Pope approves barring gay seminarians

[YinYangMom]

Libero:

But once again I am writing the same thing. In three of your posts you have written US. The US catholic church is not the GLOBAL catholic church, the pope is being influenced to make decisions that will effect the church accross the entire world, because America did not see and stop the problem quick enough. Secondly, Why is nothing else taking the podium? The pope has been in office quite a time now, and this is perhaps the first thing he has done in his role as pope that has caused big conversation. This action has consequences not many others he has made do. It is a shame that the church always seems to be going on about homosexuality.

Asked and answered.

The Pope speaks for the Western Rite churches, so globally, no his word and actions don’t affect all Catholics.

Have you not followed the news with what is happening to the faithful in Spain and Europe over all? They, too, are up against a lot of public pressure to allow homosexuality in many areas, so it isn’t just our U.S. scandal which raised the issue, it is an issue abroad as well…and so the Pope addresses it.

He will address other issues as well, in time, in order of necessity and by God’s timing not yours or mine.

 

[Libero]

Asked and answered.

The Pope speaks for the Western Rite churches, so globally, no his word and actions don’t affect all Catholics.

Have you not followed the news with what is happening to the faithful in Spain and Europe over all? They, too, are up against a lot of public pressure to allow homosexuality in many areas, so it isn’t just our U.S. scandal which raised the issue, it is an issue abroad as well…and so the Pope addresses it.

He will address other issues as well, in time, in order of necessity and by God’s timing not yours or mine.

This issue is not all over Europe, either way, whilst what you have said does state that the pope has reason for his actions, it does not justify them, I can understand what you said earlier about condoms and stem cell research not being allowed, they seem logical, and about the nature of life. However there seems very little logic to defend why the church would prevent chaste homosexuals from seminary, if anything it seems to be an example of the reaction to social pressure that is so often condemmened on this site however now it is okay because this pressure comes from ‘the faithful’?

I would hope that other issues take priority over homosexuality, however it may be that this is not the case.

Also did you see that other thread from someone saying that very few other places have reported about this ban, only CWN, and that it may just be speculation. Have you heard anything in church about this?

Libero

 

[palmas85]

May I weigh in with an opinion? The Church has always had gay priests bishops and probably even Popes. Now in the old days, pre-Vatican II, the belief was that homosexuals were called to a life of denial of their sexual urges and required chastity and celibacy as a life style. Thus many found a socially acceptable position in the church.

Then Vatican II rolled in and everyones sexuality became a gift from God. The Churchs position was untenable. Gays, your sexuality is a gift from God, but you cannot enjoy it. Sorry.

A completely ridiculous situation, and one that never had to happen. All the church had to do was maintain it’s morally correct position on sexuality, both gay and straight and this problem, while probably still around, would not be of the magnitude it is today.

The Church only has itself to blame for this situation. Its’ incredibly shortsighted and ill thought out position on human sexuality needs to re-examined. I know that in the 60’s sexual freedom of expression was lauded and glorified, but look what it has done to us as a society and the western world in general.

 

[Hildebrand]

In 1961, Pope John XXIII issued a binding directive to canon law that ruled that ordination “should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.”

That law was either ignored in some U.S. seminaries during the sexually libertarian 1960s and 1970s or adjusted to allow a middle option of homosexual priests who promised to remain celibate, Father Fessio said.

“It’s been clear since 1961 that [homosexuals] were not to be admitted,” he said. “Obviously that has not been adhered to at some seminaries.”

“There’s a lot of psychological disabilities that disqualify people for the priesthood,” Father Fessio said. “This one particular area has more disastrous consequences.”
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050922-114821-5896r.htm

 

[contemplative]

ByzCath:

This statement is to placate those who are crying out for such a thing.

That is, unless the document contains an offical definition of what “homosexual men” are.

As ByzCath states here… a clearer official definition of homosexuality might be in order. Evidently something hasn’t been quite clear since 1961.
Should not all homosexuals be barred…chaste as well? Yes. This should be part of the definition.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Libero:

Would you want homosexuals to be put to death, because God wrote it?

Certainly not. The judicial precepts of Leviticus are defunct because the constitutional theocracy of ancient Israel is defunct. That doesn’t change the fact that a God inspired text called for the death penalty for engaging in a homosexual act. That should be instructive for us, even today, as to the seriousness of the sin.

Need I remind you that God includes the second Person of the Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ? The same God who led the Jews out of Egypt and gave them their ceremonial, judicial and moral laws is the same God who died for us on Calvary. You act like it’s two different gods.

Libero:

I don’t like your use of murder, because I don’t like murder full stop. This is one part of catholicism I really don’t like, why would God murder someone, when he could just have easily have put them on the path to righteousness? The words forgive them father for they know not what they do could have been very relevant there.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. You don’t like Catholicism because…??? Please remember, God told the Jews several times to enter cities they had conquered and slay every man, woman and child. God (including Jesus) told them to do it. Does that seem harsh by 21st Century American standards? Yup. But the error we make is judging almost every historical event by 21st Century American standards, as if we’re some sort of moral paragons.

This could have been very relevant here:

*“Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?” *–Job 38:2-5

In other words, who are you to question God?

Libero:

I have never said that the people have to be sinners, I would intend for them to be chaste people, these people would not be sinning, but could help the church understand the issue, even more so than it does now, a person who themselves is overcoming homosexuality could spread the experience in a positive way for the church.

The point is, you don’t put a person in a near occasion of sin.

I’m a single man struggling to live a celibate life in our sex saturated culture. Now, if you put me in a situation where I’m living, working, eating and studying around girls my age, I’d struggle a great deal more. Even if the girls had zero interest in having sex with me, there would still be temptations to impure thougts and impure actions alone. This is the situation a man suffering from SSA faces in our seminaries and why such men should be barred. It’s a matter of saving his own soul and avoiding the near occasions of sin.

 

[Libero]

In other words, who are you to question God?

I am not questioning God, just because you want to accept everything in the faith at face value, does not mean that it is the right thing to do. I would not feel a part of catholicism if I just accepted everything that I was told, to put thought into the religion that I follow is to help myself truly understand it, you act like I am attacking God, I am actually trying to understand him.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. You don’t like Catholicism because…??? Please remember, God told the Jews several times to enter cities they had conquered and slay every man, woman and child. God (including Jesus) told them to do it. Does that seem harsh by 21st Century American standards? Yup. But the error we make is judging almost every historical event by 21st Century American standards, as if we’re some sort of moral paragons.

I do not feel I make that error, first off I would not compare anything to Amercian standards. Secondly, in previous posts, I have stated that biblical references to conditions in christianity such as homosexuality, may be reffering to something very different to what we believe today.

The point is, you don’t put a person in a near occasion of sin.

Sometimes you just have to put a bit of faith and trust in people. We put people in near occasions of sin everyday, have you ever given your credit card to a waiter in a restraunt? That waiter could have been a thief, he could have written down information from your card, did this prevent you from giving out the card?

Once again though, what comes next, first our seminaries, then will there be a document about preventing homosexual teens from catholic schools? They too are in near occasions of sin.

 

[contemplative]

Libero:

Once again though, what comes next, first our seminaries, then will there be a document about preventing homosexual teens from catholic schools? They too are in near occasions of sin.

:nope: comparing apples and oranges

 

[fix]

Libero:

I do not feel I make that error, first off I would not compare anything to Amercian standards. Secondly, in previous posts, I have stated that biblical references to conditions in christianity such as homosexuality, may be reffering to something very different to what we believe today.

That you feel that way is no proof your position is true.

In Genesis 3, we find that this truth about persons being an image of God has been obscured by original sin. There inevitably follows a loss of awareness of the covenantal character of the union these persons had with God and with each other. The human body retains its “spousal significance” but this is now clouded by sin. Thus, in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion.

  Against the background of this exposition of theocratic law, an eschatological perspective is developed by St. Paul when, in I Cor 6:9, he proposes the same doctrine and lists those who behave in a homosexual fashion among those who shall not enter the Kingdom of God.

  In Romans 1:18-32, still building on the moral traditions of his forebears, but in the new context of the confrontation between Christianity and the pagan society of his day, Paul uses homosexual behaviour as an example of the blindness which has overcome humankind. Instead of the original harmony between Creator and creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than homosexual relations. Finally, 1 Tim. 1, in full continuity with the Biblical position, singles out those who spread wrong doctrine and in v. 10 explicitly names as sinners those who engage in homosexual acts.

  7. The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally.


 [vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html)

 

[Libero]

comparing apples and oranges

Perhaps you can explain why the situations are so very different. I wonder if the pope were to come out with a document about homosexuals in catholic schools, how many people would object. Would you?

That you feel that way is no proof your position is true.

Oh and I suppose that because somebody says I make a mistake then it is correct, not the case, people on this site barely know me. Many people have worked extensively on this issue, and Paul’s attitude. They have discovered that Paul never actually used the word homosexual (which was established) but rather chose a number of other less accurate words. As well as this they have discovered what P aul may actually been writing about - not saying that we have not got it right, merely saying we may not have interpreted Pauls message correctly.

 

[fix]

Libero:

Oh and I suppose that because somebody says I make a mistake then it is correct, not the case, people on this site barely know me. Many people have worked extensively on this issue, and Paul’s attitude. They have discovered that Paul never actually used the word homosexual (which was established) but rather chose a number of other less accurate words. As well as this they have discovered what P aul may actually been writing about - not saying that we have not got it right, merely saying we may not have interpreted Pauls message correctly.

I posted the Church’s interpetation of the Scripture. Do you have a citation, from the magisterium, that proves your assertion?

You are free to interpret Sacred Scripture as long as your interpretation does not contradict the faith.

I will await your citation from the magisterium. I gave you mine.

 

[YinYangMom]

Libero:

Perhaps you can explain why the situations are so very different. I wonder if the pope were to come out with a document about homosexuals in catholic schools, how many people would object. Would you?

For one, getting an education is not entering the priesthood.
Big difference right there.

The Pope has the ultimate say on who to pass on the mission of the priesthood to. He is obliged by Christ Himself to make sure the men are ready to accept their calling. And since the priesthood is a calling, not a vocation, the Church knows that God would not call someone with SSA to the priesthood. Yes, I believe many with SSA do feel called to serve God, and I believe it is a legitimate calling…but it’s probaly more a call to service in some other capacity, not as priest.

I get the impression you believe becoming a priest is an option any man can take, like a career choice. It just isn’t so.

 

[contemplative]

Quote:Contemplative
comparing apples and oranges

Libero Perhaps you can explain why the situations are so very different. I wonder if the pope were to come out with a document about homosexuals in catholic schools, how many people would object. Would you?

A hight school student getting an education is entirely different from a man going to seminary. Catholic high schools lead to other avenues in life. A Catholic seminary leads to the priesthood. We know that homosexuals should not be priests.
How many people object to homosexual students in Catholic highschools is not the topic in this thread.

 

[Libero]

I posted the Church’s interpetation of the Scripture. Do you have a citation, from the magisterium, that proves your assertion?

No, I don’t but that means nothing. I am merely stating something that has happened, I do not object to current church teaching, I merely like to discover it from many different angles, see different interpretations and also to progress in my understanding of God, if people want to base their religious belief on blind faith then I don’t have any problem on that, but is there anything in the magisterium that states one cannot learn about religion, and think about what many educated people have to say on the matter that is their field of expertise?

The Pope has the ultimate say on who to pass on the mission of the priesthood to. He is obliged by Christ Himself to make sure the men are ready to accept their calling. And since the priesthood is a calling, not a vocation, the Church knows that God would not call someone with SSA to the priesthood. Yes, I believe many with SSA do feel called to serve God, and I believe it is a legitimate calling…but it’s probaly more a call to service in some other capacity, not as priest.

The church has told people with SSA not to pursue other vocations as well, in scotland one bishop in charge of catholic education and schools said homosexuals should not be teachers at catholic schools. Does the church know that God would not allow chaste homosexuals into the priesthood. If that is the case, has the church been wrong for the past two centuries, when people with SSA were allowed into the priesthood?

 

[fix]

Libero:

No, I don’t but that means nothing.

It means we as Catholics accept the authority of the magisterium, not the authority of those outside the magisterium who form positions counter to Church teachings.

I am merely stating something that has happened, I do not object to current church teaching, I merely like to discover it from many different angles,

Current? The teaching is as old as the Church.

if people want to base their religious belief on blind faith then I don’t have any problem on that,

Accepting the authority of Christ is not blind faith. Faith is a gift and we all have the ability to reason. The two go together. Why do you equate accepting the authority of Christ with “blind faith”?

but is there anything in the magisterium that states one cannot learn about religion, and think about what many educated people have to say on the matter that is their field of expertise?

There is a problem when so-called “educated” people claim as fact something that contradicts the deposit of the faith.

 

[Chalice]

I think the banning of homosexuals from the priesthood may have a biblical basis:

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

No, while not all homosexual priests are degenerates, they as a group have had a profoundly negative impact on the Church over the past few decades. Their biggest single negative impact may have been the “turning-off” of straight males who might just have had vocations to be priests or deacons.

 

[YinYangMom]

Libero:

The church has told people with SSA not to pursue other vocations as well, in scotland one bishop in charge of catholic education and schools said homosexuals should not be teachers at catholic schools. Does the church know that God would not allow chaste homosexuals into the priesthood. If that is the case, has the church been wrong for the past two centuries, when people with SSA were allowed into the priesthood?

The church has also discouraged Catholic heterosexuals who do not accept the teachings against contraception, gay marriage, euthanasia, stem cell research and the call for women priests from teaching in catholic schools. Honestly, that’s a no-brainer. And again, teaching in the schools is not on the same level as entering the priesthood. The priesthood is not a career path open to all by their own choosing!

The Church has never taken a position in favor of homosexuality. Certain bishops have neglected their duties and have overlooked the incidents of homosexuality in their jurisdiction, but that is the fault of the individual bishop, not the church. That particular bishop has gone against church teaching which leads people like you to erroneous conclude church teaching must have been to allow homosexuals for a while.

 

[Libero]

The Church has never taken a position in favor of homosexuality. Certain bishops have neglected their duties and have overlooked the incidents of homosexuality in their jurisdiction, but that is the fault of the individual bishop, not the church. That particular bishop has gone against church teaching which leads people like you to erroneous conclude church teaching must have been to allow homosexuals for a while.

The bishop I refer to did not discourage homosexuals from teaching in catholic schools, he tried to stop them. Secondly I have already stated that people here do not know me, please do not make claims, I have not done this about you, I would not struggle to brand you with an uninformed generalisation. It is not a nice thing to do though.

Current? The teaching is as old as the Church.

Sorry about that, don’t know what current is doing in there.

Accepting the authority of Christ is not blind faith. Faith is a gift and we all have the ability to reason. The two go together. Why do you equate accepting the authority of Christ with “blind faith”?

Faith is a gift, accepting the authority of christ is to use faith, blind faith is to show that one has never thought about what they are doing, one has never wanted to understand church teaching and just accepts what they are told without a second thought about it. Faith and reason may go together, except when dealing with chaste homosexuals clearly. Have I equated the authority of christ with blind faith? I did not intend to.

There is a problem when so-called “educated” people claim as fact something that contradicts the deposit of the faith.

Not all claims contradict the deposit of the faith, often such educated people say they may have viewed something in a different light, they do not cliam it to be true.

The subject of this thread has gone off course.

 

[tgerlinger143]

E.E.N.S.:

What do you see the negative effects being? People leaving the Church? A faithful Catholic Christian would never leave the Church. Media potraying the Church in a bad light? This has always happened, and if you are going to walk in the ways of Christ, prepare to be persecuted.

Yes, this is painful because the truth is painful, but the call from God for purity and holiness will be obeyed!
Please read this article from Spiritdaily:
spiritdaily.com/vaticanandgays.htm

Love, in Christ,
Teresa

 

[ncjohn]

I have spent an extensive amount of time over the last two days pondering and praying, trying to determine what it is about this topic that so upsets me. I am not gay; I have no family members that are gay that I know of; while I have some gay friends (including my best friend), none of them are seeking to enter the priesthood. So why should this concern me at all?

A previous poster accused me of an overly dramatic emotional response although my post was based on logic except for my expressed sadness about my best friend, and further implied both then and in a followup post, that I was not orthodox because I have a problem with this particular position that the Church has taken.

I have finally come to understand what it is that concerns me. It is that I believe that it is the Church itself that is going against its own foundational teachings.

Probably the foundational teaching of the Catholic Church is that one cannot commit a moral evil to accomplish a moral good. For example, it is immoral to abort a baby even to save the life of the mother. I absolutely agree. One argument that is often made is “How do you know that you’re not killing the next Einstein or (insert genius name of your choice here)? I would ask this….By aborting the budding vocations of all gay seminarians–regardless of whether they ever have or ever will stray from their celibacy—how do you know you’re not “killing” the next John Paul II or (insert name of your favorite Pope here)?

Example 2, possibly more relevant: Catholic “Just War” theory states that it is immoral to target non-combatants, even if in doing so you can shorten a war or reduce the overall number of lives lost. I have to absolutely agree that it is never acceptable to target non-combatants. Yet what is the Church doing here? In a zeal to protect someone (children, maybe the seminarians themselves, the Church itself?) we are willing to target all gay seminarians and banish them regardless of whether they are involved in the fray or ever would be involved in any evil. Targeting someone who is violating their vow of chastity would be a legally defensible position and if the Church were to discharge those who are actively practicing, that would be understandable. Targeting someone who is not is no different in my mind than targeting a non-combatant. Please don’t delude yourself that this “war” will have no victims, and certainly that it won’t have innocent victims.

Example 3. Our American legal system, which is still the best in the world despite its many flaws, states as a basic premise that one is innocent until proven guilty. The Church has taken issue with our country on the detention of prisoners taken in the “war on terror” who do not seem to be accorded this basic right to be presumed innocent. Yet here we have the Church not only proclaiming all gay seminarians intrinsically guilty, but not even allowing for a chance to prove their innocence, which they should not have to prove.

Finally, while the Church has confined this to the seminary and decided to let the existing gay priests just die off, their action has allowed for the laity to make the assumption that these priests, regardless of how distinguished and chaste their careers have been, can be branded as sinful and disordered. I have already heard of people calling for a gay priest to be transferred out of their parish based on this, referring to “getting this wolf out of the flock.” I fear that the Church’s actions here have fed into the already manic homophobia of the religious right that will result in people feeling justified in further demonizing and marginalizing the gay population.

Maybe I’ll be written off as just being “emotional” here. I admit I get that way when I come to a logical conclusion that my Church is out of step with its own teachings and undermining its own credibility. While the Church may have the purest intentions in the world here—and I’m not assuming they don’t—I can’t help but conclude that it’s a bad political reaction to an admittedly horrible problem. While the moral good being sought may be laudable, I don’t see the end justifying the means.