Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cardinal's words on gay priests surprise scholars
The Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | Fri, May. 03, 2002 | JIM REMSEN

Posted on 05/03/2002 6:38:30 PM PDT by history_matters

Cardinal Anthony M. Bevilacqua's sweeping rejection of gay men becoming priests diverges from mainstream thinking by U.S. Catholic theologians and policymakers, a range of church scholars said in interviews this week.

But his remarks echoed a little-known Vatican decree issued four decades ago that may come into play as church leaders labor toward a national response to the sex-abuse scandal in the church.

Upon his return last week from the cardinals' summit conference in Rome, Cardinal Bevilacqua weighed in on the debate about gays in the priesthood - a hot issue in the scandal - with a categorical pronouncement.

No "homosexually oriented" men, not even chaste ones, are "suitable candidates" for the priesthood, he told a news conference, because heterosexual celibates "are giving up" the good of family and children, while gay celibates give up what the church considers "a moral evil."

With his remarks, and the hard line taken against homosexuals at the archdiocese's St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Wynnewood, Cardinal Bevilacqua has put himself in the front rank of church conservatives who staunchly oppose the ordination of gays.

The cardinal's views reflect an antipathy toward homosexuality that is found in the Catholic catechism, but his statements about banning even celibate gay priests surprised most of the 14 Catholic theologians and other experts contacted for comment. Two of the 14 voiced support.

Most said the dominant view among theologians, bishops, seminary officials and other policymakers is that the decisive factor should not be a candidate's sexual orientation but whether he is "acting out" sexually.

"He's the first one I've heard make this particular argument" distinguishing between gay and straight celibacies, said the Rev. John Baldovin, professor of historical and liturgical theology at Weston Jesuit School of Theology in Cambridge, Mass.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered" and "contrary to the natural law," while urging tolerance toward gays and saying they are "called to chastity."

But to say homosexual orientation alone disqualifies a person for diocesan priesthood takes church teaching into an area where doctrine is unsettled, several of the theologians said.

Church leaders "weren't willing to admit for the longest time that they had gay people in the priesthood," said Father Baldovin, so "nobody was trying to construct the difference between straight celibacy and gay celibacy."

Cardinal Bevilacqua is a canon lawyer, not a degreed theologian, but he has the last word on this matter in the archdiocese, as any reigning bishop has over a diocese. Unless rules bearing papal authority are imposed - which has not occurred regarding gays in diocesan seminaries - a bishop can interpret scripture and doctrine as he sees fit.

Cardinal Bevilacqua will have no further comment on his statements, archdiocese spokeswoman Catherine Rossi said.

The Rev. Joseph A. Komonchak, a theologian at the Catholic University of America in Washington and a consultant to the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference's committee on doctrine, was among the theologians who questioned the cardinal's views.

A gay person "can't give up his orientation," Father Komonchak said. "... That particular application of theology I've never heard before. If it's anywhere in church teaching, I've never seen it."

A Catholic University colleague, theology professor John Grabowski, said he had seen the cardinal's position "argued by a few others, but I must say it's not a common position... . It's an isolated view."

Grabowski said the argument "doesn't work. The church does teach that homosexuality is an objective disorder, but every person has disordered inclinations. That's the human condition. I don't know how you can bar a person from ordination because of that."

The opposite view was voiced by the Rev. Ray Ryland, who teaches theology at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio.

"I have not come across this distinction [on gay celibacy] that the cardinal makes, but I think he's quite right in saying it," Father Ryland said. "As a prudential judgment, I agree that persons of that orientation should not be admitted to the priesthood because of the very grave temptations they face" in seminary and parish life.

The Vatican has taken a similar stance. In 1961, Pope John XXIII issued a decree concerning people entering convents, monasteries and other religious orders. The directive, which remains valid, instructs that "those affected by the perverse inclination to homosexuality or pederasty [man-boy love] should be excluded from religious vows and ordination."

Scholars said the decree, developed by the Sacred Congregation for Religious, does not apply to diocesan seminarians. According to Catholic News Service, Vatican officials are considering updating and reissuing the document as part of their internal discussion about whether to impose standards for selection and training of priests.

The matter of gays in the priesthood has emerged as a thorny aspect of the abuse scandal. Some Catholic conservatives, noting that many of the reported molestations have involved priests and older boys, have renewed their complaints about the relatively high number of gay priests.

Gay priests and rights activists have said the cardinal and other conservatives are scapegoating gay priests. Homosexuals, they argue, are no more likely to be pedophiles than anyone else, and no more likely to break their promise of priestly celibacy than heterosexuals.

In his news conference last Friday, Cardinal Bevilacqua said without elaborating that he believed gay priests were at a "much higher" risk of becoming sexually active. "When a heterosexual celibate chooses to become a celibate in the priesthood," the cardinal said, "he's taking on a good - that is, his own desire to become a priest - and he's giving up a very good thing, and that is, a family and children that could follow. That would not be true of a homosexually oriented candidate. He may be choosing the good, but... he's giving up what the church considers an aberration, a moral evil."

The Rev. Donald Cozzens, a onetime Cleveland seminary rector and the author of The Changing Face of the Priesthood: A Reflection on the Priest's Crisis of Soul, said the cardinal's priesthood theology harked back to the tradition of asceticism. But the church, he said, primarily teaches that a person chooses priestly celibacy "because it feels like the path God has ordained for me for spiritual maturity, not as an ascetical practice like giving something up for Lent... . His framing of the issue is creative. It is fairly new to my ears."

The Rev. Richard McBrien, a theology professor at the University of Notre Dame and a former president of the Catholic Theological Society of America, said Cardinal Bevilacqua's outlook seemed to be based on "a fundamentalistic interpretation of Scripture" that "no one with any serious scholarly credentials in the field of biblical studies" shared.

The cardinal's point of view is "rather fundamentalist," said the Rev. Don Clifford of St. Joseph's University, a longtime professor of dogmatic theology.

Further, the 72-year-old priest said, "many people who had the most positive influence on me, on reflection, were very likely gay... . They presumably were living chaste lives and had tremendous influence on their ministries."

The debate about gays is part of a "long-term discussion" within the church, Father Clifford said, and "I always bet on the Holy Spirit to see how it comes out."


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: cardinalbevilacqua; catholicchurch; catholiclist; celibacy; homosexuality; priesthood
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-229 next last
To: sinkspur
"He may be choosing the good, but...he's giving up what the church considers an aberration, a moral evil."

We are all called to do this, turn from evil to good...nothing different there. Cardinal Bevilacqua is obliquely referring to the Priesthood being the highest "ordo" and hence demanding greater sacrifice. A chaste man carrying such a disordered psychological Cross as homosexuality cannot give that greater sacrifice. There are other religious vocations that such a man can consider (and for the good of the Church should consider them.) First he must recognize his situation and recognize the fullness of his Cross. Our culture is in denial of this Cross and many in the Church have been under the influence of this denial.
151 posted on 05/04/2002 6:59:55 AM PDT by Domestic Church
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JoshGray
Homosexual priests who have molested children from six years of age or younger to seventeen years old and other homosexual priests who find themselves caving to whatever temptations they may find in absolutely intrinsically disordered relations with males of any age (which makes them each and every one violators of both basic oaths of the priesthood: obedience and celibacy) are being identified by the Roman Catholic Church and removed from the priesthood. That is Catholic business and no one else's.

If these faithless and perverted priests are ALSO violating the legitimate secular law (malum in se which prohibits and punishes acts evil in and of themselves), they can be charged, arrested, incarcerated, tried, convicted and punished whether the offense is molesting six-year olds, seventeen year-olds, or robbing banks or violating health regulations. That is the state's business and therefore the business of all taxpayers.

That lavender mafia which exists outside the Church structure can also mind its own business which most certainly does not include who may or may not be practicing priests of the Roman Catholic Church.

See, we, as Catholics refrain from sticking our noses into who runs the local Lamda Legal Defense Fund or chapter of the North American Man Boy Love Association and the lavenders keep their noses, inter alia, out of matters Catholic. For the lavenders to butt in would be just another case of ignoring what is supposed to go where. Animal lovers need not apply either. Call it scapegoating all you like, but RCs do not have to put up with the narcissistic demands for attention by practitioners of the love that once dared not speak its name but cannot nowadays shut its yap. Internally, duly constituted Churchg authority can and ought to purge this menace relentlessly. See the First Amendment.

152 posted on 05/04/2002 7:01:37 AM PDT by BlackElk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"What's IS the difference?"

One can offer up in sacrifice a "good"(marriage & family) in order that a greater good(chaste celibacy of the Priesthood) is attained while the other is unable due to psychological disorder to reach that level of sacrifice.
153 posted on 05/04/2002 7:07:03 AM PDT by Domestic Church
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"Can someone here tell me how that differs from the calling that STRAIGHT people are asked to embrace?"

Again, it has to do with the level of sacrifice. A straight man gives up the good (and the lifelong Sacramental Graces inherent)of Marriage for the greater good of the Priesthood. The chaste gay man cannot make the same sacrifice(think in terms of a life long accumulation of Sacramental Grace and the transmission of Faith onto the next generation and the Sacramental graces from that generation and so on...it is an enormous amount...remember -"To God, all points in time are present in their immediacy."CCC) Peace,
154 posted on 05/04/2002 7:17:44 AM PDT by Domestic Church
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
If these faithless and perverted priests are ALSO violating the legitimate secular law (malum in se which prohibits and punishes acts evil in and of themselves), they can be charged, arrested, incarcerated, tried, convicted and punished whether the offense is molesting six-year olds, seventeen year-olds, or robbing banks or violating health regulations. That is the state's business and therefore the business of all taxpayers.

I'm glad you think so. The Church, up to and including now, doesn't.

What I'm saying, and this may or may not be the homosexual groups' point, is that focussing on one group implies that the Church will otherwise go on, business as always, for everything else.

That's not acceptable. I don't care if homosexuals or pedophiles or 'horny heterosexuals who simply found the altar-boy handy' did .1% or 99.9% of the molestations -- I want to hear the Church talk about what they're going to do with 100% of the molesters. All the rest of it is a dodge.

155 posted on 05/04/2002 7:29:49 AM PDT by JoshGray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Strange that a Catholic cardinal would condemn someone who gives up something bad for something good. So what is the celibate homosexual to do? Go out and kill himself?

Whoa! He should stay celibate (or maybe try the therapy) instead of entering the seminary. This is a practical issue. The heterosexual seminarian is not advised to live in one building with the nuns - the homosexual seminarians living in close proximity to other young men will be exposed to the great temptations and many of them will fail. Such situation is not good for them and is not good for the Church.

If a person with uncurable homoseuxal tendencies wants to live more religious life he can follow some semi-monastic rule under good supervision and guidance (like Tertiary or Third Order for example).

156 posted on 05/04/2002 7:35:25 AM PDT by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JoshGray
You can put the word all in BOLD all you like--but you dance away from the hell these boys went through at the hands of homosexuals.

Homosexuals Target Children

157 posted on 05/04/2002 7:42:13 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
So it's acceptable to you that a priest does a little girl?
158 posted on 05/04/2002 7:46:26 AM PDT by JoshGray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: JoshGray
All the rest of it is a dodge.

You seem to be pretty good at it.

159 posted on 05/04/2002 7:48:15 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: JoshGray
So it's acceptable to you that a priest does a little girl?

Well, Mr. Josh Gray has a "When did you stop beating your wife?" response......

Now we really get to see your dodging skills in action--don't we Mr. Apologist.

No. I have little girls. It is not acceptable for girls to be abused--and you know it. What a ridiculous thing to even assert--but I guess it is time for you to pound the table some more.

This is about homosexuals who have raped boys--and homosexuals want to run away from it.

Job 5:2 - Resentment kills a fool, and envy slays the simple.

160 posted on 05/04/2002 7:53:56 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
If you define yourself (using that term generically, not specifically) by your baser instincts, your sexuality, that very definition would exclude you from a life that is based on man’s higher instincts: self-sacrifice, spirituality, ministering to others (including the most vulnerable and helpless), executing the sacraments of the Church, etc. (Of course, if you believe man has no “higher instincts,” this argument is fruitless.)

You ask for stats to back up my argument of “self-identification,” but, unfortunately for our society, all you have to do is look around. How many organizations define themselves as gay and/or lesbian? How many define themselves as straight or heterosexual? How many laws protecting gays/lesbians have been proposed or passed, as opposed to laws protecting heterosexuals, specifically, by that term? How many “tolerance” programs, teacher-training programs, textbooks, etc. that present homosexuality as an “alternate lifestyle” have been mandated in schools? How many such programs have been introduced in the public sector that glorify heterosexuality?

How many media stories, sitcoms, TV series, talk shows (and talk show hosts) day after day, tell us the stories of those who identities as “gay” are central to the story? Why is there a group of Congressman who identify themselves as “gay,” when there’s no such group identifying themselves as “straight?” Why are there “gay pride” parades, and no “staight-pride” parades?

And lastly, if homosexuality is not a problem for a priest, why is it such a point of contention? If a homosexual wants to enter the priesthood so earnestly, and he is good, spiritual, celibate man, why would he identify himself as “gay?” What would be the point – if he doesn’t engage in homosexual acts? Could it be the same rationale – acceptance of this “sexual identity,” -- that propels the proliferation of laws and programs for acceptance throughout the country? Could it be the aim of those homosexuals who want to enter and/or remain in the priesthood that not only their “identity” be accepted, but, as in society itself, that the homosexual act be accepted? Is that why celibacy itself is under attack?

161 posted on 05/04/2002 7:55:28 AM PDT by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
"...every person has disordered inclinations..."

???? The irascible, appetitive, and concupiscible tendencies latent or manifest in the average and typical human condition are not on the same level as same-sex attraction. We don't have people receiving multimillion out-of-court settlements because they saw a priest eat too much or grimace with distemper. This "scholar" really needs to do some homework. Homosexuality is considered a "grave disorder." That's a whole different ballgame. So to speak.

Hey,Cardinal McCarrick! You've got a problem over at Catholic Univ. with this Grabowski character. He needs to start studying theology and philosophy all over again from ground up.

162 posted on 05/04/2002 8:40:51 AM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
I'm not dodging anything.

Either you believe that it's ok for priests to molest little girls, or you don't believe that little girls are molested by priests. Which is it?

I want all molestors dealt with, and you seem to be fixated on just the boy-molestors.

So which is it: girls aren't molested by priests or priests should be allowed molest girls.

There is, of course, another option, but I don't see a reason to stoop quite that low.

163 posted on 05/04/2002 8:52:03 AM PDT by JoshGray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Dajjal
BTW, the word "celibate" simply means "unmarried." The vow of celibacy is a vow not to wed; the vow of chastity is the vow not to fool around.

Wrong.

celibate

celibate (sèl´e-bît) noun
1.One who abstains from sexual intercourse, especially by reason of religious vows.
2.One who is unmarried.

adjective
1.Abstaining from sexual intercourse, especially by reason of religious vows.
2.Unmarried; unwed.

[Latin caelibâtus, From caelebs, caelib-, unmarried.]

chaste

chaste (châst) adjective
chaster, chastest
1.Morally pure in thought or conduct; decent and modest.
2.a. Not having experienced sexual intercourse; virginal.
b. Abstaining from unlawful sexual intercourse.
c. Abstaining from sexual intercourse; celibate.
3.Pure or simple in design or style; austere.

[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin castus.] - chaste´ly adverb
- chaste´ness noun

164 posted on 05/04/2002 9:03:45 AM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: JoshGray
Thaaaat's right, Mr. Gray. When cornered, attempt to claim (again) that people want little girls abused.

I already addressed it in #160, but you knew that, didn't you.

You know what I think? I am usually not this direct, but you deserve it.

I believe you have never accept Christ, I don't think you ever will, and you are destined to spend eternity in Hell.

165 posted on 05/04/2002 9:05:55 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: browardchad
Is that why celibacy itself is under attack? So that these men can be free to celebrate their "life-style " with their "partners " at their side.
166 posted on 05/04/2002 9:07:18 AM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Domestic Church
A straight man gives up the good (and the lifelong Sacramental Graces inherent)of Marriage for the greater good of the Priesthood.

I disagree that the priesthood is a "greater good." It is a different good from marriage, and the two are not incompatible (as the Eastern Rite experience testifies). Plus, this view that the priesthood is superior to the plain old lay life is an ugly form of clericalism that we need to get rid of.

think in terms of a life long accumulation of Sacramental Grace and the transmission of Faith onto the next generation and the Sacramental graces from that generation and so on...it is an enormous amount...remember -"To God, all points in time are present in their immediacy."CCC)

Tis a bizarre concept to speak in terms of an "amount" of grace, as if Divine Life were like water in bottle, "accumulating" as in a storehouse. Grace is not a thing; it is the Life of God present in one, which makes that person grow in identification with Christ as one acts more and more like Christ.

167 posted on 05/04/2002 9:09:49 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Domestic Church
Cardinal Bevilacqua is obliquely referring to the Priesthood being the highest "ordo" and hence demanding greater sacrifice.

But the priesthood does not, in itself, demand this; the Church in the Latin Rite demands this. I agree with you that Bevilacqua seems to be saying that the priesthood is a "greater good," which is why his theology is bad. There are many gifts, but One Spirit.

Let's rid ourselves of this triumphalist notion that the priesthood is a superior way of life. It is not. It is a different way of life, to which some are called. Others are called to do other things in the Vineyard.

The "superiority" of Holy Orders has led many a man to think that he is, in fact, superior to the rest of men, which is as pharasaical a view as one could have.

168 posted on 05/04/2002 9:16:36 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Angelique
Homosexuality is created from either environment or choice.

The Catholic Catechism disagrees with you:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

And, in 2357, the Catechism says "Its (homosexuality) psychological genesis remains largely unexplained."

Possibly environment, but possibly genetic as well.

169 posted on 05/04/2002 9:29:48 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
No, you didn't address it. You stated that you have little girls, then went on to babble about priests who molest boys. So, you don't believe priests molest girls, or you're ok with that?

I believe you have never accept Christ, I don't think you ever will, and you are destined to spend eternity in Hell.

"Hell" would be an eternity with people like you, but I doubt that's what you meant.

170 posted on 05/04/2002 9:34:06 AM PDT by JoshGray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
To welcome into the priesthood those whose sexual orientation is intrinsically disordered while attacking abuse is analogous to campaigning for inclusive attitudes towards bank robbers while professing opposition to bank robbery.

I'm not arguing for "welcoming" homosexuals into the priesthood. What I am saying is that Bevilacqua's explanation of why homosexuals should not be admitted is weak, and flawed.

There are many homosexuals in the priesthood today. You can guess who they are as well as I can. But, most of them are also celibate, which means you will not be able to roust them out of the ministry under present canon law.

I chuckle at those who say we should use "psychological testing" to screen out homosexuals, when some of those same posters, on another thread, said it was modern psychology which has gotten us into the current mess.

171 posted on 05/04/2002 9:44:13 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"The "superiority" of Holy Orders has led many a man to think that he is, in fact, superior to the rest of men, which is as pharasaical a view as one could have."

It is not the man that is superior...it is the calling, the vocation itself that is superior...the man is just the tool. I don't see this as bad theology at all considering the sacrifice made. A true vocation recognizes humilty as a form of Truth and aligns with It.
172 posted on 05/04/2002 9:51:23 AM PDT by Domestic Church
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
" Grace is not a thing"

What do you call a gift, a charism, a benefit? Grace is "first and foremost the gift of the Spirit." CCC
173 posted on 05/04/2002 10:01:11 AM PDT by Domestic Church
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I have seen thread after thread regarding this issue, and there have been many links stating that there has been no proof that this is genetic. I do believe that 2357 somewhat contradicts 2358.

They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

This is very true, but the Cardinal's point is do they belong in the Church as priests?

174 posted on 05/04/2002 10:02:38 AM PDT by Angelique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
True. Everyone should read

Goodbye Good Men.


175 posted on 05/04/2002 10:09:37 AM PDT by Chemnitz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: browardchad
And lastly, if homosexuality is not a problem for a priest, why is it such a point of contention? If a homosexual wants to enter the priesthood so earnestly, and he is good, spiritual, celibate man, why would he identify himself as “gay?”

It's quite likely he doesn't (most priests I know and you know don't identify themselves in any way sexually), but there seems to be a desire now that he do so, so that he can be rousted from the priesthood or prevented from entering a seminary.

See, that's the problem here. When I was in the seminary, back in the 70s, there was no "identification" of one's sexual orientation. It was never discussed, no one ever talked about sexual attraction to women or men. It was as if we were asexual. In fact, much of our training just assumed we were; that we had all come to terms with celibacy, that that issue was settled, and now let's all just ignore our urgings and follow the Lord. When a man decided that he couldn't do that, he left on his own, or, if he was discovered in some compromising position, he was kicked out.

Now, I know that some of these men were homosexual; I could guess which ones, but I could be wrong. The thing is, they didn't talk about it, act on it, or give any hint that they were "gay".

It would be real shame at this point to force these men to somehow declare their sexual orientation in some kind of witch hunt to rid the priesthood of all gays.

This is what Cardinal George was referring to when he said on MTP that it is a difficult thing in most cases to determine which priests are gay. Nor, I would contend, should the Church do that.

Screen for homosexuality in the future, but let's not destroy some of these good men who are trying their best to live holy and celibate lives because we want to "purify" the Church of gays.

You couldn't do that even if you tried.

176 posted on 05/04/2002 10:11:57 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
I believe you have never accept Christ, I don't think you ever will, and you are destined to spend eternity in Hell.

That's over the top, SP. Why not pray for him, instead, or just not say anything at all?

You're a better man than this.

177 posted on 05/04/2002 10:13:43 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: sit-rep
I do believe people choose to have same sex attraction

Very well. As an experiment, could you possibly choose to have exclusive same-sex attraction for a day? I don't ask that you actually act on it, just that you choose to have it for a 24-hour period. After that you could choose to go back to not having them. If you can do this and report was it is like, I might believe your assertion.

Honestly, I've tried it before and I just can't do it.
178 posted on 05/04/2002 10:21:00 AM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
Cardinal Bevilaqua confirms what I was taught when I took my convert lessons in the late 50s. I naively believed all these years that the seminaries actually weeded out candidates who could not keep the vow of celibacy or those who were overt homosexuals. I know that over the years various priests have "fallen away", but I truly thought they were isolated cases. I still hope that that is the case.

This week we were treated in this community to an article in the local paper explaining where a 64 year old priest assigned to the neighboring parish had disappeared last year. He married the Director of Liturgy!

The other neighboring Parish just learned that a priest who had served there 18 years (now deceased) had molested numerous boys during his life as a priest. He, too, was moved around the State -- like the priests in Boston. Parish members have suggested removing his name from the Parish hall because it is an embarrassment. Prior to this revelation he was noted (in all his parishes) as a pastor who could "get things done" in a building campaign.

And then there was the Deacon I knew in another city (married with 8 children) who left his wife for a parishioner just 2 years after he was ordained. So much for married clerics.

We must pray for the leaders of our church.

179 posted on 05/04/2002 10:26:46 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Now, I know that some of these men were homosexual; I could guess which ones, but I could be wrong. The thing is, they didn't talk about it, act on it, or give any hint that they were "gay".

I have a dear friend who was in the minor and major seminaries for about 12 years, and he reports the same thing.

180 posted on 05/04/2002 10:31:38 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; JoshGray
It was over the top.

My apologies.

181 posted on 05/04/2002 10:57:58 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
Cardinal Anthony M. Bevilacqua's sweeping rejection of gay men becoming priests

He da man!!!

182 posted on 05/04/2002 11:20:52 AM PDT by ThomasMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
The Rev. Richard McBrien, a theology professor at the University of Notre Dame and a former president of the Catholic Theological Society of America, said Cardinal Bevilacqua's outlook seemed to be based on "a fundamentalistic interpretation of Scripture" that "no one with any serious scholarly credentials in the field of biblical studies" shared.

This a$$hole, pardon my french, needs to be defrocked and excommunicated. I personally don't give rat's spit for what McBrien has to say. He's been a heretic on the scale of Arius ever since I've known of him. He's a disgrace to the roman collar and a near occassion of sin to unsuspecting Catholics. I pray for his repentance and his removal and for forgiveness for the anger his name invokes in me.

183 posted on 05/04/2002 11:25:43 AM PDT by ThomasMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
For the sake of Cardinal Bevilacqua ping...

He is one of the few cardinals we have whose fidelity to the Magisterium is well known.

184 posted on 05/04/2002 11:28:32 AM PDT by ThomasMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JoshGray
I don't care if homosexuals or pedophiles or 'horny heterosexuals who simply found the altar-boy handy' did .1% or 99.9% of the molestations -- I want to hear the Church talk about what they're going to do with 100% of the molesters. All the rest of it is a dodge.

So, you don't believe priests molest girls, or you're ok with that?

About "all the rest of it is a dodge" - so, we shouldn't be proactive? Our only problem is the priests we know are molesters? That is just plain one dimentional thinking. First off, all known molesters names are now in the hands of the law. They will decide the fate of those molesters, not the Catholic Church. Second, what about the possiblility of molesters coming up from the seminaries and their effect on the future of children? Shouldn't we address that problem and go to the root cause?

Now, due to the GREATLY OVERWHELMING number of young male victims, due to the number of priests dying of AIDS (much higher than the general population) what does that lead you to believe? That is evidence that, guess what? Most of the abusing, evil priests are HOMOSEXUALS.

Where are all the abused girls? Not that it doesn't happen, but where are all the abused girls???

Time for you to read "Goodbye! Good Men" - but I bet you won't.

185 posted on 05/04/2002 11:41:06 AM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: maryz
However,Clintonian usage of the word "celibate"is the very thing that has permitted rampant homosexual priests to continue on in their life style.They cleverly say that celibacy means marriage and they are not married and they can't marry and since they have slyly manaaged to avoid speaking from the pulpit about sins of the flesh(to be more pastoral)wink,wink,they are keeping their vows. That is how they rationalize giving communion to "homosexual couples"too. And,that is why making any changes in the requirement right now would be disastrous. This is why I shudder every time they talk about "love". It is just to reprogram people into an acceptance of their "special love".

I have written letters asking that they talk about "agape",which is what Jesus Christ had for us and what the Father had for us and what we are to have for one another. I believe the Bible used love to mean that transcendent love of humanity as well as brotherly love.The Greeks had several words for it,when the scriptures speak of love they are not talking about "eros",but in our feel good saturated society,every homily about love usually just affirms for the "sinner" a scriptural affirmation of the goodness of "eros" and their own little loving relationship,cause few in our dumbed down,government educated populace know the difference.

I am not dismissive of "eros",it has a place in many of our lives,but it should never be primary.

186 posted on 05/04/2002 11:47:04 AM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
a homosexual celibate does not have any "bad sexual habits."

YET!

187 posted on 05/04/2002 11:58:16 AM PDT by ThomasMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I chuckle at those who say we should use "psychological testing" to screen out homosexuals, when some of those same posters, on another thread, said it was modern psychology which has gotten us into the current mess.

Ironic, isn't it? However, I do think that the pyschology practiced by Fr. Groeschel is a bit different than say the psychology practiced by Hans Kung.

188 posted on 05/04/2002 12:03:59 PM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: ThomasMore
The Rev. Richard McBrien, a theology professor at the University of Notre Dame and a former president of the Catholic Theological Society of America, ...

And you forgot to mention a graduate of St. John's Seminary in Brighton, Massachusetts (1962) - among the alumni are Geoghan and Shanley.

189 posted on 05/04/2002 12:08:18 PM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Bevilacqua's strange theology is contradicted by Cardinal Francis George of Chicago

I understand Francis Cardinal George is in charge of the largest seminary in the United States, located northwest of Chicago in the town of Mundelein.

Among local residents this multi-diocesan seminary has the reputation of having a quite large and conspicuously gay seminarian population. Do you or any other Freepers have any information on the seminary at Mundelein?

190 posted on 05/04/2002 12:31:28 PM PDT by Hibernius Druid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Careful you are not being tainted by egalitarianism. The clergy is a higher order. One can says that being a noncom is just as good as being an officer, but officers have greater rights than noncoms. Likewise a priest has more rights than a lay brother.What do ypu think ordination means? Clericalism is an abuse of authority, and it tendss to come when the clergy identify with the ruling orders in secular society rather than their brothers in Christ. Since in our society the majority of the ruling elite are liberal, that is the the bishops have got in trouble by trying to conform with the thinking of liberal theologians and academics. Law thinks he is "hot s...." because he was on the right side of the civil rights movement. Despite his reputation as a conservative, he has tried to hard to accomodate people who will always hate the Catholic Church until the Church becomes as docile as the Episcopal Church.
191 posted on 05/04/2002 12:44:34 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: ThomasMore
McBrien reminds me of the liberal abbes such as Sieyes who played such a great role in the French Revolution...on the wrong side.
192 posted on 05/04/2002 12:49:28 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Hibernius Druid
There was quite a bit of discussion on Mundelein in Goodbye! Good Men. Sounds like Mundelein is/was sort of a "den of iniquity".

"Goodbye! Good Men"

193 posted on 05/04/2002 12:57:22 PM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: JoshGray
I think as do most Catholics on these threads,that all sexual abuses either sex,should be treated the same.i.e.If a priest rapes a boy or a girl he should pay the same penalty.

That said,I think we need to demand statistics that are accurate. Then as in any reasonable organization its time for risk assessment. If it turns out that 98% are man-boy abuses,then an analysis needs to be made.There are statistics of significance or deviation from the norm,that can be applied. If the abusers are found to be homosexual {and they will be found to be IMHO)then it means that the Church needs to determine objective criteria,act to remove them from the priesthood and take great pains to not admit them to the seminaries.

Great care will need to be taken to assure that a priest who inappropriately touched someone over their clothing is not lumped in with a sodomizer when doing risk assessments.For instance, Cardinal Mahoney's well orchestrated accuser should not be used to swell the statistics of man-woman abuse. Does anyone know how Cardinal Mahoney is?

194 posted on 05/04/2002 12:57:35 PM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: saradippity
I just did a search on the "LATimes" and only found info from May 1 that said he'd be in the hospital a few days more and is recovering.
195 posted on 05/04/2002 1:03:58 PM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
I congratulate any Catholic friends, who may be under Cardinal Bevilacqua jurisdiction. In these times, when so many are issuing what seem to this outsider to be very confused statements, the Cardinal appears to have a clear grasp of what is right.

Frankly, is there anything in Catholic doctrine, which would suggest that a Priest who does not really understand the most basic forces that drive his flock, would be competent to serve as a Priest? Most of my Catholic friends are quite down to earth, family oriented people, to whom the traditional mating quest is a fundamental part of what they see for their own children. Even apart from the compelling moral issue, how could a Priest with deviant orientation be expected to represent the Church's role in guiding those children's spiritual development?

Am I, a non-Catholic, missing something; or is the Cardinal being assailed by people who have some sort of sick axe to grind?

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

196 posted on 05/04/2002 1:07:52 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
No, you shouldn't be "proactive" while dodging the real issue. The real issue is child-molesting priests, not chaste homosexual priests or priests who physically "counsel" distraught wives.

CHILD abusers.

all known molesters names are now in the hands of the law

Wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn?

You heard the Cardinals: serial and notorious, i.e. more than one victim and the public has to know about it, and doing a female while drunk just ain't that big a deal, goshdarnit. No, I don't believe "all known" abusers names have been turned over because they waved a shiny object in front of certain people and it suddenly became a need to "purge all the homosexuals!"

And yes, I am concerned about the future and the priests coming out of the seminaries: where's my assurance that their victims aren't going to be paid off while they get shuffled from parish to parish? WHERE THE HELL IS THAT ASSURANCE? I'm not Catholic; I don't give a rat's ass who gets ordained and who gets defrocked -- WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO DEAL WITH THE CRIMINALS?

Where are all the abused girls?

Paid-off and/or hiding in seminaries for being evil sluts and misleading those poor defenseless priests.

I'm sure I don't need to tell you that a teenage girl who enters into what she thinks is a consensual relationship with a man is going to have a lot easier time with her future sexuality than a teenage boy who does the same.

I don't know where they are -- they exist and I want to know that they won't in the future.

Now, if you Catholics want to get rid of homosexuals AFTER ASSURING ME THAT FUTURE CHILD MOLESTATIONS WON'T BE HIDDEN AND PAID OFF, then fine. Have at 'em. Ban those dog-named-Spot owners too, for all I care.

DEAL WITH THE CRIMINALS NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.

197 posted on 05/04/2002 1:12:30 PM PDT by JoshGray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
Cardinal Anthony M. Bevilacqua's sweeping rejection of gay men becoming priests diverges from mainstream thinking by U.S. Catholic theologians and policymakers, a range of church scholars said in interviews this week.

GOOD for Cardinal Bevilacqua! Those theologians and policy makers are part of the reason for the problems we're having right now. For the last forty years they've blurred the lines around the teachings of the Church so much that you can hardly get the same answer from two or three different priests these days when you ask a question about a particular teaching. Of course, some priests don't even THINK about looking it up in the Catechism, or suggesting that any Catholic can do that for themselves!

198 posted on 05/04/2002 1:16:30 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Thanks for posting a link to the transcript of last Sunday's Meet the Press.
199 posted on 05/04/2002 1:16:36 PM PDT by ELS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: saradippity
I think as do most Catholics on these threads,that all sexual abuses either sex,should be treated the same

I would like to think so, but I don't. I believe some people, both lay and clergy, would be satisfied with whatever decrease in abuse they get from banning known homosexuals from the priesthood.

"95%" "98%" were teenage boys -- ban homosexuals! I'm not hearing anything about the 2-5% that aren't teenage boys -- a stat I'm not quite believing anyway simply because of the number of pre-teen boys we're hearing about.

I'm not hearing anything about future molestors, and they will exist even if all the known homosexuals are gone. "Serial and notorious" -- what the heck does that mean? 5? 6? More than one per parish? The victim doesn't accept the pay-off and goes to the press?

No more paying off victims, no more hiding the accused, and law-enforcement investigates accusations, not the Church.

Give me that and you can go ahead and discuss and set whatever internal policies you want.

200 posted on 05/04/2002 1:26:04 PM PDT by JoshGray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-229 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson