Cardinal's words on gay priests surprise scholars

The Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | Fri, May. 03, 2002 | JIM REMSEN

[history_matters]

I read this on Cardinal Bevilacqua and thought you all should see the gay-sharks circling him and painting him as some misbegotten loon. The truth is that Cardinal Bevilacqua is the only Cardinal in America who understands this issue of homosexuality and its incompatibility with the priesthood. The Cardinal is also the only one who seems to understand what is at stake. Aside from Father Ray Ryland, the others quoted in this story especially McBrien can barely be considered Catholic because their teaching is contrary to the Magisterium, the Catechism, and the direction of the Pope.

[history_matters]

Cardinal Bevilacqua assailed by pro-homosexualist theologians.

[PMCarey]

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.

Easy enough to verify isn't it? Just count up the number of pedophiles among the clergy who went after boys and compare it to the number who went after girls. When is some newspaper going to print that very basic and obvious statistic?

[07055]

I wonder about the percentage of gay priests in the United States right now---and what percentage of those priests are truly chaste.

[history_matters]

For the sake of Cardinal Bevilacqua ping...

[Thundergod]

Just think about the insanity of ordaining SODOMITES to the priesthood. 'nuff said.

[american colleen]

Cardinal Bevilacqua and h_m *bump*!

Thanks for a great article, it is good to see you back on the job (I can't find anything without you here pinging everybody!) and it is good to know who "the good guys" are.

[RLK]

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.

------------------

It's unfortunate his views represent a divergence form the mainstream. If he were made pope there might be a chance for return of sanity in the Catholic Church.

[history_matters]

God bless you, lass. I'm deeply grateful to you.

[arepublicifyoucankeepit]

It's about time someone brings this into the "light". Haleluia!

I am political activists who has fought hard against the radical homosexual agenda and I have been saying for some time that the church's pedophilia problem is only the tip of the iceberg. I was priviledged to read personal e-mail between two gay priests in a "gay priest chat room called Sabastian's Angels" (it has since been closed down) the priests themselves estimated that 50% of priests were gay. Then another priest in the chat room bragged that the number is "closer to 75% if you go to the vatican". Those are not my words, but from an actual conversation in that chat room.

Character does count. You can't be profane on Saturday Night and Holy on Sunday (unless of course, your name is Klinton).

[Notwithstanding]

"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."

This is a very rational explanation - which I had not considered until today. I am almost compelled to agree.

[american colleen]

Hey! This post is still in news/activism... hmmm

[history_matters]

Supporting Cardinal Bevilacqua ping....

[RobbyS]

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. He gets it. The assumption that there is no difference between a "gay" celibate and a "stright" celibate has just been shown to us all too clearly. The problem is that many of the people beating up on the Church refuse to see the link, just as they won't see that AIDs is mainly a homosexual disease in any country with quality medical care.

[Thundergod]

I agree that persons of that orientation should not be admitted to the priesthood because ...

Because it's not an orientation. IT'S A DISORIENTATION!

[choirboy]

Fr. Ryland is a friend of mine. I worked with him for a couple of years when he was in San Diego. He said my mother's funeral Mass.

He a very bright man . . . and has a backbone of steel.

BTW, he's a convert. He was an Episocpalian minister and became a Catholic priest when he converted. He's married and was the first to enter the seminary in the US (although the second to be ordained) when the Vatican OK'd married converts becoming priests. He's a solid advocate of celibacy and has a very good tape of a talk he gave about it. You can search the Web to find it.

He told me a story about a time when he attended the installation of an Episcopal bishop. One of his sons was with him and was constantly asking "What are they doing now?" A patient man, Fr. Ray would lean over and tell the boy what was going on. At one point the new bishop was surrounded by the other bishops. The boy asked his usual question, "What are they doing now?" Fr. Ray thought for a second and then told the boy, "They're removing his backbone!"

You now know why he never made bishop.

[RobbyS]

"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."

Self-evidently true. Only those who think that marriage and children as evils would disagree.

[jackbill]

Perhaps the church hierarchy should take a lesson from the Boy Scouts of America.

Wes Pruden, Editor in Chief of the Washington Times had a great column on this today. Unfortunately, it's not yet posted on their web site.

[RobbyS]

he's a convert. He was an Episocpalian minister I think we should raid the Episcopal and Lutheran Chuches for men like Ryland and R.J. Neuhaus. Set up a fund and pay them a bonus to jump to our "club" I meant that as a joke, but on second thought, a darn good idea.! (patting self on back).

[NYer]

Upon his return last week from the cardinals' summit conference in Rome, Cardinal Bevilacqua weighed in on the debate about gays in the priesthood - ,,, 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."

Seems Cardinal Bevilacqua speaks from first hand experience. Perhaps they should start at the top and work their way down. Candidate #1 to step down should be:

ROGER CARDINAL MAHONY