[quote]Pope thinks over a ban on gay priests entering seminaries
THE OBSERVER , LONDON Monday, Aug 29, 2005, Page 6
The new Pope faces his first controversy over the direction of the Catholic Church after it was revealed that the Vatican has drawn up a religious instruction preventing gay men from becoming priests.
The controversial document, produced by the Congregation for Catholic Education and Seminaries, the body overseeing the church’s training of the priesthood, is being scrutinized by Benedict XVI.[/quote]
My comments: aside from being yet another indication that the Church is still stuck in the Middle Ages, morally speaking, they’re only going to shoot themselves in the foot; the number of men entering the priesthood is on the decline, and a very significant number of those who DO enter the priesthood are gay men. This is perhaps partly because, in Catholic societies, there is significant family pressure to get married and have kids, and by becoming a priest, a gay man can avoid this pressure and also enter a high-status vocation; a very positive thing.
My folks wanted me to become a priest, I think a Forumosan once asked if I was a priest, and just this morning Dragonbabe said I looked like a priest If I were, I’d be a Jesuit, methinks. They’re the closest order to my heart.
Well…the Church of Rome has certainly been paying a lot of money out lately in legal fee’s. Perhaps this was a considered factor in this announcement.
I am not of this pursuasion, however, I do believe serious debate is growing about the requirement of Priests to remain un-married and celibate. It is my understanding that this was more of a political edict than a spiritual one in its origins. So perhaps this will see change.
Of course this is not addressing the homosexual aspect of this religious instructional paper.
Forget self-confession. They could start defrocking known child molesters and report them to law enforcement instead of ignoring the thousands of complaints of rape and molestation and shuffling predators from one parish to another so they can commit further abuses.
Did you know the Catholic Church has paid out more than $1 billion to settle sex abuse cases?
[quote]A Kentucky judge has provisionally approved the largest payout yet in the US Catholic Church abuse scandal.
The settlement, between a diocese in the state and an unknown number of sexual abuse victims, amounts to a record $120m. The class-action suit accused the Church of covering up child abuse by priests and others over 50 years.
[quote]Specialists . . . have estimated that in the past 15 years the total cost of the scandals, including legal settlements, lawyers’ fees, psychological treatment for abusive priests and their victims, and other costs paid by the church, could approach $1 billion. The Geoghan case alone is expected to cost the Boston Archdiocese as much as $40 million.
In the same time frame, the number of American priests facing allegations of sexual abuse is estimated at 1,500, according to Berry. The total number of victims is unknown, but some projections say the figure is likely to exceed 10,000[/quote] boston.com/globe/spotlight/a … libacy.htm
It was me, being a complete bastard and asking you that. It was because you had obviously thought in great depth on the issues.
There needs to be 3 steps.
When these people can get married the church will be a better place.
The gay ones should just come right on out and say it and be allowed to marry as well.
The peds should come out and say it as well, they can then be stoned to death in a more traditional old fashioned experession of values.
I grew up Catholic, I was bashed by priests but not molested in a school environment. I’m bitter and it shows in posts like this. We all have our issues. This one is mine. I also have friends who were molested and it still causes them life problems.
Bitter. Where are the stones, we need a good stoning.
[quote=“Dragonbones”]Hmm, how long (honestly) do you think it will take the Roman Catholic Church to become that progressive?[/quote]It’ll take a Vatican Three that makes Vatican Two look tame by comparison. Those changes will then have to be truly enshired so that a popular conservative like PJII can’t roll them back. Then they’ll have to be lived with for at least a generation.
Why should the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Rome, change core doctrines which it has historically been in opposition to ?
Especially as these changes would reflect a fundamental divergence from its core beliefs on the family and its composition as reflected in the Bible which is the basis of Church doctrine.
Hmm, you’re right. It should stay in the moral Middle Ages, while the members of a more modern, mature and morally progressive populace steadily abandon it like rats fleeing a sinking ship. :p[/quote]Dragonbones -
I am neither right or wrong. I made no proposal that a change should or should not occur.
As I stated earlier in this thread I am not a Roman Catholic; I have no dog in this fight.
My question is clearly stated and, IMO, is a valid one for discussion given the nature of this thread.
As I also stated - IMO it would be advantageous if the dictrine would alow for the marriage of Priests, and also I believe Nunns.
But this may be a seperate, although tangentially related matter.
The Roman Catholic Church is what it is. It has certains rules governing those who would be a member. If one dis-agrees with its rules oe is allowed to seek membership elsewhere.
It seems to be a very ego-centric trip to demand the Church change its doctrine to accomodates a “life-style” which is so clearly at odds with the Churches doctrine.
I make no claim to having an answer to resolve this issue. I make no claim that one wo is homosexual is any less a Christian than one who is a heterosexual.
This is a matter than greater minds than mine are working on.
Is this a central issue to the pervertedactivities of some priests?
Possibly so. I have been told that there have been many problems in semanary schools that bode ill for the future of the RC church.
I do not know what the future will hold.
I do know that the trendy issue of “Liberation Theology” so popular in the late 70’s thru the early 90’s, which Pope JPII addressed in a most negative manner, was a venture into political involvement that alienated a great many Catholics and non-Catholics alike. This is something I have had 1st hand experience with. And I found this quite appalling.
So, there are a great many items to be addressed by te new Pope. As there are for each new Pontiff. May G-d be with him.
[quote="TainanCowboyI made no proposal that a change should or should not occur.
Your rhetoric as follow implied to me that you do not feel a change should occur: [quote]Why should the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Rome, change core doctrines which it has historically been in opposition to ?[/quote]
Thanks for your clarification, and a good post.
Of course. But I am free to criticize what I see as a very backward institution, and one which tried to force its illogic and prejudices down my throat for half of my life, until I split from it. If it hadn’t caused so much grief in my own life, you wouldn’t see so much bitterness against it on my part.
Without pressure for change, how is improvement to be made? I’m not the type to shrug and simply tolerate backwardness, ignorance and prejudice. Especially when it has been an exceedingly negative influence in my own life.