Vatican Document Forbidding Homosexuals to Priesthood Ready for Release

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

fix:

Exactly, it is not about what certain groups think should happen. Why is it so hard for many to grasp that homosexuality, inclinations or not, present a terrific challenge to the priesthood at this point in time?

Ordination is not a right or a political game.

No its not and seeing that it is not it should be handled on an individual basis, rather than using scare tactics to eliminate a certain group of people because you do not like them.

I have yet to see anyone here really say that ordination is a right.

 

[felra]

ByzCath:

No its not and seeing that it is not it should be handled on an individual basis, rather than using scare tactics to eliminate a certain group of people because you do not like them.

I have yet to see anyone here really say that ordination is a right.

I do not see anyone here using scare tactics, but rather presenting statistics and personal experience/knowledge of mishandled situations in the Church that are scary. Talking openly about the facts and realities of certain types of behaviors/inclinations does not constitute ostracizing a certain group of people, only ascertaining what is in the best interest of the Church, not the best interest of a particular individual.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

felra:

I do not see anyone here using scare tactics, but rather presenting statistics and personal experience/knowledge of mishandled situations in the Church that are scary. Talking openly about the facts and realities of certain types of behaviors/inclinations does not constitute ostracizing a certain group of people, only ascertaining what is in the best interest of the Church, not the best interest of a particular individual.

I haven’t really seen any staistics used and “personal experience/knowledge” is nothing more than anecdotal in nature and therefore useless.

The staistics for the “Clergy sex scandal” are no greater than the rest of society. So lets see the cry to stop this group (homosexuals) from all other jobs that require interaction with children, including parenthood.

And I am still waiting for a definition of “homosexual” because I have seen the range here from “those who engage in homosexual sex” (put forward by myself) all the way to any man who acts in an effeminate manner.

And from the tone of some of the posters here it does not look like they are looking to the “best interest of the Church” but for a way to exclude.

What ever happened to hating the sin and not the sinner?

 

[contemplative]

I haven’t really seen any staistics used and “personal experience/knowledge” is nothing more than anecdotal in nature and therefore useless.

You are unusually void of “personal experience/knowledge” on this thread. I disagree with you. I believe that sharing personal experience here on these forums is far from useless. Here are your statistics

The staistics for the “Clergy sex scandal” are no greater than the rest of society. So lets see the cry to stop this group (homosexuals) from all other jobs that require interaction with children, including parenthood.

That isn’t the topic of this thread. The topic is forbidding homosexuals from the priesthood.

And I am still waiting for a definition of “homosexual” because I have seen the range here from “those who engage in homosexual sex” (put forward by myself) all the way to any man who acts in an effeminate manner.

Your definition is here
***Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law. ***

Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner. from CA

And from the tone of some of the posters here it does not look like they are looking to the “best interest of the Church” but for a way to exclude.

What ever happened to hating the sin and not the sinner?

I do not hate the sinner. I want to help the sinner. Let me put it this way. If I am a woman with inclination to have sex with multiple men…you know…maybe I liked to ‘get it on’ every chance I can with any guy…should I work on a ship full of US Naval Soldiers?..or should I work in a school for girls only?
No one is hating the homosexual…just trying to help. Jesus himself encourage us to avoid sin…

And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than thy whole body be cast into hell. Matthew 5:29

And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body go into hell. Matthew 5:30

Of course we do not take Jesus literally, we do not cut off our hands or feet or pluck out our eyes. But if something is leading us into temptation and sin then we should avoid it. This is simply called avoiding occasions of sin. When Jesus says to cut off our hand or foot or pluck out our eye if it causes us to sin he is asking us to avoid whatever it is that leads us on to commit sin.

 

[Libero]

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

taken from CCC

Not to disagree with church teachings, but are homosexuals really being accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity when our church rejects them from the priesthood?

 

[contemplative]

Edwin1961:

Someone may have ‘tendencies’ and some may have a ‘habit forming problem’. Don’t reject those who can be of FULL service to the Church if they have a ‘tendency’. Look out for those who show habits of sexual inclinations.

IF this is what people’s attitudes are, then why not get rid of all the alcoholic priests too? Everyone is tempted at some part of their life where it may have consequences in their life, but DON’T discredit those who ‘Have The Calling’.

Alcoholic Priests
Flaming Priests
Philandering Priests
Mean-Spirited Priests
Lazy Priests
Pedaphilic Priests

You name it and we have probably seen it.

Over all, the system that churns out priests must constantly be revamped to fit changes which will inevitably occur. Some things remain constant but some things must change.

I don’t think any one with a true calling will ever be purposely discounted or discredited or rejected.

 

[fix]

ByzCath:

No its not and seeing that it is not it should be handled on an individual basis, rather than using scare tactics to eliminate a certain group of people because you do not like them.

I have yet to see anyone here really say that ordination is a right.

This is hyperbole.

 

[fix]

felra:

I do not see anyone here using scare tactics, but rather presenting statistics and personal experience/knowledge of mishandled situations in the Church that are scary. Talking openly about the facts and realities of certain types of behaviors/inclinations does not constitute ostracizing a certain group of people, only ascertaining what is in the best interest of the Church, not the best interest of a particular individual.

True.

 

[felra]

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

taken from CCC

Not to disagree with church teachings, but are homosexuals really being accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity when our church rejects them from the priesthood?

I see this poster’s statement as misplaced compassion. No one is rejecting anyone. The Church’s duty and right is to assist an individual discern his vocational qualification and fitness to the priesthood.

From a common sense logic, you have a gentleman who identifies having a primary, predominately SSA/homosexual sexual orientation, but also feels called to the priesthood of Jesus Christ. If this seminarian candidate is unqualified, unfit as a candidate for the marriage vocation, why would this same person in his current identified degree of SSA be a qualified candidate for the priesthood of the person of Jesus Christ? They both entail and require the capacity to enter into a full giving of themselves in a complementary, espousal relationship of giving and receiving (bride/bridegroom; the Church as the Bride/the priest as the Bridegroom). The only difference is the way that one’s sexual identity is channeled and given expression (note, not every sexual expression is genital, rather it is also a way of relating to others). Why should the Church settle for anything less than the basic threshold qualification, that, if a man is unfit, unqualified to enter in holy matrimony, then this sincere man is not a viable seminarian candidate?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

fix:

This is hyperbole.

Yes it is, no more so than some of what others are saying and/or implying.

Actually thinking about it, this whole topic is hyperbole as the premise unlieing it is that any man who suffers from SSA, or is in any way effeminate (as a couple of posters say), is incapable of controling those urges and will therefore not be able to be chaste. Also there is the idea that becuase the “Clergy sex scandal” was casued by homosexuals (a premise I do not necessarily fully agree with) that they will molest children.

And before you say this is not about the “Clergy sex scandal” some have used that as a reason that this “document” needs to be.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

felra:

I see this poster’s statement as misplaced compassion. No one is rejecting anyone. The Church’s duty and right is to assist an individual discern his vocational qualification and fitness to the priesthood.

From a common sense logic, you have a gentleman who identifies having a primary, predominately SSA/homosexual sexual orientation, but also feels called to the priesthood of Jesus Christ. If this seminarian candidate is unqualified, unfit as a candidate for the marriage vocation, why would this same person in his current identified degree of SSA be a qualified candidate for the priesthood of the person of Jesus Christ? They both entail and require the capacity to enter into a full giving of themselves in a complementary, espousal relationship of giving and receiving (bride/bridegroom; the Church as the Bride/the priest as the Bridegroom). The only difference is the way that one’s sexual identity is channeled and given expression (note, not every sexual expression is genital, rather it is also a way of relating to others). Why should the Church settle for anything less than the basic threshold qualification, that, if a man is unfit, unqualified to enter in holy matrimony, then this sincere man is not a viable seminarian candidate?

Who says this person would be unfit for marriage? So far I have only seen you saying this.

But, again, we must take this as an individual case.

What is meant by “predominately SSA/homosexual sexual orientation,”

You know I define SSA and homosexual as being different. This must be left up to the bishops/religious superiors to decide, there can be no blanket bann on this sort of thing.

I really do not see any use in continuing in this topic.

 

[felra]

ByzCath:

Who says this person would be unfit for marriage? So far I have only seen you saying this.

But, again, we must take this as an individual case.

What is meant by “predominately SSA/homosexual sexual orientation,”

You know I define SSA and homosexual as being different. This must be left up to the bishops/religious superiors to decide, there can be no blanket bann on this sort of thing.

I really do not see any use in continuing in this topic.

I fail to see your point. This post comes across as a non-response to the clear point that I made.

 

[m134e5]

felra:

I see this poster’s statement as misplaced compassion. No one is rejecting anyone. The Church’s duty and right is to assist an individual discern his vocational qualification and fitness to the priesthood.

From a common sense logic, you have a gentleman who identifies having a primary, predominately SSA/homosexual sexual orientation, but also feels called to the priesthood of Jesus Christ. If this seminarian candidate is unqualified, unfit as a candidate for the marriage vocation, why would this same person in his current identified degree of SSA be a qualified candidate for the priesthood of the person of Jesus Christ? They both entail and require the capacity to enter into a full giving of themselves in a complementary, espousal relationship of giving and receiving (bride/bridegroom; the Church as the Bride/the priest as the Bridegroom). The only difference is the way that one’s sexual identity is channeled and given expression (note, not every sexual expression is genital, rather it is also a way of relating to others). Why should the Church settle for anything less than the basic threshold qualification, that, if a man is unfit, unqualified to enter in holy matrimony, then this sincere man is not a viable seminarian candidate?

A person with SSA may not be physically attracted to women- yet some can and have married women and have been faithful to them- they would not have been able to do this if they weren’t at least emotionally attracted to them (as a potential partner- not just as a sister or as a friend). The Church is neither physically male nor physically female, so the physical attraction to women seems to be unnecessary. Unless the man seeking ordination is uncomfortable in his sexuality (I don’t mean he is comfortable with his SSA- just that he is uncomfortable as a man), or he struggles too much with chastity (as determined by a spiritual director), then who he is sexually attracted to should be a non-issue.

 

[contemplative]

ByzCath:

I really do not see any use in continuing in this topic.

Of course you mean that personally.

There are many who haven’t resolved various concerns yet. Talking about the possibility of a document that forbids homosexuals to the priesthood is part of that resolve. Wouldn’t all those contributing on this thread be surprised if we read about such a directive in the news this week, month or even this year? I would try to be the first to dig this thread up and reread it!

Personally I still get the hebe jebes when I think of the 23 Chicago priests and 35 Rochester, NY priests who penned a letter to Pope John Paul II scolding him about the strong language to describe homosexuality in CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS
BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS.

In the meantime I don’t see anything wrong with voicing concerns, information and ideas.

 

[fix]

ByzCath:

Actually thinking about it, this whole topic is hyperbole as the premise unlieing it is that any man who suffers from SSA, or is in any way effeminate (as a couple of posters say), is incapable of controling those urges and will therefore not be able to be chaste.

That is part of the argument, but not the entire argument.

Also there is the idea that becuase the “Clergy sex scandal” was casued by homosexuals (a premise I do not necessarily fully agree with) that they will molest children.

Male homosexuals do abuse minors at a higher percentage than heterosexuals. The scandal is about homosexual abuse almost exclusively and that is related to heterodoxy being tolerated and encouraged in seminaries among other things.

And before you say this is not about the “Clergy sex scandal” some have used that as a reason that this “document” needs to be.

Rome has said previously homosexuals should not be ordained and may say it again soon with greater force.

 

[felra]

m134e5:

A person with SSA may not be physically attracted to women- yet some can and have married women and have been faithful to them- they would not have been able to do this if they weren’t at least emotionally attracted to them (as a potential partner- not just as a sister or as a friend). The Church is neither physically male nor physically female, so the physical attraction to women seems to be unnecessary. Unless the man seeking ordination is uncomfortable in his sexuality (I don’t mean he is comfortable with his SSA- just that he is uncomfortable as a man), or he struggles too much with chastity (as determined by a spiritual director), then who he is sexually attracted to should be a non-issue.

Besides contradicting yourself ( …“I don’t mean he is comfortable with his SSA” and …“then who he is sexually attracted to should be a non-issue” ), your argument would apparently use the subjective criteria of a seminarian candidate being “comfortable with” whatever sexual orientation/inclination he owns, as the sole determinant of sexual orientation as a fitness/qualification factor. The Church is not male or female, but the bible authors and the Church use the nuptial imagery to describe/convey the relationship reality of Christ’s relationship to the Church, His Bride. I do not see how our sexuality can be bypassed as an objective readiness/fitness criteria for priestly candidacy.

**796 **The unity of Christ and the Church, head and members of one Body, also implies the distinction of the two within a personal relationship. This aspect is often expressed by the image of bridegroom and bride. The theme of Christ as Bridegroom of the Church was prepared for by the prophets and announced by John the Baptist. The Lord referred to himself as the “bridegroom.” The Apostle speaks of the whole Church and of each of the faithful, members of his Body, as a bride “betrothed” to Christ the Lord so as to become but one spirit with him. The Church is the spotless bride of the spotless Lamb. “Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her.” He has joined her with himself in an everlasting covenant and never stops caring for her as for his own body:

This is the whole Christ, head and body, one formed from many . . . whether the head or members speak, it is Christ who speaks. He speaks in his role as the head (ex persona capitis) and in his role as body (ex persona corporis). What does this mean? “The two will become one flesh. This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the Church.” And the Lord himself says in the Gospel: “So they are no longer two, but one flesh.” They are, in fact, two different persons, yet they are one in the conjugal union, . . . as head, he calls himself the bridegroom, as body, he calls himself “bride.” (CCC)

**808 **The Church is the Bride of Christ: he loved her and handed himself over for her. He has purified her by his blood and made her the fruitful mother of all God’s children. (CCC)

**2332 ***Sexuality *affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others. (CCC)

2 Corinthians**, *Chapter 11:2 “***For I am jealous of you with the jealousy of God, since I betrothed you to one husband to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.”

 

[contemplative]

fix:

That is part of the argument, but not the entire argument.

Male homosexuals do abuse minors at a higher percentage than heterosexuals. The scandal is about homosexual abuse almost exclusively and that is related to heterodoxy being tolerated and encouraged in seminaries among other things.

Rome has said previously homosexuals should not be ordained and may say it again soon with greater force.

You gotta know something is wrong.

Good Grief It happened again in the Diocese of Rochester, NY

 

[pax_2005]

But how would one define a homosexual orientation? It is very rare to find a man who has never found another man attractive, the same for a woman. What if someone is attracted to both males and females equally?

The primary crisis in the priesthood today is not homosexuality. It’s holiness. Priests need to seek holiness, parishioners ned to pray for priests. Priests need to have a deep love for God.

Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and it is the Church’s perogative to set *disciplines *related to priestly ordination. If she bans men with SSA I will submit to her judgement, but I would like to see a concrete definition that can be used by bishops and vocations directors to assess a candidate’s suitability to the priestly vocation. The church also needs to be able to look at people whose orientations have changed. This is an issue that needs more discussion. Priests, bishops, and seminarians, and lay people need to improve dialogue and find a way to help people with SSA seek holiness by living a chaste life.

I think St. Augustine would have had some difficulties getting ordained with the way some people are talking.

 

[fix]

pax_2005:

But how would one define a homosexual orientation? It is very rare to find a man who has never found another man attractive, the same for a woman.

I must disagree with this. IMO, that is a fiction created by pop psychology and enabled by our secular culture. I know of no healthy person who has had such desires, no matter their age.

What if someone is attracted to both males and females equally?

Again, this is a disorder. It is SSA if it actually is happening. There may be degress of SSA.

The primary crisis in the priesthood today is not homosexuality. It’s holiness. Priests need to seek holiness, parishioners ned to pray for priests. Priests need to have a deep love for God.

Holiness is the key to all this, but that does not mean we suspend logic and the virtue of prudence.

 

[m134e5]

felra: Besides contradicting yourself ( …“I don’t mean he is comfortable with his SSA” and …“then who he is sexually attracted to should be a non-issue” )

I should have made my statement more clear. I meant if the man is uncomfortable in his male body (meaning he is transsexual- which is not to be confused with transvestite), then he is certainly unfit for Holy Orders or religious vows (or marriage, for that matter). If he is not transsexual (meaning he is comfortable being a man), and he is psychologically stable, devout in his faith, feels he has the call from God (and others around him feel the same way) and can live chastely, then it should not be a problem.