It’s (almost) official: Pope Benedict XVI is expected to sign a new rule prohibiting any homosexual, even a celibate one, from becoming a priest. The new rule supposedly will apply only to candidates, not to already-ordained priests. Also, the Vatican will be sending hundreds of "investigators" to American seminaries to ensure that there is no "evidence of homosexuality" at these institutions. Those "investigations" ought to be lots of fun for everyone involved. ["Cardinal Fang! Fetch … the comfy chair!!"] And it ought to do wonders for the priest shortage.
I’m afraid I don’t see the logic of this new policy – and I will readily admit that I know little about church doctrine, so perhaps readers who know more than I do can enlighten me. My question is this: let’s assume we have two individuals, both with straight A’s in their seminary classes, both fully willing and able to take a vow of chastity and to lead an entirely celibate life, one attracted to men, the other to women. Let’s further assume that neither has any sexual experience, since both have been determined to become priests since the age of 10. Since by hypothesis they will both successfully swear off the whole subject of sex anyway, what difference does it make who they’re attracted to? Isn’t this kind of like a no-smoking restaurant that will admit ex-smokers who used to smoke Marlboros, but not ex-smokers who used to smoke Camels?
I suspect this comes from the false conclusion that men who molest little boys are homosexual, and therefore if you have no homosexual priests you have no priests molesting little boys.My understanding (IANAPsychologist, doctor, etc) is that molestation of children has nothing to do with a sexual gender preference in adults; that is, an adult male who molests boys may be heterosexual or homosexual.So, I think this is just an attempt to reduce future incidents of molestation by the clergy, albeit a misguided and ineffective attempt.
I read globe story which was a link on this blog. It was a bout a former Boston priest who was gay. He described a clique of gay seminarians and priests who got together, had girl names for each other, and I gues acted totally gay.I think one of the gists of his point was he was in the priesthood more so because he was gay thern because he had ‘the calling”.I do not know why the Pope wants to activeley get rid of them. But perhaps that is reason.
The Pope is a homophobe. No, really. A misinformed, old-school homophobe.Did I mention that I hate the RCC? I rarely use the term “hate” to describe a group, but I hate them. Some of that is being raised in the Church and totally rebelling (god, how stupid is that sex/pleasure guilt they put on you? totally not good for your self-esteem). But seriously. The RCC had a great opportunity to join the rest of the 19th century (at least the 19th, come on!) and they failed. They elected an insider Pope with ties to the sex abuse scandal (as in, demanding a cover-up) instead of a kinder, gentler, non-European Pope who could have appealed more widely.(Note I said I don’t hate Catholics – just the RCC. In fact, I knew really awesome priests in my childhood, and I’m grateful for THEIR influence in my life. But I hate the Church. They are dumb.)
I suspect the next step is to bend the rules on celibacy and allow married priests. 1) If they think they have a shortage of priests now, wait until this ban hits and cuts off the one ready supply of men still willing to join the priesthood in large numbers (homosexual Catholics who want to stay in the church and are willing to be celibate)2) It’s a certain way to ensure that all priests prefer pussy to dick, which is apparently a concern of Pope Benedict XVI. I’m sorry to be so crude, but the Vatican’s going to have to be cruder if they’re going to make this policy work.
I wonder if this is a case of the Pope “that doth protest too much?” Seriously, I wonder how well Ole’ Ratsy would have done if he was under such scrutiny back in the day. This just reeks of the actions of a self-hating, homo-bigot. The Catholic hierarchy should keep to what they do best: pageantry, pretty costumes and nifty insense-infused rituals. This type of top-down governance worked much better when they could convince the average catholic that the world was flat.Signed,baptized catholic (parents insisted) who never practiced, demanded her soul back, then became a buddhist and discovered, like Dorothy, that I had the power all along. PS – Brittain33 thanks, I now have to sponge the diet coke off my laptop. đŸ˜›
Mariposa, if you are mno longer a Catholic, why do you care?
Troll, I care about a lot of stuff that doesn’t seem to directly effect me, but really, when you look at the bigger picture this type of stuff effects us all. Organizational homophobia damages society. For better or worse, there is a group of people in this world that look to the Catholic church on how to act in society. That is a huge responsibility, and instead of using the opportunity to model the true teachings of Jesus, who in his time, was a person that was considered radical and different and a threat to the social order, the Catholic church chooses to shun and demonize a group that I am certain Jesus would embrace with love, compassion and tolerance. I happen to know many catholics that struggle with the difference between what the church tells them on this issue, and what they know in their own hearts. Unfortunately, there is also a group of people that are willing to blindly follow the church’s bigoted example and I think that damages our society. That’s why I care. That’s why everyone else should care too.
I suspect this comes from the false conclusion that men who molest little boys are homosexual, and therefore if you have no homosexual priests you have no priests molesting little boys.I don’t actually think so. I think that’s a cover story, though to whom it could possibly appeal, I don’t know.Even the church has to have figured out that you can’t catch child molesters by going after the people who are willing to openly identify themselves as gay.It’s just a high-profile chance to get rid of some of the dissenters from vatican sex doctrine–and to intimidate others who might be inclined to support them.
Example for argument sake:If i was a straight male, who took a vow of chastity for an organization or religion or whatever. And I was the only male in organization, with many many other staright females, who also took vow of chastity.Would tyhat be easy for me. A male, constantly around women, of all ages, who also had given up sex. Would there be much sexual attention when I would be around some of the women. People who I liove with and am very close to on a daily basis.Would that sexual tension take away from the primary responsibility?I know that was a convoluted example, but basicly do u want a lot of guys around who may be horny as hell for each other.I think that is fair reason to keep gays oput of the priesthod.Perhaps the Church is looking at this seperate from the diddlers
I said sexual atention instead of sexual tension ha ha ha
Does anyone agree with me?That there is a legitamate reason to exclude gays from the priesthood
On this one, troll, I’m afraid I don’t agree with you. Your argument is quite similar to the one used by the military in defense of discharging gay soldiers. I don’t buy it in that context, and I don’t buy it in this one either. Plus, on its own terms, your argument assumes that there will be scores of other gay men around. Let’s assume that’s true in seminary – surely, though, it’s not true once they’re out, right? A parish priest isn’t likely to be in regular contact with any more gay people than anyone else in society, is he?
DSavid, I have never really given the subject much thought until now . It seems though, that a rasonable argument can be made regarding priest hood only. Not up on the military debate.By requireing it to be same sex and straight you eleiminate all, for lack of a better phrase, sexual tension, which leads to to sex. OH MY GOD!Seriously, though. I would like to hear some feed back from gay men.I am staright but I understand thjat gay men are just as much horny bastards like staright men. .A stiff dick has no conscience.And you are basing your religious order around full devotion to whatever, helping the poor, or infirmed or playing cribbage.But you want full devotion. The fisrt thing a practical person would want to eliminate would be sexual distractions.Seeing a woman on the street or at church and going back to the rectory and jerking it, would be differnt then living and working togethjer, and consider other priests your “family”….well, c’mon, where all human. There’ gotta be some fuckin takin’ place.That is where I disagreee with you David. These guys are “family” for the rest of their lives. You know there is a big difference between military life and the priesthood. You have to look at the community of priest and the dynamics of a group of men living and working together in devotion of God a,d having taken a vow of chastity. Plus the vow of poverty doesn’t allow them to sneak off to Vegas or Fire Island as much as tey like. So they arte together alot. And thjey need “it” like everyone else.So having evrey one on the inside looking out the rectory windows when it comes to who they want to have sex with is pretty good policy. And I would not have given it much thought but for BlueMassGroup.
Would someone please argue against. Please.