Priests Citing New Problem in Gay Policy

[Thom Little]

By Laurie Goodstein
New York Times
Thursday, Nov. 24, 2005


A day after the disclosure of a new Vatican directive that deters most gay men from joining the priesthood, some priests say they are shocked by one easily overlooked clause. It says that spiritual directors and confessors in seminaries "have the duty to dissuade" any candidates "who show deep-seated homosexual tendencies" from joining the priesthood.

These priests said this would turn the confessional and spiritual counseling sessions, which seminarians previously regarded as private and supportive meetings, into a tool for weeding gay men out of seminaries.

"The relationship between a seminarian and his confessor or his spiritual director should not be about enforcing church documents, but to serve as spiritual guides," said the Rev. Michael Herman, a priest in the Archdiocese of Chicago who has recently publicly identified himself as gay in order to speak out against the Vatican's action.

"They've gone so far as to say your confessor's and spiritual adviser's role is to talk you out of" becoming a priest, Father Herman said.

His reaction to the document was echoed by other priests and Roman Catholic organizations, who said that the church's decree was discriminatory and hurtful to faithful chaste gay priests and would only exacerbate an already dire shortage of Catholic clergymen.



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/24/politics/24priest.html?hp&ex=1132894800&en=dd771d30034dc390&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[NYC Liberal]

1. I don't get it...they bar 'sexually active' gay priests,

but aren't ALL priests supposed to be chaste?

[waiting for hope]

2. Isn't about time the Catholic church

moved into the 21st century? All this crap about being chaste, for pity's sake, is ridiculous. Priests are human with human urges. The only and I mean only reason (the church over the last several hundred years has sugar coated it) that priests were required to become celibate is because the church wanted their property - married priests with children were leaving their holdings to their heirs, which the majority didn't enter the priesthood. Let's get real, it was all about money......let priests marry and have families. My husband is Catholic and believe me, the last person I would want to see if we were having a crisis in our marriage would be a priest - what in the hell does he know about marriage?:rant:

[Dogmudgeon]

3. The Roman Catholic Church needs a new ecclesiastical rank

A form of ministry that isn't quite as intense as the Priesthood. Instead of being known as "Priests", these new clergypeople can be called "Priestlets". They would have all the powers of a full Priest, except for the sanctification of the Eucharist.

Priestlets wouldn't have to be celibate, or male, or heterosexual, or even Catholic (in extremis only).

How's that sound?

--p!

[waiting for hope]

4. Sounds great....

but I seriously doubt that any gender but male would be allowed. There is already a group of married priests (former priests by church standards) http://www.rentapriest.com/web/?_p=1001 performing marriages, last rites etc....why the church can not bring them back into the fold is beyond me. The number of priests in this country alone would warrant a solution such as that in order to bring people back to the church. I'm not big on organized religion, but it is a business in my book and the Catholic Church needs some fresh ideas on how to run theirs better.

[Hardrada]

5. There are some former Anglican and Lutheran ministers

who went over to Rome and became priests BUT this was okay even though they got to keep their families because they OBVIOUSLY are not gay. Hmmmm. So, if that's all right why not just have Blue Priests and Red Priests all equal but some married and some not. Drop celibacy requirement. OK, we've worked that out but what if gay women want to be priests? But actually why would they? When they have the Episcopal Church and the ELC Lutheran church?