Vatican Reaffirms Ban On Homosexual Seminarians

[dominicansoul]

It makes common sense, if you have same-sex orientation, that living in community with same-sex individuals would be a near occasion of sin. No one can say that they are so strong you don't have to worry about them sinning in this manner. We will always be tempted until the moment of our deaths. So, the Church is using common sense, here.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='rhetoricfemme' post='1535545' date='May 20 2008, 09:59 PM']I'm not asking to start a fight, I'm asking as a non-Catholic trying to understand. Believe me that I will read up on it myself, but I thought this community was about teaching and communication.[/quote]

I can't speak for the Vatican, but...

The ban (if that is true) seems reasonable to me. Seminaries do psychological tests on applicants. I believe this is the case. If so, then they are obviously looking for evidence of mental and emotional health. The inclination to homosexuality...no matter how committed to celibacy that person is...is not indicative of emotional health. Even the American Psychiatric Association defined homosexuality as an emotional disorder until the 1970s when that was stricken from the textbooks. The man who was at the center of the change was...you guessed it...a homosexual. However, this does not change reality: homosexuality is a serious disorder.

Permitting even celibate homosexuals into the seminary is not a wise decision. This would be like a recovering alcoholic going to work in a bar.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='rhetoricfemme' post='1535568' date='May 21 2008, 12:15 AM']I hadn't considered that. I can see that being a valid argument, but ultimately, I would hope that the individual in question would be able demonstrate self-control in all areas of life, especially where sexual temptation is concerned, and if he thinks he is incapable of doing so, then he should reconsider whether or not the seminary is his calling.

I can think of an example in Father Mychal Judge, who died on during the September 11 attacks. He was priest who happened to be gay, but that did not get in the way of his serving the Lord. He loved and served unabashedly and indiscriminately from his ordination in 1961, up until his death on 9/11, where he died while giving Last Rites to another victim.

His orientation wasn't even known but by very few people until after his death.[/quote]
off topic: Actually there is no proof that this priest was "gay" and the charge has vehemently by denied by everyone close to him.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1535650' date='May 21 2008, 12:58 AM']Could the ridiculous "homosexuals are boy molesters" subject be left out of this? That's like saying "all heterosexual men molest girls."

BTW, I hat.e the headline of that article. "There never was a pedophilia crisis"? What a flat out lie. There WAS a pedophilia crisis. After all, the priests were not abusing FULL GROWN men, now, were they? Is the Church trying to blame homosexuals for the pedophile priests?
How on earth is homosexuality an oxymoron?[/quote]
If you wish to hide from the truth that is your choice, but a significant portion of the so called "pedophila" cases were homosexual priests and teenage boys, NOT little kids.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='rhetoricfemme' post='1535568' date='May 20 2008, 10:15 PM']I can think of an example in Father Mychal Judge, who died on during the September 11 attacks. He was priest who happened to be gay, but that did not get in the way of his serving the Lord. He loved and served unabashedly and indiscriminately from his ordination in 1961, up until his death on 9/11, where he died while giving Last Rites to another victim.

His orientation wasn't even known but by very few people until after his death.[/quote]

1: Fr. Judge died doing his priestly duties to his last breath and for that he should be kept in loving memory.

2: Fr. Judge didn't "happen to be gay". That was his chosen lifestyle. It didn't just "happen". It was a willful choice.

3: His orientation was well-known, as he was active in the group DignityUSA, a homosexual activist group. This group is very different from Courage, which ministers to homosexuals to help them live virtuous and celibate lives.
There are many gay priests and gay Catholics in Dignity. Here is the mission statement for Dignity: [url="http://www.dignityusa.org/whatis.html#vision"]http://www.dignityusa.org/whatis.html#vision[/url]

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1535667' date='May 20 2008, 11:07 PM']off topic: Actually there is no proof that this priest was "gay" and the charge has vehemently by denied by everyone close to him.[/quote]

He was gay:

[url="http://www.dignityusa.org/mcneill.html"]http://www.dignityusa.org/mcneill.html[/url]

This does not, however, detract from his priestly sacrifice during the tragedy of 9/11.

I saw the 9/11 documentary that was made by the two French filmmakers who were in NY to do a doc on the NYC fire department. It ended up being the single greatest film documentary of the events of 9/11 in existence. There is a piece in the film of Fr. Judge walking amidst the disaster. It was very moving to me. The look of utter disbelief on his face was something I can never forget. And his lips were moving but he wasn't talking to anyone. He was praying.

[rhetoricfemme]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1535673' date='May 20 2008, 10:11 PM']3: His orientation was well-known, as he was active in the group DignityUSA, a homosexual activist group. This group is very different from Courage, which ministers to homosexuals to help them live virtuous and celibate lives.
There are many gay priests and gay Catholics in Dignity. Here is the mission statement for Dignity: [url="http://www.dignityusa.org/whatis.html#vision"]http://www.dignityusa.org/whatis.html#vision[/url][/quote]


True. I should've posted that as well; I wasn't thinking about it at the moment. I was trying to get across the fact that there were plenty of people that weren't aware of his orientation, but I should've included that there were people who knew, as well. That's what I get for posting in the heat of discussion; thanks for correcting me.

[Kitty]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1535671' date='May 21 2008, 12:10 AM']If you wish to hide from the truth that is your choice, but a significant portion of the so called "pedophila" cases were homosexual priests and teenage boys, NOT little kids.[/quote]

So? Many of them were still prepubecent, and even with a teenager it is still sexual abuse of a child. How about the priests who abused girls as well as boys? To say "There Never Was A Pedophilia Crisis" is a total lie.

Edited May 21, 2008 by Kitty

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1535650' date='May 20 2008, 10:58 PM']Could the ridiculous "homosexuals are boy molesters" subject be left out of this? That's like saying "all heterosexual men molest girls."

BTW, I hat.e the headline of that article. "There never was a pedophilia crisis"? What a flat out lie. There WAS a pedophilia crisis. After all, the priests were not abusing FULL GROWN men, now, were they? Is the Church trying to blame homosexuals for the pedophile priests?
How on earth is homosexuality an oxymoron?[/quote]


Tehcnically most of the molesters were pederasts. They went after pre-pubescent boys, not small children (though there were some of those, too). Some of the boys/children were not only molested but also raped.

This **is** a homosexual issue. I don't know how you can suggest that the molestations of men against boys was not homosexual in nature! I remember at the time these stories were breaking the internet was full of discussions about how this wasn't "a gay problem" but rather "the crimes of some sick men" and that these molestations were just more proof that the Church needs to let priests have wives.

Right. Because a straight priest is going to act out on his sexual urges with...boys?? No. A straight priest would act out on his sexual urges with women. Grown women.

These rapers and molesters were homosexuals, pure and simple. Many of the priests were involved in underground gay groups and many were well-known to have been active in the gay community and frequenting gay bars for decades. While other priests and Bishops were covering for them and moving them from parish to parish.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1535691' date='May 20 2008, 11:24 PM']So? They are still children. It is still pedophilia. How about the priests who abused girls as well as boys? To say "There Never Was A Pedophilia Crisis" is a total lie.[/quote]

The number of priests molesting girls was incredibly smaller in number than those of molestations against boys.

Stop trying to re-write history, please.

Edited May 21, 2008 by Madame Vengier

[Jesus_lol]

wow, ironic.

guys we have already had the peadophile/gay debate, just so you know. there were many points raised on both side of the issue, please read that before this thread gets totally derailed.


what i dont get, is how being a homosexual is worse than breaking one o the ten commandments. for if a preist ever lied, worked on sunday, stole as a child wouldnt that be much worse than being homosexual ?(personally i dont think its bad, but trying to see from your perspective)

i would say the ten commandments are much more important than the passage that decries homosexuality. but if someone were to break these commandments then they are not punished half as badly as for being a homosexual.
personally, i have broken 7 of the commandments at some point in my life, but that wouldnt be a barrier to me being a priest. odd.

ironic again, that i just started derailing again. durrr

[Alycin]

I think it's safe to say that any man that molests people under the age of consent gets labeled a pedophile, when a lot of the time I think the appropriate term is something like hebephile? I remember it looking like "herb" but I can't remember the name for sure.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1535721' date='May 21 2008, 01:41 AM']wow, ironic.

guys we have already had the peadophile/gay debate, just so you know. there were many points raised on both side of the issue, please read that before this thread gets totally derailed.
what i dont get, is how being a homosexual is worse than breaking one o the ten commandments. for if a preist ever lied, worked on sunday, stole as a child wouldnt that be much worse than being homosexual ?(personally i dont think its bad, but trying to see from your perspective)

i would say the ten commandments are much more important than the passage that decries homosexuality. but if someone were to break these commandments then they are not punished half as badly as for being a homosexual.
personally, i have broken 7 of the commandments at some point in my life, but that wouldnt be a barrier to me being a priest. odd.

ironic again, that i just started derailing again. durrr[/quote]
Would you put an alcoholic in as a bartender? you would put a child molester in a boy scout troop? Why would you put a person with an objective disorder in a house of men?

[Alycin]

J_lol, I think with the seminary it's about throwing oneself into a place where it would be a "close occasion of sin" at all times.

[Jesus_lol]

hmm, i guess. bear with my knowledge of catholiscism here. is being in a seminary the only way to become a priest? cause if it is then isnt that something like me saying
"this club does not discriminate against short people in any way, and they can be members of our club. however the only way to join this group is to be 6 feet tall."