Don't Ban Gays from Priesthood, Ban Homophobes

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ken' date='Nov 12 2005, 01:42 AM']I dont think gays are the problem. Its the represses pedophiles you need to worry about. There is a difference.
[right][snapback]786269[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yes, there is a difference and most of the priestly abuse scandals did not involve true pedophiles.
Pedophiles prey on prepubescent children, most commonly little girls.

80% of the cases in the priestly abuse scandals involved adolescent, post-pubescent boys. This is a form of homosexuality.

This said, neither homosexuals nor pedophiles nor any other perverts have any place in the priesthood.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Nathan' date='Nov 12 2005, 09:14 AM']The idea that anyone who opposes homosexuals from entering the seminary is a homophobe is ridiculous. It's like saying anyone who doesn't dissent from Church teaching on the issue of ordaining women is a sexist -- which, I'm sure, Radcliffe also believes. Very skewed thinking.
[right][snapback]786342[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
"Homophobia" and "misogony" as they are used by liberals are classic examples of what is known as "anti-ideas" - that is, empty labels used to silence ideas that are opposed to an ideology.

Anyone who opposes the "gay" agenda in any way is a "homophobe."
Anyone who opposes the radical feminist agenda (including abortion) is a "misogynist."

[JP2Iloveyou]

A couple of things. First of all, let's just relax here and actually see what the Vatican tells us on the issue. As Catholics, we have a clearly defined hierarchy in the Church and we can rest assured knowing that as Peter speaks, God speaks. Pope Benedict will be releasing a document on this in the coming weeks. Until then, I will reserve judgment. However, I think we all can implicitly see the problem a debate like this causes. Those on the left say that the Pope is some bigoted homophobe who doesn't like gays. Those on the right will call it a disappointment if he doesn't completely ban gays. The fact of the matter is that he is the Pope, no one else is, and thus, we should let the Pope speak for himself. I realize this is in response to comments made by a Dominican, but the same principle applies. Some of us are all to anxious to insert politics into everything. I think many people in the Church today are more interested in spreading their own ideology than spreading the kingdom of God, and that is most unfortunate.

[quote]I'm so tired of people using "love, charity and humility as an excuse to let these stupid things happen. I say yes ban gays, I also say ban liberals, i would if i had the power trust me.
[/quote]

Then you would have banned at least one amazing seminarian who I am good friends with. This young man entered into seminary as a man who was opposed to a male, celebate priesthood, was sympathetic to abortion and homosexuality, and a whole list of other things. Through the seminary formation process, he came to understand the errors of his ways and is still in formation for the priesthood, only now he is completely in favor of a male, celebate priesthood, is a vocal opponent of both homosexuality and abortion, and is 100% faithful to the Holy Father.

As for Goodbye, Good Men. I have already stated what I think of said book. However, for popestpiusx, accusations of libel is not what is being debated. What is being debated is whether or not Rose engaged in sound journalistic practices. One of these practices is cross-checking one's sources. As I said, I have heard from very reputable people that he did not do so. Understand, I am not accusing him of this. To do so on my part, without cross-checking my own sources, would be to engage in the same practice that I am questioning Rose on. However, you certainly can't deny that to make charges as serious as those he made, it is only fair and honest to hear the other side of the story.