No gays in priesthood?

[Semalsia]

[quote]you've got to be kidding Selmasia. I've seen you contradict yourself so often on these posts it's a wonder you still believe yourself.

Come on semalsia... at least try to be consistent and cognitive in your argumentation.[/quote]

What are you talking about? I haven't been contradicting myself.

[quote]Wo if in a group of 5, 4 decide together to commit canibalism.. its ok. People have decided.
Or when a woman gets raped by 6 people, its fine, 6 voted against 1... its ok.
And if 250 million americans decide that pedophilia is ok, the other 50 million should be silent and change their opinion on pedophilia?[/quote]

You misunderstood me. This is why I don't even like using the words "right" and "wrong".

By "people decide blah blah" I meant that morals don't come from gods or anything like that, but are made by people. This is part of culture. Laws are made by the people (limited by constitution, of course, but even that is made by people).

And no those that disagree shouldn't be silent. If they want, they can try to make the society into what they want it to be.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Sep 27 2005, 07:32 AM']No, I meant that if you call you own personal dislike a universal moral law, then you are delusional. I have not done so.

Pedophilia should not be allowed simply because society has decided so. People [i]decide[/i] what is right and wrong.
I am not advocating a moral system. You are, though.
If it harms none, people should be allowed to do as they please.
[right][snapback]738825[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If there are no universal moral laws, there can be no morality. If morality is merely a collection of personal likes and dislikes, it is completely subjective and meaningless, and there is no point debating about it at all.

By your own logic, your objection to pedophilia is just as baseless and arbitrary as you claim our objection to homosexuality is.

If what society decides determines what is right and wrong, this is equally arbitrary. "Society" once deemed homosexuality wrong as well. What's your point?

And one's (or society's) definition of what constitutes "harm" is also subjective. As we have seen, some have argued that pedophilia does not harm the child (and entire societies in the past have seen things this way).

What if a society says slavery is not wrong. It can also be argued, that as long as the slave-owners are not abusive, and treat their slaves humanely, slavery helps rather than harms the slaves.

And in the area of abortion, you moral subjectivists seem to have no problem with the fact that abortion harms (kills) a human being.

Semalsia, your arguments are nothing but a jumble of contradictions!

Edited September 27, 2005 by Socrates

[Didacus]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Sep 27 2005, 03:05 PM']What are you talking about? I haven't been contradicting myself.
You misunderstood me. This is why I don't even like using the words "right" and "wrong".

By "people decide blah blah" I meant that morals don't come from gods or anything like that, but are made by people. This is part of culture. Laws are made by the people (limited by constitution, of course, but even that is made by people).

And no those that disagree shouldn't be silent. If they want, they can try to make the society into what they want it to be.
[right][snapback]739164[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

OK, you know what, I've had enough of you.

Come back when you grow up a little and we can talk with a certain intelligence. You are just throwing any words that sound good together and I don't think you're even trying to follow any logic.

bye bye




And good luck with all that...

[thessalonian]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Sep 23 2005, 12:05 AM']i'm somewhat saddened by the thought of priests resigning over this.  Way to put your concupiscence ahead of your vocation Father.

on the other hand, I'd go for quality priests over quantity.  Any day of the week.
[right][snapback]734982[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


It is my belief that quality will eventually become quantity with quality. I even don't think it will take that many years. The Church needs to bite the bullet and suffer some short term losses for long term gain.

Edited September 28, 2005 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Sep 24 2005, 11:53 AM']Socrates,

The difference is that you appeal  to some universal moral law and I just appeal to personal dislike. Yours requires justification, mine doesn't.
[right][snapback]736275[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


If there is no universal moral law then there is no morality at all. No reason why one man can't say rape is fine. His belief requires no justification before anyone. One has no black and white, right or wrong in your system because for everyone who says for instance that pedophillia is okay there is no superior univeral moral authority for him to tell the another man that pedophillia is wrong. Total nonsense.

[Didacus]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Sep 28 2005, 08:37 AM']It is my belief that quality will eventually become quantity with quality.  I even don't think it will take that many years.  The Church needs to bite the bullet and suffer some short term losses for long term gain.
[right][snapback]739842[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Sometimes, the only thing a doctor can do is let the poison run its course while keeping the vital organs from harm.

I share your opinion thes., and well said.

[Socrates]

[quote name='rmromero' date='Sep 27 2005, 09:32 AM']it's sad that the response to a horrible scandal on our Church's part is to engage in a witch hunt for gays.  it's throwing out the baby with the bath water.  there are many, many men who are now, and who intend to serve God's Church and His people as priests who have been, or have engaged, in homosexual behavior.  the idea of finding one's vocation in life, only to have it taken away by the past is appauling.  God can forgive and forget, but far be it from His Church, apparently.
now i love the Pope, and as a man of God and authority i respect archbishop o'brien, but this is not the right answer, and i hope and pray to God that someone realizes that before it is too late.
[right][snapback]738898[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Who are you to question the wisdom of the Church and say that you are right and the Church is wrong?

This is not a "witch hunt for gays" - it is simply a policy to prevent active homosexuality in the seminaries and priesthood. It is a grave problem when many seminaries are fairly openly homosexual environments ("pink palaces" )and this vice is condoned by those in charge of priestly formation.

This is basically a policy which takes a firm stance against such abuses.

Do you prefer the disgusting homosexual scandals in the priesthood to this policy?

Edited September 28, 2005 by Socrates

[dspen2005]

Deo gratias Sanctae Papae Benedictus XVI!

[cappie]

Document banning homosexual priests is good for Church, say priests

Phoenix, Sep. 29, 2005 (CNA) - The Vatican’s soon-to-be-released document, banning homosexuals from the priesthood, has caused an uproar in the press, but Catholic priests say it is a welcome document that properly addresses a serious issue in the Church.

The Congregation for Catholic Education prepared the document, which will likely be issued in the form of a standard ‘Instruction’ at the Synod of Bishops in October. It will be one of the first official documents of Pope Benedict’s pontificate.

In an interview with Matt C. Abbot, a catholic commentator, three of them shared their impressions on the Vatican initiative. Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, said the Church’s position on the issue is nothing new. “It is actually a re-statement of a clear position of the Church since the time of Pope John XXIII,” he pointed out in The American Daily.

He noted that the John Jay study on the clergy sex-abuse scandal in the U.S., found that 80 percent of clergy abuse involved adolescent males, “which means that the core of the problem is one of homosexuality, not strictly pedophilia,” he said.

“Thankfully the Church’s highest authority has recognized the problem and has now taken concrete steps to address it,” he stated.

“You can’t have it both ways,” he added. “Either you grab the problem by its root and yank it out of the soil of the priesthood or you keep asking the faithful to subsidize deviant behavior and the resulting legal liability. Benedict has made his choice, and we are the better for it.”

Fr. Richard Perozich of San Diego said history has shown that priests with a homosexual orientation maintain a homosexual self-image after ordination, act out, encourage others to do so and campaign for homosexual rights in all aspects of society.

“Since there is little motive for change for a practicing and promoting homosexual priest after ordination, one solution is not to ordain him before ordination or not to admit him to formation,” said the priest, who is currently ministering in Honduras as a Maryknoll priest associate.

“Ordination is not a right. Ordination is a privilege of service granted to men deemed mature enough in all aspects of their lives to be able to be faithful to that service,” Fr. Perozich told The American Daily.

Fr. Burns Seeley of the Chicago-based Society of St. John Cantius said it seems to him that the Vatican document should touch more on the principle of priestly chastity. “I think ‘Even if they are celibate…,’ should read, ‘Even if they are chaste…’” he told The American Daily.

Fr. Seeley understands the key point of the document to mean that homosexuals “are incapable of perceiving human nature as God as created it, consisting of male and female persons meant for mutual attraction, complementarity, and, God-willing, marriage and children.

“In other words, they do not see or experience objective reality,” he continued. “It follows that homosexual priests possess a serious handicap which makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to serve well as our Lord’s faithful ordained ministers.”

[Antonius]

Thank you, Cappie, for providing fair and balanced news articles concerning this "soon-to-be-released" document. I love seeing how much can be stirred up when "a church official speaks on condition of anonymity."

Here is a pretty good op-ed piece that also appeared in the New York Times.

[quote]Op-Ed Contributor

[b]The Sins of the Seminaries[/b]

By AMY WELBORN
Published: September 25, 2005

Fort Wayne, Ind.

THIS week, teams of examiners, led by Edwin O'Brien, archbishop for the United States military, are beginning a visitation of all 229 Catholic seminaries in the United States. Judging by press accounts, the effort is all about uncovering and expelling homosexuals - a purge, simply put.

In truth, it's about far more than homosexuality. And it's badly needed.

When you read through the set of questions to be asked of all seminary administrators, faculty and students - the Instrumentum Laboris - you find that there is exactly one question on that issue: "Is there evidence of homosexuality?"

Along with the resurrection of warnings against "particular friendships," that makes two sentences in a document that is 11 pages long and covers a lot of territory: What are the seminary's standards for admission? Is the seminary's spiritual life vibrant and rooted in Catholic tradition? Are seminarians capable of intellectual dialogue with contemporary society?

The visitation is naturally of great interest to members of the clergy, who, like anyone, wonder if they could have been better prepared for the realities of life after school. But the rest of us - the people in the pews - have a stake as well. We may be on the outside, but we read the papers, and we see disturbing and persistent problems.

Recently, priests have been arrested for things like possession of child pornography, public lewdness and even embezzlement. This month, two seminarians from St. Mary's of the Lake in Mundelein, Ill., died when their car - driven by another seminarian who, prosecutors say, was under the influence of alcohol - crashed, well after midnight, on a weeknight. Another seminarian in the car had been accused of bribery and perjury in his former career in law enforcement. The seminary had no idea.

The system may have improved since the last such visitation ended 19 years ago, and may even be better than it was 50 years ago when nothing was thought of setting 13-year-old boys on the path to priesthood. But incidents like these, however isolated, reflect deeper weaknesses.

The same goes for the presence in seminaries of gay subcultures that draw their identity from secular values rather than the Catholic moral vision. Why is it considered unfair to expect priests and seminarians to live by the values of the institution they serve? Others may call it a purge, but I call it truth in advertising.

A seminary has a dual responsibility. It owes the future priest preparation for a life of sacrifice, unique witness and engagement with other human beings at moments of joy and pain in a society that has no respect for his vocation.

[b]But a seminary also owes us, the people in the pews, psychologically mature priests who aren't engaged in an eternal and ego-driven struggle with their own problems, who are prepared to serve, to teach and preach - with integrity and honesty.[/b]

[i]Amy Welborn is the author of "Here.Now. A Catholic Guide to the Good Life."[/i][/quote]

[DeeDee]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Sep 23 2005, 11:33 AM']The error would be not to try, if success is not fully reached, that is another question.

Babysitting agencies are gong to screen their personnel for pedophilia, would you complain about that?

Oh but wait, pedophilia is good for the child... almost forgot.  we are after all dealing with gray areas here.
[right][snapback]735455[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I know this is not really related to the thread, but in a way it is, since priests with homosexual tendencies are going to be kicked out of the priesthood, what about priests who have affairs with women parishoners? When do they get the boot?

[flip]

[quote name='DeeDee' date='Sep 29 2005, 06:00 PM']I know this is not really related to the thread, but in a way it is, since priests with homosexual tendencies are going to be kicked out of the priesthood, what about priests who have affairs with women parishoners? When do they get the boot? 
[right][snapback]741349[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


they should, if the homosexual tendancies priests do...

[Aloysius]

no one is getting defrocked here... we're just not accepting homosexuals into the seminaries.

we already (at least supposedly) test applicants for the priesthood for if they are sexually mature and stable and capable of living out a vow of celibacy, if we thought any applicant to the priesthood would not be able to live out his vow of chastity we would not allow him to seminary either.

anyway, to any priest who has had an affair with a woman parishinor... I personally would do as St. Francis did and kiss the sacred hands that bring Christ into the world, it is not my place to accuse or prod into what horrid sins against his vow he may be doing. but it is the bishop's place, and the bishop ought to send such a person into a monastic life where they have a vow of silence and never come in contact with anyone from the secular world!

a person must have a mature and healthy sexuality (to a Catholic, there is only one 'sexuality'-- heterosexuality is redundant and homosexuality is an oxymoron, sexuality by its very nature means the mixing of the two sexes) before he can healthily give it up.

[DeeDee]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 29 2005, 04:10 PM']no one is getting defrocked here... we're just not accepting homosexuals into the seminaries.

we already (at least supposedly) test applicants for the priesthood for if they are sexually mature and stable and capable of living out a vow of celibacy, if we thought any applicant to the priesthood would not be able to live out his vow of chastity we would not allow him to seminary either.

anyway, to any priest who has had an affair with a woman parishinor... I personally would do as St. Francis did and kiss the sacred hands that bring Christ into the world, it is not my place to accuse or prod into what horrid sins against his vow he may be doing.  but it is the bishop's place, and the bishop ought to send such a person into a monastic life where they have a vow of silence and never come in contact with anyone from the secular world!

a person must have a mature and healthy sexuality (to a Catholic, there is only one 'sexuality'-- heterosexuality is redundant and homosexuality is an oxymoron, sexuality by its very nature means the mixing of the two sexes) before he can healthily give it up.
[right][snapback]741363[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Are you sure about that -nobody's getting defrocked? What about all the pedophiles and homosexuals that are already in the priesthood? Do they get to stay? I thought this was a general house cleaning by the Pope. No?

[Aloysius]

pedophiles certainly getting defrocked.

priests already ordained with homosexual tendencies are not, unless they're breaking their vows or something in which case I'm sure canon law has all the appropriate punishments and aside from excommunication if the sexual activity has any sacrilidgeous aspect to it such as abusing the sacrament of confession, i think there might also be some sort of canonical punishment of defrocking.

but to those who are already ordained: "you are a priest forever, according to the order of melchesidec"

we're just not bringing in any more people with homosexual tendencies into the priesthood.