 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Esther
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Kansas City, Kansas USA |
| Posts: | 144 |
| First Name: | Esther | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist to Roman Catholic 11/26/06 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25th, 2006 11:06 am |
|
In researching the area I am potentially moving I started looking into information on the Catholic community in the area. I found a couple of concerns:
1. The Bishop in the area has held Masses for gay and lesbian couples and their families. (Isn't this almost giving approval for the lifestyle and knowing that they are in mortal sin and allowing them to take the Eucharist?)
2. There was a priest in this diocese that had 6 same-sex marriages in the church, allowed a woman to be on the alter during the consecration (in priest-like garb) and hold up the chalice. He was taken out of the parish, but after being there for over 22 years! And it came from pressure from the Vatican.
3. The Bishop has not only allowed, but encouraged openly gay men to join the seminary. (I thought the JP II said they have to have 3 years without any tendencies before they can go to seminary, let alone be ordained) This of course has weakened the vocations in the area. Priests are coming out to their parishes and there is less then one seminarian per year joining.
My first inclination is this Bishop is wrong. If this is the case why is he still Bishop after years of this activity in his diocese? How is a Bishop removed from power anyway?
I am so bless to be in a great diocese (Kansas City, KS) and next door to another awesome one (Kansas City, MO). I am just thankful that my first experience with Catholicism was in a conservative area.
God bless,
Esther
|
|
|
StephenC
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dallas, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 51 |
| First Name: | Stephen | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, SBC, Nothing, Back home in 2006 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25th, 2006 01:26 pm |
|
So where did you get this info about this diocese? What is the source? Do you have a link?
God Bless,
Stephen
|
|
|
Esther
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Kansas City, Kansas USA |
| Posts: | 144 |
| First Name: | Esther | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist to Roman Catholic 11/26/06 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25th, 2006 01:45 pm |
|
This is about the priest:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/july-dec98/church_11-23.html
The message from Bishop Clark in regards to acceptance of homosexual priests:
http://www.catholiccourier.com/tmp1.cfm?nid=59&articleid=84647
Requirements for priests (I know you know this, thought I would throw it in here):
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=40891
I noticed on here how long ago the Mass was… maybe he isn’t allowed to do them anymore?
http://www.usao.edu/~facshaferi/clark.htm
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5079 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25th, 2006 04:52 pm |
|
Esther wrote:
1. The Bishop in the area has held Masses for gay and lesbian couples and their families. (Isn't this almost giving approval for the lifestyle and knowing that they are in mortal sin and allowing them to take the Eucharist?)
Not necessarily. Our Church teaches us to "love the sinner, hate the sin". If a homosexual couple is living in a sexual relationship, they clearly should not receive the Eucharist, but unless their actions are notoriously sinful, the general position of the Church is that they should refrain from approaching the table, not that they should be chased away. It is up to each bishop as the leader of his diocese to interpret how this directive should be enforced. For example, some bishops have instructed their priests to deny communion to pro-abortion politicians, while doctors and nurses who work anonymously at abortion clinics would have no problem receiving communion in the same diocese simply because no one knows who they are. Should a person in a gay relationship be refused at the altar, knowing that the person standing behind them might be an anonymous child rapist or serial killer? For the most part, our Church gives the instruction and then leaves it to the individual to decide for themselves how best to follow it. If they blatantly decide to disobey the Church's teaching, they will be held accountable in a "higher court."
2. There was a priest in this diocese that had 6 same-sex marriages in the church, allowed a woman to be on the alter during the consecration (in priest-like garb) and hold up the chalice. He was taken out of the parish, but after being there for over 22 years! And it came from pressure from the Vatican.
If I remember correctly, the article you cited called it a "blessing" not a marriage. There is a difference. That doesn't necessarily make it right, and I'm certainly not defending his actions. Obviously he was reprimanded for it and eventually removed from his parish. Yes, he was there for 22 years (WAY too long!) but we don't know that his behavior was constant through all those years. As for the woman on the altar, this was clearly wrong and he was reprimanded for it. However, I can tell you that at one time I stood on the altar with our priest dressed in liturgical garb and held the chalice during the Great Amen. At the time, more than 20 years ago, the guidance from the Vatican was not clear as to whether this was permitted. When it was clarified, our parish eliminated the practice. It is now clear that no one except a priest or deacon may stand on the altar and/or elevate the chalice or consecrated host.
As for a woman being named "associate pastor" my parish has a "pastoral associate" who is female. She does not dress in liturgical garb or stand on the altar except as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, Lector, or Commentator, or when she addresses the congregation (she does not do homilies, but occasionally speaks after communion). Many parishes in my diocese have pastoral associates who are lay men or women, deacons, and nuns. Of course, none of them take part in the mass inappropriately. At one time (late 80's and 90's) my pastor introduced me more than once as his associate pastor. It was not a genuine title (nor something that I claimed) but a recognition on his part of the active role I took in helping to operate the parish. He stopped calling me that after he hired our pastoral associate.
3. The Bishop has not only allowed, but encouraged openly gay men to join the seminary. (I thought the JP II said they have to have 3 years without any tendencies before they can go to seminary, let alone be ordained) This of course has weakened the vocations in the area. Priests are coming out to their parishes and there is less then one seminarian per year joining.
The problem the Vatican has is not with gay men or even openly gay men, but with those men who are obsessed with sexuality. As we all know, teens seldom think of anything else, but when we get older, our obsession diminishes. By our mid-20's, most men no longer trip over their own feet in the presence of a pretty girl, try to sneak peeks into the girls bathroom, etc. Men who are to become priests are to have been beyond the adolescent obsession with sexuality for at least three years, regardless of whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. In other words, they must show a sexual maturity appropriate to a man who is prepared to take a vow of celibacy. The three year period does not mean they will feel no attraction. I've been out of my 20's for a long time, and when a pretty girl walks by, I promise I still feel attracted.
This does not mean that a priest will never be sexually tempted, whether he is heterosexual or homosexual. It also does not mean that he will never succumb to temptation. All of us are sinners.
Let me clarify that by the term "openly gay" I mean a person who has publicly admitted an attraction to the same gender, even if the admission is only to his or her own family. There is a difference between gay (having attraction to the same sex), openly gay (admitting it), living a gay lifestyle or being actively homosexual (engaging in gay sex), and being a gay or homosexual activist (standing on soapboxes calling for gay rights). A person can be openly gay and even a gay activist and still be celibate. It is not a sin to be attracted to someone. It is not a sin to call for equal rights, equal pay, equal employment, etc. It is a sin to have sex with someone who is not your proper heterosexual spouse, regardless of their gender.
And the Church would and does have the same problem with a man who is "actively heterosexual" as it does with a man who is "actively homosexual", and would have just as much problem if a seminarian was having sex with a woman in the bathroom as it does if he's having sex with a man in the bathroom. (Of course, the Eastern Churches have different disciplines regarding the ordination of married men to the priesthood, and married men may be ordained deacons in the Roman Catholic Church as well, so marital relations between heterosexual men who are proper candidates for ordination and their spouses are perfectly acceptable, proper, and encouraged. Except in the bathroom. That might be embarrassing.)
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5079 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25th, 2006 05:03 pm |
|
Esther wrote: I noticed on here how long ago the Mass was… maybe he isn’t allowed to do them anymore?
http://www.usao.edu/~facshaferi/clark.htm
I went back after posting my last message and read this homily very carefully, and I can say wholeheartedly that there is absolutely nothing here that is contrary to the mainstream teaching of the Catholic Church. The homilist has separated the sinner from the sin and reached out to the sinner, which is exactly what Jesus would have done.
Gay and lesbian Catholics are called to be celibate, as are all single Catholics. Go back and read the homily again, substituting "single" for "gay and lesbian", and see if you have a problem with any of it.
We are called to reach out to the least of God's people. We hold our arms out for sinners, not the righteous. Jesus ate with the prostitutes and tax collectors, not the Pharisees. This bishop held a healing service for those alienated from the Church, and he was absolutely right in doing so. I hope he hasn't stopped.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Esther
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Kansas City, Kansas USA |
| Posts: | 144 |
| First Name: | Esther | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist to Roman Catholic 11/26/06 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25th, 2006 06:06 pm |
|
| Thank you for your insights! That definitely does put it in perspective. Some of it still does grate against me, but I guess this is where I need to humbly accept I am wrong. My grasp on Catholic social teaching is weak, at best. Sometimes I wonder how much of my world-view is right at all and how much is yet left to change. You definitely gave me some food for thought to pray and think over. Thanks again!
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5079 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25th, 2006 11:22 pm |
|
Esther wrote: Sometimes I wonder how much of my world-view is right at all and how much is yet left to change. You definitely gave me some food for thought to pray and think over. Thanks again!
David and I, as well as others, have spoken about the difference between Catholic and Protestant mindsets. When you look through a Protestant mindset, homosexual=bad.
But when looked at through a Catholic mindset, homosexual behavior=bad; homosexuality isn't. It is certainly a great temptation and a heavy cross to bear, but how many of us have learned through single life, divorce, disease, etc., that heterosexuality is also a great temptation and a heavy cross at times. Whether a man is a homosexual or a heterosexual, the question is whether he can choose to be celibate "for the kingdom of God". If he can, he will make a good priest. If he can't, he won't. And the fact of his sexual attraction to men or women is irrelevant.
I know priests who have been longshoremen, accountants, alcoholics, policemen, firemen, drug addicts, and even Protestants! They have survived these previous roles to become good priests. I also know priests who were at one time practicing homosexuals, and priests who were at one time married men, and have gone on to be very good priests. The question is not what a man was, but whether he can overcome it to be a good priest.
For those who are not candidates for ordination, the question is whether they can choose the celibate single life "for the kingdom of God". If they can, they will make good Catholics. If they can't, they won't. And the outreach to their friends and families is wonderful in any case. Gays and lesbians and their families and friends all need to hear without hesitation that God loves them unconditionally just as God loves the rest of us. And the Church loves them and needs them, too, just as it needs all of the members of the Body of Christ, for when one member hurts, the rest of us hurt as well. And even if we cannot currently invite them to the table, we can cry with them and offer them healing until the day that we can rejoice because one sinner has repented.
And it doesn't matter whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They still need to be told that God and the Church loves them, and they need to be told that by each and every one of us who live God's Word on earth.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Esther
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Kansas City, Kansas USA |
| Posts: | 144 |
| First Name: | Esther | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist to Roman Catholic 11/26/06 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 26th, 2006 08:39 pm |
|
I have spent some time in prayer about this issue (have a lot more to go), and had a couple more questions and thoughts. First I want to say this is a sensitive subject for me, as my brother is openly and actively gay. He is probably one of the best people I know. He has to most gentle, loving spirit. In fact, he is the only member from my family attending my first communion and confirmation and he is agnostic. Honestly, I thought about how he would as a priest, and I know he would make the best kind. My initial thought was this bishop was going against the Vatican, but obviously I was in error. With that being said, I care enough about his soul to tell him that I believe he is called to a life of chastity (I am not going to ever tell him he needs to be "un-gay" as my father has). I do not preach at him, and don't bring up the subject of his homosexuality. He is the one who brings it up. We have a very close relationship. He has listen to me going on and on about the Catholic Church (not in a preaching, but excited kind of way) and what I have learned and how I feel about the whole thing. He has even said if he were ever going to be Christian he would be Catholic. He has a lot of respect for me and he knows my love is unconditional. But he knows clearly where I stand in regards to homosexuality. I believe I have "loved the sinner, not the sin".
I say all of this for a point, in effort to love the sinner and not the sin how far do we take it? Do we tip-toe around the issue? I mean homosexual acts are mortal sin, and isn't it the role of the Church to instruct her people and lead them into heaven? What is the right forum for something like this?
This being said, I agree that a priest is called to chastity regardless of orientation. I agree that the Mass was bringing in and loving a people that are is such desperate need of God's love and hope. My brother has been so burned from protestant churches. I do want my brother to find a place where he is loved and accepted. But I also don't want my him to go to hell. There seems to be a fine line between accepting the person and not condoning the lifestyle.
Yes my world view is a very fundamentalist view. It is one that is slowly changing. Obviously from my previous posts I have a very long way to go. I am glad God is patient with with me.  However I do not feel that I equate my brother (or any other homosexual) with being bad, but a person who was deeply hurt in his life and needs Jesus in a most desperate way. Not only for salvation, but healing. The life he is living is killing him the same way my life of promiscuity and partying was killing me. When I came back I needed some tough love. People that cared enough about me held me accountable to living the life that Christ has called us all to.
Thank you for you patience with me Rick. My ultimate desire is "to be perfect as my Father is perfect". I have a long way to go. I appreciate you helping me understand the Church and Her teachings.
In Christ,
Esther
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5079 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 26th, 2006 11:43 pm |
|
Esther wrote: in effort to love the sinner and not the sin how far do we take it? Do we tip-toe around the issue? I mean homosexual acts are mortal sin, and isn't it the role of the Church to instruct her people and lead them into heaven? What is the right forum for something like this?
Homosexual acts (and heterosexual acts outside of marriage) are gravely evil. We do not and cannot judge sinfulness in another. As Catholics we believe that salvation is open to all who seek God with a sincere heart. This can include anyone, whether they are pagans or Muslims or Buddhists, suicide victims or murderers, or those living a gay lifestyle or those cohabitating heterosexually. We don't know the level of their faith formation, the pressures in their own lives, and the circumstances that change an objective evil into a subjective sin.
So what do we do? We "love the sinner, hate the sin." It is possible to unconditionally love someone while still despising what they do. What matters is that they are doing the very best they can to live their lives as they believe God wants them to. Not as we want them to, not as the Church wants them to, not as their parents want them to, but as God wants them to. And that is strictly something they must decide for themselves in their relationship with God.
That doesn't mean we "tiptoe" around it. We be honest with them, and love them anyway. Your brother is welcomed in the Catholic Church (although not necessarily by every Catholic or in every Catholic parish ... some are less Christian than others), but he cannot be admitted to the sacramental life of the Church because of his lifestyle. Love him unconditionally, as Jesus loved the woman at the well, and pray for his conversion as St. Monica prayed for her son St. Augustine.
Read Matthew 25:31-46, where Jesus describes how the judgment will take place at the end of time. Matthew seems to have left out the phrase, "unless you're a homosexual". That tells us that all who do their very best to take care of the least of God's people have a chance at salvation. The only ones who will be absolutely denied salvation are those who have failed to provide for the least of God's people.
Every evil act takes us a little farther away from God, so it makes it harder "to be perfect as my Father is perfect". His task is harder, but it doesn't mean he can't succeed. Your love and prayers for him will help.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Esther
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Kansas City, Kansas USA |
| Posts: | 144 |
| First Name: | Esther | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist to Roman Catholic 11/26/06 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27th, 2006 01:08 am |
|
cajunrick wrote:
Homosexual acts (and heterosexual acts outside of marriage) are gravely evil. We do not and cannot judge sinfulness in another.
I fully agree. I would never assert to judge another. My life has so many sins, I need to work on pulling the plank out of my own eye before I start pointing the speck out in someone else. Please forgive me if I gave this impression. As Catholics we believe that salvation is open to all who seek God with a sincere heart. This can include anyone, whether they are pagans or Muslims or Buddhists, suicide victims or murderers, or those living a gay lifestyle or those cohabitating heterosexually. We don't know the level of their faith formation, the pressures in their own lives, and the circumstances that change an objective evil into a subjective sin. I know God's ways are about may way, His thoughts then mine. I am not trying to assert that I know who is God will allow into heaven and who He will not. I have enough to worry about with my own salvation. I do know that homosexuality is an abomination to God. Like you have said I do not know the circumstances behind it, nor is it for me judge one way or another. But it is cutting them off from the fullness of God's love. Now this is said for any mortal sin, I am not just singling homosexuality here. If I was committing fornication, I would be hurting my soul regardless of the formation I had. God created us to have full communion with him and I screw it up all of the time. If there is a lack of formation, would it be the job of the Church to instruct her flock? I like the analogy of flat-tire-sydrom. Since we are all driving around with flat tires no one knows that there is anything wrong with it. But when you fill the tires up and you experience God's grace you can see the kind of life we were called to. Since there isn't full knowledge it isn't a mortal sin, but whose responsibility is it to give them formation in the faith so they can fill their tires? I think there is a moral law written on hearts, but perhaps they don't understand the gravity of the actions in their life because their tires have never been filled (no matter the orientation).
So what do we do? We "love the sinner, hate the sin." It is possible to unconditionally love someone while still despising what they do. I believe this as well. I try to live it out, and so many people have done this for me. They have loved me right where I was at, and that was the most powerful testimony to me. What matters is that they are doing the very best they can to live their lives as they believe God wants them to. Not as we want them to, not as the Church wants them to, not as their parents want them to, but as God wants them to. Sometimes what we think is best isn't. There are many times now that I think I know what is best for my life and how I can 'best' serve God. I was in the process of enrolling in seminary to train to be a missionary with the International Mission Board (Southern Baptist). I thought this was the best way I could serve God. Obviously it wasn't. Here I am today. I have less of a clue then ever. In the end God is the one that gives us grace, but the Church dispenses it. Instructs us and leads me us to salvation in Christ our Lord. To me it has to matter what the Church wants me to live out my faith. She is the standard of truth I can use. If I don't have that it becomes subjective. This is why I decided to become Catholic. My protestant faith was to open to personal interpretation. So I personally think it does matter what the Church says we are to be. Will it damn us to hell if we don't follow that? I don't think so. I think Divine Mercy depth is more then you and I could ever fathom. But I think God uses the Church to tell His people what He wants. And that is strictly something they must decide for themselves in their relationship with God.
That doesn't mean we "tiptoe" around it. We be honest with them, and love them anyway. Your brother is welcomed in the Catholic Church (although not necessarily by every Catholic or in every Catholic parish ... some are less Christian than others), but he cannot be admitted to the sacramental life of the Church because of his lifestyle. Love him unconditionally, as Jesus loved the woman at the well, and pray for his conversion as St. Monica prayed for her son St. Augustine.
I of course will continue to love and pray for my brother. We have a bond that no one could break. We have been through hell and back together. My love for him is unconditional. I love him more then I would ever be able to express. And he knows that. He also knows I pray for him on a daily basis.
Read Matthew 25:31-46, where Jesus describes how the judgment will take place at the end of time. Matthew seems to have left out the phrase, "unless you're a homosexual". That tells us that all who do their very best to take care of the least of God's people have a chance at salvation. The only ones who will be absolutely denied salvation are those who have failed to provide for the least of God's people.
I am not trying to say if someone is going to heaven or hell. If the Church won't declare that, then I certainly won't either. I am looking at the aspect of the sharing the truth with them in love. More then just for their souls to be united more fully with Christ, but for their healing.
Every evil act takes us a little farther away from God, so it makes it harder "to be perfect as my Father is perfect". His task is harder, but it doesn't mean he can't succeed. Your love and prayers for him will help. I stated "to be perfect as my Father is perfect" in reference to myself to demonstrate how far away I am from that. Yes, he does have a heavy cross to carry. But I believe through Christ all things are possible. I believe my brother can find healing. All I can do is pray for him and love him.
I think I really screwed up the quotes... sorry. Technology and me don't seem to get along these days.
|
|
|
gkchesterton
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 27th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 19 |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Jehovah's Witness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27th, 2006 09:31 pm |
|
Rick,
The document in question simply doesn't use the word "obsessed". In the English translation it instead uses "tendencies". I think this usage was purposeful. In the ban it says:
"In light of this teaching, this department, in agreement with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, holds it necessary clearly to affirm that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, may not admit to the seminary and Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, show profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture."
Important in light of this post is "support of the so-called gay culture." While being single is normal being homosexual is not. Blessings of such type could be read as rendering support. Also it is interesting that the next paragraph defines those who could be admitted to orders:
"If, however, one is dealing with homosexual tendencies that may be simply the expression of a transitory problem, such as for example an adolescence not yet complete, such tendencies must be overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate. "
In another words, these feelings have passed and the individual no longer feels undue attraction to the same sex. It also, as another poster correctly points out, imposses a waiting period not on the act but on the "tendancy".
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5079 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27th, 2006 11:53 pm |
|
gkchesterton wrote: Rick,
The document in question simply doesn't use the word "obsessed". In the English translation it instead uses "tendencies". I think this usage was purposeful. In the ban it says:
"In light of this teaching, this department, in agreement with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, holds it necessary clearly to affirm that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, may not admit to the seminary and Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, show profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture."
The word "obsession" was mine, and I used it in response to the following statement at the beginning of the document:
"...the present Instruction does not intend to linger on all the questions by nature emotional or sexual that require careful discernment throughout the whole period of the formation. It contains norms regarding a particular question, made more urgent by the present situation, that is that of the admission or non-admission to the seminary and Holy Orders of candidates who have profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies."
In other words, in my opinion and understanding, this document does not address the overall issue of admitting homosexual men to ordination, but only answers questions regarding "those who practice homosexuality, show profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture."
The rest of the document does use the term "homosexual tendencies" but those references must be read in light of the introduction, which limits the scope of the document. If the Vatican issued a document on distributing communion in glass chalices, future use of the term "cup" would not broaden the scope of the document.
Regarding maturity, the document states, "The candidate for ordained ministry, therefore, must reach emotional maturity. That maturity renders him able to put himself in the proper relation with men and women, developing in him a true sense of spiritual fatherhood toward the ecclesial community entrusted to him." He is called to have an attitude of spiritual fatherhood toward all God's faithful, regardless of gender. He must be able to treat them equally, regardless of any personal attraction he may feel. And if he finds that with a particular individual of any gender he cannot promote this sense of spiritual fatherhood, he must separate himself from that person.
I guess maybe you and I have different definitions of the words "tendencies" and "attractions" and maybe I should have been clearer in saying that neither homosexual nor heterosexual attraction should be a bar to ordination in and of itself. The question at hand, and the question addressed in this document, is whether the candidate can move beyond any tendencies, attractions, etc., and remain faithful to his vow of celibacy and develop the relationship of spiritual fatherhood with the community entrusted to him.
The following paragraph, taken from the official Vatican translation (which I will use from now on), states the problem and in my opinion further clarifies the type of person this document addresses: Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies. So it does not apply to a person, regardless of sexuality, who can correctly relate to men and women. I would assume that the Church already had in place instructions regarding men who would treat women as sex objects or otherwise demean them or treat them incorrectly.
Also please note canon 212 of the Code of Canon Law: A diocesan Bishop is to admit to a major seminary only those who are judged qualified to dedicate themselves permanently to the sacred ministries; he is to consider their human, moral, spiritual and intellectual qualities, their physical and psychic health, and their correct intention; canon 1029: Only those are to be promoted to orders who, in the prudent judgment of their own Bishop or of the competent major superior, all things considered, have integral faith, are moved by the right intention, have the requisite knowledge, possess a good reputation, and are endowed with integral morals and proven virtues and the other physical and psychic qualities in keeping with the order to be received; and canon 1051: The following prescripts regarding the investigation about the qualities required in the one to be ordained are to be observed: ...there is to be a testimonial of the rector of the seminary or house of formation about the qualities required to receive the order, that is, about the sound doctrine of the candidate, his genuine piety, good morals and aptitude to exercise the ministry, as well as, after a properly executed inquiry, about his state of physical and psychic health.
So if the bishop determines that a man is of good moral character, has integral faith, the requisite knowledge, possesses a good reputation, etc., he is to be admitted to Orders. If the bishop has any doubts whatsoever, he is not to be admitted.
To get back to my use of the word "obsession," it was simply easier to type than "profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies". I apologize if my use of a simpler word caused any confusion, but taking the document as a whole, I believe the term "obsession' is a sufficient way to describe the issue for those of us who are not bishops or canon lawyers. After all, we are not here to dissect Church documents, only to explain them to the uneducated who are interested in the Catholic faith. I believe this document does not bar all homosexual men for all eternity from entering the seminary. If you disagree, please feel free to say so. But unless you are a bishop, your interpretation doesn't matter any more than mine.
And finally, let me state that I am not an expert and I have no idea whether my understanding of this document is accurate. However, I do believe the actual ordination of men who experience same sex attraction but not "profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies" will be left to the bishop of the diocese, just as it was before.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1790 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28th, 2006 12:06 am |
|
Hello, GK. A year or so ago, on the old forum (may it rest in peace!), I had occasion to provide some of the results of my earlier research (cerca 2001) into the essence of homosexual life and culture. The person with whom I discussed these matters is still with us and can vouch for my tough stand against homosexuals being classified as “normal,” and if practicing, “harmless.” Police statistics are a gruesome confirmation that bad trees, according to their nature, do not produce good fruit (cf. Matthew 7:16–20).
However, I also cannot let the opposite error go unnoticed.
You cite the Vatican document (I read it in full the day it was promulgated and posted a link to it on the forum) prohibiting active homosexuals from being allowed to enter seminaries or receive holy orders. This decree refers to these individuals as “those who practice homosexuality, show profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.”
You appear to interpret the the operative word to be “tendency.” I don’t. Grammatically, the operative word would be “show.” My point is that the tendency must be observed in order for the candidate’s homosexuality to be discovered. There are numerous ways that one’s sexual orientation can be made manifest, but if all manifestation is absent, there no reason to suspect a problem. Even if a person suffers from same sex attraction, provided this inclination is completely sublimated and there are no noticeable “secondary traits,” then really, there isn’t a problem. And this is Rick’s point.
If you look at the other two criteria — homosexual practice and support of the gay culture — you can see that these will respond to the same criterion: if something abnormal is observed, it must be dealt with. Even if an abnormality exists, if it is not observable, there is no cause for investigation or dismissal.
So the criterion is not abnormal tendency as versus normal tendency, but observed abnormality which shows a problematic trait. This is why the Vatican document also deals with the question of vigilance on the part of those who must make the determination. In other words, once the criterion is laid down, it becomes the responsibility of the bishop, the headmaster, the teachers and the spiritual director to investigate thoroughly any indication of a problem and take appropriate action. This is the only practical way to handle any human case. It must not be a witch hunt but a reliance on observable facts. To insist that the operative word ought to be “tendency” is basically to nullify any possibility of justice, because it appeals not to evidence but to subjective impressions.
David
|
|
|
gkchesterton
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 27th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 19 |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Jehovah's Witness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28th, 2006 02:31 pm |
|
Actually I can't say I disagree with your post hardly at all. I do think we are concentrating on different words in the document. My concentration results from the difference the document places in the two paragraphs I posted on in another thread. I think by doing such they are trying to establish a two types. Otherwise I agree totally with you, with one exception, dissmissal. As far as I can tell dissmissal isn't treated by any document that I have access to, only admission. Bishops also have an enormous amout of lee-way about how to read this.
My key disagreement with Rick is on two points. Since homosexuality, unlike hetrosexual "single" attraction is not normal and always and everywhere disordered, it can not ever be related to hetrosexual attraction except where that attraction is disordered. If I see a hot woman on the street and my pulse races I'm normal. If I dote on her I've now sinned. If I see a hot guy and my pulse races something is wrong. Something I should start working on *now*.
This causes my second disagreement on quality of desire. Since any homosexual desire is wrong the document rightly avoids any sort of comments on excessive desire since all homosexual desire, by definition, is excessive. That is, you can never ever have to little homosexual desire. A canidate to the priesthood should therefore have moved beyond these desires, since they were old and tranisitory in nature.
I imagine my view of homosexuality and Rick's colors the difference. I view homosexuality as, at least in most cases, completely correctable. I don't *think* Rick holds the same view. I could very well be wrong.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5079 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28th, 2006 04:05 pm |
|
gkchesterton wrote: I imagine my view of homosexuality and Rick's colors the difference. I view homosexuality as, at least in most cases, completely correctable. I don't *think* Rick holds the same view. I could very well be wrong.
I am following the teaching of the Catechism:
Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
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.
Please note that the Church herself, while considering homosexual acts as evil and tendencies as disordered, does not call for a correction or "cure" but rather for a life of chastity. The Church also acknowledges that in the case of homosexual attraction, "Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained." I agree.
Can it be "corrected"? I don't know. I'm not an expert. I do know that many people who suffer from various addictions, whether to alcohol or drugs or pedophelia, can go through the best programs available and even with a strong desire to change, they often cannot. I suspect in some cases it can be "cured" but in most cases it cannot.
If a man completely follows the Church's admonition in paragraph 2359 above, and lives a life of chastity, in essence making himself a eunach for the Kingdom of God according to Jesus' instructions, I see no reason why he cannot be an excellent priest. And if he meets the criteria cited in the paragraphs quoted above, and in the Code of Canon Law, and if he is judged by his instructors, confessors, and bishop to be a proper candidate for orders, I don't think same-sex attraction alone should keep him from ordination.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Talithacumi
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Eastern Ohio, USA |
| Posts: | 260 |
| First Name: | Cheri | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic - Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28th, 2006 11:41 pm |
|
gkchesterton wrote: If I see a hot woman on the street and my pulse races I'm normal. If I dote on her I've now sinned. If I see a hot guy and my pulse races something is wrong. Something I should start working on *now*.
Hi, GK
Hope y'all don't mind if I jump in here...
Homosexuality makes me uncomfortable, but I don't hate homesexual people. But why does this make me uncomfortable at all? Because it is a disorder. It's not natural. By nature, it makes me uncomfortable. I'm going to be bold here and say that if someone were to tell me they're gay, it does tend to bring to mind something that's NOT normal! I don't dwell on it, OK? - but it does enter my mind, and I have to push it away. It's like... "thanks for painting that picture for me..."
So, GK, regarding your quote above, I can understand how you feel. But there's another angle you're not looking at. And I think this is Rick's point, or at least I'm trying to point to Rick's point... :?.
Homosexuality is a disorder, but there are lots of disorders. Take mental retardation, or ADD, or Autism. These are all "disorders." They are not "normal." But do these "tendencies" make a person evil? No. They do make the rest of us uncomfortable, but only because their behavior is not normal and we don't know how to deal with it. I used to work with the mentally retarded, and I've seen how uncomfortable people can be around them until they get used to them.
The "shame" of being homosexual should only be in their acting it out. But is their sin really any greater than masturbation, or adultery, or fornication? Probably not.
I guess my point is, so what if their tendencies are not entirely normal? If they don't act on them, what's the difference? After all, temptation in itself is not the sin, whether one is homosexual or heterosexual - it makes no difference. The sin is giving in to the temptation, whether it is having sexual relations with a member of the same sex or with someone of the other sex. Doesn't matter. The sexual act is only licit and permissable in a marriage between a man and a woman. So, whether a person is homosexual or heterosexual, it doesn't matter. If their sexual union is not within a valid marriage union, it is wrong. Period.
GK, you say, "If I see a hot woman on the street and my pulse races I'm normal. If I dote on her I've now sinned."
Then you say, "If I see a hot guy and my pulse races something is wrong. Something I should start working on *now*."
Hmm... You were absolutely correct in your first observation about the "hot woman". But really, in the second one about the "hot man", it should end the same way: "If I dote on him, now I've sinned." See, the first part of both of those sentences deals with temptation. Again, temptation is not the same as the sin. The sin is in the acting on it, in this case, as you say, "doting" on - either - the hot woman or the hot man.
But, OK, I just thought of something that might put my whole "argument" above into sort of a tailspin... well, maybe not really, because I was speaking of sinfulness mostly... And what I'm about to say doesn't regard sin, but "being." Let me try to explain...
If I have a problem with a priest being homosexual, it's not regarding any tendency towards sin, but because a priest should be a man. (But this would involve the whole argument about why women shouldn't be priests... deserves a whole different thread...) Anyway, if a man's sexual orientation isn't really "male" I do see a kind of a problem... Also, come to think of it, in light of some of the other "disorders" I mentioned, hmm... I can't see a mentally retarded person or an autistic person being permitted to enter the priesthood, either... so maybe there is something about a "disordered" person that can't allow for them to be a priest. Truth is, that's understandable. I mean, would it be wise for a person with a "tendency" towards having shaky hands to become a heart surgeon? Or a person with a low IQ to become a lawyer? Or a person with no fingers to become a concert pianist? (OK, maybe it's been done using one's toes, but generally... you know what I mean, right?)
Well, I haven't completely formed my thoughts on this yet, though... and I don't know if anyone will even begin to know what I'm trying to say, but anyway, just throwing it out there for now...
JMJ
- Cheri
____________________
“We do not want a Church that will move with the world; we want a Church that will move the world.”
- G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1790 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29th, 2006 01:06 am |
|
gkchesterton wrote:I agree totally with you, with one exception, dismissal. As far as I can tell dismissal isn't treated by any document that I have access to, only admission. Bishops also have an enormous amount of leeway about how to read this.
But isn’t refusal of admission a form of dismissal? And if dismissal after admission isn’t allowed, what does the bishop do with the one who “slips through” the admissions process, only to be discovered later? I can accept that the admissions process is the first line of defense, but it cannot be the only one. He will surely be expected to rectify the situation at whatever stage discovery occurs. Even if the documents don’t mention later dismissal, it should be understood as legitimate just because refusal of admission is mandated.
Likewise, if you had said “some leeway” instead of “an enormous amount of leeway,” I could have accepted your statement about the responsibility of bishops. The language of the Vatican documents makes it clear that bishops are expected to toe the line, because they are being held responsible for the overall outcome. So if a bishop takes too much liberty in interpreting what constitutes homosexuality or what he is expected to do when dealing with concrete cases, the Vatican has served notice that there will be consequences.
Do not be deceived by the laissez faire policies of the seventies and eighties; all that is history. Since the turn of the millennium, even with John Paul II, the leash has been much shorter. We have already seen the ax fall on a number of bishops as a result. In most cases they have been allowed to resign quietly to avoid further scandal, but where they have refused, they have been deposed. Regarding the lack of cooperation, I am thinking specifically of a recent case in Austria, and if memory serves, there have been a couple of others elsewhere.
I must also agree with Talithacumi that you have not established the proper relation between lust and sin in your example of lusting for someone of the opposite sex versus lusting for someone of the same sex. It is not merely a disorder (“tendency”) that the Church is concerned with, but actual sin. A disorder is unfortunate (what in traditional theology is called a “natural evil”), but it is not in itself sinful (a “moral evil”). The wrongful results of a disorder, however — what is sometimes called “deliberate disordered conduct” — can be gravely sinful. This is why we read in the Catechism that homosexual tendencies are not sinful, but homosexual acts are.
I hope you understand that our criticism is not meant as debate, but as an aid to understanding. Because of the techniques employed by certain militants, the world is filled with fuzzy-headed thinking on this topic, and it is easy to be influenced if one is not also exposed to the more rigorous thought of those opposed to these militants.
David</ | | |
