Guard Our Priesthood. Get better Priests


#1

renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100424


#2

[quote="DasErlibnis, post:1, topic:269310"]
renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100424

[/quote]

I'm sorry the article is long so I didn't read the whole thing.

What have you gleaned from reading the article?

By "guard our priesthood", are you saying that seminarians with SSA should not be admitted into the priesthood?


#3

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Exactly.


#4

[quote="DasErlibnis, post:3, topic:269310"]
That's exactly what I'm saying.

Exactly.

[/quote]

I think I will go with what the Church has to say on this.

But then I do not make such decisions, my superiors do.

There is something to be said about obedience. It is something that is lacking within our Church today.


#5

Byzcath, we've had this conversation before. i'm pretty straight forward about what a "same sex tendency" is. And i don't like to muddle the grounds. so i'm altogether certain that i'm with actual Church teaching on this one despite that there are renegade American/western priests and vocation directors who always think they've found a loop hole by playing with ambiguities. if we were having this conversation among African or Asian priests, then it would be case closed,

(SSA) Same-sex Attraction is the very same as a same-sex (homosexul) tendency.

that's a pretty easy conclusion for people who aren't promoting an agenda of "inclusive theology".

do ya really wanna repeat round 1 over again? better to just give someone else a chance than that we rehash the same argument.


#6

I have some slight issues with this essay.

  1. It mentions the work of Alfred Kinsey, and there are some controversies regarding in particular parts of his work regarding pedophiles and homosexuals. He interviewed on pedophile and then tried to pass it off as being from multiple sources. He also greatly over-represents homosexuals.
  2. It fails to note the pedophilia, regardless of sexual orientation, is recognised as a disordered state and is very much separate from sexual orientation.
  3. It fails to address the nature of the offenders themselves. It no-where mentions whether they are preferential or opportunistic offenders and in what proportions these occur among the offenders, which is very relevant information for these kinds of conclusions.
  4. I simply think it over-associated pedophilia and homosexuality. They are not the same thing and this article almost tries to argue that they are.
  5. I think it tried to shift the blame too much away from the priests who committed these atrocious abuses.

However, it does speak very clearly and very eloquently against the "born this way" argument. It also makes a very good point about the rates of abuse amongst married clergy being higher than the rates of abuse amongst celibate clergy.


#7

[quote="DasErlibnis, post:5, topic:269310"]
Byzcath, we've had this conversation before. i'm pretty straight forward about what a "same sex tendency" is. And i don't like to muddle the grounds. so i'm altogether certain that i'm with actual Church teaching on this one despite that there are renegade American/western priests and vocation directors who always think they've found a loop hole by playing with ambiguities. if we were having this conversation among African or Asian priests, then it would be case closed,

(SSA) Same-sex Attraction is the very same as a same-sex (homosexul) tendency.

that's a pretty easy conclusion for people who aren't promoting an agenda of "inclusive theology".

do ya really wanna repeat round 1 over again? better to just give someone else a chance than that we rehash the same argument.

[/quote]

You have brought it up again. I did not. I, in christian charity, am required to respond any time I see someone misrepresenting the Teaching of the Church.

The documents, as you very well know and was covered the last time you brought up this issue, speak of a "deep seated" SSA. You do not wish to acknowledge this.

You state your opinion but you go to far and try to say that this is what the Church Teaches. You have a right to your opinion but you do not have any authority to interpret the documents in question. That is for the bishop and religious superiors to do. Some of them interpret it your way, others do not. Rome has not stated that either side is wrong.

So when it comes down to the opinion of an anonymous internet user with no authority and the statements from bishops/religious superiors with authority, I am going to stand with the Church which is the bishops/religious superiors. That's part of obedience which every Catholic, not just those in vows. owe the Church.


#8

In that case..I stand with the bishops who have correctly rendered the document. I don't use the word "interpretation" for the reason that it doesn't need interpretation, it says what it says and it is plain, except to those who do not accept the document as is, and who want to mangled its significance, like trying to re-interpret Leviticus and such.

And if I agree with my bishop, then clearly I'm in obedience. But even if I didn't, I'd still have to obey conscience regarding a document that, according to you, needs interpretation. In any case, if it as you say, that no "side" is wrong, then where would someone, vowed or not, fall into disobedientlce? But thats moot for now isn't it, because thats a whole different conversation isn't it?


#9

[quote="DasErlibnis, post:8, topic:269310"]
In that case..I stand with the bishops who have correctly rendered the document. I don't use the word "interpretation" for the reason that it doesn't need interpretation, it says what it says and it is plain, except to those who do not accept the document as is, and who want to mangled its significance, like trying to re-interpret Leviticus and such.

And if I agree with my bishop, then clearly I'm in obedience. But even if I didn't, I'd still have to obey conscience regarding a document that, according to you, needs interpretation. In any case, if it as you say, that no "side" is wrong, then where would someone, vowed or not, fall into disobedientlce? But thats moot for now isn't it, because thats a whole different conversation isn't it?

[/quote]

Wrong. The current document states "deeply seated" homosexual tendencies. This required interpretation.

I would also note, that those bishops who have implemented the document that you do not stand with have not been corrected by the Church.

I have done by christian duty in pointing out the error. I will move on so that I do not get uncharitable.

I will pray for you, please pray for me.

Here is a link to where this has been hashed out before.

Help: Vatican document on homosexuals


#10

[quote="DasErlibnis, post:8, topic:269310"]
In that case..I stand with the bishops who have correctly rendered the document. I don't use the word "interpretation" for the reason that it doesn't need interpretation, it says what it says and it is plain, except to those who do not accept the document as is, and who want to mangled its significance, like trying to re-interpret Leviticus and such.

And if I agree with my bishop, then clearly I'm in obedience. But even if I didn't, I'd still have to obey conscience regarding a document that, according to you, needs interpretation. In any case, if it as you say, that no "side" is wrong, then where would someone, vowed or not, fall into disobedientlce? But thats moot for now isn't it, because thats a whole different conversation isn't it?

[/quote]

I would like to ask that you act more charitably to Brother David. He is a Religious and deserves your respect. He wouldn't mind as much if you said "Brother, I will have to respectfully disagree. Doesn't the Catechism say...?".

I unfortunately used to speak to Brother David uncharitably as well, when he was just trying to help me. Please, show him your respect. He's a Carmelite to help people like you and I.


#11

Brother,

"Deep-seated" isn't a matter for interpretation, its a matter for judgment, by the bishops.

I pray.


#12

[quote="DasErlibnis, post:11, topic:269310"]
Brother,

"Deep-seated" isn't a matter for interpretation, its a matter for judgment, by the bishops.

I pray.

[/quote]

Now we are just playing with semantics.

You know what I have been saying. The superior must decide what deep-seated means and determine if the potential candidate meets that criteria. If he does then he is not accepted, if he does not then he may be accepted as a candidate provided he meets all the other criteria for entry.


#13

Ah, yes, the semantics. It seems you finally are grasping my position. There's a difference between people who always mean just what they say, and people who are constantly twisting words in order to suit their own sense of self.

It's like the Scriptures. That whole Sola Scriptura has been expanded to mean "I can interpret scripture in whatever way suits me best because I have no authority over me because religion is bad."

And so they say that sodom and gomorrah were burnt down because of a lack of hospitality, and they say leviticus was just a cultural law, and they think Romans was not about homosex but about prostitution and pedophilia, and they think Corinthians did not mean anything about gays, and that church documents regarding samesex attraction are not really about homosexuality because they invent some magical invisible wall that they want to convince us really separates them from the gays on tv.

"But in the beginning it was not so."

Leviticus was inspiredly written to express God's repulsivity toward sodomy and homosex relations. It was not a mere cultural law, it expressed God's own feeling toward the thought of it, disgust, abomination. An abomination is something that makes you gag or throw up. Sodom and Gomorrah was inspiredly written for the purpose of prefiguring God's judgment against sodomites.or homosexuals. Romans was inspiredly written to make known that judgment when it says "there is no heaven" for those people. And Corinthians too when it says "they have received into themselves their due penalty" reveals the intrinsically disordered character which is later expressed in our Catechism.

And now, here we have clear Church documents that don't really say anything new, but only zoom in on these behaviors within a particular group, seminarians. And of course there are those infiltrators who say it doesn't mean what it says. But they won't calculate for you the difference between a 'strong tendency' or any other tendency. They won't say what it means to support the "so-called gay culture". They try to justify themselves. They say "as long as they're not having sodomy, then they are fine to enter seminary".

But it is not so. And in the same way that there are those whom Scripture says will bend and twist scripture in order to preach a gospel "different from our own", so also they will do it with the rest of our deposit of faith. They will do it from positions of authority. They will stand behind their collars preaching that which was not given to them.

I know these things too well. I've seen it first hand in my seminary. And they justify themselves in the same way that you have brother. Not to say that you are the same as them, only that they have used your exact argument, and the appeal to authirity, which is a fallacy!

These same seminarians were not afraid, in fact they were encouraged: to use their fake lisps, long ssssss's, dainty feminine mannerisms, they used Halloween as a justification for dressing in Drag on that night, they expressed solidarity with the Red Velvet Mafia (an influential group of gay priests who haunt the online forums and parishes), they constantly sought positions of influence, especially among youth, like in Boy Scouts, college campuses, youth groups, etc. Now they have been ordained and hold positions like Vocations Directors, Secretary to the Bishops, and even Rector of the seminary. They were supported and encouraged all along by no less than the priest who was assigned to be the psychological counselor for all the gay-teen sex scandals among the priests.

More than 90% of those cases were not pedophilia as the media said. No, they were adult gay males hiding behind the collar and the power of the pulpit in order to prey upon and seduce teenage boys into a homosex relationship with promises of salvation and prosperity.

And I am set against them ever entering seminary. Period. And now here you stand, trying to advocate to leave that door cracked slightly open. You can be on the other side if you want. I will pray for you.


#14

[quote="PerfectTiming, post:6, topic:269310"]
I have some slight issues with this essay.

  1. It mentions the work of Alfred Kinsey, and there are some controversies regarding in particular parts of his work regarding pedophiles and homosexuals. He interviewed on pedophile and then tried to pass it off as being from multiple sources. He also greatly over-represents homosexuals.
  2. It fails to note the pedophilia, regardless of sexual orientation, is recognised as a disordered state and is very much separate from sexual orientation.
  3. It fails to address the nature of the offenders themselves. It no-where mentions whether they are preferential or opportunistic offenders and in what proportions these occur among the offenders, which is very relevant information for these kinds of conclusions.
  4. I simply think it over-associated pedophilia and homosexuality. They are not the same thing and this article almost tries to argue that they are.
  5. I think it tried to shift the blame too much away from the priests who committed these atrocious abuses.

However, it does speak very clearly and very eloquently against the "born this way" argument. It also makes a very good point about the rates of abuse amongst married clergy being higher than the rates of abuse amongst celibate clergy.

[/quote]

The John Jay survey determined that the majority of abuse was between priests and teen boys.

That's not pedophilia. That's homosexual pederasty.

Unchaste unfaithful same sex attracted priests.


#15

[quote="DasErlibnis, post:13, topic:269310"]
Ah, yes, the semantics. It seems you finally are grasping my position. There's a difference between people who always mean just what they say, and people who are constantly twisting words in order to suit their own sense of self.

[/quote]

Very disrespectful.

And I am set against them ever entering seminary. Period. And now here you stand, trying to advocate to leave that door cracked slightly open. You can be on the other side if you want. I will pray for you.

I will take your prayers but your attitude is something else.

You totally misrepresent what I am saying and distort actual Church Teaching. You state your opinion as fact which it is not.

I will pray for you.


#16

Last I heard, there are over twenty thousand Saints, most of them being Priests and Religious. Isn't it a bit far-fetched to say that not one of them had same sex attraction?


#17

[quote="ATeutonicKnight, post:16, topic:269310"]
Last I heard, there are over twenty thousand Saints, most of them being Priests and Religious. Isn't it a bit far-fetched to say that not one of them had same sex attraction?

[/quote]

Seeing that it is extremely hard, if not impossible, to prove a negative, then the answer would have to be yes it would be "far-fetched" to say that but I am sure I will be tarred for agreeing with you.


#18

[quote="ByzCath, post:4, topic:269310"]
I think I will go with what the Church has to say on this.

But then I do not make such decisions, my superiors do.

There is something to be said about obedience. It is something that is lacking within our Church today.

[/quote]

If your argument is in opposition to my argument, then this is insinuative, and borderline ad hominem.

[quote]Ah, yes, the semantics. It seems you finally are grasping my position. There's a difference between people who always mean just what they say, and people who are constantly twisting words in order to suittheir own sense of self.

Very disrespectful.
[/quote]

After reading your language first, and then reading mine. You sound a lot like the pot calling the kettle black.

Last I heard, there are over twenty thousand Saints, most of them being Priests and Religious. Therefore [sic] Isn't it a bit far-fetched to say that not one of them had same sex attraction?

Well..Teutonic, how many saints would you say are gay? If you pose impossible questions, you get impossible answers. It's called fallacy. I suppose next you would try to say that David and Samuel were gay together. Yes..we've all heard that senseless argument before. It's garbage too. Are you going to give us the line about Michelangelo too? And the line about Greek or Roman culture? And what about Saint Francis? Yes, I've heard his name dragged through the mud too.

But I think the greater fallacy is looking at the American priesthood as an all-encompassing view of the whole priesthood, since you virtually limit your scope to priests and religious. You did also therefore imply that there is something gay about being a priest, which I think most people would object to.


#19

[quote="DasErlibnis, post:18, topic:269310"]
If your argument is in opposition to my argument, then this is insinuative, and borderline ad hominem.

After reading your language first, and then reading mine. You sound a lot like the pot calling the kettle black.

Well..Teutonic, how many saints would you say are gay? If you pose impossible questions, you get impossible answers. It's called fallacy. I suppose next you would try to say that David and Samuel were gay together. Yes..we've all heard that senseless argument before. It's garbage too. Are you going to give us the line about Michelangelo too? And the line about Greek or Roman culture? And what about Saint Francis? Yes, I've heard his name dragged through the mud too.

But I think the greater fallacy is looking at the American priesthood as an all-encompassing view of the whole priesthood, since you virtually limit your scope to priests and religious. You did also therefore imply that there is something gay about being a priest, which I think most people would object to.

[/quote]

I would never say that Saint Francis was gay, nor David and Samuel. I'm simply saying that out of twenty thousand Saints, one of them had to have this. God calls all to the Priesthood and Religious life, regardless of attraction.

I implied that there was something gay about being a Priest? Have you even looked at my signature? I want to be a Priest. I'm not a homosexual, trust me. But I do believe that God calls all to the Priesthood and Religious life, and that their sexual orientation is irrelevant. Everyone that joins the Religious life and Priesthood must sacrifice their sexuality. A man that has a sexual orientation to a woman has as much lust as a man that has a sexual orientation to another man, and they can both fulfill the temptation just as easy.


#20

[quote="ATeutonicKnight, post:19, topic:269310"]
I would never say that Saint Francis was gay, nor David and Samuel. I'm simply saying that out of twenty thousand Saints, one of them had to have this. God calls all to the Priesthood and Religious life, regardless of attraction.

I implied that there was something gay about being a Priest? Have you even looked at my signature? I want to be a Priest. I'm not a homosexual, trust me. But I do believe that God calls all to the Priesthood and Religious life, and that their sexual orientation is irrelevant. Everyone that joins the Religious life and Priesthood must sacrifice their sexuality. A man that has a sexual orientation to a woman has as much lust as a man that has a sexual orientation to another man, and they can both fulfill the temptation just as easy.

[/quote]

The problem is the use of a broad definition of "Gay".

If a person suffers some form of SSA but does not act on it then they are not a homosexual. I would not call them "Gay".

There are some people out there that believe that everyone one whats to be a priest must be a homosexual.

There are some who have experienced some sort of SSA (though not acting on it) who are so repulsed and in denial that they attack anything that even hints at SSA being something that might be something that everyone experiences at one point in their life.

No man who is sexually active should be considered as a candidate for religious life/priesthood. No man who has recently been sexually active or in a relationship should be considered. No man who actively supports any sinful life style (homosexual lifestyle is one but not the only one) should not be considered.

A man who suffers from some sort of SSA which is determined not to be "deep seated" (which means he is not acting out on it or supporting the life style) should not automatically be removed from consideration just as a man who has had heterosexual sex outside of marriage (fornication) or had heterosexual sex with a married woman (adultery) should not be removed from consideration.

Someone who supports that no man suffering from SSA (in any degree) should not be considered for the priesthood/religious life should then also support that any man who has had sex outside of marriage (either fornication or adultery) should not be considered.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.