'Homosexuality and the Church Crisis'

I am not saying that homosexuals should be ordained. As your link says, a deep-seated impulse towards a grave sin, especially of a sexual nature, is incompatible with the office. I understand that. I accept that. In this manner and in all others I submit to the Church.

I'm asking if the only vocation available to homosexuals is the single, lay life. Could a homosexual become brothers in a religious order? (NOT A PRIEST, A BROTHER) Could a homosexual be a monk, or friar, or hermit? I'd imagine that some sort of monastic vocation would be an immense help to those with the homosexual inclination as they seek holiness. I do not see what's so disgusting about someone trying to overcome their temptations and live as close to Christ as possible.

We all seem to be in agreement that the homosexual, just as all the faithful, is called to chastity. However when I ask about the available ways that a homosexual may seek to live out this call, I am scolded as a "homo apologist!" I am not seeking to undermine the Church's teaching, just asking for it! Instead of being given an answer, we're revisiting a settled issue (ordination).

The closest thing I've got to an answer seems to say that homosexuality disqualifies a person from any form of consecrated living because the laity needs holy leaders, not disordered ones. On the contrary, holiness is a matter of one's heart and one's action, the direct result of a relationship with Christ and cooperating with His graces. The implication of this answer seems to be that homosexuality excludes the possibility of holiness. The deeper implication being the homosexuality is in itself sinful and prevents a relationship with God. That set of ideas is incompatible with the Church's teaching on the matter.

The second closest thing to an answer I've seen, coming from the same source, says that there is no clear answer available.

BK,

When you write this kind of cr*p it proves you're getting wobbly with respect to ordaining homosexuals.

I say how does a disorder disqualify a man or woman for religious orders, when all brothers and all sisters must be Christlike? How are we to count their disorder against them if they are sanctified and seeking more sanctification?

Take your objections regarding the ordaining of sodomies up with the proper authroities. Sodomites should never have been allowed in the seminary in the first place. But, that's $3 Billion in money damages awarded to attorneys and plaintiffs and water under the bridge at this time. To think that there are still people (LIKE YOU) who beleive homosexuals should be ordained today is disgusting. Yet it is understandable especially when it originates from homo apologists.
----------------------------------------

VATICAN CITY — Ordaining homosexuals “is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from a pastoral point of view, very risky,” wrote the Vatican's point man on the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments in an official communication.

Cardinal Jorge Medina Estévez, responding to a letter from a bishop, added that “a person who is homosexual or has homosexual tendencies is not, therefore, suitable to receive the sacrament of sacred orders.”

Read more: www.ncregister.com/…/vatican_to_bish…

I wrote the pervious response in spurts over a good period of time, my way of thinking about the issue shifted as I wrote. I tried to point that out at the end.

My comparison of homosexuals and women was not in their different states, but in the results. Women have a condition in which they have no say, their womanhood, and cannot be priests. Homosexuals have a condition for in which they have no say and cannot be priests. I pointed out the differences between their states at the end because I could see the objection coming and I did not want it to seem as if I had slandered womanhood.

Towards the end of the writing I feared that my language would lend itself to disparage certain vocation. This hierarchy of callings entered my thoughts as a result to my impression of the "escape clause" term. The idea of an escape clause seemed to suggest the priestly ordination was the highest goal, and the religious orders seemed to exist for those who weren't good enough for it. I was rejecting the idea, not supporting it.

There is a common sentiment, and rightly so, that the priesthood and holy orders are extraordinary vocation. It also the common sentiment to ignore the extraordinary vocation to the laity. I certainly worked under that ignorance at the beginning, but denied it at the end of my writing. ("...close communion available in the third row...")

As the comparison to the Lord's body, I was merely pointing out that even in his perfection there is a brokenness. Then how much more so will there be brokenness in us? God uses the broken and disordered. In fact, they're all he ever has used. We are looking at this question in two different ways. You say how "does a disorder qualify a man or woman for religious orders, when all brothers and all sisters must be Christlike?"

I say how does a disorder disqualify a man or woman for religious orders, when all brothers and all sisters must be Christlike? How are we to count their disorder against them if they are sanctified and seeking more sanctification?

As I said, I totally understand the prohibition of homosexuals from ordination. A deep-seated tendency towards a grave sin would be a massive impediment to the special call and duty of a priest.

However, I do not see how allowing homosexuals to enter a religious order is some sort of an escape clause. The vast majority of men do not seek the priesthood as if it were some prize toy and when denied sigh and ask to at least be allowed to be a religious brother. They come because they feel a call to live with Christ in the uttermost.

It all seems comparable to saying that since women cannot be priests, the Church allowed them an escape clause by allowing them to be nuns. We both would scoff at the idea! Women are, by God’s decree, simply not able to be priests. But women are called to teach, uplift, and sanctify the Church and so they have their own forms of consecrated living. Now, there certainly is a difference between being a woman and being homosexual. There is nothing disordered about being a woman, and this is certainly no tendency towards grave sin in womanhood. But I believe the comparison serves it purpose.

One could also put the situation side-by-side to that of addicts. As it is said, there are no former addicts, only recovering ones. For the majority of these individuals, they may leave their ways but they will always possess an urge to return to their drug. Nonetheless, they are embraced by the Church and can enter into the consecrated living.

I understand that any ministry is not a right, but a call to be discerned and followed. I understand that some disorders are simply incompatible with certain ministries and even certain religious orders. But is the homosexual only called to sit quietly in the third row pew? Is a lay life the only option of homosexuals? I mean, if there is any person in need of a vocation to life-long prayer and dedication to Christ, it is a person with a deep-seated tendency towards grave sin!

I do not mean to disparage the lay vocation…but the pain in the cross of a lay homosexual must tremendous; to deal with their “disorientation”, knowing that their most intimate feelings are ordered toward moral evil and to face the loneliness of life without a companion. Then to have to struggle amidst the cares of the world would be unbearable. The brutal isolation of it all could only be comparable to that our Lord suffered on the cross.

Perhaps, in this way, the homosexual has one of the sweetest crosses. Perhaps the consecrated life would be an “escape” in that it might relieve some of that pain. My original thinking was the perhaps the extraordinary cross of the homosexual might result in what is usually thought of as an extraordinary vocation. Now, I wonder if the greater call is to undertake the journey in the extreme isolation and close communion available in the third row pew.

As you said, we aren’t at the point to answer all these questions yet. But as for the laity needing Christlike leaders, I say Amen! However, even the body of our Lord bears scars. All we have ever had are disordered leaders. After all Noah was a drunk, Jacob was a liar, Moses was a murder and stutterer, David was an adulterer and a murderer, Elijah was suicidal, and Paul had no control over his members. But above all, when Jesus came to Lazarus, who is said to have become a bishop, he was dead!

BK,

Now, the entire handling of homosexuality has been a failure.

Indeed!

In general, I agree with your post.

However, who is able to say with certainty that The average sodomite, often a decent man trying to live right? It would seem that the “average sodomite” today is a self-absorbed hedonist with an ambitions agenda of making homosexuality a norm, an alternative lifestyle, part of the great continuum of sexuality, with the same rights and privileges as non-disordered relationships. Add to this the pedophile connection and we have a recipe for absurdity which is exactly the state of affairs within the United States today with business falling over themselves to be perceived as “gay friendly.” More realistically, these businesses should be called "gay terrified."

The 2% tail sure wags a lot of dogs including many cowardly clerics within various denominations including those within the Catholic Church.

The average sodomite (often a decent man trying to live right the evidence would suggest otherwise) must be told of the sinfulness of his relationships and urged to repentance. In this, I wholeheartedly agree.

Yet, how often is he told to repent by Church clerics? How often is he provided a means of support in the form of groups like Courage? The answer is almost never. Instead, when the subject of homosexuality is addressed (if at all), most often the discussion becomes a lecture to straights on how they must be more accepting, the dignity of the person, we are all God's children blah blah blah. These things are, of course, true but they do nothing to help the individual enslaved with Same Sex Disorder.

Holy Cannoli,
I am by no means a "homosexual apologist." If am an apologist of any sort, I am an apologist for the Church and a bad one at that! (I'm sure you'll agree to my last assertion!:P)

Now, the entire handling of homosexuality has been a failure. You either hear those who demonize the condition or those who promote acting upon it, with very few speaking the truth of the matter. The homosexual in the pew is either denied any hope or given false hope in a life of sin.

Once again, the mission of the Church is to chastise the sodomite and heal the homosexual. Your idea of healing the homosexual seems to differ from mine. I certainly agree that we must better engage homosexuals on the nature of their condition and their responsibilities. We must urge them to programs, like Courage, which can direct them to "a life of interior chastity in union with Christ." However, if by remedial therapy you mean reorientation, I have my hesitations. While I would not discourage an individual from seeking help in this way if they thought it was best, it must be known that these methods have very few successes, if any. Often the practices used in such therapies verge on pseudoscience. More than promoting reorientation, we should help the homosexual come to terms with his condition and glory in his cross. The general goal should not be change, but chastity. In this manner, the healing of homosexual and heterosexual is the same.

He whose lifestyle is contrary to God's moral law must be confronted. The average sodomite, often a decent man trying to live right, must be told of the sinfulness of his relationships and urged to repentance. The predatory sodomite must be punished according to the severity of his action. Furthermore, both groups must be counseled and lead to restoration.

Now, I have said has been in contradiction to the guidance of the Church? If I have, I do not see it. Have I asked that homosexuals be given license to sin? No. All I have asked for is that we recognize the full complexity of the issue at hand.

God Bless You!

Until the Church can both chastise the sodomite and heal the homosexual, and see the differences between the two, this problem will continue.

I'm afraid that “the Church” has been totally inept in its ability to “chastise the sodomite” or “heal the homosexual.” We see this since “the Church” has failed miserably in its “pastoral” duty to repeatedly advise and warn homosexuals that it is incumbent upon the homosexual (read: they have a duty) to seek remedial therapy. There are organizations whose sole mission is to assist homosexuals in breaking their loathsome lifestyles and habits. “The Church” is not equipped nor qualified to “heal the homosexual.” Organizations like Courage are.

Yet, how seldom are such remedies mentioned much less encouraged by “the Church” or by homosexual apologists like you? Instead , the laity continually hear how straights must be compassionate, hate the sin not the sinner, homosexuals are not responsible blah blah blah with little or no mention of the obligations of the homosexual to take remedial action for their very serious “disorder” and the real danger sodomites pose to innocent children. This has been and still is a significant failure of “the Church” in addition to not being very “pastoral.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Homosexual Alfred Kinsey, the USA's preeminent sexual researcher, found in 1948 that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old. [7]

A recent study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2 - 4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25 - 40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles." [8]

Another recent study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "... all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories." These age categories were fifteen and twenty years old. [9]

A third study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality ... Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30 - 40%." [10]

A study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that "... the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men ... the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality." [11]

A study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "eighty-six percent of [sexual] offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual." [12]

A study by The Institute for Sex Research, which was founded by Alfred Kinsey, determined that 25% of white homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years and younger. [13]

www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100424

A-Brennan,
I was not accusing you of being uncompassionate, just trying to point out that your original post could be easily misconstrued as such. Your statement seemed, to me, to make too broad a generalization. In any discussion of this issue we must clearly differentiate between the homosexual, who bears no guilt for his condition, and the sodomite who has given himself over to sin and commits the acts that our Lord condemned through St. Catherine of Siena.

Too often we act as if there is no difference. Homosexuals then are not equipped to handle their cross and fall into despair, seeing themselves as essentially evil. I think that too often despairing homosexuals enter the priesthood hoping to be relieved of their burdens, and upon finding no such remedy, fall into deeper loathing and shame. Having heard and believed their whole lives that they are wicked perverts, they eventually lose out to the beast imposed upon them and act as such. Until the Church can both chastise the sodomite and heal the homosexual, and see the differences between the two, this problem will continue.

Once again, I did not mean to pass a judgment on you, and if it seemed as such I apologize. I am sorry to hear of your assault, but thanks be to God that you were unharmed!

God Bless You!

Bendedknee, I do have compassion for Homo's. Love the sinner hate the sin! What did i say that lead you to think otherwise? Don't be so judgmental. I was merely stating facts about Homo behavior and what lead them to their discussing practices. The ones that are not practicing and carrying their cross God bless them! The ones that are practicing are sick. Both though should NEVER be ordained or work with children or adopt. Practicing or not both should never be allowed to work with children. Most priests that were pedophiles were Homo's. By the way if "Homo" angers anyone I use it short for Homosexual. I refuse to use the word "Gay". First gay means happy, a word that was hijacked by the homosexual movement. And also I have never met a "Gay" Gay/happy. There all deep down depressed and confused. Lastly I lived in Fresno for years and was one night attacked be a Homo and was almost raped by him. I fought back and came out bloodied! I forgive the guy after I knocked him out! It was self defense. Sad thing I knew the guy and he pretended to be my friend. He knew were I walked late at night and thought he could jump me with a friend. Thank God I took martial arts. Point is Homo thinking is twisted and should never be allowed to work with children. Amen!

St. Catherine of Siena relays words of Our Lord Jesus Christ about the vice against nature, which contaminated part of the clergy in her time. Referring to sacred ministers, He says, "They not only fail from resisting this frailty [of human nature] ... but do even worse as they commit the cursed sin against nature. Like the blind and stupid, having dimmed the light of their understanding, they do not recognize the disease and misery in which they find themselves. For this not only causes Me nausea, but displeases even the demons themselves, whom these miserable creatures have chosen for their lords. For Me, this sin against nature is so abominable that, for it alone, five cities were submersd, by virtue of the judgement of My Divine Justice, which could no longer bear them ... It is disagreeable to the demons, not because evil displeases them and they find pleasure in good, but because their nature is angelic and thus is repulsed upon seeing an enormous sin being committed. It is true that it is the demon who hits the sinner with the poisoned arrow of lust, but when a man carries out such a sinful act, the demon leaves."

(St Catherine of Siena, El dialogo, in Obras de Santa Catarina de Siena (Madrid: BAC, 1991) p. 292

A-Brennan,
We must have compassion for those of us who struggle with homosexuality or who are deeply homosexual. You're comments, to me, seemed to over-simplify the issue.

The problem in the Church is not homosexuality among priests. I suspect that homosexuals have found a place in the priesthood for centuries, just as they do today. The problem is that men today enter the priesthood using the sacrament of holy orders as a means by which they suppress their orientation. Rather than coming to terms with their condition and accepting their cross, they seek to deny it and hope that once they put on the clerical collar the feelings will just go away.

But, as it has been said, that which you resist persists. If a priest demonizes his sexuality, eventually it will express itself demonically.

Then, there are those who accept their condition but not their cross and enter the holy order with the intent to spread a "gay" culture and undermine doctrine. This only adds to the confusion of the priests already suffering with their sexuality.

I say none of this to contradict the Church in her decrees that homosexuality is "incompatible" with the priesthood. I accept the statement wholeheartedly. But certainly any habit or natural inclination that is disordered or sinful is equally incompatibly. Thus, the Church has also given leeway for case-by-case examination. Any man, who has mastery over his sexual and other natural drives and is called to the ministry, should have the opportunity.

To say that "Homo's are sick people and should NEVER be let to be ordained...or even teach young children," is to make too large a generalization. Instead, I say that homosexuals are people given a cross of chastity and special loneliness. I say that any homosexual who daily picks up this cross opens himself to tremendous grace and holiness.

Furthermore I say that any man, homosexual or heterosexual, who cannot come to terms with his natural conditions and lives in a state of unbalance tainted by shame should not be ordained or teach children. The only man fit to be a priest is one who sees himself and loves himself as God sees and loves him.

God Bless You!

I find the pic above very disturbing! Of course there is a "strong correlation between male homosexuality and child sexual abuse"! Most Homo's were abused in some way and their just acting out the way the were brought up. If they start practicing sodomy, what other twisted and immoral behaviors would they go to other than pedophile behavior! Homo's are sick people and should NEVER be let to be ordained, adopt children or even teach young children!!!