Posted on 05/28/2004 11:04:28 AM PDT by sinkspur
An update concerning the long-rumored document on the admission of homosexuals to Catholic seminaries, being prepared under the aegis of the Congregation for Catholic Education.
In various drafts, the idea of a document on this subject has been around for years. In April 2003, however, a special closed-door Vatican summit on pedophilia seemed to arrest its momentum. During that session, scientific experts on sexual abuse told Vatican officials that homosexuality does not "cause" abuse. They said it is a risk factor associated with clerical sexual abuse, but so are many other things - such as being ordained less than five years.
Sources told NCR at the time that these statements impressed a number of senior Vatican officials. One Latin American cardinal said at the time, "It's clear to me that a man's bio-genetic makeup shouldn't be our interest so much as his behavior."
In fact, however, the document is far from dead.
"The Holy Father wants it, so there will have to be a document," a senior Vatican official told NCR in late May. This official offered no prediction, however, as to when the document might appear.
As to content, the official said the document would to some extent repeat the norms contained in a 1961 instruction of the Congregation for Religious, titled Religiosorum institution, which stated: "Those affected by the perverse inclination to homosexuality or pederasty should be excluded from religious vows and ordination."
One key is what exactly the term "homosexuality" means. At one pole, a single same-sex attraction experienced years ago and never acted upon might mark someone as "homosexual." The other pole might restrict the definition of "homosexuality" to active and on-going sexual behavior. Most people would probably reject the former as overly strict, and the latter as overly loose. The question, then, is where to fall in between.
The senior Vatican official told NCR the document would likely not settle this question.
"It's not reasonable to expect the Holy See to get into those details," the official said. "That's something that almost has to be determined on a case-by-case basis."
It seems therefore probable that bishops will retain some flexibility in deciding how to apply whatever standards are set out in the document. Dioceses that have a strict policy against the admission of homosexuals will continue, but those who emphasize a candidate's capacity for celibacy, rather than sexual orientation in se, could argue that such a candidate is not "homosexual" in the sense intended under the norms.
It's possible, therefore, that the thunderclap the document will cause in the press will not be matched by changed realities on the ground.
For your distribution lists.
A couple of points:
1. "a man's bio-genetic makeup shouldn't be our interest"
A predilection to sodomy is NOT genetically determined - just a serious behavioral and spiritual disorder, a sick "perversion" as His Eminence Gustaaf Cardinal Joos (of Belgium) recently explained to members of the press.
You may find the following statement by the Catholic Medical Association helpful in this regard:
http://www.rcf.org/docs/homosexuality_and_hope.htm
2."They said it is a risk factor associated with clerical sexual abuse"
Yes, a MAJOR risk factor - in the John Jay report, more than 80% of victims were boys.
For more on this association, please see:
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3
3."As to content, the official said the document would to some extent repeat the norms contained in a 1961 instruction of the Congregation for Religious, titled Religiosorum institution, which stated: "Those affected by the perverse inclination to homosexuality or pederasty should be excluded from religious vows and ordination.""
The above decree (by Pope John XXIII) has never been retracted, and so remains the norm. With all the "pink palace" seminaries and "lavender mafia" chancery officials, it should be abundantly clear that the above norms have been ignored. It's not more wordy documents we need, it's discipline. Spare the rod - and spoil the child!
As to content, the official said the document would to some extent repeat the norms contained in a 1961 instruction of the Congregation for Religious, titled Religiosorum institution, which stated: "Those affected by the perverse inclination to homosexuality or pederasty should be excluded from religious vows and ordination."The full text of Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders is posted on the Roman Catholic Faithful's website, with a slightly different translation:
Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.
"It's not reasonable to expect the Holy See to get into those details," the official said. "That's something that almost has to be determined on a case-by-case basis."This following information is best posted without a link ...
"Penile plethysmography is a test measuring the variation of penis size in response to audio and/or visual stimuli. The size of the penis is commonly determined by its circumference using a mercury strain gauge, and was originally intended as a way of measuring sexual arousal. The Penile plethysmograph (PPG) device was developed by Czechoslovak researcher Kurt Freund in the 1950s. The motivation for its development was to prevent draft dodgers from claiming that they were homosexual in order to avoid military service."
"Penile plethysmography is a test measuring the variation of penis size in response to audio and/or visual stimuli"
Oh please Lord no. Has it come to this? Is this the state of the church? The Tribulation can not be far off.
**"It's clear to me that a man's bio-genetic makeup shouldn't be our interest so much as his behavior."**
Bingo. I have always believed that this is more like alcoholism, srugs or gambling -- an addiction.
Not too many people agree with me, but that is OK. The offenders need to follow a recovery program and completely commit themselves to this recovery, OR ELSE it will not work.
OK, everyone, go ahead an flame!
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.
Thanks Sink, another good report from John Allen.
As to content, the official said the document would to some extent repeat the norms contained in a 1961 instruction of the Congregation for Religious, titled Religiosorum institution, which stated: "Those affected by the perverse inclination to homosexuality or pederasty should be excluded from religious vows and ordination."
One key is what exactly the term "homosexuality" means. At one pole, a single same-sex attraction experienced years ago and never acted upon might mark someone as "homosexual." The other pole might restrict the definition of "homosexuality" to active and on-going sexual behavior. Most people would probably reject the former as overly strict, and the latter as overly loose. The question, then, is where to fall in between.
The senior Vatican official told NCR the document would likely not settle this question.
Ping. (As usual, if you would like to be added to or removed from my "conservative Catholics" ping list, please send me a FReepmail. Please note that this is occasionally a high volume ping list and some of my ping posts are long.)"
Relax, it's FRiday ...
Number of Seminarians Increases - Please Decipher This!!!!
In Seminaries, New Ways for a New Generation
Seminary Springtime: Father Darrin Connall s Big Success
EVIDENCE GROWS OF DIRECT DISOBEDIENCE TO VATICAN IN MAJOR AMERICAN SEMINARIES
Pope to Church: Risky Seminarians Must Go
U.S. Priests and seminarians survey: more vocations in orthodox dioceses
Vatican Announces Surge in Seminaries during JPII Pontificate
Seminary Reform Needed in Wake of Sex Abuse Study ["the crisis in the Church is ... homosexuality"]
I think it's still important that they issue a document, if only to make unambigous that Rome's position has not changed on this.
Just keep in mind that it took a long while for the reforms of Trent to take effect. They met the same stubborn resistence. A whole generation of malefactors had to die off before they were allowed to take root. Many never did, and in the 18th Century, laxity appeared again. Thank of the trouble that St. Alphonsus had, and he was a tough-minded guy and good organizer.
Homosexual Agenda Ping - Can someone explain this in simple layman's language?
To my untutored eyes, it looks kind of neither here nor there.
The 1961 statement looks fine, although obviously the lavender mafia wasn't paying attention:
"Those affected by the perverse inclination to homosexuality or pederasty should be excluded from religious vows and ordination."
But I don't like this comment:
One Latin American cardinal said at the time, "It's clear to me that a man's bio-genetic makeup shouldn't be our interest so much as his behavior."
So the Latin American cardinal is buying homosexual rights lie that homosexuality is genetic. And that such "born that way" homosexuals make fine priests.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
(I'll be gone all weekend, if anyone sees relevant articles you can alert EdReform or Scripter!)
The perverse "inclination" bars the person from religious life.
Thanks for the link.
"Welcome to seminary. Will that be gumming or non-gumming?"
Back in the days,before testing for everything was in vogue,and when the average citizen was endowed with a modicum of common sense I would feel confident in endorsing the statements in the 1961 document from the Vatican. In these crazy times,where every man thinks his own opinion is as important and valid as the next man's is a different story.
Reading through the religious forum on a regular basis gives a small idea of the mountains people make of molehills. I am worried about this,and anyone who cares about the future of the Church and western civilization should be worried too. We have to learn how to work together for the greater glory of God ASAP. Or at least figure out who to trust.
That is one reason I am always carping about bad bishops and trying to identify the heterodox,marxist,progressive,homosex sympathizing bishops. I hope many can recognize the problems this is going to cause and start thinking about how this identification of homosexuals can be accomplished without forcing candidates to lie,while concomitantly not throwing every man who admits that he has thought about it out on his ear. It's a problem.
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.