Why forbid homosexuals from being ordained as priests?

[Leela]

Hi all,

Priests are called to celebacy, so why would it make sense to say that a priest is heterosexual or homosexual? Why would anyone care just who it is a priest perhaps would be having sex with if he were not celebate? Why is it thought to be important that priests be attracted to women?

Some documentation on rules for ordination below.

Best,
Leela

Vatican “instruction” of 2005-NOV:

"Concerning profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, that one discovers in a certain number of men and women, these are also objectively disordered and often constitute a trial, even for these men and women. These people must be received with respect and delicacy; one will avoid every mark of unjust discrimination with respect to them. These are called to realize the will of God in their lives and to unite to the Sacrifice of the Lord the difficulties that they may encounter."

"The church, while deeply respecting the people in question, cannot admit to the seminary and the sacred orders those who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support so-called gay culture.''

"Those people find themselves, in fact, in a situation that presents a grave obstacle to a correct relationship with men and women. One cannot ignore the negative consequences that can stem from the ordination of people with deeply rooted homosexual tendencies.''

"If instead it is a case of homosexual tendencies that are merely the expression of a transitory problem, for example as in the case of an unfinished adolescence, they must however have been clearly overcome for at least three years before ordination as a deacon.'' 6

"If a candidate practices homosexuality or present profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director, like his confessor, must dissuade him, in conscience, from proceeding towards Ordination."

"It would be gravely dishonest if a candidate were to hide his own homosexuality to enter, notwithstanding everything, to Ordination. An attitude so inauthentic does not correspond to the spirit of truth, allegiance, and availability that must characterize the personality of he who believes to be called to serve Christ and His Church in the priestly ministry." 7

 

[Scoobyshme]

Because historically, they have been responsible for most of the child sex abuse in the Church. And, it’s hard enough for a normal person to live out their vocation as a priest, without tacking on the extra burden of homosexual tendencies.

 

[Barbkw]

If a religious is faithful and he/she practices chastity (as is required of laity as well) it doesn’t matter if a religious person is heterosexual or homosexual. Sexuality doesn’t matter, because the person has control of their sexual drives.

The problem however, is when sexual drives aren’t mastered through the practice of chastity. When sex drives aren’t mastered, that is when a celibate same sex attracted religious person becomes a “practicing homosexual”.

80% of the sexually abused children by ordained priests (in the person of Christ) in the U.S. were preteen and teenage boys. That statement alone, attests to a sexual drive that will risk all (relationship with Christ, harm of other persons, job, money, respect) to be gratified.

Sexual acts by men with young teens is called pederasty. Same sex attracted men who developed sexual relationships with young male teens was common in both Roman and Greek societies during the time of Christ.

In Canada, where homosexual marriage is legal, the homosexual agenda is pushing the government to lower the age of sexual consent from 18 to 16.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/feb/06021403.html

“Gay Activists Ask Canada to Lower Age of Consent for Anal Sex, National Post Agrees”

Married men in Muslim tribes in Afghanistan keep young boys on the side for their sexual enjoyment.

"The church, while deeply respecting the people in question, cannot admit to the seminary and the sacred orders those who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support so-called gay culture.’'

Another problem also exists, when priests identify with their homosexuality and begin working for gay rights and gay marriage as an issue of equality. They reject the Pope’s instruction to the Church on gay marriage and on the disordered nature of sex acts performed by same sex attracted individuals.

 

[po18guy]

Priests are called to celebacy, so why would it make sense to say that a priest is heterosexual or homosexual? Why would anyone care just who it is a priest perhaps would be having sex with if he were not celebate? Why is it thought to be important that priests be attracted to women?

The entire world knows the results of ordaining practicing homosexuals. 80-90% of the scandal, by nature, is homosexual. Male homosexuality, in particular, often manifests itself in a tendency to hyper-sexuality and the involvement of numerous and casual objects, or partners. The safety of children and young men must count for something, at some level, no? Do we need more reasons?

 

[PatrickSebast]

Because historically, they have been responsible for most of the child sex abuse in the Church. And, it’s hard enough for a normal person to live out their vocation as a priest, without tacking on the extra burden of homosexual tendencies.

That simply isn’t true. Homosexuality and pedophilia are completely different things, there simply haven’t been any studies that linked them. A homosexual priest is just as likely as a heterosexual priest to be attracted to children and act on the attraction (somewhere in the 2-4% range).

As for the other question, while I am a bit confused on the ruling as well some say that the line : “If a candidate practices homosexuality or present profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies” is trying to get across the idea that if a candidate is letting their sexuality define their life that they should not be considered. Obviously if they practice it they can’t be a priest, a heterosexual who is engaging with women could not be one either. The second line part is a little less clear, but seeing as there was no mass exodus from the seminarys as a result of the ruling it seems that most of the directors have chosen to interpret it in this way.

Of course many seminarians and directors also estimate that the percentage of people with a same sex attraction in seminary is MUCH higher than it is in normal society, some going as high as 50%+. So it is likely the idea that if they took the teaching to mean everyone with a same sex attraction should be rejected from canidacy they would lose half their students contributed to this interpretation.

One of the most well respected, brightest, and well educated Catholic authors within our lifetime Father Henri Nouwen had a same sex attraction, it was something that he never spoke of publically, but his private journals mentioned it and close friends and family were all aware so it certainly isn’t possible to discount the idea that a man with an SSA can be a good priest.

 

[Barbkw]

“Homosexuality and pedophilia are completely different things”

The Catholic Church uses the word “homosexuality” to mean noncelibate sexual acts amoung same sex attracted persons.

The Church believes that all persons are capable of the practice of chastity.

However, when a person chooses to accept “homosexuality” as a noncelibate lifestyle they are incapable of understanding Church teaching and they are not qualified to become priests or religious.

Pedophilia is sexual acts performed on children prior to their reaching puberty.

Pederasty is sexual acts between adult males and preteen and teenage boys.

 

[Joe_5859]

Is there something specific in 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 that you disagree with or would like explained more fully?

 

[Snerticus]

You know, I never considered it being a problem until I pondered it reading this thread.

Because priests usually have to live with other priests, it would be ‘leading them into temptation’. At least, that’s the problem I would see right off the bat.

I mean, why don’t heterosexual priests live with women? It’s kind of like that.

Now I don’t know if there are priests that live in solitude, but if there were, I don’t think it would pose a problem. At least none that I can see.

But then again, I have not thought about it much to be honest.

 

[ceciliatherese]

how are homosexuals any more likely to be pedophilic and act on those desires than heterosexuals?

 

[JDaniel]

Hi all,

Priests are called to celebacy, so why would it make sense to say that a priest is heterosexual or homosexual? Why would anyone care just who it is a priest perhaps would be having sex with if he were not celebate? Why is it thought to be important that priests be attracted to women?

Some documentation on rules for ordination below.

Best,
Leela

Vatican “instruction” of 2005-NOV:

"Concerning profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, that one discovers in a certain number of men and women, these are also objectively disordered and often constitute a trial, even for these men and women. These people must be received with respect and delicacy; one will avoid every mark of unjust discrimination with respect to them. These are called to realize the will of God in their lives and to unite to the Sacrifice of the Lord the difficulties that they may encounter."

"The church, while deeply respecting the people in question, cannot admit to the seminary and the sacred orders those who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support so-called gay culture.''

"Those people find themselves, in fact, in a situation that presents a grave obstacle to a correct relationship with men and women. One cannot ignore the negative consequences that can stem from the ordination of people with deeply rooted homosexual tendencies.''

"If instead it is a case of homosexual tendencies that are merely the expression of a transitory problem, for example as in the case of an unfinished adolescence, they must however have been clearly overcome for at least three years before ordination as a deacon.'' 6

"If a candidate practices homosexuality or present profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director, like his confessor, must dissuade him, in conscience, from proceeding towards Ordination."

"It would be gravely dishonest if a candidate were to hide his own homosexuality to enter, notwithstanding everything, to Ordination. An attitude so inauthentic does not correspond to the spirit of truth, allegiance, and availability that must characterize the personality of he who believes to be called to serve Christ and His Church in the priestly ministry." 7

Leela:

I just answered this in your other thread! What more do you want? It is gays that have nearly brought the Church to its knees!

That said, there is no doubt that there are great gay-priests within the Church. All of us hope that they continue to live by the rules, by not having sexual relations - with anyone. It is only when any Priest fails that that the Church suffers.

But, there is also no doubt, as the last 50 years has shown in the fullest brightness, that it is primarily gay men that seem to find it hardest to maintain self-control. 60,000 Priests. 1% - 3% of the macro-population is gay. 2% of priests lose control. That’s the majority of gay men that joined the priesthood. And, it has cost us immeasurably. Is this vague in any way to you? How can I say it better? What can help you understand it? Good grief, Leela!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

how are homosexuals any more likely to be pedophilic and act on those desires than heterosexuals?

Good question. But, the actual statistics are there for all to see and draw their own conclusions from.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Because historically, they have been responsible for most of the child sex abuse in the Church. And, it’s hard enough for a normal person to live out their vocation as a priest, without tacking on the extra burden of homosexual tendencies.

Absolutely correct.

Thanks and God bless,
jd

 

[CDNowak]

There are significant psychological differences between homosexual men and heterosexual men. The Church, keeping in mind the natural ends of sex, recognizes that these differences acknowledge a disordered or well ordered nature. There are significant links to other psychological problems (from depression to antisocial personality disorder) associated with homosexuality.

Also, there is a problem with a feminized clergy as naturally repugnant to most men. Seminaries in the US have not long ago been accused of harboring a ‘Lavender Mafia’ that drove away many straight seminarians.

That simply isn’t true. Homosexuality and pedophilia are completely different things, there simply haven’t been any studies that linked them.

Yes, and pedophilia is not, contrary to the headlines, the major scandal. That would be hebephilia and ephebophilia, involving pubescent and post-pubescent youths (respectively), which have been tied to homosexuality.

 

[Leela]

I just answered this in you other thread! What more do you want? It is gays that have nearly brought the Church to its knees!

Not at all. You don’t seem to have much of a grasp on the sex scandal and what it means. What has brought the church to its knees is not particular cases of abuse but rather the mishandling of cases of abuse by the church authorities. The issue was never the fact of individual priests doing wrong but the cover up of abuse and the failure to act sensibly to prevent repeated offenses. All that can be fixed but preventing people with SSA will do nothing towards fixing the systemic problems exposed by the scandal.

You said previously that 80-90% of the abuse was homosexual in nature. The problem is not that there weren’t enough female abuse victims. The problem is that probably that same percentage of the specific instances of abuses happened after Church authorities already knew that the offending priest had abused in the past but rather than report the abuse to the appropriate civil authorities they were simply moved to new congregations.

I recommend you watch the documentary of 2006 Deliver Us from Evil

“This unsettling Oscar-nominated documentary from filmmaker Amy Berg investigates the life of 30-year pedophile Father Oliver O’Grady and exposes the corruption inside the Catholic Church that allowed him to abuse countless children. Victims’ stories and a disturbing interview with O’Grady offer a view into the troubled mind of the spiritual leader who moved from parish to parish gaining trust … all the while betraying so many.”

That said, there is no doubt that there are great gay-priests within the Church. All of us hope that they continue to live by the rules, by not having sexual relations - with anyone. It is only when any Priest fails that that the Church suffers.

And surely Catholics should be concerned that their victims will suffer as well as the Church.

(By the way since the Church is only whatever it claims infallibly as dogma how exactly could it suffer?)

Given that a gay man can make a great priest, why prevent *all *gay men from being priests?

 

[JDaniel]

Leela:

I just answered this in your other thread! What more do you want? It is gays that have nearly brought the Church to its knees!

That said, there is no doubt that there are great gay-priests within the Church. All of us hope that they continue to live by the rules, by not having sexual relations - with anyone. It is only when any Priest fails that that the Church suffers.

But, there is also no doubt, as the last 50 years has shown in the fullest brightness, that it is primarily gay men that seem to find it hardest to maintain self-control. 60,000 Priests. 1% - 3% of the macro-population is gay. 2% of priests lose control. That’s the majority of gay men that joined the priesthood. And, it has cost us immeasurably. Is this vague in any way to you? How can I say it better? What can help you understand it? Good grief, Leela!

God bless,
jd

Correction: it is perhaps true that gays enter the priesthood at a higher rate than do heterosexual men, for many reasons, not the least of which is as a possible curative. Nevertheless, if one follows the statistics, one will discover that gay molestations and child molestations occur at a much higher rate outside the Church, and throughout other religions than in the Catholic faith.

This is the most relevant sign that satan is trying his darndest. Most Protestant religions are praying that the Catholic Church does not get taken down. Catholicism is the bulwark of religiosity, in the world. There’s a war going on. Satan wants to crush Christianity from the top down, IMHO.

God bless,
jd

 

[Barbkw]

… why don’t heterosexual priests live with women?

Pregnancy.

I however, agree with you. For some same sex attracted priests, communal living may be too close of an occasion of sin. And it would be a consideration in seminary formation, to determine there, whether or not a same sex attracted person is capable of the practice of chastity and celibacy.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

how are homosexuals any more likely to be pedophilic and act on those desires than heterosexuals?

They are not. You need to read the document again.

It says;
those who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support so-called gay culture

1. Those who are practicing homosexuals are ineligible for ordination as they are sexually active outside of marriage (unchaste)
2. Those who “present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies” need help to work that out becuase of the stong tempations they will face in the seminary and later situations
3. Those who “support the … gay culture” are teaching against what the Church actually Teaches

We must also remember, as has been stated earlier, no one has a right to ordination.

 

[Scoobyshme]

That simply isn’t true. Homosexuality and pedophilia are completely different things, there simply haven’t been any studies that linked them. A homosexual priest is just as likely as a heterosexual priest to be attracted to children and act on the attraction (somewhere in the 2-4% range).

As for the other question, while I am a bit confused on the ruling as well some say that the line : “If a candidate practices homosexuality or present profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies” is trying to get across the idea that if a candidate is letting their sexuality define their life that they should not be considered. Obviously if they practice it they can’t be a priest, a heterosexual who is engaging with women could not be one either. The second line part is a little less clear, but seeing as there was no mass exodus from the seminarys as a result of the ruling it seems that most of the directors have chosen to interpret it in this way.

Of course many seminarians and directors also estimate that the percentage of people with a same sex attraction in seminary is MUCH higher than it is in normal society, some going as high as 50%+. So it is likely the idea that if they took the teaching to mean everyone with a same sex attraction should be rejected from canidacy they would lose half their students contributed to this interpretation.

One of the most well respected, brightest, and well educated Catholic authors within our lifetime Father Henri Nouwen had a same sex attraction, it was something that he never spoke of publically, but his private journals mentioned it and close friends and family were all aware so it certainly isn’t possible to discount the idea that a man with an SSA can be a good priest.

In case you haven’t researched it, most of the child sex abuse by priests were between priests and male teens (80+%). The abuse was homosexual in nature. Because the children were teens, that means it didn’t qualify as pedophilia, which is sexual attraction to children below the age of puberty.

And, yes, a priest with SSA can, theoretically, be a good priest. But the Church has to be particular about whom they allow to become priests. That’s why we have the problem with sex abuse in the Church in recent history. They weren’t careful. In fact, in some seminaries, it was harder, if not impossible, for a heterosexual male to get into the seminary and be ordained.

 

[manygift1spirit]

I want to address the original concern. The crux of the Instruction is the following statement:

"The church …] cannot admit to the seminary and the sacred orders those who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support so-called gay culture.’’

There are three (not necessarily exclusive) things precluding seminary entry: 1) practicing homosexuality; 2) present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies; 3) support so-called gay culture. (1) and (3) are clear cut. The potential seminarian doing (1) clearly is not mature enough to demonstrate the proper chastity, and furthermore would be a grave disruption to the other seminarians. One doing (3) is not only committing grave scandal but more problematically demonstrates a profoundly misguided view of the human person, most likely contaminated by the nefarious yet ubiquitous lure of modern identity politics. (To wit, a well grounded heterosexual does not even think about themselves being so (unless asked), or even less celebrating it. And if you’re wondering, casanovas are by definition not well grounded!).

That leaves (2). This suggests psychological difficulties whose impacts on proper priestly formation and spiritual/psychological development need to be better understood and concerns met before turning a blanket blind eye to it. Part of this reason is the large movement to deny any extraordinary psychological status at all, but that has no basis in science (the exclusion e.g., from the DSM was one of advocacy, not science; talk to any older psychiatrist and they’ll admit the high comorbidity of both passive-aggressive and narcissistic personality disorders, to wit). So the consequences of these issues are not well understood, and in fact even suggesting studying them risks accusations of bigotry et al.

On another prudential note, I strongly suspect (2) is also informed by the more empirical concerns of operating a seminary and making a conducive environment for priestly formation. A very reasonable concern would be that a seminarian with (2) would be very suspect to descending to (1) or (3). Remember, the seminary is a place to move men towards God, not away from Him.

So while I am not aware of a theological basis for the (2) exclusion, it seems like a very reasonable prudential criterion. The number of potential lost seminarians is not large, but the converse unknown risks are not at all understood and could be very grave. But for sake of discussion, it in my opinion would be the first of the three to be potentially lifted in the future.

I hope that helps.

 

[illmatic]

I don’t know if the quotes in the OP completely refuse to let homosexuals be Priests.