NEWS: The Vatican's New Witchhunt "Gays in Seminaries"

What is being viewed by gay activists as a witchhunt, The vatican has teams of church officials to 229 seminaries to search for evidence of homosexuality.The Roman Catholic Church requires it's priests to be celibate. The investigation is in response to the over 10 thousand reported cases of sexual abuse by priests between 1950 and 2002.



Although it is regretable that the investigative teams are looking only for evidence of homosexuality instead of sexual proclativity in it's entirety, I believe that this is a very good step forward to the church actually acknowleging the issue. This may stem such abuse issues in the future and hopefully the church will no long hide the facts of sexual predators in their midsts! In the past the RCC has denied such allegations and even gone so far as playing a shuffle-game with it's priests who are accused of sexually abusing parishoners

Edit: Fixed title

[edit on 16-9-2005 by ZeddicusZulZorander]

By far most of the reported "sexual abuse cases" on the books of the Roman Catholic "Church" over the past 30 years has been heterosexual (including a surprising surge in hetero-sexual pederasty perpetrated against young girls between age 5 and 13) and not homosexual.

The US news meda tends to make it look like most sexual deviant behaviour by priests is homosexually related for some reason--which is a gross mis-representation of the facts.

The same holds for any abuse against children in the general population. Nearly 75% of all sexual abuse cases (especially against children under 12 years of age) are in fact heterosexual in nature.

What are they going to do about evidence of bi-sexual priestly activities? What about Catholic Priests who have or have had in the past exposure to veneral diseases? What are they going to do about Priests who are HIV positive from sexual exposure? What about Catholic Priests who father illegitimate children? What about Nuns who have abortions? What about lesbian nuns?

We'll have to wait and see if this witch hunt will continue....





[edit on 16-9-2005 by NEOAMADEUS]

That is my point exactly!
At the moment, they are only searching for evidence of homosexuality. They are ignoring hetrosexual (as well as bi-sexual) proclivity.
What they need to do is more of educating these potential priests what the meaning on celibracy is, teach them ways in which to keep their oath of celebracy or heck do like other christian religions and do away with the celebracy requirement

They should learn about the Perfect Matrimony!

Samael Aun Weor wrote

"The struggle of many monks, nuns, anchorites, pseudo-yogis, etc., to bottle up sex within their religious fanaticism, to confine it to the prison of their penitence, to muzzle it or sterilize it, to prohibit all creative manifestation, etc., converts the fanatics into a slave of their own passions. They become slaves of sex, incapable of thinking about anything other than sex. These are the ones who are fanatic about sex. These are the degenerates ones of infra-sexuality. These people discharge their energy every night with disgusting nocturnal emissions or acquire homosexual vices or masturbate miserably. Wanting to confine sex is like wanting to bottle up the sun. A man like this is the most abject slave of sex without any benefit or true pleasure. A man like this is an unhappy sinner."

Quoted from "The Perfect Matrimony"

So the Roman Catholic Church ought to hold to Chastity(by never spilling the ens seminis or sexual seed/fluid during or after the sex act, or anytime at all) but should do away with celibacy.

"People who do not transmute the Sacred Sperm and allow it to involute with the absurd practice of celibacy or sexual abstinence inevitably become charged with those terribly malignant Poisonioonoskirian Vibrations and, in the long run, put the abominable Kundartiguator Organ, “Satan’s tail,” into activity (an atom in the coccyx directs the creative force downwards, which internally becomes a kind of satanic tail or appendix)...


...So misfortune is always the result of such absurd abstinence."

Quoted from "The Perfect Matrimony"

By eliminating the absurd practice of celibacy, this church would have much less to worry about in regards to the disgusting vices of homosexuality and paedophilia.

I doubt they will, as the RCC is against the positive esoterism of Gnosticism.....





[edit on 16-9-2005 by Tamahu]

I have yet to see anywhere in the scriptures that a person has to be celebate to serve God. Was Moses? He had kids. Was Abraham, Issac and Jacob? Oops, redundant.

This is not what God intended for man, "Be fruitful and become many", unless you serve me? I didn't read that second part.



If the Church focused more on the scriptures and less on dogma, they would remove 90% of the problems coming their way.

As with all things, you will still have deviants.

What constitutes "evidence of homosexuality" anyway?

"I've found 23 copies of the latest Broadway soundtrack in the seminary, your Holiness."

"AHA!! Break out the catherine wheel."

Clerical Celibacy
The Roman Catholic Church demands celibacy--no voluntary sexual pleasure, hence, no marriage--as a prerequisite to the order of presbyter.
The primary basis for the requirement of celibacy is clearly the lifestyle example of Jesus himself.
The Church notes that the practice is sanctioned by the New Testament.
Mt 19:12
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.
1 Cor 7:6-7
This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command. Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am (single? widowed?), but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
1 Cor 7:25-26
Now in regard to virgins, I have no commandment from the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. So this is what I think best because of the present distress: that it is a good thing for a person to remain as he is.
1 Cor 7:32-34
I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
The law of celibacy has no doctrinal bearing in the Catholic Church--it is a mere disciplinary law. Even today, there are married Catholic priests in the United States. Each is a former Episcopalian priest who joined the Catholic Church. There are Uniate Churches, churches in union with Rome, e.g., the Greek Byzantine Church, who have a married clergy.
Priestly celibacy became law in the Roman Church in the 6th century.

catholicapologetics.org...

Sorry should have had this info in the opening post

[edit on 16-9-2005 by kenshiro2012]

So they are saying that heterosexuals can commit to being celebate but it is impossible for a homosexual to commit to the same thing?

Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things, a conservative Catholic journal, expects the review to lead to a ban by the Vatican on gays in America's seminaries. "Is there a particular concern about homosexuality? Sure," he said.

Edwin O'Brien, archbishop for the United States military who is supervising the seminary review, told The National Catholic Register that even gays who have been celibate for 10 or more years should not be admitted to seminaries.

Geeze.........Maybe they should be concerned that everyone within the church is living a celibate life and living as the church dictates rather than picking out one particular group.

The Roman Catholic Church requires it's priests to be celibate

So to be celibate, you cant be straight or gay? I bet gays aren't allowed to pray soon.

Just to add to the common view of other posters. Anyone who can live their entire life and NOT lapse into a "deviant" sexual activity, from homosexuality, to hetro, to mastabation etc, would be in the small minority of priests, or even males in general I think.

Instead of trying to force humnas into a life that is so unnatural, to totally abstain from any form of sex and procreation, maybe they should recognise that human are hard wired to reproduce and change the rules to reflect that.

Mind you, I would have to admire any person who can live in this sexualy obsessed society and not be affected in some way.

[edit on 17-9-2005 by Netchicken]

I would recommend any of these priests if they feel that can't live up to the American catholic churches standards of living they should just move here to the Philippines, where gays are completely accepted. Gays are everywhere here, like nowhere I've ever been or lived. Because of the acceptance of it here in this society, priests and their young assistants are often known to be gay. Gays here are like the court jesters of the old time, entertainment. Media loves them and many have their own shows and play major parts in daytime tv.

2 Timothy chapter 3: versus 2-5 (KJV)
2) For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphermers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3) Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4) Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5) Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.


Cebu

[edit on 16-9-2005 by Cebu]

Hi Cebu:

Of course, men sleeping sexually with other men (apart from "doing it like a dog" i.e. on the altar of a pagan male fertility god, that is) was common enough for David and Jonathan to have been 'caught in the act' of, well... doing so--------

read e.g. I Samuel chapter 20:30 (especially in the more juicy unpointed paleo Hebrew !!) for a taste of what Saul, that infamously depressive and first failed "king" (i.e. clan chief) of Israel had to say to Jonathan his son):

and--don't forget-- David was called by YHWH the god of Israel ("Behold, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man AFTER MY OWN HEART !") :

Here is in translation what old "King" Saul had to say to ("prince") Jonathan his son:

"You son of a peverted and rebellious female ! Do you think I do not know that you have (lit. "chosen to marry" ) the son of Jesse (i.e. David) to the (sexual) confusion of your mother's nakedness to say nothing of your own (sexual confusion)?

How (on earth) will your dynasty be maintained if you continue (in this kind of behaviour?...") ---i.e. by not producing healthy--and princely--sons---since, Jonathan's first son was apparently born "lame in the feet" and thus could hardly lead the war loving Israelites to victory against the other tribelets in their tiresome battles we have to read and read and read and read about in the Bible !).

And then of course, there's that highly inconvenient story in the 4th gospel of "the disciple whom Iesous loved" who "leaned upon his breast" while "reclining at supper" sharing whispers....I wonder what good Papa Benedict would say about that ?!!

And now this Pope Benedictus, this so-called Bishop of Rome, has the nerve to start a masive witch hunt against his own men "of the cloth" in his realm who happen to prefer the sexual intimacy of other men----he needs to take an unpointed paleo Hebrew course and start reading all about David and Jonathan, so he won't miss ouyt on any of the gory details....

This whole witch hunt thingy sounds alot like "Papa Benedict" is acting a little out of his own inhibited sexual frustrations here .... I wonder what Herr Freud would have said....

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........oh, plus ca change !!

Why don't they just let them marry

Anyway, I say let them be gay and have sex with each other if they can't get married...it's better than them having sex with kids.

I agree "why don't they let them marry". Seems the Catholic Church is doing something about screening for potential sex crimes against Children. But is it enough? Being Christian or Catholic or whatever belief or non belief really is not the point..harming a child for life should be a death sentence for Priests or or proven Child Molesters.

As for the Gay and Lesbian angle -- ? Suppose there is a difference between Rep/Dem beliefs that may best be left to U.S. Elections for the U.S.; and other Countries do as they see right.

Dallas

Originally posted by xmotex
What constitutes "evidence of homosexuality" anyway?

"I've found 23 copies of the latest Broadway soundtrack in the seminary, your Holiness."

"AHA!! Break out the catherine wheel."

You're cracking me up, xmotex...


Seriously, though, I never could figure out why sex is soooo sinful that the church deemed it necessary for priests and nuns to be celibate.
It's an abomination against natural instinct...imo. If their God meant for us to procreate by creating Eve, then its total denial seems sinful and against the will of their God.



perhaps they were hoping for another 'virgin birth' ?

As Oscar Wilde once said, "Of all the sexual perviersions, celibacy is the strangest of all".

Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
Hi Cebu:
read e.g. I Samuel chapter 20:30 (especially in the more juicy unpointed paleo Hebrew !!) for a taste of what Saul, that infamously depressive and first failed "king" (i.e. clan chief) of Israel had to say to Jonathan his son):

and--don't forget-- David was called by YHWH the god of Israel ("Behold, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man AFTER MY OWN HEART !"

I Samuel chapter 20:31 - For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die.

You miss interpet the scripture here. Saul new that Jonathan had befriended David and King Saul was telling Jonathan that he would never be king as long as David was alive. King Saul went on to throw a javalin at Jonathan whereby he understood that his father meant to slay David.

David was a man after God's own heart because God loved him. David lived to serve his God and God saw his heart.

Now how about Sodom and Gomorrah - Genesis Chapter 19. Two angels came to Sodom and were met at the gate by Lot. Lot asked them to come to his house but they wished to stay on the street. Lot pressed upon them greatly the scripture said because Lot feared for their safety. Verse 4 says that before they lay down to rest (the angels), the men of the city compassed around the house both old and young. Verse 5 says and they called unto Lot and said, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, "that we may know them." Verses 6-8 Lot goes out to speak to them and says, I pray you, brethern, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man, let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes, only unto these men (angels) do nothing. The scripture goes on to say that the men threatened Lot if he did not what they asked, but that the angels pulled Lot back into the house to safety and caused the men outside to go blind that they could not find the door. If you continue to read the chapter after Lot and his family fled the city in verse 24: The the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. God destroyed these wicked cities.

Of the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah Dr. George Adam Smith says:

"Here was laid the scene of the most terrible judgement of human sin. The glare of Sodom and Gomorrah is flung down the whole length of Scriptural history. It is the popular and standard judgment of sin. The story is told in Genesis; it is applied in Deuteronomy, by Amos, by Isaiah, by Jeremiah, by Ezekiel and Zephaniah, and in Lamentations. Our Lord employs it more than once as the figure of the judgment He threatens upon cities where the word is preached in vain, and we feel the flame scorch our own cheeks (Matt. 10:15; 11:24; Luke 10:12; 17:29). Paul, Peter, Jude make mention of it. In Revelations the city of sin is spiritually called Sodom. Though the glare of this catastrophe burns still, the ruins it left have disappeared."

Cebu

Just to really get the discussion really going -- why the heck is he going after gays -- shouldn't he be going after pedophiles?? I know quite a few gay people and the idea of sex with a child is abhorrent to them - just as it is to me. In my opinion homosexuality and being a pedophile are two completely different things.

And am I the only one who feels anger at the comment that even if the person has been celibate for 10 years already they will not be accepted into the seminary or if they are in already they will be kicked out. Come on that is just plain stupid! Why is a straight person thought to be able to be celibate and the gay person isn't even if they have already been celibate for a decade.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Why don't they just let them marry

Anyway, I say let them be gay and have sex with each other if they can't get married...it's better than them having sex with kids.

Pedophiles can be married. I don't think this would solve that problem. A pedofile is is a pedophile regardless of sexual orientation or marital status or sexual orientation.

Hi Cebu:

How did you translate (exactly) the unpointed Paleo Hebrew of 1 Samuel 20:30 to do with "to the sexual-confusion of your mother's nakedness" ?

I must have missed something in your response to my last post....or you did !!

Tell me this, then:

Why did Saul (the first so-called clan-chief of Israel) use the paleo Hebew word for "homosexual behaviour" in that highly inconvenient verse in 1 Sam 20:30 which mentions CONFUSION i.e. "sexual confusion" and the phrase placed into the clan-chief's mouth:

Here, I'll repeat it in case you missed it the first time:

"you son of a perverted-rebel female...why you have chosen to 'sexually unite/physically marry' the son of Jesse to the CONFUSION OF YOUR MOTHERS NAKEDNESS and to your own confusion "?

It is interesting that Saul here is blaming Jonathan's MOTHER for his attraction/love of David...

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Also take a quick look at 1 Sam 18: 1-4

"When he [David] had finished speaking to Saul, the "nephesh" of Jonathan was knit to the nepehsh (meaning either "breathing soul" or "open throat", like use of Nephesh/Jaws of the Grave-pit with its image of Jaws open to receive the dead) of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own "nephesh"…and Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his very own Nephesh :then Jonathan stripped himself of his robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his sword, even down to his armor and his bow and his girdle."

Well well well...It sure seems like David and Jonathan were doing a little more than just, well.....holding hands !!!

so.................Riddle me this, Cebu:

Since you like to quote from the Hebrew Tanakh in KJV English, Why have you deliberately chosen COMPLETELY to ignore the Paleo-Hebrew text of 1 Sam 20:30 which mentions the "confusion" of cross dressing?

Is it perhaps because you don't want to face the unfomfortable and highly inconvenient implications that a "man after YHWH's own heart" like lil' ol' David could have been...(Shock and Awe!)... Bi-sexual !!!?

How else can you explain THIS:

2 SAMUEL 1:26 (allegedly written by David in poetical form to his dead lover Jonathan)

"O, how I deeply I pine away for you
O my brother Jonathan !!
How united your soul had been to me!
Yea, your love for me was full of Wonder---
far surpassing the love of a mere woman. "

--2 Sam 1:26

In view of all this kissing and hugging and stripping and cross dressing between David and his lover, do you STILL think Saul the clan-chief's "suspicions" about his sonnyboy Jonathan were totally unfounded?