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]

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

Ah. I have made my point. You have defended yours. Fair enough. Readers can make up their own minds.

[Great Caesars Ghost]

Don't get too high and mighty there W, Baptist preachers molest young boys too. They also smoke, drink, f*ck, dance, wear makeup, get d-i-v-o-r-c-e-d, remarry, have affairs, talk with funny accents, mock the sacraments, make up their own personal interpretations of scripture, have sappy music, steal, cheat, and lie, and get fat like everybody else.

OK, now feel free to go back to bashing us mackeral snappers, and have a happy thanksgiving.

[A. Pole]

Good

[jec1ny]

"I'm amazed it took them so long to decide that the Bible is correct and that they ought to adhere to its standards..."

If I may offer a small suggestion. One should refrain from making commenting on matters that are likely to betray one's glaring ignorance on the subject matter at hand. The Church has ALWAYS and unfailingly condemned homosexual activity. And there have always been rules prohibiting their admission into the priesthood. This is merely the most recent reiteration of the Churches' long standing teaching. With regard to recognition I would suggest rereading the canons and decrees of the council of Trent with which you are obviously unfamiliar. They affirm the ancient teaching of the Patristics and the earliest traditions of the church that Holy Scripture is an inerrant and infallible source of divine revelation. Anathema is pronounced against all those who deny this.

[George W. Bush]

Quite a list. Baptists, preachers or not, who molest kids get fired and prosecuted. I've never known a single one who drinks or smokes or wears makeup. I've heard of a few having affairs but they get fired and generally no church will have them after that. A divorce won't necessarily end a Baptist preacher's career but his prospects are considerably diminished. I don't know of Baptist preachers that cheat or lie. Baptists recognize two ordinances (baptism, communion) and no sacraments.

Some Baptist preachers remarry (if widowed or even divorced), make up personal interpretations of scripture (like some of your liberal priests don't), and have very very VERY sappy music. Yeah, and some get fat but it always runs in the family and has no connection to gluttony.

Happy Thanksgiving to you too. Eat hearty so you can enjoy some mackerel on Friday.

[Final Authority]

If this is actually prosecuted then I might go back to church.

In New Hampshire there will be quite a bit of vacancies. One, will be the Bishop, he is as queer as a three dollar bill with videos to prove it. Then there is the auxiliary Bishop who has facilitated the rape and molestation of Priests by covering up their criminal acts and moving them from Parrish to Parrish going back to Cardinal Law in Boston many years ago. Then there are the Cannon lawyers, who although good Priests are so liberal and queer that one doesn't need "gaydar" to know. Toss in a dozen or so more faithful and one has a real problem on their hands, a diocese without clergy to lead.

So what is going to happen to this announcement? In NH, nothing is going to happen, because if it was followed through the church would be without the leadership and the power that it has enjoyed for some time now.

[Campion]

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

The office of Apostle is higher than that of bishop (apostles appointed bishops). The idea that Paul was not qualified to be a bishop, when he was qualified to direct Titus to "appoint elders in every city" is just silly.

[jec1ny]

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

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

Any questions?"

See my post 18 for my views on the Episcopal Church.

[George W. Bush]

The office of Apostle is higher than that of bishop (apostles appointed bishops). The idea that Paul was not qualified to be a bishop, when he was qualified to direct Titus to "appoint elders in every city" is just silly.

If Paul's calling to be an evangelist was his true calling (and it was), then your distinction is meaningless.

How, precisely, do you consider this argument to have any modern bearing on church government even if I grant your point? And perhaps you can refresh my memory: which bishops were appointed by Paul anyway?

BTW, I am single but I would accept a number of posts in my local church if asked. But not that of pastor (if ordained) or deacon (if nominated by insane Baptists). But I do, nevertheless, serve and willingly.

I sometimes think I have a little more in common with Paul than most modern Christians. Your priest would tell you the same thing even if he didn't agree with my other opinions. And Paul was very, well, Pauline. If you get my drift. What an interesting and complex exemplar he is.

[DallasMike]

Heaven is filled with Catholics and non-Catholics alike. There were several sects of Judaism during the time of Jesus and the divisions didn't seem to bother him a bit. He dealt with the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Herodians, the Zealots, and the Essenes.

Jesus criticized wrong beliefs regardless of which group held them and he praised faith wherever he found it. He even spread the gospel to Samaritans and Gentiles, for goodness' sake!

Catholics and Protestants are both guilty of Churchianity -- that is, placing religious man-made duty religious duties above a relationship with Jesus Christ. Being born into a Baptist church or a Catholic church doesn't make anyone a Christian. None of us can afford to make the mistake of thinking that attending Mass every week or being a deacon at First Baptist Church or speaking in tongues at Grace Pentecostal church is going to save us. Many Jews in the time of Jesus believed that the mere fact of being descendants of Abraham made them holy:

"Don't just say, `We're safe--we're the descendants of Abraham.' That proves nothing. God can change these stones here into children of Abraham." (Matthew 3:9).

"There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Messiah Yeshua... Where, then is boasting? It is excluded" (Rom. 3:23; 27a).

Thus Abraham "believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith. (Galatians 3:6-9)

Works alone can't help us:

"We are all infected and impure with sin. When we proudly display our righteous deeds, we find they are but filthy rags. Like autumn leaves, we wither and fall. And our sins, like the wind, sweep us away." (Isa. 64:6).

Works don't save us but our faith is demonstrated by our works:

"Faith without works is dead," and "Do not merely listen to the Word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says!" (Jas. 2:17; 1:22).

"But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Messiah Yeshua have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit" (Gal. 5:22-25).

[muir_redwoods]

Even if one were to disagree with this position one would have to applaud the intellectual and moral consistency.

[saradippity]

Please stop the lectures on celibacy and the unmarried priesthood in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church,. It clutters up this very important thread and has been discussed thoroughly on many prior threads.

The Latin Rite can defend their position very well and while I have not seen them convince any non-Catholic to switch positions it is not for lack of the better argument. It really boils down to the fact that what Christ seems to be saying quite clearly is a very hard saying.

My real concern with the discussion you and Aquinas are having is that I think you are misunderstanding the position of most Catholics when we seek to differentiate between pedophilia and epebophilia. The reason we do this is not to go easy on these pederast priest predators,not at all. In fact,we just want it to be exceedingly clear that the perpetraters are homosexuals or bisexuals and that is the sub group that are a danger to teenagers and that they should not be priests. First,because they use the priesthood to satisfy their personal lust for youth and beauty while also as a second incentive,recruit these relatively innocent youth into the homosexual lifestyle.

Initially the media had hoped to label the priests involved in the scandalous behavior as "pedophiles" because that is exactly what they wished people to think.

The reason that they hoped to fly with that label is because,studies show that more heterosexuals than homosexuals are "pedophiles". And believe me they would have been happy to review the whole scandal from that perspective.

The media had fervently hoped that no one would notice that 80% of the abuses were not small victims of evil heterosexual,sex starved sickos but were instead post pubescent boys,who have long been the apple of homosexuals eyes and appetites. One third of all homosexuals were introduced to the lifestyle when they were under 18;one third of homosexuals also claim to have introduced a person under 18 to the lifestyle.That is the drty little secret the media sought to protect and that is why we differentiate between pedophilia and ephebophilia---the media does not like that.

[DallasMike]

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?

I would argue that means that a bishop or deacon who has a household should lead them properly. It does not require one to have children (Paul apparently did not have children but some apostles did) but neither does the verse bishops or deacons to be unmarried.

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

I'm pretty much a Protestant's Protestant but I often refer to some of the early church leaders as "Saint So-and-So." After all, they really are saints. The scriptures and the early church referred to all Christians as saints but, at some point, the term came to designate those who had done special deeds or who had endured martyrdom. I don't think that calling the Apostle Paul "St. Paul" is really a worthy point of conention.

[DallasMike]

There were some, including St. Peter.

Oh, my -- you are absolutely correct and supported by both scripture and early church tradition but you're going to catch all sorts of grief over that one.

[George W. Bush]

I would argue that means that a bishop or deacon who has a household should lead them properly. It does not require one to have children (Paul apparently did not have children but some apostles did) but neither does the verse bishops or deacons to be unmarried.

You are free to imagine anything you like. I, on the other hand, am content to obey the actual text. It's good enough for me and I'm not inclined to improve it or read it like a lawyer. Or engage in deconstructionism or higher textual criticism.

I'm pretty much a Protestant's Protestant but I often refer to some of the early church leaders as "Saint So-and-So."

You miss the actual point of my question which incidentally remains unanswered.

[George W. Bush]

My real concern with the discussion you and Aquinas are having is that I think you are misunderstanding the position of most Catholics when we seek to differentiate between pedophilia and epebophilia. The reason we do this is not to go easy on these pederast priest predators,not at all. In fact,we just want it to be exceedingly clear that the perpetraters are homosexuals or bisexuals and that is the sub group that are a danger to teenagers and that they should not be priests. First,because they use the priesthood to satisfy their personal lust for youth and beauty while also as a second incentive,recruit these relatively innocent youth into the homosexual lifestyle.

The net effect is to reduce the severity of the priests' sexual assault on the innocence of youth with whose care they are entrusted. This is a betrayal as cruel, or even more cruel, than for a child to be assaulted or seduced by a teacher or doctor. These are all privileged relationships.

We cannot dumb down the standards for the sake of an intermediate objective. Can you, for instance, tell me the exact age a child is when they are no longer the victim of a pedophile but an ephebophile?

Initially the media had hoped to label the priests involved in the scandalous behavior as "pedophiles" because that is exactly what they wished people to think.

In the Boston scandals, there were a lot of assaults including rapes of small children of both sexes. Some later cases involved older children as well. But the charge of pedophilia was well-founded in the grossest cases. Nevertheless, I will not advocate lesser penalties for molesting teenage boys.

You understand, I'm sure, that the arguments you present favor the American bishops in helping the priest-molesters to escape justice and your organization to escape more punitive lawsuits. So your church has a vested financial interest in presenting this argument.

[A. Pole]

In the Boston scandals, there were a lot of assaults including rapes of small children of both sexes.

Really?

Some later cases involved older children as well.

"Some later cases"? What are you talking about?

[George W. Bush]

"Some later cases"? What are you talking about?

I'm saying that once the scandal broke and people faced the awful truth, it encouraged many more victims to come forward. As the victims piled up, the majority turned out to be those victimized as teenagers. However, that still only represents those who have gone public. We still do not yet know whether teens actually were the larger group of victims which is what was being asserted.

[A. Pole]

I think that you play the game of blaming the small group of pedophiles for the sins of large group of pederasts.

[George W. Bush]

I think that you play the game of blaming the small group of pedophiles for the sins of large group of pederasts.

And I think we still don't know how many are in each group. Many lawsuits were settled with silence clauses long before the Boston scandal. And police in many communities abetted the Church's coverup of the crimes of priests and helped them to escape justice.

I'll point out that your use of comparative terms is exactly the kind of moral dumbing down that I mentioned above. You make it sound so much less offensive for the priest to prey on the teenager than the younger child. I think they should get twenty years for each count for any child under eighteen.