Not being Catholic, I can only muse from the outside of this long-standing religion. But at the same time, the debates that rage on within it's confines have become much more visible for all. The recent child molestation and abuse scandal that has gripped Americans for all of 5 years has opened the church to more critical debate, and may be the reason that prompted the new decree.
Just hours after the new ruling, moderates in the UK were somewhat pleased with the ruling. The actual ruling from the Congregation for Catholic Education stated that'
"[O]rdination was not permissible for men with “deep-seated” gay tendencies but was permissible for those who could show they had overcome “transitory” homosexuality for three years. It does not apply to those already ordained."
The fact that this ruling did completelyetly ban gays from the church, or the preisthood, was taken as somewhat good news due to the fact that Pope Benedict has used phrases to describe homosexuality as a “tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil” while head of the the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. To further explain the ruling The Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor explained that in this ruling,
“The instruction is not saying that men of homosexual orientation are not welcome in the priesthood. But it is making clear that they must be capable of affective maturity, have a capacity for celibacy and not share the values of the eroticised gay culture. This is especially important because seminaries are all-male environments.”
But not everyone was as optimistic. Peter Tatchell, of the gay rights group OutRage!, said it was “bigoted and hypocritical”. He said:
““If these ruleshad existed in the past, many existing archbishops and cardinals would have never been allowed to enter the priesthood. Given the high proportion of gay clergy in senior positions in the Vatican, this new policy is rank hypocrisy.
“Given that about a third of Catholic clergy in Britain are gay, the new rules are [a] goal that could result in hundreds of churches being left without priests.”
What is this guy thinking? Does he actually believe that requiring those men who wish to be priests to simply prove that they have forsaken sex, of any and all kinds, is outlandish? Tatchell believes that instead of attacking gays, the church should take a harder line on those who molest children. How can anybody not see that molesting children and being gay are in no way even close to being related? The reason nothing has been handed down about the child molestation cases is that it seems obvious that this should not happen, but with homosexuality, the line is not so clear. This ruling is just trying to darken that line for all to see.
But for those in America, don't worry too much, because nothing can get passed some wacko comment from our own. 'The Human Rights Campaign, a gay pressure group based in the US, said gays were being used as scapegoats . . .'We urge them to consider what Jesus would do if he saw his neighbor treated this way,' the group said." What a great way to twist the words of a man you reject anyway. Let me tell you what Jesus would do, although I am sure you think you already know. Jesus was a man of the people. He loved to congregate and dwell among the least of these. He would not forsaken those who wish to follow him, but at them same time, he wound not accept all that they did.
The most famous of stories that I can use for comparison, although I know it may be far fetched, is that of Nicodemus. The tax collector Nicodemus wanted to be a part of the crowd to see Jesus as he came through town. Jesus spotted Nicodemus and asked to take party with him. This surprised all the people as Nicodemus was well hated and the people could not believe that Jesus would choose to spend time with a man that could be so cruel. But he did. Not because he shared the same passions, but simply because he wanted Nicodemus to know that he cared. Although it is not known if Nicodemus quit his tax collection, but it is clear that Jesus did not condone his activities, but simply love his neighbor for who he was, a living creature.
I think this ruling will be hotly contested in years to come. As moderates give way to radicals, debate will heat up. But for now, this is what the church needs to reclaim its strength in the world. For speaking purely in religious terms, acts of homosexuality is considered a sin. But being a homosexual is not. I try to live by the motto that you should love the person but not always love their actions. So to the question posed by The Human Rights Campaign, I believe that is what Jesus would do.
by Craig
TAGS: Pope Benedict , Time Magazine , Newsweek , Catholics Gay
0 comments:
Post a Comment