Roman Church to Bar Gays from Priesthood?

That’s pretty harsh. But I sure wouldn’t mind if they called a Time Out and then took a long honest look at themselves. That in itself would be a very harsh thing, and they would have to deal with the real problems. How can you wave eternal judgement and the fire of hell at Joe Average, when you yourself are more corrupt and depraved than Joe AND got caught in covering it up? It’s not like it’s any secret, the newspapers were glutted with priestly abuses for quite a while. More shocking than the accusations of abuse were the continued cover-ups that were found and the denials.

Thanks for the expansion.

What, so it’s time for Vatican III?

I don’t care what it’s called, just so long as it’s an honest and hard look. No damage control, no dancing around the issues, no hiding of ugly or “uncomfortable” things anymore. The church has re-examined and reversed doctrines before. and can do so again. It just takes the will to do it.

And the odds of that happening with Pope Benedict in charge are… ?

Not too likely. We Mets fans are famous for our holy chant “Wait 'til next year”. That can be adapted to “Wait 'til next pope”. Just because change usually is at a horribly slow pace , doesn’t mean there is no change at all.

Except that as the NYT article quotes one of the sources as saying, the RCC unlike other churches does NOT consider Ordination be a basic human right, nor the rules governing the priesthood to be subject to equal rights analysis. Feeling a Calling does not, then, entitle a Catholic to receive Holy Orders. The requirements for the priesthood can include “no women”, “no gays”, or heck, technically even “no colorblind people” w/o breaking their own rule.

The RCC position on scientific findings is, AFAICT, that it recognizes them, and indeed is quite respectful of scientific findings IRT the material world, but *will not bind its own doctrine-making to science on matters spiritual, or of Church governance. *

To take an apparently nitpicky example, people who have a metabolic problem that precludes them from consuming even trace amounts of gluten may not substitute 100% gluten-free hosts for the Eucharist. At best the Church will approve low-gluten hosts but the doctrine is there’s got to be at least trace gluten – even though those of us more prosaically inclined may react along the lines of “Why? God can’t transubstantiate ANY bread he feels like? And in any case you can plainly see it does not turn into flesh so it’s all in your minds anyway!”. But that’s the rules.

So the RCC recognizes that homosexuality is understood by science, in view of the preponderance of evidence, as an orientation product of natural causes, not a disease (and the Pope, back when he was plain old Joe, acknowledged that gays are fully capable of responsible behavior and that to say otherwise is slanderous) so the Church says that in the **civil ** realm it should not be cause for discrimination or mistreatment… BUT… from the doctrinal standpoint it still is a “disorder” – such that ALL homosexuals are called to “chastity and self-mastery” (I dunno if I’d use that last phrase in this context…).

(And that’s another twist to it… since in that worldview, the gays have to renounce sexual expression ANYWAY, some strict legalist could argue then there’s nothing special about them doing so under vows)

I honestly wonder if I’d feel quite as bad about it, or less so, or worse so, if the purge were to go against ANYONE showing ANY sign of ANY “disordered sexuality”. On the one hand it would make the institution look more consistent, on the other it would REALLY be lumping gays together with pedos and livestock-molesters. One DOES wish for a glimpse into what’s the plan and how they expect it to come together so it actually helps any…

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1108678,00.html?cnn=yes

Right now, it is clear from this artical that the pope has very strong feelings about something, but nobody knows for sure just what. If he was enraged at the abuses, then he is absolutely right. These things make everyone angry. They should make people angry. If however, he is going for a purge of people who have done no harm and have kept their vows (and kept their hands off the people “in their care”), then it is wrong.