banning gays from the priesthood

[Akalyte]

This is a "gay" country. They will still ordain gay men. They just dont care about the rules.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Akalyte' date='Jan 20 2006, 03:44 PM']This is a "gay" country. They will still ordain gay men. They just dont care about the rules.
[right][snapback]862168[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That is a sweeping generalization......you don't know that. That is like saying this is a "country music" country, "hip-hop" will always smell of elderberries. They don't care about music.

[Akalyte]

i said what i said because it seems like so many in the american church are masters of misenterpretation. There will be thousands of interpretations of the new documents before anything gets done. It doesnt help when some of the bishops and even cardinals lean toward the left and the gay culture.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jan 19 2006, 08:04 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]
This document in fact does ban all "gays" (as the term would normally be understood) from the priesthood. And this is not some new policy, but merely a reinstatement of the old (but often neglected) policy.

"Having deep-seated homosexual tendencies" or "supporting the 'gay culture'" is what is usually meant by calling someone "gay." (This would be as opposed to someone who's had any fleeting or transitory homosexual temptations or experiences in the past.)
So it would be quite inaccurate to say that this policy would ban some "gays," but allow others.

[Socrates]

[quote name='jezic' date='Jan 19 2006, 08:39 PM']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.
[right][snapback]861542[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Read what the document says! It does not only ban those who are sexually active, but also those [b]"who present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture.'"[/b]

This would apply to most people who would be considered "gay."

Let's not selectively read the document to mean only what we want it to mean.

There have been many discussions of this issue on here in the past. I suggest people look them up, rather than bringing up the same things over and over again.

[N/A Gone]

no gay priests, just gay cowboys...

j/p

I think if someone is ontologically gay. (*science and specifically genetics has not truly come to the understanding if "gay" is a genetic thing, or is an early development or whatever so dont debate that) than they should realize that the priesthood could pose a challenge to them. But the same is for a heterosexual or even someone who likes wine. The thing is there are plenty of challenges for a priest and we could beat thru qualifications until no one can be one. Why? because without the grace of the spirit no one could be a priest. So, because someone is inclined towards a sin should not deter them from the priesthood for we are all inclinded towards our own demons.

now, if someone has a history of acting on their homosexual urges than they should not be considered for the priesthood. Simple as that. if they are "struggling" with it than in the proper council and fellowship we could see what happens but it would be tough. If someone is bold and accepting and living a homosexual lifestyle than they should not be priest

[Socrates]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Jan 20 2006, 06:25 PM']no gay priests, just gay cowboys...

j/p

I think if someone is ontologically gay. (*science and specifically genetics has not truly come to the understanding if "gay" is a genetic thing, or is an early development or whatever so dont debate that) than they should realize that the priesthood could pose a challenge to them. But the same is for a heterosexual or even someone who likes wine. The thing is there are plenty of challenges for a priest and we could beat thru qualifications until no one can be one. Why? because without the grace of the spirit no one could be a priest. So, because someone is inclined towards a sin should not deter them from the priesthood for we are all inclinded towards our own demons.

now, if someone has a history of acting on their homosexual urges than they should not be considered for the priesthood. Simple as that. if they are "struggling" with it than in the proper council and fellowship we could see what happens but it would be tough. If someone is bold and accepting and living a homosexual lifestyle than they should not be priest
[right][snapback]862386[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Part of the requirements for being a good priest (I've read this from orthodox priests familiar with such things) is to be emotionally/sexually mature, and be able to relate to men and women [b]as a man[/b]. A good priest should be someone who would make a good husband and father - he should relate to his parishioners as a spiritual FATHER.

Having deep-seated homosexual tendencies usually precludes this.

(I gave a good quote I read about this on a thread some time back - maybe I can dig it up.)

[N/A Gone]

hmm...actually, unless we are appreciating sterotypes. Being homosexual would not hinder this I feel. being sexually restricted as a hetero could hinder this. Liking the red sox too much could hinder this. I agree that a homosexual would not be sexually mature. But honestly, neither is a 60 year old virgin. Not to be rude. but a priest is not sexually mature but that is another debate. You are debating here that a homosexual would not make a good father. I would disagree strongly with that.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Jan 20 2006, 06:57 PM']hmm...actually, unless we are appreciating sterotypes. Being homosexual would not hinder this I feel. being sexually restricted as a hetero could hinder this. Liking the red sox too much could hinder this. I agree that a homosexual would not be sexually mature. But honestly, neither is a 60 year old virgin. Not to be rude. but a priest is not sexually mature but that is another debate. You are debating here that a homosexual would not make a good father. I would disagree strongly with that.
[right][snapback]862405[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I think your totally wishing the point. (Wish I could find that quote - can't seem to find the darn thing!)

The point is not about having sex, but about one's psychological development as a person, and one's masculinity. (Whatever modern society may say to the contrary) having sexual intercourse is not necessary to one's identity as a man.

The celibate priest [b]sublimates[/b] his masculinity into the priestly life.
The ideal priest is one who could be a husband and father, but instead sublimates and channels his masculinity into service of God and the Church. He sacrifices having sex to give his masculitinity to an even higher good.
The ideal candidate for the priesthood is [b]not [/b]someone who chooses the priesthood because he does not feel he would make a good husband or father.
Deep-seated homosexual tendencies are a symptom of a defective masculinity, and it is for this reason that people afflicted with such are barred from the priesthood.

(This is kind of a paraphrasing of what I remember from the quote I can't find.)

[dustthouart]

Because it needs to be said over and over: NO ONE HAS THE "RIGHT" TO BE A PRIEST.

Also, I think in some ways this is a matter of tough love. The Church has to be very stern about this to root out the gay culture in some seminaries. There has to be a very definable line. If we leave it ambiguous, then it will be exploited.

[Mrvoll]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jan 20 2006, 01:08 PM']What does that have to do with anything in this thread? 
[right][snapback]862121[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

he was a priest

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Jan 20 2006, 07:57 PM']But honestly, neither is a 60 year old virgin. Not to be rude. but a priest is not sexually mature but that is another debate.
[right][snapback]862405[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So you think one is not sexualy mature unless you are having sex??

[dairygirl4u2c]

So, here are the responses that answered my questions.

from soc
[quote]Part of the requirements for being a good priest (I've read this from orthodox priests familiar with such things) is to be emotionally/sexually mature, and be able to relate to men and women as a man. A good priest should be someone who would make a good husband and father - he should relate to his parishioners as a spiritual FATHER.

Having deep-seated homosexual tendencies usually precludes this.

The celibate priest sublimates his masculinity into the priestly life.
The ideal priest is one who could be a husband and father, but instead sublimates and channels his masculinity into service of God and the Church. He sacrifices having sex to give his masculitinity to an even higher good.
The ideal candidate for the priesthood is not someone who chooses the priesthood because he does not feel he would make a good husband or father.
Deep-seated homosexual tendencies are a symptom of a defective masculinity, and it is for this reason that people afflicted with such are barred from the priesthood.
[/quote]

and from thes:
[quote]The matter has been settled it seems. The instruction as noted is out. [/quote]

So, after looking at the date on the instruction, november 2005, that must be the response that was given as foretold by that aticle.
It does not preclude those who have had smaller inclinations etc. But it does preclude homosexuals, those who are truly full blown homosexuals, as socrates has noted, with an interesting explanation that pretty much answers why deep seated homosexual tendencies do not cut it. It's interesting how language works, because photosynthesis's resposne wasn't much of a rationale with me, but socrates's response was a rationale, and going back and reading photo's response might make sense as implied, if that's what he meant.

Edited January 21, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jan 21 2006, 01:33 PM']So you think one is not sexualy mature unless you are having sex??
[right][snapback]862781[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


perhaps defining "sexually mature" would help here.

remember I am not arguing for someone whom practices and accepts the homo lifestyle. That is wrong. I am speaking about someone whom is homosexual, but not practicing

[Socrates]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Jan 21 2006, 06:13 PM']perhaps defining "sexually mature" would help here.

remember I am not arguing for someone whom practices and accepts the homo lifestyle. That is wrong. I am speaking about someone whom is homosexual, but not practicing
[right][snapback]862914[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I wish I could find the thread with those quotes, but it seems to have vanished down the phatmass black hole!

(forgive me - I was tiread and distracted last night - that post should have started out "I think you are totally [b]missing[/b] the point." LOL)

The term may have been "psychologicaly mature." I remember one of the priests quoted said that while it was politically incorrect to say this, most homosexuals he had delt with in priestly formation did not have psychological maturity.

The issue here is not just sex, but psycho-sexual normalcy and maturity.
Homosexuality is an intrinsically disordered condition (as defined by the Church). The priesthood is not to be a place for men with psychologically disordered conditions. Candidates to the priesthood should be men who are psychologically fully masculine.
Homosexuality is a symptom of disordered masculinity.

The problem with homosexuals being admitted to the priesthood is not just about sexual activity. The problem is that deep-seated homosexual tendencies are a sign of deeper disorders.

Priests should be normal, masculine, "heterosexual" men, who are sacrificing the good of marriage, sex, and children for the sake of serving God as priests.
The priesthood should not be a refuge for those whose sexuality/psychology is disordered.

Again, we should repeat, no on has a [b]right [/b] to the priesthood.

You may disagree with this policy, but that is the reasoning behind the ban.

If the only issue here was sexual activity, there would be no need for this document, or a seperate mention of homosexual tendencies, as all priests are required to avoid any sexual activity to begin with.

[prose]

This is a prett popular discussion in fact. It is discussed here at LEAST oonce a week it seems.

[Guest JPII_ILoveYou]

I'm interested in what other people think:

Do you think being gay is a choice, or a genuine feeling?

If it is a choice, then it would be easier to ban them from the priesthood, because they are making a conscience choice to engage in sinful behavior.

[Socrates]

[quote name='JPII_ILoveYou' date='Jan 23 2006, 09:42 PM']I'm interested in what other people think:

Do you think being gay is a choice, or a genuine feeling?

If it is a choice, then it would be easier to ban them from the priesthood, because they are making a conscience choice to engage in sinful behavior.
[right][snapback]864399[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'd say "being gay" is a disordered inclination.

Whether it is chosen or not is really entirely beside the point of this issue!

The fact is that people with such disordered conditions do not belong in the priesthood, whether they freely chose their disorder or not! (I encourage you to re-read the original document.)

Since when does whether something is "a genuine feeling" have any bearing on whether it is disordered?

Some people may have "genuine feelings" to kill other people! Would that mean they should be allowed to be priests?

A homosexual "orientation" reflects a disordered psyche, and people thus afflicted are not good candidates for the priesthood.

[Victor]

[color=green]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.

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.

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.[/color]

With that in mind I can't help but think that a homosexual struggles just as much as a heterosexual in regards to struggling with sin. Technically our inclination toward sin is a disorder. So technically they shouldn't allow anybody to be a priest.

[Semalsia]

[quote]If it is a choice, then it would be easier to ban them from the priesthood, because they are making a conscience choice to engage in sinful behavior.
[/quote]

I'm just wondering. If it's a choice, then does that mean it's a sin to be gay? To choose to be in a disordered state.


[quote name='Socrates']Homosexuality is a symptom of disordered masculinity.

The problem with homosexuals being admitted to the priesthood is not just about sexual activity. The problem is that deep-seated homosexual tendencies are a sign of deeper disorders.

A homosexual "orientation" reflects a disordered psyche, and people thus afflicted are not good candidates for the priesthood.
[/quote]

What other problems would transpire then? I'm not aware of there being any kind of mental illnesses associated with homosexuality, if that's what you mean.