Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:12 pm Post subject: Expected Vatican Ban Roils American Church
September 22, 2005
Expected Vatican Ban Roils American Church
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 4:41 p.m. ET
Word that a soon-to-be-released Vatican document will signal homosexuals are unwelcome in Roman Catholic seminaries even if they are celibate has devastated gay clergy -- and raised doubts among conservatives about whether an outright ban can be enforced.
A Vatican official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the document has not been released, said Thursday that the upcoming ''instruction'' from the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education will reaffirm the church's belief that homosexuals should not be ordained.
In recent decades, Vatican officials have stated several times that gays should not become priests because their sexual orientation is ''intrinsically disordered'' and makes them unsuitable for ministry.
The latest document is scheduled to be distributed within weeks, just as an evaluation of all 229 American seminaries gets under way under the direction of the same Vatican agency developing the seminary statement. The review, called an Apostolic Visitation, was ordered by Pope John Paul II in response to the U.S. clergy sex abuse crisis which erupted in 2002. Among the questions the evaluators will ask is whether ''there is evidence of homosexuality in the seminary,'' according to the agency's guide for the inspections.
The Rev. Thomas Krenik, who taught for 10 years in St. Paul Seminary in Minnesota and wrote the guidebook ''Formation for Priestly Celibacy,'' worries that a blanket ban on gay priest-candidates will re-create the very conditions the Vatican wants to eradicate.
''For some men who happened to be homosexually oriented, they would go further in the closet,'' Krenik said. ''That would be my fear, that this could become an even worse problem.''
A gay American priest, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared reprisals from church leaders, said he and other gay clergy and seminarians felt ''absolute horror'' when they heard about the anticipated ban.
''I've spoken to gay priests who feel demoralized. I've heard straight priests say that they're embarrassed by it. I've heard priests both straight and gay seriously considering leaving,'' he said. ''They couldn't believe that after centuries of either explicit or implicit welcoming of celibate gay clergy that the church would turn its back on them.''
James Hitchcock, a church historian at St. Louis University and conservative commentator on contemporary Catholicism, said he thinks the ban is necessary considering that a study the U.S. bishops commissioned from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice found most of the alleged abuse victims since 1950 were adolescent boys. But he conceded the policy will be difficult to enforce, since candidates for the priesthood can hide their sexual orientation. He's also concerned that gays truly dedicated to remaining celibate will be unfairly excluded.
''In theory, one might say judge each case on its individual merits, but some doubt whether it would be done in a proper way,'' Hitchcock said. ''There isn't going to be an easy solution. I think if you have a policy statement that homosexuals ought not to be studying for the priesthood at least it gives seminaries a way to act.''
Estimates of the number of gay seminarians and priests vary from 25 percent to 50 percent out of about 42,500 priests in the United States. Whatever the percentage, many Catholics are worried that the priesthood is becoming a homosexual profession. As the abuse crisis intensified, church officials discussed their concerns more openly and more urgently, even though experts on sex offenders said that homosexuals were no more likely than heterosexuals to abuse children.
Critics ranging from gay rights groups to advocates for victims have accused the Vatican of scapegoating homosexuals to divert attention from the church's failures to protect children.
Other seminary leaders have said a ban was pointless, since many clergy candidates do not realize they are gay until after they are enrolled or even ordained. And Krenik questioned whether the problem of subcultures of sexually active gays was as acute as the Vatican believes. He said that sexual activity was more prevalent a decade or so ago, before seminary administrators started clamping down on sexual misconduct -- a trend that's intensified since the abuse crisis.
But Archbishop Edwin O'Brien, who leads the Archdiocese for the Military Services in Washington and is coordinating the seminary evaluations, told The Associated Press last week the church wants to ''stay on the safe side'' by enrolling seminarians who can remain celibate.
''There are some priests, I don't think there are many, some ordained people with same-sex attractions and they've done very well'' remaining celibate, he said. ''But generally speaking, in my experience, the pressures are strong in an all-male atmosphere.''
Several priests challenged that argument and noted that heterosexual priests face their own temptations: The overwhelming majority of lay ministers who work side by side with clergy are women, yet no one has suggested banning heterosexuals from the priesthood.
------
Associated Press writers Nicole Winfield and Victor L. Simpson contributed to this report.
''I've spoken to gay priests who feel demoralized. I've heard straight priests say that they're embarrassed by it. I've heard priests both straight and gay seriously considering leaving,'' he said.
[quote]I"ve spoken to gay priests who feel demoralized. [/b]Wonder if they ever read....Romans 1:27 ..........1Cor 6:9........1Tim 1:10......Lv 20:13 It might helped them from feeling, "Demoralized"
No serious Catholic could fall for this as being a "new stance" of newchurch.
The Homo clergy have spent decades building a virtual Empire in the hierarchy, and that includes many many bishops and cardinals in the Homo lifestyle or its fervent sympathizers.
The whole promo is a public relations ruse!
Newchurch will never dismantle this empire...it's BUILT ON IT!. IT LIVES BY IT. IT IS ITS VERY BREATH.
Why do you think that NOTHING has been done after decades of exposures by a host of investigations? Because it is integral to newchurch.
Why do you think that the 2002 bishops' meeting refused doing ANYTHING about the homosexual infestation, or even making it part of its agenda? All they harped on was pedophilia, as if it had not a thing to do with homos. Hello! Sex with the same sex is homo sex. period!
For whatever reason, IMO it is God's choice to destroy newchurch through its own builtin moral depravity. That depravity will not only continue, but advance in the decades to come. It may be slowed on the "surface" ie its public facade, but it will get even worse as the velocity is later ramped up to full throttle.
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:26 pm Post subject: Re: Expected Vatican Ban Roils American Church
AP Reporter wrote:
Several priests challenged that argument and noted that heterosexual priests face their own temptations: The overwhelming majority of lay ministers who work side by side with clergy are women, yet no one has suggested banning heterosexuals from the priesthood.
The really pathetic thing is that the obvious solution to this particular problem no doubt never even occurred to the AP reporter.
Newchurch will never dismantle this empire...it's BUILT ON IT!. IT LIVES BY IT. IT IS ITS VERY BREATH.
You gotta be kidding. You think this is PR? The American bishops would avoid this kind of PR at any cost, if they could. But, it's not up to them.
Pope Benedict XVI may not give traditionalists everything we want, but he is undoubtedly taking the lavender mafia head on, and for that, he deserves credit. And our prayers, as he will need them.
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:38 pm Post subject: TNT...
TNT has got it RIGHT!!!and he obviously knows that we can't clean a greasy cup with a Greasy rag... Homos will NOT Disloge the their 'brother' homos from 'newchurch'... It is much past due for Catholics to flock back to TRADITION...before it's Too Late... Kyrie Eleison...
Newchurch will never dismantle this empire...it's BUILT ON IT!. IT LIVES BY IT. IT IS ITS VERY BREATH.
You gotta be kidding. You think this is PR? The American bishops would avoid this kind of PR at any cost, if they could. But, it's not up to them.
Pope Benedict XVI may not give traditionalists everything we want, but he is undoubtedly taking the lavender mafia head on, and for that, he deserves credit. And our prayers, as he will need them.
NO I'm not the one kidding. It's newchurch that is placating you. Why do you think B16 had to be covered by the State Dept in the last 24hrs to block his indictment in the pedophile coverup? Even then the block was immunity, not lack of evidence!
B16 puts Lavender Lavada in as the HEAD of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the FAITH!! Oh, yea, they are the ones kidding.
If that's traditional, Martin Luther is a Doctor of the Catholic Church. (newchurch is working on it.)
WAKE UP!
You'd think 40 years of devastating the Catholic Faith, art, architecture, and liturgy, calling her sinful, it would sink in, but nooo.
It's:" he is undoubtedly taking the lavender mafia head on, and for that, he deserves credit."
Head on would be excommunicating, purging, condemning, replacing. WHO has been even reprimanded? Oh, yea, THE SSPX!
NOT writing yet another "you may be naughty" instruction. That's for your consumption., And it appears to have worked in your case. If that makes you happy or reassured, you may be part of the problem! It's called "facilitating".
Yes TNT, even a goodly step in the right direction is bad.
It's not the good ol' days where we can hang them on a rack. It seems that making it clear that gays aren't to be allowed into seminaries is what's needed. Of course this isn't EXACTLY what you would do, so it must be rejected.
I suppose one shouldn't expect insight from those (like yourself) who feel our pope - the head of our Church - surrendered to the clutches of greedy American lawyers.
Yes TNT, even a goodly step in the right direction is bad.
It's not the good ol' days where we can hang them on a rack. It seems that making it clear that gays aren't to be allowed into seminaries is what's needed. Of course this isn't EXACTLY what you would do, so it must be rejected.
I suppose one shouldn't expect insight from those (like yourself) who feel our pope - the head of our Church - surrendered to the clutches of greedy American lawyers.
Of course...3 steps forward makes the revolutuin happy...1 step back makes the moderates happy. It's been working for 40 years, why change the MO?
A Grand Jury Inquiry is NOT a covy of greedy lawyers. But, Hey, divert the crime to the victims and their "greedy defenders". That still works too.
Quote:
"It's not the good ol' days where we can hang them on a rack."
Of course St Pius X was a "racker" on that account. Did I mention RACK? No, so let's obfuscate by inserting it.
Did St Pius X's methods, most of which I DID mention, and Encyclicals work at outing the modernists and identifying them, mitigating their damage? YES. If his successors would have stayed the course would we be in this newchurch-made-in-hell? NO.
Here's a friendly little bet with you: If in 5 years this stops the homo infestation or "cleans" the seminaries, or even halts its direction of advancing, you can have my house and car paid for.
Otherwise you admit being duped for the unmpteenth time and cease the defense of newchurch "reform" tactics, which you apparently still believe in, 0 results notwithstanding, including the same ""you may be naughty" instructions on the mass liturgy.
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 9:51 pm Post subject: Dancing in circles
The Vatican these days seems to be dancing a foxtrot - 2 steps forward, one to the side and 2 steps back. We should at least applaud them when they go forward - unless you actually like being called an angry, bitter traditionalist.
Yes TNT, even a goodly step in the right direction is bad.
It's not the good ol' days where we can hang them on a rack. It seems that making it clear that gays aren't to be allowed into seminaries is what's needed. Of course this isn't EXACTLY what you would do, so it must be rejected.
I suppose one shouldn't expect insight from those (like yourself) who feel our pope - the head of our Church - surrendered to the clutches of greedy American lawyers.
Of course...3 steps forward makes the revolution happy...1 step back makes the moderates happy. It's been working for 40 years, why change the MO?
A Grand Jury Inquiry is NOT a covy of greedy lawyers. But, Hey, divert the crime to the victims and their "greedy defenders". That still works too.
Quote:
"It's not the good ol' days where we can hang them on a rack."
Of course St Pius X was a "racker" on that account. Did I mention RACK? No, so let's obfuscate by inserting it.
Did St Pius X's methods, most of which I DID mention, and Encyclicals work at outing the modernists and identifying them, mitigating their damage? YES. If his successors would have stayed the course would we be in this newchurch-made-in-hell? NO.
Here's a friendly little bet with you: If in 5 years this stops the homo infestation or "cleans" the seminaries, or even halts its direction of advancing, you can have my house and car paid for.
Otherwise you admit being duped for the unmpteenth time and cease the defense of newchurch "reform" tactics, which you apparently still believe in, 0 results notwithstanding, including the same ""you may be naughty" instructions on the mass liturgy.
Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 2716 Location: Indiana, USA
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:28 pm Post subject:
I've heard three radio reports/commentaries on this issue in the last couple of days and all of them note that the Vatican issued a 1961 document that banned homosexuals from the priesthood but, each of the reports said, it was "largely ignored" in the U.S.
So.... What effect is this new document going to have on the American Church?
I've heard three radio reports/commentaries on this issue in the last couple of days and all of them note that the Vatican issued a 1961 document that banned homosexuals from the priesthood but, each of the reports said, it was "largely ignored" in the U.S.
So.... What effect is this new document going to have on the American Church?
"Largely ignored," kinda like the Ecclesia Dei directives, eh?
Ok then, TNT I concede. Your feeling is that the vicar of Christ should be handed over to an American grand jury before he goes to the tort lawyers... which of course would be the next progression.
What Catholic could desire such an absurd situation? What's worse is that you've apparently convinced yourself that Benedict is somehow complicit and that this nonsense has merit.
With this type of logic no wonder you perceive an action taken to solve our problems as bad News.
You shouldn't be miffed by my inserting the word "rack", because that's where I would have the boy-rapists. I'm not kidding either. That said, surely you can't have become so cynical as to not see when a good work is done, regardless if you think it a minor one.
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:07 pm Post subject: Ingratitude
Eulogius wrote:
"Largely ignored," kinda like the Ecclesia Dei directives, eh?
Are you suggesting that one Mass a week in a grubby, out of the way venue isn't "a wide and generous application" of the directives?
Have you been told that you lack gratitude - especially given the shortage of priests? Do you realize that there are other language needs in the diocese - now that south-Sotho, Swazi and Swahili speaking refugees have arrived?
Joined: 05 Jul 2004 Posts: 1323 Location: USA - east coast
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 12:57 am Post subject:
TNT wrote:
No serious Catholic could fall for this as being a "new stance" of newchurch.
The Homo clergy have spent decades building a virtual Empire in the hierarchy, and that includes many many bishops and cardinals in the Homo lifestyle or its fervent sympathizers.
The whole promo is a public relations ruse!
Newchurch will never dismantle this empire...it's BUILT ON IT!. IT LIVES BY IT. IT IS ITS VERY BREATH.
Why do you think that NOTHING has been done after decades of exposures by a host of investigations? Because it is integral to newchurch.
Why do you think that the 2002 bishops' meeting refused doing ANYTHING about the homosexual infestation, or even making it part of its agenda? All they harped on was pedophilia, as if it had not a thing to do with homos. Hello! Sex with the same sex is homo sex. period!
For whatever reason, IMO it is God's choice to destroy newchurch through its own builtin moral depravity. That depravity will not only continue, but advance in the decades to come. It may be slowed on the "surface" ie its public facade, but it will get even worse as the velocity is later ramped up to full throttle.
Right on, brother!
Putting "Lavendar Levada" in charge is not going to change anything. Oh, there may be a few well carefully chosen "sacrificial lambs" served up to local DAs, but that is it.
As to the upcoming investigation of the US seninaries, it will probably be a sham. It is to be headed by Archbishop Edwin O' Brien. He is originally from the Archdiocese of NY, where, among other things, he served as rector of St. Joseph's Seminary, and the minor seminaries as well. During his tenure, he employed known and notorious homosexual priests, and heretics on the faculty. Also, under his watch, a whole class of admittedly sexually active homosexual seminarians were knowlingly presented by him as "fit candidates for ordination"......and were ordained.
Also under his watch, the dean of the Minor seminary (St. John Neumann), Fr. White, was arrested some 25 miles away with two other men found in a car by NYC police - having in their possession enough cocaine to fuel a party at the Playboy mansion! N.B.: Fr. (now Msgr.)White is now the pastor of a parish in the South Bronx, where I am sure he can find all the "white lines" he wants.
Of course, when interviewed by the media, neither O' Brien nor anyone else in the Seminary knew or suspected anything. ROFL!
Please note that O' Brien was sent in by Cardinal O' Connor to "clean up" the NY seminary system.
So........um........this is the guy who is going to conduct the investigation? _________________ Vade retro Drace! Crux sacra sit mihi lux!
[quote="TNT"]No serious Catholic could fall for this as being a "new stance" of newchurch.
The Homo clergy have spent decades building a virtual Empire in the hierarchy, and that includes many many bishops and cardinals in the Homo lifestyle or its fervent sympathizers.
The whole promo is a public relations ruse!
Newchurch will never dismantle this empire...it's BUILT ON IT!. IT LIVES BY IT. IT IS ITS VERY BREATH.
And why, boys and girls, was it a foregone conclusion that the bishops would "sidestep" the issue? Because the question of whether gays should be ordained cannot be addressed without first addressing a considerably more explosive question: the number of bishop-disputants who are themselves gay and have a profound personal interest that there be no public examination of the connections between their sexual appetites, their convictions, and their conduct of office.
Let's do a little stock-taking of those U.S. bishops who are publicly known to be gay:
Retired Bishop Dan Ryan of Springfield, IL. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? Through the offices of the civil justice system.
Retired Bishop Tom Dupre of Springfield, MA. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? Through the offices of the civil justice system.
Retired Bishop Patrick Ziemann of Santa Rosa, CA. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? Through the offices of the civil justice system.
Retired Bishop Kendrick Williams of Lexington, KY. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? Through the offices of the civil justice system.
Retired Bishop Keith Symons of Palm Beach, FL. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? Through the offices of the civil justice system.
Retired Bishop Lawrence Soens of Sioux City, IA. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? Through the offices of the civil justice system.
Retired Bishop Joseph Hart of Cheyenne, WY. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? Through the offices of the civil justice system.
Retired Bishop Anthony O'Connell of Palm Beach, FL. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? Through the offices of the civil justice system.
Non-Retired Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, FL. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? The papers reported his $100,000 sexual harassment pay-off to his communications flack.
Retired Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee, WI. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? His lover broke the news on Good Morning America .
Nota bene: this isn't a roster of gay bishops. This isn't even a roster of gay bishops who have misbehaved. This is list of only those gay bishops whose misbehavior has gotten them in trouble with the law -- and that so deeply that their proclivities were objectively undeniable. What percentage of the total of gay bishops do they represent? I don't know and you don't know. And about the only things we do know are:
1) the bishops won't be up front with us about names or numbers;
2) their clandestine gay brethren are voting, caucusing, doing committee work, legislating, cutting deals, and deciding (among other things) whether gays should be admitted to the seminaries;
3) all bishops, gay and not, will maintain in public that there is no reason to believe a gay bishop would use his vote -- on this or any issue -- in any way other than to advance the good of the universal Church.
The abuse scandal has already cost the U.S. Church $1 billion, as well as immeasurable spiritual harms, predicated on the grotesquely perverse intuition that personal sexual anarchy can co-exist in a truce with priestly life. The fact that the obvious reckoning can still be "sidestepped" tells us all we need to know about the episcopal will for reform.
If the Church were to openly throw out homosexual priests then the world would turn on it and persecute it.
Oh hang on... isn't that what Our Lord promised?
Exactly. The Church will go to the cross, be crucified and buried in the tomb. It's happening before our eyes. However we cannot lose heart or allow whatever happens to shake our faith because we know what happens after that.
Does anyone else believe that the investigators could save a lot of time by uncovering heterosexuals in the Novus Ordo seminaries?
Since this has been a prohibition since 1961, I expect nothing to be done by our cowardly bishops. Does anyone remember how excited conservatives got when the Vatican released Redemptionis Sacramentum? And though the Novus Ordo is itself the ultimate liturgical abuse, did this new document fix the problem? What is needed folks is a pope who is faithful to his papal oath; a pope who fears losing God more than losing the respect of men.
Does anyone else believe that the investigators could save a lot of time by uncovering heterosexuals in the Novus Ordo seminaries?
Since this has been a prohibition since 1961, I expect nothing to be done by our cowardly bishops. Does anyone remember how excited conservatives got when the Vatican released Redemptionis Sacramentum? And though the Novus Ordo is itself the ultimate liturgical abuse, did this new document fix the problem? What is needed folks is a pope who is faithful to his papal oath; a pope who fears losing God more than losing the respect of men.
Does anyone else believe that the investigators could save a lot of time by uncovering heterosexuals in the Novus Ordo seminaries?
The bishops, their "fellow" priests, nuns in the chanceries, and homosexual administrative assistants, have done this already -- that being, the weeding out of the vast majority of normal and good candidates for the seminaries.
It is all in Goodbye Good Men, by author Michael Rose.
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 1:54 pm Post subject: Neither...
littlepaddle wrote:'Neither JPII nor B16 took the papal oath"... WOW!...Where does that leave those two Successors of Saint Peter?...and what about Good Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI and Pope John-Paul I? What are we pew-Catholics to think and say?
Was Dr Dodd being serious when she warned us in 1953 that:"In 10-15 years, you will nolonger recognize the Catholic Church?" GOD, PLEASE have Mercy on us poor Sinners...
''For some men who happened to be homosexually oriented, they would go further in the closet,'' Krenik said. ''That would be my fear, that this could become an even worse problem.''
Is this inadvertently an admission that homosexuals are the problem? If it is a problem, should not the problem be dealt with? If not, to what problem is Krenik referring?
surely you can't have become so cynical as to not see when a good work is done, regardless if you think it a minor one.
I'll bet you my house and my car that many trads have indeedbecome this cynical. We don't even have to wait 5 years to decide who wins. Just make a retrospective analysis AQ posts, The Remnant and Catholic Family News columns, etc.
Of course, I don't know if these cynics are in the minority or the majority in the trad movement, but you can't swing a dead cat around here without hitting just such a cynic.
''For some men who happened to be homosexually oriented, they would go further in the closet,'' Krenik said. ''That would be my fear, that this could become an even worse problem.''
Is this inadvertently an admission that homosexuals are the problem? If it is a problem, should not the problem be dealt with? If not, to what problem is Krenik referring?
No, I don't think he's admitting to that. I think he's just talking about a storage problem, there's not enough closet space, there never is, is there?
Homosexuality cries out to Heaven for vengeance. In his 1910 catechism, the great Pontiff Saint Pius X classified the "sin of impurity against nature" second only to voluntary homicide among the sins that "cry out to Heaven for vengeance." He explained that this expression comes to us from the Holy Ghost Himself and means that homosexuality's iniquity is "so grave and manifest that it provokes God to send the severest punishments."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
