A priest confesses his greatest secret during Mass

[goofyjim]

krysianka:

In post #92, felra introduces a very interesting link firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0602/public.html which touches on the issue of “semantics”: what does gay really mean? The meaning varies . . .

What you you guys think of this?

[/indent]

The fact that he is not “in the closet” would seem to indicate he still has the tendencies. IMHO, this would disqualify him. I do agree, however, that there are so many different definitions out there which are confusing things. This is Satan’s attempt to trip up the Mystical Body. If one feels a calling find a spiritual director for discernment, submit to obedience and honesty and go from there. I don’t see the Church kicking out anyone who experiences SSA. Otherwise, there would not be Courage.

 

[Ortho]

Some have noted a 1961 directive about homosexuals and the seminary. We now have a 2005 directive, too.

Post #140 introduces the type of manuevering that will make the 2005 directive just as effective as the 1961 directive.

But, the 2005 directive will be there so those so inclined can take comfort from the idea homosexuality has been rooted out of the seminaries.

And everyone lived happily ever after.

 

[goofyjim]

Ortho:

Some have noted a 1961 directive about homosexuals and the seminary. We now have a 2005 directive, too.

Post #140 introduces the type of manuevering that will make the 2005 directive just as effective as the 1961 directive.

But, the 2005 directive will be there so those so inclined can take comfort from the idea homosexuality has been rooted out of the seminaries.

And everyone lived happily ever after.

We’re talking about eternity. They may live happily here but if they lie to get into the seminary and priesthood, they will probably not live happily in the hereafter.

 

[krysianka]

Ortho:

Some have noted a 1961 directive about homosexuals and the seminary. We now have a 2005 directive, too.

Post #140 introduces the type of manuevering that will make the 2005 directive just as effective as the 1961 directive.

But, the 2005 directive will be there so those so inclined can take comfort from the idea homosexuality has been rooted out of the seminaries.

And everyone lived happily ever after.

I was simply bringing up a website someone else linked earlier. Posters have been going back and forth about what the term gay encompasses, what are deep-seated homosexual tendencies. Some may call it nit-picking, but I think terminology is important nonetheless. It’s all speculation, but interesting speculation, as most of us are laity. The responsibility lies first with the candidate that feels called to the priesthood.

 

[kaymart]

Ortho:

Some have noted a 1961 directive about homosexuals and the seminary. We now have a 2005 directive, too.

Post #140 introduces the type of manuevering that will make the 2005 directive just as effective as the 1961 directive.

But, the 2005 directive will be there so those so inclined can take comfort from the idea homosexuality has been rooted out of the seminaries.

And everyone lived happily ever after.

:banghead:

 

[pnewton]

Ortho:

What has the pope done to take gay priests out of the ministry? Nothing. That’s why I say the gay priests must be doing a good job.

You have repeated this illogical conclusion twice. Again, you presume that the pope is aware of every priest who is gay. If you make the same ridiculous claim a third time, I will correct it a third time.

Do you also think the President reviews the personnel file of every federal employee?

 

[Ortho]

goofyjim:

We’re talking about eternity. They may live happily here but if they lie to get into the seminary and priesthood, they will probably not live happily in the hereafter.

I suppose some will take comfort in that, too. But I doubt he question will even be asked.

 

[Ortho]

krysianka:

I was simply bringing up a website someone else linked earlier. Posters have been going back and forth about what the term gay encompasses, what are deep-seated homosexual tendencies. Some may call it nit-picking, but I think terminology is important nonetheless. It’s all speculation, but interesting speculation, as most of us are laity. The responsibility lies first with the candidate that feels called to the priesthood.

The terminology is of extreme importance. He who defines the terms has control. That’s why it’s so interesting to watch various definitions circling each other.

 

[Ortho]

pnewton:

You have repeated this illogical conclusion twice. Again, you presume that the pope is aware of every priest who is gay. If you make the same ridiculous claim a third time, I will correct it a third time.

Do you also think the President reviews the personnel file of every federal employee?

Feel free to correct me as often as you like. Just remember I am a SuperStar and entitled to special respect.

If the pope wanted to get rid of gay priests, he would write a memo to all bishops heading dioceses. In it he would tell them to remove all gay priests from the ministry. He would tell the bishops to use their discretion, as successors of the apostles, in determining who is gay.

He would then write an encyclical to the whole Church saying that gays do not make good priests and they have to go. Then he would add some good stuff about praying for them, hating the sin and not the sinner, and the difficulties this may pose in the short run. Blah, blah, blah.

Unlike some folks, I think the pope is a smart guy and knows how to implement policy in a large organization. I realize some view him as a figurehead without much of a management head, but I have a bit more confidence in him.

Since he hasn’t done this, I’d say the gay priests are doing a good job.

(If you want, I can describe what the bishops should do when they get that memo.)

 

[felra]

Ortho:

Feel free to correct me as often as you like. Just remember I am a SuperStar and entitled to special respect.

If the pope wanted to get rid of gay priests, he would …

Since he hasn’t done this, I’d say the gay priests are doing a good job.

If you say so …

 

[JimG]

Not to get off topic, but since we’ve drifted onto the subject of bishops and the pope:

In the latest issue of This Rock, (February 2006) there’s an article about “why bishops don’t get fired.” I won’t reprise the article here, and it’s not available online yet. (It’s time to subscribe, already!) I’ll just say that the article addresses several misconceptions about Church organization.

First, the Pope is not a corporate CEO. Second, the bishop is not a corporate manager.

In my own experience, even small corporations are more centralized in day to day activity than is the Catholic Church.

As to charging priests with being gay, the charge is too easy to make and too hard to refute, in the absence of concrete actions.

 

[Ortho]

JimG:

Not to get off topic, but since we’ve drifted onto the subject of bishops and the pope:

In the latest issue of This Rock, (February 2006) there’s an article about “why bishops don’t get fired.” I won’t reprise the article here, and it’s not available online yet. (It’s time to subscribe, already!) I’ll just say that the article addresses several misconceptions about Church organization.

First, the Pope is not a corporate CEO. Second, the bishop is not a corporate manager.

In my own experience, even small corporations are more centralized in day to day activity than is the Catholic Church.

As to charging priests with being gay, the charge is too easy to make and too hard to refute, in the absence of concrete actions.

The Vatican’s directive on seminarians seemed very much like corporate HQ issuing policy to branches.

 

[Ortho]

felra:

If you say so …

Don’t think he’s smart enough?

 

[pnewton]

Ortho:

Feel free to correct me as often as you like.

Then I will give you a new twist. Your reasoning is as sound as saying the president supports drugs use in America because he has done nothing to stop it. There is no secret as to what the church teaches on this. It is in every copy of the catechism.

 

[Ortho]

pnewton:

Then I will give you a new twist. Your reasoning is as sound as saying the president supports drugs use in America because he has done nothing to stop it. There is no secret as to what the church teaches on this. It is in every copy of the catechism.

What? No third strike?

The president has done a great deal to stop drug use in America. What has the pope done to remove gays from active priestly ministry?

There is no secret to what the church teaches. However, the pope has done nothing to remove gay priests from the active ministry. That’s why I say the gay priests are doing a good job.

What does the Church teach about the removal of gay priests from the active ministry? What does that catechism say? Is it a secret?

 

[pnewton]

Ortho:

What? No third strike?

The president has done a great deal to stop drug use in America. What has the pope done to remove gays from active priestly ministry?

I assure you drugs are still responsible for more crime than any other factor, at least where I live and work.

What does the Church teach about the removal of gay priests from the active ministry? What does that catechism say? Is it a secret?

Give him time. He hasn’t been in office long enough to read all the resumes on his desk. The last pope had the catechism published which reiterated the churches position on sexual deviancy. While it does not specifically apply it to the priesthood, neither does in specifically prohibit the priests from stealing from their parish or moonlighting as hitmen. It is common sense that they should follow the teaches of the Church whom they serve.