Vatican Document Forbidding Homosexuals to Priesthood Ready for Release

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

oat soda:

this isn’t about being tempted to sin, we are all tempted, but it has to do with how much someone is tempted and how they have acted on it. if someone has a psychological disorder which makes them steal or lie constantly, they wouldn’t be allowed into the priesthood either. the same could be said for any kind of disordered sexuality, including homosexuality, which is generally a chronic condition.

Okay, I can understand this statement and agree with it.

But where to draw the line. As you said, it is not about how much one is tempted.

Not everyone who has homosexual tendencies acts on it.

So where is the line drawn?

I guess we will have to wait for this document to come out, if that ever happens.

 

[barnestormer]

ByzCath:

if someone with these tendencies and is living as he should, why can’t he make a good priest?

There is a world of difference between puting a heterosexual man in a seminary or religious community and doing the same with a homosexual man. Studies show that 70%+ of homosexuals are practicing. Puting a homosexual man in a seminary or religious community is like placing him right in the way of temptation. Community living…community bathrooms…do you think these are good situations in which to mix hetero and homosexual men? Bottom line: you don’t help a homosexual man live a chaste life by having him spend 4-6 years+ in an all-male community that lives a relatively close-knit lifestyle.

Then there’s the general morale issue for the rest of the community, especially in a religious order where the man won’t be spending the rest of his working life alone in a rectory. I think a seminarian ought to be able to trust his bishop to send him to a place where he doesn’t have to worry about being hit on or eyed by another seminarian.

Dioceses and religious orders need to prevent homosexuals from entering formation as much for that individual’s well-being as for everyone else’s well-being. It is a disorder that needs to be worked out through therapy, spiritual direction, and compassion. It’s the same as a diocese or religious order preventing those with substance abuse problems or those with violent tendencies from entering UNTIL they resolve those issues.

 

[barnestormer]

ByzCath:

This is just looking for a scape goat. Not every case in the “sex scandal” happened because of homosexuals.

I disagree, they are not looking for a scapegoat here. They are simply trying to address a problem. Read Michael Rose’s “Goodbye, Good Men” to learn more about homosexuality in the seminaries and the priesthood. It is a problem that needs to be dealt with (and should have been dealth with 20-30 years ago). I don’t think anyone in the hierarchy sees this as a panacea for all our scandal woes.

I do agree with you that not every case in the recent scandals happened because of homosexuals. Homosexuality does not necessarily = pedophilia.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

barnestormer:

I disagree, they are not looking for a scapegoat here. They are simply trying to address a problem. Read Michael Rose’s “Goodbye, Good Men” to learn more about homosexuality in the seminaries and the priesthood. It is a problem that needs to be dealt with (and should have been dealth with 20-30 years ago). I don’t think anyone in the hierarchy sees this as a panacea for all our scandal woes.

I have read that book and it does a dis-service.

The book contains anecdotal evidence regarding a very small number of seminaries and tries to extrapolate a wide conclusion on all seminaries.

It also takes the word of ex-seminarians as gospel.

There are many reasons why a seminarian may be removed from the seminary and many of those who are removed will be very disgruntled and prone to make things up to justfify themselves.

The book is out dated.

I also have a friend who attended one of the seminaries talked about in the book and in his experience what the book said was going on was not happening.

The book is not a scientific study in any way, shape, or form and should not be considered as the way it is.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

barnestormer:

Studies show that 70%+ of homosexuals are practicing.

Studies show? Yeah right. First off, studies are flawed in most cases.

You know Studies show that 1000% of the people who drink water die.

And even if the studies are true, is it right to throw out the 30% that don’t act on it?

I would add, that homosexual covers both genders, so right off the bat your study is flawed.

What about men who have been active homosexuals but have been cured though Courage or some program like that?

Again, I am not pro-homosexual, it is a sin and is gravely disordered. I just question the idea that we should exclude someone based on the temptations that they undergo.

 

[Brain]

Homosexuals shouldnt be barred from priesthood, just weeded out more readilly during the pre-eval. That is not to be mean, but because the disorder by definition makes one more apt to deal with sexual issues/situations in abnormal ways.

the type of homosexual we should admit is a chaste man who agknowleges that he has a disorder (just as a handicapped person comes to terms with the fact they wont be running a marathon in record time), and is willing to work hard to live through it. The type we should reject are the so called “flamers” and those who are of the mindset that homosexuality or a disinterest in women is a sign of a vocation.

stand firm on principle, but do not be unessessarilly cold or cruel to the suffering because of it.

 

[oat_soda]

But where to draw the line. As you said, it is not about how much one is tempted.

i didn’t say this. i said it is about how much someone is tempted and how they have acted on it. obviously, you wouldn’t allow someone into the seminary who has frequent homosexual thoughts running through their head, reguardless if they have ever acted on it or not.

they have a psychological disorder which bars them for carrying out a demading idenity. but i wouldn’t go as far to say that it is genetic because i don’t believe it is. i think it is mostly environmental as we are all sexual beings.

 

[Libero]

Surely anybody called to the preisthood to enter a life with God is capable of ignoring their homosexual tendancies. Living a chaste life is something that both homo and hetero sexual priests have to follow. We should not generalise on the topic. Not all homosexuals have to act on their tedancies.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

oat soda:

i didn’t say this. i said it is about how much someone is tempted and how they have acted on it. obviously, you wouldn’t allow someone into the seminary who has frequent homosexual thoughts running through their head, reguardless if they have ever acted on it or not.

they have a psychological disorder which bars them for carrying out a demading idenity. but i wouldn’t go as far to say that it is genetic because i don’t believe it is. i think it is mostly environmental as we are all sexual beings.

Sorry about that, I went back and read it again.

You said…

this isn’t about being tempted to sin, we are all tempted, but it has to do with how much someone is tempted and how they have acted on it.

So then answer this, why just this sin?

How do you measure how much one is tempted?

So where do you draw the line? Is it only those who have acted on it? or is there a set number of times they acted on it?

This is a very subjective thing and if a document ever does surface I would bet that it is going to leave this to the discretion of the bishops and religous order superiors.

And no one seems to want to try and answer why the priesthood and not the diaconate.

 

[barnestormer]

ByzCath:

Studies show? Yeah right. First off, studies are flawed in most cases.

You know Studies show that 1000% of the people who drink water die.

What about men who have been active homosexuals but have been cured though Courage or some program like that?

Again, I am not pro-homosexual, it is a sin and is gravely disordered. I just question the idea that we should exclude someone based on the temptations that they undergo.

I’m talking about clinical studies using methodologies accepted by the medical and scientific communities. Simply dismissing them as statistical nonsense ignores reality.

A man who has deep-seated homosexual inclinations is not simply being tempted—there is a disorder there. It is grossly irresponsible to put homosexual inclinations and the human temptation to, say, steal a candy bar on the same level. Would you put an alcoholic’s inclination towards drink on the same level as someone’s temptation to drive alone in the carpool lane? Certainly not. There is a big difference.

If you had read my post in its entirety, you would have seen that I said dioceses and religious orders ought not accept men UNTIL they have dealth with their problems (be they alcoholics, drug addicts, homosexuals, etc). Courage and similar programs are excellent ways to help people overcome and move past homosexual inclinations. If they’ve “changed their ways” as the saying goes, then perhaps past homosexual inclinations shouldn’t be a barrier to Holy Orders.

 

[barnestormer]

ByzCath:

I have read that book and it does a dis-service.

The book contains anecdotal evidence regarding a very small number of seminaries and tries to extrapolate a wide conclusion on all seminaries.

It also takes the word of ex-seminarians as gospel.

There are many reasons why a seminarian may be removed from the seminary and many of those who are removed will be very disgruntled and prone to make things up to justfify themselves.

The book is out dated.

I also have a friend who attended one of the seminaries talked about in the book and in his experience what the book said was going on was not happening.

The book is not a scientific study in any way, shape, or form and should not be considered as the way it is.

I didn’t say the book was a scientific study.

I do have friends who are priests and seminarians from more than one of the seminaries dicussed in the book, and they concur that while the book is a bit sensationalized, it does not overstate the gravity of the problems that many seminaries experienced some time ago.

On a positive note, based on reliable sources from within more than one seminary, I know that much of what Rose was writing about has been dealt with.

 

[contemplative]

My brother, my best friend growing up, lives and active homosexual lifestyle.

My parents provided a sound Catholic background for all of their children. When my parents and brother needed Catholic priests to support them, they didn’t.

Twenty-some years ago when my brother ‘came out out of the closet’ the parish priest told my brother to embrace his sexuality and celebrate it. Today as a parent I can only imagine the frustration my parents experienced at the time! I see how it nearly snapped my folks. In turn the whole family felt reprecussions from the fallout of this misdeed. At this point there seems to be no turning back for my brother.

This one parish priest was one of many who disuaded innocent people from the truth. There are many active priests today who still fall short of telling the truth about homosexuality. Does anyone remember the 23 priests from the Chicago Archdiocese and the 35 from the Rochester Diocese who penned the letter to Pope John Paul II condemning the harsh language used in the CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html ???

Well these guys who sent the letter to the Pope (and there is a link to that letter somewhere on the internet) are still working priests.

I don’t know how many men are priests in the Archdiocese of Chicago but I know there aren’t many in Rochester. When I consider that 35 were complaining about strong language in this document I get a little worried vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

*So now if the Vatican takes extra measures to eliminate or reduce homosexuals admitted into the priesthood for even a generation or two I would be quite relieved. An immediate change in policy would help reduce the number of gay activist in the Church. My feeling is that gay activist in the Church have helped turned the legal tide for homosexuals in our country and in places around the world. *

My brother is just one…one times how many men and women have been led astray?

• many X 23 ? *
  *or *
  *many X 35? *

*A document forbidding homosexuals into the priesthood is an important measure in preventing legalized marriage of homosexuals in the country. The benefits from a measure like this would be great for generations to come. *

 

[oat_soda]

So then answer this, why just this sin?

How do you measure how much one is tempted?

So where do you draw the line? Is it only those who have acted on it? or is there a set number of times they acted on it?

i didn’t just say this sin and i agree that we’ll have to wait and see what the document says.

i don’t think it’s like a gradation between disordered and ordered sexuality. like i said, you either have a disordered sexuality or you don’t. someone who isn’t sexually attracted to females shouldn’t be let into the priesthood. to me that would be the bottom line.

 

[Catholic29]

However, Allen suggests that some American bishops are hoping the Vatican shelves the document since they contend it will “generate controversy and negative press”.

Well now, I wonder why I am not suprised by this statement.

Putting the brakes on perfectly good policy, simply because they believe it will give them a little heat on the back side, is a spineless example that makes not a shepherd of Christ.

It is attitudes like these which make me thankful there will never be a pope from America…

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

oat soda:

i didn’t just say this sin and i agree that we’ll have to wait and see what the document says.

i don’t think it’s like a gradation between disordered and ordered sexuality. like i said, you either have a disordered sexuality or you don’t. someone who isn’t sexually attracted to females shouldn’t be let into the priesthood. to me that would be the bottom line.

I can understand that, but there are people who just are not sexually attracted to any one period. Also there are some who are sexually attracted to both, in varying degrees.

This is a very touchy subject and like I said, most likely it will be left up to the discretion of the bishop/religious superiors.

 

[contemplative]

ByzCath:

I can understand that, but there are people who just are not sexually attracted to any one period. Also there are some who are sexually attracted to both, in varying degrees.

This is a very touchy subject and like I said, most likely it will be left up to the discretion of the bishop/religious superiors.

I agree with you.
If a document forbidding homosexuals to the priesthood is finally released there will always be individual or isolated variables which will be sorted through one at a time. I hope though that the message is clear enough - men interested in flaunting their homosexuality aren’t welcome into the priesthood.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

contemplative:

I agree with you.
If a document forbidding homosexuals to the priesthood is finally released there will always be individual or isolated variables which will be sorted through one at a time. I hope though that the message is clear enough - men interested in flaunting their homosexuality aren’t welcome into the priesthood.

Now here is something that I can agree with 100%!

and I would add, that they shouldn’t be welcome in the communion line either.

 

[Other_Eric]

Hi guys!

Let’s just assume for now that the Church does make the unilateral decision that any same-sex attraction experienced at any time during a candidate’s life constitutes an insurmountable impediment to Holy Orders. After all the arguments that have been made against such ordination, it’s hard to see what we mean for such people to do. It’s not a trivial question as these arguments also render the other two vocations inadvisable for such a person.

The first possibility is marriage. In this, the potential spouse has every bit as much of a right to know of her partner’s sexuality. It is important, given that there may likely be children that are a product of the marriage who would then become targets for the same predatory tendencies that make the man inadmissable to the seminary. That he has a wife to counteract these tendencies would be of no comfort to any experiences sex offender therapist. Moreover, because, as someone else on this board has pointed out, over 70% of these men are sexually active, we would need to question the competence of any spouse who willingly consented to marital relations with such a high likelihood that venereal disease would be introduced. Marriage, it seems, is not an option.

We are left, by process of elimination with the single life. As is the case with the priesthood now, this will become the “gay vocation.” If such a man takes a roommate for financial reasons, he automatically gives scandal. He arguably does the same with any close friend or even a constant spiritual director, since no one will believe that the priesthood has been completely purged of the homosexual element. Because of the unavoidable predatory instinct that comes with the homosexual condition, such a man would be an inappropriate friend for any family, and because of the near occasion of sin, even lay organizations, like the Knights of Columbus, would be out of bounds. Youth will actively seek to avoid the vocation and so it will fall into disrepute.

The bottom line is that regardless of the vocation, once homosexuals are introduced, it begins to fall apart. The question becomes not so much which vocation the same-sex attracted are called to as much as whether they have a vocation at all.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Other Eric:

Hi guys!

Let’s just assume for now that the Church does make the unilateral decision that any same-sex attraction experienced at any time during a candidate’s life constitutes an insurmountable impediment to Holy Orders. After all the arguments that have been made against such ordination, it’s hard to see what we mean for such people to do. It’s not a trivial question as these arguments also render the other two vocations inadvisable for such a person.

The first possibility is marriage. In this, the potential spouse has every bit as much of a right to know of her partner’s sexuality. It is important, given that there may likely be children that are a product of the marriage who would then become targets for the same predatory tendencies that make the man inadmissable to the seminary. That he has a wife to counteract these tendencies would be of no comfort to any experiences sex offender therapist. Moreover, because, as someone else on this board has pointed out, over 70% of these men are sexually active, we would need to question the competence of any spouse who willingly consented to marital relations with such a high likelihood that venereal disease would be introduced. Marriage, it seems, is not an option.

We are left, by process of elimination with the single life. As is the case with the priesthood now, this will become the “gay vocation.” If such a man takes a roommate for financial reasons, he automatically gives scandal. He arguably does the same with any close friend or even a constant spiritual director, since no one will believe that the priesthood has been completely purged of the homosexual element. Because of the unavoidable predatory instinct that comes with the homosexual condition, such a man would be an inappropriate friend for any family, and because of the near occasion of sin, even lay organizations, like the Knights of Columbus, would be out of bounds. Youth will actively seek to avoid the vocation and so it will fall into disrepute.

The bottom line is that regardless of the vocation, once homosexuals are introduced, it begins to fall apart. The question becomes not so much which vocation the same-sex attracted are called to as much as whether they have a vocation at all.

So what should they do? Or what should we do? Burn them? Hunt them for sport? I’m not getting the tone of your last paragraph. They cannot be good for nothing, since that contradicts their dignity as human beings.

 

[Other_Eric]

JKirkLVNV:

They cannot be good for nothing, since that contradicts their dignity as human beings.

Hi JKirkLVNV!

So do some of the arguments made to keep them from the clergy.