Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
That is so stupid. Why the fuck should someone's sexual orientation matter in regards to whether or not they're a priest?
Argh.
Angela
Argh.
Angela
Vatican to scapegoat, purge gay priests
- Thread starter Irvine511
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
indra
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,689
anitram said:
There are always several charities doing similar work, so I'd just switch away from the faith-based ones...or at least that particular faith-based one.
For me, the nose would have been cut off if I continued to give to the offering. I guess it just depends on what you find acceptable -- but I realise that many people are very attached to their faith/church, and that is an attachment I can never quite understand as I have never felt that kind of attachment to any faith.
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
MrsSpringsteen said:
I'm sorry, MrsS, this is probably directed at me, and I didn't mean to offend you. My question about why wait for them to change was really more of a rhetorical question, not something that I expected you to answer, but more something that I would ask anyone--myself included--to contemplate when looking at why any of us maintain certain affiliations when we disagree with fundamental principles within those affiliations. While I appreciate the complexities involved in personal faith and religion, I at the same time rather unapologetically ask Catholics why they continue to support a religion that protects pedophiles and discriminates against women and gays. And again, it's not a question I expect anyone to answer in this moment but to contemplate within themselves.
My mother, for example, has been a devout Presbyterian for 50 years. When the issue came up some years ago about allowing gay ministers, she was prepared to leave the church over that issue. Now that can't be easy for a 75 year old woman whose church is basically her life. But this, in her mind, was a huge betrayal of what she truly believed in her heart about the appropriateness of gays as ministers. Never mind that she and I have argued about this for years; she will never change her mind, she's of a certain generation, and from the south at that, and there is no changing her mind. I've brought gays and lesbians to her dinner table for 25 years and she's been nothing but wonderful. When my best friend, a gay man, died of cancer a few years ago, she sent his partner (whom she'd never met) a large sum of money to help cover the medical costs (since of course their committed relationship of 12 years meant nothing to anyone legally so my friend could not benefit from his partner's insurance coverage). She did it because she said it was the Christian thing to do. So this woman does not have anything personally against gays. She simply has an issue with them having a role as ministers in the church. I will disagree loudly until the day she dies but I had to respect her for her willingness to take a stand and walk her talk.
That is all I would ask anyone to do. There comes a time for everyone in different ways when we ask ourselves these kinds of questions. One time for me was when the publishing house I worked for was bought by Rupert Murdoch and we suddenly became the right-wing publisher. I gave it a year after that to see if it was going to get better, and when it didn't, I quit.
So honestly, I'm not asking you to answer to me anything at all. I certainly would not want to be put in that position at all, although I have gone up against the firing squad here a few times about my beliefs. But I think these are valid questions any practicing Christian with progressive values would be asking themselves and I appreciate that that inner searching takes courage and conviction and can take a long time.
Sonoftelepunk
The Fly
Can priests be viewed as actually having a sexual orientation? I mean especially when they are actual priests, not before they're admitted. Because, they aren't allowed to show any signs of attraction to anyone sexually. And that attraction is generally the measure of what sexual orientation one is.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i still think it's a scapegoating issue.
i think we can all agree -- and any psychiatrist would confirm -- that pedophiles are neither hetero nor homosexual, they are pedophiles. also, most children who are abuse are usually females, and it is usually by an older male relative. and while there were girls who were abused by priests, yes, it was mostly boys who were abused, but i think much of that comes from the convenience of molesting a boy than a girl. quite simply, a man and a boy can be placed in situations where abuse could occur, and the same cannot be said for a man and a young girl. also, the likelihood of a boy coming forth and accusing a man of molestation is doubly difficult, especially in the past, because the child would fear being labled homosexual. thus, it's much easier for the church, which has a long and sustained record of condemning the existence of homosexuality, to pin the blame for the sex abuse scandal onto that which they are already against, and it is imbued with subtext that says, essentially, "well, now you see what's so bad about homosexuality, don't you?"
what's sad is that the church is forgetting that 99% of it's priests are not pedophiles, gay or straight, and that making all the good gay priests out there stuffer for the sins of pedophiles is simply unconscionable.
but, hey, it's still socially acceptable (and legally sanctioned) to discriminate against gay people, so what has the church go to lose?
other than a huge portion of it's clergy?
i think we can all agree -- and any psychiatrist would confirm -- that pedophiles are neither hetero nor homosexual, they are pedophiles. also, most children who are abuse are usually females, and it is usually by an older male relative. and while there were girls who were abused by priests, yes, it was mostly boys who were abused, but i think much of that comes from the convenience of molesting a boy than a girl. quite simply, a man and a boy can be placed in situations where abuse could occur, and the same cannot be said for a man and a young girl. also, the likelihood of a boy coming forth and accusing a man of molestation is doubly difficult, especially in the past, because the child would fear being labled homosexual. thus, it's much easier for the church, which has a long and sustained record of condemning the existence of homosexuality, to pin the blame for the sex abuse scandal onto that which they are already against, and it is imbued with subtext that says, essentially, "well, now you see what's so bad about homosexuality, don't you?"
what's sad is that the church is forgetting that 99% of it's priests are not pedophiles, gay or straight, and that making all the good gay priests out there stuffer for the sins of pedophiles is simply unconscionable.
but, hey, it's still socially acceptable (and legally sanctioned) to discriminate against gay people, so what has the church go to lose?
other than a huge portion of it's clergy?
BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
indra said:
Guess it depends on the parish. I've heard the same thing around where I live. Some of the churches are big on guilting you.
BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
melon said:
Where did you position yourself on the banning of women priests? Did you do so with protest before you were estranged from the church? Did that estrange you too? Or wasn't that your fight?
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
Irvine511 said:
Not here, it's not. Legally there is no grounds for discrimination. I am sure it certainly happens, as it happens to any discriminated group in very veiled ways.
And I couldn't really give a fuck what the pope thinks, on gay men, paedophiles, or other. His head is further up his arse than his predecessor and his church is a lost institution. I know some fabulous people who are Roman Catholic, like Mrs S, and my grandmother. Their support of their own religion doesn't equal support of the moral shortfalls of the church. I know these 2 examples I've mentioned are adamantly against discrimination and speak out about it the same way anyone else does. But we dont need to go over this ground again. The blame and problem lies only and solely with those who are bigoted - church leaders on the whole, and allow bigotry to continue - govts, church, it's members. Those who sit back silently while their churches discriminate, also guilty.
I want to know when the bigoted religious will spit out a goddanmed apology. I'm fed up to my back teeth with hearing about how religion is being forced out and those of any persuasion are persecuted. Give me a fucking break. The church (and most of them) have some serious explaining and apologising. What age is everyone living in? It's time society stopped.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
I didn't want to post anymore in this thread, but I had to thank you Angela Harlem for what you said about me and that issue in general. I appreciate that so much.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Dreadsox said:
lots of people think this.
you've heard the old canard, "i don't have any problems with you, just so long as you stay away from my children."
nothing, absolutely nothing, makes me angrier than the conflation of homosexuality wtih pedophilia.
Irvine511 said:
I find nothing more disgusting than children (and old people, while we're at it). In fact, as I get older, I find 18-21 year olds to be disgusting, and I imagine that that age limit will raise as my mind continues to mature.
And, yet, we have people out there who had been salivating over the Olsen twins, counting down the days until they turned 18. That, somehow, is socially acceptable? Ewww.
Yet another reason why I find the automatic association of homosexuality and pedophilia equally angering. And to see that the "Pope" is so bigoted and narrow minded that he cannot see the difference? As I see it, it's one evidence of many that the Vatican is the last group that should be able to claim that they represent God.
Melon
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
melon said:
. Yeah, I think the whole "Let's link homosexuality and pedophilia" thing is utterly stupid, too. Illogical and lame and pathetic and...yeah. Just stupid.
Angela
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
^ it goes along with "sodomy is an abomination!"
but two chicks is pretty hot ...
but two chicks is pretty hot ...
indra
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,689
melon said:
No group, no individual should be accepted if they claim to represent God. Any god.
If a god (or gods) exists, it would not be represented by mere humans.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
indra said:
agreed.
i've always found the presumption that God has human characteristics rather self-centered.
i mean, it's an awfully big universe.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511 said:
Ah, yeah, that too
.Angela
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
Vatican: Active gays unwelcome in priesthood
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
VATICAN CITY (AP) -- The Vatican says sexually active homosexuals and those who support "gay culture" are unwelcome in the priesthood unless the candidate has overcome homosexual tendencies for at least three years, according to a church document posted on the Internet by an Italian Catholic news agency.
The long-awaited document is scheduled to be released by the Vatican next Tuesday. A church official who has read the document confirmed the authenticity of the Internet posting by the Adista news agency.
The document said that "the Church, while deeply respecting the people in question, cannot admit to the seminary and the sacred orders those who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support so-called gay culture."
"Those people find themselves, in fact, in a situation that presents a grave obstacle to a correct relationship with men and women. One cannot ignore the negative consequences that can stem from the ordination of people with deeply rooted homosexual tendencies," it said.
"If instead it is a case of homosexual tendencies that are merely the expression of a transitory problem, for example as in the case of an unfinished adolescence, they must however have been clearly overcome for at least three years before ordination as a deacon."
Vatican prohibitions on active homosexuals becoming priests are not new.
A key 1961 Vatican document on selecting candidates for the priesthood made clear homosexuals should be barred.
However, the sex abuse scandal among priests in the United States and elsewhere has led some to call for new restrictions.
Estimates of the number of gays in U.S. seminaries and the priesthood range from 25 percent to 50 percent, according to a review of research by the Rev. Donald Cozzens, a former seminary rector and author of "The Changing Face of the Priesthood."
The Vatican press office announced in November 2002, at the height of the clergy sex scandal in the United States, that the Congregation for Catholic Education was drawing up guidelines for accepting candidates for the priesthood that would address the question of whether gays should be barred. However, the document reportedly had been in the works well before then.
The document, called an "Instruction," is only five pages long, including footnotes. It was signed by the prefect and secretary of the congregation on November 4, and says it was approved by Pope Benedict XVI on August 31.
The sex abuse scandals have forced an unprecedented introspection into the clergy and how to train future priests.
In September, Vatican-directed inspectors started visiting all 229 American seminaries. Part of their mission has been to seek any "evidence of homosexuality" at a time when some Catholics have put forward the highly contested premise that gay priests were more likely to be responsible for criminal behavior, such as serial, same-sex molestations.
The Vatican has often visited the issue of homosexuality, reflecting an unbending theological opposition but also an acknowledgment that discrimination based on sexual preference is not justified.
In 2003, homosexuality was described as a "troubling moral and social phenomenon" in a document by the powerful Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict this year.
Vatican teaching also holds that homosexuals are "intrinsically disordered." The church, however, says gays and lesbians should be treated with compassion and dignity.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
VATICAN CITY (AP) -- The Vatican says sexually active homosexuals and those who support "gay culture" are unwelcome in the priesthood unless the candidate has overcome homosexual tendencies for at least three years, according to a church document posted on the Internet by an Italian Catholic news agency.
The long-awaited document is scheduled to be released by the Vatican next Tuesday. A church official who has read the document confirmed the authenticity of the Internet posting by the Adista news agency.
The document said that "the Church, while deeply respecting the people in question, cannot admit to the seminary and the sacred orders those who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support so-called gay culture."
"Those people find themselves, in fact, in a situation that presents a grave obstacle to a correct relationship with men and women. One cannot ignore the negative consequences that can stem from the ordination of people with deeply rooted homosexual tendencies," it said.
"If instead it is a case of homosexual tendencies that are merely the expression of a transitory problem, for example as in the case of an unfinished adolescence, they must however have been clearly overcome for at least three years before ordination as a deacon."
Vatican prohibitions on active homosexuals becoming priests are not new.
A key 1961 Vatican document on selecting candidates for the priesthood made clear homosexuals should be barred.
However, the sex abuse scandal among priests in the United States and elsewhere has led some to call for new restrictions.
Estimates of the number of gays in U.S. seminaries and the priesthood range from 25 percent to 50 percent, according to a review of research by the Rev. Donald Cozzens, a former seminary rector and author of "The Changing Face of the Priesthood."
The Vatican press office announced in November 2002, at the height of the clergy sex scandal in the United States, that the Congregation for Catholic Education was drawing up guidelines for accepting candidates for the priesthood that would address the question of whether gays should be barred. However, the document reportedly had been in the works well before then.
The document, called an "Instruction," is only five pages long, including footnotes. It was signed by the prefect and secretary of the congregation on November 4, and says it was approved by Pope Benedict XVI on August 31.
The sex abuse scandals have forced an unprecedented introspection into the clergy and how to train future priests.
In September, Vatican-directed inspectors started visiting all 229 American seminaries. Part of their mission has been to seek any "evidence of homosexuality" at a time when some Catholics have put forward the highly contested premise that gay priests were more likely to be responsible for criminal behavior, such as serial, same-sex molestations.
The Vatican has often visited the issue of homosexuality, reflecting an unbending theological opposition but also an acknowledgment that discrimination based on sexual preference is not justified.
In 2003, homosexuality was described as a "troubling moral and social phenomenon" in a document by the powerful Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict this year.
Vatican teaching also holds that homosexuals are "intrinsically disordered." The church, however, says gays and lesbians should be treated with compassion and dignity.
XHendrix24
Refugee
Well, if it's just active gays, I don't think it's too big of a deal then. Priests aren't supposed to be having sex anyway, right? I can understand that.
I'm not as keen on the decision that "those who support gay culture are unwelcome in the priesthood," though. I mean, it's not that big of surprise, since the Church recognizes homosexuality as a disorder and therefore wouldn't want its priests supporting the 'disorder', but it's certainly not a step forward in reconciling with the homosexual community.
Though, honestly, if I was a homosexual, I probably wouldn't be hanging around the Church much these days anyway.
I'm not as keen on the decision that "those who support gay culture are unwelcome in the priesthood," though. I mean, it's not that big of surprise, since the Church recognizes homosexuality as a disorder and therefore wouldn't want its priests supporting the 'disorder', but it's certainly not a step forward in reconciling with the homosexual community.
Though, honestly, if I was a homosexual, I probably wouldn't be hanging around the Church much these days anyway.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
it seems like the current Pope knows a thing or two about "gay culture."
[q]NewsTrack
Benedict known for clothes style
VATICAN CITY, Nov. 4 (UPI) -- Pope Benedict XVI is developing a reputation as a clotheshorse with his taste for Prada shoes and designer sunglasses.
The pope has also reportedly turned to another tailor for his vestments, dropping Annibale Gammarelli, whose firm has been serving the Vatican since 1792.
The Tablet, a Roman Catholic newspaper in England, points to the new pope's expensive sunglasses, which Vatican officials say were a present. He has also been spotted in baseball caps and red shoes from Prada.
Pope John XXIII may have splurged on his Popemobiles. But his taste in clothes was extremely simple, demonstrated by the worn loafers that were on his feet as his body lay in state.
The new pope's relationship with Gammarelli is unclear. The Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera suggested what is in play is Benedict's comfort with what he knows and he is more comfortable with the tailor who made his vestments while he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
The Tablet, on the other hand, said that Gammarelli made three cassocks in different sizes to be available for whoever was elected by the papal conclave. Unfortunately, none of them fit Benedict well, forcing him to appear in one that was too large.
© Copyright 2005 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051104-033138-4056r
[/q]
[q]NewsTrack
Benedict known for clothes style
VATICAN CITY, Nov. 4 (UPI) -- Pope Benedict XVI is developing a reputation as a clotheshorse with his taste for Prada shoes and designer sunglasses.
The pope has also reportedly turned to another tailor for his vestments, dropping Annibale Gammarelli, whose firm has been serving the Vatican since 1792.
The Tablet, a Roman Catholic newspaper in England, points to the new pope's expensive sunglasses, which Vatican officials say were a present. He has also been spotted in baseball caps and red shoes from Prada.
Pope John XXIII may have splurged on his Popemobiles. But his taste in clothes was extremely simple, demonstrated by the worn loafers that were on his feet as his body lay in state.
The new pope's relationship with Gammarelli is unclear. The Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera suggested what is in play is Benedict's comfort with what he knows and he is more comfortable with the tailor who made his vestments while he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
The Tablet, on the other hand, said that Gammarelli made three cassocks in different sizes to be available for whoever was elected by the papal conclave. Unfortunately, none of them fit Benedict well, forcing him to appear in one that was too large.
© Copyright 2005 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051104-033138-4056r
[/q]
XHendrix24 said:
I wish the Vatican would then write a document banning active heterosexual priests. And, yet, they never feel the need to single those priests out, now do they?
Basically, this document is nothing more than a regurgitation of the 1961 status quo to placate church conservatives and to further ostracize an unwanted minority.
Melon
Muggsy
Refugee
melon said:
they already have (many many years ago) but the reasons where different from what anyone might think... The catholic church said that celibate was a way to be closer to God, but that was just an excuse. celibate avoids the repartition of the goods of the church through heritage.
I was raised in a catholic family and the fundaments of my personal faith are catholic, but i feel that the church, as a human institution, has failed a lot, cuz they only want to rule people`s live but not to help them.
I' ve never understood why women and gay people are not allowed to be priest... God message is for everybody and everybody can spread it.
VertigoGal
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Personally I can't understand why a gay person would even give the Vatican and more conservative American Catholic churches the time of day.
VertigoGal said:Personally I can't understand why a gay person would even give the Vatican and more conservative American Catholic churches the time of day.
Cross off the word "gay," and that's the question I ask all the time.
Melon
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Bloody hell, you would almost think they were Catholics.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511 said:
It does, and it's just not fair. This really disturbs me.
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
Here's a great article by one of my favorite journalists:
Roman Inquisition
by JoAnn Wypijewski
December 2005/January 2006 issue of Mother Jones
Commentary: For a thousand years the Catholic Church has been a refuge for gay men. Now Pope Benedict hopes to "purify" his priesthood.
Unlike some Catholics of a certain age, who moan that the sex abuse scandal that burst onto the front pages almost four years ago shattered their faith in the presumed purity of priests, I didn’t grow up with the notion of priests as saints. Those in my acquaintance ate too much, smoked like stacks, bet on horses, and earned our allegiance, or didn’t, by the quality of their hearts. Saints, in any case, were dead, and I was vaguely aware of my own childish hubris in aspiring to be one. It was much later that I realized many of the saints weren’t even saints, in the colloquial sense of the word. As if to underscore that fact, in the midst of the scandal, in 2002 Pope John Paul II canonized a man who not only wrestled with devils, flagellated himself to bleeding, fasted to the point of collapse, and bore the stigmata but was also accused of having had sexual dalliances with women and of pomading his hair, perfuming his body, and wearing makeup. The Vatican once forbade Padre Pio, or Saint Pio da Pietrelcina as he is now called, from teaching teenage boys and hearing the confessions of women. The ladies had taken to fighting each other for the chance to repent their sins before this voluptuary of suffering. He took money in the confessional, and Rome was so unsettled by the extravagance of his mysticism and his cult that twice it put him under investigation. His own order, the Capuchins, bugged his cell after accusations arose that he brought women there. He died, in 1968, addicted to Valium and downers.
read on here:
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2005/12/Roman_Inquisition.html
Roman Inquisition
by JoAnn Wypijewski
December 2005/January 2006 issue of Mother Jones
Commentary: For a thousand years the Catholic Church has been a refuge for gay men. Now Pope Benedict hopes to "purify" his priesthood.
Unlike some Catholics of a certain age, who moan that the sex abuse scandal that burst onto the front pages almost four years ago shattered their faith in the presumed purity of priests, I didn’t grow up with the notion of priests as saints. Those in my acquaintance ate too much, smoked like stacks, bet on horses, and earned our allegiance, or didn’t, by the quality of their hearts. Saints, in any case, were dead, and I was vaguely aware of my own childish hubris in aspiring to be one. It was much later that I realized many of the saints weren’t even saints, in the colloquial sense of the word. As if to underscore that fact, in the midst of the scandal, in 2002 Pope John Paul II canonized a man who not only wrestled with devils, flagellated himself to bleeding, fasted to the point of collapse, and bore the stigmata but was also accused of having had sexual dalliances with women and of pomading his hair, perfuming his body, and wearing makeup. The Vatican once forbade Padre Pio, or Saint Pio da Pietrelcina as he is now called, from teaching teenage boys and hearing the confessions of women. The ladies had taken to fighting each other for the chance to repent their sins before this voluptuary of suffering. He took money in the confessional, and Rome was so unsettled by the extravagance of his mysticism and his cult that twice it put him under investigation. His own order, the Capuchins, bugged his cell after accusations arose that he brought women there. He died, in 1968, addicted to Valium and downers.
read on here:
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2005/12/Roman_Inquisition.html
Last edited:
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Damn. That's scary. I wonder how far the investigation will go? My state is only 2% Catholic. I wonder if any of our priests will get the boot? After all, the pedophilia scandal *did* affect our diocese.
Similar threads
