Posted on 09/22/2005 6:06:19 PM PDT by BIRDS
"Expected Vatican Ban Roils American Church" Sep 22 4:15 PM US/Eastern
Word that a soon-to-be-released Vatican document will signal homosexuals are unwelcome in Roman Catholic seminaries even if they are celibate has devastated gay clergy _ and raised doubts among conservatives about whether an outright ban can be enforced.
A Vatican official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the document has not been released, said Thursday that the upcoming "instruction" from the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education will reaffirm the church's belief that homosexuals should not be ordained.
In recent decades, Vatican officials have stated several times that gays should not become priests because their sexual orientation is "intrinsically disordered" and makes them unsuitable for ministry.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Thanks. Interesting read.
sect (sèkt) noun
1.A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.
2.A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination.
3.A small faction united by common interests or beliefs.
[Middle English secte, from Old French, from Latin secta, course, school of thought, from feminine past participle of sequì, to follow.]
Thou shalt not steal.
That's about the easiest biblical question anyone has ever asked me.
How do you know your homosexual if your celibate. Seems like a conflict of terms.
Maybe you missed my point. There is no specific mention of 401k's in the Bible, just as there is no specific mention of the ordination of homosexual priests. But just as we can reasonably conclude from the Scriptural admonition against stealing that embezzling from 401k's is wrong, we can also conclude from Scriptural admonitions against sodomy that the ordination of priests with same-sex attraction is wrong.
Just because something isn't explicitly mentioned in Scripture doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong.
I expect if you find yourself having a moment or two of serious sexual thoughts or feelings towards a person of the same sex, never experiencing the same feelings towards the opposite sex....you might be a homosexual.
GOOD FOR THE VATICAN!
GOOD FOR THE POPE!
HURRAH!!!!
Sanity at last!!!!
Anyone with that kind of mental disorder is not fit to be the spiritual shepherd of a congregation.
Um...no. People inherently have sinful thoughts so that's quite ridiculous. I think the Catholic Church's time would be better spent keeping the priests from not having sex with males under 18.
Nope. We can't conclude that at all. We can conclude that acting on same attraction, or any other lustful desire outside of marriage is wrong. From that we can conclude that ordaining a homosexual who has engaged in homosexual activity is wrong, but we certainly cannot conclude that merely having thought about it disqualifies one.
If gays had behaved well as priest, who could object to their ordination? But they've had centuries to live up to their vows of celibacy and in the last couple of decades they not only failed but flaunted their gayness in ascts of despicable depravity. Homosexuality became their new god taking precedence over the God of the Bible and the Faith.
Let them start their own church.....The Church of the .....well, I'm not going there, but you can imagine.
Ratzinger Rocks! Pope Benedict rocks! Yippee!
Amen and amen to that! Long live Pope Benedict XVI.
wrong we can very much deny the position of priesthood to a self identified homosexual.
Priests are leaders of the flock. It is the same as holding a homosexual as a public example of "normal". Homosexuality is NOT a normal choice.
This is the RIGHT decision for EVERY church.
A celibate homosexual is a gay man who has decided not to have sex and lives up to his decision. Same as a heterosexual celibate....who may love and desire women but gives up sex for the Faith.
Do you think priests are born celebates? Hardly. It's a sacrifice and often a huge struggle.
Your definition is circular. Homosexual and gay refer to people who choose to engage in sexually perverse behaviors. By definition they are not celibate.
My dad has a friend who is gay and some time ago went into the seminary, but only to drop out later. (Dad used to work for a seiminary, that is how he got to know him) The man is celibate. He has no partners, nothing. He is a very gentle, thoughtful man, who loves the Lord a great deal. My dad thinks the man is a saint.
I caution people here to be careful because there could be many struggling homosexuals who consider joining the church and get turned off by hateful remarks. Remember, Christ loves them as much as He loves you and I.
One quick story about my dad. There was an alumnae celebration at the seminary, (my dad was in charge of it) and a man called and asked if he could come. Dad was very perplexed... "of course you can come". The man replied, "well I'm gay". My dad said he could still come.
Later he found out, the man repented on his death bed and rec'd the last rites.... (the man had confided to a friend which later got back to dad, that he repented because of my father's kindness and witness to the catholic faith.
Just for the record, I'm not advocating homosexuality, I'm just saying that Christ commanded us to love our neighbors, even when they are in error. Our love for them is the greatest way to preach the gospel of Christ.
Why do I have a feeling I'm going to receive hate mail!
hogwash! The priest is a person held to a higher example and a leader. A position of priesthood is a leadership and example position.
Homosexuals have no place as a moral example celebate or otherwise.
Besides according to the catholic faith the Pope has "infalibility" on his side. Thus catholic seminarians MUST accept this directive as part of the faith. If the homosexuals want a cafeteria faith they are free to go to the episcopal faith.
Because you have fallen into the liberal trap of equating homsexuality with immutable trates like left-handedness.
Homosexuality is filthy perverted behavior and nothing more. How and why they came to engage in that behavior is best left to psychiatrists whos study pornography, arson and other forms of sexual deviancy.
Now you've confused me. Does that mean that when they're not engaging in sexually perverse behaviors they're not gay?
No hate mail from me. I had several gay friends in San Francisco who struggled with celibacy and succeeded..their celibacy made them no less gay, as they still felt drawn to attractive men.
IMO, anyone who has intense urgings and yearnings to engage in sin and overcomes them is a strong and worthy person. Could be any sin and any man or woman. A lot of straight men are drawn to easy-to-get pornography. Some succeed in overcoming the compulsion.
A prominent theatre fellow I know in Los Angeles looked and sounded gay and gay men assumed that he was one of them. No. He had a gorgous and famous wife to whom he was entirely devoted, children whom he adored, and led an exemplary life. Though he seemed more gay than those famous Queer Eye guys, his heart was strong and his intentions noble.
Which brings up the subject of gays who "convert" with help from the (alleged) Christian community. Would their voices automatically change? Their gestures look less poofy? Or? If they renounce their gayness, would the Christian community accept them? I really do wonder.
But this is a thread about the Catholic Church. Will the Church accept celibate gay priests? Should it?
Yes, in my opinion and as I wrote yesterday here, the issue about homosexuality is that it represents sin and unless the sin is renounced, the sin remains and continues to effect sinfully.
And yet that man could not rebuke the idea of himself as "a homosexual," did not reject homosexuality but instead found it necessary to reject the Priesthood, to rebuke his vows of ordaination.
There are many, MANY instances throughout human history of "gentle, thoughtful (men) (and women)" in societies who have been responsible for great evil. And yet they are thoughtful, kind, quiet and well mannered...
It isn't a case of whether or not someone is "thoughtful" or any other adopted behavior but whether or not they are living with or without wilful acceptance of a sinful condition, situation, behavior.
That one fellow you write about, as I say again, chose to reject the Church and his own vows rather than reject the sin. I think that's all that anyone need know about the man in relationship to the Priesthood.
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.