As a mentionned in another thread, on the basis of linked text, the idea seems to be that people with deep-seated homosexual tendencies would be affectively immature, hence unable to fulfill their duties as “fathers” of their communities.
Like ** Captain Amazing ** noted, this decision appears to be a fallout of the Austrian seminary scandal.
Well homosexuals can be admitted in to the priesthood if they demonstrate that their homosexual urges have gone away.
Priest: You were in the restroom rather a long time, my son.
Bob: Never mind. Let’s start this interview again, and hurry!
AFAI understand it this is the Church’s response to all the child abuse scandals.
Yep, they’re mixing up paedophilia and homosexuality again.
This is honestly what the Chuch thinks an appropriate response to child abuse and the Austrian seminary scandal consists of.
If a religion demands celibacy and male gender as pre-requisites for membership of the priesthood, well and good, if it demands celibacy and that should you have any sexual desires that they only be for women…well that’s a little weird.
The vast majority of Irish Catholics are just as :rolleyes: :dubious: 
about this as anyone here.
Nobody except the people who wrote it seem to think that this is a good idea.
The Church is facing a problem of not recruiting enough priests in the West. There just aren’t enough straight, male, devout Catholics who want to become priests. This is not going to help.
The Austrian scandal wasn’t really a child abuse scandal or a pedophilia scandal, though. Yes, there was some child pornography, but the sexual contact that appears to have occurred was between the teachers and the seminarians, who would have been in their late teens and early twenties. And I think it was the seminary thing that led to this decision a lot more than the pedophilia scandal in the US and elsewhere.
The Vatican apparently also issued, along with this, a directive that gay priests shouldn’t be assigned to teach at seminaries.
[QUOTE=irishgirl]
The vast majority of Irish Catholics are just as :rolleyes: :dubious: about this as anyone here.
QUOTE]
Thats because most Irish Catholics are Á la Carte Catholics. The only ones who stll follow the church completely are Dana Rosemary Scallion and her ilk
That was meant to be in a box
I think you might want to read more closely -
From the linked article:
What this means, probably (I Am Not A Mind Reader), is that they will look more closely at applicants and seminarians to make sure they are not mamboing, ifyaknowwhatImean. If they aren’t going to control themselves in conjucntion with religious beliefs, they ought not to be take up the mantle of priest.
The gay culture bit is mostly about the rather free-lovish random hookups thing which remains fairly common in certain cities, even after the AIDS crisis broke.
Not to hijack, but do you have any basis for this idea that gays behave this way more than straights? They’re not allowed to get married before sex, remember?
But as the OP said, that doesn’t make a lot of sense. If this decree only prohibits homosexual behavior, then its redundent, since priests take a vow of chastity anyways. Given this, and the parts of the catecisim cited earlier, I’d say “deep seated homosexual tendencies” means simply that they’re gay (as opposed to say “experimented in college” or whatever).
Has an official copy of the Vatican document been released yet, rather than something leaked? The idea of scrutinizing those who <<are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called gay culture>> makes sense to me. Being sexually active, gay or straight, is obviously an issue. Supporting gay culture in terms of being politically active in areas that contradict the Church’s teachings would be an area of concern. And finally, the process of discernment of a religious vocation always involves exploration of the person’s sexual orientation. If the idea of “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” means that the person has not come to terms with their orientation and is not at peace with what celibacy will mean, they wouldn’t be ready to make a commitment.
Maybe it’s too much to ask, but can we keep the pedophile jokes to a minimum?
Umm . . . glory holes? :o
I freaking hate the [del]embarassment[/del] blowjob smiley.
Anyway, search and the shall find many, many examples of heterosexual debauchery. Roman orgies, love ins, etc.
I don’t think so, I’ve been looking for it online with no luck.
Of course.
I agree, and think that this is closer to what the Chuch meant here then Smiling Bandit’s “random hookups” thing. The Church does not belive people should pursue a gay lifestyle, and so thinks it’s clergy shouldn’t support such a thing.
This is a streach. Your reading a lot into “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” that isn’t in the text. Again given the quotes above from the Catecism, I think it’s pretty clear “no deep-seated homosexual tendencies” = “no gay priests” regardless of the degreee with which they’ve come to terms with their orientation or celibacy.
For a thread involving priests and sex, this is the minimum of pedophile jokes. The maximum? Well the maximum is much much higher.
It’s been released, and is on the Congregation for Catholic Education’s website (only in Italian, Portugese and Spanish, though, so if somebody can read any of those languages)
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/index.htm
And looking further, this seems to be the English version:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/ccehomosex.HTM
From the English translation:
Thanks Captain Amazing. Your google-fu is strong.
I was hoping the text would have a deeper explanation of why gays weren’t allowed
in the clergy, but the closest they came was this:
It doesn’t say why someone with such tendencies would be gravely hindered from relating to men and women. Why I’m sure a sexual attraction by a priest to a parishener would be a problem, this can happen just as easily to those of us with deep hetrosexual tendencies.
Andrew Sullivan is goung nuts. Why is he suprised?
He’s a gay Catholic, so I’d imagine he’s feeling kind of unhappy about the whole thing.
Did anyone see the cartoon in today’s paper: One priest is giving his confession (he’s in a closet, not a confessional) and says “Bless me father for I was born”.
Reading the subsequent text, I’m disappointed to see that your interpretation is correct. No one person, regardless of their orientation, is going to be able to relate to all parishioners and their situations. As far as understanding men and women, surely everyone has had some role model for a healthly hetero pair, and understands the idea of a complementary universe.
You’re probably right. I guess it’s just fatigue from seeing them everywhere they are even remotely related.