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.

[murphE]

If this is true, this is a liberalization of the current (if not followed) policy.

Exactly.

[Campion]

Far from demanding celibacy of bishops, the Bible requires that they be married to a single wife.

It's unlikely that it requires bishops to be married, because that would disqualify Christ himself and also the Apostle John, who we know served as bishop of Ephesus. (Maybe also Paul, but it's disputable whether he was married.)

You would think that if Paul's point was to require bishops to be married, he'd say exactly that, instead of this odd "husband of one wife" phrase. ("Husband of one wife" ... as opposed to what? Husband of a harem?)

Of course there were married bishops (and even a couple of married Roman pontiffs) in the early church.

The verse is most probably disqualifying men who have remarried after being widowed; the ancients tended to think that such men had problems with sexual self-control. But it's not absolutely clear.

[George W. Bush]

"Husband of one wife" ... as opposed to what? Husband of a harem?

Actually, yes. No polygamy. Perhaps it also means that a widower qualifies but I think it less likely.

[Campion]

Actually, yes. No polygamy.

Most unlikely. Polygamy was unknown among the Greeks and Romans to whom Paul was writing, and it was also not practiced by the Jews by that time. There's no evidence that any early Christians approved of polygamy.

Remarriage after a permissable divorce is a possibility, though. Paul describes what we Catholics call the "Pauline Privilege" -- that a marriage between two pagans can be dissolved if one is baptized and the other refuses to permit the Christian to practice his faith. Perhaps Paul means to exclude men who have a living pagan ex-wife. But why?

[Aquinasfan]

Thanks for posting the entire statement. I don't see how it could have been written any better. Individual bishops may act to undermine the spirit of the statement, but that will always be the case.

[steve8714]

You are right, but if the AmChurch loses all its wealth to save its soul, it is money well spent..a lot better than the "hush money" it has paid for years.

[steve8714]

The EU will now outlaw the Church..hilarity to follow.

[Aquinasfan]

Your church did not write, canonize or preserve my Bible...

8-) Did your Bible canonize itself? Or was there some extra-biblical authority that determined your canon of Scripture? If so, then you put your trust in an authority superior to the Bible, contrary to the (non-biblical) doctrine of "the Bible alone."

[Aquinasfan]

I don't think there's a great difference between molesting a ten-year-old or a nine-year-old.

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.

[steve8714]

the Church is full of ultra tolerant Kumbayists who will decry this, but to deny that the sex scandals were anything but homosexual recruiting by chickenhawks is to deny reality

[George W. Bush]

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.

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

But if he complains to the authorities, we Prots and Baptists will make Rome (and you, the parishioner) pay a very dear price for the priest's violation of his innocence.

[RipSawyer]

There are a lot of single Baptists, I used to be one myself. I noticed that you didn't state categorically that you have NO sexual outlet whatsoever.

[George W. Bush]

Remarriage after a permissable divorce is a possibility, though. Paul describes what we Catholics call the "Pauline Privilege" -- that a marriage between two pagans can be dissolved if one is baptized and the other refuses to permit the Christian to practice his faith. Perhaps Paul means to exclude men who have a living pagan ex-wife. But why?

Perhaps because Paul considered a man who wanted children to have had his chance if he is or was married. And that to be a bishop requires a certain steadiness of character.

I think a once-married man or a widower qualifies. Actually, this is relevant to me right now because we're discussing whether or not we would accept a divorced/remarried preacher. And there has been some division among the local Baptists over this.

I'm in the once-married camp. The previous minister, divorced by a flitty wife, remarried and left to return to his home state.

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

[Aquinasfan]

celibacy was endorsed by Jesus

Oh?

Matthew 19:12

"For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

[NYer]

As always, the problem will be implementation.

With the media spotlight still shining on the sex abuse scandals, most if not all of these bishops will be on their best behavior. Between the Vatican seminary visits and this new 'instruction', I believe we can now see the light at the end of the tunnel. Look for defectors to out themselves at the parish level. The Episcopal Church will welcome them all with open arms.

[George W. Bush]

There are a lot of single Baptists, I used to be one myself. I noticed that you didn't state categorically that you have NO sexual outlet whatsoever.

Hey, wait a second. This is about celibacy among Roman priests, not Baptists!

More seriously, I would say even a Baptist can never say never. But a sin can become so rare that it loses its hold upon you. Or you simply forget the last time you committed a specific sin. Celibacy is certainly not a hopeless cause and we are not doomed to defeat by our own flesh. Food and water are required. But not sex.

Our Savior died for sinners. Not for the perfected. Our salvation is not lost in a single sin. But if we have salvation, sin should begin to lose its hold on us or we need to examine ourselves as to why. And I think any sound Baptist preacher (or priest faithful to Rome's teachings) would tell you the same. It is the orthodox Christian position.

[Aquinasfan]

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife

This isn't meant as prescriptive. The statement means that the bishop should not have been married more than once (i.e., divorced and remarried). Otherwise, this statement would contradict Jesus' statement that those who "have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven... should accept it." (Matthew 19:12)

Paul would also be contradicting himself:

1 Corinthians 7:1,8

Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry... 8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.

[Aquinasfan]

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

You misunderstood my post, which was clarified above:

The point he was making is that the NYT was pulling a Clinton. Depends on what the meaning of "is" is...In other words, it may be technically true that molesting teenage boys is not pedophilia in the strict sense of the word, if it is taken only to refer to younger children. So the Times is trying to confuse and protect its favored group, as usual.

[George W. Bush]

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. However, he does not say that that is the only reason why it is good and blameless to be an unmarried Christian.

I think there were circles of the church that he addressed who believed it improper to remain unmarried and he was responding to their letter which, I think, was a plea for him to tell the unmarried Christians to get married. Paul was addressing them specifically but us in later eras more generally.

[Romish_Papist]

Question, if the Diaconate is mentioned in the Bible, why do "Bible Christian" churches noe use the position of Deacon?