banning gays from the priesthood

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JVU3J45JGXXGFQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2005/09/23/wgay23.xml"]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...9/23/wgay23.xml[/url]

[Ora et Labora]

There banning them now?

[photosynthesis]

I thought they'd already been banned?

[Guest JeffCR07]

It seems to me that the poll doesn't display an adequate understanding of the theology involved in this.

The pope cannot, and never would, say that homosexual men cannot in principle be priests (like it can be said for women). This is evident from the fact that there [i]are[/i] homosexual priests, and their priesthood is not even being considered to be invalid.

Now, what the pope and the magisterium [i]can[/i] do is choose to refuse admission to the seminary to them. This, however, would not be an issue of doctrine, but rather, of discipline. If the decision were made to restrict all homosexuals from entering the priesthood, rather than those whose homosexuality presents a serious problem for proper sexual integration, then this decision would be nothing more than a practical choice regarding a policy of church governance.

All of this having been clarified, it is clear that if the Vatican did make such a change, it would be for practical reasons. Off the top of my head, the only one I can think of would be that it might simply be too hard, in practice, to make sure that homosexual seminarians have properly integrated their sexuality, and so, the choice would be "better safe than sorry." However, I don't think it will happen.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

They were barred totally before, but that rule was not often followed. The new rules are something like three years or non-practice. It's a rule, not a doctrine.

[peach_cube]

Dairy,

Your link is OLD. (September 23, 2005)

After this it was declared that they should be chaste and not support the homosexual culture.

[God the Father]

I figured it was okay to be gay as long as you didn't actually be gay with another man. Know what I mean?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='God the Father' date='Jan 19 2006, 03:51 PM']I figured it was okay to be gay as long as you didn't actually be gay with another man. Know what I mean?
[right][snapback]861214[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well there is more to it than that. Has everyone here read the Instruction? It would seem like that would be a good place to start before we stray too far.

[Socrates]

[quote name='God the Father' date='Jan 19 2006, 03:51 PM']I figured it was okay to be gay as long as you didn't actually be gay with another man. Know what I mean?
[right][snapback]861214[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Then what, pray tell, should one "be gay" with???

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='God the Father' date='Jan 19 2006, 04:51 PM']I figured it was okay to be gay as long as you didn't actually be gay with another man. Know what I mean?
[right][snapback]861214[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That's also what I think, if I understand you correctly.

[Paphnutius]

Okay everyone, here is the [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html"]Instruction[/url] on the Vatican website. It is short compared to most things put out by the Vatican so please take the time to familiarize yourself with it.

[Socrates]

For those too lazy to follow the link:

[quote]In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture"[10].

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.[/quote]

[Cam42]

From the other thread on this......

Here is a copy of the document released by the Vatican. It is called [url="http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=40891"]Instruction[/url]. While it is not infallible, it is to be faithfully followed. In other words, it isn't dogma or doctrine, but we should show deference to it when understanding the reasoning for the exclusion of homosexuals from the priesthood, at this time.

There is nothing that officially states that married priests will never enter into the picture again, however, it is understood that a celibate priesthood is the current and accepted manner in which the priesthood will be carried out. [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_25031992_pastores-dabo-vobis_en.html"]Pastores Dabo Vobis[/url] is a fantastic resource on this; as is [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html"]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/url].

There are several ways that the Church defines something in an infallible manner. However, all of them are closely related to the Papacy and all of them include the Holy Father. They are Ecumenical Councils under the headship of a pope, The Pope himself, and the bishops of the world dispersed, but in union with the Holy See. The first two are considered to be magisterium solemne (undeniably definitive authority) and the last is considered ordinarium magisterium (the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church).

Understand, though, that the ordinarium magisterium is not independent of the pope. In other words, it is only bishops who are in corporate union with the pope, the Divinely constituted head and center of Christ's mystical body, the one true Church, who have any claim to share in the charisma by which the infallibility of their morally unanimous teaching is divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promises.

[dairygirl4u2c]

So because that article was old, is that quote that Socrates pulled out the response in question?

ie
**In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture"[10].

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.**

And so they ever really banned all gays?


Also, if they're banning only the ones with deep seated homosexual tendencies, I wonder what the rationale is... cause they don't ban those with deep seated heterosexual. Is it the few years of entering into the seminary that they are afraid of with all the men? Or do they think gays are more prone to child abuse? or..

[photosynthesis]

that's because deep-seated heterosexual tendencies are a GOOD thing, a part of properly ordered sexuality.