1
   

Catholic Church Now Accepts Gays

 
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 May, 2005 10:00 am
It is systematic, sanctioned killing of a demographic...
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 May, 2005 10:29 am
[url=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1290161#1290161]Back here[/url], timberlandko wrote:
A thought - one may expect things to get movin' fairly quickly as these things go; as a longtime high-level Vatican insider, second-in-command, really, in effect and practice, Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, has no need of a learnin' curve or settlin' in period. He will get right to the job of runnin' the church, as he sees fit for it to be run. There will be noise, big noise, and soon. For some, it will not be a joyous noise.


Get ready for lotsa Noise - here's the openin' bell:




Quote:
Vatican to Evaluate American Seminaries

Apr 30, 8:11 PM (ET)

By RACHEL ZOLL


A Vatican evaluation of American seminaries planned three years ago in response to the clergy sex abuse crisis is expected to move forward under new Pope Benedict XVI and will likely tackle the polarizing issue of whether gays should become priests.

The appraisal will focus on conditions in the seminaries, including how instructors present church teaching on sexuality and celibacy, to look for anything that contributed to the scandal.

Church officials conducting the review will inevitably take up complaints that gays are enrolling in large numbers in the seminaries and their sexual activity is tolerated at the schools, experts on Catholicism said. Some Catholics contend an atmosphere of sexual permissiveness - for straight and gay seminarians - was a factor in the crisis, which has led to more than 11,000 abuse claims in the last five decades.

Dean Hoge, a Catholic University sociologist who has spent 30 years studying the priesthood, said seminary rectors are anxious about the review - called an "apostolic visitation."

"Having the boss show up makes anyone nervous," Hoge said.

Vatican officials announced the evaluation in April 2002, after Pope John Paul II convened an emergency summit with U.S. cardinals at the height of the scandal. The visits had been set to begin this fall. Church officials expect that schedule to stay about the same, even with the transition to a new papacy. Benedict has been in office less than two weeks.

Several church experts said they expected few changes in how the review will be conducted, since planning has been under way for so long and shifting direction now would be difficult. More than 200 schools will be evaluated in a process that could take years.

The Vatican agency overseeing the project - the Congregation for Catholic Education - has already been given a list of recommended bishops and priests to visit the seminaries. Archbishop Edwin O'Brien of the U.S. Military Archdiocese has been appointed to coordinate the review.

The Vatican education office has also been drafting new guidelines for accepting candidates for the priesthood that could address the question of whether gays should be admitted. The church considers gay relationships "intrinsically disordered."

The Rev. James Martin of the Jesuit magazine America says four Vatican sources had told him that, under John Paul, the Vatican was about to issue a decree placing severe restrictions or an outright ban on seminarians who acknowledge they are gay - even if they are celibate.

The fate of that document and its exact contents are unknown. Benedict reappointed the previous heads of all Vatican agencies for now, and lower-ranking staffers who prepared that policy remain in place. However, the new pope could decide to revise or shelve the guidelines.

Sam Sinnett, national president of Dignity USA, which represents gay and lesbian Catholics, said he was worried the seminary review and new enrollment standards could result in a "witch hunt" against gays, despite all their contributions in parishes and elsewhere.

"Homosexual priests have done a marvelous job for the church for a long time," he said.

Catholics began voicing concern about the growing number of gay priests decades ago. However, specific worries about homosexuality and abuse were fueled by a study U.S. bishops commissioned from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice last year that found most of the alleged victims since 1950 were adolescent boys.

Experts on sex offenders and gay advocates said it would be wrong to conclude from the findings that gays were to blame. However, the National Review Board, the lay watchdog panel the bishops formed, said in its 2004 report on the roots of the scandal that homosexual enrollment in seminaries must be examined.

The board cautioned that the "paramount question" was whether a priest-candidate could remain celibate, not his sexual orientation. But, the panel wrote, "given the nature of the problem of clergy sexual abuse of minors, the realities of the culture today and the male-oriented atmosphere of the seminary, a more searching inquiry is necessary for a homosexually oriented man by those who decide whether he is suitable for the seminary and for ministry."

The exact number of gay seminarians is not known. Estimates vary dramatically from one-quarter to more than half of all American priest-candidates.

The last Vatican review of U.S. seminaries took place in the 1980s, amid a broader crackdown on dissent among American Catholics in which Benedict - the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger - played a key role.

Church experts say seminaries have made vast improvements since then in how they evaluate candidates for the priesthood. However, many traditional Catholics said the previous review was lax and they're hoping for a more aggressive evaluation this time.

"There will have to be a process by which real criticism can be ferreted out," said the Rev. Joseph Fessio, editor of the Catholic publishing house Ignatius Press. "The problem of course with these visitations is that they're friendly visitations and with friendly visitations you get results that can be predictable."
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 May, 2005 10:31 am
Lord. Ratzi's gonna excommunicate America.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 May, 2005 10:33 am
Guess Chrissie may want to amend the title of her thread to reflect reality.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 May, 2005 10:51 am
Lash wrote:
Lord. Ratzi's gonna excommunicate America.


LOL - while that's a bit far-fetched, it is funny. I rather expect what will come of this and related developments will be a reaffirmation of traditional Church values and teachin's in The US, resultin' in an overall strengthenin' of The Roman Catholic Church in America. Religionistas tend to be a conservative lot to begin with, and this sort of thing will serve to enhance the visibility and authority of the more conservative among The American Flock. A related event from a couple days ago, little covered by the secular press, but significant as an indicator, is the followin':


Quote:
Archdiocese removes college's Catholic designation

New York, Apr. 29 (CWNews.com) - The Archdiocese of New York has formally removed the designation of a local college as being a Catholic institution after a Catholic higher education group protested plans by Marymount Manhattan College to have New York Sen. Hillary Clinton as commencement speaker ...

At issue here was Ms Clinton's pro-choice stance. As far as The Roman Catholic Church goes, moral relativism in all its forms is to be confronted without quarter. As it enters its third milleneum, The Church is unambiguously declarin' "You're with us or you're against us". With history as guide, goin' against The Church has been an endeavor notably not marked by significant inconvenience to The Church - at least over the past two millenia.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 May, 2005 11:07 am
This might be a good time to remind everyone of what the god of the Bible...the god Jesus worshipped...had to say about homosexual conduct:


"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their
lives." Leviticus 20:13


There really is no getting around that...is there?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 May, 2005 12:10 pm
Frank wrote:
This might be a good time to remind everyone of what the god of the Bible...the god Jesus worshipped...had to say about homosexual conduct:

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their
lives." Leviticus 20:13


There really is no getting around that...is there?



Some might contend The New Testament supercedes The Old Testament. Those makin' that argument to validate ecclesiastic acceptance of homosexual practice fall afoul of the followin' bit of disambiguity:

Paul, in his First Epistle to the Romans, wrote:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
[/b]

(KJV)1 Romans 1:18-32


Now, the way I read that, I sure don't come away with any sense of "Loving Forgiveness and Acceptance" ... but mebbe that's just me. And, of course, there is what is written in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10. I doubt, however, The Vatican sees much lattitude therein.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 May, 2005 12:40 pm
You know, I think the Bible was rougher on homosexuality than murder or even Baal-mongerers.

Can anyone think of anything given more of a negative spotlight in the Bible?

If I was gay, I couldn't be a Christian. There's just no room for a positive translation there. Unless Paul wrote <just kidding> somewhere, and nobody saw it.

Would you characterize gay Christians as incredibly strong, or in denial?

Timber, you certainly called this 'restructuring' by Benedict XVI. He's not wasting any time. Do you really expect a huge social upheaval regarding the Catholic church in America?

Can they...'close down' churches? I never knew very much about Catholic ...laws and such (power?)
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 May, 2005 01:28 pm
"They" - The Vatican - can and does "Close down" churches, dis-establish parishes, dis-accredit other institutions, defrock recalcitrant clegy, and pretty much in general do what it decides is best for The Church. I'm not so sure I'd say what's comin' down the pike here is a social upheaval by any stretch; it more accurately may be seen as a counter to an incipient social upheaval - a counter with every prospect of vigorous prosecution and ultimate success - at least success from the viewpoint of The Roman Catholic Church. There will be a very public and open purge of what The Church holds to be that and those which and who subject The Church to scandal. Churches will close, more institutions will be dis-affilliated, heads will roll, and there will be much weepin', wailin', and gnashin' of teeth.

I believe the upshot will be the marginalization of those factions pressin' for liberalization within The Church, and not just in The US. This will spill over into politics as well, with particular effect on US, Latin American, and European socio-political developments in the comin' months and years. The Church perceives itself to be engaged in a dire struggle, and will spare no effort, no resource, in its effort to maintain its integrity. In such regard, The Church has an impressive track record, and is not to be taken lightly.

I do take "Gay Christians" - at least those who engage in or condone homosexual practice - to be strongly in denial. There simply is no scriptural basis for permittin' homosexual practice, and much outright condemnation of such practice. Some folks are gonna face some hard choices, and in many instances, those choices will be made for them, irrespective of their wishes to the contrary. The Church welcomes, reaches out to, and embraces those who repent from and repudiate that which The Church perceives to be sinful. She is not known to be at all forgivin' or even tolerant of those who defiantly persist in what The Church sees to be the path of sin.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 May, 2005 02:09 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Frank wrote:
This might be a good time to remind everyone of what the god of the Bible...the god Jesus worshipped...had to say about homosexual conduct:

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their
lives." Leviticus 20:13


There really is no getting around that...is there?



Some might contend The New Testament supercedes The Old Testament.



And some might contend that the god described in the Bible is loving and forgiving.

Blindness knows no bounds.

In any case, I was quoting the god that Jesus worshipped! And he pulled on punches on how homosexual activity ought be handled.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 May, 2005 08:01 pm
Lash wrote:
If I was gay, I couldn't be a Christian. There's just no room for a positive translation there. Unless Paul wrote <just kidding> somewhere, and nobody saw it.

Would you characterize gay Christians as incredibly strong, or in denial?


How about this? Would you characterize female Christians as incredibly strong, or in denial?

Quote:
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 May, 2005 06:22 am
Eve was made for Adam, that's the way it is. This does not mean that men can do whatever they want, men are supposed to respect women, and vice versa. If they both respect each other, then it will work out. Men are naturally and generally better suited to be the head of a house hold.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 May, 2005 09:24 am
Doctrine may not be imposed, adjusted, or rescinded to suit the fashion of the time or the whim of a particular Pontiff.

Interesting, considering the origin of Papal infallibility, that is, in a whim.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 May, 2005 09:30 am
One thing that is being overlooked here is that gays are not pediphiles per se.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 May, 2005 09:32 am
plainoldme wrote:
Doctrine may not be imposed, adjusted, or rescinded to suit the fashion of the time or the whim of a particular Pontiff.

Interesting, considering the origin of Papal infallibility, that is, in a whim.


What?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 May, 2005 11:10 am
We all have things we remember, things that we want to know more about. For me, one of those things is the matter of papal infallibility. Some time ago, I read something that implied politics and a huge ego were behind the doctrine of Papal Infallibility and that is was something that Pope Pius IX pushed through.

For those who do not know, Papal infallibility applies only when the pope speaks, "ex cathedra," that is, from the chair of Peter, on matters of dogma.

There is a great deal of Scriptural support for the doctrine. However, it was passed in an atmosphere of political upheaval and intrigue, following the Revolutions of 1848 which engulfed Europe (represented by Victor Hugo in Les Miserables); the demand by several European states for the reform of the Vatican, particularly by the Italian nationalists, and the rise of what is called, "ultramontanism," a way to separate the church from civil control "by binding it more closely with the papacy."

There was a growing demand for the institutionalization of papal infallibility, despite objections American, French and German bishops.
When the First Vatican Council convened in 1869, the Ultramontanists pushed the notion and Pius
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 May, 2005 02:08 pm
Sorry, the computer jammed!

The Pope was Pius IX, who convened the First Vatican Council in 1869. He also seized control of the council, stopping debate on everything but papal infallibility which the cardinals approved but not without opposition.

Radical theologian Hans Kung and American historian Garry Wills have written on papal infallibility and it may have been a piece by Kung that caught my eye several years ago.

Even the Encyclopedia Brittanica is cautious in its article about Pius IX.

While, in some circles, he is considered the Father of the Modern Church, in others, he is thought to fought against modernity.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 May, 2005 02:40 pm
While influenced by the 1848 upheavals which transformed Europe, Hugo's Les Misérables was set between 1812 and 1832.

Expressly stated, the doctrine of Papal Infallibility dates to The 1st Vatican Council, which in 1870, under Pius IX, overwhelmin'ly approved (by a vote of 433 affirmative to 2 abstentions) a decree which reads in part as follows:

" ... The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, exercising the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, he defines ... a doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by the whole Church, through the divine assistance promised to him in St. Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed ... and therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church ... "

The doctrine applies specifically and only to matters related directly to the dogmas of faith and morals. In no other wise does it impart or imply any special attribute to the individual personage of the holder of The Papal Office, but rather it confirms the authority of that office over The Faithful irrespective of its holder. The implicit concept, however, dates to the 1st Century, indeed even to the Gospels, and always has been a foundational component of the Office of the Papacy.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 May, 2005 07:07 pm
Mesquite--

I thank you for that post re women, but I think it may prove my point instead of yours.

When I was practicing my religion, I believed those things. When I began rejecting some Biblical things, I ceased practicing my religion.

I don't think you can have it both ways.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 May, 2005 07:11 pm
Um, but I never covered my head.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 06:31:10