The priest, Msgr. Charamsa, had claimed that the Church's call for homosexuals to live a life of abstinence is “inhumane.”
Cardinal Ruini responded that “as a priest I too have the obligation of abstinence, and in more than 60 years [of priesthood] I have never felt myself dehumanized, or deprived of a life of love, which is something much greater that the exercise of sexuality.”
Both Charamsa and Ruini seem to take it for granted that the Church does ask that of them.
There seems indeed to be a document by Montini (a k a Paul VI) asking that. In my opinion it is one sign he was an antipope.
But there is a referral back to De horrendo scelere, by Pope St Pius V. 1568. 400 years (if not necessarily on the day) before I was born. I have not been able as yet to get an online copy of it on internet, either in Latin or in translation. I have however read (I think on the wickipeejuh, unless it was die Wikipädie or on la viquipédie, it certainly was not on la biquipedia, since my Spanish is too bad for me to use it on non-Spanish subjects) about its content.
The point is, De horrendo scelere is about homosexual acts or openly showed tendencies (like leering at men, especially at boys) among monks and clergy. The discipline back then was deposing them or expelling them as quickly and as fast as possible. No therapy, no comebacks after therapy, unlike the seventies when a George Gheoghan was very unfortunately, both for others and himself, recycled on the advice of psychologists. Just plain out of clergy or monastery or other trusted positions. And of course, this involved - I quote from memory - either laicisation or doing penance alone and in abstinence. So, the real point is, if you have made an irreversible vow of sexual abstinence anyway, in order to be monk or certain types of priest, you must keep it even if you are thrown out as a homosexual.
The 1568 document, as far as I can see, never ever stated that if the baker or soldier so and so (or even the writer, confer Oscar Wilde), had committed the horror-worthy crime of sodomy - and I agree it is horror-worthy, horrendum as the Latin has it, he also must abstain from all sex for the rest of his life. No. If he disliked women more than celibacy, well, then he must be a celibate, of course. But if he disliked celibacy more than doing it with women, the proper course to take would be, since he was not obliged to celibacy by any vow, to marry, if he could find a wife willing to take him after that, that is.
Ruini is saying what is true enough about abstinent people who are really chaste. Homosexuals usually aren't. In certain cases after certain vows, they are even so obliged to become so, and according to the 1568 document, if it has shown, outside monasteries or holy orders. But in other cases that is not so.
I was noticing how the title came to resemble the words of the serpent. That is why I added "I think NOT" to it. In the serpent's case, the misciting came from the serpent. In my case, I am correcting a misciting already done by "Paul VI" and presumed Cardinal (though not really such) Ruini. And one which has incited people like Charamsa to take the serpent's deal and ask for disobeying the Church.
And of course, those unjustly diffamed as homosexuals also have a right to marry, unless of course bound by an eternal vow.
Hans Georg Lundahl
St Colman of Stockerau, martyr