Vatican responds to CDF official’s “coming out” [CNA]

[anthony022071]

There is an important distinction among these 3 issues:

1. A priest who has homosexual inclinations;
2. A priest who is acting out on such inclinations, for instance, having a boyfriend;
3. A priest who publicly defies and opposes Christian faith and practice on sexuality;

Obviously this priest meets all 3 criteria, and should be removed from ministry in the priesthood, and prayed for. (We can’t judge the man himself, he may be less bad than you or I).

We can judge him. And he cannot be less bad than us because he acts contrary to natural law and the created order and is proud and unrepentant of it.

But what about priests who only meet criterion #1? I am not aware of any specific requirement that they not practice priestly ministry. My understanding is that bishops and seminaries are much more cautious about this than they were in the 1960s and 1970s, but for men who are already ordained, I assume they would continue on in ministry even if the bishop became aware of their orientation.

Unfortunately in today’s climate any acknowledgement by them of their homosexual orientation would be interpreted in a political way by all sides, and not in a loving way.

The homosexual inclination is an intrinsic moral disorder. It is contrary to natural law and the created order. So anyone with that inclination who does not suppress it within himself is unfit for the priesthood.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

< 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. >

 

[Cider]

Neither Heterosexuality nor homosexuality (by which terms I refer to the direction of ones sexual interests and desires) are intrinsically disordered, but fornication including same sex sexual acts is.

An unrepentant fornicating priest would expect to be dismissed.

A priest who holds a press conference to announce his unrepentant fornication would expect to be dismissed.

A priest who holds a press conference to denounce and reject Church doctrine, and to announce his right and intention to fornicate would expect to be dismissed.

And so he was.

From the CCC

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.

 

[7_Sorrows]

He is sinning and breaking his vow of celibacy because he is homosexual. The homosexual inclination is disordered in itself. It is contrary to natural law and the created order, which makes it worse than lust for someone of the other sex, which is a natural desire. Anyone who has a homosexual inclination and is not determined to suppress it is unfit for the priesthood.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

He is a theologian. If he has any theological insight into the matter, perhaps he could share it with us? Perhaps that could be persuasive? Based on his press conference, I feel rather sure he has no insight other than his personal desires.

He is clearly a Meologian, and believes “I want what I want.” Not sure about theologian.

People who hear and espouse clear teaching based on deep mysteries, history, and the like who suddenly change their mind don’t do so based on a solid argument that refutes what they previously believed; they do so based on primal instinct, selfishness, and in this case, their loins.

You can’t even have a theological discussion with someone who doesn’t actually argue a particular theology.

And the fact that this was made news on the eve of the Synod for someone involved in the CDF shows the duplicitous, uncaring nature of the individual. Very childish.

 

[Rau]

From the CCC

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered,…

Objectively disordered does NOT mean the same thing as Intrinsically disordered. The homosexual inclination is not intrinsically disordered. Same sex sexual acts are intrinsically disordered, as is fornication, calumny, and so on. These latter things are chosen human acts, and are sinful. An inclination, an attraction, is not chosen and in itself is not sinful.

 

[Rau]

He is sinning and breaking his vow of celibacy because he is homosexual. The homosexual inclination is disordered in itself. It is contrary to natural law and the created order, which makes it worse than lust for someone of the other sex, which is a natural desire. Anyone who has a homosexual inclination and is not determined to suppress it is unfit for the priesthood.

The homosexual inclination is not sinful. The decision to engage in same sex sexual scts is sinful.

 

[Brendan]

Objectively disordered does NOT mean the same thing as Intrinsically disordered. The homosexual inclination is not intrinsically disordered. Same sex sexual acts are intrinsically disordered, as is fornication, calumny, and so on. These latter things are chosen human acts, and are sinful. An inclination, an attraction, is not chosen and in itself is not sinful.

Same sex sexual acts are intrinsically evil, in that there is no circumstance where they in not in opposition to the moral good.

But you are incorrect, a homosexual inclination is also intrinsically disordered, as there is no circumstance where it is correctly ordered towards the natural end of sexual attraction.

It, by itself, is not sinful, but that does not mean that there exists any homosexual attraction that is not falsely ordered.

If you disagree, under what circumstances would you hold that a homosexual inclination is correctly ordered?

 

[Rau]

…But you are incorrect, a homosexual inclination is also intrinsically disordered, as there is no circumstance where it is correctly ordered towards the natural end of sexual attraction.

You can misuse the language if you like. You will not find any Church document that describes SSA as “intrinsically disordered” - if you believe otherwise, please provide examples. You will find it described as “disordered”.

Intrinsically disordered means “always wrong to choose”. The inclination is not chosen. Acting upon it is the choice.

From the CDF:
“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

 

[davidv]

You can misuse the language if you like. You will not find any Church document that describes SSA as “intrinsically disordered” - if you believe otherwise, please provide examples. You will find it described as “disordered”.

Intrinsically disordered means “always wrong to choose”. The inclination is not chosen. Acting upon it is the choice.

From the CDF:
“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

What is the practical distinction between objectively and intrinsically in this case? It seems to me a distinction without a difference.

 

[Rau]

What is the practical distinction between objectively and intrinsically in this case? It seems to me a distinction without a difference.

“Intrinsically disordered” is applied only to human acts to which morality can be attached. All acts so described are always sinful. SSA is not an act - it is not something to which morality can be attached. It is only the object of that inclination (sexual acts) to which morality can be attached. Those acts are intrinsically disordered. The inclination is disordered - the Church uses the term “objectively disordered” in this case.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Objectively disordered does NOT mean the same thing as Intrinsically disordered. The homosexual inclination is not intrinsically disordered. Same sex sexual acts are intrinsically disordered, as is fornication, calumny, and so on. These latter things are chosen human acts, and are sinful. An inclination, an attraction, is not chosen and in itself is not sinful.

Right. However, this slicing and dicing is not helpful if the discussion is dismissive of the fact that said objectively disordered inclination if and whenever expressed or actualized has no other result except an intrinsically disordered act. Always.

Candidates to the priesthood and priests in formation who do not intend to keep the inclination in check or do not possess the required fortitude to maintain chastity and celibacy need to be discouraged and excluded from Catholic priestly vocation. If they are ordained and behaves anything like Charamsa, they should be laicized, defrocked, pronto.

Even if the discipline is ever changed to allow married parties, sexually active homosexuals who would entertain SS"M" or unions, regardless of its increased acceptance in secular society, would be barred. It is not like the teaching on active homosexuality can or will be changed.

Somewhere along the line, priest formation in Fr. Charamsa’s case obviously failed in picking up he did not have the fortitude to maintain his vow. Or he was just successful in deceiving those in charge of formation.

He is not the first who reached ordination and tried to change the Church. John McNeil, a former Jesuit priest, was one. Charamsa may be the first who is so naive to think his is the best way to get sympathy. He succeeded in embarrassing himself more than he embarrassed the Church in my opinion. Better that he outted himself and was sacked earlier than later.

The enemies of the Church are clearly using to tactical advantage the Catholic practice of exercising charity, her call for repentance and spiritual rehabilitation not only for the sinners outside but also within their ranks, and slowness to mete punishment.
,

 

[Rau]

Right. However, this slicing and dicing is not helpful if the discussion is dismissive of the fact that said objectively disordered inclination if and whenever expressed or actualized has no other result except an intrinsically disordered act. Always.

Candidates to the priesthood and priests in formation who do not intend to keep the inclination in check or do not possess the required fortitude to maintain chastity and celibacy need to be discouraged and excluded from Catholic priestly vocation. If they are ordained and behaves anything like Charamsa, they should be laicized, defrocked, pronto.

Even if the discipline is ever changed to allow married parties, sexually active homosexuals who would entertain SS"M" or unions, regardless of its increased acceptance in secular society, would be barred. It is not like the teaching on active homosexuality can or will be changed.

Somewhere along the line, priest formation in Fr. Charamsa’s case obviously failed in picking up he did not have the fortitude to maintain his vow. Or he was just successful in deceiving those in charge of formation.

He is not the first who reached ordination and tried to change the Church. John McNeil, a former Jesuit priest, was one. Charamsa may be the first who is so naive to think his is the best way to get sympathy. He succeeded in embarrassing himself more than he embarrassed the Church in my opinion. Better that he outted himself and was sacked earlier than later.

The enemies of the Church are clearly using to tactical advantage the Catholic practice of exercising charity, her call for repentance and spiritual rehabilitation not only for the sinners outside but also within their ranks, and slowness to mete punishment.
,

The relevant Church teaching and language is so often misunderstood I think it is worth correcting errors. I agree with the remainder of your post.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

My thoughts on Fr. Charamsa’s announcement are along the same line as in this article.

catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=1162

 

[Thomas_White]

From the CCC

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.

The Church teaches that homosexual orientation is an “objective disorder” since it is “ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil” but not sinful unless it is acted upon. Homosexual activity is viewed as a “moral disorder” and sexual acts as intrinsically disordered and contrary to natural law.

In Genesis, God looks at his Creation and says it is good, very good. God’s Creation is only good. If a homosexual orientation were intrinsically disordered, it would mean that God created what is evil. I believe this would be heresy and is the reason for the distinction. According to Augustine, evil results from the misuse of what is good.

 

[commenter]

The Church teaches that homosexual orientation is an “objective disorder” since it is “ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil” but not sinful unless it is acted upon. Homosexual activity is viewed as a “moral disorder” and sexual acts as intrinsically disordered and contrary to natural law.

In Genesis, God looks at his Creation and says it is good, very good. God’s Creation is only good. If a homosexual orientation were intrinsically disordered, it would mean that God created what is evil. I believe this would be heresy and is the reason for the distinction. According to Augustine, evil results from the misuse of what is good.

After God’s totally good creation, there was the Fall. This is the world we now live in, where human nature has many potential inclinations towards sin. The dilemma with homosexuality is that some have this inclination, but most don’t. So it seems “unfair” to call homosexual acts sinful. *“Unfair” is the ultimate buzzword *in 2015. Now that we know much more about alcoholism, people make the same argument about alcoholics not having moral responsibility, since not everyone is an alcoholic. (The Catholic doctrine involves a range of moral responsibility, not all or nothing).

Anyone who has worked in a day care sees certain children seem inclined towards aggression, right from the git-go, but not others. The fact a temptation is not universal does not mean it has no moral consequences. We have no idea what unique temptations my neighbor may be fighting, that I am not bothered by. The fact I am not tempted to abuse alcohol does not mean I should condone legislation that facilitates one alcoholic encouraging another alcoholic to act out on their temptation.

The problem is that in a world when people carelessly throw overboard absolutes of truth and morality, they also cling like glue to the “fairness” doctrine, fairness defined by the media.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

In Genesis, God looks at his Creation and says it is good, very good. God’s Creation is only good. If a homosexual orientation were intrinsically disordered, it would mean that God created what is evil. I believe this would be heresy and is the reason for the distinction. According to Augustine, evil results from the misuse of what is good.

One argument to the contrary is that homosexuality is observed in nature, presumably preexisting the Fall (depending on how you resolve the Fall with deep time and evolution). Of course, animals are not moral creatures but the behavior is part of God’s creation. Part of the problem is that the term “natural” has dual (probably more) meanings. On the one hand, what is observed in nature and, on the other hand, what is the potential of man if he chooses right.

 

[Thomas_White]

After God’s totally good creation, there was the Fall. This is the world we now live in, where human nature has many potential inclinations towards sin. The dilemma with homosexuality is that some have this inclination, but most don’t. So it seems “unfair” to call homosexual acts sinful. *“Unfair” is the ultimate buzzword *in 2015. Now that we know much more about alcoholism, people make the same argument about alcoholics not having moral responsibility, since not everyone is an alcoholic. (The Catholic doctrine involves a range of moral responsibility, not all or nothing).

There was Adam’s Fall and Original Sin. What was it Adam did by disobeying God? He ate from the tree of knowledge and became like a god by having the power to determine what is good and what is evil. Before the fall, it was God’s plan for Adam and Eve to have descendants that would populate the earth, and this was not a question of good or evil but simply a natural and also necessary act in God’s plan. After the fall, there was awareness of shame, and it was the perception of Adam and Eve who by eating the forbidden fruit had created the duality of good and evil in the world. According to Augustine, this also resulted in a corruption of free will where man could no longer naturally discern good and evil, particularly with respect to inclinations toward sins of the flesh, without God’s grace.

Anyone who has worked in a day care sees certain children seem inclined towards aggression, right from the git-go, but not others. The fact a temptation is not universal does not mean it has no moral consequences. We have no idea what unique temptations my neighbor may be fighting, that I am not bothered by. The fact I am not tempted to abuse alcohol does not mean I should condone legislation that facilitates one alcoholic encouraging another alcoholic to act out on their temptation.

There is in humanity an inclination toward aggression and not just among certain children. Look at the world today. As a former teacher, I considered the question with respect to Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents where the inclination toward aggression is a result of insufficient socialization, and where the inclination toward aggression has not been sublimated toward what is good. This lack of socialization as understood by Freud concerns the superego, and it hardly differs from an informed conscience. This can be understood as the lack of an ability to discern what is good. There is also in Freud’s conception a second inclination, and it concerns the sex drive which also must be informed by the superego (or conscience) if there are not to be unnatural acts.

The problem is that in a world when people carelessly throw overboard absolutes of truth and morality, they also cling like glue to the “fairness” doctrine, fairness defined by the media.

Adam introduced knowledge of good and evil to man’s nature and to the world by eating the forbidden fruit. This knowledge is not Absolute Truth. As a result, man has an inclination to act in an immoral way, particulary with respect to sins of the flesh, as the result of a corrupted free will and consequent lack of discernment. God’s Creation did not include this duality.

 

[livnlern]

Now, lets see how many secular people in the US feel about the Catholic faith! Will be interesting to see how the US media deals with this.

Does it matter? How often do they have anything good to say about the Catholic Church anyway?
We all know what their agenda is…to put down anything to do with the Catholic faith, to demean it and to demean its members.

 

[Thomas_White]

One argument to the contrary is that homosexuality is observed in nature, presumably preexisting the Fall (depending on how you resolve the Fall with deep time and evolution). Of course, animals are not moral creatures but the behavior is part of God’s creation. Part of the problem is that the term “natural” has dual (probably more) meanings. On the one hand, what is observed in nature and, on the other hand, what is the potential of man if he chooses right.

That is a presumption, but perhaps before the Fall there was only what was natural and no conception of good and evil. Was homosexuality natural prior to the fall? I cannot know, of course, but do think the sexuality of Adam and Eve was natural and part of God’s plan of procreation. I cannot see homosexuality as part of God’s natural plan for procreation.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

That is a presumption, but perhaps before the Fall there was only what was natural and no conception of good and evil. Was homosexuality natural prior to the fall? I cannot know, of course, but do think the sexuality of Adam and Eve was natural and part of God’s plan of procreation. I cannot see homosexuality as part of God’s natural plan for procreation.

Agreed, but this has to do with man’s potential to meet God’s expectations. The counter argument I usually employ is that pooping when and where you have the urge is natural in the naturalistic sense but it is not desirable; people are capable of building toilets (or at least latrines) and doing their business there.