Posted on 11/22/2005 2:38:49 PM PST by Balt
I have to admit, you have a good point. There are certainly other good points about this document that a friend of mine recently pointed out, such as embracing the notion that homosexuality, as a disorder, can be treated (repairitive therapy). This, I think, will cause many in the "gay community" to jump off the roof tops.
I think my initial reaction was colored by too many weeks of anticipation waiting for some kind of bomb to be dropped. I only hope that there are least a few bishops with seminaries who will take the bull by the horns and really make some changes based on this.
How long is it between entering the seminary and diaconal ordination?
I, also, find this statement just a little disturbing because it can cut both ways. How many good men are there floating around who would have made great priests were it not for the fact that they weren't "open" or "flexible" or judged to be "rigid"? The assumption of the document is that the bishop should be sure he's not ordaining someone with some kind of sexual identification problem; but, the fact is, bishops have been excersising this kind of authority for years -- they've just been rejecting the wrong kind of men.
Well, first it depends on what level one enters. If one enters the seminary at the collegiate level, then it would be four years of college seminary. After that, depending on the seminary or the diocese, it's usually three or four years. In some cases, it's four years including a "pastoral year" outside the seminary in a parish setting, which is followed by deaconal ordination. In other cases, the deacon year is considered the "pastoral year."
In my own case, because the diocese for which I was ordained didn't have a seminary of it's own, I completed all four years of post-graduate formation and was put into a parish for a year, the last five months of which were spent as a deacon; so I was only a deacon for five months.
lavender bumpus ad summum
There are some who question whether this is actually the REAL "final" document. Note the odd phrasing of B-16's approval (lacking some typical details.)
We all think that this is what the doc will say--but don't take this to the bank for large money.
The approbation-line of B-16 does not include "forma specifica," meaning that this doc will NOT over-ride norms of Bishops' Conferences (and maybe even Bishops.)
So (if this is the real doc) we're kinda where we were 120 days ago. Bishops can and will do what they damn well please.
>>>This will be an immense challenge to those who support a different agenda from that of the Holy Father.<<<
As NYer amply demonstrated today in her thread on Assisi, the Holy Father "nailed" the Franciscans who played fast and loose with Assisi as their own personal "peace enclave." To learn more about how tough this was, read Whispers in the Loggia which spells out just how much he smacked down these dissidents and what a master stroke it was!
I am not sure this is the final version. However, if Pope Benedict XVI signed it, it will not be trivial. He has not appointed one US Bishop to a major See as yet. It is believed that he is personally choosing each and every new Bishop himself as he knows them all. Also, his Curial appointments have not been announced. Finally, it is widely believed that Archbishop Levada was chosen since he wanted an American to clean up the cesspool here among the Episcopacy.
I think a bit of slack is warranted until some noted Canonists give us their take. In the meantime, I am hopeful and obedient as always to Peter.
Frank
An encyclical is due on December 8th. Let's see what that is about. If it is about the Liturgy and a call to one with more Latin and less experimentation and perhaps a nod to the Tridentine Rite, a bane of the hippie Leftists, then his assault will be on two fronts.
Pas d'ennemis a droit!
Frank
The priesthood has wrongly become a sanctuary for homosexual men. Some of them have never revealed, even to their families, the sexual struggles that they have endured for acceptance and love from other men. And that real need for homosexual affection can cause of lot of thirst for, and expectations from, the other men in the rectory - even if there is nothing physical intended. Other gay priests have wrongly received the full support and approval of those who see the priesthood as the ideal life for them to live, believing that this life, lived under the cover of celibacy, will protect them from the scandal and questions and complications of living out in the real world.
I recently talked with a very good Catholic mother whose son is homosexual and who has struggled for years with many quick, abusive and for-the-most-part secret relationships with other homosexual men. She says he is scared to death that he will become "known" at his job, and suffer the consequences of not being accepted by his co-workers, and ruining any chances of advancement in his career.
I asked her, as a consequence, if she ever wanted her son, who is a good catholic, to become a priest so that he could avoid the scandals, the rumors, the questions of non-marriage, the fears of “career” advancement?
"Heaven's no! He would just be living a lie, and as a priest no less. He would be forced to live a double life, within himself, with God - as His representative, and with the people he serves who would never know his true self."
She is an exception.
This document will do very little to stop the homosexual infiltration of the Church. And, until there is a full, public, clear and papal teaching about the morality of this issue, and until there is a canon law prohibiting the ordination of homosexual men which is supported by severe penalties for those who would violate that law, then there is nothing that anyone can really utilize in their earnest and conscientious attempts to stop those homosexual men who are already ordained, and who hold positions of power and authority in our Church. Those men will simply ignore this instruction.
The 1961 "policy" was a private letter, that was not included in any references, and was unknown of by the laity, priestly candidates, spiritual directors, and even bishops annointed after 1961.
The new doctrine will be known of by everyone. Tolerance of homosexuality will be a visible sign of infidelity from here on out. The issue has been settled.
It is not new doctrine; nothing which the church proclaims is. It is, however, a dramatic new focus, and a clear rejoinder to the vast majority of the American presbyteriate which asserted that there was nothing wrong with gay priests.
It IS merely a mission statement; it is not a self-implementing proclamation. The clear, public, unambiguous statement is strong support for the warriors of Orthodoxy, but the battle still must be fought. And as such, there are grounds for watching after whether it is being implemented. But it is not a statement made in isolation. From the review of the seminaries to the chastisement of national councils, there is every indication that much IS being done.
I would expect that the various appropriate curial offices will issue implementations shortly.
Where in the document do you see there being mentioned "some" gays allowed in? The document does not say that a gay must be chaste for three years. It says that there must be no homosexual tendencies at all. It only notes that some heterosexuals experience some slight ambiguity during adolescence, and that this experience, it if is was only due to adolescence and if it is clearly in the distant past, should be no basis for staying out of the priesthood.
If you are worried about enforcing the policy, that clause will not make it more difficult to enforce the policy. It will only calm the conscience of some young seminarians who once had a wierd dream about cigars. Yes, infiltrators could lie to gain admission to the priesthood, but if they were going to lie, they would also lie about their adolescence.
I think even you are reading it too liberally. It does NOT permit "cured" homosexuals.
>>When dealing, instead, with homosexual tendencies that might only be a manifestation of a transitory problem, as, for example, delayed adolescence, these must be clearly overcome at least three years before diaconal Ordination. <<
I take this to mean that they were never really homosexual at all, just passing through an ambiguous of confused phase. When it refers to what might not be disqualifying, it refers to mere TENDENCIES that were passing phases; Men with actual history of homosexual acts or of being proponents of homosexuality are still forbidden.
And it IS very new and very significant that being a proponent of a homosexual lifestyle is grounds for exclusion. True, it's something that was unthinkable before the late 60s, but the actual exclusion is new.
Hmmm... not entirely accurate, but the gist is very true. Benedict has named some Bishops in some significant dioceses, but has named none voluntarily: He has allowed some coadjutors appointed by John Paul to take over diocese, and he filled a couple vacancies which had already been filled, and one created by a death. But he has not created and subsequently filled any discretionary vacancies.
...In fact, on Nov 10th, Walter Nicklaus of Sioux City became the first Latin-rite American bishop appointed by Benedict since Walter Hurley on June 21. All 3 bishops apointed by Benedict filled vacancies created during John Paul's era, although three coajutors succeeded, including one appointed by Benedict. There are now 13 sees headed by bishops over the age limit. Two days before John Paul died, there were three.
When Benedict starts naming bishops, he will have a very fast impact: Two of America's seven Cardinal Archbishops are now over the age limit. In five months, there will be a third.
McCarrick and ??
>> McCarrick and ?? <<
... Maida of Detroit is a couple months older than McCarrick. Keeler of Baltimore will be joining the list soon, and Eagan in about 16 months.
May it be unto them as it was unto Sodom & Gomorrah!>>
Be careful what you wish for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.