No priests are "out" as gay - Page 3

Gorillaman · #31 Jun 8, '12, 12:35 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnneTeresa

I had a conversation with some friends recently over gay priests. These friends are very liberal and anti-catholic. One friend said something about a priest being gay and seemed to imply that was bad. I said there is no reason a gay person can't be a priest, they just can't act on it. She said, do you know any "out" gay priests?

Well I do not. But I've been thinking about it and what does it matter if they are "out" as gay or not? They took a vow of celibacy just like a heterosexual priest did so why would it matter at all if they are gay and if they are "out" or not? They have done nothing wrong, correct? Also she seemed to think there were a large number of priests who are gay. But again, so what? I work with a large number of gay people. How is that any different?

Is my thinking correct for a catholic? I often don't know what to say about homosexuality when things like this come up. I am also somewhat conflicted myself on teachings about homosexuality and it is very liberal where I live and work. I have noticed at times that if you don't agree on something like homosexual marriage, they think you are disrespecting them, even if you are not.

First of all let me say that I thnk any type of thinking is ok as a catholic....

but furthermore I can say that I went to mass one Sunday, and man oh man was this father effeminate ...it was almost hard to pay attention because the same question you asked kept going in my mind, I was also a little resentful for him putting his personality and almost flamboyant demeanor into the words...but then, I stopped judging , and started listening....and you know when you just see a priest and he's just up there GETTING IT, haha he has the holy spirit, he's not only saying the words but you can see he FEELS IT, this priest was like that, he was making the people laugh and even got those old couples who you know are more than a little uncomfortable with homosexuals start laughing and enjoying the love he gave. That's all I have to say about that.

LoyalViews · #32 Jun 8, '12, 6:47 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aelred Minor

A literalistic interpretation the prohibition on men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" could easily lead one to the conclusion that all men who are really attracted to other men (excluding mere youthful confusion) are barred from the priesthood. This is especially true considering that other Church documents seem to use the word "tendencies" the way the secular world uses the word "orientation" (I can look this up again if challenged, but for now I'm too lazy

).

However, I've heard several accounts, including one from a highly respectable CAF member who was once, if I recall correctly, a vocations director, claiming that this is not the proper interpretation, and that guidance from the Vatican itself has indicated that the proper definition of "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" has more to do with identification of oneself as homosexual than the raw fact of who a person is attracted to. I've also encountered the claim that Vatican officials were surprised and baffled by how rigorously some people in the English-speaking world were interpreting the directive.

I don't fully understand the matter myself and I have no firsthand knowledge of any of this, but the situation does seem to be complex, and it may be that the vagueness of the language of the actual document was intentional, in order to provide some room for interpretation in individual cases. Maybe this is something for most of us laypeople to leave to the people directly involved with the process to interpret and apply, rather than proclaiming half-informed judgments ourselves.

Indeed. I think that what was implied in the original Latin or Italian, was not translated as such into the English......OR...it is a proper translation, but not a right interpretation as you said.

"Deep-seated" would to me mean the whole deal. Identifies and acts effeminately, not just the mere attraction. You've also got to take into account the fact that the document says something along the lines of "or men who support the so-called gay culture, etc" (paraphrase).

Dakota Roberts · #33 Jun 8, '12, 10:30 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoyalViews

Indeed. I think that what was implied in the original Latin or Italian, was not translated as such into the English......OR...it is a proper translation, but not a right interpretation as you said.

"Deep-seated" would to me mean the whole deal. Identifies and acts effeminately, not just the mere attraction. You've also got to take into account the fact that the document says something along the lines of "or men who support the so-called gay culture, etc" (paraphrase).

Remember, only the Latin versions of the documents are absolutely assured in contents.

FaithBuild18 · #34 Jun 9, '12, 6:13 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texsain

True. It's a culturally-loaded term. In reality, many, if not most, people fit on some scale between predominately hetero vs homo-sexual attraction.

Are the majority of men really at least somewhat attracted to other men? I can't even fathom this being the case. Is this really the case? I mean, have I and all of my guy friends been somehow secretly lying all these years about how disgusting men are and how gorgeous women are? I just can't even imagine that MOST men are even slightly attracted to other men.

Dakota Roberts · #35 Jun 9, '12, 1:05 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by FaithBuild18

Are the majority of men really at least somewhat attracted to other men? I can't even fathom this being the case. Is this really the case? I mean, have I and all of my guy friends been somehow secretly lying all these years about how disgusting men are and how gorgeous women are? I just can't even imagine that MOST men are even slightly attracted to other men.

I think they are confusing recognizing another guy is attractive and being sexual attracted. Most men can tell that some guys are attractive, this doesn't mean they think they are hot, it means they can size up a competitor.

tarboy · #36 Jun 9, '12, 2:12 pm

quote=Dale_M;9374474 I don't think its part of canon law, however the Vatican issued guidelines in 2005 which says pretty much the same thing.[/color]

Quote:

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. .

Thanks for sharing Dale
Personally, i find the position to be a bit hypocritical since both straight and gay priests lack experience in marriage etc. What they need to relate is maturity, the skill of empathy, and the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

Aelred Minor · #37 Jun 9, '12, 2:47 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoyalViews

Indeed. I think that what was implied in the original Latin or Italian, was not translated as such into the English......OR...it is a proper translation, but not a right interpretation as you said.

"Deep-seated" would to me mean the whole deal. Identifies and acts effeminately, not just the mere attraction. You've also got to take into account the fact that the document says something along the lines of "or men who support the so-called gay culture, etc" (paraphrase).

I doubt acting effeminately is part of the total package the Vatican is thinking about here. There are lots of adamantly homosexual men who are not particularly effeminate.

Aelred Minor · #38 Jun 9, '12, 2:53 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota Roberts

Remember, only the Latin versions of the documents are absolutely assured in contents.

If I recall correctly the original Instruction was in Italian, and it was from this Italian original that translations were made. I don't know if an official Latin version was subsequently produced. It's not uncommon, I believe, for much of the ordinary business of the Vatican to be done in Italian and never translated into Latin. This may fall into that category

Anyway, whatever the language, this is not a teaching document much less an infallible one so I don't think anything is "absolutely assured," unless you mean absolutely assured of being the Church's current policy.

Hadrianus · #39 Jun 10, '12, 4:45 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aelred Minor

If I recall correctly the original Instruction was in Italian, and it was from this Italian original that translations were made. I don't know if an official Latin version was subsequently produced. It's not uncommon, I believe, for much of the ordinary business of the Vatican to be done in Italian and never translated into Latin. This may fall into that category

Anyway, whatever the language, this is not a teaching document much less an infallible one so I don't think anything is "absolutely assured," unless you mean absolutely assured of being the Church's current policy.

Whatever the original language, Vatican officials are often bewildered by the rigorist way in which Americans interpret them. This applies to all sorts of norms of canon law and other Vatican instructions. The correct Roman principle is "odiosa sunt restringenda": meaning that negative penalties are to be restricted to their narrowest sense. The American and Germanic approach seems to be the exact opposite.