Very interesting post.

As you know Chris, I was never a Catholic, but WAS a SERIOUS student/believer in one of the conservative Protestant sects.

It was exactly this type of abitrary HYPOCRISCY
that caused me to abandon the religion of my youth also.

Interesting how the supposed "sheperds" of the flock will instantly and arbitrarily change things in order to preserve an image
lvgunner | Email | Homepage | 09.24.05 - 4:46 am | #

You've got the wrong slant on it, Chris. This isn't a decree that homosexual inclinations per se render a man permanently outside of grace, whether he wears a Roman collar or not. The Pontiff has never said any such thing; it's unlikely that the instruction to be published says it, either. Rather, it's a change in Church personnel policy, a statement of whom it will hire, in the interests of the Church itself.

Will some homosexuals who would have made fine priests be denied the opportunity by this change? Yes, and no doubt of it. But the priesthood isn't a status that a Catholic can claim by right, so he's not being denied anything that was his beforehand. Nor is he being denied full admission to God's grace by being told he'll have to choose some other occupation.

Inasmuch as the pederasty problem has all but killed the Church in North America, and inasmuch as it is all but exclusively a homosexual behavior, the Church must protect itself from further outbreaks of this kind. This is the only step it can take in that direction that's consistent with its other teachings.

You shouldn't read anything into this directive that isn't there.
Francis W. Porretto | Email | Homepage | 09.24.05 - 4:46 am | #

40% of paedophilia is commited by homo's.

No, i dont want them in the church. I have been an unbeliever for quite some time and have been dissiusioned by the liberal pilsh that has been eminating from all major centers of christian thought.

However, this is what i call progress. Call it unfair, not nice, and wish it wernt so, but 40% of peadophilia is commited by like 1-2% of the population. I dont feel able submit my soul to those sexual freaks, which is what they are.

I have had gay freinds. But just as if you have short legs you shouldnt try to be a sprinter, nor should a person with short arms try to be a shotputter, a person with an inherantly more sinfull soul should not try to take a job in offering redemption.

What you do in private is entirely up to you, but it does reflect on your public life, even if they dont share it, because that makes them a liar. So, your either gay and open, or gay and a liar. If your gay and open, you shouldnt be a preist, and if you are a habitual liar, nor should you be a preist.

They are just disqualified from the job.

So say i, lord of all knowledge, disseminator of goodness, purvayor of all that is right, his highness, greatness, and most exaulted, Gareth.
gareth | Email | Homepage | 09.24.05 - 6:35 am | #

Ah Chris, there is something else i wished to tell you, related to Christendom somewhat, and physics, but naff all to do with sexuality.

Check out a book called "Who built the moon". I have an interest in physics, but by all accounts you have *knowledge* of deep physics, so your scissors beats my paper. anyway, i found the book facinating, it reffers in its pages to number symetry beetween the moon, the sun, and the earth, and the very early civilizations, and im glad i read it.

Id love to hear your take on the book.

See here for a breif synopsis.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/cgi- ...emId=1842931326

best,
Gareth.
gareth | Email | Homepage | 09.24.05 - 6:47 am | #

First of all, nobody knows what's in the document. They've only been working on it for 11 years so who knows which draft the NY Times got a hold of or even whether they got anything at all. A little calm might be in order. You don't want to shoot at shadows.

As a matter of discipline, for well nigh a millennium, the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church has disallowed married priests. Other rites have them and they've had them since the time of the apostles. The Eastern Rites don't piss on the Romans and vice versa over this issue. If homosexuality is to be a disqualification in the Roman Rite as a matter of discipline, there's nothing sacramental or disrespectful toward homosexuals. If there is, you'd have to explain why it's insulting to homosexuals but not to married men who have been suffering under this "insult" for so many centuries without any noticeable decline in spiritual condition. Or is the real problem that there should be no limitations on the job other than the bare minimums?
TM Lutas | Email | Homepage | 09.24.05 - 11:11 am | #

I also disagree with the celibacy and marriage restrictions, neither of which were part of the original teachings of the church (and wernet enforced til the 14th century), but that is another story entirely.

The church has also made it clear, that neither of those requirements are absolute through their ordination of married priests in africa and asia, and the acceptence of married anglican and eastern rite priests in communicon with the church.

The only justification for absolutely denying the sacrament of holy orders to a man with a true calling has to be his existence outside of a state of grace with god; or his inability to fulfill the vows and requirements of the sacrament. Up until now that hs not included "don't think gay thoughts", and still will not for existing homosexual priests within the church, only current and future seminarians.

tm HAS a very valid point though in that we DONT know what the "clarification" may contain as of yet; and we casn be nearly certain that the NY Times would present the worst possible spin on it.
Chris Byrne | Email | Homepage | 09.24.05 - 12:46 pm | #

All sacraments come with restrictions, even baptism, that stop you from doing them besides being outside a state of grace. For baptism, for instance, you cannot baptize the dead or the unborn. This says nothing about the spiritual state of the souls in question.

You cannot ordain women into the Catholic priesthood, yet there are holy women, certainly in a state of grace, who are Catholic and the number of such individuals is large.

Another restriction is age. If you're too old, there's tremendous resistance to letting you become a priest. What would you do with an octogenarian priest, newly minted out of the seminary? I wouldn't be surprised if there were hard and fast rules about accepting seminarians past a certain age. Are the old without grace? Nonsense!

Here's a final one, physical and mental capacity. I don't think anybody's ever taken on a quadriplegic as a seminarian or someone with down's syndrome. There's certainly nothing wrong with them spiritually as a class. There is nothing about their condition that implies the least separation from God. They just can't do the job.

I'm not saying or implying that a chaste homosexual couldn't do the job of being a priest. What I'm challenging is that any restriction on homosexuals ability to join some orders or even all religious orders does not necessarily imply that homosexuals have some sort of inability to achieve a state of grace.

At least we're in agreement that the NY Times is not a neutral observer in matters Catholic.
TM Lutas | Email | Homepage | 09.24.05 - 10:16 pm | #

There are some politics involved. There has been growing resentment of the "velvet mafia" in both lay members and the uh straight clergy. They see the groupings of homosexual priests, especialy amongts the influential Jesuit oder, as detrimental. Especaily in institutions of education. They are seen to be rather too liberal and far to the left. The new doctrine will hose out a lot priest who have been shall we say resistant to the conservatives in the Vatican. I figure the Vatican feels it can kill a number of birds with this one stone.
I asked a Catholic friend why he stayed with the church if he had so many complaints about it. He said, "I try not to confuse the chuch with the people who run it also there is an old saying, "The Church is a whore, but she is my mother and I love her.""
toad | Email | Homepage | 09.24.05 - 10:19 pm | #

That 40% of pedophillia is committed by homos line is a crock of shit.

NAMBLA wants to associate with gays, but every gay man I've ever known wants to take those baby raping sons of bitches and face fuck them with a shotgun. Just like most straight men.

Just because some pedo does it with a kid of the same sex doesn't mean he's homosexual. He's just picking his taste in prey. Gays want consenting sex partners as much as straights.
Skaramine | Email | Homepage | 09.27.05 - 11:28 pm | #