Posted on 12/10/2016 8:04:14 PM PST by marshmallow
Activists for LGBTQ rights clap back at the Vatican's decision to reaffirm its opposition to gay priests. The decision was made clear in a document on the priesthood by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Clergy, disappointing those who saw in Pope Francis a more inclusive approach to homosexuality.
ROME - A Vatican decision to reaffirm its opposition to gay priests has angered activists who thought Pope Francis was changing Rome’s attitudes toward homosexuality.
In a new document on the priesthood, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Clergy reiterated a 2005 statement declaring that men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” or those who “support the so-called ‘gay culture’” cannot be priests.
“Pope Francis has a lot of explaining to do by approving the newest Vatican instruction,” said Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, which campaigns for LGBT rights in the church.
“Francis’s famous ‘Who am I to judge?’ statement in 2013 was made in response to a question about gay men in the priesthood,” DeBernardo said. “That response indicated very plainly that he did not have a problem with a gay priest’s sexual orientation.
“It’s not too late for the pope to retract this document.”
The new document noted that the church’s policy on gay priests has not changed since the last Vatican pronouncement on the subject in 2005.
Many have been hoping for a new approach from the church toward gay priests because of Francis’s statements and the fact that he has gay friends and has spoken against bias toward gays.
The pope has even used the label “gay” rather than the more clinical term “homosexual” that many church officials view as less likely to appear to approve a gay orientation.
“This document is extremely disappointing in its approach to gay men called to be priests,” said Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive.....
(Excerpt) Read more at cruxnow.com ...
Thank God for this at least.
What would be next?
S&M priests?
Necrophiliacs?
Thanks for the principled and direct response from Staten Island :)
We don’t mince words out here :)
The document says that “the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, 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.’”
It says such people are “in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women.
“One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.”
Checkmate!
The document says that “the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, 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.’”
It says such people are “in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women.
“One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.”
Checkmate!
Oh please, how can one preach against homosexual behavior and be attracted to it at the same time???
Liar.
That response was about one single, solitary Italian priest working in the Vatican, who the Italian press was asking specifically about, who had been found to be engaging in the homosexual lifestyle. He subsequently renounced the lifestyle, apologized, repented, and asked for forgiveness. Francis said that after he had done all of that, he couldn't judge him.
So unless you're a priest who has renounced the homosexual lifestyle, apologized, repented, and asked for forgiveness, you don't fit the "Who am I to judge" meme.
The funny thing is invariably all these gay activists also think the discipline of celibacy is worthless and should be ended. While strangely many conservative Christians who are against the gay agenda think a good way to stop gays from becoming priests is to end the discipline of celibacy and allow married clergy.
I’m not sure why that is, but I know who I wouldn’t want to agree with my side’s position on the practice.
Freegards
A little surprised the pope wouldn’t oppose the ban.
It was activism that caused the Church to weaken it’s stance against taking in gay seminarians. I went to catholic high school with a fellow who went into the seminary at St. Charles right after high school. The other students used to tease him because he was somewhat effeminate and I used to stick up for him.
I ran into him about two or three years after high school. He told me he had been in St. Charles studying for the priesthood, but that they threw him out because of his homosexual tendencies which was a shock to me. That was about 1964. About 5 years ago, they published the names of priests in the Philadelphia area who had been found guilty of sexually abusing young boys. Bigger than life, there was his name and background. He had pushed to be let back into the seminary at a later date.
There has supposedly been a ban for decades....and yet there are still gay priests.
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.