Pope approves barring gay seminarians

[felra]

(continued):

**
****Once again, your argument disproves your own, and LovedOnes point. ****

I note, with growing amazement a rather **perverse **comparison here.

“perverse” – A rather strange projection for choice of term?
**

Straight lads going out on the pull, also shave, showever, put on cool clothes and go to where they will be lucky. To a normal thinking mind the actions of gay lads getting ready and straight lads getting ready would be equivilent.

Looking good, getting excited, listening to music, phoning eachother up to make sure they are in the right place at the right time. A good saturday night. The only difference being some want to pick up men, some women.

In the strange world of some posters here, those two groups, who are very similar, have similar goals and motivations, are not alike at all.

One is perfectly normal, if sinning…

The other are like kleptomanics indulging in rituals before carryiong out their sinful cumpulsions.

Without a moral foundation based on natural law, I suppose the Christian reality and worldview can seem a “strange world”.

**

Alice…we’re down that rabit hole again!

Except homosexuality cant, except in the smallest of minorities, the religious conservative witha lot of internalised homophobia.

I find this comment to be exceptionally cruel, bigoted and depraved of hope to those poor individuals suffering with the cross of a significant psychological disorder. Your comment makes most evident the ultimate despair that those in the homosexual agenda camp have only to offer those afflicted with SSA.**

This posting of yours did you no credit.

Of course, in your opinion.

 

[felra]

2perfection:

Exactly what part of GMT+2 did you not understand.

Didnt check my profile did you? Just thought your assumptions were good enough. Didnt needs facts, did you. You had yo get that attempt at a cheap shot in.

Given the above (yes dear, I live in another hemisphere) what credence should your posts be given in future?

I await your apology.

I find this response by you to my interjection of lightheartedness into a heavy debate, as entirely uncalled for, rude and presumptuous, and but another attempt to manipulate the debate - “Given the above what credence should your posts be given in future?” , by casting yourself into the victim of mistreatment status. Sorry, I am not taking the bait. BTW—1) I did check your profile, and 2) I am not a dear (please refrain from assumptions, ehh?). Let’s try to keep the argument to the merit of the facts and hearty debate, not manipulative tactics.

 

[fix]

quote=felraI find this comment to be exceptionally cruel, bigoted and depraved of hope to those poor individuals suffering with the cross of a significant psychological disorder. Your comment makes most evident the ultimate despair that those in the homosexual agenda camp have only to offer those afflicted with SSA.
[/quote]

Along these lines:

Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.

The Church’s ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church’s position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage…

It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable. Here, the Church’s wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable…

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

The Pope, in regard to the anticipated document, has not expressed his private judgment on a concrete matter. He is addressing an issue that affects the Church and has ruled on it as is his authority. The current war is a case where apparently,although I have seen no proof, he has offered his opinion which is not a directive and not binding on the faithful.

The upcoming document is not his opinion and his intention is to be obeyed. He has the authority to issue these directives and they are not free to be rejected. While one may disagree with it, one is still bound to obey it. Now, we are not in positions to act on it as bishops and priests are, but I cannot see how we have the authority to publicly reject it?
QUOTE]

Wow, you know more about that document than I do. If Cardinal O’Brien’s comments are any indication, this document is not going to be a moral teaching document but more like an administrative ruling saying simply that these men are not eligible for admission to seminaries. Those who have say in admission to seminaries will be bound to honor the document. It would be similar to him saying that religious education teachers must be confirmed Catholics. It is very doubtful that his rationale will be infallible teaching as he would have to rely/refer to science that is subject to change in the future as greater knowledge becomes available (ala Galileo).

Whether you agree or not with the Pope, I don’t think that anyone really believes that his rationale should be infallible teaching as his rationale will be based current knowledge and circumstances. At a later date, knowledge (scientific-biological or psychological) and/or our ability to change this orientation might justify a change in the policy (either to be more stringent or less stringent. The debate among professionals about SSA, whether it is a disorder and the degrees of disorder, etc. may be similar to the Galileo debate when the Church saw theological threats from temporal circumstances/scientific developments when there was no such theological threat.

I’ve said from the beginning that this decision is fully and unequivocally within the purview of the Bishops and Pope and I’ve said that I agree that it is a proper response to the situation. What I have expressed also unequivocally is that I don’t accept the arguments that men with same sex attraction (not capitalized for a reason) who recognize its sinfulness and take their celibacy vow seriously can’t be good holy Priests, especially with the graces from Prayer and the Sacraments. If this were so, the Pope would be also planning on removing all existing Priests that have or have had same sex attraction and that is not the case, as far as I know at least.

Concurrently, I’ve also said that if it is the wise judgment of Church that the challenges with same sex attraction are such or that considerations other than the capacity of individual men to overcome their sinful nature make it such that these men will be permanently banned, I will accept it without reservation.

Essentially, what I’ve disagreed with is the idea that these men are inherently disordered to the point it is so hard-wired that culpability for people who commit these acts aren’t responsible for their acts. I believe that they can overcome their sinful nature with prayer, dedication of their God-given will, and grace. The writings of this and the last Pope indicate that they concur.

Furthermore, unless I’m wrong and the document will delve into infallible teaching regarding suitability to the priesthood without regard to the current crisis, I believe that this ban is an insufficient long-term permanent solution to sex abuse of minors. The ban will not do anything to address those men whose real fundamental defect is related to predation (which current conventional wisdom is that homosexuality is the predominant cause but most people would also concede that not enough information is available to be conclusively confident). And if we don’t address the predation issue outside of same sex attraction, a substantial portion of the problem will still be an issue.

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

Wow, you know more about that document than I do. If Cardinal O’Brien’s comments are any indication, this document is not going to be a moral teaching document but more like an administrative ruling saying simply that these men are not eligible for admission to seminaries.

That is what I said. I never used the words moral teaching or infallibility. It is a directive and should be obeyed. Are you saying disobedience is now legitimate? That you disagree with a Vatican directive may not be equivalent to rejecting a doctrine, but what happened to cheerful obedience?

It is very doubtful that his rationale will be infallible teaching as he would have to rely/refer to science that is subject to change in the future as greater knowledge becomes available (ala Galileo).

How did you conclude any of this from my last post to you?

Essentially, what I’ve disagreed with is the idea that these men are inherently disordered to the point it is so hard-wired that culpability for people who commit these acts aren’t responsible for their acts. I believe that they can overcome their sinful nature with prayer, dedication of their God-given will, and grace. The writings of this and the last Pope indicate that they concur.

I agree totally.

 

[2perfection]

quote=felra:

**
“perverse**” – A rather strange projection for choice of term?

[/quote]

Really, did you have your irony detection system removed at birth

felra:

Without a moral foundation based on natural law, I suppose the Christian reality and worldview can seem a “strange world”.

The argument here is that you do not have a moral foundation based on natural law, but a series of partisan commentaries that are arguing backwards from your conclusions and actively working in denial of the facts.

**
I find this comment to be exceptionally cruel, bigoted and depraved of hope to those poor individuals suffering with the cross of a significant psychological disorder. Your comment makes most evident the ultimate despair that those in the homosexual agenda camp have only to offer those afflicted with SSA.**

Polish that breastplate of rightiousness, maybe the pretty glinting metal will take peoples minds off the fact that it is an object of war, fear and hatred.

 

[fix]

2perfection:

The argument here is that you do not have a moral foundation based on natural law, but a series of partisan commentaries that are arguing backwards from your conclusions and actively working in denial of the facts.

Nope.

1955 The “divine and natural” law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

1958 The natural law is *immutable *and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

1959 The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

 

[2perfection]

felra:

I find this response by you to my interjection of lightheartedness into a heavy debate, as entirely uncalled for, rude and presumptuous, and but another attempt to manipulate the debate - “Given the above what credence should your posts be given in future?” , by casting yourself into the victim of mistreatment status. Sorry, I am not taking the bait. BTW—1) I did check your profile, and 2) I am not a dear (please refrain from assumptions, ehh?). Let’s try to keep the argument to the merit of the facts and hearty debate, not manipulative tactics.

I am terribly sorry. Sometimes an attempt at humour doesnt come off terribly well does it? Sometimes it looks like a cheap shot.

Now, if you had put in a or a we would have known that it was light hearted, that is, BTW, why emoticons were invented, because the written format does not convey the subtle variations in body language and tone that transmit the intent is humourous.

As for manipulation, no “dear”, I was outraged by your attempt to insinuate something about my drinking habits. Of course, you can deny that, so lets be charitable, and consider this just a misunderstanding.

OK

 

[2perfection]

fix:

Nope.

1955 The “divine and natural” law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

1958 The natural law is *immutable *and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

1959 The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

Very beautiful, really, but just confirms that you are arguing from conclusions backwards.

 

[Therese_Martin]

Notice:

This thread is now closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.