Ratzinger

[poliphilo]

The Catholic Church taught gay men to hate themselves, then offered them a way out by becoming (celibate) priests and monks.

Now Pope Ratzinger plans to stop gays entering the priesthood. (Though God knows how.)

As we plough on into the 21st century the Church hierarchy responds to the pressures of modernity by becoming even tighter-arsed.

It's a mad policy- one that will deepen an already calamitous manpower crisis.

Of course it's impossible to be sure how many of the great figures in the Church's history were gay, but it's certain that lots of them were. Several of the Renaissance Popes were shameless. Julius III made his lover a cardinal. So did Paul IV.

More recently Pope Paul VI (1963-78) was outed by the writer Roger Peyrefitte as the patron of an exclusive male brothel in Milan.

At the heart of the Vatican is the Sistine Chapel. Its paintings are among the core images of western Christendom. They are the work of Michelangelo- the greatest of the many gay artists to have served the Church. I like to think of Ratzinger sitting there in his white and gold with all those voluptuous male nudes gesticulating at his back and flying over his head.

They will be gesticulating and flying (and seducing all-comers) long after Ratzinger has gone.

Comments

[jackiejj.livejournal.com]

What is this about the Pope not allowing gay men in the clergy?

Oh, for a new Church with open doors and a sense of wonder and delight.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

The Vatican is drawing up new rules that would stop gay men (no matter whether they're celibate or not) from being ordained.

[jackiejj.livejournal.com]

Old smug men. They are sitting under their bell jar, breathing the last of their stale air.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

What a good way of putting it.

And Ratzinger is very old. He won't be around for long.

[jackiejj.livejournal.com]

I do find it confusing--I thought one of the sacrifices asked of Roman Catholic priests was celibacy. Doesn't that trump sexual orientation, make it moot?

It does seem to me that sexual orientation or proclivity is a separate issue entirely from controlling oneself. But perhaps I'm being simplistic.

It seems equally sensible--or nonsensical--to make a rule that reads, "If you plan to molest altar boys, you cannot be a priest."

They ought to at least write that down, too.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Under the old rules it didn't matter what your sexual orientation was just so long as you didn't do anything about it.

It was stupid and inhumane, but this new development is worse.

Vocations are bound to fall away and

(this is the good bit)

somewhere down the line the Church will have to statt ordaining women out of sheer desperation.

[solar-diablo.livejournal.com]

Do you have a link for an article that talks about Ratzinger's decision? A quick google and search around the NY Times website produced nothing for me.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I think I saw it on the TV first, but here's a pretty good article from the Observer...
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1558063,00.html

[halfmoon-mollie.livejournal.com]

At the heart of the Vatican is the Sistine Chapel. Its paintings are among the core images of western Christendom. They are the work of Michelangelo- the greatest of the many gay artists to have served the Church. I like to think of Ratzinger sitting there in his white and gold with all those voluptuous male nudes gesticulating at his back and flying over his head.

They will be gesticulating and flying (and seducing all-comers) long after Ratzinger has gone.

How very sad that what they teach is that God loves all no matter what sins have supposedly been committed. But that sounds like being gay is a sin.

this is why I don't get involved in discussions about religion.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

The old ruling was that being gay was acceptable just so long as you didn't have sex.

Pretty stupid and offensive and inhumane but less so than the new ruling.

[mummm.livejournal.com]

It's not that I approve of this nonsense, because I don't (!!!) but is this perhaps a reaction to all the trouble with priests and rape of late?

I truely think that the Cardinals lost it when they elected this Pope.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think it's a reaction to all those shaming stories about pedophile priests.

But of course a lot of those priests were raping little girls.

It's a half-baked ruling that fails to go to the heart of the matter and its assumption that gay = child-rapist is going to cause huge offence.

[ibid.livejournal.com]

I believe the Greek church had a ceremony to bless homosexual unions...

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

That sounds so unlikely that it's probably true.

Hooray for the Orthodox!

Hear hear

[zoe-1418.livejournal.com]

What you all said.

Re: Hear hear

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Cheers!

[kaysho.livejournal.com]

I'm amused by the argument that allowing gay men into seminaries is unfair to them because it exposes them to the temptation of being constantly around other gay men (delightfully circular logic), and is unfair to the straight seminarians because it exposes them to the possibility of also being tempted. It sounds very military in its thinking, as though gay sex is somehow irresistible once exposed to the possibility of it.

Besides, in a world before government pensions, gay men were the ideal candidates to be priests, since that way they could perform a valuable service for the community and have someone to care for them in their old age, since they wouldn't have children to do so. Perhaps the Church should also oppose old age pensions, since they are one of the primary reasons it's now possible to be gay and out?

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I hadn't thought of that before- old age pensions as an instrument of gay liberation. But, yes, it makes perfect sense.

It's fascinating how one thing leads to another.