Jesuit Official Rips Expected Ban on Gays

AP Religion ^ | 9/30/2005 | RACHEL ZOLL

[NormB]

Estimates of the numbers of gays in the priesthood vary from 25 percent to 50 percent. About one-third of the 42,500 U.S. priests are members of religious orders.

[counterpunch]

Why it happened I'd say is because of the declining numbers interested in a life with the Church in America. I think the Church pretty much took who they could, and have been covering up for them rather than exposing them out of a desperate attempt to keep the whole sinking ship above water. The rise of sensational journalism and the national media certainly contributed to their desperation to keep it quite over recent decades. I really think the Church has just been trying to keep their heads above water for a couple decades now.

[Rytwyng]

at some point their psychological dam would burst open -- perhaps due to the temptation they encounter from frequent unsupervised access to young boys with whom they are trusted

Perhaps the flashpoint occurred at confession. A homosexually tempted adolescent, or simply a confused one, goes to confession and vents his secret struggles to a gay priest. The gay priest is then, at best, is merely reminded of his own struggles, and at worst.......... Well, you get the picture.

I'm not knocking the confessional, mind you -- Luther desperately wanted to retain the confessional in Protestantism -- but I'm just being realistic about how it all could happen. Call it reason #2,744,379,336 why homosexuals should not be in the clergy.

[ElPatriota]

Thank you again, and you make much sense... and although I respect your point of view - very understanding in every aspect - I want other points of view. Here if FR, I see probably 3 or 4 angles to this. I want more. You say desperation to save the sinking ship.... but at WHAT PRICE?... you seem to imply, the CC, made a descicion to 'take what the could,' but WHO, made that decision? was everything just an accident... in the many places where this took place?...or is it something that was "agreed to?" and then, what about Rome?... they did not know this 'accomodation' was becoming widespread?

Again, Do you know of any BOOKS written on this? Thank you.

[massgopguy]

Boston College 38
Ball State 0

Outside of that, you got me?

A Jesuit gave my Dad and myself a ride up to Alumni Stadium from the St. John's Seminary parking area a few years back. Brand new Escalade with PINGS in the way back. Ah poverty.

[ninenot]

Tomas the terrible is no doubt in the eternal weeny roast, which is exactly where he belongs.

Not even we TT enthusiasts, or Wahhabists, are so, ah, cheeky as to consign individuals to Hell.

Frankly, I don't think the Irish are so presumptuous, either, but I will ping an Irish-heritage RC to get his opinion on the matter.

[ninenot]

Yes, Limbo was BS.

Really? You have an authoritative proclamation regarding the disposition of the souls of unbaptized infants? Please, share it with us!!

So was the prohibition against eating meat on Friday

It was a discipline--not BS.

Do you think that the Church has the authority to impose/require disciplines, or not?

Are you really Sinkspur, MM?

[ninenot]

I would add that there were homosexuals (active or not, it's irrelevant) in Seminary-rector/admissions slots, and in the Episcopacy, who thought, erroneously, that homosexuality was NOT a bar to Ordination.

Certainly in Boston, NYC, Milwaukee, LA/SFO--and other places.

[markedman]

"Really? You have an authoritative proclamation regarding the disposition of the souls of unbaptized infants? Please, share it with us!!"

There are hundreds of links on the subject but here is one that you should find illuminating.
http://www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=1647&issueID=365

As far as not eating meat on Friday, it is not about discipline as it is about penance and has been generally left up to local bishops.

http://catholicism.about.com/cs/lent/f/whynomeat04.htm

"Are you really Sinkspur, MM?"

No, I am indeed Markedman, Gunner's Mate Extraordinaire, as in "the Good Lord giveth, and Gunner's Mate's taketh away."

[markedman]

"Not even we TT enthusiasts, or Wahhabists, are so, ah, cheeky as to consign individuals to Hell.."

That is unless they eat meat on Friday or don't believe in the current fervor for seminary witch hunts.

[jb6]

I think a large part of the problem will solve itself as more and more convert to Orthodoxy.

[BlackElk]

Irish heritage Caucus reporting for duty.

I find it hard to believe that the best food available in heaven is cooked at an eternal weenie roast. Other than cuisine and a few onetime youths like Brigitte Bardot, why else would God have created France other than to see to it that the Church Triumphant (those in heaven for those poor denizens of Rio Linda) would enjoy French cuisine eternally as a mere part of the heavenly experience. (Occasional Viennee dishes such as Wienerschnitzel will also be allowed but French chefs have to carry the main burden of providng gustatory delight.

Oh, and St. Tomas de Torquemada (Torquing the sinful since before 1492) is right there at the head table of the Church Triumphant along with Cardinal Jiminez and others who practiced his noble profession, where they actually belong.

[BlackElk]

MM: You forgot the part from your homepage about being an "Abbie Hoffman Republican." Speaking of eternal weenie roasts, consider the case of Abbie Hoffman.......

[ninenot]

Q: St. Thomas Aquinas proposes a view that is different from that of St. Augustine. In what way does it change?

Father Gumpel: Indeed. St. Thomas and the Scholastics abandon St. Augustine’s theory that children who are not baptized go to hell, even if the latter is in a mitigated form, and construct an intermediate form, known as “limbo.” It is a theological construction, to explain the situation of human beings who die and are not in heaven.

Q: Has this theory of limbo ever been presented by the Church as a matter of faith?

Father Gumpel: In 1954 I carried out an exhaustive study, in which I examined all the arguments in favor of the thesis expressed by the infallible magisterium done with authority. I studied all the ecumenical councils, and I came to the conclusion that “limbo” is not an obligatory answer.

Found here (the rest of the article is interesting, as well): http://www.ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/ZLIMBO.HTM

You stated that 'Limbo is BS.' I replied that you should cite an authoritative document denying Limbo.

You come back with an article from America, a notoriously unreliable source of "definition" in the Roman Catholic church, in which the author states, clearly, that there IS no definitive answer.

You may state that 'Limbo is BS,' but you're a step further than Zenit's interviewee, who happens to be an expert on the topic.

Try again, this time for target, not range: cite a DEFINITIVE statement with the authority of the Church behind it that abrogates Limbo.

[DBeers]

Have you _ever_ had an independent thought in your life? Yes, Limbo was BS. So was the prohibition against eating meat on Friday. You really are scary: "...but I was just following orders..."

I have had and continue to have independent thoughts, however, submission of intellect to the authentic teaching of the Church requires one to set aside independent thought that contradicts or premises action that would contravene what the Church teaches authentically and authoritatively. Scary? Faith completely in the Church Christ established...

I note that the more specific you get the more objectively obvious it is that you are in error -please continue...

[Rocketman]

Your sense about this is absolutely correct when a relgion that preaches salvation becomes generational -- and by that I mean: Bless God my grandfather converted back in 1915 in a revival meeting and he saw the light. And so his children attended because they were following somewhat in his steps, (In most cases they receive only a light touch of what grampa had.) And then the grandchildren go because it has now become a family tradition. "Bless God, all Jones go to this salvation preaching church, bless grampa's sweet name."

And though this and other outward things are done in the greatest majority of cases there is in fact no life changing experiance in these followers any more.

We can say the same thing of institutional churches and their members whos families have gone to said denomination for hundreds of years. And incidentally these empty suit evangelicals and cardboard fundamentalists and phariseical pentecostal can each see this exact thing in those who they consider their spiritual subordinates

As for your recognition of things being different in california where there is not a strong social tie between God America and apple pie -- like in the bible belt and the midwest

You are abcsolutely correct --

I grew up in New York, 26 miles out from New York City and other than Devote Roman Catholics and Devout Jews and a handful of old line denominations no body went to church. except for Christmas and easter. Within this the area there were virtually no fundamentalists churches, there were a few evangelical churches I remember from the 1970's but they had in them mostly with old people. The pentecostal churches were an enthnic thing among hispanics and blacks.

So in 1972 when sovereignly between 50-70 people all "Got Saved" within a few months of each other -- there was no place to go to church. These people had to form their own house meetings in Bronxville, Harrison, Rye, and two uears later a 30-40 of these people converged on a little pentecostal church in silverlake new york. We would travel for hours to go to meetings in New Jersey and out on long island.

There was a hunger of God in those people that I have not seen anywhere else. My first eye opening experiance was in Bible school where I expected to meet a bunch of people that loved God with all theri hearts and soul -- that waa hardly the case.

My second eye opener was when I moved to the south to alexandria virginia where there were churches on every corner but the people in them were generational beleivers. Who wallowed in sin and unbelief.

And unfortunately things have been spiraling down at a steep angle in the 25 years since then.

I would recomend the following website:

http://alaskandreams.net/ekklesia/

It has many articles with hard hitting truth on current issues rocking the church today, end time prophecy, word studies in greek, hebrew, and Latin, and coverage of the writings of the early church in the first few centuries marking the early churches decent from grace and their loss of gifts and operations of the spirit.

Lord Bless You.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Well well well. Sincere Man got zotted.

[DBeers]

I think they should let priests get married. Even gay priests.

I'm not a real good Catholic : )

Maybe not a real good homosexual activist either ;)

Please explain how you are a Catholic yet not a Christian? I suspect you are either quite confused or simply trolling...

The Christian Complex

---

To: TitansAFC

I'm sorry, I don't agree with you. I am not a Christian, but I respect your faith.

96 posted on 05/09/2005 6:16:28 AM PDT by conserv13

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

[conserv13]

I'm sorry, I don't agree with you. I am not a Christian, but I respect your faith.

[DBeers]

FYI # 277

[conserv13]

I was raised Catholic but I don't believe in it anymore.

[spunkets]

"Homosexuality was classified as a mental disease prior to DSM IV, (or III). When it was dropped due to political, NOT MEDICAL, reasons. This is highly documented and you'll find the details in the Homsexual Agenda list

I went over that before with Scripter here some time back. I don't agree it was political. It was medical. There is no medical justification for the claim it's a disease whatsoever. That's why the docs dumped the claim. There's no other reason.