I keep hearing over and over again, in relation to the rumored forthcoming document from the Vatican on gay seminarians, that there are many excellent chaste gay priests in the Church. Really? And how would anyone know?
Even the president of the US bishops’ conference, Bishop William Skylstad, says so:
There are many wonderful and excellent priests in the Church who have a gay orientation, are chaste and celibate, and are very effective ministers of the Gospel.
But if these guys are chaste and celibate, how does anyone know their sexual orientation? Do these guys go around trumpeting their sexuality to all they come in contact with? To put it another way, if a guy is celibate and chaste then sexual orientation is irrelevant; a healthy priest does not talk about his sexual orientation with others. That’s precisely the problem with homosexuality; that as a pathology it is not a healthy mindset, that it is both narcissistic and seeks acceptance and, yes, affirmation from others. Homosexiality is insecure and that’s why gays make such a big deal about coming out of the closet and demanding societal acceptance.
This is exactly the point I have been trying to make on another website I frequent. If a priest is CHASTE and celibate, there is absolutely NO reason or need for his sexual preference to be known. Therefore he has NOTHING to fear, and it should be a NON-issue.
Should be.
Just wanted to let you know that this post spawned some rather dubious Amazon ads.
Second, an observation: most dioceses put men through an interview process involving questions about their sexuality. Completely valid in light of recent circumstances, the questions help determine whether or not a candidate is capable of living a healthy, chaste celibacy. So, as the bishop says, it is quite possible that he knows healthy men living with SSA.
So many thoughts. Here are a few, in no particular order:
1. “No one wants a witch hunt or to bash gays. All we want is for the Church
Bishop taking case seriously Priesty the Holy Spirit and when she speaks on matters of faith and morals, she does so infallibly. In other words, we must bow our intellect and pride before the wisdom of the Church, and through her, the Holy Spirit.
It’s fine to have a discussion, but if you can’t even agree on the basic parameters how fruitful is that discussion going to be? Otherwise it usually descends into rancor and namae-calling and frankly I don’t have time for that.
Normal is the love between a man and a woman. Sexual relations between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is not normal, it is not moral, and it is contrary to Godelkilian@hotmail.com
69.73.61.33
2005-10-28 08:38:26
2005-10-28 12:38:26
Michael Joseph,
“This is why so many people who were raised as Catholics, yet have the audacity to think about and question various positions of the Church, are leaving it.”
When people who once believed in God stop believing in Him, they should leave his Church.
You may want to go to the Forum and read my questions about dissent and Apostasy.
God Bless,
Isabelle
I have been following this thread, and similar ones elsewhere. I have avoided commenting, because, frankly, I have mixed emotions. I have a HUGE problem with the way homosexuality has been 0-28 10:07:36
2005-10-28 14:07:36
I also have a problem with lumping people into groups. Every Irishman isng/index.php?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cathmed.org%2Fpublications%2Fhomosexuality.html”>http://www.cathmed.org/publications/homosexuality.html
and also… : [url=http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf]http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf[/url]
There is no debate here. The Roman Catholic Church is not a debating society nor is it a cafeteria.
Deacon Mike said: “The man is nearly 90 years old and r>
isabelkilian@hotmail.com
69.73.61.33
2005-10-28 19:08:32
2005-10-28 23:08:32
Dear Deacon Mike,
We have no record of Jesus ever forgiving anyone of the sin of using artificial birth control or experimenting on human embryo’s either. Can these sins be forgiven?
Just because we don’t have a record of every sin Jesus forgave the people of his time, doesn’t mean he would refuse His divine Mercy to any sinner who is truly sorry for having offending God and who seeks in love to reconcile with His Father through Christ.
The Church infallibly teaches that the only sin that can not be forgiven is the sin against the Holy Spirit which is the sin unrepented of.
I am sorry you were taught to believe otherwise.
God Bless,
Isabelle
Dom said:
If his sexual orientation isnil>
https://www.bettnet.com
192.168.1.1
2005-10-28 20:53:16
2005-10-29 00:53:16
I’m sorry CourageMan, but I don’t see how that’s any different any other “secret shame,” i.e. temptation to sin, that other people deal with. What about the “closeted” alcoholic? What could be more terrifying to an alcoholic than getting invited out for beers with the gang from work?
So does he feel the need to “come out of the closet” to everyone he meets in order to preclude awkward questions? Or does he simply say thanks, but no and move on? So someone asks a single guy whether he’s found Miss Right. You don’t think I didn’t get that question when I was single? I even had people (jerks really) speculate I was gay. So what?
And your examples make my point: A priest has a ready-made answer to the Question. Like I said before, a chaste celibate priest has no reason to disclose his sexual orientation ever to anyone. So why are they doing it so often?
“The Church infallibly teaches that the only sin that can not be forgiven is the sin against the Holy Spirit which is the sin unrepented of.
I am sorry you were taught to believe otherwise. “
I was not taught otherwise. Do you suppose that those who sit in judgement of others are going to suddenly realize their error and repent. People who make blanket judgements based on a person’s looks, or their skin color, or whatever else displeases them are not going to repent because they don’t think they’ve done anything wrong.
“The Gospel tells us to charitably correct those who are committing wrongs. (admonish the sinner, right? not stone him to death) And God, from the time of Moses, has said homosexuality is wrong.”
Very true, but it’s the homosexual act that’s wrong, not the inclination. God is not going to condemn someone for being exactly as He made him. The act is wrong for the same reason that heterosexual sex outside of marriage is wrong. Sex is for making babies within marriage. That’s it. Any other form of sexual relations is a sin, indluding sex within marriage using artificial birth control.
Personally I find the thought of two men together to be disgusting, as CourageMan said. It’s a sin. It’s always been a sin. It will always be a sin. But, I still don’t see a reason for excluding a chaste homosexual from the priesthood just because he is a homosexual.
I feel a great deal of sympathy for anyone carrying such a heavy cross. What I don’t have sympathy for are the rainbow sash croud, flaunting their gayness (is that a word?) I’m against gay marriages. I’m against having my taxes used in support of gay couples. If the day ever comes when the Federal government makes gay marriage legal I will probably go to jail for refusing to pay my taxes. But if a gay man can bring comfort to people as a priest, I say let him be.
Very true, but itbecame Catholic again. I took her to my pastor in tears and she confessed all her sins and became a perpetual Eucharistic Adorer.
This is what the Holy Spirit does!
“But if a gay man can bring comfort to people as a priest, I say let him be.”
Opportunities to pour out one’s life as an oblation to our Precious Lord in service to His people exist in abundance on this earth, priest or not.
“The problem with not excluding the chaste homosexual is determining what a chaste homosexual is. “
Dom,
You’ve hit the nail right on the head. How do we decide? Who decides? I don’t know. I don’t think anybody knows, and that’s what worries me. With all the other controversies surrounding the church, I hate to see this become another one. I just pray that they have a good plan.
Aquinas Seminary here in St. Louis was one of the first to be visited. The president of the school was all over the media bashing the bishops. The man has some rather strange ideas on other topics as well. We don’t need any more of that kind of publicity.
The bottom line is that it’s going to happen. The bishops have decided. As loyal Catholics, we have an obligation to accept their decision.
I was watching television the other night, or rather I was in the room reading while someone else was watching television, and one of the characters had some stupid idea and another character said, “That makes as much sense as hiring a Catholic priest as a baby sitter.”
That’s what some people are saying about our Church. At this point in our history, we must be very careful to be good Catholics, good Christians.
I will support, with enthusiasm, any decision that the bishops make. I just wonder how many of the names in the canon of saints might have been gay?
The bottom line is that itoing to happen. The bishops have decided. As loyal Catholics, we have an obligation to accept their decision.
Actually, nothing’s been decided yet. The document isn’t out yet. The latest guidance we have from the Church, that 1961 document, is that no one with homosexual tendencies is fit for the priesthood. Until we hear differently that is operative.
IP>
2005-10-29 16:04:59
2005-10-29 20:04:59
PART TWO:
The problem with not excluding the chaste homosexual is determining what a chaste homosexual is.
You really think that’s difficult? Unless it’s your point that any sins against chastity makes one by definition “not chaste” (and by that standard there’s probably not a chaste heterosexual either), that’s every homosexual who doesn’t self-identify and doesn’t say his sins are goods.
I “knew” in some sense in my late-teens, but didn’t have my first serious love-crush on a male friend, a fraternity brother, until I was 25. I did nothing sinful until I was 28. I fell in love the second time with another friend from 30 to 32 (totally unrequited, and he knew about my struggles). I did not sin with another person until I was 36, the impetus for my joining Courage.
At any age prior to 36, I would have been a “chaste homosexual,” except by a standard that I think few straight persons would meet.
* I am not, not, not, NOT saying that any and all opposition to or criticism of homosexuality or the gay lifestyle is irrational, hatred per se, phobic, demonology, etc. But it’s hard to deny that it is coming from at least some people.
** Yeah, yeah … Eve can’t be a priest. But it’s the principle I’m talking about.
I guess the fundamental disconnect between our two approaches to the subject is that I believe—based on conversations I’ve had with medical professionals and those who used to be gay—that those who experience attraction to the same sex can be healed of the disorder. That means functionally and truly heterosexual, not attracted to people of the same sex, and in the best cases, attracted to the opposite sex.
I think that’s where the real divide lies, even between orthodox Catholics. Most people seem to be in the “It’s what you are and you can’t fight it” camp, and the rest are in the “it’s a disorder from which you can be healed” camp.
I guess the fundamental disconnect … is that I believe … those who experience attraction to the same sex can be healed of the disorder.
That is very likely our disconnect.
I have no doubt that some people can change. God continue to bless them. If there were a Matrix-like Red Pill that could make you straight, I don’t think there’s one Courage member in a hundred who wouldn’t take it.
But there is a scientific record on this matter, and I don’t mean the APA’s PC-ized anathemas or the (absurdly distorted in the popular media) brain studies. It is that for many, if not most, persons with same-sex attractions, it is permanent, though it can be diminished or offset. (I should add both that the factual permanence doesn’t commit one to any theory of homosexuality’s genesis, and that the orientation’s permanence still says nothing about the conduct’s morality, as all behavior is chosen.)
NARTH acknowledges limits on the effectiveness of reparative therapy. Keep in mind, this is from a group whose … er … natural orientation would be to play up its success to the hilt. Here is the money quote from a gloss on the Spitzer study:
<blockquote>
As for completely reorienting from homosexual to heterosexual, most respondents indicated that they still occasionally struggled with unwanted attractions—in fact, only 11% of the men and 37% of the women reported complete change.
</blockquote>
I should note that this study also has some quite fundamental methodological problems (the non-random and self-selected sample, primarily), but they tend in the direction of overstating success. In other words, even when you HAVE a highly-motivated group of people both morally and existentially committed to the notion that they can and should change, and even when that study is being pushed by a group that has a clear interest in boosterism—STILL homosexuality, or at least a degree of it, persists in most cases.
Another article on the NARTH site, scroll down to the subhead “Research on Change,” sums up the literature on the topic. And there again, similar results—somewhere in the general neighborhood of 1/3 success rates, and with significant numbers (13 percent in the specific study mentioned) having no success whatsoever.
Nor should any of this be surprising. Most forms of therapy, short of Clockwork-Orange-like chemical overriding of the will are not successful most of the time. I started therapy a couple of weeks ago, at the advice of three Courage brothers and my confessor. Add in the therapist, and all five of the other people involved have warned me against too-high expectations. It is beyond reasonable doubt that, for whatever reason, I have suffered for years from pretty severe depression and melancholia (both cause and effect of Topic H; but sometimes unrelated). It took the therapist all of 150 minutes of actual time with me to say he’d inquire after getting me a prescription for anti-depressants.
I’m already posted two two-part posts and now another lengthy post. I apologize to Dom or anyone else who might think I’m monopolizing the discussion on another man’s site.
How about this for a reason?
If a priest “comes out” and states that he has been chaste and celibate, he is then an living example of 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.
Notice that the Catechism refers to them as homosexual persons. I believe that if the Magisterium recognizes it, its ok for a priest to do as well.
Recovering alcoholics serve as role models for practicing alcoholics. No one accuses them of being narcissistic or letting it define them. They deal with their struggles and make those struggles public so that others can learn.
Why would we not want the same for people who are struggling with homosexuality? Why would we not want role models to show them that a chaste and celibate life is possible?
Jamie, we have all the role models we need. We have Christ. We have our Blessed Mother and we have the Saints.
Isabelle:
You’re making the exact same argument that low-church Protestants and Fundamentalists make against ANY saints and ANY veneration/honor of Mary. We have Christ.
Notice that the Catechism refers to them as homosexual persons. I believe that if the Magisterium recognizes it, its ok for a priest to do as well.
The Catechism is speaking within the moral and theological sphere. I don’t believe it is authoritative a scientific or medical text. I wouldn’t want to use it as a support for saying tha.
As for a gay priest coming out, since a priest’s sexuality should be irrelevant since he is supposed to be chaste and celibate anyway, how is that being a good role model? “Hey, look I’m a chaste and celibate homosexual.” “So what, all good priests are chaste and celibate.”
I don’t think so. It is the role of the Holy Spirit to convict us of sin. Deacon Mike said people who are judgemental of others will never repent because they are not even aware of their sin.
The prayers of the Church, the Virgin Mary, the Saints in heaven, the Mass, the sacraments can all be offered to God for the sake of awakening sinners and of making them aware of their sinfulness through the actual grace of the Holy Spirit. Every day we should pray for the conversion of sinners.
That isn’t protestant and as for the veneration of The Most Blessed Virgin, I don’t even believe that without her, we can be made holy, as she is the Mother of Christ and is forming the mystical body of Christ into His image in union with the Holy Spirit, her Divine Spouse.
That’s not protestant.
God Bless,
Isabelle