Don't Ban Gays from Priesthood, Ban Homophobes

[popestpiusx]

Don't Ban Gays from Priesthood, Ban Homophobes Says Former Catholic Leader

By Hilary White and John-Henry Westen

LONDON, November 8, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Rev. Timothy Radcliffe, who headed one of the largest religious orders within the Catholic Church from 1992 to 2001, has slammed any suggestion of barring homosexuals from the priesthood, and suggests further that those who would ban homosexuals from the priesthood should themselves be banned from the priesthood.

An Englishman and former Master General or international head of the Order of Friars Preachers - commonly known as the Dominican Order - Radcliffe has written a letter to the London Times saying, "A document from the Vatican on the admission of seminarians is expected soon but we do not as yet know its contents. If it were to contain such a ban (on men inclined to homosexuality), which is highly unlikely, most Catholics, at least in the West, would find it unacceptable."

Most revealing is Radcliffe's assertion that homosexuality should not bar men from the priesthood but what he calls "homophobia" should. "Any deep-rooted prejudice against others, such as homophobia or misogyny, would be grounds for rejecting a candidate for the priesthood, but not their sexual orientation."

The 2002 book, Good Bye Good Men, by Michael Rose revealed that homosexuals and their radical feminist supporters in seminaries and chancery offices have created a "lavender mafia" or homosexual underground. For many years in many seminaries, reported Rose, only those sympathetic to the cause of the sexual revolution, made it past these gatekeepers. Those men who applied to seminaries who upheld the teachings of the Catholic religion - especially believing homosexual acts are gravely sinful and the homosexual inclination is intrinsically disordered - were systematically excluded.

In his letter, Radcliffe refers to the expected, and much delayed, Vatican document on the ordination of those with strong homosexual tendencies. He says that the assertion that the document will ban homosexuals whether chaste or not from ordination is "untrue." (see the letter in the Times: [url="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1851646."]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1851646.[/url].. ) However, as re-affirmed in 1961, the Catholic Church's official disciplines have strictly forbidden the ordination of homosexuals, whether 'active and open' or otherwise. (see related LifeSiteNews.com coverage: [url="http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05110402.html"]http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05110402.html[/url] )

[img]http://lifesite.net/ldn/images/2005/TimothyRadcliffe.jpg[/img]

Edited November 11, 2005 by popestpiusx

[JP2Iloveyou]

Just for your information, Goodbye, Good Men is not that great a book. I have read it twice, and while much of it is true, much of it is false as well. I have heard from a man I trust a great deal that Rose did not cross-check his sources and thus reported what some angry ex-seminarian had to say without actually checking things out for himself. It was just not good journalism, even if much of it was in fact true. BTW, though, Rose wrote a book called "Priest" which is one of the best books I've ever read. I highly recommend it.

[the_rev]

[quote]"Any deep-rooted prejudice against others, such as homophobia or misogyny, would be grounds for rejecting a candidate for the priesthood, but not their sexual orientation."[/quote]

I am a defined Homophobic, guess I could never be a priest eh?

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Nov 11 2005, 10:33 AM']Just for your information, Goodbye, Good Men is not that great a book.  I have read it twice, and while much of it is true, much of it is false as well.  I have heard from a man I trust a great deal that Rose did not cross-check his sources and thus reported what some angry ex-seminarian had to say without actually checking things out for himself.  It was just not good journalism, even if much of it was in fact true.  BTW, though, Rose wrote a book called "Priest" which is one of the best books I've ever read.  I highly recommend it.
[right][snapback]785660[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I would not go so far as to say that much of it is false. There are a couple points that need clarified. If it was actually false Rose would be pounded by libel suits. Such is not the case. Why? My theory is that the people who are whinning about the book do not want the facts known because they are generally worse than was reported. Second, several of these stories which were originally questioned have been further investigated and proven true.

[Sirklawd]

wow. so many things come to mind. while having some idiot voice idiodic opinions about The church is nothing new. what is mentioned about that underground mafia-type thing in semenaries really pisses me off. Like, im the type of guy that would join a semenary just to confront that sort of thing head on and grab it's stupidity by the head and slap the carp out of it. Do whatever i could to dissolve their "power" and set things right.

i think in the tv movie, The Rock would play my character.

but i mean seriously. why hasnt that sort of thing been done. how to pwn stupid people:
1. know the truth.
2. shine the truth.
3. repeat 2 LOUDER.

[beatty07]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 11 2005, 11:36 AM']I would not go so far as to say that much of it is false.  There are a couple points that need clarified.  If it was actually false Rose would be pounded by libel suits.  Such is not the case.  Why? My theory is that  the people who are whinning about the book do not want the facts known because they are generally worse than was reported.  Second, several of these stories which were originally questioned have been further investigated and proven true.
[right][snapback]785696[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Goodbye Good Men is a laughable exercise in abysmally bad journalism. I'll speak only from my personal experience. My seminary came in for a drubbing based on three ex-seminarians. They are all demonstrably unreliable. To give you a quick example, one was dismissed because he was sending obscene letters anonymously to a Catholic bookstore owner. Oh yeah, and because of his orthodox theology. Right, whatever. The Rector of my seminary, a good and holy man, was slammed by name - based on testimony from @#$%%@#@# like this. Rose did not see fit to contact him or anyone else from the seminary. That alone demonstrates how ridiculous his "research" is. This book is a prolonged screed that no intelligent person should take seriously.

It's too bad, because by all accounts there were serious problems in our seminaries back then. The question deserved a much, much better book.

popestpiusx, it's great that you're concerned about the solidity of seminaries. But please be more careful before throwing in with stuff like this. These are not glorious kulterkampf battles for you to demonstrate your orthodoxy, they are the reputations of good people.

[popestpiusx]

Provide some specific examples, that I may reply to something substantial. Apart from that (that being specific proof of libel) your words are without teeth.

[Ken]

I dont think gays are the problem. Its the represses pedophiles you need to worry about. There is a difference.

Edited November 12, 2005 by Ken

[StatingTheObvious]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 11 2005, 10:10 AM']Don't Ban Gays from Priesthood, Ban Homophobes Says Former Catholic Leader
[url="http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05110402.html"]http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05110402.html[/url] )

[img]http://lifesite.net/ldn/images/2005/TimothyRadcliffe.jpg[/img]
[right][snapback]785644[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]is it me, or is this guy having a bad hair day? plus he looks old and grumpy from sleeping on the couch. maybe after a day at the spa, he wouldn't have the same opinion.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
11/12 - St. Josaphat
[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 11 2005, 10:36 AM']If it was actually false Rose would be pounded by libel suits.  Such is not the case.  Why? My theory is that  the people who are whinning about the book do not want the facts known because they are generally worse than was reported.  [right][snapback]785696[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Actually, this principle is demonstrably false. For instance, there is no outstanding libel suit against CBS by the present Bush administration for the blatant lies they told about his service record during this past Presidential campaign. Why would they not sue when they have an open-and-shut libel suit? I couldn't begin to speculate.

[Nathan]

The idea that anyone who opposes homosexuals from entering the seminary is a homophobe is ridiculous. It's like saying anyone who doesn't dissent from Church teaching on the issue of ordaining women is a sexist -- which, I'm sure, Radcliffe also believes. Very skewed thinking.

[MC Just]

[quote name='Ken' date='Nov 12 2005, 01:42 AM']I dont think gays are the problem. Its the represses pedophiles you need to worry about. There is a difference.
[right][snapback]786269[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually it is about gays. I know the way many people think now a days and it literally makes me throw up.

During the 60's and 70's straight orthodox men were rejected while all the gays and dissenters were accepted into the priesthood, there are plenty of testimonies from those who were rejected.

Its the same pattern you see in politics now a days too, supreme court nominees and politicians being litmus tested, if they are religious or devout catholics the liberals start whining and filibustering.

I'm so tired of people using "love, charity and humility as an excuse to let these stupid things happen. I say yes ban gays, I also say ban liberals, i would if i had the power trust me.

[toledo_jesus]

I know my priest has told us about the "pink palaces" that he had to go to. They clean up for inspections, but in the basement they had a room with all sorts of gay apparel and nasty stuff.

There is a religious brother I know who was asked not to renew his vows because his previous order was tolerating pornography on the walls of a hospital it ran. when he took it down, it raised a stink.

I think the problem definitely exists, and while I wouldn't attach any sort of organization to it I believe that orthodox seminarians were excluded by those with liberal sexual attitudes.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Ken' date='Nov 12 2005, 02:42 AM']I dont think gays are the problem. Its the represses pedophiles you need to worry about. There is a difference.
[right][snapback]786269[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Actually, the vast majority of the cases were between priests and pubescent boys, which is defined as homosexuality, not pedophilia. Pedophilia is defined as between adults and prepubescents.

[seneca]

I've recently read a report by the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property called "I have withered other storms"...and their assessment of the recent pedophilia situation was that its because bishops knowingly ordain homosexuals that we have/had the pedophilia problem we do.

I'm sorry but after the scandals...and the shame they've brought on all things Christian and Holy...I tend to think we simply have to be more firm.

I'm against homosexuals join the priesthood period.

Edited November 12, 2005 by seneca

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ken' date='Nov 12 2005, 01:42 AM']I dont think gays are the problem. Its the represses pedophiles you need to worry about. There is a difference.
[right][snapback]786269[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yes, there is a difference and most of the priestly abuse scandals did not involve true pedophiles.
Pedophiles prey on prepubescent children, most commonly little girls.

80% of the cases in the priestly abuse scandals involved adolescent, post-pubescent boys. This is a form of homosexuality.

This said, neither homosexuals nor pedophiles nor any other perverts have any place in the priesthood.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Nathan' date='Nov 12 2005, 09:14 AM']The idea that anyone who opposes homosexuals from entering the seminary is a homophobe is ridiculous. It's like saying anyone who doesn't dissent from Church teaching on the issue of ordaining women is a sexist -- which, I'm sure, Radcliffe also believes. Very skewed thinking.
[right][snapback]786342[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
"Homophobia" and "misogony" as they are used by liberals are classic examples of what is known as "anti-ideas" - that is, empty labels used to silence ideas that are opposed to an ideology.

Anyone who opposes the "gay" agenda in any way is a "homophobe."
Anyone who opposes the radical feminist agenda (including abortion) is a "misogynist."

[JP2Iloveyou]

A couple of things. First of all, let's just relax here and actually see what the Vatican tells us on the issue. As Catholics, we have a clearly defined hierarchy in the Church and we can rest assured knowing that as Peter speaks, God speaks. Pope Benedict will be releasing a document on this in the coming weeks. Until then, I will reserve judgment. However, I think we all can implicitly see the problem a debate like this causes. Those on the left say that the Pope is some bigoted homophobe who doesn't like gays. Those on the right will call it a disappointment if he doesn't completely ban gays. The fact of the matter is that he is the Pope, no one else is, and thus, we should let the Pope speak for himself. I realize this is in response to comments made by a Dominican, but the same principle applies. Some of us are all to anxious to insert politics into everything. I think many people in the Church today are more interested in spreading their own ideology than spreading the kingdom of God, and that is most unfortunate.

[quote]I'm so tired of people using "love, charity and humility as an excuse to let these stupid things happen. I say yes ban gays, I also say ban liberals, i would if i had the power trust me.
[/quote]

Then you would have banned at least one amazing seminarian who I am good friends with. This young man entered into seminary as a man who was opposed to a male, celebate priesthood, was sympathetic to abortion and homosexuality, and a whole list of other things. Through the seminary formation process, he came to understand the errors of his ways and is still in formation for the priesthood, only now he is completely in favor of a male, celebate priesthood, is a vocal opponent of both homosexuality and abortion, and is 100% faithful to the Holy Father.

As for Goodbye, Good Men. I have already stated what I think of said book. However, for popestpiusx, accusations of libel is not what is being debated. What is being debated is whether or not Rose engaged in sound journalistic practices. One of these practices is cross-checking one's sources. As I said, I have heard from very reputable people that he did not do so. Understand, I am not accusing him of this. To do so on my part, without cross-checking my own sources, would be to engage in the same practice that I am questioning Rose on. However, you certainly can't deny that to make charges as serious as those he made, it is only fair and honest to hear the other side of the story.