www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Why homosexual priests?

I think we're sniffing up the wrong tree here. Tha main issue should not be sexual orientation, whether heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual, pan-sexual or a-sexual. The reality is: sin comes from the exercise of free-will and a choice of turning away from God. One's so-called 'orientation' is not really the issue; however, the exercise of this orientation is the issue when it conflicts with a public vow of chastity (in the case of vowed religious) or celibacy in the case of diocesan clergy.

There are those who make automatic judgements based upon some types of evidence; the reality is: unless and until a person is clearly in violation of one's vows/promises, then there is no cause to start the equivalent of a jihad. For me, to start an inquisition on a priest or other cleric (or anyone else for that matter), is evidence of vindictiveness unless there is clear and incontrovertable evidence that there is public sin.

Personally, I have no judgement about anybody else based upon sexual orientation (or even upon behavior). I only ask that others join me in saying that there is to be no judgement upon another person whatsoever, unless there is specific evidence that indicates that a person is a danger to the public and especially to those who have lesser abilities to resist the approaches of others.

Otherwise, leave people alone and pray that the Lord will intervene in their lives if they are violating their public vows.

Christ is Risen!!

Edward,
I am sorry but this is too simplistic. The question is not "Why are priests not perfect" as you, Axios and others have seemed to imply. If that were the question it would of course be silly. Instead it is pointing to a deeper problem. In the RC church at least, there had developed a definite homosexual climate in certain seminaries. That was the case in Dallas in the 1970s. It was bad enough that it made the climate intolerable for certain straight seminarians who left. I have heard this to be the case in other seminaries. In other words we are loosing good candidates for the priesthood and this affects all of us. Further, just because someone becomes a priest does not mean they are called. Of course the entire time of formation and the time spent with a spiritual director before that is meant to discern but one can fake their way through that. Some gay men may go into the priesthood because they think that a celibate and religious vocation will make their desires go away. But that is not a good way to deal with it.

I am not saying one can not be gay and be a priest. But gays in the priesthood who act out has been and is a problem.

-Mark

Greek,

This diversion is not helpful.

"Celibacy is the ideal. But hetero's who have girlfriends are no better or worse than gay priests who have boyfriends. Again, celibacy is the ideal. Let those who have not been faithful to any committment cast the first three barred cross here!"

Either homosexual activity is an abomination to God. Or it is not. The Church and the Bible are very clear that such activity is an abomination.

"Let those who have NOT been faithful"? Is this a misstype on your part? What is this supposed to mean? If you mean to quote the verse concerning he who is without sin...then your point is, well, pointless. Jesus told the woman to stop sinning. That is what must be called for here.

Moreover, what is the point of making excuses? If a priest is fooling around and breaking his vows he needs to be disciplined. There is no point in making excuses for bad behavior.

Dan Lauffer

[ 05-13-2002: Message edited by: Dan Lauffer ]

Inawe,

The press is doing us a favor. I pray that they keep at it until the bishops act with courage and get this mess straightened out.

I don't trust you to be honest but I will try to answer honestly to you. The point is simple: The Church has never accepted homosexual sin and should never do so. We know that in the American Church and elsewhere this sin has been winked at by some of our bishops. We also know that the sin is causing us great trouble and we know that it is an offense to God. Without pressure from the press nothing would be done about it and some of our best priests would continue to suffer.

I will look to find the source of the 1961 directive. As soon as I find it I will post it. But the point is that the directive itself should not have to have been made at all. Homosexuals do not belong in the priesthood.

Dan Lauffer

[ 05-13-2002: Message edited by: Dan Lauffer ]

Dr. John,

I've tried to make it clear that the abuses I'm writing about are abuses of action. I don't give a flying fig if someone wants to call themselves a hetero or a homo. Both self identifications are a product of a secular mind and have nothing to do with holiness. It is a sin for a Christian to run around calling themselves either. Our identity is Christ. But if one does self identify as perverse then that person ought to be looked on with great suspicion and probably should not be allowed into the priesthood.

The issues I raised are concerning persons who have acted out their homosexualist behavior and have flaunted it in such a way as to make it impossible to function. Their actions have brought reproach upon the Church and have driven off decent priests or have teamed up with the bishop in a few occasions to drive out anyone who holds to the teachings of the Church.

Dan Lauffer

Friends,

Here is some information I discovered concerning our position on homosexualism. I think it is good and would to God that the advice had been followed.

Dan Lauffer

"Those affected by the perverse inclination to homosexuality or pederasty should be excluded from religious vows and ordination" (as reported by CNS)

Also I found an excerpt of an interview CNS conducted with Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone of the CDF: "persons with a homosexual inclination should not be admitted to the seminary."

Also here is what the Vatican press officer stated according to the New York Times:

"With this in mind, Pope John Paul II's spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, questioned whether ordinations of gays were even valid. 'People with these inclinations just cannot be ordained,' Dr. Navarro-Valls said in an interview, citing canon law but wading into what he knew was sensitive territory. 'That does not imply a final judgment on people with homosexuality,' added Dr. Navarro-Valls, a Spanish layman who is a psychiatrist by training. 'But you cannot be in this field.' Dr. Navarro-Valls compared the situation of a gay man who becomes a priest to that of a gay man who marries a woman unaware of his orientation. Just as such a marriage can be annulled, considered invalid from the first, the ordination might similarly be invalid, he said."

Here is a link to the CNS article:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/20020306.htm

Here is a link to the NYtimes article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/03/national/03VATI.html

I think the Church would do well if she heeded Our Lady of La Salette's warning:

"May those in charge of religious communities be on their guard against the people they must receive, for the devil will resort to all his evil tricks to introduce sinners into religious orders, for disorder and the love of carnal pleasures will be spread all over the earth."

I think it is helpful, as we have done here on other topics, to have a little preliminary discussion to focus on what exactly is th eissue before us. Here, I think we still are at that stage.

It would be helpful to me to have some more precision. First we are told that the Vatican had issued a clear and definative statement in 1961 on gay priests. Then, the same person offers a present day news story that states"


It also unclear to me if this discussion is about gay priests or gays in general.

Axios

Several posts back, Dan proposed that homosexuality in itself is an abomination.

Then, regarding either heterosexual or homosexual identification: "Both self identifications are a product of a secular mind and have nothing to do with holiness."

But then says: "It is a sin for a Christian to run around calling themselves either." I thought sin was integrally involved with holiness or lack thereof?

I've read and re-read the above several times, but I must admit that I am very confused by the above statements.

Christ is Risen!!

Axios and Dr. John,

I am not going to go down your side paths. My question stands. Since homosexual practice is an abomination and since homosexual lusts are unnatural and since the Church has asked that bishops not ordain homosexuals the Question is why have both BC bishops and RC bishops done so?

Another response to my enquiry.

"Question from E Babbish on 04-26-2002:
Is there a teaching about homosexuality of priests and or religious and can you quote it?
Answer by Fr. Robert J. Levis on 04-28-2002:
Dear Friend, The new Catechism of the Catholic Church calls homosexual acts a grave disorder. Our tradition considers them a monstrous distortion of the natural order and law. Such acts by a priest or religion become further evil since any sexual activity by them violates their promise or their vows. God bless. Fr. Bob Levis


Please read the Catechism "

Dan Lauffer

I've found it! Here's the notation about the 1961 directive. Would that we would have followed it. I pray that at least now we will.

"VATICAN TO ENFORCE 1961 DOCUMENT BANNING HOMOSEXUAL PRIESTS AND RELIGIOUS
Implementation Previously Left to Local Bishops

The Holy See has recognized that a major contributor to these sex abuses has been the reluctance of bishops to apply the 1961
document from the Sacred Congregation for Religious which prohibits the admission of homosexuals to the diocesan priesthood
and religious orders. The document states: "Those affected by the perverse inclination to homosexuality or pederasty should be
excluded from religious vows and ordination," because priestly ministry would place such persons in "grave danger".

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- A Vatican official's comments on the priesthood and homosexuality have drawn public attention to an
issue that has been quietly debated at the Vatican for several years.

Vatican sources said that, in general, church leaders are pressing harder so that people of permanent homosexual orientation are
screened out as candidates for the priesthood.

So far, this has been handled through prudent local decisions rather than explicit orders issued from the Vatican, they said. But it
is something Vatican officials have emphasized to bishops in recent discussions on priestly vocations and seminary programs, the
sources said.

A new document on the issue also is being considered. A study on the question of homosexual candidates to the priesthood was
completed last year at the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education, and sources said a set of guidelines for seminaries may
follow. In January, the same congregation examined proposed guidelines on psychological testing for seminary candidates.
Church officials view homosexuality as a potential problem that could be disclosed by such testing.

Last year, a top Vatican doctrinal official spoke of the negative effects of homosexuality within the priesthood and said: "The Holy
See views this as a very serious problem and is determined to take steps to correct it." The issue was raised again in early March
when Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls told The New York Times that "people with (homosexual) inclinations just cannot
be ordained."

"That does not imply a final judgment on people with homosexuality," he said. "But you cannot be in this field." In response to
questions by Catholic News Service, Navarro-Valls declined to elaborate on his comments. He said he did not want to draw more
attention to this topic, especially while U.S. church leaders were dealing with the more immediate problem of sex abuse by clergy.

Yet many at the Vatican see the two issues as related -- if not causally, then at least circumstantially. Most publicized cases of
sex abuse by clergy against minors have involved homosexual acts."

continued

"Church officials, who asked not to be named, said the Vatican was not trying to impose an arbitrary norm against homosexuals,
but was trying to make "prudential decisions" based on individual cases at the seminary level. They noted that the Vatican views
the issue as mainly dealing with future priests, not those already ordained.

As for objections that screening homosexuals would violate their rights, the sources said the priesthood was a question of vocation
or divine grace, not human rights. In the church's view, no one has a "right" to be ordained, they said.

Some church officials have questioned whether some ordinations might even be considered invalid because of homosexuality. But
the sources said that is not how the Vatican plans to approach the issue. For one thing, the validity of orders is a thorny church
law question that would in turn raise pastoral problems -- such as the legitimacy of past sacramental acts carried out by a priest
whose ordination was judged invalid.

The "Catechism of the Catholic Church" teaches that homosexual acts are a grave sin against chastity and that the homosexual
orientation is "intrinsically disordered."

In an interview in 2001 with CNS, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, secretary of the Vatican's doctrinal congregation, explained why
church leaders view a homosexual orientation as a potential problem in a seminarian.

Archbishop Bertone said that while the homosexual inclination is not sinful in itself, it "evokes moral concern" because it is a
strong temptation to actions that "are always in themselves evil."

He defined the homosexual inclination as "a temptation that, for whatever reason, has become so predominant in a person's life as
to become a force shaping the entire outlook of the person." "Persons with a homosexual inclination should not be admitted to the
seminary," Archbishop Bertone said.

In 1961, a Vatican document on the selection of candidates to the priesthood said much the same thing. The instruction was
issued by the then-Sacred Congregation for Religious and concerned those entering religious orders.

"Those affected by the perverse inclination to homosexuality or pederasty should be excluded from religious vows and ordination,"
it said. It said the community life and priestly ministry would constitute a "grave danger" or temptation for these people.

The document recommended that any person with serious unresolved sexual problems be screened out, saying that the chastity
and celibacy required by religious and priestly life would constitute for them a "continuous heroic act and a painful martyrdom."
The 1961 document has never been abrogated, so is still technically valid, officials said. But now, the Vatican is considering a
reformulation of these principles, so that the message gets through more clearly to local churches."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not apply to us. It was written from a Latin perspective for Latins.

I am not asking Dan to go down some side path, all I am asking is for a reconciliation of several statements that appear to be self-contradictory. {Yes, I DO actually read and re-read what people have posted because to not attempt to understand what they are trying to say would be un-charitable and un-just. But, I will also hold one's feet to the fire if the logic and reasoning are slipshod, and the posting is merely an affective or knee-jerk response to an emotional issue.)

Blessings!

How does this apply to the topic at hand? Since homosexual behavior is an abomination to God and homosexual lusts are unnatural how does this answer this question "Why have our bishops ordained homosexual persons?"

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not apply to us. It was written from a Latin perspective for Latins."

Are you suggesting that we are not really in communion with Rome?

Dan Lauffer

[ 05-13-2002: Message edited by: Dan Lauffer ]

I would agree with Dr. John that a reconciliation of various statements in conflict with each other are needed before an intelligent discussion can proceed. In fairness to Dan, it seems the Vatican statement is the one that is very confused. First of all, as an Orthodox Christian, I cannot accept anything that is attributed to "unnamed Vatican sources" to be evidence of 'teaching'. The Christian duty is to proclaim the Gospel. Secret interviews to the press is not proclamation.

Second, the Vatican says a new statement is in the works. This would suggest it has been concluded that the 1961 statement has flaws.

Let us also be clear. The definiation of homosexual was offered as follows: Archbishop Bertone said that while the homosexual inclination is not sinful in itself, it "evokes moral concern" because it is a
strong temptation to actions that "are always in themselves evil."

An Archbishop (a bureaucrat Archbishop, not a ruling one) defined the homosexual inclination as "a temptation that, for whatever reason, has become so predominant in a person's life as to become a force shaping the entire outlook of the person." Given that definition, I can state without reservation that I am NOT a homosexual.

If Catholic authorities are linking gay people with the Catholic Church's current matter of moral failing (if that is what is being implied) those authorities are truly evil. But I will save commentary for that for another time.

Lastly, the Vatican said that is does not wish to draw more attention to this issue. Wise move on their part.

Axios

Axios,

Your snideness aside, 2,000 years of consistent Christian teaching, plus another 1000 plus years of Jewish teaching, plus the testimony of a majority of all religious people in the world is not moved by the pseudo science of the last 30 years. Others have been suckered into you double talk. But Christians firmly grounded are unimpressed. I certainly am.

You still have not addressed the question, not that I expect you to do so, but I was just observing.

Dan Lauffer