Gay Italian priests protest Vatican statement

  • Thread starter Thread starter contemplative
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

contemplative

Guest
Gay Italian priests protest Vatican statement

Rome, Dec. 15 (CWNews.com) - A group of self-professed gay Italian priests have protested the Vatican’s policy barring homosexuals from seminaries.

The priests, who issued a public statement but declined to identify themselves, said that in light of a Vatican Instruction released late in November, they felt like “unloved and unwanted children” of the Church. Rejecting the Vatican’s statement that homosexuality is a disorder that prevents “affective maturity,” the protesting priests said that their same-sex impulses had “not stopped us from being good priests.” They argued that the discrimination they encounter because of their sexual orientation helps them to be sensitive to other victims of prejudice and injustice. Read more

My only question…
Padres? How did you all know about each other? All 39 of you? Hmmm?
il vostro amico,
Contemplative
 
This is very surprising - the church in Italy is pretty orthodox compared to here, and I’m surprised that they’d run the risk of exposure.
 
Quite frankly, I’m sick of the gay priests whining about not being able to be ordained. As a woman, I’ve lived obediently with this rule all my life.

If homosexuals don’t act like men and aren’t willing to take on the responsibilites of men, then they shouldn’t be allowed the priveleges of men. They need to learn to deal with it just as women have.
 
I don’t know how everyone else feels about this but I sort of think that a priest and GAY are mutually exclusive. In the same way, a priest and Womanizer are mutually exclusive. The Church defines a GAY person as someone who endages in homosexual sex. As a Priest, they must have already accepted the Church’s teachings that Latin Rite priest do not get married, same sexes can not get married and that only Married people should be having sex or it is a sin.

In light of this, the Church is correct in saying that anyone who is habitually engaging in homosexual sex is unfit for the priesthood. The Church told me that I was unfit for the priesthood because my son was still a minor. I have since that time remarried and had another son so I will remain unfit for the priesthood until such time as all my children are no longer minor and my wife has passed. (and no I am not looking for that to happen just mentally acknowedging that it could.)

Now I do see in the article that they are talking about people that are only having urgings. I would hope the Church did have just such a rule. These kinds of urging need to be under control so much that they are not an issue to even speak of. If I wanted to become a priest and told them that I thought about having sex with as many women as I could and I thought about this all the time, guess what, I wouldn’t be let in. Now, I am sure that most men entering the priesthood do have the on occation thought about women, perhaps even the women around them but that feeling is under control to the point where it is not an issuel big enough to even be spoken of.

We, all of us, do that the ability given to us by God to direct our thought in any direction we wish. Either we direct our thought to God or to our wants. The Church here is saying that the priest at least should be directing our thoughts to God.
 
The orginal post date of the thread is 12/05.
That is kinda’ old news
  • but one must wonder what has happened to the gay priests who protested the Vatican statement. Where are these priests now? -
    I have a creepy feeling.
 
Teen4Christ said:
They should protest, the church is wrong on this issue.
:mad:
Click to expand...
If the church is wrong on this, then please enlighten us upon what basis do you believe the church to be wrong on this issue.

Also, if the church is wrong on this issue, then she could be wrong on many more issues. And if the church is wrong on any issue, then it is not the church Jesus established. And if it’s not the church Jesus established, why on earth would anyone want to belong to this church that teaches error when Jesus’ real church is out there somewhere else?
 
irenaeus1 said:
If the church is wrong on this, then please enlighten us upon what basis do you believe the church to be wrong on this issue.

Also, if the church is wrong on this issue, then she could be wrong on many more issues. And if the church is wrong on any issue, then it is not the church Jesus established. And if it’s not the church Jesus established, why on earth would anyone want to belong to this church that teaches error when Jesus’ real church is out there somewhere else?
Click to expand...
So then you clearly see what’s at stake if the church were to change its teaching and finally tell the truth in light of scripture!
 
posted by truagape …if the church were to change its teachings and finally tell the the truth in light of the scriptures…where in scripture does it tell us that homosexually active people are not sinfull?
 
Gosh, we really ought not to ordain womanizers and gays. But what will we do for the periods of time when the popes were chasing women, begetting children, ordaining their illegitimate sons and elevating them to the rank of Cardinal?
Oops!
The first requirement to become a Christian is that you be a sinner. No one is perfect and we have no right to expect it. God expects us to try; He doesn’t expect success.

Matthew
 
fbl9 said:
posted by truagape …if the church were to change its teachings and finally tell the the truth in light of the scriptures…where in scripture does it tell us that homosexually active people are not sinfull?
Click to expand...
Let’s see: It’s not Genesis chapter 19. The victims here were Gods messangers in the form of materialized angels or as Jude 7 puts it, 'sarkos heteras" literraly flesh different. And furtheremore God providing the first commentary on the reasons for the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah demise, clearly defines what their sin was Ez. 16:48-50.

Leveticus is clearly referencing shrine prostitution as was common in cannanite rituals. And there the prohibition is contesxtually appropiate in that it addresses only males. The book of Deuteronomy (known as an explanation of the Law) makes this clear by repeating this prohibition to the nation of Israel after entering the promised land.
When God addressed his people in the books of Exodus, and Deuteronomy he repeateadly denounces bestiality referencing both men and women. And in the priestly Levitical codes he calls bestiallity a perversion and applies it again to both men and women.

1Corinthians 6:9 uses malakos “soft” in reference to the morally weak. And arsenkoites literally means “male-bed”. Historic usage of this word makes it clear that it dosen’t mean homosexuality. The first obvious reason is the fact that the term for females is not present within this word. History again applies this word in a hetrosexual context. And even the early Church Fathers didn’t use this word in conjuction with homosexuality. In fact, in
Romans 1: Paul, who also wrote Corinthians, Romans and Timothy, never used either Greek word in the book of Romans. And he never used the wording in Romans in writing 1Corinthians and Timothy. History contextualizes the passage in Romans with rampant origies and idolatous sexcapades. So Paul’s denounciation here is fitting. Furthuremore, Paul is addressing the men who were originally with women, saying that they Left their natural use. All of this excessive, idolotrous debauchery is something all Christians should denounce.

1 Tim. 1-10 uses the term arsenokoites again, and once again Paul dosen’t draw any correlation to Romans1 to make his point.

What the bible condems, I too condemn. And to say that active homosexuals are sinful, is to over simply, miscommunicate, and overlook the inspired word of scripture!
 
Teen4Christ said:
They should protest, the church is wrong on this issue.
:mad:
Click to expand...
I don’t know if you read the newspapers but the Diocese of Fairbanks is contemplating (or actually, in) bankruptcy because of the actions of homosexual priests. Homosexual priests have caused the Church a tremendous amount of pain, and the people in the pews, a tremendous amount of money, and fractured trust.
I know it’s stylish nowadays to be tolerant of our ‘gay’ brothers, but to continue to put men with such an orientation into a position where abuse like that which has gone on in the past may continue, thus destroying more churches and more dioceses, is a helluva price to pay for being ‘stylish.’

The church is wrong, yea, and one teen4Christ is right? Please.
 
Teen4Christ said:
They should protest, the church is wrong on this issue.
:mad:
Click to expand...
And one other thought to consider. It is correct, right, just, and plain intelligent to disallow certain people from certain jobs. We do it all the time in society. For instance you will not see:
  1. Airline pilots or astronauts with inner ear/balance disturbances
  2. Blind NASCAR drivers, surgeons, and air traffic controllers
  3. People with dropsy as quality control inspectors in nitroglycerin factories
  4. Dwarfs in the NBA
  5. 120 pound middle linebackers in the NFL
  6. Mute opera singers
  7. Wheelchair bound firemen
  8. Robed klansmen working for the Equal Opportunity Commission of the U. S. Government
  9. Roman Catholic Rabbis
  10. Claustrophobic submarine commanders
    etc. etc.
    (Sorry if a few examples seem a bit frivolous and no offense is intended to any people in the above categories. 🙂 )
It is just that society does say all the time that people who cannot properly do a job, or represent a group or organization, cannot have that job.

That’s the way it is.
 
truagape said:
NEWS FLASH!!! THIS JUST IN!!! MAYDAY MAYDAY!!!
The term of which you seek is…PEDOPHILE!!
Click to expand...
Sorry, I bet to differ. The majority of the ‘abuse’ cases had to do with priests having sex with post-pubescent boys, that is boys who have reached the age of puberty. (you might want to check the statistics) Sex with pre-pubescent boys is pedophilia, sex with post-pubescent boys is called (not sure if this is spelled right) afoebaphilia. Sex between two sexually mature males (both post puberty) is a homosexual encounter regardless of any substantial age difference. So, sorry, the majority of the priests who were found to have indulged in such behavior, were involved in homosexual activities. They were NOT pedophiles.
 
joeybaggz said:
Sorry, I bet to differ. The majority of the ‘abuse’ cases had to do with priests having sex with post-pubescent boys, that is boys who have reached the age of puberty. (you might want to check the statistics) Sex with pre-pubescent boys is pedophilia, sex with post-pubescent boys is called (not sure if this is spelled right) afoebaphilia. Sex between two sexually mature males (both post puberty) is a homosexual encounter regardless of any substantial age difference. So, sorry, the majority of the priests who were found to have indulged in such behavior, were involved in homosexual activities. They were NOT pedophiles.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should re-read your own post. The “scandel” and “abuse” that has cost the church money in lawsuits isn’t because the priests were homosexual, active or not. It’s because of their abuse towards minors. Abuse towards individuals after adulthood is called rape. The actions and the consequenses that you described in your post are because of peodiphilla, not priests with a homosexual orientation!
 
joeybaggz said:
Sorry, I bet to differ. The majority of the ‘abuse’ cases had to do with priests having sex with post-pubescent boys, that is boys who have reached the age of puberty. (you might want to check the statistics) Sex with pre-pubescent boys is pedophilia, sex with post-pubescent boys is called (not sure if this is spelled right) afoebaphilia. Sex between two sexually mature males (both post puberty) is a homosexual encounter regardless of any substantial age difference. So, sorry, the majority of the priests who were found to have indulged in such behavior, were involved in homosexual activities. They were NOT pedophiles.
Click to expand...
This argument continues to blow my mind. You said that one may want to check the statistics. (Most here have done that.) I think you may want to check the definition of a homosexual “encounter”. You say it’s between two sexually mature males and I would agree with that. You then say it is “regardless of any substantial age difference.” Can you possibly be serious? Any adult, homosexual or heterosexual who takes advantage of anyone, ESPECIALLY someone underage, is a predator. The definition of a “homosexual” does not equal “predator” any more than the definition of a “heterosexual” does. According to the John Jay College research, 50.9% of the victims were 11-14 years of age. A child predator (Pedophile by most people’s definition) prey on children. Why does this seem to be the one place where 11-14yr olds are not considered children?

I simply can’t believe the instances I’ve seen where people argue that because a 12yr old happened to have already gone through puberty, they’ve now become a victim of a “homosexual encounter”. We need to rememer that 20% of the victims were female. Going by this puberty clause, any female victim who was past puberty (even if she was only 12) was a victim of a heterosexual, not a pedophile. The Church has taken a stance against the ordination of homosexual men. What are we going to do now about the deviant heterosexuals? How about the 22 or so percent of the victims that hadn’t reached puberty? What are we going to do about the pedophiles now? If you are going to insist that this is a homosexual priest problem, go ahead. But should we forget about the female victims and the pre-pubescent victims? What about them? Some seem to insist this wasn’t a pedophile problem. I have a feeling most of the pre-pubescent victims wouldn’t agree with you. And you know what? I bet most of the post-pubescent victims wouldn’t agree with you either. Why? Because they happened to be children at the time.

I truly apologize if I come across as angry or harsh. I just really have a problem with this. I don’t see this as a homosexual problem or a heterosexual problem, I see this as a child predator problem (as does the law). I could care less if the 11 to 14 yr old had experienced puberty or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top