Don't Ban Gays from Priesthood, Ban Homophobes Says Former Catholic Leader

[GloriaPatri4]

lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05110805.html

**Don’t Ban Gays from Priesthood, Ban Homophobes Says **
Former Catholic Leader

By Hilary White and John-Henry Westen

http://lifesite.net/ldn/images/2005/TimothyRadcliffe.jpg

LONDON, November 8, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Rev. Timothy Radcliffe, who headed one of the largest religious orders within the Catholic Church from 1992 to 2001, has slammed any suggestion of barring homosexuals from the priesthood, and suggests further that those who would ban homosexuals from the priesthood should themselves be banned from the priesthood.

An Englishman and former Master General or international head of the Order of Friars Preachers - commonly known as the Dominican Order - Radcliffe has written a letter to the London Times saying, “A document from the Vatican on the admission of seminarians is expected soon but we do not as yet know its contents. If it were to contain such a ban (on men inclined to homosexuality), which is highly unlikely, most Catholics, at least in the West, would find it unacceptable.”

timesonline.co.uk/article/0,59-1851646,00.html

 

[m134e5]

The Church isn’t going to listen to them…they may do the opposite and be more strict on who they admit to the seminaries.

 

[MommaKat]

Well there is one thing I can say about the baby boom, hippie freak generation it is getting old. I also think thier ideas are getting old. Shut down debate call people names and intimidate. I have disliked this response for years.

 

[Rhubarb]

What I don’t understand is that the Church seems to say that it’s the homosexual -act- itself that’s wrong, not neccesarily being attracted to members of the same sex. It says that homosexuals are called to a life of celibacy.

So if these seminarians are celibate homosexuals I don’t see the problem. I mean even the hetrosexual priests are called to be celibate.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

That sounds good in theory, but statistically, the acts of abuse were momosexual acts. That is fact. Any psychologist will tell you this.

So the Church has decided to act based on hard empirical evidence, not theory. I agree with you on paper. Apparently though, the homosexual Priests, do not…

 

[mlchance]

Rhubarb:

So if these seminarians are celibate homosexuals I don’t see the problem.

You don’t have to see the problem for their to be one.

The Church has the authority to decide who is or who isn’t qualified to be a priest. Not you. Not me. The Church. Thus, if the Church decides that homosexual men cannot be ordained, then homosexual men cannot be ordained. If the Church decides something else, then that stands as well.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Skotnicki]

Mark, we are the Church.

 

[Eireann]

GloriaPatri4:

LONDON, November 8, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Rev. Timothy Radcliffe, who headed one of the largest religious orders within the Catholic Church from 1992 to 2001, has slammed any suggestion of barring homosexuals from the priesthood, and suggests further that those who would ban homosexuals from the priesthood should themselves be banned from the priesthood.

He doesn’t have the power to ban anyone, seems like the rock is being attacked more now than ever before in history.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Let us pray thatPope Benedict will send some more of our leaders to join Father Radecliffe in retirement.

 

[estesbob]

It appears he has changed his views in the last few years. heres what he said in 1998:

Timothy Radcliffe, Master of the Order of Preachers, commented on the emergence of a homosexual sub-culture within a seminary or religious order: “It can threaten the unity of the community; it can make it harder for the brethren to practice the chastity which we have vowed. It can put pressure on brethren to think of themselves in a way that is not central to their vocation as preachers of the Kingdom…”

 

[mlchance]

Skotnicki:

Mark, we are the Church.

No, we aren’t. Christ Jesus is the Church. We are members of His Body, and some of those members have authority to decide matters pertaining to who is acceptable for ordination and who isn’t. Those members are the bishops and the Pope. I’m neither; therefore, I have no authority in matters pertaining to ordination.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Skotnicki]

mlchance:

No, we aren’t. Christ Jesus is the Church. We are members of His Body, and some of those members have authority to decide matters pertaining to who is acceptable for ordination and who isn’t. Those members are the bishops and the Pope. I’m neither; therefore, I have no authority in matters pertaining to ordination.

– Mark L. Chance.

752 In Christian usage, the word “church” designates the liturgical assembly,[141] but also the local community[142] or the whole universal community of believers.[143] These three meanings are inseparable. “The Church” is the People that God gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. She draws her life from the word and the Body of Christ and so herself becomes Christ’s Body.
christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/church1.html#PLAN

 

[gomer_tree]

Skotnicki:

752 In Christian usage, the word “church” designates the liturgical assembly,[141] but also the local community[142] or the whole universal community of believers.[143] These three meanings are inseparable. “The Church” is the People that God gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. She draws her life from the word and the Body of Christ and so herself becomes Christ’s Body.
christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/church1.html#PLAN

Would you guys stop splitting hairs? “Church” can be used in more than one sense. When someone argues that the Church has authority to rule in a given way, the obvious reference is to the Church as hierarchy with apostolic authority, rather than in the collective sense. It makes no sense to suggest that we can collectively rule on faith and morals, even though we comprise the Church as the body of Christ.

 

[Riley259]

Rhubarb:

What I don’t understand is that the Church seems to say that it’s the homosexual -act- itself that’s wrong, not neccesarily being attracted to members of the same sex. It says that homosexuals are called to a life of celibacy.

So if these seminarians are celibate homosexuals I don’t see the problem. I mean even the hetrosexual priests are called to be celibate.

But they’re putting these men into a situation that for them would be a near occasion of sin - that situation would be to live closely with other men during their seminary formation. In addition, having a same-sex attraction is disordered (although not sinful itself) and the emotional dissonance that these men would likely have would be immense, given that they are obligated to teach that homosexuality is disordered and that homosexual relations are a grave sin. Finally, the idea of celibacy for priests is that they are giving up something very good (namely a sacramental marriage with a woman and having children with her) for the sake of the kingdom. This would not be the case with a priest who has homosexual tendencies - he wouldn’t be giving up that aforementioned good for the sake of the kingdom … the Church teaches that if he has same-sex attractions, he would have to be celibate anyway so there would be nothing to give up. Bottom line: it’s to risky to admit homosexual men to the priesthood.

 

[Evangel]

Riley259:

But they’re putting these men into a situation that for them would be a near occasion of sin - that situation would be to live closely with other men during their seminary formation. In addition, having a same-sex attraction is disordered (although not sinful itself) and the emotional dissonance that these men would likely have would be immense, given that they are obligated to teach that homosexuality is disordered and that homosexual relations are a grave sin. Finally, the idea of celibacy for priests is that they are giving up something very good (namely a sacramental marriage with a woman and having children with her) for the sake of the kingdom. This would not be the case with a priest who has homosexual tendencies - he wouldn’t be giving up that aforementioned good for the sake of the kingdom … the Church teaches that if he has same-sex attractions, he would have to be celibate anyway so there would be nothing to give up. Bottom line: it’s to risky to admit homosexual men to the priesthood.

Nice summary of key issues.

If only all our priests knew the issues as well.
Praying that it be so!

 

[mlchance]

gomer tree:

It makes no sense to suggest that we can collectively rule on faith and morals, even though we comprise the Church as the body of Christ.

Exactly my point, which is why it’s not hair-splitting to insist on noting that Christ Jesus is the Church, and that He has given His authority to the bishops and the Pope.

“We are the Church,” says Joe Parishioner.

This too often turns into: “I am the Church; therefore, I have just as much authority in matters pertaining to faith and morals as does the Pope himself.”

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[snoopy]

Riley259:

But they’re putting these men into a situation that for them would be a near occasion of sin - that situation would be to live closely with other men during their seminary formation. In addition, having a same-sex attraction is disordered (although not sinful itself) and the emotional dissonance that these men would likely have would be immense, given that they are obligated to teach that homosexuality is disordered and that homosexual relations are a grave sin. Finally, the idea of celibacy for priests is that they are giving up something very good (namely a sacramental marriage with a woman and having children with her) for the sake of the kingdom. This would not be the case with a priest who has homosexual tendencies - he wouldn’t be giving up that aforementioned good for the sake of the kingdom … the Church teaches that if he has same-sex attractions, he would have to be celibate anyway so there would be nothing to give up. Bottom line: it’s to risky to admit homosexual men to the priesthood.

What I have always had a problem with is inconsistancy. Either tell them all to leave, or tell them they are worthy and can stay. I guarantee you though, If every homosexual priest were to leave, we would see churches closed around the world like never before. People would not be able to ever experience the Lord as easily as we can now. Are we really prepared to weather that storm? Something to think long and hard about.

 

[estesbob]

snoopy:

What I have always had a problem with is inconsistancy. Either tell them all to leave, or tell them they are worthy and can stay. I guarantee you though, If every homosexual priest were to leave, we would see churches closed around the world like never before. People would not be able to ever experience the Lord as easily as we can now. Are we really prepared to weather that storm? Something to think long and hard about.

You dont kow that at all. In fact you have just smeared millions of dedicated, celibate Catholic Priests. The Vatican is going to announce that homosexuality(except for those who have never acted on their desires) is not compatible with entering a catholic Seminary. Nobody is talking about trying to root out any Priest who are homosexaul-as long as they remain celibate.

 

[snoopy]

estesbob:

You dont kow that at all. In fact you have just smeared millions of dedicated, celibate Catholic Priests. The Vatican is going to announce that homosexuality(except for those who have never acted on their desires) is not compatible with entering a catholic Seminary. Nobody is talking about trying to root out any Priest who are homosexaul-as long as they remain celibate.

Denial–not a river in Egypt. Any BTW, you are wrong, there are plenty of posters who ARE trying to root out any priest who are homosexual, celibate or not. If I understand correctly, one of the criteria is if they “have deep seated homosexual tendencies” or if “they don’t condem the lifestyle.” Please re-read some of these posts and other related topics. I do apologize if I offended you if you are not one of them.

 

[Rhubarb]

Riley259:

But they’re putting these men into a situation that for them would be a near occasion of sin - that situation would be to live closely with other men during their seminary formation. In addition, having a same-sex attraction is disordered (although not sinful itself) and the emotional dissonance that these men would likely have would be immense, given that they are obligated to teach that homosexuality is disordered and that homosexual relations are a grave sin. Finally, the idea of celibacy for priests is that they are giving up something very good (namely a sacramental marriage with a woman and having children with her) for the sake of the kingdom. This would not be the case with a priest who has homosexual tendencies - he wouldn’t be giving up that aforementioned good for the sake of the kingdom … the Church teaches that if he has same-sex attractions, he would have to be celibate anyway so there would be nothing to give up. Bottom line: it’s to risky to admit homosexual men to the priesthood.

My point is, instead of banning celibate homosexuals wouldn’t it make sense to ban the pedophiles?