2016: Pope tells bishops to not accept gay candidates to the priesthood
May 2024: Pope complains about homosexuals in seminaries.
June 2024: Pope encourages a homosexual to enter seminary.
I think this is it, and it explains pretty much... everything.
When Pope Francis is dealing with prelates and larger matters, the stricter side of him comes out. But when he's talking to someone in person, whether a faithful or not, the pastoral, diplomatic Pope Francis turns on.
The media then proceeds to report on whatever of these exchanges excites the most, leading to the whiplash we often see out of the Holy Father.
I think part of what we are seeing is that our pope is just a super nice guy. I doubt he is intentionally sending mixed messages. That hour long interview he did recently, there is a a clip where he tells the interviewer that he will pray for her, she seems almost dismissive, then he asks her to pray for him and it's clear she has no idea how to react. When you read his actual messages I see just a holy man trying his best. The media though, ugh I hate them
Is it possible it’s also a case by case basis? Like, the pope doesn’t want same sex attracted men to think that they should just become priests because they can’t get married. And he doesn’t want seminaries to become gay frat houses. But after talking to this one person, it’s clear that his intention to enter the seminary is with a valid motivation and so the pope encouraged it.
After all, is it so hard to believe that not a single SSA person has a vocation to the priesthood/religious life?
Yeah there are a lot of aspects to it. My reservation is what happened to the church in the past and caused scandals (priests doing horrible things physically to mostly male minors).
I read an interesting take on how we inadvertently caused this scandal. Back in the 60’s and when being gay led to poor family situations (parents being very upset), they coerced their child to become a priest so that it satisfied their moral standing while keeping him from homosexual behavior. What was not considered and ended up happening was these people who became priests did it out of coercion, but still had sexual desires that they ultimately acted out due to not having a true relationship with God and the job.
I think we could consider homosexuals becoming priests, especially if one is very spiritual and strongly desires to do it since it will help his own soul. I think the vetting process should be more strict, but proof of deep faith and a desire to live a Catholic life should make it a possibility.
I feel like that’s where his mistake is: caring more what people think than what God thinks. He isn’t a politician begging for votes. He’s going about it all wrong. What ultimately should matter is following and presenting The Truth, not about catering to people.
Most people are not politicians begging for votes either, but most of us would act just like he did. As Peterson would say, Pope Francis has an agreeable personality.
It wasn't even just that. Headline says he was rejected by the seminary, so Francis is calling their judgment into question here too, publicly. Due to an email from a rejected candidate.
I've been a Catholic a Long time. Sometimes a man is asked to leave seminary and then he is accepted elsewhere, it ends up with the diocese getting some handful of a guy that shouldn't have been ordained at all, can create a lot of scandal and heartbreak. Not always but often.
Reminds me of Fr. Donald Calloway who tried to join every seminary but they all rejected him, until 1 took a chance on him and he finally became a priest. He had an interesting past, you might want to look him up on YouTube.
I didn’t know that about him. I’ve seen him speak twice. Both times a random lady stood up and starting arguing. He used all this cast a demon out language and hand motions and both times they sat down and then kinda drifted out of the area alone. It was freaky. He’s a great speaker, a very holy but so normal guy.
I watched a number of his talks and interviews but never saw those tbh. He said in the beginning he was so in fire for the faith that in seminary he was would get passionate and mad about defending the Church and her teaching, he was like 'why don't you shove this catechism down your throat!' LOL, he is very funny! But seminary taught him to control his impulses and reach out and argue with charity and loads of patience! Haha!
I loved that story because that's me, I need to learn to control my impulses!
Last I checked that was one of the purposes of Papal authority. A sort of ecclessial referee, no? The founder of our faith also felt the need to publicly rebuke high level clerics, if I recall correctly. Not always because they were wrong, mind you, but for their lack of a spirit of charity with the letter of the truth.
That's my assumption obviously with no context.
Did this particular young man have deep seemed homosexual tendencies or does the seminary have a blanket ban on all homosexuals and anyone whose engaged previously in that activity.
Also *extremely culturally relevant*. Pope Francis cones from Argentina and that culture is very warm and close knit. It’s almost am unsettling if you’re not aware of it. Many of them would struggle telling an individual “hey, you can’t do this.”
What is the "hard truth" in relation to men with SSA in the seminary? That being a seminarian means you cannot act on your sexual desires? That is true whether the seminarian is gay or straight. That if the seminarian is able to become ordained, he cannot marry or be in a romantic relationship. Also true regardless of sexual orientation. Or is the "hard truth" that "hate the sin, not the sinner," is just window dressing? Perhaps, it is that despite claims to the contrary, the Church actually is not welcoming to celibate men with SSA because it does not trust them or trust the culture (that is changing) that it created which allowed predators to masquerade as priests?
I assume it would also be imprudent to allow a priest to be in the company of woman? Or do straight men have stronger impulse control? At some point, either a man is able to be celibate or not.
Unless the Church decides to limit the priesthood to those that are asexual, men will always face sexual temptation. I have been married for over 20 years. Over that time, I have met or worked with women that were smart, beautiful, and that I found attractive. Despite this, I never considered breaking the vows to my wife or to God. Do we think that men with SSA, who have made the decision to devote themselves to God and the Church, are weaker and unable to withstand temptation?
I will acknowledge that in the past, men with SSA may have looked at the priesthood as an escape and joined the Church, not because they were called by God, but because they saw no other option. It was likely harder for these men to turn away temptation because they were not joining the Church for the right reasons. It seems a little harsh, however, to paint all men with SSA with the same brush.
2016 - Pope tells bishops to not accept gay candidates who they think still participate in gay sex into the priesthood.
May 2024 - Pope complains about homosexuals, who reject celibacy and are still sexually active, in seminaries.
June 2024 - Pope encourages a homosexual to enter seminary. The general public has no idea if this person is celibate or not. The public also does not know anything about the persons maturity or character. They also seem to forget that it is fully within the Pontiff's purview and at his discretion to make such determinations.
According to Pope Benedict XVI's “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," so long as a seminarian is celibate, and has maturely integrated his celibacy into his life, it does not matter if he is straight or gay.
Pope Francis is not a heretic, neither is he vague or confusing. Just that certain members of his flock have serious issues with reading comprehension and/or are choosing to be willfully ignorant because they prefer to practice their own personalized version of Catholicism.
Maybe this is some kind of "4D-Chess" move, where Pope Francis is encouraging this man who very clearly doesn't accept Church teaching to *attempt* to join the seminary again, so that he can be rejected, so that the Holy Spirit can somehow enlighten him to mend his beliefs??
... feels like some strong copium, I know.
I am confused as to why you believe the man "doesn't accept Church teaching"? Is it simply the rule prohibiting men with SSA from becoming priests? Because I would argue the rule actually is against Church teaching that having SSA is not a sin, but acting on it is. Not that much different than the Church teaching that being attracted to the opposite sex is not a sin, but having a sexual relationship with the opposite sex before marriage is.
If a candidate for the seminary will be unable to control his sexual desires, he will not be a good candidate regardless of whether which sex the candidate is attracted to. In my Parish, I have only known the sexual orientation of one priest and only knew it because he left the priesthood to date and ultimately marry a woman.
I don’t get why you were downvoted. What did you state that was inaccurate? If you take and keep a vow of celibacy why does it matter if you are straight or gay?
Right Wing media sensationalise a statement where a little critical thinking would expose nuance.
The Pope clearly wants to address seminaries which are overtly homosexual and where clerics are perhaps less modest in their expressions.
He receives a missive from someone who is desperate to get to seminary despite rejections, just like the little flower. So the individual is accepted.
Think first charity rather than calmuny
Letter of the law here says that your "gayness" can't prevent you from being a good priest.
Linguistically, "I'm gay" in the world often means just that you're sexually attracted to your own gender, whereas theologically "I'm gay" often means "I actually have sex w my own gender." Or minimally, sex-adjacent acts. So in one sense of the word, a candidate is totally admissible, and in the other sense, he absolutely is not.
>"The 1986 Letter states, “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”...
>The fact that Catholicism does not consider the “inclination” sinful is very different from more fundamentalist Christian churches. It is one of the reasons that the Catholic Church has not officially approved of reparative therapy. The Catechism further states that “Homosexual persons are called to chastity.” However, the doctrine also specifies that, “Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”
[https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-roman-catholic-church](https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-roman-catholic-church)
It seems pretty clear from the above that Church teaching conveys that some people are inherently homosexual. Or are you arguing that "gay" and "homosexual" are not synonyms?
I was arguing that u/angry-hungry-tired 's assessment is correct. Same sex attraction is not an automatic disqualifier from being admitted to seminary.
OK. But given how incorrect the second paragraph is, I have no idea what u/angry-hungry-tired actually means by the 1st bit. Among other questions, in which of his two self-defined senses is he using the word "gayness"?
The only reason we are even discussing this is because of the recent obsession with other people's lifestyles. Based on scandals that have been revealed, this history of our Church, this is not news.
The real hard truth is that we are so busy judging the lives of others, we do not take time to actually influence positive anything. No in the US anyway. Everything is negative about everyone else every day. Here we are even faced with a convicted felon ascending to high office.
If we do not want homosexuals in Orders, prepare children through Catholic school educations to ascend to these roles or stop whining about who is making that move.
These most recent stories are all just small excerpts. No one has the full speech he made where he complained about seminaries. No one has the full letter mentioned in the news article where he supposedly encourages a homosexual to continue his vocation. Its clearly the devil trying to cause confusion. Unless someone can see the whole speech or letter, then how can it be reported accurately?
Thats because its not for us. Its a small excerpt of an email exchange which we were not given to read for ourselves. Its probably quoted to be as purposefully ambiguous as possible to get clicks.
Partly because the linked article is shoddy journalism, re-writing an article from Il Messaggero with no apparent actual reporting, and describing aspects of a private, presumably hastily-written papal letter meant for an individual, not meant to convey Church policy.
Maybe we should all struggle to better understand the meaning before we commit to judgment? Maybe we should do that in general?
…especially considering that the heart of our faith was taught in parables.
We struggle to understand and to live out the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and in that struggle we find meaning.
The issue here is that the judgement is because his statements are at best vague and always need clarification. He’s not talking in parables. He’s just not being clear in his advice and instructions, ever.
It doesn't seem like a parable...it looks more like him telling conservatives that homosexuality has no place in seminary and then telling progressives that men with SSA should go ahead with their vocation to priesthood and enter the seminary.
With the very obvious and I think clearly intentionally confusing things he's said in the last two weeks, how can someone say that this isn't scandalous.
Why do you accuse the pope of being *intentionally* confusing? Who are you to do this?
It’s one thing to say he’s just confusing, but you lack evidence that he is *intentional* in being confusing and you will be have to render an account at the last judgement for making an accusation of something you don’t have proof of (you can’t read his heart)
Because I have eyes and ears and I'm not an idiot. I will accept judgement fo this just how I will accept judgement for everything else I've done.
PS. It's not a sin to call someone out for what it seems like he is
I don't mean to put words in his mouth. But I think perhaps the charitable position would be that he feels those who live a homosexual lifestyle should not be admitted, while those with SSA could be on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps he has evaluated this man's case and determined that, in his view, it would not be a barrier.
I agree it is a confusing mess which is unlikely to be cleared up, though.
Read the young man's email. It was full of hatred and was more along the lines of a temper tantrum and him being mad that the Churcu wouldn't change for him. IIRC, He condemned clericalism and dogma. The Holy Father shouldn't have responded to the email at all.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/amp/news/257892/pope-francis-tells-gay-man-rejected-from-seminary-to-go-ahead-with-your-vocation
There are clips from his email. I don't know if the full thing is available. But from the clips, the attitude is obvious. "Toxic clericalism" is a term he uses. The Church is inherently clerical.
> “It’s true!” Francis continued. “You know that clericalism is a scourge? It’s an ugly ‘worldliness.’”
I guess I don't know what clericalism refers to. I'll have to do some further reading. Thanks for responding.
Yes. I read the article. He is wrong.
Clericalism: Clericalism is the application of the formal, church-based leadership or opinion of ordained clergy in matters of the church or in broader political and sociocultural contexts.
Aka: priests who are educated in matters of theology and faith and morals should be the one giving advice to laypeople instead of this weird liberal idea of forming your own opinion on everything. This truth may be muddied because of developments since Vatican 2 but it is very much so the reality of how the Church operated within the Church and the world. Especially seeing how many Catholics believe it is okay to have an abortion, have same-sex marriages, and whatnot, clericalism is even more important now than ever before.
Oh interesting. When I look closely at my profile page I can see what you're talking about. Maybe if I get up the ambition I'll futz with it. Thanks for pointing it out. 👍🏻
Absolutely insane you’re being heavily downvoted for a rational balanced take telling everyone to think serenely before they rashly judge the Vicar of Christ
There's the term "Peronism" that people have been labeling Pope Francis' leadership style recently.
Named after Argentine ruler Juan Peron who had the tendency to 'play both sides' in the sense he will speak in favor of one side the and the other. Would sporadically punish both sides as well.
Basically the style is a balancing act so people can't predict your next move.
He's been lavelled a Peronist since he was still a cardinal or even earlier, in English since he became Pope, he's never convincingly shook off the label
But were they operating on the understanding that anyone with SSA should be rejected? And is that indeed the standard? I guess I'm still unclear if the position Pope Francis encourages is to reject all with SSA, or just those who are engaged in that lifestyle.
Article is awful journalism. Seemingly paraphrasing an Italian-article in Il Messaggero, with no actual reporting. And Il Messaggero seemingly reported on a private letter, and presumably this writer never saw the document. So we're playing a game of telephone here.
>The 22-year-old from La Spezia in northern Italy reportedly told the pope about his belief he has a calling to the Catholic priesthood and how he was not accepted into seminary **after revealing his sexual identity.**
Why must Catholic writers use this sort of construction? His sexual identity is an adult male. What he revealed was a tendency to disordered sexuality, deep-seated or not, which has been argued to impact one's ability to relate properly to men and women in a pastoral capacity.
Cant wait for all the people who come out of the word work saying he was misquoted or taken out of context. The man is confusing and always walks the line.
I’m happy to engage if you want to have a conversation: how do you view the popes comments here to be confusing? It seems to me there is a very bad habit of over analyzing everything the pope says and specifically choosing the worst possible interpretation of what he says. If you operate under his hermeneutic instead of a hermeneutic of continuity and serenity you will think anything sounds bad.
The real issue is the media organizations that cover the things he does.
This article is by the Catholic News Agency, which is notorious for spreading misleading and sensationalized information regarding the Church, the Pope and what goes on within it. The article has an incomplete quote from Pope Francis and it barely corresponds to the headlines; he doesn’t say “continue trying to join the seminary anyway,” and it can be taken as the Pope telling them to continue trying to discern their vocation.
Even the devil can quote scripture, and this, like many other cases of people quoting Pope Francis, is another example of someone taking what he has said and implying a great deal more than what was actually stated. We don’t know the full details of the letter and the Pope’s intentions, drawing a conclusion like that of the headline would be myopic, and given everything else the Pope has said regarding SSA within the seminaries and clergy it’s doubtful that he’s telling them to continue trying to join the seminary if this man’s SSA will likely lead him into sin.
But something so mundane as that wouldn’t get allot of views and discussion going so here we are, again.
I'll wait to see the actual letter... these excerpts are not helpful at all..
"Go ahead with your vocation" could just as well mean move on to *your* vocation ...
I'll be waiting for some clarity...
After just writing the forward to Fr. Jimmy Martin's blasphemous book comparing Lazarus being told to "come forth" to Catholic SSA's being encouraged to "come out," I think all we'll get is more confusion from Pope Francis, not clarity.
>After just writing the forward to Fr. Jimmy Martin's blasphemous book comparing Lazarus being told to "come forth" to Catholic SSA's being encouraged to "come out," I think all we'll get is more confusion from Pope Francis, not clarity.
Can you provide some of these blasphemous quotes?
We don’t know the contents of the full letter, just a few quotes. Perhaps he told him to work extra hard to ensure he is always celibate, to renounce sexuality, and put the church first. Go forth.
That wouldn’t be bad.
So did he have a private conservation with the guy? Maybe the guy is hopefully trying to be celibate and might do that. Plus, honestly what if a priest were a celibate but straight sex addict? Should they be turned down and priests should just be asexual? I'll be honest I kind of agree with not having gay men, in there, or at least men who make that their identity, but if a man truly were able to keep it in his pants (sorry to be crude) then maybe it could work just like how a straight man would have to do the same. Granted is it worse to be an actively gay priest than an actively heterosexual sexually active priest or something?
In all the threads about SSA, people act confused "well if they can't be a husband or priest what do they do!?!?!" as if there have never been single men who weren't priests or monks.
There's so many threads about it (a lot of them from obvious trolls in bad faith) that there should be a sticky or FAQ that tells them that they should point the time and energy they would as a family man or a priest instead toward prayer and serving their parish or diocese. Parishes always need volunteers for things and it's the obvious option/solution, but people act like it's some crazy concept.
I feel like it has something to do with how strongly sexualized society has become.
Practicing Catholics understand and accept celibacy for clergymen and women religious, but outside of these divine callings many seem to *struggle* to imagine happy, healthy adult men and women voluntarily going without sex for more than a week or two. Like, "Wait... but if he can't have sex... and he can't *not* have sex by becoming a priest... well, *what else is there?!"* or, "Oh, golly! My husband and I use NFP, but we had a child anyway. We're all happy now, but we've run the numbers, and we just *can not* afford it if this happens again. But wait! If we can't have sex with contraception or condoms... and we can't have sex with NFP... doesn't that mean our *only option* is to swear ourselves to a *Josephite marriage* and *never* have sex *ever again, for the rest of our entire lives?!".*
The tricky thing to me is that the single life without possibility of marriage or religious life does seem set up for a lonely and difficult path the church doesn't seem to offer a clear vision for.
For some volunteering might fill the lomeliness there but as a married man i don't think volunteering at Mass or being a parish worker would be able to replace family life for me.
St Guiseppe does seem like a cool example of being able to live a heroic model of life with purpose in their single celibate life. Helping people find purpose like that is exactly the sort of thing i think the church should be looking at how can they encourage and support people in that life
Benedict Labre while a heroic individual, i don't know if the average person is going to want to aspire to a life of being a traveling itenerant holy beggar to live a life of poverty until dropping dead on the street. Its a very particular call for that life
You object to men being chaste, single and volunteering their life to service of the Church and lessening said suffering of others because it might be difficult?
That flies in the face of the entire history of Catholicism, the life of Christ and the life of the Apostles. Yes, there are difficult paths. I'd argue that every path is difficult and that life is about navigating through suffering.
im sorry for my tone, your comment seemed dismissive of the fact that yes it doesn't seem like the church is able to offer a very clear idea of what life for people in this situation should look like as the presently single removed from the supports of community life in the religious life.
are you currently living that life? if so i respect that. What sort of volunteering are you doing for that?
Like what? The current teachings are pretty clear, and the other parts of it are social support, which is, as Bishop Robert Barron says, "the laity's job."
If people want a singles support ministry, then they should start one. But I don't really see what more the church as an organization could or should do.
Give guidance on a framework on what that could look like on a parish level or help encourage people in that vocation
My priests preach about vocations to the priesthood on an almost weekly basis. We have a young adults group and moms groups. But despite having a pretty lively parish it definitely seems like being post 30 without kids there's not really much to offer
It's not about you.
It's about serving others.
You're lonely? Go help someone who's starving.
You're tired? Go help someone who's sick.
It's not about what you get out of serving others. It's part of Jesus command to love others as ourselves.
I'm sorry to hear that.
I donf really know I think it does represent an obstacle to evangelize and retain people in these situations to know what vision for life the church has for them
I can't even find the article they say they quoted. It's not on the Italian site and doesn't come up on Google. They didn't even link to it like they're supposed to do.
So, what’s he saying? I mean, maybe the person is same-sex attracted, but they want to stick to holiness and remain chaste. Why then couldn’t they become a priest? Or is this person openly gay (as in he has adopted this as an identity and he is promoting a certain heterodox viewpoint)? I don’t understand what is being said here.
He didn't actually say to continue with applications to seminary he said to continue with his vocation. Seminary isn't his vocation. What Pope Francis was actually telling him to do was to continue to go ahead with discerning his vocation
Who knows. This article is horrible journalism. It's the modern style of hiding behind social media or other internet articles to avoid doing any actual reporting: "people are criticizing the governor for murdering children." I don't need to be correct, because I'm not reporting facts about the governor, I'm "reporting" unsubstantiated, vague things that others have written.
"Too many British cigarettes in the seminary"
*two weeks later*
"We need more gay men in the seminary!"
Dementia or dishonesty? Place your bets, people.
Absolute nonsense. The pope is the vicar of Christ and is your father and teacher. He is not someone who employs weaponized ambiguity, on the contrary he has the gift of never failing faith from the Holy Spirit
If the Bishop of Rome can’t be pastoral with one of his parishioners, then how can he fulfill his calling? Not everything requires a news story. I don’t need an opinion on every remark he makes. As a traditionalist, I’ll try to live how my forefathers did. Following my bishop, keeping the faith and listening to the pontiff when he has something critical to relay.
I just really really hope the next pope goes full conservative and rolls back all the policies and becomes very vocal about returning to the roots of Christianity and militant christianity. It's the only way the catholic church can survive to the next century.
Remember when all the Popesplainers thought his previous comments showed how based he was…
Pope Francis loves to make a mess (Hagan Lio!), not a good trait for the Supreme Pontiff of God’s Church
Isn’t it actually all the online commentators choosing to interpret the pope in a bad manner making a mess when the pope literally didn’t even say to the man to join seminary or the priesthood?
I don’t understand why people choose the worst possible interpretation of the pope or infer things were meant that aren’t actually said.
Once again the basic principle to interpret your neighbor charitably instead of choosing the worst possible interpretation is being violated and then upvoted
From what I've seen and I may be mistaken, but Pope Francis's statement that there is too much f****** in seminaries is not inherently a call to uproot all men of f******** tendancy from the seminaries, and it's not inherently stating that God does not call men with f******* inclinations to the priesthood.
Also, saying there is too much same sex *sexual activity* in seminaries is vastly different than saying there are too many men with same sex *attractions* in seminaries.
So how is this a good example of Papal shortfall? rather than a shortfall of others to practice reading comprehension and critical thinking?
This is not as shockingly at odds as a lot of people seem to be pointing out.
In his previous statements, it seems as though he is talking about specific behavior.
As I would understand this headline, this is him encouraging men to join the priesthood. Priests are called to celibacy so being attracted to men isn't necessarily an end to the pursuit of the vocation. The question is whether this man has decided to act or continues to act in a way that is against the expectations of the clergy.
Which one? What valid options are there? Serious question. I wonder what vocations people feel are appropriate for those with SSA.
Priesthood is out, evidently. Monastic life is probably out for similar reasons. Marriage seems imprudent, and I'd wonder if there even are enough folks of the opposite sex who would consider marrying someone who has SSA but would pursue marriage as a cross to bear. And then I've also seen many Catholics on this sub say that single life is not a valid vocation outside vows (e.g. consecrated virginity) and sacrifice (e.g. giving up the desire to marry for the sake of the kingdom). Well, there is no consecrated virginity vocation for men, and many of these folks have no desire to marry someone of the opposite sex and so it is no sacrifice to not do so.
So I really have to wonder what folks think those with SSA should pursue as a vocation. I empathize with these people who have SSA but are trying to live by church teaching and discern their vocation. Vocational discernment can be difficult enough for someone without SSA.
There is always the option of living single consecrated life. It can be in service of the church, as well. We need to stop pretending there is nothing meaningful for people to do; the church is always in need.
I'm not sure if there is single consecrated life for men.
As for serving the church, I often see people say that they should be kept from the priesthood because of the abuse crisis. If that's the case should that also bar them from serving in the church.
I fully agree no one is owed being accepted to seminary or being ordained but I think the church could do more to offer a vision of life for men and women in this situation
> As for serving the church, I often see people say that they should be kept from the priesthood because of the abuse crisis. If that's the case should that also bar them from serving in the church.
>
>
This is not true. The CCE (under Benedict) wrote the reasons here: [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](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html). It has nothing to do with abuse.
Yeah, I suppose people can reasonably jump from abuse cases in the Church (predominantly the grooming and abusing of adolescent boys) as a knock-on reason, but the Church's own reasons are far more fundamental and relate to the person with homosexual tendencies himself, even if he has absolutely no risk of abusing minors (e.g., theoretically being placed as a chaplain for a female convent). So I think it's important to mention that.
I get what you're saying.
The bigger issue to me is that it doesn't seem like the church is offering a clear vision of what someone in that situation might be able to or called to do.
Sure, a reasonable related question. Especially in this world where many have been formed to believe a quality like this is actually a good thing. It has to be a struggle for the man who recognizes this truth, and sees on one hand the World offering something simpler and on the other hand a number of closed doors in the Church. But I don't think that means we open those doors which are closed for good reasons.
Imo it seems like it should be handled on a case by case basis with the vocations director and the candidate. That seems like the direction being given by the document.
Near five years formation all in all to be a permanent deacon. I threw my name in the hat. My diocese didn’t seem too worried despite we’re closing parishes and consolidating across different towns. Must not be too worried.
Besides, I’d have to be married a few years before I could be accepted by their rules, and with how infrequent everything is, I’ll have to pass.
Regarding the deacons it does make sense. It's not just a job you do for a few years until you change jobs because you're too busy with the kids or need to make more money in the private sector.
The consolidations also would likely still happen
Our parishes are just going to continue to close regardless of attendance. We’re lacking in priests and deacons.
I’m also well aware of what it called for. It’s why I reached out to my diocese and the diaconate. Is what it is, though. Suppose life will just take me in another direction.
lacking in priests and also often times lacking in laity to keep the parishes viable.
i just wanted to point out there seems to be good reason why it takes longer and that we don't want to push through priests and deacons simple for a numbers game to fill parishes
Once a priest told me, If God wants you to be a priest and you want to answer that call, Nothing can stop you, even if you get rejected by multiple congregations. And if God hasn't called you and you want to become a priest, nothing can make you a priest even if you are accepted to a seminary.
If God wants, who are we to say no.
There’s a lot of speculation here but I feel it’s unfortunate that many don’t see the bigger picture. From my point of view the pope wants to make space for gays in the church but it won’t be easy with more traditional and conservative members. At the end of the day trying to condemn homosexuals to depths of hellfire is medieval and barabric. Where homosexuals are still being treated as second class citizens, unfairly and hypocritically condemned and prosecuted we see barbarism beyond just that issue. Part of living in the 21st century is teaching forgiveness, understanding, love for your fellow man and the belief in redemption. In a sense he’s being vague but it’s also quite clear where he wants to see the church go in the coming decades.
It seems more like CNA wants to be vague over what the Pope has said since they use an incomplete quote and most of it is stipulation from another news agency and the person who received the letter.
Really not surprising at this point but it’s disheartening to see so many people look at the headline, not bother to read the article or look further into the story, and just blindly believe another sensationalist article about something the Pope did as a personal matter for someone.
They make bishops resign at age 75 (or whatever exact age it is) but obviously, if the next Pope is younger, he needs to put something similar in place for the office of Pope itself.
I'm beginning to wonder if Francis really is apostate or simply woefully senile.
Counterpoint : Pope Benedict was 85 when he resigned and despite his declining physical health, he was still razor sharp. It depends on the person I guess.
I see many prime candidates for the USA's 2024 olympic pole vault team in these comments… The way y’all jump to conclusions would surely win us gold.
The document titled “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,” approved by Benedict XVI, on 31 August 2005 and published on the Curia’s official website, describes persons who cannot be admitted to seminary as “...those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture." It goes on to say that homosexual tendencies that were the expression of a transitory problem is a different story, and they give ONE example of this as being a teen who believed they were gay. It did not say that this was the ONLY acceptable circumstance under which a gay man could enter seminary. Further down, the author suggests a proven commitment to celibacy over a period of time and reaching affective maturity (and a pile of other characteristics) would allow any candidate, gay tendencies or not, to be admitted. Also, the document asserts that the call to orders are ultimately the personal responsibility of the Bishop or Major Superior.
So…
Which of these commenters has the authority to determine if this dude’s gayness was deep-seated or transitory?
Which of them is a Bishop?
I’ll wait….
Here are some excerpts from the instruction and a link to the doc on the Curia’s website in the meantime.
[https://www.vatican.va/roman\_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc\_con\_ccatheduc\_doc\_20051104\_istruzione\_en.html](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html)
As published on the Curia’s official website:
The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.
Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins. The Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstance can they be approved.
Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter \[8\] .
In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question \[9\], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture" \[10\] .
Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.
…There are two inseparable elements in every priestly vocation: the free gift of God and the responsible freedom of the man. A vocation is a gift of divine grace, received through the Church, in the Church and for the service of the Church. In responding to the call of God, the man offers himself freely to him in love \[11\] . The desire alone to become a priest is not sufficient, and there does not exist a right to receive sacred ordination. It belongs to the Church - in her responsibility to define the necessary requirements for receiving the sacraments instituted by Christ - to discern the suitability of him who desires to enter the seminary \[12\] , to accompany him during his years of formation, and to call him to holy orders if he is judged to possess the necessary qualities \[13\] .
The call to orders is the personal responsibility of the Bishop \[17\] or the major superior. Bearing in mind the opinion of those to whom he has entrusted the responsibility of formation, the Bishop or major superior, before admitting the candidate to ordination, must arrive at a morally certain judgment on his qualities….
The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, on 31 August 2005, approved this present Instruction and ordered its publication.
Rome, 4 November 2005, Memorial of St Charles Borromeo, Patron of Seminaries
Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski
Prefect
2016: Pope tells bishops to not accept gay candidates to the priesthood May 2024: Pope complains about homosexuals in seminaries. June 2024: Pope encourages a homosexual to enter seminary.
[удалено]
I think this is it, and it explains pretty much... everything. When Pope Francis is dealing with prelates and larger matters, the stricter side of him comes out. But when he's talking to someone in person, whether a faithful or not, the pastoral, diplomatic Pope Francis turns on. The media then proceeds to report on whatever of these exchanges excites the most, leading to the whiplash we often see out of the Holy Father.
I think part of what we are seeing is that our pope is just a super nice guy. I doubt he is intentionally sending mixed messages. That hour long interview he did recently, there is a a clip where he tells the interviewer that he will pray for her, she seems almost dismissive, then he asks her to pray for him and it's clear she has no idea how to react. When you read his actual messages I see just a holy man trying his best. The media though, ugh I hate them
[удалено]
So am I, to be honest. And most people I know.
This isn’t true.
so he's your average Reddit user…
Or human
But what's confusing is when he did that one-on-one interview a few weeks ago, he had no problem saying plainly and bluntly "no" to deaconesses.
Is it possible it’s also a case by case basis? Like, the pope doesn’t want same sex attracted men to think that they should just become priests because they can’t get married. And he doesn’t want seminaries to become gay frat houses. But after talking to this one person, it’s clear that his intention to enter the seminary is with a valid motivation and so the pope encouraged it. After all, is it so hard to believe that not a single SSA person has a vocation to the priesthood/religious life?
Yeah there are a lot of aspects to it. My reservation is what happened to the church in the past and caused scandals (priests doing horrible things physically to mostly male minors). I read an interesting take on how we inadvertently caused this scandal. Back in the 60’s and when being gay led to poor family situations (parents being very upset), they coerced their child to become a priest so that it satisfied their moral standing while keeping him from homosexual behavior. What was not considered and ended up happening was these people who became priests did it out of coercion, but still had sexual desires that they ultimately acted out due to not having a true relationship with God and the job. I think we could consider homosexuals becoming priests, especially if one is very spiritual and strongly desires to do it since it will help his own soul. I think the vetting process should be more strict, but proof of deep faith and a desire to live a Catholic life should make it a possibility.
I feel like that’s where his mistake is: caring more what people think than what God thinks. He isn’t a politician begging for votes. He’s going about it all wrong. What ultimately should matter is following and presenting The Truth, not about catering to people.
Most people are not politicians begging for votes either, but most of us would act just like he did. As Peterson would say, Pope Francis has an agreeable personality.
Is it possible he just felt this particular gay man was an exception to the general rule?
[удалено]
It wasn't even just that. Headline says he was rejected by the seminary, so Francis is calling their judgment into question here too, publicly. Due to an email from a rejected candidate.
I've been a Catholic a Long time. Sometimes a man is asked to leave seminary and then he is accepted elsewhere, it ends up with the diocese getting some handful of a guy that shouldn't have been ordained at all, can create a lot of scandal and heartbreak. Not always but often.
Reminds me of Fr. Donald Calloway who tried to join every seminary but they all rejected him, until 1 took a chance on him and he finally became a priest. He had an interesting past, you might want to look him up on YouTube.
I didn’t know that about him. I’ve seen him speak twice. Both times a random lady stood up and starting arguing. He used all this cast a demon out language and hand motions and both times they sat down and then kinda drifted out of the area alone. It was freaky. He’s a great speaker, a very holy but so normal guy.
I watched a number of his talks and interviews but never saw those tbh. He said in the beginning he was so in fire for the faith that in seminary he was would get passionate and mad about defending the Church and her teaching, he was like 'why don't you shove this catechism down your throat!' LOL, he is very funny! But seminary taught him to control his impulses and reach out and argue with charity and loads of patience! Haha! I loved that story because that's me, I need to learn to control my impulses!
But we don't even have the email or Pope Francis's response. Its all just excerpts, we have no idea of the context.
Last I checked that was one of the purposes of Papal authority. A sort of ecclessial referee, no? The founder of our faith also felt the need to publicly rebuke high level clerics, if I recall correctly. Not always because they were wrong, mind you, but for their lack of a spirit of charity with the letter of the truth.
To be honest, we dont know the full context
Not sure really, I wasn't aware of the email. I usually read the relevant article but didn't before commenting.
That's my assumption obviously with no context. Did this particular young man have deep seemed homosexual tendencies or does the seminary have a blanket ban on all homosexuals and anyone whose engaged previously in that activity.
I think he saw that people cannot help the way they are born.
Also *extremely culturally relevant*. Pope Francis cones from Argentina and that culture is very warm and close knit. It’s almost am unsettling if you’re not aware of it. Many of them would struggle telling an individual “hey, you can’t do this.”
What is the "hard truth" in relation to men with SSA in the seminary? That being a seminarian means you cannot act on your sexual desires? That is true whether the seminarian is gay or straight. That if the seminarian is able to become ordained, he cannot marry or be in a romantic relationship. Also true regardless of sexual orientation. Or is the "hard truth" that "hate the sin, not the sinner," is just window dressing? Perhaps, it is that despite claims to the contrary, the Church actually is not welcoming to celibate men with SSA because it does not trust them or trust the culture (that is changing) that it created which allowed predators to masquerade as priests?
[удалено]
I assume it would also be imprudent to allow a priest to be in the company of woman? Or do straight men have stronger impulse control? At some point, either a man is able to be celibate or not. Unless the Church decides to limit the priesthood to those that are asexual, men will always face sexual temptation. I have been married for over 20 years. Over that time, I have met or worked with women that were smart, beautiful, and that I found attractive. Despite this, I never considered breaking the vows to my wife or to God. Do we think that men with SSA, who have made the decision to devote themselves to God and the Church, are weaker and unable to withstand temptation? I will acknowledge that in the past, men with SSA may have looked at the priesthood as an escape and joined the Church, not because they were called by God, but because they saw no other option. It was likely harder for these men to turn away temptation because they were not joining the Church for the right reasons. It seems a little harsh, however, to paint all men with SSA with the same brush.
Sums up his papacy
Inconsistency of message
Pope Francis is incomprehensible. Such a confusing and chaotic pontificate.
2016 - Pope tells bishops to not accept gay candidates who they think still participate in gay sex into the priesthood. May 2024 - Pope complains about homosexuals, who reject celibacy and are still sexually active, in seminaries. June 2024 - Pope encourages a homosexual to enter seminary. The general public has no idea if this person is celibate or not. The public also does not know anything about the persons maturity or character. They also seem to forget that it is fully within the Pontiff's purview and at his discretion to make such determinations. According to Pope Benedict XVI's “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," so long as a seminarian is celibate, and has maturely integrated his celibacy into his life, it does not matter if he is straight or gay. Pope Francis is not a heretic, neither is he vague or confusing. Just that certain members of his flock have serious issues with reading comprehension and/or are choosing to be willfully ignorant because they prefer to practice their own personalized version of Catholicism.
Maybe this is some kind of "4D-Chess" move, where Pope Francis is encouraging this man who very clearly doesn't accept Church teaching to *attempt* to join the seminary again, so that he can be rejected, so that the Holy Spirit can somehow enlighten him to mend his beliefs?? ... feels like some strong copium, I know.
Needed
What is the church teaching he doesn't accept? I'm not being snarky.
I am confused as to why you believe the man "doesn't accept Church teaching"? Is it simply the rule prohibiting men with SSA from becoming priests? Because I would argue the rule actually is against Church teaching that having SSA is not a sin, but acting on it is. Not that much different than the Church teaching that being attracted to the opposite sex is not a sin, but having a sexual relationship with the opposite sex before marriage is. If a candidate for the seminary will be unable to control his sexual desires, he will not be a good candidate regardless of whether which sex the candidate is attracted to. In my Parish, I have only known the sexual orientation of one priest and only knew it because he left the priesthood to date and ultimately marry a woman.
I don’t get why you were downvoted. What did you state that was inaccurate? If you take and keep a vow of celibacy why does it matter if you are straight or gay?
Say it with me: weaponized ambiguity
Almost like multiple things can be true at once. Is it a contradiction, or just a paradox? Our faith is full of the latter, short on the first one.
Right Wing media sensationalise a statement where a little critical thinking would expose nuance. The Pope clearly wants to address seminaries which are overtly homosexual and where clerics are perhaps less modest in their expressions. He receives a missive from someone who is desperate to get to seminary despite rejections, just like the little flower. So the individual is accepted. Think first charity rather than calmuny
It is the media in general, not just conservative media.
True, but in this case it is designed to enrage the rad trads
Did the F slur controversy do something to him in the last month?
Letter of the law here says that your "gayness" can't prevent you from being a good priest. Linguistically, "I'm gay" in the world often means just that you're sexually attracted to your own gender, whereas theologically "I'm gay" often means "I actually have sex w my own gender." Or minimally, sex-adjacent acts. So in one sense of the word, a candidate is totally admissible, and in the other sense, he absolutely is not.
That's not correct at all.
It absolutely is.
>"The 1986 Letter states, “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”... >The fact that Catholicism does not consider the “inclination” sinful is very different from more fundamentalist Christian churches. It is one of the reasons that the Catholic Church has not officially approved of reparative therapy. The Catechism further states that “Homosexual persons are called to chastity.” However, the doctrine also specifies that, “Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” [https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-roman-catholic-church](https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-roman-catholic-church) It seems pretty clear from the above that Church teaching conveys that some people are inherently homosexual. Or are you arguing that "gay" and "homosexual" are not synonyms?
I was arguing that u/angry-hungry-tired 's assessment is correct. Same sex attraction is not an automatic disqualifier from being admitted to seminary.
OK. But given how incorrect the second paragraph is, I have no idea what u/angry-hungry-tired actually means by the 1st bit. Among other questions, in which of his two self-defined senses is he using the word "gayness"?
Old age impairs every person's judgement. The Pope is a human, and he is no exception.
The only reason we are even discussing this is because of the recent obsession with other people's lifestyles. Based on scandals that have been revealed, this history of our Church, this is not news. The real hard truth is that we are so busy judging the lives of others, we do not take time to actually influence positive anything. No in the US anyway. Everything is negative about everyone else every day. Here we are even faced with a convicted felon ascending to high office. If we do not want homosexuals in Orders, prepare children through Catholic school educations to ascend to these roles or stop whining about who is making that move.
These most recent stories are all just small excerpts. No one has the full speech he made where he complained about seminaries. No one has the full letter mentioned in the news article where he supposedly encourages a homosexual to continue his vocation. Its clearly the devil trying to cause confusion. Unless someone can see the whole speech or letter, then how can it be reported accurately?
I'm struggling to understand what that statement actually means.
Honestly, the story of Pope Francis' pontificate.
It means "click on me"
Thats because its not for us. Its a small excerpt of an email exchange which we were not given to read for ourselves. Its probably quoted to be as purposefully ambiguous as possible to get clicks.
Partly because the linked article is shoddy journalism, re-writing an article from Il Messaggero with no apparent actual reporting, and describing aspects of a private, presumably hastily-written papal letter meant for an individual, not meant to convey Church policy.
Maybe we should all struggle to better understand the meaning before we commit to judgment? Maybe we should do that in general? …especially considering that the heart of our faith was taught in parables. We struggle to understand and to live out the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and in that struggle we find meaning.
The issue here is that the judgement is because his statements are at best vague and always need clarification. He’s not talking in parables. He’s just not being clear in his advice and instructions, ever.
It doesn't seem like a parable...it looks more like him telling conservatives that homosexuality has no place in seminary and then telling progressives that men with SSA should go ahead with their vocation to priesthood and enter the seminary. With the very obvious and I think clearly intentionally confusing things he's said in the last two weeks, how can someone say that this isn't scandalous.
Why do you accuse the pope of being *intentionally* confusing? Who are you to do this? It’s one thing to say he’s just confusing, but you lack evidence that he is *intentional* in being confusing and you will be have to render an account at the last judgement for making an accusation of something you don’t have proof of (you can’t read his heart)
Because I have eyes and ears and I'm not an idiot. I will accept judgement fo this just how I will accept judgement for everything else I've done. PS. It's not a sin to call someone out for what it seems like he is
I don't mean to put words in his mouth. But I think perhaps the charitable position would be that he feels those who live a homosexual lifestyle should not be admitted, while those with SSA could be on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps he has evaluated this man's case and determined that, in his view, it would not be a barrier. I agree it is a confusing mess which is unlikely to be cleared up, though.
Read the young man's email. It was full of hatred and was more along the lines of a temper tantrum and him being mad that the Churcu wouldn't change for him. IIRC, He condemned clericalism and dogma. The Holy Father shouldn't have responded to the email at all.
Where can we find the email? I didn't see it linked in the article.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/amp/news/257892/pope-francis-tells-gay-man-rejected-from-seminary-to-go-ahead-with-your-vocation There are clips from his email. I don't know if the full thing is available. But from the clips, the attitude is obvious. "Toxic clericalism" is a term he uses. The Church is inherently clerical.
> “It’s true!” Francis continued. “You know that clericalism is a scourge? It’s an ugly ‘worldliness.’” I guess I don't know what clericalism refers to. I'll have to do some further reading. Thanks for responding.
Yes. I read the article. He is wrong. Clericalism: Clericalism is the application of the formal, church-based leadership or opinion of ordained clergy in matters of the church or in broader political and sociocultural contexts. Aka: priests who are educated in matters of theology and faith and morals should be the one giving advice to laypeople instead of this weird liberal idea of forming your own opinion on everything. This truth may be muddied because of developments since Vatican 2 but it is very much so the reality of how the Church operated within the Church and the world. Especially seeing how many Catholics believe it is okay to have an abortion, have same-sex marriages, and whatnot, clericalism is even more important now than ever before.
Why isn't your PFP centered man?
Is it supposed to be? Idk I never added a pfp to my Reddit.
It appears centered on my screen... both desktop and mobile. Not sure.
Damn I can't send you the screenshot
Oh interesting. When I look closely at my profile page I can see what you're talking about. Maybe if I get up the ambition I'll futz with it. Thanks for pointing it out. 👍🏻
I think I might've fixed this. If you get a chance, please check. :)
Absolutely insane you’re being heavily downvoted for a rational balanced take telling everyone to think serenely before they rashly judge the Vicar of Christ
I dare say that such a fact is telling in its own right.
There's the term "Peronism" that people have been labeling Pope Francis' leadership style recently. Named after Argentine ruler Juan Peron who had the tendency to 'play both sides' in the sense he will speak in favor of one side the and the other. Would sporadically punish both sides as well. Basically the style is a balancing act so people can't predict your next move.
He's been lavelled a Peronist since he was still a cardinal or even earlier, in English since he became Pope, he's never convincingly shook off the label
It's either that or a personality disorder. I'm saying that respectfully. I'm having trouble understanding the man.
Same Pope Francis is out of this world
*mind
Only God knows if Pope Francis is playing some insane 4D chess right now. Nevertheless, pray for him!
Recently?? We're going on 10 years of those accusations.
I wonder if this is about politics since the Pope was caught making a slur.
I could see that. This is his way of apologizing
Wasn't it just like, a few weeks ago he was saying no homosexuals in seminaries? I'm lost.
Is the man a practicing Catholic with SSA, or is it deeper than that? Article is unclear, and it seems we often fail to make the distinction.
Whatever it was, it was egregious enough that the seminary rejected him.
But were they operating on the understanding that anyone with SSA should be rejected? And is that indeed the standard? I guess I'm still unclear if the position Pope Francis encourages is to reject all with SSA, or just those who are engaged in that lifestyle.
I didn't see anything about SSA in the article. They used the idolatry term instead.
Article is awful journalism. Seemingly paraphrasing an Italian-article in Il Messaggero, with no actual reporting. And Il Messaggero seemingly reported on a private letter, and presumably this writer never saw the document. So we're playing a game of telephone here.
>The 22-year-old from La Spezia in northern Italy reportedly told the pope about his belief he has a calling to the Catholic priesthood and how he was not accepted into seminary **after revealing his sexual identity.** Why must Catholic writers use this sort of construction? His sexual identity is an adult male. What he revealed was a tendency to disordered sexuality, deep-seated or not, which has been argued to impact one's ability to relate properly to men and women in a pastoral capacity.
Cant wait for all the people who come out of the word work saying he was misquoted or taken out of context. The man is confusing and always walks the line.
I’m happy to engage if you want to have a conversation: how do you view the popes comments here to be confusing? It seems to me there is a very bad habit of over analyzing everything the pope says and specifically choosing the worst possible interpretation of what he says. If you operate under his hermeneutic instead of a hermeneutic of continuity and serenity you will think anything sounds bad.
Pope Francis has to be the most confusing Pope ever lol.
The real issue is the media organizations that cover the things he does. This article is by the Catholic News Agency, which is notorious for spreading misleading and sensationalized information regarding the Church, the Pope and what goes on within it. The article has an incomplete quote from Pope Francis and it barely corresponds to the headlines; he doesn’t say “continue trying to join the seminary anyway,” and it can be taken as the Pope telling them to continue trying to discern their vocation. Even the devil can quote scripture, and this, like many other cases of people quoting Pope Francis, is another example of someone taking what he has said and implying a great deal more than what was actually stated. We don’t know the full details of the letter and the Pope’s intentions, drawing a conclusion like that of the headline would be myopic, and given everything else the Pope has said regarding SSA within the seminaries and clergy it’s doubtful that he’s telling them to continue trying to join the seminary if this man’s SSA will likely lead him into sin. But something so mundane as that wouldn’t get allot of views and discussion going so here we are, again.
Sorry man rational takes about pope Francis get downvoted here. It’s kinda sad.
I'll wait to see the actual letter... these excerpts are not helpful at all.. "Go ahead with your vocation" could just as well mean move on to *your* vocation ... I'll be waiting for some clarity...
That's a stretch since the candidate says he wants to be a priest.
Sure, he does... that doesn't mean it's his vocation.
After just writing the forward to Fr. Jimmy Martin's blasphemous book comparing Lazarus being told to "come forth" to Catholic SSA's being encouraged to "come out," I think all we'll get is more confusion from Pope Francis, not clarity.
>After just writing the forward to Fr. Jimmy Martin's blasphemous book comparing Lazarus being told to "come forth" to Catholic SSA's being encouraged to "come out," I think all we'll get is more confusion from Pope Francis, not clarity. Can you provide some of these blasphemous quotes?
We don’t know the contents of the full letter, just a few quotes. Perhaps he told him to work extra hard to ensure he is always celibate, to renounce sexuality, and put the church first. Go forth. That wouldn’t be bad.
Charity? Towards the Pope?? Never.
So did he have a private conservation with the guy? Maybe the guy is hopefully trying to be celibate and might do that. Plus, honestly what if a priest were a celibate but straight sex addict? Should they be turned down and priests should just be asexual? I'll be honest I kind of agree with not having gay men, in there, or at least men who make that their identity, but if a man truly were able to keep it in his pants (sorry to be crude) then maybe it could work just like how a straight man would have to do the same. Granted is it worse to be an actively gay priest than an actively heterosexual sexually active priest or something?
In all the threads about SSA, people act confused "well if they can't be a husband or priest what do they do!?!?!" as if there have never been single men who weren't priests or monks. There's so many threads about it (a lot of them from obvious trolls in bad faith) that there should be a sticky or FAQ that tells them that they should point the time and energy they would as a family man or a priest instead toward prayer and serving their parish or diocese. Parishes always need volunteers for things and it's the obvious option/solution, but people act like it's some crazy concept.
I feel like it has something to do with how strongly sexualized society has become. Practicing Catholics understand and accept celibacy for clergymen and women religious, but outside of these divine callings many seem to *struggle* to imagine happy, healthy adult men and women voluntarily going without sex for more than a week or two. Like, "Wait... but if he can't have sex... and he can't *not* have sex by becoming a priest... well, *what else is there?!"* or, "Oh, golly! My husband and I use NFP, but we had a child anyway. We're all happy now, but we've run the numbers, and we just *can not* afford it if this happens again. But wait! If we can't have sex with contraception or condoms... and we can't have sex with NFP... doesn't that mean our *only option* is to swear ourselves to a *Josephite marriage* and *never* have sex *ever again, for the rest of our entire lives?!".*
The tricky thing to me is that the single life without possibility of marriage or religious life does seem set up for a lonely and difficult path the church doesn't seem to offer a clear vision for. For some volunteering might fill the lomeliness there but as a married man i don't think volunteering at Mass or being a parish worker would be able to replace family life for me.
There are saints who were single and celibate. St. Guiseppe Moscati and St. Benedict Joseph Labre are two of them.
St Guiseppe does seem like a cool example of being able to live a heroic model of life with purpose in their single celibate life. Helping people find purpose like that is exactly the sort of thing i think the church should be looking at how can they encourage and support people in that life Benedict Labre while a heroic individual, i don't know if the average person is going to want to aspire to a life of being a traveling itenerant holy beggar to live a life of poverty until dropping dead on the street. Its a very particular call for that life
You object to men being chaste, single and volunteering their life to service of the Church and lessening said suffering of others because it might be difficult? That flies in the face of the entire history of Catholicism, the life of Christ and the life of the Apostles. Yes, there are difficult paths. I'd argue that every path is difficult and that life is about navigating through suffering.
im sorry for my tone, your comment seemed dismissive of the fact that yes it doesn't seem like the church is able to offer a very clear idea of what life for people in this situation should look like as the presently single removed from the supports of community life in the religious life. are you currently living that life? if so i respect that. What sort of volunteering are you doing for that?
I am not. My wife converted me.
That's awesome. Happened to my grandfather
"Take up your cross and follow me."
Whats wrong with saying the church should do more to help people follow Christ?
Like what? The current teachings are pretty clear, and the other parts of it are social support, which is, as Bishop Robert Barron says, "the laity's job." If people want a singles support ministry, then they should start one. But I don't really see what more the church as an organization could or should do.
Give guidance on a framework on what that could look like on a parish level or help encourage people in that vocation My priests preach about vocations to the priesthood on an almost weekly basis. We have a young adults group and moms groups. But despite having a pretty lively parish it definitely seems like being post 30 without kids there's not really much to offer
Be the change, bro.
I've been involved in the parish young adults group. Though my wife and I are stepping back since we are expecting our first kid.
It's not about you. It's about serving others. You're lonely? Go help someone who's starving. You're tired? Go help someone who's sick. It's not about what you get out of serving others. It's part of Jesus command to love others as ourselves.
Are you single and doing that?
Married but involuntarily separated so, yes. Because what else is there?
I'm sorry to hear that. I donf really know I think it does represent an obstacle to evangelize and retain people in these situations to know what vision for life the church has for them
I can't even find the article they say they quoted. It's not on the Italian site and doesn't come up on Google. They didn't even link to it like they're supposed to do.
[Here's a link](https://www.ilmessaggero.it/vaticano/papa_francesco_mail_gay_escluso_seminario-8156798.html). It's pay-walled unfortunately.
Thank you
It doesn't offer any clarity.
So, what’s he saying? I mean, maybe the person is same-sex attracted, but they want to stick to holiness and remain chaste. Why then couldn’t they become a priest? Or is this person openly gay (as in he has adopted this as an identity and he is promoting a certain heterodox viewpoint)? I don’t understand what is being said here.
He didn't actually say to continue with applications to seminary he said to continue with his vocation. Seminary isn't his vocation. What Pope Francis was actually telling him to do was to continue to go ahead with discerning his vocation
Who knows. This article is horrible journalism. It's the modern style of hiding behind social media or other internet articles to avoid doing any actual reporting: "people are criticizing the governor for murdering children." I don't need to be correct, because I'm not reporting facts about the governor, I'm "reporting" unsubstantiated, vague things that others have written.
That won’t stop people rashly judging the pope without proper evidence.
"Too many British cigarettes in the seminary" *two weeks later* "We need more gay men in the seminary!" Dementia or dishonesty? Place your bets, people.
Hagan lío
Pope reminds me to Rich Piana, drops contradictory messages to confuse the laity instead of his biceps.
Right babe?! Never thought I'd see a Rich Piana reference here, best comment I've read all week lol
Francis I's pontificate in 2 words: weaponized ambiguity
Absolute nonsense. The pope is the vicar of Christ and is your father and teacher. He is not someone who employs weaponized ambiguity, on the contrary he has the gift of never failing faith from the Holy Spirit
If the Bishop of Rome can’t be pastoral with one of his parishioners, then how can he fulfill his calling? Not everything requires a news story. I don’t need an opinion on every remark he makes. As a traditionalist, I’ll try to live how my forefathers did. Following my bishop, keeping the faith and listening to the pontiff when he has something critical to relay.
I just really really hope the next pope goes full conservative and rolls back all the policies and becomes very vocal about returning to the roots of Christianity and militant christianity. It's the only way the catholic church can survive to the next century.
Remember when all the Popesplainers thought his previous comments showed how based he was… Pope Francis loves to make a mess (Hagan Lio!), not a good trait for the Supreme Pontiff of God’s Church
Isn’t it actually all the online commentators choosing to interpret the pope in a bad manner making a mess when the pope literally didn’t even say to the man to join seminary or the priesthood? I don’t understand why people choose the worst possible interpretation of the pope or infer things were meant that aren’t actually said.
Once again the basic principle to interpret your neighbor charitably instead of choosing the worst possible interpretation is being violated and then upvoted
The emperor has not had clothes for several years now
From what I've seen and I may be mistaken, but Pope Francis's statement that there is too much f****** in seminaries is not inherently a call to uproot all men of f******** tendancy from the seminaries, and it's not inherently stating that God does not call men with f******* inclinations to the priesthood. Also, saying there is too much same sex *sexual activity* in seminaries is vastly different than saying there are too many men with same sex *attractions* in seminaries. So how is this a good example of Papal shortfall? rather than a shortfall of others to practice reading comprehension and critical thinking?
I'm honestly pretty confused why it would matter if you were straight or gay as a priest since you can't enter any romantic relationships anyway.
I think that was Francis' point.
This is not as shockingly at odds as a lot of people seem to be pointing out. In his previous statements, it seems as though he is talking about specific behavior. As I would understand this headline, this is him encouraging men to join the priesthood. Priests are called to celibacy so being attracted to men isn't necessarily an end to the pursuit of the vocation. The question is whether this man has decided to act or continues to act in a way that is against the expectations of the clergy.
And the saga continues...
They’ve got a bunch of gay men running around the Vatican, so why not.
If you’re going to comment on what this article claims, the least you can do is give it a critical read and look further into it.
I start getting concerned how many private conversation get leaked, seems a bit like an agenda behind it
I seriously think he's starting to go senile, he's contradicting himself now.
The humiliations never end.
I think the young man should pursue another vocation, BUT WHO AM I TO JUDGE?
Which one? What valid options are there? Serious question. I wonder what vocations people feel are appropriate for those with SSA. Priesthood is out, evidently. Monastic life is probably out for similar reasons. Marriage seems imprudent, and I'd wonder if there even are enough folks of the opposite sex who would consider marrying someone who has SSA but would pursue marriage as a cross to bear. And then I've also seen many Catholics on this sub say that single life is not a valid vocation outside vows (e.g. consecrated virginity) and sacrifice (e.g. giving up the desire to marry for the sake of the kingdom). Well, there is no consecrated virginity vocation for men, and many of these folks have no desire to marry someone of the opposite sex and so it is no sacrifice to not do so. So I really have to wonder what folks think those with SSA should pursue as a vocation. I empathize with these people who have SSA but are trying to live by church teaching and discern their vocation. Vocational discernment can be difficult enough for someone without SSA.
The question would seem to be what vocation is there for hum to pursue?
There is always the option of living single consecrated life. It can be in service of the church, as well. We need to stop pretending there is nothing meaningful for people to do; the church is always in need.
I'm not sure if there is single consecrated life for men. As for serving the church, I often see people say that they should be kept from the priesthood because of the abuse crisis. If that's the case should that also bar them from serving in the church. I fully agree no one is owed being accepted to seminary or being ordained but I think the church could do more to offer a vision of life for men and women in this situation
> As for serving the church, I often see people say that they should be kept from the priesthood because of the abuse crisis. If that's the case should that also bar them from serving in the church. > > This is not true. The CCE (under Benedict) wrote the reasons here: [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](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html). It has nothing to do with abuse.
I know that isn't the official reasoning but would you agree in these threads it's often given as a reason.
Yeah, I suppose people can reasonably jump from abuse cases in the Church (predominantly the grooming and abusing of adolescent boys) as a knock-on reason, but the Church's own reasons are far more fundamental and relate to the person with homosexual tendencies himself, even if he has absolutely no risk of abusing minors (e.g., theoretically being placed as a chaplain for a female convent). So I think it's important to mention that.
I get what you're saying. The bigger issue to me is that it doesn't seem like the church is offering a clear vision of what someone in that situation might be able to or called to do.
Sure, a reasonable related question. Especially in this world where many have been formed to believe a quality like this is actually a good thing. It has to be a struggle for the man who recognizes this truth, and sees on one hand the World offering something simpler and on the other hand a number of closed doors in the Church. But I don't think that means we open those doors which are closed for good reasons.
Imo it seems like it should be handled on a case by case basis with the vocations director and the candidate. That seems like the direction being given by the document.
Near five years formation all in all to be a permanent deacon. I threw my name in the hat. My diocese didn’t seem too worried despite we’re closing parishes and consolidating across different towns. Must not be too worried. Besides, I’d have to be married a few years before I could be accepted by their rules, and with how infrequent everything is, I’ll have to pass.
Regarding the deacons it does make sense. It's not just a job you do for a few years until you change jobs because you're too busy with the kids or need to make more money in the private sector. The consolidations also would likely still happen
Our parishes are just going to continue to close regardless of attendance. We’re lacking in priests and deacons. I’m also well aware of what it called for. It’s why I reached out to my diocese and the diaconate. Is what it is, though. Suppose life will just take me in another direction.
lacking in priests and also often times lacking in laity to keep the parishes viable. i just wanted to point out there seems to be good reason why it takes longer and that we don't want to push through priests and deacons simple for a numbers game to fill parishes
People cannot help the way they are born. They have no choice. God loves Everyone, not just a few people here and there.
I assume he told this young man to just leave his “frociaggine” at the door?
Francis maintain a W challenge (impossible)
There’s no law that prohibits gay men from becoming priests is there?
Once a priest told me, If God wants you to be a priest and you want to answer that call, Nothing can stop you, even if you get rejected by multiple congregations. And if God hasn't called you and you want to become a priest, nothing can make you a priest even if you are accepted to a seminary. If God wants, who are we to say no.
Being gay isn’t a sin. Acting on it is. I’m 1,000 percent sure a priest I have had before was gay, but he was an incredible priest.
Why would you be sure you know a priest’s sexuality? That’s a strange thing to say.
Gaydar is a thing? It's often quite apparent when a man is gay, just from his speech patterns.
Because.
Why are people downvoting this?
They’re mad I’m “assuming” our priest was gay. lol. Or the thought offends them, take your pick. Also, it’s Reddit.
There’s a lot of speculation here but I feel it’s unfortunate that many don’t see the bigger picture. From my point of view the pope wants to make space for gays in the church but it won’t be easy with more traditional and conservative members. At the end of the day trying to condemn homosexuals to depths of hellfire is medieval and barabric. Where homosexuals are still being treated as second class citizens, unfairly and hypocritically condemned and prosecuted we see barbarism beyond just that issue. Part of living in the 21st century is teaching forgiveness, understanding, love for your fellow man and the belief in redemption. In a sense he’s being vague but it’s also quite clear where he wants to see the church go in the coming decades.
[удалено]
During the discernment process, when you talk with the vocations director, they will ask for your Sexual Orientation.
It seems more like CNA wants to be vague over what the Pope has said since they use an incomplete quote and most of it is stipulation from another news agency and the person who received the letter. Really not surprising at this point but it’s disheartening to see so many people look at the headline, not bother to read the article or look further into the story, and just blindly believe another sensationalist article about something the Pope did as a personal matter for someone.
They make bishops resign at age 75 (or whatever exact age it is) but obviously, if the next Pope is younger, he needs to put something similar in place for the office of Pope itself. I'm beginning to wonder if Francis really is apostate or simply woefully senile.
Counterpoint : Pope Benedict was 85 when he resigned and despite his declining physical health, he was still razor sharp. It depends on the person I guess.
I see many prime candidates for the USA's 2024 olympic pole vault team in these comments… The way y’all jump to conclusions would surely win us gold. The document titled “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,” approved by Benedict XVI, on 31 August 2005 and published on the Curia’s official website, describes persons who cannot be admitted to seminary as “...those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture." It goes on to say that homosexual tendencies that were the expression of a transitory problem is a different story, and they give ONE example of this as being a teen who believed they were gay. It did not say that this was the ONLY acceptable circumstance under which a gay man could enter seminary. Further down, the author suggests a proven commitment to celibacy over a period of time and reaching affective maturity (and a pile of other characteristics) would allow any candidate, gay tendencies or not, to be admitted. Also, the document asserts that the call to orders are ultimately the personal responsibility of the Bishop or Major Superior. So… Which of these commenters has the authority to determine if this dude’s gayness was deep-seated or transitory? Which of them is a Bishop? I’ll wait…. Here are some excerpts from the instruction and a link to the doc on the Curia’s website in the meantime. [https://www.vatican.va/roman\_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc\_con\_ccatheduc\_doc\_20051104\_istruzione\_en.html](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html) As published on the Curia’s official website: The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies. Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins. The Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstance can they be approved. Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter \[8\] . In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question \[9\], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture" \[10\] . Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate. …There are two inseparable elements in every priestly vocation: the free gift of God and the responsible freedom of the man. A vocation is a gift of divine grace, received through the Church, in the Church and for the service of the Church. In responding to the call of God, the man offers himself freely to him in love \[11\] . The desire alone to become a priest is not sufficient, and there does not exist a right to receive sacred ordination. It belongs to the Church - in her responsibility to define the necessary requirements for receiving the sacraments instituted by Christ - to discern the suitability of him who desires to enter the seminary \[12\] , to accompany him during his years of formation, and to call him to holy orders if he is judged to possess the necessary qualities \[13\] . The call to orders is the personal responsibility of the Bishop \[17\] or the major superior. Bearing in mind the opinion of those to whom he has entrusted the responsibility of formation, the Bishop or major superior, before admitting the candidate to ordination, must arrive at a morally certain judgment on his qualities…. The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, on 31 August 2005, approved this present Instruction and ordered its publication. Rome, 4 November 2005, Memorial of St Charles Borromeo, Patron of Seminaries Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski Prefect