishops will obey the instruction. It was written while Bishop Skylstad was still president of the USCCB:

intellectualconservative.com/2005/12/05/does-the-us-bishop%E2%80%99s-president-support-ordination-of-homosexual-men-to-the-priesthood/

An excerpt:
The ‘Instruction’ is clear and direct — no homosexuals may be ordained to the Priesthood. In light of recent numerous statements by the USCCB President Bishop Skylstad and other U.S. Bishops, implementing and enforcing the prohibition will obviously be another issue. The ‘Instruction’ is not at fault; instead, the fault lies with the U.S. Bishops, seminary Rectors and seminary Spiritual Directors.

 

[John_Higgins]

A timely almost three-year-old article, I guess.

John

 

[EasterJoy]

The article cited states: **The Vatican’s Instruction leaves no doubt that no one with any homosexual tendencies, be they deep rooted or transitory, can be ordained. **(Underline mine: EasterJoy)

This is not true. Those who have suffered transitory homosexual tendencies in the past may be ordained. This is what the Instruction actually says, and if you don’t believe me, go to the Vatican’s web site and read it yourself:

“From the time of the Second Vatican Council until today, various Documents of the Magisterium, and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.

Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins. The Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstance can they be approved.

Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter[8].

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”[10].

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.”(Underline mine: EasterJoy)
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

 

[CradleCath]

The article cited states: The Vatican’s Instruction leaves no doubt that no one with any homosexual tendencies

, be they deep rooted or transitory, can be ordained. (Underline mine: EasterJoy)

This is not true. Those who have suffered transitory homosexual tendencies in the past may be ordained.

Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded.

Yes, I agree with you. I was not sure how the author of the article came to the conclusion that 14 yr. olds who were still unsure of their sexual orientation & experimenting could not be ordained when they became 20-21 & their heterosexual orientation is secure. Anyone who is still “experimenting” at that age is, IMO., very sexually immature & we don’t need that.

However, this does not answer my question about whether or not you believe that the Bishops will follow the heart of the document sent out by Pope Benedict…which is, of course, that grown men who have a homosexual orientation (deep-seated tendencies) canNOT be ordained.

I’ve been reading several articles that infer that many of the Bishops (not ALL) are trying to tiptoe around the wording, looking for loopholes, etc., etc re the rather easy to understand document that forbids the ordination of homosexuals. That’s quite hard to understand. One would think that our hierarchy was educated enough, in the faith & generally, to have read St. Peter Damien:

 

[bpbasilphx]

Homosexuality is not the same thing as pedophilia, though the distinction is too subtle for many to grasp.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes, I agree with you. I was not sure how the author of the article came to the conclusion that 14 yr. olds who were still unsure of their sexual orientation & experimenting could not be ordained when they became 20-21 & their heterosexual orientation is secure. Anyone who is still “experimenting” at that age is, IMO., very sexually immature & we don’t need that.

However, this does not answer my question about whether or not you believe that the Bishops will follow the heart of the document sent out by Pope Benedict…which is, of course, that grown men who have a homosexual orientation (deep-seated tendencies) canNOT be ordained.

I’ve been reading several articles that infer that many of the Bishops (not ALL) are trying to tiptoe around the wording, looking for loopholes, etc., etc re the rather easy to understand document that forbids the ordination of homosexuals. That’s quite hard to understand. One would think that our hierarchy was educated enough, in the faith & generally, to have read St. Peter Damien:

Well, first off, with regards to St. Peter Damien: Although the issue of homosexuality and pedophilia are separate, both are addressed by the current seminary policies which use many rounds of intense psychological screening to identify those with insufficient psychosexual health or maturity to enter the priesthood.

The vast majority, if not all, of the priests accused or who have admitted to sexual abuse of children in the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon were given seminary training under a pre-Vatican II system. No one knew it at the time, but isolating young men from other Catholic students in minor seminaries right in the middle of their high school years was not conducive to normal psychosexual maturation. It didn’t prevent it, but it gave a hiding place to those who were having difficulties that needed to be addressed. More importantly, it was not appreciated how much these problems are not a matter of personal choice. (Likewise, I think that some of the current well-meaning efforts to underline the basic human dignity of young people with homosexual tendencies is serving to normalize homosexual behaviors, to the detriment of the maturation and spiritual health of these young people. I think this will be looked back upon as another bad idea undertaken for all the right reasons.)

The short answer to your question is that I don’t know. I don’t know what the bishops are being told by psychological professionals concerning the nature of homosexual tendencies. I don’t know if psychiatrists even know who has transitory and who has permanent tendencies, or why. It is like when the bishops would send pedophiles off for treatment: the mental health professionals thought a “cure” was possible, so the bishops would re-assign after treatment was “complete”. Now they know better. Because of the differences in how candidates were selected in the past, I can imagine that there are also bishops who have homosexual tendencies themselves, but who have lived chastely and taught correctly over the entire course of the priestly lives, or who know brother priests like that, whom they hold in high esteem. This would make a huge difference about how they would view applicants for ordination who have a similar profile.

I do think that Archbishop Vlazny will not knowingly ordain a man who believes homosexual behaviors are normal and morally permissible, let alone a man who would openly teach that. I do not think he would ordain any man he does not believe to be fully capable and fully willing to live chastely over his entire lifetime. I think he considers it his serious duty to inquire into the background of each candidate himself, and will not rubber-stamp the opinions of others. Whether he would ordain a man who was 25 or 30 before he matured sexually, but who did not present himself as a candidate for ordination until 40, I couldn’t say, and I couldn’t say whether that was in keeping with what the best information that competent and orthodox Catholic psychiatrists have to offer him. I do think he honestly does his best to act according to a correct understanding of Church teaching, though, yes.

 

[CradleCath]

Homosexuality is not the same thing as pedophilia, though the distinction is too subtle for many to grasp.

I must leave in a minute for a meeting & I’ll address this issue tonight. However, I’ll leave you with this info. You’re correct the pedophilia is not connected to homosexuals.

It is a very rare sickness like bestiality & it’s found mostly in heterosexual men.

What happened in our Church is homosexual molestation of adolescents & is called Pederasty.Definition from the GLBT dictionary: pederast: a lover of boys. You might want to study this practice of pederasty & I’ll be back to discuss it tonight. Thanks for you patience.

 

[CradleCath]

Well, first off, with regards to St. Peter Damien: Although the issue of homosexuality and pedophilia are separate, both are addressed by the current seminary policies which use many rounds of intense psychological screening to identify those with insufficient psychosexual health or maturity to enter the priesthood.

“Psychosexual Maturity”. I see that you’ve done some reading about this…just not enough. You’ve “bought into” the whole bit of psychobabble that the media & the heirarchy used to deflect the fact that the sexual abuse crisis was one of pederasty/buggery/chickenhawking (I think that’s todays term for it.) The actual facts say that 1 out of 3 homosexuals engage in this deviant practice & that it is one of three forms that homosexuality takes.

The vast majority, if not all, of the priests accused or who have admitted to sexual abuse of children in the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon were given seminary training under a pre-Vatican II system.

Anyone past 14 who is indulging in homosexual sex does not have a “transitory problem”. Yes, it’s that simple. We’ve always heard gays say that "I’ve known I was homosexual since childhood. Now, we’re saying that it’s hard to tell??? Please.

What you are suggesting here…is that the hierarchy in the U.S. will take the word of doctors over that of the Pope concerning the MORAL issue of gay priests. This is not about “whose to blame for, what causes homosexuality, is there a “cure”, etc., etc.” This is about the priesthood & the children. What is best for them.

I do think that Archbishop Vlazny will not knowingly ordain a man who believes homosexual behaviors are normal and morally permissible, let alone a man who would openly teach that. I do not think he would ordain any man he does not believe to be fully capable and fully willing to live chastely over his entire lifetime. I think he considers it his serious duty to inquire into the background of each candidate himself, and will not rubber-stamp the opinions of others.

Once again, what Archbishop Vlazny, or Cardinal Mahony or Bishop Bruskewitz thinks about candidates for the priesthood who are gay…doesn’t matter. Rome has spoken, the case is closed. Catholics who go against this, are…in a sense…denying the doctrine of infalliblity. Pope John XXIII used the word "**FORBID ** when he said “no more gay priests” or words to that effect. The bishops in the U. S. totally ignored him. Do you think that this is what the majority of the Bishops will do, once again? Personally, I don’t. Whether they or the media will publicly admit what caused so much harm to young boys or not…they KNOW, the Pope knows & the Bishops know he knows. I have great hopes that once this is enforced, manly men will return to the Seminaries in droves.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Digitonomy]

I, for one, am skeptical that the leadership of the USCCB., will adher to this ban against homosexuals being ordained as priests. I would like to hear back from some of the posters about their opinion on how closely the document will be followed.

Are you suggesting the USCCB needs to take some action on this front, or are you simply skeptical about the adherence of individual bishops leading the USCCB, within their own dioceses?

 

[EasterJoy]

“Psychosexual Maturity”. I see that you’ve done some reading about this…just not enough. You’ve “bought into” the whole bit of psychobabble that the media & the heirarchy used to deflect the fact that the sexual abuse crisis was one of pederasty/buggery/chickenhawking (I think that’s todays term for it.) The actual facts say that 1 out of 3 homosexuals engage in this deviant practice & that it is one of three forms that homosexuality takes.

I went to the database of abusers in the Portland, Or. diocese & did not find the above to be true. If one had to pick a decade that seemed to turn out the most abusers, it would be the 70’s. However, I did notice that the “Vast Majority” credibly accused were diocesan priests.
bishop-accountability.org/member/psearch.jsp

No one knew it at the time, but isolating young men from other Catholic students in minor seminaries right in the middle of their high school years was not conducive to normal psychosexual maturation. It didn’t prevent it, but it gave a hiding place to those who were **having difficulties **that needed to be addressed. More importantly, it was not appreciated how much these **problems **are not a matter of personal choice

I’m not sure what you mean when you say “having difficulties” & “problems”?? Please explain.

Anyone past 14 who is indulging in homosexual sex does not have a “transitory problem”. Yes, it’s that simple. We’ve always heard gays say that "I’ve known I was homosexual since childhood. Now, we’re saying that it’s hard to tell??? Please.

What you are suggesting here…is that the hierarchy in the U.S. will take the word of doctors over that of the Pope concerning the MORAL issue of gay priests. This is not about “whose to blame for, what causes homosexuality, is there a “cure”, etc., etc.” This is about the priesthood & the children. What is best for them.

I do think that Archbishop Vlazny will not knowingly ordain a man who believes homosexual behaviors are normal and morally permissible, let alone a man who would openly teach that. I do not think he would ordain any man he does not believe to be fully capable and fully willing to live chastely over his entire lifetime. I think he considers it his serious duty to inquire into the background of each candidate himself, and will not rubber-stamp the opinions of others.

Once again, what Archbishop Vlazny, or Cardinal Mahony or Bishop Bruskewitz thinks about candidates for the priesthood who are gay…doesn’t matter. Rome has spoken, the case is closed. Catholics who go against this, are…in a sense…denying the doctrine of infalliblity. Pope John XXIII used the word "**FORBID ** when he said “no more gay priests” or words to that effect. The bishops in the U. S. totally ignored him. Do you think that this is what the majority of the Bishops will do, once again? Personally, I don’t. Whether they or the media will publicly admit what caused so much harm to young boys or not…they KNOW, the Pope knows & the Bishops know he knows. I have great hopes that once this is enforced, manly men will return to the Seminaries in droves.

The fact is that a lot of young heterosexual men experiment with sex with other young heterosexual men, presumably for reasons of opportunity.

You say lots of homosexuals know that’s what they were since childhood. Yes. But lots of young heterosexual men go through an agony while growing up because their minds are full of every kind of thought about sex, and they worry that they’re gay…and they’re not. This is not something that just magically resolves itself when they’re 14, particularly if the young man has no regular contact with young women outside his immediate family. That’s what I mean by “difficulties and problems” that young men face within the minor seminary system. When talking to young women is a taboo activity and talking about sexual feelings is a taboo subject, the young guys are are their own, excepting what their friends tell them. This is not a healthy situation.

But I am not an expert, you are right. The term “psychosexual maturity” takes no background at all to use, only a rudimentary knowledge of how medical terms are coined. I do know the matter is not as cut-and-dried as you suggest, simply from having heard from totally normal and happily married heterosexual men about their own experiences growing up.

In any event, a witch hunt against young men considering the priesthood but who have a sexual thought about another man after age 14 is NOT going to fill the seminaries. That is ludicrous.

In short, I do not think Archbishop Vlazny has any intention to do an end-run on the Holy Father. I do not think the Holy Father has asked the bishops to make their decisions based on such knee-jerk rejections as you suggest they should, either. In any event, I have found the Holy Father to be very able to express himself in unequivocal terms. I am sure he is every bit as able to do so in person. I think he express any concerns he has when he talks to our archbishop himself.

PS With regards to the offenders, I referred to the time at which they attended seminary, not the time of their offenses. This problem did not appear with educational changes or changes in deciding whom to ordain that came with Vatican II. Read up on your history. Pederasty by clergy wasn’t invented with modernism.

 

[CradleCath]

Are you suggesting the USCCB needs to take some action on this front, or are you simply skeptical about the adherence of individual bishops leading the USCCB, within their own dioceses?

The latter. Our Bishops in the US. aren’t known for their obedience to the Pope. I’m wondering how many will actually obey the heart of this Instruction. It’s obvious that the Pope does not want any more homosexuals ordained into the priesthood…but, I’m reading articles that show that many of our Bishops are using their own “interpretation” of this Instruction. By doing so, they have taken the heart out of the document & inserted their own agendas.

My heart goes out to the gays among us. They are called to complete celibacy & this has to be hard…never to have a ‘soul mate’, a family of their own, children & Grandchildren. I think that we should welcome them into the Church, while stressing the fact that homosexual practices are wrong, as is adultery…fornication, etc. However, I agree with the Pope that the priesthood is no place for men with “homosexual tendencies”. . Their experience, in the Seminary, would be tantamount to allowing a man to live with the nuns in a Convent.

I will also say that I have two Grandsons in Catholic schools & the Pastor of that parish is gay. Obviously gay. The boys are young, only 11. While they don’t really know about homosexuality, they don’t seem to be able to relate to this man. Theirs is a world of sports, electronic games, & the word “Yuk” comes out when girls are mentioned. (I know that will soon change.) Their pastor doesn’t relate to these things. Then, of course, there is the worry about Pederasty.

catholicnews.com/data/abuse/abuse01.htm

Anyway, I have digressed. This thread is about obedience. Do you think that the majority of our Bishops will adher to the Pope’s Instruction?

 

[Digitonomy]

Anyway, I have digressed. This thread is about obedience. Do you think that the majority of our Bishops will adher to the Pope’s Instruction?

I do. However, I’m not familiar enough with the individual bishops leading the USCCB to answer your question from the OP as to what they’ll do in their dioceses.

 

[otjm]