CONTROVERSY IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: Homosexuals start to attack Crisis

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force ^ | National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

[Saundra Duffy]

Anyone who announces that the present crisis in the Church has nothing to do with homosexuality is lying to you That is exactly correct! It's pretty much ALL about homosexuality. Period!

[ELS]

So you would tell a homosexual man who had never violated the virtue of chastity that he was not called to the priesthood on the basis of his orientation alone, which even the Church says is not sinful?

In a word, Yes. The priesthood doesn't exist to validate the existence of celibate homosexuals. The Church accepts them and supports their effort to lead a holy life. They just aren't fit to become priests. Besides, placing a man with homosexual tendencies in the priesthood violates the guideline to avoid occasions of sin.

Men are turned away from the priesthood for many reasons. The purpose of the discernment process is to determine if the candidates are truly called.

[sinkspur]

The priesthood doesn't exist to validate the existence of celibate homosexuals. The Church accepts them and supports their effort to lead a holy life. They just aren't fit to become priests.

Would you deny that there are homosexual celibates in the priesthood today? Would you deny that there always have been? Were and are these men unfit to be priests?

Besides, placing a man with homosexual tendencies in the priesthood violates the guideline to avoid occasions of sin.

How? Seminary life? How is living next door to a man in a seminary any different from living next door to a woman in a college dormitory? Is that an occasion of sin? Is EVERYTHING an occasion of sin?

Actively homosexual men should not be admitted to the priesthood, as an actively heterosexual man should not either.

But seminary rectors have NEVER been able to effectively screen out all homosexual men from the priesthood; in fact, many of those rectors were likely homosexually-oriented themselves.

[Romulus]

I think you're on dangerous ground when you start "guessing" about sexual orientation.

One doesn't need to "guess" to spot overt queerness and systematic homosexual harassment in the seminaries. True, by suppressing these you may not identify and purge the devaiants, but at least you'll lower the toxicity to the point at which healthy men will be able to stay the course through ordination. Even that would be an improvement.

[Aunt Polgara]

Interesting. I wonder if this is going to be banished to the Religion forum.

[FormerLib]

Is it just me, or have the pro-homo groups suddenly gone very quiet about the Boy Scouts prohibiting homosexual scout masters?

Gee, you'd almost think these things were related somehow!

[Romulus]

Chaste homosexuality should be an impediment to ordination because it's an objective disorder. Should the church ordain someone who's retarded, or blind?

[MEGoody]

In reality, this would apply to heterosexual men as well. The temptations for either might be too great to bear. I'm not a Catholic, but as I recall being told by a former priest at one time, the Catholic church tries to prepare men for the celibacy required of the priesthood. . .but there's really nothing that can prepare someone for this on a day to day basis except daily picking up the cross of celibacy and following Jesus.

[ELS]

Would you deny that there are homosexual celibates in the priesthood today? Would you deny that there always have been? Were and are these men unfit to be priests?

No, no, I don't know. Just because they have been ordained in the past does not mean that an effort cannot be made to not ordain them in the future. Is it not better to err on the side of caution?

I had read you initial question So you would tell a homosexual man who had never violated the virtue of chastity that he was not called to the priesthood on the basis of his orientation alone, which even the Church says is not sinful? as pertaining to candidates to the priesthood, not ordained priests.

How? Seminary life? How is living next door to a man in a seminary any different from living next door to a woman in a college dormitory? Is that an occasion of sin? Is EVERYTHING an occasion of sin?

Occasions of Sin are external circumstances--whether of things or persons--which either because of their special nature or because of the frailty common to humanity or peculiar to some individual, incite or entice one to sin.

It is important to remember that there is a wide difference between the cause and the occasion of sin. The cause of sin in the last analysis is the perverse human will and is intrinsic to the human composite. The occasion is something extrinsic and, given the freedom of the will, cannot, properly speaking, stand in causal relation to the act or vicious habit which we call sin. There can be no doubt that in general the same obligation which binds us to refrain from sin requires us to shun its occasion.

[MEGoody]

As you stated, men are more frequently pedophiles than women. Kind of makes a good point in support of the Boy Scouts' policy on gay leaders.

On another note, isn't it interesting that the scandal in the Catholic church seems to be about priests molesting boys not girls.

[FormerLib]

It's possible that the homosexual lobby...will end up appearing sympathetic to the accused pedophiliacs.

I doubt they would be that honest! ;-)

[ELS]

Chaste homosexuality should be an impediment to ordination because it's an objective disorder. Should the church ordain someone who's retarded, or blind?

Thank you, you have stated my point more clearly and succinctly than I have.

[Dimensio]

What specific characteristics come under the name "effeminate"? Fondness for fresh floral arrangements? Five or more Maria Callas operas?

Perhaps you could ask about musical preference. If Judy Garland or Barbara Striesand come up, they're out.

[COBOL2Java]

Perhaps I can offer a useful perspective on this discussion.

I was a seminiarian for seven years, leaving 2 years short of ordination. The main reason that I left was I had discerned that celibacy (the heterosexual kind) was not my calling. It was my decision, and from the disappointed responses I received from my superiors, apparently the decision to leave was solely mine.

At no time during the course of my seminary training was I unfaithful to my perceived vocation. Twenty years later, I am happily married and a devout, practicing Catholic.

To this day I consider my seminary training to be a blessed stage in my life. We candidates were scrutinzed continually and were encouraged at every step of the way to prayerfully discern the direction in which The Lord was calling us. Our superiors were observing us constantly; psychological and spiritual screening was ongoing. Weekly attendance at a group session, moderated by a licensed psychiatrist (yes, the MD kind) was mandatory. The psychiatrist submitted annual reports to our superiors on his clinical opinion of each and every individual. A battery of psychological tests were given at regular intervals.

Every year, a candidate was required to announce his desire to remain. To do this he had to initiate one-on-one discussions with every single permanent member of the seminary community. At the end of this process, the permanent community met in secret to vote thumbs up or thumbs down on each of us. I can tell you that the evening of voting was an extremely stressful event! Individuals who were voted out were not given much time to transition; it was understood that you had already arranged for this contingency.

I can remember that some individuals admitted their homosexual tendencies. They were asked to leave immediately. As for any who were "suspected," I do not know the details, as it was a secret process among the permanent community, and not shared with seminiarians. However, some that I remember being "suspect" in my mind were one day told that they needed to leave. "Suspect behavior," for me, were the stereotypical homosexual mannerisms. Whether that was part of the decision to make people leave, I do not know (as I said, it was a secret decision) - I assume that it was only a single facet of the entire picture, the psychological screenings being more heavily weighted. Be that as it may, I can tell you that not all of those who exhibited these mannerisms left, and there were others who were asked to leave that did not show them; draw your own conclusions.

I hope this gives you an idea of how selective it was, at least in my particular seminary. I have remained in contact with this seminary, and I think they have done and continue to do an excellent job of priestly formation.

[Dimensio]

I'm tempted to locate and post a screencap from "Girls Gone Wild", but I have better taste.

[SkyPilot]

Just sharing a little bit of that "healthy" lifestyle.

[Illbay]

...we were rather alarmed that our glbt advocacy groups had not spoken out against the media sensationalizing of this story.

That's it, Homos. Continue to attack the messenger just as you successfully did with AIDS. As chronicled in detail in Bernard Goldberg's recent book Bias, the media entered into a devil's deal with the Homosexual lobby to put forth the grand myth of "heterosexual AIDS." Even to this day AIDS is almost exclusively a disease of the homosexual population, and those few heterosexuals who contract the virus do so from having sex with men who have had sex with other men.

So now, we've got to chide the media for leaving even the merest impression that there is a "link" between homosexuality and paedophilia.

Oh, the link is plainly there, but it's "bad politics" to announce it. So let's jump on the media, we know they'll listen to our arguments and desist.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

So you would tell a homosexual man who had never violated the virtue of chastity that he was not called to the priesthood on the basis of his orientation alone, which even the Church says is not sinful?

Whether we like it or not, this is the position of the Church:

A letter issued by the Sacred Congregation for Religious in Rome in 1961, states:

'Those affected by the perverse inclination to homosexuality or pederasty should be excluded from religious vows and ordination'".

The Church directive has never been rescinded and is still officially in force. All active U.S. cardinals should publicly affirm the Church's 1961 pronouncement against admitting homosexuals or pedophiles to the priesthood.

The Vatican was clear in the direction they are taking here with their statement two weeks ago that no homosexual should be admitted to the priesthood, and that the validity of their Holy Orders is called into question by their homosexual acts.

[Snuffington]

So you would tell a homosexual man who had never violated the virtue of chastity that he was not called to the priesthood on the basis of his orientation alone, which even the Church says is not sinful?

Homosexual "orientation" is not a Catholic concept. It belongs to modern psychology. In a Catholic world view homosexual tendencies are not an ontological component of one's identity.

Homosexual inclination should be treated the same as other sinful temptations. The Church should not place people into situations where they are likely to sin. It's Satan's role to tempt people, not the Church's.

If the Church could come up with clerical situations that do not pose such a risk to the spiritual lives of homosexually inclined clerics, there would be no problem. According to the testimony of current priests, that is not the case today.