Homosexuals in the Seminary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Everyman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Everyman

Guest
Today I recieved the latest issue of the New Oxford Review (Feb. 2006). The editorial, “Homosexuals in the Seminary: Why the Priesthood Will Continue to Become a ‘Gay’ Profession” disturbs me quite a bit.

In it, they discuss a recent document from the Vatican regarding gays in the priesthood. The language used in this document is very soft on homosexuals and almost sounds accepting.

This is a great difference from the Holy See’s past statements of homosexuality being a “disorder” and that those even with such tendencies should not be admitted to seminary nor the priesthood because that would be a dangerous place for them.

So, what’s going on? Is the Church becoming soft on sin?
 
Being homosexual, as in suffering from same sex attraction is not a sin. Homosexual ACTIVITY is a mortal sin. Homosexuals are called to a life of chasity.

I haven’t read the document, so I can’t comment on that.

Have a nice day!

Matt 😃
 
40.png
Everyman:
Today I recieved the latest issue of the New Oxford Review (Feb. 2006). The editorial, “Homosexuals in the Seminary: Why the Priesthood Will Continue to Become a ‘Gay’ Profession” disturbs me quite a bit.

In it, they discuss a recent document from the Vatican regarding gays in the priesthood. The language used in this document is very soft on homosexuals and almost sounds accepting.

This is a great difference from the Holy See’s past statements of homosexuality being a “disorder” and that those even with such tendencies should not be admitted to seminary nor the priesthood because that would be a dangerous place for them.

So, what’s going on? Is the Church becoming soft on sin?
Click to expand...
That is the implication that I got from the NOR article. Also, it appears from the NOR article that a major publicity spokesman for the US Church has a similar problem.
 
40.png
Matthew12:
Being homosexual, as in suffering from same sex attraction is not a sin. Homosexual ACTIVITY is a mortal sin. Homosexuals are called to a life of chasity.
Click to expand...
Thank you for stating this very clearly. I am frequently saddened by the amount of hatred on this site.
 
The issue is complicated by a number of issues.
  1. the statement from Rome seems not exactly as well written as it could be. For example, there is the issue of what seems to be a nod in the direction of the ambiguity of sexual identity during teenage years, something that appears to be an issue with some young males. The three year rule of the docment says, as i recall, that no one is to be ordained if they have not been free of the issue for three years; but given that most men are not ordained until at least 26 (graduate from college at age 22, plus 4 years of theology), this would put the end of the issue around the age of 22 or 23, and that would seem to be weel beyond the confusion of a youth, say at 14 or 15.
  2. there is no question that we have, currently, homosexuals in the priesthood; and that means by most reasonable statistics, that we have some homosexual bishops. That they might be having a problem with the issue should be a surprise to no one. that any bishop might have a problem with the document even if he is straight, given the fact that he has undoubtedly some homosexual priests, should also not be particularly surprising.
  3. we live in a time where societal pressure has been building to a tremendous level concerning the rights, or lack thereof, of homosexuals. It has been coming from secualr society, expanded upon by those in the Church (and I do not restrict that to priests and bishops), and there has been in general a tremendous lack of clarity as to what is morally right and morally wrong. The whole issue of laws as they relate to homosexuals as persons (as opposed to activity), and as it relates to activity, has been a stew that is too easily either dismissed outright, or used to further obfuscate the truth. It is not surprising that bishops might be responding to what they have been enduring for the last 30 to 50 years.
None of this is meant to excuse anyone from the truth. It is, however, clear from reading the document that it was not exactly the best piece of writing to come out of Rome.
 
The article makes a big confusing mistake.

Respecting a PERSON who practices homosexuality is different than respecting the PRACTICE of homosexuality.

We respect all people.
 
Last months NOR issue featured an editorial reply to an e-mail in which the reader questioned the “mean-spirited” tone of their articles on this subject. The editor replied by saying that contrary to popular belief, we are indeed supposed to hate the sinner, as well as the sin. I was so distubed by this I brought the article to my pastor and he suggested I get cancel the subscription ASAP. I think this publication has a very skewed view of Rome, Bishops, and clergy in general. I would be wary of anything I read in this magazine.
 
Men with homosexual tendencies are not allowed into the seminary. They may not be sinning and living a good and chaste life, but they are not accepted into the seminary. I recently read…ok i cant remember what it was but i do know that it was written by Pope Benedict XVI clearly stating that men with homosexual tendencies are not allowed into the priesthood. I am preparing to enter seminary myself and our vocations director for our diocese told me the same thing.
 
Guar Fan:
Thank you for stating this very clearly. I am frequently saddened by the amount of hatred on this site.
Click to expand...
Is expressing disdain for what God disdains hatred?
 
40.png
batteddy:
The article makes a big confusing mistake.

Respecting a PERSON who practices homosexuality is different than respecting the PRACTICE of homosexuality.

We respect all people.
Click to expand...
Even those that commit mortal sins? How about murderers?

Respecting humans or mankind in general for sanctity of life purposes strikes me as greatly different than saying I respect those individuals that rape or commit adultery.
 
40.png
blessedtoo:
Last months NOR issue featured an editorial reply to an e-mail in which the reader questioned the “mean-spirited” tone of their articles on this subject. The editor replied by saying that contrary to popular belief, we are indeed supposed to hate the sinner, as well as the sin. I was so distubed by this I brought the article to my pastor and he suggested I get cancel the subscription ASAP. I think this publication has a very skewed view of Rome, Bishops, and clergy in general. I would be wary of anything I read in this magazine.
Click to expand...
In this month’s issue, they have a piece just for you. They discuss Fr. Richard John Nuehaus’ complaints of NOR maliciousness. They respond by quoting readers’ letters to the editor in First Things.

Check out this one: “…this shocking language reflected a reality that needs to be confronted. Father Neuhaus’ pained reaction can even be considered a symptom of the disease the NOR is attacking in its ad…”

And another: “Is there no place for hyperbole in advertisong copy? I was led to subscribe to the NOR by the wit and hyperbole of the ads, which I thought was amusing. I still find them so. Truth through exageration is a time-hallowed rhetorical device.”

I was also led to subscribe to the NOR by its wit and daring stance against the liberalism in the Church. (And this comes from a guy who also subscribes to First Things.) Long live NOR!
 
40.png
Everyman:
In this month’s issue, they have a piece just for you. They discuss Fr. Richard John Nuehaus’ complaints of NOR maliciousness. They respond by quoting readers’ letters to the editor in First Things.

Check out this one: “…this shocking language reflected a reality that needs to be confronted. Father Neuhaus’ pained reaction can even be considered a symptom of the disease the NOR is attacking in its ad…”

And another: “Is there no place for hyperbole in advertisong copy? I was led to subscribe to the NOR by the wit and hyperbole of the ads, which I thought was amusing. I still find them so. Truth through exageration is a time-hallowed rhetorical device.”

I was also led to subscribe to the NOR by its wit and daring stance against the liberalism in the Church. (And this comes from a guy who also subscribes to First Things.) Long live NOR!
Click to expand...
 
I admit that I recently said to some friends that NOR seemed too harsh to me. But since then, I have started to understand why their bluntness is necessary. So many people tip toe around homosexuality to avoid offending others, but really it should offend us, as Christians, that we are living in a time in which we are being told we have to tolerate homosexuality. Someone has to speak out against the overabundance of Christian tolerance, and thankfully NOR is doing it.
 
40.png
Bandgeek:
I admit that I recently said to some friends that NOR seemed too harsh to me. But since then, I have started to understand why their bluntness is necessary. So many people tip toe around homosexuality to avoid offending others, but really it should offend us, as Christians, that we are living in a time in which we are being told we have to tolerate homosexuality. Someone has to speak out against the overabundance of Christian tolerance, and thankfully NOR is doing it.
Click to expand...
I used to subscribe to NOR, but I determined that the thought provoking articles do not outweigh what seems to be a mean spiritedness to this publication.
 
Guar Fan:
Thank you for stating this very clearly. I am frequently saddened by the amount of hatred on this site.
Click to expand...
This site doesn’t really promote much hatred from what I’ve seen. Care to expand?
 
Guar Fan:
Thank you for stating this very clearly. I am frequently saddened by the amount of hatred on this site.
Click to expand...
True Christian charity demands fraternal correction. Correction with love is not hate. The PC bug has bitten you.
 
40.png
Everyman:
Even those that commit mortal sins? How about murderers?

Respecting humans or mankind in general for sanctity of life purposes strikes me as greatly different than saying I respect those individuals that rape or commit adultery.
Click to expand...
I think that the concept here is that you cannot designate anyone as “scum.” We are all sinners but Christ is willing to forgive all sins. This is not just in general but is also personal to anyone no matter how grave the sin. It is always possible for a practicing homosexual to seek and receive redemption. We respect these people because, in this way, they are no different from the rest of us.
 
40.png
buffalo:
True Christian charity demands fraternal correction. Correction with love is not hate. The PC bug has bitten you.
Click to expand...
Amen and amen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top