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

[havana1]

Originally Posted by Dakota Roberts

You are aware that only the acts are sinful right? There is physical intimacy that doesn't involve sex, foreplay etc. It's entirely possible that he could write strongly about chastity, been in love with another man and been entirely consistent.

I'm also aware that the Magisterium prohibits men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" - that's "deep-seated homosexual tendencies," not "SSA" tendencies - from entering seminary for priesthood. Of course, I don't know why any reasonable person would want someone with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" to be a priest who could be in contact with children - our church is still reeling from the damage homosexual priests have done. I guess I'm the only one who read the book "Goodbye, Good Men" a few years ago.

[havana1]

Originally Posted by Aelred Minor

I'm going to stay out of this word-fight about homosexual vs. SSA. Personally I generally use whichever term others are using at the time.

There is a deliberate agenda for some Catholics to avoid using the word "homosexual" because they *feel* uncomfortable saying the word and instead like to use the phrase "SSA" instead. Anytime a Catholic avoids using the h-word (it's called "homosexuality") for a softball, warm-and-fuzzy phrase like "SSA," that's a very slippery slope. It's easier to downplay the grave moral seriousness of homosexuality when you toss in softball euphemisms like "SSA." I'm so glad the whole "SSA" thing really hasn't caught on outside CAF and "ex-gay" circles.

[estesbob]

http://www.traditioninaction.org/Hot...hismSeven.html


Interesting take on this subject.

[michelleds]

havana, perhaps you didn't see this post of mine a page back. i look forward to a dialogue with you on this. thanks, michelle

Originally Posted by michelleds

okay, Havana, work thru this with me. I think I see what you're saying, and I might even agree with you, but I need to think this through.

if someone identifies themselves as SSA (I know, I know, you hate that term, but bear with me), then they are still doing what I have been saying folks shouldn't do--if you are in full compliance with the church, don't call yourself "gay" or "homosexual" because you are identifying yourself with a sin/behavior/sexuality.

I get that. makes sense.

now, about someone saying that they are heterosexual (assuming that it is in some way relevant to the conversation)...does that seem like a lie to you? i'm seriously asking here because I wonder. I mean, i've read the stories of people who were in one same sex relationship for two months when they were sixteen and now identify as "ex-gay". but what i'm talking about is someone who was actively living a homosexual life for decades.

but, stream of consciousness here, if somone was in an adulterous affair for decades and then came back into the fold, so to speak, we wouldn't expect them to continue to identify as anything other than "married".

interesting.

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by Dakota Roberts

You are aware that only the acts are sinful right? There is physical intimacy that doesn't involve sex, foreplay etc. It's entirely possible that he could write strongly about chastity, been in love with another man and been entirely consistent.

First Elizabeth put what I would liked to write much better than I could have, but in reply to you post, there is no evidence that this is the case.

So, in that case what is the point? We do not see people who quietly suffer the cross of homosexual temptations attributing to anyone they can homosexual inclinations. The only people who do this are the *activist* homosexuals. And what they are doing is wrong.

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by havana1

There is a deliberate agenda for some Catholics to avoid using the word "homosexual" because they *feel* uncomfortable saying the word and instead like to use the phrase "SSA" instead. Anytime a Catholic avoids using the h-word (it's called "homosexuality") for a softball, warm-and-fuzzy phrase like "SSA," that's a very slippery slope. It's easier to downplay the grave moral seriousness of homosexuality when you toss in softball euphemisms like "SSA." I'm so glad the whole "SSA" thing really hasn't caught on outside CAF and "ex-gay" circles.

Temptations are not sinful. I try to use the terms active or practicing homosexual, activist homosexual, and person with SSA or with homosexual inclinations/temptations to delineate who precisely I am talking about. I don't know why someone who struggles against this cross should be lumped in with activists trying to change the definition of marriage; that's why I do it.

Plus it saves discussion time as people then jump in and say, yes, but what about...?

[Elizabeth502]

Originally Posted by havana1

I don't know why any reasonable person would want someone with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" to be a priest who could be in contact with children - our church is still reeling from the damage homosexual priests have done. I guess I'm the only one who read the book "Goodbye, Good Men" a few years ago.

Mutual adult homosexual activity (and attraction) is not male-to-male pedophilia. Learn the difference. (The vast majority of pedophiles are exclusively heterosexual in their adult sexual activity, while being interested in either or both genders in their activity with minors.)

What does matter, though, is for every would-be seminarian is to have a mature (and healthy!) awareness about his sexuality, and to be examined for that level of awareness before being approved for ordination, and to be reviewed for that ongoing psychological health after ordination. That is one thing that in previous generations of seminaries did not occur (too often), but is now built into seminary admission and candidacy. There was insufficient examination of candidates, not to mention insufficient supervision/awareness following ordinations. Sexuality was not necessarily something that was openly discussed. Such an atmosphere of silence and secrecy enabled the closet pedophiles to act out on younger males and females.

The same secrecy and insufficent attention to sexuality enabled, especially in the '80's and '90s, priests with homosexual inclinations to act out those inclinations. In other cases, such seminarians were more open about their preferences and were admitted recklessly, which resulted in a temporary period of an openly gay subculture in several seminaries (but by no means all of them).

[JReducation]

Please be careful how you use my quotes or those of anyone else. Often, they are speaking to different people with different questions or different examples. When you put them together outside of their original context, they don’t always convey the same meaning.

In a nutshell, because I don’t really want to get into this debate, since it has been hashed out so many times that it gets old.

The Church’s directive to formation directors is very clear. People with deep-seated homosexual tendencies do not qualify for admission to the priesthood or the religious life. That has to be clarified first. If you look at the original document, it only mentions the priesthood. Some people quickly jumped to say that you could then become a religious brother or religious sister. That was not the message sent to vocation directors or formators. Unfortunately, we still have a small element in the Church, who applies the word “vocation” to priests and sisters or just priests. However, the guideline is for everyone who does vocation and formation ministry. This small sector still writes in what many consider exclusive language. It sounds like, “It’s NOT OK for people with deep seated homosexual tendencies to become PRIESTS, period.” That’s not the message. When you reduce the question to just priests, you open up a Pandora’s Box. What about deacons, brothers, sisters, nuns, friars, monks, hermits and consecrated virgins? The statement does not adequately represent the spectrum of vocations to either the clerical state or the consecrated life.

If I were to guess, the statement was probably made that way because the average layperson can’t tell the difference between a priest and a brother, or a nun and a sister. Therefore, people attacked priests and the statement was made to reassure people that men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies are not candidates for the seminary. To tell the truth, the statement left a bad taste in the mouths of many religious. It felt as if the Church were sending a message to the laity that only the priesthood should be protected. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Church does not discriminate this way. Even the question in the poll is null. OK, if you guys feel that such men can’t become priests, let them all become consecrated religious. Is everyone OK with that idea?

Deep seated is very clear. In the guidelines for vocation and formation ministry, there are specifics. One of them being that a person must be celibate at the time of admission. This applies to straight or gay people. You don’t become celibate the day before you enter. You must prove that you can live a celibate life. You should have lived a celibate life for several years before you apply. Obviously, someone who was engaged in same-sex activities three months ago causes some legitimate concerns. Prudence dictates that we wait to see what time tells us. Someone who wants to be celibate but is falling into sin causes some serious concerns. Someone who may have same-sex attractions, but has been celibate and has healthy relationships with members of both genders is in a different situation.

Someone who has heterosexual tendencies, but hates women, is not the best candidate for either the priesthood or the religious life. In all of my years as a religious, I have spent more time with women, than with my brothers. If I add up the hours that I spend with women in different ministries and the number of women, to whom I have ministered and the women who have been my superiors, that’s a lot of time around women. If I were a misogynist, I’d be in serious trouble. The question goes deeper than which flavor ice cream do you prefer. Vocation directors and formators must be attentive to how people relate to both genders, not just attraction.

It is one thing to admit to having same-sex attractions and another to identifying oneself as gay. One can admit to oneself and to his or her spiritual director the one has these attractions, but that does not make one part of the gay culture. I think herein lies the problem with this discussion. The problem is not you folks. The problem is the way that we speak today. People will often say that they are gay, because they have same-attractions, even if they are chaste and are not part of the gay world. From where I stand, such a statement is almost like saying, “I’m Italian” only to find out that you were born in Hoboken, NJ.

We live in a country and at a time when people often define themselves in narrow terms. “I’m Italian” but I have never set foot in Italy. I don’t speak the language. I love pasta and NY Pizza. My great-grandparents arrived 100 years ago. I would not call that person a deep seated Italian. I often wonder if people who identify themselves as gay are not often doing the same thing. They’re trying to say something about their sexual attraction, not about who they are or how they live their lives, just as this person is trying to say something about his heritage, but not about his values and worldview, which are probably incompatible with those of real Italians. The only thing that he may have in common with Italians is genetics and his love for pasta. When a person applies the term gay to himself, one has to dig a little deeper to find out what the person means. The only thing that he may have in common with gay people is genes and attraction. His worldview, moral values, lifestyle and relationships can be very consistent with what one would expect of a good cleric or religious.

[JReducation]

In my second statement I was trying to address the whole issue of self-identification. As I have said above. We’re not always what we identify as. Vocation Directors and formators are looking to see what you mean when you say that you’re gay. Are you using the term as the popular culture uses it, to define a person with same-sex attraction, or are you describing the way that you live and interact with others?

This is not an area that is going to be resolved on an internet forum. It’s very profound and has many sides to it. This is a subject that will take years of discussion, study, observation and prayer. We don’t even know as much as we think we know about same-sex attractions. There are as many opinions out there are as there are so called experts. That’s why the CCC takes a very cautious approach and focuses on behavior more than attraction. There are 60 paragraphs dedicated to chastity and three dedicated to homosexuality. That should tell us where the focus needs to be.

Thank you for allowing me to participate in the discussion. Please remember, I'm not an expert on human sexuality.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

[Mudgely]

There have always been gay priests, and at least one documented gay pope. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with competence as a priest.

[ssa fellow]

Originally Posted by St Francis

Sorry all, that should be problems cause by some priests with SSA.

Originally Posted by followingtheway

Well, not all homosexuals are pedophiles. I'm straight but studies show there is a higher percentage of straight pedophiles then gay ones.

As a gay man, who has thought about joining the priesthood in the past. I want to just point out that pedophilia is not homosexuality. Pedophilia probably should fall below homosexuality on the scale of disordered sexuality. Right above bestiality.

I'm just saying, it's proven that child molesters don't care about which gender of who it is they rape. Just so long as it's a child. I mean... it's before they've even developed sexually anyways.

So, if you had 2 pedophiles and one of them raped 2 girls, and one raped a boy and a girl you wouldn't say that one was a straight pedophile and the other was a bisexual pedophile. You would say that they're both pedophiles.

Sorry if my language is too forward.

[Jaypeeto4]

Referring to the first five or six posts in the thread,
the heroic NYFD Priest was Father Mychal JUDGE, not Mychal Hedge.
People tried to say he was "gay." Implying sexually active.
There is NO evidence of that. But he did have SSA, as I understand it,
but was a GREAT guy. May he rest in God's peace.

As for SSA applying for the priesthood if celibate, this is very risky,
but shouldn't be absolutely forbidden, especially if the candidate has a fervent
life of prayer and penance, etc, constantly begging God, Christ, Holy Mary and the Saints for the strength to defeat SSA in his life.

A friend of mine, who went to the Seminary in Miami, Florida a few years ago,
was appalled to see some of the candidates for the priesthood
viewing explicit gay porno on the seminary's computers. The homosexuality
at that seminary at THAT TIME was apparently quite widespread, and he didn't feel comfortable there, and left it and decided not to pursue the priesthood.
(He had spoken to someone in authority at the school, and they apparently
took umbrage at him for reporting what those seminarians were doing and
told him he needed to lighten up. Priests-in-training watching gay porn,
yet HE was the one who was told to lighten up). Strange.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

[Jaypeeto4]

As a gay man, who has thought about joining the priesthood in the past. I want to just point out that pedophilia is not homosexuality. Pedophilia probably should fall below homosexuality on the scale of disordered sexuality. Right above bestiality.

I'm just saying, it's proven that child molesters don't care about which gender of who it is they rape. Just so long as it's a child. I mean... it's before they've even developed sexually anyways.

Hi. You are right. Most gays are not pedophiles.
But as for the church scandal, many of the molestations were NOT
of prepubescent children (though many also WERE). Still, most molested of
the prepubescents were little BOYS, not girls, so these priests had ssa in addition to pedophilia. And studies showed a couple of years ago, that a huge percentage of the molestations were male priests molesting teenaged boys between 14 and 17 years of age.
This is called, I think, ephebophilia (correction??). When you're talking about sexually mature (albeit under-the-legal-age) teenagers being molested by male priests, these priests are definitely gay or bi as well.
Ironically, depending on the age of the boy in question,
if the molestations of the teens (some of them) had taken place in certain very "liberal" and "sexually liberated" countries, with their lowered age-of-consent laws, many of these offending priests wouldn't be accused of any LAWBREAKING at all.
They would still be guilty of sin in the eyes of God, but not of the State in such countries.
Weird.

Love,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

[Dakota Roberts]

Originally Posted by Jaypeeto4

Referring to the first five or six posts in the thread,
the heroic NYFD Priest was Father Mychal JUDGE, not Mychal Hedge.
People tried to say he was "gay." Implying sexually active.
There is NO evidence of that. But he did have SSA, as I understand it,
but was a GREAT guy. May he rest in God's peace.

As for SSA applying for the priesthood if celibate, this is very risky,
but shouldn't be absolutely forbidden, especially if the candidate has a fervent
life of prayer and penance, etc, constantly begging God, Christ, Holy Mary and the Saints for the strength to defeat SSA in his life.

A friend of mine, who went to the Seminary in Miami, Florida a few years ago,
was appalled to see some of the candidates for the priesthood
viewing explicit gay porno on the seminary's computers. The homosexuality
at that seminary at THAT TIME was apparently quite widespread, and he didn't feel comfortable there, and left it and decided not to pursue the priesthood.
(He had spoken to someone in authority at the school, and they apparently
took umbrage at him for reporting what those seminarians were doing and
told him he needed to lighten up. Priests-in-training watching gay porn,
yet HE was the one who was told to lighten up). Strange.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

Heads rolled at the seminary in Miami when the higher ups found out, to call it a hotbed of sodomy wasn't far from the truth

[Elizabeth502]

Originally Posted by Mudgely

There have always been gay priests, and at least one documented gay pope. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with competence as a priest.

By what authority do you contradict a vowed religious Brother of the Church who not only understands why the Church has these regulations, but who has also been a formation director? As he said (and as I said earlier), a more complete dialogue (a context) about this is available on the referenced threads which one can travel to merely by clicking on the quotes I boxed. There are reasons for the Church's decisions. She has learned, in the negative, by not being clear about these matters in the past. She would know about what it takes to have a competent priest in the full sense of that word, because it would be the Church, not those outside Church authority, that has both the intellectual basis and acquired knowledge for such decisions.