. . . The text, which was approved by Pope Benedict at the end of August, says that homosexual men should not be admitted to seminaries even if they are celibate, because their condition suggests a serious personality disorder which detracts from their ability to serve as ministers.

Priests who have already been ordained, if they suffer from homosexual impulses, are strongly urged to renew their dedication to chastity, and a manner of life appropriate to the priesthood. . .

Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
By the way, I had a much better time with the slightly overweight brunette with lots of personality than my "friends" did with the blondes they were chasing.

Just a word to the wise to our younger posters who aren't over the hill like Joe and I are . . .

The moral of my story is that . . . blondes aren't such a big deal . . .

Alex

Originally posted by Amadeus:
Dear John K:

I agree with you that we should wait for the issuance of the Instruction to read its exact provisions.

Every thing we say here before then is purely conjecture.

However, the story from the linked CWNEWS is clear enough that there is no presumption on the inability of homosexuals to lead celibate and/or chaste lives. What is "conclusive" is that homosexuality is a "serious personality disorder."

I quote:

Quote:

. . . The text, which was approved by Pope Benedict at the end of August, says that homosexual men should not be admitted to seminaries even if they are celibate, because their condition suggests a serious personality disorder which detracts from their ability to serve as ministers.

Priests who have already been ordained, if they suffer from homosexual impulses, are strongly urged to renew their dedication to chastity, and a manner of life appropriate to the priesthood. . .

Amado

However, the story from the linked CWNEWS is clear enough that there is no presumption on the inability of homosexuals to lead celibate and/or chaste lives. What is "conclusive" is that homosexuality is a "serious personality disorder."

I quote:

Amado [/qb]

Thanks Amado--

I guess my reference was specifically to the words, "...even if they are celibate..."

I read the article as quoting the text(as above), implying that most gay men applying to the seminary would not be celibate.

John K [/QB]

I have held off on addressing The Scandal in any serious depth for a number of reasons. However, seeing the report on Philadelphia today, I've changed my mind. I think I will lay it all out.

Now, unlike some others, when I used to work for the Church, I was privy to knowing certain lawyers who worked on this issue almost full time. It was never my impression that the issue of sexual abuse of post-pubescent children, particularly boys, was as widespread as it turned out to be. In fact, I honestly thought it wasn't nearly so bad. However, talking to these lawyers today, it seems they only dealt with the worst cases.

On a more personal note, I have another long-time friend who represented an unnamed diocese. His descriptions of what he would be forced to defend were almost unbelieveable to me. In the end, he left the Church after having his faith completely destroyed. I pray for him every day.

Now, why do I think the problem is as great as it is? It primarilly goes back to the issue of Fatherhood. Many Priests aren't practicing it, aren't interested in it, and are unable to relate to regular men in any sort of way. They want to be caring, sympathetic, empathetic, loving, etc. In an of itself, there is nothing wrong with these qualities. However, these qualities are oftentimes held above other qualities that are proper, integral, and constituative to fatherhood: strength, honesty, fortitude, directness, etc. The active avoidance of these qualities is an active denial of the generative properties of fatherhood qua fatherhood. In many ways, it is contraceptive (c.f. definition of capere) in nature. Men make, men do, men generate. The qualities that are inverse to that are passive in nature, and more usually much more associated with motherhood (though still a part of fatherhood).

Now, where am I going with this? Sexuality.

Now, do I blame all of The Scandal on homosexuality? No. I blame The Scandal on disordered sexual identities. Yes, over 80% of the abuse was male on male, but there was also abuse relating to females. My point being, this abuse is always related to disordered sexual personae, in direct opposition to the qualities that differentiate fatherhood. Really, would any good father abuse either girl or boy? No.

Now, is a great part of the scandal related directly to homosexuality? Yes. Homosexuality is fundamentally a disorder in the personality of a person. This is not to say that a great many homosexual Priests have not lived chaste lives. This is to admit a simple fact. Homosexuality played a large, though not complete, role in The Scandal.

Now let me tell a little story. Twice, when I worked for the Church, I had Priests come on to me. I was in my twenties at that time. I was sickened by both incidents. Yes... one was your typical liberal, and one was your typical neo-con. Doctrine didn't matter in either case. When I reported it, it was made clear to me that I should handle it myself. I did. (Sexual harrasment law at that time, and to a large extent today, still doesn't acknowledge the possibility of same sex harrassment.) In both cases, these Priests seemed to have only female friends (other than their fellow Priests), the neo-con being obsessed with lace and a female adoration group, and the liberal being obsessed with ecumenism and womyn liturgy. They both lacked any leadership qualities, and most of the men where I worked wanted nothing to do with them. They showed no inclination toward strength, directness, honesty, fortitude, etc. They were, for all purposes, better sisters to the females than they could have ever been a Father.

This problem affects both the left, middle and the right of the Church. And, I believe, The Scandal is really only indicative of most of the Church's other problems. Almost all of the other problems, when you really look at them, are related to a lack of Fatherhood.

I will always remember when one Bishop stood up and spoke to others in the room, and asked the question, "How can we be so far apart, in our views, from our own people?" He was speaking of the death penalty at that particular meeting. He made explicit note that while we sent all of our Priests with pedo/ephebophilia problems to St. Luke's, et al., that the vast majority of the Catholics when polled (in the U.S.) wanted the death penalty for pedo/ephebophiles. He wasn't speaking about the legitimacy of the death penalty; he was asking how the Bishops grew so far apart from their flock. (Note: This is not to say that polling legitimates the death penalty, etc. I accept the teaching of the Catechism.)

His answer to his own question?

The Bishops had not led. They had not been men. They had not modeled Christ. They had not been fathers.

He was shouted down by a couple of other people (all clergy) in the room.

Originally posted by DocBrian:
“Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers”.