NEWS: Homosexuals shouldn't be ordained as priests, Catholic Church says

Relentless...

The document, in the works for at least three years, updates Vatican policy, which had held that gays or men with homosexual tendencies should not be ordained, regardless of whether they can remain celibate.

This thread is about what is the case if this piece of text from the document is true.
If this is true, it means gay people, who were born gay, may not become priest, where straight people who were born straight may become priest.

Which is, of course, pure and utter discrimination.

That is what the topic is about (as I see it anyways).

Jakko:

The link I posted says that the policy is being revised to NOT ban homosexual men across the board.

My point is, until you know what the document actually does, all of this flaming about what anonymous sources are reporting is rather moot. I will go a step further, arguing the point for this many pages on a "what if" seems not in the spirit of denying ignorance, especially when it is obvious so many people seem to read only half the story, and may take it as fact.

My opinion of course.

If your point is that anonymous sources should never ever be trusted or given any attention then I do not agree.

Besides this, what does your link, about an additionion rule about homosexuals across the board not being banned change about the previous instance of discrimination?


[edit on 8-10-2005 by Jakko]

I'm going to remind EVERYONE that the sniping and baiting will end here

It adds nothing to the debate at hand in any way shape or form. This is a hot button topic to be sure, but please stay on topic and maintain a modicum of civility as befits members of this community.

Thanks
FredT

Far more girls are molested by pedophiles than boys. That seems to be strong evidence that most pedophiles are not gay, but straight. In the future, if they ordain women priests someday, will they ban lesbians?
It boggles my mind. It is quite well documented that there is a considerable history of priests being pedophiles, but I feel that there deviance is more to do with repressed urges than being gay. If there were little girls to prey on, I think they would molest them.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Far more girls are molested by pedophiles than boys.

But apparently not within the Catholic clergy.

A study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, commissioned by U.S. bishops after the scandal broke, found that most abuse victims since 1950 were adolescent boys.

Of course it has never been a question that celibacy issues for clergy are equally pertinent no matter what your gender preferences are in the Catholic Church. But there is evidence that for 30 to 40 decades in the US the priesthood has attracted a disproportionate amount of predators against adolescent boys, due to lack of standards and protocol.

It's unfortunate that a bunch of bad apples have cast dispersion on both priests and homosexuals from all the scadals that came to light. This is more likely the focus of what is being targeted, not a witch hunt on homosexuals per se. We will know more when the actual document is released.

As for assertations by other members that this thread is about what the Church used to do, I beg to differ. This thread was begun about the unreleased document and what policies are about to become.

Regardless, is it true that the policy of the Church was to not allow homosexuals at all? Yes, but this was being blatanly ignored in the US, so how much beyond moot can you make this? The Church seems to want to address the policy and have it enforced, but it now appears (again, admittedly from anonymous sources), that rather than just a blanket clamp down, the entire policy is being revisted to acknowledge what most of us would be or are angry about this want. That if in fact if an individual is homosexual, but does not have celibacy issues, there is not a problem with their sexual orientation.

Originally posted by Jakko
If your point is that anonymous sources should never ever be trusted or given any attention then I do not agree.

[edit on 8-10-2005 by Jakko]

Of course anonymous sources should be given attention and watched for further developments, that is how a good amount of ATS important information comes to light. However, I think it's extremely important to not cast judgement till all the information is verified.

In the case of this particular thread, what I am seeing is a lot of people taking the topic as fact and flaming away about what they think is going on with no regard for the developing facts. Many will walk away from this topic believing the initial impressions were the final word on what the Church and this document are all about, and using this possible misinformation as further reason to hate and attack the Catholic Church, ignoring the true stance of how the Church views homosexuals in general, which is not with hate, but compassion and a rather tolerant perspective, as oppossed to many Christian denominations who do write them off outright and do persecute them freely.

Originally posted by Relentless
Many will walk away from this topic believing the initial impressions were the final word on what the Church and this document are all about, and using this possible misinformation as further reason to hate and attack the Catholic Church, ignoring the true stance of how the Church views homosexuals in general, which is not with hate, but compassion and a rather tolerant perspective, as oppossed to many Christian denominations who do write them off outright and do persecute them freely.

I agree with your first statement, but is it really true that the view on homosexuals as passed out by the Catholic denomination is better or less hatefull than the view on homosexuals by other denominations?

If so, people may indeed get the wrong idea from this topic. But I wonder how you can say such things?
Did you investigate this?

To me it seems many many christians, regardless of their denomination, think of homosexuals as unnatural or at least "wrong in Gods eyes".
This doesn't mean there is no compassion or acceptance from them, but they would still advise gay teenagers to stay alone their entire lives.

If I am correct this is also the official "stance" of the catholic church, stay alone your entire life.

And IF this document is true, the catholic church goes further than that and also wants gay people not to become priest.

"But apparently not within the Catholic clergy.

'quote: A study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, commissioned by U.S. bishops after the scandal broke, found that most abuse victims since 1950 were adolescent boys.'"
Relentless
It is worth mentioning that there are no female clergy to speak of, and that gay men are no more discriminated as far as the priesthood than are women.
I can only cite my own personal experience with any certainty, so, while it seems logical that within an all-male clergy there would be a lack of female abuse victims, in my circle of peers, far more girls have said they were molested. About ten to one has been the ratio of girls to boys who were molested as kids, mostly by family members.

Ok, wait a minute now...the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is, for all accounts and purposes, a temple of Apollo (Look at the Church heirachy for the 'saints', and other patriarchs, such as Mary, Jesus, and the like, and compare them to the actual Biblical heirarchy, and you'll find a glaring example of what I mean.) not-with-standing, it's still thier kind of, pretend, religious right to say it doesn't want gay priests.

I don't see why anyone wastes time on complaining about things like this. If it's someone's religion, regardless of how stupid you think it is, you can't expect to be accepted against thier guidelines. Would someone make a cannibal a Jewish Rabbi, or a gay porn star a Muslim claric? No, because that would violate the religious laws of those religions, and a gay porn star can no more be a Cleric, than a cannibal could be a Rabbi, than a black dude can be in the KKK. It's such a stupid argument.

To some, I think you just hate religion, and those who humble themselves because you view it as raining on your little selfcentered plastic happy parade, and it makes you uncomfortable to think that there could be something out there that could smash you like a bug for placing yourself on such a high pedestal. And to others, I think you have a general misunderstanding of religion, brought on either by a series of bad events that lead you to believe that God didn't exist, or some theory based idea that's been around for less than 400 years really convinced you that you're some sort of cosmic accident or something. There are also those of you who could care less either way, and are too focused on things you place above religion, faith, or being righteous person. Money, women, men, stuff, things, crap, McDonalds, and everything else one uses to add a feeling of meaningfulness to thier lives.

But then again, what do I know, I'm a young sprout, and I'm sure every single person who was offended by being placed into one of those catagories knows more about life than I do.

In a nutshell, who cares if the Romans aren't going to let gay people be men of the cloth, regardless of who screwed up thier version of Christianity is, they're nonetheless a church and have the right as thus to make that decision.

Tater

Originally posted by Tatersack888

I don't see why anyone wastes time on complaining about things like this. If it's someone's religion, regardless of how stupid you think it is, you can't expect to be accepted against thier guidelines. Would someone make a cannibal a Jewish Rabbi, or a gay porn star a Muslim claric? No, because that would violate the religious laws of those religions, and a gay porn star can no more be a Cleric, than a cannibal could be a Rabbi, than a black dude can be in the KKK. It's such a stupid argument.

You are mixing 50 things up here.
First of all, they don't deny gay porn stars, they deny GAY PEOPLE.
Meaning that people were BORN gay (as opposed to people who CHOSE to be a porn star) are being discriminated against.

"well it's their right to do it blablabla"

That doesn't make it any less wrong.

Originally posted by mrjones

State and Federal law say gays can't be married

Think before you talk!

Actually, the Federal Government only gets involved in such issues when the question of constitutionality is involved. States have the authority to set laws concerning marriage. Massachussets and Connecticut are just two states that have legalized gay marriage; there's not a thing that the Federal government can do about these laws. CT couches their gay marriage law as being a 'civil union', but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, you can call it a monkey - but it's still a duck.

Having said this, I really don't much care for these laws, but I don't have to like it. I do have to tolerate it - that's the price of freedom. And - as I have stated previously - I don't approve of gay priests for theological and doctrinal reasons.

'Think before you talk'? Not to be rude, but I leave you all with a cliche...
"Physician heal thyself".