[Coleus]

Ready for Release says Vaticanologist

ROME, July 11, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - One of the best known English-speaking Vatican reporters, John Allen, reports that the long-expected Vatican document calling attention to the fact that homosexual persons are not to be admitted to the priesthood is "now in the hands of Pope Benedict XVI".  The document will come as no surprise to Vatican watchers since Rome has previously released two official documents barring homosexuals from the priesthood.  As Allen puts it, with the new document, the teaching won't "change, but the level of authority and clarity" will, since the new document will be directly authorized by the Pope.

The former Church documents make it clear that not only men who have been sexually active as homosexuals but also those inclined to homosexual sex would be barred from the priesthood.  A 1961 document produced by the Sacred Congregation for Religious states: "Those affected by the perverse inclination to homosexuality or pederasty should be excluded from religious vows and ordination," because priestly ministry would place such persons in "grave danger".  (See coverage here: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/mar/02032701.html )

In a 2002 statement, Cardinal Estevez of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments stated in answer to a question by a bishop: "Ordination to the deaconate and the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders." (see that full letter here: http://www.adoremus.org/Notitiae-Ordination.html )

However, Allen suggests that some American bishops are hoping the Vatican shelves the document since they contend it will "generate controversy and negative press". 

Last month, as the US Conference of Catholic Bishops was meeting, Chicago Cardinal Francis George spoke on the subject.  The Chicago Tribune quoted the Cardinal as saying, "Also, anyone who has been part of a gay subculture or who has lived promiscuously as a heterosexual would not be admitted ... no matter how many years in his background that might have occurred."

See John Allen's 'Word from Rome' column: http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/

[Sun]

I believe this is the hand of God.

[Coleus]

An Unneeded Headache (Vatican document on admitting homosexual to the priesthood)

 

Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To UNIONS
BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

 

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sixth commandment

 

WorldNetDaily: Vatican homosexuality paper re-examined

 

VATICAN SACKS SIX PERVY N.Y. PRIESTS

 

Vatican Criticizes People Who Receive Communion While Living in Mortal Sin

 

Vatican 'Working Document' Says It is Sinful to Support Pro-Abortion Politicians

 

Catholics cannot support abortion rights-Vatican

[lp boonie]

A vow of celibacy and reflective worship may actually be the answer to homosexual tendencies. I'm not sure preventing someone who has taken (and living) a vow of celibacy from becoming a Priest is the answer. Now if they break the vow (homo or hetero) that is a whole different story.

[bnelson44]

Vaticanologist? John Allen is a gossip. There is no such thing as a Vaticanologist.

[ElkGroveDan]

I like that term "objectively disordered." I'm going to start using it.

[Salvation]

WooHoo!

What good news!

[AlaskaErik]

Homosexuals are sexually deviant predators. This will do nothing to stop them from becoming priests so that they can prey on a captive audience. They will simply lie about their orientation.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Psychological methods "do not eliminate every type of difficulty and tension, but favor a wider sense of awareness and a freer exercise of liberty" when it comes to the challenging choice of a priestly vocation, he said.

"Wider sense of awareness and a freer exercise of liberty"? What does that mean? Whenever you spot recourse to fuzzy jargonology in a bureaucratic church document, pay close attention.

Many Vatican officials have privately voiced apprehension about over-reliance on psychological methods to screen candidates to the priesthood. The document is said to address those concerns by stressing a balanced approach that recognizes the potential contributions of psychology, but within a limited sphere of competence.

Why have they done so only "privately"? Has the church become a maze of secret societies where everyone is afraid to speak the truth in public?

Speaking as someone who was on the scene during the great era of clerical misadventures in psychobabble (the 1970s)and the monstrously absurd distortions which were introduced by that into the Catholic community for the purposes of foundation-sponsored liberal social engineering, I can observe that the problem is that there does not exist a logically coherent scientific consensus on what defines competent and valid claims in "psychology." Anyone familiar with the development of modern psychology and psychiatry knows (and particularly in the area of sexuality)that it eventually falls into the biases and subjective interpretation of the psychologists, how they read and interpret the scientific record, where they were trained, who trained them, and what the biases and ideological vectors were that led them, their teachers, and the founders of the modern theories into the field. In the 1960s and 1970s, a lot of these theories were wrong - especially anything rooted in Freudianism.

The other OBVIOUS factor in all of this is that spotting "crazies" does not necessarily require examination by psychologists or psychological testing. Keep in mind, it was psychiatrists, psychologists, psychotherapists, and the "experts" who recommended "treating" pedophiles and returning them to priestly ministry after merely administering "counseling" by psychological "therapists."

This latest church document had better include citation of the varieties of criticism and analysis of church misadventures in psychology. That could start with the information detailed in Goodbye, Good Men. Unfortunately, a thorough study which clarifies this probably does not exist precisely because of the cover-up mentality which pervades liberal abuses of psychopolitics within AmChurch, the academic community, and liberal ideological circles in general.

I would certainly like to know what "wider sense of awareness" means when the cover up on many of these matters not only continues but that Catholic families are shelling out for the bills that keep the liberal psychopolitics mafia deeply embedded in Catholic institutions and clerical bureaucracies.

[afraidfortherepublic]

I thought that they did this routinely years ago -- that it was not until the Lavender Mafia took over some of the Seminaries that things changed.

[NYer]

Catholic Ping - Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[Romish_Papist]

"Also, anyone who has... lived promiscuously as a heterosexual would not be admitted ... no matter how many years in his background that might have occurred."

Regarding the promiscuous heterosexual thing this might come back to bite them. Not saying it's wrong mind you, just saying that some people DO wake up to the wrongs they have been partaking in and DO make 180 degree changes. Many saints of old were wild youths who lived impious lives before God changed them, and they, well, they became saints. Not really sure what I'm getting at here, just felt like it needed saying. I will of course, submit to whatever Rome decides.

[livius]

who has lived promiscuously as a heterosexual would not be admitted ...

This is stupid. People can always convert and change - and many saints have.

Promiscuous heterosexual behavior may be too much of a good thing, but homosexual behavior is not a good thing to begin with - and herein lies the difference.

Personally, I think it's an attempt to water down the whole thing, somewhat the way the US bishops do by including their anti-death penalty campaign in pro-life campaigns. The death penalty and abortion are two entirely different animals. And the Bishops know it full well, just as they know that promiscuous heterosexual behavior and homosexuality are two totally different things.