Posted on 10/07/2005 5:26:14 AM PDT by Abathar
Well said. The only part you forgot is that "these reports were gathered from respectable press accounts which were discussed over several bottles of booze at dinner."
COMMON SENSE PRIZE POST!!!
Same here, I second your sentiments and knowledge.
See above. I disagree--it's a mental disorder, regardless of the gerrymandering by the American Psychiatric Ass'n.
Looks to be rumor being repeated as though news, by hopefuls.
No ban on gays expected in Vatican document; will advise 'prudential judgement'
National Catholic Reporter ^ | Friday Oct. 7, 2005 at 8:27 a.m. CDT | John L. Allen, Jr.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1498416/posts
Here's an interesting article:
http://www.winonadailynews.com/articles/2005/10/08/news/2news8.txt
Note that the shrinks state that 'the [candidate] is just fine, he's not a homosexual, he's stable...'
If you've read the stories on this guy, you'll find that 1) there are credible allegations of ephebophilia/homosexuality; and 2) the priest "cried a lot" during confessions, Masses, prayer, etc.
IOW, the shrinks were dead wrong. He WAS a homosexual and he was NOT "stable." But I repeat myself.
Read the link I just posted. It'll cheer you up.
Check out the link I just posted above.
From little jeremiah's link"
"A forthcoming Vatican document on homosexuals in seminaries will not demand an absolute ban, a senior Vatican official told NCR Oct. 7, but will insist that seminary officials exercise "prudential judgment" that gay candidates should not be admitted in three cases.
Those three cases are:
If candidates have not demonstrated a capacity to live celibate lives for at least three years;
If they are part of a "gay culture," for example, attending gay pride rallies (a point, the official said, which applies both to professors at seminaries as well as students);
If their homosexual orientation is sufficiently "strong, permanent and univocal" as to make an all-male environment a risk.
In any case, the Vatican official said, whether or not these criteria exclude a particular candidate is a judgment that must be made in the context of individual spiritual direction, rather than by applying a rigid litmus test."
Guidelines, which ought to have been obvious.
SHOULD this be accurate, it's #2 which is most interesting; not only because there's a hint about the future of Sem profs who are rah-rah-queer types--but in addition, because 'participating in "gay culture"' will be a clear bar, especially if applied with any common sense.
EG, does the Seminarian hang around queer bars? Enjoy shopping for household decorative items? Spend inordinate time worrying about fashion, both personal and household?
you get the drift...
Oh I totally agree. That is my mantra, that these kinds of perversion are mental disorders. But it is also a behavior, in the same way that pyromania is a mental disorder and a behavior. The important point is that it's not an immutable characteristic like left-handedness that the PC crowd want us to believe.
Sure Gay Priests, why not, it has work well so far.
We need Gay Scout leaders too, wandering off into the woods with our children.
Not!
Well, I don't know if they are necessarily obvious before they are made public.
My opinion is that there shouldn't be gay priests allowed at all, regardless of celibacy. I disagree with those posters who find it necessary that one actually practice the act before being classed a homosexual, I believe that what is in the mind is what counts.
That being said, I am sure that there have been many very fine priests who have been gay.
**Gay men can be priests if celibate**
Huh? This sounds like propaganda from the left.
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.