Vatican Document Forbidding Homosexuals to Priesthood Ready for Release

[oat_soda]

It seems to me you’ve just set an impossible standard for admission to the priesthood. Everyone, without exception, can be diagnosed with some type of psychological disorder. Should those who have depression, attention deficit disorder, anxiety, or even pagophobia be similarly barred from the priesthood

this argument can be used against any classification or us knowing anything.

for instance, look at wheat, or the valid material for the eucharist. we know that there are several strains of wheat. who decides which strain is wheat, and which is a different strain to the exent of not being wheat, such as buck wheat? does this make it impossible for us to identify what is wheat? i don’t think so.

classification is a way for us to understand the world around us. while the natural world isn’t discrete, most are normal distributions, we have the ability to group observations together that most would agree to fit into the same classification. this is because most things tend to follow normal distributions. i believe that people either have a mental disorder or they don’t. this doesn’t mean i believe that it is a discrete difference, but one that a competent athority in pychology would be able to identify.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

mlchance:

Semantics. “Recent” is an equivocal term. In my mind, four years ago is certainly recent. So is 1997.

Also, the reason Murphy is an ex-teacher in the Catholic schools hereabouts is because he’s currently sitting in prison. He was quite sensibly fired once he was arrested.

Actually from reading the articles I found, he was fired for lieing about his educational credentials.

I do not agree with them being recent and anyways, as I said, they are not part of the Church “sex scandal” as these did not occur in the same way as the others. The one you state as recent occured in the individuals home and in a class room of a school and one of the accusers he did not even meet in a Church.

If we are to stretch this to fall under the Church “sex scandal” then every parent who has sexually abused their child who has attended a Catholic Church should then be added to it.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Other Eric:

Hi mlchance!

Which is exactly why homosexuals have no place in the Church, not just the seminary.

Actually all sinners have a place in the Church, if there were no sinners then there would be no need for the Church.

 

[Other_Eric]

oat soda:

this argument can be used against any classification or us knowing anything.

for instance, look at wheat, or the valid material for the eucharist. we know that there are several strains of wheat. who decides which strain is wheat, and which is a different strain to the exent of not being wheat, such as buck wheat? does this make it impossible for us to identify what is wheat? i don’t think so.

classification is a way for us to understand the world around us. while the natural world isn’t discrete, most are normal distributions, we have the ability to group observations together that most would agree to fit into the same classification. this is because most things tend to follow normal distributions. i believe that people either have a mental disorder or they don’t. this doesn’t mean i believe that it is a discrete difference, but one that a competent athority in pychology would be able to identify.

Hi oat soda!

Well, we know that science has already definitively answered the question of buckwheat, as it is not classified in the same family as wheat. It is not unreasonable for the Church to have deferred to the science in this regard as buckwheat was unknown to Europe until the fourteenth century. There was a clear, objective classification scheme used to arrive at this decision.

In the case of psychological classifications, the distinctions to be made are far more subjective. The relevant authority, the APA, has compiled work, the DSM IV, that identified thousands of possible mental disorders, and because it leaves out the disorder of homosexuality, it can only be assumed that there are even more than are listed there. Thus, the question must be not whether a candidate has a mental disorder, because it would be easy to pick one out for any candidate, but rather whether the mental disorder that the candidate does have constitutes or exists to a degree that would constitute an impediment to his duties as a member of the clergy.

 

[Other_Eric]

ByzCath:

Actually all sinners have a place in the Church, if there were no sinners then there would be no need for the Church.

Hi ByzCath!

As one same-sex attracted individual, living chastely put it:

Setting homosexuals aside as an absolute and distinct category of human being is a radical move. Ultimately, it would force the Church to hold that - as God does not make some people for sin - same sex attraction and all it entails must be some positive expression of His person (imago Dei). Already the Church holds that homosexuals are children of God, but condemns homosexual acts. In short, if it adopted the ban on gay priests the Vatican would start to sound like the scientists. This could be either a good thing or a mistake.

Of course, the Vatican cannot go against the constant teaching of 2,000 years that the homosexual condition is intrinsically disordered. It will have to limit its insistence that “what is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable” to be understood, as one poster here has already suggested, that the sexual behavior of the homosexual is indeed compulsive and that they bear full responsibility for this (a unique moral condition in the realm of psychological disorders), effectively denying that they possess free will.

The Church must also stop refusing “to consider the person as a ‘heterosexual’ or a ‘homosexual’” and instead insist that the person’s fundamental identity is anything but “the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.”

 

[contemplative]

Other Eric:

Hi ByzCath!

As one same-sex attracted individual, living chastely put it:

I don’t get it. Where are you trying to go with your link posted here this quote?

 

[Other_Eric]

contemplative:

I don’t get it. Where are you trying to go with your link posted here this quote?

Hi contemplative!

I provided the link as a cite to the source material which I quoted. I’ll admit it was clumsy of me not to link to the specific post that I quoted, so I will attempt to correct my mistake here. As I’m sure you will agree, however, the layout of this particular site does not lend itself well to displaying just one post.

 

[contemplative]

If I were a male and had an inclination for same-sex attraction today and thought that I had a calling to the priesthood I wouldn’t join a seminary. There are other options to consider. I could be a brother in a monastic community and live a quiet prayfilled life. If I really wanted to be a priest and maintain my gay status I could convert to another Christian religion.

Question for heterosexuals…
If you were a male with homosexual inclinations would you join a seminary today and persue the priesthood? What would you do?

 

[contemplative]

Other Eric:

Hi contemplative!

I provided the link as a cite to the source material which I quoted. I’ll admit it was clumsy of me not to link to the specific post that I quoted, so I will attempt to correct my mistake here. As I’m sure you will agree, however, the layout of this particular site does not lend itself well to displaying just one post.

You are suggesting that ByzCath is echoing the sentiments of the author of Dreadnought blog?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

contemplative:

If I were a male and had an inclination for same-sex attraction today and thought that I had a calling to the priesthood I wouldn’t join a seminary. There are other options to consider. I could be a brother in a monastic community and live a quiet prayfilled life. If I really wanted to be a priest and maintain my gay status I could convert to another Christian religion.

Question for heterosexuals…
If you were a male with homosexual inclinations would you join a seminary today and persue the priesthood? What would you do?

I am sorry but I really do not understand your question here.

Are you saying that males with same sex inclinations can not control this? this would be the same for males with opposite sex inclinations.

If you are a male and you do not wish to live a chaste life then no the semianry, nor a religious order, is the right place for you.

 

[contemplative]

ByzCath:

I am sorry but I really do not understand your question here.

Are you saying that males with same sex inclinations can not control this?

No
I am saying that if I were a man with SS inclinations I wouldn’t seek out the priesthood…especially today. That is me. Personally, it would be more humbling for me to take a more servile path as a prayful brother in community rather than an authoritative priest in a leadership role.

 

[contemplative]

contemplative:

Question for heterosexuals…
If you were a male with homosexual inclinations would you join a seminary today and persue the priesthood? What would you do?

This thought provoking question could lead to some useful and insightful answers. I will ponder it more.

 

[Other_Eric]

contemplative:

You are suggesting that ByzCath is echoing the sentiments of the author of Dreadnought blog?

Hi contemplative!

Partially, yes I am saying that ByzCath seems to agree with Dreadnought that to say the presence same-sex attraction automatically makes one unfit for the priesthood entails a radical rethinking of all the Church’s teachings in this area.

 

[contemplative]

contemplative:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y188/ginnyroc/IMG_4288.jpg

Feeling lazy this morning plus my scanner/translator won’t work on this type…here are the Impediments of Ordination published from book titled Vademecum Theologiae Moralis in Germany 1949 The book is titled Moral theology copyright 1957. I will post impratur on the next post.

Did you read the impediments to ordination in this book? Take a closer look. I suppose anything is possible.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

contemplative:

No
I am saying that if I were a man with SS inclinations I wouldn’t seek out the priesthood…especially today. That is me. Personally, it would be more humbling for me to take a more servile path as a prayful brother in community rather than an authoritative priest in a leadership role.

Please explain your thought process behind this.

If you were a man with SS inclinations I could see why you might not seek out the priesthood, because living in the seminary might be a great source of temptation to you but then you go on to say that you would live as a monk in a monastic setting. How is that less of a temptation than the seminary? Actually, depending on the community, it could be a greater one.

Or is that men with SS inclinations can not be effective leaders?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Other Eric:

Hi contemplative!

Partially, yes I am saying that ByzCath seems to agree with Dreadnought that to say the presence same-sex attraction automatically makes one unfit for the priesthood entails a radical rethinking of all the Church’s teachings in this area.

I have no idea what this “Dreadnought” is and I have never said any such thing.

I would appreicate it Eric if you would not put words in my mouth or attempt to attribute an agenda to what I am saying.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

contemplative:

contemplative:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y188/ginnyroc/IMG_4288.jpg

Feeling lazy this morning plus my scanner/translator won’t work on this type…here are the Impediments of Ordination published from book titled Vademecum Theologiae Moralis in Germany 1949 The book is titled Moral theology copyright 1957. I will post impratur on the next post.
Did you read the impediments to ordination in this book? Take a closer look. I suppose anything is possible.

And who wrote this book? Is it an offical document from the Church?

Anyone can write a book.

All an Imprimatur says is that nothing within the book is contrary to Catholic faith or morals. It does not mean that it is the offical teaching of the Church.

I will also note that numbers 2, 4 , and 5 seem to be off.

As the Church, even the Roman Church, ordains married men. As a matter of fact, when this book was published, the Byzantine Churches did so on a regular basis.

Number 4 just seems odd, it appears that this book acknowledges and endorses it slavery.

Number 5 is just off as we have military chaplians.

So even if the book was a Church document at one time, it appears that it is only discipline, which can and does change.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Here is what current Canon Law (for the Roman Church) says.

Can. 1041 The following persons are irregular for the reception of orders:

1° one who suffers from any form of insanity, or from any other psychological infirmity, because of which he is, after experts have been consulted, judged incapable of being able to fulfil the ministry;

2° one who has committed the offence of apostasy, heresy or schism;

3° one who has attempted marriage, even a civil marriage, either while himself prevented from entering marriage whether by an existing marriage bond or by a sacred order or by a public and perpetual vow of chastity, or with a woman who is validly married or is obliged by the same vow;

4° one who has committed wilful homicide, or one who has actually procured an abortion, and all who have positively cooperated;

5° one who has gravely and maliciously mutilated himself or another, or who has attempted suicide;

6° one who has carried out an act of order which is reserved to those in the order of the episcopate or priesthood, while himself either not possessing that order or being barred from its exercise by some canonical penalty, declared or imposed.

Can. 1042 The following are simply impeded from receiving orders:

1° a man who has a wife, unless he is lawfully destined for the permanent diaconate;

2° one who exercises an office or administration forbidden to clerics, in accordance with cann. 285 and 286, of which he must render an account; the impediment binds until such time as, having relinquished the office and administration and rendered the account, he has been freed;

3° a neophyte, unless, in the judgement of the Ordinary, he has been sufficiently tested.

 

[contemplative]

Well yes that book is obsolete…50+ years old. It is interesting to see what ‘flew’ back then and no one should be shocked if homosexuality is added to the list of impediments to ordination. Not many would be surprised by this at all. It could very well happen as a temporary measure. Who would complain? A minority?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

contemplative:

Well yes that book is obsolete…50+ years old. It is interesting to see what ‘flew’ back then and no one should be shocked if homosexuality is added to the list of impediments to ordination. Not many would be surprised by this at all. It could very well happen as a temporary measure. Who would complain? A minority?

True, but then I bet only a minority complained about slavery being an impediment and I be they were beat for it.

But that is besides the point.

My main issue with this is that before this is done we must fully define what we mean by “homosexuality”.