What Are the Religious Orders That Obey the Pope?

[fintastic79]

Pope Benedict banned homosexuals from entering seminaries. Some diocese and religious orders blatantly ignore that rule. What are the religious orders that obey the Pope in this matter?

Any help is appreciated. Thank you.

 

[Cojuanco]

Pope Benedict banned homosexuals from entering seminaries. Some diocese and religious orders blatantly ignore that rule. What are the religious orders that obey the Pope in this matter?

Any help is appreciated. Thank you.

It’s a bit more nuanced than simply barring all homosexuals per se. It is referring to a very narrow band of candidates, who, while exceedingly small, do disproportionate damage.

I have the quote, from a Franciscan Superior General who deals with managing a bunch of friars:

As to the last two questions, the question about ordination has to be nuanced to fit the statement. The statement did not bar homosexuals, it barred those with deep seated homosexaul tendencies. The Church has a very particular group in mind. The explanatioins given to the religious superiors explain this very clearly.

 

[fintastic79]

“As a man, do you feel sexual attraction to men or women?”

What’s the first answer that comes to your mind? It’s a simple question. If the answer is women, you are hetero. If the answer is men, you are homo.

Any vocations director will know immediately if a certain candidate fulfills the pope’s requirements to consider the priesthood. Just like in the real world: people usually know if they are “gay” or “straight.” It’s not rocket science. I am amazed at how LGBT apologists can twist and turn semantics to confuse and cloud such a simple issue.

Everyone knows Franciscans and Jesuits accept homosexual candidates in large numbers. I am sure they have their fancy schmancy justifications for doing so. I am not criticizing them or trying to debate them. I am simply asking: What are the religious orders that obey the pope on this matter?

 

[InThePew]

The relevant document can be found here vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html.

What Cojuanco referred to as the “narrow band” of people are described as follows:

…the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, 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”.

The words “…profoundly respecting the persons in question” (as well as the previous paragraph) basically repeat what the Catechism says at 2357 - 2359.

Clearly, neither the then Pope did not consider the issue to be a simple one involving an “is / is not” test! However, as you can see, the Instruction does not say that all homosexuals persons are barred from the priesthood.

 

[KCT]

Everyone knows Franciscans and Jesuits accept homosexual candidates in large numbers. I am sure they have their fancy schmancy justifications for doing so.

Do you have support or proof to back up this comment?

 

[MPSchneiderLC]

It’s best to assume that all orders are faithful to the Church until otherwise proven.

That would mean unless you have evidence they don’t accept: 1. active homosexuals, 2. homosexuals who promote the homosexual lifestyle, or 3. men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies (search forums for several threads already clarifying this last point so we don’t rehash it to death).

Others will not accept homosexuals period: the Diocese of Arlington, and my community (Legionaries of Christ) have made statements to that effect. Others may have too, I don’t track everyone.

 

[cceerpp]

It’s best to assume that all orders are faithful to the Church until otherwise proven.

That would mean unless you have evidence they don’t accept: 1. active homosexuals, 2. homosexuals who promote the homosexual lifestyle, or 3. men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies (search forums for several threads already clarifying this last point so we don’t rehash it to death).

Others will not accept homosexuals period: the Diocese of Arlington, and my community (Legionaries of Christ) have made statements to that effect. Others may have too, I don’t track everyone.

I agree with you.

 

[Edward_H]

“As a man, do you feel sexual attraction to men or women?”

What’s the first answer that comes to your mind? It’s a simple question. If the answer is women, you are hetero. If the answer is men, you are homo.

Any vocations director will know immediately if a certain candidate fulfills the pope’s requirements to consider the priesthood. Just like in the real world: people usually know if they are “gay” or “straight.” It’s not rocket science. I am amazed at how LGBT apologists can twist and turn semantics to confuse and cloud such a simple issue.

Everyone knows Franciscans and Jesuits accept homosexual candidates in large numbers. I am sure they have their fancy schmancy justifications for doing so. I am not criticizing them or trying to debate them. I am simply asking: What are the religious orders that obey the pope on this matter?

The Franciscans and Jesuits don’t have large numbers of vocations to begin with, certainly not to support your unsubstantiated assertion about the large number of homosexual candidates.

This assertion of yours appears to be a push-poll.

 

[kyria]

The relevant document can be found here vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html.

What Cojuanco referred to as the “narrow band” of people are described as follows:

…the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, 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”.

The words “…profoundly respecting the persons in question” (as well as the previous paragraph) basically repeat what the Catechism says at 2357 - 2359.

Clearly, neither the then Pope did not consider the issue to be a simple one involving an “is / is not” test! However, as you can see, the Instruction does not say that all homosexuals persons are barred from the priesthood.

May I ask what other type of homosexuals there are then? If you are saying that the statement doesn’t bar all homosexuals persons then what others are we talking about? Those who are only part time homosexually orientated?? It reads to me that it includes those who practice homosexuality or those who are homosexuality orientated or those who support homosexuality. A part of the Instruction
Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations
with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies
in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders states *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. * So unless the candidate was expressing a transitory homosexual tendency that they overcame at least 3 years prior to ordination, I can’t see anywhere in this Vatican document that states other types of homosexuals can be ordained.

 

[aspirant]

Is it just me, or does this seem relevant?

 

[MPSchneiderLC]

May I ask what other type of homosexuals there are then? If you are saying that the statement doesn’t bar all homosexuals persons then what others are we talking about? Those who are only part time homosexually orientated?? It reads to me that it includes those who practice homosexuality or those who are homosexuality orientated or those who support homosexuality.

Those who have that orientation but are not active or supporting can be of different degrees. There are those who had a transitory phase as a teen or the odd passing though every few months, and there are those have a deeply rooted orientation. As was stated in previous threads, I think “deeply seated tendencies” is primarily for two groups:

1. Those who a bishop cannot trust to remain chaste
2. Those who mannerisms, way of being, etc are so obviously and stereotypically homosexual.
   This is both for practical pastoral reasons and because a priest in becoming an Alter Christus needs to represent Christ as the Bridegroom to the Church, his bride. If someone lives such strong homosexuality, they obviously can’t represent this.

 

[InThePew]

As was stated in previous threads, I think “deeply seated tendencies” is primarily for two groups:

1. Those who a bishop cannot trust to remain chaste
2. Those who mannerisms, way of being, etc are so obviously and stereotypically homosexual.
   This is both for practical pastoral reasons

I agree with this but would also add that this applies equally to heterosexual individuals as well. The ability to commit to celibacy and to relate to others in a healthy and mature way is an essential requirement for priestly or religious life.