In Strong Terms, Rome Is to Ban Gays as Priests

New York Times ^ | 11-23-05 | IAN FISHER and LAURIE GOODSTEIN

[jec1ny]

In Strong Terms, Rome Is to Ban Gays as Priests By IAN FISHER and LAURIE GOODSTEIN ROME, Nov. 22 - A new Vatican document excludes from the priesthood most gay men, with few exceptions, banning in strong and specific language candidates "who are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called 'gay culture.' "

The long-awaited document, which has leaked out in sections over the last few months, was published Tuesday in Italian by an Italian Catholic Web site, AdistaOnline.it.

[Aquinasfan]

The phrase 'husband of one wife' is pretty prescriptive unless you just want to ignore it. Or pretend that words have no meaning.

As far as it is 'good' not to marry or for the unmarried or widows to stay unmarried, Paul did not imply that it was somehow bad to be married. I think it is clear that he was saying that it was not bad to be single or widowed and that no one should draw such a conclusion. He points to himself, authoritative in this case as the missionary who brought the Gospel to them, as an example of why and how it is good to be unmarried, to be able to devote oneself to God's work.

If Paul meant that bishops must be married, he probably would have said that, rather than using the awkward phrase, "the husband of one wife." The phrase is ambiguous. Ambiguous passages of Scripture should be interpreted in light of relevant passages of Scripture that are more clear.

Both Jesus and Paul clearly commend celibacy to those who are called to it.

Because he was not married, Paul himself would have been disqualifying himself from the office of bishop.

More importantly, under your interpretation of this verse, Paul would be proscribing "eunuchs" from the office of bishop, even though Jesus endorses celibacy "for the kingdom of heaven."

On the other hand, if the phrase "husband of one wife" is interpreted as meaning "not married more than once," the phrase readily conforms with the other verses which comend celibacy.

[Romish_Papist]

"noe" should have been "not." Apologies.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

"The only potentially open question concerns a man who has homosexual inclinations, but leads a chaste life. (And, as GWB points out, how do you necessarily even know who those men are?)"



I Corinthians 10:13 says "There is no temptation overtaken you but what is common...and God will provide the way of escape."

In other words, temptation to experiment with any number of self-gratifications and not just sexually is the norm. But temptation is not the indulging in the sin, any more than seeing a billboard or hearing a commercial on the radio constitutes my overt purchase of the product.


We are told to FLEE youthful lusts. (Paul writing to Timothy) and in Hebrews 12 we are told to 'make straight paths for your feet, so that the limb which is lame may not be put out of joint, but rather be healed.'


The issue is not who is tempted. The issue is turning to God and fleeing evil WHEN temptations of any kind flash through our mind...and avoiding walking into bathhouses if we have temptations toward homosexual acts, shunning buffets if we too often pig out and cutting up our credit cards if we too easily go into debt.

[Campion]

In other words, temptation to experiment with any number of self-gratifications and not just sexually is the norm. But temptation is not the indulging in the sin, any more than seeing a billboard or hearing a commercial on the radio constitutes my overt purchase of the product.

Correct, however, not all men have a significant problem with homosexual temptation. And it's perfectly valid to set a higher standard for those to be ordained than for everyone else. At the very least, putting a man who has a significant temptation toward homosexual sin into a situation where he will be surrounded by other males 24/7 does not seem wise.

[djrakowski]

"Are you suggesting the Catholic Bible was divinely inspired?"

Yes, I am insisting that Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired. But, I'm sure you know, the table of contents didn't drop from the sky. It was compiled by Church councils - Catholic Church councils, that is.

"If you make it to heaven, I can't wait to see the look on your face when you realize there are millions of non-Catholics already there..."

Won't be surprising at all.

[Campion]

I suppose you'll say that Gregory Knows Best... Go ahead, I dare you! ; )

I just don't agree that Scripture requires clergy to be married; I see "husband of one wife" as a concession, not a requirement.

The Latin Rite's current discipline of not ordaining married men is also just that, a discipline, not a doctrinal requirement. It's a discipline with a long and venerable history, but the day may come when we discard it.

[GOPCajunLady]

< GIGGLE > So glad about this though!!

[wardaddy]

bout time....now for "homosexual content" warnings along with all the others on movie rentals boxes

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

"Correct, however, not all men have a significant problem with homosexual temptation. And it's perfectly valid to set a higher standard for those to be ordained than for everyone else."


Absolutely agreed. I personally am repulsed by the act, but try to look at the sinner with love, as Jesus instructed.

And those in positions of trust and influence must be thoroughly vetted and held accountable.

Amen.

[upcountryhorseman]

Thank God for that!

[TexanToTheCore]

I love this Pope. A man's man.

[George W. Bush]

You misunderstood my post, which was clarified above:

We have had a number of posters who somehow suggest it's no big thing if a boy (or girl or man or woman) has sex with a priest as long as it isn't the 'kiddies'.

I consider that the law should punish teachers, doctors, and clergy for taking sexual advantage of those with whom they have a privileged and sanctioned professional relationship. In the case of clergy, that means anyone except his lawful wife. And for a priest, that means anyone, man or woman or boy or girl.

[little jeremiah]

Excellent point. Needs to be repeated.

[little jeremiah]

I agree. If a person is not married, and considers sex out of wedlock wrong, it is possible to control the sexual urge. If someone doesn't want to control themselves, they won't.

[nina0113]

[AF:] True, but most of the cases of abuse involved teenage boys in the 16-17 year old range. And 90% of the cases of abuse involved males.

[GWB]: Okay. Then your priest can molest your Sweet Sixteen boy and you won't have a problem with it.

It would be difficult to molest a 16 year old without his consent. The even greater crime here is the SEDUCTION of these boys, confusing them about their own orientation and sending them off to the disease, death and damnation of the "gay" lifestyle.

[George W. Bush]

If Paul meant that bishops must be married, he probably would have said that, rather than using the awkward phrase, "the husband of one wife." The phrase is ambiguous. Ambiguous passages of Scripture should be interpreted in light of relevant passages of Scripture that are more clear.

In any case, it was clear he meant that the bishop was to be a husband, a family man. You're ignoring other injuctions that he must keep his household in order. You can debate the meaning 'of one wife'. We also have to keep in mind that he was responding to a letter and we don't know its contents.

Both Jesus and Paul clearly commend celibacy to those who are called to it.

Yes, they did. But they didn't establish it as the only state or even as a desired state for church leaders or pastors. Sorry, Gregory. You may have done well in keeping priests and bishops from hogging Church wealth for their own progeny but you created a much worse problem in the process.

Because he was not married, Paul himself would have been disqualifying himself from the office of bishop.

This may have been his intention as he would otherwise have become a bishop of one of the churches he started. He may have considered being an evangelist a suitable vocation, part-time or full-time, for the unmarried. Other scripture would support this.

More importantly, under your interpretation of this verse, Paul would be proscribing "eunuchs" from the office of bishop, even though Jesus endorses celibacy "for the kingdom of heaven."

The phrase about 'he who is able to receive it' should not be read as a qualification for priesthood. Nor is a eunuch necessarily synonymous with a celibate.

On the other hand, if the phrase "husband of one wife" is interpreted as meaning "not married more than once," the phrase readily conforms with the other verses which comend celibacy.

I wouldn't agree but you must have anticipated that a Baptist wouldn't.

Perhaps we should review the text passage in context:

1 Timothy 3

 ¹This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

 ²A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

 ³Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

 ⁴One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

 ⁵(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

 ⁶Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

 ⁷Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

 ⁸Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

 ⁹Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

 ¹⁰And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

 ¹¹Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

 ¹²Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Paul seemed very much set on placing the leadership of local churches (under deacons) or what might be called metropolitan churches (under bishops and deacons) in the hands of married men (and possibly widowers). Otherwise, you inevitable suggest he is saying that bishops and deacons are allowed children out of wedlock.

Now if only I could convince Benedict...

[Jim Noble]

The one who can accept this should accept it.

And the one who can't shouldn't.

So what?

[George W. Bush]

It would be difficult to molest a 16 year old without his consent. The even greater crime here is the SEDUCTION of these boys, confusing them about their own orientation and sending them off to the disease, death and damnation of the "gay" lifestyle.

I don't draw a big line between rape or seduction of minors. You can do so if you don't mind it if your priest seduces a minor instead of raping him. Moreover, we grant a privileged relationship to teachers and clergy, one which is not to be abused for base gratification.

I have no tolerance for either type of wolf. And I'd send either kind of baby-masher to prison for equal sentences. That applies if the boy is six or sixteen. It also applies to girl children if you can find a priest that molests them.

It applies to a Baptist preacher the same as a Roman priest too.

[Alas Babylon!]

I, a catholic, am sitting here reading this thread to my father-in-law, who is a Baptist Minister. He says what you're saying is not true:

The "husband of one wife" means he cannot have more than one wife (people of the Middle East did/do often do this, the Patriachs of old did, and even among Muslims today mutiple wives are still common). It did not mean a bishop HAD to take a wife, otherwise even Saint Paul himself would have married.

[George W. Bush]

Yes, I am insisting that Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired. But, I'm sure you know, the table of contents didn't drop from the sky. It was compiled by Church councils - Catholic Church councils, that is.

Actually, the canon merely confirmed the scriptures already in common use in churches throughout the empire. Mark was the most common but the Gospels were widely circulated. The epistles were not held in nearly as many hands. And some books were candidates but failed the test (one by Irenaeus is an example). The established canon did squash the many corruptions being circulated, often under false names, by heretics. So in that way, God used the early Church to limit the spread of heretical texts and preserve the proper texts in much the same way as the Nicene creed helped prevent the spread of heresy.

This is also why Protestants and, more recently, Baptists and evangelicals still reject the Apocrypha from the inspired canon. Rome only added them to the canon after the Council of Trent (1546).

I'm sure you RCs find it comforting to claim the Bible as an exclusive property. But it does make you look miserly with God's gift of the Gospel of Christ. Now, I understand the other reasons why you feel it's intrinsic. Yet, I think it is disadvantageous overall to make such claims of exclusivity over scripture. Just my thinking.