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.

[George W. Bush]

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.

Earlier in the thread, I already said polygamy was forbidden by this text. How does your Baptist preacher ignore the further injunction (above) about a bishop or deacon ruling his household and children?

Yes, that is what it means. Is your father-in-law aligned with the General Baptist conference, Southern Baptist or Cooperative Baptist? Which association?

Does he really refer to Paul as 'Saint Paul'?

[George W. Bush]

It did not mean a bishop HAD to take a wife, otherwise even Saint Paul himself would have married.

Paul was not a bishop. Nor is there any indication he desired to be. Or even that he considered himself qualified.

It is entirely possible that Paul excluded himself from being a bishop, having seen some of the mischief in the early churches over these matters. What is clear is that Paul was an evangelist. There are other examples in the early church of single people confining themselves to evangelism. It is likely that Paul intended bishops and deacons to be married. But the roles of pastor/preacher or evangelist/missionary are open to the unmarried as well as the married.

Why not take Paul at his word? Baptists do, as I'm sure you're aware, approach scripture with a minimalist philosophy. We don't jump through hoops to enlarge or shrink it and we try to avoid reading it like a lawyer with a contract looking for loopholes. We let it say what it says and try our best to follow it.

[redhead]

"A candidate who is actively homosexual is not celibate. A priest who encourages homosexuality in the "gay community" encourages sin.

A priest who has homosexual tendencies has a burden of temptation but he may keep it in check. It is questionable to put him in a position of authority where he may manipulate someone into an affair, but I don't know how common that is.

If he acts on any of his sexual desires, he has sinned (regardless if it is with a man or a woman, an adult or a child). If thoughts of his carnal desires dominate his day, then he will probably not be a good moral leader. If he finds men more attractive than women but does not ever bring it up or act on that desire, I don't know that there is a problem.

Weegee, you stated that very clearly. It is a cruelty to a man to put him into a situation (seminary, rectory life, altar servers, etc.) where he will be tempted intolerably to disregard his vows of celibacy and chastity, and it is cruel for the parishoners who expect him to shepherd them away from sin. The Church is wise to insist that it not be burdened with employees who cannot or wilfully will not refrain from sin in order to coddle their own lustful pleasures. It is better for these men, "godly" as they may be, if such be the case, to remain in the world.

[djrakowski]

"The established canon did squash the many corruptions being circulated, often under false names, by heretics."

Yes, but by what authority?

[Aquinasfan]

So what?

It's a good thing, because it anticipates heaven, where "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven."

Paul seems to confirm that the unmarried state is preferable to the married state when he says that "It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am... But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

[redhead]

",,, window dressing from Rome, nothing more. It's clear from the full article that priests or intending priests would move to the likes of Rochester or Spokane for tea and sympathy and the ability to dodge mainstream Church policy."

You have a very good point, and it will probably come to pass, simply because Amchurch and the Rochester and Spokane dioceses are not the whole Church. Bishops who condone and support this behavior will always be with us, because the Church is composed of sinners. But by making these declarations, the Church can and does state clearly what her position is on this kind of behavior.

[Aquinasfan]

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

Logically, these verses don't preclude celibacy.

[redhead]

"It seems a little difficult to determine sexual orientation among people who don't have sex."

Years ago, before V II, it took twelve years or more to "form" a priest. In that amount of time, any oddball "orientations" would almost certainly be exposed. Nowadays, men are hurried through in six years or so, by distracted or supportive seminary officials, and the tendencies are either not observed or are ignored/condoned.

[nina0113]

Where did I say seduction wasn't as bad as rape? Morally I think it's WORSE to convince someone to be a willing participant in mortal sin. What was that verse about not fearing those could destroy the body, but fearing those who could destroy the soul? Isn't that what damaging a young conscience (by convincing them that sexual sin isn't a sin at all) will lead to?

I'd lock either perpetrator up for a long long time, if not introduce them to Mr. Tall Tree and Mr. Short Rope.

[right-wingin_It]

...Even the ACLU would rally to the Churches defense... While I agreee that there won't be litigation from this, I have to disagree with your view of the ACLU. The ACLU is 100% behind the destruction of Christianity and orthodox Judaism, but most particular, the Catholic Church. Let's not fool ourselves here.

As I write this, the news du jour is aout that single school teacher who was fired from her position at a Catholic school for violating the terms of her employment (by becoming pregnant out of wedlock)-- Not something to be taught to the children as acceptable by having her on display in front of the class. The parochial school was in their rights to fire her for her breaking the contract, and the ACLU is supporting the womans law suit against the school.

How about the law suit where the ACLU wants to TAX Bible sales??

Or suing Catholic hospitals for not providing abortion services against their doctrine

Or where the ACLU sued to force private religious non-profit charities to provide contaceptive insurance coverage against their religious doctrine?

Or suing towns, groups and individuals over the years for Christmas holiday displays

Or to peoples right to prayer in public places (apparently unless your Muslim)

Or where the ACLU sues states for abstinance programs in sex ed

Or the thousand other examples that i can't think of off the top of my head...too numerous!

Please freinds, let's do our homework before making such statements

[George W. Bush]

I'd lock either perpetrator up for a long long time, if not introduce them to Mr. Tall Tree and Mr. Short Rope.

Works for me.

[Antoninus]

Catholic Church: "Do not ordain homosexuals to the priesthood."

Episcopal Church: "It's fine to elevate open homosexuals to the episcopal chair."

Any questions?

[Antoninus]

How would the pope know that an American bishop is a homosexual? He might know that an American bishop is a homosexual sympathizer. The problem is, the bishops who are homosexual sympathizers know how to walk the line.

Personally, I think this is way Levada is now in Rome. He knows where the bodies are buried.

[Jim Noble]

Logically, these verses don't preclude celibacy

nobody says they preclude celibacy.

The issue is, should it be required.

[SuziQ]

It sounds like the best possible statement, given that the ban will be difficult to enforce.

I don't believe it will be difficult to enforce. It just takes a Bishop who is engaged with the Seminarians he sponsors, and is willing to be Pastoral with them, even if it means making it clear if they SHOULD be priests or not. Thankfully, John Paul II had begun replacing the old, liberal Bishops and changes were beginning to occur before his death.

My b-i-l has jokingly said that the Bishop has said he isn't going to let him have any more Seminarians come to work in his Parish over the summers because he keeps talking them out of becoming priests. ;o) George simply wants these young men to be SURE before they make such a huge commitment.

[George W. Bush]

Logically, these verses don't preclude celibacy.

If having children out of wedlock is permissible, then fine.

How about Rome's hypocrisy in Africa where priests get married before ordination? There are, in my understanding, hundreds - if not thousands - of married Roman clergy in Africa. And in the West, you accept some married Protestant clergy who convert. And it is estimated that the numbers of married priests in the Eastern Catholic Church contributes to the total of 20% of all Roman priests being married.

Why is it that only in Europe or America that Rome will enforce celibacy so strictly?

Isn't it true that 39 of Rome's bishops (popes) were married?

[Great Caesars Ghost]

I'm not even sure Catholic Priests are exactly paid a "salary," I'm sure it's called a stipend, and I'm sure it's quite small. In the Episcopal church they call it a stipend, but it may be rather large I suspect, and they probably have to pay taxes on it, but not on the rectory.

Catholic priests live in dorms, eat cafeteria style, and share cars. They mostly don't live high on the hog, though I don't know about some of the Princes of the Church.

[Aquinasfan]

How about Rome's hypocrisy in Africa where priests get married before ordination? There are, in my understanding, hundreds - if not thousands - of married Roman clergy in Africa.

There are married clergy in the West. Most of them are Anglican converts. This is a Church discipline, not dogma. Within the clergy, celibacy is regarded to marriage.

Why is it that only in Europe or America that Rome will enforce celibacy so strictly?

Because Catholics in Europe and America belong to the Latin Rite, while many Catholics in Africa probably belong to the Eastern Rites. In the Byzantine Rite, for example, priests may marry. But priests who enter the priesthood unmarried may not marry after ordination. Also, bishops must be unmarried. This is also the practice of the Orthodox churches.

Isn't it true that 39 of Rome's bishops (popes) were married?

There were some, including St. Peter. Historically, priestly celibacy has had its ups and downs, since it's a Church discipline.

Celibacy of the Priesthood.

[Aquinasfan]

The issue is, should it be required.

Christ's Church would have that authority, wouldn't it?

[Great Caesars Ghost]

This could be used to bar the Catholic Church from public facilities, campuses and the like, similar to how the Boy Scouts are now treated.

That would be fine! Because the Boy Scouts used to have a big, big problem with the boys being molested by homosexual predators in authority positions in the troops. Now they only have a problem with angry homosexuals and lefto-communist agitators trying to break down the walls and get at the children again. I say bring on the persecution! Better to know who your friends are and who your enemies are than to have them smile in your face and stab you in the back.