Skip to comments.VATICAN: HOMOSEXUALS ARE NOT TO BE ORDAINED AS CATHOLIC PRIESTS
Posted on 09/22/2005 6:06:19 PM PDT by BIRDS
"Expected Vatican Ban Roils American Church" Sep 22 4:15 PM US/Eastern
Word that a soon-to-be-released Vatican document will signal homosexuals are unwelcome in Roman Catholic seminaries even if they are celibate has devastated gay clergy _ and raised doubts among conservatives about whether an outright ban can be enforced.
A Vatican official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the document has not been released, said Thursday that the upcoming "instruction" from the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education will reaffirm the church's belief that homosexuals should not be ordained.
In recent decades, Vatican officials have stated several times that gays should not become priests because their sexual orientation is "intrinsically disordered" and makes them unsuitable for ministry.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I support the instruction by the Vatican (this article) and consider it long overdue in honesty and frankness about the issue in relationship to the priesthood. And note that the insistence and threats by those making them (seems to include the AP based upon their headline) about this issue are spawned by cultural expectations, in defiance of Christianity itself, as also the Vatican.
Wow, good news. Wonder how many existing priests will this affect? Is the Church going to try to drum them out?
well there goes a couple of billion dollars down the drain....... nice experiment. What next from the libs that have infected the church.... this has only taken 35 years to come to fruition and almost destroy the priesthood and the Catholic Church.
This is a tad late.
Why? Aren't priests required to vow celibacy?
"Celibacy is celibacy. Even if your thing is goats!"
Excellent news by the RCC! Very welcome and a strong leadership message to the rest of the Christian flock.
Good. Bravo and kudos to Pope Benedict!
That's a lot like saying "we ban all murderers from being priests, even ones who don't murder people."
Am I to take from your comments that this is a policy that is unwelcomed? Would you suggest not doing anything at all because it doesn't meet with your timelines?
That's the point.
There should be no "gay" clergy.
It is welcomed. My time line was decades ago. I now want a purge.
No, the Church is not going to drum them out.
Now if they'd come out with support for prosecution too...
The Vatican did what it had to do, no more, no less.
Pope Benedict XVI will not take any crap...he is gently shoving Bernard Law out of Rome. Although I adored the late Pope John Paul II, his last years as Pontiff were "status quo". Benedict XVI has an iron fist covered with velvet to make things right in the Church. And do not expect a short pontificate (less than 5 years)...Benedict XVI enjoys good health and it would not surprise me to see him for 10-15 years as Pontiff.
First, as a physician, if a patient comes to me with an illness that could have been better treated at an early stage, do I reject the treatment of that illness at a later stage? No.
Secondly, my wife and I taught 10th graders at CCD last night for the first time and saw one of the most enthusiastic group of young people I had encountered in some time. Don't they deserve all the Church's efforts to improve itself and assume the orthodoxy these kids actually asked for?
And this: Expected Vatican Ban Roils American Church")
Where exactly is that church?
Do they mean the Roman Catholic Church in America?
I'm aware of no American Catholic sect.
It's about time that the RCC calls a deviate a deviate!!!! IT will be for the better of the church IMHO.....
The only way to stand up to evil is to stand up to evil. This is a little later than we would all like, but just as the Catholic church has been unwaivering in its stand against the evil of abortion, so also must they stand against the immoral action of a homosexual.
US citizens think that everything is up for a vote - but some things are absolute evils. (period).
Go Pope Go!
I agree. Now I want Law on a plane home. I have a few questions.
Yes they do. I pray this is the first step on a very hard path.
Lunatic Fringe said: "Celibacy is celibacy. Even if your thing is goats!"
I think this ruling just goes to show that the Pope believes that in real life, celibacy is discreet sexual relationships. He thinks that discreet heterosexual relationships will be restricted to the consensual with those of legal age to consent. It would certainly be an improvement if the sex were restricted to adults. It remains to be seen whether the Pope is right. It also remains to be seen what effect this ruling has on vocations.
I agree, completely. Former Pope identified it as the evil it is, unfortunately did not take correct steps to help to prevent and eradicate it soon enough.
But underway now, and for that, I rejoice.
Yeah, that's it exactly.
I've tried to write about this before, that homosexuals in the priesthood are still homosexuals, whether "celibate" or not (but many are not, sadly).
There's a different scale involved here, and I am very glad to read that our new Pope is speaking to the heart of this issue. I am sure he'll now be mobbed with much evil but, well, he's doing the right thing here.
I'd even go so far as to encourage those disgruntled homosexuals currently in the Priesthood to go ahead and depart. I'm not saying they are not good people, but that they don't belong in the Priesthood. A lot of people feel as I do, from experience both humanly and with scripture.
Glad we cleared that up. Next?
Perhaps the AP writer is a frustrated novelist. Or perhaps it is just the writer's mind roiling right before our eyes.
Many are not remaining celebit, thats the problem.
I had a gay priest as a neighbor for a couple of years. He had more dates than a palm tree.
Yeah, that's the point that leaped out at me, too, and about which I find peculiar, AP (the "religious writer" at that) headlining some "American Church" being "roil(ed)" by a Vatican instruction...it suggests a disconect and separation that doesn't exist.
What and who IS "roiled" is liberals who want to force ideologies and cultural issues throughout the rest of population...to overrule the Freedom of Religion based upon cultural trends and insistences.
I'm proud of the Pope for this decision, truly proud. AND I'm an American, live here, attend church here, don't consider any "American Church" other than my local Catholic parish as place of worship, among other Catholic churces I attend now and then. The writer is just trying to get an argument going, as if it's the Vatican against "America."
Since this 'instruction' has not been issued and no one knows the actual language, how did you arrive at this conclusion? You may have a future as an AP writer.
No, this instruction does NOT "go to show" what you opine, and what you opine is just more of that evil that the instruction and the Pope is working to confront and get out of the Church.
Yes, celibacy is celibacy but celibacy is just one aspect of who a Priest is in the Catholic Church. One aspect. The whole person is taken into account and that's what the Pope is saying here.
The question is: Unless the applicant is caught red-handed
(brown-p*******), how will they tell? Seems that there are
1. Homosexuality is truly gene-determined, in which case they will have to wait until the faggot gene is identified and then require a blood test.
2. Otherwise. In this case they will have to devise some
kind of a test based on behavior. One idea would be to hire
prostitutes, and expose the applicants to naked women. Or
hire male prostitutes with the same idea.
Maybe there are other ideas.
Ok, for clarity here, does this ban men who've had sex with men from entering the priesthood, or does it ban virginal men who are attracted to men instead of women from entering the priesthood? I can see a world of difference between the two.
Show me the scripture that would apply to the man who has never lain with another man and who never intends to lie with another man.
It's actually the same as anybody who has a personal tendency that would lead them into a particular sinful behavior, but knows the difference between right and wrong and so abstains from it.
My only problem is the label "celibate homosexual". It means the person is STILL identifying themself with the sinful behavior, which makes no sense morally to me.
Ummm, what I think B-16 is saying is that celibacy is celibacy, a little on the side is sin.
That would be a man who's attracted to other men, but who obstains from all sexual relations. A celibate heterosexual would be a man who's attracted to women (or the converse) and who obstains from sex. That's my question here: Does the edict concern homosexual action, in which case I would say it has merit, or orientation, in which case I would say it does not. For starters, in the absence of action, how could you possibly prove anyone's orientation?
Priesthood became a sanctuary profession for the homosexuals
Once they find one they flock to it
What about pedophiles? If they keep this up we're not going to have any priests. Then what will Linda Blair do?
they and those that allowed them in under the guise of "understanding and forgiveness" are the ones that bear the stain of this absurd policy of allowing homosexuals into the priesthood. Not only allowing it but also by discouraging anyone to speak out against this sin.
The lord stated that there was an obligation to protect the children and this was lost in the liberal policies. The fact that most of the "policy" portion of the Roman Catholic church is socialist is also a large reason that I am not inclined to rejoin and have kept my children away from the church.
I don't hate the current church or the people that chose to live their lives with the firm belief in the current Roman Catholic Church..... however I CHOOSE not to do so.
I CHOOSE to keep my money and give it directly to those in need and not for payoffs to homosexual child predators and the pathetic "leadership" that enabled this to occur.
There is a special place in hell for the Bishops and Cardinals that helped hide, recruit and enable the child molesters to infect the church.
I'm sorry for the rant, but I have many family members that still belong to the church including my mother and we agree to disagree on my views of the Catholic Church.
Put the crack pipe down and step away from the keyboard.
It's called confession. A homosexual who seeks enrollment in a seminary and later ordaination as a Catholic priest has to be forthcoming, reveal who he is emotionally and psychologically, much moreso spirtually.
Someone alleging, for starters, that homosexuality was a compulsion, beyond his control, who he was "by nature" or something similar, would be revealing a condition that is not a characteristic to be included in those ordained.
You're suggesting that there's a rough, crude, party atmosphere or something to the Priesthood and instead, in reality, there are years of preparation and many hours upon hours upon hours of interactions with others such that a person is relatively well known in all capacities before they are ordained.
The biggest issue about homosexuals in the Catholic priesthood is that it was an actual "movement," a concerted effort by homosexuals to enter the Preisthood and to recruit and enroll other homosexuals accordingly. And many gross stories about their behaviors (some, anyway) afterward, in groups and individually paired, while in the Priesthood...which just defines totally abhorrent abuses of the Christian principles involved here and an utter denigration of the Priesthood.
It also fostered abuse of others, to state the obvious.
Homesexuality is not "gene determined" and there is still no sure fire test that can evidence the claims by some homosexuals that it's "inate" and some alternate "natural state" of being. There's nothing biological or genetic to support that liberal meme. It's just a convenient defense to avoid responsibility for the acts and decisions that follow.