Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Edict From The Pope; No gays allowed in Cath. Seminary
Topic Started: Sep 27 2005, 09:18 PM (1,911 Views)
PRT
Member
I'm a Catholic and I think it's a mistake. Some clergy apparently do too. This is entire text of Puli's article. He posted the link, but I'm just going to post the article for fear no one will go read the link. I feel the article is quite good.
Sorry for the length.
Quote:
 
Americans Plan Rome Trip Over Ban on Gay Priests
   
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: September 30, 2005

Responding to reports that the Vatican may be close to releasing a directive to exclude most gay candidates from entering the priesthood, leaders of Roman Catholic men's religious orders in the United States are planning to travel to Rome to voice their objections in person.

The trip is one of the steps by leaders of Catholic religious orders to try to reassure priests and seminarians who have been rattled by news of a possible Vatican ban on the ordination of gay men.

Word of the trip, which has not been scheduled, was in an internal letter sent on Monday to leaders of religious orders from the Conference of Major Superiors of Men, the key American coordinating body for more than 250 leaders of Catholic religious orders, like the Franciscans, the Dominicans and the Jesuits. The letter was provided to The New York Times by a member of a religious order who said he was pleased by the superiors' actions.

In addition, at least two leaders of Jesuit provinces have written to their priests and seminarians reassuring them that their sexual orientation is not an issue as long as they remain celibate and chaste.

"We're not going to push anybody overboard," said the Rev. John Whitney, head of the Oregon province of Jesuits, which includes 254 men in five Northwestern states.

The Vatican has not even released a document on the issue, which has been under discussion for more than 10 years. Several news outlets, including The Times, reported last week that Vatican officials had said it would most likely be released soon, but no Vatican directive is certain until it is formally promulgated.

Still, several religious superiors said on Thursday that even the anticipation that the church could exclude men from the priesthood because of their sexual orientation had prompted an outpouring of fear and concern among priests - gays and heterosexuals alike. The superiors said their goal was to communicate to their men that they understood the impact that such a directive could have, and to convey that to the Vatican in hopes they could have an impact on the document's contents.

"This is an anxious moment; it creates difficult issues for people," said the Rev. Paul Lininger, executive director of the Conference of Major Superiors of Men, who signed the letter to his colleagues and spoke by telephone. "But we want to be able to say to our men that we will be able to talk to various types of parties, and when the time comes we will communicate back to you."

Father Lininger said the letter was supposed to remain private, "because we don't want to inflame situations, but we needed to respond."

That the leaders of religious orders would step forward is not entirely surprising, said R. Scott Appleby, a historian of Catholicism at the University of Notre Dame.

"Historically the superiors of religious orders have been more independent of the hierarchy," he said. "They are relatively autonomous and responsible for their own company of priests and brothers, so they're more accustomed to looking out for their own."

Some Catholics have said they would welcome the ban because they attribute the sexual abuse scandal to gay priests who preyed on young men.

But Msgr. Francis Maniscalco, spokesman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the Vatican began examining whether to ordain gays long before the abuse scandal broke in 2002, and not because of pedophilia.

"The church is not saying anything like that," Monsignor Maniscalco said. "Pedophilia is its own psychosexual illness, and has its own kind of syndrome. This is looking at another issue, which is the training for celibacy and the ability to live a celibate life. We live in an age in which people are told to express themselves, in which the gay rights movement says to come to grips with your orientation and to live it. And in that environment, there can be confusion, even in seminaries."

The provincial of the New York province of Jesuits, the Rev. Gerald J. Chojnacki, also sent a letter to his priests on Monday denouncing any move to exclude homosexuals.

"We know that God does not discriminate," Father Chojnacki wrote. "We know that gay men who have responded to the call have served the church well as priests and religious - and so why would we be asked to discriminate based on orientation alone against those whom God has called and invited?"

He wrote that he had participated in the funerals of "some very fine and distinguished Jesuits" who were also gay men. "I find it insulting to demean their memory and their years of service by even hinting that they were unfit for priesthood because of their sexual orientation," wrote Father Chojnacki, who leads one of the largest Jesuit provinces in the country, with 437 men.

This letter was addressed to "Brothers and Friends in the Lord," and has been circulated even outside the New York Jesuit province by priests encouraged by its message. One such priest shared it with The Times.

Father Chojnacki did not respond to a request for an interview. A spokesman for the New York province, Peter Feuerherd, said the letter had been directed to New York Jesuits "and was intended to address their concerns."

About 15,000 priests belong to religious orders, approximately one-third of those serving in the United States. The other two-thirds belong to dioceses, whose local leaders are bishops. Religious orders also include brothers, who are not ordained as members of the clergy.

Religious order priests serve in many capacities: teachers and professors, missionaries and professionals in many fields and in parishes. There are also contemplative priests and brothers, who devote themselves primarily to prayer.

Many religious orders, like many diocesan seminaries, say their admissions policies do not discriminate against candidates on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Said Father Whitney, the Oregon provincial, "We continue to go by the standard we have always gone by, which is that our orientation is toward chastity, and that is the orientation we most care about."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Psycmeistr
Member
cmoehle
Sep 30 2005, 11:47 AM
Won't speak for the many Catholics here, Mike, but my general impression is many feel the Pope is making a mistake.

Seems to be a "peanut gallery" comment...

The Catholic faith is the Catholic faith. The Catholic Church is not subject to political correctness, or the whims of the day, only the Truth as the Catholic Church sees it. Homosexuality, or at least the practice thereof, is considered a sin by the Catholic church.

In the recent past, it has been boys who have largely been the ones who have been preyed upon by priests-in-name only (present company included.) Rightfully, An outcry ensued. The Church is finally taking action.

Then it is criticized on the sidelines for not taking a politically correct action?

Political correctness is not a pseudonym for effective outcomes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
And yours, psych, it the religiously correct view.

Mine was a gallery comment, but Pat's was not.

The correct action, neither politically nor religiously correct, is to deal with pedophiles and the cover up, not expound and play on homophobia which will have no effective outcome but to split the church...again.

Talk to Scalia about the Pope's infallibility. lol
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
campingken
Member
Psycmeistr,

Based on your logic perhaps only EUNUCHS should be ordained as Priests. If being gay causes a Priest to molest boys then wouldn't being heterosexual also cause a Priest to molest girls?

Child abusers are PEDOPHILES they are not straight or gay. If you don't like gays that's fine but please do not equate homosexuality with child abuse.

Ken
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Psycmeistr
Member
campingken
Sep 30 2005, 12:00 PM
Psycmeistr,

Based on your logic perhaps only EUNUCHS should be ordained as Priests. If being gay causes a Priest to molest boys then wouldn't being heterosexual also cause a Priest to molest girls?

Child abusers are PEDOPHILES they are not straight or gay. If you don't like gays that's fine but please do not equate homosexuality with child abuse.

Ken

Well then I would guess that the pedophiles who have thus turned up in the priesthood have been gay pedophiles.

I have experienced this first hand. I know what I am talking about.

And even your reasoning does not dismiss the fact that homosexual behavior is considered a sin in the Church.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
puli-one
Member Avatar
Member
I think there is a mistake being made with this edict for one very basic simple reason; Not all homosexuals are pedophiles, nor are all pedophiles homosexual. Is it the act of homosexuality that you disagree with, or the person who is a homosexual. If you accept the person for who he/she is, and not for what they are, are you not accepting the creed that "all people are created equal". Stretch this out a bit and you can add "in the eyes of God".
Question: Where does this leave the "edict" - against or with the teachings of Christ. I think the Pope is wrong, and not for the right reasons.
Don & Donna
Puli Pup - Kelly
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jelly Bean
Member Avatar
Member
Psycmeistr
Sep 30 2005, 12:14 PM
I have experienced this first hand. I know what I am talking about.


I BELIEVE you psych
thank you for being willing to share the truth, and at the same time your experience
takes a lot to do that
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jelly Bean
Member Avatar
Member
Julie
Sep 30 2005, 09:41 AM
Passin, people fear that which they do not know or understand.
I have gay friends...in getting to know them, as human beings not simply as homosexuals, I understood that if they are attracted to a member of the same sex is of no consequence to me. Why should it matter?

Ticks me off greatly when the bible is used to spread hatred, misunderstanding and bigotry. All in the name of a loving God? Hmmmm....~~scrathching my head~~~

I have gay friends too!
I don't use the bible to separate anybody but to help bring people to the truth...they listen, and some are actually in counseling.
Not everybody chooses to stay in their sin, but actually try and overcome their sinful desires. It is difficult like with anything. Adultery, alcoholism, smoking...so many things that we "know" are not good for us in God's design, and even harmful to our health, we can't seem to overcome. Why people reach to programs, to others to try and help them. It's fortunate that the Christian community has designed programs to minister to the gay population, as well as those who suffer from the other problems mentioned.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Ken makes a very good point. If because some percentage of pedophilia among priests is by homosexuals, and by reason of hasty generalization all homosexuals should be excluded from the priesthood, then by the fact some other percentage of pedophilia among priests is by heterosexuals and the same logical fallacy, then all heterosexuals should be excluded. I mean we do not want to be politically correct here and apply a partial and therefore ineffectual solution, now do we.

So we see by the unintended consequences of the Pope's unconstrained and liberal solution, it leads to absurdity when we speak of real people here, of loved ones.



Jelly, that truth you speak is that your subjective truth?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
corky52
Member
Castrate all the priests and put them on suppressive drugs, should solve the problems and would work across the board. Not like they'd be losing anything they haven't already pledged to give up!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PRT
Member
I didn't get the impression from things I read, not necessarily here, that this proposed edict had anything to do with the pedophilia issue in this country.
I saw it had been in the works for ten years...1995. Pre-scandal, but not pre-pedophilia. Now if the Vatican was aware of the coverup in the US for more than ten years, that's another can of worms. Nothing would surprise me any more.
My impression was that it was to be "pastoral" in nature; protecting as it were the seminarians. Doesn't seem to be having that effect. And, as many have said, if celibacy is followed there is simply no issue.
I don't agree with this whole edict as I've said before, but I'm just giving you my take on it.
It's the wrong thing for the wrong reason at the wrong time. John Paul began the process, but I don't see why Benedict is making this his opening act.
I'll be interested to see if the American clergy - mentioned in the Times article - are successful in their campaign. Don't think this is going away any time soon. Unfortunately.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Well, that blows away 90% of what's been said right there. :faint:

Can I ask what you mean "pastoral"? Idyllic or idealism or something ele altogether.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PRT
Member
No, not idyllic. Speaking as a pastor to a flock, shepherd to a flock kind of thing. Caring for the seminarians.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jelly Bean
Member Avatar
Member
corky52
Sep 30 2005, 04:25 PM
Castrate all the priests and put them on suppressive drugs, should solve the problems and would work across the board. Not like they'd be losing anything they haven't already pledged to give up!

corky, I think there were actually some men in the Bible, who did that very thing. True enuchs, they made themselves.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jelly Bean
Member Avatar
Member
cmoehle
Sep 30 2005, 04:20 PM
Ken makes a very good point. If because some percentage of pedophilia among priests is by homosexuals, and by reason of hasty generalization all homosexuals should be excluded from the priesthood, then by the fact some other percentage of pedophilia among priests is by heterosexuals and the same logical fallacy, then all heterosexuals should be excluded. I mean we do not want to be politically correct here and apply a partial and therefore ineffectual solution, now do we.

So we see by the unintended consequences of the Pope's unconstrained and liberal solution, it leads to absurdity when we speak of real people here, of loved ones.



Jelly, that truth you speak is that your subjective truth?

no, I don't see hasty generalizations, but folks very close to the picture, who after first NOT being listened to, have now been able to share that there was a very big problem brewing and now over boiling, and they have come with the studies that it is truly a statistically problem!

Not hasty at all. Studies.

They did the same thing in nursing in California. Nurses and Dr's and patients for years have known that patients have suffered at the bedside because not enough staff to tend to their needs. To the point of death. So after years of not being listened to. They did studies, and had a big public health hearing and they listened to the testimonies of ALL, including those who support that it was all just a myth.

The department of public health ruled to have a safe nurse to patient ratio. They didn't do it hasty. They listened to all sides and looked at the statistics.

That is what the catholic church has done. They have their statistical study now, they have listened to the testimonies of ALL involved. And they have come to their conclusion. Only time will tell if it is a right one. Will deaths go down at the hospital because we can watch our patients closer? I believe it will, because I have seen it already. We are able to transfer an unstable patient to the ICU more readily now then ever before! Will studies show that molestations will decrease in the church with this new practice of the church, I believe it will. But as I said, only time will tell.

Hastiness, not at all. Why my first post in all this was..."IT's about time", this problem has been talked about years on years, on years. You already have had another poster share from his PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, that it is TRUE.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply