Posted on 09/24/2005 1:33:27 PM PDT by NYer
News reports surrounding the review of Roman Catholic seminaries in the United States that the Vatican has organized have focused on the possibility that Rome plans to bar gay men from ordination to the priesthood, regardless of their readiness to remain faithful to their pledge of celibacy.
Such a ban would have serious consequences, of course. It would reverberate far beyond the gay candidates for ordination whom it might directly affect and even beyond the celibate gay priests who would inevitably take it as a judgment on their own calling and years of service.
In fact, the Catholic Church's moral stance on same-sex attraction and sexual activity may well prove to be a touchstone issue for the next generation of Catholics' attitudes toward church authority, just as the renewed papal condemnation of contraception proved to be for Catholics in the 1970's and 80's.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
It is not an issue of "regulation" by an outward effort but about self confession and the spiritual, psychological state in self revelation by those in the Priesthood.
While, yes, standards are being revised for admission to Seminaries, any applicant who would conceal a homosexual identity in the admissions and even later enrollment process (if that happened), would be by that process already admitting a problematic pscyhology in that act of concealment alone.
The standards are there and have been but have been abused and ignored and manipulated to include homosexuals (and homosexual activity) in the Priesthood in defiance of the Catholic Church and scriptural definition of what homosexuality is. I think that Pope Benedict has just righted the terrible confusion that was allowed under Pope John Paul, bless him -- but in this important area, he did not lead.
Yes. I think it's a very good anticipation that homosexuals will not be admitted to seminaries and therefore ordained as Priests, and that to lose whatever percentage, if they are homosexuals, is a very good improvement.
Yep, exactly. They regard mere discussions about this issue as "hate speech."
Personally, I am eager for legislation (if that's what it takes and it looks like it does) to prevent homosexual "hate speech" about others, specifically, about Catholics and the Catholic Church...well, now that I think about it, about (all) Christians.
You have laid out a description that is both morally and religiously sound, while avoiding the hysteria which so often follows this topic. Kudos.
Well, the entire "inate" defense as to homosexuality represents mere social, liberal reconditioning, not academic truth. There's no proven biological process yet identified (if ever) that supports the "inate" issue as to homosexuality.
It is so far identified as behavioral, as are other manifestations of obsessive-compulsive and/or even psychotic disorders, but instead wrongly instructed by way of liberal, social ideology alone to be "inate."
Calling it so does not prove it so, in the realm of scientific process. The entire approach ("homosexuality is inate, people can't chose or control who they are" line of argument) is entirely IDEOLOGICAL in nature, by definition, mere ideology being instructed without scientific substantion, without empirical proof.
And, without empirical proof, it remains suggestion, conjecture, or, plainly for those who have some need to promote this issue, an act of "wishful thinking."
Unfortunately, the wishfully-thoughtout ideology has been allowed to be promoted through our public educational system but it remains unsubstantiated as to fact.
ted kennedy, dick durbin and john kerry, and nancy pelosi will not stand for this.. (hehe)
And, another thing, the instruction of issue here by Pope Benedict is religious instruction in keeping with Christian and Judeo-Christian definitions and beliefs. It's a decision to affect the faith, the Catholic faith, the Church and not one for debate with the NYTimes and others who are not Christian, to be specific.
I'm sorta curious why the NYT just doesn't come right out and say "we disbelieve the word of God" and get it over with, because their argument is with Scripture and Christianity, more than anything.
The nature of the molestation needs to be taken into consideration...and yes, the Pope HAS "said something about this" by this very instruction.
The only "proof" I have is my cousin. He's a twin, so he has had extremely similar experiences to his brother. They played the same sports, went to the same schools, dated some of the same girls (!) but I've known he was "different" since before I could understand quite why. At 10 or 11 his twin claims he knew his brother was gay. It would take another 10 or so years for the gay twin to figure it out. (FYI, they live in a very conservative family and community, so there was not social or cultural push to be gay. There was also no abuse according to either which would figure into the equation.) I have viewed homosexuality very differently ever since I learned of this man's predilictions.
Human sexuality and development are so complex that we cannot fully comprehend the factors which influence each. Maybe there is some combination of inborn and innate factors involved in homosexuality.
Since we know that a gay gene is nonexistent, thus homosexuals aren't born that way as is in race, sex, facial characteristics, etc, nor is it a fixed identity but a chosen behavior, chances are that homosexual priests will not refrain from their chosen behavior. If that was the case no one would know of their existence. The fact that gay priests are complaining against the Vatican's review is an indication that their behavior hasn't been or won't be stopped, and at some point they will be inclined to commit homosexual acts.
Even the leftist writer and lesbian activist Camille Paglia has said: "Homosexuality is not 'normal.' On the contrary, it is a challenge to the norm" Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction "No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous "homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.”
"I don't think "Same sex attraction" is the politically correct term. Quite the contrary."
It looks to me like a politically correct counter-initiative to the spread of the more accurate term, "same-sex attraction disorder."
The one term makes it clear that such attraction is fundamentally disordered, the other leaves room to say, "Not that there's anything wrong with that."
"homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.”
In men, it is a maladaptive response to a molestation or seduction in the pre-adult years. That is, a mental disorder.
" There was also no abuse according to either which would figure into the equation"
There was. It just hasn't come to light.
Not every homosexual suffers from mental disorder. Although someone might be inclined to say that.
"Not every homosexual suffers from mental disorder."
Same-sex attraction disorder *is* a mental disorder. Your statement makes as much sense as saying, "Not every schizophrenic suffers from mental disorder."
Fine, call it what you want. They don't have a place in the Catholic Church.
If the Church found they employed doctors that performed abortions on the side -the Church would do without them... The Church is truth not compromise -those that want compromise can check out the many protestant flavors and find one that tickles thier fancy...
As has been written regarding the Church -The Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail Against It
-the sky not only is not falling it will not fall... The Church does not need disordered clergy that are predisposed to intrinsically evil activities...
Excuse me, but a "GAY" priest is not celibate. GAY infers taking part IN the lifestyle. Someone with a homosexual orientation, but does not engage in homosexual activity is NOT "GAY"! That being said, a man with a homosexual orientation should NOT be considered for the priesthood, mainly because by living in a community of men, he is being placed in a near occasion of sin. He needs to be in a place where he is not tempted on a daily basis.
They should also ban any "heterosexual" priest who even comtemplates sex with a woman.
Matthew 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
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.