Posted on 09/19/2005 4:11:33 PM PDT by scripter
ping
Doubt it, if anything it will serve as an impetus for an increase in vocations. How many men have resisted the call because of the combined effects of the "pink palace" stigma and Sister Butch the seminary screener?
Next you'll tell us all that Jack Chick tracks aren't historically accurate.
What ever will all the Catholic haters due then?
And, and: What about poor Maria Monk and her fate worse than death???? And, and Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!!! And, and... [Where are my Jack Chick Comix when I really need 'em????]
Perhaps some have. But, in the last ten years, even according to Michael Rose, the seminaries have been largely cleaned up. Seminarians have increased in some dioceses, and they have not in others. But, even in dioceses in which they have increased, they have not increased enough to cover the number of priests who are dying off or retiring (if they even get to retire). Thus the consolidation of parishes in many dioceses.
I would say it's probably more than some and it will take a bit of time for prospective seminarians to actually believe that changes have been made. I also another thing that will spur and increase in vocations will be lay lead parishes. I can't imagine a lay lead parish as being anything other than a disaster. Unless the laity of other dioceses is drastically different from ones that I have experience with. There seems to be even less willingness among the lay leaders to cleave to real Church teachings than that of an over worked priest trying to run a parish.
IN my area, consolidation is more a function of a shrinking population and attendance than a priest shortage. In fact, a little over a year ago, a new parish was established here in town. In other areas, churches are being sold off because of financial problems and not due to a shortage of priests.
Either way, I trust the Lord to watch over His Church.
I don't know specifics, but yes, from what I've read a healthy mental framework is very much required for ordination.
1. We do not need married clergy although exceptions can and will be made particularly for a previously married clergyman of another faith who converts, is ordained and then may not marry again if his spouse dies.
2. We need absolutely no practicing homosexuals in the priesthood.
3. We need, with the exceptions noted in #1, no heterosexually active priests although the desire for heterosexual sexuality is perfectly normal and the desire for homosexual activity is ALWAYS intrinsically disordered, as the Church teaches.
4. If the pope were to allow a general permission for priests to marry, it could NEVER extend to homosexual priests being allowed "same sex 'marriage'" which is, again, ALWAYS intrinsically disordered.
5. I bet your diocesan vocation situation in Fort Worth will soon improve. Granted that it will take a while to turn the Queen Mary around as you put it. I may be wrong but your new bishop apparently had an orthodox reputation as a pastor in Southern Illinois. We shall see.
6. Several recent appointments in Texas suggest that Texas finally has the Vatican's attention.
7. Our little diocese of Rockford still has 48 seminarians with 11 due for ordination next May. Many are being prepared in the seminaries (diocesan and FSSP) in Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz's Lincoln, Nebraska diocese. No one accuses Bishop Doran of being a Kumbaya in any way.
8. If we have priestless parishes it will be a temporary temporal punishment for tolerating liberal AmChurch.
9. I have heard claims that fully half of the priests of the New Orleans Archdiocese are actually missing and unaccounted for. That is about as bad as it gets in the US.
10. What can a "lay run" parish or "priestless" parish do? Concentrate on social gospel stuff? How sad and fortunately, how very temporary. Maybe it is better to shutter such churches and yolk their parishioners pro tempore with parishes having priests.
11. Introduce third world firebrand priests from Asia, Africa and Latin America to handle the temporary priest shortage caused by liberal AmChurch.
All that having been said, I must sheepishly admit that you are missed when you are posting so rarely. Welcome back!
There were a lot of queers which were ordained in the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's.
THEY are the ones who are attempting to perpetuate the gay-club in the priesthood. See, e.g., the vacuous comments of the Pgh. seminary official who opined that 'usually, perversions don't happen, unless the seminarian is drinking heavily.'
His conclusion: nothing should change.
Yeah, Fr. Jim Wehner!! Maroon of the Month!!!
The distinction is this:
Homosexuality is a Grave Disorder.
It is NOT a disorder to be attracted to women (if you are a man,) nor men (if you are a woman.)
Gehr steh'?
Currently ordained men who keep good control of themselves will NOT be summarily tossed out.
But your comment shows us that you do not understand the term "disorder."
Mutatis mutandis, it's like schizophrenia--a disorder. Something is seriously wrong with the psyche.
Thus, it is a bar to Ordination--to which NO ONE has a right, by the way.
Ban Biblical higher criticism next! (And no, I'm not being sarcastic.)
I addressed the incorrectness of your comment and anyone who thinks they know the actual percentage of any group which commits child molestation is ignorant and spreading false information.
Most of the people here who quote these numbers need a stat and research methods course.
Geez, there was time when people understood simple English. What I said was "If the priest is celibate, he's not committing the sin of homosexuality." which means that if a priest was honoring his vow of celibacy and fondling no one, who cares what his prior orientation was. Obviously, if a priest is fondling boys, he is NOT celibate. Sheesh.
I did not quote a statistic, nor did I address the percentage. I merely pointed out that the statement I referred to was wrong.
The Catholic Church teaches that it is NOT a sin to "be homosexual."
Further, the Church does NOT teach that intercourse without conception is sinful.
Whoever the hell told you that crap has been reading Jack Chick tracts, which are about as reliable as Dan Rather.
Yeah, but...
The disorder of homosexuality is hardly limited to sexual acts. It includes a psychological outlook which is not compatible with "normal" manhood.
There's a lot more to this than choosing an orifice.
Thought you died.
I think that the "suspicion" stuff is paranoia, and you know it is, Sink. The prudent Sem chancellor will take into account a large number of factors. Expulsion may not happen in the first year/theologate.
It's "pattern of practice" that counts in the marginal cases.
If you'd get your mind off "functionally" you'd have a better grip on all of reality.
Moreover, not only was there active DIScouragement of straights--the sem. admission process was a "screening-out" process from the get-go; I think there was an artificial "holiness" screening which played right into the hands of the Gay Mafia once they got in place.
Easier to screen them IN and let the chips fall. You can always toss someone out before Ordination--but not after.
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.