M
mrS4ntA
Guest
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0a426/0a426495beb76901b23a7d12a224949d7420dbdd" alt="40.png"
The point was clearly made. There also was no mention of being tempted alone was a sin. Your statement was this; “I think we need to go back and directly address the original post/question.” No vows were mentioned in the original post either. All though the vow of a priest is to remain chase and live without sin, which would include that of not conducting homosexual acts. You should really take the book of Leviticus more serious then what you are. I can only pray for you that you will someday soon see the truth of what we are on earth for. Peace to you and God bless
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0105d/0105d4d364e81077443e2ccf09dd58bb3b6a1efa" alt="Confused :confused: :confused:"
And yes, the original post was not addressed, at least not directly. Here’s a remainder:
The assumption is that these men, like all priestly candidates, will take a vow of chasitity. I asked a Catholic Answers apologist if homosexual men can become priests. Here was his answer.
Now, I haven’t even made my mind up. I’m just trying to see the discussion steered back to this: should men with same-sex attraction, assuming the vow of chastity remains, be allowed in the priesthood.
Also, you kept mentioning the Scripture as if pointing out that being attracted homosexually itself, without acting on it, is sinful. I got that impression because I kept mentioning the condition that chastity remains, i.e. no homosexual acts involved. Yet you kept pointing to sin. So I’m confused.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0105d/0105d4d364e81077443e2ccf09dd58bb3b6a1efa" alt="Confused :confused: :confused:"