Posted on 10/17/2005 3:56:56 PM PDT by tuesday afternoon
If the Catholic Church wants to prevent sexual abuse by priests, several abuse experts said, there are better ways to do it than by trying to bar gay men from the clergy.
The church recently began checking American seminaries for ''evidence of homosexuality," and the pope is widely expected to ban actively gay men from taking holy orders.
But it will be tricky to cull gays from the priesthood, the abuse experts said this month. And it would be more effective -- and more humane -- to target likely abusers rather than all gays.
''There's no adequate way to screen out homosexuality," said Martin P. Kafka, a psychiatrist at Harvard's McLean Hospital. ''We don't have any lab tests."
-SNIP-
Still, when adults molest children past puberty, they tend to follow their sexual orientation. When the victims are older, straight men tend to molest girls and gay men molest boys. According to one survey, two-thirds of the victims were 12 or older when the abuse began.
-SNIP-
Furthermore, he said, he argued, ''If you have a policy of excluding homosexuals, all the applicants to the seminaries who are homosexual will just lie."
-SNIP-
And in current-day America, he added, gay people are much likelier to acknowledge and accept their sexual orientation, so they may present far lower risks than the repressed types of the old days
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Yes, that, too. However, homosexuality represents "disordered thinking" and it seems that is easiluy and often proven out by the mere fact that those who embrace homosexuality continue to affiliate as and with homosexuality in the Priesthood, while those who are heterosexual do not.
The KEY ISSUE HERE is CHASTITY. Celibacy AND CHASTITY. Chastity is disproven time and time again when some in the Priesthood defend their identity as homosexuals. They are remaining in and of the sin itself, which defies their vows yet again.
Heterosexuality is not parallel to or with homosexuality. Homosexuality is deemed disordered thinking in our contemporary church (and among and by much of our contemporary society), while heterosexuality is the state of man and woman in relationship to the family and reproduction.
The cultural state, the concept of modernism and cultural acceptance is being forced into areas of religious ideology and in that case, I'd suggest you or those who are attempting this insistence argue with the Holy Bible, because scripture is clear about God's revulsion and absolute rejection of homosexuality. Culturally, it's acceptable, but in a Christian and Judeo-Christian morality, it is not.
To lie about such a thing would be a Mortal Sin. The novitiate would have confess and do penance.
Because homosexual men are such a tiny part of the population (maybe a percent or two), the do not account for the majority of sexual abusers of minors in the United States. However, they abuse at a rate many times that of heterosexual men.
Accept the argument that celibacy is not normal or possible and I think you are just a hair's breadth from saying that monogamy is unnatural. Part of Christ's teachings is that we have control over our "natural" selves and that we do not have to be slaves to our baser impulses.
If they are not engaging in homosexual acts, they are not guilty of sin, nor remaining in sin.
To be homosexual may be disordered, but it is not sinful.
Yes, I was referring to those rumors. It has been pointed out that, if true, it would be the first time ever the Catholic Church has allowed openly homosexual men to be priests. Now, given Pope Benedict's positions against homosexuality, why do you think he would suddenly open the door to avowed homosexuals? He would have to go against the 1961 Papal Ban on ordaining homosexuals, as well as his own beliefs.
Gays can get married, as long as the govt does not sanction it I don't care.
To say that one is homosexual in orientation, yet vows to remain celibate, is not "openly homosexual." It is perfectly possible for a man to be homosexual, yet not define himself by his homosexuality as some homosexuals seem to do.
Now, given Pope Benedict's positions against homosexuality, why do you think he would suddenly open the door to avowed homosexuals.
Again, an "avowed homosexual" would seem to be excluded by the third criterion I listed above, that is, one who is "irrevocably committed" to the homosexual lifestyle.
I am speaking of celibate homosexuals who do not act on their homosexuality.
I can't answer for Benedict XVI. But, I suspect the exceptions made will be made at the insistence of local bishops, who are aware they have a significant number of celibate homosexuals serving in their dioceses as good priests.
What does it mean to be "openly homosexual" and still be a practicing priest who hopes to be consistent with church teaching (which I read as being celibate).
Are they declaring their homosexuality in some kind of show of solidarity with other gays, perhaps hoping to improve treatment of AIDS patients? Actually that would be more acceptable to me than if their reason is to disrupt church teaching and practice regarding celibacy. If they want to be a sexually active homosexual cleric let them join the unitarians or whatever other denomination doesn't have a problem with it.
I believe Christ taught that it was "better to marry, than to burn." Which is a reference to the fire of desire, and punishment. Ifn you gotta get sum, better to go home to yo honey, than to deny the desire. One of the reasons Islam is so downright full of crazies, is their denial of basic needs. That's OK though, when they go to their reward, THEN they can let loose.
Aren't they already banned?
I am not Catholic, so pardon my ignorance.
But shouldn't the Catholic Church ban men OR women from entering full time service if they are sexually active and single?
I don't see how this is even newsworthy.
I believe it is sinful to reject the gender that God has assigned to you, and the purpose God has assigned to that gender. Persons with homosexual attraction disorder may not be able to live out God's purpose without therapy and prayer; if they were seriously abused in childhood, they may not ever be a good candidate for marriage, and should remain celebate. But to ask society and the church to rewrite the rules so that they can continue to sin is wrong.
How does a homosexual man reject his gender?
In the truest sense of the Catholic understanding of "celibacy" this is an oxymoron. Homosexuals don't marry ( there may be unusual cases where they have ) and so remain celibate by default. Celibacy is the state of not being married. Has nothing to do with the virtue of chastity which every person is called to. A single person, or celibate, is called to chastity by way of no sexual activity. It is therefore more correct to say a "long time chaste homosexual".
But homosexuality is considered a disorder by the Church. There are less severe psychological conditions that would disqualify a man from priesthood than the condition of homosexuality. Why is that an exception?
Political correctness.
But an admitted homosexual is currently barred from ordination by the 1961 Papal Ban. Pope Benedict would have to overturn all of Church history.
I can't answer for Benedict XVI. But, I suspect the exceptions made will be made at the insistence of local bishops, who are aware they have a significant number of celibate homosexuals serving in their dioceses as good priests.
As you said, the document in question will only affect seminarians, not priests.
There's also this:
In an interview published in the New York Times Sunday, Pope John Paul II's spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls cited canon law on homosexuality and said, "People with these inclinations just cannot be ordained."
It seems like the Vatican's position is pretty clear.
Here's an article refuting those rumors (not from the MSM, which are all pro-homosexual):
New Report on Vatican Gay Priests Document Said to be Gay Lobby “Rumor Mill
Then there's the bishops who believe that homosexual seminarians are keeping straight men away from the seminaries. To whom would the Pope listen?
I believe Pope John XXIII did issue a restatement that they were in fact banned back in the late 50's - early 60's but obedience isn't exactly the strong suit of American clerics.
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.