Posted on 09/22/2005 6:06:19 PM PDT by BIRDS
It's actually the same as anybody who has a personal tendency that would lead them into a particular sinful behavior, but knows the difference between right and wrong and so abstains from it.
My only problem is the label "celibate homosexual". It means the person is STILL identifying themself with the sinful behavior, which makes no sense morally to me.
Ummm, what I think B-16 is saying is that celibacy is celibacy, a little on the side is sin.
That would be a man who's attracted to other men, but who obstains from all sexual relations. A celibate heterosexual would be a man who's attracted to women (or the converse) and who obstains from sex. That's my question here: Does the edict concern homosexual action, in which case I would say it has merit, or orientation, in which case I would say it does not. For starters, in the absence of action, how could you possibly prove anyone's orientation?
Yep
Priesthood became a sanctuary profession for the homosexuals
Once they find one they flock to it
What about pedophiles? If they keep this up we're not going to have any priests. Then what will Linda Blair do?
they and those that allowed them in under the guise of "understanding and forgiveness" are the ones that bear the stain of this absurd policy of allowing homosexuals into the priesthood. Not only allowing it but also by discouraging anyone to speak out against this sin.
The lord stated that there was an obligation to protect the children and this was lost in the liberal policies. The fact that most of the "policy" portion of the Roman Catholic church is socialist is also a large reason that I am not inclined to rejoin and have kept my children away from the church.
I don't hate the current church or the people that chose to live their lives with the firm belief in the current Roman Catholic Church..... however I CHOOSE not to do so.
I CHOOSE to keep my money and give it directly to those in need and not for payoffs to homosexual child predators and the pathetic "leadership" that enabled this to occur.
There is a special place in hell for the Bishops and Cardinals that helped hide, recruit and enable the child molesters to infect the church.
I'm sorry for the rant, but I have many family members that still belong to the church including my mother and we agree to disagree on my views of the Catholic Church.
Put the crack pipe down and step away from the keyboard.
It's called confession. A homosexual who seeks enrollment in a seminary and later ordaination as a Catholic priest has to be forthcoming, reveal who he is emotionally and psychologically, much moreso spirtually.
Someone alleging, for starters, that homosexuality was a compulsion, beyond his control, who he was "by nature" or something similar, would be revealing a condition that is not a characteristic to be included in those ordained.
You're suggesting that there's a rough, crude, party atmosphere or something to the Priesthood and instead, in reality, there are years of preparation and many hours upon hours upon hours of interactions with others such that a person is relatively well known in all capacities before they are ordained.
The biggest issue about homosexuals in the Catholic priesthood is that it was an actual "movement," a concerted effort by homosexuals to enter the Preisthood and to recruit and enroll other homosexuals accordingly. And many gross stories about their behaviors (some, anyway) afterward, in groups and individually paired, while in the Priesthood...which just defines totally abhorrent abuses of the Christian principles involved here and an utter denigration of the Priesthood.
It also fostered abuse of others, to state the obvious.
Homesexuality is not "gene determined" and there is still no sure fire test that can evidence the claims by some homosexuals that it's "inate" and some alternate "natural state" of being. There's nothing biological or genetic to support that liberal meme. It's just a convenient defense to avoid responsibility for the acts and decisions that follow.
I'm no official but I'll try to contend with your questions...
First, "men who've had sex with men" are homosexuals.
"Virginal men who are attracted to men instead of women" are homosexuals.
As others and I, too, have written here before, celibacy is one aspect of the Priesthood, homosexuality is not a state of grace and/or acceptable as state of being for the Priesthood.
Why?
They're out there.
I figure that you since you're claiming your feeling is scriptural, that you can produce a scripture that would back up your claim. You're the one that brought scripture into this. I'm familiar with scripture, and you won't find much that would apply to someone who's homosexually inclined, but who resists the temptation to step into the sin. You certainly won't find any condemnation for those who resist sin, tempting as it may be.
Again, by confession. A person who withholds this reality about their -- as you say -- "orientation" is already indicating a problem both psychologically and morally, in my opinion.
A person who confesses to homosexuality by thought, plan or activity (one involves the other for most, over the course of time) is not qualified for the Priesthood, and I agree with that.
You know, sin is an act of being, to some, literally, "possessed" by evil. Homosexuality is still considered by most to be an aberration of nature, an abomination to God, as per scripture, and simply making promises to never engage in sexual contact with males does not UNDO or NOT MAKE a homosexual a homosexual. It's a case of the person being not in a state of grace adequate for the Priesthood, according to how I read the Pope's instruction.
I agree with him, by the way, although I realize that tests the boundaries of many current social memes. I don't disregard individuals based upon who they claim to be but I also as others do have every right to believe as I do and that is that Scripture is the word of God, and that God's faithful to what He says. He says it's abominable behavior, and so I respect what God says.
The Priesthood in the Catholic church is a representation among the faithful, followers of Christ, of Christ with His church. If you allow an evil to be held in a place of holiness, you defile Christ, God, the Holy Spirit.
You can cross the street from a Catholic Church and find yourself immersed in popular culture that will defy almost all, if not all, that the Church instructs and requires, and for those who seek existence through popular culture instead of Christ, that's their choice. But for the faithful who seek Christ, we are still free as Americans and elsewhere as persons to believe as we do in what we do. And that is that homosexuality is a sin, evil, to be blunt here.
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
No time for my usual biting commentary...other than this: The more I hear about Pope Benedict, the more I like him!
Freepmail me AND DirtyHarryY2K if you want on/off this pinglist.
No, I never claimed my "feeling was scriptural."
I don't follow your logic. I'm also not going to carry on with an argument with you about what scriptural passage you seem to require or not...because I doubt your motive is a peaceful one. Call it intuition, whatever.
There is room in belief that is substantiated for "revelation knowledge" and/or the truth of the Holy Spirit. It's a gift of faith. God confirms and affirms and denies and directs the faithful and if you are not familiar with that range of knowlege, you are not among the faithful...and are just looking to antagonise.
Please explain if I've mischaracterised you.
I will read the comments on this thread later, no time at the moment. Here's a tiny little .02 added to your much deeper comments for Melas:
For a man to experience attraction to women is normal and natural; (and vice versa). Some people have a harder time with controlling the sexual urge than others.
Most normal people at one time or another might imagine or desire to hurt someone else - hit, strangle, kick or whatever. Some people even fantasize about murder. Some people have a hard time controlling their urge to hurt others. Some people would never be able to hurt others.
Those who cannot control their urges, have a very hard time controlling them, or who have urges that are beyond the norm - such as homosexual desires, should not be priests. Priests and others who lead, guide, and teach should only know their stuff (whichever field they are in) but should be role models and of high character.
Since same sex desires are by their very nature disordered, no one who is experiencing them should be a priest, just as no one who struggles with the desire to steal (a closet kleptomaniac, if you will), or a desire to murder, or a difficult to control desire to commit adultery.
Being a priest is not for everyone.
When Bernard Law had the guff to speak at the Holy Father's funeral I hit mute. I am so glad Pope Benedict is showing him the door.
John Paul was truly great. But greatness has its limitation. His severest limitation was his failure to see what the sodomites were doing to the church in America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.