Posted on 05/19/2008 1:19:35 PM PDT by NYer
Vatican City, May 19, 2008 / 09:21 am (CNA).- Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, has sent a letter to the bishops of the world with the approval of Pope Benedict XVI reaffirming the norms established by the Congregation for Catholic Education in the 2005 document, “Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocation with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders,” as universal and without exceptions.
In the brief “Rescriptum ex audientia” –a written response to various queries—Cardinal Bertone said the norms establishing the selection of candidates to the priesthood are valid “for all houses of formation for the priesthood, including those under the Dicasteries for Eastern Churches, for the Evangelization of Peoples, and for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.”
The letter, which Cardinal Bertone said was issued in response “to numerous requests for clarification,” implies that the prohibition against accepting homosexual candidates in seminaries applies not only to diocesan seminaries but also to those of religious orders and congregations, as well as to those that are located in mission territories.
The 2005 Instruction indicated the Congregation for Catholic Education, “in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture'."
"Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies," the 2005 document also said.
Ping!
By prohibition they mean ‘open door’
Room full of naked men? Watch for a "reaction"? Room full of naked women? Watch for a "reaction"?
Who's gonna do the "watching"?
Do you just "ask" a guy if he's "gay"?
Suppose it's too early to tell? Suppose he lies? (I know, but it does happen.).
Are those in the seminary who are already "gay" grandfathered?
Yikes, what a problem!
"Never mistake tolerance for acceptance."
Ask. Tell. Expel.
According to the article those in seminary will not be “grandfathered”.
Ask....then,
Lie, obfuscate, spin, dodge, "can't recall", "don't remember", ....
"Retain"
Remember: there's a priest shortage!
What the catholics need are female priests...er...priestesses!
Then they could get all concerned about lesbians and leave the poor gay guy priests alone!
YIKES! What a problem!
OK ...
I don't find that reply to be particularly useful. Or factual. Or logical. Or reasonable.
I think the Church should be careful about the whole “no priests with deep seated homosexual tendencies” thing. THe Church could go too far with this: one’s sexual orientation is not a sinful matter. One’s acting out on that orientation may be a sinful matter. And that goes for straight men just as well as gay men. So they should add “no deep seated hetero tendencies” as well, if they mean they don’t want people who can’t control their urges
Presciending from any form of sexual activity, is the desire for fine food, fine and exquisite living accommodations, long surplices and pretty vestments?
Is the admiration of female parishioners “ Father is sooo wonderful” ; distain for substantive projects (other than raising money ) with men, tightly supervised delegation of most pastoral work to others “Father is so busy” , unwillingness to walk the streets to meet parishioners, interest in “control rather than empowerment of parishioners, no new ideas least they interfere with “comfort” - are these part of gay culture?
More interest in movies, plays, actresses, Brittany, and boys rather than substantive theology and pastoral activity?
Since I belong not to the “club”, I ask. Obviously priests of today are quite different than those of the 50’s Is it because of the “gay culture” that has infected the priesthood. ?????
-A8
“So they should add ‘no deep seated hetero tendencies’ as well, if they mean they don’t want people who can’t control their urges...”
Why?
A heterosexual orientation isn't intrinsically disordered. Heterosexual acts are not intrinsically evil.
sitetest
With the impending wave of Baby Boomer retirements, there could be a huge crop of divorced and never married and widowed HETEROSEXUAL men to bring into the priest hood.
Please...I’ve had quite enough of most Boomers and their kumbaya influence on the Church. They’re usually the ones clamoring for married, multi-divorced, and women priests. Believe me there are some ex-priests who wanted to have their cake and eat it too who would love to get back in front of an altar now that they have an expired bottle of Viagra on the bedstand with one foot in the grave and are once again inclined toward the spiritual rather than the temporal. I would rather have Holy Mass once a month offered by a humble, holy priest than daily Mass by a vacation condo-owning, shark suited, gladhanding priest who’s in it for power and prestige. God bless Pope BXVI!!
I think, and the Church has traditionally taught, that the “sin” isn’t being homosexual, it is engaging in homosexual acts.
Ah. So perhaps only posts in agreement with the article should be permitted. That would make for an interesting Free Republic.
As I said, the Church has long stated that BEING a homosexual is not sinful. ACTING OUT on that orientation is sinful. This article says to me that the Church is taking a wholly new and IMHO inappropriate and uncharitable stand against people for what they ARE, and not for what they DO.
The inherent orientation, strictly in itself, is not sinful if the individual had no part in its creation. Any conative thought processes, however, including fantasies that are under the individual's control, may be sinful. The thoughts need not be acted upon. This goes for heterosexuals and adulterous fantasies, etc., as well.
Grrrr.... I sat at table with a parishioner the other day who expressed she believes priests should be able to marry, because then we wouldn’t have to donate to their retirement fund! Ugh. I consider it an honor to contribute, and we did so yesterday.
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.