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.
Being a homosexual is not sinful, but a homosexual orientation is a grave objective moral disorder. Someone who is a homosexual has a sexual orientation that is instrinsically disordered.
On the other hand, having a heterosexual orientation isn't intrinsically disordered.
It is perfectly reasonable that the Church might decide that persons with a particular objective moral disorder may be unfit for the priesthood.
Recovering, sober alcoholics don't sin because they have the disorder of alcoholism. They stay sober, everything’s fine. Yet, they're still alcoholics. But, even for alcoholics who are sober, bartending may not be an ideal occupation (although I've met one or two in my days).
sitetest
Wrong. Homosexuality is considered disordered (not normal mentally), hetero is normal. The problems the Church had pre-2005 was that they bought into the idea that "queers are OK as long as they are celibate". The practical finding is that they WON'T stay celibate.
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.
You are making an assumption here. Just because the Church says that people with deep seated homosexual tendencies are not to be accepted into the seminary does not mean that the Church is then saying that this condition is sinful. The Chuch also excludes women but certainly you wouldn't propose that being a woman is a "sinful matter"?
Ahhhh ... you should only meet my pastor. Young, 'orthodox' and totally commited to his priestly vocation. Then again, his primary seminary is in Lebanon. He was well formed in the priesthood before he arrived in the US and attended the Latin Rite seminary in Boston. My pastor could have stepped off the calendar in 1957. As a bi-ritual priest, he is also aware of the nonsense that goes on in this diocese. Mercifully, he is untouchable because he reports to a different bishop, even though he assists the local RC diocese. He has recounted the sad stories of area RC priests whose parishes have been taken away and turned over to 'Lay Ecclesial Ministers'. The local RC bishop uses the excuse of poor vocations to justify his 'progressive' actions. These priests are now sent from one parish to another to serve as 'Sacramental Ministers' who hear confessions, confect the Eucharist and move on to the next parish.
Those days are now numbered. But, it will take several generations to replenish the seminaries, once these bishops are replaced. In the meantime, you can do what I did and seek out the 'holy priest, reverent liturgy and community where your services are needed'. They are out there - you need to ask our Lord for His guidance.
We do teach that, but it has been decided that homosexuality is a disordered condition, and is not what is needed in the priesthood. Remember, part of the mission of the priest is to form and shape his congregation, and we don’t need homos shaping the CYO.
As Fr. Z. said, “Which part of ‘No!’ don’t you understand?”
How long do ya think a heterosexual priest and nun could take showers together and sleep in the same room before their clear thinking started getting a little cloudy???
Wrong the Church is taking exactly the right step. A seminary full of men is probably not the best place for someone with same sex attraction. Would you put an alcoholic in charge of the brewery?
LOL! Definitely. Furthermore, the priesthood shouldn't become just a second career for retirees. Enough already.
You couldn’t be more correct. Speaking as a Baby Boomer myself, we need to keep those of my generation as far from the clerical ranks as possible. They have been smoking the dope of women priests, married clergy, Kumbaya Catholisism, contraception, abortion and voting for the Democrat party, etc etc for a long time. Let’s let the new generation of young men take to the ranks and let’s keep ordaining bishops like Burke of St. Louis. That’s the hope for the Church. To quote a 30 year old orthodox priest in our parish when making referecne to the Baby Boomers: “They’ll all be dead soon.”
The stupid die stupid, and the smart die smart, but we all die.
(sorry, was just thinking that on the way in)
Real simple, Cammie.
Homosexual act= sinful
Homosexual orientation = not sinful but intrinsically disordered.
Not real simple, actually.
Big problem if/when science determines that homosexuality is genetic, that God made most gays that way.
Homosexuals need to keep in mind, however, that the good news of the gospel is not about how God despises same-sex sexual relationships. In fact, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 indicates that certain members of that church had been slaves to such relationships but had been cleansed in Jesus' name. So these former homosexuals had evidently repented and accepted God's grace to straighten their lives out.
John 3:16
Revelation 3:20
No, it is simple.
You don't accept Catholic teaching on homosexuality and you're pinning your hopes on some hypothetical, imaginery future scientific "finding" that will purport to demonstrate that homosexuality is "genetic".
Such woolly thinking, Cammie. Even if there is a genetic predispostion to homosexuality, it proves nothing.
a) It will in no way alter Church teaching that sodomy is sinful because all who are not married, whether heterosexual or homosexual are called to chastity. One's sexual orientation is irrelevant to the sinfulness of extramarital sex acts.
b) Genetic predisposition in no way proves "normality" or that God made them this way. Genetic predisposition is responsible for all manner of mental and physical disorders, including cystic fibrosis, cancer, Down's syndrome, autism and numerous other aberrations. That doesn't mean it's "normal". On the contrary, these diseases are caused by genetic mutations. As for concluding that "God made them this way", you have absolutely no basis for this belief anymore than you have a basis for saying that "God gave individual X cancer".
c) Speaking of science, you may or may not know that from a purely Darwinian perspective, there is strong selective pressure against sterile sexual unions and the genes of individuals participating solely in sterile sexual unions will be lost from the gene pool. Therefore, even at the level of the laws of nature, homosexuality is an aberration as it mitigates against the propogation of the species. Any predisposing genes or mutations will be lost at the same generation due to a failure to pass them on.
The Church is right. Homosexuality is disordered at both the spiritual andbiological level.
You must be an optimist.
Are you anticipating the reversal of several millennia of Judeo-Christian teaching based on a future scientific discovery?
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.