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:

This could be true but how would it be enforced? How does the Church define what a homosexual is?

True, it may be hard to enforce, but each candidate will be evaluated and hopefully, many homosexuals will be barred.

How do we “enforce” a limitation that a candidate not be a satanic worshipper or that he be true to Christ? We cannot know for sure, all semanaries can do is evalute the candidate and make a decision.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.com
 
I have read this entire thread, and nowhere did I find the true reason that homosexual men are unsuited for the priesthood.

It has nothing to do with the suggested reasons given in the thread.

Jesus is the Bridegroom, and the Church is His Bride. A priest is not just Christ’s representative, he is called to be Altar Christus - Another Christ. A homosexual male simply cannot be the Bridegroom to the Church.

Unfortunately, the Bishops have chosen to ignore this requirement for priesthood.
 
Other Eric:


Let’s just assume for now that the Church does make the unilateral decision that any same-sex attraction experienced at any time during a candidate’s life constitutes an insurmountable impediment to Holy Orders…
Do you think that the criteria will be that strict? I think that a reasonable set of criteria can be created that would allow for normal human development, etc.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
A homosexual male simply cannot be the Bridegroom to the Church.
nobody deserves to be a priest!!! it is all Christ! nobody is worthy to offer his body and blood on the altar. this is not doctrine but disciplinary.

now i would agree with you that women can’t be a priest. but we are all sinners, and no man deserves to be a priest. Jesus makes up the difference.
 
oat soda:
nobody deserves to be a priest!!! it is all Christ! nobody is worthy to offer his body and blood on the altar. this is not doctrine but disciplinary.

now i would agree with you that women can’t be a priest. but we are all sinners, and no man deserves to be a priest. Jesus makes up the difference.
Hi oat soda!

Strictly speaking, no man deserves to be saved. Should the Church, then, be reduced to merely offering to humanity what it deserves?
 
40.png
trth_skr:
Do you think that the criteria will be that strict? I think that a reasonable set of criteria can be created that would allow for normal human development, etc.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Hi trth_skr!

From what I have read, the document in question gives no details on how the discernment should be made at all. This is the same as having no rule.

If you think that an appropriate set of criteria can be drawn up, then go ahead and do it. Keep in mind that not too long ago even Isaac Newton believed that lead could be turned into gold.
 
Joan M:
I have read this entire thread, and nowhere did I find the true reason that homosexual men are unsuited for the priesthood.

It has nothing to do with the suggested reasons given in the thread.

Jesus is the Bridegroom, and the Church is His Bride. A priest is not just Christ’s representative, he is called to be Altar Christus - Another Christ. A homosexual male simply cannot be the Bridegroom to the Church.

Unfortunately, the Bishops have chosen to ignore this requirement for priesthood.
Joan,
I have heard this argument before, but then it was used to support a celibate priesthood and to deny the priesthood to married men. It doesn’t work then and it really doesn’t work now.

Christ is the Bridegroom, not the priest. Otherwise the Church would be promoting polygamy for all its married priests.
 
Swiss Guard said:
**The document issued by the Sacred Congregation for Religious on February 2, 1961 *Religiosorum Institutio ***deals with the issue of excluding men with homosexual tendencies from ordination to the priesthood. It was approved by Pope Bl. John XXIII. The entire document can be found here:

bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/ReligiosorumInstitutio.htm

The new document will only enforce what Bl. John XXIII approved 44 years ago. Excluding homosexuals from priestly ordination is not a new teaching of the Church.

Think again…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=57681
 
If this article is valid (AND I HIGHLY DOUBT IT IS), I guess I would just have to submit to the authority of the church. They know what they are doing, and I guess it would not be the will of God for me to become a priest, i believe he has something else planned though…
 
40.png
RomanRyan1088:
If this article is valid (AND I HIGHLY DOUBT IT IS), I guess I would just have to submit to the authority of the church. They know what they are doing, and I guess it would not be the will of God for me to become a priest, i believe he has something else planned though…
For a ‘brief’ moment, I had thought about priesthood too, and that would be difficult for me…even though I am living a chaste life now. I guess ‘they’ wouldn’t take THAT into consideration anymore.
 
Only in these strange times would anyone defend the notion of ordaining men with an inclination to homosexuality.

Is ordination now little more than a political action? Does anyone have a right to ordination? How will heterosexual men be open to the call to the priesthood if it continually is seen as a “gay” vocation?
 
40.png
fix:
Only in these strange times would anyone defend the notion of ordaining men with an inclination to homosexuality.

Is ordination now little more than a political action? Does anyone have a right to ordination? How will heterosexual men be open to the call to the priesthood if it continually is seen as a “gay” vocation?
I take offense at what you are implying here.

So now if we do not agree with you we are nothing more than being PC?

Please tell me how “men with an inclination to homosexuality” are not automatically practicing homosexuals.

The way to stop seeing the priesthood as a “gay” vocation is for you and everyone else to stop calling it such and to correct anyone who says it is.

Normally I agree with you on much but in this case not only to I disagree with you but I must also say that I am very disappointed in you.

Rather than discuss the topic you resort to demonizing those who have a different view than you do.

Classic example of argumentum ad hominem.

You can’t debate on the merits of the argument so you resort to attacking those who disagree with you.

And not only that, you seem to add an argument that no one has a right to ordination when no one from the other side has even suggested this.

So disappointing.
 
40.png
fix:
Only in these strange times would anyone defend the notion of ordaining men with an inclination to homosexuality.

Is ordination now little more than a political action? Does anyone have a right to ordination? How will heterosexual men be open to the call to the priesthood if it continually is seen as a “gay” vocation?
Hi fix!

Well, Canons 1095.2 and 1095.3 would also prevent a man with any degree of SSA from marriage. This would make a “gay vocation” out of the single life. Perhaps the real answer is that the Church has no vocation to offer such a man. After all, they destroy whatever they enter into by the intrinsic nature of their extreme depravity.
 
I like numbers. I also like statistics. Problem is, they are usually abused due to ignorance and/or agenda. In addition to the issues raised above, this 70% thing out of context can easily be fabricated.

If 70% of the homosexuals are “practicing,” then what is the corresponding percentage for heterosexual couples.

Also, are these percentages measured among priests or the population in general. I’d guess that these percentages differ. Also, how were they sampled? Was this study done in San Francisco? Lots of other questions make this number meaningless.

Now here are some statistics we can take to the bank. (see if they will cash them 😛 ):

As another poster wrote, at least 100% of all people who drink water die. As Rush Limbaugh once said, 100% of all people who have ever eaten carrots die. Other studies have shown that 78% of Catholics with a gay priest are satisfied with them. (I was suddenly tempted to use a preposition other than “with” but didn’t this time. I’m not candidate for priesthood.)

Also, 73% of all statistics quoted are made up on the spot.

Maybe we need the Virtus program to address this special need. The can publish guidelines for all young men who may eventually be called to the priesthood. These will help ensure that they won’t be gay, or at least won’t get caught at being gay. Here are some examples they might consider:
  1. Never compliment another man’s clothing.
  2. Never give a woman roses unless you feel guilty about something.
  3. Never give a man roses unless you work at a nursery.
  4. Do not work at a nursery that has roses unless they also have trees, dirt for sale, or other items that require you to drive power equipment.
  5. Be careful your wrist is rigid when you wave to somebody. Better yet, a casual nod is better, hands in pockets preferably – and not too deep. If you have a problem with this, then it is best to break your wrists so they will fuse in a fixed position.
  6. Avoid locker rooms if at all possible.
  7. Lobby for mixed boy/girl wrestling in high school, then join the team. When interviewed by newspapers, keep a straight face most of the time, with an occasional knowing glance toward the camera.
  8. Never talk to another man on the phone for more then 3 minutes per day. Ever. If you have business to conduct, send a fax.
These guidelines might not ensure you are qualified for the priesthood, but they will help ensure that any hidden tendencies toward the “softer side” stay hidden. Remember, it is not just what you do or say, but also what we think you might want to do or say.

OK, yes, if a dude subscribes to Playgirl and has photos of Ahh-nold that don’t include deadly weapons, then we might not want them in the priesthood. Maybe this is the sort of thing the Vatican is allegedly talking about.

Alan
 
40.png
ByzCath:
I take offense at what you are implying here.

So now if we do not agree with you we are nothing more than being PC?
Why do you think I was referring specfically to you?
Please tell me how “men with an inclination to homosexuality” are not automatically practicing homosexuals.
What? The inclination is enough for the Church to forbid ordination. That is the debate, or at least part of the debate.
The way to stop seeing the priesthood as a “gay” vocation is for you and everyone else to stop calling it such and to correct anyone who says it is.
Denial is no way to correct a problem.
Normally I agree with you on much but in this case not only to I disagree with you but I must also say that I am very disappointed in you.
I feel the same.
Rather than discuss the topic you resort to demonizing those who have a different view than you do.
Demonize?
Classic example of argumentum ad hominem.
Your opinion.
You can’t debate on the merits of the argument so you resort to attacking those who disagree with you.
I attacked no one.
 
Other Eric:
Hi fix!

Well, Canons 1095.2 and 1095.3 would also prevent a man with any degree of SSA from marriage. This would make a “gay vocation” out of the single life. Perhaps the real answer is that the Church has no vocation to offer such a man. After all, they destroy whatever they enter into by the intrinsic nature of their extreme depravity.
Eric, your logic is tortured. We have been round and round this many times.
 
KARL KEATING’S E-LETTER
Code:
                                    February 3, 2004
No one, on any side of the theological divide, denies that we have a remarkably high proportion of homosexuals in the priesthood in this country, and many of those homosexual priests are “gays”–that is, they have chosen the homosexual lifestyle.

Nearly all of the clerical sexual abuse problems we have been reading about have had their origin in homosexuality. This is almost universally known and, among bishops and clergy, almost universally not talked about (at least not publicly). Still, it’s a fact.

Even if the abuse scandal had not arisen, there still would have been a problem with “gay” priests–I refer to those homosexual priests who engage in homosexual acts with adults rather than with minors.
 
I refer to those homosexual priests who engage in homosexual acts with adults rather than with minors.
Is this a regular occurance, priests breaking celibacy ( not just homosexual priests)? I am not that informed on the matter. How does this manage to happen.
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
OK, yes, if a dude subscribes to Playgirl and has photos of Ahh-nold that don’t include deadly weapons, then we might not want them in the priesthood. Maybe this is the sort of thing the Vatican is allegedly talking about.

Alan
lots more of your sickness…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top