What about the religious life? Say, for example, to become a Carthusian hermit? Does the document address this as well?

Well, that should be the beginning of the Big Show…

Clearly, the sniping and low-level warfare conducted over the Seminary examinations was just the runup.

I didn’t believe this was going to happen!

Now, will the US bishops pay any attention to this?

Given that so many people with same sex attraction in this day and age support the gay activist ideology, and the likelihood that some people may have difficulties in remaining chaste, I would agree that restrictions are in order when it comes to holy orders.  Nevertheless, it is almost as if the Church is telling those of us with same sex attraction that it is impossible for us to remain chaste and therefore we should just give up.  I don’t object to the policy, but I do think that the Pope or someone high up should say something positive about the call to chastity for those with same sex attraction and how it is possible to live chaste lives, with the help of God’s grace.

Unfortunately, another document from the Vatican will do little to shore up this problem.  No doubt, wise bishops have avoided seminarians with same-sex attractions. And no doubt as well, weak bishops have opened the door to semiarians who have all sorts of unresolved problems as well as orthodoxy issues. 

The Vatican’s decision to bar SSA candidates is a reasonable reaction - because same-sex attractions pose a psychological/developmental deficiency within the individual that must be resolved through good Christian spiritual development and therapy (either with a good Catholic therapist or through groups like Courage). 

More positive developments toward fostering a more active and orthodox clergy would be shoring up good bishops to lead these dioceses.  Good bishops become beacons of attracting good men.  Another suggestion would be to focus on the family and strengthen the Church’s outreach to develop strong and healthy CHRISTIAN families in which good and faithful Catholics can flourish - to produce other good families and good priests and religious. 

Sadly, the Church is losing alot of these battles in many dioceses and the proof is in the pudding. 

Oh thank God.

I’ll wait to see what exactly the document says, whether it’s couched as contingent, a response to circumstances, or as necessary, something essential to the priesthood. Whether it emphasizes the universal call to holiness and chastity (and the current social degradation therein) or categorizes homosexual persons as a class apart.

The first-named option in each pair would sting, but I’d accept it as collateral damage from the recent sexual indiscipline (part of the cause of which was poor formation) and the lavender mafia. The latter-named options ... well, I don’t want to think about them. They would not be compatible with the last 30 years of teaching on homosexuality.

CourageMan, please read my comments on this thread.  But bear in mind that the priesthood is a marriage in which a man is wed to a female spouse. 

Seamole:

I’m not sure we disagree (or even that you’re saying we do, frankly). The very essence of a rule that can be suspended in a given case is that it be circumstantial rather than essential.

But bear in mind that the priesthood is a marriage in which a man is wed to a female spouse.

But unless men with SSA thereby cease to be men (flatly not what the Church teaches), such attractions would not constitute a per se barrier.

You know, an all the Catholic blogs dealing with this issue, I’ve YET to see the simplest answer to this question.

There was this “fellow” by the name of Sa’ul, running around in the early church, he was mistaken, however when he gave a protoge of his, another “fellow” by the name of Tim, and tried to settle who Tim and Sa’ul should put into leadership roles in those new churches.

Sa’ul blurted out some BAD advice, which the later church was in a position to rectify with celibate clergy.

Now we KNOW that if Tim had his way, Tim would be saying this to the leadership, but of course Tim was a fool for believing THIS INSTRUCTION would actually solve MOST of the problems.

1Ti 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop { priest }, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

—————————————

I have seen EVERYTHING discussed to death on this topic, BUT old Tim’s rulebook and qualifications lesson plan.

I wonder why?

CourageMan: That would be up to the woman to decide, right? 

The marriage analogy breaks down here because we’re talking about church rules. Women only get one choice made as an act of will under particular circumstances, making the whole notion of a general rule (however uniformly applied) pretty silly.

CourageMan, the marriage analogy is perfect, and IMNSHO aptly applied to this situation.  The Church only gets one choice made as an act of some bishop’s will under particular circumstances, to choose to ordain or not ordain a man.  Each parish has one pastor, each diocese one Bishop. 

There are some general rules which women (Catholic and not) use to choose their husbands.  Health (physical and mental), the means to support a family, lack of physical repulsion by either party of the other (at least at first), good character.  The woman may dispense with these general norms for good cause.

As I mentioned on the other thread, the general rules of the Church can be dispensed in individual cases.

Yes, but I believe the theology is that the priest “marries” the Church as a whole, not the Diocese of Such-and-Such or St. So-and-So Parish. Obviously the Church only makes one choice about a given candidate, but as an institution, i.e., the sense in which it’s meaningful to apply rules, it “marries” more men than a gaggle of Mormons.

And no, there are no “rules” applied to a person’s choice of spouse. Your choice is your choice. This isn’t to say that people don’t think about it or have no general idea of what they seek, but that the notion of “rules,” whether rigid or flexible, is such that I wouldn’t make too much of marriage terminology and imagery in this matter of the priesthood.

The Bishop is the leader of the Church in a particular location.  The Church is a hierarchy, not a gaggle.  If you don’t think the Church should be as picky in choosing Her ordained ministers as a woman is in choosing her spouse, then perhaps you do not fully comprehend the importance of the Catholic priesthood. 

The Bishop is the leader of the Church in a particular location.

But the priest doesn’t thereby marry the bishop (the point at hand).

The Church is a hierarchy, not a gaggle.

I am aware of that, and never said otherwise. Metaphor, comparison, sense of humor, and reading comprehension lessons are available elsewhere.

If you don’t think the Church should be as picky in choosing Her ordained ministers as a woman is in choosing her spouse ...

Where did I say that? All I say is that when something is done multiple times, it’s meaningful to have rules pertaining to it. In fact if anything, I said the opposite about who can be “choosier” ... that people can’t have rules for spouse selection because that’s a unique, once-and-for-all event, rather than a general circumstance.

The Church is a Person and Her Name is Mary.  By attacking or minimizing the spousal metaphor you are attacking or minimizing the Faith that was handed down by Christ to His Apostles.  This deconstruction is untenable and I find it personally disgusting.  I will not continue discussing this matter with you.  Perhaps you should examine your conscience to see if you are falling off the wagon.

Sorry you feel that way. I hardly think noting that a metaphor doesn’t apply perfectly (that’s why it’s called a “metaphor” rather than “identical”) is “minimizing the Faith that was handed down by Christ to His Apostles.” I mean, the Church is also the Body of Christ. Does that mean ordination is a “Massachusetts marriage”? Hardly.

And I really don’t take kindly to accusations of dissent or heterodoxy (if “falling off the wagon” means something else, I apologize, but that seems clearly the point). Particularly from a total stranger based on barely 400 words on a single, rather abstruse topic in a blog comment field.

Understand that I am angry not because I am hearing something that contradicts the Faith I was taught, but because it is being presented skillfully and convincingly. 

I didn’t accuse you of dissent or heterodoxy, but of material heresy, which is not objectively sinful, and I made a suggestion as regards your spiritual life.  That’s all.

Gentlemen,

Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est! 

The issue at hand here is this.  Masculinity is an essential prerequisite to receive the Sacrament of Orders—that is the way Christ established it.  We know, through human anthropology, that “masculinity” encompasses far more than genital identity—masculinity also marks the psyche, the emotions, the affective conscience, etc. 

Now, we clinically know that homosexuality in a man has a genesis in the rejection of one’s masculinity at some level (emotionally, affectively, psychologically, even biologically in cases of transgenderism, etc.).  Now, this rejection of masculinity is usually a pre-pubescent unconscious event that can be rooted in any number of things (physical/emotional abuse by male parent or other significant male, absentee father, early exposure to sexual activity [may be perceived as violence by a mind that does not understand sexuality yet], an overbearing mother and weak father, sexual abuse, etc.).

While it is true that in-tact genital masculinity is the strict requisite to receive the Sacrament of Orders and, as such, it is an ontological possibility for homosexual men to be ordained, the question is “Should homosexual men be ordained?”  The answer is “no”.  Why?  Because masculinity is much more than genitality and if someone has, for whatever reason, rejected his masculinity at some level, he has not fully appropriated his identity as male—all that that means.  As such, he ought not present himself to the Church for Orders until such a time as he has received healing in this area and properly appropriated and integrated his sexuality and full identity as masculine. 

we clinically know that homosexuality in a man has a genesis in the rejection of one’s masculinity at some level

Actually, we KNOW no such thing. The Catechism says in 2357 that “Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.”

Further to justify a categorical exclusion, it would need to have a 100 percent or near-100 percent correlation and not even NARTH claims that. In my experience with Courage and CourageOnline, it also didn’t seem to be universally so and the absolute rejection of masculinity didn’t seem to be much in evidence otherwise.

I should note that this is also an extremely post-modern understanding of identity, essentially saying that man has a “gender” (yes, I use that prudish social constructionist codeword here deliberately), i.e., something constructed that requires affirmative assent of the will, rather than a “sex,” i.e., something which just *is* as part of the order of creation. Sure you wanna go there?

Male homosexuality is not per se a rejection of masculinity, though the two are often found together.  Effeminacy is a separate vice which affects heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, and which is even a vice in women. 

The problem with considering homosexuality to be a rejection of one’s gender identity on any level is that it can’t explain why two homosexuals would be attracted to each other.  Similarity is part of the nature of this unnatural attraction. 

See?  I got the two of you to agree on something!

First Point: There is absolutely no proof that would substantiate the claim that homosexuality of any kind or degree has its genesis or locus in biology or genetics.  For a good discussion about this from professionals, one might read “Homosexuality and Hope” published by the Catholic Medical Association. 

Second Point:  Masculinity, in its very nature, contains the need, the desire, the longing for complimentarity from the opposite sex.  That complimentarity is at the essence of our sexuality—from biological construct to spiritual response, and everything in between. 

Since homosexuality is not predetermined by biology or genetic make-up, and complimentarity is of the essence of sexuality, same sex attraction (the opposite of complimentarity [“similarity” as seamole referred to it]) in a man IS at some level a rejection of masculinity. 

Rejection of masculinity does not have to lead to homosexuality, nor is it synonymous with effeminacy.  A rejection of masculinity can take the forms of homosexuality, effeminacy, homo- or heterosexual promiscuity, asexuality, abusive behavior, addictions, etc., or any combination thereof. 

As such, none of the above ought to be admitted to Orders—masculine in nature by virtue of the particularity of Christ’s institution—until such a time as proper masculinity has been appropriated. 

Categories

Blogroll