Pope Bans Homosexuals from ordination as priests. Part 2

[CptStern]

some of you might remember this thread:

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=92078&highlight=pope


today there was an update to the story:


Vatican: Sexually Active Gays Unwelcome


"The Vatican says homosexuals who are sexually active or support "gay culture" are unwelcome in the priesthood unless they have overcome their 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 on Nov. 29. A church official who has read the document confirmed the authenticity of the Internet posting by the Adista news agency. He spoke on condition of anonymity because the document has not yet been officially released by the Vatican.

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."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_gays

I really dont see why they're bothering to make this sort of idiotic decree now ..I mean they dont allow any priest to have a sexual relationship ...seems to me they're deliberately targeting gays. The funny thing is that many priests became priests because they were homosexual and saw the priesthood as a means of denying their instincts

 

[The Monkey]

So much for Jesus's word of tolerance and respect. :upstare:

 

[Zeus]

Why are you acting surprised? homosexuality has been against the christian religion and is considered a sin by the bible. I could see why they wouldnt let gays become priests and frankly Im not surprised at all by it. personally, I dont mind it and I respect their differences, but Im just saying theres no surprise why gays wouldnt be allowed to become priests.

 

[Beerdude26]

So much for Jesus's word of tolerance and respect. :upstare:

You'll be talking differently when you get a priest penis up your ass :naughty:




Seriously :|

 

[DrDevin]

Why are you acting surprised? homosexuality has been against the christian religion and is considered a sin by the bible. I could see why they wouldnt let gays become priests and frankly Im not surprised at all by it. personally, I dont mind it and I respect their differences, but Im just saying theres no surprise why gays wouldnt be allowed to become priests.

Agreed, in fact I think it is good news that they can become priests at all! Just 1 step closer to allowing anyone to be a priest.

 

[ríomhaire]

Why are you acting surprised? homosexuality has been against the christian religion and is considered a sin by the bible.

So is planting 2 types of seed in 1 field.

 

[Zeus]

So is planting 2 types of seed in 1 field.

Yes I know, I have read the old and new testaments. Im just saying a lot of Christians condemn homosexuality, I put that information out there to let the people who are surprised as to why gays cant become priests know why. It wasnt put out there so that you can take a swing at christianity

 

[CptStern]

Why are you acting surprised? homosexuality has been against the christian religion and is considered a sin by the bible. I could see why they wouldnt let gays become priests and frankly Im not surprised at all by it. personally, I dont mind it and I respect their differences, but Im just saying theres no surprise why gays wouldnt be allowed to become priests.

because it just seems stupid to say that no practicing homosexual can be ordained ...I mean isnt celibacy a requirement to being a priest? Why dont they come out and say "no practicing heterosexual can be ordained a priest"

 

[CptStern]

Agreed, in fact I think it is good news that they can become priests at all! Just 1 step closer to allowing anyone to be a priest.

but that's the point ..they cant unless they havent had a homosexual encounter for at least 3 years, which isnt the same rule for heterosexuals ...if the law applied to current priests I'd expect catholicism would have a drastic shortage of priests overnight

 

[Sainku]

The christians are being mean to the homosexuals again? It's almost like they don't like them or something.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

The popes banning of homosexuals from priesthood is just their lame attempt to appease the world calling of, "Homosexuality? The Vatican?! WHAT THE #*&@!"

 

[Skar]

If the church does not wish to allow homosexuals into its ranks, it doesn't have to. It is its own organization.

 

[gh0st]

its a private institution. it isnt bound by YOUR laws, it will do whatever it damn well pleases. if i were emperor benedict i wouldnt want gays to be priests either.

if you dont like it stern, dont be a catholic.

 

[bliink]

its a private institution. it isnt bound by YOUR laws

well, private institutions are actually bound by public laws; civil and criminal codes- including equal opportunity legislations and anti-discrimination laws.

So technically, since he's a member of the public, and since he lives in a democracy, it is bound by his laws.

 

[gh0st]

well, private institutions are actually bound by public laws; civil and criminal codes- including equal opportunity legislations and anti-discrimination laws.

maybe kofi annan will do something about it. :upstare: i cant wait for the great UN lawsuit against the vatican.

So technically, since he's a member of the public, and since he lives in a democracy, it is bound by his laws.

pope benedict lives in a democracy? he lives in the vatican which is its own nation.

so no, he's not.

 

[bliink]

maybe kofi annan will do something about it. :upstare: i cant wait for the great UN lawsuit against the vatican.

pope benedict lives in a democracy? he lives in the vatican which is its own nation.

so no, he's not.

what about the countries where there are churches? I wonder if they're seen legally as franchises or what?

I know the church near me is under Australian law.. how that affects it, I dont know.

 

[Skar]

Ghost is right again. The church is a much older and much more independent 'private organization' than pretty much any other that exists. It's 'capital', if you will, is its own nation.

Here in the United States, the church is a private organization that is afforded special protection from the government, and visa versa. Hence seperation of church and state. While that may not have been the original intent, that is the reality of the situation. I doubt there will be many major governments that would attempt to force the church to accept gays if it doesn't want to.

 

[gh0st]

what about the countries where there are churches? I wonder if they're seen legally as franchises or what?

I know the church near me is under Australian law.. how that affects it, I dont know.

hmm well they are suspect to many laws (obviously like child molestation) but whether they are subject to protocols of "discrimination" i'm not sure. it probably has something to do with the fact that they are protected by some religious institution law, some financial law or something to that affect. it would be interesting to know.

or maybe its just a cultural thing. i doubt many would complain about womans suffrage in muslim countries so it seems hypocritical to complain about this. fact is no nation would tell the pope to **** off and kick the catholic church out of thier country. its just not going to happen.

 

[bliink]

hmm well they are suspect to many laws (obviously like child molestation) but whether they are subject to protocols of "discrimination" i'm not sure. it probably has something to do with the fact that they are protected by some religious institution law, some financial law or something to that affect. it would be interesting to know.

or maybe its just a cultural thing. i doubt many would complain about womans suffrage in muslim countries so it seems hypocritical to complain about this. fact is no nation would tell the pope to **** off and kick the catholic church out of thier country. its just not going to happen.

I wonder what would happen if someone went looking for "employment" as a priest and then sued the church for discrimination after they were declined due to being gay? Over here, discrimination is as much a law as anything else in legislation.

I must find someone who knows!

I'm sure they have a legal loophole that lets them discriminate over whoever they like, plus the odd murder and such.. you know how it is.

 

[gh0st]

you know, i bet its because the religion is allowed to establish its own set of rules. just like no black people are allowed in a lot of the groups in idaho (you DO know what i'm talking about), i'm sure the church can exclude basically whomever it chooses. the government cant say "you! christianity! you have to let gays in!" that would be ridiculous.

 

[bliink]

the government cant say "you! christianity! you have to let gays in!" that would be ridiculous.

well, they already say "You! business! you have to let christians in!"..

 

[CptStern]

Ghost is right again. The church is a much older and much more independent 'private organization' than pretty much any other that exists. It's 'capital', if you will, is its own nation.

Here in the United States, the church is a private organization that is afforded special protection from the government, and visa versa. Hence seperation of church and state. While that may not have been the original intent, that is the reality of the situation. I doubt there will be many major governments that would attempt to force the church to accept gays if it doesn't want to.

it's discrimination plain and simple: why dont they have the same rules for heterosexual men? The vatican hasnt made any statements that heterosexual men must be celibate 3 yrs prior to entering the seminary ...why does the rule only apply to homosexual men?


there is only one reason for this: the pope hopes to assauge the fears of millions of catholics because of the thousands of incidents of child abuse that they had been covering up for over 70 years. They believe by banning homosexuals from becoming priests they'll get rid of the child abuse ...even though the overwhelming majority of child abusers are heterosexual

 

[K e r b e r o s]

why dont they have the same rules for heterosexual men? The vatican hasnt made any statements that heterosexual men must be celibate 3 yrs prior to entering the seminary ...why does the rule only apply to homosexual men?

I guess its just like what I said ... raw appeasement.

 

[gh0st]

it's discrimination plain and simple: why dont they have the same rules for heterosexual men? The vatican hasnt made any statements that heterosexual men must be celibate 3 yrs prior to entering the seminary ...why does the rule only apply to homosexual men?

because its their religion, you dont have to like it. if you dont, dont be a catholic. arent you an aethiest or whatever? its not any of your business.

 

[kirovman]

Well, originally priests weren't allowed women partners.

So I suggest they should either go all or nothing.

No partners at all or freedom of sexuality.

 

[ríomhaire]

Well, originally priests weren't allowed women partners.

They aren't. This is Catholisism.

 

[CptStern]

the underlying fundamental issue here is discrimination ..Kirovman hit the nail on the head ...there's 2 sets of rules for 2 distinct groups. It shouldnt be different just because of sexual preference ..as priests must abstain from sex PRIOR to entering the seminary ..that in itself negates any person from having sexual relations 3 years prior to being ordained ..so this law is worthless because it's already a matter of policy, it just doesnt specify sexual preference


the fact is that traditionally many closeted homosexual men became priests as a way of supressing their urges or of atoning for their sins. I've gone to catholic schools for a big chunk of my life and there's no doubt in my mind some of the teachers/priests were gay (and I find nothing wrong with that) ..now of course it's pure speculation but I do have business acquaintances that left the church for just such a reason (we publish his book)

 

[Solaris]

The vatican has WMDs!!

We must liberate its gay citizens!

 

[ComradeBadger]

the underlying fundamental issue here is discrimination ..Kirovman hit the nail on the head ...there's 2 sets of rules for 2 distinct groups. It shouldnt be different just because of sexual preference ..as priests must abstain from sex PRIOR to entering the seminary ..that in itself negates any person from having sexual relations 3 years prior to being ordained ..so this law is worthless because it's already a matter of policy, it just doesnt specify sexual preference


the fact is that traditionally many closeted homosexual men became priests as a way of supressing their urges or of atoning for their sins. I've gone to catholic schools for a big chunk of my life and there's no doubt in my mind some of the teachers/priests were gay (and I find nothing wrong with that) ..now of course it's pure speculation but I do have business acquaintances that left the church for just such a reason (we publish his book)

I agree - that particular part of the ruling is useless.

It is discrimination pure and simple

 

[ríomhaire]

as priests must abstain from sex PRIOR to entering the seminary

What? I know a priest who has 2 kids. He became a priest after his wife died.

 

[Solaris]

What? I know a priest who has 2 kids. He became a priest after his wife died.

*Calls the pope*