Posted on 11/22/2005 11:31:08 PM PST by jec1ny
"Is one who has no heterosexual tendencies, though he may have had them in the past, no longer heterosexual?"
Yes
Good. Because you said that it did! (Quote:I agree with you here, as it clearly delineates under which circumstances a homosexual man might be considered for the seminary and for ordination.)
What it does is outline three specific circumstances in which a homosexual may NOT be ordained. All other circumstances, including not having "homosexual tendencies" (i.e., self-control), may be considered on an individual basis.
So not having homosexual tendencies simply means having self-control? I think it's you who's playing word games here. What if I find your butt rather attractive, sinky, and have the urge to see you naked. Do I have "homosexual tendencies"? If I think you're one hell of a hunk but manage, through sheer bloody minded stoicism never to act out my feelings, do I still have "homosexual tendencies"?
No, of course not. I've got self-control.
Let me ask you this. Define a non-homosexual for me.
Here's my definition; someone with no homosexual tendencies. Is it really necessary to labor this simple point?
Is one who has no heterosexual tendencies, though he may have had them in the past, no longer heterosexual?
Sadly, no.
The same goes for homosexuality.
This is how I know that I'm not a homo, sinky. I have no "homosexual tendencies". I think the same applies to most people.
You didn't answer my question.
A homosexual who formerly had homosexual tendencies, but now says he has none, is what? Is he now a heterosexual?
You are trying very hard to ignore the fact that the Vatican has given the green light to homosexual men who have demonstrated that they can live chaste lives. They are still homosexual, as are the large number of homosexual celibates functioning as priests today.
The document is clearly written to exclude the flamboyant, the sexually active, the "gay movement" homosexual.
But, will there still be homosexuals ordained to the priesthood? Most assuredly.
This pope has already been showing in various subtle ways that there is a new sheriff in town.
And, he is about to undergo a major test of his expressed desires for collegiality. The American bishops, in no uncertain terms, rejected the revised ICEL translation at their meeting last week.
Will he make an exception to Liturgiam Authenticam and allow the retention of the current translation, with some modifications?
"Some homosexuals are caught at a level of adolescent immaturity which obsesses with sexual satisfaction.'
Correction:
"All men who identify as being homosexuals are caught at a level of adolescent immaturity which obsesses with sexual satisfaction."
Yes
Well, now you are twisting yourself into knots in order to be consistent with your previously-stated contention that homosexuals who experience only passing thoughts about other men are no longer homosexual.
So, is the non-heterosexual priest androgynous? I'm curious as to how far out on this limb you're willing to go.
He is either a-sexual or heterosexual.
If he is no longer attracted to persons of the same sex (i.e. had homosexual tendencies) then he is either attracted to persons of the opposite sex (i.e heterosexual) or he feels no particular sexual drive in either direction (i.e. a-sexual)
Such people do exist in significant numbers.
And you think that celibate homosexuals in the priesthood today don't have passing sexual thoughts about other men, just as celibate heterosexuals have passing sexual thoughts about women?
I just don't see how a bishop determines that a homosexual man who has observed celibacy for some years has "tendencies."
Priests are men. Some of them happen to be homosexual. I don't see that changing in any significant way, except that those who are sexually active and ardent "gay activists" (all of which are externally observable) will be refused admittance outright to seminaries.
That's clearly not the case, since there are homosexuals in the priesthood today who are celibate and chaste (i.e., no sexual activity or satisfaction.)
They exist, but not in significant numbers.
We'll have to see how the Vatican defines "tendencies." It's just not possible to determine that a homosexual man who has been celibate and chaste for years does not experience attraction to the same sex.
A tendency is a proclivity towards a particular psychological state or course of action. In the case of a homosexual tendency it's an attraction to members of the same sex. It may or may not be passing.
The document does not say that homosexual men must have demonstrated the ability to be celibate for three years. It could have. It does not say that homosexuals must have demonstrated "self-control" in the area of chastity for three years. It could have.
No. It says that homosexual tendencies must have been absent for 3 years.
The proof that I'm right on this is that the document uses the word "transitory" in the same paragraph. What is transitory? The tendency. It says 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.
If he doesn't experience attraction to members of the same sex them he's not homosexual.
Also not a good idea to use the words "chaste" and "celibate" interchangeably.
A man with a head full of perverse thoughts but no opportunity to carry them out is "celibate" but not "chaste".
How will that be determined, do you think?
That's an awfully broad statement to make. And how exactly do you know how many men in the priesthood, identifying as homosexual, are actually celibate, chaste, non-sexual, non-looking at porn, non-going to "gay" bars, non-masturbating to "gay" fantasies, etc?
Truth is, you can't know. And no one else can know, either. That's why they don't belong in the priesthood, and the document clearly states that.
Twist it all you want, you're transparent as usual.
It will need to rely largely on honesty.
The document itself acknowledges this when it states ""the candidate himself is the man most responsible for his own formation."
Chamberlainism never works.
A discerning and committed spiritual director will be able to sniff out a great deal of this but there will always be those who can lie their way through to ordination, should they so choose.
Most of the homos who are currently unleashed upon us are there not because they managed to fly under the radar. Their homosexuality was known in most cases and a blind eye was turned to it. In some cases it was even extolled as a virtue.
The Vatican has said under what circumstances it will not ordain homosexual men.
The fact that there are three criterion, and not a flat-out denial, indicates that there are certain circumstances under which the Church WILL ordain celibate homosexuals to the priesthood.
to the extent that you believe otherwise I am compelled to conclude that either your reason has been adversely effected by your obvious disagreement with banning homosexuals or you are simply choosing to disregard the plain meaning of this language in furtherance of your views.
You can't resist questioning my motives, can you? Even though we have had a quite civil discussion up to this point.
Oh well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.