catholic church to probe gays

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Irvine511

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
34,519
Location
the West Coast
fucking fascists. do we laugh or cry?



Catholic probe to look at gays in seminaries:
NY Times 2 hours, 43 minutes ago

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Catholic Church investigators tasked by the Vatican to review U.S. seminaries will be looking for "evidence of homosexuality" and for professors who dissent from Church teaching, the New York Times reported on Thursday.

The newspaper said a Vatican document prepared to guide the process and given to The New York Times by a priest, surfaces as Catholics await a Vatican ruling on whether homosexuals should be barred from the priesthood.

American seminaries are under review as a result of the sexual abuse scandal that swept the priesthood in 2002, the year the probe which is now starting was announced.

In a possible hint of the ruling's contents, the American archbishop supervising the seminary review said "anyone who has engaged in homosexual activity or has strong homosexual inclinations," should not be admitted to a seminary.

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

O'Brien was once the rector of the North American College, a seminary for Americans studying in Rome and has familiarity with both the Vatican and the U.S. Church.

The issue 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.

The seminary review, called an apostolic visitation, will send teams of American Church officials to the 229 seminaries, which have more than 4,500 students.

At each seminary, the visitors will conduct confidential interviews with faculty members and seminarians, plus everyone who graduated in the last three years, the Times said.

A document with instructions for the review is 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."

The Times said among the other questions in the lengthy questionnaire are:

"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 newspaper said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050915/us_nm/religion_homosexuals_times_dc
 
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem.

At least maybe liberal Catholics can stop deluding themselves over the "benevolence" of the Catholic Church. The beast is shedding its mask.

Melon
 
melon said:


At least maybe liberal Catholics can stop deluding themselves over the "benevolence" of the Catholic Church. The beast is shedding its mask.

Melon

I hope so, but unfortunately I think most just think it doesn't really affect them so they just ignore it and continue accepting the familiar and comfortable that they grew up with.
 
Okay, Melon, give us a latin translator or the name of the primer you are using to learn the language (which, I believe, is a great idea).

Perhaps this could be a better solution in the long term. Many denominations have clear teachings and expect the local churches to say in line with these teachings. When an issue arises where parties do not agree, one solution is a schism. Then you can choose the denomination with the clear teachings you follow.

To me, the Catholic Church has maintained a fuzzy neutral ground. Making clear pronouncements, but not necessarily following-up on the application of those pronouncements. If all parishes were required to step in line with the Papal mandate, many would not want to follow. You may find a new branch of Catholic Church develop that follows its own clear teachings.
 
nbcrusader said:
Okay, Melon, give us a latin translator or the name of the primer you are using to learn the language (which, I believe, is a great idea).

I'll just give you the translation:

"Stand aside plebeians! I am on imperial business."

That kind of reminds me of the Vatican's attitude towards its followers.

Melon
 
melon said:
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem.

At least maybe liberal Catholics can stop deluding themselves over the "benevolence" of the Catholic Church. The beast is shedding its mask.

Melon

Do not generalize. Not everyone who believes in, and respects, the Catholic church thinks the same way.
 
reply

Reminds me of the Garth Brooks' song "We Shall Be Free"....."when we're feel to love anyone we choose"..................

it's actually a very well versed song BTW...."when no one walks a step behind......and there's only one race......and that's Mankind.....then we shall be free."

carol
wizard2c
:|
 
U2@NYC said:


Do not generalize. Not everyone who believes in, and respects, the Catholic church thinks the same way.



but doesn't this article beg the question as to whether or not the Church is going to tolerate those who think differently from the established orthodoxy? certainly this is true among the clergy, but what about the laity?
 
Irvine511 said:




but doesn't this article beg the question as to whether or not the Church is going to tolerate those who think differently from the established orthodoxy? certainly this is true among the clergy, but what about the laity?

The laity, like myself, will not accept everything a priest may say. I consider myself Catholic, I go to mass almost every Sunday, and, regardless, I do not necessarily agree with what some (not all of them) bishops advocate against gay priests.

With that in mind, I think that the Catholic church has a whole other set of very valid standards that I respect and those are what I follow. And I think that is the way the majority of Catholics think.
 
Irvine511 said:
does anyone find my title at least a little bit funny?

Hehe, I found it amusing...didn't catch the joke right away, though...but that's good :p.

As for the article itself...:sigh: :banghead:...

*Was never raised in the Catholic faith, but does however, agree that there would be a lot of Catholics who would not agree with this*

It would be interesting, though, Irvine, to see what the leaders would do about people who support letting homosexuals be involved in the church goings-ons and such. Good question posed there.

Angela
 
U2@NYC said:


The laity, like myself, will not accept everything a priest may say. I consider myself Catholic, I go to mass almost every Sunday, and, regardless, I do not necessarily agree with what some (not all of them) bishops advocate against gay priests.

With that in mind, I think that the Catholic church has a whole other set of very valid standards that I respect and those are what I follow. And I think that is the way the majority of Catholics think.



i agree with you.

do you see an upcoming split in the church? though i'm a confirmed catholic, i'm not fully up to speed in the way that someone like Melon is, but it seems to me that the messages coming out of Rome and the new pope is that dissenting opinions and viewpoints are going to be less tolerated. what are American Catholics (or Western European Catholics as well) going to do? break from the church? what do you see happening, if anything?
 
Irvine511 said:




i agree with you.

do you see an upcoming split in the church? though i'm a confirmed catholic, i'm not fully up to speed in the way that someone like Melon is, but it seems to me that the messages coming out of Rome and the new pope is that dissenting opinions and viewpoints are going to be less tolerated. what are American Catholics (or Western European Catholics as well) going to do? break from the church? what do you see happening, if anything?

I am also not completely aware of what is going on inside the church but my external view is that we will, unfortunately, see a point of status quo, at least for the time being. Even though more liberal, my sense is that American Catholics and Western European Catholics do realize that the essence of catholicism as a religion and common belief will probably be lost if a fraction breaks up.

However, I have hope on the fact that the Vatican named Pope Benedict as, supposedly, a 'pope of transition' and one should think that a more 'liberal' pope would take over in a couple of years. With that said, the Vatican is a very conservative place and implementing changes, if any, might take a long time.

Summing up, I do not see radical changes happening in catholicism in the next couple of years (and I mean it either way, as I think this gay priest issue would not prosper, as the Vatican will eventually realize that this plays against its own will).
 
I think if the number of homosexual priests really is anywhere near 60%, I think a huge fog of hypocrisy is about to be lifted.

I only say this in regards to many in the Catholic church opposing gay marriage.

It would *seem* that some of these people who are so outspoken against the issue, may indeed be themselves of the homosexual variety.

My religion is chocolate.
 
U2@NYC said:


The laity, like myself, will not accept everything a priest may say. I consider myself Catholic, I go to mass almost every Sunday, and, regardless, I do not necessarily agree with what some (not all of them) bishops advocate against gay priests.

With that in mind, I think that the Catholic church has a whole other set of very valid standards that I respect and those are what I follow. And I think that is the way the majority of Catholics think.

I agree. I practice Catholicism but don't accept the Church's position on homosexuality, and I prefer the marriage teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church to ours. But I can't see myself becoming Eastern Orthodox (I thought of it when I became a Christian in 1989 but I chose to becomoe Catholic).
 
ouizy said:
I think if the number of homosexual priests really is anywhere near 60%, I think a huge fog of hypocrisy is about to be lifted.

I only say this in regards to many in the Catholic church opposing gay marriage.

It would *seem* that some of these people who are so outspoken against the issue, may indeed be themselves of the homosexual variety.

My religion is chocolate.

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.
 
Funny how calling priests "homosexual" is an insult. But since we're talking about stereotyping, the Vatican has long believed that all homosexuals are deviant pervert child molesters. So, frankly, should I thus feel any qualms about stereotyping Catholicism?

The issue of the priesthood being primarily homosexual is close to 1000 years old. St. Peter Damian's book, "Liber Gomorrhianus" (1049), was then widely criticized amongst the clergy and Pope Leo IX, who originally supported it, was forced to distance himself from the text as well. Of course, those were the days that the clergy was more headstrong and actually vocalized protest. These days, they're nothing more than muted lapdogs that haven't had an original thought in years, minus some zealous Latin American priests whose liberation theology is technically condemned by the Vatican.

Melon
 
verte76 said:


I practice Catholicism but don't accept the Church's position on homosexuality, and I prefer the marriage teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church to ours.

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
 
melon said:
Funny how calling priests "homosexual" is an insult. But since we're talking about stereotyping, the Vatican has long believed that all homosexuals are deviant pervert child molesters. So, frankly, should I thus feel any qualms about stereotyping Catholicism?


I can't speak for U2@NYC, but I took his entire post to mean that "sexual inclination" in general, of any orientation, would solicit a breaking of the vows, but in this case specifically homosexuality since a percentage was attributed to it. Heterosexual activity would likewise be a breaking of the vows.

~U2Alabama
 
Irvine511 said:
do you see an upcoming split in the church? though i'm a confirmed catholic, i'm not fully up to speed in the way that someone like Melon is, but it seems to me that the messages coming out of Rome and the new pope is that dissenting opinions and viewpoints are going to be less tolerated. what are American Catholics (or Western European Catholics as well) going to do? break from the church? what do you see happening, if anything? [/B]

I see nothing really happening, and it's because Catholicism is a cultural phenomenon as much as it is a religious one. I've often found that when speaking with Protestants who don't have an understanding of what this means that they don't understand exactly the scope of it. But to me, Catholicism is somewhere between Protestant Christianity and Judaism - both religious and cultural. And there are most certainly Catholics I know, in large numbers (majority even), who do not agree with all the teachings of the Church, but they do feel a strong cultural connection to the institution, and furthermore often belong to ethnic groups which basically consider themselves to be ethnically Catholic in much the same way that a Jew can feel ethnically Jewish. Because of that, I think there will be no major split - people will keep on doing as they have thus far.
 
Re: reply

wizard2c said:
Reminds me of the Garth Brooks' song "We Shall Be Free"....."when we're feel to love anyone we choose"..................

it's actually a very well versed song BTW...."when no one walks a step behind......and there's only one race......and that's Mankind.....then we shall be free."

carol
wizard2c
:|

Sorry Garth for the typo since it's your song......."when we're free to love anyone we choose"......

{not having a good day} :|
 
melon said:
Funny how calling priests "homosexual" is an insult. But since we're talking about stereotyping, the Vatican has long believed that all homosexuals are deviant pervert child molesters. So, frankly, should I thus feel any qualms about stereotyping Catholicism?

The issue of the priesthood being primarily homosexual is close to 1000 years old. St. Peter Damian's book, "Liber Gomorrhianus" (1049), was then widely criticized amongst the clergy and Pope Leo IX, who originally supported it, was forced to distance himself from the text as well. Of course, those were the days that the clergy was more headstrong and actually vocalized protest. These days, they're nothing more than muted lapdogs that haven't had an original thought in years, minus some zealous Latin American priests whose liberation theology is technically condemned by the Vatican.

Melon

Melon, do not twist my words into something I did not say.

You are a smart guy and clearly saw that my point was related to sexual inclination and how simply stating that '60% of the priests are homosexual' is completely off as it would imply that 60% of the priests do not believe in their vows... no need to impress naive posters with your knowledge of religion history either. We all know you know.

Don't create an argument when there is not one.
 
U2@NYC said:
simply stating that '60% of the priests are homosexual' is completely off as it would imply that 60% of the priests do not believe in their vows...

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?
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:


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?

This is not what Ouizy meant.
 
U2@NYC said:
This is not what Ouizy meant.

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?
 
Back
Top Bottom