catholic church to probe gays - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-16-2005, 10:33 AM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
U2@NYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Back in Buenos Aires
Posts: 4,281
Local Time: 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


Okay, but what did you mean? To me it seemed that you were implying that priests who are gay can't believe in the vows they take to become a priest. Am I completely misinterpreting that and if I am then how should I have interpreted it?
What I meant was that saying that 60% of the priests are homosexual not only is a completely unfounded argument... but also, the statement read as if 60% of the priests were hipocrites, as they oppose gay marriage, yet many of them are gay... which, to me, is nonsense.
__________________

__________________
U2@NYC is offline  
Old 09-16-2005, 10:52 AM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama


Are you talking about the Orthodox view on marriage of priests? My understanding of their doctrine on homosexuality is that they have the same position as the Catholic church.

~U2Alabama
No, but their position of marriage of priests is a little different from ours. If a married man wishes to become a priest in the Eastern Orthodox Church, he can. Once ordained, however, they are not allowed to marry. I'm talking about regular marriage and divorce. An Eastern Orthodox divorcee can re-marry in the Church, but the ceremony has a penitential rite in it in these cases. This contrasts to the more rigid Catholic teaching that a divorcee can't remarry. Personally, I don't see why a divorcee can't remarry. My own divorced brother did.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 09-16-2005, 10:58 AM   #33
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 12:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
does anyone find my title at least a little bit funny?
Thank GOD you wrote that. That was the first thing I thought of
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 09-16-2005, 11:02 AM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


I apologise if this is a stupid question, but how would being gay but never being involved in a sexual relationship mean a priest doesn't believe in the vows he took when becoming a priest? I presume that being attracted to women but never participating in a relationship with one isn't a violation of a priest's vows so why is being attracted to men but never being in a relationship a violation?
I actually think that's a good point. I don't believe there have ever been any surveys of priests and sexual inclinations.........I seriously doubt it. Any numbers on this would be speculation. Since there haven't been any surveys there aren't any exact numbers, thus using any number is somewhat misleading.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 09-16-2005, 02:11 PM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 04:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2@NYC
What I meant was that saying that 60% of the priests are homosexual not only is a completely unfounded argument... but also, the statement read as if 60% of the priests were hipocrites, as they oppose gay marriage, yet many of them are gay... which, to me, is nonsense.
Okay, that makes more sense than the way I'd interpreted it. However, if gay priests are opposed to gay marriage while not truly hypocritical since they don't wish to marry themselves, it is rather disturbing that they would deny rights to other gay people despite being gay themselves. Then again, there are plenty of sexist women so perhaps I shouldn't be suprised by the existence of a homophobic gay priest. Thanks for your explanation though.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 09-16-2005, 02:29 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
ouizy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: s p o r a t i c
Posts: 3,788
Local Time: 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2@NYC


Your statement arguing that 60% of priests are homosexual is pretty disrespectful to the people that chose the priest vocation because they truly believe in it. That number cannot be proved in any way as you would need to interrogate every priest and basically have them break their vows. I have good friends that are priests who truly believe in abstinence because they sense their duty to God goes beyond sexual inclination.

Indirectly, one could derive from your statement that 60% of the priests "felt they were homosexual, so they decided to become priests".

So, and even if your religion is "chocolate", please try not to disrespect those who, like me, still admire many of those who chose to be priests.

OH SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NO NO NO - There has a been a misunderstanding. I had read the same article earlier in the day and did not read what was posted on this front page. IT IS NOT THE COMPLETE ARTICLE!!!!!

Here is the text of the article directly from the New York Times:

Quote:
Vatican to Check U.S. Seminaries on Gay Presence
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: September 15, 2005
Investigators appointed by the Vatican have been instructed to review each of the 229 Roman Catholic seminaries in the United States for "evidence of homosexuality" and for faculty members who dissent from church teaching, according to a document prepared to guide the process.

The Vatican document, given to The New York Times yesterday by a priest, surfaces as Catholics await a Vatican ruling on whether homosexuals should be barred from the priesthood.

Forum: Gay Rights
In a possible indication of the ruling's contents, the American archbishop who is supervising the seminary review said last week that "anyone who has engaged in homosexual activity or has strong homosexual inclinations," should not be admitted to a seminary.

Edwin O'Brien, archbishop for the United States military, told The National Catholic Register that the restriction should apply even to those who have not been sexually active for a decade or more.

American seminaries are under Vatican review as a result of the sexual abuse scandal that swept the priesthood in 2002. Church officials in the United States and Rome agreed that they wanted to take a closer look at how seminary candidates were screened for admission, and whether they were being prepared for lives of chastity and celibacy.

The issue of gay seminarians and priests has been in the spotlight because a study commissioned by the church found last year that about 80 percent of the young people victimized by priests were boys.

Experts in human sexuality have cautioned that homosexuality and attraction to children are different, and that a disproportionate percentage of boys may have been abused because priests were more likely to have access to male targets - like altar boys or junior seminarians - than to girls.

But some church officials in the United States and in Rome, including some bishops and many conservatives, attributed the abuse to gay priests and called for an overhaul of the seminaries. Expectation for such a move rose this year with the election of Pope Benedict XVI, who has spoken of the need to "purify" the church.

It is unknown how many Catholic priests are gay. Estimates range widely, from 10 percent to 60 percent.

The catechism of the Catholic Church says people with "deep-seated" homosexual tendencies must live in chastity because "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."

The Rev. Donald B. Cozzens, a former seminary rector who set off a controversy five years ago when he published a book asserting that "the priesthood is or is becoming a gay profession," said in an interview yesterday that many in the church had come to accept his observation.

But he said he was concerned that the seminary review would lead the church to ask celibate faculty members and seminarians to withdraw.

"That would be a major mistake from my perspective," said Father Cozzens, who teaches in the religious studies department at John Carroll University in Cleveland. "First, I think it's unfair if not unjust for committed gay seminarians and faculty who are leading chaste lives. And secondly, I don't know how you can really enforce that."

The Rev. Thomas J. Reese, a sociologist who resigned in May as editor of the Jesuit magazine America under pressure from the Vatican, said that with the shortage of priests, the church can hardly afford to dismiss gay seminarians.

"You could have somebody who's been in the seminary for five or six years and is planning to be ordained and the rector knows they're a homosexual," said Father Reese, now a visiting scholar at Santa Clara University in California. "What are they going to do, throw them out?

"It's much healthier if a seminarian can talk about their sexuality with a spiritual director, but this kind of policy is going to force it all underground."

Archbishop O'Brien, who is supervising the seminary review, did not respond to requests for interviews made to his office in Washington. In an interview with The Associated Press, he said the Vatican document was being reviewed by the pope and could be released this year.

The seminary review, called an apostolic visitation, will send teams appointed by the Vatican to the 229 seminaries, which have more than 4,500 students. The last such review began about 25 years ago and took six years to complete.

At each seminary, the visitors are to conduct confidential interviews with every faculty member and seminarian, as well as everyone who graduated in the last three years.

A 12-page document with instructions for the review is now being distributed to seminarians and faculty members. It asks whether the doctrine on the priesthood presented by the seminary is "solidly based on the church's Magisterium," or teaching, and whether teachers and seminarians "accept this teaching." Among the other questions are these:

¶"Is there a clear process for removing from the seminary faculty members who dissent from the authoritative teaching of the church or whose conduct does not provide good example to future priests?"

¶"Is the seminary free from the influences of New Age and eclectic spirituality?"

¶"Do the seminarians or faculty members have concerns about the moral life of those living in the institution? (This question must be answered)."

¶"Is there evidence of homosexuality in the seminary? (This question must be answered)."

The questionnaire also asks whether faculty members "watch out for signs of particular friendships."

The Rev. Thomas Baima, provost of the largest seminary in the United States, St. Mary of the Lake, in Chicago, where the Vatican is sending nine interviewers, said such questions were no surprise.

"The reason we're having an apostolic visitation now is precisely in the aftermath of the clerical sexual-abuse scandal," Father Baima said. "Issues about screening our candidates, about formation for celibacy, about how we teach moral theology are going to get more attention than how we teach church history."

But one gay priest, who said he would not give his name because he has been told by his order not to speak out, said the seminary review would demoralize gay priests.

"It says to gay priests, many of whom are hard-working, faithful men who live their promises of celibacy with integrity, that you should never have been ordained," he said.


----->I am sorry if my words were misconstrued, I would never intentionally insult anyone's religion, I hope all you know this. My only point, and I admit it was worded poorly, was that if after these confidential questionaires with the members of the seminary do prove that the percentage of its members who are homosexual (or priests for that matter) is near 60% (a number that I would guess is very high), then I would suggest that some of this population (the 60%) is being hypocritical if they publicly oppose gay marriage.

Now this may be a naive inferrence from this article, but I do have very strong feelings about gay marriage, and although maybe necessary, I find that this confidential questionaire may do more harm than good for the church.

Quote:
I have good friends that are priests who truly believe in abstinence because they sense their duty to God goes beyond sexual inclination.
These people are much stronger than I am. I will admit this outright. My goal was not to insult anyone, let alone anyone who has taken up a vocation that is as challenging as being a man of the cloth.

I really do feel bad about this, and I hope you can see that it was my carelessness in not reading the posted article as I assumed it was the same full content of the article I actually read in the New York Times.

__________________
ouizy is offline  
Old 09-16-2005, 04:22 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
U2@NYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Back in Buenos Aires
Posts: 4,281
Local Time: 11:17 AM
No worries, Ouizy. I very much thank you for your clarification and your detailed response. It was also helpful for me to be able to read the rest of the article.

__________________

__________________
U2@NYC is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com