Catholic Church to bar Gays from Seminary School

[juvenal]

At Far Rider's request, here is what I posted over at THC about the apparent decision by the Catholic Church to bar self-described gays from entering seminaries:

www.nytimes.com/2005/09/22/international/europe/22vatican.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=4b5ee9218e6daead&hp&ex=1127448000&partner=homepage

Seems to me that this, when it does come out, will be the biggest news to come out of the Vatican in a long, long time.

A couple of years ago, during the height of the se*-abuse scandals, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with this.

Now, however, I don't think that homose*uality itself is the problem.

Some have said that Catholic seminaries are "gay havens." I don't have any idea whether this is true or not, the priesthood having little attraction for me, for a variety of reasons.

The Church's teaching on se* itself is that the faithful channel their se*ual desires, whatever they are, in an appropriate manner. That pretty much means that laypeople are to confine se* to marriage, which means that gays are to confine any homose*ual urges period.

Now, whether I personally agree with any teaching of the Church or not, is ultimately irrelevent. I personally think that priests ought to be able to marry, and that married couples ought to be permitted to practice reasonable contraception, while keeping in mind that the ultimate purpose of marriage is children. But I believe even more strongly that it's not my place to decide these things.

That said, I have to say that, since the Church teaches that se*ual urges are not the problem (and I admit my theological training mostly consists of what I learned in RCIA) but that acting them out in an irresponsible or inappropriate manner is the problem, it would seem to me that homose*uality itself is not the problem. The problem is the se*ual abuse of children, in whatever form. Seems to me that if the Church would enforce the vows of chastity that all priests take, and examine seminarians, as best it can, on things like their sense of honesty or honor in actually keeping vows, that would get at the root of the problem.

But, again, I don't have any extensive training in theology, and even if I did, it wouldn't be up to me.

[FightingFalcon]

Why is this such a big deal? The Catholic Church doesn't let murderers, adulterers, thieves, etc. to be priests. Why would they let homosexuals, whom they consider just as evil as the aforementioned, to join?

[juvenal]

fightingfalcon said:

Why is this such a big deal? The Catholic Church doesn't let murderers, adulterers, thieves, etc. to be priests. Why would they let homosexuals, whom they consider just as evil as the aforementioned, to join?

FF, I don't know that it is such a big deal. It's probably just nitpicking on my part, which I admit is not my place.

But here's the question for me: I know that the Church teaches that homosexuality is "innately disordered." I have no argument with that teaching.

But is it the inclination toward evil or the acting out of such inclinations that is dangerous? After all, I have at least some inclination toward most, if not all, of the seven deadly sins. Everybody has some inclination which is "innately disordered."

Another way of asking the question is this:

If a priest were caught having sex with or molesting a sixteen-year-old girl, would we blame that on his heterosexual inclination?

[dustdevil28]

Juvenal

I think the problem the church is having isn't that these people are sharing homosexual relations, as much as they are unrepentant of said actions.

As you stated most all people are born with inclinations towards at least one of the 7 deadly sins, The difference though is that a alcoholic may try to enter the house to give himself to a higher power, repent and do his best to resist his temptation.

If openly gay people show up, where's the remorse? Where's the repention?

[FightingFalcon]

juvenal said:

fightingfalcon said:

Why is this such a big deal? The Catholic Church doesn't let murderers, adulterers, thieves, etc. to be priests. Why would they let homosexuals, whom they consider just as evil as the aforementioned, to join?

FF, I don't know that it is such a big deal. It's probably just nitpicking on my part, which I admit is not my place.

But here's the question for me: I know that the Church teaches that homosexuality is "innately disordered." I have no argument with that teaching.

But is it the inclination toward evil or the acting out of such inclinations that is dangerous? After all, I have at least some inclination toward most, if not all, of the seven deadly sins. Everybody has some inclination which is "innately disordered."

Another way of asking the question is this:

If a priest were caught having sex with or molesting a sixteen-year-old girl, would we blame that on his heterosexual inclination?

No, Juvenal but would the Catholic Church allow a convicted child molestor to become a priest? If someone has a natural tendency to molest children, then they should not even be considered to be a priest. Along the same lines, would the Catholic Church allow a convicted serial killer to become a priest?

In the same vein, the RCC does not allow homosexuals to become priests. I do not necessarily agree with this teaching, but it's simply what they believe. The rational I guess is that homosexuality is evil and a homosexual priest would have a hard time condemning it to the Catholic faithful. At the same time though, I'm sure you can find a priest who has sinned in some capacity but is still able to condemn it as evil.

I would think it would be a bigger news story if the RCC started letting homosexuals become priests - not forbid them. This has been standard practice for over 2000 years.

[Merceditas]

battleborn said:

Juvenal

I think the problem the church is having isn't that these people are sharing homosexual relations, as much as they are unrepentant of said actions.

As you stated most all people are born with inclinations towards at least one of the 7 deadly sins, The difference though is that a alcoholic may try to enter the house to give himself to a higher power, repent and do his best to resist his temptation.

If openly gay people show up, where's the remorse? Where's the repention?

This is so. If a person doesn't believe practicing homosexuality is a sin, they're in disagreement with the teachings of the Church, how could they possibly represent and serve her?

Homosexuality/pedophilia there a lines there that are blurry, crossed. It's just no so cut and dry. But the lines are crossed enough in homosexuality/pedophilia enough that this is a very important issue to becoming a priest when we consider the nature of that job and it's relationship to children, particularly to young boys.

A person can have the desires to live a promiscuious life, regardless of their sex, age, but as long as they don't act on those thoughts, or let those thoughts become to control their actions, there is nothing wrong with that. If a person has a very difficult time controlling themselves if they're in certain situtations where temptation is overwhelming for them, they're not suited for a job that puts them at risk.

(Sort of makes me think of how I wouldn't do very well in a job where taking other's blood is necessary.......since I start passing out at the site of blood. If I couldn't overcome my reaction to blood, how could I possibly do my job right?)

[juvenal]

So what I hear everybody saying is that the line between homosexuality and pedophilia is just too easily crossed?

I'm not saying you're wrong about this. I don't know. You may well be right.

The only thing that I know for a fact is that there are gay people out there who, despite their evil inclinations, are good people overall. As I've said, we all have evil inclinations, but I'm willing to bet that most, if not all, of the people who frequent these boards are good people. And even for those of us here who are assholes, I bet I could get along with you, because you're a right thinking asshole. I may well be one of these people.

Just like most of us, there are gay people who want to serve their fellow man. And, just like us, they have a choice in whether they indulge their evil impulses or not.

But I should just end this by once again noting that none of this is up to me or relies on my judgment. If the Church implements this policy (and it looks like it will), that's good enough for me, especially since it really only amounts to a change in enforcement of a policy already in place.

[Merceditas]

Juvenal,
I'm certainly not making a blanket statement about all homosexuals, just that people are individuals, terms tend to generalize. With most people, there is no pegging them to a term.

[FightingFalcon]

Juvenal, I would never say that homosexuals have a natural tendancy to be child molestors. There is absolutely no connection between sexual orientation and molesting children. So let me just get that out of the way right now.

The problem that I (and the RCC) have is that homosexual priests might have a hard time condemning a lifestyle that the RCC knows to be evil. To use an analogy, the United States military would never allow someone to be an Officer who has pledged to overthrow the government. How can someone uphold a system that they hate and/or discriminates against them? How could a homosexual priest condemn homosexuality while at the same time engage in that lifestyle?

I think that's the problem that the RCC has with it.

[Far Rider]

I think it's more insidious than simply "being gay", whether they are repentant or not.

In the Episcopal church, the same people pushing the gay agenda are also pushing a revisionist theology - Jesus wasn't born of a virgin, He really didn't die on the cross, He wasn't resurrected from the dead. Now they want to apologize for the Iraq war - with all the talk about "separation of church and state the left seems to have little trouble pushing it's politics in the church.

I have heard all these propositions in the ECUSA and it has a lot to do with why the ECUSA is in the miserable shape it's in. The stalwarts of the faith have chosen to starve the church of money to the point where it has had to sell property and in our diocese they got their asses in a crack of having to sell property and being legally unable to.

I am sure the RCC has been following these events, and in order to keep the faithful in the pews it has to get back to basics as it were and keep the outside influences that would threaten to water the church down to the point where it's irrelevant at bay. If the left takes over the RCC they'll dictate what they want to hear from the lectern and not bring the money the faithful did, just like it happened in the EC.

Protestant denominations, like the Episcopal church and the Methodist church, are now touting themselves as "inclusive", no doubt to appeal to the more secular among us, but one thing I have never been able to understand is why liberals insist on turning churches into country clubs, except that when they are successful, the church is irrelevant, and that may be the whole idea.

That's the way I see it.

[FightingFalcon]

Hey Mike - what's the current situation with the Episcopal Church? Have they voted to break away from the mother church yet or no?

[Far Rider]

ECUSA is the source of the split and has been excommunicated from the Anglican church, with good reason. It's not the other way around. It's not a matter of the rebel congregations in ECUSA "breaking away", either, because ECUSA owns the buildings we use as churches, whether we paid for them of not. So if congregations leave, they have to leave their buildings, an expensive proposition.

Some have figured out ways around it, some are simply leaving the buildings and all, and still others are saying; "all right, we're not listening to you and if you don't like it then sue us" because they know ECUSA doesn't have the money to mount a serious legal threat. In any case the stalwarts are not giving them any money. My local church had to go back to mission status because it could no longer support itself.

The church is unraveling like an old sweater (is that a Dan Ratherism?) and like I said, I don't think these events have been lost on the RCC. I'll bet they are trying to head this off.