I would say that this ban on homosexual priests does not effectively address homosexuality in the priesthood. It also sends across a negative message about how the church is choosing to deal with anything that poses a problem, and a matter that they do not fully understand. Predatory homosexual priests, lets not over exaggerate, there are already precautions put in place to prevent that, you are choosing to look only at some few more extreme cases.
Bizarre? Far fetched in style or appearance? I believe that in order for the church to reach a good decision that is not unjustly discriminatory, or contradicting the church’s own beliefs then people should be able to put forward ideas to sensibly address the situation, these people should have a variety of views, so that the church can remain true to it’s teachings, but deal with circumstances that arise in the modern day. The compromise that I am imagining is one which would allow a more appropriate attitude towards homosexuality today, one that ensures that compassion, respect and sensitivity are always shown and not just the poor excuses for compassion that some people claim to be truly compassionate, when this is frankly not the case. (please do not ask for examples here, we all know that this occurs).
The Church has a better understanding of these issues than does the world.
The upcoming Vatican directive is in no way unjust discrimination. To view it that way is to overly identify with secular opinions, rather than authentic justice and mercy.
The Church is expressing authentic mercy, not the mercy that the world offers which is the opposite of what Christ Preached.
I do not believe it does, how can it? Homosexuality is such a complex matter constantly chaning in todays modern world, only recnetly has it come truly into the eyes of everyone (as the age of the church goes). No one can claim they have a truly good understanding on the matter. Also, the church does not have the best track record of listening to homosexuals, and then taking into account what they have to say. There are no figures in the catholic church that can voice an opininon on homosexuality that does not conform completely to the established belief, without being strongly contradicted, forced into silence, or being told they are wrong. There are no homosexual figures in positions of authority in the church, that can talk about the issue to benefit the church.
I am not only reffering to the document in question here.
What Christ preached. I was of the understanding that christ barely ever talked of homosexuality. Authentic mercy? HMMMM
Ever hear of SODOM? What do you think they did in that city?
I know what they did in sodom, however that opens up loads of doors, best left for other posts. Christ himself did not tell the story of Sodom, I said barely spoke of, not never mentioned.
Sodomy is named after Sodom.
What fascinates me about some “Christians” is their willingness to discount gifts from God in order for them to justify their lifestyles.
Homosexuality is different to sodomy. Why do you think that the term sodomy is never used? Cardinal Ratzinger very rarely used it in letters to Bishops about homosexuality. People never claim to be sodomites.
I am not condoning homosexuality, however times do change. What was commonly thought of as homosexuality thousands of years ago, may not be what homosexuality is today. What is more, the references in the old testament are hard to believe, would God that loves all his creations truly destroy all people who have sinned, without warning? This is a startling contradiction to the type of God that was conveyed in the New Testament, and just because an immoral issue was involved in the OT references, does not mean that the difference in God’s attitude can be overlooked.
Wow, you’re great at rationalizing. Check out all the different Bibles, not just the Catholic ones. Some even call God a she!
Great at rationalising? I am not deliberating the fact that practising homosexuals were in sin and are in sin, however I am stating that sometimes the definition of particular terms etc, have been misinterpreted. Are you saying that over centuries, there won’t have been error in translating and writing bibles? This thread has completely wandered off course.
You are free to disagree and not believe.
Understanding homosexuality is a complex matter for man, yes.
Yet she has a wonderful track record of listening to God through the Holy Spirit.
Hmmm…perhaps you forget that Jesus is THE WORD made flesh…that prior to His incarnation THE WORD was revealed to man through Moses who wrote the book of Genesis when he was in exile in the desert. You cannot separate THE WORD from the Trinity, therefore Jesus spoke before His incarnation as much as He continues to speak after His ascension. THE WORD is THE WORD in that the source is the same…the form in which it is revealed may change over time but not the source.
Wow. What a tangled web they weave… :whacky:
It’s not a matter of whether or not God’s actions make sense to you, whether they appear just or unjust.
Yes. There won’t have been error in translating and writing the bibles. We have the word of Christ on that because of the magesterium.
