www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Are the Seminaries Pro-Gay?

Alex,

"Can you honestly say that having a Latin married priesthood will not go a long way to reassuring nervous Catholic laity about his whole matter?"

In the face of this particular crisis it would not reassure me. I don't see that it has anything to do with it. As has been pointed out before, how does marriage curb the lust for same sex intercourse?

Dan Lauffer

Dear Dan:
I like your approach. One possible correction. Our battles are with "principalities and with powers" but they are unseen

You are right of course. The hour was late when I wrote that. What I meant was that our battles are with forces that are other-worldly.

Thank you for clarifying. A good lesson indeed, but what are the consequences of these things being brought to light? None, so it seems. That to me is the lesson that would - and perhaps does - resonate with the laity.

[ 07-24-2002: Message edited by: CaelumJR ]

Again, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Most of the priests that I have met in my life have been exemplary. Good men and true spiritual fathers. May they be blessed and fruitful in their ministry!

Dear Dan,

Marriage doesn't curb the lust for same sex sex - period.

That's not the point I'm making.

Right now, the entire celibate priesthood is under a cloud of general public suspicion. It's a generalization that I think is accurate. It's unfair, but that doesn't make it any less prevalent among the laity.

It is a simplified view of things but one that, from the general laity's and public's point of view, is something that speaks to them.

And that's all I'm saying.

It is unfair that the good and holy celibates are painted with the same brush as the bad apples.

Ultimately, one argument is that in order to lessen the number of those who sinful/unhealthy sex appetites from entering the priesthood, one must make the priesthood less of a "hiding" place for them.

And I believe a married priesthood goes a long way toward that.

When I was in Catholic high school, former seminarians who became married lay teachers there were horrified that I even thought about the priesthood.

They often told me of the homosexual orientation of the people they met there and that that was what turned them off.

We're just beginning to see the crest of this problem.

That mandatory celibacy contributes to the view by those with a propensity for criminal sexual behaviour as a "safe haven" is an hypothesis that has yet to be proven.

But it is a good hypothesis nevertheless.

Alex

Again, I think we have to make the distinction between those who have a gay orientation and those who commit criminal sexual behavior in the context of the priesthood. I know good priests who have gay orientations but who are true to their vows. Too much of a generalization defames good men like that.

Dear Friend,

Yes, I agree.

But generalizations is what we are about right here and this entire thread is one big generalization - how can it be otherwise when we are trying to talk about this issue?

Again, I'm attempting to understand how laity look at it from a very knee-jerk reactive sort of way.

And can we really put controls in place to ensure that this sort of behaviour doesn't happen in the future?

Isn't it really impossible?

What is possible is for bishops to jump on priests (no real pun intended) when they are confronted with cases of sexual abuse and have them defrockd, ousted, vasta la vista.

The majority of the problems and the damage we are facing today is from the prolongation of the tenure of such priests by bishops who have seriously neglected their responsibilities to protect the laity.

The number one investigative issue should really be to find out what those bishops were thinking when they did that.

And I"ll also throw in again that anyone who doesn't think that having a married Latin priesthood right about now wouldn't go a long way to calm people's fears and suspicions is living in la-la land. Talk to some laity and see for yourself.

Alex

Alex,

"When I was in Catholic high school, former seminarians who became married lay teachers there were horrified that I even thought about the priesthood.

They often told me of the homosexual orientation of the people they met there and that that was what turned them off.

We're just beginning to see the crest of this problem.

That mandatory celibacy contributes to the view by those with a propensity for criminal sexual behaviour as a "safe haven" is an hypothesis that has yet to be proven.

But it is a good hypothesis nevertheless."

I see your point. It does seem to have merit. I have some friends at our church who were really turned off from the priesthood while at seminary because of the unbridled homosexual tendencies of many of the other seminarians.

Dan Lauffer

Dear Dan,

My aim is not to try and be difficult or to try and show how I'm somehow "right."

Call me a conservative (yes, please!), but I think that one big problem here is that our people in the seminaries don't have a strong enough commitment to prayer, meditation and other spiritual exercises.

Priests and religious especially need to be constantly plugged into the Spirit in order to maintain that inspiration they need to fulfill their vocations - but I'm speaking to the converted here.

Aquinas once said that prayer vigils et alia are required to make celibacy a successful venture.

The many young people here for World Youth Day show that prayer and song in the Lord can transfigure one's life.

Just being around these pilgrims with their Crosses and Bibles and everything else inspires one to prayer and social outreach.

Which is what these angels are doing here right now!

(One seminary professor I knew said he got his seminarians to do strenuous physical exercise. Perhaps the Latin Church can adopt the rule of prostrations from us "Easties?").

Alex

I believe the fallout over things done in secret is just beginning. Just because the media no longer finds this headline news doesn't mean things are not happening or will happen in the future.

I just would like to say that I am not overly educated and many times don't express myself well.... but overall , you folks are VERY polite :-). I do think this discussion is very "positive" and it needs to be talked about much more. We can't let evil hide in the darkness. It must be exposed to the light. Trying to deny or ignor it's existence will only promote it's growth :-(. I think that's why the problem is so bad today :-(.

CaelumJR - you mention no married clergy "south of the border"... About not having married clergy, in my Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of St. Nicholas (Chicago) we have about 50 % married priests. Eparchy of Stamford is about the same. The situation in the BCC of no married priests is not normative for all other Eastern Catholic churches in the United States. The Ukrainian Catholic bishop of Stamford ordained two married men to the priesthood last summer. Restoration of this practice with the BCC is only a problem within the BCC.

Excellent points Alex. The Roman Church itself will have to decide if a more open stance on married clergy is appropriate. There are several ex-Episcopalians and Lutherans who are married and serving as priests in the Roman Church. But you are absolutely right, the current problems will not be solved by simple institution of married clergy in the West.

True. However, is there not a part of the ordination liturgy where the people chant "Axios! Axios!" He is worthy! ? Does this not infer some measure of responsibility on the part of the broader church community to ascertain fitness for ministry? I have read that in early church practice, things were far less clericalized and the people were actively involved even in the appointment of their bishops. (Saint Ambrose being a more extreme example...His seemed more like a mob appointment! )

Ultimately, the decision is up to the bishop as the leader of the local church - as well it should be.

Also, my apologies if this topic has been overdone. I missed the earlier discussions, so I was not aware.

[ 07-24-2002: Message edited by: CaelumJR ]

You are correct, the broader community does have some responsibility. I don't know the practice in other eparchies, but once I had made application to the diaconate program, the bishop solicited confidential references from the parish before I was accepted into the program. I have no idea who was asked. Additionally, the CCEO, (I don't have them in front of me now, so I cannot cite the canon) encourages any person to make known to the bishop any problem regarding a candidate for ordination.

Good point about the Axios, Caelum...and I don't disagree about the level of clericalism present in the Church.

But the Axios is at the ordination ceremony at the end of the candidate's formation. Like it or not, the reality is that it is the bishop and the eparchial consultors who (1) accept the candidate for formation and (2) approve the candidate for ordination.

I've always wondered, what would happen if no one said Axios? I don't think it's ever happened in recent history but what if?