Posted on 11/22/2005 8:08:48 PM PST by markomalley
Why are they liberalozing the policies towards homosexuals in the priesthood at a time like this. The exception is going to define the rule.
I tend to agree. Once expelled from a seminary for this reason, the expulsion will be like a "Mark of Cain" everywhere else the individual might try to go to later.
I think, upon reflection, that this is a good thing to have put in. At first, I was dismayed that there wasn't an outright ban. That, of course, could work. But, this way, a "pool" of prospective seminarians of homosexual tendency can be eliminated from present and future seminary attendance when they can be relied upon (almost guaranteed) to "flunk" the time period. Once out, they will never get back in (if this is actually going to have teeth in it, and get enforced), and the appropriate message will have been sent. The underground network will be essentially broken.
Seminary rectors who have facilitated the status quo for years also need to be dealt with in an even tougher fashion, else the document may be gutted. Many in this country should be dismissed forthwith. I wish that issue was directly addressed.
I've often wondered why no psychiatrists received blame in all the media surrounding the abuse scandal.
I recall that Bishop Sheed was very much against Freudianism. I gather that he knew that many priests had fallen under its spell. As regards homosexuality, Jung had what I think an interesting observation: he said that it is much more pervalent in urban societies, that in such societies there is often more confusion about sexual roles than in rural environs. No doubt that there is a natural element in the disorder. Francis Parkman found it among thr Sioux indians. A handful are unfit to be counted as braves and dress and work with the women. I remain unconvinced, however, that the cause is natural, exc ept in the way that natural weakness lead all of us to take the paths of least resistance.
By their fruits shall you know them? ;-)
Thanks for the ping! Hopefully some crackdowns will follow.
IIRC, Cardinal Law sent pedophile priests to special psychiatric treatment, and he also had a file full of things from the psychiatrists saying that the various pedophile priests had been "treated" and were no threat. In fact, in many cases, he was doing exactly what the criminal justice system did with non-violent sex offenders (and getting the same non-results, may I add!).
But the press went after him and there was never a peep about the psychiatrists and "therapists."
I don't think any changes are going to occur until the Pope does something dramatic, like remove at least one bishop.
The bishops - who protect the homosexual priests, seminary rectors, etc. under them - have skated away for so many decades now that they just assume that they are untouchable.
You are absolutely correct. The only way we will know if they are taking this seriously is if the Bishops are held accountable too.
I really hate to do this but this is a snip from a CWN article.
...And why, boys and girls, was it a foregone conclusion that the bishops would "sidestep" the issue? Because the question of whether gays should be ordained cannot be addressed without first addressing a considerably more explosive question: the number of bishop-disputants who are themselves gay and have a profound personal interest that there be no public examination of the connections between their sexual appetites, their convictions, and their conduct of office.
Let's do a little stock-taking of those U.S. bishops who are publicly known to be gay:
Retired Bishop Dan Ryan of Springfield, IL. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? Through the offices of the civil justice system.
Retired Bishop Tom Dupre of Springfield, MA. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? Through the offices of the civil justice system.
Retired Bishop Patrick Ziemann of Santa Rosa, CA. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? Through the offices of the civil justice system.
Retired Bishop Kendrick Williams of Lexington, KY. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? Through the offices of the civil justice system.
Retired Bishop Keith Symons of Palm Beach, FL. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? Through the offices of the civil justice system.
Retired Bishop Lawrence Soens of Sioux City, IA. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? Through the offices of the civil justice system.
Retired Bishop Joseph Hart of Cheyenne, WY. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? Through the offices of the civil justice system.
Retired Bishop Anthony O'Connell of Palm Beach, FL. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? Through the offices of the civil justice system.
Non-Retired Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, FL. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? The papers reported his $100,000 sexual harassment pay-off to his communications flack.
Retired Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee, WI. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? His lover broke the news on Good Morning America .
Nota bene: this isn't a roster of gay bishops. This isn't even a roster of gay bishops who have misbehaved. This is list of only those gay bishops whose misbehavior has gotten them in trouble with the law -- and that so deeply that their proclivities were objectively undeniable. What percentage of the total of gay bishops do they represent? I don't know and you don't know. And about the only things we do know are...
link to the article:
http://www.cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=2791
There are probably some people who have more or less of the personality characteristics we think of as "masculine" or "feminine," but I suspect that environmental factors are ultimately responsible for full-fledged homosexuality - that is, an absent or brutal father, a manipulative mother, etc.
But the reasons really don't matter. I suspect that once upon a time, in the pre-Freudian days when sex was not considered the be-all and end-all of life, some people who probably had homosexual tendencies because of whatever reason may have been successfully able to sublimate these tendencies and be good priests or religious. But ever since we enshrined sex, life has become much more difficult for people like that, because they feel that sexual expression has become some sort of mandate, and they'll go crazy if they don't "do it." Or even if they're not doing anything, they feel they're being dishonest and repressed if they don't sit around and wallow in the thought that they're "gay."
Once upon a time, people (clergy and devout laity alike) used to spend their time thinking about Christ, about judgment, about Heaven, etc. Now they spend it thinking about themselves.
Go to mass and notice how much of it is therapy talk. Half the time the homily is about something therapeutic (such as the dread "self acceptance"), the songs are all about "Me," and the whole atmosphere is sentimental and quasi-psychiatric.
Non-Retired Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, FL
This one has always bothered me, because I live in Florida, and also because I remember his disgraceful behavior at the time of Terri Schiavo's death by starvation.
He was famous for taking pictures of young male diocesan employees in Speedos (which he had given them!), and of course pursued one employee so hotly that the man finally sued him and won. He was also involved in a peculiar financial scandal involving no-bid contracts for diocesan construction. And then, during the Schiavo affair, he was away from his diocese at Easter, visiting Bangkok(!). Yet he is still a bishop in good standing and I have never heard a word of admonishment to him from either Rome or his fellow bishops.
Don't think we did, or at least not enough of us. Else we wouldn't be in the present fix. But I agree with you about the tome of the average homily. It does not tell us to be holy, only to be good neighbors.
The only thing I knew about him was how invisible he was during the Schiavo fiasco.
"I don't think any changes are going to occur until the Pope does something dramatic, like remove at least one bishop."
I nominate Bishop Lynch.
I second that!
lavender bumpus ad summum
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.