Vatican plan to block gay priests

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='track2004' date='Aug 30 2005, 02:37 AM']I guess I just can't comprehend that something that cannot be controlled can be as morally reprehensible as you are saying it is.  Maybe it's because I am liberal by your standards, maybe it's because I am a psych student, maybe it's because I'm not straight.  At any rate, I think that the Catholic homosexual community is treated unfairly and sometimes as untouchables because of our sexuality rather than looking at what makes us desire to be Catholic to begin with.
[right][snapback]704819[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm a psych student too, and my studies have only reinforced the idea that homosexuality is disordered and not something in which to indulge. I actually am rather sick of psychology and the way it selectively ignores the problems associated with deviant lifestyles. Instead of linking meth use among homosexuals to their homosexuality, they try to find other factors. Instead of recognizing the low self-esteem that comes from identifying yourself by what sex you like to have, they blame a lack of social acceptance. Psychology that doesn't acknowledge the moral and spiritual is pure and utter BUNK. They very rarely talk about how SSA was removed from the DSM...
Catholic homosexuals who embrace the faith are admirable and should be recognized for their desire to be Catholic (and Catholic means accepting the teachings of the Church, which are much clearer than most people like to admit). However, too many homosexuals have an agenda which involves tailoring the Church to accomodate them, rather than accomodating themselves to the Church. Christ didn't say, "I make exceptions for homosexuals, because they were born that way and can't control it." No, he said to take up your cross and follow him.

[Era Might]

[quote]I guess I just can't comprehend that something that cannot be controlled can be as morally reprehensible as you are saying it is.[/quote]

It is not morally reprehensible to have homosexual inclinations. Neither is it morally reprehensible to have pedophile inclinations, or kleptomaniac inclinations, or any other concupiscence of the flesh. This is a lot we all share, although in different ways. We all must fight against our passions, and not be overcome by them.

There are, nevertheless, unfortunate consequences to the fall of Adam. Kleptomaniacs can't work in jewelery stores. Pedophiles can't work in a nursery. Homosexuals can't be priests.

This doesn't mean they are evil people, or that they cannot exercise a full Christian vocation like anyone else. It just means that they have an unfortunate cross to bear which does not permit a certain life path.

[quote]Catholic homosexual community is treated unfairly and sometimes as untouchables because of our sexuality rather than looking at what makes us desire to be Catholic to begin with.[/quote]

What should make anyone desire to be Catholic is a faith in Christ as God and in the Church he founded. Not a desire to become a priest, or to become a married person, or to become this and that, because these too shall pass. The answer to an impediment to priesthood is not to bemoan how you can never be a priest, woe is me. The answer is to do what the Church calls all of us to do, to pick up your Cross and follow Him. The greatest in the Kingdom of God are not the priests, but the Saints. Become one.

Edited August 30, 2005 by Era Might

[track2004]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Aug 30 2005, 07:58 AM']I'm a psych student too, and my studies have only reinforced the idea that homosexuality is disordered and not something in which to indulge.  I actually am rather sick of psychology and the way it selectively ignores the problems associated with deviant lifestyles.  Instead of linking meth use among homosexuals to their homosexuality, they try to find other factors.  Instead of recognizing the low self-esteem that comes from identifying yourself by what sex you like to have, they blame a lack of social acceptance.  Psychology that doesn't acknowledge the moral and spiritual is pure and utter BUNK.  They very rarely talk about how SSA was removed from the DSM...
[right][snapback]704922[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Just as a general question, what do they call the Abnormal Psych class at your school? Or where do you go to school? Many factors contribute to meth use and low self esteem, they can't just all be attributed to homosexuality. Not being socially accepted by family and friends or trying to live in the closet can contribute to low self esteem or drug use. And more people than homosexuals are drug addicts or have low self esteem so there is no way that SSA is definately the cause.

As I've heard it, and I'm sure you have a different version, SSA was removed from the DSM because a group of Gay Rights kids said, 'Hey look, our lifestyle and sexual preference is not causing us palpable psychological harm. We feel that this is the relationship we are going to be the happiest in, and being treated as disordered.' To which the APA responded, 'We'll look into it.' Later after numerous studies the APA decided they were right and that homosexuality didn't really belong in the DSM.

[Oik]

Track, I understand and respect your point if view. As far as the question goes, I agree with what the Church has consistantly taught: Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. The Church, and others here who are fathiful to her teachings and morals, understand that we are not to judge the person. What the Church teaches (which you seem to already know), is that being tempted by the Homosexual lifestyle is not a sin. We all struggle and are tempted. What is sinful is giving into the temptations.

What is alos at issue is identifying oneself as a homosexual. Why is this problematic? Because we cannot be sin itself. We can sin, we can turn away from God, but we can never really become sin. So, in this case, Homosexuality, it is not an ontological reality. No one can be the sin that they are tempted to. I can no more be Gluttony, than Gluttony can become a human being.

The distinction here is between being tempted with sin and embracing sin. One who has closen a lifestyle that contradicts Christianity cannot be admitted into the Priesthood.

I hope this helps.
God Bless,
Chels

[track2004]

I know the difference between having homosexual relationship and just having SSA, but eariler it was said that anyone who has SSA (and there by identifies as homosexual in the more secular sense) cannot be admitted to religious life. I think thats carp.

[track2004]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 30 2005, 08:03 AM']There are, nevertheless, unfortunate consequences to the fall of Adam. Kleptomaniacs can't work in jewelery stores. Pedophiles can't work in a nursery. Homosexuals can't be priests.
[right][snapback]704926[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That doesn't work. Kleptomaniacs can work in jewelery store and pedophiles can work in a nursery if they haven't done anything wrong. Having a disorder and acting on it are completely different things. Guys who want to be priests, but are attracted to other guys should be able to live their vocation if they don't act on their attractions.

[Era Might]

[quote]Kleptomaniacs can work in jewelery store and pedophiles can work in a nursery if they haven't done anything wrong. [/quote]

No, they can't, for the same reason alcoholics can't drink. It is, among other things, a near occasion of sin.

You can leave your child with a pedophile, if you so desire. But right-thinking persons know better, whether the man has acted on his disorder or not.

Furthermore, as I pointed out before, celibacy is not the chief consideration in this matter. Rather, it is the question of an authentic sexuality, and its relation to the priesthood. A person who suffers from as severe a sexual disorder as homosexuality is unfit for the priesthood. Their vocation lies elsewhere. This impediment, mind you, is not limited to homosexuality. A man with a severe heterosexual disorder is equally unfit for the priesthood. His sexuality, although correctly ordered to the opposite sex, is damaged by insatiety, the root cause of which would vary.

Edited August 30, 2005 by Era Might

[Oik]

Era Might:

[quote]This doesn't mean they are evil people, or that they cannot exercise a full Christian vocation like anyone else. It just means that they have an unfortunate cross to bear which does not permit a certain life path.[/quote]

Agreed. There is disticntion here though. One who is persistant (in the pursuit of the struggle) in this is not the same one who is afflicted beyond thier own accord.


[quote]Guys who want to be priests, but are attracted to other guys should be able to live their vocation if they don't act on their attractions.[/quote]

True, though emphasis needs to be added for the sake of clarity here. It is one thing to say one is afflicted with the attack of Homosexual inclinations. it is another thing to claim that one, as part of one's life, is embracing and accepting, as uncontrollable and as morally licit, the desires which afflict them.

in short, for one to say that they are attracted to the same sex automatically bars tem from the Priesthood. Why? the same answer remains, it is a disordered desire. as such, it cannot be accepted as ordered for any reason.

The distcintion remains, struggling against homosexual temptations is not immoral, embracing those temptations is immoral. A life embracing immorality is not compatible with the Christian lifestyle.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Oik' date='Aug 30 2005, 02:32 PM']Era Might:
Agreed. There is disticntion here though. One who is persistant (in the pursuit of the struggle) in this is not the same one who is afflicted beyond thier own accord.[/quote]

I don't understand what you mean.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='track2004' date='Aug 30 2005, 10:51 AM']Just as a general question, what do they call the Abnormal Psych class at your school?  Or where do you go to school?  Many factors contribute to meth use and low self esteem, they can't just all be attributed to homosexuality.  Not being socially accepted by family and friends or trying to live in the closet can contribute to low self esteem or drug use.  And more people than homosexuals are drug addicts or have low self esteem so there is no way that SSA is definately the cause. 

As I've heard it, and I'm sure you have a different version, SSA was removed from the DSM because a group of Gay Rights kids said, 'Hey look, our lifestyle and sexual preference is not causing us palpable psychological harm.  We feel that this is the relationship we are going to be the happiest in, and being treated as disordered.'  To which the APA responded, 'We'll look into it.'  Later after numerous studies the APA decided they were right and that homosexuality didn't really belong in the DSM.
[right][snapback]705000[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I go to Old Dominion University in VA. We call it Abnormal Psych. The topic came up in my Psychology of Sex class, which isn't as fun as it sounds by the way. This is an interesting link to freerepublic, which I think sums up what I've heard about how it happened. quick encapsulation: under political pressure from gay activists, the 25% of the APA voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM-II. Years later, a full 70% of psychiatrists polled still viewd homosexuality as a disorder...only they weren't invited to vote originally. [url="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1172711/posts"]the link, click you must.[/url]
If you do a search you'll find more. you'll also find the homosexual side of things.

[Didacus]

Though it might not be directly related to the topic, my question is:

If a homosexual cannot enter the priesthood, can he then any other religious order? become a brother for example?

Can he become a deacon perhaps?

[Era Might]

Didacus,

No, the impediment extends to religious vows as well as priestly ordination.

He can always, of course, join a Third Order.

Edited August 30, 2005 by Era Might

[Oik]

Era, you already cleared that up. I was just pointing out the distinction.

[Sirklawd]

can someone give an example of a heterosexual disorder that would bar someone from holy orders? pedophelia?

also, can someone explain that real definition of celebacy?

[son_of_angels]

Many, many people face the temptation of some sort of sexual disorder at some point in their life, I daresay most people. Homosexuality, at least in the sense of it being a disorder, should not be singled out. The Vatican NEEDS to take a tough stance on the moral lives of its priests. Those promoting or living a homosexual lifestyle should be excluded from the priesthood, until it can be certified that they are capable of maintaining a strong moral life.

Celibacy itself invites disorder, in that one is actively, one on one, fighting Satan's temptation and preparing for a perfect life of celibacy. Homosexuality, fornication, masturbation, all of these are daily struggles for the priest trying to hang on to his purity for dear life. The fact that one or the other tries to attack the celibate, or has had some victory in the past, should not lead an aspiring priest to despair. Through the Church he must be allowed to overcome past sin.

Saying that one sexual disorder (homosexuality) is more damaging to celibacy than others (like masturbation) is a fallacy of reason and faith. It places an unneccesary burden on those who may have been so tempted in the past, and gives Satan another means of preventing vocations!

Moreover, any document which fails to recognize the immorality of homosexual behaviour is gravely lacking in its teaching value, as well as in its ability to SOLVE THE PROBLEM, rather than making new ones.

Edited August 30, 2005 by son_of_angels

[Era Might]

[quote]Saying that one sexual disorder (homosexuality) is more damaging to celibacy than others (like masturbation) is a fallacy of reason and faith.[/quote]

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Though they are both fruits, they are fundamentally different.

Homosexuality is a disorder of the appetitive end. That is, the end of sexual appetite is not a person of the opposite sex (the natural end). It is an unnatural end (a person of the same sex).

A problem with, for example, self-control, is one of temperance. It is not a disorder of the ends of sexuality.

One problem is simply a desire for too much of a good thing, whereas the other is a desire for something unnatural. The example I always use is a sexual attraction to hamburgers. Like a sexual attraction to a person of the same sex, it is an unnatural attraction.

A person who struggles with chastity must cultivate the virtue of temperance, but his sexuality is not disordered. A person who struggles with homosexuality, however, has a fundamentally disordered sexuality, and because our sexuality is a big part of who we are as persons, it renders them unfit for the priesthood. Because sexuality is an important element to priesthood (yah, I know, a lot of people may think that sounds weird), It must be healthy.

Edited August 30, 2005 by Era Might

[son_of_angels]

Yet masturbation is likewise intrinsically disordered. Yet a moral obligation to refrain from priestly life is not lain on those who jack off in the showers.
And, yes, masturbation is specifically mentioned in church teaching as being disordered, like homosexuality.

Also notice that I lay an important emphasis on the moral obligation of the Church to oppose homosexuality as a moral wrong. But pointing to the psychological impediment for those who struggle with celibacy either homosexually or heterosexually undermines the ability of the church to say to homosexuals, "you can avoid this sin." If we say that prior or even often homosexual temptation is an unescapable illness in our relationship with God (that is, being unable to discern a vocation to priestly or religious life), or that illnesses which have occasional aftershocks and regressions are somehow permanently damaging to one's person, it were the same to say to all people living the gay lifestyle everywhere, "Hey, we understand it's an illness. Just go ahead and sin, we know you can't help it."
Yet Christ and the Church say they CAN help it, and one thing that will not help it is a constant despair of what one can and cannot do for God.

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 30 2005, 03:19 PM'] Because sexuality is an important element to priesthood (yah, I know, a lot of people may think that sounds weird), It must be healthy.
[right][snapback]705287[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

ya can someone explain this, ive never heard it before. i dont doubt it, im just curious.

[son_of_angels]

By the way, Sexuality IS an important part of one's life, and the priesthood, which is all the more reason to cultivate a positive understanding of one's own sexual imperfections, and God's ability to overcome temptations.

It is no better to be constantly tempted towards women, because celibacy is essentially a sexual orientation in and of itself towards the priestly life and the Church in general. This is the only good sexual release for a priest or religious, the fulfillment of his duties as a priest or religious.

[Era Might]

[quote]Yet masturbation is likewise intrinsically disordered.[/quote]

The END of the sexual appetite is correctly ordered. Masturbation is an illicit means to achieve a correctly ordered end (ie, sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex).

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is an inclination to a disordered and unnatural end (ie, sexual relations with a person of the same sex).

Masturbation is a disorder of temperance, not a disorder of the actual appetite, as with homosexuality.

The moral faith of the Church, drawing itself from reason, has always recognized the inherent disordered nature of homosexuality (or bestiality or hamburgeriality). Heterosexual fornication is natural, although illicit (because, as I said above, it is an unlawful means to a lawful end). Homosexual fornication, however, is inherently unnatural; it is both an unnatural means and an unnatural end. Even apart from the actual commission of the act, the inclination itself is a disorder of the ends of sexuality, and this affects persons in a dominant way, because our sexuality is a big part of who we are. This is why the same sex disorder is an impediment to priesthood and religious vows.

Not because homosexuals cannot be chaste or holy people, but because the sexual disorder they bear is gravely at odds with the nature of priesthood, and the demands it makes.

You can substitute anything you want for same sex attraction. Sexual attraction to bugs. Sexual attraction to cardboard boxes. Sexual attraction to Rice Krispies. These are all unnatural ends, and indicative of a severely disordered sexuality. Sexual attraction to persons of the same sex is no different, except the end happens to be human and so it comes with emotional baggage. Nevertheless, all these grave disorders of the appetitive ends are an impediment to the priesthood and religious vows.

[quote]It is no better to be constantly tempted towards women[/quote]

A heterosexual man with an insatiable disorder of the virtue of temperance is equally unfit for the priesthood. As I said above, even though his sexuality is correctly ordered, he is unable to control it in a reasonable manner and, again going beyond the question of chastity, he has underlying problems which bring on this insatiety, and it is really they which disbar him from priestly ordination.

Edited August 30, 2005 by Era Might