[Balt]

A simple rehash of what the Church has previously taught, with some PC crap thrown in as a non-sequitor about how we respect everyone and shouldn't kick a gay person when we meet him in the street. Not one word of practical advice from the congregation in charge of seminaries about how to interview prospective candidates regarding their attitutes toward homosexuality and sexuality in general, nor anything about the problem of effeminism. Likewise, nothing at all about those already ordained, especially those who have publically identified themselves as gay, and what should be done with them. Most disturbing of all, no catalog of penalties to be applied to bishops and seminary officials who choose to ignore Church teaching regarding homosexuality or who knowingly accept gays into the seminary -- which I'm sure they will continue to do, since the document mandates no enforcement mechanism. And why should it? It doesn't really give us anything to enforce.

This is a document written in the style of Paul VI: a beautifully crafted but naive restatement of doctrine, perfectly orthodox from beginning to end, but rendered impotent by (1) the striking lack of enforcable canons, (2) a date by which they must be implimented, and (3) the penalties to be applied for disobediance. In other words, a document that will change or improve nothing whatsoever.

[Balt]

It should be noted that this is an unofficial translation.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

A document with no link, and no way to check it out?

[newberger]

What do you man by "unknown"? Where did you find it?

[big'ol_freeper]

Thanks Padre.

[Lord let me see]

The Long-Awaited Document:

http://www.adistaonline.it/congregatio.PDF?PHPSESSID=b5c1aad6ca6b54c5c323932f7993ed10

Waited for what? This?

Deep-rooted? Tendencies? Transitory problem of homosexuality?

Who will make the decisions? Spiritual Directors? Whose work is Sealed in Confessional Secrecy? They are to persuade "deeply rooted" and direct
"un-deeply rooted" homosexuals in conscience and in secrecy?

Where's the MORAL teaching? WHERE IS THE MORAL TEACHING???

NOTHING HAS CHANGED!

Dust in the wind.

[NYer]

This is a document written in the style of Paul VI

Say no more! The piecese are all beginning to fall into place now.

"Archbishop Jean Jadot, Pope Paul VI's apostolic delegate to the United States from 1973-1980, has no regrets about the spate of bad bishops he infficted on the Catholics of this country."
Still Proud Of Bishops He Gave U.S.

So, it was Pope Paul VI who opened Pandorra's box and is ultimately responsible for all the novelties, liturgical abuses and lost catholic souls!

"Unknown | 11-4-95 | CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION"

Is this your source?

[jec1ny]

Setting aside for the moment the fact this alleged document was posted without attribution (which is a fairly serious no-no), it does contain some interesting wording. Much hot air and verbiage has been expended in recent weeks (yes even here on FR) about the fear that those with homosexual inclinations who could remain chaste for three years would be allowed to remain in seminary. This document does not do that. It states...

"When dealing, instead, with homosexual tendencies that might only be a manifestation of a transitory problem, as, for example, delayed adolescence, these must be clearly overcome at least three years before diaconal Ordination."

Overcome means not there anymore. Clearly Rome has opted for a zero tolerance policy. The issue of sanctions are a legitimate point but since the bishops would logically be the ones responsible for enforcement issuing a catalog of anathemas and excommunications is kinda pointless. Rome simply does not have the means to micro manage the world's seminaries. Like it or not it must be handled on a local level. As for a "date effective" clause thats a non issue. In the absence of a specific "effective on" date, all juridical documents issued by the Holy See take effect upon publication.

[hispanichoosier]

Not one word of practical advice from the congregation in charge of seminaries about how to interview prospective candidates regarding their attitutes toward homosexuality and sexuality in general, nor anything about the problem of effeminism.

I think you miss the point of this document. It's an "instruction," not a manual. Instructions are on a lesser level than encyclicals but still meant to be general in themes, not specific.

[jtal]

If this is the real document, then I'm really disappointed.

So, I believe the timeline is this:

1961 : Vatican prohibits ordination of gay men

1960s to 2005 : Massive ordination of gay men, resulting in innumerable cases of sexual assault on teenage boys.

2005 : Vatican says, OK, we'll allow SOME gay men to be ordained.

Wow, so by loosening the prohibition against gay ordinations, you hope to achieve WHAT exactly? I am disappointed they didn't simply reissue a complete ban, with the words "THIS TIME WE MEAN IT!" added.

-jtal

[Dajjal]

lavender bumpus ad summum

[ninenot]

There are some who question whether this is actually the REAL "final" document. Note the odd phrasing of B-16's approval (lacking some typical details.)

We all think that this is what the doc will say--but don't take this to the bank for large money.

[dangus]

The 1961 "policy" was a private letter, that was not included in any references, and was unknown of by the laity, priestly candidates, spiritual directors, and even bishops annointed after 1961.

The new doctrine will be known of by everyone. Tolerance of homosexuality will be a visible sign of infidelity from here on out. The issue has been settled.

It is not new doctrine; nothing which the church proclaims is. It is, however, a dramatic new focus, and a clear rejoinder to the vast majority of the American presbyteriate which asserted that there was nothing wrong with gay priests.

It IS merely a mission statement; it is not a self-implementing proclamation. The clear, public, unambiguous statement is strong support for the warriors of Orthodoxy, but the battle still must be fought. And as such, there are grounds for watching after whether it is being implemented. But it is not a statement made in isolation. From the review of the seminaries to the chastisement of national councils, there is every indication that much IS being done.

I would expect that the various appropriate curial offices will issue implementations shortly.