The Washington Post reported that the Vatican issued a directive, so to speak, stating that gays cannot become priests unless “such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.”
When I first heard this I, as most of you I’m sure, thought ‘Well, the Catholics are at it again!’ But the more I thought about it the more I realized that, taking into consideration this issue only, the Catholic church just made it possible for even more potential and current followers to shun their faith. For all intents and purposes, let’s just focus on Catholicism and none of the other religions and their individual hypocrisies.
Here you have a religion whose own bible says condemns homosexuality and the gay lifestyle. Okay, fair enough - you don’t have to agree with it. But where I have a problem is when a religion is walking the fence on an issue such as this. The Catholic church doesn’t quite have the guts, it seems, to be 100% pro or anti homosexuality. They toss around scripture stating that God is against homosexuality and that it is a sin, yet at the same time make it possible for someone living that very same sinful lifestyle to preach, teach and lead others along the path of righteousness. Doesn’t that seem odd to you?
Put yourself in the shoes of a member of the Catholic congregation. If the person standing behind the pulpit preaching to you was gay, how would that influence your acceptance of the sermon? I’ve always wondered, what would a gay priest have to say about where the bible clearly condemns homosexuality? Would they just not talk about it? Would they take the ‘do as I say, not as I do’ stance?
The Vacitan’s document states “deep-seated homosexual tendencies are ‘objectively disordered’ but that gays should be treated with respect and shouldn’t be discriminated against.” Great! So here they say one thing but also make the important declaration that gays are not to be discriminated against.
I personally have come to realize and accept that I have no problem with someone being gay. My parents on the other hand are very against it and see it as a grave sin. I look around at the whole gay marriage issue and envision days when Blacks were told they couldn’t marry and didn’t have the same rights as everyone else. Scripture was quoted vehemently then, too. What am I saying? Nothing, except that I would respect a sect of mainstream religion if it weren’t a fence-sitter; even if I felt it was dead wrong in it’s dogma. If you’re against homosexuality, then be 100% against it and don’t make allowances for gay priest-wannabes to become priests, basically, if they pretend for 3 years to be a straight person. But this wishy-washiness is what cripples religion.
The Vatican’s decision goes on to say,
“In light of such teaching … the church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture. . . Such men can’t be priests because they are in a situation that “gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women.”
This is what I’m talking about. If you take that statement alone, it can be respected as a well founded answer. You may not like it, but you cannot deny the appearance of being all for one side of an issue. They’re sticking to their gospel word.
But then they make the mistake of including this little part which further tarnishes their reputation and again reminds us of the existing hypocrisy,
“Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate,”
Again, this isn’t an attack on Catholicism by me, it’s just me saying what we should all be realizing when the CEOs of religions all over make stupid rulings (for lack of a better word), such as this, that clearly go against the very scripture they claim the ruling is there to follow, promote and support.
Note: All quotes are from this Washington Post article.
Related posts:
- The Intertubes vs Barack Obama
- Conservative Petitions
- Freedom of religion? Not if you’re a Congressman!
- Having solved all other problems in San Francisco…
- To Wed? Or Not to Wed? That is the Question
Digg | 
Stumble it! | 
Del.icio.us
7 comments ↓
what would a gay priest have to say about where the bible clearly condemns homosexuality? Would they just not talk about it? Would they take the ‘do as I say, not as I do’ stance?
Priests aren’t supposed to have sex. How would this be any different than a heterosexual priest who felt lust for women, and did not give in? If anything, a gay priest should be exactly the role model that they would want to tout as correct. Look at this guy, he’s overcome his weekness and found a way to serve God without this sin.
They toss around scripture stating that God is against homosexuality and that it is a sin, yet at the same time make it possible for someone living that very same sinful lifestyle
Priests sin. They go to confession and get penance just like the laity. In my opinion, the Catholic Church, in singling out this one particular sin above all others as a disqualifying mark for the priesthood, is elevating homosexuality to a level undeserved by the biblical evidence.
You know, I am a complete dumbass and totally forgot that priests take a vow of chastity.
D’oh!
as a follower of the teachins of Cathol… wait.. as a Catholic. I have grown very tired of religion and what it has to say. At times I feel that it is just another excuse to create division instead of unity. Gay priest? Straight priest? I think because of the vow of celibacy it really should not matter… are they asking straight priest to not have had sex for 3 years too?
Exactly. My entire post was made pointless once Ian kindly reminded me about the whole ‘priests don’t have sex anyways’ thing.
Considering that homosexuals used to get all manner of horrible things done to them in the name of the Church, I don’t see this new policy as a terribly bad thing for them. Keep in mind that a lot of people out there think that simply being gay makes it impossible to be Catholic.
And as Ian points out, priests don’t have any business getting busy with anybody of any gender, so the whole issue is largely academic.
the whole issue is largely academic.
Or, depending on your interpretation, the whole issue is just one more symbolic homophobic statement.
I think a lot of people are really quick to label any statement by the Catholic Church regarding sexuality as being misguided, wrong-headed, backwards, or otherwise bad.
In the view of the Church, the only proper place for sexual behavior is between a man and a woman who are in a loving marriage. The latent desire to have sex outside of this context (whether heterosexual or otherwise) is considered to be a problematic, and acting upon those desires is considered to be inherently sinful. Just as young men that are straight have sinful desires regarding young women, young men that are gay have sinful desires regarding other young men. That’s not something that the Church considers to be the kind of “go straight to Hell, do not pass Go, do not collect $200″ issue that some other religious groups do.
The main difference here is that when Methodists or Baptists or Lutherans reveal a policy regarding such issues, they don’t get nearly as much press.
Leave a Comment