Posted on 10/07/2005 9:08:56 AM PDT by West Coast Conservative
SD
This has always been the "rule", albeit, unwritten. Nothing to see here.
Yes. The priesthood is filled with men, not women.
Many men marry past their mid thirties even in this day and age. It has never seemed odd to me that Jesus did not take a wife - because he was still a young man, young enough to take a wife and begin a family if he so chose.
Do not mystify the life of Christ to support celibate priests. Nuns are also expected to live in celibacy.
Homosexuality is a mental illness that brings much grief to those who suffer from it and their loved ones. But this kind of cruelty is (was) hardly becoming to the Church.
Keep on believing that. I'm sure the working class in Judea 2000 years ago routinely waited 15-20 years after puberty to get married.
Do not mystify the life of Christ to support celibate priests. Nuns are also expected to live in celibacy.
I guess you don't read Paul's epistles? He clearly recommends celibacy for those who can give of themselves fully for God's service.
SD
bttt
If Catholics are "free to believe" the literal interpretation of the OT, then why is it so universally condemned? You are condemning it, all the other Catholic FReeprs are condemning it, the bishops are condemning it, all the publications, tracts, and magazines condemn it . . . don't you think there's a sort of "pattern" here?
You know much that is not so. I believe in the literal truth of much of the OT. You speak nonsense. I believe there was a parting of the Red Sea. I believe there was some type of catastrphic flood over the entire known world.
But I don't believe in a 6 day creation.
Well, I guess there are some things G-d can do, and some things He can't.
And you know what? It doesn't matter if my bishop or my pastor agree with me or not. We are all free to believe as we like. So why couldn't you fit into this, and why are you so obsessed with other ethnic groups?
Ah, so it's okay to resent the fact that liberals condemn white creationists but not Black ones, but it's not okay to resent the fact that anti-literalist Catholics never have a problem with the most outrageous superstition of a traditionally Catholic ethnic group? Am I right?
Since you've read John Allen's column, you'll note that those who are "irrevocably committed" to homosexuality, those who participate in gay activities, or those who have been celibate for less than three years are to be excluded.
This allows bishops and vocation directors to make individual decisions.
You know as well as I that a blanket policy is unworkable because there is no way to keep a homosexual man out of a seminary if he is of a mind to not reveal his orientation.
It goes without saying that those who engage in homosexual or heterosexual activities while in the seminary should be dismissed, immediately, with no questions asked.
No doubt the Vatican sought a lot of input into this document and Benedict, true to form, sought the opinion of confidants and bishops. He knows the volatility of the subject, having been personally involved the abuse cases.
This would also undercut the notion that homosexuals cannot, by their orientation, be validly ordained to the priesthood."
I've never seen that position defended by any Catholic Church official. Kind of a strawman.
It may have been off-the-cuff, but Joaquin Navarro-Valls, JPII's press secretary, made that postulation in the press.
It isn't. You saw a portion and mistook it for the whole.
You are condemning it
No, I specifically am not.
all the other Catholic FReeprs are condemning it, the bishops are condemning it, all the publications, tracts, and magazines condemn it . . . don't you think there's a sort of "pattern" here?
"All" has a meaning. If it were truly "all," you would find such a condemnation in the Catechism. As it is, there are publications like the Wanderer who are not opposed to your views.
For the third time, why is it som important that all subscribe to your view? Why was it not enough to be left alone to your belief? Why did it matter so much that all other agree with you?
Well, I guess there are some things G-d can do, and some things He can't.
I guess you can't understand the difference. Saying I do not believe that God did do something is not the same as saying I do not believe God could do something. You have way too much invested in your interpetation and apparently can not fathom intellectual opposition.
And you know what? It doesn't matter if my bishop or my pastor agree with me or not. We are all free to believe as we like. So why couldn't you fit into this, and why are you so obsessed with other ethnic groups?
Ah, so it's okay to resent the fact that liberals condemn white creationists but not Black ones, but it's not okay to resent the fact that anti-literalist Catholics never have a problem with the most outrageous superstition of a traditionally Catholic ethnic group? Am I right?
Why not try answering my questions? Why does it matter to you if your pastor agrees with you 100 per cent on everything? This has nothing to do with skin color or ethnicity.
SD
Dear sinkspur,
"You know as well as I that a blanket policy is unworkable because there is no way to keep a homosexual man out of a seminary if he is of a mind to not reveal his orientation."
That's altogether false. Although no screening method is perfect, if seminaries made the effort, they could prevent the overwhelming majority of homosexual applicants from getting in.
The problem isn't with the occasional homosexual who slips through the cracks. Homosexuals make up perhaps 1% of the male population. If seminaries work to exclude them, the percentage of homosexuals who enter the priesthood would fall to less than one priest in a hundred. That's not the problem. The problem is that currently the priesthood has perhaps ten or twenty or thirty times the number of homosexuals that the general population has.
Only a zero-tolerance policy will actually result in a very small percentage of homosexuals being ordained.
"It may have been off-the-cuff, but Joaquin Navarro-Valls, JPII's press secretary, made that postulation in the press."
Well, he made a statement that was ambiguous, as well as off-the-cuff. It hardly amounts to a defended position.
Rid the priesthood of 99% of the homosexuals, and many of the Church's problems will disappear.
sitetest
Well, I have no problem with ridding the priesthood of 99% of the homosexuals.
But thinking that many of the Church's problems, including the shortage of priests, would disappear as a result is, it seems to me, naive.
Dear sinkspur,
Well, I'm not quite as worried about the "priest shortage" as you are. In orthodox dioceses, there seem to be adequate vocations.
And thank you for making my point. Getting rid of homosexuals in the priesthood is likely to increase the orthodoxy of seminaries, of dioceses, of priests, which will in turn likely increase the number of vocations in many dioceses.
So, far from being naive, sinkspur, it appears that getting rid of homosexuals in the priesthood is a very practical agenda item for increasing vocations to the priesthood.
sitetest
This has to be a falsehood.
Evolutionism and mythologization of the "old testament" is so widespread in the Catholic Church that it should be in the catechism. If I'd been told at the beginning that Catholics aren't supposed to believe that Bible stuff I'd have never wasted six years in the Catholic Church.
As it is, there are publications like the Wanderer who are not opposed to your views.
Sorry. The Wanderer is evolutionist. Now Remnant is creationist, but of course they think evolution is a creation of the "Jewish Conspiracy."
For the third time, why is it som important that all subscribe to your view? Why was it not enough to be left alone to your belief? Why did it matter so much that all other agree with you?
And treated like an un-Catholic mental cripple who had to be tolerated because he wasn't as sophisticated as a "real Catholic" is supposed to be? Question answers itself.
I guess you can't understand the difference. Saying I do not believe that God did do something is not the same as saying I do not believe God could do something.
And just because G-d said He did something doesn't mean He's telling the truth. After all, the only point of the "old testament" is chr*stological typology and allegory.
You have way too much invested in your interpetation and apparently can not fathom intellectual opposition.
So now at least you admit the Catholic Church is intellectually opposed to believing all the events in the TaNa"KH actually happened.
Ah, so it's okay to resent the fact that liberals condemn white creationists but not Black ones, but it's not okay to resent the fact that anti-literalist Catholics never have a problem with the most outrageous superstition of a traditionally Catholic ethnic group? Am I right?
Why not try answering my questions? Why does it matter to you if your pastor agrees with you 100 per cent on everything? This has nothing to do with skin color or ethnicity.
Of course not. Never mind that every other ethnic group has its share of bumpkins and simpletons who believe outrageous stuff. Only rednecks are scolded and asked to become scientific intellectuals. Everyone else's nonsense is regarded as a precious part of mankind's heritage. I guess rednecks aren't quite human.
The Catholic and Orthodox churches treat us rednecks exactly like the NAACP does, but you refuse to see it. The NAACP never demands that the Black masses give up their Biblical literalism. And the Catholic Church is happy to "baptize" every cultural relic every converted pagan culture brings to it, but it can't stomach "its own" Bible. That explains the whole thing right there.
Since scripture writes that homosexuality is an abomination to God, I'd say that it is necessary to make every effort to prevent abominations and abominable behavior and those who apologize for and enable abominations out of places that are by oath and vow meant for sanctity and holiness.
Homosexuals and homosexuality has no place in the Catholic Priesthood, nor the Christian ministry. If a person is celibate and chaste, they would not be continuing to identify with homosexuality. By the mere fact alone -- that so many continue to do so, identify as "homosexuals" despite declaring their vows to chastity -- they identify themselves as NOT chaste.
And, there is no parallel of equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality, despite what liberal opinions demand otherwise. Homosexuality is both an abomination as defined by God in scripture, AND it represents disordered thinking.
If a person cannot be relied upon to confess the truth and make pledges and receive vows honestly, with candor and truthfulness, then they certainly are not qualified for the Priesthood.
If they have a problem responding to that question, they don't belong there, otherwise.
People should be asking here why anyone who WASN'T chaste and celibate in the years prior to the seminary would even be seeking the Priesthood as a profession. Therein lies the truth of the matter, why people who refuse or feel they are not able to be productive and thrive as celibate and chaste are even trying to enter the Priesthood, much moreso remain there.
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.