Gay men can be Catholic priests if celibate-paper

Reuters ^ | October 7, 2005 | Philip Pullella

[West Coast Conservative]

The Vatican will allow gay men into the priesthood if they can show they have been celibate for at least three years, leading Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera reported on Friday.

But it said the Vatican will ban men who "publicly manifest their homosexuality" or show an "overwhelming attraction" to homosexual culture "even if it is only intellectually."

The Vatican views on gay priests are contained in a secret 16-page document which is expected to be released next month.

The document, an "instruction" by the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education, covers one of the most sensitive issues in the Roman Catholic Church.

Officials at the Congregation for Catholic Education and the Vatican press office could not be reached for immediate comment.

The Corriere report said: "Candidates who show a homosexual tendency will not be allowed into the priesthood unless they can demonstrate that they have been able to remain chaste for at least three years."

Media reports last month, primarily in the United States, said the document would bar all gay men from being ordained priests, even those who are celibate.

Those reports caused concerns in many quarters in the Church that many good men would be excluded by a total ban.

The Church teaches that homosexuality is not a sin but that homosexual acts are, and it expects all priests, whether homosexual or heterosexual, to remain celibate.

Corriere and the weekly Panorama magazine both reported on Friday that Pope Benedict had approved the document this summer.

Panorama said its release would be accompanied by a written explanation by "an internationally known psychologist."

[adiaireton8]

Exceptions do not make the rule. The fact that people with this disorder are often able to do many priestly duties well does not mean that such persons with this disorder should be ordained. That would be a non sequitur.

-A8

[SoothingDave]

If what is being reported from two different sources today is true, it apparently is not.

Two sources? I've seen two articles, but both come from English-language media talking about one Italian paper's story from "secret" memo.

SD

[trisham]

You have no idea what it was like being at a major secular university and turning to "my" church for help against all the higher criticism and being told instead to get out (and on a holy day at that, which mean I had to go immediately to church after being told this). You have no idea how bad and wicked I was made to feel because I "wasn't a real Catholic" because my conscience would not allow me to jettison Genesis and Jonah while hypocritically adding new literalisms.

*************

I'm sorry you had such a terrible experience. Priests are human, and some are better than others for the task. Even the best of them can make mistakes.

[wideawake]

Fair enough. Of course, the sense we are discussing is precisely usage in a narrow ecclesiastical context.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I'm sorry you ran into some liberal priests who tried to "enlighten" you on your "error" in taking the Bible literally. But that's no reason to inveigh against an entire religion and to develop wild conspiracy theories. (And invisioning your own plight as that of the generic American "redneck" is just a tad on the megalomaniacal side.)

I don't think he was liberal. I think that's just where the Catholic Church stands.

It would be harder to inveigh against the entire Catholic religion if practically every Catholic on this site didn't consider it a personal duty to debunk the Bible as mythology.

And I would like to know why the cultural belief of rednecks is inherently more un-Catholic than the post-Biblical supernaturalisms of the peasant masses of traditionally Catholic groups. St. George could slay a dragon but the Red Sea didn't part???

Please explain to me why traditionally Catholic ethnic groups can get away with everything while I couldn't even get away with believing the Bible is inerrant.

[zencat]

Follow Christ. The rest is details, and at worst obfuscation.

"Every day we weep for the loss of money, property, ourselves, and loved ones. Yet, if for one moment we would weep, in earnest, for the truth of Christ, certainly we would attain it."

[sinkspur]

Then why are you so against it? Why do you treat it like an inherently anti-Catholic poison?

I don't consider biblical literalism to be anti-Catholic; I consider it to be anti-intellectual. Jonah in the belly of a big fish for three days is one example of how one must resort to "it was a miracle" to explain something that can easily be explained by realizing the story is just that: a story.

Those who maintain biblical literalism seem unable to allow even the smallest tittle in Scripture to be explained any other way, lest their entire house of cards collapse. Their defense of the literalness of Balaam's ass obscures the truth behind Balaam's ass.

That's why I rarely get into a discussion about biblical literalism because I and the biblical literalist start from irreconcilable positions.

I'm sorry I got into this one because it seems as if you see your worth as a human being tied up in your belief in biblical literalism.

I really mean no offense, but I just don't get it.

Biblical literalism accepts only one explanation for a particular occurrence in Scripture, whereas biblical historicism is always open to a better explanation of the event, since a better explanation can only enhance the biblical truth behind the occurrence.

As a Catholic, you are free to believe in biblical literalism. However, you should not be surprised if other Catholics do not accept that particular approach to Scripture.

You should not be sent into fits of rage because someone disagrees with you about biblical literalism.

[trisham]

Yes, but those converts 1)had to initiate the process themselves and 2)are over-educated high-@ssed individuals who won't embarrass your Church (which can't stand the thought of American white trash but thinks illiterate Hispanics in New Mexico who crucify themselves are just darling little things).

Your Church has no use for and would be embarrassed by simple people who believe the universe was created in six days. Now, liquefying blood or bilocation or saints who slew dragons are a different matter!

**************

Perhaps you should take a break. This kind of anger isn't good for anyone.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Follow Christ. The rest is details, and at worst obfuscation.

Sorry, but I'm no longer a chr*stian.

Fundamentalist Protestantism isn't real chr*stianity, and the churches that are afraid of the words of "their own" Bible, so what's the point?

When the time came to make a choice between the Bible and Chr*st, I made my choice. G-d grant others who face the same choice will choose likewise.

[sinkspur]

John Allen's story is based on one of his sources inside the Vatican. His source came forward because the Italian newspaper story is not complete.

[SoothingDave]

I don't think he was liberal. I think that's just where the Catholic Church stands.

Then, honestly, I don't think you have been listening to anything any other Catholic has said here. You are judging the entire thing based on your one experience.

No one was going to make you stand up and pledge that you did not believe in a literal 6 day creation. You were free to receive the sacraments and believe what you wanted. That is what we are telling you. No priest or parish or could make you dis-believe in your literalist interpretation.

It would be harder to inveigh against the entire Catholic religion if practically every Catholic on this site didn't consider it a personal duty to debunk the Bible as mythology.

I think all you have is a hammer, so everything you see looks like a nail. Catholics do much more around here than debate with fundamentalists over creation.

And I would like to know why the cultural belief of rednecks is inherently more un-Catholic than the post-Biblical supernaturalisms of the peasant masses of traditionally Catholic groups. St. George could slay a dragon but the Red Sea didn't part???

Please explain to me why traditionally Catholic ethnic groups can get away with everything while I couldn't even get away with believing the Bible is inerrant.

It's about you. It's not about some phantom "redneck masses" of whom you are the chosen leader. This is a red herring. You are completely free to be a Catholic and believe in a literal interpretation. I don't understand why you would even bring it up for your priest's approval.

SD

[Antoninus]

Uh, no it's not. There have been celibate homosexuals in the priesthood throughout the history of the Church.

Perhaps there have been. But the Church has NEVER officially sanctioned the ordination those with same sex attraction disorder. Indeed, we've had a "do ask, do tell, do punish" policy. Recall:

"In that year [A.D. 528] some of the bishops from various provinces were accused of living immorally in matters of the flesh and of homosexual practices. Amongst them was Isaiah, bishop of Rhodes, an ex-praefectus vigilum at Constantinople, and likewise the bishop from Diospolis in Thrace, named Alexander. In accordance with a sacred ordinance they were brought to Constantinople and were examined and condemned by Victor, the city prefect, who punished them: he tortured Isaiah severely and exiled him and he amputated Alexander's genitals and paraded him around on a litter. The emperor [Justinian] immediately decreed that those detected in pederasty should have their genitals amputated. At that time, many homosexuals were arrested and died after having their genitals amputated. From then on there was fear amongst those afflicted with homosexual lust."
--The Chronicle of John Malalas

[sinkspur]

St. George could slay a dragon but the Red Sea didn't part???

St. George "slaying a dragon" is also an allegorical story. There was no literal "dragon."

Source.

[sitetest]

Dear sinkspur,

It would be extremely regrettable if Mr. Allen (the man who insisted that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger would remain merely a cardinal) were completely correct in this case.

It would be better to do nothing than to give official papal sanction to ordaining homosexual men.


sitetest

[sinkspur]

When the time came to make a choice between the Bible and Chr*st, I made my choice. G-d grant others who face the same choice will choose likewise.

That you felt you had to do this indicates you don't understand either the Bible OR Christ very well.

[adiaireton8]

When the time came to make a choice between the Bible and Chr*st, I made my choice.

Thinking that you had to choose between them should have been your first clue that somewhere you had made a serious mistake.

-A8

[SoothingDave]

St. George "slaying a dragon" is also an allegorical story. There was no literal "dragon."

Next thing you'll try to tell us that there never were any snakes in Ireland.

SD

[NJ_gent]

"in the absence of an Objective G-d all "morality" is nothing but subjective hang-ups of either individuals or societies?"

You say that as though it's not the same thing with a god in the picture. How many devotely religious people have murdered how many others? Religious belief can help guide an individual, but it's by no means an automatic pass to morality. 'Thou shalt not kill' is subjective at best. Does it apply when someone has a gun to your head? When they're part of an army invading your country? When they have a bomb strapped to their chest? 'Thou shalt not steal' seems objective enough. However, what about the poor man who steals medicine for his dying wife? Is he heading to Hell for that one? Line up 10 different religious people and I'll bet you'll get at least three different answers. The moral choice depends entirely on the situation, and not every situation is directly addressed by religious texts. In that case, you're looking inside for the answer; which is precisely what non-religious people do.

All people have a sense of moral guidance. Whether that comes from God or is simply a built-in feature of intellect is a philosophical debate we could carry on 'til the end of time. What's not debatable is that there are individuals who are religious who have poor morals and individuals who are not religious who live lives Christ Himself would be proud of. Religious beliefs are what those who believe in them make of them. Any individual can have their system of beliefs twisted in such a way that they believe they're doing the 'right' thing even as they're commiting the worst acts imaginable.

As for how the word 'morality' is defined, Merriam-Webster says that it is:

"2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct"

[Zionist Conspirator]

I don't consider biblical literalism to be anti-Catholic; I consider it to be anti-intellectual.

But since Catholicism is only for intellectuals, it comes to the same thing.

Jonah in the belly of a big fish for three days is one example of how one must resort to "it was a miracle"

Goodness knows G-d never performs miracles--the Jewish G-d, anyway. Now Mary on the other hand performs them all the time!

to explain something that can easily be explained by realizing the story is just that: a story.

Of course you'd never say that about any of the stories about J*sus. That's because you're a theological anti-Semite and a hypocrite. I hope the J*sus Seminar rips your "new testament" to shreds.

Those who maintain biblical literalism seem unable to allow even the smallest tittle in Scripture to be explained any other way, lest their entire house of cards collapse. Their defense of the literalness of Balaam's ass obscures the truth behind Balaam's ass.

I doubt very seriously if you even know the story of Balaam's ass. After all, to you it was just another symbol of J*sus.

I'm sorry I got into this one because it seems as if you see your worth as a human being tied up in your belief in biblical literalism.

Well, it does hurt that Catholics never object to post-Biblical miracle stories or superstitions but only to ones in the "old testament."

I really mean no offense, but I just don't get it.

No you don't.

As a Catholic, you are free to believe in biblical literalism.

Sorry. No longer Catholic or chr*stian. I at least owe your church thanks for that.

However, you should not be surprised if other Catholics do not accept that particular approach to Scripture.

You should not be sent into fits of rage because someone disagrees with you about biblical literalism.

I am thrown into fits of rage only by hypocrisy, such as your acceptance like any Southern Baptist that a "miracle" occurred which lifted J*sus out of the ground but that nothing in the "old testament" could have actually happened becaue the Jewish G-d isn't capable of performing miracles. Sorry, but I see no difference between this attitude and that of leftist hypocrites who make fun of Creationists while creaming in their pants over the aboriginal dreamtime. It's just that for you Catholics Hispanic and Irish peasants are the "aborigines."

But you're incapable of understanding this or even of recognizing your own hypocrisy, so never mind. Too much of an intellectual, I suppose.

[zencat]

Sorry, but I'm no longer a chr*stian.

Fundamentalist Protestantism isn't real chr*stianity, and the churches that are afraid of the words of "their own" Bible, so what's the point?

Agreed. I'm the furthest thing from a Fundamentalist Protestant that one can imagine. Have never belonged to a church and many may consider me a heretic. The literal text of the Bible has no special meaning to me. However, the message of Christ is filled with meaning. 2,000+ years after his death we are still discussing it, and the powerful effect it has had on our history, humanity and our own personal lives.