Posted on 11/22/2005 11:31:08 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The actual number of pedophile priests is less than one percent of the priesthood.The number of abusive priests is about 4%. Any percent is too high but we are trying to fix the problem. Calling them pedophiles,and most pedophiles are heterosexual, would only exacerbate the real problem which is homosexuals in the priesthood. You are not a homosexual,or are you? I only ask that because it is the MSM and the homosexuals who want to label the problem as pedophilia.
Please believe me when I say that they tried real hard to lead people down the "pedophile priest" track. They knew that if that was pursued we would learn that pedophilia is a problem of thwarted sexual development and occurs in heterosexuals more than homosexuals. Liberals and progressives love to confuse and conflate. The reason for the numbers is probably because there are so many more heteros than homosexuals but whatever the reason it would put a smokescreen around the real culprits and delay removing them or banning them.
It is not what I said. I said that the key problem is with the pederasts getting into priesthood. Pedophilia is a typical Red Herring.
Exactly!
More or less a reaffirmation of the 1961 Instruction. That it is not "progressive" is a good sign.
Red Herring!
Red Herring:
In argument, something designed to divert an opponent’s attention from the central issue. If a herring is dragged across a trail that hounds are following, it throws them off the scent.
The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy at Bartleby.com
Yes!
But the Rev. Mark Francis, superior general of the Clerics of Saint Viator, a religious order based in Rome, said the document appeared to allow the leeway to ordain a candidate who believed he was gay but also believed he could be celibate.
"You could say, 'I believe I am gay, but that the tendencies toward being gay are not deep-seated,' " he said. "What constitutes deep-seated homosexual tendencies?" he said. "How does one judge that?"
I think saying one is "gay" makes it deep-seated.
Critics complain that by discouraging gay men from applying, it will alter the makeup of the priesthood...."
Alter, as in, no more homosexual priests? I believe that's the point.
It states quite clearly that homosexual tendencies must have been overcome. Big, big difference.
This is a critical point which must not be glossed over. It means, in effect, that nobody with homosexual tendencies can be ordained. That includes the celibate homosexual.
Very important point.
This is a critical point which must not be glossed over. It means, in effect, that nobody with homosexual tendencies can be ordained. That includes the celibate homosexual.
What are "homosexual tendencies?" Sexual activity? That can't be, as that has been ruled out.
Participation in the "gay movement." No. That's been ruled out as well.
This phrase simply reasserts the three conditions under which homosexuals cannot be admitted to seminaries.
Homosexuals who have been celibate for longer than three years will likely be admitted to seminaries and, if they continue to observe celibacy, will be ordained. The language is straightforward enough. The decision, ultimately, will be left to bishops and seminary authorities.
GWB, I strongly believe you and saradippity are on the same page with this, key stroke to key stroke, but you are not reading it.
That said, Catholics and Protestants are shoulder to shoulder in anger and repulsiveness with this whole issue.
There is much deception and "ambiguity" in terms on the part of many of the American bishops. Like the liberal "damnocrats" in congress, that have lived out their entire public lives there, they start to wear out their welcome. Deception, manipulation, and ambiguity is their "M.O." It's what they know and what they do.
They are trying to manipulate the public's view that it is just the "little boys/girls" that are affected (leaning towards the argument "it's mostly a hetero thing") which tends to divert attention away from the homosexual predators of the teenage boys.
Trust me, we are ALL, as Christians, disgusted with this scourge, and are trying everything w/in our power to remedy it. We realize, however, that there is a bigger force we have to battle, but we won't give up.
God Bless, and have a blessed Thanksgiving.
Homosexual tendencies are the attraction to an individual of the same gender. This is not rocket science here. And we don't need to parse the words or try to twist them. I may be alone in this (at least on FR) but I have a lot of respect for those who are homosexual by inclination and who are making an honest effort to live a Christian life of chastity. But I am of the opinion that even those who heroically resist the urges to commit unnatural acts should be barred from Holy Orders. The environment in which they would find themselves in is one that would sorely tempt them to sin. They would be surrounded almost exclusively by other men. In most cases they would be young men to whom a homosexual might feel an attraction. Unlike many on this forum who simply drip venom in their attitude towards gays, I believe in the commandment "love the sinner and hate the sin." It would be act of callousness bordering on outright cruelty to take a young man struggling against the temptation to commit unnatural acts and deliberately place him in an environment where he would be daily surrounded by such temptation. The Church commands us to avoid the "near occasions of sin." That commandment not only applies to us on a 1st person basis but it also proscribes us from knowingly placing others in a situation of grave temptation. It would be the equivalent of training an alcoholic to become a bartender. Charity and love demands that we do all in our power to help persons with this cruel affliction. Putting them in seminary would be a sin, not merely against the church, but also against the young would be priest struggling to control his passions. Obviously, there are some who are able to overcome and master this perverse inclination or at least control it. I do not doubt that there are some fine and totally orthodox priests who may have homosexual urges but live a life of chastity. But the danger to their souls and to others should they fail, is too great to take that chance. This document is the right course of action.
How so? The 1961 statement was straightforward. This has exeptions that you can drive a truck through. Basically, bishops and seminary directors have the ammunition to defend whtever decisions they make. It's basicall a don't ask-don't tell policy. Those seeking female ordinations will feel tremendously heartened that if they proceed, rules will gradually be relaxed.
Does the 1961 statement give a list of conditions under which homosexuals can be ordained?
The 1961 instruction was not being obeyed. You can tell the new one is unacceptable to the Lavender Mafia because of Mahoney's response. Not exactly purring sounds.
A better question is: Is the new instruction acceptable to the liberals? The answer is "no."
So now all dissenters know, if you don't obey Church authority, just ignore it, and the Church authority will be relaxed.
Of course, they aren't going to be happy with just that. They would never be openly happy about this. But it let's them know they are suceeding.
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.