Posted on 08/23/2005 5:06:26 PM PDT by Angelas
Catholic blogs are reporting rumors of a shake up...has anybody heard anything specific? Here's a quote from Rocco Palma:
"Monday, August 22, 2005 Whole Lotta Shakeup Goin' On.... Last night, I reported this:
The more discreet types in Roman life have been breathing sighs of relief that the first summer of the pontificate had WYD as a "buffer." If it didn't, so the argument goes, the curial reshuffle would've been the dominant item on everyone's mind and there would've been much more anxiety and spatting than there's been. Now, with a successful jaunt in Cologne under the Pope's belt, August winding down and the Curia getting ready to reopen for business, center stage at the Vatican belongs to the Pope's internal agenda -- what he wants and who will end up where.... As one operative said it, "Things could get rather kooky over here." This afternoon, Papabile enters the fray: "The first ten days of September will leave everyone's head spinning. Combine those with reports from three continents that certain prelates have already been given happy news and are preparing for new assignments in Rome, and you can see -- again -- that something BIG is afoot. The strategy at work here is to have it done early and done quickly, lest everyone get too comfortable at their desks coming back from vacation....
What's more, as the dicastery heads are all ex officio members of the Synod of Bishops, it just makes better sense for the New Curia to be appointed prior to the 2 October opening of the Synod on the Eucharist, so the incoming prefects and presidents can take their seats in the Hall and be able to mix it up the bishop-delegates coming to town from around the world. Encouraging good working relationships is what you do when you want your bureaucracy to be a collegial one, and the Pope has explicitly given his commitment to that.
When the boom gets lowered, don't say I didn't tell you. I've been talking about it for months now."
Yes, and that's exactly the same creeping humanism that has beset and led astray many among Protestant groups...the creeping acceptability line as to who/what was acceptable, with increasing disregard for what we are told by the Bible about this.
The Church will either reconsider the creeping standard and reset the bar or it will allow the bar to be ever moved until it'll be "do your own thing" as to the Priesthood.
Yes. They do want well rounded, mature people in the Priesthood. Mature not in the numerical, age sense but as to personality, objectivity and awareness. A person with a healthy social life is going to be a great Priest...someone with obstacles in this area will have a tougher time of public service work (or at least have a bigger challenge in ease with others, the ability to associate and commisserate with others, etc.).
And, dating sure helps anyone realize greater self awareness about what one's vocation is or is to be.
I truly admire men and women who are called to religious vocations, have known more than a few and well, and all of them share that they had a very consistent understanding of what they were called to do. Doubts at times but the doubts were far less than the happiness in commitment to their intended vocations.
Yes. They do want well rounded, mature people in the Priesthood. Mature not in the numerical, age sense but as to personality, objectivity and awareness. A person with a healthy social life is going to be a great Priest...someone with obstacles in this area will have a tougher time of public service work (or at least have a bigger challenge in ease with others, the ability to associate and commisserate with others, etc.).
And, dating sure helps anyone realize greater self awareness about what one's vocation is or is to be.
I truly admire men and women who are called to religious vocations, have known more than a few and well, and all of them share that they had a very consistent understanding of what they were called to do. Doubts at times but the doubts were far less than the happiness in commitment to their intended vocations.
I agree as to the immutable aspects of what you describe.
Wholeheartedly agree.
But, there has already been a MUTABILITY, a modification, within the Church in years past to instruct that homosexuals were "alright" in the Priesthood as long as they remained celibate, as same with heterosexuals.
In fact, many Catholics and many Priests today instruc that, and it represents an lack of faithfulness to what is immutable.
My point, earlier, was that the immutable aspect to these issues (which you delineate) will either be reaffirmed or the mutability, the modifications in place now which counter the immutable aspects to some of what you describe (mostly as to male homosexuals in the Priesthood, and female homosexuals in religious orders), will be allowed to stand. And, almost certainly, if allowed to stand, will lead to further corruption...a further turning away from what the Church teaches to actually negatively affect what the Church teaches.
Which has already occured among some protestant organizations, same modifications toward similar corruptions of Biblical truth.
If you are referring to my comment that there has always been a percentage of gay priests as creeping humanism, you are wrong. The church cannot catch everyone, that is all. Creeming humanism is to view homosexuality as legitimate under natural law.
Or that Cardinal George Pell will be specially appointed as the new General of the Jesuits to restore orthodoxy and the Catholic faith within the Society of Jesus. Should cause a good uproar. Get ready for the wailing and gnashing of teeth by all the fake liberal Catholics and buggers.
It's either that or Benedict is going to start outing the members of the anti-Catholic secret societies.
I could go for that.
Lesbianism just hasn't been an issue in the same way male homosexuality was, so perhaps they intend to skip it.>>>>>>
That is so unjust. They just don't count, wow
Lesbians in religious orders are a big problem in the US - and even worse is the fact that they were virtually officially sanctioned for a while, after nuns got into the "I Am Woman" (Womyn?) movement.
I had a friend who had been in a religious order for about 15 years and was very happy, had never seen any problems - until the superiors of the order invited some shrinks in to tell the good sisters that they were repressing themselves and they should stop that right now. They did, and my friend left after about two years of relentless propositioning, hearing the doors in the convent slamming all night, etc. Now, naturally, what is left of that convent is about three elderly nuns who are way beyond hanky-panky.
I think the reason it wasn't mentioned is that the document was dealing with priests, which of course would mean that it wouldn't relate to female religious orders. But it was (and probably still is) a problem in some areas.
Maybe. But I'm more inclined to think they both give out food. It's just that the Evangelicals give out Bible passages with their food, while the Catholics give out anti-American union organizing screeds with their food.
by Malcolm Thornberry 365Gay.com European Bureau Chief
Posted: August 28, 2005 4:00 pm ET
(Vatican City) The Vatican is preparing to bar gays from entering the priesthood and is considering removing those gays who are already priests. The new regulations for the priesthood were prepared by the Congregation for Catholic Education and Seminaries - the body that oversees all Catholic seminaries.
The document was delivered to Pope Benedict earlier this month but was not made public because the Vatican did not want it to conflict with the papal visit to Cologne.
It is the latest attempt to lay blame for the child abuse scandal that for the past several years has rocked the church, particularly in America, at the feet of gays.
In the past the church has been silent on the issue of gay priests, believing the vow of celibacy that all priests take, was sufficient.
People within the church who are familiar with the workings of the Vatican say that it is doubtful the document contains a condemnation of homosexuality. Instead, it is expected that it has been written in careful language to appear pastoral rather than accusatory.
"It will not be an attack on the gay 'lifestyle'," John Haldane, professor of moral philosophy at the University of St Andrews, told the British newspaper The Observer.
" It will not say 'homosexuality is immoral'. But it will suggest that admitting gay men into the priesthood places a burden both on those who are homosexual and those they are working alongside who are not."
Whether the directive will be signed off by the Pope is not known. The document has already been rewritten several times, but Benedict has made the abuse scandal a key priority.
Next month the Benedict will send investigators to the US to gauge the scale of the scandal and to determine how many gay priests are in the priesthood.
Since his election to the papacy in April, Benedict has reaffirmed the Church's anti-gay stand. In June, he issued a stinging condemnation of gay and lesbian families. (story)
Repeatedly driving home his point that marriage can only be a union between man and woman, the Pope called same-sex unions "pseudo-matrimony".
Before becoming Pope, Benedict had long history of attacking same-sex unions. As Cardinal Ratzinger he was the Vatican's most outspoken opponent of gay marriage.
Ratzinger was the author of the a 2003 Vatican directive to priests around the world calling for a proactive stand to stop governments from legalizing same-sex marriage and for a repeal of those those already on the books that give rights, including adoption, to gay couples. (story)
The 12 page document called on Catholic bishops and lawmakers to oppose the legalization of same-sex unions.
He opposes contraception and the use of condoms to combat HIV/AIDS, advocates a diminished role for women in the Church and has called for mandatory celibacy for priests.
In 1999 he ordered two Americans, Sister Jeannine Gramick and Father Robert Nugent, to end their associated with New Ways Ministry which provides educational programs for gay and lesbian Catholics nationwide.
Prior to the Pope's visit to Cologne, as part of World Youth Day earlier this month, European gay groups tried to arrange a meeting with Benedict in an effort to resolve their differences. The Vatican never acknowledged the invitation.
©365Gay.com 2005
I, of course, agree that morally lesbianism is no different than male homosexuality; the difference is that priests minister to the flock as figures of authority, and the religious generally don't. Besides the chief problem has been not mere homosexuality but pederasty, a necessarily male disorder.
I agree with you, male homosexuality in the church has led the way to where we are now insofar as the scandal and hurt it has caused the faithful.
I guess I was reacting at the gut level because it seems to be a lot of ignoring or downplaying the women similarly afflicted, their sins, their ultimate salvation or damnation. Sin is sin, ALL these people need our prayers AND their pruning from our beloved institutions.
When society starts to equate what is legal, and what is now culturally gaining currency with what is acceptable, our religious, no matter their gender, need to be leading the Body of Christ AWAY FROM these seductions of Satan.
Masles homosexuality is necessarily wilder than lesbianism, although I have read that in classical times women could get rather frenzied. So no tellling, although this mal;e may be oblivious to what is obvious to women.
I thought that Archbishop Lavada from San Francisco was already appointed to take over from "Cardinal Ratzinger." Did I miss something?
Well, it IS possible to delineate heterosexuals from those with homosexuality. It's just not socially "cool" to engage in that process, unless someone is engaged in the behvior itself, as to homosexuality.
So, yes, there IS "a test for the homosexual condition" and it's called confession. A "test" in the truest sense in that a person seeking ordination as a Priest, we should all hope, would be interested in that level of confession and not emotionally offput or even aggressively offended by the idea that there was anything to confess.
Are you defending homosexuality based upon the assumption that there's no way to 'tell' who is what? It sounds as if you are from much that you've written.
There are some studies that show on autopsy that males who engage in homosexual activity have undergone organic brain changes but so far all that I've read about it is that it's impossible to know whether the changes occured over time as a result of the behaviors (most think so) or that they are males born with brain variations from other males. And, since the studies rely on studying organic changes after persons are deceased, there are obvious problems of what information can be evaluated.
However, the issue is homosexuality being unacceptable to what the Church requires. And especially for the Priesthood. I hope that those who are ordained and actually admitted to Seminaries are those who are not under those influences. The suggestion that homosexuality is fine as long as someone doesn't discuss it and/or does not engage in sexual contact with other homosexuals is the issue here. It's not fine.
There are questions and personal statements that can be asked and revealed that are more than test enough, if such test is necessary, to state the obvious. But, it's not a case of testing and who can escape revealing what, but of the thing itself here in relationship to the Priesthood.
I am exiting this thread because (1.) I am very sleepy and tired and (2.) I recall you persisting at an earlier time with my comments about this along similar lines and what I get from your comments is that you are accommodating homosexuality in the Priesthood, for some reason.
Not to pry but I have no more energy nor interest at this point in maintaining a dialogue with you about this. Have a nice day.
I have been following this on the "periphery" for some time. Catholic World News carried a "teaser" on it today. It seems the Holy Father hates the current organizational scheme of the Curia. For one thing, many in key positions are past or near retirement. Second, Pope Benedict was said to be none too happy with the elevation of State over CDF as occurred under Pope John Paul the Great. So, there has been a persistent rumor of a coming and wholesale change in the Curia. A recent move gave one congregation the "portfolios" of all the priests in the world so that their records are not scattered all over the place. Thus, if a red flag should arise, the same Congregation can see if there is a "dossier" on the man. I also wonder if the head of CDF will be the Pope? That is the way things functioned for a long time and the Prefect was actually a glorified secretary who handled day to day matters. Where that leaves Cardinal Pell and rumors concerning him is anyone's guess although it could mean he will become a Cardinal Bishop like Cardinal Arinze (meaning two key Liturgical men in the top ranks of the Curia).
I tend to think that this could indicate a lot of bright, young, orthodox men moving into key positions. It is said that September is to be the month of Curial Reform. With the Synod coming up, this could be a huge bombshell as it is before the Synod. I also think the Archbishop Marini may have done his last Papal Mass.
In all organizations, act quickly or the impulse to reform becomes dragged down with inertia.
Frank
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.