It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


the vatican getting ready to ban gay priests!

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 08:48 PM
the time has come for justice to be done in the vatican... note in the article where it says "forbidding gays from entering the priesthood." looks like atleast some people in the vatican care about the issue... any thoughts on this?

[edit on 27-2-2006 by stuffofnightmares]

posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 08:55 PM

Originally posted by stuffofnightmares
God is not very happy with homo's. any thoughts on this?

Don't care a jot bout the Catholic church but this is a bit of a bigoted view is it not? this could offend any gay members.

And how do you know if a priest is gay? pray tell.

*edit also being gay does not mean you abuse children it is paedophiles that do this ,really I find you quite offensive .

[edit on 27-2-2006 by buckaroo]

posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 09:42 PM

Originally posted by buckaroo

Originally posted by stuffofnightmares
Don't care a jot bout the Catholic church but this is a bit of a bigoted view is it not? this could offend any gay members.

And how do you know if a priest is gay? pray tell.

*edit also being gay does not mean you abuse children it is paedophiles that do this ,really I find you quite offensive .

[edit on 27-2-2006 by buckaroo]

i was refering to edit when i made that comment NOT the gay population... i dont want any gay people to go crazy over this thread.

all i want to say is priests of the vatican and any other church are supposed to lead single lives doing Gods will. it does say in the bible that homosexuallity is not acceptable in heaven, so it should not be acceptable in priesthood either. i hope that clears things up ill even remove that little ofending comment from my original post.

[edit on 28-2-2006 by stuffofnightmares]

[edit on 2-28-2006 by William One Sac]

posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 09:56 PM
Well, the Catholic Church doesn't seem to have a clue here.
Banning gay priests, if it's even possible will in no way change the pedophile problem. That is not a gay issue.

Considering that for the first time even, the Archdiocese of Detroit will not ordain even one priest this year says volumes. The disconnect between the Vatican and the Catholics gets bigger and bigger :shk:

BTW, Stuff, you really need to tone down the way you speak about other groups of people. We might get the wrong idea about the kind of person you are.

posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 10:01 PM
Homo? You realize it isn't gay priests raping people, it is straights priests and pedophile priests. According to psychiatrists having sex with children is it's own preference, the sex of the child does not come into play, just that they are children.

Straight Priests...
Pregnant Nuns in Africa(Used that term in Google)
WASHINGTON - As U. S. Catholic priests returned from the Vatican in Rome recently to discuss the problem of sexual abuse of children by priests, little attention is being paid to reports of sexual exploitation of nuns in Africa by the church's clergy.

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican (news - web sites) acknowledged
Tuesday a damning report that some priests and missionaries were forcing
nuns to have sex with them, and were in some cases committing rape and
forcing the victims to have abortions.


Special Series: Priests, Rape, and AIDS – Part IV
Exploited Nuns Go Unheard

A young Islamic woman converts to Christianity, alienating her family and effectively banishing herself from the community she has grown up in. She approaches her parish priest, expressing her desire to become a Catholic nun and requesting the required certificates. The price for certification was incomprehensibly high: rape. When she finds herself pregnant, the young girl approaches the bishop, telling him that the priest raped her in exchange for the documents she needed to become a nun. The priest was ordered to “go on a two-week retreat.”

Little Girls...
Sundborg said that after allegations of improper sexual activity with 10 to 12 adult women during Poole's previous assignment in Alaska came up in the early '90s,

Why is the Rev. Robert E. Kelley free while the Rev. Paul R. Shanley and the Rev. Ronald H. Paquin sit in jail, held on high bail? Isn't each of these Catholic priests awaiting trial on child molestation charges? Hasn't each one admitted preying on children? Isn't Kelley the one who has done time in prison for the rape of a child while Paquin and Shanley have managed to avoid criminal prosecution until now?
Why isn't the convicted rapist sharing a lockup with the two alleged first offenders, a safe remove from the Commonwealth's children?
It couldn't be because Kelley's victims -- who, by his own account, could number more than 100 -- were girls, could it?

Last night we told you about Father Bruce MacArthur and how he repeatedly raped Judy DeLonga for seven years when she was a little girl attending one of his churches in Wisconsin. As we told you, there were other victims, many right here in South Dakota where MacArthur bounced around from parish to parish.,43680

Rest of them... boy, girl, retarded, doesn't matter...

We have seen priests rape little boys, little girls, big boys and big girls; we have seen them rape retarded men and women. There seems to be no shame even by those who teach, or supposedly teach, that there should be no morally questionable behavior practiced by them or members of their congregations.

So to say "Yea! The church persecuted the gays, no more rape will happen in the church." Is wrong.

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 01:52 AM
i understand how some of you might think of this thread as offensive or as an insult thats not what i intended it to be, just to inform other people of whats going on. im not saying every gay preist is a pedophile either. i think there are gonna be changes down at the vatican for sure.
are you people saying this is a bad idea? that the vatican should just ignore the idea? if nothing is done then nothing can be changed am i right? thats all im asking in the end, does this sound like a good idea to ban gay priests or a bad idea and why do you think so?

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 02:22 AM
from the bible

leviticus 18:22

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

leviticus 20:13

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

Romans 1:27 (this one is funny when you think of it)

and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (A)men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
(did it just say that the natural function of the women is to be a men sexual object and that the ''due penalty'' that they ''receive'' in their own person is having a men ejaculate in their rectum? I cant believe this its hilarious)

source :

I believe the bible couldnt be clearer on the matter. I also expect the religion and the person responsible of enforcing this same book on this planet to follow its own rules, for the sake of integrity. I don't have anything against gay people at all, i guess what gender you like to go down to is a personal choice, But why the hell do they want to become involved in a religion that claims that they are commiting an abomination and should be killed? I certainly wouldn't.

[edit on 28-2-2006 by moonchild]

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:49 AM
I have heard it said you can prove anything by selecting verses from the Holy Bible. I think the speaker was trying to explain that ‘lifting” verses out-of-context was not doing justice to the Holy Writ. Just the opposite. The Bible was not meant to be a pick-and-choose document.

I am not Catholic. I am not a member of any organized religion. Of course, I am a cultural Christian. Not by choice, but by birth. If I were to become a churchman, it would have to be with the Unitarians. Three will never equal one. Not in this Universe. Unitarians think GOOD of others. Exemplify tolerance. That is why there are so few Unitarians. It’s my observation that 99% of Christian Fundamentalists are exactly like 99% of Islamic Fundamentalists. I think we are watching a re-run of the Crusades. The Fundamentalists of each side are working themselves into a frenzy. A religious frenzy; the worst kind.

Well, a frenzy in America. Not in Europe. Europeans have GOTTEN OVER religion. After the 100 Years War followed by the Thirty Years War, and then, all those Christians killing millions of other Christians in WW1, followed barely 21 years later with millions more killed in WW2, which included the NOT unprecedented blame heaped upon Jewish persons. The Holocaust. So you ask, what’s new in Christianity today?

My family are all Catholics. We keep peace by not talking about religion. I BELIEVE in the Big Bang. Only in metaphysics can one look behind the Big Bang. I’m not interested in metaphysics.

UPBEAT. From my vantage point, I can see the Catholic laity is bursting over, is LOADED with enthusiasm and energy. IF the RCC would reform itself and do the follwoing THREE things, the RCC laity would explode around the world and create a NEW era. Things to do: 1) permit a married clergy. 2) Ordain women. 3) Elect the next pope by popular vote. Say Good-bye Curia.

Don W

PS. Can we please get over this homophobia thing?

[edit on 2/28/2006 by donwhite]

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 09:56 AM
they do need to ban gay priest

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 10:06 AM
Lots of misinformation here.
Everyone thinks the bulk of sexual molestations committed by priests are "pedophilia".
This is wrong. The vast majority of sexual offenses linked with Catholic priests are plain ol' homosexual encounters with young "men/teens", not children. The average age of most of these people being molested is between 13-18. These are teenagers, not little kids. Big difference. That doesn't make it right though. Still not of legal age..... drop the "pedophilia" label and just call them gay sexual predators.

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 12:28 PM
Hey Pat RObertson, how you been? The majority of rape in the church is not on little boys, it's on women! But do they cover that? No.... premarital sex is a sin! But bop a few little boys, cover up, protect, promote.

It's amazing, it's like they get all the rapists in one room, then hand out the cloth, and send them all over the world. How can one group have so many rapists? In America alone over 20,000 of them for just underaged boys, not to mention underaged girls and adult women and Nuns. It's like the NRA having 60% of its members being rapists, how that many in one group can be rapists is amazing, breaks all probabilities! Only way you can get that many rapists in a group is if you actually looked for them, hired them, and then like the church protected them everytime they raped someone.

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 12:39 PM
As a commited Christian I object to gay clergy in the Church. Thats men and women priests / Deacons / lay people. God did not create us to have same sex relationships, and the Holy Bible states that it is an abdomination and Gods punishment shall be upon you.

I also hate the way religion protects those that perpatrates crimes against children and women, be it christians, Islam, sihkism ect. I dearly believe that although they may escape justice for a while, they will get caught and punished - If not in this life but when called to Judgement by God Almighty.

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 01:20 PM
I propose this conundrum.
Suppose two young boys - under the Protestant’s age of accountability and therefore without chargeable sin - were on a ship that sunk. Each boy was able to make it safely to a nearby island. Not the same island. A trunk also washed ashore on each island. Each island was a veritable cornucopia of edibles. With the contents of the trunk, each boy was able to survive for a life-time.

Also in the shipwreck was a Holy Bible (the KJV of course). It broke in half. Perhaps even stranger, the Bible broke exactly at the division between the OLD Testament and the NEW Testament. One half washed ashore on one island, the other half washed ashore on the other island. Both halves were in perfect condition. One boy got the one, the other boy got the other.

Now each boy read the half he had, and believed every word in it, and followed its precepts as best he could, within the limitations of living alone on an island. Each boy - now old - died of natural causes.
Q1. Which boy would be admitted into Heaven?
Q2. Which boy would not be admitted into Heaven?
Q3. Or would both be admitted?
Q4. Or, neither?

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 01:56 PM
Well, I'm not Catholic, but I have to congratulate them for a common sense decision. Here's why:

1)Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Bible, it is a sin which should be dealt with as all others.

2)A vicar of Christ (priest) should exhort the behaviour characteristic of Christ:

-frugal living
-a willingness to accept orders from a higher power *even* if they are contrary to your own initial beliefs
-proper adherence to the law

and so forth. Please perceive the blasphemy of a gay priest, a priest is supposedly a substitute for Christ (ie: he acts in Christ's place). Would Jesus Christ adopt this behaviour in his own life? Would he even DARE to change his father's laws into something more convenient for his personal life? Of course not. I'm Protestant, but this doesn't sound right from either a Catholic, Protestant, or even atheistic standpoint. It simply defies logic. It also put's Christendom into a questionable position in front of other creeds which know how heretical this behaviour is. For once the Catholic church did not give a concession so the masses could feel content. I applaud them for this, if they had done this from the beginning of it's founding around the 3rd-4th century, I might even be a Catholic today (which I am not nor have or ever will be).

[edit on 28-2-2006 by Nakash]

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 04:20 PM
^^ nakasha knows what im talking about its condemmed in the bible and i think it sould be condemmed in priesthood. any others who agree? the bible and priest hood are connected.

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 05:52 PM

Originally posted by stuffofnightmares
does this sound like a good idea to ban gay priests or a bad idea and why do you think so?

It just doesn't make sense to me. When a man becomes a priest, he takes a vow of celebacy. Why does it matter who the priest is NOT sleeping with?

Originally posted by zerotolerance
The vast majority of sexual offenses linked with Catholic priests are plain ol' homosexual encounters with young "men/teens", not children. The average age of most of these people being molested is between 13-18.

Do you have any links to back up this information?

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 06:35 PM
I think its about time they did something about gay priests, the bible condemns it, plus why does the Church have to be P.C I mean they are their own private organization and they have their long lasting traditions about that kind of stuff.

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 06:40 PM
Never been there but I'd like to go. I remember when Nasser sent King Faruk packing. Faruk was the dandy of Monte Carlo. I also recall when Egypt and Syria formed the UAR. Is that still the proper name of Egypt?

I think the RCC has more to do than to worry about a priest's sexual orientation. I thought "celebacy" was the RCC issue?

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 06:58 PM
I think it's a bad and stupid idea to ban people from being priests just because there not straight.

Gay priests are'nt causing problems.
Gay priests don't do bad things (Ok, maybe a few do, I really don't know.).

The vatican is bunk IMO.

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 07:05 PM
With the Vatican's history of concern for justice and fairness, I assume that Gay Bishops and Cardinals will have tenure and not be banned under the announced purge of “Gay Priests”!
After all and apparently, the reputation of the Catholic Church must be secured. But you’d think those babies would be enthusiastic about rewriting that history. What?

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in