No gays in priesthood?

[Antonius]

[b]New Vatican Rule Said to Bar Gays as New Priests[/b]

By IAN FISHER and LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: September 22, 2005

ROME, Sept. 21 - Homosexuals, even those who are celibate, will be barred from becoming Roman Catholic priests, a church official said Wednesday, under stricter rules soon to be released on one of the most sensitive issues facing the church.

The official, said the question was not "if it will be published, but when," referring to the new ruling about homosexuality in Catholic seminaries, a topic that has stirred much recent rumor and worry in the church. The official, who has authoritative knowledge of the new rules, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the church's policy of not commenting on unpublished reports.

He said that while Pope Benedict XVI had not yet signed the document, it would probably be released in the next six weeks.

In addition to the new document, which will apply to the church worldwide, Vatican investigators have been instructed to visit each of the 229 seminaries in the United States.

Although work on the document began years ago under Pope John Paul II, who died in April, its release will be a defining act in the young papacy of Benedict, a conservative who said last spring that there was a need to "purify" the church after the deeply damaging sex scandals of the last several years.

The church official said the ban would pertain only to candidates for the priesthood, not to those already ordained. He also said the document did not represent any theological shift for the church, whose catechism considers homosexuality "objectively disordered."

Although the document has not been released, hints of what it will say are already drawing praise from some Catholics, who contend that such a move is necessary to restore the church's credibility and who note that church teaching bars homosexuals, active or not, from the priesthood.

Other Catholics say, though, that the test should be celibacy, not innate sexuality, and they predict resignations from the priesthood that can worsen the church's deep shortage of clergy.

"I'm hearing that some men will choose to leave, because if they don't, it would be like living a lie," said the Rev. Robert Silva, president of the American National Federation of Priests' Councils, who opposes a ban because it would be "extremely hurtful" to chaste gay priests who are serving the church.

But the church official who discussed the expected new rules said the document called for barring even celibate men who considered themselves homosexual because of what he contended were the specific temptations of seminaries.

"The difference is in the special atmosphere of the seminary," he said. "In the seminary, you are surrounded by males, not females."

The issue of homosexuality in the priesthood and seminaries has long been a difficult one, which the Vatican appears to be addressing, particularly in the United States, on two apparently connected fronts.

The visits to the American seminaries cover a wide range of concerns, but among those the investigators will be looking for is "evidence of homosexuality" and whether seminarians are being properly prepared to live celibately. Both the document and the investigation come under the authority of the Vatican Congregation for Catholic Education.

Taken together, the document and visits seem aimed at imposing a stricter standard on both the atmosphere at seminaries and on whom they accept as candidates for the priesthood. Archbishop J. Michael Miller, the congregation's secretary, noted at a meeting in Baltimore last week with more than 100 bishops, priests and lay people that the new rules would come as no surprise because there was an existing Vatican document barring homosexuals from the priesthood, according to two church officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they felt there might be repercussions if they spoke for attribution.

Archbishop Miller appeared to be referring to a 1961 document that recommended against ordaining anyone who has "perverse inclinations to homosexuality or pederasty."

But that document has been overlooked by seminaries in the United States for many years. Although practices vary, most American seminaries in recent years have not uniformly rejected candidates with a homosexual orientation, seminary officials say.

Instead, they try to ascertain case by case whether the candidate is capable of living in a chaste and celibate manner, often rejecting candidates who have been sexually active in the years before deciding to join the priesthood.

Many gay men have entered the priesthood, though, and they are increasingly open with their colleagues, their bishops and in some cases, even with their parishioners, about their sexual orientation. The Rev. Donald Cozzens, a former American seminary rector, contended five years ago in his book "The Changing Face of the Priesthood" that "the priesthood is or is becoming a gay profession."

James Hitchcock, a conservative Catholic and a professor of history at St. Louis University, said some seminaries had reached the point of being "openly welcoming of homosexuals" and "don't even regard chastity necessary. "

"In that environment - and then you add to that the pedophilia scandals - probably the Vatican thinks that strong medicine is necessary for a serious disorder," said Mr. Hitchcock, who said he would nonetheless favor a system that allows for rare cases to be decided individually.

In fact, the degree to which the new rules would allow some slack appears to be a major question. It seems clear that the rules will be far more restrictive than current practice.

In what many church experts saw as a hint of the new rules, the archbishop leading the seminary visits was quoted last week by The National Catholic Register as saying even homosexuals not sexually active for a decade or more should not be accepted into seminaries.

But the church official said the rules were not absolute. The very definition of homosexuality, he said, is not fixed. And there may be rare cases in which a prospective seminarian who is confused about his sexuality might be accepted if the church decided he would still make a suitable, celibate priest.

"There is room for this," he said.

Still, Father Silva of the Federation of Priests' Councils and three other church officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they feared they would lose their jobs if they revealed dissension within church ranks, said several influential American church leaders had tried to persuade Vatican officials not to release a document about gay seminarians because it would create more problems in the priesthood than it would solve.

"People would do what they used to do, which is not be honest," said a gay American priest and professor at a Catholic college who did not want to be identified because he fears he could lose his church position if his sexual orientation was known.

"The irony is, if you look at the exact ages and seminary graduating classes of those priests who were convicted of sexual abuse in the past few years, they were not on the whole people who entered seminaries in the 1980's, when there began to be more openness about homosexuality," he said. "These were people from the old closeted days.

"So what the church is doing is repeating, in a weird way, the conditions they had before that gave rise to the abuse crisis."

But any move to ban or limit gay men from serving as priests would probably be popular among conservative Catholics, some of whom contend that heterosexuals hesitate to enter the priesthood because they have heard it is predominantly gay.

Mike Sullivan, of Catholics United for the Faith, a conservative advocacy group, said his group would favor a ban because putting a homosexual in an all-male seminary environment subjects that person to too much temptation, and increases his likelihood for failure.

"It's not appropriate to put an alcoholic in a bar either," he said.

On the general issue of homosexuality, official Catholic teaching, as explained in the catechism, says that while some people appear to have a predilection toward same-sex attraction, homosexual acts are impermissible and that homosexuals should remain chaste. But the church has also counseled understanding, and in 1986, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed then by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, denounced the "unfounded and demeaning assumption" that homosexuals could not control their sexual behavior.

The church official said, however, that the church was entitled to make its own decisions, based on theology, about who is allowed to be a priest, comparing the issue to that of women, who are barred from the priesthood as well.

"Being a priest is not a right," he said. "The Catholic Church never ordains anyone on the conception of human rights."
[i]
Ian Fisher reported from Rome for this article, and Laurie Goodstein from New York.[/i]

[cmotherofpirl]

good article.

[Didacus]

The article is clearly biaised against the church, but what else is new?

See how they 'knidly' demonize Benedict XVI by tagging him as a 'conservative'.

It just makes me sad when they poke at our Holy Father...

[jasJis]

I don't see it biased against the Church. I thought it showed both opinions quite well and did a good job of showing the Church is tightening existing rules and exercising prudence with a higher standard. Note the comment that many seminaries ban those who had been heterosexually active as well.

Who wants to joing the Priesthood if it represents sexual hypocrasy? With a number of other denominations struggling and splitting over the ordination of gay clerics, the Church needs to be strong and clear and address the problems here in America. No matter WHAT the Church does, there will be many people who say its wrong, it's too soft, it's too harsh, etc.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Sep 22 2005, 08:17 AM']The article is clearly biaised against the church, but what else is new?

See how they 'knidly' demonize Benedict XVI by tagging him as a 'conservative'.

It just makes me sad when they poke at our Holy Father...
[right][snapback]733693[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I don't think they demonized Pope Benedict because they also included this:[quote]On the general issue of homosexuality, official Catholic teaching, as explained in the catechism, says that while some people appear to have a predilection toward same-sex attraction, homosexual acts are impermissible and that homosexuals should remain chaste. [b]But the church has also counseled understanding, and in 1986, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed then by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, denounced the "unfounded and demeaning assumption" that homosexuals could not control their sexual behavior[/b].[/quote]

Edited September 22, 2005 by jasJis

[Didacus]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Sep 22 2005, 08:28 AM']I don't see it biased against the Church.  I thought it showed both opinions quite well and did a good job of showing the Church is tightening existing rules and exercising prudence with a higher standard.  Note the comment that many seminaries ban those who had been heterosexually active as well.

Who wants to joing the Priesthood if it represents sexual hypocrasy?  With a number of other denominations struggling and splitting over the ordination of gay clerics, the Church needs to be strong and clear and address the problems here in America.  No matter WHAT the Church does, there will be many people who say its wrong, it's too soft, it's too harsh, etc.
[right][snapback]733702[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Allow me to bring to light some of the subtle biaiseness in the article:

[quote]Homosexuals, even those who are celibate, will be barred from becoming Roman Catholic priests,[/quote]

Notice the emphasis "even those who are celibate" coupled with the harsh choice of words "barred". The opening sentence already portrays the homosexual as a victim and the church as a harsh authority.


[quote]The official, who has authoritative knowledge of the new rules, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the church's policy of not commenting on unpublished reports.[/quote]

This shows two things:
1. That people of authority in the church don't necessarily play by church rules.
2. Even people of authority in church have reason to fear the Vatican itself.


[quote]He also said the document did not represent any theological shift for the church, whose catechism considers homosexuality "objectively disordered."[/quote]

Notice the brackets, this underlines that the author of the article questions the church's view and sends the message that others should do the same. Other, neutral ways of expressing this idea could have been utilized.


[quote]Vatican document barring homosexuals from the priesthood, according to two church officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they felt there might be repercussions if they spoke for attribution.[/quote]

Once again, the church protrayed as an opressive authority.


[quote]Still, Father Silva of the Federation of Priests' Councils and three other church officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they feared they would lose their jobs if they revealed dissension within church ranks,[/quote]

And yet again, the church is villaineous towards their own people.


[quote]"So what the church is doing is repeating, in a weird way, the conditions they had before that gave rise to the abuse crisis."[/quote]

Is this by any count a valid arguemnt that should find a place in any article? And why is it that those who oppose the resolution are the ones with the most quotes that have the most impact on the article outline? Like The Rev. Donald Cozzens?



[quote]some of whom contend that heterosexuals hesitate to enter the priesthood because they have heard it is predominantly gay.[/quote]

And what would you make of this? How does the author of the article support this statement/ I strongly doubt there is any consequential evidence to support such a frivolous, damaging statement, but the author sneeks it in nonetheless.


[quote]"Being a priest is not a right," he said. "The Catholic Church never ordains anyone on the conception of human rights."[/quote]

Once again, the church is portrayed as harsh and unreasonable. If this wa not the goal of the authors to portray the church as such, and if they really showed both sides equally, then they would also have given the methods, at least at a glance, of how tha Catholic church ordaines priests. The connection they make with theology only has the effect of connecting theology as the source of harshness within the church.



That wuote you provided about Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI is good,but can easily be misconstrued.

[jasJis]

And thus, we have a contrast between pessimists and optimists.

[Didacus]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Sep 22 2005, 09:51 AM']And thus, we have a contrast between pessimists and optimists. 
[right][snapback]733778[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

With all the anti-Catholic rethoric going around these days, can you blame me for being on my guards?
__________________
It just seems to me that a non-Catholic reading this article would walk away with the impression that "The Cahtolics are banning gays, they always have and they are harsh. So harsh, that even their own members talk with fear of their jobs if they talk against the church teachings." and I think you have to admit the article does have such a tone to it.

Edited September 22, 2005 by Didacus

[Nathan]

It's the NY Times -- what did you expect? I'm actually surprised by the degree of neutrality in the article.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Nathan' date='Sep 22 2005, 10:28 AM']It's the NY Times -- what did you expect? I'm actually surprised by the degree of neutrality in the article.
[right][snapback]733800[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I find it somewhat surprising as well compared to some of their editorial work.

[Qoheleth]

[quote]"Being a priest is not a right," he said. "The Catholic Church never ordains anyone on the conception of human rights."[/quote]

I'm actually sort of proud of the "Vatican official" who said this, whoever he might have been. Too often people in the Church feel the need to justify their policies according to the currenly popular standards.

Quotes like this one, and the Holy Father's famous one on truth and the majority, suggest to me that the Church is becoming more able to stand on its own two feet.

[Semalsia]

I guess they'll just have to lie from now on.

[Brother Adam]

Not likely to work with the psychological testing a priest must go through. My cousin was rejected after taking one of the mental exams.

[Semalsia]

[quote]Not likely to work with the psychological testing a priest must go through. My cousin was rejected after taking one of the mental exams.[/quote]

And how are they supposed to know their thoughts?

[Brother Adam]

Psychologists can tell a great deal from what you don't say. In fact only about 10% of all communication is verbal.

[son_of_angels]

This article actually really reassures me that the definition of homosexuality is not going to change (something which could be very harmful for a great number of people, celibate or not), nor that the Church is simply on a witch hunt for possible gays.

Thank God for the See of St. Peter, in whose embrace none of us will ever go astray!

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Sep 22 2005, 11:04 AM']With all the anti-Catholic rethoric going around these days, can you blame me for being on my guards?
__________________
It just seems to me that a non-Catholic reading this article would walk away with the impression that "The Cahtolics are banning gays, they always have and they are harsh.  So harsh, that even their own members talk with fear of their jobs if they talk against the church teachings." and I think you have to admit the article does have such a tone to it.
[right][snapback]733788[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I thought your analysis was excellent.

[toledo_jesus]

i'm somewhat saddened by the thought of priests resigning over this. Way to put your concupiscence ahead of your vocation Father.

on the other hand, I'd go for quality priests over quantity. Any day of the week.

[cappie]

Vatican officials: No publication date for gay seminarians document

By Cindy Wooden
Vatican City
Catholic News Service

The Vatican has been working since 2001 on an instruction against accepting homosexual candidates to the priesthood, but several officials said in late September that Pope Benedict XVI has not approved the document yet, so a date for its publication has not been set.

"Obviously, it will come out, but the question is when," one Vatican official told Catholic News Service Sept. 22.

A top official at one of the congregations working on the instruction insisted Sept. 22, "It has not been approved. There is nothing new" to report about the document's progress.

Since 2001 -- when the Congregation for Catholic Education, which is responsible for setting seminary policies, decided an instruction was needed and began working with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on a draft -- numerous reports have been published claiming it was about to be released.

As of late September, no publication date had been announced and no Vatican official was willing to be quoted by name about the document's content.

However, Archbishop Edwin F. O'Brien, who has been appointed coordinator of the Vatican-mandated study of U.S. seminaries, discussed his views on accepting homosexual seminarians in an early September interview with the National Catholic Register newspaper.

"I think anyone who has engaged in homosexual activity, or has strong homosexual inclinations, would be best not to apply to a seminary and not to be accepted into a seminary," said the archbishop, who heads the U.S. Archdiocese for the Military Services.

O'Brien said even homosexuals who have been celibate for 10 or more years should not be admitted to seminaries.

He added, "The Holy See should be coming out with a document about this," although he did not say if he knew when the document would be published.

O'Brien was at the Vatican Sept. 21-22 with a group of military chaplains and told CNS he did not have further information about the document's publication.

As early as October 2002, Vatican sources told CNS the document would take the position that since the church considers the homosexual orientation to be "objectively disordered" homosexuals should not be admitted to the seminary or ordained.

"The document's position (on admission of homosexuals to the priesthood) is negative, based in part on what the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' says in its revised edition, that the homosexual orientation is 'objectively disordered,'" said one source.

"Therefore, independent of any judgment on the homosexual person, a person of this orientation should not be admitted to the seminary and, if it is discovered later, should not be ordained," he said.

Vatican officials have said the new instruction would be a reformulation of a 1961 document from the then-Sacred Congregation for Religious on the selection of candidates for the priesthood.

"Those affected by the perverse inclination to homosexuality or pederasty should be excluded from religious vows and ordination," the 1961 document said. It said the community life and priestly ministry would constitute a "grave danger" or temptation for these people.

The document recommended that any person with serious unresolved sexual problems be screened out, saying that the chastity and celibacy required by religious and priestly life would constitute for them a "continuous heroic act and a painful martyrdom."

The 1961 document has never been abrogated, so is still technically valid, officials said.

The issue also was raised in early March 2002 when Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls told The New York Times that "people with (homosexual) inclinations just cannot be ordained."

"That does not imply a final judgment on people with homosexuality," he said. "But you cannot be in this field."

Church officials, who asked not to be named, said at the time that the Vatican was not trying to impose an arbitrary norm against homosexuals, but was trying to make "prudent decisions" based on individual cases at the seminary level. They noted that the Vatican viewed the issue as mainly dealing with future priests, not those already ordained.

As for objections that screening homosexuals would violate their rights, the sources said the call to the priesthood was a matter of vocation or divine grace, not human rights. In the church's view, no one has a "right" to be ordained, they said.

Some church officials have questioned whether some ordinations might even be considered invalid because of homosexuality. But the sources said that is not how the Vatican plans to approach the issue. For one thing, the validity of orders is a thorny church law question that would in turn raise pastoral problems -- such as the legitimacy of past sacramental acts carried out by a priest whose ordination was judged invalid.

In a 2001 interview with CNS, then-Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, who was secretary of the Vatican's doctrinal congregation, explained why church leaders view homosexual orientation as a potential problem in a seminarian.

Bertone, now a cardinal and archbishop of Bologna, Italy, said that while the homosexual inclination is not sinful in itself it "evokes moral concern" because it is a strong temptation to actions that "are always in themselves evil."

He defined the homosexual inclination as "a temptation that, for whatever reason, has become so predominant in a person's life as to become a force shaping the entire outlook of the person."

"Persons with a homosexual inclination should not be admitted to the seminary," Bertone said.

[Didacus]

cappie,

i think the artcile you posted is much more neutral and shows the views far better (at least on the Catholic side) than the previous one.

Note the difference:

[quote]As for objections that screening homosexuals would violate their rights, the sources said the call to the priesthood was a matter of vocation or divine grace, not human rights. In the church's view, no one has a "right" to be ordained, they said.[/quote]

we do not ordained with respect to rights, we done so by voaction or divine grace. This is a 'complete' statement, not a partial one simply starting the absence of a right with could cause scandal amongst liberals (you know how sensistive those bleeding hearts can be).


ANd cmother, thanks for the comments. Didacus corp. appreciates your continued support.;


And Semalsia; Anything built on the premise of a lie will crumble to nothing in the end. If they lie their way in, God will be their judge and I fear for their judgement and would pray for their souls.