[quote="MPSchneiderLC, post:17, topic:274280"]
Exactly. Here the Vatican just leaves it at "deep-seated tendencies" which caused some problems. (It lacks the clarity and decisiveness Americans would like, but instead gives a general guideline each bishop can apply prudently.) A few days after this document, the WSJ had an editorial attacking the Church for banning all with SSA from the ministry. As far as I can see, Deep-seated tendencies would refer to someone who identifies himself as homosexual to the extent that:
a. the bishop / superior can't trust he will remain chaste, or
b. his dealings with others are as a HOMOSEXUAL in a way that hinders his complete imagining of Christ as an Alter Christus.
It does not seem to ban all with SSA.
Those are my thoughts; I am by no means an expert.
Couldn't some interpret "deep seated" as not being able to change or something. As in: if someone felt they could become heterosexual, or described themselves as "bisexual" these people might be eligible to the priesthood? Whereas people that felt SSA was a cross they would bear their entire lives might not be eligible, because it is deep seated?
Personally, I would definitely not fit into either of those 2 things you list. I'm still a virgin, I've never had sexual or romantic encounters of any kind for that matter. And at this point I'm committed to keeping it that way. And I do know what you're saying. Some people are so blatantly homosexual about everything that they are that it just rubs off in EVERYTHING they talk about or do. But, for myself most people have no reason to not think that I'm straight.
Am I right to think that the intent of this is to keep out progressive priests who might secretly want the Church to change its position on homosexuality? or God forbid, even gay marriage? As well as people they can't trust to be celibate? Do those people have "deep seated homosexual tendencies"... or do all the people with SSA that follow under my first description fall under "deep seated homosexual tendencies?"