L
Lethe
Guest
If they have to live their lives in celibacy anyway, I do not understand what is wrong with them being priests. Being gay doesn’t make you immoral. Enlightenment, anyone?
- Status
D
dmelosi
Guest
The Catholic Church does not ban the ordination of gay priests.
Please take a look at this article that discusses it in length.
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0211fea2.asp
A
Advocatus_Fidei
Guest
Firstly you need to stop using the term gay as it is means different things to different people and so causes confusion.
I am assuming you mean men who attracted to other men but do not act on those attractions. Such men have what is known as Same Sex Attraction Disorder. Such attractions are disordered as taught by the Catechism.
Now as to why they shouldn’t be ordained the reason for that is for the same reason it would not be prudent to allow men with other mental disorders to be in a position of leadership.
The disorder would be a great obstacle to them performing the duties of leadership, and to elevate such a person to a leadership position would be gravely irresponsible as it would expose a whole community of people to the possible negative effects of that disorder as opposed to just one person.
Straightforward enough I hope once you understand that attraction to people of the same sex is disordered.
I am assuming you mean men who attracted to other men but do not act on those attractions. Such men have what is known as Same Sex Attraction Disorder. Such attractions are disordered as taught by the Catechism.
Now as to why they shouldn’t be ordained the reason for that is for the same reason it would not be prudent to allow men with other mental disorders to be in a position of leadership.
The disorder would be a great obstacle to them performing the duties of leadership, and to elevate such a person to a leadership position would be gravely irresponsible as it would expose a whole community of people to the possible negative effects of that disorder as opposed to just one person.
Straightforward enough I hope once you understand that attraction to people of the same sex is disordered.
R
Rv_Cain_Spencer
Guest
I just have to wonder if any of you have studied human phycology regarding homosexuality? It’s just a thought. What did you make of it? I found it interesting… I would never have thought of the reasons for that kind of mental state.
S
Saylorscreek
Guest
Perhaps the diagnostics standards are different in the UK–I am a mental health professional here in the US and am not aware of any diagnostic systems that consider “Same Sex Attraction” as a disorder.
I think that the standards of medical diagnosis do not dictate the spiritual life, anyway. The rules of God DO. God says don’t sleep with children or others of your sex or beasts, etc. That is His law. The sexual impulse is to be managed within the limits of the marriage relationship and nothing else.
Many are called to celibacy for a number of reasons, so celibacy it is. If we have what our faith considers to be problems with thoughts, even while celibate, well, that is a spiritual issue to dealt with by the best means available, such as prayer and avoiding “the near occasion of sin”. We all have unacceptable thoughts that we may battle
every day, and the Lord knows our hearts, even if we erroneously believe that we, as humans, can truly know another human’s heart. Therefore, the Church has not expressly forbidden ordination in people who have thoughts that are not sanctioned, only behaviors.
The article cited by dmelosi is a good one, and brings up the point that, all things considered, the ongoing stresses of living in common can create a problem. This, by the way, is the same factor that has resulted in past bans on heterosexuals and homosexuals living with a person who is the partner of choice in the military. Sexual attraction issues, if acted upon, disrupt the harmony of liing and teamwork.
Communal living is easier if there is not the disruption of sexual attraction–but it is not impossible to do so if one continually asks the Lord’s help in managing unacceptable impulses and thoughts.
I think that the standards of medical diagnosis do not dictate the spiritual life, anyway. The rules of God DO. God says don’t sleep with children or others of your sex or beasts, etc. That is His law. The sexual impulse is to be managed within the limits of the marriage relationship and nothing else.
Many are called to celibacy for a number of reasons, so celibacy it is. If we have what our faith considers to be problems with thoughts, even while celibate, well, that is a spiritual issue to dealt with by the best means available, such as prayer and avoiding “the near occasion of sin”. We all have unacceptable thoughts that we may battle
every day, and the Lord knows our hearts, even if we erroneously believe that we, as humans, can truly know another human’s heart. Therefore, the Church has not expressly forbidden ordination in people who have thoughts that are not sanctioned, only behaviors.
The article cited by dmelosi is a good one, and brings up the point that, all things considered, the ongoing stresses of living in common can create a problem. This, by the way, is the same factor that has resulted in past bans on heterosexuals and homosexuals living with a person who is the partner of choice in the military. Sexual attraction issues, if acted upon, disrupt the harmony of liing and teamwork.
Communal living is easier if there is not the disruption of sexual attraction–but it is not impossible to do so if one continually asks the Lord’s help in managing unacceptable impulses and thoughts.
O
Ocarm
Guest
I don’t think this is a term that is typically used by the Church. It appears in neither the catechism nor the 2005 document ‘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’ as issued by the Congregation for Catholic Education.
See: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html
CCC 2357-9 do not refer to homosexuality as a ‘mental disorder’ either, although the less clear ‘intrinsically disordered’ is used to describe same. Whether you think such distinctions matter is open to question, but I think its helpful to use the same terms as the church in its official teaching role; as you say, different terms mean different things to different people, so consistency is preferable.
To the subject of the OP: this topic has been discussed before here on CAF, and the following thread might be of use:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=334761
It demonstrates a range of views on the subject and indicates an example of the position of the debate within the church. The juridical position, however, is that bishops and major superiors in religious institutes have the obligation and the right to discern with a candidate their suitability for holy orders in terms of their sexuality, and how deep-seated it is as an impediment to ordination. They also have the final say in that process of discernment:
*The formation of the future priest must distinctly articulate, in an essentially complementary manner, the four dimensions of formation: human, spiritual, intellectual and pastoral[14]. In this context, it is necessary to highlight the particular importance of human formation as the necessary foundation of all formation[15]. In order to admit a candidate to ordination to the diaconate, the Church must verify, among other things, that the candidate has reached affective maturity[16].
The call to orders is the personal responsibility of the Bishop[17] or the major superior. Bearing in mind the opinion of those to whom he has entrusted the responsibility of formation, the Bishop or major superior, before admitting the candidate to ordination, must arrive at a morally certain judgment on his qualities. In the case of a serious doubt in this regard, he must not admit him to ordination[18].
The discernment of a vocation and of the maturity of the candidate is also a serious duty of the rector and of the other persons entrusted with the work of formation in the seminary. Before every ordination, the rector must express his own judgment on whether the qualities required by the Church are present in the candidate[19].*
(referenced from the document detailed above).
So the key issues are affective maturity and the deep-seatedness of sexual attraction, to be decided upon by the competent ecclesiastical authority (the bishop or superior). The appropriate dicastery has not, as of yet, demanded a strict interpretation of the document; indeed, as a restrictive canonical statement, it should typically be interpreted in a manner that is less rather than more limiting, as per the norms of Book I Title I of the 1983 code of canon law.
Hope this helps.
O
Ocarm
Guest
As an ex-mental health professional here in the UK (20 years of service and more!) I can assure you that the term isn’t used diagnostically here either. It is used, however, by some evangelical Christians and also some Catholics who argue that homosexuality is a distinct mental disorder that is curable through psychotherapeutic means.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
That certainly is the popular perception. The media hasn’t done the Church any favors in this regard.
Ocarm linked to the relevant document from the Congregation for the Clergy: 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. I recommend reading it.
There is no outright ban. Here is the main thesis of the document (emphasis added):
It’s not just the mere fact of having homosexual tendencies. It is either practicing it, supporting it, or having deep-seated tendencies.
I see nothing in the document that would exclude a man who is struggling to be chaste and overcome these tendencies from being admitted to the seminary.
S
SugarMagnolia
Guest
I had never heard of “Same Sex Attraction Disorder” either and I’ve been confused after seeing it mentioned several times on these boards. It had always been my understanding that homosexuality was no longer listed as a mental disorder in the DSM-IV.
So, are you saying that SSAD is a fiction invented by Evangelicals and is not considered a medical diagnosis in the UK? And can anybody tell me if it is also not considered a medical diagnosis here in the USA?
I do believe homosexuality is a mental illness and I think it does a disservice to homosexuals to take it out of the DSM-IV since it prevents them from seeking medical help. However, I don’t think it does anyone any good when people who aren’t medical professionals pretend to be doctors and make stuff up.
O
Ocarm
Guest
It’s not a diagnosis accepted within the health care system here, no. We tend to employ DSM as well, sometimes also the World Health Organisation’s ICD system.
I can’t in all charity say why some Christians use the term. I would guess that they believe it is a helpful concept, but there is no recognition of SSAD as a clinical entity from any reputable professional body of which I’m aware.
From what Saylorscreek says in #5 above, apparently not.
Indeed. And given that we are discussing a matter of Church practice here, I think its best to keep to the same language that is used in official and properly canonically promulgated statements.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I don’t think the Church uses the term “Same Sex Attraction Disorder”. In fact, they don’t use the term “same sex attraction” at all. They tend to stick with the more common “homosexual” and its derivatives.
But the Church does say that such attraction to people of the same sex is “objectively disordered”. I think that’s a better way to phrase it rather than SSAD. I think the Church stick with phrasing it this way because it avoids coming off as a clinical evaluation. It puts it into the realm of morality, which is what the Church is speaking to.
But I think we’re getting a bit off topic, here.
But the Church does say that such attraction to people of the same sex is “objectively disordered”. I think that’s a better way to phrase it rather than SSAD. I think the Church stick with phrasing it this way because it avoids coming off as a clinical evaluation. It puts it into the realm of morality, which is what the Church is speaking to.
But I think we’re getting a bit off topic, here.
A
Advocatus_Fidei
Guest
The Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) due to political pressure and the pseudo scientific studies of Alfred Kinsey in 1973, up until that point it was always classed as a mental disorder in the DSM.
It should still be so, but the American Psychiatric Association is even more defensive of its dogmas than the Catholic Chruch, oppose their decisions and you will be “excommunicated” and publicly denounced making it almost impossible to work in psychiatry while offering treatment to people who suffer from this illness.
Withholding treatment from sick people because of politics is unjustifiable as far as I am concerned.
It should still be so, but the American Psychiatric Association is even more defensive of its dogmas than the Catholic Chruch, oppose their decisions and you will be “excommunicated” and publicly denounced making it almost impossible to work in psychiatry while offering treatment to people who suffer from this illness.
Withholding treatment from sick people because of politics is unjustifiable as far as I am concerned.
O
Ocarm
Guest
This is a truism also stated regarding mental health services in the UK. I can’t speak for the American milieu, but I did not typically find it to be the case in my years of employment in the field. It is reliant on a caricature of psychiatric professionals as liberal do-gooders who have a clear agenda to normalise all forms of deviant behaviour. My experience is to the contrary, that the professions involved are inherently conservative and promote an overly medical model of human behaviour, with an all-too ready tendency to pathologise and prescribe a hypothetical and elusive norm, including in matters of sexual conduct.
I would guess that the exclusion of homosexuality from the disease registers was, more to the point, because it does not meet the obvious criteria for classification as a disease - clear nosology, pathology, symptomatology and epidemiology.
As pointed out above by Joe 5859, inasmuch as the church believes herself to be the supreme authority on ethics, not on science, this is a blind alley to journey down. What is relevant here is not putative and scientifically lazy assertions, but core church teaching, which as stated elsewhere in this thread is restrictive but not proscriptive of homosexuals in holy orders.
I couln’t agree more. But you’ve only advanced an assertion that this is relevant here, not any proof. And I think the assertion is uncharitable to the literally millions of people who work in the field, all of whom you seem to have condemned as politically correct and/or spineless.
C
Cristiano
Guest
The Catholic community uses the term Same Sex Attraction (SSA) to define a person orientation without attaching the stigma of sin to it. The Church considers SSA a moral disorder, not a sin. Acting on SSA desires is sinful, having the desires is not. This definition is not directly related to the definitions of the US or other medical communities.
Homosexuality in secular culture implies attraction and and associated sexual relationships. That is why the Catholic community does not use the word homosexual to describe people with SSA. In the secular culture desire and action are considered to be fine, while in some religious communities the desire itself is considered sin too. The Catholic community understands the concept of free will and so it separates the two with the use of consistent terminology.
Homosexuality in secular culture implies attraction and and associated sexual relationships. That is why the Catholic community does not use the word homosexual to describe people with SSA. In the secular culture desire and action are considered to be fine, while in some religious communities the desire itself is considered sin too. The Catholic community understands the concept of free will and so it separates the two with the use of consistent terminology.
A
Advocatus_Fidei
Guest
On the contrary most are presumably shackled by the “orthodoxy” taught to them by the certifying boards who give them permission to practice and have never examined the topic deeply for themselves or the reasons behind the changes made in the 70’s, there are on top of that some psychologists who despite been ostracised still do hold the opinion that SSAD is a mental illness you just dont hear about them much given that they are never published in the psychological journals as their opinions are censured as psychological heresy.
As such you can excuse the majority for their ignorance, after all how often does the pupil exceed the master in knowledge? And indeed why even try when to do so results in been stripped of membership in all major official bodies that govern the field?
The only people I blame are the governing bodies who made the change.
M
m134e5
Guest
I have seen that even the homosexual men who seem secure with their identity, something eventually comes up (if I get to know them well enough for them to let me know about it- something that is an example of a misunderstanding of masculinity, femininity, and of the vocations to marriage and celibacy. To fulfill the vocation of priesthood, men need to have a healthy understanding and appreciation of gender, marriage, and celibacy. Such men might be able to get by as priests if they don’t, but it will be extremely difficult for them to remain good, faithful priests their whole lives. The Church does not need just any priests, it needs good priests.
C
Cowfold
Guest
This is a very contentious thread and I have to say that there are probably more gay priests within the church than we are ever likely to own up to if indeed we have to. The abstinent bit, is a misnomer, and may be compared with an alcoholic. Once an XXX always a XXX.
At first sight one may be forgiven for thinking that I have issues with gay priests but as long as they do the work of god who are we to judge.
Some of the finest priests I have met may be interpreted as a little effeminite but so what.
Of course I have no experience in priests within Secular Clergy (Parish priests)
The real problem we have is those who have been involved in abuse of young children which has a knew coinage in UK called ‘Kiddy Fiddling’
To those people there is only one route open to them.
At first sight one may be forgiven for thinking that I have issues with gay priests but as long as they do the work of god who are we to judge.
Some of the finest priests I have met may be interpreted as a little effeminite but so what.
Of course I have no experience in priests within Secular Clergy (Parish priests)
The real problem we have is those who have been involved in abuse of young children which has a knew coinage in UK called ‘Kiddy Fiddling’
To those people there is only one route open to them.
C
CradleCath
Guest
C
crazydyl
Guest
Because the Pope says so! I am not sure if we are allowed gay men as priests, but we should respect what the Vatican says.
I am not going to my brother’s non-Catholic wedding because the church says so! Why do you query it? Is it right for you to say what we should do? Would it be right to query stealing so that we could take from the rich and give to the poor? No! We just have to do what we are told and not steal
I am not going to my brother’s non-Catholic wedding because the church says so! Why do you query it? Is it right for you to say what we should do? Would it be right to query stealing so that we could take from the rich and give to the poor? No! We just have to do what we are told and not steal
S
Saylorscreek
Guest
Thanks to all for a great discussion. We can see how the use of a term like “disordered” by the Holy Father or or Canon Law can get misunderstood if we refer to the meaning out of context. A “disordered” thing as specified by the Church is not the same thing as a “mental disorder” as defined by Caesar and his representative the APA or whomever.
One of the great things about this Church is that it has been around long enough to have struggled with most situations and to have thought them through. Therefore we can have faith in The Church’s final pronouncements on the subject to do as crazydyl suggests and just obey what the Church has stated. Now I myself have ongoing stuggles with disobedience and pride --but in its wisdom, the Church makes available to me Canon law and other evidence of how the church comes to its pronouncements. Therefore, obedience is eventually a free choice which the Chrurch encourages. If God gave us a mind and gave us a question to think through, the Church provides us what we need to do that.
I worked in mental health (certified in “medical practice”, for those of you who like that certification) in public health serving some of the poorest of people and the incarcerated. (Interestingly, those in public service medicine in the US, where the wage is fair but not excessive, are mostly Catholics.)
I have my beliefs, but if my work was to be my vocation, then it was to me to serve those whom God sent to my door. He must have had some reason for that. One must “love the sinner and hate the sin”, and indeed I was never called upon to betray my own beliefs and endorse ANY of the things people do. I was just to offer up what assistance I could. No one ever asking for treatment was ever denied because people not wanting change or help didn’t come for very long. It was not necessary, so I relaxed and let God choose whom He sent to my door and why.
Unwanted sexual impulses are not the only Cross people struggle with–but it seems that that sexual impulses are the one place where people get primitive and terrified or blatantly argue their right to perform whatever behavior they wish because they want to do it. I am sure there are prospective priests who have mental impulses toward theft or murder, but we don’t seem to talk about those.
Hate the sin and love the sinner.
One of the great things about this Church is that it has been around long enough to have struggled with most situations and to have thought them through. Therefore we can have faith in The Church’s final pronouncements on the subject to do as crazydyl suggests and just obey what the Church has stated. Now I myself have ongoing stuggles with disobedience and pride --but in its wisdom, the Church makes available to me Canon law and other evidence of how the church comes to its pronouncements. Therefore, obedience is eventually a free choice which the Chrurch encourages. If God gave us a mind and gave us a question to think through, the Church provides us what we need to do that.
I worked in mental health (certified in “medical practice”, for those of you who like that certification) in public health serving some of the poorest of people and the incarcerated. (Interestingly, those in public service medicine in the US, where the wage is fair but not excessive, are mostly Catholics.)
I have my beliefs, but if my work was to be my vocation, then it was to me to serve those whom God sent to my door. He must have had some reason for that. One must “love the sinner and hate the sin”, and indeed I was never called upon to betray my own beliefs and endorse ANY of the things people do. I was just to offer up what assistance I could. No one ever asking for treatment was ever denied because people not wanting change or help didn’t come for very long. It was not necessary, so I relaxed and let God choose whom He sent to my door and why.
Unwanted sexual impulses are not the only Cross people struggle with–but it seems that that sexual impulses are the one place where people get primitive and terrified or blatantly argue their right to perform whatever behavior they wish because they want to do it. I am sure there are prospective priests who have mental impulses toward theft or murder, but we don’t seem to talk about those.
Hate the sin and love the sinner.
- Status