Vatican Reaffirms Ban On Homosexual Seminarians

[Jaime]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1536040' date='May 21 2008, 09:40 AM']Who used the two terms synonomously???? Certainly not me. You made a statement and I asked you what you meant by that statement. I genuinely did not understand the statement. I asked you a QUESTION. And from that QUESTION you are accusing me of being ignorant and perpetuating false information. (???????)

Dude, something is wrong with your thought process.[/quote]

No my thought process is fine. Its your LOGIC that's faulty. ( As well as your CAPS LOCK)

A person's sexuality has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia.

Read through the posts Mad V. The question was asked about homosexuals being allowed in the seminary. People responded in regards to pedophiles. It is comparitive to



"There seems to be a higher rate of alcoholism amongst priests"


"yes we have a lot of irish priests"


The two are only associated through prejudice and ignorance.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1536000' date='May 21 2008, 07:12 AM']Sexuality is intrinsically oriented toward the "other," the opposite sex. "Homosexuality" makes no sense, because sexuality is a matter of complementary sexes.[/quote]
Well said!

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1536047' date='May 21 2008, 08:50 AM']No my thought process is fine. Its your LOGIC that's faulty. ( As well as your CAPS LOCK)[/quote]

Like I said, I asked a QUESTION. I did not make a statement so I don't get how you're claiming my logic is faulty. How does one determine a person's logic is faulty by being asked a question? Makes no sense to me.

Whatever. You're incapable of basic comprehension, so forget it.

[Jaime]

well emphatic punctuation is annoying at best. Regardless, I think I've stated, restated and then re restated my position.

You seem to be so hung up on your QUESTION that you ignore the answer

oh and the major flaw in your logic was stating "homosexuals were committing pedophile acts" so.yes.your.logic.came.into.contention

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1536075' date='May 21 2008, 09:23 AM']well emphatic punctuation is annoying at best. Regardless, I think I've stated, restated and then re restated my position.

You seem to be so hung up on your QUESTION that you ignore the answer

oh and the major flaw in your logic was stating "homosexuals were committing pedophile acts" so.yes.your.logic.came.into.contention[/quote]

Thank you for at last clarifying what exactly you were accusing me of being so "ignorant" and having "flawed logic" over.

(rolls @@ eyes)


Now that I know, I don't understand why you are upset over the statement that some homosexual priests committed pedophilia. Actually, most of them committed pederasty. Heterosexuals commit pedophilia sometimes, too. What's the biggie?

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='rhetoricfemme' post='1535530' date='May 20 2008, 11:51 PM']I read [url="http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=58524"]this article[/url] at CWN, and it doesn't seem just. For a devout and celibate Catholic, who is also homosexual to be banned from partaking in religious orders seems hypocritical, seeing as all people are sinners. Please correct me if I'm wrong.[/quote]

I don't know if this original question was ever answered, but I just want to note that the Vatican's wording doesn't say all homosexuals are banned from the priesthood and religious life. The wording they use is those with "profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies." They could have simply said "homosexuals," but they are being more specific. Hence, a homosexual who lacks profound deep-rooted tendencies is free to be ordained or consecrated, as such a person passes the Vatican's criteria.

Seems to me the motivation here isn't to keep homosexuals out, but to eliminate anyone who lacks the self-control to manage their sexual desires. This applies to all regardless of sexual orientation, but I believe it's pretty well understood that a heterosexual who lacks self-control is not fit for the celibate life.

[CatherineM]

You have to understand that the rules as to who is fit to be a priest are very strict, and some people would say unfair. I represented a priest before the tribunal (yes they do more than annulments) who had lost his left arm in a traffic accident. Even with a prosthetic arm and a lot of practice elevating the elements, they were hesitant to let him resume his public ministry. We finally worked out an arrangement with the archbishop to let him chaplain at the nursing home, senior center. Two of my husband's friends were in seminary when they became ill, and even though both are well controlled by medication, they were removed from seminary. One actually spends all his time going from church to church during the day going to mass or adoration.

It's really sad, but there are reasons why these very special men are expected to be in good physical and mental health, the job is just that hard. There's no point in putting stress on a bridge that wasn't up to code to begin with. The stresses of priestly ministry magnify any underlying problems a person may have. Fighting SSA is almost like a full time occupation. We deserve priests who can devote themselves to us, and not to trying to hide who they are, or fighting internal demons.

[Kitty]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1536000' date='May 21 2008, 09:12 AM']Sexuality is intrinsically oriented toward the "other," the opposite sex. "Homosexuality" makes no sense, because sexuality is a matter of complementary sexes.[/quote]

Um, no. Hetero means "other". Hence, heterosexuality it oriented towards the opposite sex and is the most common orientation. Homo means "same", and homosexuality is oriented towards the same sex. "Sexuality" does not automatically mean "heterosexuality." In fact, if you look it up in the dictionary, it says it is your "sexual character", it does not say "heterosexual."

Edited May 21, 2008 by Kitty

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1536101' date='May 21 2008, 10:35 AM']Um, no. Hetero means "other". Hence, heterosexuality it oriented towards the opposite sex and is the most common orientation. Homo means "same", and homosexuality is oriented towards the same sex. "Sexuality" does not automatically mean "heterosexuality." In fact, if you look it up in the dictionary, it says it is your "sexual character", it does not say "heterosexual."[/quote]


Micah didn't actually say that "sexuality automatically means hetero". You falsely interpreted it that way. He said "sexuality is oriented towards". And this is true. It's true in every aspect of our human selves...we were created to be sexually oriented to the opposite gender. Anything else is a deviation.

There's not one single thing natural or meant to be about homosexuality or the inclination thereof. Trying to defend this degenerate and disordered behavior only make a person look insane.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1536098' date='May 21 2008, 10:25 AM']We deserve priests who can devote themselves to us, and not to trying to hide who they are, or fighting internal demons.[/quote]

Right. On. The. Money.

[Kitty]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1536113' date='May 21 2008, 11:57 AM']Micah didn't actually say that "sexuality automatically means hetero". You falsely interpreted it that way. He said "sexuality is oriented towards". And this is true. It's true in every aspect of our human selves...we were created to be sexually oriented to the opposite gender. Anything else is a deviation.

There's not one single thing natural or meant to be about homosexuality or the inclination thereof. Trying to defend this degenerate and disordered behavior only make a person look insane.[/quote]

Thanks for the compliment. It's nice to hear that you view me and others who share the same opinion as mentally unstable.

Are you saying that all gay people are deviants? The way you say it, you make it sounds like gay people were not created by God. And if everyone was created to be heterosexual, then what about animals that display homosexual tendencies?

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1536119' date='May 21 2008, 11:02 AM']The way you say it, you make it sounds like gay people were not created by God.[/quote]

Don't try to run that game on me. I'm way too smart for it.

[MissyP89]

Hi, Christina!

I'm not sure what I think about the ban, but when I think of it this way, it makes it easier to understand.

Imagine putting a woman in a living situation with dozens of really, really good-looking guys and saying, "You should never lust after them. Furthermore, you can never have sex with them or any kind of inappropriate contact. You must keep your attraction to yourself, forever."

Yet they're around you all the time...in pj's, maybe exercising, out of the shower, etc. etc. It would be...pretty difficult for that poor girl to keep her mind and desires in check. That's just human nature, unfortunately. (Or at least my nature. )

So the Church has instituted this ban for the same reason--to keep young potential priests from living their lives 24/7 in a state of temptation that would be difficult to conquer. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's certainly something that the Church wouldn't want to put them through.

Hope that helps.
Peace,
Missy

Edited May 21, 2008 by MissyP89

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1536119' date='May 21 2008, 11:02 AM']Are you saying that all gay people are deviants? The way you say it, you make it sounds like gay people were not created by God. And if everyone was created to be heterosexual, then what about animals that display homosexual tendencies?[/quote]

Practicing homosexuality [i]is [/i] deviant. Read Humanae Vitae. Human sexuality is ordered toward the procreative and unitive complementation of married individuals. Any act that by its nature restricts this intrinsic order is disordered or deviant. This is why the Church views masturbation, homosexuality, and ejaculatory forms of sexual foreplay as instrinsically disordered.

Secondly: God creates everyone regardless of their intrinsic morality. Original Sin kinda threw a rench into the ordred gears of Creation. Your logic would justify every sort of deviant act on the basis that "God made them that way." Perhaps we should legalize homocide or heroine use because people seem to have an innate attraction to those activiteis. I'm sorry, but your logic there is absurd.

I've gone over this several times in other threads...homosexual acts in the animal kingdom are just as disordered as in humans. There is [i]no [/i]scientifically arguable basis for assuming that homosexual animals are at all ordered toward their purpose: to procreate and increase the frequency of their genes in the population. If an animal is copulating with a member of its own sex, then the guy next to it is having more babies. Hence it is disordred and against the nature of the animal...since animals by their very nature attempt to increase their genetic information. Period.

Edited May 21, 2008 by Veridicus

[nowak.chris]

[quote name='rhetoricfemme' post='1535530' date='May 20 2008, 11:51 PM']I read [url="http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=58524"]this article[/url] at CWN, and it doesn't seem just. For a devout and celibate Catholic, who is also homosexual to be banned from partaking in religious orders seems hypocritical, seeing as all people are sinners. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

With celibacy being a part of the pact to become ordained, why should sexual orientation even be a problem? If the reasoning is that it is a sinful thing, what makes it different from other sins? We are all sinners, and in the case of homosexuality, celibacy should act as a barrier between the person and the sin.

If it is a matter of people being uncomfortable with their priest or bishops being gay, I can't even imagine a reason that the question of sexual orientation would even be appropriate to bring up.

So where exactly is the problem?

Please know that I ask only to learn and understand, not to argue for the sake of arguing.
-Christina.[/quote]

I disagree with others who have said that the problem is primarily to do with seminaries, sexual abuse, or scandal. Nor is it a problem with how others will respond, at least not directly. The problem has to do with how does a homosexual priest, as 'alter Christus', present the whole of Christ, including his masculinity (not his maleness)?

I'm probably going to explain this rather poorly, so please check out Peter Kreeft's "[url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/sexual-symbolism.htm"]Sexual Symbolism[/url]" and CSLewis's "[url="http://ldolphin.org/priestesses.html"]Priestesses in the Church?[/url]". Although these are arguments against priestesses, the theme of sexual symbolism and the relation of the priest and Church is central also to the question of whether a homosexual is fit for ordination.

Gos has revealed Himself as masculine, as Father, as Son, and as Spirit (in His actions). All of creation, in relation to God is feminine. He reveals Himself and we respond. We cannot find Him, He finds us. Jesus Christ took on humanity, and masculine humanity (that is to say He is male, the biological masculine). The priest stands 'in persona Christi', in the person of Christ. In all the sacraments, it is not the priest who acts, but Christ who acts through the priest. The priest relates to the Church as Christ relates to the Church, as the Husband to the Bride.

For someone whose masculinity is distorted to portray Christ as a priest, distorts this relationship between Groom and Bride.