I don’t think I’m wrong about this because people seem its implicitly wrong for a priest to be homosexual. Some commenters also seem to dislike the idea of any homosexual being a member in a church leadership role.You are wrong again, he has made a public commitment to disobey God’s law by civil marriage. If he would legally end it, confess and be a public witness to the truth by openly rejecting the homosexual lifestyle he had chosen, he would be an incredible witness to the truth, and could be once again placed in a leadership role. It is his choice, as it is yours, to remain obstinate to truth.
We have a lady in RCIA right now who is being an inspirational witness to the faith. She is going through the painful process of getting her life in order, three past marriages and was in a cohabitation relationship which has now ended. She had no place for her and her son to live but walked out of the sin she was living in, now that is an example!
She knows it matters, do you?
As do I, but not due to heresy, rather because the argument line has been exhausted.I hope this thread is closed soon due to heresy.
I’m not going to continue this discussion, it is and will continue to be fruitless. You are trying to defend a man whom you do not know, in so doing you are criticizing a bishop who has served my diocese for the last ten years quite well and the Church for over 40 years.But you have not specified how he disobeyed Church doctrine…
How?
As per my other post, for some people it is important to tell the truth. Isn’t LYING a sin?
If so, then the priest most likely did not want to sin by lying to his parishioners anymore, and that is admirable.
I understand he’s supposed to listen to his boss…but…why would the Bishop not be on his side about being truthful to his congregation?
Why?
Why would the Bishop not want his priest to be an honest, truthful person?
.
Being homosexual does not make you a sinner any more than having the temptation to steal makes you a felon. You have to actually commit the act or teach that it is morally permissible, not just feel a temptation to do it. The Church does consider that someone with deep inclinations to particular grave sins is not capable of a leadership position, but does not go so far as to say that someone has to be free of any organic inclination towards serious sin at all. If a candidate for a leadership position had a history of alcoholism, for instance, it would depend on whether or not just whether the person could admit he was an alcoholic, but whether or not he had a long history of sobriety, as well. Still, even if he were a teetotaler, I think we can all understand that if he taught that some people had an excuse to indulge in drunkenness that the Church would have a problem with that. That is not negotiable.I see your point, but equating homosexuality with being a felon is quite laughable equivilocation.
In any case, it seems the majority of people on this thread would still say Mr. Coppola should not be allowed a leadership position even if he strived for 100% simply based on the fact that he would still be homosexual. It wouldn’t matter if he got legally divorced, confessed his sin of homosexual acts, and became a celibate man he would still be considered “disordered” by the church. Although, perhaps closer to God, but still not close enough to be in a leadership position.
as long as you continue to rely on your own knowledge and trust only your own beliefs you will continue to see nothing wrong.I don’t think I’m wrong about this because people seem its implicitly wrong for a priest to be homosexual. Some commenters also seem to dislike the idea of any homosexual being a member in a church leadership role.
You would be a “cafeteria Catholic” because you want to pick and choose what you want the Catholic church to teach. Catholics have Faith that Jesus won’t let His Church fall into error and believe everything the Church teaches. In other words, if what I say and do disagrees with what the Church teaches, I’m smart enough to know that I am wrong and not the Church.It doesn’t surprise me that conservative Catholics would deem me a “Cafeteria Catholic” it’s the perjorative term for Catholics that disagree with certain doctrines, but at least you acknowledge I’m Catholic, even if so grudgingly so thank you for that. While no doubt you think we are termites on the faith I think varied opinions enrich our faith and strengthen our bonds. The only one thing I would say is that I don’t accept some of the teachings of he Church I accept at worst like 90% of what the church teaches so overall I think that’s a pretty good number.