Regarding the recent survey of British priests, SHOULD WE SAY HOMOSEXUALS ARE "DISORDERED"?

Catholic Answers ^ | 2/3/04 | Karl Keathing

[LiteKeeper]

Homosexuals are not disordered. They are out of order - read "sin" They need to repent (as in metanoia = "change of mind").

[Polycarp IV]

From the article, very sound advice:

Many people have wondered what can be done to solve the problem. Here is one possible scheme:


1. If a priest is "gay"--that is, living a homosexual lifestyle--he should be removed from ministry immediately and quietly. He should have no position of authority or responsibility in the Church and should seek secular employment instead. (Will some dioceses be understaffed? Yes, but too bad. Just squeeze more people into fewer pews until new priests are trained.)


2. If a priest is homosexual but not "gay"--that is, if he is living chastely--let him continue in ministry until normal retirement.


3. Exclude from seminary formation and ordination any homosexual, whether "gay" or chaste. The former brings with him too much baggage, and the latter should not sign up for "guy-only" work that will have him living with other men (thus putting him into near occasions of sin). Even if the chaste homosexual thinks he has a call to the priesthood, it would be uncharitable to him to admit him to ordination. He should be encouraged to serve the Church in other ways.


This three-step process would solve the abuse scandal almost overnight, and it would heal the priesthood in America over the next two decades or so. It would cause inconvenience in those dioceses with a high proportion of "gay" priests, but that inconvenience will pass soon enough and, in any case, is more palatable than the existing situation.

[Polycarp IV]

Don't worry, we're saying the same thing here.

[Maximilian]

The Church does not say that homosexual persons are "objectively disordered." It says that homosexual persons have a disorder, and it says that homosexual acts (not homosexual persons) are "intrinsically disordered"

Keating has this wrong. The Vatican issued a definitive statement some 10 or 15 years ago, and they said that homosexual acts are always wrong and sinful, while a homosexual inclination itself was an intrinsic disorder. Any homosexual leanings represent an intrinsic disorder, not just the fulfillment, which is de facto mortal sin, and thus beyond being just a disorder.

This is only confusing when (like the priest of Britain) one knows nothing of original sin. Just think in terms of original sin: concupiscence, weakened will, darkened intellect, disorderd passions. This perfectly explains why people may be born with homosexual inclinations, just like some people have a greater tendency towards all sorts of other crimes like alchoholism, kleptomania, pedophilia, pyromania, etc. All of us have inclinations towards some sins.

The Catholic position is the opposite of the gay slogan "God don't make no junk." The Catholic position says that we are all born in original sin and deserving of eternal punishment. It is only through the extraordinary act of redemption that we can be saved.

[Maximilian]

Here is the quote from the Vatican letter regarding pastoral practice towards homosexuals:

``Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not''.

``As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood''.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.... I think Alert fits in here somewhere.

A reasonable voice for the homosexual "priest" problem. I use quotes because a real priest cannot be a homosexual.

There is not a pedophile problem in the Catholic Church, there is a problem because so many homosexuals joined the priesthood, many with ulterior motives. Remove the homosexuals, problem is gone. (IMHO)

If anyone wants to be added to or subtracted from this ping list, inform me!

(thanks, CFA!)

[dsc]

"Homosexuals are not disordered. They are out of order - read "sin" They need to repent (as in metanoia = "change of mind")."

Beg to differ. Same-sex attraction disorder is very real. It is not so simple a matter as changing one's mind, as if one were deciding to buy a Ford next time instead of a Chevy.

Genuine, long-term faith-based therapy is generally needed, and even that is not 100% successful.

[Tantumergo]

One small crumb of comfort from that survey of British priests was their response to the question "Do you believe that Jesus Christ physically rose from the dead?"

The affirmative response was YES - 98%!!!!

This compared to the response of Church of England ministers which was only YES - 45%.

It still begs the question where can an English Catholic go to find an orthodox priest???

[Tantumergo]

"Same-sex attraction disorder is very real. It is not so simple a matter as changing one's mind, as if one were deciding to buy a Ford next time instead of a Chevy."

That is true for those who have SSAD, which if you have been following the informed wisdom of Cardinal Joos is only 5-10% of them. The rest are just PERVERTS!!!!

Not subtle - but probably tue!

;)

[dsc]

"That is true for those who have SSAD, which if you have been following the informed wisdom of Cardinal Joos is only 5-10% of them. The rest are just PERVERTS!!!!"

I don't know what the Cardinal's qualifications are for making that estimate, but I think it's low by about 85--90%.

[Catholicguy]

Keating has this wrong

Kearing is correct and he cited the Teaching of the Catholic Catechism. If you have a Document proving the Living Magfisterium wrong, produce it.

[Catholicguy]

You really should read the Catechism to dispel the fog of confusion in which you appear to operate.

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

The INCLINATION IS DISORDERED.

[HarleyD]

I guess I’m a little confused. Don’t priests live a celebrate life? I don’t know how you could have “heterosexual” or “homosexual” priests. If so then I would think they would just like to be known as priests.

I think there are long term errors in making such distinctions. By making these distinctions it looks like a slippery slope to priesthood marriage where then you'll get into the "heterosexual"/"homosexual" issue.

[anniegetyourgun]

I'm afraid you'll not convince those who have a form of religion but deny the power thereof.

[Salvation]

Keating has a good message here.

[dsc]

Maximilian produced a Vatican letter saying “…the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”

Catholicguy quoted the CCC: “This inclination, which is objectively disordered…”

Do we really have to quibble over whether these two statements are substantively different?

That’s not just splitting hairs; that’s splitting them into eight equal wedge shaped lengths like a pizza.

Keating said, “The Church…says that homosexual acts (not homosexual persons) are "intrinsically disordered," and he doesn’t have it quite right. It’s not just the act, it is the inclination itself—IMO the compulsion—to commit homosexual acts that arises from same-sex attraction disorder that is objectively disordered.

When a person suffers from such inclinations or compulsions it is correct to say that he has a disorder.

In ordinary speech, we say, “He *is* an alcoholic,” “he *is* a schizophrenic,” “he *is* a neurotic,” “he *has* paranoid psychosis,” “he *has* a personality disorder,” “he *has* bipolar disorder.” And we all know what we mean by these things.

Based on the symptoms manifested we say that such a person has one mental disorder and not another in much the same way that a doctor looks at physical symptoms and decides a person has mumps and not measles.

When a person manifests the symptoms of same-sex attraction disorder, it is quite reasonable to say “he *has* SSAD.” And, since SSAD is a disorder, it is also correct to say that some part of his cognitive functioning *is* disordered. How petty a semantic quibble is it to continue on from there to, “Oh, we’re not saying that homosexual persons are disordered. Just a big part of their cognitive functioning and their sexuality.”

I’m sure other people must have noticed, perhaps in the writings of Camille Paglia or Andrew Sullivan, how they are perceptive, lucid, even brilliant on many topics, but once the subject turns to legitimizing homosexual conduct their thinking suddenly…I paused for several minutes of thought at that ellipsis…I don’t know how to say it other than that their thinking suddenly becomes disordered. They accept and propound shoddy reasoning on this subject that they would ridicule if the topic were, say, economics or the influence of the Roman Empire on the Middle East, and homosexual behavior were in no way connected.

A person cannot reliably “compartmentalize” such a disorder and keep it segregated from the rest of his excogitation and behavior. For this reason, even if a man who suffers from SSAD had any chance of remaining celibate (which is about as likely as a cobra becoming a vegetarian), he would still be unqualified for the priesthood.

Please…I think we’re pretty much agreed that men who suffer from SSAD should not be ordained. Let’s not squabble over semantic trifles.

[dsc]

"I don’t know how you could have “heterosexual” or “homosexual” priests."

Both these states begin with internal events--desires--that precede and have existence independently of actions.

A priest who is attracted to women and not men is heterosexual--that is, normal--even if he is celibate.

A (wrongly ordained) priest who is attracted to men is suffering from SSAD, even if he defied all odds and became the world's first celibate SSAD sufferer.

[Catholicguy]

I too agree that Keating wasn't wrong :)

[LiteKeeper]

Genuine, long-term faith-based therapy is generally needed, and even that is not 100% successful.

Where is the emperical data for your assertion? I agree, it is not a choice someone makes one day...but it is not a mental disorder, either. It is a sinful style of life, and homosexual people need to be confronted with that reality. As long as it is called a "mental disorder," or something that is "genetic," there will be no reversal of lifestyle. Yes, it will take time, but the journey of a 1000 miles begins with the first step.