Yeah. Rare is the day that passes that I don't seriously want to strangle at least one of you motherfuckers with your own intestines, not to mention the dozens of other people that piss me off over the course of the day, but I manage to keep from doing it. Does this make me unsuitable for priesthood?

10/9/2005 5:45:01 AM

Quote :

"I love it! That is going in my signature!"

your homophobia has numbed you to sacrilege. congratulations.

this is a classic example of what this ban is really about - its about hatred of homosexuals. You've proven that by your enthusiastic support of a sarcastic comment promoting violence against the gay community.

10/9/2005 10:10:26 AM

Quote :

"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."

Of course, had you read my post, you would have realized that my argument was that the Church was issuing this order purely because of political correctness.

It's not as if the homosexuality "problem" in the clergy is very new, or has changed very much. The Church wants to clean up its image vis a vis its recent PR debacle, and gays make an easy target.

Not much else explains issuing a rule that has no actual _practical_ consequences, at this particular time.

Quote :

"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."

You know, I have very little respect for people who claim to be spiritual/religious/etc, but who cannot discuss their theology without resorting to this level of rhetoric.

My point, again, had you read my post, was that YOU SAID it was wrong for the Church to "lead gay men to sin."

And yet, if it's WRONG TO LEAD PEOPLE TO SIN, then what of a public edict that reaffirms in the hearts of those who would persecute gays, the rightness of their cause?

Religious edicts of this nature ARE temptation for such people. And this one, being wholly unnecessary from a practical standpoint, serves only to inflame their passions.

As I said: evidently the Vatican is unable to consider the practical effects of its policies. And evidently its adherents are unable to discuss them intelligently without the "baffle with bullshit" proselytizing-disguised-as-faith.

Quote :

"However, being a priest is not a right."

And yet -- again, had you read my post, you'd realize that I spent half of it arguing for why this policy would have no actual effect on gays in the clergy.

So apparently you want people to respect your religious and theological views in this open forum, in their due context, but reading one paragraph is beyond you.

For shame.

[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 12:02 PM. Reason : foo]

10/9/2005 11:55:45 AM

If you're going to go with the "psychological disorder" excuse, shouldn't you also ban alcoholics, and, oh, I don't know, PEDOPHILES?

I think you'd have a lot better luck presenting acoholism and pedophilia as psychological disorders, but the church doesn't seem to have a problem with either of those.

10/9/2005 12:32:01 PM

Quote :

"Yeah. Rare is the day that passes that I don't seriously want to strangle at least one of you motherfuckers with your own intestines, not to mention the dozens of other people that piss me off over the course of the day, but I manage to keep from doing it. Does this make me unsuitable for priesthood?"

Perhaps. If you have a psychological condition that makes you predisposed to violence as an expression of temper, then maybe it does make you unsuitable for the priesthood. What if you can't control it one day? Being a priest is not easy - especially when at Mass you have lots of little screaming kids who you just wanna take and drop kick out the door - and the worst are the parents who bring toys and things for their children to play with so the kids spend all of Mass going "VROOM!! VROOOOM! BEEBEEP!! *CRASH!*" - those are the kind of parents who need to be taken out and horsewhipped. (It's not the child who needs to have their ass beat, it's the parent - the child doesn't know any better but the parent does.) But of course a priest cannot just suddenly interrupt the Canon and start screaming at the children and parents and threatening to beat the shit out of them if they don't behave.

Quote :

"And yet, if it's WRONG TO LEAD PEOPLE TO SIN, then what of a public edict that reaffirms in the hearts of those who would persecute gays, the rightness of their cause?"

I do not think the decree reaffirms in the hearts of those who would persecute gays the rightness of their cause. In fact the Church condemns their cause - as I showed you the Catechism paragraph for and gave examples of persecution of gays that would be regarded by the Church as mortally sinful. Just because gay people are not suited to be priests does not mean that the Lord tolerates violence or persecution of them. Women are not called to be priests either, nor are married men, etc.

Quote :

"Of course, had you read my post, you would have realized that my argument was that the Church was issuing this order purely because of political correctness."

I do not think so. It would greatly increase the Church's public image if she just did away with all her doctrine. Marry two lesbian women and then ordain them both to the priesthood. Get rid of the dogma about birth control, abortion, etc. All of these would greatly increase the Church's image and draw more members. However such are the ways of the world. The Church does not change to suit the ways of the world. The Church changes only to suit the Ways of God.

When the Church takes conservative stands, she gets criticized for it, like we are seeing here. So it is not an action to build PR; if anything it is getting the Church negative PR. So it is obvious that the Church could not be less interested in PR - she is interested in speaking the Word of God upon earth.

Quote :

"And yet -- again, had you read my post, you'd realize that I spent half of it arguing for why this policy would have no actual effect on gays in the clergy."

You are simply arguing that orientation is easy to hide - I don't think so as much in seminary, because seminarians live in such close quarters with each other all the time. And it is such a period of intense spiritual and psychological formation that I think it makes it a completely different scenario than in ordinary life. Even so, if you are gay and prove that you have the moral fortitude to remain chaste, then the Vatican as I read the reports will not bar you from ordination.

10/9/2005 2:56:19 PM

Quote :

"I don't think so as much in seminary, because seminarians live in such close quarters with each other all the time. And it is such a period of intense spiritual and psychological formation that I think it makes it a completely different scenario than in ordinary life. Even so, if you are gay and prove that you have the moral fortitude to remain chaste, then the Vatican as I read the reports will not bar you from ordination."

Do people in seminary have sex all the time? If not, then there would be no way of knowing whether a person is gay.

Oh, unless they "act gay", which, apparently, is the determining factor for kicking them out.

10/9/2005 3:04:26 PM

Quote :

"In fact the Church condemns their cause - as I showed you the Catechism paragraph for and gave examples of persecution of gays that would be regarded by the Church as mortally sinful."

Yes but we are talking about public relations here, not academic theology. The Church should know as well as any other major public institution how the media will report their decree, which is to say, with the more sensational highlights at the forefront. And it should know how the ignorant masses will interpret such a decree, no matter how enlightened its content. Not to mention the anti-gay political entities of the world.

Again: if the decree has no real practical effect, and anyone with common sense can tell how it will be interpeted in the media and the public at large ... what is its actual effect except to stoke the anti-gay flames?

It's not that the Church has to subvert itself to the whims of the world -- which is your own preposterous notion that I never implied, in any way, anywhere -- it just has to behave responsibly. This isn't the 16th century; the Church represents a billion people and has to deal with an international public relations machine that can and will boil its decrees down to their most unsavory elements.

Think about how, say, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe will use this decree to fuel his own propaganda machine. The Catholic Church has sent a message not just to people on the street, but to regimes which are SYSTEMATICALLY anti-gay, even those using a secret police force to enforce anti-gay laws.

Quote :

"When the Church takes conservative stands, she gets criticized for it, like we are seeing here. So it is not an action to build PR; if anything it is getting the Church negative PR."

No, the Church is offsetting their previous negative PR with this decree. As I said.

This "woe is the Church's lot in life" line doesn't draw much sympathy from me. It has disproportionately more influence than any of the sources which criticize it; the Church being quite literally a government.

Quote :

"You are simply arguing that orientation is easy to hide - I don't think so as much in seminary, because seminarians live in such close quarters with each other all the time."

Yes, and gay seminarians live in fear of being discovered. Nothing quelches a sexual appetite so much as constant anxiety. That is a psychological and physiological fact.

In some ways the Church has now made itself MORE likely to take in gay people, as the basic means of discovering a gay person -- them telling you they're gay -- is even more taboo.

"Ask but don't tell?" The answer is always "no."

10/9/2005 3:23:14 PM

Quote :

" Even so, if you are gay and prove that you have the moral fortitude to remain chaste, then the Vatican as I read the reports will not bar you from ordination."

why would a gay candidate for the priesthood bear any more of the onus of responsibility for showing the "moral fortitude to remain chaste" than a straight priest?

furthermore, it seems to me that it's a phenomenally impressure display of moral fortitude for a gay man who acknowledges that, regardless of the chastity required of any priest (regardless of whether he wants to lay dudes or chicks), he is required by his faith to either remain chaste in general, or else to marry a chick and accept that pounding man-ass is just something that he'll have to do without.

10/9/2005 3:56:24 PM

Quote :

"If you have a psychological condition that makes you predisposed to violence as an expression of temper, then maybe it does make you unsuitable for the priesthood. What if you can't control it one day?"

OK, but let's look where that takes us:

Quote :

"If you have a psychological condition that makes you predisposed to violence fucking as an expression of temper love, then maybe it does make you unsuitable for the priesthood. What if you can't control it one day?"

Better kick out the heterosexuals, because that one would pretty much apply to all of them. Or do straight priests manage to control their shit reliably? Then, of course, there's the staple:

Quote :

"If you have a psychological condition that makes you predisposed to violence fucking little boys as an expression of temper being a sick fucking bastard, then maybe it does make you unsuitable for the priesthood. What if you can't control it one day?"

10/9/2005 4:05:20 PM

Because he has a disorder. Homosexuality is a disorder, heterosexuality is not. Consider my conversation with Grumpy. If he has a disorder that predisposes him to violent expressions of temper, then I think it is very reasonable to require that he bear the burden of demonstrating that he has the moral and psychological fortitude to control the manifestations of that disorder.

Quote :

"The Church should know as well as any other major public institution how the media will report their decree, which is to say, with the more sensational highlights at the forefront. And it should know how the ignorant masses will interpret such a decree, no matter how enlightened its content. Not to mention the anti-gay political entities of the world. "

It is not reasonable to limit speech according to how it could possibly be reacted to. Take flag burning for instance. People seeing someone burn the flag might get very mad and commit violence against that someone. That is not a reason to limit that someone's freedom. Otherwise you establish a "heckler's veto".

The media and the ignorant masses are wrong. That does not mean we should stop speaking the truth because some people are going to be wrong, are going to take it the wrong way, or are going to twist it for their own agendas. Otherwise we would never say anything.

Quote :

"No, the Church is offsetting their previous negative PR with this decree. As I said."

How so? Do you think that this thread is good PR for the Church? I do not see any good PR for the Church coming from this - it just has to be done regardless of whether the world likes it or not. You can't please everyone so you've got to please God.

Quote :

"In some ways the Church has now made itself MORE likely to take in gay people, as the basic means of discovering a gay person -- them telling you they're gay -- is even more taboo."

I'm sure it is different in seminary. It is such an intense period of psychological and spiritual examination and formation that I'm sure disorders like this can be discovered and dealt with. And anyone who would lie to a Bishop of the Church should not be a priest in the first place, since they at ordination swear their loyalty to the bishop - and loyalty of course includes honesty.

[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 4:10 PM. Reason : add]

10/9/2005 4:10:19 PM

Alrightey, you know what - this is enough. I'm not going to be here and just let people wantonly and randomly beat up on the Church. Just continue your own little Catholic-hating circle jerk, drive out all those who disagree with you, that way you don't have to hear any disagreeing opinions ever again.

10/9/2005 4:12:52 PM

This is hilarious.

"Homosexuality is a mental disorder" is the new line, eh? You're finally accepting that homosexuality is determined at birth.

This will have a pretty big impact on your stance regarding same-sex marriages, no?

10/9/2005 4:15:26 PM

you sure are overlooking the disorder of wanting to fuck little boys and girls...

10/9/2005 4:15:48 PM

you guys have to remember wolfpack2k is the type of guy who would ostracize you from the faith for masturbating and excommunicate you for using your left hand.

10/9/2005 4:33:05 PM

Quote :

"It is not reasonable to limit speech according to how it could possibly be reacted to. Take flag burning for instance. People seeing someone burn the flag might get very mad and commit violence against that someone. That is not a reason to limit that someone's freedom. Otherwise you establish a "heckler's veto"."

Now wait a second -- this is quite an ironic and funny argument you are making.

First you're telling us that gay men should not be allowed into the seminary because of how they MAY act -- thus, they have a "heckler's veto," lest the Church act to limit itself in whom it takes into seminary.

But the Church is NOT held to that same standard where the practical effects of its "speech" are concerned.

So it's only reasonable to make limitations where a particular superstition is held -- about gay men -- but it is not reasonable if, say, there are real practical consequences, as in the case of public relations.

Finally, your commentary about free speech in general is very lawyerly -- you may remind yourself that this discussion is about a (mostly) private entity, the Vatican, and not the United States government.

It is very reasonable to expect the Vatican not to yell fire in a crowded theatre -- in this case, they are yelling "SINNERS!" in the crowded theatre of gay-straight relations. That has most dire consequences.

The Catholic Church has the world's largest forum of recipients of the truth, and better means for its dissemination than the mass media. So your point about proselytizing is moot.

Quote :

"it just has to be done regardless of whether the world likes it or not."

Yes, because the Church has NEVER in its history made it abundantly clear that they disapprove wholly of homosexuals.

Yet only in the last year, has the Church taken such a beating in the popular press -- and rightly so.

You tell me why this edict has come about now, with this timing -- I'd really like to know.

Quote :

"I'm sure it is different in seminary. It is such an intense period of psychological and spiritual examination and formation that I'm sure disorders like this can be discovered and dealt with."

Now you're just drinking the Kool-Aid.

Quote :

"And anyone who would lie to a Bishop of the Church should not be a priest in the first place, since they at ordination swear their loyalty to the bishop - and loyalty of course includes honesty."

"Should not," and "will," are two different matters.

The point is that a gay man with a determination to become a priest, WILL do so -- and there is nothing either you or the Church can do about it. Suck it up and deal with it.

Again, you have not provided any evidence to me that this edict will have ANY practical effect, other than to take attention away from the Church's general malaise in the popular media.

[Edited on October 10, 2005 at 1:51 AM. Reason : foo]

10/10/2005 1:50:36 AM

They'll be making an official announcement today, I think.

11/29/2005 2:04:13 PM