banning gays from the priesthood

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JVU3J45JGXXGFQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2005/09/23/wgay23.xml"]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...9/23/wgay23.xml[/url]

[Ora et Labora]

There banning them now?

[photosynthesis]

I thought they'd already been banned?

[Guest JeffCR07]

It seems to me that the poll doesn't display an adequate understanding of the theology involved in this.

The pope cannot, and never would, say that homosexual men cannot in principle be priests (like it can be said for women). This is evident from the fact that there [i]are[/i] homosexual priests, and their priesthood is not even being considered to be invalid.

Now, what the pope and the magisterium [i]can[/i] do is choose to refuse admission to the seminary to them. This, however, would not be an issue of doctrine, but rather, of discipline. If the decision were made to restrict all homosexuals from entering the priesthood, rather than those whose homosexuality presents a serious problem for proper sexual integration, then this decision would be nothing more than a practical choice regarding a policy of church governance.

All of this having been clarified, it is clear that if the Vatican did make such a change, it would be for practical reasons. Off the top of my head, the only one I can think of would be that it might simply be too hard, in practice, to make sure that homosexual seminarians have properly integrated their sexuality, and so, the choice would be "better safe than sorry." However, I don't think it will happen.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

They were barred totally before, but that rule was not often followed. The new rules are something like three years or non-practice. It's a rule, not a doctrine.

[peach_cube]

Dairy,

Your link is OLD. (September 23, 2005)

After this it was declared that they should be chaste and not support the homosexual culture.

[God the Father]

I figured it was okay to be gay as long as you didn't actually be gay with another man. Know what I mean?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='God the Father' date='Jan 19 2006, 03:51 PM']I figured it was okay to be gay as long as you didn't actually be gay with another man. Know what I mean?
[right][snapback]861214[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well there is more to it than that. Has everyone here read the Instruction? It would seem like that would be a good place to start before we stray too far.

[Socrates]

[quote name='God the Father' date='Jan 19 2006, 03:51 PM']I figured it was okay to be gay as long as you didn't actually be gay with another man. Know what I mean?
[right][snapback]861214[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Then what, pray tell, should one "be gay" with???

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='God the Father' date='Jan 19 2006, 04:51 PM']I figured it was okay to be gay as long as you didn't actually be gay with another man. Know what I mean?
[right][snapback]861214[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That's also what I think, if I understand you correctly.

[Paphnutius]

Okay everyone, here is the [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html"]Instruction[/url] on the Vatican website. It is short compared to most things put out by the Vatican so please take the time to familiarize yourself with it.

[Socrates]

For those too lazy to follow the link:

[quote]In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture"[10].

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.[/quote]

[Cam42]

From the other thread on this......

Here is a copy of the document released by the Vatican. It is called [url="http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=40891"]Instruction[/url]. While it is not infallible, it is to be faithfully followed. In other words, it isn't dogma or doctrine, but we should show deference to it when understanding the reasoning for the exclusion of homosexuals from the priesthood, at this time.

There is nothing that officially states that married priests will never enter into the picture again, however, it is understood that a celibate priesthood is the current and accepted manner in which the priesthood will be carried out. [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_25031992_pastores-dabo-vobis_en.html"]Pastores Dabo Vobis[/url] is a fantastic resource on this; as is [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html"]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/url].

There are several ways that the Church defines something in an infallible manner. However, all of them are closely related to the Papacy and all of them include the Holy Father. They are Ecumenical Councils under the headship of a pope, The Pope himself, and the bishops of the world dispersed, but in union with the Holy See. The first two are considered to be magisterium solemne (undeniably definitive authority) and the last is considered ordinarium magisterium (the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church).

Understand, though, that the ordinarium magisterium is not independent of the pope. In other words, it is only bishops who are in corporate union with the pope, the Divinely constituted head and center of Christ's mystical body, the one true Church, who have any claim to share in the charisma by which the infallibility of their morally unanimous teaching is divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promises.

[dairygirl4u2c]

So because that article was old, is that quote that Socrates pulled out the response in question?

ie
**In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture"[10].

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.**

And so they ever really banned all gays?


Also, if they're banning only the ones with deep seated homosexual tendencies, I wonder what the rationale is... cause they don't ban those with deep seated heterosexual. Is it the few years of entering into the seminary that they are afraid of with all the men? Or do they think gays are more prone to child abuse? or..

[photosynthesis]

that's because deep-seated heterosexual tendencies are a GOOD thing, a part of properly ordered sexuality.

[jezic]

what's interesting is that it basically talks about not admitting sexually active men to the seminary. This has always been the rule. I don't see how some claiming to have a homosexual orientation is any different... Even outside of the seminary, people should lead chaste lives not lives that are sexually promiscuous. That applies to everyone.

[Cam42]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jan 19 2006, 10:04 PM']So because that article was old, is that quote that Socrates pulled out the response in question?

ie
**In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture"[10].

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.**

And so they ever really banned all gays?
Also, if they're banning only the ones with deep seated homosexual tendencies, I wonder what the rationale is... cause they don't ban those with deep seated heterosexual. Is it the few years of entering into the seminary that they are afraid of with all the men? Or do they think gays are more prone to child abuse? or..
[right][snapback]861513[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

dairy,

I think that you may understand this, but I am going to say it for the sake of saying it. We are discussing a Catholic issue in light of Catholic theology and Catholic morality. There is nothing arbitrary about it and there is nothing veiled about what is being said.

You may wonder what the rationale is, but the Church teaches:

[quote name='CCC #2332']Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.[/quote]

[quote name='CCC #2333']Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.[/quote]

These two specifically speak to the complementarity that you are questioning by asking about "deep seated heterosexual." See, heterosexuality is oriented toward the physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity good of marriage. This harmony of the heterosexual couple depends on the mutual support between the sexes.

However, the Church goes on to say:

[quote name='CCC #2357']Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.[/quote]

[quote name='CCC #2358'] The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.[/quote]

Homosexuality closes the gift of life. It doesn't proceed from a geniune affective and sexual complementarity. BUT, we are called to support these people. That doesn't mean tacit or expressed approval of their lifestyle, but by example, we are to show them that geniune affective and sexual complimentarity can be had.

The Church expects this of all Catholics and teaches this:

[quote name='CCC #2359']Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.[/quote]

All of what I have posted is harmonious with the [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html"]Instruction[/url] from the Holy See. What I have posted speaks directly to what Socrates posted as well as Paphnutius.

Another aspect of this is that none of this is new. Discussions have been going on since the Vatican Council II. [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_optatam-totius_en.html"]Optatum Totius[/url] speaks to this:

[quote name='Optatum Totius #6']With watchful concern for the age of each and for his stage of progress, [b]an inquiry should be made into the candidate's proper intention and freedom of choice, into his spiritual, [u]moral[/u] and intellectual qualifications, into his appropriate physical and psychic health-taking into consideration also possible hereditary deficiencies.[/b] Also to be considered is the ability of the candidate to bear the priestly burdens and exercise the pastoral offices.

In the entire process of selecting and testing students, however, a due firmness is to be adopted, even if a deplorable lack of priests should exist, since God will not allow His Church to want for ministers if those who are worthy are promoted and those not qualified are, at an early date, guided in a fatherly way to undertake other tasks. The latter should also be given sufficient direction so that, conscious of their vocation as Christians, they might eagerly embrace the lay apostolate.[/quote]

Again, this [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html#_ftn10"]Instruction[/url] deals specifically with the document from the Vatican Council II. While it may seem as if this is something that transcends Catholicism, it doesn't. Admission to the seminary is soley the repsonsibility of the Catholic Church and those who are responsible for formation of priests. To proport anything else is to convolute and misrepresent the "issue."

[thessalonian]

The matter has been settled it seems. The instruction as noted is out. I think it is quite fair. I wouldn't say that I changed my view. Only that I came to a deeper understanding of the matter and pretty much agreed with what came out. Had it been a total ban on anyone who had any gay inclination in life I would have disagreed. But then, by the Holy Spirit it seems that didn't happen and I don't think there was a real chance of it. I did not vote in your poll because it is very inadequate regarding how I would vote.

[Mrvoll]

Isn't Dan Schutte gay? I read an article that he was

[Cam42]

[quote name='Mrvoll' date='Jan 20 2006, 01:53 PM']Isn't Dan Schutte gay? I read an article that he was
[right][snapback]862061[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What does that have to do with anything in this thread?