Gay men can be Catholic priests if celibate-paper

Reuters ^ | October 7, 2005 | Philip Pullella

[Zionist Conspirator]

Then, honestly, I don't think you have been listening to anything any other Catholic has said here. You are judging the entire thing based on your one experience.

Since almost every other Catholic on this thread is attacking Biblical literalism I don't see why you are accusing me of basing my anger on "one experience."

Perhaps you haven't read what your co-religionists are saying?

[Zionist Conspirator]

St. George "slaying a dragon" is also an allegorical story. There was no literal "dragon."

You aren't going to tell this to the Greeks and Armenians, are you? After all, they are "real chr*stians."

[NJ_gent]

"One of the requirements of morality has to do with loving God."

That's not how Merriam-Webster defines it. The set of morals for a particular faith may require such devotion (and likely would, considering the source), but the word 'morality' itself, as defined in the English language, has no such specific requirements.

[Zionist Conspirator]

That you felt you had to do this indicates you don't understand either the Bible OR Christ very well.

Don't you know that the story of a man-god dying and coming back in the spring is "just a story" (as an intellectual has phrased it elsewhere on this thread)?

Seems to me you don't have a problem with "Biblical literalism." You have a problem with the TaNa"KH.

[SoothingDave]

I am thrown into fits of rage only by hypocrisy, such as your acceptance like any Southern Baptist that a "miracle" occurred which lifted J*sus out of the ground but that nothing in the "old testament" could have actually happened becaue the Jewish G-d isn't capable of performing miracles.

That's not the reason. God's inability to perform miracles is not a tenet of the Catholic faith.

My how you lash out at figments.

SD

[DBeers]

That's only one meaning; check Merriam-Webster. celibacy n. 2 a : abstention from sexual intercourse

Nice try; however, Merriam-Webster or any other non authentic source is irrelevant as to what the Catholic definition is.

Celibacy of the Clergy

Celibacy is the renunciation of marriage implicitly or explicitly made, for the more perfect observance of chastity, by all those who receive the Sacrament of Orders in any of the higher grades.

[sinkspur]

It would be better to do nothing than to give official papal sanction to ordaining homosexual men.

Perhaps. And the document may very well be withdrawn now that this leak has occurred.

But it may also give the Church an opportunity to talk about celibate homosexuality. That is, after all, what the Church asks those inclined to homosexuality to practice. Complete abstinence from homosexual acts.

Whatever the case, if Allen's source is to be believed (his sources were right on target about Redemptionis Sacramentum), Benedict is not quite ready to say that every homosexual should be barred from the priesthood, and that individual discretion of bishops (many of whom may have intervened about this decree) should be allowed.

This would also undercut the notion that homosexuals cannot, by their orientation, be validly ordained to the priesthood.

[imintrouble]

Does the Catholic doctrine of celibacy for priests and nuns have to do with economics - how inexpensive it is to maintain a single than a family?

They have created an aberration of mankind in disallowing love and marriage. No other major religions seem to suffer
with married leaders.

[Zionist Conspirator]

That's not the reason. God's inability to perform miracles is not a tenet of the Catholic faith.

My how you lash out at figments.

You say this of me yet you ignore sinkspur's rejection of the Creation narrative, the Book of Jonah, and (by implication) the parting of the Red Sea.

So are you not reading those things or are you merely saying that Catholicism rejects them for some reason other than G-d's inability to perform miracles?

You Notzerim think that G-d only started performing miracles 2000 years ago.

[SoothingDave]

Since almost every other Catholic on this thread is attacking Biblical literalism I don't see why you are accusing me of basing my anger on "one experience."

No one here has denied your right to believe in Biblical literalism if you desire, even to be Catholic and believe so.

So I wonder where your anger at Catholics comes from, if it is not form your limited experience with yourlocal priest.

It seems not enough for Catholics to allow you your freedom to believe in literalism. You seem to be angry that others are likewise free to believe differently. Part of being universal is only binding the conscience on matters that are crucial. I think that is the crux of your difficulty.

SD

[An.American.Expatriate]

I really don't get this, how can you be celibate and gay? For that matter, how can you be celibate and heterosexual? What if you were only turned on by bestiality but had never actually given into your urges? Would that be OK? What if you really always wanted to kill someone but had resisted or your biggest urge was to set fire to some great public building but you managed to keep your arsonist tendencies to fantasy only? Would you still be allowed to be a priest then?

The whole point of celibacy is the controll of one's self and earthly urges. All of the examples you bring are "urges" which a good or godly person can and does resist. From priests, we expect more than just good. So, yes, someone who fought against his inner urges and won would be a VERY good candidate for a priest.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Why would a man who is honestly trying to overcome this sin WANT to go into the priesthood where he would be faced with out-of-the-ordinary temptations on a daily basis?

Are heterosexual priest subject to any less temptation in thier daily activities ??

[NJ_gent]

"Merriam-Webster or any other non authentic source is irrelevant as to what the Catholic definition is."

I'd wager that 90%+ Catholics worldwide identify more with the Merriam-Webster definition than with the far older definition you've listed.

[SoothingDave]

Does the Catholic doctrine of celibacy for priests and nuns have to do with economics - how inexpensive it is to maintain a single than a family?

Perhaps if the discipline of celibacy were a novelty after the formation of the welfare state, this would be a sensical point. Prior to this, having children was the way people prepared for their old age. A money-grubbing church would encourage priests to have large families so they would not have to care for aged and infirm priests.

They have created an aberration of mankind in disallowing love and marriage.

I seem to have forgotten, perhaps you can remind me. What was the name of Jesus' wife again?

SD

[SoothingDave]

I'd wager that 90%+ Catholics worldwide identify more with the Merriam-Webster definition than with the far older definition you've listed.

I figure 90% of American think "supposebly" and "irregardless" are words.

SD

[Zionist Conspirator]

No one here has denied your right to believe in Biblical literalism if you desire, even to be Catholic and believe so.

So I wonder where your anger at Catholics comes from, if it is not form your limited experience with yourlocal priest.

My local priest? Actually, he was one of the nicer ones about it. It was every Catholic magazine I picked up in the foyer. It was every Catholic tract in the church. It was the Diocese of Little Rock joining with the ACLU to keep creation out of public schools. It was everyone and everywhere. Don't you see that? No, I don't suppose you do. Never mind.

And the priest I mentioned in the confessional was a priest at a church in a university town where I was studying at the time, not my local priest. Then I started going to an Armenian Catholic Church. Then I was told there that there is no evidence that a man named "Noah" ever lived.

It seems not enough for Catholics to allow you your freedom to believe in literalism. You seem to be angry that others are likewise free to believe differently. Part of being universal is only binding the conscience on matters that are crucial. I think that is the crux of your difficulty.

No. You're not going to understand this, but the problem is that the Catholic Church constantly attacks and preaches against Biblical literalism (in the "old testament") while hypocritically acting like fundies when it comes to the "new testament" and every Marian apparition, stigmatic, and bilocation to come down the pike.

Catholics are only against the literal truth of the "old testament." Everything else can be squeezed in but the "old testament" cannot because the Church and Catholics know that it does not prefigure or authorize chr*stianity in any way, so it has to be turned into a big non-literal chr*stological allegory.

[sitetest]

Dear sinkspur,

"This would also undercut the notion that homosexuals cannot, by their orientation, be validly ordained to the priesthood."

I've never seen that position defended by any Catholic Church official. Kind of a strawman.

Nonetheless, those who suffer from homosexuality suffer from a grave objective moral disorder. It's imprudent, as we've seen over the last few decades, to ordain these men.


sitetest

[adiaireton8]

That's not how Merriam-Webster defines it. The set of morals for a particular faith may require such devotion (and likely would, considering the source), but the word 'morality' itself, as defined in the English language, has no such specific requirements.

But what morality itself (not the word 'morality', nor the concept *morality*) is, includes love of God. Neither the editors of Merriam-Webster nor the popular usage of the term 'morality' determines what morality itself is.

-A8

[NJ_gent]

"I figure 90% of American think "supposebly" and "irregardless" are words."

Merriam-Webster would tend to agree with that 90%. For 'irregardless':

Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.[Emph mine]

'Supposebly' (actually spelled 'supposably') is also a word.

[SoothingDave]

Why did you need the spproval of all of those in order to believe what you were free to believe in the first place? Why do you think sinkspur or those other Catholics named speak authoritatively for the Catholic faith?

Do you even know what that means?

Again, why was it som important that every Catholic agree with your interpretation? Why can't others be free to believe otherwise?

Catholics are only against the literal truth of the "old testament."

You know much that is not so. I believe in the literal truth of much of the OT. You speak nonsense. I believe there was a parting of the Red Sea. I believe there was some type of catastrphic flood over the entire known world.

But I don't believe in a 6 day creation.

And you know what? It doesn't matter if my bishop or my pastor agree with me or not. We are all free to believe as we like. So why couldn't you fit into this, and why are you so obsessed with other ethnic groups?

SD