Church to ban Gay Men From becoming Priests

damien

http://www.siglamag.com/blog/2005/08/28/gay-men-need-not-apply/

Cos all gay men are paedophiles says the Vatican.

Sugarbear

That's absolutely ridiculous! Just because someone has a sexual preference to men doesn't mean they're more likely to be paedophiles! Just goes to show how open and religious the church really is to "everyone" :mad:

UU

Gosh, I think the Church just go out deliberatly to make people dislike them. A large proportion of priests are propably homosexual anyway. Also, they take an act of celibacy and how would the Church know if any men wanting to be priests were gay anyway. (Maybe they could take a test of how sexually attracted are you to this woman and stick the men in a room full of lap-dancers, LOL!)

Riveta

I'm sorry but i don't know why people are so shocked! I mean it quite clearly states in the bible that homosexuality is a sin. i mean for god sake what did you expect them to do??? Welcome gays with open arms??!?! i'm gay myself but have some common sense people. i'm not defending them just saying how utterly pointless it is getting yourselves into a frenzy about something that was inevitable!

Stark

For years the Church was defending its stance by saying that it only found homosexual acts objectionable and not gay people themselves. "Love the sinner, not the sin" and al that. They've totally gone back on that now.

UU

Stark wrote:

For years the Church was defending its stance by saying that it only found homosexual acts objectionable and not gay people themselves. "Love the sinner, not the sin" and all that. They've totally gone back on that now.

What you said is very correct Stark. The last Pope indeed never condenmed homosexuals themselves but homosexual acts but the latest Pope has decided to spice things up by condemning homosexuals themselves.

I'm not suprised, Riveta, at their decision, in fact i was very much expecting it. It's the fact that they said that all gays are paedophiles which is very shocking and disturbing. It seems to me as though they don't want any more paedophile priest cases so they think by banning gays from being clergmen is going to stop it. Somehow I don't really think so!

Anyhow, the Bible states that homosexual acts and nature are sins, not the actual person. Catholicism, some other Christian faiths, Orthodox Judaism, Islam and many other faiths condemn homosexuality while some other liberal ones notably Unitarian Universalism, Reform Judaism, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Metropolitan Community Church, Unity Church of Christianity, United Church of Christ, etc. treat gays equally, which is good.

snappieT

Not the only point of prejudice.

Irish Blood Transfusion Board Website wrote:

Never give blood if:
You are a male who has ever had anal or oral sex with another male, even if a condom or other form of protection was used
http://www.ibts.ie/generic.cfm?mID=2&sID=79

Just because the HIV level is overall higher in the gay population, everyone is plagued with it? I'm sorry, but bullshít.

Hmm_Messiah

UU wrote:

It's the fact that they said that all gays are paedophiles which is very shocking and disturbing.
Anyhow, the Bible states that homosexual acts and nature are sins, not the actual person.

Where is the RC Church saying all gays are peadophiles ? As I read from that linkits some one elses comment on a new Vatican document. The document itself simply disallows gay men fromt he priesthood. an injustice perhaps, but tell that to women. Exclusion is a trait of institutional Catholicism. The peadophilia comments seems a "knee jerk" reaction.


WHat the Bible says about homosexuality has to be seen in context, many cathoic scholars would accept that its condemning same sex acts by heterosexual men, as being deliberately deviating from gods plan (all sin must be a deiberate rejection of God and his plan - If I was born gay and live mylife as gay then I am infact embracing Gods design) The story of Sodom is not about homosexuality, or even male rape, in context its about hospitality, a trait seen as vital in Jewish tribal culture.

And why is any one surprised by anythign the Vaatican proclaims. I will never understand howa religion who sees divinity as made flesh, made man, then fails to respects the humanity of individuals.

Chong

When I saw the thread title all I could think of " Well Duh".

MicraBoy

The document itself simply disallows gay men fromt he priesthood. an injustice perhaps, but tell that to women.

Of course banning women priests is slightly easier than banning gay men.

I can see the new recruitment drive by the Vatican: "Only into straight acting guys. Queens need not apply (sorry no offence)."

Victor

damien.m wrote:

http://www.siglamag.com/blog/2005/08/28/gay-men-need-not-apply/

Cos all gay men are paedophiles says the Vatican.

Where is the word paedophiles used in the Observer / Guardian article?

The article is referrring to the abuse of adult seminarians by there superiors.

InFront

UU wrote:

Catholicism, some other Christian faiths, Orthodox Judaism, Islam and many other faiths condemn homosexuality while some other liberal ones notably Unitarian Universalism, Reform Judaism, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Metropolitan Community Church, Unity Church of Christianity, United Church of Christ, etc. treat gays equally, which is good.

Add the Church of Ireland to that proud list, in my opinion the Catholic administration has a lot to learn from such churches. Im not a Catholic but I know that a lot of people are very confused by the dual messages of compassion and intolerance that they teach

UU

InFront wrote:

Add the Church of Ireland to that proud list, in my opinion the Catholic administration has a lot to learn from such churches. Im not a Catholic but I know that a lot of people are very confused by the dual messages of compassion and intolerance that they teach

"The Proud List of Pro-Homosexual Religions"
>Unitarian Universalism
>Reform/Liberal/Progressive Judaism
>Conservative Judasim
>Evangelical Lutheran Church of America
>Metropolitan Community Church
>Unity Church of Christianity
>United Church of Christ
>Episcopal Church
>The Anglican Church(Church Of Ireland and England)
>Paganism, (including Wicca, Earth-Based, Druidism, etc.)

You're right InFront, It's a shame that the Catholic Church isn't very liberal and it'd be nice if they'd learn from some other Christian Protestant religions, non-Orthodox Jews and Unitarian Universalists, but some things may never be. Although, it's funny that most of the pro-gay churches are American when the USA has a lot of anti-gay fundamentalist groups such as "God Hates Fags", etc. I don't dislike religions for not accepting homosexuality as long as they keep their views to themselves like Orthodox Jews do, which I respect.

P.S. If anyone knows anymore pro-gay religious groups, don't hesitate to add them to the list.

Hmm_Messiah

You're certain all those listed have a "pro-homosexual" stance?

And what does that mean precisely?

Are all of those "established", some of the names remind me vaguely of churches that sell degrees, and where you are ordinated over the web, or for a fee.

One you leave out is Paganism/Wicca/Earthbased, possibly the most vibrant movment at the moment. I can't speak for all branches withing the umbrella, but any I know of are "pro-gay" in that the see no difference, and fully embrace the person, and ..their activities.

And again, it needs to be kept in mind that there is some differenc ebetween the Church as institution, and how it is lived "on the ground". I imagine some are aware for example of te bishop previously stationed in the vatican with his South American boyfriend

UU

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

You're certain all those listed have a "pro-homosexual" stance?

And what does that mean precisely?

Are all of those "established", some of the names remind me vaguely of churches that sell degrees, and where you are ordinated over the web, or for a fee.

One you leave out is Paganism/Wicca/Earthbased, possibly the most vibrant movment at the moment. I can't speak for all branches withing the umbrella, but any I know of are "pro-gay" in that the see no difference, and fully embrace the person, and ..their activities.

And again, it needs to be kept in mind that there is some difference between the Church as institution, and how it is lived "on the ground". I imagine some are aware for example of te bishop previously stationed in the vatican with his South American boyfriend

I am very certain the above religions have a "pro-gay" stance which means that homosexuals aren't looked upon as different or denied anything that hetrosexuals aren't, such as being allowed to practise, becoming clerics, being married, etc.
(1)Unitarian Universalism, which is what I am, is well known for their support of gay rights, ordaining homosexual ministers and marriages.
(2)Reform Judaism is an incredibly radical sect of Judaism which varies from country but it has been known that they have been supporting homosexual Jews before they were established.
(3)The other Protestant Churches as listed are mainly American based as you see which have been established on the grounds of the early freedom of USA and the high homosexual community over there but have suffered much discrimination on the long term.
(4)Unfortunately to say, I don't know much on Paganism, etc. as it isn't a faith which is out in the open very often due to the whole "unorganised faith" which some claim. I should really read up on it as my ancient Celtic ancestors were Pagan once. It's nice to hear that some smaller faiths aren't too conservative. I shall add it too the list.
- Any other religions you know of with a "pro-gay" stance, preferely some Eastern faiths, tell me!

Cronus333

Something to note: More straight men are paedophiles proportionally than gay men. Something to keep in mind....

Hmm_Messiah

Cronus333 wrote:

Something to note: More straight men are paedophiles proportionally than gay men. Something to keep in mind....

significantly more cronus, but that is always a strange thing to see mentioned, one is a sexuality the other a sexual & pyschological disorder. they are unrelated, its like saying more plumbers are paedophiles....etc

anyways the original article wasnt about paedophilia, it just got threw into the pot because the word "priest" was mentioned.

the_syco

Church to ban Gay Men From becoming Priests

To me, this reads "you can f*ck them till they're legal, and then its against the rules", tbh.

Yoda

I think it's really great news. Another nail in the coffin of that depraved organization. The fewer people who can participate, the better.

Once upon a time, I suppose, gay men in Ireland often chose the priesthood. It was a good, steady job, and you didn't have to explain to mum why you weren't married. Now, well, gay men just don't have to choose that career. And those who wish to... well, I guess they can go Anglican.

OfflerCrocGod

I can't agree more Yoda - this is GOOD news. I love seeing this hateful organization committing suicide because of it's bigotry. 'Tis bril!

bopper

Ah ****e! And I so wanted to become a priest!

FX Meister

You're jumping to conclusions. All gay men are not paedos but the majority of paedos in the Church are gay and that is a fact.

damien.m wrote:

Cos all gay men are paedophiles says the Vatican.

ixoy

FX Meister wrote:

You're jumping to conclusions. All gay men are not paedos but the majority of paedos in the Church are gay and that is a fact.

Ya sure? Can you back it up for us then?

For starters, let's not forget the concept that being a pedophile could be construed as some alternate twisted sexuality, neither gay nor straight. Secondly, saying that the primary victims of abuse were boys is rather pointless given the fact that there weren't altar girls until recently and it was those serving the Church who suffered the most...

Stark

It doesn't follow either that "Gay+paedophile=likes boys" and "Straight+paedophile=likes girls". All indications point to paedophilia being completely independent of the "Straight/bisexual/gay" scheme of sexuality.

Rozie

Stark wrote:

It doesn't follow either that "Gay+paedophile=likes boys" and "Straight+paedophile=likes girls". All indications point to paedophilia being completely independent of the "Straight/bisexual/gay" scheme of sexuality.

Plus, how many paedos do you actually hear about who talk about relationships with their gay lover? They're nearly always married with kids...

Hmm_Messiah

I don't know why paedophilia is still discussed in threads ona G/L/B forum

I'd of thought it was a matter to be discussed under "Sexuality", or "disorders"

Even while protesting no connection some vague connection is made by way of the context it is discussed in.

As I understand it paedohlilia is a complex disorder which is very "age" centred rather than "gender" but I've not done 7 yrs study on it so I think I'd leave it to the experts.

Within a LGB forum I'd of thought the response to any reference to paedophiles is a standard " Paedophilia is not related to LGB issues and discussion should continue in another forum.

FX Meister

You sick noncebag, that's straight out of the Brass Eye Paedo Special but you actually accept it.

ixoy wrote:

let's not forget the concept that being a pedophile could be construed as some alternate twisted sexuality, neither gay nor straight.

Stark

Hmm Messiah wrote:

Within a LGB forum I'd of thought the response to any reference to paedophiles is a standard " Paedophilia is not related to LGB issues and discussion should continue in another forum.

Maybe when the trolls start bringing it up but in this case it followed on from the topic as the Church's desire to root out gay men stemmed from their desire to root out paedophiles or at least appear to be doing so in the eyes of the public. It's on-topic imo.

Hmm_Messiah

Hi Stark

I meant the continual need to differenciate between paedophilia and anything gay. In general, just thought people should have the same response until the trolling gets redundant, didn't meant this particular thread.

But as you mention it..
The original article is about the RC Church repsonse to seminarians being abused , this is not paedophilia, its sexual abuse and an extraordinary betrayal of trust etc.

I know teenagers (17/18) are still considered children in some context, but I've never understood paedophilia as a disorder to include that age group.
Might be worth noting too that a paedophile is a person with a specific sexual tendency not necessarily a person committing child sex abuse.

Stark

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

The original article is about the RC Church response to seminarians being abused , this is not paedophilia, its sexual abuse and an extraordinary betrayal of trust etc.

Ah fair enough, getting articles mixed up. I'm sure I read a similar article which cited the Church's decision as a kneejerk reaction to the "child sex scandals". And yeah, the teenager thing would be ephebophilia as opposed to paedophilia.