Posted on 10/17/2005 3:56:56 PM PDT by tuesday afternoon
That hasn't been done, and it should be and likely will be.
But, there are many homosexuals in the priesthood who are celibate. There is no chance they will be asked to leave.
Yes.
The question isn't dependent upon "what works for heterosexuals will work for homosexuals" or any sort of parallel consideration here between these two issues, BUT it IS about the disorded thinking that homosexuality represents.
And the dishonesty involved in those who "hide" their homosexuality inorder to gain entry to the seminaries and the priesthood later, in defiance of all that is holy about the vows they allegedly swear to respect (but do not given the persistence of their affiliations).
The key "proof" here is confession. A person who does not confess homosexuality is hiding something significant as to their character, morality and religious state. It may be fine socially in some contemporary societies and cultures to do so (as in, "who's business is it," or even, "it's fine, do what you want"), BUT, in relationship to the Priesthood, it's a defiance of trust, a serious moral failing to attempt to manipulate vows (and scripture itself) inorder to self satisfy.
The question I'd have is why would anyone who was homosexual want to be in the Priesthood? What's the motivation?
That's what I thought. I wouldn't even begin to know where to look to even find the name of that device.
Yes, there is a chance they will be asked to leave.
If they're continuing after their vows to identify with and as homosexuals, they are in defiance of their vows of chastity, and moreso, defying the instruction of scripture about homosexuality.
What doo you think the chance is that the Pope will allow homosexuals into seminaries who have been celibate for three years?
My point is this guy is saying thay should try to cull pedophiles, but not homosexuals because they have no lab test for homosexuality. This implies they have a test for pedophiles, which is nonsense. This is the "Who says A, must say B" rule of logic.
The church should be seeking to exclude both. Sexual deviants will commit crimes of opportunity regardless of sexual orientation and should not be in the priesthood.
Considering the worship of the nubile young male form in homosexual erotica, even considering trying to distinguish homosexuals from pedophiles is just make believe busywork for psychologists and psychiatrists.
Unmarried priests is idiotic, and a blaspheme against the God of the jews, who is the God of Jesus, who is the Lord of Christians. Without marriage by priests, there would not have been a John the Baptizer to proclaim the arrival of the Messiah. I am sorry, but the Catholics are wrong on requiring chastity for Priests and Nuns, it denies the basic humanity of people, and mocks Gods command in Genesis.
The experts already helped a lot - bishops were relying on their opinions. Amd the experts proclaimed homosexuality a normal and healthy lifestyle.
So do you support gay marriage for priests?
The chastity thing came relatively late in the church. It's original intent was to keep priests from handing down power/position to offspring.
Yes, excellent observations. Clinicians and theorists are two different areas altogether. Even clinicians can only contend with (and function in) highly controlled environments.
Medical degrees represent a confirmation about academic performance (at least, try to), while they do not make any promise as to credibility morally, religiously, ethically, or even temperamentally.
Stories I could tell about M.D.'s behaving truly badly -- some very sickly. Most are 'smart' in one sense and soemtimes it just lends advantage to otherwise corrupt persons (they gain social advantage, and exploit others because of that).
I knew a person who had been committed for being a paranoid schizophrenic and yet he gained a medical license in California to practice...psychiatry.
Yes, excellent observations. Clinicians and theorists are two different areas altogether. Even clinicians can only contend with (and function in) highly controlled environments.
Medical degrees represent a confirmation about academic performance (at least, try to), while they do not make any promise as to credibility morally, religiously, ethically, or even temperamentally.
Stories I could tell about M.D.'s behaving truly badly -- some very sickly. Most are 'smart' in one sense and soemtimes it just lends advantage to otherwise corrupt persons (they gain social advantage, and exploit others because of that).
I knew a person who had been committed for being a paranoid schizophrenic and yet he gained a medical license in California to practice...psychiatry.
"The church should be seeking to exclude both. Sexual deviants will commit crimes of opportunity regardless of sexual orientation and should not be in the priesthood."
And how whould the Church go about this task?
You don't think . . . ?!?
A person who does not confess homosexual acts is hiding something significant. Homosexual orientation, in and of itself, is not sinful and does not have to be "confessed."
The question I'd have is why would anyone who was homosexual want to be in the Priesthood? What's the motivation?
Given the number of suspected homosexuals in the priesthood now, and in the past, it is very possible that they have been called to the priesthood.
You are likely to be somewhat disappointed in the upcoming document. There are reliable indications that not all homosexuals will be barred from seminaries. Those with less than three years of celibacy, those who participate in openly gay activities, and those who are "irrevocably committed" to a homosexual lifestyle, will not be permitted.
A long-time celibate homosexual, however, will likely be admitted and, if deemed satisfactory, will be ordained.
The question is, how does one bar a homosexual from the seminary if he is celibate and is determined to keep his orientation to himself?
There is no "test" for homosexuality.
The penile plethysmograph's use is being debated in cases concerning pedophilia. I don't believe its use as evidence has yet been approved for the same reason that lie detector tests (polygraphs) have not been approved as evidence -- i.e., the readings can be influenced by the one being tested and the results can be interpreted ambiguously.
If ANY priest, heterosexual or homosexual, is defying his vows, he should be asked to take time away and think about whether the celibate lifestyle is for him. If he re-offends, he should be laicized.
If the rumors about the upcoming document are true, they appear to be very good.
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.