It’s not a doctrine but a discipline for which the Church has provided (or attempted to provide, depending on your view) a rationale in the case of the Latin Church. Almost all of the Eastern Catholic Churches permit married men to be ordained priests.
Am I correct in thinking that a discipline can be changed? Conceptually the Church shouldn’t have a problem allowing married priests in general if they accept same from conversions from other denominations.
While a discipline can be changed, such changes are not normally done without broad and extensive consultation and sometimes not a little institutional anguish about the implications.
Iffy at best.
Oh it’s not my girls that my hubby doesn’t trust, it’s the men around them. Or the women. We were surprised to find that there are three women on the Sexual Offender’s list in our neighborhood. The world is weird, not the children.
The church would not have to deal with greedy people if they had no basis to bring suit. We can’t do anything to prevent the greedy people but lessen the chance that they can bring suit.
Again, the focus is not on the innocent children.At their age? I don’t think 5 or 7 year olds think like that at allAnd when they are older - well, there are a lot more potential worries.
Actually, I thought of neither. I thought you cared deeply about someone with Homosexual tendencies or who wanted to be a priest. A brother or cousin?By that do you mean you think I am homosexual and/or am thinking of becoming a priest?
My best friend in grade school had an older brother who left the seminary because of the homosexuals there. He spoke little about it except to those extremely close to him. He is now a Deacon.Well, he is sure going to succeed in reducing the number of priests at this rate
How do you think that the Vatican will be able to tell whether a man is Homosexual? Women are pretty easy to check on.
I’m never quite convinced that knowing that kind of information is useful - but yes, there are bad people around.
Fine - weed out the people who aren’t going to stick to celibacy, not a group of people who have varying degrees of commitment to celibacy. The Church should do what is right, not what is expedient.
No, actually I don’t know anyone who is both homosexual and wants to be a priest, though I know people who fit into both categories.
I’m not sure I want people to be priests who can’t live in a seminary with people who are homosexual, to be frank. What are they afraid of? Now if they are practising homosexuals, then fair enough - but then they should be thrown out of the seminary anyway.
I assume they are going to ask them, leaving them the unenviable option of either lying or giving up their vocation.
If they are found to have a very serious psychological disorder, the policy is they are discounted. That is what the testing and assessment is for. The blanket nature of the issue is that SSA is a very serious disorder, period. There is no need to test or assess people who have SSA to ascertain if a serious disorder exists. SSA is a serious disorder, a priori of their experiences, etc. There is no gray here, SAA is never “not disordered”, it is always disordered. This is why it has been determined that people with SSA should not be admitted to the priesthood.
They were practicing. It was open.
Fine, they should have been kicked out. There is no place for sex of any type in the seminary or the priesthood.
Agreed, and if this was all that the Vatican meant I have no problem with it at all.
The impression I got, and certainly others have too, is that no matter how well people hid their sexuality (which they should - why should you know the sexuality of a priest? Why does it matter?) they were going to be asked straight out about it, the same as they are asked about seeing visions etc. right now, with automatic disqualification for anyone homosexual.
Is that what the majority of psychologists say?
In my opinion, until I read elsewhere, I think they are sounding VERY harsh to strike fear into Priests like this…
They used to say it.
The Bishops cannot pass the buck! They chose “not to deal” with a very grave situation. They were confronted by sin committed by priests that they were entrusted to manage. Instead of addressing the situation like preventing such priests from remaining priests, but rather moving them some where else so that they would become another bishops problem did nothing to solve the problem. In fact it only exacerbated the situation.
I don’t think you are going to find many posters here with much, or any, experience in the mental health professions. As I posted elsewhere - “SSA” is fictional disorder. It is entirely made up. “SSA” is not in the psychiatric literature. In all major mental health and medical professional associations characterize homosexuality as a naturally occuring varient of human sexuality.
The APA is a political organization. Many so-called professionals endorse all manner of perversion under the guise of science.
You quite simply don’t have your facts straight. Homosexuality was included in the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Maual of Mental Disorders until 1973, when it was removed due to internal political pressure.
I was an office manager for 2 psychiatrists and 5 therapists before I was married.
Homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental of Disorders because it’s inclusion could not be justified by the science. I left links to APA’s policy statements. Please read them. Thanks.
APA is the national association for psychologoy. AMA is the national association for medicine. They offer the best scientific conclusions in their respective fields.