In short, a religious institution is addressing its grave pedophilia problem by hunting down and removing gays from the priesthood.
Perhaps it should focus on pedophiles, rather than gays. The ignorance of the Vatican of what pedophilia is, and what homosexuality is not, is disheartening.
Why people continue to have faith in that the reservoir of prejudice parading itself about as the Vatican is beyond me.
You know, I never understood the concept of a gay priest. Or even a heterosexual priest, for that matter. Once you take the vow of chastity it is absolutely irrelevant what your orientation is because you’re never supposed to have sex. That is what the vow is all about. It’s a sacrifice made before God that you will not have anything come before Him, and I’ll tell you what, if you are unwilling to make that sacrifice you shouldn’t be a priest. I know, because I wasn’t willing, and that was among the few reasons why I am not a priest (although I had seriously contemplated becoming one).
People just don’t understand the meaning of sacrifice anymore.
Gee…we’re an ancient institution that has experienced an alarming decline in numbers for the priesthood and all areas of religious (the RC term for people who take various vows in service to the church), so let’s start a witch hunt so we can decline those numbers even further!
What’s the purpose here? The Vatican has declared that a homosexual orientation is not a sin. All priests and most religious are supposed to be celibate regardless of their orientation. So the only reason I can find for the proposed new rule against even admitting homosexuals into seminaries is homophobia and ignorance about the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia.
They’re human first (whether they want to be or not). The vow of chastity has proven to be harder to live by than most Catholics would like to believe. I’m sure most priests go into it fully believing that their vows will hold up under pressure, but most people aren’t built that way.
The thing I don’t get is that other faiths seem to be able to serve their god without giving up sex or coupling. I don’t know why the catholic religion feels that the priests can’t fully devote themselves to the church unless they give up the natural urge to have sex.
Kalhoun, it’s my understanding that sex itself isn’t the issue, but marriage. Being married would distract from their relationship with God. And extra-marital sex is a sin, so that cuts that out too.
And if gays are weeded out of the Catholic Church where does that leave their recruiting in non-third world western nations? The old option of the church as a not so bad lifestyle compared to the economic alternatives is long gone in western nations. Committing to being a priest means being relatively poor and non-sexual.
I suspect the number of psychologically healthy heterosexual Catholic males in industrialized western cultures motivated to take vows of celibacy (and effectively) poverty are going to be pretty slim. If queers are effectively shut out who’s going to carry water for the Catholic Church? Will they bring in foreign priests from economically less developed nations to fill the gap?
How high a price is the Catholic Church willing to pay to hang onto the tradition of celibacy in modernity?
There will come a day when the church introduces a married position to say last rites and give sermons, then they will be capable of making Monsiegnor and etc. This should take another 200-300 years or so.
The odds are it will not accept Homesexuality in this time period.
Just like everything else in the world, there is a caveat here. There are married priests, but they are exceptionally rare and in all cases are converts from other faiths. These exceptions are made at the discretion of the Pope, and I don’t expect Benedict XVI to do anything in that direction.
And truthfully, I don’t think I want him to. Like I said, if you’re unwilling to make that sacrifice I don’t know that I would want you to be my priest, because in that case you’re no different from me, and to me that differentiation, the sense of respect I get for people who give up their lives for God, would disappear. To me, that’s what it’s all about. Otherwise, why even bother with clergy?
The church does change from time to time but I agree Benedict XVI is not someone who will make changes.
It will need to make some concessions to reality. The numbers of RC’s that speak English in this country has been declining for about 40 years?
The number that enter any form of serving in celibacy (Priests, Nuns & Monks) is declining even quicker. So at some point the Vatican will start allowing some duties to be performed by married persons. Long ago they did, so this will not be completely new.
Do you think they will allow Married Men to say sermons first or Celibate Woman Priest?
I think the RCC will actually allow the married men first.
How much longer can the RCC continue in the USA & Canada if it does make some sort of change?
Wait, Airman, are you arguing for the actions of the Vatican concerning gays in the semiary, or against? Because, quite frankly, if a gay man is willing to make that sacrifice, and feels called to the priesthood, I don’t see why he’s somehow disqualified.
The review looks likes it’s just a general review to ensure that the seminaries are following Church doctrine, with a few questions about homosexuality thrown in there. Homosexuality was the focus of the article because it’s a hot-button issue, and because it’s harder to write an article about how the Church is reviewing whether the curriculum strictly follows approved teachings. You’ll notice that most of the voices saying it’s a gay hunt aren’t coming from those involved.
I don’t like to defend the Church, but if their doctrine requires that priests be celibate, it shouldn’t be controversial when they seek to get rid of those who aren’t. Whether they want to exclude gays, women, pro-abortion politicians, albinos, or elves from the priesthood is strictly their business - nobody who hasn’t volunteered to live by the Church’s teachings is affected. It’s how their teachings affect those outside the Church that should be the dividing line - it’s one thing to say that you can’t be gay and be a good Catholic; it’s another thing to say that you shouldn’t have those rights outside the Church.
They already have that, and not just in the converted Episcopal priests. The Diaconate is allowed to be married, but they have to have been married BEFORE they were ordained deacons. They cannot marry afterward. I think the only thing a deacon cannot do that a priest can is transubstantiate the Eucharist.
It may be RCC convention and I certainly respect their perogative to enforce their interpretation of biblical rules and their traditions. However, that’s just one view of functional clergy. Surely you don’t dismiss other (different) views as inferior.
Also, I’m not worried about the RCC’s homosexual witch hunt and it’s impact on RCC’s ultimate survival. I think it’s a foolish, narrow minded exercise and will serve only to decrease RCC’s world standing in all respects. However, they are a private organization and have the right to decisions that marginalize their own existance if they so choose.