Posted on 03/04/2002 2:50:19 AM PST by Jim Noble
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:07:27 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The Vatican, in its first comments on the clergy sexual abuse crisis, declared this weekend that gay men should not be ordained as priests.
The comments by Joaquin Navarro-Valls, the chief spokesman for Pope John Paul II, were made at a time when a growing body of research suggests that a large proportion of Catholic priests are gay, and scholars who study sexuality and the priesthood said any effort to bar them would lead to a dramatic reduction in the number of priests in the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
You are misrepresenting Catholicism rather seriously here.
Fact: "divorced" people are not refused the Eucharist.
Fact: someone who is divorced and remarried, without an ecclesiastical finding that their first marriage was not a real marriage (an "annulment") is refused the Eucharist. They are considered to be living in a state of adultery, and the presumption is that they cannot repent of that state because that would mean undertaking to live as brother and sister.
Fact: someone who has had sexual contact with a child is guilty of an objectively mortal sin and may not approach the Eucharist until he or she has repented and confessed the sin. A provisional exception is made for a priest who has to say Mass for the sake of his flock and cannot locate a confessor in time, but that's all.
You are gravely misrepresenting the Church to imply that she considers divorce and remarriage to be a more serious sin than molesting a child. However, a child molester is at least objectively able to repent of his act. (Psychological considerations aside.) Someone who is illicitly remarried is not, because the relationship necessarily continues.
Peace and prosperity to you.
That having been said, my criticism stands.
The Church cannot arrest or jail these child molesters in its midst. It can, and it should, declare their excommunication and forbid them to say Mass, again, publicly.
The Church uses the words of our Lord about divorce to deprive divorced and remarried people of the eucharist.
In so doing, they are making a point.
The hierarchy needs to make a point about what these priests have done. In my opinion, so far, they have not done so.
Your two well-written and thoughtful posts are consistent with your exceptional conservative credentials and knowledge of Church history.
Maybe I should qualify my statment. I certainly don't favor the veto of clerical appointments by lay people. But, if the Church, especially the Western Church, doesn't seriously address the perception (and, as you know, perception can become reality) that the priesthood is a largely gay playpen in which adolescent males serve as prey, lay people, whose hard-earned money go to pay off the victims of pederasts, will DEMAND that they be served by men who will at the very least OBEY THE LAW!
My, how Islamic of you,...but I forget, Islam is a religion of peace, isn't it? /sarcasm off
As for my information, I find this to be fairly straight forward.
1stCor 6:9-11
9 Don’t you know that evil people won’t have a share in the blessings of God’s kingdom? Don’t fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual
10 will share in God’s kingdom. Neither will any thief or greedy person or drunkard or anyone who curses and cheats others.
11 Some of you used to be like that. But now the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and the power of God’s Spirit have washed you and made you holy and acceptable to God.
I applaud the statement of the Catholic Church, considering it's pedantic and should be shouted at any follower who even considers wandering astray of the admonishments. Of course there is no room for homosexuality amongst those who follow Christ, let alone leaders amongst the Church. There's no need to even discuss it. If somebody wishes to come to Christ, the door is open, not for a bartering session on the impact on the Church unless we sortof ignore sins which specifically are outlined in Scripture for us to resist.
God isn't so weak that He must rely on a portion of the Church, if it slips away in order for Him to fulfill His plans. However, the Church as a group might be in for some serious Divine Discipline which otherwise might only be reserved for the unrighteous, if we continue to acquiesce to homosexuality in such a luke warm fashion.
8 We know that the Law is good, if it is used in the right way. 9 We also understand that it wasn’t given to control people who please God, but to control lawbreakers, criminals, godless people, and sinners. It is for wicked and evil people, and for murderers, who would even kill their own parents. 10 The Law was written for people who are sexual perverts or who live as homosexuals or are kidnappers or liars or won’t tell the truth in court. It is for anything else that opposes the correct teaching 11 of the good news that the glorious and wonderful God has given me.
The above passage also sheds incredible insight into the origins of the Philosophy of the Separation of Church and State prior to the US. Lord Acton recalls these positions in letters to the queen of England explaining the etymology of the term. Herein lies some tremendous insight. The etymology of the term in English legal tradition is understood to not exist for those who will not inherit the Kingdom as that lot will disobey any law regardless. Instead the Separation of Church and State is established so that God fearing men who will behave in civility, might be able to obey the laws of both men and God. But note, that in Scripture, the purpose of the Law focuses on those who will not inherit the Kingdom.
Intersting face of man's law versus God's Law.
I have friends who are Jews and some who are Mormons and some who are Jehovah's Witnesses, some who are Evangelicals and some who are Pentecostal, some who are agnostic and some who are atheists. I tend to get along with them all by having good enough manners not to make fun of them or their beliefs. If anyone has the bad manners to initiate verbal aggression against my Roman Catholic Church, I will hold their feet to the fire by way of counterpunch.
If any are conservative as most of my friends are, we will agree to disagree on religion or to gently but respectfully chide one another in good fun while cooperating on matters political. If I understand correectly, that's the way Free Republic is supposed to be. We pay each other respect while respectfully disagreeing. If someone who is. say, a Pentecostal wants to try to convert me, I won't be converted, but I probably won't be insulted either. That person is trying to share with me what is most precious to him or her which is no insult. As the Pentecostal may ask me to consider to see the Bible as he or she sees it in the hope that I will be born again and saved, I may point out to the Pentecostal the advantages of the Mass and sacraments as I see it.
If some newspaper jackass with an attitude and an agenda as an ex-priest wants to make such ludicrous claims as 1/3 of Catholic bishops are gay, I am in a fighting mood in legitimate defense of our clergy. If posters here want to make a career out of posting from newspapers unsubstantiated allegations of that sort, I am in a fighting mood. I am more likely to fight liberal Catholics than anyone else. I admit a weakness for responding, perhaps too enthusiastically against Randians and pagans.
I don't think that it is too much to ask that disagreements be kept civil. I don't think Catholics have a special obligation to let wild charges go unanswered.
Common sense says that any man who sexually molests a boy is a homosexual.
Surely there are believers and baptized believers who go to hell each day. They have effectively rejected the sacrifice of the cross and chosen to reject salvation. That ought not to be a cause of joy to us whom God enjoined to love those sinners. That they would be punished in hell must be just otherwise God would not so punish them. When Jesus Christ ordered his disciples to go forth and teach all men, he even meant the ones we do not like or whose sins we find loathsome. Mother Teresa was as good an example of the love of God in action as I have seen or expect to see in this life. May her loving faith and obedience to God be a beacon to us all.
The Catholic Church is not now, nor has it ever been a democracy. Thankfully, the Church does not compromise her long standing doctrines and traditions just because a vocal minority of theologically ignorant americans, want it to.
BTW if your "feelings" are that strong then go join the protestants. Their diminishing ranks could use it.
This study has been discussed repeatedly in this forum and shown to be incorrect. It's based on self-reported numbers from the Archdiocese of Chicago.
As for believers going to eternal damnation, sorry, they've been bought with a price and not their own to make that decision. There may also arise some confusion in naming those who use His name but sincerely do not have faith nor believe in Him. Those who reject Him in that fashion have no salvation, although it has been made available.
Love for individuals doesn't necessitate the ignorance of others who have not yet come to Him and might be led astray by false leadership. Accordingly there obviously is no room for homosexuality in the leadership of the Church. Just because somebody doesn't rise to elevated stature in the Catholic Church, doesn't imply they don't have salvation nor redemption.
The consequences of sin for those who have come to Christ, might still penalize their stature, but such consequence is far better than the consequences suffering the misled may have been disenfranchised by fallen Church leaders who remained in authority.
Forgiveness is always available, but opportunity might perish.
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.