DREADNOUGHT often receives letters from same sex attracted priests, seminarians, novices, religious, etc. Aside from a blessed few, most seem far from peaceful and oftentimes they describe themselves as being beset by SSA-related troubles.

Recently, I've been in contact with three such men - all priests with significant responsibilities - whose same sex attraction (the attraction itself, mind, none have complained of harsh treatment from superiors/brothers, quite the opposite) has been the catalyst for a dramatic breakdown.

Between them they suffer from alcoholism, HIV/AIDS, schizoaffactive / anxiety disorder and other mental disease, isolation, inability to maintain the vow of chastity, spiritual sickness (terrors, delusions, hypersexual fantasies during the Mass) and varying stages of pastoral collapse (i.e., inability to continue in ministry).

[N.B. None of these priests are listed as DREADNOUGHTERS on Facebook].

I wish I could say that these three are at the extreme end of things, but unfortunately, my experience won't allow that sort of optimism.

In light of this tragic background, and the Vatican's re-affirmation of the adminisitrative ban on 'homosexual' candidates for the priesthood:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2005/11/dreadban-vatican-ban-on-gay-priests.html

and with some distance from the somewhat hostile reception it received in some areas, do you think the Vatican was right to uphold the ban?

Assuming the ban is not permanent, what can we do to better prepare, and then form SSA candidates for Holy Orders?

What is it about same sex attraction, 'gay' culture and the contrasts with what Catholicism demands that combines in some people, under the rigors of the priesthood, to produce such toxic effects?

Does the ban either help or hinder the journey to holiness of SSA men who discern a vocation to the priesthood?

- JH

John,

If nothing else, the ban on SSA priests is a brilliant illustration of the kind of sacrifices that are required to fully live the Christian life. The act of accepting the teaching of the Church on this matter and the sacrifice of personal will involved in this is analogous to, or perhaps the same thing, as the submission of personal will that must accompany our conversion to the Faith.

This idea of sacrifice and submission is so radically opposed to the individualism of our society, that the tension that this causes for anybody is considerable. But the contrast with 'gay' (male) society is even more profound.

That said, I know plenty of well-adjusted gay men and most of them are fully and happily living the gay life-style. On the other hand I personally know (unfortunately) several SSA individuals who have been abusive against minors and uniformly they are either married or somehow in denial of their SSA-ness.

Paradoxically, in order to become 'fully integrated' as an SSA man and thus as a candidate for the priesthood, I think a man HAS to fully accept his SSA-ness (before seminary). This may mean living the lifestyle - or not - but it should consist of accepting the 'idea' that they are SSA and being at PEACE with the Church teaching that this is state is intrinsically disordered. Either way, this stage HAS to happen BEFORE a man can put that life on the altar as a sacrifice. You have to know what you are giving up. You have to feel in the core of your being the magnitude of the sacrifice that is being asked of you as a Christian - and make it in love and full consent. In many ways, SSA men are blessed that this choice CAN be so clearly presented to them.

But in the current catechetical atmosphere that downplays sin and sacrifice, there is no possible way - no intellectual or spiritual framework - within which a man can make this informed sacrifice. If a man truly has an understanding of the nature of sacrifice he should be willing even to sacrifice his idea of what his vocation should be in order to defer to the teaching of the Church.

This is why I think the Church should continue to reject SSA candidates with full prejudice. Those who are unfit will be kept out, and those truly fit, but rejected 'only' by virtue of their SSA will see this decision not as a 'rejection', but as part and parcel of their calling as a Christian.

The original decision from a few years ago was incredibly painful for many of us, but in retrospect I think it is the best response to the crisis and an incredible teaching opportunity for the whole body of the faithful.

Erik.

"But it's another, altogether destructive, proposition to pretend that all persons perceive life in an identical manner."

Although, of course, Church teaching on human sexuality is normative, not descriptive...

- JH

John, et al,
In this discussion (here and in other forums) I think it might be important to consider whether the focus of the individual is their sexuality or....Christ. Perhaps my approach is too simplistic. But I believe when the truth is known that there were (and are today) holy, faithful men who by today's standards and obsessions with sex would be considered gay. I also know there are faithful men (Catholic and Protestant) who are SSA or gay who by the grace of the Cross have been fruitful for their Lord and Church. Is it a difficult life? Yes. Is it fraught with peril? Yes. Do men fail. Yes. But there are also those who seek to offer up their struggles for their Lord and His people. So because they are gay does that mean that God cannot call? Does their SSA negate the grace and mercy of God?
IF we consider vocations just and only from models of psychology, risk management, fear, or our finite human intellect we may miss the wisdom and voice of He who calls and redeems. If we fail to look to Christ and His Cross I question if anyone is fit to be a priest, deacon or other clergy.
I am reminded of the the thoughts of the Holy Spirit shared through St. Paul:
I Cor. 1:
[17] ... lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power....
[18]
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
[24] but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
[25] For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
[26]
For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth;
[27] but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong,
[28] God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are,
[29] so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
[30] He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption;
[31] therefore, as it is written, "Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord."

For myself..as a simple servant, I seek to share my disordered woundedness through the grace of His wounds, through His Cross, that His redeeming love might be known.
Pax et bonum

I don't think there is any serious (ontological) question about whether or not a SSA man can be called. In line with Catholic teaching, same sex attraction is something one experiences, not something one is - which sets the issue apart from the settled questions regarding ordaining priestesses.

In fact, the Vatican point-man on the issue does not even stray into talk about 'orientation'. There is no third order/sex of human (male, female and ?) - rather he keeps his remarks fixed on 'homosexual tendencies':

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0701300.htm

If these are 'transitory' and can be 'overcome', manifestly holy, etc, candidates will make it through.

This seems to be no more difficult than the admissions process for heterosexual men, if somewhat more sensitive to the peculiar stresses/vicissitudes an all-male, seminary life and the pressures associated with the wider 'gay culture' might place a SSA candidate under.

Is this approach, however, good for SSA young men? Clearly, the issue goes deeper than the candidate's behaviour in the three years prior to entry. It seems to influence his ongoing formation and often intrudes into his later ministry. How do we avoid blow ups like the ones I identified?

- JH

Erik: Remarkable! I fully lived a gay lifestyle for a few years and never met a single gay man I thought was well-adjusted. To a man they were sex, alcohol or drug-addicted. Because their relationships have no proper end, their partnerships always seemed to go nowhere. I was intrigued for years by the claims made by friends about their well-adjusted gay couple friends. I was always anxious to meet them to see these strange and wonderful creatures. I was taken in every time until one or other in the couple invited me to either share their “nuptial couch” (my terms) or to sneak off to my place while the sig other wasn’t looking. And that’s just the couples. The single guys were also addicts, and not one I have ever met had any real concern to become a good person (in a concrete sense like, "I must try to be more humble") or had the sense that contributing to the greater good might supersede his own good. Note that I am speaking of those “fully living” the gay lifestyle.

I don’t think for a second that there might not be some who appear well-adjusted and indeed are, but I’ve quit holding my breath. I am not a consequentialist, but I do believe that our choices have consequences in our own lives. Living the lifestyle is not good for the soul and seeking flourishing doesn’t work with living the gay lifestyle.

I make that point because “fully-integrated” and living the lifestyle probably just don’t work together since living the lifestyle would normally include a pretty intense degree of sexual promiscuity. That sort of sin damages the soul, and following Teresa of Avila, it can take years to to undo the damage that sort of sin causes. Moreover, sin of that nature does not contribute to self knowledge except accidentally, which, I believe and agree with you, is something that an SSA man must have. A man doesn’t have to have tried drugs to really know what he has given up even if not trying them diminishes his ability to convince others that he really knows what he has given up.

Jordan: The issue you raise is what is the definition of homosexuality. I think I would be very miffed if I were straight and someone argued that the need for profound non-sexual male companionship is particular to homosexuals. This need may be greater or less in different men, but I don’t think it qualifies as definitional of being gay. Indeed the only specific difference between being gay and straight as men that I can find is precisely that desire for sex with other men. Thus, it makes sense to reduce the discussion of gay as such to a discussion about the inclination towards having sex with someone of the same sex. And that inclination is intrinsically disordered. So far as I can tell, the Church’s reluctance to state that being gay is intrinsically disordered is conditioned by two things: her pastoral concern and her willingness to accept further developments in psychology which might unearth further differences specific to being gay.

John: I don’t know where the conclusion, “same sex attraction is something one experiences, not something one is” really gets us. Sexuality is fundamental: if we read down the scale of being from rational to animal to vegetative to substantial, sexuality seems nearly interchangeable with our being animal and being animal is certainly something we are. One’s sexuality and sexual orientation has profound effects on things as basic as one’s imagination and the way one views other human beings. I think the refusal to “stray” into orientation talk is wise on the Church’s part given the paucity of compelling evidence that would otherwise help to resolve the meaning of “orientation”. And it makes good practical sense too, I think. Should a man say about himself, “I am SSA” and nothing more? That’s a category mistake, for men are first and foremost always rational; they are in addition mobile, substantial, etc. But does that make it wrong to say, “I am SSA” and mean more than “I experience SSA attractions”? Same sex attraction is not like a preference for the beach over the mountains or chocolate over fruit for dessert. It’s much more like being blind (again, at least for some): there is something fundamental that is disordered in an SSA man, something fundamental to him as a human and a man.

Avoiding blowups does seem in part addressed by ensuring self-knowledge. How can we adequately measure the self-knowledge or “integratedness” of an individual. But even if we could at the time of deciding the entry into the seminary determine the degree of integratedness with an "ontological lapseometer" what would that buy us? We run into the same problem in marriages by the way: a marriage is valid if at the time the ones entering the covenant are properly disposed all around. And it remains valid even if one of the parties becomes later insane which condition is a defect of consent rendering nullity if enjoyed at the time of entering the covenant. Just at the practical level, however, the cost of restricting marriages on account of potential, later "blowups" is too high for society; at the spiritual level, such anticipatory concern would not be in keeping with respect for the power of the sacrament, among other things.

Restricting SSA access to orders doesn't really have parallel practical worries (we are too few). And the anticipation of blowups in relation to the power of the sacrament? I believe the Church is indicating that keeping SSA men from seminary is _not_ a violation of respect for that sacrament.

Even were we able to judge how an SSA man himself might fare in the future under orders, how can we properly account for the changes in society that can help or hinder his integration? To my mind, some of the most devastating characteristics of the modern age vis a vis SSA are the collapse of wider public standards regarding hetero behavior and the removal of social stuctures in general around male-female behaviors. I contend that modern individualism was never what God had in mind and that further, He intends that our sexuality and understanding of that be supported by social strictures and understanding. At least with respect to practicing them, some things are better left unthematic and managed as a feature of basic, mysterious, human life (yes, I think it is better sometimes not to ask “Why” in a public forum and expect some answer other than “It has always been this way”). The modern lassiez-faire attitude evinced in the West towards all matters touching the sexual makes the full or even adequate address of one’s sexual self almost impossible: the strictures that are still in place in Islam and that used to be in place albeit in a different way in the West actually supported the right actions of people vis a vis their sexuality. I further think that it is probably asking too much of God that we expect Him to make up for every ill-effect of our bad societal choices. For all that the current atmosphere may sweep some good and worthy men away who might in the Middle Ages for example have had a chance to be SSA and in the priesthood, that problem seems appropriate in a societal situation that has collapsed to the degree ours has. And again, I don’t think there’s any reason to simply expect God to make up for it (we can always ask tho).

Could one solution be to allow SSA to enter monastic religious life so long as that life was lived according to the ancient, not standard model? Perhaps. But one gets the feeling that asking even for life as a hermit together with orders as an SSA man would not be acceptable. I think we have to look fearlessly at the possibility that, even if the Church hasn't said so yet, the intrinsic disorder that is SSA is also an absolute impediment in the current situation. If the blowups are severe, it may be that the SSA priest must request tobe relieved of his faculities and move to a different way of life.

"Same sex attraction is not like a preference for the beach over the mountains or chocolate over fruit for dessert. It’s much more like being blind (again, at least for some): there is something fundamental that is disordered in an SSA man, something fundamental to him as a human and a man."

We need to be clear:

1. If SSA is only the 'objectively disordered' 'inclination towards' homogenital acts (which are 'intrinsically disordered'), then perhaps you are right:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2005/11/dreadtruth-what-does-catechism.html

Although, blindness is not analogous because there is no proof (so far) of any physical impairment, as such. Purely psychological, or reductively psychological terms are also mostly unhelpful:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2007/05/dreadletters-curing-homosexuality-narth.html

2. But, if we are using SSA in the more interesting sense I spoke about in the last thread (i.e., where homogenital acts are a perhaps mistaken, certainly base, expression of an otherwise neutral/perhaps inherently good desire for same sex friendship, etc.) then it is incorrect to write as you do.

To be honest, 2. appeals more and more, mainly because a man can only spend a certain amount of (relatively limited) time either engaging in and/or pursuing homogenital contact. Further, 2. seems to better account for the ardour, affection, companionship and passion that many SSA men speak about:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2005/11/dreadloving-whats-good-about-faggots.html

This also leaves open the ontological truths you rightly point up. Man is 'rational...mobile...substantial...', etc. and 'male and female He created them' is the only division that bears on human sexuality (in a constitutive/normative, rather than a descriptive sense). It remains impressive (to me, to many others) that almost all SSA men can unite with a female and, perform so as to achieve biological and affective complementarity with her...indeed procreate.

What else, in Catholic sex, is there? What is it that we seek from other men? It is not, I'm sure, sodomy or anything as simple/base as homogenital acts.

This is why I use SSA in the 2. sense, rather than - say - homosexual. Homosexual, when used in English translations of Vatican documents, seems to refer specifically to homogenital acts:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2007/11/dreadclarity-on-being-faithful-rather.html

- JH

"Then a stable, "transitory", 'SSA' priest would necessarily live the hard contradiction between infallible "norm" and fallible "experience" and communicate its value and relevance to his community."

...its? Suffering? Flourishing?

One hopes that he will flourish...

We keep speaking as though the 'contradiction' exists when a SSA man's tendencies (to homogenital acts) conflict with his human nature, reconfigured under his priestly vows.

But the SSA priest's lot (as a man) is, I'd hazard, no worse then, than that of any other man who faces temptation. Perhaps his vows add an extra layer of potential stress, but is it any greater than the stress encountered by his brother priests attempting to meet the demands of celibacy?

I bristle at the idea that, in Mark Shea's poignant phrase, SSA men (and priests, I guess) might always and everywhere be the 'pinatas of their appetites'. Can't we do better?

A SSA priest's lot is exacerbated, sure, by some (waning) secular misunderstandings and other errors in the culture - and these are the very things that the ban is supposed to counteract...

Note: all of the priests I mentioned at the outset self-identify as SSA, if not 'gay'.

Jordan: It is quite remarkable that you can write like this man, with such verve and tranquility, and not believe the wonders that flow from your fingers.

- JH

Are we saying the same thing? Doesn’t the term, “SSA”, dissolve in its meaning if we use it to mean “an otherwise neutral/perhaps inherently good desire for same sex friendship, etc.”? Doesn’t it bother one to think that Socrates, as evidenced by his obvious attachment to his followers, was SSA in this sense; to think that David and Jonathan must have really been SSA as some new critics would have it, just because they loved one another? Wouldn’t straight men who love to be with and love their “mates” rankle at the notion that they too were SSA? Isn’t the friendship of virtue that Aristotle speaks of in the Ethics as something that exists particularly between men something that every man ought seek? Does it really fit to say that every man therefore needs must strive for the perfection of SSA and insofar as he lacks the desire for intimate friendship with other men, insofar as he is not SSA (in this sense), then he is not really seeking his own best good? Finally, isn’t it a sign of a degradation of culture and not a development, that nowadays, whenever two men are thought to be particularly close and affectionate that they are therefore at least latently “gay”?

Moreover, if SSA can rightly mean something different from desire for sex with another man, then we still need another term for that thing. Desire for sex with a man is that arena where most of us find our struggle and cross. It’s not bothersome to want to love another man when that means camaraderie, virtue, good conversation, encouragement, etc. It is most bothersome when it means sodomy. While it may be experienced as similar to the hetero’s need to be chaste, the homo need for chastity is perpetual and cannot find release in the manner desired, ever. Those priests aren’t writing to you because they want to be really great friends with other guys and are deeply conflicted about that.

You seem to want to say something like this: SSA men are unique in their desire for a close bond with other men (that’s the specific difference between being SSA and not being SSA). Somewhere along the line, something happened so that these very SSA men became convinced that the route to the bond was via their genitals.

So far so good (tho I am not buying the SSA distinction so noted). And the wish to get with a guy is just a weird overlay. Disregard it, submit to the Church, and pursue friendship. That entreaty would go for any man any where who had for whatever reason to be chaste for his whole life (maybe the woman he loved married another). But there’s a difference. When a hetero man cannot marry, we don’t encourage him to seek close friendships with single or married women: problems galore with that. Following that model, wouldn’t the proper thing for homo men be to seek close friendships with females?

On your model, if the desire for sex with men is secondary and not a specific difference, then the real thing about SSA men is that they stand with respect to their sexuality differently than hetero men stand. With hetero men, their sexual drive is treated as fundamental: that is why we do not recommend as a rule the search for close relationships between single men and women who are to live perpetually chaste lives (it’s for this reason, the novelty, that the Clare’s and Francis’s are a marvel). Nothing in the monks from Scete to support the idea that the monks should seek friendship with women because their sexuality is an overlay. Thus, to say to SSA men that the real deal for them is the friendship thing and that they should seek it not genital contact means that their sexuality is not as fundamental in their structure as a hetero man’s. (Maybe you are right to pursue this route tho: it is a given that the writings of the Church seem to place the sexuality as such of homo and hetero men on a par with respect to its character within their makeup. Maybe that parity should be questioned.)

It would be nice to locate something more than the sexual that differentiates being SSA from not being so, but I don’t think we will have been successful in finding that particular thing if what we find is actually some virtue to be sought just as diligently by hetero and homo men. That is, if SSA is to be a distinctive and meaningful term, it has to be, well, different, doesn’t it and applicable not to every man but to SSA men as distinct from every man?

In keeping with one of my favorite truths, namely that our weaknesses are our strengths, about homosexuality in particular I used to think that the special gift there was a concern (as a gay male) for the masculine, the male, in a culture that undervalues that virtue. Maybe this is what you are driving at? That at this time when friendship and other good things between men are highly undervalued, then SSA can represent as a good when lived chastely and forthrightly.

I want to make one other point. While it may be that “almost all SSA men can unite with a female”, the functional ability to do so isn’t really the simple ideal it appears. I usually find myself arguing in the opposite direction regarding children, but as majestic an activity as procreating is, doing so in a mechanical fashion isn’t sufficient for a virtuous man. While a lesser good in itself than the union evinced by a child, still the union of a man with a woman -- which union, I believe, requires a hetero structure of the imagination -- is still a good and something to be sought. It’s the imaginative structure that a gay man lacks and I suspect may not be able to gain.

For a brief period I found myself attracted to straight men. The lunacy of living in San Francisco in the 70's and 80's was taking it's toll and I was simply growing tired of the unabashed nastiness of most of the gay men I knew. Their self-loathing had become tiresome and sad. One creates a ghetto in the mind and soul and eventually it must manifest itself in angry sex, drug abuse etc.

Of course relationships will fail more often then succeed for SSA couples. It's only been in that last generation or so that polite society has determined that perhaps imprisonment and or beating queers to death may not be the best approach to this issue. There is tiny progress.

It would seem to be true that many SSA's still need to be critical and unkind to one another. But you know this.

A high ranking church official of my acquaintance was overheard to say;" If I throw out all the gays in the seminary, there won't be anyone left".

This issue has no teeth, no credibilty and is nothing more then saber rattleing on the part of the curia. They can expell all the priestes they want, but until they overhaul the system that created the problem in the first place, nothing will change and in a dozen years that will have replaced everyone in kind.

And it's not going to change. I'd like to tell you that I believe that being gay is a gift. A gift of insight, healing, awareness and compassion, but I don't think you will believe me. I don't think you want to.

The "blessed few" SSA men who are peaceful in their vocation---what is different about them? Do they pray more, or differently? Do they have chaste male friends who keep them accountable? Do you hear from OSA men who struggle with chastity, and if so how do their struggles differ from those of SSA men?

It certainly sounds like the men you have been in correspondence with are seriously hurting, but I am wondering if a poor prayer life or the common struggle with chastity that all men in the priesthood have would be alternate explanations than strictly the fact they have same-sex attractions?

Brian said: "It would be nice to locate something more than the sexual that differentiates being SSA from not being so, but I don’t think we will have been successful in finding that particular thing if what we find is actually some virtue to be sought just as diligently by hetero and homo men."

If you mean to say by this that all that differentiates gay from straight men regarding their desire for same-sex bonding is sex, than that surprises me. It would be the same thing saying straight men want the same thing out of an opposite sex-friendship as gay men do, except straight men want sex attached to it.

Gay men want something more from a same-sex bond than straight men. And no, it's not just sex. It's more and better than sex. I don't understand why so many Christians simply deny this fact. I guess it's easier to simply reduce gay men to beings that want to stick their private part into the digestive tract of their same-sex partner. What about affection, tenderness, care, love? It doesn't exist, doesn't count? It's all the same as going fishing with your buddy and talking about football and the ladies?

Is it just me or are we missing something in this discussion? It seems the focus and basis of dialogue and consideration of the issue is within the framework of the current cultural/social norms and the "Church" only as institution. Within those concepts I would be deeply pessimistic.
However what if we consider the issue from:
Priests (deacons, religious) are a VOCATION within the Church, i.e. a calling within the Body of Christ. Now, yes, there are those who would preclude SSA men from any viable calling as only evidence of their disordered state.
But where is God in all this? That numerous (some would say many) SSA men (Catholic and Protestant) have experienced some sort of vocation leads to a significant question. What IF God has called these men?
If we believe the teachings of the Church (not just the "shall nots" but also and perhaps more important the "shall be's") we might understand that God's grace is sufficient, as Scripture promises.
In my previous post on the topic I was trying to say that we need to look at the issue in the Light of Christ, and His Word. When we relate to each other, as a part of His living Body not as a broken brick in an institutional wall, we will better relate in the grace of His faith and His Love. We can better both prevent the breakdowns you mention John, but also enable (in a good sense) men to become what they are meant to be.
The priesthood is fraught with hurting/wounded men because there is a poison atmosphere of fear, suspicion and loneliness. The Church, instead of being known by "the love we have one for another" is filled with suspicion, fear and alienation. This has afflicted both straight and SSA men.
Might it be when we return to the simplicity of Christ's mercy and redemptive love that all men and women can grow to become who God called us all to be.
There is an undeniable intimacy (some would call it homoerotic) reality in many of the writings of some earlier men of God. This is seen in their passion for Christ and yes, there love for their brothers.
I believe that it is in that very passion and love that the answers are found to the discussion we share.

It is important to remember that all men, even married men, are called to 'lifelong chastity':

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2005/11/dreadtruth-what-does-catechism.html

- JH

Good point. I often wonder why I don't hear much from the 'blessed few'. Perhaps they're too busy praying for us, spreading the faith and ministering to their parishoners?

- JH

"If we believe the teachings of the Church (not just the "shall nots" but also and perhaps more important the "shall be's") we might understand that God's grace is sufficient, as Scripture promises."

I guess the point is, however, that His grace is apparently absent - in some frightening way - from the lives of those who previously discerned a vocation and later broke down.

- JH

Perhaps the key is the phrase "apparently absent". Whether we look to the example of Scripture, or the lives of the faithful the struggle of the "apparent absence" of God's grace is real. Hebrews 11 shares a whole litany of the faithful who lived in a faith of " the evidence of things not seen". Even Blessed Theresa of Calcutta is a poignant example. Perhaps St. John of the Cross and his "Dark Night of the Soul" best describes this absence. I believe it affirms all the more the necessity that we be a people who stand with each other in prayer and love. This is profoundly needed amongst the SSA, whether the be clergy or lay.<br />It also confirms that one of the most important channels of God's grace is His Body.

A brief addenda: This can be a very real struggle is not just among SSA priests. I think research would show that men (and women) religious vocations have experienced these breakdowns over the ages, for many reasons. Sexuality is just one (perhaps more common or popular) component.

I was wondering the same as Kathleen. Are the 'blessed few' so few, or is it that you don't hear from them because they're not very troubled? How do they manage? What can we learn from them?

I think this is an important point you make, Harry. And breakdowns often can't be judged by symptoms alone. An SSA priest may visibly turn to alcohol, but a non-SSA priest may lose faith and become surreptitiously anti-Catholic. Both problems, no?

I wonder, how many in this group have ever considered that a same-sex man can live a Catholic life? I am currently doing so. But it is very difficult, not many understand. I have never had sex. Yet, even though I felt miraculously called to the priesthood, I was not accepted due to SSA. The vocation director automatically switched to thinking that I had had sex. When I told him I hadn't he looked at me skeptically. Then he told me several times not to. I accepted the churches teaching that I needed to live a chaste life. I also was able to accept that my sexuality was apart of me. Thanks to 2 Corinthians 7-9. But now, I dont know what to do. I feel unaccepted by my religion. He said the reason was that I could not be a good father figure. That assumes that my father and I had a terrible relationship and thats what caused it. It wasnt that, its that I was never accepted in the male society at school. He also told me that it was a disorder and that I had to get healthy. He told me to go to a counselor. I prayed for five years that this would be taken away. If God wont take it away then some counselor wont. I feel very put off by my Church. Frankly, I have not been to mass now in several weeks. I have almost given up completely on my faith. My faith has been completely shattered by this. You say to take it with humility? Try taking a rejection because you are straight with no other reason and take it humbly without feeling any animosity. I also think I could have done well as a priest and helped others understand what SSA is all about.

First, get to confession (if necessary) and Mass. Christ has done nothing but love you. How can one think to present as a candidate for radical obedience when one acts like a petulant child at the first setback? I understand that people hurt, but it is never right to project the putative failings of too often merely/stupidly human Church representatives back onto the entire, divine, beautiful edifice of true religion. There is never any good reason to voluntarily separate oneself from the Eucharist. Great martyrs have died for the privilege we too often so callously dismiss.

"I wonder, how many in this group have ever considered that a same-sex man can live a Catholic life?"

That same sex attracted men can live fully Catholic, authentically human lives is the raison d'etre of DREADNOUGHT:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com

"But it is very difficult, not many understand."

It is difficult indeed and hardly anyone understands, but this situation is perhaps not far removed from what it is like to be a good Catholic in any context. There are, of course, special hardships peculiar to SSA men and women, and these are the bread-and-butter topics on DREADNOUGHT.

On 'gay priests' generally, see the post here:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2005/11/dreadban-vatican-ban-on-gay-priests.html

I also speak out against a too rigid psychological/psychiatric approach to SSA here:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2007/05/dreadletters-curing-homosexuality-narth.html

Otherwise, I am grateful for your insights David. Please send me an email and perhaps we can turn your case into a good post or an article that helps others.

- JH

I concur with John's comments and would add a few.
I speak first as a Catholic man who is SSA. I was an ordained Protestant minister and after becoming Catholic and formation was ordained a Permanent Deacon. I am also married. In both ordinations my SSA was known to the Church. I have never supported the gay lifestyle and have not lived as an active SSA man. I have, however experienced , more than once, the wounds and pain of homophobic Christians. Through them I am learning to enter the holy Wounds of Christ.
That said it is profoundly difficult to be a faithful Christian (Protestant or Catholic) with SSA. It is more so when one is in ministry. But I believe that an SSA man can bring to ministry deep gifts of courage, faith, compassion and a life that seeks to live the the redemptive love of God.
David the Sacraments are essential. They will confer and strengthen you to be and become a man of prayer and persevering love. Allow the grace of God to lead you to the vocation that is precisely yours, in Christ. It may be priesthood, religious life, diaconate or a lay ministry. The holiest of vocations is our faithful obedience to whatever place and task God calls us to share.
"Faithful is He who calls you, He will do it" (I Thess. 5:24)

From a more basic perspective why are there such significant numbers of SSA men who have responded to religious vocations?
I offer this question from my experiences as a former Protestant clergy (from a very conservative coed Bible college yet with very significant number of SSA men) and from the obvious issue in Catholic vocations.
Is it the hope (subconscious or otherwise) of finding relationship? Is it an attempted barter with God (deliver me from SSA and I will serve you)?
Or might it be the grace and will of God?

For me, it was the realization that because of SSA I cannot get married, I am "called" to a celibate life. I also had already felt strongly called to the priesthood even before realizing my SSA. Also if I am going to have to live the celibate life, Well, that doesnt work in the Catholic church. I still feel like I am being told to die alone and quiet.

Those who experience an inclination towards homogenital acts are called to chastity:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2005/11/dreadtruth-what-does-catechism.html

Celibacy, as explained before, is a separate (legal / canonical) issue. It is not mentioned in the Catechism section that deals with "homosexuality". This is not a mistake.

Perhaps that will undo some of the confusion here. No one is told to "die alone, and quiet", quite the contrary - we are called to the fullness of life, to flourishing in Christ.

- JH

"The Catholic Church ‘cannot admit to seminaries and to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, who present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or who support the so-called gay culture.’ "
The Vatican is prudent not to have an absolute ban on admission of homosexuals to the priesthood: there are too many good men with homosexual tendencies who have served the Church with distinction.

So what we are saying here is Punish those who tell the Truth and Reward those who dont! But I say " For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed: nor hidden, that shall not be known." Luke 12 ...

All those who are truly called to be disciples of Jesus will have same sex attraction because Love has no boundaries, it must be free. The answer lies in Plato please refer to books Symposium and Phaedrus. Those with same sex attraction were made to serve God and devote their lives to the pursuit of truth because they are not called to have children.

"Many are called few are chosen" Well people it is those with same sex attraction that are chosen by God and what is the Church doing, closing its doors to the Pursuit of Truth!! Scary but True!!! So Married Priests No, Gay Priests Yes!

The once great platonic schools must be reopened so disciples of God can understand and discover their identity and calling in life. There students would be taught about the philosophy of love and the nature of same sex attraction. A School for the gifted, like XMEN hahah oh and I am not joking!

Come all those who are Gay and Love God for it is you, God has chosen!