New Rules for Gay Clergy -- Catholics only.

[Globalnomad]

you have no idea how terribly disturbed i am in hearing this i dont believe that God would have someone be born homosexual and no one can convince me other wise...i dont think anyone knows how dead set against that i am about homosexuals being leaders of a church.

inborn btw, would be genetics only, something stemming from childhood would be nuture, which is where i believe people become homosexual. but you also said that you just dont know...so how can you know that it's inborn?

Crystal, I appreciate your problem. Think, though: it goes way beyond homosexuality. God "lets" people be born blind, or starve to death, or suffer persecution and torture... We are talking of the whole problem of human suffering, of which homosexuality is just one item. We just don't know why these things happen... but if you refuse to accept that God allows people to be born homosexual, you must also refuse to accept poverty, illness... Where is God when 200,000 people get killed by a wave, or 30,000 by an earthquake?

 

[Globalnomad]

"inborn btw, would be genetics only, something stemming from childhood would be nuture, which is where i believe people become homosexual. but you also said that you just dont know...so how can you know that it's inborn?"

Sorry, I forgot to address that. OK, another piece of sloppy wording on my part (I really went overboard an hour ago with careless language! On such an important subject, too!)

Of course, I mean "genetic or psychologically determined". "Ingrained" might be a better word, since it covers both. The point is that one day (usually when you start waking up sexually) you discover it's there, and you sure didn't do anything to put it there!

Of course, if it's genetic, you truly can't change it, while if it is a psychological conditioning that we haven't understood yet, then in theory it should be possible to change it. But I assure you that thousands of the sincerest and most God-fearing homosexuals find it impossible or devilishly difficult even to suppress, never mind change, it.

 

[geocajun]

I stand corrected, Geocajun. I used sloppy wording. I meant simply that some people are made that way, and you cannot stop (or to be precise, we don't know HOW to stop) the inclination from arising.

no worries, I just wanted to make sure that it was clarified.

But note that the Catechism does say, implicitly, that you cannot change a homosexual inclination: it says that gays are "called to chastity", instead of encouraging them to try to change their sexuality.

I disagree with this. It could say that "Angry people are called to be peaceful" which doesn't mean that Angry folks cannot stop being angry.

My honest opinion is that you can change a homosexual inclination... but in exceptional cases only. (Being a bisexual helps.)

There are many documented cases of folks being cured - but the important thing to remember is that what a person is, is not defined by what a person does.
IOW, homosexuality or bisexuality are not genders, but rather behaviors.
Far too often folks try to define a person by their behavior, and the line is further and further blurred.

 

[Globalnomad]

I disagree with this. It could say that "Angry people are called to be peaceful" which doesn't mean that Angry folks cannot stop being angry.
...
There are many documented cases of folks being cured - but the important thing to remember is that what a person is, is not defined by what a person does.
IOW, homosexuality or bisexuality are not genders, but rather behaviors.
Far too often folks try to define a person by their behavior, and the line is further and further blurred.

Sorry, Geocajun, but if I used sloppy wording, I think you are using sloppy logic here! You are mixing together two different things: acting out on a trait of character, and the trait of character itself. A quick-tempered person who learns to control his anger - as he is, yes, of course, called on to do - has not stopped being quick-tempered. He has just learnt to control his temper.

Behaviour? NOOOO! That's JUST what it is not - I thought we agreed on that, at least! It's an inclination - a trait of character - nothing to do with whether you behave in accordance with it, or not!

Or are we talking past each other?

Wait. Let me check something. What do you mean by "curing homosexuality"? If a man still feels attracted to men rather than women; but has conditioned himself through years of self-control to disregard this attraction, is married, and makes love to his wife (probably with the help of a homoerotic fantasy) just enough times to get her pregnant once or twice... would you consider that man "cured"? Or would you say, like me, that he successfully "suppressed" his homosexuality, but basically he is still gay?

 

[geocajun]

Sorry, Geocajun, but if I used sloppy wording, I think you are using sloppy logic here! You are mixing together two different things: acting out on a trait of character, and the trait of character itself. A quick-tempered person who learns to control his anger - as he is, yes, of course, called on to do - has not stopped being quick-tempered. He has just learnt to control his temper.

actually, a person can altogether stop being quick tempered. Not just a matter of controlling the quick temper, but rather curing it.

Behaviour? NOOOO! That's JUST what it is not - I thought we agreed on that, at least! It's an inclination - a trait of character - nothing to do with whether you behave in accordance with it, or not!

I believe its both an inclination which is born of ones social circumstances, and a behavior which acts on an inclination. Either way, its not nature, but nurture is what i've found in my study of the matter.

Or are we talking past each other?

We could be, but I suspect you're of the 'nature, not nurture' mind?

Wait. Let me check something. What do you mean by "curing homosexuality"? If a man still feels attracted to men rather than women; but has conditioned himself through years of self-control to disregard this attraction, is married, and makes love to his wife (probably with the help of a homoerotic fantasy) just enough times to get her pregnant once or twice... would you consider that man "cured"? Or would you say, like me, that he successfully "suppressed" his homosexuality, but basically he is still gay?

I personally define cure, as treating the problem and removing the symptoms, however I am aware that some professionals in the curing business are a little more loose with their definitions.

If you haven't already read it before, I strongly suggest reviewing the following paper:

http://www.cathmed.org/publications/homosexuality.html

[font=tahoma, arial][font=tahoma, arial] Those who claim that change of sexual orientation is impossible usually define change as total and permanent freedom from all homosexual behavior, fantasy, or attraction in a person who had previously been homosexual in behavior and attraction. (Tripp 1971[83]) Even when change is defined in this extreme manner the claim is untrue. Numerous studies report cases of total change. (Goetze 1997[84])
cont.....
[/font][/font]​

 

[CrystalBrooke]

Crystal, I appreciate your problem. Think, though: it goes way beyond homosexuality. God "lets" people be born blind, or starve to death, or suffer persecution and torture... We are talking of the whole problem of human suffering, of which homosexuality is just one item. We just don't know why these things happen... but if you refuse to accept that God allows people to be born homosexual, you must also refuse to accept poverty, illness... Where is God when 200,000 people get killed by a wave, or 30,000 by an earthquake?

being poor, and being born blind, deaf...ect is not a sin, being homosexual is.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

being poor, and being born blind, deaf...ect is not a sin, being homosexual is.

Having a homosexual relationship or indulging sexual thoughts about the same sex is a sin. Having a homosexual inclination is not.

 

[CrystalBrooke]

whatever...im so aggrivated with this thread...im just going to back away before i do offend someone.

 

[Globalnomad]

whatever...im so aggrivated with this thread...im just going to back away before i do offend someone.

Crystal, you can't just say "whatever"! This is important! Don't you see the difference between a homosexual inclination and homosexual acts? Doesn't the Catechism matter to you?

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Crystal, you can't just say "whatever"! This is important! Don't you see the difference between a homosexual inclination and homosexual acts? Doesn't the Catechism matter to you?

My thoughts exactly.

 

[CrystalBrooke]

Crystal, you can't just say "whatever"! This is important! Don't you see the difference between a homosexual inclination and homosexual acts? Doesn't the Catechism matter to you?

dont you see that i see no difference between the 2, you're homosexual either way, acting on it doesnt change a thing to me. as i have stated already ive never read the Catechism and now im not too interested to do so because i dont believe that homosexuality is something you're born with. i know you guys are trying to make me understand, but i dont want to understand, there's nothing for me to understand, homosexuality is wrong...PERIOD! now if you'll excuse me i think i'll go cry now.

 

[geocajun]

Crystal,
The key here behind the term 'inclination' is understanding first what an inclination is, and what it is not. Inclinations are not something we invite in our conscious, but rather are like triggers in our sub-conscious.
Think about when you are driving your car, and somebody cuts you off. Are you ever inclined to yell at them? maybe wave a finger or two at em? That anger is an inclination - you did not ask for it, but now you have it, and you have to deal with it. You can either behave as you are inclined, or you can suppress the inclination, and behave differently.
Homosexuals do not ask for these urges, but rather have them, and have to deal with them by controlling them with their behavior.

Simply being inclined to be angry is not a sin anymore than simply being inclined to homosexuality. Both cases require self control.

There is much speculation about where the inclination for homosexual behavior comes from - I think its formed by ones environment, but not everyone agrees.
Either way, how homosexuality is caused is not a religious question, but rather a scientific one. Just as the moral quality of homosexuality is not a scientific question, but rather a religious one.

 

[Globalnomad]

actually, a person can altogether stop being quick tempered. Not just a matter of controlling the quick temper, but rather curing it.

I believe its both an inclination which is born of ones social circumstances, and a behavior which acts on an inclination. Either way, its not nature, but nurture is what i've found in my study of the matter.


We could be, but I suspect you're of the 'nature, not nurture' mind?


I personally define cure, as treating the problem and removing the symptoms, however I am aware that some professionals in the curing business are a little more loose with their definitions.

If you haven't already read it before, I strongly suggest reviewing the following paper:



http://www.cathmed.org/publications/homosexuality.html

[font=tahoma, arial][font=tahoma, arial]Those who claim that change of sexual orientation is impossible usually define change as total and permanent freedom from all homosexual behavior, fantasy, or attraction in a person who had previously been homosexual in behavior and attraction. (Tripp 1971[83]) Even when change is defined in this extreme manner the claim is untrue. Numerous studies report cases of total change. (Goetze 1997[84])

cont.....
[/font][/font]
​

Thanks, Geocajun, that was an interesting paper. No, I had not read it before, though the general line of thinking is not news to me.

No, I am not really a "nature, not nurture" person. I'm a hybrid - I think it is "nurture", but a "nurture" that comes very early (childhood, even babyhood), is impossible to avoid (what can you do at that age????) and VERY, VERY difficult to change... a lot more difficult than this paper makes it out to be. 90% of the times, it is just controlled or suppressed... jsut like quick-temperedness would be. (I believe you when you say that quick-temperedness can be completely changed, not just controlled... but it's only the rare strong character that can do it, and it takes a lifetime! )

But maybe we'd better get back to the original subject. I think we agree that a priest who is in the middle of the process of curing/suppressing/controlling his homosexual inclination is (a) not a sinner, (b) a brave and probably unusually wise person, (c) may have some of the special qualities that often go together with a homosexual inclination - sensitivity, intuition, sympathy.... all great pastoral qualities. He may well be a much-better-than-average priest; it would be a folly for the Church to risk losing him, and a grave sin to embitter him by making him feel unworthy.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

High VNVnation



I've been reading the comments and personally I agree with this current Vatican report or atleast I hope that something to this effect will be applied to homosexuals and hereosexuals.

But what worries me is that what if the Bishops themselves are secretly gay? What if the ones who are making the selection and making the judgement calls if some of them are gay? We definitely need some real guidelines and some thorough research done here on all candidates for the priesthood.

Some of them certainly are. If they take their vows seriously, does it matter?

I'm not against a man being celibrate for 3 years with the desire to be a priest because they are truly inlove with Christ and inlove with the Bride of Christ and truly want to serve her, but being betrayed in the way that the CC has been recently... I'm a bit nervous about the whole thing... But with prayer, all things are possible and so that is what I will do... I will pray.

God's Peace,

Debbie

Some homosexual priests betrayed the Church, but so did some heterosexual priests as well as some bishops. We shouldn't choose one group and make them pay for the actions of the few.

 

[kimber1]

 

[Globalnomad]

dont you see that i see no difference between the 2, you're homosexual either way, acting on it doesnt change a thing to me. as i have stated already ive never read the Catechism and now im not too interested to do so because i dont believe that homosexuality is something you're born with. i know you guys are trying to make me understand, but i dont want to understand, there's nothing for me to understand, homosexuality is wrong...PERIOD! now if you'll excuse me i think i'll go cry now.

OK, Crystal, off you go if you want, but please don't cry. This topic is obviously a hot button for you.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

you do realize you just added to watch the catechism says right? While it is true that homosexual inclinations are not freely chosen, the whole inborn, etc... 'cannot be changed' (which you even bolded) etc.. is your opinion - and I should just say now, "so what" if you can find a doctor who agrees with you, there is plenty of doctors who disagree with them too.
This is not something you'll find in the catechism however and I think the way you've worded your post implies that it is, which is wrong.

You will find it in Persona Humana (Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics):

​

​

A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable. (VIII)​

 

[Globalnomad]

Some of them certainly are. If they take their vows seriously, does it matter?



Some homosexual priests betrayed the Church, but so did some heterosexual priests as well as some bishops. We shouldn't choose one group and make them pay for the actions of the few.

I'm glad Fragmentsofdreams took this up, D'Ann - I wanted to but forgot. Plese, never forget that the scandal was caused by the bishops who covered up; the abuses themselves were no worse and no more frequent than among the population at large. If those sick priests had not had their bishops to cover up for them for years, and switch them to fresh pastures, they would never have been able to do as much harm as they did - and the world would not be so scandalised with the Catholic Church. "The world" is not shocked by paedophilia... what shocked, quite rightly, was the whole elaborate structural cover-up. Cardinal Bernard Law should be in jail for life, instead of being Titular of a major Roman Basilica. Same for a dozen more bishops.

 

[geocajun]

You will find it in Persona Humana (Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics):

​

​

A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable. (VIII)​

are you kidding? this isn't doctrine, but rather making a distinction between 'really gay' and just 'playing gay' and it doesn't speak to the science at all. Read it carefully. "seems with reason", "because of some kind... pathological condition" - this vague language is used because it is a scientific question.

 

[Crosscarrier23]

I do not agree with homosexuality, and though I wish such a sickness did not exist, I understand that it does. I don't think they should be rejected from the preisthood if they surpress their feelings, but I know that if I knew my preist was a homosexual, then I wouldn't be able to confess to him or even take what he says seriously. I would equate him to the flamboyant homosexuals on T.V. I know this is stereotypical, but I can't help but feel that way. I don't believe that you are born gay, because commiting homosexual acts is a sin, so why would God make you inclined towards a particular sin? I like the new Vatican measure. It has my full support. Something has to be done to remedy the confusion, and this is it.