Can we discuss this in the privacy of our own group?

[Matilda]

"Pope approves banning gay seminarians."

Posted in LBN, and I do NOT want to join in the discussion there,
because we know the direction it will take, so I lifted the link:

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=60630


I do feel some concern about this, because there seems to be a clear
implication that sexual abuse can be eliminated by not having gay
priests, ignoring the fact that not all gays are paedophiles, and
not all paedophiles are gay. It is a psychological problem, not a
sexual one, and very often it's an issue of power as much as anything
else. In Australia, the Christian Brothers became rather notorious
for abuse, not only sexual but physical abuse including beatings
and other abuse that came close to torture - this was a power issue,
and sex was only one manifestation, but by no means the whole
problem.

I think what bothers me most is that the men making these decisions,
from the Pope down, are highly intelligent and very well educated -
so why can't they really come to grips with this problem? Both
gays and straights are capable of exhibiting psychological problems
that could make them unfit for the priesthood, so why not just employ
trained counsellors to monitor them before and during their
training? I know that this is going to bring down ridicule on the
Church, and it distresses me, but they're inviting the kind of
comments I know we're going to see in the LBN thread.

I'd really like to know how other Catholics view this.

[Beer Snob-50]

1. Unfortunatly, it is decisions like this that bring ridicule on the church.

This is the kind of thing that brings about the implication that we are anti-gay. I recently attended a lecture by a deacon who gave us an idea of the psychological testing they have to go through in order to be a deacon. I would imagine the testing priests go through is more intense. Weed out the pedofile (sp) at that time both gay and straight.

[shrike]

2. I was a little concerned about this myself

The decision is obviously meant to screen for pedophilia. However, as we all know, married men and fathers can be pedophiles. I remember listening to an interview with an incarcerated pedophile. He differentiated himself from the gay men he'd met. "I'm not gay, I'm a pedophile," he said.

However, I'd have to know more about just what this screening is, and what it entails, before I make a judgement.

[Dorian Gray]

3. I agree.

Sexual inclination shouldn't matter. Once a priest, he is supposed to be celibate. I think that the psychological examinations should be able to weed out the pedophile, and they should not focus on homosexuality.

However, if they are going in to stop actual homosexual sexual behavior, it may be different. I would personally prefer them to attack all priestly sexual behavior, as none of it is currently acceptable.

[AngryOldDem]

4. Homosexuality is not the problem

Homosexuals, however, are a convenient scapegoat and and "easy" answer to a complex problem that the Church for decades has been unwilling to face. From where I sit, this problem stemmed from a general lack of seminary admissions standards that led to many psychologically immature men to enter the priesthood. To infer that homosexuals are somehow "unfit" for the priesthood based merely on their sexual orientation goes against every prevailing expert opinion that homosexuality is NOT a disease, it is NOT a disorder. Most gay people, like most straight men who enter the priesthood, can make the same solemn commitment to celebacy.

Several archdioceses, including my own, have toughened their admission standards. The battery of tests and interviews that prospective seminarians now have to go through should, if administered correctly, effectively screen out those who should not be admitted. In addition, the archdiocese encourages men to at least go through college (in other words, have some experience of the world) before applying -- they no longer have the seminary high schools, where one could spend almost one's entire teen and early adult years cloistered away in pre-seminary and seminary life. (My parish priest is one such example -- entered the seminary sponsored high school when he was 15, and then went straight into the seminary after that.)

A better approach would be to let individual dioceses handle this problem on their own. I think they realize at the local level how serious this is and how best to go about addressing it. They don't necessarily need Rome to be breathing down their necks as they do so.

If the Church thinks that ridding its clerical numbers of all gays will make the sex abuse problem go away, I'm afraid it's in for a rude awakening. And, yes, it troubles me that the hierarchy appears, in effect, to be going on a witchhunt here. Yes, you'd think they would have become a little more enlightened by now. But as I said, they're looking for a quick and easy explanation to an issue that defies such classification.

[shrike]

5. I agree completely

See my above post: homosexual and pedophile are not the same thing.

The best priests I have ever known and worked with entered the priesthood as older seminarians. They'd been out in the world, seen a little of life, had experiences with women. Some were even widowers, who felt called to the religious life after raising a family and losing their spouses.

It is imperative that seminarians be properly screened. However, I think this is the wrong way to go about it.

[AngryOldDem]

6. It's a reactive solution....

...and being reactive rather than proactive rarely does any good. Or, in the words of Johnny Mathis, "Too much, too little, too late." The bishops had a heads-up on this crisis by 1985, when its scope was still somewhat manageable. Now, not only are they faced with a huge moral dilemma, but a PR and financial debacle as well. They can only blame themselves for creating this monster, and, human nature being what it is, it's easier to blame something or someone else rather than admit that you played a major role in the mess that's been created. So you go for the grandstand play because it looks like you're being decisive and responsible.

Just today on another forum (not DU) I posted a note on the same issue, speaking largely to the crowd that checks its brain at the church door. I pointed out that Rome's actions are illogical at best and a witchhunt at worst.

Illogical from the standpoint that Rome's position flies in the face of any and all scientific explanations of homosexuality, and that basing someone's fitness for the priesthood mainly on sexual orientation is just plain stupid. Priests are men after all, subject to sin as much as anyone. Conversely, gays as well as straights are capable of taking their vows seriously and living them faithfully and spirtually.

So, what happens if this plan goes through and they purge all seminaries of gays, and reports of abuse still come in, as they surely will from time to time? (It's said that there are probably more cases of male-female abuse in the Church than male-male -- I believe SNAP has done some research on this.) What would the Church's next step be then?

It's a witchhunt in that it is stigmatizing an entire group of people. That is unacceptable, no matter who does it or why. Is it any wonder that the secular world heaps such scorn upon the Church? We as a collective body may not "hate" gays, but the actions of our hierarchy sure send a different message. And I for one am getting sick and tired of being constantly embarrassed by my leadership.

[shrike]

7. Have to agree

My fellow Catholics are among the most tolerant people I have ever known. And we are rewarded by the most conservative leadership I have ever seen.

Something must be done. I just don't know what.

[hedgehog]

8. Maybe we should link the LBN post to here.

Too many people inside and outside the Church confuse the hierarchy with the Church. I think a lot of non-Catholics would be pleasantly surprised to find out that we all don't march in lock-step with the bureaucracy. On this particular topic, my pastor was even more upset than I was. Some might accuse me of being a cafeteria Catholic, but my response is WWJD? Seems to me that the man who called upon the tax collector to follow him and who sat down to eat with sinners wouldn't be too upset about gay priests. I also seem to recall that he got very upset with those who imposed rules on others in the name of God.

[AngryOldDem]

9. That's a good idea n/t

[shrike]

10. I always say, Jesus hung out with the fun people

Don't mean to be sacrilegious, but look at his choice of companions: publicans, fishermen, prostitutes (so they say), sinners, the rabble of the earth.

[AngryOldDem]

11. Or, how about this line from Billy Joel?

"I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints."

(Don't mean to the sacrilegious, either.)

Seriously...I don't know how anyone with one iota of common sense cannot see this plan of Rome's for what it is.

[Matilda]

12. Pandering to the religious Right.

But not really coming to grips with the problem in a realistic
and positive way.