Posted on 11/30/2005 9:48:05 AM PST by NYer
Wednesday November 30, 2005
ROME, November 30, 2005 (CWNews.com/LifeSiteNews.com) - A Vatican consultant, in an interview with the I Media news service, has observed that the Church has always taught that homosexuals should not become priests, since they suffer from a "structural incoherence" in their approach to human sexuality. The question of whether homosexual men should become priests has been raised repeatedly by Church leaders, and always answered negatively said Msgr. Tony Anatrella, a French Jesuit who is a consultant to the Pontifical Council on the Family. The French priest-psychologist cited decisions by the Council of Paris in 819, and the 3rd and 4th Lateran Councils in 1169 and 1215.
Writing in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, in an article that appeared alongside the newly released instruction on homosexuality and the priesthood, Msgr. Anatrella wrote that the new Vatican Instruction barring homosexuals from Catholic seminaries was necessary because "homosexuality has become an increasingly worrisome problem," adding that the acceptance of homosexuality could have a "destabilizing" effect on the lives of individuals and on society at large.
Msgr. Anatrella said that homosexuality is "a tendency and not an identity." The Catholic Church, he argued, has a duty to warn against the acceptance of an "incomplete and immature" approach to human sexuality.
In practice, Msgr. Anatrella said in the I Media interview, experience has shown that when homosexual men become priests-- even if they are committed to chaste living-- "pastoral relations are very much complicated, and sometimes the teaching of the Church is neglected." Even if homosexual men struggle to live in accordance with the teachings of the Church, he explained, "the psychological effects of their tendency have repercussions on the pastoral level." Thus the Church has recognized the "collateral effects" of same-sex attraction, and concluded that such men should not be ordained.
The French Jesuit conceded that the Instruction from the Vatican may provoke protests, particularly from homosexual men who are already serving in the priesthood. But he told I Media that such protests reflect the fact that "they have already put themselves in an uncomfortable situation." Priests who experience same-sex attractions should redouble their efforts to remain chaste, he said. But in any case, Msgr. Anatrella stated: "Within the clergy, homosexuals do not represent an important proportion; they are a minority."
When questioned as to whether the Church might be accused of "homophobia," the French psychologist reacted quickly. The term "homophobia," he said, is "a slogan of intimidation." The Instruction insists on respectful treatment of homosexual persons, he pointed out; the Vatican is not encouraging or condoning hatred for those who suffer same-sex impulses.
Nevertheless, Msgr. Anatrella said, the Church has a duty to ensure that candidates for the priesthood are properly suited for pastoral ministry. Echoing an argument from the Instruction, he observed that "the priesthood is not a right."
The core misunderstanding is the conflicting terminology between the world and the Church.
Let's take a different example. If you have an alcoholism problem, the world calls you an "alcoholic" even if you haven't had a drink in ten years. The Church will occasionally use similar terminology for counseling purposes, but from a "sin" standpoint and (more important to our discussion) from a "can he be a priest" standpoint... you're simply a person whose concupiscence is a weakness for alcohol, but who (through the power of the Holt Spirit) has overcome this desire. You CAN be a priest.
If, however, you have been sober for a decade, but you are consumed with an ongoing strong desire for drink (or if you're heterosexual and technically "celibate" but in no way "chaste") you are consumed by this sinful desire and must not enter the priesthood.
Yes, you are confused. Comprehension seems to be your Achilles' heel. Read the definitions for tendencies and inclination again until you understand them.
What... the "definitions" that you chose to select? And I'm supposed to just take your word that's the one that was intended? BOTH words can be (and ARE in the cited portion of the catechism) dealing specifically with actions. 2357 makes this quite clear.
You have demonstrated that you don't understand what the Church is saying here. But it's quite clear in the paragraph you cited. Those candidates who cannot remain chaste (regardless of the reason) may not be priests. Those who CAN remain chaste (regardless of which way their "orientation" would lead them to temptation) may.
No I understand quite well what the Church is saying today and what it was saying in 1961.
IF you ever get around to backing that up in the face of contradictory evidence, you just let me know. :-)
Completely agree.
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.