Posted on 03/07/2007 8:15:53 AM PST by presidio9
A leading canon law expert said that in applying the Vatican's directive against admission of homosexuals to the priesthood, seminary authorities should make use of psychological sciences to distinguish between "deep-seated" and transitory homosexual tendencies.
Jesuit Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda, rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University and an adviser to several important Vatican agencies, said the use of psychology was a complex but necessary means of establishing the true nature of homosexual traits.
Psychological evaluations alone can never substitute for the informed decisions of bishops and seminary authorities, but such testing must be taken into serious consideration, Father Ghirlanda said.
He made his comments in the March 4 issue of the Jesuit journal La Civilta Cattolica (Catholic Civilization), whose contents are reviewed by the Vatican prior to publication.
In 2005, the Vatican issued an instruction saying the church cannot allow ordination of men who are active homosexuals or who have "deep-seated homosexual tendencies." The norms do not rule out ordination for men who have experienced transitory homosexual tendencies or episodes, as long as they have been overcome for at least three years.
The wording of the document prompted much debate about the nature of the homosexual inclination and the ability of church authorities to distinguish between permanent and transitory tendencies.
In his article, Father Ghirlanda said it was clear that bishops and seminary superiors should make use of one or more psychological experts when there is a question about homosexuality in a candidate.
The purpose is not simply to weed out those with homosexual inclinations but, in the case of transitory tendencies, to help the candidate overcome them, he said.
"In fact, the range of situations between deep-seated homosexual tendencies and transitory homosexual tendencies is as great as the number of individual cases. What may at first seem deep-seated could turn out to be conquerable with therapy," he said.
The priesthood candidate has a moral duty to comply with psychological testing and eventual therapy in such cases, he said.
But such testing or therapy cannot be imposed on a candidate, and requires his prior, informed and explicit consent, he said.
The results of such psychological consultations should not be communicated to seminary superiors without the candidate's written permission, he said.
Father Ghirlanda said this presents seminary superiors with a delicate task: They cannot use psychological testing to intimidate priesthood candidates, but they should consider refusal to comply as an element in their decision about seminary acceptance.
When there are doubts about suitability of a candidate, church law makes it clear that he should not be admitted to the seminary, he said.
Father Ghirlanda said similar evaluations may also be needed for heterosexual candidates to the seminary. A heterosexual who is lacking in "psycho-affective and religious maturity" should also be excluded from the priesthood, he said.
The difference, he said, is that it is more difficult for a person with deep-seated homosexual tendencies to reach such maturity.
The Congregation for Catholic Education (of Seminaries and Institutes of Study) has been working for several years on guidelines for the use of psychological sciences in the admission and formation of candidates for the priesthood. Sources said the document was still in the preparation stages.
If they're homesexuals, they should be helping them, not letting them run the asylum. Doesn't matter if they were abused as kids, didn't have a father, or learned it at the local college. It's not normal behavior.
One would think that because as a group psychiatrists deny that homosexuality is a mental disorder they are particularly ill-equipted to treat it. Sending a gay priest to a psychiatrist is like sending an alcholic to a bartender. The psychiatrist is a professional enabler.
Don't invite Gianfranco to speak at CPAC. that would be way overboard!
A lot of bishops don't even know what it is to be a bishop.
They act more like facilitators of niceness and good feelings than the shepherds and defenders of the Faith they're supposed to be.
Here we go again.....the Clintonian/Left phrase-parsing and word-nitpicking to sow doubt and confusion regarding the pronouncements and teachings of traditional Christian faiths, the Bible and, in this case, Catholic authorities.
The words to live by are found in the Word, my dear Jesuit priest. Not in the glib words of today's mostly atheistic liberal shrinks who predominate in the so-called psychological "sciences" during these modern times.
If most shrinks had their way, the Bible and the Christian faith would be classified as just another psychological "science" or "tool" to be utilized like hypnosis and dream-reading as a way of trying to cleanse oneself of sin or error and feel good about oneself again.
A growing number in the western world's multitudes don't want any of the strictures of faith anymore. They want to do what they want to do in this life without any restraints or authorities like the Bible, the various Christian denominations, theologians and some old German guy in the Vatican breathing down their necks and making them feel guilty about their hedonistic/humanistic life-styles.
Ergo, to them, that old hidebound Christian faith is dispensable......and as we see every day, the multiple-front attacks on Christianity are mounting in attempts to obliterate it from the consciousness of the populace.
Freeeee-dom or Bust.....is today's Nicene Creed!
Along these lines, it's trendy today to substitute the analyst's couch for a church pew, a shrink for a minister, reverend or priest......and a text book authored by Freud for Holy Writ.
Why all this shuckin' and jivin' (as encapsulated in the above Jesuit's New Age babble)) over the basic teaching on homosexuality articulated rather plainly over and over by the Holy Father and the Vatican doctrinal offices?
I used to think the shortage of priests drove the many attempts at dilution of biblical tenets in the RCC regarding this issue. However, I've arrived at the conclusion that all these little propaganda homilies and the dilution-of-Scripture hit-and-runs by liberal theologians (as articulated by the cleric above) under the silky guise of "debate" and "science" are basically agenda-driven.
I'm convinced the drive is on to again pack the seminaries with psychologically screwed-up students who go to sleep every night muttering to themselves, "I'm a wreck. Am I a 'deep-rooted' or 'transitory' homo? I really must schedule another appointment tomorrow with my shrink. I'd would ordinarily look for some answers to my angst in Christian scriptures.....but things are just too black-and-white in the Bible for this day and age and for my sensitive and compassionate nature".
Leni
There are still a few great and loyal Jesuits, but for the most part the order seems to be irreparably broken.
It may never recover. As Fr. Benedict Groeschel pointed out in an article a few years ago, history suggests that broken institutions and religious orders usually never recover. Instead, reformed orders grow up beside them and gradually take that place. It happened several times over the ages with the Benedictines, Cluny being the best known example. Similarly, the Discalced Carmelites replaced the old Carmelites.
Pope JP II tried to fix the Jesuits by installing a caretaker superior, but it didn't work. The present superior appears to be an enabler of the worst traits of the order.
Ok, here we go:
One of my room mates in college went on to Catholic seminary (Jesuit). During college he was an active hetero.
We kept in touch after graduation.
I met up with him in seminary, in divinity school, and later in medical school. I was at his taking of vows in seminary, and at his ordination, final vows. I was friends with him as well as most of his family. I got to meet the staff at the seminary and divinity school. I met up with several other Jesuits who were friends of his on visits to Georgetown, Boston, Philadelphia, and the seminary outside of Reading, PA.
When I caught up with him again, he was doing his residency at Jefferson, he confided with me that he was gay. Surprise to me, but then I have been known to be unaware of such things...duh! He then proceeded to go over the list of priests I had met over the years and they were all gay (and all Jesuits, BTW).
He told me of his 'coming out' within the priesthood. He described a tortuous meeting with his confessor, when he told him that he was struggling over weather to have sexual relations. When the other priest got through the usual pep talk about even priests being sexual beings, he exclaimed "But, I want to have sexual relations with...a man!" The confessor says "Well, of course!"
Now, you must also know that I am not a Catholic, although my wife and in-laws are. My contacts with priests other than through my college roommate are limited. Hence, my 'sample' was pre-selected by a sexually active gay priest over a 20 year period.
I was utterly oblivious to the sexuality of these priests, perhaps because I was not looking for that. My friend, along with several of his other priests, according to him, went into the priesthood with the expectation of suppressing their sexual urges. Turns out it had the opposite effect for some.
He ended up leaving the Jesuits. He is clinical director of a psychiatric facility. Lives with his significant other, who is a nice guy too. They seem well suited to each other, and happy. Yes, I find that unusual, but then I have no reason to judge their behavior.
I offer this experience not to bash Catholics or gays for that matter. You did ask.
Why not both? A physiological predisposition to a vice don't turn that vice to good. Gluttony, for example. And the insanity defense requires a lock-up AND a priest.
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.