Posted on 11/29/2005 7:43:28 AM PST by SmithL
As head of church leadership in the United States, Skylstad sets the tone for how Vatican edicts are carried out in this country.
Skylstad made the statements in a news release timed to today's planned release in the Vatican of a document called an "instruction" that clarifies the church's stand on whether gay men can enter the priesthood.
The Vatican instruction -- according to a leaked copy posted on the Catholic World News Web site -- prohibits the ordination of men to the priesthood who "are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called gay culture."
The leader of the nation's largest gay Catholic group, DignityUSA, applauded Skylstad's interpretation, calling it the best possible.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
After all, they have been covering up for their acts and moving them from one unsuspecting parish to another for years.
Here we go again. Now will the Vatican call this guy out and say, no that is not what we said? The biggest problem that I have with the Catholic Church (and I am Catholic) is they do not reign in their own bishops. It was the same thing during the 2004 election when the Vatican said that politicians who are pro-abortion are to be refused communion and the bishop in Boston said he would give it to them anyway. This wishy washy behavior is what is angering most Catholics, myself include.
If the Catholic Church is serious about representing the Body of Christ, it needs to rid it's self from leaders who do not believe in the in-errancy of the Bible. Every word in the Bible is the literal word of God. If one does not accept that, one need not be a leader in a vital church. By leaving these U.S. Bishops in place, the flock will continue to leave and/or no longer continue to be believers.
Sigh. Not "bishop" Skylstad again!!!!! Jeeze, this character gets on the nerves like a rusty hinge.
Memo to "bishop" Skylstad:
The Vatican said "NO". N-O! Which part of that word are you having trouble understanding!?!?! If you don't like it, turn in your mitre and crozier and head out the front door. And be snappy about it, we need real bishops who stand by the Church and the Pope, not some stale-leftover-disobedient-undermining-kumbaya-60s-dissenting-prevaricator.
And don't it hit your sorry caboose as you leave!
the fact of the matter is that there are thousands of gay priests who have been celibate, and who have made great sacrifices for the body of Christ.
The problem here dangus is that if they are celibate then they are not gay. "Gay" is determined only by behavior, not by temptation. They may be tempted with improper thoughts but if they do not identify with those thoughts then they are ok. On the other hand, if they label themselves as 'gay' then they have surrendered to temptation instead of to Christ and they need to be thrown out.
>> The problem here dangus is that if they are celibate then they are not gay. "Gay" is determined only by behavior, not by temptation. They may be tempted with improper thoughts but if they do not identify with those thoughts then they are ok. On the other hand, if they label themselves as 'gay' then they have surrendered to temptation instead of to Christ and they need to be thrown out. <<
It is quite plain that what is meant by "gay" is a homosexual orientation, not the participation in any homosexual activity.
(Reposting my full comments from the duplicate locked thread)
There is the thorny problem of a fantasticly large number of homosexual priests in the United States, the vast majority of whom are not pedophiles. While they may not be ideal candidates for the priesthood, and I very strongly agree that gay-leaning candidates should be screened out, the fact of the matter is that there are thousands of gay priests who have been celibate, and who have made great sacrifices for the body of Christ.
It would be gravely unjust to dismiss those who have successfully and faithfully ministered to their congregations, in spite of what the Church deems an onerous burden. And such a burden is made bearable only through the miraculous assistance of the sacraments, made effective through thorough, honest, searching confession. How terrible it would be for chaste, faithful priests to be fearful of candor to their confessors.
Therefore, I cannot be critical of Skylstad for these comments... but he had damned well be sure to balance them with an energetic, sincere reform of the seminaries and clear teachings to seminarians. For this, I am praying, but I am not holdin my breath.
Here he is again spinning, nuancing, prevaricating and watering down a Vatican instruction.
It looks like only retirement or death will rid us of this pestilence of rebellious bishops. Until then, my check book remains firmly locked away.
Let me be more direct. There is no such thing as homosexual orientation. There is homosexual temptation and how you respond to that determines your fitness for the priesthood.
We are all heterosexual by design and by biology. If we are tempted to misuse that design in sexually pervers ways (be it homosexual, bestial, necrophiliac or whatever) then we are identifying with our sin instead of with our Savior.
There is no genetic cause of homosexual behavior. Therefore there are no 'homosexuals' there are only people responding incorrectly to homosexual temptation.
I think Skylstad must be having a problem with the "n" ...it reminds him of the nuns who, aeons ago, attempted to teach him catechism in grammar school. They're now doing 7200 RPM in their graves.
Or maybe it's the "o" that's giving him fits ... it reminds him of his ordination, in which he was made a Priest of the Most High God, after the order of Melchisedech. He was commissioned to preach the Gospel, to teach the Faith, and to sanctify the Church. It's hard work ... much easier, apparently, to emit mush-headed drivel.
You argue admirably and I have this comment only: homosexual priests, in order to be sacrificial fathers, need to give up something that is good in itself (wife, family) for a greater love of God. This is what chastity is. Many would say, "What's the difference as long as he's chaste?" The difference is we're redefining chastity in order not to lose homosexual Catholics.
Fluent in Italian, he has read both the original Italian version and two English translations of the document and believes the prohibition against men with "deep-seated tendencies" means a person actively looking at pornography or visiting gay bars would not be acceptable in the priesthood, but simply having an attraction to men would be.
I don't know who USF is, but Bretske is totally around the bend on this one.
Depends. How long has he been clean of it. Has he sought and received counseling to cure the underlying trauma that causes this particular mental illness. How strong of a Christian is he. Is he a virgin. Lots of questions would need to be answered. Of course ANY guy who wanted to court my daughter would be run through the wringer. Polygraphs and all.
me->There is no genetic cause of homosexual behavior.
you->What you are really arguing for is that there is no genetic cause for any sexual behavior.
No. All normal heterosexual behavior is genetically driven (look at the biology, man fits woman). Abnormal behaviors are driven by various mental illnesses caused by various things, none of which are genetic
Why does one person experience a certain temptation and another person will not?
Male homosexuality is caused by one or more of the three following conditions. 1. An absent or insufficient relationship with ones father. 2. Being molested or otherwise abused. 3 Relentless teasing by one's peer group during the formative years.
Those who've experienced the above will experience some level of trouble with this UNLESS or until these underlying causes are dealt with. Those who claim to have never experienced one of these causes yet still struggle with homosexual desires are lying to themselves and to us.
Doesn't make me that happy.
I went to www.usccb.org and read the response. It fully supports the Vatican's Congregation of Catholic Education's statement. In the response a distinction is made between homosexual tendency and homosexual inclination. No where does the Bishop say that the US bishops will not go by the Vatican policy. Please remember that SF Gate is not the best source to get news of the Catholic Church.
Got to agree with you on that one. Thanks for the heads up.
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.