What is God's call to men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies?

[chrysostim83]

Back in 2005, the Congregation for Catholic Education promulgated an instruction which forbids men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies from entering seminary by reason of their affective immaturity and inability to achieve spiritual fatherhood. Since affective maturity and spiritual fatherhood are necessary for any vocation–religious or secular–a man can have, I would like to ask the following questions: Does God have a calling to men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies? If so, what is it and what kind of life does it entail (e.g., a solitary one full of hard, time consuming work)?

To save time and sharpen up the questions a little bit, here are some answers that I would not be able to accept and the reasons I would not accept them:
(1) They are called to chastity. This is too generic. I’m looking for a concrete way of life.
(2) They are called to overcome their tendencies with the help of a support group or a therapist. This is, again, too generic. It also assumes that they can overcome their tendencies, in the sense of eliminating them, but it is clear that there are some men who will always have same-sex sexual tendencies. See, for example, Fr Harvey’s “Homosexuality and the Catholic Church” p 156, where Father describes people who have same-sex attractions despite the fact that they practice what he calls chastity of the heart. (NB, Father thinks such men should be allowed into seminary, but he does so by misconstruing the concept of “deep-seated.”)

Finally, it would be a great boon if the answers to my question mentioned specific resources for further exploration of this issues.

Many thanks in advance!

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Back in 2005, the Congregation for Catholic Education promulgated an instruction which forbids men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies from entering seminary by reason of their affective immaturity and inability to achieve spiritual fatherhood. Since affective maturity and spiritual fatherhood are necessary for any vocation–religious or secular–a man can have, I would like to ask the following questions: Does God have a calling to men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies? If so, what is it and what kind of life does it entail (e.g., a solitary one full of hard, time consuming work)?

To save time and sharpen up the questions a little bit, here are some answers that I would not be able to accept and the reasons I would not accept them:
(1) They are called to chastity. This is too generic. I’m looking for a concrete way of life.
(2) They are called to overcome their tendencies with the help of a support group or a therapist. This is, again, too generic. It also assumes that they can overcome their tendencies, in the sense of eliminating them, but it is clear that there are some men who will always have same-sex sexual tendencies. See, for example, Fr Harvey’s “Homosexuality and the Catholic Church” p 156, where Father describes people who have same-sex attractions despite the fact that they practice what he calls chastity of the heart. (NB, Father thinks such men should be allowed into seminary, but he does so by misconstruing the concept of “deep-seated.”)

Finally, it would be a great boon if the answers to my question mentioned specific resources for further exploration of this issues.

Many thanks in advance!

I believe that Christ identifies their calling in a matter-of-fact way in Matthew 19:12…

12 Some are incapable of marriage eunouchos because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

It is extremely unlikely that Christ was calling the few people in Israel who were born with no gonads or, say, undescended testicles eunouchos. He’d only be talking about a dozen people. It seems much more likely that He was referring to gays prewired to be such from birth, and He was agreeing with what His listeners were taking for granted – no marriage.

 

[shoewindow3000]

What they mean is this:

Anybody who *engages *is sexual activity while training to become a priest is too immature to become one yet.

 

[chrysostim83]

Thanks for replying, but those weren’t quite the sort of answers I was hoping for.

Peter: There is no reason to reject the interpretation of “being born a eunuch” as referring to congenital defects that impede the development of secondary sex characteristics. In particular, it is doubtful (at least to me) whether deep-seated homosexual tendencies were ever regarded as incompatible with marriage before the XXth century. In any case, it is not clear how being-born-a-eunuch or not-being-married can be vocations, since neither one defines a definite kind of life in the same way that being married or being a monk do.

shoewindow3000: If that what they meant, then why isn’t it what they said? In fact, the document nowhere refers to actions; and if you read it again, you should get the impression that the mere presence of homosexual tendencies is enough to indicate affective immaturity and lack of spiritual fatherhood. I think it would throw my back out to interpret the text the way you do.

I don’t mean to be combative. It’s just that it’s very important to me to know what kind of life is open to one when marriage, priesthood, and religious life are all out of the question… and why such a life is still better than any possible alternative.

 

[puzzleannie]

It is my personal opinion that it is the very cross one carries that is most suited to be one’s vehicle of salvation. That holds particularly for the person who feels called to a specific state in life, but has not the basic prerequisites for fulfilling the duties of that call. That would include, say a person called to be a mother yet struggles with infertility, or the man who wishes to be a husband and father, yet cannot because of primary impotence. It would also include someone who say, always wanted to be ballet dancer, yet becomes paraplegic through an accident. It would include someone born with a disability of any kind that will make it impossible to do whatever it is he has always wanted, or whom, to outward appearances, has no abilities or any chance of success, such as someone with a severe personality or developmental disorder.

Whatever that barrier is, whatever the weight that person carries, and the more he is forced to give up because of it, the more certain it seems that God is calling that person to simply bear that cross.

God does not will any of his children to suffer, to be born with any disorder, to aquired any disorder in life, but he does allow it by virtue of the fact that he has allowed Satan to test the world through disorder. What Christ’s sacrifice has done is to make all things new, to redeem even disabilities, disorders, and burdens. Such a person who carries any such burden at all is called to unite his sufferings and burdens with Christ on the Cross, and is privileged, more than people who have lesser struggles, to thereby grow closer to Jesus.

The greatest service one can give to one burdened with any such difficulty is to first assist them in getting whatever help they need on a practical level, but also to see the value of redeptive suffering. Failing to tell the truth is no help, failing to offer help when it is available, denial, palliation, patronization, none of these are helpful. The true Christian walks with the one who carries a cross.

in the specific case of a person who because of deep-seated homosexual tendency, or any disorder or disability at all, who cannot by this reason take up either the married or priestly vocation, is called, as a member of the Body of Christ, to support all those in those vocations. They are to discern, as are all single people, how to best live out their baptismal call. They are still to evangelize and to serve. They still have unique talents and gifts and are called to use them. For one thing such persons are often gifted with much deeper empathy and understanding of people who are marginalized or hurting. They may also be gifted with talents that call for a level of commitment to work that would be hard for a married person to meet–the person who gives his life to medical research, or to some outreach, to an extent that would be too hard on a family.

 

[Other_Eric]

Exclusive, unreserved, opposite-sex attraction is the necessary prerequisite to serving Christ and His Church authentically. It is as pointless to discuss the possibility of anyone with same-sex attractions having an authentic vocation in the presence of those attractions as it is to discuss the hypothetical reconciliation of Satan with God.

 

[Victorious]

I don’t mean to be combative. It’s just that it’s very important to me to know what kind of life is open to one when marriage, priesthood, and religious life are all out of the question… and why such a life is still better than any possible alternative.

Have you considered joining a Third Order? There are Tertiary (Third Order) Dominicans, secular Franciscans, secular Carmelites, Benedictine oblates, and the list goes on. I myself have been given the gift – unasked for, and wholly undeserved – of being a Third Order Dominican. We are lay members of the Order of Preachers, sharing in the spiritual benefits of the Order, and we follow the Rule of the Dominican Laity, but we are not under vows of poverty, chastity or obedience. We live in the world and enjoy the independence of the laity.

Although I did not seek out the Dominicans – I barely knew there were such things as lay Dominicans – it has turned out to be good for my spiritual life. I’m not married; I would make a really lousy nun; but on the other hand, I’m not much good on my own. As a Dominican tertiary, I have the support of the discipline provided by the Rule, as well as that of my brothers and sisters in St. Dominic.

Maybe that’s something to look into.

 

[Other_Eric]

Have you considered joining a Third Order? There are Tertiary (Third Order) Dominicans, secular Franciscans, secular Carmelites, Benedictine oblates, and the list goes on. I myself have been given the gift – unasked for, and wholly undeserved – of being a Third Order Dominican. We are lay members of the Order of Preachers, sharing in the spiritual benefits of the Order, and we follow the Rule of the Dominican Laity, but we are not under vows of poverty, chastity or obedience. We live in the world and enjoy the independence of the laity.

Although I did not seek out the Dominicans – I barely knew there were such things as lay Dominicans – it has turned out to be good for my spiritual life. I’m not married; I would make a really lousy nun; but on the other hand, I’m not much good on my own. As a Dominican tertiary, I have the support of the discipline provided by the Rule, as well as that of my brothers and sisters in St. Dominic.

Maybe that’s something to look into.

The formation of a member of any Third Order necessarily runs aground on the affective immaturity that the Church teaches one with same-sex attractions possesses. Therefore, such a person has no authentic calling to a Third Order. To attempt it anyway would be to ultimately bring scandal within the order and handicap the order's ability to accomplish its mission.

 

[Victorious]

The formation of a member of any Third Order necessarily runs aground on the affective immaturity that the Church teaches one with same-sex attractions possesses. Therefore, such a person has no authentic calling to a Third Order. To attempt it anyway would be to ultimately bring scandal within the order and handicap the order’s ability to accomplish its mission.

I’d appreciate your citing to some authority for this proposition. Are you a member of a Third Order? Do you know what membership in a Third Order entails?

 

[Other_Eric]

I’d appreciate your citing to some authority for this proposition. Are you a member of a Third Order? Do you know what membership in a Third Order entails?

Either you believe the Church’s judgment about the affective immaturity of those with same-sex attractions or you believe the Church is lying. If the Church’s judgment is sound, then the condition carries with it consequences for membership in any organization that claims to produce something of substance. If it is your position that a Third Order’s work lies entirely within the realm of the abstract and subjective with no real bearing on the world, then perhaps we may entertain the possibility of allowing those with severe mental handicaps membership, since the presumptive failure of such an individual would be irrelevant. If, however, you believe as I do, that the work of Third Orders carries a fair degree of importance, then you will take seriously the mental state of the type of person who is admitted.

 

[Victorious]

Either you believe the Church’s judgment about the affective immaturity of those with same-sex attractions or you believe the Church is lying. If the Church’s judgment is sound, then the condition carries with it consequences for membership in any organization that claims to produce something of substance. If it is your position that a Third Order’s work lies entirely within the realm of the abstract and subjective with no real bearing on the world, then perhaps we may entertain the possibility of allowing those with severe mental handicaps membership, since the presumptive failure of such an individual would be irrelevant. If, however, you believe as I do, that the work of Third Orders carries a fair degree of importance, then you will take seriously the mental state of the type of person who is admitted.

I don’t question the Church’s teachings on homosexuality. I do question whether a ban on men with homosexual tendencies from the priesthood applies to Third Orders. Conditions in a Third Order are not the same as in the priesthood or the monastery.

And I am talking about men who are afflicted by the attraction. I am not talking about practicing homosexuals. If you can show me where the Church has said that men with same sex attraction cannot be members of Third Orders, I’d be obliged.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Exclusive, unreserved, opposite-sex attraction is the necessary prerequisite to serving Christ and His Church authentically. It is as pointless to discuss the possibility of anyone with same-sex attractions having an authentic vocation in the presence of those attractions as it is to discuss the hypothetical reconciliation of Satan with God.

Cite your source on this. I have never understood Church teaching on the homosexual orientation to imply that those who have this disorder cannot serve the Church in any capacity.

 

[chrysostim83]

Other Eric: I can’t help remarking that the phrase “exclusive, unreserved, opposite-sex attraction” could be taken to imply that a man in unsuitable for the priesthood unless he has been attracted to one and only woman in his life and will remain so even after ordination. Undoubtedly, you mean that a man must be, so to speak, clearly and distinctly heterosexual to have a vocation: this is apparently requisite for priests and monks, but like other here, I don’t see why it would be so important for those in a Third Order.

Thank you puzzleannie and Victorious for excellent answers that look like they will reward contemplation. I shall seriously consider (pace Other Eric) joining a Third Order.

 

[Other_Eric]

I don’t question the Church’s teachings on homosexuality. I do question whether a ban on men with homosexual tendencies from the priesthood applies to Third Orders. Conditions in a Third Order are not the same as in the priesthood or the monastery.

And I am talking about men who are afflicted by the attraction. I am not talking about practicing homosexuals. If you can show me where the Church has said that men with same sex attraction cannot be members of Third Orders, I’d be obliged.

Cite your source on this. I have never understood Church teaching on the homosexual orientation to imply that those who have this disorder cannot serve the Church in any capacity.

On the contrary,

. . . it is specified that the dispositions contained in the said Instruction apply to all Houses of Formation for the priesthood, including those dependent on the Dicasteries for the Oriental Churches, for the Evangelization of Peoples and for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.(1)

Emphasis mine. “Societies of Apostolic Life” are those covered by Cannons 731-735 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law and include Third Orders. (2) Rome has spoken. There is no calling for one with same-sex attractions to a Third Order.

(1) Bertone, Tarcisio. Rescriptum Ex Audientia. Vatican City: Office of the Secretary of State, April 8, 2008. Available online at: vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/card-bertone/2008/documents/rc_seg-st_20080408_rescriptum-ex-audientia_en.html

(2) Code of Canon Law. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1983. Available online at: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2G.HTM

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Ok, there is no calling to a Third Order, but what about serving in any other capacity as laiety?

 

[Other_Eric]

Ok, there is no calling to a Third Order, but what about serving in any other capacity as laiety?

The only authentic way in which one with same-sex attractions serves is by working to overcome said attractions and achieve heterosexuality.

 

[jpk1313]

god calls each person to something different. some to be priests others monks or nuns or marrage others to the single life but we each have a place in the body of christ. if you want someone to tell you where homosexuals fit into the church ask god he is the only one who can tell you where you belong.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

The only authentic way in which one with same-sex attractions serves is by working to overcome said attractions and achieve heterosexuality.

I am not well-read on this subject, but from what I recall reading of Catholic teaching on homosexuality, this is not Catholic teaching. I recall reading that those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies are called to celibacy. I certainly may be incorrect, and would note any official Church teachings that suggest otherwise, but my understanding was that the Church teaches homosexual tendencies are not sinful if not acted upon, and some cannot overcome the basic orientation.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Peter: There is no reason to reject the interpretation of “being born a eunuch” as referring to congenital defects that impede the development of secondary sex characteristics. In particular, it is doubtful (at least to me) whether deep-seated homosexual tendencies were ever regarded as incompatible with marriage before the XXth century. In any case, it is not clear how being-born-a-eunuch or not-being-married can be vocations, since neither one defines a definite kind of life in the same way that being married or being a monk do.

Congenital defects of the reproductive organs are some of the rarest, for an obvious reason – they can’t be passed down to children.

Christ would not have used congenital defects as argument. That’s like using elephant man or tree man as an example – too rare and too bizarre for the culture to fit into the argument.

Maintaining that Christ was referring to congenital defects simply doesn’t fit.

 

[chrysostim83]

Elephantiasis is so rare, you can’t possibly have used it to argue a point just now!

By the same token, the congenital birth defects in question are so rare that they are remarkable and spring readily to mind. (In a similar way: hermaphroditism is rare, but St. Augustine certainly knew about.)