Posted on 09/13/2005 3:03:53 AM PDT by NYer
The American prelate overseeing a sweeping Vatican evaluation of every seminary in the United States told a weekly newspaper that men with "strong homosexual inclinations" should not be enrolled, even if they have remained celibate for years.
Archbishop Edwin O'Brien made the comments to the National Catholic Register newspaper as Roman Catholics await word of a much-anticipated Vatican document on whether homosexuals should be barred from the priesthood. O'Brien and several other U.S. bishops have said they expect that document to be released soon.
"I think anyone who has engaged in homosexual activity, or has strong homosexual inclinations, would be best not to apply to a seminary and not to be accepted into a seminary," O'Brien told the independent newspaper. He said that even gays who have been celibate for a decade or more should not be admitted, the Register reported in its Sept. 4-10 edition.
O'Brien, who leads the Archdiocese for the Military Services in Washington, declined through an assistant Monday to comment to The Associated Press.
The Vatican ordered the seminary review three years ago in response to the clergy sex abuse crisis to look for anything that contributed to the scandal, which has led to more than 11,000 abuse claims in the last five decades. The evaluation is set to begin later this month and much of the focus is expected to be on sexuality, including what seminarians are taught about maintaining their vow of celibacy.
The Vatican agency overseeing the evaluation - the Congregation for Catholic Education - is also reportedly drawing up guidelines for accepting candidates for the priesthood that could address the question of homosexual seminarians. The church considers gay relationships "intrinsically disordered."
A senior Vatican official had suggested previously that the document might have been shelved, but told The AP on Monday that he cannot rule out that a Vatican office might issue such a document. O'Brien told the Register that, "The Holy See should be coming out with a document about this."
James Hitchcock, an expert in church history at Saint Louis University, said that while it is impossible to know what Pope Benedict XVI has decided regarding the document, the archbishop's comments should not be dismissed as simply one man's view.
"O'Brien is well-connected and probably knows what the thinking in Rome is," Hitchcock said. "Officially, he's not speaking for the Vatican, but he's not speaking out of tune with the Vatican either."
The debate over gays in the priesthood reached a crisis point last year when a study that the U.S. bishops commissioned from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice found that most of the alleged abuse victims since 1950 were adolescent boys.
The exact number of gay seminarians is not known. Estimates vary dramatically from one-quarter to more than half of all American priest-candidates. However, several Catholic leaders say the gay presence is so large that heterosexual seminarians feel alienated and many have dropped out over the years. Yet, even these leaders concede there is no easy way to enforce a ban on gay priest-candidates, since many do not discover they are homosexual until after they enroll and others may simply hide their sexual orientation from seminary administrators.
As part of the seminary evaluation, 117 bishops and seminary staff will visit 229 campuses over the next year and then present their findings to the Vatican.
Debbie Weill, executive director of DignityUSA, which represents gay and lesbian Catholics, accused bishops of "scapegoating" gays to divert attention from the failure of church leaders to protect children.
"There's a long history in the Catholic Church for centuries of gay priests serving the church well," Weill said. "For the Catholic Church now to suddenly ban gay priests, it would be a very foolish decision and harmful for the church overall."
---_
On the Net:
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: http://www.usccb.org/
DignityUSA: http://www.dignityusa.org/
False. There was no policy reversal; celibate continence was expected --though not universally practiced -- in the West back to the 3rd Century and before. What happened at the Lateran council was that the long-standing discipline was reiterated. (And it was still ignored, especially in northern Europe, even after the council.)
I read an interesting article about gender roles of the priest and how they changed with the change in the Mass after Vatican II. Perhaps this was a factor as well. Maybe the tradtionalists are right? If so, then perhaps the formal allowance to retain the old way from JPII and Benedict was more critical than many had ever thought. Perhaps the solutiuon is there!
That's ridiculous, there's a slew of famous sainted priests who were married. It was hardly a long standing practice. Why don't you read the actual history of it, and the writings of the church leaders at the time?
http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Celibacy.html
http://marriage.about.com/od/historyofmarriage/ss/marriedpopes.htm
http://www.uscatholic.org/1999/02/sb9902.htm
http://www.marriedpriests.org/Reasons.html
Ever heard of the Council of Elvira?
Why don't you read the actual history of it, and the writings of the church leaders at the time?
I have. Have you? The Lateran council wasn't inventing anything new; councils generally don't. Read the book "The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy" by Cochini.
Don't believe most of what liberals tell you about Church history; they pick and choose what they want to be true.
Why don't you tell that to Saint Peter's wife.
Are you saying they made up the several scripture references?
This is just more Catholic revisionist history.
"even if they have remained celibate for years"
Yeah, like that's ever happened in the history of the world.
"...gays who have been celibate for a decade or more..."
Let me translate: "Men who suffer from same-sex attraction disorder and are dishonestly claiming to have been celibate for a decade or more..."
"And by the way, "struggler" would not be specific: it could be one who struggled with homosexuality, or the more typical kinds of lust"
What's missing from your equation is that sexual desire for the same sex is not a natural component of the human being as is sexual desire for the opposite sex.
It is a symptom of a mental disorder, and the first best chance of a sufferer to find happiness is to get into treatment.
That's a valid point, and some people who get treatment do get good results, defined as (1) partial or complete relief from obsessive ideation or compulsive behavior, or (2) gaining the ability to abstain from objectively disordered acts, or (3)re-directing the sex drive in such a way that normal marriage is possible.
But some do, and some don't. There are people who have spent years, and a small fortune, trying to find "sexual healing" of this sort, and really and truly, the therapies didn't work for them.
The Church doesn't require treatment. The Church doesn't require "becoming heterosexual." All the Church requires is abstaining from disordered sexual acts, and, of course, striving to grow in holiness.
Please notice that I'm not knocking reparative therapies.e normally. But it't not the answer for everyone, and it's not helpful to insist that it is.
"But it't not the answer for everyone, and it's not helpful to insist that it is."
I called it "the first best chance," which I don't believe implies "the answer for everyone."
As with any human endeavor, there is a possibility of failure. However, I think it should be tried.
And, naturally, I think faith and prayer are a great aid in such treatments. A patient who is without faith is, I think, at a disadvantage in seeking a cure.
As for people who do have faith, seek a cure in good faith, and still fail, I would ask the question, "Is it more important to seek happiness in this life, or to become worthy of the promises of Christ?"
Our Lady told St. Bernadette that she would not be happy in this life, but in the next. Perhaps that should be their model.
You're quite right about this, and I certainly agree. No matter how painful it may be to reject sinful impulses, we are all obliged to do so. And for the rest of our lives. Making frequent use of the Sacrament of Confession and Holy Communion and praying for God's mercy and strength. That's all of us.
My particular question, though, is: say you're a youth or a man struggling with same-sex attraction, tried therapy, it didn't work, but you still intend to try to live by God's law: what's the best way to "map out" the rest of your life?
Marriage is ruled out. So is priesthood. So is the monastery. That leaves: living as a "single" male "in the world" with its constant temptations, which are abnormally persistent and persuasive because of your abnormal condition (you fear this would lead to frequent falls); or being a hermit; or --- what? Maybe being a handyman in a convent? (That would provide some shelter from same-sex opportunities!)
Men friends who are struggling with this have asked me (for some reason) for guidance, and I'm concerned and perplexed. I guess I need to hear some true-life stories of people who are trying to do the right thing, and have not only "survived" but thrived.
Pure bovine excrement. You are woefully ignorant of the topic you are attempting to opine on.
'They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, "Remember thou the Lord." Such was the marriage of the blessed and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them.
Thus also the apostle says, "that he who marries should be as though he married not," and deem his marriage free of inordinate affection, and inseparable from love to the Lord; to which the true husband exhorted his wife to cling on her departure out of this life to the Lord.'
I have read up quite a bit on this topic, your problem is that you are reading revisionist vatican propaganda written after the fact to try to substantiate a practice that was never part of the church.
Christ choose married men to preach the word of God, of the apostles he choose a married apostle to head the church, and most of the original popes were married men.
There is nothing in the bible of Christ asking the apostles to forsake their vows to their wives.
A MAN asked priest to abandon their call to marrige, Christ himself did not, and nor should the church.
The works of Clement of Alexandria were first edited by P. Victorius (Florence,1550). The most complete edition is that of J. Potter, "Clementis Alexandrini opera quae extant omnia" (Oxford, 1715; Venice, 1757), reproduced in Migne, P.G. VIII, IX. (From the newadvent web site).
You're referencing as your source an at best 1550 revision of a book written around 220.
http://www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/glossary/clementa.html
Clement also held gnostics in high esteem.
It's worth noting that he was also considered by some to be a heretic:
http://www.answers.com/topic/clement-of-alexandria
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd02092.htm
The notion that Peter ceased in relations with his wife has not scriptural basis and is merely conjecture:
http://www.allsaintssanfran.org/Twelve%20Apostles/Peter/PETER%20A%20CHRISTIAN%20ENIGMA.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.