Vocation for repentant homosexuals

[New2Catholicism]

I know what you’re saying, but I might suggest that the way you’re saying it sounds dangerously close to the idea that you can’t be a “real” member of the Church if you’re a sinner. If that were true, then there would be no one in the Church at all.

At least as an individual who has his sexual impulses directed to the proper gender, you have the possibility of bearing some fruit for the Church. Without that, every attempt at “morality” will be nothing other than a mockery and a fraud. Either become the man that God created you to be or be honest enough to admit to yourself how shallow your pursuit of Him likely is.

 

[Other_Eric]

I know what you’re saying, but I might suggest that the way you’re saying it sounds dangerously close to the idea that you can’t be a “real” member of the Church if you’re a sinner. If that were true, then there would be no one in the Church at all.

It isn't a question of whether or not one happens to be a sinner. It is a question of the proper course of action one is to undertake once one has accepted that he is a sinner. There is no argument for failing to attain a heterosexual orientation that does not ultimately boil down to sloth, presumption or pride of life.

It seems that far too many on these forums take the Church’s distinction between the inclination of same-sex attraction and acting on such to degrees that imply a peculiarly Protestant world-view. In other words, so-called pious practice and Manichean sexual suppression serve to cover over the errant desires that churn within one’s soul much in the same way Luther envisioned a blanket of snow covering a pile of manure. This concession to utter depravity is decidedly alien to orthodox Catholic thought and ought to be resisted at every turn.

The pursuit of Christ must be unreserved and wholly a death to oneself in order to have any merit. To accept same-sex attractions as a given without making any tangible effort to abandon them is to deny the healing power of Christ and, ultimately, the salvation He died to obtain for us. It is a sacrilege against the Cross and ungrateful in the extreme.

 

[justagirl]

There is no argument for failing to attain a heterosexual orientation that does not ultimately boil down to sloth, presumption or pride of life.

The Catholic Church does not hold this stance. You are free to believe it personally, but the Catholic Church calls those with disordered sexual desires to celibacy–not to heterosexuality.

 

[Other_Eric]

The Catholic Church does not hold this stance. You are free to believe it personally, but the Catholic Church calls those with disordered sexual desires to celibacy–not to heterosexuality.

The Church calls those with same-sex attractions to *chastity*, not celibacy. (1) Chastity is defined at ”the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being.” (2) A sexuality diseased to the point where it cannot recognize the end it was created for can no more be integrated within a person than blasphemy can be integrated into the Mass. Therefore, the person with same-sex attractions is called to be rid of them.

(1) Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1993. ¶ 2359. Available online at:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

(2) Ibid. ¶2337. Available online at: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

 

[New2Catholicism]

If i understand you correctly, then we agree completely. Having realized that my previous behavior was sinful, I am in the process of changing it. I don’t want to continue to have these desires and just supress them, as your Luther quote suggests; I want to die to my own desires in order to seek union with God. I hope you would agree that I am trying to overcome “sloth, presumption or pride of life” in order to “attain a heterosexual orientation”. I might also add that in my particular case, I already have heterosexual orientation as well, so it’s less a matter of changing my orientation from one to the other, but of just removing one of them because I can now acknowledge the authority of the Magisterium.

It isn’t a question of whether or not one happens to be a sinner. It is a question of the proper course of action one is to undertake once one has accepted that he is a sinner. There is no argument for failing to attain a heterosexual orientation that does not ultimately boil down to sloth, presumption or pride of life.

It seems that far too many on these forums take the Church’s distinction between the inclination of same-sex attraction and acting on such to degrees that imply a peculiarly Protestant world-view. In other words, so-called pious practice and Manichean sexual suppression serve to cover over the errant desires that churn within one’s soul much in the same way Luther envisioned a blanket of snow covering a pile of manure. This concession to utter depravity is decidedly alien to orthodox Catholic thought and ought to be resisted at every turn.

The pursuit of Christ must be unreserved and wholly a death to oneself in order to have any merit. To accept same-sex attractions as a given without making any tangible effort to abandon them is to deny the healing power of Christ and, ultimately, the salvation He died to obtain for us. It is a sacrilege against the Cross and ungrateful in the extreme.

 

[Other_Eric]

If i understand you correctly, then we agree completely. Having realized that my previous behavior was sinful, I am in the process of changing it. I don’t want to continue to have these desires and just supress them, as your Luther quote suggests; I want to die to my own desires in order to seek union with God. I hope you would agree that I am trying to overcome “sloth, presumption or pride of life” in order to “attain a heterosexual orientation”. I might also add that in my particular case, I already have heterosexual orientation as well, so it’s less a matter of changing my orientation from one to the other, but of just removing one of them because I can now acknowledge the authority of the Magisterium.

If we are in complete agreement, then you recognize it is premature to talk of any sort of vocation until you have your sexual issues completely resolved. It is short-sighted and self-centered to believe that either the seminary or the marriage bed are the appropriate fora in which to grapple with sexual deviancy.

 

[Marauder]

Honestly I think it is premature to talk about a vocation to the priesthood, not only due to SSA issues but due the fact you are just getting confirmed. When people enter the faith they go through a honeymoon period. Making major decisions like whether you are entering the priesthood or not shouldn’t be done during the honeymoon period. I doubt any seminary programs would take you during this period just for that reason. After your honeymoon period is over, how you react to your faith is important.

On the SSA front you need to also wait a little while to determine whether your feelings are “deep-seated” or “transient” feelings. The Vatican has said those with “deep-seated” feeling should not be admitted to the priesthood. Those with “transient” feeling can be. If you feel your attraction was an experimental phase that’s one thing, if you feel it will not go away that is another.

 

[New2Catholicism]

We are; I have not claimed to want to enter the seminary tomorrow, the purpose of this thread was to discuss the possibility in cases such as mine. I have stated in earlier posts that I have no intention on answering a possible vocation until after I have finished graduate school in two years at least, most likely longer. The Church in her wisdom requires a wait of at least three years after one becomes Catholic before entry into religious life or the seminary, and I am not asking for an exception. If anything is premature, it was the writing of your last post without having read the entire conversation. Discussion and education about vocations can never be premature, only action thereof.

If we are in complete agreement, then you recognize it is premature to talk of any sort of vocation until you have your sexual issues completely resolved. It is short-sighted and self-centered to believe that either the seminary or the marriage bed are the appropriate fora in which to grapple with sexual deviancy.

 

[BSHoop96]

Yeah, I don’t wanna get into a nature/nurture debate about being gay; frankly it doesn’t matter. But either way, I’m thankful to God for giving me the free will to have made the mistake of being gay/acting gay: God lets us sin so we can learn from our mistakes. And being immersed in the gay culture has subjected me to persecution,as it were, (however unintentionally self-inflicted it may have been) but by allowing me to sin and subject myself to “homophobia” God let me develop an emotional skin thick enough to handle being an out-and-proud Catholic. I hope that all makes sense.

Sorry but no…this part doesn’t make sense to me. “Out and proud” and Catholic are oxymorons.

 

[New2Catholicism]

I was referring ironically to being visible and proud to be Catholic, not being a gay Catholic… my point was that God was able to a bad situation that I created on my own (sin) and turn it into something good, namely, that I have developed an ability not to care what people think about me, which I can now apply to my new Catholic faith, specifically when Jesus says that “everyone who acknowledges me before others the Son of Man will acknowledge before the angels of God.” (Luke 12:9)

I’ll try not to be humorous anymore, lest people get confused.

Sorry but no…this part doesn’t make sense to me. “Out and proud” and Catholic are oxymorons.

 

[franciscanhobbi]

When I think of deep-seated tendencies, I think of St. Augustine, who had to fight temptation all his life.

 

[Other_Eric]

We are; I have not claimed to want to enter the seminary tomorrow, the purpose of this thread was to discuss the possibility in cases such as mine. I have stated in earlier posts that I have no intention on answering a possible vocation until after I have finished graduate school in two years at least, most likely longer. The Church in her wisdom requires a wait of at least three years after one becomes Catholic before entry into religious life or the seminary, and I am not asking for an exception. If anything is premature, it was the writing of your last post without having read the entire conversation. Discussion and education about vocations can never be premature, only action thereof.

Discussion of a vocation *is* premature in the absence of any real possibility of being eligible. The only relevant discussion to be had is the same-sex attractions you experience and the substantive steps you will take to rid yourself entirely of them.

 

[New2Catholicism]

Well, first, I don’t see how eligibility of entry has anything to do with mere discussion of vocations. I’m not eligible to become a nun, but your logic would say I can’t educate myself on the process of becoming a nun.

Second, discerning a vocation necessitates learning about the options (priesthood, religious life, married life, chaste single life) in order to best decide where God is calling someone. And God doesn’t wait to call someone until they’re sinless. What it seems like you’re saying is that I have to wait until any hint of SSA I may have is gone before I can even educate myself about vocations, whether that be to married, single, or religious life. And until that happens I basically have no place in the Church. Rather I would suggest that the discussion (just discussion, not acting out) of vocations maybe part of the process of overcoming SSA

Discussion of a vocation is premature in the absence of any real possibility of being eligible. The only relevant discussion to be had is the same-sex attractions you experience and the substantive steps you will take to rid yourself entirely of them.

 

[windlessuser]

Here is an abstract from a study done.

“Abstract: Male rats were exposed to prenatal (i.e. before they were born) or postnatal (after they were born) stress, or both. The prenatally stressed males showed low levels of male copulatory behavior and high rates of female lordotic responding. Postnatal stress had no effect. The modifications are attributed to stress-mediated alterations in the ratio of adrenal to gonadal androgens during critical stages of sexual differentiation. Specifically, it appears that stress causes an increase in the weak adrenal androgen, androstendione, from the maternal fetal adrenal cortices, or both, and a concurrent decrease in the potent gonadal androgen, testosterone.”

Parental Stress Feminizes and Demasculizes the Behavior of Males, Science, January 7, 1972 (83-84).

In Doctor Ward’s own words:

"…The present data support the hypothesis that exposure of pregnant rats to environmental stressors modifies the normal process of sexual behavior differentiation in male fetuses by decreasing functional testosterone and elevating androstenedione levels during prenatal development. During stress conditions plasma testosterone emanating from the gonads decreases while adrenal androstenedione rises. The molecular structure of the two androgens, being very similar, it is postulated that the two hormones compete for the same receptor sites. Since androstenedione is a less potent androgen than testosterone, the decrease in male copulatory ability and increased lordotic potential seen in the prenatally stressed animals of the present study would be expected. The relative difference in potency between testosterone and androstendione has been repeatedly demonstrated.

It is therefore possible that while the body and organs of an animal can be a “male,” the brain can coincidentally be “female.” This extreme reaction to maternal stress even has a very logical and natural purpose. Sensing that a population is under the stress of crowding or poor living conditions, nature provides this hormonal mechanism as a means to limit population growth and thereby reduce the cause of the stress. Homosexual behavior results in less offspring than heterosexual behavior.

viewzone.com/homosexual.html

 

[Scar]

…when in doubt, i say err on the road of least resistance. Vocations should be closed to those with an active past. Nothing to keep them from giving their time in the Lay ministry, but as for the “ordained ministry”, i really think NOW is NOT the best time. IMHO of course…

 

[littlecatholic]

I don’t think its really up to interprutation for ordaining a homosexual. I realize this is not the same case, but the Anglican Church broke apart over the issue of an openly gay bishop. I would assume that a gay man being ordained would be a bad thing based on that. Also, repenting doesn’t mean ordination. One can persue religious life as a brother or a hermit, or could be a lay third order. I think one could have great potential to be a lay franciscan that helps fellow laymen and women who struggle with that temptation.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I am a women…I feel I have a call to the priesthood…obviously I can’t answer the call because I am a woman and the Church teaches that women can’t be ordained.

I am a married man…I feel I have a call to the priesthood…the church teaches I can’t because I have to be single to be ordained to the priesthood. (unless you are a married convert)

I am a gay man…I feel I have a call to the priesthood…the church teaches a gay man cannot be ordained. I go ahead and go for ordination because I feel somehow my case warrants special exemption, namely being that I am gay, completely oblivious to the fact there are many types of people the church teaches can’t be called into the priesthood. I lie about my sexual preference and history and am ordained a priest. Not only have I lied to gain ordination, I have also been disobedient. Now what is wrong with that picture?

So what is the the difference in the three cases: In the first two, it is obvious a woman is a woman and a married man is a married man. It is not obvious a man is a homosexual so the Church has to trust him at his word. If you have to lie about, who is your Master? Who is the Father of all Lies?

There is another difference in your three cases.

First cases is a matter dogma, the second case is a matter of disciple.

So your second case can be change/dispensed from (the example you give of converts). Also your second case only holds for the Latin Church, the Byzantine Churches to not have that restriction and do ordain married men to the priesthood.

So we must look at your third case in light of the first two. Is the third case a matter of dogma or a matter of discipline?

 

[Tezza]

New2Catholicism–

I just wanted to say, “Welcome Home!” I also wanted to give God glory for the grace being given to you and your “yes” to His will.

After studying Theology of the Body, I began to understand why there is a restriction the the priesthood for one with deep-seated homosexual tendencies. From what I read in your posts, you seem to have attractions toward both sexes, which would actually IMO be promising should you pursue religious life/priesthood in the future. Considering you have several years to grow in your faith and the virtue of chastity, I have no doubt God will pave the way if He has chosen you. He’s pretty good like that

You will be in my prayers.

Blessings!!

 

[Bebekoualy]

I think you can become a monk/priest, but you just have to be careful because temptation will be there, all the more so you already had sexual intercourses.

I think one who sinned is more tempted than one who never did so.
('m not saying being homosexual is committing sin)

I’m glad to read a testimony about someone who left homosexuality for God.
A close member of my family is gay and can’t give her life totally to God because of that :ehh: It makes me suffer all the time.

 

[Bass]

Hi everyone, I tried to search for similar threads, so sorry if I’m repeating a conversation.

In any case, until I decided to join the Catholic Church, I had been a sexually active homosexual since I was 15. (I’m 26 now.) I understand the teaching of the Church and I accept it, and being gay will be the first thing I will confess on Monday during my first confession before Confirmation. (That and voting for Obama are the two biggies)

But I also strongly feel that I have a vocation to religious life and/or the priesthood. And I understand that the current position of the Church is to deny ordination to men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies”. So my question is, how “deep-seated” do the tendencies have to be in order to be prevented from becoming a monk or priest, and would I be considered to have “deep-seated homosexual tendencies”?

As I said before, I completely accept the teaching of the Magisterium on this issue, and my goal would not be to continue to be involved in the gay culture if I were allowed to enter religious life (I am already separating myself from the culture, now that I will be Catholic soon). My point is that I wouldn’t be trying to change the priesthood from within. If anything, I think I actually would be more traditional than most people would appreciate.

So, if I feel particularly drawn to religious life or the priesthood, is this something I should pursue, or should I let it go? I think back to St. Augustine for example as someone who lead a notoriously hedonistic life before his conversion, and I would like to follow his example to devout religious life and hopefully sainthood, God willing.

Please pray for me as I try to sort this out; pray for others who are discerning their vocations, and for their spiritual directors.

Pax,

Jeremy

My advice is not to join any holy order, especially a priesthood. but you can achieve many great things without joining a holy order. help those who are lost to find their way back to normality, that would be a great achievement and service to mankind and to God. I am sure you didn’t find your way back to normality by yourself, someone was helping you.

Another advice, try to keep your passed life style private, no need to say I’ve done that, been there and all that ****. For two reasons, one is for kids to hear you say that they can interpret it to be okay, and the second is for people like me who will never trust you around my kids. Just start fresh, and once you confess all your sins, you will be pure! No human is immune to temptation.

I congratulate you, and may God be with you for the rest of your journey.