Bishop Clark to Homosexual Priests: "We Deeply Value Your Ministry"

[Brad]

Libero:

Im not so sure about that, perhaps the bishop is just using the dictionary definition, rather than one that has been proposed by someone, and not accepted as a real definition. Many would think of homosexual as being very technical and impersonal, making it seem more like a detestable disease, not as if there is a person behind it.

It is something that should be cured. A spiritual disease, if you will. Calling it something “nice” and “personal” is not beneficial. Why not just call them people with SSD? I don’t walk around saying I am a heterosexual or I am straight.

Libero:

It is the same reason for a person saying “I’m straight” rather than “Im heterosexual”, or any other terms.

I never say “I’m straight”. I see no reason to make that proclamation.

Libero:

I agree with many of the points here, however thereis concern that chaste homosexuals may be denied into priesthood etc, isn’t there. Perhaps, rather than being afraid of the document being wrong, they are just concerned that a document will not truly reflect the realism of the church, that some homosexuals, whist having caused problems, many have been brilliant priests, maybe there is concern this may not be seen or reflected.

God’s Church will take care of the chaste individuals with a same-sex attraction. One document will not make or break them. That is the beauty of the Church. The media spin on a document doesn’t change it’s content nor the pastoral actions of Vatican officials. Obedience and trust in His Church are necessary here.

 

[JCB]

kmmd:

How much longer will the faithful in the Diocese of Rochester suffer under this leadership? Gentle Jesus, have mercy on us.

I ask myself that queston every day… Pray for us; Holy Mother of God.

 

[Libero]

Furthermore clearly Bishop Clark understands the difference between homosexual and gay.

Thankyou for pointing that out, I had overlooked it.

It is something that should be cured. A spiritual disease, if you will. Calling it something “nice” and “personal” is not beneficial. Why not just call them people with SSD? I don’t walk around saying I am a heterosexual or I am straight.

Because, calling a homosexual people with SSD makes them seem like inferior human beings. It begins to destroy their identity as a human. Saying that this person is someone with SSD/SSA is making it seem as if that is such a large attribute that they are nothing more than that. My sister is disabled, she has a problem that she would want cured and is not nice, but, I dont called her my handicaped sibling, but rather what she would want me to call her.

I never say “I’m straight”. I see no reason to make that proclamation.

Okay, but it would not be a proclomation, if somehow it came up, as sometimes things do, people may use the term “straight” we cannot deny that this happens.

 

[contemplative]

Libero:

Because, calling a homosexual people with SSD makes them seem like inferior human beings. It begins to destroy their identity as a human. Saying that this person is someone with SSD/SSA is making it seem as if that is such a large attribute that they are nothing more than that. My sister is disabled, she has a problem that she would want cured and is not nice, but, I dont called her my handicaped sibling, but rather what she would want me to call her.

Please tell me how does this apply to the topic of this thread?

 

[Libero]

How does this apply to the topic of this thread?

It was in reply to a comment made by Brad, it is discussing language used regarding homosexuality, the use of SSA and making the person seem nothing more than one who is a homosexual.

 

[contemplative]

Libero:

It was in reply to a comment made by Brad, it is discussing language used regarding homosexuality, the use of SSA and making the person seem nothing more than one who is a homosexual.

So shall we say 3 cheers for Bishop Matthew Clark for use of inclusive language?

I hope that these comments will be helpful to:

• homosexual priests who spend themselves each day in faithful, loving ministry to God’s holy people. We deeply value your ministry.
• to gay young men who are considering a vocation to priesthood. We try to treat all inquiries fairly. You will be no exception.
• to all who may have been confused or misled by premature and narrow reporting of the visitation and rumored document. It is always better to deal with fact than with rumor and half-truths.

He addresses homosexuals, gays and all!

 

[Libero]

So shall we say 3 cheers for Bishop Matthew Clark for use of inclusive language?

yes, this does seem a bit bizarre, why would the bishop do that? I don’t think he has an agenda (as so many do according to people here), or he is trying to convey a particularly challenging attitude.

 

[Brad]

Libero:

Because, calling a homosexual people with SSD makes them seem like inferior human beings. It begins to destroy their identity as a human. Saying that this person is someone with SSD/SSA is making it seem as if that is such a large attribute that they are nothing more than that. My sister is disabled, she has a problem that she would want cured and is not nice, but, I dont called her my handicaped sibling, but rather what she would want me to call her.

You have it completely reversed. Calling them homosexual or gay gives an identify of personhood that is so definitive, it is the primary identifier of this person. In addition, it implies a behavior that cannot be stopped. This subvertly effects their subconscious to believe that they were not made the way God intended.

All of us have sins. For one person to say they have SSD is nothing more than another person saying he is an alcoholic or has a problem with pornography or has stolen something in the past. None of this defines the whole person but it does get out in the open something that must be dealt with in a positive manner to prevent futher sin. Pretending that no problem exists by exalting a man-created nature of homosexual does a terrible disservice to any individual soul that suffers from SSD. It prevents him/her from engaging in the struggle against sin and the devil.

If someone is an alcoholic, he/she knows that alcolhol is a no-no. If someone has SSD, he/she knows that sexual relations outside of marriage is a no-no. If someone is gay, he doesn’t know that sexual relations outside of marriage is a no-no. He thinks that they are somehow good and ordered to his nature. A very dangerous proposition when we are dealing with souls that live for all of eternity.

You probably call your sister a female human being. That’s what I would call her. Likewise, I would call a self-proclaimed “lesbian” a female human being.

Libero:

Okay, but it would not be a proclomation, if somehow it came up, as sometimes things do, people may use the term “straight” we cannot deny that this happens.

Homosexual activists proclaim their homosexual identity.

I would never label myself straight under any circumstances. It is a given.

 

[contemplative]

Libero:

yes, this does seem a bit bizarre, why would the bishop do that? I don’t think he has an agenda (as so many do according to people here), or he is trying to convey a particularly challenging attitude.

This sounds smooth but
Bishop Clarks says:

I have thought about and prayed for these men because I know that two recent developments have caused them a lot of pain. One is the Vatican-sponsored Seminary Visitation program now in progress. The other is a long-rumored document from the Congregation for Catholic Education about the admission of gay men as candidates for the priesthood.

Bishop Clark throws the

Vatican-sponsored Seminary Visitation program

into the pile too. Why?

Who is he trying to appease? Publicly?

Who in their right mind would deny we needed

Vatican-sponsored Seminary Visitation program

???

Who is the Vatican-sponsored Seminary Visitation program painful for?

two recent developments have caused them a lot of pain. One is the Vatican-sponsored Seminary Visitation program now in progress.

Bishop Clark is not talking about the upcoming document only.
Clearly Bishop Clark is talking about two entirely seperate items.

The possibility of a document banning homosexuals from the priesthood

and

the Vatican-sponsored Seminary Visitation program

Bishop Clark never returns to discuss the topic of the Vatican-sponsored Seminary Visitation program. This unfinished topic in his article is much more than a hanging or dangling participle or thought.
These two seperate items piled together in the Bishop’s article reveal much about him.

 

[Libero]

All of us have sins. For one person to say they have SSD is nothing more than another person saying he is an alcoholic or has a problem with pornography or has stolen something in the past. None of this defines the whole person but it does get out in the open something that must be dealt with in a positive manner to prevent futher sin. Pretending that no problem exists by exalting a man-created nature of homosexual does a terrible disservice to any individual soul that suffers from SSD. It prevents him/her from engaging in the struggle against sin and the devil.

That is my entire point (although it may not have been shown quite that way ) The person is more than just their sexual orientation, this is what I believe many may consider the problem with banning homosexuals from priesthood to be, that we are only considering a relitavely small attribute. As for pretending the problem does not exist, my previous post:

How can the church ever expect homosexuals to folow teachings if attitudes such as this are expressed. In order to overcome this objective disorder a homosexual would have to accept it and come to terms with it, and then learn to adapt to it. Part of the problem for homosexuals who may have followed the church teachings is that people consider homosexuality a smear, or negative, despite how you choose to engage with it.

Sorry for going off topic

I dont think that Bishop Clark’s document revelas too much about him, he may have been misunderstood, and we may be jumping to conclusions. Lets not assume too much here.

 

[Brad]

Libero:

That is my entire point (although it may not have been shown quite that way ) The person is more than just their sexual orientation, this is what I believe many may consider the problem with banning homosexuals from priesthood to be, that we are only considering a relitavely small attribute. As for pretending the problem does not exist, my previous post:

So then what the document may be indicating is “don’t call yourself homosexual or gay” because you shouldn’t be acting on any such inclinations and it is totally irrelevant to the priesthood. In other words, don’t call yourself homosexual, don’t act homosexual (through same-sex activity), don’t promote homosexuality, don’t engage in exclusively homosexual activities.

This would be considering all of the person. It would be akin to saying “don’t steal, don’t promote stealing, and don’t hang out with promoters of stealing”.

Libero:

I dont think that Bishop Clark’s document revelas too much about him, he may have been misunderstood, and we may be jumping to conclusions. Lets not assume too much here.

The document must be taken in context with his past actions or inactions. When all is included, it is a telling document.

 

[contemplative]

Libero:

Sorry for going off topic

I dont think that Bishop Clark’s document revelas too much about him, he may have been misunderstood, and we may be jumping to conclusions. Lets not assume too much here.

No one is ‘jumping’ to conclusions here.
Bishop Clarks article is being discussed here to the extent that he has revealed.
Exactly what conclusions do you see being drawn here. I am curious.

 

[Walt_Oliver]

Despite a previous warning, some posters are continuing to read more into Bishop Clark’s statement than is there. Also, this thread has generated so many complaints that to deal with them individually would require that a suspension or two or three be passed out, so I am going to do the charitable thing and simply close the thread.