The Pope to exclude gay priests

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Oh well... Homosexuals or women, or anyone else who the Catholic Church discriminates against, are free to disassociate themselves from the Church if they don't like being considered inferior. Seems like a pretty simple solution to me.

It's not that simple. Organized religion has been coming after the gay community for years. They refuse to leave Us alone. They lobby to make homosexuality illegal, take away our jobs, have us evicted from our homes. I can't tell you how many times I've had wonderful religious folks get in my face, after coming into the Gay community, and yell in my face telling me I'm going to hell. They need to leave us alone.

Just remember, when one of them gets in your face (especially the zealous Christian type), simply ask for their forgiveness after they tell you you're going to hell and then ask them out on a date.

Meanwhile, on the flip side, please remember that it was less than twenty years ago that nearly all homosexuals/alternative lifestyle/etc., were in the closet. While the "gay" movement for acceptance into society has made progress, it is not reasonable to expect, or demand that society instantly accept or embrace that level of diversity. Give time, time. Especially when society is still grappling with issues of racism and civil rights. Don't count on any acceptance from the Catholic Church. The Episcopalians are wide open to it though.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[JoeyRamone 0]

Well said.

[billvon 3,120]

> it is not reasonable to expect, or demand that society instantly accept
>or embrace that level of diversity.

I agree that it is not reasonable to expect that society instantly embrace such differences. It is reasonable to expect that society grant you the same rights as everyone else has. Note that neither is really applicable here; the catholic church, as an independent religious organization, can do whatever it chooses, including excluding women, gays, or even blacks from positions of leadership within itself.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

> it is not reasonable to expect, or demand that society instantly accept
>or embrace that level of diversity.

I agree that it is not reasonable to expect that society instantly embrace such differences. It is reasonable to expect that society grant you the same rights as everyone else has. Note that neither is really applicable here; the catholic church, as an independent religious organization, can do whatever it chooses, including excluding women, gays, or even blacks from positions of leadership within itself.

True, unfortunately, the "gay rights" activists don't see it that way.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[sinker 0]

Quote

Quote

> it is not reasonable to expect, or demand that society instantly accept
>or embrace that level of diversity.

I agree that it is not reasonable to expect that society instantly embrace such differences. It is reasonable to expect that society grant you the same rights as everyone else has. Note that neither is really applicable here; the catholic church, as an independent religious organization, can do whatever it chooses, including excluding women, gays, or even blacks from positions of leadership within itself.

True, unfortunately, the "gay rights" activists don't see it that way.

that is unfortunate... b/c the "gay rights" activists are simply expending energy worthlessly in trying to get the catholic church to change it's stance on this issue.

and billvon, why did you bring blacks into the argument? the leader of the US catholic bishops conference is black... Cardinal Arinze, also black, was largely considered the man who would be elected Pope. In many parts of the world, leadership in the catholic church is far more visibly "black" than "white"...

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

and billvon, why did you bring blacks into the argument? the leader of the US catholic bishops conference is black... Cardinal Arinze, also black, was largely considered the man who would be elected Pope. In many parts of the world, leadership in the catholic church is far more visibly "black" than "white"...

He probably brought it up since, if THEY WANTED TO, they could. Not that they do. There are plenty of black catholics.

They could also exclude people with blue eyes or those who have tattoos if they wanted. They may not, but they could..

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[sinker 0]

Quote

Quote

and billvon, why did you bring blacks into the argument? the leader of the US catholic bishops conference is black... Cardinal Arinze, also black, was largely considered the man who would be elected Pope. In many parts of the world, leadership in the catholic church is far more visibly "black" than "white"...

He probably brought it up since, if THEY WANTED TO, they could. Not that they do. There are plenty of black catholics.

They could also exclude people with blue eyes or those who have tattoos if they wanted. They may not, but they could..

actually, no they couldn't. there isn't anything intrinsic to skin or eye color that is exclusionary to being a priest. However, there IS something exclusionary to the priesthood when it comes to "lifestyle" choices and gender. I know most here disagree, but then most here aren't catholic or don't really understand the meaning of the priesthood, which is why I think they are so prone to pulling the discrimination or bigotry card.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[shropshire 0]

Hi Sinker,

When (historically) did the life syle question first appear in the Catholic (in particlular) church?



I ask because I dont know (strange how some of us feel the need to add a caveat, so to not cause perceived offence)
Regards,

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[sinker 0]

not sure I understand the question... are you asking when did the catholic church begin teaching that homosexual sex was a sin?

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[shropshire 0]

Yes, that would be the question.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[sinker 0]

Quote

Yes, that would be the question.

while i don't have time for a formal exposition of the topic, the church's teaching rests on scriptural texts which condemn it. the church also rests on natural law as well.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

and billvon, why did you bring blacks into the argument? the leader of the US catholic bishops conference is black... Cardinal Arinze, also black, was largely considered the man who would be elected Pope. In many parts of the world, leadership in the catholic church is far more visibly "black" than "white"...

He probably brought it up since, if THEY WANTED TO, they could. Not that they do. There are plenty of black catholics.

They could also exclude people with blue eyes or those who have tattoos if they wanted. They may not, but they could..

actually, no they couldn't. there isn't anything intrinsic to skin or eye color that is exclusionary to being a priest. However, there IS something exclusionary to the priesthood when it comes to "lifestyle" choices and gender. I know most here disagree, but then most here aren't catholic or don't really understand the meaning of the priesthood, which is why I think they are so prone to pulling the discrimination or bigotry card.

You are entirely missing the point. And maybe it is not even billvon's point, but it is mine now. You say eye color and skin color is not a factor. But what if it were? What if there was a papal decree or a passage in the bible which stated that all blacks were inferior?

Of course it does not exist and they are the better for it. However, since they are a private religious organization, if they wanted to be racist that would be their prerogative.

It has nothing to do with actually being racist. It has to do with the being ALLOWED to discriminate if they so choose.

Like I said, they do not do so but they have the FREEDOM and RIGHT to do so if they wanted. Much like they have to right to not allow gay people.

The bottom line is that they are a relgious group and can decide on priest in whatever manner they see fit. I may not like it that gay people are excluded, but I cannot argue that they have to let them in.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Here is something I came across once.

http://www.truluck.com/html/the_bible_and_homosexuality.html

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[sinker 0]

You are entirely missing the point. And maybe it is not even billvon's point, but it is mine now. You say eye color and skin color is not a factor. But what if it were? What if there was a papal decree or a passage in the bible which stated that all blacks were inferior? ***

Perhaps a refererence to why the church believes and teaches what it does is in order... it does not have authority to make stuff up willy nilly, contrary to popular misconception. it merely sees itself as the custodian to revelation. see catholic.com.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

You are entirely missing the point. And maybe it is not even billvon's point, but it is mine now. You say eye color and skin color is not a factor. But what if it were? What if there was a papal decree or a passage in the bible which stated that all blacks were inferior? ***

Perhaps a refererence to why the church believes and teaches what it does is in order... it does not have authority to make stuff up willy nilly, contrary to popular misconception. it merely sees itself as the custodian to revelation. see catholic.com.

Really? So then, the decision to make priest be celibate? That may not be willy nilly but it certainly goes beyond the call of duty (the Bible). That decision was made by a POPE many years after Christ.

Regardless, the Church can descriminate anyway it pleases. And it IS discrimination.

discrimination --

Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice

But as I said, that is their prerogative based on their beliefs.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

The Church has got a real problem, especially in the US, where the priesthood and the seminaries have become a ready made institution for sexual predators. And the record so far is that most of the priest predators are going after a lot more boys than girls.

It's a common misconception that a gay person will be attracted to children of the same gender. In reality, research indicates that, regardless of the victim's gender, most pedophiles (both in numbers and percentages) have heterosexual adult relationships.

Straight people aren't generally attracted to children of the opposite sex, and gay people aren't generally attracted to children of the same sex, and find the idea just as repulsive as most straight people do. An attraction to adults of either gender is far different from an attraction to children.

[sinker 0]

Quote

Quote

You are entirely missing the point. And maybe it is not even billvon's point, but it is mine now. You say eye color and skin color is not a factor. But what if it were? What if there was a papal decree or a passage in the bible which stated that all blacks were inferior? ***

Perhaps a refererence to why the church believes and teaches what it does is in order... it does not have authority to make stuff up willy nilly, contrary to popular misconception. it merely sees itself as the custodian to revelation. see catholic.com.

Really? So then, the decision to make priest be celibate? That is not willy nilly? That decision was made by a POPE many years after Christ.

Regardless, the Church can descriminate anyway it pleases. And it IS discrimination.

discrimination --

Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice

But as I said, that is their prerogative based on their beliefs.

again, you betray a fundamental misconception of catholic teaching. there are reasons for celebacy and I invite you to read about them. it is rather interesting.

and btw, nature discriminates... is that a problem? I mean really, I can't have kids but my wife can. Should I sue someone?

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You are entirely missing the point. And maybe it is not even billvon's point, but it is mine now. You say eye color and skin color is not a factor. But what if it were? What if there was a papal decree or a passage in the bible which stated that all blacks were inferior? ***

Perhaps a refererence to why the church believes and teaches what it does is in order... it does not have authority to make stuff up willy nilly, contrary to popular misconception. it merely sees itself as the custodian to revelation. see catholic.com.

Really? So then, the decision to make priest be celibate? That is not willy nilly? That decision was made by a POPE many years after Christ.

Regardless, the Church can descriminate anyway it pleases. And it IS discrimination.

discrimination --

Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice

But as I said, that is their prerogative based on their beliefs.

again, you betray a fundamental misconception of catholic teaching. there are reasons for celebacy and I invite you to read about them. it is rather interesting.

and btw, nature discriminates... is that a problem? I mean really, I can't have kids but my wife can. Should I sue someone?

Please read what I have been writing. The Church can discriminate all they want; that is what I have been saying. However, when billvon pointed that out you claimed someone was pulling the "discrimination card". But now you say it is okay. Which is it?

I was raised Catholic. I know some of the reasons. Does not change the fact that the decision YEARS after Christianity began. Funny how it took more than 300 hundred years to decide that priest should not get married. And all because they finally decided to interpret certain passages a certain way.

I have no doubt there are REASONS for celibacy. There are reasons for everything. But that does not mean I think the reasons are correct.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[sinker 0]

perhaps the prob here is that there is more than one definition of discrimination...

there is, btw, scriptural support for priestly celibacy, it wasn't just a decision made much later. also, it's worthy of note that celibacy is not a matter of faith and morals. it isn't doctrine. it's a practice. did you know that?

http://www.catholic.com/library/celibacy_and_the_priesthood.asp

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

perhaps the prob here is that there is more than one definition of discrimination...

there is, btw, scriptural support for priestly celibacy, it wasn't just a decision made much later. also, it's worthy of note that celibacy is not a matter of faith and morals. it isn't doctrine. it's a practice. did you know that?

http://www.catholic.com/library/celibacy_and_the_priesthood.asp

Yes, I know there is interpreted scriptural support. That does not change the fact that they did not implement support of that scripture till well after establishment of the church. So beforehand, what, the Church was wrong? They got the message incorrectly? Heaven forbid!

And yes, I know it is a discipline, instead of doctrine.

Anyway, we are getting totally of the topic.

Here are the defintions of discriminate ( discrimination uses discriminate in one of its definitions so lets go with the base word)

v. intr.

1.
a. To make a clear distinction; distinguish:
b. To make sensible decisions;
2. To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice:


v. tr.

1. To perceive the distinguishing features of; recognize as distinct:
2. To distinguish by noting differences; differentiate:
3. To make or constitute a distinction in or between:

I don't think it matters what you choose. Save for the second definition(1b), they are all very similar. And while, from the point of view of the church, that one may apply, from the universal perspective, the 3rd applies quite clearly.

You said billvon pulled a discrimination card. All I am saying is that he was correct. The church discriminates; they have the right to.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[sinker 0]

You said billvon pulled a discrimination card. All I am saying is that he was correct. The church discriminates; they have the right to.

Quote

It sounded to me like bill was saying that bill was pulling the unfair discrimination card... yes, there is discrimination, but what I've been trying to say is that it isn't the same as what I thought bill was intimating. those who see the church's "discrimination" against gays, women priests, etc. as unfair really don't understand the reason behind the practices.

Yes, I know there is interpreted scriptural support. That does not change the fact that they did not implement support of that scripture till well after establishment of the church. So beforehand, what, the Church was wrong? They got the message incorrectly? Heaven forbid! ***

i didn't say _interpreted_ scriptural support... that is your term. there is evidence that there were celibate priests in the church from the beginning, both in scripture and in the first few centuries. the history of celibacy is not as black and white as you portray. and, since we're discussing a discipline and not a doctrine, it isn't something that the church got "wrong." Rather, the church views the celibate priesthood as the best symbolic representation of God with His people. This doesn't mean that eastern catholic priests are somehow "sinning" b/c they are married. However, their ministerial priesthood doesn't symbolically hold the same catechetical/escatological symbolism as the celibate priesthood does.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

perhaps the prob here is that there is more than one definition of discrimination...

there is, btw, scriptural support for priestly celibacy, it wasn't just a decision made much later. also, it's worthy of note that celibacy is not a matter of faith and morals. it isn't doctrine. it's a practice. did you know that?

http://www.catholic.com/library/celibacy_and_the_priesthood.asp

So you play the semantic card again. The only way you can make a consistent picture is by semantic games.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

You said billvon pulled a discrimination card. All I am saying is that he was correct. The church discriminates; they have the right to.

Quote

It sounded to me like bill was saying that bill was pulling the unfair discrimination card... yes, there is discrimination, but what I've been trying to say is that it isn't the same as what I thought bill was intimating. those who see the church's "discrimination" against gays, women priests, etc. as unfair really don't understand the reason behind the practices.

Yes, I know there is interpreted scriptural support. That does not change the fact that they did not implement support of that scripture till well after establishment of the church. So beforehand, what, the Church was wrong? They got the message incorrectly? Heaven forbid! ***

i didn't say _interpreted_ scriptural support... that is your term. there is evidence that there were celibate priests in the church from the beginning, both in scripture and in the first few centuries. the history of celibacy is not as black and white as you portray.

To me, if you decide to discriminate against someone based upon category rather than individual merits, it is wrong. But that is my opnion. I could care less that the Church has its reasons for not allowing women to be priest, etc. They are still discriminating simply because of a broad category. But even though I don't like it, I am not going to say they cannot. I am simply not going to belong. And that is MY right.

And I never said interpreted scripture was your term. Did I have say that? No. Nor did I say it was black and white. I never said that ALL priests were married at some time. It does not matter if there were. The fact that the Church decided to make a rule which is NOT doctrine and based solely on the Bible to me belies using the Bible as the Word of God. If it is the Word, that should be the Law when dealing with how to act in Christianity. You should not be saying, "well, there is this passage here which supports our view so let's make a rule but it will not be absolute".

To me, that is overstepping the boundary of the Bible

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[sinker 0]

Quote

Quote

perhaps the prob here is that there is more than one definition of discrimination...

there is, btw, scriptural support for priestly celibacy, it wasn't just a decision made much later. also, it's worthy of note that celibacy is not a matter of faith and morals. it isn't doctrine. it's a practice. did you know that?

http://www.catholic.com/library/celibacy_and_the_priesthood.asp

So you play the semantic card again. The only way you can make a consistent picture is by semantic games.

this from someone who is stuck, fixated, cathected in the age of the inquisition? please... there is no semenatic playing here at all "professor." it's just this is a topic you don't happen to like much, since you view the church as your enemy and are unable or unwilling to view things w/ an open mind.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[sinker 0]

... didn't read that link didja...

-the artist formerly known as sinker