Skip to comments.
New Report on Vatican Gay Priests Document Said to be Gay Lobby “Rumor Mill”
Life Site ^
| 10/7/05
Posted on 10/07/2005 6:12:56 PM PDT by murphE
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
Father Alphonse de Valk, a Toronto Basilian order priest, historian, and publisher of Catholic Insight magazine told LifeSiteNews.com this latest report is all a rumor mill. He expanded, the pro-homosexual lobby within the Catholic Church is participating in a rumor mill with the hope they can water down a document which rejects a homosexual condition as not suitable for the priesthood.
1
posted on
10/07/2005 6:13:00 PM PDT
by
murphE
To: little jeremiah
I read of your disappointment on the other thread. Here is some hope.
2
posted on
10/07/2005 6:22:07 PM PDT
by
murphE
(These are days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed but his own. --G.K. Chesterton)
To: murphE; xzins; Gamecock; HarleyD; topcat54; Alex Murphy; Frumanchu; zeeba neighba
How did "never" and "no homosexual" turn into "just swell after a three-year waiting period"?
Did they think we'd forget what they said a few short weeks ago?
3
posted on
10/07/2005 6:22:26 PM PDT
by
Dr. Eckleburg
(There are very few shades of gray)
To: murphE
4
posted on
10/07/2005 6:24:36 PM PDT
by
sageb1
(This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
To: murphE; DirtyHarryY2K
Thanks you VERY much. I just walked in the door and as usual am checking out FR - will ping the list later, unless Harry gets to it first!
5
posted on
10/07/2005 6:27:05 PM PDT
by
little jeremiah
(A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
To: Dr. Eckleburg
He expanded, the pro-homosexual lobby within the Catholic Church is participating in a rumor mill with the hope they can water down a document which rejects a homosexual condition as not suitable for the priesthood.
This Valk guy, at least, is saying that any changes are only a rumor started by those who are pro-gay.
If this pope doesn't back down, perhaps someone should worry about a reprise of the quick JohnPaul I demise.
6
posted on
10/07/2005 6:52:58 PM PDT
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
To: xzins
The first I heard about this dismal revision was moments ago on the MSM which stated it as fact.
Something to watch.
7
posted on
10/07/2005 7:00:34 PM PDT
by
Dr. Eckleburg
(There are very few shades of gray)
To: Dr. Eckleburg
8
posted on
10/07/2005 9:57:50 PM PDT
by
vox_freedom
(Fear no evil)
To: EdReform; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; stage left; Yakboy; I_Love_My_Husband; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Good news! Apparently that article earlier stating that the Vatican would not really screen out homosexuals was WRONG! Read the above and ease your mind.
Freepmail me AND DirtyHarryY2K if you want on/off this pinglist.
[Big ol' Whew! Wipes forehead with back of hand.]
9
posted on
10/07/2005 10:58:11 PM PDT
by
little jeremiah
(A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
To: murphE; little jeremiah
A report widely circulated today from the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera claims the expected Vatican document on homosexuality and the priesthood says those who exhibit homosexual tendencies cannot be ordained unless they can show they have lived chastely for at least three years. Wait a minute. I thought that chastity was a prereq for a priest. Even heterosexuals have to be chaste...was there EVER another standard for homosexuals?
10
posted on
10/07/2005 11:01:47 PM PDT
by
andie74
(Proud of my white trash heritage)
To: andie74
Here's a link to the article being referred to:
No ban on gays expected in Vatican document; will advise 'prudential judgement'
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1498416/posts
It's pretty clear in the article what the writer means - that even if a man has homosexual attractions or previous behaviors, as long as he's been chaste for 3 years he can be a priest. But - fortunately - it looks as though it's only a rumor! If you read the other article it'll all be clear, and you'll be happy like me and others on this thread!
11
posted on
10/07/2005 11:26:24 PM PDT
by
little jeremiah
(A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
To: little jeremiah
It's all becoming quite clear. Thanks for the link.
12
posted on
10/07/2005 11:29:59 PM PDT
by
andie74
(Let's put the 'ham' back in Mohammed.)
To: andie74
Looks clear, and looks good!
13
posted on
10/07/2005 11:39:05 PM PDT
by
little jeremiah
(A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
To: murphE; saradippity
knew it!
Thanks for sharing this!
14
posted on
10/08/2005 12:45:58 AM PDT
by
kstewskis
("I don't know what I know, but I know that it's big".....Jerry Fletcher)
To: Dr. Eckleburg
I just read it reported as fact in my local (NYT) paper. I honestly can't see how the Vatican could do something like this, though, so I'm trying to stay calm!
15
posted on
10/08/2005 3:40:05 AM PDT
by
livius
To: Dr. Eckleburg
"How did "never" and "no homosexual" turn into "just swell after a three-year waiting period"?" The entrenched "gay" crowd lobbied. How else is sound biblical doctrine built but by politics.
16
posted on
10/08/2005 4:02:49 AM PDT
by
HarleyD
("...and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." Acts 13:48)
To: murphE
The report in
Corriere della Serra made no sense to me. How do you
demonstrate that you've been chaste for three years? Pass through an anal semen detector? Take a polygraph test? The latter is the only method which I can think of and aside from this, it is a totally unmeasureable standard. You can
say you've been chaste for three years.....but
demonstrate it.......I don't think so.
For the Vatican to acquiesce to such a standard would be to effectively give the green light to homosexual ordination. The barrier to homosexual ordination would be essentially non-existent in the face of this non-quantifiable standard and would depend on nothing more than the seminarian's word.
I'd like to know where the Corriere della Serra report originated. If they traced it back to its source I'm sure we'd find a big, pink Vatican prelate.
To: marshmallow
If they traced it back to its source I'm sure we'd find a big, pink Vatican prelate. LOL! That's what I'm thinking, too. Or maybe a big pink Jesuit, because the Tablet has been busy exulting over this.
I can't see what good it would do them to spread misinformation, though. After all, if it's not true, then that will be revealed soon enough. On the other hand, I suppose they might want to confuse the issue so much that the document - if it genuinely does try to root out the homosexual culture in the Church - will be unenforceable or at least more difficult to enforce.
18
posted on
10/08/2005 6:36:31 AM PDT
by
livius
To: murphE
This is EXACTLY what I took those previous articles to be. Lavendar wishful thinking. No surprise that the National antiCatholic Distorter and their Vatican "insider" John Allen were so quick to pick it up.
19
posted on
10/08/2005 7:02:21 AM PDT
by
Antoninus
(The greatest gifts parents can give their children are siblings.)
To: marshmallow
I'd like to know where the Corriere della Serra report originated. If they traced it back to its source I'm sure we'd find a big, pink Vatican prelate.
And one who violated the Vatican order to secrecy during the synod. Personally, I'm shocked that a lavendar would do such a thing! /sarc
20
posted on
10/08/2005 7:04:58 AM PDT
by
Antoninus
(The greatest gifts parents can give their children are siblings.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson