Homosexual and women priests

[Conor7]

I don’t wish to get in an argument about this, simply because these things get too heated and in the end, no one comes out the better for it. However, I often ask myself which scripture should one take seriously since people seem to pick and choose. I think that if one is going to take one particular verse seriously, they should be willing to consider others with the same weight.

Either dismiss them all out of hand, or embrace scripture in it’s entirety. Either way, I, for one, will have greater respect for you.

Incidentally, I don’t eat shellfish.

 

[estesbob]

I certainly hope you don’t eat shellfish, shave your beard or, while none of my business, ever laid with a woman who was having her period. I’m just saying…

The New Testament, while affirming that homosexual behavior is greviously sinful also makes it clear that we are no longer bound by Jewish dietary and hygiene Laws And of course as Catholics we also depend on the unchanging teachings of the Magestruim which has always condemned Homosexal behavior

I understand where your confusion comes from. It is pretty common among those who doe not know how Catholic doctrine was derived.

 

[estesbob]

Either dismiss them all out of hand, or embrace scripture in it’s entirety. Either way, I, for one, will have greater respect for you.

Incidentally, I don’t eat shellfish.

Since as Catholics we are not shackled by Sola Scriptural we do not have to make such a choice

 

[Conor7]

Since as Catholics we are not shackled by Sola Scriptural we do not have to make such a choice

Can you explain that to me? I’m not being disingenuous.

 

[estesbob]

Can you explain that to me? I’m not being disingenuous.

The Doctones of the church rest on a three legged stool-scripture,tradition and the Infallible teachings of the Magestrium. Homosexual behavior is condemned by all three.

When a Catholic reads Scripture they do not do do to find the truth, they do so to gain a deeper understanding of the truth that has already been revealed to them by the Church.

 

[adrift]

The Church has been ordaining homosexuals since day one and will continue to do so. ?

:bigyikes: Which apostle was homosexual? That of course would be day one. Or are you just overstating your postion. If not, documentation would be appreciated.

In fact, a religious vocation has traditionally been recommended for consideration by men with a homosexual orientation, provided, obviously, that they have ‘felt the call’ and are in other respects qualified.?

A fact? Please provide evidence that it is indeed a fact.

And as a purely practical matter, since the Church is starving for priests now, and unwilling to ordain women, whence would they come if homosexual men were barred

The Church is not unwilling it can’t… It has no authority to ordain a priestess. You believe that only homosexauls become priest or are the majority? Please give documentation on this.

 

[Conor7]

The Doctones of the church rest on a three legged stool-scripture,tradition and the Infallible teachings of the Magestrium. Homosexual behavior is condemned by all three.

When a Catholic reads Scripture they do not do do to find the truth, they do so to gain a deeper understanding of the truth that has already been revealed to them by the Church.

We Episcopalians also use the three-legged stool analogy with each leg being that of scripture, tradition, and reason. With that said, it personally seems unreasonable to comprehensibly deem homosexuality as concretely sinful given current bible scholarship and scientific understanding. Eventually the Magisterium may have to reevaluate its current understanding as it did for a heliocentric universe. Perhaps not.

Now I know I am not changing anyone’s mind here, but it might be worth some consideration.

 

[estesbob]

We Episcopalians also use the three-legged stool analogy with each leg being that of scripture, tradition, and reason. With that said, it personally seems unreasonable to comprehensibly deem homosexuality as concretely sinful given current bible scholarship and scientific understanding. Eventually the Magisterium may have to reevaluate its current understanding as it did for a heliocentric universe. Perhaps not.

Now I know I am not changing anyone’s mind here, but it might be worth some consideration.

Once you allow “reason” to determine morality you fall to the whim of the current culture , as is evidenced by the turmoil in the modern Episcopal Church

The Church never had a doctrine concerning hellocentrism. It should be noted that Copernicus was Catholic Priest and published his findings with the full support of the Church

 

[rben20]

…

It’s not mentioned by Jesus Christ at all. He certainly condemns carnality in general, but that applies ‘across the board’…

Well bob already covered that not much can be said if God says a man lying with another man it is an abomination…but

Did you forget beeliner that Jesus is the same God of the Old Testament? Surely then it was mentioned by Him…

 

[Conor7]

Once you allow “reason” to determine morality you fall to the whim of the current culture , as is evidenced by the turmoil in the modern Episcopal Church

The Church never had a doctrine concerning hellocentrism. It should be noted that Copernicus was Catholic Priest and published his findings with the full support of the Church

Admittedly, I am stumped but enjoyed the debate (which is what we Episcopalians thrive on and Catholics find so exasperating ) There is no argument I can propose that you can’t rebuttal with “the Church says so.” And, that’s fine, I envy that. Shades of gray are maddening messy.

So in a conscience effort to get the OP’s question back on track, how would you use your three-legged stool to inform your views on the ordination of women?

 

[estesbob]

Admittedly, I am stumped but enjoyed the debate (which is what we Episcopalians thrive on and Catholics find so exasperating ) There is no argument I can propose that you can’t rebuttal with “the Church says so.” And, that’s fine, I envy that. Shades of gray are maddening messy.

So in a conscience effort to get the OP’s question back on track, how would you use your three-legged stool to inform your views on the ordination of women?

Not supported by either Scripture,tradition nor the infallible teachings of the Magestrium. Female ordination is a perfect example of what happened when a denomination caves the mores of the dominant culture

 

[Cheshangle]

As a matter of interest, would you make homosexual acts between consenting adults in private illegal under secular law?

 

[Bezant]

What are you guys thoughts on such things?

On the first: I don’t think sexual orientation should matter.

On the second: What benefit would be worth breaking the tradition of a male priesthood?

 

[beeliner]

Replying to several posts at once, we are not talking about sexual BEHAVIOR here, but the sexual orientation of candidates for the RC priesthood, who take vows of celibacy regardless.

The Church has been ordaining homosexuals since the Church began, and will continue to do so.

 

[Cheshangle]

Although some people hear would like to have us believe that “all catholics think alike”, I believe that opinion amongst you is also divided when it comes to making contraception illegal.

 

[beeliner]

I certainly hope you don’t eat shellfish, shave your beard or, while none of my business, ever laid with a woman who was having her period. I’m just saying…

Let’s not forget wearing those evil cotton/polyester blends.

 

[Cheshangle]

Where did he differ from Archbishop Pell in hs views on homosexualtiy and female ordination?

Well for a strtt I heard him say on the radio that being a homosexual was not a sin. I’m not sure if Cardinal Pell would say that. Would you?

But there is a more fundamental point. You seem to be saying that all Cardinals have identical views and mindsets. And, by implication, the College of Cardinals (I think that’s what it’s called) is a collection of identikit automatons. Does that apply to RC Bishops too ? ( I’ve only met one). But I’ve met quite a few priests and some seem more liberal than others. That’s most certainly the case with lay RCs. But presumably the easy going ones (and I know plenty) are not, in your opinion, “real catholics”.

 

[Cheshangle]

For the sake of both of your immortal souls we can only hope so

Well, for the sake of my immortal soul, please could you explain “invincible ignorance”?

 

[estesbob]

Well for a strtt I heard him say on the radio that being a homosexual was not a sin. I’m not sure if Cardinal Pell would say that. Would you?

But there is a more fundamental point. You seem to be saying that all Cardinals have identical views and mindsets. And, by implication, the College of Cardinals (I think that’s what it’s called) is a collection of identikit automatons. Does that apply to RC Bishops too ? ( I’ve only met one). But I’ve met quite a few priests and some seem more liberal than others. That’s most certainly the case with lay RCs. But presumably the easy going ones (and I know plenty) are not, in your opinion, “real catholics”.

Both the Cardinal and the Bishop acknowledge that being homosexual is not a sin’ homosexual behavior is And in matters of Church Doctrine all members of the Magestrium are of the same mind

 

[adrift]

Replying to several posts at once, we are not talking about sexual BEHAVIOR here, but the sexual orientation of candidates for the RC priesthood, who take vows of celibacy regardless.

The Church has been ordaining homosexuals since the Church began, and will continue to do so.

The topic is Homosexual and women priests. It is isn’t defined in the OP as being about sexual orientation that is your spin.

Your second statement is unsubstantiated and untrue. None of the Apostles were homosexual that is the beginning of the priesthood. That today there are homosexuals in the priesthood is a sad truth. When was the first ordained, is an unanswerable question but certainly not from the first as you claim without any supporting evidence.