Vatican says 2005 document on gays applies to all seminaries

There is a link at the top of the page "Daily News Feed". This discussion is halfway down the second page of that list (at this point).

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

Thanks, but the responses there are different. There is no link to the daily news feed through the Cafe heading the way there is to the columnists. I don't think there is a way to get here except if one has been here before or a recent comment links to it.

I go to the search window and type in 'all seminaries'. It pops right up.

Marie, I've been running low on time and wasn't sure where this comment was until now. I wanted to reinforce your very good point here. There ARE lots of people who have sexualities that fall outside of the highest part of the norm--which is the part usually over-emphasized in the media. For many young people especially all this attention to identifying the "what's wrong" about them can be very confusing, and just at the age when they may most often be ruling themselves in or out of the priest vocation option. I think if I were unsettled on the issue, I would do just what you are suggesting: I would assume that I had better stay away from a situation that might cause me shame at some point, and maybe even assume that the religious feelings I had were sexual in some way. Or, I might run toward religious life--as people often have--because it would "prove" something about me if the seminary kept me there. It's a poor way and poor time to assert clarity to those who might be unsure. YOur other good point is there is a commonness between religious and sexual feeling since they seem to connect at the point of our core energies. I think you've brought out two under-identified parts to this dilemma.

I think there is a difference between attraction and lust. Attraction does not make someone into an object even when that attraction contains an element of sexuality. I think most homosexually attracted people do not define themselves primarily in this way. However, they willingly acknowledge this aspect of themselves in order to prevent the social awkwardness that arises when people assume they are heterosexually attracted. Most people, though, believe that when a man takes a vow of celibacy, it does not matter from what type of sexual activity he will be abstaining.

Anne, who define themselves by sexual attraction?

Since you have stated this before in the context of talking about homosexuality, I assume that you are referring to gay people.

But the term "gay" has no sexual reference at all. It is an attempt on the part of a group who have been defined by others in a way that reduces their personhood to sexuality to come up with another self-definition.

The term "homosexual" did not originate with gay people and is rejected by the gay community as a clinical scientific term imposed on gay human beings by others.

It is not only misleading but more than a little dishonest to reproach people for a definition of themselves that they did not create and that they resist.

As to your claim that God created only man and woman, I think we have talked before about the well-documented biological phenomenon of hermaphroditism. I won't go over that territory again.

In the interest of pursuing truth, we shouldn't just throw out all scientific and historical evidence that contradicts our preconceived theories, should we? The Catholic way is a way that combines faith and reason.

William D. Lindsey

I really don't understand. Are you equating lust with sexual attraction? I've always thought lust--like the lust for gold--was the desire to own, in your words the failure to see the other as a fully free human being made in God's image. But sexual attraction is a normal, healthy response of a fully human person. People who deny themselves the experience of normal, healthy sexual attraction are burying the 'talent' the Master gave them. And not incidentally such people are far more likely to develop paraphilias, sexual responses to inapproppriate objects like fetishes or children.

Here's a post I just posted on another forum, attempting to explain why the Vatican considers it important that priests can identify with masculinity:

I disagree with others who have said that the problem is primarily to do with seminaries, sexual abuse, or scandal. Nor is it a problem with how others will respond, at least not directly. The problem has to do with how does a homosexual priest, as 'alter Christus', present the whole of Christ, including his masculinity (not his maleness)?

I'm probably going to explain this rather poorly, so please check out Peter Kreeft's "Sexual Symbolism" and CSLewis's "Priestesses in the Church?". Although these are arguments against priestesses, the theme of sexual symbolism and the relation of the priest and Church is central also to the question of whether a homosexual is fit for ordination.

Gos has revealed Himself as masculine, as Father, as Son, and as Spirit (in His actions). All of creation, in relation to God is feminine. He reveals Himself and we respond. We cannot find Him, He finds us. Jesus Christ took on humanity, and masculine humanity (that is to say He is male, the biological masculine). The priest stands 'in persona Christi', in the person of Christ. In all the sacraments, it is not the priest who acts, but Christ who acts through the priest. The priest relates to the Church as Christ relates to the Church, as the Husband to the Bride.

For someone whose masculinity is distorted to portray Christ as a priest, distorts this relationship between Groom and Bride.

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

btw, have you heard the common citation of Godwin's Law? "Whenever Hitler or the Nazis are mentioned in a thread, the thread is over." and "The person who first mentions Hitler or the Nazis loses the debate."

"The problem has to do with how does a homosexual priest, as 'alter Christus', present the whole of Christ, including his masculinity (not his maleness)?"

One's sex or sexuality should not be a matter of importance to be included as a prerequisite to present Christ or to receive Christ for that matter. The view you are presenting presents Christ as worldly, complicating, perplexing, bewildering and sexist.

Understanding and acceptance of God is not received by one's sex, but by one's humanity or spirit. The ability to communicate Christ is not determined by one's sex, but by one's understanding of Christ. Understanding and wisdom from God are not about sex, of male or female. Christ is wisdom. Receiving Jesus into one's heart has nothing to do with one's sex. One's heart, soul, ears, eyes are not female or male; reception and acception of Jesus is by the spirit, in the spirit and for the spirit. Hearing His Word with ears is not received by maleness or femaleness or sexuality, but by hearing spiritually through the intellect, heart and soul.

The rule you have chosen to adapt as your own, which obviously I have not, Godwin's Law, that whoever brings up Hitler or the Nazis in a thread loses the debate, is an excuse to not think about and forget what Hitler and the Nazis did, even if it is relevant to the discussion. Those who follow such a rule will not learn anything from history by denying it and not talking about it in order to end dialogue about it. Never Forget was a slogan to Never Forget. If everyone closes the discussion because the Nazis are brought up - people will forget. History not learned is history repeated. Never forget.

Have a nice Memorial Day weekend. Peace.

The essential part of priesthood is not receiving or understanding the deity served, but presenting that deity to the people. I have no argument that a woman can receive and understand God as well as any man, but that is the indicator of a contemplative life, not the priesthood.

I disagree with the particularly modern notion that souls and spirits are not masculine and feminine. All else of creation, from the polarity of sub-atomic particles to the heavens and the earth, exhibits this dualism. The revelation of God to Man, even more so (the Father, the Son, Lord, King). Homosexuality is an arberation from masculinity. I do not know if it is narcissistic or sexist, but it promotes the idea the the masculine (or feminine) can complete itself.

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

Remembering the horror of the Holocaust is one thing, cheapening it by comparing anything we dislike to it is another. It is a combination of (almost always) false analogy, (always) poisoning the well, and (always) an appeal to emotion, all logical fallacies. Thus there is no arguing with someone so blatant flaunting the ideals of reason, and since they have abandoned the use of reason, they cannot win the debate.

To equate priestliness with sexuality is inane. To define a homosexual as "...someone whose masculinity is distorted" is an offence to both gay men and all women, lesbian or otherwise. Let's face it, all women, lesbian or otherwise and homosexual males are all excluded from the priesthood for the same reason: because they are distortions of the male?

I am not equating the priesthood with sexuality (to do that I would have to argue either that priests should be asexual or all heterosexual men ought to be ordained). Human masculinity finds its goal and fulfillment in human femininity, and vice versa. Throughout all creation, the masculine and the feminine complete one image, they are two parts of a whole. To say that the masculine can complete the masculine is not only completely sexist (think Henry Higgins in 'My Fair Lady'), but obviously a distortion.

Women are not excluded from the priesthood because they are a distortion from the masculine, but because the feminine has its own call. What greater thing can you think of than to be a Bride of Christ? To wed your God? The priest cannot do this, he becomes the groom of the Church.

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

"Women are not excluded from the priesthood because they are a distortion from the masculine, but because the feminine has its own call. What greater thing can you think of than to be a Bride of Christ? To wed your God?"

The first commandment says it more clearly to me in defining that relationship with Him, and it has nothing to do with sexuality or marriage. It has to do with Love. Love God with your whole heart, mind, body and soul. In relationship with God it's not a marriage, but it is a very close relationship to the source of Love.

There is no excuse to exclude women or gays from the priesthood from a truly spiritual perspective that is reflective of the divine nature of love. I really can't buy into the masculinity factor as being a true or credible factor and it truly seems to be man-made and worldly at its source. Obviously, women have been called to the priesthood, and they are doing just that, thank God.

If Jesus had a definition for priesthood, which He didn't because He didn't ordain anyone as we understand the sacramentality, it was not as a groom of the Church, but as a servant to the people. Given the time in which He lived and gave this definition, service was a feminine occupation. One which Peter initially protested at the Last Supper as being beneath His Lord when Jesus attempted to wash Peter's feet.

And even this hugely symbolic gesture has been twisted by some in the hierarchical church. No no, we'll wash the feet of men on Holy Thursday, but NOT WOMEN. So they will be servants to men, but not women. How gay is that?

colkoch.blogtoolkit.com

First, I fully subscribe to Godwin's Law.

Second, I disagree with your characterization of the masculine/feminine dichotomy of creator and creation.

Yes, God is referred to as Father and Son. But there are many feminine images of God in the Bible. Yes, the earth is frequently called mother most likely because those are the hills whence cometh our strength.

But the catechism maintains that God is neither male nor female. And Genesis says that male and female are made in the image of God.

I don't see any way being homosexual disqualifies a man from being masculine.
Clearly gay men are masculine.

But if you insist on the metaphor, then perhaps only gay men should be ordained
since the love relationship in the Godhead is between two male figures, the Father and the Son.

There are indeed a few female images in the Bible, a large portion of them referring to Jesus (who is undeniably male). But they remain images, when there is direct talk of, to, or with God, the references are universally masculine. God is not male, but He is masculine, particularly in His relation to creation, the Church, and each individual. This is far from being my characterization, it is that of the non-English speaking monotheistic world (and even the English speaking world until very recently).

Gay men are clearly male, not so clearly masculine. The creative aspect of their sexuality is completely cut off, often stemming from a distortion in how they see masculinity itself. One gay man I know identifies masculinity as macho. But the macho image is a distortion of true masculinity.

The priesthood does not reflect the relationship between Father and Son, but that between Christ and the Church. (although from many of the priests I know you would think that it was the relationship of God with Himself)

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

In the Divine act of creation, God is male? How? Trees and plants, birds and fish, animals of every kind come either from the female of the species or from Mother Earth. In what sense is maleness emblematic of creation? The only thing a male can create on his own is a spot on the sheet.

Butterfly, I'm posting this as a response to you. But it's also a response to everyone else who has already posted on this thread, since each response seems to me a really valuable critique of this Vatican initiative.

Back when the news of this witch hunt first hit, I compiled a fairly lengthy dossier of commentary about the Vatican document that came out just in a few days in early December. These are editorials, op-ed pieces, and press statements, all criticizing the document.

I've been reviewing these today (and wondering if sharing them in some venue would be a good idea, since the Vatican is reviving the issue now).

Reading them brought to mind several pieces I myself wrote at the time and never tried to publish in any format. These center on an analysis of the Roman document (and action) as immoral.

I saw it then, and continue to see it now, as immoral for the following reasons:

1. It continues and fosters a culture of deceit, blame-shifting, scapegoating, and lying that is central to the system of clericalism responsible for the abuse crisis.
2. It fosters and maintains a climate of violence against gay persons in society and the church.
3. It lets the bishops and the Vatican off the hook as those chiefly responsible for the abuse crisis, and thus perpetuates the conditions for this crisis, since it does not strike at the root of the problem.
4. It perpetuates a system of clericalism that is deeply anti-feminine, and that uses rituals of expulsions of gay men who cannot pretend to be otherwise to allow the clerical club to maintain its illusion of being free of all taint of the feminine.

I'm wondering now about the timing of this latest "clarification." It comes on the heels of a papal visit when Pope Benedict met with survivors of clerical sexual abuse and distinguished between homosexuality and pedophilia--two signs that many of us took to be hopeful.

But it also arrives in the middle of the U.S. federal elections, in which Rome has to be taking an interest. Following Benedict's visit, it's apparent to me that many in the Catholic right are furious that Benedict was more of a pastor than an enforcer on his visit.

There is intense pressure from those quarters (and not a few bishops stand with these folks) to try to force bishops to use the Eucharist in this election, as some did in 2004, as a political weapon. There's increasing anxiety, with attendant anger and attempts at coercion, on the part of the Catholic right about drumming up the Catholic vote for the right candidates.

I have to wonder what part this pressure, with assistance from some key American bishops, may be playing in the Roman decision to issue a "clarification" now. I think it can't be insignificant, either, that this "clarification" comes out two days following the California Supreme Court decision about gay marriage.

I fear this is yet another attempt to warn the faithful about voting "right." I also believe it will be largely ineffectual, though hurtful and damaging to the church itself. I don't think a majority of American Catholics have visceral commitment to the purge of seminaries or even to stigmatizing gay people. I'm not even sure the gay-marriage ploy will work in this election as it has done in the past, to get people voting right.

If not, then renewing this witch hunt now is going to make the church appear unjust, out of touch, cruel in its willingness to try to pin the abuse crisis on a marginalized group, and frankly insincere about wanting to address the real roots of the abuse crisis.

William D. Lindsey

In the preceding posting, I note that when the original Instruction about the seminaries came out in Dec. 2005, I began keeping a file of editorial commentary on the Instruction. My posting says that I was wondering what might be the best way to share this with readers interested in revisiting the commentary from 2005.

I have decided to upload excerpts from the articles in my file to my blog. I am doing that rather than trying to post this material either as a reply on this thread (too long) or as a new item for the cafe (since I posted a new item not too long ago, don't want to hog space).

For anyone interested, the material in question is at http://bilgrimage.blogspot.com/2008/05/singing-vatican-blues-again.html.

Anne, not ignoring your comment below. Isn't this question of seminaries and handling candidates' sexual orientation disciplinary and not doctrinal? To me, there's an important distinction between the two.

William D. Lindsey

William, it appears that as long as some in the Church continue to make statements that are not consistent with Catholic Doctrine regarding this issue, the Pope will feel the need to continue to clarify Catholic Doctrine on this issue. Catholic Doctrine on this issue has been the same since Christ started His Church.

But think of the good that could come of this. If it had been so, Blessed Mychal Judge would still be alive.

"Renounce this evil racism in our midst in the Church that is persecuting homosexuals who by God's design and infinite wisdom are innocent and are as worthy as those born heterosexual to be called Children of God and accepted into the Kingdom of God!"

Butterfly, homosexuality is not a race, so how can you make the claim that evil racism exists when the Church states that homosexual, sexual, ACTS do not respect the Sacredness and Dignity of Human Life?

God never refered to anyone as homosexual or heterosexual, He only created Male and Female.

Consider, Anne, that the homosexual acts to which the Bible refers are a certain kind of promiscuity which heterosexual men, given to sexual experimentation, might pursue and that this does not refer to a male companions who love one another and periodically engage in some kind of sexual bonding activity.

Priests who are celibate are not engaging in sexual ACTS. That would include homosexual priests too. They take a vow of celibacy.

I used the word racism because the attitude is the same against homosexuals, as we have seen towards other races that have been, and in some cases still are, treated as inferior and not accepted by reasons of prejudice and deep-seated ignorance.

We refer to people as homosexual or heterosexual, because there is a difference, which makes us distinguishable and unique in the diversity of life created male and female by God.

There is no diversity in sex,(XXorXY) there is only diversity in sexual behavior. God desires for all of us to be Holy and Love one another as He Has Loved us. The Word Made Flesh, is the Light, the Truth and the Way to Love. He, Christ, is the definition of Love.

Two interesting studies on the subject: Kinsey (whom many people poo-poo nowadays) described seven variations of orientation from zero (totally straight) to 6 (so,so gay). Richard Greene of UC was interested in studying transsexuals. Over a period of about 30 years, he followed boy twins, one of whom demonstrated "feminine" traits. The study did not predict any transsexuals, but about 40% of the primary study group grew up to be gay.

There is no inherent right to define someone according to sexual desire. I have a right to not tolerate homosexual acts or any sexual acts that are a perversion of Sexual Love and thus do not respect the Sacredness and Dignity of Human Life. Such acts are demeaning and oppressive.

Defining oneself according to sexual attraction is a sin against the 7th Commandment regarding adultery.

Anne, are you saying that someone else's sexual activity is oppressive and demeaning to you--because, obviously, the participants in a committed relationship do not feel oppressed and demeaned by their sexual activity. I don't think anyone is expecting you to engage in homosexual or other sexual acts when they advocate for tolerance.

I believe people have the right to define themselves as they choose. For example, I would guess that you would define yourself as Catholic. Do I or does anyone else have the right to tell you you can't do that?

You do have the right not to tolerate anything that you find intolerable. It is an aspect of American culture I will always celebrate.

I was watching Fr. Corapi on EWTN yesterday. (By the way,Family, he needs prayer for restoration of health) Someone in the audience questioned him about mutual masturbation and oral sex in a sacramental marriage. I am guessing these would fall under the heading of what you label perversion. His answer was that both were perfectly licit provided they led to an act of intercourse that was open to life. He added that they would only be illicit if they were used deliberately to avoid conception. I think Fr. Corapi is about as Orthodox a Catholic as one could find.

I don't think the 7th commandment speaks about adultery. And sexual attraction is a gift of God and like all His gifts takes its highest value when it leads us back to Him.

I think the Holy Spirit inspired you to write 7th instead of sixth, because the seventh commands us to love justice.

Justice requires Truth. Christ tells us that Sexual Love only belongs within the Sanctity of Holy Marriage. You are free to believe anything you wish regarding this subject but that does not change God's Truth and thus the Catholic Church's Truth on Sexual Love.

We are called to develop healthy and Holy relationships and friendships with one another in communion with God. Some of these friendships will develop into Marriage. That is what God intended.

I apologize if I misinterpreted what you said. I had thought you would have placed oral sex outside of God's truth and the church's truth on sexual love.
I thought that's what you mean by perversion. But I'm glad I'm wrong. I'm glad you embrace the teaching on the matter. Would you expain exactly what you DO mean by perversion?

I had to laugh. For Catholics, it always ends up in a discussion about masturbation, doesn't it? :-)

I would have loved to have been on the show with Fr. Corapi. I would have asked him about semantics. Is 'heavy petting' which our youth call these same acts of 'foreplay' which are then called 'intrinsically evil' in gays, all the same thing? Youth call them heavy petting so they can delude themselves into thinking they are still Virgins. Heterosexual couples use them to enhance the sexual experience and frequently when conception is a real possibility, but gays can't engage in them for any reason. What if gays are just protecting their virginity, or their celibacy? If it's all about where the tools fit, I know a lot of virginal gays.

colkoch.blogtoolkit.com

Annedanielson, how do figure that "Defining oneself according to sexual attraction is a sin against the 7th Commandment regarding adultery"

We are all called to walk in the light. If it ever happens, what changes we will see!

Anyone who is not Married is called to be celibate. The lifestyle we are to support is the one that is Christ, loving one another, not viewing a person as an object of lust. We are all men and women who should be treated with respect.

"ANY man who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart"-Christ

"Thou shalt not commit adultery."

Notice Christ said ANY. This is Christ's definition of adultery from the start. God created ONLY male and female. Sexual Love, according to God, only exists within the Sanctity of a Holy Marriage, which is Blessed by Him. This is God's intention for Marriage and Sexual Love."WHAT GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER, let no man put asunder."-Christ

God Has authority over man. "Do whatever He tells you."- Blessed Mother at the Miracle of Cana.

We are to use God's definition of Love, not our own. God is Perfect Love, the Fullness of Truth.

Do you think that gay people are not male and female? That they were created by some other god over yonder?

26I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
--II Samuel 1:26

Frannie, "my brother Jonathan", implies a loving relationship that was close like brothers. Nothing more.

It was David who compared Jonathan to the women in his life, not I.

David is not God.

True, but David, like you or me or anyone else, is the best authority on his own life. The question was not what God wanted but what happened.

All people are either male or female. God only created male and female. God created male and female as a perfect complement to each other. It is how he ordered Human Beings. "Gay" etc., are man made terms to describe people. God Has never used such terms because they are demeaning and oppressive. The sexual objectification of any person is a form of slavery.

It seems as though you are declaring that one's sexual feelings are choices and that homosexuals are intentionally choosing the wrong way.