Elizabeth Scalia: Church is wrong about homosexuality being incompatible with priesthood

La Salette Journey ^ | July 12, 2012 | Paul Melanson

[cleghornboy]

Pope Benedict XVI has stated it clearly: homosexuality is incompatible with the priesthood. But Elizabeth Scalia, a writer/blogger for First Things and The Anchoress on Patheos, disagrees. In a blog post which may be found here, Ms. Scalia writes, "If Christians have any interest in reaching out to the gay community, if we have any hope to speak a message which can touch their hearts as well, we absolutely must be willing to live as their family. Behind his blundering obscenity, behind his facile attempts to explain Scripture away, behind the blatant hypocrisy of his behavior toward those who disagree with him, what Dan Savage means to tell us is, 'The church has far too often, and for the most wrong-headed reasons, failed to be family to gay people.'

I completely agree. And I really believe that the way to begin to do that is for our bishops and the curia to stop turning a blind eye to a simple truth, that numbered among our priests are faithful, celibate, joyful priests who are homosexual...

[dfwgator]

I hope she is no relation to Antonin.

[Sergio]

HEAD'S UP-- THERE NOT A "GAY GENE"!

While agree with you, you cannot use facts or reason when arguing with some people.

When people argue that it's genetics, I ask them one question: Then explain vegans to me?

It is so out of left field that it derails their talking points, and they usually ask me to clarify. So I tell them.

Humans are genetically omnivores. We are predisposed to eat meat and vegetables, yet some folks make the conscious decision to override their genetics and forsake all meats and animal products.

If genetics are so powerful that they take away a persons choice not to be a homosexual, then why are genetics not powerful enough to take away a persons choice to not eat meat.

[Servant of the Cross]

Church: Elizabeth Scalia is wrong about homosexuality being compatible with priesthood

Just google 'sex abuse scandal in Boston'; 'John Jay report on sex abuse scandal'; or simply John Geoghan. Nuff said.

[ravenwolf]

I did not even get into the(Excerpt) if in fact the gays were gay because they had never heard the Gospel, what would you do? lie to them and tell them it was alright?

In fact the whole thing is a big lie, the gay people do know about the gospel and they hate it, for what reason i don,t know, but the gospel is not about gay people it is about the truth.

A lot of people in the past never heard the Gospel until they were in their 30s and acquired a television set but they were not gay.

It is so easy to see that it is not misled people who are joining the gay movement but an organized move by satan and his creeps who do know the concepts of the gospel and hate its author

If you want to destroy something it is much easier if you can become part of it rather than to fight against it from the out side ( the Trojan horse ) Socialism, satanism, the gay movement is all together.

And it is so plain that God is going to allow the organized Churches to be destroyed which is taking place at this time and people will have to depend on the word of God.

You will not get the word of God from a gay church.

We will no longer be able to say to this mountain, fall on us and hide us from the face of God , we will have to show our faith to god personally.

---

rev 6
14
And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

15
And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

16
And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

17
For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

---

I think we can see if we look verse 14 that literal rocks and mountains most likely are not the meaning, verse 14 shows that to be a very dangerous place to hide.

But hiding in a big organized Church would seem a pretty safe haven would,nt it?

The churches for many years have preached the gospel in which they were not willing to do freely as Jesus said but have gotten many millions of tithe payers in, people who may have believed just enough not to want to take any chances.

Therefore the people are safe because they are paying their tithes and their leaders or at least many of them and some of the Churches are getting filthy rich.

They are living off of the Gospel, not of the gospel.

---

rev 18
4
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

5
For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

---

We need to realize here that at least for the most part God is talking to his people, the people who believe his Gospel.

So what would he be telling us to come out of? what else besides a religion that made us feel comfortable would we have to be told to come out of?

Organized religion is now paying the price for their love of money rather than love of God.

[maxwellsmart_agent]

She must be a complete idiot. In just about every case of abuse, it is some old homosexual taking advantage of young boys. It is like saying there is no tie between smoking and lung cancer. She’s a fool!

[Ge0ffrey]

Neither the LaSallette blog nor the Scalia blog has its facts straight. Why not go directly to primary source, The Vatican:

“Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies
in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Oders”

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

[Eva]

The writer includes the qualifier, “celibate” which changes the premise completely. No rejects celibate homosexuals, not even the Catholic church.

Hate the sin, love the sinner!

[ravenwolf]

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Mark 2:17

---

Jesus was talking about the sin of unbelief. even some of the most moral people do not believe.

Many of the religious leaders were preaching a God that was nothing more to them than a tradition.

[Sans-Culotte]

So, as long as we continue to call them names and tell them to go to Hell, we are increasing the chances that they will become receptive?
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

I think you are repeating the gay mantra that churches single homosexuals out for some sort of special condemnation. This is not the case. Your quote from Romans says: "While we were still sinners"; and Paul also says "there is none righteous"; "all have sinned", etc. You know as well as I do (well, you should know) that homosexuals demand to be accepted by the church as non-sinners. For a homosexual to "feel" accepted, the church must accept their homosexuality as a non-sin. So, in the mind of the homosexual, those quotes of Paul's are for somebody else.

Once homosexuals gain "acceptance", gay marriage and openly gay clergy are soon to follow. AFAIK, homosexuals are the only sinners who do not regard their sinful lifestyle as sinful. I really do not care whether they feel accepted or not, and I do not think they should be singled out for any sort of outreach. The rest of us sinners can go to church and rejoice that "while we were still sinners, Christ died for us". The homosexual who considers himself to be not a sinner, need not attend.

[KittenClaws]

Unless I am mistaken Jesus was speaking to his disciples and answering a question raised by the Pharisees.

16 When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they said to His disciples, “Why is He eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 And hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Mark 2:16-17

I am not diminishing the importance of confession and repentance. I am merely trying to point out that as long as Christians find insulting homosexuals to be some kind of sport, there will not be much much opportunity to share the Gospel with them. (For the record, the unclear reference in the previous sentence is intentional.)

____________________________

My interpretation is still correct, it is a matter of semantics: Jesus is saying he is calling sinners to righteousness.

Jesus was not eating and drinking with them to condone gluttony and drunkenness, He was Savior among them, not of them.

IMO, homosexuals seem to believe that a Christian condemning a sin is an insult. While not thinking their in your face, unrepentant, "accept me no matter what G-d says" attitude is not.

[count-your-change]

Evidently homosexuality is not incompatible with being a priest since many are priests are homosexual.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I agree that men with men with strong, ongoing homosexual struggles ought not to be admitted as seminarians or as candidates for ordination. The official criteria (I don't have the quote and I'm citing the idea from memory) are 3-fold as I rememeber it: a candidate for the priesthood :

• must not have ongoing homosexual drives or impulses
• must not have an attachment to or identificaiton with a homosexual "identity" or "gay culture"; and
• must have a demonstrated willingness and ability to live a chaste celibate life over x number of years prior to admission to seminary. (I don't remember the exact time period, but it was a number of years.)

So you and I are in agreement on that.

It does not exclude men who have had, in their past, some transient sexual confusions or some experience they've repented of, especially some isolated sex-foolery that they messed around with as adolescents or whatever. If it doesn't have any residual hold on your life as a "drive," and if you're free of that type of behavior for years with no real danger of recurrance, then you're clean.

Keep in mind that in Pauls' first letter to the Corinthians, he says,

(v. 10) "Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom of God."

And immediately he adds:

(v. 11) Such were some of you.

And then inthe biggest, boldest font:

"... but you were washed. But you were sanctified. But you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God."

So if you have an ongoing homosexual drive, OR a drive to covet, OR a drive to steal, OR a drive to slander, you're not fit for the Kingdom of God. But if you're washed, santified, justified: that's different.

I get it. I wish everybody got it.

[circlecity]

"So if you have an ongoing homosexual drive, OR a drive to covet, OR a drive to steal, OR a drive to slander, you're not fit for the Kingdom of God. But if you're washed, santified, justified: that's different. I get it. I wish everybody got it."

Based on your post we are of the same mind on this. If all of these qualifications are true then the person is not homosexual in the least and there's no issue. Do we have a great God and Savior or what!

[E. Pluribus Unum]

You don't need all those criteria.

The average person's gaydar is pretty accurate.

[Ann Archy]

I just went to my Bible and found nothing like that.....please give me Chapter and Verse.....I know you are a fellow Catholic, but cannot find that part of the Bible.....THANKS.

[Ann Archy]

I just went to my Bible and found nothing like that.....please give me Chapter and Verse.....I know you are a fellow Catholic, but cannot find that part of the Bible.....THANKS.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Yeah, I do think you need all those criteria. Because a person's gaydar can be wrong.

I often think of the Oxford/Cambridge philosopher G.E.M. Anscombe. (Yes, I really do.) In her time, she struck people as pretty dyke-y. Wore pants. Butch hair. Smoked a cigar. Was not conspicuously feminine in social, emotional and intellectual style. Student of, and intellectual collaborator with, Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was (people thought) obviously homosexual.

But Anscombe was a believing and practicing and very traditional Catholic, advocate of chastity, anti-contraception, faithful wife of philosopher Peter Geach, mother of 7.

Sometimes you just can't tell.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Actually, she does not set off my gaydar.

If anything, she looks Amish.

Just because your gaydar is faulty does not mean everybody's is.

[Mrs. Don-o]

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
New International Version (NIV)

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

[Mrs. Don-o]

But (not pictured) the cigar!