Bishops Begin Distancing from Vatican Document on Gays in Priesthood

[fkpl]

oat soda:

why put so much blame on the u.s. bishops? it does say “deep-seated” in the document. if the vatican wanted to not admit anyone with homosexual tendencies it would have said so. it is only unambiguosly barring candidates who would be actively homosexual from the seminary.

the vatican and pope know that bishops will take various interpretations of the document. it is left “nuanced” for a reason -to let bishops decide how to apply it.

I belive it is a mistake to read the instruction as condoning the ordination of a man who, within three years of his ordination to the deaconate, has had homosexual tendencies. The document speaks of a “transitory” experience in the past as not being disqualifying. “Transitory” means of brief duration, tending to pass away. In other words, this must have been something left behind in the maturational process. A man who would describe himself as “gay” or as having homosexual orientation, notwithstanding his good faith intention to live a celibate and chaste life, is not qualified for ordination. The reason is his structural incoherence with respect to human sexuality.

Anyone who says this instruction does not enjoin the ordination of a man with a present homosexual orientation is ignoring the clear language of the document.

With respect to Bishop Cormac-McCarthy’s alleged remarks: there is nothing about “eroticized” gay culture in the document. The use of this adjective is disingenuous. It is not found in the document. It is this kind of parsing that must be contested in each instance.

As I mentioned on another related thread, this document must not be narrowly construed in the manner of a criminal statute. That would be to ignore its nature, purpose and necessary effect.

Pray for our Pope and our faithful ordinaries around the world.

 

[miguel]

fkpl:

…Pray for our Pope and our faithful ordinaries around the world…

What about our unfaithful ordinaries? If anyone needs prayer, they do.

 

[fkpl]

miguel:

What about our unfaithful ordinaries? If anyone needs prayer, they do.

Good point! Thanks.

 

[oat_soda]

A man who would describe himself as “gay” or as having homosexual orientation, notwithstanding his good faith intention to live a celibate and chaste life, is not qualified for ordination.

i agree with you 100%. but the document isn’t that clear. it says that men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies are not fit. but again, how do you define “deep-seated”? many bishops and vocation directors may interpret this meaning the actual practice of homosexuality or homosexual acts while someone with just the thought or desire to commit homosexual acts. the usccb will interpret this as saying as long as you are celebate, your ok, regardless of tendencies.

what the document should have said is what constitutes deep-seated homosexual tendencies. i imagine it means re-occuring daily desires of sexual intimacy with those of the same sex. but they didn’t define it and let it up to the bishops to define for themselves.

 

[miguel]

oat soda:

usccb will interpret this as saying as long as you are celebate, your ok, regardless of tendencies.

This is essentially the status quo (and maybe I’m being too kind). Allow me to be cynical for a moment. One thing the Bishops understand is dollars. If dollars keep going out the door to pay off abuse claims, they will change the status quo.

 

[Georgess]

Is a good bit of the reluctance to have a firm , courageous stand against homosexuality be related to misplaced concern that such persons have an incurable condition and hence are ‘helpless’.

Homosexuality need to be seen as what it really is - a reversible bondage of Father hunger, coming out as effrots to seduce other men for power and control and possibly some envy/anger of women/mothers presenting as need to compete with women !

The cure would be Father Love , in abundance in the arms of The Mother - a program of fasting , scriptures ,esp. Eucharistic Adoration , to gaze at The Face of The Father- 'if you have seen Me , you have seen The Father ’

Could homosexuality be very much related to the original sin?

Scripture ( St. Paul - in Hebrews, I believe ) does say, 'it was Eve who was decieved , not Adam ’ : could that be taken also to mean that Adam willfully chose to disobey The Father, having been seduced by the serpent; Adam was asked to guard the garden , not even to have allowed the serpent in ; he does not even defend The Father when the serpent implies The Father as a liar !

The Lord came to reveal to us The Father and fulfill the father hunger that started in the garden ; in cultures where due to wars and such men/fathers have been absent ( such as in old Rome ) homosexuality was perpetuated and in our Western culture with the breakup of family , it has now become epidemic.

The Church can be the source of the cure - and fulfill her mission to do His will, to give glory to The Father, by deepening our Father love -"Me and The Father are one ’ - let us see The Father’s loving gaze in those eyes that our priests and men may esp. know what a real man ,a Father is like !

 

[fkpl]

oat soda:

i agree with you 100%. but the document isn’t that clear. it says that men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies are not fit. but again, how do you define “deep-seated”? many bishops and vocation directors may interpret this meaning the actual practice of homosexuality or homosexual acts while someone with just the thought or desire to commit homosexual acts. the usccb will interpret this as saying as long as you are celebate, your ok, regardless of tendencies.

what the document should have said is what constitutes deep-seated homosexual tendencies. i imagine it means re-occuring daily desires of sexual intimacy with those of the same sex. but they didn’t define it and let it up to the bishops to define for themselves.

oat soda,

I think the directive is more clear than you do. It covers the active practice of homosexuality (physical acts) explicitly. It also speaks about an allowance for “transitory” experience/inclination in the past. I think it quite clear that the directive proscribes a man who is subject to present same sex attraction from being ordained.

The key here is not how we interpret the document but how the various bishops and heads of orders implement it. Some will embrace it in the fullness of its intent, some will approach it grudgingly and take a jesuitical approach to it (pun definitely intended) and some will flat-out try to evade it. It will be up to loyal Catholics to keep an eye on this kind of thing and report any evasion or back-sliding.

 

[MikeWM]

Orionthehunter:

I wonder what the agenda of the original news source was to take the Cardinal’s words out of context by deleting the 2nd half.

Exactly what I was wondering. Quoting a piece of a quote to completely change the emphasis of what someone’s point is, is an old, discredited ‘tactic’.

I have more faith in our wonderful Cardinal. He deserves it

Mike

 

[legeorge]

Furthermore, I think we need to be less cynical regarding our Bishop’s responses.

You’re right. I know that I am guilty of this myself. Unfortunately, we did not come to this knee-jerk reaction without provocation. We have reason to be cynical, but that does not excuse us. Like I tell my children, once you have lost my trust (by lying, etc.) it takes a lot of time and hard work to get it back. Of course, that hard work is for both sides!

 

[fix]

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the archbishop of Westminster, said in an official statement, “The Instruction is not saying that men of homosexual orientation are not welcome in the priesthood.” This despite the fact that the document says exactly the opposite

The news service is exactly correct. The cardinal’s comments seem to contradict the document in a direct way.

The document specfically says that no one with any homosexual tendencies should be ordained.

 

[MikeWM]

fix:

The news service is exactly correct. The cardinal’s comments seem to contradict the document in a direct way.

The document specfically says that no one with any homosexual tendencies should be ordained.

If you’re suggesting that I have to believe either the cardinal or the posters here as to how to interpret a Vatican document, I’ll go with the cardinal thanks. The document is ambiguous enough to allow the cardinal’s interpretation, at least if you read the whole of what he said rather than the abruptly terminated version.

Mike

 

[Libero]

The news service is exactly correct. The cardinal’s comments seem to contradict the document in a direct way.

The document specfically says that no one with any homosexual tendencies should be ordained.

It seems that you have completely ignored what the English people her have said, Cardinal Murphy O’Connor is a brilliant bishop, further more, as we are under his jurisdiction, then we are very qualified to make such a comment.

I cannot believe the actions of some (news services) they are looking to find trouble and creating scenarios. Cardinal Murphy O’Connor only explained the document, in specifically choosing only part of his text, the news services are acting in a childish manner, deliberately making implications and trying the discredit the cardinal.

 

[miguel]

MikeWM:

cardinal’s interpretation…

translation: misinterpretation

 

[fix]

MikeWM:

If you’re suggesting that I have to believe either the cardinal or the posters here as to how to interpret a Vatican document, I’ll go with the cardinal thanks. The document is ambiguous enough to allow the cardinal’s interpretation, at least if you read the whole of what he said rather than the abruptly terminated version.

Mike

The document is not ambiguous at all. It is only perceived as ambiguous by those with an agenda different from the Pope.

 

[fix]

Libero:

It seems that you have completely ignored what the English people her have said, Cardinal Murphy O’Connor is a brilliant bishop, further more, as we are under his jurisdiction, then we are very qualified to make such a comment.

How does that prove the cardinal’s words are correct and the reporters are incorrect?

I cannot believe the actions of some (news services) they are looking to find trouble and creating scenarios. Cardinal Murphy O’Connor only explained the document, in specifically choosing only part of his text, the news services are acting in a childish manner, deliberately making implications and trying the discredit the cardinal.

They pointed out his contradictory words. That is all.

 

[Brad]

MikeWM:

If you’re suggesting that I have to believe either the cardinal or the posters here as to how to interpret a Vatican document, I’ll go with the cardinal thanks. The document is ambiguous enough to allow the cardinal’s interpretation, at least if you read the whole of what he said rather than the abruptly terminated version.

Mike

Thankfully, God gave many of us the ability to read and listen. Further, we have volition. Ambiguity is frequently a chosen viewpoint, either directly or indirectly. As a result, we can all choose which church and which Pope we want to follow. I choose the Vicar of Christ. I also am thankful when the Vatican Congregations produce such clear, solid, simple, and to-the-point documents such as these.

 

[Libero]

How does that prove the cardinal’s words are correct and the reporters are incorrect?

The cardinal isnt the one making stories and using deviant tactics in “reporting”. Who would you consider more reliable - The press, or a cardinal of the Catholic church?

They pointed out his contradictory words. That is all.

They aren’t even contradictory, the Cardinal said:

“the instrcution is not saying that men of homosexual orientation are not welcome”

This is TRUE. The instrcution says men with deep seated homosexual tendencies.

 

[fix]

Brad:

Thankfully, God gave many of us the ability to read and listen. Further, we have volition. Ambiguity is frequently a chosen viewpoint, either directly or indirectly. As a result, we can all choose which church and which Pope we want to follow. I choose the Vicar of Christ. I also am thankful when the Vatican Congregations produce such clear, solid, simple, and to-the-point documents such as these.

Note we are seeing public conflict right now:

Skylstad’s comments are the opening salvo in what promises to be a wide-ranging battle within the U.S. church over the document’s implementation. Bishop John M. D’Arcy of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Ind., said yesterday that Skylstad’s interpretation is “simply wrong” – a rare public clash among bishops, who usually go to great lengths to preserve an image of collegiality, even when they disagree.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/29/AR2005112901852.html

 

[fix]

Libero:

T

This is TRUE. The instrcution says men with deep seated homosexual tendencies.

It says that and more. It says if the tendencies are transitory, and the candidate is free of them for at least 3 years, then ordination may be ok. That says no tendencies, period.

 

[Franze]

We would want more clarity and obdience. It has been much pain in the church for these chapters, it must be prevented now, it´s better few and good priests that more and bad.