Posted on 02/21/2005 10:06:11 AM PST by donbosco74
During the height of the U.S. homosexual priest sex abuse scandal several years ago, Catholic News Service writer John Thavis revealed the largely unknown fact that in 1961 Pope John XXIII had approved in writing a ban on homosexual ordinations to the priesthood.
Thavis said he was told the ban contained in this 1961 document is still in effect. The document was entiltled "Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders", published by the Vatican's Sacred Congregation for Religious. At the time of its publication, the document was referred to by the Sacred Congregation for Religious as "a matter of public law". The ban, as published in The Canon Law Digest, Vol.5, 1963, Bruce Publishing Co., Milwaukee, stated:
"Advancement to religious vows and ordinations should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers..." (See also CFN Jn 2002).
In the December 17, 2004 edition of the Los Angeles Archdiocesan publication, the Tidings, the same John Thavis revealed, in effect, that a recent Church effort to keep and enforce the 1961 Papal ban had been rejected, and that a revised Vatican draft document, due for release by early fall, 2005, would in effect allow homosexuals to be ordained as Catholic priests.
Homosexual Victory Imminent?
Unless the revised Vatican draft document is rejected by Pope John Paul II and other Church leaders before its early fall release, it will give a great victory to the strong pro-homosexual faction inside the Cahtholic Church and to the homosexual movement wouldwide. The Catholic Church's apparent "approval" of homosexual priests will create great pressure on other religions to weaken their opposition to ordaining homosexual pastors. It will give the homosexual lifestyle the apparent seal of approval of the Catholic Church, despite any staement to the contrary...
Some Bishops Opposed Banning Homosexuals
In his April 18, 2003 article, Allen [John Allen, Jr., "All The Pope's Men" author and NCR writer] wrote: "A source close to the drafting process told NCR that the new document regarding seminaries (1961) was 'in deep trouble' in part because some bishops, including some Americans, have raised objections." This source told Allen: "They're saying they don't want to drive the problem underground and make being gay a clandestine thing in the priesthood... They feel it's better to have it out in the open..."
In other words, Allen was saying that some Bishops, including some Americans, approve of openly homosexual men in the priesthood. The view of these bishops has prevailed in the most recent draft document, which will soon open the Catholic priesthood to homosexual men including openly homosexual men, unless Catholics and others protest to Pope john Paul II, College of Cardinals members and other bishops around the world, and urge others to protest...
...[sidebar to article, pg 16]...
Proposed Letter to the Pope
Pope John Paul II Apostolic Palace 00120 Vatican City State, Europe
Re: Enforce 1961 Papal Ban against admitting homosexuals to priesthood and religious life.
Your Holiness:
I strongly oppose a new Vatican draft allowing homosexual ordinations scheduled for early fall, 2005. The "closed-door" April 2-5, 2003 symposium on the acceptance of homosexuals to the priesthood and religious life was an outrageous, one-sided, pro-homosexual farce.
I strongly urge you to reject this revised Vatican draft admitting homosexuals to ordination. I stongly urge you to support and renew explicilty the ban on all homosexual ordinations approved by Pope John XXIII on January 23, 1961.
I will not make financial contributions to any diocesan institution whatsoever if the Vatican allows homosexuals to be ordained.
The militant homosexual faction inside the Church is destroying the Church. I urge you to stop this destruction! Please affirm the 1961 ban on homosexual ordinations by your predecessor Pope John XXIII.
Thank you and God Bless you.
Sincerely, Name, address
Also Send to: Papal Secretary Stanislaw Dziwisz Apostolic Palace, 00120 Vatican City State, Europe
and to: Josepth Cardinal Ratzinger Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Piazza del S. Uffizio 11 00193 Rome, Italy
A few hits in Google for: celebret Tridentine "Ecclesia Dei"
Here is the loophole modernists will exploit.
This exception is mainly for older priests to celebrate the Mass of 1962 in private.
Clear Vatican Statement against Ordination of Homosexuals
-excerpt:
VATICAN, Dec 5, 02 (CWNews.com) -- A leading Vatican official has confirmed the Church's position that men with homosexual tendencies should not be ordained.In a letter dated May 16, 2002, Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez-- who was, at the time, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship-- said: "Ordination to the diaconate or priesthood of persons with homosexual tendencies is absolutely unadvisable and imprudent, and from a pastoral point of view, extremely risky." The letter by Cardinal Medina Estevez, which was a response to a query from a bishop, has now been published in the November-December edition of a bulletin put out by the Congregation for Divine Worship.
The desire to think some legal loophole would have to be found in order to effect any kind of change is a good-natured and optimistic one, for which I do not fault you. At the same time, reminding you to take a second look at posting #26, I would also like to bring this home in a practical manner.
They said for years there would be no altar girls, and that the Pope is really opposed to this innovation. They said for years that there will not be communion in the hand and the Pope never gives it that way and that he will not tolerate it at Papal Masses. They said for years the Pope will put an end to these and other abuses.
The confident proclamations came like a steady stream from apparently well-meaning Catholics who want to believe that everything is going to be okay. So what? Now we have altar girls serving Papal masses, the Pope is photographed distributing communion in the hand, and a myriad of other abuses proliferate. What happened? Do as I say not as I do? Phenomenology excuses self-contradiction? What's verbotten one day is status-quo the next?
I tell you it's a waste of time to second guess the legalities. Don't bother trying to figure out how they will pull it off, because it doesn't matter! IT DOESN'T MATTER! They will pull it off because these men are the ones who believe THEY MAKE THE RULES. They got one innovation after another, and this one will not stop them. They will have their normalization of homosexual priests, just wait and see. Mahony has already accomplished it here in L.A., and where is the reprimand?? WHO IS CALLING HIM TO TASK FOR HIS CRIME AGAINST EVERYTHING HOLY?? Answer: nobody. Why? because it is the new norm. That's why. The Vatican can talk talk talk until the cows come home but until there are real sanctions and consequences, until heads roll, ultil Mahony and his ilk are locked up for life in a monastery to do penance for their crimes NOTHING WILL CHANGE. The crime will become the norm. Mark my words.
It will take an ACT OF GOD to put a stop to this insanity. And that is exactly why the Pope and bishops must consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, because only she can help us now. And only by that means has she promised to intercede, because it is God's will.
I'm getting tired saying this over and over. Maybe some other time...
Sometimes I feel like I'm watching the Titanic sink, and can see people arguing over how to arrange the deck furniture. Get over it. GET OVER IT! At this rate, JPII's so-called infallible prohibition against women's ordination will be transgressed in this Pope's lifetime and he will not lift a finger against it.
And perhaps this question of homosexual ordination will be the lynchpin. If the radical, militant homosexuals running the back office in Rome can pull this one off soon, nobody will be too shocked to see women being ordained.
Mark my words.
If I could offer you some tea or hot chocolate, we could talk this over.
It normal times, the rules that were set up for the normal, healthy operation of the Church would be useful for keeping things normal and healthy. As it is, the Church's immune system is attacking itself. This is HIV of the Faith. Why do you suppose that God allowed the menace of HIV to become such a plague? The state of physical health of people in the world is merely a reflection of the state of our spiritual health. We have disease and corruption in our bloodstreams because of A) original sin and B) we haven't learned yet.
All disease and death is here because Adam coalesced. He capitulated. And today, Catholics have been falling in line with the latest ruse out of some shadow of love for the Church and/or complicity with evil. The innovations after Vatican II were a ruse. We should never have sat still and taken it, but we did, at large, so it happened. At the time perhaps we didn't know better. Well, that excuse is used up, the can's empty, so don't bother shaking it upside down. No more excuses in there. All gone!
So first they deprive the faithful of the True Mass, and now they try to convince you that even though the basis of the Faith, the foundation, has been extracted, the legal structure that was built upon it is still operational and is now working to protect the transplanted foundation. And you're buying it. They tell you a priest needs a celebret to offer Mass when the criminals saying so have taken the Mass away.
I don't think so.
Analogy: You go to a foreign country and are attacked by Mohammedans for being Christian. But an opportunity for you to escape arises, and your friend tells you, "But for us to run away would be illegal! We must have a celebret from the imam before we hoof it through the canal." You say, "Well you can wait around for your celebret, I'm getting the Allah out o'here!"
At least I hope you would.
Either would be fine. I like both.
So first they deprive the faithful of the True Mass, and now they try to convince you that even though the basis of the Faith, the foundation, has been extracted, the legal structure that was built upon it is still operational and is now working to protect the transplanted foundation. And you're buying it.
I'm not, believe me. I know that Quo Primum guarantees the right of every priest to say the Traditional Mass. The celebret idea was merely a way to get around the stranglehold the modernists have in the diocesan establishment. If Rome won't affirm Quo Primum, what are our other choices here is America? While I have no problem attending an independent chapel, others who are more rules oriented or fearful do. The celebrets offer some reassurance to those individuals, imo.
Oh. Okay.
Will that be "with" or "without?" It's raining right now and a spot of tea would hit the spot, no? Milk first? Mind if I pour out?
All right. Now that we're settled in, I would like to thank you for your gentle accomodation. Seeing those kinds of the faithful all around me, it is reasonable to not criticize them for their need. This comes from one who knows what it's like to be criticized for not doing that of which others presume one is capable, when in fact one is not, much to one's chagrin. Regarding the Faith, I was there myself a mere 5 or 6 years ago. Only by the workings of grace the likes of which I had not thought would ever come to me, was I dragged kicking and screaming into the embrace of Tradition, where I quickly settled down, but not too much, as you might be able to tell. I think Our Lady must have thought of me as a "problem child" at best.
But it is into her shadow to be protected by her mantle that I dare to fly, and I hope I don't shake things up too much.
How could I ignore the sensitivities of others who might already be there, but need some kind of reassurance? Okay, so long as it comes to good. But remember this: the day that the celebret is used to persecute those little ones that today take comfort in its reassurance, I will be the first one to cry "wolf!"
Unless, of course I'm busy having High Tea with you on the Internet and someone else beats me to it!
So what you are saying is that the article you posted doesn't outline at all how this new docment will lead to more homosexuals. The author wrote 4,000 words on his gut feeling? His line of reasoning was "I know the doc says no homosexuals but I think they are liars so I will rake the muck."
And what was your point in posting a partial article that people can't read for themselves? Kind of leaves the rest of us at a disadvantage.
Was this posted yet?
Feb 1, 2005
Seminarians must be capable of celibate life, Pope says ...
"The ordination of homosexual men, or men with homosexual tendencies, to the diaconate or priesthood is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent, and from a pastoral perspective it is very risky," wrote Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez in May 2002. The Chilean cardinal was, at the time, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, which supervises priestly ordination. Now the subject is in the hands of the Congregation for Catholic Education, which is responsible for the training of candidates for ordination.
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=34992
"While those who give scandal are guilty of the spiritual equivalent of murder, those who take scandal-who allow scandals to destroy their faith-are guilty of spiritual suicide." St Francis de Sales
Eternity is a long time to be wrong.
Sacred Heart of Jesus pray for us!
I have no intention of leaving anyone at a disadvantage. I don't know how to scan it in quickly and it's not on the website yet. But if you send the publisher $1.75, they'll mail you a reprint. Ask for reprint #1026, and give the title, "New Vatican Document to Eliminate 1961 Papal Ban on Ordaining Homosexuals."
Send to:
Catholic Family News, MPO Box 743, Niagrara Falls, NY 14302.
Or if that's too much money, send me 50 cents and I'll mail you my own reprint!
"So what you are saying is that the article you posted doesn't outline at all how this new docment will lead to more homosexuals." [I think you mean more homosexuals ordained?]
The article, in parts I did not type out, does get into the topic [that I think you mentioned] somewhat, and if that is your interest, perhaps I'll try to get more of it typed in one of these days.
The bottom line, it seems to me, is that A) this document is not yet finished, but "due for release by early fall 2005," and as such, we cannot presume to know what it will say; and B) (my own opinion) no matter how cleverly worded the thing is, there will be efforts to subvert the Catholic intent of it, however clear or vague the intent is expressed. Therefore trying to second-guess what the mechanism of their misguided effort will be is a waste of time. If the past 40 years wandering in the desert is any clue, the document will be chock full of vague language that can be interpreted in a wide variety of ways.
Near the end, the author says, "This means that in practice, according to Allen, some discretion would be left to bishops and seminary rectors 'wether a given case amounts to "homosexuality" in the sense intended by the policy.' This seems to inicate that the door is still left open. What is needed is a clear, unambiguous reaffirmation of the explicit 1961 Papal ban."
That expresses my concern very well: What is needed is a clear, unambiguous reaffirmation of the explicit 1961 Papal ban. But I do not see any such thing likely forthcoming. Call me sour grapes or whatever, but since the ban itself was criticized and ignored since it came out in 1961, why whould there be any attempt to resurrect it now? (You might not have seen my other posts regarding how Mahony has been a prominent ignoramus -- I mean has prominently ignored-- the ban, and has promoted homosexual men toward ordination. I'm not dreaming that the fact of offenses against this ban have been proliferous.) Isn't the whole theme these days to put the past behind and "move forward" into the bright new world of tomorrow? The militant homosexuals are not taking any back seat to this. They are pushing everywhere for so-called equal rights, but what they really want is to have homosexuality proclaimed as the "norm" and make heterosexuality illegal.
How about that for a wild opinion?
(Now the hecklers will jump in saying that I was criticizing something to do with priestly celibacy, which I was not - I haven't been talking about celibacy, okay??)
All stop.
Re-reading your post, to which this is a reply (#37) it now appears that you might be reading the paragraph that begins, "Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty..." and then you're thinking this is a quote taken from the "the new document due out this fall?" Is this correct? Is that what you think you are reading, a quote from the document that Mauro is in a snip about?
"The only thing is, I don't understand where exactly the fire is in the new document. It actually states that homosexuals are not to be admitted or ordained."
No, it does not. The "new document" is not quoted in the article. The new document is not yet published. The new document is not yet written. The new document is a work in progress.
So, why are we upset about something that has not happened yet? Well, we are actually upset about what HAS been happening and continues to happen. Read post #26 again. The promotion of homosexual seminarians to sacerdotal orders has been a plague for the past 40 years as we wander in the desert.
Why get worried before it happens? Well, it IS happening. If we wait until this thing is out in the fall, it will be TOO LATE!
We have seen this kind of thing going on all the time. Here in L.A., there was a committee under Mahony working on his pastoral letter on the Eucharist several years ago. One (or more) of the members on that committee was secretly leaking out preliminary versions of the letter months before it was to be released. This drove Mahony et. al. quite batty. To make a long story short, Mahony had to make several complete revisions of his letter before releasing it, because each version got leaked and Catholics all over town were complaining about how non-Catholic it sounded. --They were complaining about a document that had not been relaeased yet.-- The final version got the attention of Mother Angelica and she scolded Mahony on her TV show. Mahony responded to her saying that what she was upset about was clearly expressed in the footnotes. She came back saying she doesn't read footnotes, and that if he has the most important part in the footnotes, then what's all the rest of this nonsense for? It was pretty funny.
But the fiasco-style archdiocesan antics are far from funny. The faithful are being led down the garden path and the Church is being wrecked. The only way to get any action here is to be ahead of the game. If we wait for the Cardinal to take action, we lose, because he always closes the door before he spreads the news.
Anyone who persists in attending a religious service that is detrimental and ultimately lethal to their faith is committing spiritual suicide. The novus ordo cult will destroy your faith. Beware.
(St. Francis de Sales attended the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively.)
I respectfully disagree.
Thank you.
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.