Re: Homosexuality Destabilizes Society


"Rita" <nitany_98@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gsjpo19n74mn40r2uvr3j17bfek01u9g3e@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:53:32 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
> <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:57:04 -0800, El Castor
>><justuschickens@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>"Homosexuality destabilizes society: Vatican paper
>>>Reuters
>>>Tue Nov 29, 2005 10:38 AM ET
>>>
>>>VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican newspaper said on Tuesday that
>>>homosexuality risked "destabilizing people and society", had no social
>>>or moral value and could never match the importance of the
>>>relationship between a man and a woman.
>>>
>>>The remarks were contained in a long commentary published to accompany
>>>the official release of a long-awaited document that restricted the
>>>access of homosexual men to the Roman Catholic priesthood.
>>>
>>>The article by Monsignor Tony Anatrella, a French Jesuit and
>>>psychologist, said homosexuality could not be considered an acceptable
>>>moral alternative to heterosexuality.
>>>
>>>"During these past years, homosexuality has become a phenomenon that
>>>is always increasingly worrying and in many countries is considered a
>>>quality that is normal," the article in L'Osservatore Romano said.
>>>
>>>The article was specifically approved by the Vatican's secretariat of
>>>state.
>>>
>>>"It (homosexuality) does not represent a social value and even less so
>>>a moral virtue that could add to the civilization of sexuality,"
>>>Anatrella said. "It could even be seen as a destabilizing reality for
>>>people and for society."
>>>
>>>The Catholic Church, the article said, had a duty to reaffirm its
>>>position that homosexuality is "against conjugal life, the life of the
>>>family, and priestly life".
>>>
>>>"In no case is this form of sexuality a sexual alternative, or even
>>>less, a reality that is equivalent to that which is shared by a man
>>>and a woman engaged in matrimonial life," the Italian-language article
>>>said.
>>>
>>>"It (homosexuality) cannot be encouraged or even less so, supported
>>>with pastoral initiatives," it said in an apparent reference to
>>>Catholic priests who administer to homosexuals without reminding them
>>>of the Church's position against gay sex.
>>>
>>>It said homosexuality was "a sexual tendency and not an identity" and
>>>repeated the Church's stand against allowing gays to marry or to adopt
>>>children. It also called homosexuality "an incomplete and immature
>>>part of human sexuality".
>>>
>>>It repeated some themes in the Vatican document, and added a list of
>>>ways seminary directors could determine if a candidate for the
>>>priesthood had overcome homosexual tendencies or risked not being able
>>>to respect the Church rule of priestly celibacy."
>>>http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticleSearch.aspx?storyID=194894+29-Nov-2005+RTRS&srch=vatican
>>>
>>>"Arguing on UseNet is like competing in the Special
>>>Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The church can go *** itself, though I guess it's not allowed to
>>do that.
>
> It will reap what it sowed -- a sizeable percentage of priests are
> gay, some say as high as 20%. Although those presently ordained
> are not targeted, many will leave. There is a shortage of priests in
> general and this will make it worse.
>
> It was a bad and worse than bad, stupid decision. I hope it comes
> back to haunt those who made it. It also is a decision that is by no
> means greeted happily by many Catholics -- I'd say well over 50%
> are against it.

My take on it is that it will make frocked hypocrites out of a large number
of priests. In other words, it won't change a thing in practice, but many
priests homosexual or not, will be vulnerable to arbitrary actions by church
authorities.





.

Quantcast