Battle lines drawn over Vatican stance on gays (a MUST read!)

CW News (subscription only - no link) | November 23, 2005 | Phil Lawler

[Iris7]

I am in full agreement. This business is deeply embedded in the American Church. Deeply.

The corruption runs from top to bottom. Even the really very decent priests and bishops do not ever talk about this business except perhaps in private. A massive cover up is and has been in place. This is not an empty claim but comes from fully reliable individuals in a position to know.

Exposure and transparency about clergy homosexuality, naming names, describing who, what, and when is needed. A true and accurate description of past and present transgressions is urgently required.

Let us pray that the coming war of words will not come to a war of acts. Even so, defeat is not an option.

[Iris7]

I appreciate your posts and read them. Thank you for your pings.

Usually I have nothing constructive to add to the discourse but could not resist my #21. My statement can be taken to be inflammatory but is truthful and accurate. There are some extremely good and brave priests we perhaps can help and who at times may need our support.

The Gates of Hell itself shall not prevail. Absolutely. But our own Christian formation puts us in this battle.

Character is destiny. God is Truth, as Augustine said.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

God bless the Holy Father for his courage and conviction.

I'm not Catholic but I feel the same way.

[RonDog]

...The president of the US bishops' conference, Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane, proclaimed:

"There are many wonderful and excellent priests in the Church who have a gay orientation, are chaste and celibate, and are very effective ministers of the Gospel."

If Bishop Skylstad's words seemed to prepare readers for a policy that would restrict the priesthood to celibate homosexuals, he served notice that any more aggressive stance would meet heavy resistance....

"celibate homosexuals" ?!?

Isn't that like cigarette smokers who do not smoke?

If one does not have sex, does it really matter WHO one does not have sex with?

[Diva]

If one does not have sex, does it really matter WHO one does not have sex with?

First you need to define terms. Celebate means not getting married, chaste means not having sex, of course celebate has come to mean both but in Church definitions I think it is still seperate. What a number of seminarians were taught back in the 70s was that you could practice homosexual sex and remain celebate. It was called the 3rd Way or some such thing. I knew a young man who was taught this by a priest. He was brought into the life-style by a priest! I was not sure at the time if the priest was a member of the order he was in formation with or not, and my friend was very careful not to tell me the priest's name. Not long after this he was kicked out of the seminary and years later finally left the Church altogether. Unfortunately, many do not leave when they can't accept the teaching of the Church but stay and try to "reform" the Church.

[MSSC6644]

So, what happens to all those homosexual men who were ordained

I suggest their choice be made known to those they serve. Let their parishioners or students know who these priests are. If they are celibate, if they are pure, they should have nothing to fear. At the least, it would take away the ability to "hide in the Church."

[x5452]

Where is the controversy?

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.


Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up to vile affections. For even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventers of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who, knowing the judgment of God, that they who commit such things are worthy of death; not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.



1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Cr 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

That's what they don't want to hear...

[dangus]

>> Because at this point there are no penalties associated with the instruction, my guess is that the bad seminaries and bishops will try to flaunt it at which point the ball is back in BXVI's hands. <<

Absolutely true. And yet, I still believe that this document is a fantasticly positive step. Benedict understands what Bush does not: To win ideological conflicts, you need to constantly equip your supporters with firm, constant support for their arguments.

Before this document, if a seminarian is ill-at-ease with the homosexual subculture in a seminary, the director would give HIM the boot, explaining he was too "rigid" and "intolerant" for his pastoral duties. Now, the seminarian will know he is right, and can report the matter to the bishop. And if the bishop does nothing, he can report the bishop to Rome. Will every such battle be won? No. 99.9% will be lost, in fact. But the rare victory will trun the tide, until few such battles need to be fought.

[Antoninus]

It about time that the Catholic Church has come to that decision. Many Protestant churches have acknowledged this fact for years.

Actually, the Catholic Church has ALWAYS had that point of view, even if many of its bishops openly disregarded it. The sad fact is that increasing numbers of protestant sects are now publicly tolerating homosexual relations as the moral equivalent of marriage--and ordaining openly gay ministers.

[Salvation]

Any way others can subscribe?

[Frank Sheed]

Salvation--

This is an excellent source of RC news and detailed analysis. Much is free but the inside info is for subscribers only. For more info on subscriptions, go here:

http://www.cwnews.com/help/help.cfm?category=2

Note that the online service has a referral program which can get you big discounts on your yearly subscription for new sign ups. I highly recommend this source, EWTN's Recent Headlines and Catholicity.com as sources for info.

Frank

[Tantumergo]

"Obtaining holy orders on a lie is like conscrating the Eucharist without believing in the Real Presence: both are spiritually void of any validity."

Absolutely right. Unfortunately, though, there are many bishops and superiors for whom this intruction will mean nothing, and they will continue to be complicit in encouraging these poor lost souls to seek ordination.

Despite RobbyS labelling these faithless prelates as "unreliable subordinates", they are not, in fact, "subordinate" to the Pope. Unless they preach outright heresy or publicly attempt a schism, and charges can be brought against them which can be made to stick, the Pope can do nothing against them. Flouting of instructions and guidelines from Rome carries no canonical penalty whatsoever when you are a bishop. To this extent, the instruction has been a waste of time and energy and the only difference it will have made is that some of the fags joining the seminaries this year may have a slightly guilty conscience.

It looks to me that the Pope genuinely wants to clean up the Church, but he knows that he doesn't have the power to do it. The only way these problems will be fixed (short of poisoning the heretics) will be when the lay faithful rise up and throw out the bad bishops and refuse to accept their ministry.

Unfortunately, most Catholics have forgotten how to do this over the last 400 years.

[RobbyS]

"Inferiors" is better than "subordinates," as the relationship of the bishops to the pope is somewhat like that of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to the members of the inferior federal courts. The Chief is the head of the federal system, but he has limited authority over federal judges. But many Catholics, and especially traditionalist Catholic DO think that the pope is the "boss" of the bishops expect him to be the "hiring and firing" person in the Church. This perception is encouraged by at look at the monarchial structure of the Church, where the bishops act as a nobility. and certain of them as electors of the pope.

[Tantumergo]

""Inferiors" is better than "subordinates,""

I am not sure we can say that anymore in the post-Conciliar ecclesiology. Some would argue that this would be an Ultra-Montanist view of the Church rather than the traditional Catholic view.

"But many Catholics, and especially traditionalist Catholic DO think that the pope is the "boss" of the bishops expect him to be the "hiring and firing" person in the Church."

Perhaps that is so, but that is also the reason why they will continue to be disappointed by his failure to do any firing. It is only in the last 100 years or so that the Pope claimed the right to appoint bishops - that was never the traditional practice. Even the legislation that made consecration of bishops without Papal mandate an excommunicable offence is only 51 years old - hardly traditional!

"This perception is encouraged by at look at the monarchial structure of the Church, where the bishops act as a nobility. and certain of them as electors of the pope."

The Church is certainly monarchical, but that monarch is not the Pope - it is Christ the Sovereign King. The Pope is only His Vicar amongst other vicars - albeit he is the Prime Vicar among vicars.

[magisterium]

No. Celibacy is not having sex (and, secondarily, not being married, which is how the homosexuals restrict the definition for it to include them). Thus, children, single adults not having sex, widows and widowers, etc. are celibate. Chastity is maintaining sexual conduct according to one's station in life: celibate if not married, being sexually faithful to one's spouse if married. Thus, one is being perfectly chaste in having sexual relations with one's wife or husband, when that partner is, indeed, the only one. And a person under vows or promises of chastity is both celibate and chaste if unmarried or chaste if married and faithful to the spouse.

Therefore, all celibate people are chaste, but not all chaste people are celibate.

[Aquinasfan]

NOTHING will change in LA until the administration there changes

Can the pope make Cardinal Mahoney a parish priest?

[Knitting A Conundrum]

I don't know about that...but he could do something like what was done with Cardinal Law, where its an obligation with no power.

[Dumb_Ox]

If one does not have sex, does it really matter WHO one does not have sex with?

Sometimes Same-Sex Attraction is accompanied by a deep revulsion towards the marital act. I don't see how such men could be fit for the priesthood, since they have a revulsion for the consumating act of the sacrament of matrimony. Such men could very well be severely mentally compromised in teaching about Christian marriage or encouraging others towards it.

[tenn2005]

You are correct in the points that you make. It is indeed sad that some protestant churches have come to accept homosexually. This is not true of the church with which I am affeliated and never will be. I commend the Catholics for their stand.