In an effort to end pendophilia in the church.



Yeeeeaaaaaah. Homosexuality = pedophilia.

And gays just can't keep from humping one another.


Also of note- the Church's official stance is that people born homosexual are called to a life of celibacy. This new rule would imply that gays can't be celibate. Thus people born gay are created evil.

10/5/2005 3:36:37 PM

they're talking about it on NPR right now - she's interviewing a gay priest

10/5/2005 3:38:45 PM

That's what sparked the post.

I'm very impressed with him.

10/5/2005 3:39:33 PM

Quote :

"This new rule would imply that gays can't be celibate. "

no, that new rule just says celibate gays can't be priests.

10/5/2005 3:50:08 PM

that new rule just says celibate gays can't be priests...

...because they can't really be celibate. The pro-ban priest is on the air saying so as I type.

10/5/2005 3:51:35 PM

oic

10/5/2005 3:52:59 PM

you know if they want to ban left-handed priests with green eyes, that's up to them.

what difference does it make to you? are you catholic? or even religious?

i'm not either one so i could completely care no less than i already do.

[Edited on October 5, 2005 at 3:56 PM. Reason : *]

10/5/2005 3:56:22 PM

[yawn]

Is this supposed to distract us from the child molestation and rape scandal?

10/5/2005 3:56:45 PM

I'd be happy if they just banned priests who fucked children.

You can't always get what you want, though.

10/5/2005 4:27:36 PM

Far be it for the Church to insist that Catholic priests actually agree with Catholic teaching.

10/5/2005 4:43:25 PM

well i see it as kinda wrong.

if it were a sin to use your right hand, and you forced yourself to use your left your entire life, and on the occasion that you used your right, you were sorry for it and asked for forgiveness, wouldn't that mean you were good to go?

i mean these guys have homosexual tendencies, but apparently if they're actually celibate and they're trying to supress those tendencies in accordance with their belief, shouldn't they not only be ok, but be praised for being a good and decent christian?

we all have sinful tendencies and last i heard you were supposed to do your best not to sin and be repentant for the sins you do commit...

besides, just because you're gay doesn't make you a pedo.

but whatever, i'm agnostic.



[Edited on October 5, 2005 at 4:47 PM. Reason : *]

10/5/2005 4:46:33 PM

How is being attracted to men but not having sex with them a greater sin than being attracted to women and not having sex with them? Or, for that matter, being attracted to children AND HAVING SEX WITH THEM?

10/5/2005 4:48:49 PM

^ we have a winner.

10/5/2005 4:50:32 PM

Simple answer: Religion is stupid.

10/5/2005 4:51:34 PM

Religion, no. Catholicism, yes.

Quote :

"Far be it for the Church to insist that Catholic priests actually agree with Catholic teaching."

If they were throwing out just priests who promoted homosexuality, you'd be right. But they're not. They're throwing out people who have managed to restrain one of their strongest impulses, who have controlled themselves, and who have told others to control themselves as well.

Just like if they threw out priests who said that it was OK for priests to have sex with women, it would be different from a priest merely having sexual impulses, denying them, and telling other priests they should deny them, too.

10/5/2005 5:23:13 PM

yeah... I'm curious. how can you be both homosexual and celibate? I was under the impression that "homosexual" was one who engages in "homosexual intercourse..." i mean... hmmm...

10/5/2005 5:32:05 PM

^ I read this because it was pretty short. It also was pretty stupid as usually is the case with your writings. Homosexuality is sexual attraction to people of same sex. You then may or may not act on that attraction.

10/5/2005 5:39:55 PM

I'm afraid MathFreak wins this point.

10/5/2005 5:43:29 PM

Quote :

"you know if they want to ban left-handed priests with green eyes, that's up to them."

that right there is the winner

10/5/2005 5:46:26 PM

Quote :

"I was under the impression that "homosexual" was one who engages in "homosexual intercourse..." i mean... hmmm..."

so i guess you arent "heterosexual" either

10/5/2005 5:48:45 PM

they need to ban celibacy

10/5/2005 5:53:34 PM

^ No. Keeping the celibacy requirement for priests and banning homosexual priests is a pretty sure way to further drive down the already small number of priests, thereby further weakening the church. And that, imho, is a very good thing. GG Benny XVI! Keep up the good work!

10/5/2005 5:59:01 PM

yeah, so I just read the title of this thread as "Catholic church to celibrate gay priests"... haha

10/5/2005 6:17:02 PM

The pro-ban priest was such a dick.

He said that homosexuality was a "mental defect" that made for bad priests, likening it to pyromania. Arsonists can't be priests, either. This of course ignored the point entirely, but whatever.

He also said that the American Catholic Church not only doesn't have a lack of priests, but actually has an excess.

10/5/2005 7:53:58 PM

Fresh Air is back on with this story/interviews if anyone is interested

10/5/2005 8:01:33 PM

speaking of, why is WUNC replaying everything all of a sudden?

Did they miss their fundraising goal?

10/5/2005 8:12:49 PM

i wouldn't argue too much that homosexuality is a miswiring of the brain, but banning celibate priests is pretty stupid.

Quote :

"Far be it for the Church to insist that Catholic priests actually agree with Catholic teaching"

what teaching is that? i always thought that the stance was "you can't help who you're attracted to, but you can decide whether or not to have sex with them."

i don't think many people would describe me as a gay sympathizer, but i have to give these guys some serious credit. if they can suppress that kind of a desire as a result of the call they feel to priesthood, then i sure as hell have nothing to say to them.

other than "Stop looking at my crotch, meatgazer."

10/5/2005 8:58:37 PM

Quote :

"speaking of, why is WUNC replaying everything all of a sudden?"

Fresh Air has been played at 3pm and 8pm for years

10/5/2005 9:41:46 PM

Huh.

Come to think of it I've only recently been able to listen to the radio at 3:00.

10/5/2005 9:57:06 PM

Hahahaha.

10/6/2005 2:34:09 PM

Quote :

"Far be it for the Church to insist that Catholic priests actually agree with Catholic teaching"

THIS coming from the guy who doesn't even think that they should keep priests accused of molestation away from little kids

10/6/2005 3:24:54 PM

Quote :

"what teaching is that? i always thought that the stance was "you can't help who you're attracted to, but you can decide whether or not to have sex with them.""

Yes, this is an accurate statement of the teaching - the Church has always declared homosexual acts "acts of grave depravity" and "intrinsically disordered". (Catechism 2357, CDF Persona humana 8). But the Catechism also says that the homosexual inclination (the 'deep-seated homosexual tendencies') are "objectively disordered." (Catechism 2358). It is not a sin to be homosexual, but it is indeed a disorder.

Further, it is itself a sin to lead someone else into sin, or to place someone else in an environment of temptation. Given that fact, how can it be justified to take a man who feels sexually attracted to other men and place him in an environment where he is going to be around nothing but men, often in close quarters, 24 hours a day for a number of years in seminary? I cannot think of an environment of greater temptation. While we do expect each individual Christian to unite their sufferings to the sufferings of Christ and to live chastely according to his or her state in life, we do not need to be piling on trials on top of trials for these people. That is certainly not charitable.

But wait! Wouldn't you know - this whole "ban celibate gay priests" is just another LIE! http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=61208 wow color me shocked.. who woulda thunk?

10/8/2005 12:42:42 PM

Quote :

"According to Corriere della Sera , an "Instruction" that will soon be released by the Congregation for Catholic Education will allow the ordination of men who have homosexual tendencies, if they can demonstrate their commitment to chastity by remaining chaste for a minimum of three years. However, the Vatican document will specifically state that homosexual men should not become priests if their orientation is evident, even if they do not actively engage in homosexual practices, the newspaper says."

WTF does that mean? You can't be a priest if you "act gay"?

10/8/2005 12:47:38 PM

Quote :

"However, the Vatican document will specifically state that homosexual men should not become priests if their orientation is evident"

that's the loophole for the church.

i have to say, though. its hard to feel bad for them - at long last their tendency to witch hunt is only affecting their own body.

[Edited on October 8, 2005 at 12:49 PM. Reason : s]

10/8/2005 12:48:48 PM

Yes, in order to be a priest you must act in a dignified way. To have priests who are outwardly homosexual (even though chaste) indicates that the Church does not regard the condition as a serious disorder. The Church does however regard their condition as a serious disorder.

10/8/2005 12:52:51 PM

This sounds to me like a zero-sum "rule," issued for nothing but political reasons.

The Church will never be able to rid itself of gay clergy, except for the most overt and obvious; those who would not, under any previous regime, have lasted long anyway. It's simply impossible -- orientation is just not that hard to conceal, especially not when fear is your primary motivator to hide it. Frankly, that's just a psychological and physiological fact, well beyond any conjecture about the nature of homosexuality itself.

I also find the argument that banning gays from seminary is "charitable" very ironic.

Seminary may be an atmosphere of temptation. But society at large is an atmosphere of temptation for those who would persecute gay men, and the Vatican continually re-affirms their whims with public issuances like this.

Apparently in the world of Catholicism, it is better to turn a blind eye to real society and focus inward, than to behave pragmatically in your public relations. Where this latest rule is NOT "zero-sum," is in the realm of political and social tolerance.

10/8/2005 1:01:52 PM

The Church does not change to suit whatever 'political and social' correctness craze that happens to be in vogue at any given time. Political correctness is the way of the world. God does not change to suit the ways of the world, the world must either change to suit God or not. The consequences are clear for either decision - the Church prefers to accept the consequences of rejecting the false gods of this world and instead embracing the One True God, with Whom there is no change or shadow of turning.

It has nothing to do with "persecution". The Church consistently reaffirms that "[Homosexuals] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." Catechism 2358. To persecute someone because they are gay would be a grave sin requiring immediate sacramental confession. To commit violence against someone because they are gay would be a grave sin requiring immediate sacramental confession. As would denying anyone basic human rights because they are gay - God allows them to suffer this thorn in their life for His own purposes and it does not mean that they are any less valuable in His Sight as human beings. However, being a priest is not a right.

10/8/2005 2:09:47 PM

Quote :

"The Church does not change to suit whatever 'political and social' correctness craze that happens to be in vogue at any given time."

Yeah, like slavery or nazism


...oh wait

10/8/2005 2:48:51 PM

Quote :

"Yes, in order to be a priest you must act in a dignified way."

so, i take from that, then, that molesting children is considered "acting in a dignified way" then?

10/8/2005 5:08:31 PM

In my opinion, the Church is trying to shift focus away from heterosexual, pedophile priests, by playing on the stereotype that many people have of homosexuals as child predators. The thinking is that people will say, "Good, now that they're clamping down on homosexual priests, maybe we won't have all of those child molestation situations any more".

I have no data to support this opinion. It's just the way my cynical mind works ...

Quote :

"An optimist would loan his brother-in-law $50. A cynic already has."

[Edited on October 8, 2005 at 11:23 PM. Reason : *~<]BO]

10/8/2005 11:22:58 PM

Quote :

"at long last their tendency to witch hunt is only affecting their own body."

good luck banning all the priests who look at their fingernails the wrong way or use body-wash or wear nice clothes

oh i can see it now. "alright everyone, line up and look at your fingernails! OK.... everyone who's hand is stretched out, YOU'RE FIRED YOU FUCKING FAGGOTS! All you real men who have your fingers curled like your daddy taught you, step right this way - we have a fresh flock of altar boys to molest...."

10/9/2005 12:03:33 AM

look, it takes a lot to make me side with the gay community, particularly against the church...but this is ridiculous. it's theologically, politically, and logically unsound. the arguments for it are beyond weak--they're absurd and clearly a case of writing the rules as you play the game in order to suit your personal biases.

i mean, i have personal biases. i don't like fags very much. however, right is right and wrong is wrong.

10/9/2005 12:08:10 AM

^ Right is right and wrong is wrong, except for organized religion. Whereupon right is what they tell you and wrong is what they tell you or they have a problem with you.

Today it's the catholics, tommorow it'll be somebody else doing something else just as stupid. This is what hapens when you promote the idea of "sheep" as a good stereotype....

10/9/2005 12:30:04 AM

JESUS IS TEH SHEPHERD HE LEADETH US IN THE PATH OF RIGHTEOUSNESS YAY THO I WALK THRU THE VALLEY OF THE SHADOW OF DEATH I SHALL FEAR NO FAGGOT FOR GOD IS WITH ME HIS ROD AND HIS STAFF THEY DO BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU SISSY MOTHERFUCKERS

10/9/2005 12:34:17 AM

^^yeah, i saw your topic. the short version of your little thesis isn't any less trite and ill-conceived.

^haha

10/9/2005 1:05:48 AM

[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 1:32 AM. Reason : .]

10/9/2005 1:30:15 AM

What about straight priests who are totally femme? If outward appearances are all that matters, shouldn't they be kicked out, too?

10/9/2005 1:43:52 AM

Quote :

"look, it takes a lot to make me side with the gay community, particularly against the church...but this is ridiculous. it's theologically, politically, and logically unsound. the arguments for it are beyond weak--they're absurd and clearly a case of writing the rules as you play the game in order to suit your personal biases."

How so? We know that homosexuality is a disorder. Why should we have people with serious psychological disorders in the priesthood? The Vatican is not even being as strict as I am about it - they are willing to allow those who have homosexual tendencies if they show a track record of living chastely. What is the problem?

Quote :

"FOR GOD IS WITH ME HIS ROD AND HIS STAFF THEY DO BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU SISSY MOTHERFUCKERS"

I love it! That is going in my signature!

[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 3:03 AM. Reason : add]

10/9/2005 3:00:12 AM

Quote :

"Also of note- the Church's official stance is that people born homosexual are called to a life of celibacy."

that returns to the question of whether or not people are "born homosexual" versus it being environmental or socially learned

10/9/2005 3:06:08 AM

Quote :

"Why should we have people with serious psychological disorders in the priesthood?"

Why shouldn't you? I mean if it doesn't effect their job, and they are able to fully control it. I tend to think that I might be a psychopath, but it certainly doesn't effect the way I live, I simply have to pretend to have certain emotions.

10/9/2005 3:23:51 AM