Vatican Document Forbidding Homosexuals to Priesthood Ready for Release

  • Thread starter Thread starter contemplative
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
ByzCath:
True, but then I bet only a minority complained about slavery being an impediment and I be they were beat for it.

But that is besides the point.

My main issue with this is that before this is done we must fully define what we mean by “homosexuality”.
Click to expand...
Please note that freed slaves were allowed ordination. This is understandable.

I don’t think the definition of homosexuality has many variables. One thing I have always felt about homosexuality and pedaphilism is that they are not any different than some identifiable fetishes/disorders such as necrophilia or sadism and masochism. Can’t we clump all the fetishes in with homosexuality? What makes homosexuality & heterosexuality stand together and predominately in biology books? Why don’t biology books clump the whole mess of different sexual attractions together…Why leave the necrophilias and etc. out?
 
40.png
contemplative:
Please note that freed slaves were allowed ordination. This is understandable.
Click to expand...
No this is not understandable. Slavery is a crime against humanity. It is never understandable for one person to own another nor is it understandable to acknowledge that ownership.
I don’t think the definition of homosexuality has many variables.
Click to expand...
I do not agree with you. Some people label everyone who has some same sex attractions as a homosexual, heck just look back in this thread you will see that some want to label any man showing effeminate characteristics as a homosexual. In my book, a homosexual is one who acts on those same sex attractions and as it stands, anyone who is unchaste is precluded from seeking Holy Orders/Religious Life already.
 
Thus, the question must be not whether a candidate has a mental disorder, because it would be easy to pick one out for any candidate, but rather whether the mental disorder that the candidate does have constitutes or exists to a degree that would constitute an impediment to his duties as a member of the clergy.
Click to expand...
this is what i was trying to say. each individual is totally unique and should be judged on a case by case basis. but the point is just because the world is analog and there is always natural variation, we can still be confident in classifying things because of normal distributions. some things like elementary particles may be more cut and dry but others like psychological disorders are fuzzier. but with any classification based on a human decision, there is always the possibility for error.
some want to label any man showing effeminate characteristics as a homosexual.
Click to expand...
i think you’re referring to me. no, i didn’t say that effeminate = homosexuality, but that all character flaws should be looked into. this is why there are interviews. some people are just too weird to be priests. the totality of a person is evaluated and sexual orientation is just one aspect. there are also the physical and spiritual dimensions that are investigated regardless if the person has any control over it. we are all unique.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
I have no idea what this “Dreadnought” is and I have never said any such thing.

I would appreicate it Eric if you would not put words in my mouth or attempt to attribute an agenda to what I am saying.
Click to expand...
Hi ByzCath!

I don’t think I was necessarily putting words in your mouth. All along you have defended using an individualized judgement, rather than a one-size-fits-all benchmark, to assess the suitability of a seminarian candidate. This is in accord with what the Church now teaches about the inherent dignity of the human person. It was not meant to be an attack on your position.
 
ByzCath said:
No this is not understandable. Slavery is a crime against humanity. It is never understandable for one person to own another nor is it understandable to acknowledge that ownership.
Click to expand...
Of course I understand that slavery is a crime against humanity. What I understand was the Church’s inability to train and ordain anyone who was under someone else’s ownership. The Church wasn’t in the Underground Railroad business or was it?
I do not agree with you. Some people label everyone who has some same sex attractions as a homosexual, heck just look back in this thread you will see that some want to label any man showing effeminate characteristics as a homosexual. In my book, a homosexual is one who acts on those same sex attractions and as it stands, anyone who is unchaste is precluded from seeking Holy Orders/Religious Life already.
Click to expand...
This is a definition I can live with but it may be too simple. Certain questions must be asked of a candidate to be sure of where they are coming from. Just look at the recent crime committed by the priest in our diocese. The priest had 100’s of pornographic photos of children on his computer YET he was never reportedly accused or guilty of touching a child. Naturally this priest was removed and imprisoned. Where does one drawn the line exactly for defining someone with homosexual tendancies that can be harmful to the image and dealings of a priest? It is no longer illegal for a man to be caught having sex with another man. It wasn’t always this way. Does the Church stretch its moral limits to include that which is legal in the secular world? Do you see where I am going with this? Has the Church reached a point in history where barring homosexuals from the priesthood is simply neccesary to the livelihood and vitality of the Church. By instating such a demand the Church protects itself from legal problems which can and will arise as homosexuals gain power and legal rights.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
contemplative:
Please note that freed slaves were allowed ordination. This is understandable.

I don’t think the definition of homosexuality has many variables. One thing I have always felt about homosexuality and pedaphilism is that they are not any different than some identifiable fetishes/disorders such as necrophilia or sadism and masochism. Can’t we clump all the fetishes in with homosexuality? What makes homosexuality & heterosexuality stand together and predominately in biology books? Why don’t biology books clump the whole mess of different sexual attractions together…Why leave the necrophilias and etc. out?
Click to expand...
Because of political correctness and the gay activists/homosexual agenda folks who seek to normalize and mainstream SSA and living in the gay lifestyle. The American Psychological Association dropped SSA/homosexuality from it’s earlier edition of DSM (Diagnositic and Statisitical Manual) under the category of psychological disorder, due to political pressure, not scientific evidence to indicate declassification of homosexual attraction as a psychological disorder. Also, the sciences lack the moral authority/jurisdiction to classify/define abberant behavior (or desires/inclinations) through a moral lense (i.e., perverse, sinful, disordered), this is the buisness/domain of the Church.
 
oat soda:
each individual is totally unique and should be judged on a case by case basis. … but that all character flaws should be looked into. this is why there are interviews. some people are just too weird to be priests. the totality of a person is evaluated and sexual orientation is just one aspect. there are also the physical and spiritual dimensions that are investigated regardless if the person has any control over it. we are all unique.
Click to expand...
Sexual orientation of a seminarian candidate may be just one aspect of a seminarian’s fitness for the priesthood. But, if homsosexual orientation is the assessed predominate orientation and pervasive to that person’s psychosexual identity, then that would indicate to me that that person cannot sufficiently give himself over *in persona Christi Capitis * to the priestly vows. IMO only a man with a *hetrosexual *orientation posseses sufficient capacity to enter into the complementary giving and receiving exchange required of the priestly sacramental vows.
 
Other Eric:
Hi ByzCath!

I don’t think I was necessarily putting words in your mouth. All along you have defended using an individualized judgement, rather than a one-size-fits-all benchmark, to assess the suitability of a seminarian candidate. This is in accord with what the Church now teaches about the inherent dignity of the human person. It was not meant to be an attack on your position.
Click to expand...
Eric,
I apologize, first, for misunderstanding you and, second, for claiming that you were putting words in my mouth when you actually got what I have been trying to say.

Again, sorry.
 
. But, if homsosexual orientation is the assessed predominate orientation and pervasive to that person’s psychosexual identity, then that would indicate to me that that person cannot sufficiently give himself over *in persona Christi Capitis *to the priestly vows.
Click to expand...
obviously anyone who is severely afflicted with homosexual desires shouldn’t be alowed into the priesthood, even if he has never acted upon it because of the magnitude of his psychological disorder. there are many other obstacles besides homosexuality which could prevent that person from being a priest, such as character flaws which wouldn’t necissarily be a pschological disorder.

my whole point is to show that they are not just looking at homosexuality but evaluate many charateristics when admitting a candidate to the priesthood. and on that basis it is fair and legitimate.
 
Other Eric:
Hi contemplative!

Partially, yes I am saying that ByzCath seems to agree with Dreadnought that to say the presence same-sex attraction automatically makes one unfit for the priesthood entails a radical rethinking of all the Church’s teachings in this area.
Click to expand...
My instincts tell me to be very skeptical of any (name removed by moderator)ut taken from a blog writer who claims to be a Catholic and gay activist. johnheard.blogspot.com/
DREADNOUGHT is John Heard. About to graduate a B.A. (Philosophy Major) and LL.B from the University of Melbourne. Sometime banker, former Newmaniac, almost lawyer, perpetual writer, gay, Catholic and conservative. Have a thing for Natural Law Finnis-style. Writing assignments sought.
 
40.png
contemplative:
My instincts tell me to be very skeptical of any (name removed by moderator)ut taken from a blog writer who claims to be a Catholic and gay activist. johnheard.blogspot.com/
DREADNOUGHT is John Heard. About to graduate a B.A. (Philosophy Major) and LL.B from the University of Melbourne. Sometime banker, former Newmaniac, almost lawyer, perpetual writer, gay, Catholic and conservative. Have a thing for Natural Law Finnis-style. Writing assignments sought.
Click to expand...
Hi contemplative!

Dreadnought’s self-identification gave me pause as well. The content of his writing, however, is nothing other than orthodox. What other “gay activist” do you see penning wistful memorials to John Paul II, and garnering praise from the Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club? [Hint: Not Andrew Sullivan] Do you have a problem with anything he has actually written, or is his own label enough for you to condemn him?
 
Other Eric:
Hi contemplative!

Dreadnought’s self-identification gave me pause as well. The content of his writing, however, is nothing other than orthodox. What other “gay activist” do you see penning wistful memorials to John Paul II, and garnering praise from the Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club? [Hint: Not Andrew Sullivan] Do you have a problem with anything he has actually written, or is his own label enough for you to condemn him?
Click to expand...
Well actually it is the picture of him kissing the neck of another man here johnheard.blogspot.com/2004_08_01_johnheard_archive.html

that strikes me as something worth repelling.
 
40.png
contemplative:
Well actually it is the picture of him kissing the neck of another man here johnheard.blogspot.com/2004_08_01_johnheard_archive.html

that strikes me as something worth repelling.
Click to expand...
Hi contemplative!

I agree with you, generally, about the photographs he chooses to post to his site. None are, however, pornographic and even the picture that you point need not be problematic once it is understood that the author does not sexually defile his own body.
 
Other Eric:
None are, however, pornographic and even the picture that you point need not be problematic once it is understood that the author does not sexually defile his own body.
Click to expand...
I don’t buy it. Any man who is photographed kissing the neck of another man isn’t worth the time of day.
 
oat soda:
obviously anyone who is severely afflicted with homosexual desires shouldn’t be alowed into the priesthood, even if he has never acted upon it because of the magnitude of his psychological disorder. there are many other obstacles besides homosexuality which could prevent that person from being a priest, such as character flaws which wouldn’t necissarily be a pschological disorder.

my whole point is to show that they are not just looking at homosexuality but evaluate many charateristics when admitting a candidate to the priesthood. and on that basis it is fair and legitimate.
Click to expand...
I agree. Unfortunately, many fellow Catholics do not appreciate that SSA is a symptom of an underlying psychological disorder in need of sophisticated assessment (and possibly therapy). Folks too often want to overlook, minimize, dismiss the need to assess and address SSA as a factor in considering qualification for the priesthood.
 
40.png
felra:
Because of political correctness and the gay activists/homosexual agenda folks who seek to normalize and mainstream SSA and living in the gay lifestyle. The American Psychological Association dropped SSA/homosexuality from it’s earlier edition of DSM (Diagnositic and Statisitical Manual) under the category of psychological disorder, due to political pressure, not scientific evidence to indicate declassification of homosexual attraction as a psychological disorder. Also, the sciences lack the moral authority/jurisdiction to classify/define abberant behavior (or desires/inclinations) through a moral lense (i.e., perverse, sinful, disordered), this is the buisness/domain of the Church.
Click to expand...
This very change you describe is proof that the Church needs to rewrite the impediments to ordination and include homosexuality on the list… The secular world has changed in ways that warrant the need for such a document.
 
40.png
contemplative:
I don’t buy it. Any man who is photographed kissing the neck of another man isn’t worth the time of day.
Click to expand...
More conservative than the Ratzinger fan club, huh?
 
40.png
contemplative:
no no
still not buying
A picture is worth more than a thousand words.
Click to expand...
Hi contemplative!

What I’m not buying is that you’re not just looking for any excuse to disagree with a nuanced opinion that in no way contradicts Church teaching and draws deeply upon the authority of the Magisterium. One picture trumps the objective truth of any arguyment for you? Isn’t that a bit shallow?
 
Other Eric:
Isn’t that a bit shallow?
Click to expand...
No not really.

I’ll give it one more try.

The bloggers frontpage link to sxnational.com/
SX National Online Magazine is also repulsive.

I disagree with what Dreadnought has to say in the minute spot you are referring to. I don’t believe there will be a massive rethinking of anything. The Catholic Church has already established that homosexuality is a disorder. That won’t change. In light of the secular changes in regards to homosexuality the Church will be necessarily forbidding homosexuals to the priesthood.

The only massive thing that might happen is an exodus of homosexuals and those who support them out of the Church after a document forbidding homosexuals to the priesthood is released.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top