Cardinal's words on gay priests surprise scholars

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

[sinkspur]

The big thing is the "IF" Maybe we tempt them with pretty women and the guys who behave normally we keep? :-).

Your facetious example proves my point. Bevilacqua will not be able to determine who is gay and who is straight.

Should a straight man, who admits a debauched life but who says he has reformed, be accepted into a seminary over a man who is effeminate but who has never been sexually active?

[Senator Pardek]

Tell it to the Holy Spirit who left his seal on you.

Hey Holy Spirit, she's your responsibility - not mine!

[sinkspur]

But how you do you know they are celibate?

The same way I know a heterosexual celibate priest is celibate.

They tell the truth, they live the truth, and Christ lives in them.

That, by the way, is the way I can tell you don't cheat on your wife.

[Askel5]

I can't believe you have that!! (I wished I'd saved the others!)

[irishjuggler]

Should a straight man, who admits a debauched life but who says he has reformed, be accepted into a seminary over a man who is effeminate but who has never been sexually active?

How about rejecting both?

[sinkspur]

What do you have against celibacy for the priesthood?

Wrong thread, Fred.

[Askel5]

"Do I look fat?"

(I think I prefer Loon ... )

[Romulus]

If he were made pope

None for me, thanks. Nothing against Cardinal Bevilacqua, whom I admire, but all the same -- if there's one good result of the present scandal it's that it puts paid to any idea of an American pope for the time being.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Should a straight man, who admits a debauched life but who says he has reformed, be accepted into a seminary

Yes. That's how we got Father Corapi.

[metacognative]

McBrien of Notre Dame is an Ivy Tower pinhead blowhard. The issue is obvious to ordinary people. Although I see no reason why a sexually disordered man needs to tell anyone if he truly remains celibate. What's wrong with that?

[RobbyS]

You don't find what you are NOT looking for. First set your goal. The problem is the shrinks are NOT looking for homosexual behavior because they don't think it is wrong! To them their professional knowedge is reality and the teachings of the Church is moonshine.(Ask the sobs!!!) I think it is the other way around. Modern psychology is founded on a false notion of human nature. As for your first remark, the word "gay" apples to all libertines. No rakes need apply either. When exceptions are made, we should be very clear what the situation is. If God has called a person of bad sexual habits to the priesthood, that person will find some way to serve. But we have been glossing over the matter.

[sinkspur]

How about rejecting both?

Fine.

Then, do you reject the heterosexual man who may have had a fling or two but has been celibate for a few years as well as the homosexual who has been celibate?

Ratcheting your logic up a bit further, how do you determine, if both men are celibate, who is homosexual and who is heterosexual? Show them dirty videos and see who gets aroused, as RobbyS suggested?

The good cardinal spoke off the cuff. He is, after all a canon lawyer and is not a theologian.

[uncbob]

But, I will never know for sure because they are celibate, and love the Lord with all their hearts.

And How do you know they are celibate ?
For that matter how do you know hetro priests are celibate ?

You with these priests every hour of their lives ?

[sinkspur]

Although I see no reason why a sexually disordered man needs to tell anyone if he truly remains celibate. What's wrong with that?

Nothing.

[RobbyS]

The good cardinal spoke off the cuff. He is, after all a canon lawyer and is not a theologian. We have suffered much from "theologicans" since Vatican II! I have heard that Cardinal George has a relative who is gay. Assuming that is the case, he may have let family feelings get the better of his judges, or let him qualify what should not be qualified. All the evidence suggests that too many gays equals trouble.

[sinkspur]

If God has called a person of bad sexual habits to the priesthood, that person will find some way to serve.

By definition, a homosexual celibate does not have any "bad sexual habits."

[Senator Pardek]

"Do I look fat?"

Save for the lack of hair and the "I need a man" expression on your whiskered face - I'd say you're doing OK.

[sinkspur]

All the evidence suggests that too many gays equals trouble.

Active gays, I would agree.

You've got lots of celibate gays in the priesthood now. That is a fact.

Is that trouble?

(There have ALWAYS been gays in the priesthood, some active, most not.)

[chatham]

God Bless Cardinal Bevilaqua, since the rest of the whackos can't see the forest from the trees.

If there is any diffuculty with the Cardinals position after the last 4 Months of Agony in watching the church implode on the Homosexual abusers in the priesthood, the cardinals detractors need their heads examined.

Look up Richard Sipes Book, "Sex, Priests and Power" where he states of 50 Gay Priests interviewed by a Priest only 4 were celibate and 22% had 500 sexual partners or more.

Get a grip on Reality.

See page 132

The Boy Scouts is way ahead of the Church on this matter.

[uncbob]

By definition, a homosexual celibate does not have any "bad sexual habits."

Then by definition a homosexual has to remain celibate his entire life whether a priest or not where a hetosexual person can find RELIEF in marriage