F
Fink
Guest
Good on them for being friends!
Not many non-RC friends; but i don`t get around much, anyway.
- Status
Not many non-RC friends; but i don`t get around much, anyway.
E
estesbob
Guest
Thay were not.
E
estesbob
Guest
\
. Of course they’re not… But the doctrines of the Church are clear and the fact that some Catholics may disagree and dissent from these doctrines in no way weakens them and unlike other Christian denominations such dissent is not going to lead to the Church caving in to the morality of the current culture.
E
estesbob
Guest
But it is very easy to mock that which you do not understand.
I’ve always somewhat puzzled by the approach homosexual apologist have to Scripture. First they take a strange mathematical approach as to what constitutes sin, that is they take the number of times a sin is mentioned and claim that tells us how severe it is. . Then they play the “old Jesus never said anything about a card”. and finally they start to mock people of faith by publicly displaying their ignorance of the role the Jewish “Law” plays Christianity . All of these approaches show a profound ignorance of Scripture and theology. When one is ignorant of both Scripture and theology it is best to remain mute on the subject, rather than to try to argue with those who are not
B
beeliner
Guest
That might be true; however, I doubt that they - ESPECIALLY the Apostles - wasted much time thinking or worrying about it as we are doing here.
Nor would their attitude have any bearing on the fact that sexual orientation develops very early in life and is beyond the control of the individual.
Since there were 15 apostles including Matthias, Paul and Barnabas, the statistical chances that at least one of them might have had that orientation is not unreasonable.
Of the 500 who received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost…
The rest of your post is just arguing for the sake of arguing, a waste of time and web space.
E
estesbob
Guest
The reason being that because for the first 2,000 years of Christianity nobody would ever had claimed that homosexual behavior was natural and was not a sin. .
In other words you have absolutely no evidence by anything that was ever written about any of the apostles that they engaged in homosexual behavior. . In fact, the only evidence we have been given in this thread that such might be true is a painting painted 1500 years after the fact.
Actually he laid out a cognizant , reasoned defense of the teachings of the Church on homosexual behavior. . Your only response has been ad hominem attacks and vague assertions based on nothing more than your flawed understanding of statistics.
B
beeliner
Guest
P.S. Just as a personal aside, if I had had a homosexal orientation, I think that it’s virtually certain that I would have become a priest, and a very good one.
I was definitely headed in that direction before discovering girls.
I was definitely headed in that direction before discovering girls.
B
beeliner
Guest
bob, you are not that stupid, therefore you are being intentionally disingenuous here.
The subject is not homosexual behavior, but celibate homosexuals in the RC priesthood.
T
Tyuiop411
Guest
As were we all, beeliner. As were we all…
S
Shannon9791
Guest
During ordination, men take vows of obedience and celibacy, it doesn’t matter which side of the plate they swing from, the rules are the same. His sacraments would be vaild as long as he is a priest in good standing with the Church.
V
vsedriver
Guest
it means you don’t know any better. If you were taught, understood, and accepted the doctrine of male-only priest hood and refused to adhere to it then you would be guilty of sinning.
We can’t sin if we don’t know we are sinning… invincible ignorance.
A
adrift
Guest
Like all your statement this lacks evidence. There are theories but there is no facts.
There were only 12 Apostles. Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. Paul and Barnabas was not part of the 12. They were apostles in the sense that they were sent but were not ordained apostles as the 12 were.
I see. I ask for proof and you come back with this.
Like I thought you have no proof of what you type. Nice Ad Hominem though.
A
adrift
Guest
The OP
The subject is what we think about such things as homsexual and women priest.
I don’t see where it is not about homosexual behavior, but celibate homosexuals in the RC priesthood. If you want it to be only that topic, start your own thread.
K
kylemccloughan
Guest
Yes it will. It’s a matter of time. Catholicism is very different from what it was centuries ago. It will be even different in the coming years. It’s inevitable.
E
estesbob
Guest
Could you give us some examples of were Catholicism is very different than it was centuries ago? . Unless you are referring to changes in the liturgy your statement is simply not true. . I assume you’re not contending that there is any possibility that the Catholic Church will someday ordain women, and practicing homosexuals?
Although we have seen mainstream Protestant denominations give into the current culture’s views on morality.(this should not be surprising given the origins of Protestantism in the first place.) you’re not going to see that in the Catholic Church.
F
followingtheway
Guest
Well I really listen to what the Church says about women priests. The Catholic Priesthood is like the boy scouts, you can’t join if you’re a woman/girl. Not sexist, just a rule. And plus it’s the way Jesus said it up. And there are nuns. So in my opinion it shouldn’t matter.
And if we Catholics are that sexist. Then why do we have pictures of the Virgin Mary everywhere?
And it’s hard to decide if homosexuals should enter the priesthood. Because on one hand, if a homosexual enters the priesthood, he’s going to be celibate. But on the other hand, the Church still has debates over if homosexuality is genetic or a choice, so if we let homosexuals enter the priesthood, would we be promoting sinful choices?
Z
zach_dunn
Guest
This is no where close to true. Pope Paul VI spoke against it and had the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith write up a document about it. Read it here: ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfinsig.htm
Also check out this excerpt from Pope Bl. John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (emphasis mine):
Many regard this as an infallible statement made by him. Whether or not it is not relevant to the discussion but this fact shows that his testimony to the truth carries significant weight. A woman simply cannot be ordained. A bishop can walk through all the motions but in the end the woman is completely unchanged. She could not confect valid sacraments, absolve sins, etc., etc.
Z
zach_dunn
Guest
I agree. I’ve talked to atheists who commit this same thing. They laugh at Christians who seemingly pick parts of the law to obey but not the ones that are “inconvenient” for them like the shellfish thing and the fabrics. It gives me a good chuckle when I see anti-theology atheists try to practice theology and then think they understand the Bible better than we do . . .
S
sedonaman
Guest
B
beeliner
Guest
You are splitting hairs here, but that’s fine, go right ahead and split.
The OP makes no mention of homosexual behavior.
The very next post is a vulgar, angry, and quite boorish diatribe against admitting homosexuals to the priesthood, something that the Church has done throughout its history, actually encouraging young men with a homosexual orientation who wish to remain good Catholics (i.e. celibate) to consider a religious vocation.
I think that at this point the thread has pretty much burned itself out, and if I continue to post to it, it will not be more than once a day, unless it starts going somewhere relevant.
But, ad, as long as we’re splitting, why not split this:
What do you think the figures are, in terms of percentages, for homosexual priests vs. heterosexual priests who habitually break or ignore their vows of chastity? Surely you don’t doubt that there are heterosexual priests who have mistresses. Do you? Since many of the posters here seem to want to talk about ‘behavior’, why not open the discussion up?
Or if you’re unwilling to ‘go there’, how about this: How do you think the percentage of priests who are homosexually oriented and who eventually leave the priesthood in order to live a secular life compares with that of heterosexual priests who do the same? It seems to me that homosexual priests who do so have few options if they wish to remain good Catholics. Contrariwise, heterosexual priests, once relieved of their vows, are free to marry, beget children, and have a wonderful life as loyal Catholics.
Seems to me that, percentage-wise, one would find the homosexual priests the more loyal. But it’s just an observation, I doubt that any figures are available.
Anyway, it’s food for thought, but right now my thought is for food. See ya.
- Status