Do you think a person who suffers from same-sex attractions should become a celibate priest if they wanted to?

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by Dakota Roberts

Yes, but no, yet both and neither. There's a massive gap between SSA and Acts...

That's as may be. I don't see a massive push on the part of celibate people with SSA to normalize homosexual activity; they are not the ones running around saying everything which would in our sex-saturated culture be considered evidence of sexual attraction is evidence that the person who wrote it was homosexual.

Sorry, that just doesn't fly.

[havana1]

Originally Posted by St Francis

That's as may be. I don't see a massive push on the part of celibate people with SSA to normalize homosexual activity; they are not the ones running around saying everything which would in our sex-saturated culture be considered evidence of sexual attraction is evidence that the person who wrote it was homosexual.

Sorry, that just doesn't fly.

I don't understand the above comment. Seriously. I tried re-reading it, and what I have bolded appears to be a run-on sentence ("evidence of...is evidence that..???") Clearly, there's a lot of confusion when people can't simply call homosexuality for what it is.

[Ignatius]

Originally Posted by followingtheway

I mean they're not having sex with same gender so....shouldn't they?

No! 98% of the recent scandals were homosexual in nature.

[DJ Pius X]

Originally Posted by havana1

Caused by homosexual priests, or SSA priests? I wish whoever started the notion of "SSA" realized how much confusion it causes. It's called homosexuality. And you're right - we are still reeling from the problems caused by homosexual priests. Why on earth would anyone want to encourage a homosexual to enter the priesthood? Why?

As a bisexual man, I find it incredibly insulting that you would equate child abuse with LGBT orientation. Healthy adults with SSA are attracted to other adults, not children or adolescents. To suggest anything else is an unfair and mean-spirited attack on good people who are doing their best with their feelings, and can only serve to whip up hatred against people who are, by the CCC, to be treated with compassion.

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by havana1

I don't understand the above comment. Seriously. I tried re-reading it, and what I have bolded appears to be a run-on sentence ("evidence of...is evidence that..???") Clearly, there's a lot of confusion when people can't simply call homosexuality for what it is.

Sorry, that isn't very clear, esp without context.

People used to use very flowery language in their letters and address the recipient in very affectionate tems. They also used romantic terms to express their feelings.

When this occurs between men, homosexual activists seize upon it as evidence that the correspondents were either attracted to each other or involved. In their efforts to normalize homosexuality, they suggest that saints were homosexual if they wrote like this or had close friendships with persons of the same sex. Basically, they are slandering Catholic saints inorder to bolster their own sexual orientation.

[The Rock]

Pope Benedict XVI:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/sto...ns/1004842.htm

"Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation. Otherwise, celibacy itself would lose its meaning as a renunciation. It would be extremely dangerous if celibacy became a sort of pretext for bringing people into the priesthood who don't want to get married anyway," the pope said.

The pope cited a 2005 Vatican document that drew a sharp line against priestly ordination of homosexuals. He said the document emphasized that homosexual candidates cannot become priests because their sexual orientation interferes with "the proper sense of paternity" that belongs to the priesthood.

[The Rock]

The Vatican document the Pope cited:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...uzione_en.html

CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION
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


Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter[8].

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], 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"[10].

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

[Tighty Whitey]

Isn't the entire premise of this question faulty? The whole notion of a person becoming a priest because, "they wanted to" ignore the fact that the priesthood is a calling! Which requires discernment!

This isn't a choice of careers.

[Aelred Minor]

I said "No", because if I'm not mistaken it's now forbidden by the Church.

Whatever you think of a particular requirement for a particular vocation, it's still important for one's discernment. To use another example, there might be a religious community that has a maximum age of 55 for new members. You are 56 and feel like you have a call to that community, but they tell you no, they don't make exceptions to their age requirement. This is as good a proof as you can find that you are not called to that community. Though that rejection may be painful, it's also a cause for rejoicing, since God obviously wasn't calling you there and you have escaped accidentally pursuing a false vocation.

Same thing with same sex attraction and the priesthood. Whether or not the policy is rightheaded, if the Church refuses to accept someone to the priesthood because of their sexual orientation that shows the individual was never called to the priesthood in the first place, since God gives people the attributes necessary to live their vocations in conformity with the laws of the Church (or order, etc.). Yes, there have been holy same-sex attracted priests in the past like St. Aelred (apparently he gave himself ice baths to avoid lusting at his novices), but such historical figures are at best arguments for a change in Church law (and there are other good arguments for keeping the current policy); they don't change the fact that in this day and age if a young man has deep-seated homosexual attraction it's pretty clear he does not have a vocation to the priesthood, at least at this time.

[Dakota Roberts]

Originally Posted by havana1

Do I think a homosexual should be a priest? Um....no. I don't think a homosexual should be a priest. Bad idea. Horrible idea. Would said homosexual - or SSA, as CAF people call it - be around kids? If so, would children be susceptible to that SSA - or homosexuality?

SSA is not contagious, it doesn't show up in any form of mental illness test and a priest should never bring up their attractions anyway.

Originally Posted by havana1

Caused by homosexual priests, or SSA priests? I wish whoever started the notion of "SSA" realized how much confusion it causes. It's called homosexuality. And you're right - we are still reeling from the problems caused by homosexual priests. Why on earth would anyone want to encourage a homosexual to enter the priesthood? Why?

There's more than enough blame to go around and heaps can easily be placed at the Church's feet too.

Originally Posted by St Francis

That's as may be. I don't see a massive push on the part of celibate people with SSA to normalize homosexual activity; they are not the ones running around saying everything which would in our sex-saturated culture be considered evidence of sexual attraction is evidence that the person who wrote it was homosexual.

Sorry, that just doesn't fly.

When did I ever imply that homosexual acts aren't mortal sin?

Originally Posted by St Francis

Sorry, that isn't very clear, esp without context.

People used to use very flowery language in their letters and address the recipient in very affectionate tems. They also used romantic terms to express their feelings.

When this occurs between men, homosexual activists seize upon it as evidence that the correspondents were either attracted to each other or involved. In their efforts to normalize homosexuality, they suggest that saints were homosexual if they wrote like this or had close friendships with persons of the same sex. Basically, they are slandering Catholic saints inorder to bolster their own sexual orientation.

I agree, they used very vivid language to illustrate how they longed to be in another's arms or their yearning to feel another's touch. In Middle Ages England one could hug, kiss, write love letters and sleep in the same bed as other men. I've never implied them ever being sexually involved with someone

[Julia Mae]

Originally Posted by followingtheway

I mean they're not having sex with same gender so....shouldn't they?

There are fine gay priests. Chastity is chastity and vows of celibacy are just that. However, some young gay men, who have trouble resisting their impulses, sometimes try and escape into the priesthood as a way of avoiding temptations, not because they have a true vocation. So discernment is critical in terms of this possibility, IMO.

[Julia Mae]

Originally Posted by Dakota Roberts

I agree, they used very vivid language to illustrate how they longed to be in another's arms or their yearning to feel another's touch. In Middle Ages England one could hug, kiss, write love letters and sleep in the same bed as other men. I've never implied them ever being sexually involved with someone

wait...what are you talking about... who wrote these letters and what men were sleeping together when...?


I'm lost and confused.

Probably just my normal state.

[Contra Mundum]

I voted no.
Too many homosexual priests ended up having sexual relationships. There have been studies that have shown this, but I'm afraid I don't have any links at hand to paste here.

[freddo]

Originally Posted by Contra Mundum

I voted no.
Too many homosexual priests ended up having sexual relationships. There have been studies that have shown this, but I'm afraid I don't have any links at hand to paste here.

Errrrr...and heterosexual priests don't?

I don't understand all of the posts about the problems caused by homosexual priests. If the paedophile problems are what is meant, that is not a homosexual problem. One of the priests here was picked up for molesting girls. It's sick and wrong, but it's not confined to homosexuals.

I'm of the opinion that celibacy is celibacy. I don't think it really matters what sexual orientation the priest has, as long as he isn't acting on it.

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by Aelred Minor

I)...Yes, there have been holy same-sex attracted priests in the past like St. Aelred (apparently he gave himself ice baths to avoid lusting at his novices), but such historical figures are at best arguments for a change in Church law...

Evidence?