Why forbid homosexuals from being ordained as priests?

[Barbkw]

Pedophilia wasn’t the prevenant child sexual abuse committed by priests against children.

Pederasty was.

Pederasty is the noncelibate same sex attraction of a grown man to teen boys (who at puberty - are exploring their own sexuality).

The central criminal act to the “scandal” were the combined actions of the priests against all the children - male and female - pedophilia, homosexual pederasty with male children and heterosexual priests having sex with teen female children.

The secondary criminal act was the cover up by the bishops of the child sexual abuse.

When an adult male, sexually abuses a “willing” preteen or teenage female or male person, both are criminal acts.

 

[JDaniel]

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.

OK, Leela, now the gloves are off!

Back in the 20’s, 30’s, 40’, 50’s and early 60’s, the laws of the various communities in the US were very different from today’s. Generally, when a child molester was found out, they were taken to the forest and handled without the law intervening. Either there wasn’t as much of it going on, or, the media didn’t get wind of it. The Churches were supposed to handle their own. The Catholic Church did, to the best of its ability, in an ever burgeoning society.

Well, if the Church was supposed to take care of its internal problems itself, there was no reason to stand on the tallest mountain and holler it throughout the land. Priests like that were usually sent where they could do no more wrong. they were sent to the farthest reaches of Christendom, where, hopefully, there weren’t young people. They were counseled and if they didn’t pass, were booted from the priesthood. Often the secular authorities were made aware if there was any thought that they might continue their practices on the outside.

To say the church did nothing, is either an outright fabrication, or, at the very least, dumb! (And, you say I don’t have much grasp! Excuse me!)

God bless,
jd

 

[notredame_999]

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

I actually have just the opposite view of the poster. I feel the Church isn’t doing enough to root out homosexuals in the priesthood. I have a problem with Pope Benedict XIV recent letter described in some of these posts that allow for homosexuals to become priests if they have “given up those feelings” for three years. That seems ridiculous. How does a person stop being a homosexual after three years? Either you are naturally attracted to men or naturally attracted to women, I don’t understand the wiggle room. I also feel that Church should give seminarians polygraph examinations and ask them, “are you, or have you ever been, a homosexual or carry homosexual attractions?”

 

[Leela]

I actually have just the opposite view of the poster. I feel the Church isn’t doing enough to root out homosexuals in the priesthood. I have a problem with Pope Benedict XIV recent letter described in some of these posts that allow for homosexuals to become priests if they have “given up those feelings” for three years. That seems ridiculous. How does a person stop being a homosexual after three years?

By not having homosexual relations and planning to remain celibate for the rest of one’s life?

Can you explain how it makes sense to classify a person who never acts on any sexual attraction as either homosexual or heterosexual? Isn’t such a person asexual?

Either you are naturally attracted to men or naturally attracted to women, I don’t understand the wiggle room.

Why is it important to you that priests are attracted to women? Is the pope attracted to women? What sort of woman do you think he finds most attractive? If he no longer feels any sexual attraction for women, is that a problem for you? Is he then not hetero enough for you?

I also feel that Church should give seminarians polygraph examinations and ask them, “are you, or have you ever been, a homosexual or carry homosexual attractions?”

Why be concerned about who it is that a person vowing to not have sex is not having sex with?

 

[Corki]

“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. **

Actually, the Church teaches that homosexuality is the sexual attraction towards members of the same sex. Homosexuals can be chaste or not. Even chaste homosexual men are not suited to the priesthood.

CCC 2357+

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.

I am sure there are pragmatic reasons. But the crux of the matter is that homosexuality is an objectively disordered inclination, even when not acted upon. As much as possible, the Church seeks to ordain wholesome men. This doesn’t mean the male version of Pollyanna. A wholesome person is one who is physically, mentallly and emotionally well-adjusted and well-ordered. Yes, the Church recognizes that the reasons behind homosexual orientation is not well understood but the result is disordered.

 

[ERose]

According to a survey by the Washington Post, over the last four decades, less than 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in the Catholic clergy have been accused of child sexual abuse.[iv] According to a survey by the New York Times, 1.8 percent of all priests ordained from 1950 to 2001 have been accused of child sexual abuse.[v] Thomas Kane, author of Priests are People Too, estimates that between 1 and 1.5 percent of priests have had charges made against them.[vi] Of contemporary priests, the Associated Press found that approximately two-thirds of 1 percent of priests have charges pending against them.[vii]

Almost all the priests who abuse children are homosexuals. Dr. Thomas Plante, a psychologist at Santa Clara University, found that “80 to 90% of all priests who in fact abuse minors have sexually engaged with adolescent boys, not prepubescent children. Thus, the teenager is more at risk than the young altar boy or girls of any age.”[viii]

The situation in Boston, the epicenter of the scandal, is even worse. According to the Boston Globe, “Of the clergy sex abuse cases referred to prosecutors in Eastern Massachusetts, more than 90 percent involve male victims. And the most prominent Boston lawyers for alleged victims of clergy sexual abuse have said that about 95 percent of their clients are male.”[ix]

In a database analysis of reports on more than 1,200 alleged victims of priests identified by USA Today, 85 percent were males.[x] In another study by USA Today, it was determined that of the 234 priests who have been accused of sexual abuse of a minor while serving in the nation’s 10 largest dioceses and archdioceses, 91 percent of their victims were males.[xi]

Here is the link: catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm

When 80-90% is homosexual related, I would believe that is justified.

 

[CDNowak]

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

That is not a given.

Why is it important to you that priests are attracted to women? Is the pope attracted to women? What sort of woman do you think he finds most attractive? If he no longer feels any sexual attraction for women, is that a problem for you? Is he then not hetero enough for you?

Why is it important to you that the Catholic Church self-limits its selection of its own priests?

 

[Corki]

I actually have just the opposite view of the poster. I feel the Church isn’t doing enough to root out homosexuals in the priesthood. I have a problem with Pope Benedict XIV recent letter described in some of these posts that allow for homosexuals to become priests if they have “given up those feelings” for three years. That seems ridiculous. How does a person stop being a homosexual after three years? Either you are naturally attracted to men or naturally attracted to women, I don’t understand the wiggle room. I also feel that Church should give seminarians polygraph examinations and ask them, “are you, or have you ever been, a homosexual or carry homosexual attractions?”

I believe the idea is that someone who may have had a “confused” period during his youth is not automatically excluded.

In today’s “enlighted” outlook, some young men who are not as sex-crazed as their peers are even steered into suggesting they are homosexual. A vulnerable, immature young person has a very different view of his own sexuality than he does when he matures. There are lots of famous cases of people who “experimented” with homosexuality in their youth but were completely straight in their maturity (and I don’t just mean those who underwent therapy).

 

[Snerticus]

Can you explain how it makes sense to classify a person who never acts on any sexual attraction as either homosexual or heterosexual? Isn’t such a person asexual?

No, I can’t because if you can’t percieve it then you probably wouldn’t understand. But I can certainly tell you that I am heterosexual and have not acted on my tendencies for many years now, deliberately for personal reasons. I can assure you I am not ‘asexual’.

Why is it important to you that priests are attracted to women? Is the pope attracted to women? What sort of woman do you think he finds most attractive? If he no longer feels any sexual attraction for women, is that a problem for you? Is he then not hetero enough for you?

I suppose the appropriate rebuttal would be, why do you care?

Why be concerned about who it is that a person vowing to not have sex is not having sex with?

I guess you’re right. If those priests that had molested children actually desired to have sex with them previously but had not yet done so, why would it be anyone’s concern? The logic in your question is flawed…

 

[Barbkw]

To the original poster.

Faithful practicing Catholics outside of marriage practice chastity /celibacy. Masturbation is a mortal sin for a Catholic. Chastity / celibacy is a lifelong practice. We lose, we win. We don’t harm children when we fail.

Married Catholics inside of marriage who use NFP also practice chastity.

Contrary to public opinion, people don’t die or suffer irreparable damage if they don’t play with their genitals or use them for other sexual activity.

 

[Leela]

Almost all the priests who abuse children are homosexuals
…

When 80-90% is homosexual related, I would believe that is justified.

If 80-90% of priests are in fact homosexual, then it would not be at all surprising to find that 80-90% of abuse cases are homosexual. Do we have any data on the proportion of priests who are actually homosexual? I suspect there is a much higher incidence of homosexuality for priests than for the population at large given that in Catholicism the celibate priesthood is perhaps the only respectable way of living for a homosexual Catholic.

 

[Snerticus]

Contrary to public opinion, people don’t die or suffer irreparable damage if they don’t play with their genitals or use them for other sexual activity.

Thank you!!! :thankyou:

 

[Leela]

To the original poster.

Faithful practicing Catholics outside of marriage practice chastity /celibacy. Masturbation is a mortal sin for a Catholic. Chastity / celibacy is a lifelong practice. We lose, we win. We don’t harm children when we fail.

Married Catholics inside of marriage who use NFP also practice chastity.

Contrary to public opinion, people don’t die or suffer irreparable damage if they don’t play with their genitals or use them for other sexual activity.

Can you explain NFP?

Of course humans are capable of celibacy. That’s why I find it strange to forbid homosexuals from being priests. Since priests practice celibacy, it can’t matter whether they otherwise would choose male or female partners since they are choosing not to have sex at all.

 

[ERose]

If 80-90% of priests are in fact homosexual, then it would not be at all surprising to find that 80-90% of abuse cases are homosexual. Do we have any data on the proportion of priests who are actually homosexual? I suspect there is a much higher incidence of homosexuality for priests than for the population at large given that in Catholicism the celibate priesthood is perhaps the only respectable way of living for a homosexual Catholic.

Where did you get 80-90% of priests are homosexual? Guessing again or making up your own facts. It is estimated that the percentage of gays in the general population is anywhere between 1-2%. Some left leaning sites claim up to 5%. The priesthood would most probably reflect the general population so you could say that at most 5% of priests are homosexual.

Leela, this is what facts look like. Try using them please. You need to learn to support your arguments.

 

[Snerticus]

Can you explain NFP?

Of course humans are capable of celibacy. That’s why I find it strange to forbid homosexuals from being priests. Since priests practice celibacy, it can’t matter whether they otherwise would choose male or female partners since they are choosing not to have sex at all.

Leela, it’s very easy to fall to temptation when you are surrounded by the very people you have vowed ‘not to have sex with’. If a homosexual priest lives with other priests (and they do, by the way), then they will be put into a difficult situation when they have to live in the same house with another man.

If I were in a situation where I lived in close proximity to the opposite sex, I would be putting myself in the same situation. Not good for me at all if I want to remain celibate. That’s the reason I asked previously ‘why do heterosexual priests not live with women?’. It’s the same principle, to not be put in the situation where there is cause for temptation.

As far as NFP goes, I can’t give you a good explanation, because I am confused about it myself. Not that I need to use it, but I probably should become more familiar with it. Perhaps someone else can give a link to a good website. My diocese mandates that a couple take NFP classes prior to being married. I suppose that’s a good thing because a lot of people misunderstand it, and it would clear up those misconceptions if it were mandated.

 

[Snerticus]

Where did you get 80-90% of priests are homosexual? Guessing again or making up your own facts. It is estimated that the percentage of gays in the general population is anywhere between 1-2%. Some left leaning sites claim up to 5%. The priesthood would most probably reflect the general population so you could say that at most 5% of priests are homosexual.

Leela, this is what facts look like. Try using them please. You need to learn to support your arguments.

She’s not saying 80-90% are. She’s saying it would make sense if they were and perhaps there should be research into it. If the research agreed with her assumption, then she could believe the statement, that’s all.

 

[ERose]

She’s not saying 80-90% are. She’s saying it would make sense if they were and perhaps there should be research into it. If the research agreed with her assumption, then she could believe the statement, that’s all.

I guess you can read it that way.

Leela,

If that was what you were implying then please forgive me on the previous post.

 

[JDaniel]

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

I said 95%, Leela. I did not single out a lack of females; in fact I never spoke of females. Of all that I mentioned, I stayed with the masculine. I love your line, “The problem is that probably that same . . .” Are we dealing now with Leela probabilities? A great new liberal arts college course!

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.

They were supposed to, Leela. That’s how things worked, back then. It’s a lot different today. I’ve been through the history personally. I watched it.

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

Why? Do you think they are without an agenda?

“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.”

Yes, I’m sure. Nothing like that or worse was ever committed by an atheist! Nothing like that ever occurred in secular society! One bad man - condemn the whole Church. I, personally, am a cradle-Catholic. I have lived all over the world and the United States. I’ve am and have been churched, in maybe 30 - 40 different Churches. I have never been close to any of it.

So, let’s take an extreme rarity and make sure we hold it up high, for the whole world to see. Leela, there are bad people. No matter how hard the church tries, it can’t stop them all.

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

No question about it. But the same goes for you! You and secular society should be concerned and suffer for causing a great many more of such atrocities.

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

Leela. The Church lives on money just like the rest of us. I am amazed at your thinking prowess.

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

To try to prevent what has happened these past 50 or so years! Leela. THINK!

God bless,
jd

 

[Windfish]

Why is this in philosophy?

I think some of you are being just a tad too defensive and not expressing enough sensitivity to our homosexual brothers and sisters. Tensions are high enough as it is.

 

[Barbkw]

“Since priests practice celibacy, it can’t matter whether they otherwise would choose male or female partners since they are choosing not to have sex at all.”

Our point, is that these unfaithful men didn’t practice celibacy, even though they were priests, which in the Catholic Church, means that in the Sacraments, they stand in for the presence of Jesus.

The thought of it is beyond comprehension, that these priests’ mental thoughts and physical behaviors could focus with such evil intent on the parish’s preteen and teen children, 80% of which were male and 20% female.

Fulfilling their sexual desires, led these men to foresake their priestly connection to Christ, to His people, and to do irreperable damage to the children they sexually abused…