Vatican City, Nov 30, 2018 / 05:00 pm ([CNA](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/)).- In a book-length interview to be published next week, Pope Francis addressed gifts and challenges for clerical and religious vocations, among them the challenge of homosexuality in the clergy.https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/in-new-book-on-clergy-and-religious-life-pope-francis-addresses-homosexuality-27409
“The issue of homosexuality is a very serious issue that must be adequately discerned from the beginning with the candidates, if that is the case. We have to be exacting. In our societies it even seems that homosexuality is fashionable and that mentality, in some way, also influences the life of the Church,” the pope says in the book “The Strength of a Vocation,” set to be released Dec. 3 in ten languages.
In an excerpt from the book, released Friday by Religión Digital, the pope said he is concerned about the issue of evaluating and forming people with homosexual tendencies in the clergy and consecrated life.
I don’t expect any controversy in this kind of thread. Mostly just posters agreeing with each other.
Yes I expect a general consensus of opinions and a balanced tone in discussion
“The issue of homosexuality is a very serious issue that must be adequately discerned from the beginning with the candidates, if that is the case. We have to be exacting. In our societies it even seems that homosexuality is fashionable and that mentality, in some way, also influences the life of the Church,”
I doubt there is a clear answer but I have been wondering if there is a subset of people with a tendency to seek the mystique of being ‘religious’ and ‘secretly’ sexual. I know there are aspects and depths to sexuality that we don’t know about. The current ‘fashionable mentality’ and modern understanding and acceptance of homosexuality ‘influences the life of the Church’ in such a way causing turbulence, exposure and division. I wonder if being ‘exacting’ with a candidate is sufficient to waylay further conflict. Personally, I feel the conversation needs to be more clear. We need to study the findings in the wake of all this - to better understand the nature and tendencies of human sexuality. Whatever the findings - the Church will maintain and not waiver moral authority on the matter.
“We don’t get harmony when everybody sings the same note. Only notes that are different can harmonize. The same is true with people.”
― Steve Goodier
And don’t forget flats, sharps, whole, half, quarter, eighth notes, etc.
Don’t you think that putting stipulations at the beginning of a conversation squashes healthy input?
It seems like there used to be. If being gay is more socially acceptable now, then the secrecy aspect isn’t necessary anymore, at least not outside of seminary.
An argument could be made that adequately discerning the candidates would be easier if people are more comfortable coming out today than they were in decades past.
I am thinking that sexual secrecy and being religious is still a ‘thing’ for a subset of homosexuals and heterosexuals despite the fact that gay living is socially accepted in many places. Maybe this will be revealed in the wake of studies. Adequately discerning the candidates won’t be as effective as exposing the facts - remove the mystique.
Case in point: Even today, reports of current improper heterosexual and homosexual relationships with ‘religious’ continue to trickle in.
There must be a way to scrub the mystique out to make way for those truly motivated to serve Christ. Defining and exposing the mystique is one way.
Maybe there are gold nuggets in the stories of the Mary who washed Jesus’ feet or the Mary who was almost stoned or the woman at the well who had many men.
Human sexuality can’t and shouldn’t be scrubbed away but exposure does bring healing light.
Sadly, some people WANT this to mean that no gay person should be in the priesthood. That is, no man with same-sex attraction is fit to serve. That’s NOT what Francis said.
Plus, that would be a major problem, since many priests have same-sex attraction.
I don’t know, but suspect, that the sense is that yes
- men with same sense attraction have served, the great majority of them probably well in the priesthood.
- Those who can continue to serve, anonymously, can continue, if no personal issues have arisen
- Some current clergy should leave
- Going forward, considering the scandal, considering there is a drastically different climate now than when the “anonymous” entered the priesthood, it would be prudent not to ordain gay men at all to priesthood.
At least for the time being until the message is made clear.
The fact that this is a major problem doesn’t mean it should not be dealt with. I believe that the Church needs to restore the integrity of the priesthood. If that means that my parish needs to go from 4 priests to 1, it is acceptable to fix the problem.
I don’t think “restoring the integrity of the priesthood” means kicking out priests with same-sex attraction.
Jesus help us with how we treat his people.
I just don’t feel inclined to post these other articles but trouble in Illinois and in LA, the Auxiliary Bishop is out. These both seem like big stories. I don’t really engage much in the scandal threads, I don’t have valuable input but read others remarks. It’s been some 24 hours.
80% of the assaults in the U.S. were homosexual in nature. Not everyone with SSA is a predator, but there is a strong enough correlation to say that SSA is not a good thing for the priesthood.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.