Questions about when people get "saved"

[MT1926]

Maybe like the priests who are announcing to their congregants that they are coming out of the closet? How is the Church handling that? I read last night that there are whole parishes that are openly gay?

Could you link the article please. I would like to read their sources.

Thanks

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Maybe like the priests who are announcing to their congregants that they are coming out of the closet? How is the Church handling that? I read last night that there are whole parishes that are openly gay?

Could you link the article please. I would like to read their sources.

Thanks

Lifesite News.***********16

 

[MT1926]

Thanks,

Other than saying that the Catholic Church is a hospital for sinners not a museum of saints and we don’t live in a perfect world. I don’t know enough about this topic to comment, maybe you could start a new thread so others more knowledgeable than I could chime in.

Let me know if you do so I can follow it.

Thanks

God Bless

 

[Gorgias]

Maybe like the priests who are announcing to their congregants that they are coming out of the closet?

Identifying oneself as having a homosexual orientation is not ‘heresy’, nor is it an attempt to tell the Church that her teachings are are incorrect.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Maybe like the priests who are announcing to their congregants that they are coming out of the closet?

Identifying oneself as having a homosexual orientation is not ‘heresy’, nor is it an attempt to tell the Church that her teachings are are incorrect.

I understand that celibacy is a discipline not a doctrine. Is it stated that they must be celibate or just not married (which would at that time would have been understood as the same thing) ? In otherwords, is a homosexual priest required to be non-practicing?

 

[Gorgias]

I understand that celibacy is a discipline not a doctrine. Is it stated that they must be celibate or just not married (which would at that time would have been understood as the same thing) ? In otherwords, is a homosexual priest required to be non-practicing?

Lots to address here…

Celibacy being a discipline (rather than a doctrine) does not mean that a person who has promised it can break the promise just because it’s only a discipline.

‘Celibate’ does mean “not married”. Perhaps you’re getting confused with other terms?

‘Chastity’ speaks to living one’s sexuality authentically within one’s vocation in life. (That means that every person, regardless of vocation, has a particular way to live chastely.)

‘Continence’ speaks to the abstinence from sexual activity. Those who are not married live out chastity by refraining from sex.

All this being said, it should be clear that priests live out chaste celibacy through continence – regardless what their orientation is.

Does that help?

 

[Reuben_J]

Well explained. I could not have said it better.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

I understand that celibacy is a discipline not a doctrine. Is it stated that they must be celibate or just not married (which would at that time would have been understood as the same thing) ? In otherwords, is a homosexual priest required to be non-practicing?

Lots to address here…

Celibacy being a discipline (rather than a doctrine) does not mean that a person who has promised it can break the promise just because it’s only a discipline.

‘Celibate’ does mean “not married”. Perhaps you’re getting confused with other terms?

‘Chastity’ speaks to living one’s sexuality authentically within one’s vocation in life. (That means that every person, regardless of vocation, has a particular way to live chastely.)

‘Continence’ speaks to the abstinence from sexual activity. Those who are not married live out chastity by refraining from sex.

All this being said, it should be clear that priests live out chaste celibacy through continence – regardless what their orientation is.

Does that help?

I have a little trouble comprehending the chastity/vocation part but I get your drift. I have difficulty understanding why a priest who is gay sees the need to share that info when in fact it does nothing for him or anyone else. In fact, it may hinder his ministry. If he is not able to express his sexuality, then what does it serve to make the private info public. Or in reality, is it a stepping stone Satan uses to get the Church used to the idea that it is ok to be gay and before long more will come with it. I notice you refer to orientation…even acceptance of that explanation came over time.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

I understand that celibacy is a discipline not a doctrine. Is it stated that they must be celibate or just not married (which would at that time would have been understood as the same thing) ? In otherwords, is a homosexual priest required to be non-practicing?

Lots to address here…

Celibacy being a discipline (rather than a doctrine) does not mean that a person who has promised it can break the promise just because it’s only a discipline.

‘Celibate’ does mean “not married”. Perhaps you’re getting confused with other terms?

‘Chastity’ speaks to living one’s sexuality authentically within one’s vocation in life. (That means that every person, regardless of vocation, has a particular way to live chastely.)

‘Continence’ speaks to the abstinence from sexual activity. Those who are not married live out chastity by refraining from sex.

All this being said, it should be clear that priests live out chaste celibacy through continence – regardless what their orientation is.

Does that help?

Tyndale apparently modified Scripture. How does someone who stands in the place of Christ not have to modify Scripture to say “I am a homosexual.”

 

[Gorgias]

I have a little trouble comprehending the chastity/vocation part

A single person (who has not yet completed discerning his/her vocation) maintains chastity by refraining from sexual activity outside of marriage .

A married person maintains chastity by engaging in sexual activity only with their spouse, and by utilizing the sexual facility as it was intended (for the unity of the spouses in their marital relationship and for the procreation of children).

Consecrated religious and priests maintain chastity by refraining from sexual activity for their entire lives, by their free choice and by their promise/vow.

I have difficulty understanding why a priest who is gay sees the need to share that info when in fact it does nothing for him or anyone else.

It might help others with same-sex attraction who themselves are attempting to live chastely. (That’s the true meaning of Pope Francis’ widely-misquoted “who am I to judge?” statement…)

In fact, it may hinder his ministry.

In fact, if he does not contradict Church teaching by his actions or preaching, it may help his ministry, both by helping heterosexual Catholics understand what the Church really teaches, and by helping homosexual Catholics realize that the Church does not reject them simply by virtue of their sexual orientation.

If he is not able to express his sexuality, then what does it serve to make the private info public.

By giving witness to the way that a homosexual Catholic may live in chaste continence.

Or in reality, is it a stepping stone Satan uses to get the Church used to the idea that it is ok to be gay

You realize, don’t you, that the Church doesn’t teach that having same-sex attraction is a sin, right? It’s “objectively disordered” – but so is every sinful attraction.

I notice you refer to orientation…even acceptance of that explanation came over time.

Pardon? You’re not suggesting that the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches error… are you?

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

I have a little trouble comprehending the chastity/vocation part

A single person (who has not yet completed discerning his/her vocation) maintains chastity by refraining from sexual activity outside of marriage .

A married person maintains chastity by engaging in sexual activity only with their spouse, and by utilizing the sexual facility as it was intended (for the unity of the spouses in their marital relationship and for the procreation of children).

Consecrated religious and priests maintain chastity by refraining from sexual activity for their entire lives, by their free choice and by their promise/vow.

I have difficulty understanding why a priest who is gay sees the need to share that info when in fact it does nothing for him or anyone else.

It might help others with same-sex attraction who themselves are attempting to live chastely. (That’s the true meaning of Pope Francis’ widely-misquoted “who am I to judge?”

You realize, don’t you, that the Church doesn’t teach that having same-sex attraction is a sin, right? It’s “objectively disordered” – but so is every sinful attraction.

So the Church teaches that every sinful attraction is “objectively disordered” but not all “objectively disordered” attractions are sinful.?

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

I have a little trouble comprehending the chastity/vocation part

A single person (who has not yet completed discerning his/her vocation) maintains chastity by refraining from sexual activity outside of marriage .

A married person maintains chastity by engaging in sexual activity only with their spouse, and by utilizing the sexual facility as it was intended (for the unity of the spouses in their marital relationship and for the procreation of children).

Consecrated religious and priests maintain chastity by refraining from sexual activity for their entire lives, by their free choice and by their promise/vow.

I have difficulty understanding why a priest who is gay sees the need to share that info when in fact it does nothing for him or anyone else.

It might help others with same-sex attraction who themselves are attempting to live chastely. (That’s the true meaning of Pope Francis’ widely-misquoted “who am I to judge?”

You realize, don’t you, that the Church doesn’t teach that having same-sex attraction is a sin, right? It’s “objectively disordered” – but so is every sinful attraction.

So the Church teaches that every sinful attraction is “objectively disordered” but not all “objectively disordered” attractions are sinful.?

How does the RCC define “objectively disordered?”

 

[Gorgias]

So the Church teaches that every sinful attraction is “objectively disordered” but not all “objectively disordered” attractions are sinful.?

The Church teaches that “attractions” to sin are not sins themselves. Think about it for a second: you can identify something sinful that you’re attracted to, can’t you? Is that attraction, in itself, a sin? Or is it only a sin when you act on that disordered attraction?

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

So the Church teaches that every sinful attraction is “objectively disordered” but not all “objectively disordered” attractions are sinful.?

The Church teaches that “attractions” to sin are not sins themselves. Think about it for a second: you can identify something sinful that you’re attracted to, can’t you? Is that attraction, in itself, a sin? Or is it only a sin when you act on that disordered attraction?

You changed the parameters in the questions. I can certainly identify something sinful that I m attracted to for sure. I am a man and am normally attracted to having sexual relations with a woman. That is a God given attraction. In itself it is sacred if expressed within the parameters God defined for it. That does not make it a “disordered attraction” but rather an “ordered attraction.”

To have an attraction to sodomy is not ordered by God and therefore is sinful. That is objectively disordered.

If the Church can allow a homosexual to take the place of Christ in the priestly role then it also has to make the claim that Jesus Christ may very well have been a homosexual. No?

 

[guanophore]

Identifying oneself as having a homosexual orientation is not ‘heresy’, nor is it an attempt to tell the Church that her teachings are are incorrect.

True, but it does create unnecessary scandal. Jesus never intended us to identify ourselves by our sexuality. Sexuality is a gift that is intended to be used within the parameters He has set for us. Placing it at the forefront, before our vocation in this life, just detracts from manifesting His Kingdom.

I understand that celibacy is \a discipline not a doctrine. Is it stated that they must be celibate or just not married (which would at that time would have been understood as the same thing) ? In otherwords, is a homosexual priest required to be non-practicing?

As a result of which, one must wonder why it needed to be brought up at all?

 

[Wannano]

**

Identifying oneself as having a homosexual orientation is not ‘heresy’, nor is it an attempt to tell the Church that her teachings are are incorrect.

True, but it does create unnecessary scandal. Jesus never intended us to identify ourselves by our sexuality. Sexuality is a gift that is intended to be used within the parameters He has set for us. Placing it at the forefront, before our vocation in this life, just detracts from manifesting His Kingdom.

I understand that celibacy is \a discipline not a doctrine. Is it stated that they must be celibate or just not married (which would at that time would have been understood as the same thing) ? In otherwords, is a homosexual priest required to be non-practicing?

As a result of which, one must wonder why it needed to be brought up at all?

Hi Guan, I often wondered what happened to you.

I need clarification…are you suggesting I should not bring this u p or that the gay priest should not bring it up?

 

[guanophore]

If he is not able to express his sexuality, then what does it serve to make the private info public.

In fact, we are sexual beings, and as such our sexuality is part an parcel of our way of being in the world. We all express our sexuality, all day, every day, whether we are conscious of it, or not. It behooves us to have consciousness about it, because that prevents it from manifesting itself in unproductive ways.

One of the reasons that celibacy is such a great gift to the Church is that the expression of the erotic desires is subjugated into service to Christ. It is a powerful sacrifice and brings great growth to the Church.

the idea that it is ok to be gay and before long more will come with it. I notice you refer to orientation…even acceptance of that explanation came over time.

The Church does not teach that same sex attraction is, in itself, a sin. Attraction a man has for a woman outside of his marriage is not, of itself, a sin. It is all a matter of how such attractions are managed. “ok to be gay” is, in principle, no different than “ok to be heterosexual”. The issue is not how one is oriented, but how one manages one’s attractions/orientations. It is not “ok” for a man to indulge his attraction to a woman not his wife, or for a couple to indulge their attractions before marriage.

I don’t see how it would serve the people of God for a priest to announce at Mass that he finds himself attracted heterosexually either.

 

[guanophore]

Tyndale apparently modified Scripture. How does someone who stands in the place of Christ not have to modify Scripture to say “I am a homosexual.”

It is apples and celery. Scripture does not address a priest standing up and announcing his sexual orientation to the congregation. Scripture is clear that one’s sexual orientation/urges are secondary to one;s calling and vocation in life. There is no “modification of scripture” involved.

 

[guanophore]

So the Church teaches that every sinful attraction is “objectively disordered” but not all “objectively disordered” attractions are sinful.?

No and No. Objectively disordered conditions are not necessarily sinful. A good analogy are birth defects. God intended that our bodies should reflect the image of Himself in which we are created, but when sin entered into the world, this gift was lost. Sin implies that there is a personal moral failing, which same sex attraction is not necessarily, any more than a person who is borh with both sets (or part of both sets) of genitalia.

What a person chooses to do with their “orientation” can be sinful, or not.

If the Church can allow a homosexual to take the place of Christ in the priestly role then it also has to make the claim that Jesus Christ may very well have been a homosexual. No?

The Church has chosen not to ordain persons who identify themselves by their same sex attraction. It remains to be seen whether this priest will retain his faculties.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Tyndale apparently modified Scripture. How does someone who stands in the place of Christ not have to modify Scripture to say “I am a homosexual.”

It is apples and celery. Scripture does not address a priest standing up and announcing his sexual orientation to the congregation. Scripture is clear that one’s sexual orientation/urges are secondary to one;s calling and vocation in life. There is no “modification of scripture” involved.

Scripture does make specific reference to homosexual activity as giving into their own sinful lusts and makes reference to its abnormality. To me one needs to modify scripture reference to it being sinful to justify being normal.