From the Daily Post:
The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) has introduced a clause in its constitution subjecting members, who intend to hold positions in church, to take an oath of allegiance to God denouncing homosexuality. The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the public denunciation took place in Abuja on Sunday at St. Matthews, Maitama, during the swearing-in of new members of the Parish Church Council (PCC).
The Vicar of the church, Ven. Ben Idume, who administered the oath to members of the PCC, said the church recognised that those with such sexual orientation needed help and counselling.
“But they would not be allowed to hold any position in church,’’ he said.
Bully for them or unjust discrimination?
(I think everybody already knows my opinion…based upon discussions on the “Uganda” threads)
Prior to V II, the Catholic Church went to great pains in weeding out homosexuals from their Seminaries. At that time, sexual abuse of young men by Catholic Clergy was all but unknown at that time.
During the '60’s, '70’s and '80’s the Church “looked the other way” and gays were admitted to the clergy and the Catholic Church ended up with a flood of sexual abuse lawsuits…to the extent that several Dioceses in the US have had to declare bankruptcy.
For what it’s worth, most of these lawsuits do not involve little children. They involve adolescent boys who are sexually mature. It is only under law that they are considered children and the legal term for this aberration is pedophilia.
Finally, under Pope Benedict and now Francis, all Catholic Seminaries, worldwide, are under a mandate not to admit homosexuals or those with homosexual tendancies.
“Finally, under Pope Benedict and now Francis, all Catholic Seminaries, worldwide, are under a mandate not to admit homosexuals or those with homosexual tendancies.”
Is this completely accurate. I know there has been a tighter screening process, but I do not think that homosexuality necessarily eliminates a seminary candidate. I thought I had read that the candidate has to show a maturity i terms of understanding , accepting and being able to live a chaste life. Is this not accurate? I would say this most accurately reflects the Gospel teaching. It seems that simply being homosexual should not eliminate a candidate.
I have posted many comments supporting the Church’s teaching explicitly regarding homosexuality. I am not some left wing heretic. But I would guess there are many gay faithful Catholic men who would live sacrificial chaste lives as wonderful priests. I would not want to eliminate these men. Simply rejecting them because they are gay could be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Given the horrific experiences we have seen during the sexual abuse crisis, perhaps something has to be done to see that never happens again. However, I am not sure eliminating gay candidates is necessarily the most precise tool we could use. Ensuring we eliminate those with any kind of abnormal sexual inclination toward children, young teenagers seems to be the most accurate issue to address, not simply eliminating homosexuals. There is no doubt that the crisis involved virtually only homosexual pedophiles.So, it is definitely a tricky issue.
But I was just curious if the quote above is actually accurate and if not what exactly has been done to change the seminary screening process. I hope it is more in line with what I believe I had read and summarized above.
No, that bolded section is not accurate. The current state of seminary admissions is that a person with deep seated homosexual attractions is not to be admitted to the seminary, no matter how “mature” he may seem to be.
George’s comment is not 100% accurate either. A person who may have had a transient period of homosexual attraction in his past, *may *be admitted to seminary.
This applies to those seeking leadership positions only. It is very different than the Uganda laws since those affect anyone living there. The Anglicans have every right to demand orthodoxy from anyone seeking (voluntarily) a leadership position.
“The oath is a guide and warning that those in leadership positions in the church must uphold scriptural teachings and point to the godly part to the younger generations,’’
Deep-seated homosexual *tendencies, *which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter%between%.
In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question%between%, ** cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”%between%**.
Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.
Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be** clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate**.
The oath itself seems fine. What concerns me more is that you can get 10 years in prison in Nigeria for organizing a meeting of gay people for any reason. That means the leader of Courage would get 10 years in prison were he to try to help evangelize to any gay people in Nigeria. Which makes me wonder, of course, whether this oath is truly out of a sense of duty to God or out of something more nefarious. I will charitably assume the former, but certainly the oath seems unnecessary. But then again, this isn’t the Catholic Church, so they don’t have infallibility to rely on, so maybe it is necessary :shrug:.
I think another reason why most of the secular moral relativists on the left embrace Islam and allow that religion a free pass when it comes to Sharia Law’s treatment of homosexuals is because they know that Islam has historically been almost constantly at war with Christians, and they are probably thinking “any enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine.”
Yes. I think so. It goes some way to explaining the hard left’s silence on Muslim persecution of Christians around the world. They are glad of it, but only because they wrongly perceive Islam as being no threat to them.
I don’t think it’s that simple. I think the fact that Muslims are organised and control supply to the bulk of the worlds’ oil and are also not fond of the West for other reasons that the West is holding their tongue. It’s the West which is meddling in the Middle East. The Arabs and Co meddle very little in the West, with the exception of some nasty but numerically few terrorist attacks, the involvement is mainly one sided. To pile more onto that may just break the camel’s back. So not yet, I think.
Note that China, India, other Asian countries will buy Muslim oil without issues. Sanctioning them over treatment of gays, will not work. China will buy all the oil, and China will not sanction anyone over the treatment of gays anywhere. You know, the moral crusaders of the West should also attack China for its lack of human rights or its tolerance of other countries human rights abuses, but that won’t happen either. They’re just too big. The West is a gnome compared to the giants of China and India.
I find the language in the article rather odd: an oath denouncing homosexuality. What does that even mean? The commentary that follows later in the article doesn’t suggest denunciation of any sort but a rejection of homosexual practice in church leadership. That doesn’t seem extreme to me, though the language used is rather biased.
Youre thinking of pedophilia. A pedophile is a man attracked to a child. A homosexual is attracked to a grown person. Besides, most studdies show that pedophiles are usually in a hetrosexual relationship.
Most of the victims were teenagers, ergo their abusers were homosexuals. Look it up, they call it “intergenerational sex”. If you don’t think homosexuals celebrate pederasty, you’re in for a shock if you look into it.