Replies

Does anyone know if the Evangelical Churches ban gay men from their seminaries? Or is this 'unique' to the Catholic, and I would imagine the Orthodox Churches. If so, why isnt' the NYT taking them to task?

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

Evangelicals ban anyone indicating a proclivity toward homosexuality from participating in any form of leadership (most give personality tests, ask lots of questions and run background checks on prospects); answer to second question - "Why isn't the NYT taking them to task?" - they do but in a much more pernicious way as a number of so-called Catholics work at NYT but they most likely would never hire an evangelical protestant.

Does anyone know if the Evangelical Churches ban gay men from their seminaries?

Given evangelicals' views on practicing homosexuals, and the lack of a celibacy requirement for closeted homosexuals to hide behind, whether evangelical seminaries outright ban them or not, there aren't a whole lot that find their way into said seminaries.

So-called "moderate" seminaries, however, are another story. And since, in some mainstream Protestant churches (e.g., my own United Methodist Church), there are liberal as well as evangelical wings, it's not unheard of for places like Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary (NOT an evangelical institution) to host pagan mock-communions, let alone give a pass to practicing homosexuals.

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.

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.”

"Such a ban would have serious consequences...."

Yes, it would have serious consequences. Homosexuals in seminaries have been driving young men away from priesthood. Banning homosexuals and removing this obstacle to vocations will give us a surge in numbers for new priests.

My wife, who is a conservative Catholic like me, surprised me by disagreeing with the nature of this initiative by Rome. Her line of thinking was that there a man with homosexual orientation who does not consent to his temptation is as honorable a priest as the heterosexual who also resists temptation. She went on about heterosexual priests who womanize or don't belive in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and how this it too heavy-handed. I was a bit surprised, and in understanding that Christ judges each man and woman individually, I understood her reservation. However, in response, I made one point that she could not disagree with:

It's quite possible that Christ does not call homosexuals (even honorable, holy men) to the priesthood. Period. Much like the Church teaches that Christ does not call women to the priesthood, either. This stopped her in her tracks. She had to agree. Since priesthood is a privelege, not a right, there is, in my opinion, enough evidence to support that homosexuals are not called to be priests, in the same way that a eunuch is not called to be married.