Should gay men be allowed to become Priests, if effectively they are living with other men who are a temptation which means that is tantamount to hetero women living with hetero men? Wouldn’t the temptation be too much for them to sustain a celibate living, and therefore should avoid becoming a Priest altogether, like what Pope Benedict said about them and how they should be banned.
celibate is the wrong word, because celibate means cannot marry.
The word you are looking for is chaste live, living life of chastity. Just as it would be more difficult for a heterosexual man to live a chaste life with women, it would difficult for homosexual men to live a chaste life with men.
How difficult? Well that depends on the person. Just as it’s easy for men to romantically fall in love with close female friends/roommates, homosexual men can just as easily fall in love with close male friends/roommates. Even if the relationship is a chaste one.
Finally, I would argue that the best sexuality for a priest is to be asexual. It’s easier for him if he’s not attracted to anyone.
Cheers for clearing that up about the difference between celibate and chaste, celibate in secular culture means no fornication, so I suppose I was using it with that in mind.
Asexuality is hard to argue with. And, accidental romantic falling in love does happen, and it’s un-forseeable at previous times of moral conviction. This probably explains why a purported ‘half’ of the clerical population are gay and possibly practising.
I personally think that some men with SSA could make good priests. Unfortunately, the formation process isn’t really conducive to men with SSA remaining chaste and the Church’s first priority ought to be removing those priests who encourage a culture of sexual deviancy. I hope that someday they are able to accomodate those with SSA who are called to the priesthood.
The objection to homosexuals in the priesthood is two-fold. First is the issue with chastity and temptation, especially during the times they are living in community. But just as important is the goal to have healthy men in the priesthood - physically, mentally, spiritually and emotionally.
In central america specifically Costa Rica and panama men with SSA are not allowed in the seminary and the reasoning behind this is that under the CCC it is disordered and they won’t accept any applicant with any kind of disorder ranging from personality disorders to homosexuality and even OCD. They make applicants go through all kinds of psichological evaluations and the process is very rigourus and my understanding is that most applicants are rejected.
I think that makes sense, especially since it is not only targeted to SSA, and the rejection is on the ground that is a disordered attraction. However I am not sure what the basis would be in the US
The Vatican has said those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies cannot be admitted to seminaries or become priests–see www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/Vatican_says_prohibition_against_gays_in_seminaries_is_universal/
I realize that this thread raises a somewhat different question–whether or not they should be admitted to become priests. Still, the fact remains that the Church has determined that they should not be admitted to Catholic seminaries or be given holy orders.
For those who would like to read it, the Church’s official published decision about this is provided at www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html
Celibate means no sex.
Chaste means living up to one’s station in life.
A chaste married couple does not mean that they are celibate, it does mean that they honor their marriage vows in that they are celibate towards others but not each other.
As far as “Finally, I would argue that the best sexuality for a priest is to be asexual. It’s easier for him if he’s not attracted to anyone.”
I would say that NO ONE can choose to be asexual just as no one chooses to be heterosexual or homosexual.
If one is asexual than they are asexual and it is not their choice.
Haven’t we had enough problems with gay priests? I don’t want to be judgmental, but I wonder about them being able to teach about it being an evil. I am just against it and I think that they should be banned from the priesthood.
If God said that homosexuality was a disorder in the Jewish Religion for Priests, why would it make it right in the Catholic Church, answer is no, no, no. Living in Community of men would be to much of an attraction.
No, see the below links. Celibate does NOT mean no sex. It mean no marriage. The no sex part is implied since we are all called to be Chaste.
“continence” means no sex.
In regards to your asexual comments, I didn’t imply people could choose to be asexual. I wasn’t even saying that priest should or must be asexual. I was simply saying that it’s easier for an individual priest if he was asexual.
Believe it or not there are actually heterosexual priest going out and having sex with woman. How about we just ban them all. Let me see, priest must deal with women in their parish, in counseling, in classes. Do you not think heterosexual priest might not be tempted there? Not all the children abused by priest were male. Many priest picked boys because they thought they would be more shamed and not come forward.
The problem in the seminaries was not gay students. It was lax leaders – some of them so lax as to be predatory.
The Church has roundly repudiated the claim that gay people are incapable of being chaste. That is NOT one of the reasons that people with deep-seated homosexual tendencies are currently barred, nor does the Church document linked to above mention any worry that gay seminarians can’t resist their fellow seminarians.
As a SSA man who lived in college dorms with other men for three years, the notion that such an environment was “too much of a temptation” for me is utterly absurd. I was never tempted to come onto another guy in college. I don’t see why the seminary would be any different. (This is like the silly terror that gay guys in locker rooms are some sort of evil toxin.)
The Church’s teaching on the issue does not mention the near occasion of sin. It mentions affective maturity – in fact, it seems to define having “deep-seated” SSA as (a) having SSA, and (b) being affectively immature.
We have to understand the Churchs perspective on homosexuality in order to understand her position.
She holds to the truth regarding human sexuality, that with prayer, fasting, good works, self knowledge and obedience, a persons life in the spirit frees him enough from his primal nature to truly be a spiritual father to his flock. This goes for heterosexual and homosexual tendencies. It’s called affective maturity.
So when she says that those with ‘deep seated’ homosexual tendencies are not to be admitted to the seminary or Priesthood, she refers to those struggling to resist against those urges. That’s a sign of lack of affective maturity. Having worked towards this affective maturity and having lived 3 years without that slavish struggle, it is possible that a man could be admitted to the seminary. He would realise that prayer, fasting and receiving the sacraments continue to spiritually strengthen him against slipping back.
This is a good point because a seminarian with “deep seated” attraction towards women would lack affective maturity too.
Heterosexual men who struggle with lust or attraction are not admitted to the priesthood either.
But I guess the real reason this a topic is because some gay men with “deep seated” attraction towards men joined to Priesthood as an attempt to hide their sexual attractions from their family and friends.
If a seminarian can’t practice Chastity, then he’s not mature enough to be a priest.
This is not correct.
This should be discovered in the discernment process and should probably be some kind of red flag in the process.
A “deep seated attraction toward women” means that the candidate is a man with a normal libido. That’s a good thing, not a “red flag”. The Church doesn’t want men who are “asexual” or who have suppressed their sexuality. Neither does the Church want men who have little or no self-control. Of course, if someone has some kind of sexual obsession, that would be a disorder, a “red flag”.
If we are expecting all priest to have no major flaws or issues good luck with that. Heterosexual or homosexual or asexual, all priests are to fight their unwanted desire to serve God.
This is why I said that its important to understand the Churchs perspective because “deep seated homosexual tendencies” is not referring to the actual attraction towards men itself, but the tendency towards homosexual behaviours. A heterosexual male who was struggling with sexual behaviours, also demonstrates a lack of affective maturity which would make him an unsuitable candidate.
The Church upholds the truth that all people have the capacity to rise above base behaviours regardless of the propensity for it … and live life in the spirit. That is not something that secular philosophies put much stock in. Mostly, the life of the body is seen as the highest expression of the person and to not follow physical attraction to its destination, is equivilent to suppressing or oppressing the person themself.