Vatican ruling, homosexuals banned from ordination

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.