more on the Church's latest announcement

[ella_menno]

ETA:I'm unlocking this post because I feel the need for some sincere discussion and education on the matter. I welcome and encourage comments from anyone so interested; that being said, I ask commenters to be civil in their words. Disagreement and/or debate doesn't require rudeness, after all. Thanks.

For those of you who missed (or avoided!) it yesterday, this is the info I'm discussing:

quote from a news item at Catholic Exchange:

Vatican, Sep. 19 (CWNews.com) - Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) has given his approval to a new Vatican policy document indicating that men with homosexual tendencies should not be ordained as Catholic priests.

(snip)

The text, which was approved by Pope Benedict at the end of August, says that homosexual men should not be admitted to seminaries even if they are celibate, because their condition suggests a serious personality disorder which detracts from their ability to serve as ministers.

Yesterday I mentioned that the document made me vaguely uncomfortable, but I couldn't decide what about it was pinging my wrongometer.

I think I've pinpointed what it is, exactly, about this latest stance of the Church that irks me. Let me quote yet again, this time from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 edition:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is 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.

In particular, I'm reading the part that says they must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. To me, this newest stance of the Vatican's, the "you can't become a priest if you have the slightest tendency towards being gay," is in direct contradiction to what the Catechism says.

The Church teaches that if a person is homosexual, he or she is required to live in celibacy. Okay, fine; if we accept that (which, again, I understand is a point of contention), isn't it an "unjust discrimination" against those people (okay, those men, since this is Catholicism) to refuse them the priesthood?

(Not to mention that the sense I'm getting from this latest directive is that they believe homosexual men are more likely to be sexually abusive to children, which I believe has been proven untrue.)

Seems like I’m getting at a big part of my spiritual/existential crisis, doesn’t it. Hm.

I guess this is the problem I end up facing, when it comes down to it. As a Catholic, I’m required to believe the doctrines of the Church. Even if I disagree with them, I’m supposed to submit to the legitimate authority of the Pope and the Magisterium, accepting that they know better than I do.

But what about in a situation such as this, where I honestly believe they are contradicting themselves? Then what?

I don’t know. I don’t know. I feel like I’m being asked(required?)to sacrifice my freedom of thought - my ability to think independently, even - in order to be a good Catholic. I understand that as an adult, I’m responsible for informing my own conscience to guide my free will – but what if, in my work to inform myself, I come to a conclusion that is contrary to what the Church says? Evidently, the correct answer is that I need to believe that I am in error, that my fallible human brain is in error, and then toe the line with what I’ve been told to think.

I’m getting rankled. *tries to calm down*

I’m guessing that what a priest, or a more faithful Catholic, would tell me is that in such a case, I should do more study, and more research until my opinions were in concert with those of the Church. That and, of course, lots of prayer – presumably for obedience.

And just to complicate things, I actually can understand that I need to “take God’s word for it.” I can apply the analogy to my relationship with my kids, and I can accept that God knows better.

(My favorite analogy: a piece of bread gets stuck in the toaster. My son goes to unstick it with a metal butter knife. I stop him and tell him he can’t do that because it might kill him. He doesn’t understand electricity or conductivity, and it’s not the kind of thing he can experiment with without grave danger – so he just has to trust that I know what’s best.

This is, to me, kind of similar to God telling me something. Do I understand it? No, not necessarily. But I don’t need to understand it to believe (and obey) it, because I believe God knows what is best for me, like a parent (usually) knows what’s best for his or her well-loved child.)

But I can’t believe that God wants His Church to actively discriminate against gay men in this particular way. God calls them to chastity, celibacy even – I can get there, mentally. I can see where that comes from. And I understand the requirement for a celibate, unmarried priesthood. I get that too. But a blanket refusal to allow men who’ve shown “homosexual tendencies” – and how is that being determined, by the way, if these men have led celibate lives? – to enter the seminary?

That I don’t get.

Comments

exsistential crisis

[aangela1010.livejournal.com]

the major part of not participating in organized religion for me is cuz of the "As a Catholic, I’m required to believe the doctrines of the Church. Even if I disagree with them, I’m supposed to submit to the legitimate authority of the Pope and the Magisterium, accepting that they know better than I do." part of it. i have a hard time believing that someone else knows what's better for me than me. especially, (as some tv person said) a guy in a dress who lives in a tower. not saying that's the best line of reasoning either, but it works for me.
what the pope said reminds me of what i'm reading about in "reading lolita in tehran". why do people think that large, blanket statements are true? all jews are evil, women are evil, americans are evil, muslims are evil. that is such a slippery slope to rely upon.
remember taking tests in school? those standardized ones? what was one of the ways to narrow down multiple choices? eliminate the one including the words: all, every, each, always, never. when did that change?

Re: exsistential crisis

[ella-menno.livejournal.com]

i have a hard time believing that someone else knows what's better for me than me.

Which has nearly everything to do with how you feel about authority, and very little to do with faith - in my opinion, innyhoo.

Here's how it works in my head: I believe in God. I believe God is infinite - that He's always been around, and that there is no reality outside of Him. I believe that the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus established when he was here on this earth. I believe that God keeps the church from error in the areas of faith and morals (meaning that yes, the Church was wrong from the get-go about the whole Galileo thing).

Since I accept all those statements as true, I use my intelligence and my God-given free will, and I accept that God knows what's best for me - even (especially?) when I don't like what He's saying is best.

Really, all the problems I have with my faith are about my rebellion. At one point in my life - you remember it, I'm sure - I had no problem submitting to God's wisdom and plan for me. Sadly, things were a lot easier then.

(Back then, did I seem happier to you?)

Re: exsistential crisis

[aangela1010.livejournal.com]

i'm not sure if you were happier then. i know i was more reluctant to bring up things that related to religion. once again, though, that might have more to do with my apprehension with complete trust. i guess that's something i have an issue with and i didn't even know it. apm and i had MANY discussions on the topic and the beginning of our relationship.
but i digress-- i'm sure it was easier to just nod your head and agree. that way no "real" decisions have to be made. you really don't have to decide how you feel about abortion cuz the pope told you. in that regard i think i'm a little jealous, or the equivalent that doesn't make me sound weird. it's gotta be hard to just say "ok" and trust the church. especially in light of all the pedophilia. i'm sure having two catholic sons doens't help your wavering. kids change EVERYTHING (so i've heard).
you're such a rebel. what is this rebellion of which you speak? asking things? not attending church each week? you still have faith, it may manifest itself differently at different times of you life is all. maybe the pope wouldn't be thrilled, but i bet God's ok with it.
i feel like i'm not making any sense.
no, i don't think you were happier. and if you were, it's cuz you were closer to us, in a city with things to do and when you saw your husband, or liked him more than 4 times a month, you had free time and friends you could count on and did i mention being closer to your family helped? that may have made you happier.

Re: exsistential crisis

[ella-menno.livejournal.com]

what is this rebellion of which you speak? asking things?

Long story short, my rebellion is my tendency to act as if I'm wiser than God, or that I know what's better for me than God does. Logically speaking, if I believe the things I do (as outlined in my previous response), then I ought to freely accept God's teachings on everything. I sometimes don't; ergo, I am rebelling against both Him and what, in an eternal sense, is best for me.

And you really don't think I was happier? Why do I remember being happier (and that's aside from the whole 'being five states away' thing)?

Re: exsistential crisis

[ella-menno.livejournal.com]

I forgot to add, you're right about the having two Catholic sons thing. I have all these questions, but at the same time, I'm actively teaching them about Catholicism, and I'm presenting it as capital-t Truth, which makes me feel all the more guilty (surprise!) when I do have questions.

Not to mention the difficulty I have in raising a daughter as a Catholic. Have you ever heard my St. Maria Goretti rant?

[rhiannonhero.livejournal.com]

What I don't get, personally, (keeping in mind that I'm not Catholic and have never been Catholic), is why God can talk to the Pope and not to you. And why what you think God might be saying to you must be wrong if it contradicts what the Pope says, when it is clear historically, given the fact that different Popes put forth different requirements and claim that God requires different things, that a Pope is not infallible. For example, one Pope claimed Mary Magdalene was a prostitute when she absolutely was not. It was required for a long time that people believe that. Then later another Pope said, "Oh, uh, no, she wasn't a prostitute." So, I don't get why a Pope is supposedly infallible in what he claims God tells him, and why the common man or woman would be considered fallible or wrong in what he/she believes God says to him/her.

But this could be because I'm absolutely not Catholic and the idea of having to believe what some old man says without any kind of recourse to my own heart and mind just doesn't sit well with my rebel soul.

[cyclotron.livejournal.com]

why God can talk to the Pope and not to you. And why what you think God might be saying to you must be wrong if it contradicts what the Pope says,

This is not true at all! God talks to anyone and everyone. Even people who don't believe in him.

The pope is selected by man to because that individual is a good example of what being Catholic means. God doesnt favor the pope over others. Men favor the pope over others.

I have a feeling much of what you know about Catholics you have learned from Hollywood. And most of it is false.

The pope makes certain statements that are called "infaliable". But not everything a pope says falls in to that category. Catholics believe the pope is divinely inspired. However, there is no punishment from the pope or anyone else in the church. Your sins are between you and God and only Godcan judge you.

If you have opinions that are different from the pope's, thats OK. You are not necessarily wrong. This is because your opinions pertain to yourself. the pope's opinions pertain to the whole Catholic church. He has different issues to address than an individual has.

Also note: popes are human. Popes sin. Popes error. Thats to be expected. Looking back at historical failures of individuals and condeming others or the whole for that is illogical. How can any of us expect one human to be perfect, if we can't even make ourselves perfect.

[rhiannonhero.livejournal.com]

Then why is it even an issue whether or not she agrees with this decision from the Church? Why should she pray to submit, then? I don't understand, clearly.

[cyclotron.livejournal.com]

Whenever you belong to an organization, you have responsibilities to the organization. If you fail in those obligations, the organization can kick yiou out. Thats why its important.

But the more important relationship is between you and God. If you feel you are maintaining your relatinship with God by violating the ideals of the Church, thats OK with God. You will never know absolutely the right answer, but thats why it makes it so important to be careful with your decisions.

[rhiannonhero.livejournal.com]

Okay, that makes sense. In this case, I personally think that God would think the Church is wrong. But that's me, although I'd stand by that belief without hesitation.

[cyclotron.livejournal.com]

Considering all the various types of people that Jesus encountered and helped, I think Jesus would love and a gay person, too. However, Jesus did not encourage the thieves to steal nor the whores to prostetute.

I could be wrong, but I think any passages against homosexuality are in the Old Testiment. Its my opinion that, for Christians, The New Testiment superceeds the OT.

[ella-menno.livejournal.com]

You always give me so much to think about.

I do believe that God talks to me, but I also believe He talks to/through the Holy Father. The Pope is there for leadership (and, like folks below have said, the things he says are hardly ever stated "from the Chair of Peter" - in other words, he doesn't invoke the whole 'infalllibility thing' very often by any means.) When the Pope, or the Vatican, or the Magisterium says something, they're most often just reiterating the same Church teachings that have been around for centuries.

I guess what I'm getting at is that, to my mind at least, it's not about "believing what some old man says." It's hearing and accepting the truth that Jesus gave us, the same truth that the Church has been studying and clarifying for the people for all those hundreds of years.

And I don't expect you to agree with me, as I'm not in the business of converting others, but I'd be interested to know if what I've said here makes any sense to you. (I'm not the best debater in the world, after all. :-))

[rhiannonhero.livejournal.com]

:) It makes sense. I guess, though, to me, when it is clear that the Church has political and power reasons for not being entirely honest about the truth that Jesus gave us, why anyone should feel compelled to believe what they say. Jesus never said that gays could not be priests--in fact, Jesus said nothing at all about the gays. Now Paul said something about gays (supposedly), but he wasn't Jesus (and he also said a lot of other stuff that we don't follow today).

So, the Catholic Church is seriously extrapolating on the "truth that Jesus gave us" when they make a statement like the above about homosexuals not being able to be priests (clearly for political and power reasons). So, I guess I don't get why a "good Catholic" should necessarily agree with the Church on that stance or pray to submit to the Church's greater wisdom on the matter.

Not sure if that made sense, either. :)

[titania13.livejournal.com]

I don't think that the Church is actively discriminating against homosexual men, in the same way that it isn't actively discriminating against women by keeping them from being priests. I think the Church is mainly trying to make a stronger statement against homosexuality in a world that is quickly becoming more and more accepting of it. One has to keep a couple of things in mind, the Church isn't kicking gay men out of the priesthood who are already priests, and that if a man were to keep quiet about his sexuality he could still join the seminary. I mean how often do you hear straight priests speak about their sexuality? In the same way if a homosexual priest were to not say anything about his sexuality than there won't be a problem. I can understand both sides of the arguement actually and I guess we'll just have to see how it pans out.

Also I have to point out that this isn't a /doctrine/ of the Church. And it certainly isn't dogma. Certain things have to be set in place for it to be deamed infalliable, in this instance it is simply the Church making a ruling about how to deal with things right now.

[titania13.livejournal.com]

Sorry this isn't the most well thought out or written thing I've posted on LJ, but it's been a long day but I thought I'd throw some stuff out. :-)

[magdalene74.livejournal.com]

no, you made perfect sense. The ones that are outspoken about their tendencies ARE the problem, since they have PRIDE in their disorder, the are identifying themselves not as men of God, but as homosexuals, and someone who identifies them self in that way is more likely to advocate FOR homosexuality than submit to chastity. And that is what they are seeing in the seminaries today, outspoken "im gonna change God" homosexuals who are "lobbying" the church from the inside to change two millenia of teachings! That's not what priests are supposed to do.
With Love,
Marie

[rhiannonhero.livejournal.com]

They don't have a disorder.

[magdalene74.livejournal.com]

Well see, that depends on your perspective, and according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, they do, and if they are promising to uphold those teachings (which you must do to become a Priest) then they are admitting that they do, but also taking the stance that they dont at the same time, that creates a problem that might preclude them from the mindset needed to become a Priest.
With Love,
Marie

[rhiannonhero.livejournal.com]

As I originally said to jenowago, I find it interesting that the Catholic Church gets to make up psychological disorders not found in the DSM pscyhological manuals.

[magdalene74.livejournal.com]

The church didnt make them up, if you will do your research you will find that homosexuality once WAS in major journals of psychiatry, but they chose to take it out (largely because of political pressure) much like they are contemplating doing with other sexual disorders, among them pedophilia.. when and if they do remove such things from the journals they will not automatically be considered "normal" by the Church or any other thinking individual, they will simply not be listed in the journal. (and NO you may not construe this to be me equating homosexuality with pedophilia, cause i didnt say that.)
With Love,
Marie

[rhiannonhero.livejournal.com]

if you will do your research you will find that homosexuality once WAS in major journals of psychiatry,

I was a pscyh major. I'm very familiar with this. And the fact that it is no longer listed means that the Church should no longer find it to be a disorder. Because it isn't. Period.

(and NO you may not construe this to be me equating homosexuality with pedophilia, cause i didnt say that.)

And I'm not a big enough asshole to say that you did, do I don't like you implyting that I would.

Thanks. I don't you and I will agree on anything so I bow out of this discussion.

[ella-menno.livejournal.com]

(I swear I'm not trying to drag you back into this, but I'm just now getting around to responding to comments.)

And the fact that it is no longer listed means that the Church should no longer find it to be a disorder.

See, now, from your POV, that's a perfectly valid statement/reason. However, your supposition takes for granted that the Church acknowledges the DSM-whatever-version-they're-on as a legitimate authority, which (I'm guessing) it doesn't.

I guess I'm just saying that there's no way this particular exchange would result in agreement, which at this point is more than clear. *g*

[rhiannonhero.livejournal.com]

My comment doesn't necessarily take that for granted. What it does is go back to my original question of why the Church gets to decide what is a psychological disorder and what is not?

[ella-menno.livejournal.com]

Thank you for your comments; I found them enlightening and helpful.

In the same way if a homosexual priest were to not say anything about his sexuality than there won't be a problem.

I agree with this; my question/issue with the news item I quoted above is that it sounded like the Church was going to go out of its way to "check" if a potential entry to the seminary had ever expressed any homosexual leanings. Almost like they (the ubiquitous "they," as my husband says) were trying to make sexual orientation/preference an issue, even if the candidate himself had nothing to say on the matter.

Yeah. Even I don't think I'm making sense now, but I wanted to respond to your comment.

[cyclotron.livejournal.com]

I was talking to my dad about this. Apparently, the men in the seminaries are not adhering to their celibacy vows. That is part of the reason for keeping men and women separated. The church cant separate gay men from gay men. Plus, anyone who can't keep their vows should be ejected. A large number of men doing this are gay.

My opinion is that the church can do whatever it pleases with regards to priests, nuns, and members. One doesn't have to be a Catholic. One shouldn't be Catholic if one disagrees with the church.

Also, the church has had problems with pedophiles. Now, I don't think that only gay men molest children; however, it seems like it is mostly men molesting boys. It seems logical to keep men who lust after the same sex from being priests.

Sadly, its all about politics. Catholic-haters scorn the church for the molestations. Then they scorn the church for not allowing gays. But who cares what they think, they aren't Catholics for reason other than the church's acceptance of gays.

And its all about politics on behalf of the church. They are having a hard time recruiting new priests. It makes it hard for them to reject anyone.

And on top of that, many of the men seeking to become priests to heal themselves spiritually have psychological issues such as lusting after children or other men.

[humanaevitae.livejournal.com]

Well written.

[rhiannonhero.livejournal.com]

Now, I don't think that only gay men molest children; however, it seems like it is mostly men molesting boys.

That is statistically inaccurate. The media has focused on that do to the homophobia in the society. But statistically more little girls and young women are sexual molested by priests.

[magdalene74.livejournal.com]

show me. The statistics that is.

[rhiannonhero.livejournal.com]

I had an article about it six months ago and if you didn't seem so hostile I might feel like looking for it. As it is, I stand by my statement and bow out of this discussion. I don't wish to spend any more time on this or you. Thanks.

[cyclotron.livejournal.com]

If thats so, then I conceed.

One problem I have with the media is that they make it seem like all priests are pedophiles when the percentage of priests being pedophiles is the same as the persentage in the general population.

[rhiannonhero.livejournal.com]

Yep. Exactly. :)

[rhiannonhero.livejournal.com]

And lusting after another man is not a psychological issue.

[cyclotron.livejournal.com]

No, lust is a sin.

[rhiannonhero.livejournal.com]

Sure. But that's not what was said. :) I'm bowing out of these discussions now. I'm not Catholic and won't be Catholic any time soon. ;) So I'm gonna go play in another sandbox. Thanks.

[ella-menno.livejournal.com]

My opinion is that the church can do whatever it pleases with regards to priests, nuns, and members. One doesn't have to be a Catholic. One shouldn't be Catholic if one disagrees with the church.

Certainly, the Church can and should do "whatever it pleases" when it comes to those people who dedicate their lives to service. I don't know that I was disagreeing with that point.

However, what you say about "one shouldn't be Catholic if one disagrees with the Church" troubles me. I made this post public so that I could inform myself and my conscience. At the time I posted, I was questioning - not disagreeing with! - the information I had read. I was attempting to educate myself so that I could understand the Church's rationale for making such a statement. I found it hurtful that my desire for understanding would lead to a suggestion that I should leave the Church.

[cyclotron.livejournal.com]

Certainly disagreeing and questioning are two distinct levels of opinion.

And always, follow your own heart and opinion. My opinion is just that.

[call-me-cash.livejournal.com]

The biggest problem I have with this entire situation is that the Pope and other church leaders are making the dangerous assumption that all gay men are pedophiles or that they lust after straight men. My dad has a co-worker who is gay and he has said many times that gay men are not attracted to straight men any more than a straight man is attracted to a gay man. I'm having a very hard time with this whole situation, I think it's incredibley unfair.

I love my faith and I could never imagine choosing another religion to practice but is it wrong for me to have issues with some of our beliefs?

[ella-menno.livejournal.com]

I love my faith and I could never imagine choosing another religion to practice but is it wrong for me to have issues with some of our beliefs?

That's exactly what I wonder, sometimes. What really gets to me is when I ask a question - bearing in mind that I'm searching for help and guidance in forming my conscience - oftentimes, the replies I get are along the lines of "if you don't agree with the Church then you shouldn't be Catholic," which just pushes me to the brink of despair. How am I supposed to learn anything if I automatically get shown the door any time I ask??

**sigh** I suppose this is why I tend to keep my confusion to myself....

[lyssiae.livejournal.com]

An interesting post, thank you for taking the time to write it (and to unlock it :)). I wrote something in my LJ about the issue; I started out with the same contradiction you have, and I believe (in the most wishy-washy, uncertain sense of the word) that I can resolve it. Hehe, aren't I modest!

In a while I may unlock the post so that others can see it; but at the moment it probably has huge offence-material in it, so I'm very wary of even showing it to my flist.

[ella-menno.livejournal.com]

at the moment it probably has huge offence-material in it, so I'm very wary of even showing it to my flist.

Oh, does that sound familiar. There are so many things/issues that I'd love to bring up, but I'm terribly afraid if I bring them up, someone will come along and flame me to heck and back.

I wish I wasn't so concerned with what other people thought of me!

[lyssiae.livejournal.com]

Ditto, ditto and double-double-ditto.

Eventually I decided to let a very small part of my flist see it. But for now I'm just waiting until the Church actually releases document that everyone's getting twisted about. There's a lot of gun-jumping going on at the moment and I don't want to be a part of it.