Vatican Document Forbidding Homosexuals to Priesthood Ready for Release

[felra]

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?

Blarney! This Dreadnought, aka, John Heard, is anything but Catholic, and his writing is anything but orthodox. He simply prostitutes Church writings to support the views and aims of his own gay propaganda. He is no better or credible that “Catholics for a Fee Choice”. Period. To cite this individual’s twisted writings is to give legitimacy to the enemy of the Church. Nothing more, nothing less. How do I know this? A quick perusal of your cited article was enough.

See excerpt:

Wednesday, July 13, 2005
**DREADSCIENCE: The Pattern of the Creator **

“Especially given John Paul the Great’s mighty treatise on these issues, the Theology of the Body, remains relatively un-explored. Prognosticators should look there for hints about future developments in the Church’s understanding of homsexuality.”

“The Church will continue to appeal to human reason to discern the imprint of the Creator on his works, but I imagine the Pope will leave the definition of homosexuality compassionately open to the multiplicity of human difference. After all, we are a catholic Catholic Church!”

*by DREADNOUGHT ( *johnheard.blogspot.com/2005/07/dreadscience-pattern-of-creator.html)

Basically, this Dreadnought writer seeks to twist and extrapolate from the writings of the Church a redefinition, expanded version of human sexuality other than God made them male and female. There is no other gender or *ordered *sexuality or class of human being based on their sexuality. All other sexual desires/orientation is a disorded desire, a result of our first parents Fall from grace (original sin), where sin and the effects of sin entered the world where sin was not before. This is the orthodox understanding of SSA as a disordered desire and as a symptom of a psychological disorder, which John Heard so handily denies/omits in service of propagating the lie of his gay agenda.

Sorry Dreadnought (and** Other Eric**), the Church is not an all inclusive “catholic”, feel good, ever evolving in new revelation, relativistic club.

 

[contemplative]

Thank you felra. :clapping:

 

[oat_soda]

Well actually it is the picture of him kissing the neck of another man here johnheard.blogspot.com/2004_…rd_archive.html

That is totally disgusting. i don’t care how orthodox he appears to be, that’s objectively speaking a mortal sin.

 

[Other_Eric]

felra:

Blarney! This Dreadnought, aka, John Heard, is anything but Catholic, and his writing is anything but orthodox. He simply prostitutes Church writings to support the views and aims of his own gay propaganda. He is no better or credible that “Catholics for a Fee Choice”. Period. To cite this individual’s twisted writings is to give legitimacy to the enemy of the Church. Nothing more, nothing less. How do I know this? A quick perusal of your cited article was enough.

See excerpt:

Wednesday, July 13, 2005
**DREADSCIENCE: The Pattern of the Creator **

“Especially given John Paul the Great’s mighty treatise on these issues, the Theology of the Body, remains relatively un-explored. Prognosticators should look there for hints about future developments in the Church’s understanding of homsexuality.”

“The Church will continue to appeal to human reason to discern the imprint of the Creator on his works, but I imagine the Pope will leave the definition of homosexuality compassionately open to the multiplicity of human difference. After all, we are a catholic Catholic Church!”

*by DREADNOUGHT ( *johnheard.blogspot.com/2005/07/dreadscience-pattern-of-creator.html)

Basically, this Dreadnought writer seeks to twist and extrapolate from the writings of the Church a redefinition, expanded version of human sexuality other than God made them male and female. There is no other gender or *ordered *sexuality or class of human being based on their sexuality. All other sexual desires/orientation is a disorded desire, a result of our first parents Fall from grace (original sin), where sin and the effects of sin entered the world where sin was not before. This is the orthodox understanding of SSA as a disordered desire and as a symptom of a psychological disorder, which John Heard so handily denies/omits in service of propagating the lie of his gay agenda.

Sorry Dreadnought (and** Other Eric**), the Church is not an all inclusive “catholic”, feel good, ever evolving in new revelation, relativistic club.

Hi felra!

I for one never said it was. I firmly believe that the Church has absolutely no salvation to offer the homosexual. SSAD completely subsumes and irrevocably destroys whatever humanity there may have been. It is the one condition over which Christ’s sacrifice was powerless.

Courage is nothing more than an organization that seeks to minimize this objective truth.

 

[contemplative]

Other Eric:

Hi felra!

I for one never said it was. I firmly believe that the Church has absolutely no salvation to offer the homosexual. SSAD completely subsumes and irrevocably destroys whatever humanity there may have been. It is the one condition over which Christ’s sacrifice was powerless.

Courage is nothing more than an organization that seeks to minimize this objective truth.

I really hope you don’t mean this. I say this with love. Christ’s sacrificed for ALL sin. Remember that if Jesus helped the woman at the well then He can help all those with sexual disorders. If I told you that I am a woman who believes and knows this to be true would that help? God’s salvation is for All!

Although I have never really read couragerc.net/. I strongly suspect it does not minimize the truth. I will take some time to read it. Is there anything particular at this website that I should look for? Where exactly is the truth minimized?

 

[barnestormer]

Other Eric:

I firmly believe that the Church has absolutely no salvation to offer the homosexual. SSAD completely subsumes and irrevocably destroys whatever humanity there may have been. It is the one condition over which Christ’s sacrifice was powerless.

Courage is nothing more than an organization that seeks to minimize this objective truth.

Hmmm. Funny how you didn’t include any references to Scripture, the Catechism, Church Fathers, or anything from Sacred Tradition to support these ludicrous ideas. Maybe that’s because THERE ARE NONE.

If you’re going to make things up, fine. But I hope you’re not passing these notions off to people as Church teaching. We’ve got enough trouble already, we don’t need folks like you mis-representing what the Church holds to be true.

 

[m134e5]

ByzCath:

It is the Church that calls. It doesn’t matter if we feel that we have a calling as no one has the right to expect to be ordained to Holy Orders. If the Church, though a Bishop or Religious Superior, does not call one forward for ordination, then there is no call.

God calls people to the priesthood. The Church gives them the means to answer that call. God would not call someone (a woman, for example) who under no circumstances could ever become a priest. He might call a married man- and also call them to the Byzantine Rite. I believe it would be irresponsible of the Church to ban a certain group of people, because of the infidelity of some- because they may have felt a calling from God before they were banned- and they may have been faithful to the Church. Heterosexual men are unfaithful to their wives quite often- and there are homosexual married men (to women) who are faithful. There are also heterosexual priests who have been unfaithful. That is why I have said over and over- homosexuality is not the problem- the problem is infidelity. It just doesn’t make headlines all across the country. Sexual attraction, in itself, is no reason to prevent men with SSA from becoming priests. As I said before, though- they must look like men, act like men, and talk like men (they don’t have to rattle the windows and shake the floor when they talk, but they shouldn’t have an annoyingly effeminate voice either)- no one should suspect their sexuality may be different.

felra:

…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.

I agree- the condition should be assesed, and many men with SSA have unresolved issues (with their fathers, mothers, siblings, peers, or someone who may have abused them) but that doesn’t mean that until the attraction to men turns into disgust at the thought of sex with them, to attraction to women and the appreciation of the thought of sex with them the man “isn’t good enough”, or is “disordered”- the condition is- sure- it’s not natural, so of course it makes sense to say it is disordered- alcoholism, and phobias are disordered too- but that doesn’t mean the person themselves is disordered.

Sexuality develops in different ways throughout the various stages of psychological development. If something goes wrong, and as an adult their sexuality is abnormal, you can’t simply go back and say “your dad wasn’t purposely distancing himself from you- he just had to work three jobs and didn’t have time to do much else” and the attractions to men suddenly vanish (a father who is distant is one factor that can lead to homosexuality) and have them understand and their sexuality changes to how it should be.

Often (usually), once the damage is done- it’s done- there is no undoing it. They can learn to forgive- and let go of the pain- but they can’t deny that the experiences existed, or deny their influence on them.

 

[m134e5]

Other Eric:

Hi felra!

I for one never said it was. I firmly believe that the Church has absolutely no salvation to offer the homosexual. SSAD completely subsumes and irrevocably destroys whatever humanity there may have been. It is the one condition over which Christ’s sacrifice was powerless.

Courage is nothing more than an organization that seeks to minimize this objective truth.

The Catechism says otherwise- thankfully you do not speak for the Church.

Courage is fully recognized by the Church. It recognizes the intrinsic disorder of homosexuality- but the acknowledges the dignity of every human person.

Such views are unchristian- except perhaps in trinity broadcasting network/Jimmy Swaggart-style “Christianity”.

I must say of the misinformed posts I have encountered on this forum, this one takes the cake- and leaves the others far behind it.:banghead:

 

[contemplative]

It does seem irresponsible to exclude or ban a certain group of people but consider what happened in my diocese recently (within the past 6 months) A young priest was charged and convicted of possessing 100’s of pornographic photos of young boys. He was diagnosed with ‘troubles’ by a pyschologist at an earlier time prior to the incident but the bishop of my diocese ignored the potential trouble. The local paper reported that the accused priest was never convicted of actual child molestation of a child. My question is “how long would it have been before the priest with child porn did cross the line?”. Please consider too that this priest was placed in a parish with a Catholic elementary school at the time the porn was discovered.

Where does one drawn the line exactly for defining someone with 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 or in some states they can be legally married. 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 a simple neccesity to safeguard 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. Allowing homosexuals to freely join the Catholic priesthood at this particular time in history can only spell even more difficult times ahead for the flock.

Furthermore, I am inclined to believe that the whole ‘sex-scandal’ in the Church was a wake up call for just this very moment in history. I believe the Church maybe called to make a radical stand against the wave of evil which condones homosexual relationships.

 

[contemplative]

I see that there are many threads about various homosexual topics on CA Forums. Sometimes posters sound very self-righteous and sometimes down right rude. I want to say to anyone viewing this thread who might be struggling with SSA that I am sorry if all the chatter and talk among heterosexuals feels unbearable at times.

Rather than be scared or repelled away, I wish that you would continue to share in conversation. Communication is the key to understanding each other.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

m134e5:

God calls people to the priesthood. The Church gives them the means to answer that call.

I stop here because you have this partly right.

It is true God calls men to the priesthood but the authentic call to ordination comes from God’s Church, that is the any way to know you are called, to be called forward.

If the Church does not call a man forward to ordination then how can that man know he is receiving a calling from God?

God works though His Church.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

contemplative:

It does seem irresponsible to exclude or ban a certain group of people but consider what happened in my diocese recently (within the past 6 months) A young priest was charged and convicted of possessing 100’s of pornographic photos of young boys. He was diagnosed with ‘troubles’ by a pyschologist at an earlier time prior to the incident but the bishop of my diocese ignored the potential trouble. The local paper reported that the accused priest was never convicted of actual child molestation of a child. My question is “how long would it have been before the priest with child porn did cross the line?”. Please consider too that this priest was placed in a parish with a Catholic elementary school at the time the porn was discovered.

The bishop failed in his support of this priest.

The priest acknowledged his problem and came forward, that is how he was diagnosed. The bishop did nothing to help him or support him.

Yes it is a shame but you can not condem this priest for what happened, as nothing did happen, nor can you accuse him of what could have happened as, again, nothing did happen.

Yes he was in a parish that had a school, but I do not believe that he worked in the school. Most schools in this diocese do not have the priests from the parish working in them, so again, another non-issue.

And lastly, if I recall correctly, they did not state the number of photos found and they were not, technically, on his computer, they were in the temporay internet folder but that does not make it any less severe of an issue.

 

[contemplative]

Yes it is a shame but you can not condem this priest for what happened, as nothing did happen, nor can you accuse him of what could have happened as, again, nothing did happen.

Try to put yourself in the shoes of parents who sent their children to school this priest was in charge of. Just try to imagine and then tell me how you feel. If I had a son going to that school I would have been enraged knowing the priest was leering at porno pics of boys and then looking at my child and all the other little boys on the playground.

And lastly, if I recall correctly, they did not state the number of photos found and they were not, technically, on his computer, they were in the temporay internet folder but that does not make it any less severe of an issue.

You recall incorrectly. The orginal news report said 1,000 or more porno pics of boys. It was eventually downsized to 100’s.

 

[m134e5]

contemplative:

It does seem irresponsible to exclude or ban a certain group of people but consider what happened in my diocese recently (within the past 6 months) A young priest was charged and convicted of possessing 100’s of pornographic photos of young boys. He was diagnosed with ‘troubles’ by a pyschologist at an earlier time prior to the incident but the bishop of my diocese ignored the potential trouble. The local paper reported that the accused priest was never convicted of actual child molestation of a child. My question is “how long would it have been before the priest with child porn did cross the line?”. Please consider too that this priest was placed in a parish with a Catholic elementary school at the time the porn was discovered.

Where does one drawn the line exactly for defining someone with tendencies 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 or in some states they can be legally married. 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 a simple neccesity to safeguard 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. Allowing homosexuals to freely join the Catholic priesthood at this particular time in history can only spell even more difficult times ahead for the flock.

Furthermore, I am inclined to believe that the whole ‘sex-scandal’ in the Church was a wake up call for just this very moment in history. I believe the Church maybe called to make a radical stand against the wave of evil which condones homosexual relationships.

“Young boys” would imply a case of pedophelia here- not homosexuality. They are two very different disorders. Would it have made him any better if they were young girls? Certainly not! Pornography is evil- whether the people in the pictures are 6 or 26 or 60- whether they’re male or female- I believe the word pornography even means “the devil’s pictures”. If the bishops of the dioceses in which this happened had any backbone, this would not have been a problem in the first place. It appears the problem was with your bishop- and with all other bishops who swept the problem under the rug like trash they were too lazy to pick up, or scrub the floor- I feel sorry for the souls of those bishops who through their carelessness put children in danger. A priest found to have such problems should be sent to a mental health clinic (a good one- not one that’s going to tell him gay is ok or it’s just fine if you like kids young enough to be your own and you’re only 30) or something- immediately- not after he witnesses a wedding later that week, not after the next daily Mass- IMMEDIATELY (when the bishop read or heard about the situation, he should have immediately picked up the phone, and called the priest to him right then- and suspended him from all activity with the public- as well as making sure the proper civil authorities were notified).

Homosexual attractions aren’t a problem for the priesthood- if they just stay as that- attractions. If the man can be chaste- including in his thoughts and when he’s alone, then he’s doing better than most of the world, and if he has the calling to the priesthood, he should be free to pursue it. The Church calls people, yes, but it is important that they don’t stop calling all people in a certain category due to the adulterous (priests are married to the Church) and scandalous behavior of a (relatively) few.

What do the members of Courage think about men with SSA and the priesthood? No one seems to be asking them about all this. Courage is the only apostolate approved by the Church whose mission is to support those who struggle with SSA and want to live a chaste life as the Church has called them to do(reparation therapy isn’t a necessary part of it either). Fr. Benedict Groeschel, and Abp. Chaput of Denver have both praised the work of the Courage Apostolate. It has also been featured on EWTN at least once. I trust EWTN, and Fr. Groeschel, and Abp. Chaput, and the Catechism.

Other Eric, I do not see Abp or Bp or Fr before your name, and I don’t think EWTN- which I consider to be a very credible source of information- would allow views such as yours to be preached as if it were truth. The Catechism of the Catholic Church contradicts your teaching as well- and it most certainly is credible. Would you care to share with us how you became more enlightened than the Church on a matter of doctrine?

 

[m134e5]

ByzCath:

The bishop failed in his support of this priest.

The priest acknowledged his problem and came forward, that is how he was diagnosed. The bishop did nothing to help him or support him.

Yes it is a shame but you can not condem this priest for what happened, as nothing did happen, nor can you accuse him of what could have happened as, again, nothing did happen.

Yes he was in a parish that had a school, but I do not believe that he worked in the school. Most schools in this diocese do not have the priests from the parish working in them, so again, another non-issue.

And lastly, if I recall correctly, they did not state the number of photos found and they were not, technically, on his computer, they were in the temporay internet folder but that does not make it any less severe of an issue.

No one is condemning the priest- but ONE child molested is too many. If he did in fact go to the bishop for help, and his bishop failed him, then the bishop should be removed- and I hope someone takes the issue to the Vatican. The priest, however, is a grown man, and if he at the time of ordination was considered fit for the priesthood, he presumably can take measures to avoid the near occasions of sin- it wouldn’t be hard to get rid of the computer, or not keep one in his office- just ask a secretary to type his correspondence for him, or use a typewriter for things that must be typed.

Please don’t say nothing happened when something DID happen- child pornography was found on his computer, and there was also reason to search his computer- whatever that may have been. Reasonable preventative measures are essential to see that no more vulnerable people are abused by clergy- and no more cases are swept under the rug by bishops who just want the problem to “go away”.

 

[contemplative]

If he did in fact go to the bishop for help, and his bishop failed him, then the bishop should be removed- and I hope someone takes the issue to the Vatican.

Again, news reports annnounced that mental tests on the convicted priest that were given several years prior to conviction indicated ‘trouble’. wokr13.tv/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=246F4E7D-3FED-457A-96C9-A9665B1BAE9F

This isn’t the best article but it does basically explain the situation. Many online news sources dissappear after just a few weeks.

 

[contemplative]

m134e5:

What do the members of Courage think about men with SSA and the priesthood?

couragerc.net/ offers this article on its home page. Should a Man With Same-Sex Attractions Be Allowed Into the Seminary? (critique of America magazine article)

The author of the above article concludes by writing this " I believe that we need more research into this question before we come to any conclusions. Hopefully, those in ecclesiastical authority will consult priests, psychologists and psychiatrists who have worked with persons with same-sex attractions. I also hope that they be willing to talk to homosexual priests themselves. I hope this writing will be of some help to the Church"

The fact is that we can talk all we want to on this thread but ultimately it will be ecclesiastical authority guided by the Holy Spirit ( I pray) who will decide what is best for the Church.

 

[fix]

couragerc.net/ offers this article on its home page. Should a Man With Same-Sex Attractions Be Allowed Into the Seminary? (critique of America magazine article)

The author of the above article concludes by writing this " I believe that we need more research into this question before we come to any conclusions. Hopefully, those in ecclesiastical authority will consult priests, psychologists and psychiatrists who have worked with persons with same-sex attractions. I also hope that they be willing to talk to homosexual priests themselves. I hope this writing will be of some help to the Church"

The fact is that we can talk all we want to on this thread but ultimately it will be ecclesiastical authority guided by the Holy Spirit ( I pray) who will decide what is best for the Church.

Exactly, it is not about what certain groups think should happen. Why is it so hard for many to grasp that homosexuality, inclinations or not, present a terrific challenge to the priesthood at this point in time?

Ordination is not a right or a political game.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

contemplative:

Try to put yourself in the shoes of parents who sent their children to school this priest was in charge of. Just try to imagine and then tell me how you feel. If I had a son going to that school I would have been enraged knowing the priest was leering at porno pics of boys and then looking at my child and all the other little boys on the playground.

The priest in question was not in charge of the school. The schools that are attached to parishes in this diocese are not under control of the parish priest or any priest in that parish, they have their own principals.

Add to that the fact that this priest was not even the parish priest but just a priest in residence at the parish.

You recall incorrectly. The orginal news report said 1,000 or more porno pics of boys. It was eventually downsized to 100’s.

I do not recall incorrectly, I just didn’t know the numbers. The fact is that they were in the temporay internet folder on the computer. Which means he was viewing them on the internet. Now that does not excuse what happened but it does raise a question that the diocese allows their computers to get to some very questionable websites.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

m134e5:

No one is condemning the priest- but ONE child molested is too many. If he did in fact go to the bishop for help, and his bishop failed him, then the bishop should be removed- and I hope someone takes the issue to the Vatican. The priest, however, is a grown man, and if he at the time of ordination was considered fit for the priesthood, he presumably can take measures to avoid the near occasions of sin- it wouldn’t be hard to get rid of the computer, or not keep one in his office- just ask a secretary to type his correspondence for him, or use a typewriter for things that must be typed.

Please don’t say nothing happened when something DID happen- child pornography was found on his computer, and there was also reason to search his computer- whatever that may have been. Reasonable preventative measures are essential to see that no more vulnerable people are abused by clergy- and no more cases are swept under the rug by bishops who just want the problem to “go away”.

There was no reason to search his computer as his computer was not searched.

What happened was that he was having computer problems and the service tech found the questionable pictures while he was fixing the computer, the computer tech reported it.

See, this is what happens when people comment as if they know everything when in reality they do not.