All-rightey then…
Don’t jump on me ever again.
Homosexuals* should not be admitted to Holy Orders. Okay? Whenever I say that, SSA men who want to be a priest, get pissed. It’s the rules - I understand them, why can’t other people? (Well, something is wrong with modern thinking, so what can I say?)
Anyway - Fr. Zuhlsdorf has the full story - and here is an excerpt:
In reference to the Document of the Congregation for Catholic Education, ‘Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders‘, published by the aforementioned Dicastery on 4 November 2005, and in consequence of numerous requests for clarification which have reached the Apostolic See, it state precisely that the dispositions contained in said Instruction are in force for all the housesof formation for the priesthood, including those which [juridically] depend on the Dicasteries for Oriental Churches, for the Evangelization of Peoples, and for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.The Supreme Pontiff, on the 8th day of April of the year of the Lord of 2008 approved this clarification. - WDTPRS
Thanks to Ray at Stella for the tip.
*[T]he 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, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders [1] those who practise homosexuality, [2] present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or [3] support the so-called “gay culture”. - Fr. Z.
Slice, dice, dissect all you want. That’s it in a nut-cup - I mean, nutshell!
Link:
May 18th, 2008 at 11:06 am
What’s that say to ordained priests who are gay ? (SSA = Social Security Administration) What does it say about their vocation ?
I guess the hope is that there’ll be enough Poles and Nigerians to make up for the loss of gay men. Not that it’ll be strictly enforced. “Are you or have you ever been attracted to men ?” ?
Well, given this outright rejection, no self-respecting gay man should try to get into seminary anyway.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Apparently, the Church has been doing something it “cannot” do for quite some time.
May 18th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Dear Gerald,
Same-sex attraction (SSA) is the term Courage uses.
And you are absolutely right. A humble man who agrees with the Church’s teachings and who happens to have a modest degree of homosexual tendencies could be considered for holy orders, and a man who believes that homosexuality is good and just presents enough problems, regardless of sexual tendencies, to be considered a candidate for holy orders.
May 18th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
” … I guess the hope is that there’ll be enough Poles and Nigerians to make up for the loss of gay men …” — Gerald
Surely you jest … sheesh … perhaps there is another solution, perhaps another answer, perhaps a more healthy quest …
ZE08011405 - 2008-01-14
Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-21493?l=english
MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY: LOVE’S LINK
Interview With Author Father José Manglano
By Miriam Díez i Bosch
MADRID, Spain, JAN. 14, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Father José Pedro Manglano says history has shown that when marriages are in crisis, the vocation to celibacy also has problems. …
Gerald, the energy our nation and the world should be focusing on is healing the family in the right order … you start doing that then you will start eliminating some of our major ills and very bad laws that are helping to erode marriages and “healthy” family life along with those destructive educational policies.
http://catholicinsight.com/online/reviews/books/article_797. shtml
Nation of Bastards, Essays on the end of marriage by Douglas Farrow
May 18th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
See Paula - you need a blog or a website. Thanks for your comment… at least you get it.
May 18th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Gerald, maybe all the straight men pushed out of seminary by a hostile homosexual culture or kept out of seminary by the homosexual gatekeepers on various diocesan vocations boards would come back so the Poles and Nigerians can stay home.
Thom, you are right; that is why it needs to stop.
May 18th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Good catch Larry - that had been a huge issue until recently.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:36 am
What in the world is a “modest degree of homosexual tendencies”???
I assume that the poster assumes a right to use “modest degree”, since the original document speaks of “deep-seated”. It’s probably a fair guess, but that’s all it is, a guess. The problem with almost all documents issued from the Vatican is unclear language. Sometimes it seems like they have mastered the art of obfuscation. It’s clear they have to use such language, because things are rarely black and white. There are lots of shades of gray.
You know, the Holy Father had a wonderful opportunity to speak to this issue himself. He wisely drew a very clear distinction between the problem of pedophilia and homosexuality. “I would not speak at this moment about homosexuality, but pedophilia, which is another thing. And we would absolutely exclude pedophiles from the sacred ministry.” He didn’t specifically address the issue of homosexuality, and he won’t. There are many good, holy priests who have homosexual orientations. There have always been such men in orders, and there have been many such women in the consecrated religious life. Always, and everywhere. There are no more homosexuals today than there were in ages past. It’s not estrogen in the water (!) that accounts for homosexuals today.
If everyone here would do one simple thing. Randomly pick out three diocesan, or religious houses, and take a look at their vocation pages. Or better yet, question their vocation directors. More than likely you will get multiple answers on the question of how persons with homosexual orientation (SSA) are to be treated. There is simply nothing like a common understanding of the issues. Indeed, within houses of the same religous orders, you will get a wide array of answers. My own guess is that most of the recent discussion will just push more houses to adopt a don’t ask, don’t tell policy.
The diocese where I live has their priestly vocation pages boldly asking “Do you like women?” What kind of question is that? Is any man able to say “I don’t like women, I really don’t like them.” What does this prove? If it’s meant to weed out those with SSA, it may or may not. Sure, some, who are fearlessly honest, might take one interpretation, and not express interest in their seminary. On the other hand, most will know that they can honestly say that they really like women, and will knock on that door, if they feeled called to orders. It seems to take about 30 years for many homosexuals to understand and accept the full nature of their orientation.
The Church is doing nothing to address the needs of all of it’s children, and that makes me sad. I remember the release of the US bishops Always Our Children, and the hope that it offered, and the subsequent furor. Those of you with children - you are able to offer your straight daughters and sons open doors to worlds of opportunity, depending on your child’s abilities and needs. Are you able to offer your SSA child the same open doors? Your straight daughter and son is able to freely choose a mature sex life in the context of a lifelong sanctified marriage. Your SSA child is required to face life bravely with no sexual expression whatsoever? One is required to live a life of chaste celibacy because of the way that one is wired sexually?
But wait, isn’t that what the religious life is all about??? Today, many in the Church want to preclude even that possibility. Those with SSA are blamed for the sex abuse crises. Everyone with same sex attraction is now to be called to the single life. As so many others have pointed out, if we really believe that unmarried lay people with SSA are capable of living lives of chaste celibacy, why should we automatically assume that a man with SSA who wants to enter the seminary is incapable of the chaste celibacy that is required of him??? Where is the consideration of God’s grace in the discussion???
Even if the SSA condition is not purely genetic, such a condition seems to form in children well before the age of reason. This attraction is not freely chosen. Self consciousness of the condition really depends on the ability to refrain from complete repression of sexual desire. Can you believe that God requires that some people - but only some people - completely repress the gift of sexuality for the duration of their life? I think it is impossibly difficult for most people with SSA to function in the world, with the advice offered by many in the Church. It’s an impossible burden for most.
Can you believe that God requires more from someone who is SSA than from someone who is straight, as far as conversion and reconciliation goes? I believe that one can come to recognize a “gift” of being homosexual, and thus wish to give more back to God in the consecrated religious life or chaste single life. One can make such a choice. But I have to reject the notion that God demands an extraordinary life-long continuous donation from God’s SSA children; a donation which is infinitesmally greater than that which is expected from God’s straight children.
I think it makes much more sense to consider things in a common sense sort of way, and consider the ongoing studies of biology, psychology, and sociology. I believe as many others do, that in the majority of cases, either homosexuality is not a disorder at all, like being left-handed or red-haired, or, if it is to be considered a disorder, it is a disorder on par with infertility, blindness, or some physical disability, and almost never a moral disorder.
It always strikes me as the ultimate in hubris to suppose that theology is static, and we are capable of knowing everything that can be known. I have absolutely no doubt that the Church will continue to change over time. The deposit of faith is deeper today than it was yesterday, and will be deeper still tomorrow. Things will become clearer over time.
The problem in the Church is not that it preachs against homosexuality, it’s that it rarely addresses it in terms that have any common meaning. Our homosexual children are left on their own - not condemned, but not affirmed, embraced, or guided. When we don’t talk about issues we create a closet of silence, and that ultimately kills one’s spirit. Self-hatred is often taught to one in childhood, and it is easy to fall back into self-hatred unless we continue to affirm and be affirmed as good.
It’s just amazing that this topic creates such regular furor, in contrast to adultery, abortion, the ubiquitous advertisements for birth control, or almost any other sin that should be drawing our attention.
Sorry for the length of my response.
God bless you!