Pope: Bar deviants from priesthood (PURGE HOMOSEXUALS FROM THE SEMINARIES)

CNN ^ | September 5, 2002

[Ronaldus Magnus]

VATICAN CITY -- Pope John Paul II says that to preserve itself, the Roman Catholic Church has to be much more careful not to let men with "deviations in their affections" enter the priesthood.

The 82-year-old pontiff also re-affirmed the Church's rule on celibacy, saying it should not be seen as a "useless" imposition but a vital part of a tradition in which the priest offers himself unconditionally to God.

[Brian Allen]

<< I ... hope that he was including homosexuals and not just pedophiles in his comments .... >>

His Holiness was talking to male homosexuals.

To sodomists.

Almost without exception the men that [Especially] male homosexual naziism calls "pedophiles," are but male homosexuals -- sodomists -- who buggarize about with little BOYS!

Used to describe perverted perverts, deviant deviants and child rapists, the word, "pedophile," is pretty much redundant -- a red herring.

[Nephi]

The Pope did not say "homosexuals" he said "obvious deviance in their affections. Now, the membership needs to ask why those words, what exactly do they mean and why not use the word for sodomite?

[Nephi]

Bill O'Reilly will be pleased I'm sure, but I bet he will repeat his call for the removal of Cardinal Law.
Shouldn't Law be removed?

[Orual]

Pope John Paul II says that to preserve itself, the Roman Catholic Church has to be much more careful not to let men with "deviations in their affections" enter the priesthood.

The correct descriptions, JP, are homosexuals and pedophiles. You have to be equally concerned about those deviants that are already in the priesthood and you need to make an unequivocal statement concerning getting them all out. Now. These tragically watered-down statements mean nothing.

[jjm2111]

LOL That's our Bill!

[yendu bwam]

The fact is, the Pope has NOT named homosexuals. His comments could easily be interpreted to mean those attracted to kids. It's clear to everyone that homosexuality is the problem, but American bishops are likely to interpret away the Pope's comments to suit their pro-homosexual ideologies. And it's not clear the Pople is actually going to do something to address the situation. After all, the Bishops were told not to ordain homosexuals in 1961 - big deal - nothing happened except to ordain a mintload of homosexuals.

[yendu bwam]

The correct descriptions, JP, are homosexuals and pedophiles. You have to be equally concerned about those deviants that are already in the priesthood and you need to make an unequivocal statement concerning getting them all out. Now. These tragically watered-down statements mean nothing.

I'm afraid that Orual is right. This statement was deliberately ambiguous, is subject to extensive interpretation, and is likely to be interpreted away (if not downright ignored) by many American bishops. I'm waiting for the priesthood to be de-Queerized and for my sons to be safe with Catholic priests. I am not all that hopeful.

[goodnesswins]

SANITY is starting to REIGN everywhere.....

[MarMema]

He will never take these Biblical steps because I dare say half of the priests would be out the door or in jail where they belong

While I agree with the majority of your post, this was something that had not occurred to me before. While I have been wondering why action has not been taken more strongly, that is. A scary thought.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

As I wrote in post #35, I see similarities in this statement with Cardinal Archbishop Karol Wojtyla's early statements against Communism in Poland. Although I agree that the U.S. bishops haven't done enough to keep homosexuals out of the priesthood (and may even have been complicit in getting them there), homosexuality is an undeniable "deviation in one's affections." Even though this isn't the "All homosexual priests are hereby defrocked" statement we would have liked, it is a positive start and I am hopeful that it will lead to our shared view of the real solution.

[Nephi]

I share your hopeful attitude.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Liberal howling and wailing to follow...

How about lawsuits, hmmm? I was kicked out because my voice is effeminate. So I'm suing.

They can't win for losing, can they?

[okie01]

"They can't win for losing, can they?"

The libs and the trial lawyers can be counted upon to do their best to put the church in a lose-lose situation.

That's fer sure...

[Republic]

I am so glad to hear of this. You just cannot know. Although I am not a Catholic-I deeply love this man. And his apparent backing off of this issue kind of hurt that affection. He knows this is the right stance, and he has finally taken it. Thank God. And God Bless all of the little ones, especially the little boys, who want to serve their church without fear of predatory homosexual priest preying upon their souls and bodies.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Looks like the Pope is defying political correctness and liberal law. Homosexuals scream and hollar that being homosexual is no reason to keep you away from children. The Pope, facing a dire crisis, sees no way out other than to completely disagree.

[yendu bwam]

homosexuality is an undeniable "deviation in one's affections." Even though this isn't the "All homosexual priests are hereby defrocked" statement we would have liked, it is a positive start and I am hopeful that it will lead to our shared view of the real solution.

I hope you're right. It may be the Pope's way of telling the US bishops that action is required, without using the dread H word - one that would send the PC brigades into a frenzy. But one thing is for sure in my mind. The US bishops won't do much unless forced to. It really is up to the Pope.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

The Catholic Church does not submit before God's Word anyway [or any other church I know of for that matter] so I personally think it's a con game to begin with.

I've been saying for a long time, the leadership of America's churches failed the Free World. If they were right with God, America would be going to church. As things stand, Americans generally don't. And I don't blame them a bit.

Prime example: tithing. It's a manmade law, according to Jesus. I'll take God's word over theirs' any day of the week.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

As far as I can tell, most are being booted.

And that's the problem: most, not ALL. If they're old priests, the Church figures they have nowhere to go, so they keep them in. That's wrong.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

deviations in their affections

That's an odd phrase. Wish he could have been more blunt and straightforward.

[yendu bwam]

I am so glad to hear of this. You just cannot know. Although I am not a Catholic-I deeply love this man. And his apparent backing off of this issue kind of hurt that affection. He knows this is the right stance, and he has finally taken it. Thank God. And God Bless all of the little ones, especially the little boys, who want to serve their church without fear of predatory homosexual priest preying upon their souls and bodies.

I hope the Pope does the right thing here - so that my faith in him is not so mightily dulled. And like you, I yearn for the day when a priest can be trusted with one of our sons. It's absolutely perverse that such is not currently true.