Dealing with gays

[LifeAt15MPH]

There is no “tearing apart” because it’s not up to the individual. God entrusted the Bible to the Church, to be interpreted by the clergy through the guidance of the Holy Spirit…

The future of our Catholic Church lies on giving our young people the ability to “tear apart”. what the Bible says. Many will choose that the Catholic Church is not for them, but many more will decide that it is for them! (as I’ve witnessed). This generation is VERY different than my generation or the ones before us. We can build a strong future for our Catholic Church, but we have to do so in a way that appeals our young.

As mentioned before, my wife became Catholic a few years ago. For many years, I attended mass all by myself, and participated at church events alone. One day, my wife started asking questions, and she wanted to “tear apart” the Bible and get the answers. It was thanks to that process that she finally felt at home in the Catholic Church.

We may believe that “God entrusted the Bible to the Church, to be interpreted by the clergy through the guidance of the Holy Spirit”, but ultimately, the same argument is also used by many other religions out there.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

The future of our Catholic Church lies on giving our young people the ability to “tear apart”. Many will choose that the Catholic Church is not for them, but many more will decide that it is for them! (as I’ve witnessed).

As mentioned before, my wife became Catholic a few years ago. For many years, I attended mass all by myself, and participated at church events alone. One day, my wife started asking questions, and she wanted to “tear apart” the Bible and get the answers. It was thanks to that process that she finally felt at home in the Catholic Church.

We may believe that “God entrusted the Bible to the Church, to be interpreted by the clergy through the guidance of the Holy Spirit”, but ultimately, the same argument is also used by many other religions out there.

Tearing apart is not the same thing as learning about. The way you were using it before suggests that you can reach conclusions on your own without the guidance of the Church, or the proper knowledge of the 6000+ year history of Catholic and Jewish Tradition. I’m all for reading the Bible and taking the time to learn about it and learn what the Church has to say about things; but this is distinctly different from trusting your own interpretation above the Teachings of the Church and the Holy Spirit.

Congratulations on your wife becoming Catholic though, It’s something I’m still working on with mine. She doesn’t feel any really pull to religion yet… it makes me sad, though she does go to Mass with me on occasion, which is a sign of hope.

The various other protestant sects who claim the guidance of the Holy spirit fail to recognize the absurdity of that claim. The fight among themselves over this doctrine or that, even the individuals within the religion cannot agree on things, this is why none of them have any truly defined Dogma. Dogma is permanent, it is infallible, and it is Truth. None of them can make those claims about their teachings because none of them are Guided. Catholic Dogma does not change, it has not changed, and it will not change. Compare that to any other protestant sect. You will not see the same.

 

[stlcatholic86]

See what light? Any light not derived from God is not a light you want to be seeing, let alone following. And what do you mean banned from being priests? O don’t know where you derived this misconception, but you are definitely mistaken. ** Sexually active** homosexuals cannot become priests, just like sexually active heterosexual cannot become priests. Similarly, a gay person who desires to become a priest but refuses to teach or live the Church’s moral standards in terms of homosexuality cannot become a priest. It’s not because they’re gay, it’s because they’re a heretic…

The light that gay people have a place in the Catholic Church and not to be demonized. Perhaps its just me but I don’t see the church supporting initiatives to ban pre-marital sex or divorce, but they sure do seem to be targeting gay marriage. Do you not find this odd?

It’s not a complete misconception, but I did slightly misspeak according to the 2005 “Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders” said those that have homosexual tendencies must be chaste and pray from at least three years before being ordained a Deacon, but those with deep seated homosexual tendencies or are sexually active homosexuals are barred forever. It also reaffirms that it "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”

And actually it is solely because they are gay, but thankfully being a heretic is no longer punished by law.

 

[LifeAt15MPH]

He’s not answering because he can’t.

If you don’t know any gay Christian who can actually sit down and read the Bible with you, there are plenty of references online. But I recommend that you find someone who can engage in a respectful opposing discussion of this topic.

It may not change your views, but it will at least open a healthy discussion, which in my opinion is the basis of making our beliefs stronger.

Dogma is permanent, it is infallible, and it is Truth. None of them can make those claims about their teachings because none of them are Guided. Catholic Dogma does not change, it has not changed, and it will not change.

Just for the record THIS is why I’m Catholic and will continue being Catholic. I believe that what the Catholic Church teaches IS the way, but at the same time, I know that there/s a way to tie it all together.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

The light that gay people have a place in the Catholic Church and not to be demonized. Perhaps its just me but I don’t see the church supporting initiatives to ban pre-marital sex or divorce, but they sure do seem to be targeting gay marriage. Do you not find this odd?

They’re not demonized by the Church. Where on Earth are you getting this nonsense from? They’re held to the same standard as everyone else.

Also, you have your terminology wrong, we’re not looking to BAN anything, Gay “marriage” has never been a thing, period. There is not a single culture that has had Gay marriage in the history of human civilization. Even the most sexually depraved cultures in history (the Greeks and Romans) understood the importance of the Marital bond. They allowed homosexual relationships, but definitely didn’t give it the same standing as a heterosexual marriage.

In order to ban something is has to exist in the first place. Gays cannot get married to each other, period. There are completely incapable of achieving the true end of marriage, namely, procreation, the continuation of the species. We are not trying to BAN gay “marriage,” we are trying to protect marriage as it was intended by God and nature; to be between a man and a woman.

We also do not ban pre-marital sex and divorce because we believe in the practice of free will. However, we will always relay the problems and risks of such actions, as we always have. If a bill were trying to force us to recognize divorce as a good thing, or premarital sex as something that’s on the same level of marriage then yes, we would fight it just as we are fighting this abomination which seeks to redefine marriage, however, this is the current problem, so this is what we focus on.

It’s not a ,complete misconception, but I did slightly misspeak according to the 2005 “Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders” said those that have homosexual tendencies must be chaste and pray from at least three years before being ordained a Deacon, but those with deep seated homosexual tendencies or are sexually active homosexuals are barred forever. It also reaffirms that it "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”

And actually it is solely because they are gay, but thankfully being a heretic is no longer punished by law.

You just said exactly what I said. Active homosexuals or those who either cannot or will not renounce a homosexual lifestyle cannot be priests. Practicing homosexuals are sexually active homosexuals. And, as I said, they are not barred form the priesthood because they’re gay; they’re barred because they are living a heretical life, not in accordance with church teachings. Why should we allow someone to be a priest if they’re not going to teach the Truth?

And, no, it isn’t, your own fracking quote proves that point. They are barred because they are practicing acts not in line with Church teaching. Similarly, if i were preaching Sola Scriptura or once saved always saved, i could not be a priest because I am not teaching or living in accordance with Church teaching.

If you don’t know any gay Christian who can actually sit down and read the Bible with you, there are plenty of references online. But I recommend that you find someone who can engage in a respectful opposing discussion of this topic. If you fail at finding anything, maybe expand your search.

Look for references outside of what Catholics say. Check out the differences between the different Bible translations. Find out how words have been interpreted in one version vs another.

It may not change your views, but it will at least open a healthy discussion, which in my opinion is the basis of making our beliefs stronger.

Once again you have failed to produce any proof. As you are the person making the claim, the burden of proof falls to you. I’ll stick with the Catholic Church’s version of the Bible thank you, as well as her interpretation of it. Why should I turn to some protestant who is lacking in the full Truth and guidance of the Holy spirit. That’s like going to the eye doctor for a tooth ache. They might have a general idea of what’s wrong, but they can’t speak authoritatively. Non-Catholic clergy are not adequately equipped to talk about theology because, buy their nature as protestants, they have rejected some portion of the fullness that is the Catholic church. Why settle for a crumb when I can have the whole cake?

Just for the record THIS is why I’m Catholic and will continue being Catholic. I believe that what the Catholic Church teaches IS the way, but at the same time, I know that there/s a way to tie it all together.

Yes, there is. It’s called “Becoming Catholic” Protestants may be completely earnest in their desire for God, but protestant churches can NEVER fulfill their heart’s need. They are simply incapable because they are lacking the full truth, which is only present in the One. Holy. Apostolic. Catholic Church! You will never convince me that we should sacrifice Truth in the name of getting along, that is a fallacy and not in the best interest of those who are not fully part of the Truth.

 

[stlcatholic86]

They’re not demonized by the Church. Where on Earth are you getting this nonsense from? They’re held to the same standard as everyone else.

Also, you have your terminology wrong, we’re not looking to BAN anything, Gay “,arriage” has never been a thing, period. There is not a single culture that has had Gay marriage in the history of human civilization. Even the most sexually depraved cultures in history (the Greeks and Romans) understood the importance of the Marital bond. They allowed homosexual relationships, but definitely didn’t give it the same standing as a heterosexual marriage.

In order to ban something is has to exist in the first place. Gays cannot get married to each other, period. There are completely incapable of achieving the true end of marriage, namely, procreation, the continuation of the species. We are not trying to BAN gay “marriage,” we are trying to protect marriage as it was intended by God and nature; to be between a man and a woman.

Actually prior to Christianity the Romans/Greeks didn’t have a concept of marriage that was anywhere near similar to what we now understand as marriage. Sexuality was extremely fluid in Paganism and heterosexuals and homosexuals were heralded as equals from mother Earth.

Yes the Church is actively trying to ban gay marriage. They did so in Massachusetts after the Supreme Court ruled the state had no interest in preventing homosexuals the right to marry. The Catholic church was extremely active in the Prop 8 campaign as they were in the Maine initiative to overturn the legislature’s decision to allow gay marriage. The church was also active in the campaign to ban gay marriage in Minnesota and I know for a fact that the church helped with the petition drive in 2004 to put marriage on the Missouri ballot. So to suggest that the church has not tried to ban gay marriage is simply false. So if the matter is a question on free will like the other matters I mentioned why is does the church not think one should have free will in the marriage debate?

You just said exactly what I said. Active homosexuals or those who either cannot or will not renounce a homosexual lifestyle cannot be priests. Practicing homosexuals are sexually active homosexuals. And, as I said, they are not barred form the priesthood because they’re gay; they’re barred because they are living a heretical life, not in accordance with church teachings. Why should we allow someone to be a priest if they’re not going to teach the Truth?

And, no, it isn’t, your own fracking quote proves that point. They are barred because they are practicing acts not in line with Church teaching. Similarly, if i were preaching Sola Scriptura or once saved always saved, i could not be a priest because I am not teaching or living in accordance with Church teaching.

Hmm… perhaps there is some confusion. My point is that people who are openly gay yet chaste are forbidden from entering the Priesthood. You had seem to disagree with that assertion? No? So thus I demonstrated that the Vatican came out and reaffirmed its stance on gays in the Priesthood although clarified on those who could serve as a Deacon. Yes those who are engaging in homosexual acts are barred from the Priesthood, but so are those who acknowledge openly that they have SSA without acting on them. Hopefully that clears up the confusion. :hug1:

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Actually prior to Christianity the Romans/Greeks didn’t have a concept of marriage that was anywhere near similar to what we now understand as marriage. Sexuality was extremely fluid in Paganism and heterosexuals and homosexuals were heralded as equals from mother Earth.

You’ll have to cite sources on this one, because it is distinctly different from everything I’ve learned about Greek and Roman culture. Marriage, while different in terms of certain cultural aspects, was still only between men and women. They say no issues with homosexual relationships, but they did not hold them in the same esteem as heterosexual ones.

Yes the Church is actively trying to ban gay marriage. They did so in Massachusetts after the Supreme Court ruled the state had no interest in preventing homosexuals the right to marry. The Catholic church was extremely active in the Prop 8 campaign as they were in the Maine initiative to overturn the legislature’s decision to allow gay marriage.
The church was also active in the campaign to ban gay marriage in Minnesota and I know for a fact that the church helped with the petition drive in 2004 to put marriage on the Missouri ballot. So to suggest that the church has not tried to ban gay marriage is simply false. So if the matter is a question on free will like the other matters I mentioned why is does the church not think one should have free will in the marriage debate?

You say all this as though it were a bad thing. I’ll agree that, under what I can determine of your outlook, they did attempt to “ban” it. However, so what? It’s immoral to begin with, and more importantly is bad for society as a whole. Why shouldn’t the church seek to prevent evil from seeping into our society?

We do believe in free will, but we also believe in our duty to be our brother’s keeper, and seek what is best for society as a whole. AS such, we will continue to exercise our free will in the desire to protect the Truth and protect Society, and they will continue to exercise their free will and work to make abominations seem normal and acceptable.

Hmm… perhaps there is some confusion. My point is that people who are openly gay yet chaste are forbidden from entering the Priesthood. You had seem to disagree with that assertion? No? So thus I demonstrated that the Vatican came out and reaffirmed its stance on gays in the Priesthood although clarified on those who could serve as a Deacon. Yes those who are engaging in homosexual acts are barred from the Priesthood, but so are those who acknowledge openly that they have SSA without acting on them. Hopefully that clears up the confusion. :hug1:

You’ll have to provide a source for what you quoted earlier before I’ll acknowledge it. Again though, why shouldn’t they? It is the Church’s duty to protect the priesthood. While I have little doubt as to those gay individuals’ dedication to God, it does not change the fact that homosexual priests have done irreparable damage to the Church. In light of that, doesn’t it make sense to take measures to prevent similar occurrences from happening in the future.

Equality is not about everyone being treated the same, it is about everyone being treated according to their nature, and according to their needs. This is no different.

I’m afraid that his is where I must pull out of the discussion for the evening though. I will check back in in the morning. Good night all, God bless, and I pray that we may all develop a deeper understanding of our beautiful faith.

 

[JillianRose]

Like I said, renounced his duty to God. His duty as a Catholic priest was to live and preach the Catholic faith. Rather than remain true to his faith and offer his troubles to God, as all Catholics are called to do, He chose to abandon his position and his faith in favor of a “church” that allowed him to indulged in his sexual urges. What about this does not say “abandoning his faith” to you?

You approach the Bible like a protestant. There is no “tearing apart” because it’s not up to the individual. God entrusted the Bible to the Church, to be interpreted by the clergy through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Belief in personal interpretation is the reason we have 40k protestant denominations floating about all claiming to know better than one another, all of which are operating without (or with lesser) guiding from the Holy Spirit.

See what light? Any light not derived from God is not a light you want to be seeing, let alone following. And what do you mean banned from being priests? O don’t know where you derived this misconception, but you are definitely mistaken. ** Sexually active** homosexuals cannot become priests, just like sexually active heterosexual cannot become priests. Similarly, a gay person who desires to become a priest but refuses to teach or live the Church’s moral standards in terms of homosexuality cannot become a priest. It’s not because they’re gay, it’s because they’re a heretic…

 

[stlcatholic86]

You’ll have to cite sources on this one, because it is distinctly different from everything I’ve learned about Greek and Roman culture. Marriage, which different in terms of certain cultural aspects, was still only between men and women. They say no issues with homosexual relationships, but they did not hold them in the same esteem as heterosexual ones.

Actually, Ill admit I wasn’t exactly on point. What I should instead say is that ancient Greece much like ancient Rome didn’t have a modern identity of sexual orientation rather in either relationship it was based on attaining social norms meaning in the most polite sense they judged all relationships based on the concept of penetrator (ie. the man) and the submissive (ie. the woman). Thus, same sex relations were seen as equal to opposite relations as there were clear roles in the relationship. Often this too the forum of pederasty (ie. older men and younger boys), but this is no different than heterosexual couples as men were to be about thirty and marry woman at about sixteen so both relationships paralleled even in age.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece

You say all this as though it were a bad thing. I’ll agree that, under what I can determine of your outlook, they did attempt to “ban” it. However, so what? It’s immoral to begin with, and more importantly is bad for society as a whole. Why shouldn’t the church seek to prevent evil from seeping into our society?

We do believe in free will, but we also believe in our duty to be our brother’s keeper, and seek what is best for society as a whole. AS such, we will continue to exercise our free will in the desire to protect the Truth and protect Society, and they will continue to exercise their free will and work to make abominations seem normal and acceptable.

You’re moving the brightline of debate. Your original argument was that the Catholic church hasn’t pushed for gay marriage bans and thus that is why it doesn’t push for bans on other moral issues. Thus now that you know the church has pushed for gay bans, why doesn’t it push for other moral bans? Afterall you think the church should seek to prevent evil from seeping into society? So if gay marriage is evil, why does it not push for bans of divorce, premarital sex, etc. Your argument seems pretty uncompelling.

You’ll have to provide a source for what you quoted earlier before I listen to it. Again though, why shouldn’t they? It is the Church’s duty to protect the priesthood. While I have little doubt as to those gay individuals’ dedication to God, it does not change the fact that homosexual priests have done irreparable damage to the Church. In light of that, doesn’t it make sense to take measures to prevent similar occurrences from happening in the future.

I gave the citation in my original post " Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders." You’re welcome to look it up and read it for yourself.

The problem is simple, being gay is not a sin. Thus there should be no objection to allowing homosexuals to serve as Priests. Unfortunately, the reason for this was because of the pedophille issues in the Catholic church. It’s daming because for one its equates gay people to being pedophilles which isn’t true. Pedophilles are pedophilles regardless of sexual orientation. Second, the major problem with the sexual scandal was complicit Bishops that tried to cover up these acts thinking it would be a “scandal” on the faith. They were right it would be, but they allowed countless other boys and girls to be molested by these Priests rather than dealing with the issue out in the open.

 

[stlcatholic86]

Not really helpful, when his approach is actually not consistent with Catholic doctrine. My point was is the Church now prevents anyone who has same sex desire from entering the seminary regardless if they were or weren’t sexual active and regardless if they will or won’t abide by the doctrine of the Catholic church. To put it more simply if a person who desires to the Priesthood acknowledges same-sex attraction, but has not acted on them and agrees to the tenets of Catholic teaching regarding homosexuality is STILL BARRED from entering the seminary, although it appears they can at least be a Deacon.

 

[aspirant]

one thing Catholics can do is to oppose homophobia. That’s right. You can still oppose homophobia while opposing homosexual acts.

The teaching of the Catholic Church promotes respect and compassion, opposing injustice:
"Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

We call on all Christians and citizens of good will to confront their own fears about homosexuality and to curb the humor and discrimination that offend homosexual persons. We understand that having a homosexual orientation brings with it enough anxiety, pain and issues related to self-acceptance without society bringing additional prejudicial treatment…

{To Church Ministers:} Welcome homosexual persons into the faith community, and seek out those on the margins. Avoid stereotyping and condemning. Strive first to listen. Do not presume that all homosexual persons are sexually active.

Unfortunately, there are many Catholics and other Christians who fail to live up to this teaching. Whether they intend to do so or not, some Catholics do marginalize homosexual persons through words and actions that make people with same-sex attraction feel unwelcome, unwanted, disrespected, disregarded, or unloved. I am sure that I have probably failed in this regard many times. But we have a responsibility to our Lord, to his Church, and to all our brothers and sisters to make conscious efforts to treat homosexual persons with dignity and respect, to make conscious efforts to welcome them into the life of faith and pursuit of holiness together with us, to put away actions and words that are hurtful and needlessly alienate people. We do not need to change the Church’s moral teaching regarding sex in order to love people better than we seem to be doing. We need to put into practice what the Church teaches.

High schools these days are tough with all the bullies calling homosexuals “faggots” and “dykes.” This doesn’t just happen in high school either unfortunately.

It’s not only when this is directed at homosexual persons that this can be harmful, either. Even when it’s directed at straight people as an insult, someone with same sex attraction who overhears it will know what it means: homosexual people are not wanted or loved.

I think as Catholics, we should strive to fight homophobic bullying while maintaining an opposition towards homosexual marriage. Such an announcement from the Catholic Church would bring light to Catholic communities all over the US.

The Catholic Church has spoken out. I think the problem is that we’re not adequately publicizing it in our own words and actions.

 

[aspirant]

“Homophobia” means fear of gay people which is a false term designed to effectively end meaningful discussion by labeling/name-calling the opposition. People who are against homosexual activity are not afraid of gay people.

To be fair, some people who oppose homosexual activity do appear to be afraid, though not all. So I think your point about etymology is generally valid. At the same time, I think it’s clear what Melek meant.

We need to be anti-bullying of everyone, not just gays… It’s not okay to bully anyone for any reason.

I agree, but I still think we need to be clear, at times, about specific forms of bullying. It is wrong to bully anyone, and that means it is wrong to bully a girl because she is a girl. It is wrong to bully anyone, and that means it is wrong to bully an Asian kid because he is Asian. It is wrong to bully anyone, and that means it is wrong to bully someone with glasses because she has glasses. It is wrong to bully anyone, and that means it is wrong to bully a skinny boy because he is skinny. It is wrong to bully anyone, and that means it is wrong to bully gay people because they are gay. Sometimes it is very good to clarify that there is a specific element of prejudice that needs to be corrected in addition to the bullying in general.

If someone is bullying someone who is gay, because they are gay, they need to stop:

1. ALL bullying is wrong.
2. The person being bullied will ultimately be pushed into the gay lifestyle rather than embracing a Godly lifestyle… the intention may be to turn them away from active homosexuality but it will actually do just the opposite.

Although I don’t care for the “lifestyle” terminology, I understand your point and tend to agree that the second is a real danger.

I do agree about teaching people about homosexuality. It is not their choice to have same-sex attractions and they shouldn’t be picked on for having them (or for any other reason). Gay persons are welcome in the Church, too. Everyone is allowed to sit in at Mass and participate in social or charitable groups. It’s just that anyone in the state of mortal sin should not take Communion. But this isn’t specific to actively gay individuals, it’s for everyone; many people are unable to take Communion for various reasons.

I wish more Catholics behaved accordingly. Unfortunately, I think we’re not always making it clear that people with same-sex attraction shouldn’t be picked on, are welcome in Church, etc.

And what do you mean banned from being priests? O don’t know where you derived this misconception, but you are definitely mistaken.

I think it was a reference to this:
Congregation for Catholic Education:

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 fulfill God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter.

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, 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.”

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.

According to this, it is not only persons “who practice homosexuality… or support the so-called ‘gay culture’” who may not be admitted into holy orders. It’s also people who “present deep-seated homosexual tendencies” that are not “transitory.” (“Transitory” usually means temporary or momentary.) I’ve underlined the word “or” to emphasize that, at least in English, it does not appear to be a combination of two or more of these factors that prevents admission but any one of them.

 

[djames99]

My first “head on” crash with this topic came a few years ago when my Catholic priest cousin informed me about his decision to leave the Catholic Church. The reason? He was gay. He lived an exemplary life as a Catholic priest, giving decades of his life to tending the poor, yet he couldn’t be part of something that denied who he was.

Two concerns present themselves with this sad decision. Immediately, the priest would need to explain away the cures some have discovered for this temptorial affliction. This good news also gives credence to scripture and it’s adamant stance against this behavior. Even in the seminary, this issue would have needed to be resolved before entering the priesthood. More seriously, since he found this to be no barrier to his priesthood, what advice has he been giving to those who have confessed their HS to him.? I hope he wasn’t saying the acts weren’t sinful, or at least gave advice on how to be rid of the temptation.

Gays are part of the Catholic Church, whether we like it or not. Denying their existence is denying a huge part of our Church. They are here, sharing a pew with us during mass, tending to our children and teens on Church-sponsored activities, reading the Bible, and living God-centered lives.

What the Church forbids us to excuse is the adoption or relenting to it,(and “Gay” is a label that helps him identify with the sin and the Church frowns on it’s use). The Church teaches that this attitude further weakens us to mount any resistance to it. Scripture states it’s a sin and God says how serious he considers it. If it were impossible to win, why would he inflict something that there is no hope to get rid of.? Now, if he gives up on this, who’s to say he won’t fight against any other degenerate thought that enters his head like anything else with the same deviant delectability. This is called compounding and is the result of being complacent and submissive.

In fact such a policy of caution is used in screening for most social positions today. We don’t accept past rapists for kinder garden jobs, even when we are targeting pedophiles, because these are evident weaknesses in character in sexual contexts.

Incidentally, we are to have the same attitude to those who are shacking up, deliberately having children out of wedlock, watching sexually explicit entertainment, and many more that is permitted in the secular world. Even if they believe they are living God centered lives, that is a myth. What God wants them to do is correct themselves and make amends first, then come join him.

I’ve read what the Bible says from the standpoint of those against homosexuality as well as from the standpoint of those in favor. I’ve learned that the arguments in favor of homosexuality are actually as strong as those against it.

Many in Sodom thought so too. In the list of references you quote, only the Church carries any weight.

I’m very grateful to be living in a place where fellow Catholics are open to accepting homosexuals as warmly as any heterosexual in our community. Mentoring young Catholics in their teen years has opened my eyes even more. Listening to what they have to say as young members of this Church (and as its future leaders) is completely eye opening, and ot a certain degree, wonderful.

No we don’t accept HS as living an ideal and virtuous Christian lifestyle, no more than we accept theft,drunkenness or any other habitual capital sin, and the Church instructs us that the warnings as per social interaction, who to avoid, who to accept are outlined in Sirach and Wisdom and Psalms, and are very much a guide book today as in the past. We see them as a work in progress, and if they show signs of resignation, they are to be avoided outright.

 

[90Domer]

Actually, Ill admit I wasn’t exactly on point. What I should instead say is that ancient Greece much like ancient Rome didn’t have a modern identity of sexual orientation rather in either relationship it was based on attaining social norms meaning in the most polite sense they judged all relationships based on the concept of penetrator (ie. the man) and the submissive (ie. the woman). Thus, same sex relations were seen as equal to opposite relations as there were clear roles in the relationship. Often this too the forum of pederasty (ie. older men and younger boys), but this is no different than heterosexual couples as men were to be about thirty and marry woman at about sixteen so both relationships paralleled even in age.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece

You’re moving the brightline of debate. Your original argument was that the Catholic church hasn’t pushed for gay marriage bans and thus that is why it doesn’t push for bans on other moral issues. Thus now that you know the church has pushed for gay bans, why doesn’t it push for other moral bans? Afterall you think the church should seek to prevent evil from seeping into society? So if gay marriage is evil, why does it not push for bans of divorce, premarital sex, etc. Your argument seems pretty uncompelling.

I gave the citation in my original post " Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders." You’re welcome to look it up and read it for yourself.

The problem is simple, being gay is not a sin. Thus there should be no objection to allowing homosexuals to serve as Priests. Unfortunately, the reason for this was because of the pedophille issues in the Catholic church. It’s daming because for one its equates gay people to being pedophilles which isn’t true. Pedophilles are pedophilles regardless of sexual orientation. Second, the major problem with the sexual scandal was complicit Bishops that tried to cover up these acts thinking it would be a “scandal” on the faith. They were right it would be, but they allowed countless other boys and girls to be molested by these Priests rather than dealing with the issue out in the open.

No, being SSA is not a sin. However, whether people want to admit it or not, there are many troubling co-morbid conditions that come with SSA: depression, a penchant for substance abuse and ephebophilia are three that come to mind.

Somebody earlier on said his relative was a SSA chaste priest who finally left the priesthood to succumb to his inclinations. Right there, do you not see how the Church may worry about this? Heck, I wouldn’t want seminaries to take that chance.

Finally, priests are married to the Church, which is their Bride. The Church is referred to as a she. How can SSA priests present a strong masculine imagine when they are SSA inclined. Granted, this is an apology or metaphor, but it is quite true.

 

[90Domer]

Not really helpful, when his approach is actually not consistent with Catholic doctrine. My point was is the Church now prevents anyone who has same sex desire from entering the seminary regardless if they were or weren’t sexual active and regardless if they will or won’t abide by the doctrine of the Catholic church. To put it more simply if a person who desires to the Priesthood acknowledges same-sex attraction, but has not acted on them and agrees to the tenets of Catholic teaching regarding homosexuality is STILL BARRED from entering the seminary, although it appears they can at least be a Deacon.

With all the damage that SSA inclined priests and bishops have done to the Church (take a look at the Diocese of Rochester for one sad example), I am glad the church has this stance. Heck, my son has autism and will never have the social skills to be a priest…so I need to bad mouth the Church because of this. Let’s face it, LIFE ISN’T FAIR.

 

[fix]

Not really helpful, when his approach is actually not consistent with Catholic doctrine. My point was is the Church now prevents anyone who has same sex desire from entering the seminary regardless if they were or weren’t sexual active and regardless if they will or won’t abide by the doctrine of the Catholic church. To put it more simply if a person who desires to the Priesthood acknowledges same-sex attraction, but has not acted on them and agrees to the tenets of Catholic teaching regarding homosexuality is STILL BARRED from entering the seminary, although it appears they can at least be a Deacon.

The Church’s position is good and right. Politics in relativistic America does not like it.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Actually, Ill admit I wasn’t exactly on point. What I should instead say is that ancient Greece much like ancient Rome didn’t have a modern identity of sexual orientation rather in either relationship it was based on attaining social norms meaning in the most polite sense they judged all relationships based on the concept of penetrator (ie. the man) and the submissive (ie. the woman). Thus, same sex relations were seen as equal to opposite relations as there were clear roles in the relationship. Often this too the forum of pederasty (ie. older men and younger boys), but this is no different than heterosexual couples as men were to be about thirty and marry woman at about sixteen so both relationships paralleled even in age.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece

Never, ever use wikipedia as a source in an intelligent discussion. I could go over to that page right now and rewrite it to say that all Grecian men we 3" tall and had blue skin. I’m sorry, but you’ll need to present a much, much more credible source than that.

You’re moving the brightline of debate. Your original argument was that the Catholic church hasn’t pushed for gay marriage bans and thus that is why it doesn’t push for bans on other moral issues. Thus now that you know the church has pushed for gay bans, why doesn’t it push for other moral bans? Afterall you think the church should seek to prevent evil from seeping into society? So if gay marriage is evil, why does it not push for bans of divorce, premarital sex, etc. Your argument seems pretty uncompelling.

The answer to this one is simple, it has tried to; and it failed because society was unwilling to listen. The same result may be true here, but that’s no reason for us not to try.

Also, it does not push for outright bans on divorce because there are instances where it is legitimately the best option for a couple. These instances are rare, but need to be considered (such cases include things like spousal abuse / child abuse)

As for Premarital sex, it is up to a person’s free will to dictate whether or not they remain chaste, as it is up to a gay person’s free will to determine if they will remain chaste. This decision does not have the same affect on society that “normalization” of gay marriage would have, and therefore the Church seeks to leave it to individual discernment.

I gave the citation in my original post " Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders." You’re welcome to look it up and read it for yourself.

The problem is simple, being gay is not a sin. Thus there should be no objection to allowing homosexuals to serve as Priests. Unfortunately, the reason for this was because of the pedophille issues in the Catholic church. It’s daming because for one its equates gay people to being pedophilles which isn’t true. Pedophilles are pedophilles regardless of sexual orientation. Second, the major problem with the sexual scandal was complicit Bishops that tried to cover up these acts thinking it would be a “scandal” on the faith. They were right it would be, but they allowed countless other boys and girls to be molested by these Priests rather than dealing with the issue out in the open.

Actually, you are gravely mistaken on this point.

Homosexual pedophiles sexually molest children at a far greater rate compared to the
percentage of homosexuals in the general population. A study in the Journal of Sex
Research found, as we have noted above, that “approximately one-third of [child sex
offenders] had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls.” The authors then
make a prescient observation: “Interestingly, this ratio differs substantially from the ratio
of gynephiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature females) to androphiles (men
who erotically prefer physically mature males), which is at least 20 to 1.”

Homosexuality and Child Abuse

“The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering,” said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. “Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls.”
Read more at wnd.com/2002/04/13722/#bOwjdRyfjcd6whDq.99

Pedophilia more common and “gays”

These are just two of several articles, with supporting links and further information included as citations.

continued in next post…

 

[ProdglArchitect]

continued from previous post

I will grant that people who do not show signs of improving or controlling their homosexual desires are barred form the priesthood. There are various reasons for this, many stemming from the desire to protect the priesthood. Just because the Bishops did a poor job of handling the situation does not negate the underlying issue with having blatant or active homosexuals being leaders within the Church. It is sad, and it may not seem “fair” from your limited perspective, but it is important for the church to protect herself and offer the best possible guidance for future generations. I will concede the point, however, that certain people are prevented form becoming priests because they are gay.

I still don’t see anything wrong with it though. As I said before, equality is not about everyone being able to do everything everyone else is able to, its about recognizing people for what they are, and treating them accordingly. You do not treat an athlete like a rocket scientist, and you do not treat a rocket scientist like an athlete, their roles, purpose and skills are different, and as such they should be treated according to those capacities. To believe otherwise is a logical fallacy. Gay people should be treated with respect, but that doesn’t mean that their disordered tendancies should just be ignored outright.

Here is a brief article that goes into why active / dep-seated homosexual cannot become priests. It does a pretty good job of explaining it. lisagraas.com/blog/archives/5170

Briefly, if you read just a little bit past where you appear to have stopped in that declaration: (about halfway through the first paragraph in segment 3)

The desire alone to become a priest is not sufficient, and there does not exist a right to receive sacred ordination. It belongs to the Church – in her responsibility to define the necessary requirements for receiving the sacraments instituted by Christ – to discern the suitability of him who desires to enter the seminary[12], to accompany him during his years of formation, and to call him to holy orders if he is judged to possess the necessary qualities[13].

As a Catholic, don’t you think you should trust the Church to do what’s best for you, her and society? If you don’t, then why are you Catholic?

 

[fix]

I’ve been Catholic my entire life. Attended Catholic school for 13 years, and as an adult, I’ve continued my journey and active participation inside this Church, most recently as a CORE leader for the Life Teen program. I’ve seen my wife embrace Catholicism as well because this is where she felt at home.Throughout all these years, I’ve learned many things. Agreed with some, disagreed with others.

My first “head on” crash with this topic came a few years ago when my Catholic priest cousin informed me about his decision to leave the Catholic Church. The reason? He was gay. He lived an exemplary life as a Catholic priest, giving decades of his life to tending the poor, yet he couldn’t be part of something that denied who he was.

Gays are part of the Catholic Church, whether we like it or not. Denying their existence is denying a huge part of our Church. They are here, sharing a pew with us during mass, tending to our children and teens on Church-sponsored activities, reading the Bible, and living God-centered lives.

I’ve read what the Bible says from the standpoint of those against homosexuality as well as from the standpoint of those in favor. I’ve learned that the arguments in favor of homosexuality are actually as strong as those against it.

I’m very grateful to be living in a place where fellow Catholics are open to accepting homosexuals as warmly as any heterosexual in our community. Mentoring young Catholics in their teen years has opened my eyes even more. Listening to what they have to say as young members of this Church (and as its future leaders) is completely eye opening, and ot a certain degree, wonderful.

There are adulterers who work with the poor. They are kind and say nice things. Is adultery good? There are contraceptors who are ushers at mass and would help you if you tripped? Is contraception good? Truth is a person. To deny the truth is denying Christ. How do we claim fidelity to Him while rejecting His law?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I think it was a reference to this:

According to this, it is not only persons “who practice homosexuality… or support the so-called ‘gay culture’” who may not be admitted into holy orders. It’s also people who “present deep-seated homosexual tendencies” that are not “transitory.” (“Transitory” usually means temporary or momentary.) I’ve underlined the word “or” to emphasize that, at least in English, it does not appear to be a combination of two or more of these factors that prevents admission but any one of them.

I have assented to that point now, and presented reasons why it doesn’t matter if he thinks it’s unfair or unjust, since it’s up to he Church to determine who is and isn’t fit for the priesthood based on all the aspects of the candidates life. This includes sexual orientation and activity. The priesthood isn’t a right, and unfit people should not be allowed in, plain and simple.