Posted on 03/07/2007 8:15:53 AM PST by presidio9
Is that like the diff between bi and gay?
It's either a sin or a medical problem. This guy seems like he sees it as more of a medical problem than a moral failing (which it is).
And the whole notion that homosexuals in the seminary should be shielded and protected (which the confidentiality does) is why the Church ends up in so much trouble.
They've got to figure this out at some point.
Actually, we are all sinners.
Yes we are.
It can be neither. Homosexual tendencies, per se, are not sinful. But whatever the origin, homesexual activity is always sinful. The Church is pointing out that although science may indicate deep-seated proclivity going back to youth, there is a whole other, psychologically treatable category of transitory homosexuals. The issue is pastoral care of individuals who can be psychologically helped, versus those with a cross that might be much more difficult to resolve, not whether or not homosexual activity is a sin. It always is.
If they made an effort to clean up the diocese vocation and seminary formation committees, they wouldn't have to worry about the seminarians. Actually if they cleaned up the episcopate, they wouldn't have to worry about the committees!
I never thought of it as a 'moral failing' before. At least this appears to be a good attempt at addressing a big problem. And, it's fitting that help may be had rather than arbitrarily turning someone away.
So it is essentially gobbledygook , in your opinion.
So you're saying that some homosexuals cannot be psychologically treated? They are "just that way"?
And if seminarian are found to have a "deep-seated proclivity" they will be told that they are unsuited for the priesthood, yes?
"'deep-seated' homosexuality "
Not the best choice of words for the title.
BUMP
They were harassing Seminarians out of St. Johns if they weren't Gay back in the bad old days. It's a miracle that the Archdiocese of Boston survived.
The Church isn't pointing this out, a Jesuit is. And whether it's treatable or not, it should be grounds for determining that the individual does not have a vocation for Holy Orders. There is nothing more important than that Candidates for the Priesthood have... how should I put this... above average sanity and desire.
It seems to me that the Jesuits are over-analyzing. The issue is sexual behavior. I don't think it is possible to 'check' your sexuality at the door to the seminary. What you do about your sexuality, in the light of celibacy, and purity of thought, should be the focus.
But then, all of the Jesuits I have met were gay, and not just in thought, BTW, but that is a long story.
Very dangerous idea. One reason why the priest sex problem became so severe in the 70s was precisely because bishops agreed to turn problem priests over to the psychiatrists.
The psychiatrists didn't give a damn about Catholic principles, and basically they just told the problem priests to do what they felt like doing. Pederasts were quickly released back into the system to do their thing. Huge mistake.
Psychiatrists were also heavily involved in counseling several liberally inclined religious orders, and helped to destroy them with feel-good group therapy sessions.
Bottom line: don't trust a psychiatrist to do a bishop's job.
Care to elaborate? I went through four years of Jesuit Prep school, and four years of Jesuit college. In that time, the only three individuals that I came across who were gay were all lay teachers. I did, however know at least a couple of Jesuits who were loose with their vows in the other direction. Imagine my suprise at bumping into a former teacher at Scores years later. His old mantra of "even those who are dieting are permitted to read the menu" came in handy.
When and where did you know any Jesuits, because my experience seems to have been very different from your own.
Where we really get into trouble is sometimes we can't even trust the Bishop to do the Bishop's job...
Too true. But it's the bishops, and I suspect the "Vatican experts," who can't do their jobs who turn for help to bogus psychiatrists.
The last thing we need is a team of crazy psychiatrists deciding who to admit to the seminaries. The ultimate solution, as you say, is good bishops, who would know better than the shrug off their own responsibility like that.
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.