The vatican is expected to release a document on Tuesday that explicitly reaffirms an earlier commitment to preventing homosexuals, that is--people who practice homosexual acts and/or have "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" from joining the clergy. Thoughts?

Well, if it is their beliefs and ideas, they are free to do it I suppose.

Thoughts?

Repression.
Regression.
Anti-Scriptural.
Anti-Christian.
Devisive in the extreme.
Self-Serving.
Political.

There are some thoughts.

How is it Anti-Scriptural and Anti-Christian?

Well, we can begin with just a couple of things.

1. The very one whom they profess to follow never excluded anyone from being a part of His ministry. Tax Collectors (notorious thieves and self-indulgent charlatans in their own right) to zealot murders, pimps, and homeless, hapless fishermen were THE people He considered His dearest friends.

2. No one has, in my opinion, first rights on moral authority. It's nothing more than a sham to attempt to avoid gazillions in settlement payments, bankruptcy (in America, that is!), and complete disregard for the mission of the Church.

The damage the Church has done to the humans it professes to care for is beyond calculation. This is not a new precept to Rome, just newly inspired since the last vestiges of the Middle Ages.

My thoughts are political backlash from pedophilia coverups.

True, but the Old Testament is filled with verses that can be interpretated as homophobic at best, as God actively condemning homosexuals at worst... in that sense it is not antiscriptural.

Depends. This is their religion. and their faith, the vatican is supposed to teach the faithful and make sure they don't stray too much from the original intent of Christ, when there is a controversy within the chuch it gets settled in the Vatican.

That being said this statement wasn't from the pope... to quote a friend, it's like an ambassador for the US commenting on what they feel to be US policy. IT doesn't carry as much weight as it would if the Secretary of State or The President said the samething, but it is most likely reflective of their policy.

Meh, if you look at all the great social reforms that have happened in the last two centuries most of them have their start in organized religion. I'd be a bit more hesitant to knock it being more of the "let s/he who is without sin cast the first stone" mindset.

I think that their rationale for the ruling is insulting. They say that the seminary presents a particularly strong form of temptation for homosexual men. They also say that homosexual men do not interact "normally" with other men (and women), and thus cannot adequately fulfill their obligations as pastors.

I think both of these comments betray a serious degradation of the basic dignity of homosexual individuals. That is, it's insulting to suggest that people with homosexual orientations have a more difficult time controlling their sexual urges, and even more insulting to suggest that they do not interact normally with other people.

Regardless of any theological/scriptural considerations, the rationale given in this particular decision is backwards and antideluvian.

I agree with pysch on that last point. The rational comes from a diluted mindset and false understandings of what homosexuality (or any sexual prefernce for that matter) really is. But as Boru said, alot of this stems from a few old testiment laws (which is why I asked why it was anti-scriptual).

The professed rational behind it is wrong, however, as I said, it is their orginazation, they can choose to alienate whomever they wish, despite the fact that it might not be a good idea, from either the reglious or poltical standpoint.

I happen to agree with Boru, the Scriptures condemn homosexuality, and given that the present pope shows no tolerance to anything outlawed or criticized by the Scriptures, I expected this to happen from the moment he took office.

Ratzinger really is a iron Pope.

It's a bit excessive to say that the Scripture condemns homosexuality outright, in the way that we mean it today. Scriptural references that are generally cited as condeming homosexuality are actually condemning sadistic homosexual practices (much the way they would condemn rape or assualt). The homosexual lifestyle in itself, as we currently understand it, is never expressly forbidden, in either the Old or New Testaments.

As for the rationale, I agree with psych. It's insulting to make such claims regarding a homosexual man's ability to refrain from temptation any less than a straight man. It generally shows a misunderstanding of homosexuality on the part of the Vatican. (As a side note, if anything, homosexual men are required by our society in many contexts to show more restraint than straight men, if only insofar as their "dating pool" is less well defined or obvious.)

You mean pederasty and fertility rites?

Generally, yes. Most of the scriptural passages refered to as condemning homosexuality refer to either pederasty, or qadash (the "temple prostitutes" as they are generally translated). Also, the main reference that I'm aware that tends to be used to condemn homosexuality is in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19), where the mob comes to Lot's door demanding to have sex with the men (angels) that Lot is housing...but I don't think it's too great a stretch to recognize that there's a rather significant difference between gang rape by an angry mob, and homosexual activity in the context of a commited relationship.

On a more general note, Scripture (specifically the Old Testament) bans or condemns any number of activities that we currently find acceptable, as well as encouraging many acts which we currently would find deplorable -- which were mandated or made necessary based on a specific historical context. It has long been a pet peeve of mine when these things are taken out of their historical context to prove a point in our modern society.

I wouldn't be so certain in making such a statement: while it is undeniable that many Christians who cite Scripture to condemn homosexuality don't know what they're talking about, the Bible's actual teaching on homosexuality is ambigious at best. Biblical scholars are hardly unanimous as to how to interpret several New Testament passages.

That being said, I see nothing wrong with ordaining non-practicing homosexuals: and if priests in general are required to be celibate, well, it doesn't make any difference to me what their orientation is.

In general I agree with Nevin, since priests are required to take a vow of celibacy it shouldn't matter what the hell their orientation is.

And yes the arguements that homosexual men are less likely to be able to resist temptation are... well... yeah not even going to bother defending them.

I don't think sexual orientation matters that much to God, that being said though, when refering to texts in the bible that are condemning of homosexuality I wasn't thinking of Sodom and Gomerah, which as you clearly pointed out GD is really just a gang bang. I was thinking more of Leviticus 18:22 you shall not lie with a woman as with a man, it is an abomination. The next verse, incase you're curious, outlaws bestiality.

I'm wondering how they're going to figure out who's gay and who isn't. There's nothing but pride to stop a gay man from lying and saying they're straight. Granted I think they shouldn't have to but this ruling doesn't suprise or shock me.

"1. The very one whom they profess to follow never excluded anyone from being a part of His ministry. Tax Collectors (notorious thieves and self-indulgent charlatans in their own right) to zealot murders, pimps, and homeless, hapless fishermen were THE people He considered His dearest friends."

what a poor judge of character...

To be fair you should have pointed out that the verse before it condemns sacrificing your children to molech and profaning the name of God.

You mean I can't say God damn it?? DAMN IT :)

No really it's amazing some of the laws that are in leviticus that modern day Christians don't follow yet they have no problems digging this one up and trompsing it around.

Leviticus outlaws eating most seafood, and me, I'm a big fan of clams, crabs and other seafood that Leviticus outlaws. Tends to happen when you grow up near an ocean.

Qadash is an example, but you missed the point of it. Leviticus speaks of the sin of Sodom, and Gamorah, and we have "Sodomites" today. But, what are they?

There has long been controversy over these, and other such passages which well-meaning Christians (even Church Authorities) have used to justify the rejection, abuse, and death of homosexuals.

Both Ezekiel, and Daniel offer specific listings of the sins of Sodom and Gamorah that the Creator held against their account. Homosexuality is not listed in either of them. (In fact, Sir Isaac Newton--long recognized as {still today} a leading authority on the Prophet Daniel gave over 50 of his 900+ writings on these Prophecies to the very question at hand.)

It is not a matter of finding the facts that fit. In order to determine the true meaning of the Scriptures, sometimes you have to do a little digging on your own. There has been, to date, only one translation of all six "anti-homosexual" passages which provide consistency of translation. Paul gives it to us in his Romans passage.

What we read in most modern versions is "It is not good that...man should lie with man as man lies with woman." What was originally written, and what Paul is referring to IS the Leviticus passage, which in its original writing, says:

"Do not go against your nature, and lie with a man as you lie with a woman." The temple prostitutes were available at Feast times, and sometimes the females got all busy at the same time. The men would then choose male prostitutes for their pleasures. They "went against their nature". But, there were countless men, and women, whose "nature" was to lie with their own sex.

Paul's reiteration of the original law is consistent. If your nature is to lie with a man, do not go against your nature, for it is an abomination before the Lord. Going against your nature is the sin, as it compels us to believe that the pot has the right to rebel against the potter.

There has never been a specific statement condemning homosexuality in the Scripture. There has been countless references to sin. One of the passages most often misunderstood, yet again, is an erroneous translation which includes, in a list of the sins which God abhors, the word "homosexuality". In fact, the word used in the original text is "fornicator".

Jesus Christ had several specific opportunities to openly rebuke homosexuals. He never did. What he did rebuke was "high-mindedness", "double-mindedness", and heaping coals upon those defenseless against it.

The first printed use of the word "homosexual", or "homosexuality" occurred when, exactly? 1821. How then does it appear (at all) in the 1611 (and seventh) version of the King James Bible? This volume, long taken as "The" correct translation, has been acknowledged by every leading Biblical Scholarly authority to have over 900 KNOWN mis-translations, with the agreed-upon number being around 930.

In both the Old, and New Testament, God has much to say about sin, and those who rebel against Him. The Old Testament gives us the Law, which no man (or woman) can satisfy. The New Testament gives us the Grace, through the Saviour, who by His shed blood redeems us FROM the Law.

What the Catholic (and so many others) Church is doing today is in direct opposition to both the Old and New Testaments. Would it make it any clearer if the Pope had inserted "brown-eyed persons" into his Canon? It is exactly the same. And the result is equally as predictable.

People who enter the Priesthood are to be judged for their character. While there has been, in truth, much made of pedophiles among the Priesthood, and the Church's inclusion (knowingly in many cases) of them within a protected society, there is also much to be said for the many, many millions who have faithfully served with no dishonor. And, incidentally, that includes homosexual Priests as well. It also includes Nazi sympathizers, fascists, Communists, and Democrats. Blue-eyed people, and brown-haired people have served faithfully, the world over.

What began as a desperate attempt to gain members for one organization led not only to the Crusades, but continues today in what seems to be an endless march by Lemmings. It is disgraceful, it is not biblical, it is NOT Scriptural, and it is not right, in my humble opinion.

Sorry for the rant, but maybe some light will shine in a dark place.

Enlightening indeed. I wish my hebrew, aramaic, and greek were better so I could follow up on all that.

Just a question--what is the "desperate attempt" that you refer to?

Blame the multi-linguistic nature on a subjection to learning Latin at a very early age, which continued through the 9th grade, and made natural branches to Greek, then Hebrew, then Aramaic which continue to date. (Seminary played a bit of a necessary role, as well) :)

There is also a life-long linguistic love (ewe!) to feed!

Generally, the desperate attempt I refer to was the desperate to not only legitimize, but to expand the Papal /Church State which is most notably illuminated by a cursory study of Pope Gregory, and the life of the Church around 964 AD. It continued, pretty much uninterrupted (although with questionable effectiveness) right up until the time a renegade priest nailed some paper to a door in Wittenburg.

I think that the Roman Catholic Church in wrong in this: preventing all homosexuals from being ordained. But I also think that a few other Christian denominations (including my own, the Presbyterian Church (USA)) are also wrong for allowing all homosexuals to be ordained.

I think Scripture makes it clear that homosexual behavior (homosexual actions and thoughts are sins. But it doesn't say anything about homosexuality itself (the attraction itself). I liken it to depression. There is something not right (mentally, emotionally, possibly even physically) that is leading one to sin. Same with depression: chemical imbalances lead to the sin of self-harm.

If a homosexual says "Yes homosexuality is a problem (or a sin, though I disagree) and homosexual behavior is a sin, but I am a homosexual and I need God's forgiveness and the congregations support in my repentence and their aid in helping me live as God requires." then I have no problem ordaining him or her.

Or any other unorthodox sexual orientation or desire.

Woah. That is pretty well inclusive to get a response, is it? Being as how not everyone will simply join in carnal matrimony in the missionary position. Or am I thinking that unorthodox fits a pretty specific regiment outside of subjective opinions?

As to the original point of the discussion, having been once actively involved in religious teachings of Christianity... I think it does present an interesting dilemma. If the bible speaks against the practices of homosexuality, should anyone be ordained that doesn't live strictly by The Book? Sorry, had to throw in the comedic pun.

Seriously though, if someone eats goat meat does that mean they shouldn't be ordained? Or if a female wears slacks that they can't teach religion that is against cross-dressing? And you have to consider that if gay marriage isn't allowed, then there is no sex within the marital confines that many feel to which it solely belongs. Interesting dilemmas.

Should an alcohol not teach about substance/alcohol abuse? Should priests and preachers only be allowed to become ordained after an extensive background search? I think it does present a problem in that someone that has or does participate in activity is not the best person to speak against it. Yet there is the tinge of understanding that they have versus the righteous indignation others carry towards such topics.

What I meant by unorthodox was anything outside of one man and one woman who are married to each other. As for specific sex acts or positions or whatever, there are some which I think would be best not to happen (fetishes for example, nothing sinful, but I don't think that God intended us to have them), but I would prefer not to go into detail and discuss everyone.

Not at all. If it said 'thou shall not sleep with the same sex'. Then fine you'd be right.

But as has been said in the thread and others here, it can be interpreted in many ways. so if you want to take it that way, fine. But don't pretend its clear.