Homosexuals in the Seminary

February 2006By Dale Vree

Dale Vree is Editor of the New Oxford Review.

We've been waiting nine long years for this document on homosexuals in the seminary. It has a long-winded title: "Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations With Regard to Persons With Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders" (hereafter "Concerning").

The document was obviously written by a committee -- or many committees -- and it intended to satisfy as many people as possible. But we are not satisfied, not in the least.

Bear in mind that this document is about "discipline" (or shall we say ill-discipline).

The most egregious sentence is that those "who practice homosexuality" (italics added) are "profoundly respected." So we should have profound respect for those who commit homosexual acts, which are mortal sins. By that logic, we should have profound respect for fornicators, adulterers, and child molesters.

On February 2, 1961, the Holy See promulgated a document called "Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders," signed by Pope John XXIII. The relevant section had one sentence on homosexuality: "Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with the evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious danger" (#30; italics added). That's all that the new document, "Concerning," needed to say.

So how do we go from "evil tendencies" (i.e., orientation only) to having "profound respect" for homosexual acts in "Concerning"?

Up until "Concerning," the 1961 document was never abrogated and was still in force. Indeed, on May 16, 2002, the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments reiterated the policy: "Ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders." It was published in the November-December issue of Notitiae, which means it is the position of the Holy See. Of course, this policy had been and continued to be violated by many bishops, major superiors, seminary rectors, and vocations directors.

You have two options:

  1. Online subscription: Subscribe now to New Oxford Review for access to all web content at newoxfordreview.org AND the monthly print edition for as low as $38 per year.
  2. Single article purchase: Purchase this article for $1.95, for viewing and printing for 48 hours.

If you're already a subscriber log-in here.

Back to February 2006 Issue

Read our posting policy Add a comment
"At this rate, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's investigation of Fr. Maciel for multiple acts of pederasty on his seminarians will likely vanish into thin air. "

As of this writing, 5/22/06, I am happy to find your opinion to be wrong!
Posted by: smmoro
May 22, 2006 05:24 PM EDT
NOR should not be embarrassed by the expression of hope towards the papacy of Benedict; in my far from humble opinion, it was simply virtuous. NOR readers and writers hoped, as I did, that Benedict would excercise his rightful and righteous authority to use the rod and clean up the clergy. He failed to do so, as did his predecessor, John Paul.
It pains me to hear the majority of EWTN priests refer to the late Holy Father as "the Great." John Paul II may well be a saint, it is not for me to say, nor is it within the purview of any priest, to presume both his canonization and the added honorific of "the Great." When speaking of leaders, the word, "great" connotes authority, boldly and bravely exercised, in any and all circumstances.

NOR blew the trumpet regarding the late Pope's failure to govern while he was still with us. I consider it your duty to continue to rightly accuse his successor, Benedict.
Posted by: Caroline
September 18, 2006 01:42 PM EDT
The wording of this document should not be a total surprise as they just uncovered a nest of Gay Cardinals and Bishops i.e. November 2007, in the top echelon of the Vatican. Our major media has avoided this story for some reason. The uncovering was by a TV station and it is under investigation says the Vatican. No official acknowledgement by the Vatican. Does it not make sense that the plethora of Gay Priests let in our seminaries and foreign seminaries who were Gay have now been promoted to Bishop and Cardinals. The CYA cover-up was by Bishops and Cardinals in the children (80% males i.e. homosexual acts) sexual abuse scandal. Posted by: paulc37
November 07, 2007 06:26 AM EST
Is it possible to be Christian and to be gay? The answer must be considered from a Catholic perspective.

The question needs to be reposed per 1) what being “gay” typically means in contemporary usage as defined in Webster’s, i.e., “homosexual, one who is inclined toward or practices homosexuality, the manifestation of sexual desire toward a member of one’s own sex, and erotic activity with a member of one’s own sex,” and 2) what being “Christian” typically means, i.e., “based on or conforming with Christianity, the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as Sacred Scripture.”

First of all, there is nothing "gay" about being inclined to acts that when accurately described cause feelings of extreme revulsion!

Is it possible to be Christian and be inclined to homosexual acts? The answer is yes as there is no guarantee that Christians are not tempted to sin. It is better to ask, “Is it possible to remain a Christian and live a lifestyle that equates sexual perversion with normality?” The answer is an unequivocal no. For to do so makes a mockery of Sacred Scripture which states emphatically that Jesus condemns the sin out of concern for the sinner's eternal end. The same “good and gentle” Jesus who is readily quoted out of context by the contemporary disciples of “dignity” and “self esteem” also is the “just” Jesus who talked more about the consequences of grave sin than any other New Testament figure. He was especially discriminatory in this regard as while some ceremonial aspects of the old law were rescinded, the moral requirements were not.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For amen, I say unto you, till Heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall not pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven. For I say to you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and of the Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20)

But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a mill-stone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but, nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh. And if thy hand of thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee to enter into life maimed or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee with one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. (Matthew 18:6-9)

It is an oxymoronic contention that you can be “gay” and “Christian”. This is a violation of a fundamental philosophical principle in that "Something cannot 'be' and 'not be' at the same time in the same respect." The Church’s clear teaching is that there is nothing "gay" about being inclined to proven self-destructive physically, psychologically, and especially spiritually, unnatural behavior that has also been proven to be changeable, i.e., there is no such thing as a homosexual orientation in an innate final sense. Such inclinations are to acts which the Church considers intrinsic moral evils, the inclination itself being objectively disordered because of the unnatural tendencies involved. To say otherwise is absurd!

This is not a question of exclusion but rather one of unconditional love for man's salvific eternal end that demands telling the Truth, Who is a Someone, not a something, per the beginning of the Gospel of John.

Christians, above all clerics, ought to realize that by lying to people who need the full truth does nothing to help them. And it is a lie to have someone believe that they can be Christian and have no problems with being inclined to acts, which if performed, lead to final spiritual ruin. That is playing with fire. The Church calls those inclined to homosexuality to leave, not live, their lifestyles. In order to do that the Church cannot lie about such inclinations being benign naturally, and especially spiritually, given the eternal truth of the Natural Law of God which is a participation in His Eternal Law.

Would so-called "Christian" apologists for the homosexual lifestyle have us believe that Matthew 5:21-31 excuses any responsibility for living it because homosexuality is not explicitly referred to?

"You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire....You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart...It is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell."

It most certainly is. In particular, see Genesis 18:20-21, Romans 1:24-28, and the Epistle of Jude. Moreover, Jesus took the old law one step further and made the actions leading to the act as severe as the act itself. Are we to believe as Christians that somehow homosexuality fell through the cracks in Sacred Scripture? Thus, from the Christian standpoint, to imply that Jesus never said anything about being inclined to unnatural acts is Bible eisegesis with the consequences of Matthew 18:6.

To give a message to those inclined to homosexual acts that "they are OK as they are" is un-Christian in the extreme given the above observations. It makes no more sense than to tell an alcoholic that you may continue drinking to get over alcoholism. Moreover, it is akin to giving a serial killer more bullets.

The Magdalenes of the Gospel were most certainly forgiven, but the words of Jesus following His forgiveness are conveniently forgotten. "Go and sin no more." That is what it means to be Christian. To make the attempt to live a Faith which will be mocked by the world. To imply that the homosexual lifestyle somehow has a Christian blessing is tragic. It is tragic because souls are at stake - those living the lie and, especially, those telling it. For Christians, that's NOT love but REAL hate for their fellow man.

Lest we forget, Jesus Christ exists eternally as Second Person of the Blessed Trinity of the One True Triune God, i.e., as God Jesus destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, which is the first thing that should be remembered when the heinous lie that "Jesus never had anything to say about homosexuality" rears its ugly heads via the disciples of the devil! We are talking about a proven changeable lifestyle with the Grace of God that is physically, psychologically, socially, economically, and most especially spiritually ruinous!

As Ralph McInerny in Catholic Dossier has pointed out, obfuscation has reached the college campuses and campaigns are waged against something called "homophobia," the net effect of which is to suggest that it is the judgment that homosexual acts are sinful that is sinful, not the acts themselves. In this effort, Scripture and magisterial documents are invoked as if they favored homosexuality as erroneously implied in many college editorials. One has a Christian duty, it seems, not to state the Christian message on the matter. During campus campaigns to give recognition to homosexual organizations, no mention is ever made of the serious health dangers that follow homosexual activity. And this on "smoke-free" campuses. Now it is the consequences of the vice that dare not speak their name.

Lenience toward homosexuality is only an aspect of the Dionysian frenzy that characterizes talk of human sexuality. Human persons need the sane and saving doctrine of the Christian witness on homosexuality today more than ever. To give a stone where bread is asked for is unkind. The Church's mission is not to conform to the world, but to stand in contradiction to it in order to save it.

The Bishops' Fear of Homophobia


The main problem with this document is the mindset since Vatican II that no longer condemns a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance but rather condemns those who remind the world of that fact, the latter being called charity by those in the modern Church who are unrecognizable as Catholic. This document is written in “gayspeak” in the same manner that the horrendous Always Our Children was. The biggest concern of the USCCB is homophobia, not helping those inclined to homosexual acts to leave, as opposed to live, lifestyles that are an abomination before God, or resist temptations to same.

The comparisons between the traditional Church teaching on sins against nature vs. the post-conciliar attitude is striking when one uses Sacred Scripture and Tradition in the form of statements from the Popes, Councils, Saints, and Apologists combined with the tradition of civil legislation to show the moral chasm that has resulted when the language of “pseudo charity” replaces the language of “tough love” for salvation’s sake. The result being that the necessary feelings of revulsion toward those proudly trumpeting their sodomite tendencies are no longer there opening the door for a misplaced compassion that such individuals do not deserve. There is a huge difference between an ontological dignity to which all are entitled by virtue of being made in the image and likeness of God, and a moral dignity as a function of being endowed with an intellect and will whereby good can be accepted and evil rejected. Moral dignity does not exist for those having no problem with inclinations to homosexual acts, a distinction that the post-conciliar Church never makes using language that would have us erroneously believe that there exists something called the homosexual person, a concept which turns Christian anthropology on its head making God, Who is Perfect Good, out to be a liar in creating man with a built-in one way ticket to hell in complete ignorance of the effect of the concupiscence due to Original Sin.

Words have consequences with a litany of saints to include St. John Chrysostom telling us that “A murderer only separates the soul from the body, whereas these (sodomites) destroy the soul inside the body” vs. the post-conciliar attitude of Cardinal Basil Hume who was quoted as saying “The particular orientation or inclination of the homosexual person is not a moral failing …. Being a homosexual person is, then, neither morally good nor morally bad; it is homosexual genital acts that are morally wrong.”

By reducing moral culpability only to acts, Cardinal Hume (and the entirety of the post-conciliar Church) appeared to legitimize sinful thoughts and words. However, such concessions incur culpability with regard to the vice of homosexuality like any other vice, as Catholic doctrine has ALWAYS taught.” The rest is history as Hume opened the door for the condemnation of homosexuality in the post-conciliar Church to be needlessly qualified, if at all, something that Saints Peter, Jude, Pius V, Basil of Cesarea, Augustine, Aquinas, John Chrysostom, Gregory the Great, Peter Damian, Albert the Great, Bonaventure, Catherine of Sienna, Bernardine of Sienna, Peter Canisius, and the councils of Ancyra, Toledo, Nablus, and Third Lateran did not suffer.

Would that we would have a Pope Saint Siricius (384-399) whose norms for admission into the priestly state specifically prohibited those “who were formerly vessels of vice” as not being able to “receive the instruments to administer the Sacraments.” Note the accent on “formerly” with the clear realization of the higher probability of problems admitting such individuals. Today, with the inordinately high level of those inclined to homosexual acts in the priesthood, “formerly” never enters into the question. Popes Saint Pius V, Saint Pius X, and Benedict XV echoed Pope Saint Siricius. This document from the USCCB does nothing to discourage the ordination of those inclined to homosexual acts to the priesthood, which is scandalous. [Reference: Atila Sinke Guimarães' Vatican II, Homosexuality & Pedophilia.]

To accept someone having serious problems, no questions asked, is not showing compassion to them, but rather hate born out of no concern for their eternity. There is not the slightest inference that the scorn those inclined to homosexual acts see is self-inflicted more often than not by their obstinate refusal to see the errors of their ways. Such scorn serves a purpose when eternity is at stake, something the bishops ignored completely.

There is an attempt to equate a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance with others that do not in this document. This would be news to Saint Thomas Aquinas for whom the kindest thing that he could say about homosexuality was that it is the “unnatural vice.” It went down hill quickly after that for the Angelic Doctor of the Church barely making it above bestiality in terms of the gravest of sins. Heterosexual attraction is natural to man and woman (Catholic Catechism #2333), while homosexual tendencies are unnatural. Heterosexual attraction is God-given, and for the vast majority of the human race, leads to marriage, children, and family; same-sex attractions are an objective disorder. One often hears this objection to the term "objective disorder" being applied to homosexual tendencies: "If a man lusts for a woman or vice versa, this too is an objective disorder." But this is not so, because, if the man or woman controls this natural attraction, and wills to express it in the natural state of marriage, it is a good thing, desired by the Creator. But if one has a sexual-genital attraction to another person of the same sex, it can NEVER lead to a morally good act between the two individuals, but rather it will ALWAYS lead to an immoral act. That is why it is called an objective disorder. Just the opposite is presented in the USCCB document which equates homosexual problems with heterosexual problems in this context. This is fallacious, and has never been Catholic teaching. Moreover, to constantly make blanket statements that the inclinations on their own are not sinful is dangerous because it is also Catholic teaching that inclinations given into are grave sin despite tortured USCCB explanations to the contrary.

It is an error to say that there is no scientific consensus on the cause of homosexual inclinations. The USCCB cannot make this statement, per the considerable evidence from Catholic medical professionals, and the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). The USCCB incredibly does not encourage all those who have homosexual inclinations to seek out therapy, but rather only those who want to, which, in the light of the well known physical, psychological, social, economic, and especially spiritual consequences involved, is irrational in the extreme! We are talking about a diabolical attack on both faith and reason here, as a result of the consequences of Original Sin.

It is odd for the USCCB to tell those inclined to homosexual acts that there is no need to repress such inclinations to act morally. One would be hard pressed to argue that not suppressing inclinations to Mortal Sin is beneficial to acting morally. This is unreasonable! When temptations occur there are many Catholic devotions and sacramentals to recall in fighting them off. We are basically dealing with spiritual warfare here for our souls. Yet such Catholic answers to the devil are glaringly missing in the USCCB document.

There is an over sentimentality bordering on the absurd in being accepting to those inclined to homosexual acts in this document with the unmistakable advice to do nothing to harm the self-esteem of such poor souls. This is not being friendly, but being mean in not telling the Truth that is Christ to those who need to hear it the most for salvation’s sake. Healthy relationships cannot be fostered with those inclined to homosexual acts, in particular in families, without making every effort to get them to see that they have serious problems that need to be addressed through prayer and therapy. To suggest otherwise follows the horrendous lies of Always Our Children which told Catholic parents that they should show no concern whatsoever if their children evince inclinations to aberrant behavior, which is a bald-faced lie! How can holiness be strived for when there is no serious problem perceived on the part of those striving for same? This is contradictory!

The homophobic tendencies of the USCCB document are striking with making those inclined to homosexual acts always the victim in regard to violence. This is contrary to a large body of literature which shows that this same group, in a large part, brings the violence on themselves with their partaking in the filthiest of behaviors that make one ill when described truthfully.

It is not “welcoming” to say to the sinner that you should not be concerned about being inclined to grave sin. It is not clear form the USCCB document if this fact is important. You cannot have full and active participation in the Church if you flout its teachings. To insist on same is, pure and simply, not Catholic! What is worse, to be rejected by those who care for your immortal soul trying to get you to wake up for eternity’s sake, or to be accepted by those whose faith is solely experiential who could not care less about your final end? Rejection and scorn serve a very definite purpose in terms of the big picture here, which the USCCB has lost sight of! Why should any Catholic parent, for example, feel comfortable with having their children exposed to someone who has known inclinations to homosexual acts? Certainly not to placate the bad advice of the USCCB in this regard! There is a lot of talk about unjust discrimination in this document but no talk whatsoever about just discrimination that is demanded of any responsible Catholic, in particular, Catholic parents, when it comes to discriminating between right and wrong behavior! There are no rights owed to those who flout God’s laws, PERIOD!

For the USCCB to say that the Church does not refuse the baptism of those children in the care of same-sex couples is heretical. It is the reflection of an apostate mindset that is as anti-sensus Catholicus as it gets. How can the Church legitimize such unions when the rite of Baptism demands the renunciation of Satan? Moreover, there is widespread evidence of the extreme risk of physical abuse of young children by homosexuals due to the inordinate direct correlation of child abuse by those inclined to homosexual acts when compared against heterosexual abuse. How can there be a well founded hope that these poor children will be brought up Catholic when their very environment is straight from the bowels of hell? Such a suggestion by the USCCB is patently absurd! The Church should be making every effort to get these at-risk children out of the clutches of sexual perverts instead of de facto legitimizing their lifestyle.

The last part of the USCCB document comes straight from the militant homosexual lobby. Its signature is unmistakable. All one has to do is look at the reasons for the “gay-youth” clubs being promoted at the public schools for proof. What the USCCB fails to consider is that it is very important to feel different instead of being confirmed in your vice because that is a red flag that you need to make every effort to change, it is God’s message to you that something needs to be corrected, not ignored. That message should be loud and clear from the USCCB doc. Instead, it is muddled via “gay speak” that gives Catholics the impression that being inclined to homosexual acts is no big thing!

Soon divine intervention will be the only solution to the mess that we are in since God will not be mocked indefinitely. It is not an exaggeration to observe “Things have gotten that bad!

Rome Just Does Not Get It Regarding the Gravity of Allowing Men with Homosexual Inclinations Into the Priesthood

Gary L. Morella

In regard to the CNS news story

Doctrinal head: Openly gay priests make it tough to represent Christ http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0601153.htm

the following comments are in order.

Are we to believe that there is no concern in regard to the matter of having men inclined to homosexual acts being ordained as priests and/or remain priests if they keep such inclinations private, which is the position of Archbishop Levada in the CNS article? Such a suggestion is incredible given that Catholics are to avoid the occasions of sin, not go out of their way to be exposed to them!

Is it not equally true, in fact more insidious, for a priest, who keeps private his inclinations to homosexual acts, "to be at odds with the spousal character of love as revealed by God and imaged in humanity?" What about the unsuspecting sheep receiving advise from a shepherd who is so skewed psychologically, and especially spiritually? At least with public declarations everything is out in the open with what is left of the faithful under no illusions about those masquerading as their shepherds! The fact that such inclinations are kept private, as opposed to public, in no way reduces their gravity, as Archbishop Levada would have us believe, in terms of ministering to souls badly needing to hear the Truth, not a bastardized version of it!

The Church SHOULD be questioning the validity of leaving men inclined to homosexual acts to remain as priests, for the love of God, if avoiding the aforementioned occasions of sin means anything anymore in the post-Conciliar Church, which clearly, it does not, per Archbishop Levada's remarks below. The fact that this is coming from the Cardinal-designate Prefect for the CDF should be a cause of grave concern for Catholics worldwide, as Levada would not be saying these things without the blessings of the Pope.

If something does not sound right, it usually is not. And it does not sound right to talk of our "homosexually oriented" but celibate priests. What are they giving up? They are giving up sin, which we are all called to give up, while a heterosexual is making a distinct sacrifice for God following His celibate example giving up the prospect of marriage to be married to Holy Mother Church in God's service.

You are playing with fire not only in admitting men who are inclined to homosexuality to the priesthood, but also in allowing them to remain in the priesthood. I do not even like to use the word "orientation" because it does not apply in a final immutable sense to those heterosexuals who are inclined to homosexuality, which is the correct way to look at this. Fr. John Harvey, the founder of COURAGE, admitted that one of the biggest mistakes that he ever made was to title one of his books, The Homosexual Person, when there is no such person. We are all created heterosexual by God, with a small group having homosexual inclinations.

Our priests have enough "natural" problems without letting individuals be ordained to the priesthood and remain in the priesthood who have demonstrated that they have "unnatural problems".

Someone once said to me that "what if no one knows" about this inclination, and that these people remain chaste somehow? My response to that is, given the news of late, seminary rectors and bishops had better make it their business to know, given the higher probability of serious sin with such men who work within a celibate group of men, and boys through their ministry. We are talking about avoiding the occasions of sin. How is avoiding the occasions of sin met by allowing individuals with unnatural inclinations into, and remain in, an environment where the temptations for them are increased by an orders of magnitude?

This is why historically the military would not admit such individuals. It is called morale for the good of the service. Does this not apply even more so to our priests and seminarians? Michael Rose's book Goodbye Good Men would answer a resounding YES!

The word "orientation" has serious theological implications. If you believe that some people are essentially homosexual, you turn Christian anthropology on its head. Christianity holds that we are all heterosexual in our God-given nature, though some heterosexuals have a problem with same-sex attractions. If you believe that homosexuality is part of a person's nature, given by God, then homosexual acts become a fulfillment of a person's God-given nature, and that has never been the Catholic teaching.

The editors of the Catechism of the Catholic Church recognized this distinction. The original draft of the catechism (1994) was modified in 1998 to refer to homosexuality as an "inclination, which is objectively disordered."

As an aside, the phrase "sexual orientation" is problematic as there is absolutely no evidence that innateness is involved here along with a finality that excludes reparative therapy per NARTH, The National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. It is a phrase that evolved for political reasons from sexual perversion to sexual deviancy to sexual preference in the same manner that homosexuality was falsely characterized as being "gay". There is nothing gay about it per statements from the objective psychologists, psychiatrists, and behavioral scientists of NARTH as a function of many case studies.

There is no such thing as a "gay" Catholic. You cannot be a practicing homosexual and/or consider yourself defined by inclinations to acts crying out to Heaven for vengeance, and be Catholic, PERIOD! To say that the present crisis in the Church has nothing to do with homosexuality is a heinous lie! We are talking about men abusing boys, here, which are homosexual acts first and foremost. And, if you are a person inclined to homosexual acts, your inclination in the eyes of the Church is to an intrinsic moral evil, thereby making the inclination itself objectively disordered. You need prayer and help to overcome these unnatural temptations, which should disqualify you from any consideration for the Catholic priesthood.

We need our best men for such a vocation, not those who have demonstrated that they have some serious problems with their sexuality, problems that are to be addressed via maturation by professionals qualified to do so. The priesthood is not that place; its primary job is to save souls, not provide a vehicle to baby-sit immature men who are not sure about their sexuality. If you are not sure about your sexuality, you have no right for consideration as a candidate for seminary, or remain in the priesthood for that matter, given the high probability of spiritual injury to the souls in your charge due to your inability to recognize that you have serious problems requiring immediate attention.

Are Catholic parents somehow supposed to feel more comfortable by allowing their sons to be exposed to priests that are homosexually inclined if these priests keep their inclinations private? By what illogic is this justifiable?

The idea is to put the occasions of sin at a distance from you, not the reverse. A little theological sanity is involved here. Would you hire a “recovered” alcoholic for a job where his chances of reverting back to his disordered state are increased? No, you would hire someone else for that position. Similarly, if the choice is between two individuals, one claiming to be completely recovered from being inclined to homosexual acts, and another who never had that problem in the first place, everything else being equal, who would you want to ordain, given the occasion of sin consideration, which should be foremost in your mind? If the answer is the former, not only are you putting those at a greater risk who might come into contact with this man, but certainly the man himself for the reparative therapy reason that was previously given. Is this showing good judgment for all concerned? I respectfully submit that it is not!

Something is very wrong when the Church has to 1) consider those inclined to homosexual acts for the priesthood, and 2) leave those inclined to homosexual acts in the priesthood for whatever warped reasons justifiable by those having no regard for the avoidance of the occasions of grave sin, in particular, the consequences for not doing so as has been painfully reported in the daily news. And we know what has gone wrong since Vatican II - the allowance of unchecked dissent from Church teaching on faith and morals where these teachings are dismissed out of hand before the ink is dry.

There have been plenty of “good men” since Vatican II who have wanted to become priests, but dissenting heretical apostate bishops and clergy, who had their own agenda for the destruction of the Church by reinventing it in their image, discouraged them. These dissenters need to be rooted out from the Church if it is going to survive, especially in America. There is considerable evidence that orthodox dioceses have many “good men” with vocations. Conversely, in dioceses where heterodoxy reigns, as a function of the allowance and encouragement of unchecked dissent from Magisterial teaching on everything from the liturgy to faith and morals, vocations are sorely lacking. Of course this makes the bishops of these heterodox dioceses very happy because they have wanted a “priestless” Amchurch all along, as opposed to the Church of Rome, where Sister "In-Your-Face" can freely conduct her radical feminists' liturgy, and homosexuality is celebrated as a virtue in order to make the dissenters comfortable with their vices, which is the case in the diocese of Memphis Tennessee to name but one example. Where is the correction by Rome that is so sorely needed here? To come directly to the point, Why is the bishop of Memphis still a bishop?

If Rome persists on staying on the sidelines, allowing the joke of having the USCCB police themselves after their sorry record over the years in promoting anything definitively Catholic on the really tough teachings, the "hot-button" issues, the institutional Church is FINISHED in this country. Witness the Always Our Children debacle.

If, in fact, Rome does nothing, what that will prove is that the pro-homosexual mentality in the Church goes right up to the highest echelons of the Vatican.

The phrase, "We are looking for a few good men" is nowhere more apropos than for the Catholic priesthood, with the emphasis on "men" in the full masculine sense of the word because priests act as alter Christus, another Christ whose masculinity was undeniable. How could that be otherwise if the Church is the "Bride of Christ"? What normal individual wants to be a bride to someone whose masculinity is in question? The theological analog in regard to Holy Mother Church is no less compelling, given its clear invariant teaching on faith and morals since its founding by Christ upon the Rock that is Peter. Nationally known priest, Fr. John Trigilio, Jr. says, "Our seminaries NEED chaste, manly men to lead them; orthodox men to teach them; and reverent, prayerful men to help them worship God properly."

In summary, would individuals inclined to other disorders such as alcoholism, kleptomania, and sadism be good candidates for the priesthood, despite the fact that they may not be currently actively involved with them? Any sane answer would have to be NO! Would you as a personnel director hire such individuals for your company who admittedly have serious problems with such inclinations? Not if you are interested in the well-being of your organization, in particular organizations who are in a service area, given the potential bad example on the part of your employees, which has a much higher probability of occurring as a result of your negligence.

Why should the Holy Ministerial Priesthood be any different when we are talking about the spiritual well-being of souls, the highest calling for any of us? The fact that for some in the Church to include bishops it is not, is testimony to the apostasy that is rampant in many of our dioceses, an apostasy that allowed a "gay subculture" to get a stranglehold in many of our seminaries, an apostasy that was the inevitable result of unchecked dissent from the Church's teachings on faith and morals since Vatican II, an apostasy that must be rooted out if the Church in America is going to survive.

God's promise that “The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church" says nothing about the survival of the Church in any particular country. We would do well to remember that if Rome has forgotten!
Posted by: stlouisix
November 07, 2007 10:07 AM EST
Add a comment