V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
It could be that he knows the history of the words usage without actually being from that particular time.
- Status
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
No no no. The verb is incorrect there. Some priests are sinners. Every priest has been a sinner. Some priests WILL be sinners but saying the word every and then the word “is” is wrong and it discounts a holy state of grace many priests are and should be in.Imazombie1:
Every priest is a sinner.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
A document was issued in 2005 on this issue.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html
I think Pope Francis has also restated this point.
I think we live in a society that has in effect normalised homosexuality, probably to the point now where anyone who does not view it as normal is viewed as bigotted and incharitable. I think many people (including within our Church) are therefore, I think, torn between the secular view of homosexuality (and perhaps not wishing to be deemed as homophobic) and what the Church teaches on homosexuality. I think in such issues where there is a clash between secular values and Church teachings, we need to stand back and think, who do we follow, the Church’s teachings, or the views of the world the Church seeks to convert?
Last edited:
The biggest problem with gay priests is that they’re living in an environment where they will often be surrounded by other men.
Think about it, would you put a straight man into a convent with a load of attractive women?
The other problem is that they tend to be effeminate, when what we actually need are manly priests who can take on the role of spiritual father effectively.
Think about it, would you put a straight man into a convent with a load of attractive women?
The other problem is that they tend to be effeminate, when what we actually need are manly priests who can take on the role of spiritual father effectively.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Are we not all sinners?
I don’t know. Maybe a priest, or any person, can enter a state of grace. Who am I to judge?
Just so I’m clear–it is theologically theoretically possible to enter a state of grace that precludes one from sinning.
I don’t know. Maybe a priest, or any person, can enter a state of grace. Who am I to judge?
Just so I’m clear–it is theologically theoretically possible to enter a state of grace that precludes one from sinning.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
You mean like Sir Lancelot in 'Monty Python’s ‘Holy Grail?’
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
I always cringe when I hear Catholics say we are all sinners. It just seems to be full of protestant theology. So let’s review the basics that I know you know, so bear with me. Four humans were born/created sinless. Jesus, fully human, was also God so that is no surprise. Mary, as Catholics, we know was born free from original sin and never committed actual sin so she is sinless and not God. Adam and eve, who were created sinless but committed actual sin. Now from this idea of original sin we have baptism. Which remits original sin but not it’s effects ( the proclivity to sin) and if a baby is baptized and is then living under the age of reason they are indeed sinless, and they are indeed human people. That’s no small chunk of ones life that is sinless. Then of course we have the sacrament of confession which forgives sins, which if done properly places one in a state of grace. And in fact in the act of contrition we pledge with the help of God, to sin no more. And believe it or not, that is indeed possible. Though many of us fail. The goal is to stay in a state of grace. Which would be a silly promise the Church has us make if it were not possible. Then we even have indulgences which if done free from even the attachment to sin remits even punishment or cleansing from ones sin in purgatory. Catholic teaching is that people who die as (grave, mortal) sinners cannot ever go to heaven. And those who die even venial sinners cannot enter heaven as sinners. As a Catholic who is currently in a state of grace I can say I was born a sinner, I have been a sinner, I may one day be a sinner again, but I am currently not a sinner. Also there is small t traditions that several saints never committed actual sin.
Last edited:
O
on_the_hill
Guest
I like it.
It leads me to another question that’s probably off topic–but when I hear about a high-up Catholic, say the Pope, for instance, going to weekly or daily confession, I wonder what they could possibly be confessing?
I certainly need to exercise the sacrament of reconciliation more often than I do, but I’d be soul-searching deep to come up with something to confess every day or even several days.
It leads me to another question that’s probably off topic–but when I hear about a high-up Catholic, say the Pope, for instance, going to weekly or daily confession, I wonder what they could possibly be confessing?
I certainly need to exercise the sacrament of reconciliation more often than I do, but I’d be soul-searching deep to come up with something to confess every day or even several days.
Last edited:
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
I’ve wondered that as well. I’m sure the popes have sins you and I dont really deal with. I do know that St JPII went about once a week. I dont know what he confessed but I do have an idea of his state of grace upon death. Because he isn’t Chilling in purgatory right now. It has been revealed he is in heaven. Pretty safe to say that in his last days JPII was not a sinner.
Its also good to remember those In purgatory. Our prayers can help them. Our indulgences can free them!
Its also good to remember those In purgatory. Our prayers can help them. Our indulgences can free them!
Last edited:
A
angel12
Guest
)
J
JMMJ
Guest
I actually think I am a good deal older than you. I just keep up. LOL.
O
OnAJourney
Guest
At the intrinsic level of being, homosexuality or people who happen to be gay are not sinful in themselves. It’s the actual act which is sinful. I am an individual that happens to be gay, I am not in mortal sin because I am chaste and don’t have romantic relationships with other men.
There’s nothing to be forgiven of with homosexuality by itself because as I stated before, it’s not sinful. Now, acting upon it would be. And if a priest or someone like myself continues to live chaste we are not in mortal sin.
O
OnAJourney
Guest
You’re stereotyping gay priests as effeminate, that is not exactly a wise idea. And gay men are not incapable of being strong spiritual figures. I think the way you’re talking about people who are gay is not exactly becoming of one who follows Christ.
Last edited:
F
Fets
Guest
The letter 3 is the same upside down. Therefore, we don’t have two wait until 8008.
the year 3,000 will be an ‘upside down year’. 3,000, 3003, 3030, 3033, 3300, 3330, 3333.
Yep.
The important questions in this thread
Homosexuality is not a sin. Or, to be more clear, living the gay lifestyle is a sin. But being ‘gay’ is not. Some people in the Church prefer to say ‘same-sex attracted’. They are attracted, as are all people. That has no bearing on whether they’re a faithful Christian/ Catholic.
Also for the thread. I run into this fairly often, where people have weird ideas about sinful priests. And I point them to the Donatist Heresy.
It is not a new error. But it is an error. Priests are human. They will fall. They will hopefully still be trying their best to be faithful priests.
I also am reminded of the story of St. Francis. Angry parishoners told St. Francis that their priest was having an affair with a woman. They were clearly hoping for him to give the priest a tongue-lashing and a rebuke. The first thing that Francis did was get on his knees, and kiss the hands of that priest. He said, “these are the hands that give me Christ”. I believe that that priest repented and amended his life after that. Without ever being verbally corrected/ rebuked.
the year 3,000 will be an ‘upside down year’. 3,000, 3003, 3030, 3033, 3300, 3330, 3333.
Yep.
The important questions in this thread
Homosexuality is not a sin. Or, to be more clear, living the gay lifestyle is a sin. But being ‘gay’ is not. Some people in the Church prefer to say ‘same-sex attracted’. They are attracted, as are all people. That has no bearing on whether they’re a faithful Christian/ Catholic.
Also for the thread. I run into this fairly often, where people have weird ideas about sinful priests. And I point them to the Donatist Heresy.
It is not a new error. But it is an error. Priests are human. They will fall. They will hopefully still be trying their best to be faithful priests.
I also am reminded of the story of St. Francis. Angry parishoners told St. Francis that their priest was having an affair with a woman. They were clearly hoping for him to give the priest a tongue-lashing and a rebuke. The first thing that Francis did was get on his knees, and kiss the hands of that priest. He said, “these are the hands that give me Christ”. I believe that that priest repented and amended his life after that. Without ever being verbally corrected/ rebuked.
F
Fets
Guest
What’s your definition of “manly”? The greatest definition of masculinity in the Church that I’ve heard is a man with a strong devotion to Mary. That is true masculinity. Praying the Rosary with other men.
In our society, very many men fail to do their duty as fathers to instruct their family in the faith, and to take them to Church. Studies show that whether a family’s children grow up to be churchgoers is like 70-80% dependant on the dad going to Church. In other words, in many families only the mom goes to Church, and for whatever reason, that does not translate to the kids growing up to be churchgoers. When the dad goes to Church, the kids are the most likely to grow up and go to Church.
Does anyone know the quote. It goes like “women preserve faith, but men go out and build the Church”. Something like that?
Anyways, yeah, what is your definition of masculinity? I know that the Church’s ideas about masculinity are entirely different than our culture. And drinking beer, watching sports, watching pornography, womanizing. Those aren’t masclinity. Consecration to the Virgin Mary is masculinity.
In other words, I would find that the Church teaches that if a man is “effeminate” that in no way prevents him from living up to the Church’s ideal of true masculinity. Which is ultimately to know Jesus and make Jesus known.
In our society, very many men fail to do their duty as fathers to instruct their family in the faith, and to take them to Church. Studies show that whether a family’s children grow up to be churchgoers is like 70-80% dependant on the dad going to Church. In other words, in many families only the mom goes to Church, and for whatever reason, that does not translate to the kids growing up to be churchgoers. When the dad goes to Church, the kids are the most likely to grow up and go to Church.
Does anyone know the quote. It goes like “women preserve faith, but men go out and build the Church”. Something like that?
Anyways, yeah, what is your definition of masculinity? I know that the Church’s ideas about masculinity are entirely different than our culture. And drinking beer, watching sports, watching pornography, womanizing. Those aren’t masclinity. Consecration to the Virgin Mary is masculinity.
In other words, I would find that the Church teaches that if a man is “effeminate” that in no way prevents him from living up to the Church’s ideal of true masculinity. Which is ultimately to know Jesus and make Jesus known.
S
steve-b
Guest
I showed this to my 70 yr old son. He had a great laugh. And said that guy must not be just old but really really really old.steve-b:
I actually think I am a good deal older than you. I just keep up. LOL.
O
otrrl
Guest
I think gay refers to someone in a homosexual relationship or activity. But, homosexual (which term was invented in the 1800’s_) I think refers to the inclination. In this way, homosexual does not imply gay.
J
JMMJ
Guest
Like most people (other than Catholics), I use “gay” to refer to anything homosexual, regardless of sexual activity. I figure if someone is that interested in another’s sexual activity, let them ask specifically about it. Of course, they usually don’t because that would be rude. It shuts it down. Which, in my opinion, is exactly how it should be. We shouldn’t feel entitled to know if someone else is sexually active or not, unless they want to share that themselves. In that case, they are more than welcome to refer to themselves however they wish. As it should be. Most homosexuals, other than those who are Catholic, will say they are “gay” (not indicating anything about the status of sexual activity, or lack thereof.)
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
while terms can be argued over, here’s what Paul wrote about Re: this particular sin, as well as other sins.
Rom 1:
(all emphasis mine)"18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them."
Lots to think about there … and how voters vote as well.
Last edited:
R
RealisticCatholic
Guest
Not to be rude, but I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be homosexual.
You suggest merely being homosexual – having same-sex attraction – is sinful. It’s not.
And one’s sexuality does not affect how good of a priest one is, or whether he can absolve you of your sins.
A homosexual is sinful in all ways a heterosexual is sinful. This includes sexual activity outside of marriage.
You suggest merely being homosexual – having same-sex attraction – is sinful. It’s not.
And one’s sexuality does not affect how good of a priest one is, or whether he can absolve you of your sins.
A homosexual is sinful in all ways a heterosexual is sinful. This includes sexual activity outside of marriage.
Last edited:
- Status