Gay men can be Catholic priests if celibate-report

[fix]

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican will allow gay men into the priesthood if they can show they have been celibate for at least three years, a report in leading Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera said on Friday.

But the Vatican will ban men “who publicly manifest their homosexuality” or show an “attraction” to homosexual culture “even if it is only intellectually,” Corriere added.

today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-10-07T082908Z_01_FLE730430_RTRUKOC_0_UK-POPE-GAYS.xml&archived=False

 

[Confiteor]

I read this earlier, but I wonder how they “show” they’ve been celibate for three years…no HIV? no palimony lawsuits pending? Suppose they get caught with homosexual pornography in the seminary? I guess in the end the Church knows what it wants to do…this leaves it pretty flexible. It would have been impossible to turn down candidates who won’t admit of their SSA anyway.

 

[Della]

In the Twin Cities here we’re living through a sex and murder scandal that happened in Wisconsin, just across the border in Hudson because of a homosexual priest who had pornographic pictures on his computer of both young men and boys. He murdered a man and another young man (who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time) because this man was one of his parishioners and was going to blow the whistle on this priest for molesting one of the teens in the parish. After the police questioned this priest, he hanged himself. So, we are having this horrid affair shoved into our faces at every broadcast of the news since it happened 3 years ago. And it isn’t about to stop. Now they are asking what his bishop knew and when did he know it because apparently this priest, before he was ordained, had been caught having sex with a 4 year old boy! And there were other incidences, as well. And as if that weren’t bad enough, he was a hellfire and brimstone preacher to boot!

Now, I’m sure people are going to respond with examples of gay priests who are the epitome of love and grace, but maybe they ought to be a little more skeptical. The parishioners at this priest’s parish thought that too, until he murdered two people to try to cover up his sins and his crimes. I don’t think gays ought to be priests, period. Homosexuality is a personality disorder that no amount of so-called “celibacy” will ever erase. It is too great a temptation for persons with such disorders, be they gay or heterosexual men who are addicted to sex and porn. Both ought to be barred from the priesthood for the sake of those whom they will be serving, especially in parish life.

 

[harinkj]

We need to pray for anyone who has a sex addiction and anyone with any hate in their hearts. :tiphat:

• Kathie :bowdown:

 

[YinYangMom]

well that’s a start…

but…

Since the recent document fails to remove from the priesthood already actively homosexual priests, then what consequence will there be for those who are admitted to the priesthood after being proven celibate for 3 years yet once in, begin to regress???

oh, and so much for “highly secret” documents at the vatican

Geez…we have a story about a cardinal or bishop releasing his diary about the conclave…
and now this…

sure gives the Church - THE authority on morals - a rather large black eye, don’t you think?

 

[HagiaSophia]

YinYangMom:

well that’s a start…

but…

Since the recent document fails to remove from the priesthood already actively homosexual priests, then what consequence will there be for those who are admitted to the priesthood after being proven celibate for 3 years yet once in, begin to regress???

oh, and so much for “highly secret” documents at the vatican

Geez…we have a story about a cardinal or bishop releasing his diary about the conclave…
and now this…

sure gives the Church - THE authority on morals - a rather large black eye, don’t you think?

Well actually there’s a bit more to the story as noted below and as for the Vatican diary— major questions are being raised about its authenticity in the Italian press today. Some of the “titles” were wrong…and speculation is that someone “opposed” to the election results are trying to “revise history”.

Re the new document:

"…A Vatican document expected to be made public soon stops short of a sweeping ban on homosexuals entering the Roman Catholic priesthood, setting out three instances that would bar gay candidates, a senior Vatican official said Friday.The document, in the works for at least three years, updates Vatican policy that gays or men with homosexual tendencies should not be ordained, regardless of whether they can remain celibate.

The new document would bar candidates if they have not lived a chaste life for at least three years prior to their admission to a seminary, said the senior official, who requested anonymity because the document has not yet been released."

macleans.ca/topstories/news/shownews.jsp?content=w100759A

Until it is released no one is going to know what it says – it’s all just speculative at this point.

sure gives the Church - THE authority on morals - a rather large black eye, don’t you think?

Only if one believes everything one reads as “factual”.

 

[Castus_Agape]

Last time I checked, the church did not condemn homosexual tendencies, only acting on them. The thing we are all forgetting here is that whatever disorder they have, homosexuals are people too. I know it sounds corny but its absolutely true. Why should anyone, regardless of their past, be deprived of serving God just as the person next to them? It does’t seem right to me to say that men who have gone out and had sex with women can be priests but those who are homosexual can’t. They are both sins and we have no right to say that either is more serious because none of us really know that.

 

[Benedictus]

Well, I’ll go out on a limb here and say that the reported contents of the document are a bit of a relief. I haven’t been able to understand why a man who is committed to chastity should automatically be barred from the priesthood because he may be attracted to other men. Perhaps they need to be scrutinized a bit more, but I don’t think they should be prohibited.

Men with same-sex attraction are not automatically closet sex offenders. Being “gay” doesn’t make one a danger to minor children.

The Church says that men with an inclination towards other men are called to chastity. Barring them from the priesthood would seem to indicate that the Church doesn’t really believe that they can live chastely.

 

[Confiteor]

Della:

i It is too great a temptation for persons with such disorders, be they gay or heterosexual men who are addicted to sex and porn. Both ought to be barred from the priesthood for the sake of those whom they will be serving, especially in parish life.

This is definitely off topic, but I had heard that something like 70% of men are regular devotees/addicts of internet porn (I guess it is so alarmingly high because it is so accessible --no need to be seen in a shady part of town). Does that sound right? Is that why so much spam is sex related?

Back to “on topic”: If the statistics are correct, many of our beloved and holy (and presumably chaste) priests are homosexual. We don’t know who they are and if they are chaste and proprietous in their personal dealings, we never will. Excluding all homosexual men from the priesthood --if they would even self identify themselves–would certainly change the composition of the vocations pool. Some would argue that it would be much smaller, others would say that more heterosexual candidates would be willing to come forward if it were no longer reputedly a “gay profession.” Some homosexuals would be excluded who would have made good priests (a loss for them and us) but can we afford the kind of egregious harm to individuals and the Church referred to in Della’s post? This kind of thing hurts the Church in a way that transcends even the horrific crimes committed --it harms the faith of thousands, possibly turning them off Catholicism forever. I wonder how this will be managed going forward since the bishops will have discretion. In the diocese of Arlington, the bishop was made aware of homosexual pornography and embezzling on the part of several priests (by a priest who was apparently an unsympathetic character outside the “boys’ club”). The situation was much more complex, but I’ll dispense with the other details. Not until the information hit the newspapers (as a result of a legal deposition I believe) did the priests in question get removed from their positions. By the way, the heterosexual priest is in the process of being defrocked on several canonical charges including "publicly inciting subjects to animosities or hatred against…the Ordinary " (canon 1373), and “ruining the good reputation of another.” Go figure.

 

[JimG]

The seminary should be a time of spiritual as well as educational formation. Seminarians should have regular confessors and be availing themselves of the sacrament of reconciliation on a weekly or monthly basis. If, during the final year of seminary, a candidate finds himself unable to avoid sexual sin of either a heterosexual or homosexual nature, he ought to be advised by his spiritual advisor that he should not proceed to ordination.

Of course, if a candidate avoids the sacraments, or lies in confession, that in itself is indication of the absence of a vocation. But the seminary should be encouraging and fostering a proper spiritual formation, which has not always been the case in the past.

 

[Della]

I brought up the case currently getting so much (too much if you ask me) publicity in our area of the country because I think it a serious warning to other dioceses and orders that allowing homosexuals into the seminary and ordaining them as priests carries with it dangers that sticking to normal, heterosexual men would not.

Besides, a priest is the father of his people. Gays are not a father figure. Plus, remaining celibate for them is not the same thing as remaining celibate to a normal, heterosexual man. A gay man is simply not sinning by remaining celibate, which he ought to be doing in any case. A normal, heterosexual man, by being celibate, is giving up his lawful right to marry and have children, which is an entirely different thing. I also agree that if we were to purge our seminaries and parishes of gay men, we would see a large rise in the number of heterosexual men interested in entering the priesthood.

And btw, my statements in no way constitute “hatred” for gay men or anyone else. We are talking strictly about their suitability for the priesthood and not a justice issue. And in answer to those who say they shouldn’t be kept out of the priesthood based only on their sexual orientation, I say, oh yes they should. Once again, this is not a justice issue, because becoming a priest is a very great privilege and not a right. Let them serve God and the Church in other ways–ways that will not cause scandal for the Church not to mention millions of dollars in compensation to their victims. And yes, I believe homosexuals are far more likely to also be pedophiles than heterosexual men. I don’t think we ought to nor can we afford to take chances just to please a minority.

 

[Benedictus]

Della:

I brought up the case currently getting so much (too much if you ask me) publicity in our area of the country because I think it a serious warning to other dioceses and orders that allowing homosexuals into the seminary and ordaining them as priests carries with it dangers that sticking to normal, heterosexual men would not.

Okay, I live in the Twin Cities and have been following this case very closely. There were warning signs about this priest long ago. Bishop Fliss knew about accusations of sexual misconduct when he was still in the seminary. There were other warning signs too about alcohol and personality problems.

Men with same-sex attraction are no more likely to be sex offenders than straight men. During formation, seminaries and bishops should be able to determine which men pose a threat to become sex offenders.

 

[Della]

Men with same-sex attraction are no more likely to be sex offenders than straight men. During formation, seminaries and bishops should be able to determine which men pose a threat to become sex offenders.

I can’t agree. Anyone who suffers from any sort of sexual disorder ought not to be in the priesthood, no matter if he is homosexual or a heterosexual with an addiction to sex and/or porn. The Church simply should not take the risk, and doesn’t have to when there are plenty of suitable young men available. The answer isn’t to allow gays into the seminary but to foster more vocations to the priesthood amongst our normal young men.

 

[batteddy]

Plus, remaining celibate for them is not the same thing as remaining celibate to a normal, heterosexual man. A gay man is simply not sinning by remaining celibate, which he ought to be doing in any case. A normal, heterosexual man, by being celibate, is giving up his lawful right to marry and have children, which is an entirely different thing.

This is true…but not an entirely cogent argument against them becoming priests.

Celibacy is not the essence of the priesthood. Of the religious life, yes, but celibacy is not part of the essential nature of the priesthood…so I’ve never really understood this argument so much.

 

[TNT]

unfit for priestly service

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin is not mincing words about the proposed Vatican statement on homosexual seminarians. In plain, simple language, he told The Tablet: "You don’t write off a candidate for the priesthood simply because he is a gay man."

You might think that Archbishop Martin is desperate. After all, he ordained zero new priests this year-- the first year in the history of the Dublin diocese that no priests were ordained.

But No. The instructors who train candidates for the Dublin priesthood are rigorous enough on some issues.

The Irish seminary at Maynooth (which is, these days, the only functioning seminary all of Ireland) recently threatened to suspend 5 young men-- 6.7% of the entire student body-- for a particular form of misconduct.

**What was the transgression for which this punishment was threatened? What would cause you to write off a candidate for the priesthood? **

Brace yourself. Cover the eyes of the children. OK, ready? They were kneeling for Communion!

Gotta luv newchurch’s luv for diversity! (as long as it’s perversity, that is)

 

[TNT]

Benedictus:

Well, I’ll go out on a limb here and say that the reported contents of the document are a bit of a relief. I haven’t been able to understand why a man who is committed to chastity should automatically be barred from the priesthood because he may be attracted to other men. Perhaps they need to be scrutinized a bit more, but I don’t think they should be prohibited.

Men with same-sex attraction are not automatically closet sex offenders. Being “gay” doesn’t make one a danger to minor children.

The Church says that men with an inclination towards other men are called to chastity. Barring them from the priesthood would seem to indicate that the Church doesn’t really believe that they can live chastely.

All that rhetorical reasoning sounds good until you are asked to send your sons to the summer camp run by Fr. "Being gay doesn’t make one a danger to minor children."

 

[Benedictus]

TNT:

All that rhetorical reasoning sounds good until you are asked to send your sons to the summer camp run by Fr. "Being gay doesn’t make one a danger to minor children."

So bigotry is the real reason why men with same-sex attraction shouldn’t be ordained?

 

[GodBlessJoanie]

Thank the Lord, that “the gates of hell shall NOT prevail!”

Blessings,
Joanie

 

[TNT]

Benedictus:

So bigotry is the real reason why men with same-sex attraction shouldn’t be ordained?

Absolutely!
Newchurch is going bankrupt in the US because:
"Being gay doesn’t make one a danger to minor children."

It’s just a bigot bunch of youngsters suing and succeeding in the bigot courts.
And reality is somewhere in Kansas, (or Boston)Toto, where 90+% of newchurch sex abuse is by “Being gay” with minors, has no statistical relevance.
Go right ahead and send your boys to camp “gay fellows”. After all, there is only one thing worse than someone who puts their children in the occasion statistical risk of sin and frightful abuse, it’s a bigot. Of course the pinnacle of dispicability is parental prudence.

 

[TNT]

Benedictus:

So bigotry is the real reason why men with same-sex attraction shouldn’t be ordained?

Why do you belong to a “bigot” church that proposes:

**But the Vatican will ban men “who publicly manifest their homosexuality” *or ***show an “attraction” to homosexual culture “even if it is only intellectually,” Corriere added.