Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
Related: About this forumVatican's new guidelines maintain ban on gay priests
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/vatican-guidelines-gay-priests-ban-1.3927755...Even (the pope's) softened stance toward LGBT Catholics from his "Who am I to judge?" comment about gay people to his use of the word "gay" has provided hope for gay Catholics, long shunned by their church, that the shift in tone might make its way into official church documents.
Those hopes, though, were recently dashed when the Vatican published a new set of guidelines for the training of seminarians with the rosy title The Gift of the Priestly Vocation.
Within the manual lay a decidedly less jubilant clarification of who qualifies for the job.
"The Church cannot admit to the seminary those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called gay culture," it read.
Those hopes, though, were recently dashed when the Vatican published a new set of guidelines for the training of seminarians with the rosy title The Gift of the Priestly Vocation.
Within the manual lay a decidedly less jubilant clarification of who qualifies for the job.
"The Church cannot admit to the seminary those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called gay culture," it read.
Surprise, surprise, surprise. Who woulda thunk that the PR pope was just blowing smoke?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
8 replies, 1995 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Vatican's new guidelines maintain ban on gay priests (Original Post)
trotsky
Jan 2017
OP
I would think a zero-tolerance rule for child-fucking would be super easy to formalize.
Iggo
Jan 2017
#5
Banning kid fucking would involve at least a tacit admission of wrongdoing.
Act_of_Reparation
Jan 2017
#8
rug
(82,333 posts)1. You sound delighted.
Vatican observers such as Thomas Reese, a Jesuit priest and National Catholic Reporter columnist, did not hide their dismay that the ban on gay seminarians, albeit couched in vague language, remained.
"The idea that gays cannot be good priests is stupid, demeaning, unjust and contrary to the facts," wrote Reese. "I know many very good priests who are gay, and I suspect even more good priests I know are gay."
"The idea that gays cannot be good priests is stupid, demeaning, unjust and contrary to the facts," wrote Reese. "I know many very good priests who are gay, and I suspect even more good priests I know are gay."
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)2. You sound almost.....................surprised, at the poster's delight.
Consistency can be a virtue. Except, of course, when it is not.
Iggo
(47,591 posts)3. But kid-fuckers are still okay, right?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)4. Seems that way.
They won't even formalize their alleged "zero tolerance" policy for abuse like they did this rule.
Iggo
(47,591 posts)5. I would think a zero-tolerance rule for child-fucking would be super easy to formalize.
Then again, look who we're talking about.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)8. Banning kid fucking would involve at least a tacit admission of wrongdoing.
That's not how the Church in Rome rolls.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)6. Jesus Christ was gay
trotsky
(49,533 posts)7. So was Dumbledore! n/t