Catholic Church to open its doors to gay priests

[TisHerself]

The main reason I began posting on this thread was becasue of the first post and the news article it contained. That and aticles like it, and another one that was posted on here have sadly done a lot of damage to Catholic Homosexuals.

The Bishops Synod in The Vatican which was the first one since VaticanII 40yrs and 1st for Pope Benedict, Ended and just released their statements.
There are all kinds of affirmations on The Faith of The Church which is only pertinant if one if Catholic. But Celibacy for Priests still stands.
Most importantly............... The word Homosexuality was not mentioned............. However in reference to The priesthood among other things this was mentioned..........................................

To all young seminarians who are preparing for the priestly ministry, and who share with their generation the same hopes for the future, we wish to express our hope that their formation will be permeated by an authentic Eucharistic spirituality........................................................


As I have said before there is not and has not been a document from The Vatican saying Homosexuals will have to be x number of yrs celibate in order to enter The Priesthood. I witnessed some Gay Priests who are wonderfull dedicated men hurt terribly by articles like the ones posted. They knew what was being printed in the news was untrue, but everywhere they turned Homosexuals were being singled out.

 

[Eagle1]

Titus 3:2, a bishop/pastor,elder/priest must be BLAMELESS, husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach.

1 Timothy 1:6, ..."blameless, husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot or unruliness...

Both from www.blueletterbible.org 5-word search.

Question, I never in my life thought of before this discussion: what is the Catholic denomination's explanation for not allowing married priests? I know, at some point the apostle said some people might be better off not marrying, but said if they couldn't handle celibacy it's better to marry than to burn. Wasn't it the same apostle who wrote to Timothy and Titus that to be qualified, an elder is to be the husband of one wife?

Just curious. Maybe the meaning was that "if" ever married, it must be only one time? Proving what, that he can get along?

 

[Dark Knight]

Titus 3:2, a bishop/pastor,elder/priest must be BLAMELESS, husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach.

1 Timothy 1:6, ..."blameless, husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot or unruliness...

Both from www.blueletterbible.org 5-word search.

Question, I never in my life thought of before this discussion: what is the Catholic denomination's explanation for not allowing married priests? I know, at some point the apostle said some people might be better off not marrying, but said if they couldn't handle celibacy it's better to marry than to burn. Wasn't it the same apostle who wrote to Timothy and Titus that to be qualified, an elder is to be the husband of one wife?

Just curious. Maybe the meaning was that "if" ever married, it must be only one time? Proving what, that he can get along?

Because Paul said it is better to not be married, like him, so that we can fully serve the Lord without distraction. So the Church simply holds it's Priests to what Paul wrote as the ideal.

 

[Eagle1]

Because Paul said it is better to not be married, like him, so that we can fully serve the Lord without distraction. So the Church simply holds it's Priests to what Paul wrote as the ideal.

I know, in one place he said it's better to be unmarried like him, one of the points we studied in Epistles class at a church college, but my point is that in another place or two, he listed "husband of one wife" as a qualification to be a leader in the church!

Better to marry than to burn is 1 Cor. 7:9, I believe.

In our youth nobody noticed if Paul's opinions seemed to evolve, so maybe it's a question of which thing he said last, which I'm too lazy to dig into in that much detail. Atheists at times have thought there were conflicts in the Bible, but, like this seeming one, they can all be explained. Some are "on-the-other-hand" type statements.

I was just being polite in an almost mechanical, automatic way, Detail, had no thought of suggesting joining anything because of loneliness or cult pressures, playing God by inflicting plagues on our equals. I'm sure you realize this but just thought I'd mention it and make sure.

Speaking of their making laws, A few of us prophecy buffs may have noticed, the beastly final antichrist, pretending to be religious in order to bully, slander, and bedevil saints. GETS LAWS CHANGED!

He's probably another Jim Jones, and it, the Bible, says nobody can keep any secrets from him. I think the clues about him are really exciting to figure out, like the JBR case is to us.

He's walking in the way of Cain, murderous jealousy, and OPPOSES the saints' accomplishments, claiming they'll get too much pride. When he's caught as a traitor destroying his own nation with terrorism, maybe having caused the Dallas assassination, we'll know, it'll be confirmed, there was intelligent forecasting, 2000-4000 yrs ago that couldn't be just God's physics.

The clue about getting laws changed is in Daniel 7. His 3 henchmen are also called beasts, are all still alive to be judged when The Ancient of Days retakes His throne, approximately vs 12, so they're people. I suppose it would not be prudent legally to speculate whether they may have been the 3 who started the so-called moral majority that had such a bad reputation it had to change its name. Just funning, could they be the 3 toads, froglike spirits somewhere in Revelation? Just kidding, remember.

 

[Details]

I was just being polite in an almost mechanical, automatic way, Detail, had no thought of suggesting joining anything because of loneliness or cult pressures, playing God by inflicting plagues on our equals. I'm sure you realize this but just thought I'd mention it and make sure.

Yep, I understood you had good intentions there, no intent to offend. Just kinda making the point that an atheist or agnostic belief is just as strong as a christian, muslim, or bhuddist one.

 

[Details]

It IS empty--in fact, WORSE than empty...for any atheist willing to follow
their beliefs to the logical conclusions...
To believe that there is none to answer to is also to believe that there is
nowhere to turn... to believe that there is no hell/no heaven means that
death is truly the end....that one is destined merely to be recycled...
live, die, decompose... to believe that we are merely accidents...byproducts
of blind chance...mere complex chemical reactions....means there is
no soul......(gosh, how can we even trust our thoughts if this were so?)
to believe that there is no ultimate lawgiver means truly that
there is NO right and no wrong... how dare I as an atheist criticize
ANYONE.. (Yep, I thought that way...) There are many more things that
I could say, but lol, I guess y'all can see where I stand.

My atheism (in large part) nearly led me to take my own life when I was
20 (almost 21), but that is a very long story.

It is not empty at all for this atheist - and I agree with nearly all of the statements you made - just not with the conclusions you put to them. No heaven, no hell, death is the end, no ultimate lawgiver, random evolution created us. But there is right and wrong - and very nearly the same as the bible says, because the bible is reflecting the rules that human society has found to be most useful, most productive, that produce the best lives for everyone. Right and wrong are quite strong, and not dependent on me believing in god, or losing my belief in god.

I can see you had a problem with it - but don't generalize to all atheists. By and large, the things that you find cause for despair, we find part of a wonderful world; the rules you think are missing are quite strong because they are in everyone's own best interest. And, yeah, an atheist can indeed criticize someone for being a bad person.

 

[Dark Knight]

I know, in one place he said it's better to be unmarried like him, one of the points we studied in Epistles class at a church college, but my point is that in another place or two, he listed "husband of one wife" as a qualification to be a leader in the church!

I believe he meant no one divorced or committing adultry or even bigamy.

 

[Dark Knight]

It is not empty at all for this atheist - and I agree with nearly all of the statements you made - just not with the conclusions you put to them. No heaven, no hell, death is the end, no ultimate lawgiver, random evolution created us. But there is right and wrong - and very nearly the same as the bible says, because the bible is reflecting the rules that human society has found to be most useful, most productive, that produce the best lives for everyone. Right and wrong are quite strong, and not dependent on me believing in god, or losing my belief in god.

I can see you had a problem with it - but don't generalize to all atheists. By and large, the things that you find cause for despair, we find part of a wonderful world; the rules you think are missing are quite strong because they are in everyone's own best interest. And, yeah, an atheist can indeed criticize someone for being a bad person.

I don't think she generalized to all atheists. I think it was reflecting the view of many atheists who converted to believers, as she did. But it wouldn't reflect the hard core atheists, obviously, who refuse to believe, period. I can see why it would rattle those of you who are, though, but that's a good thing. :crazy:

 

[Details]

I don't think she generalized to all atheists. I think it was reflecting the view of many atheists who converted to believers, as she did. But it wouldn't reflect the hard core atheists, obviously, who refuse to believe, period. I can see why it would rattle those of you who are, though, but that's a good thing. :crazy:

She said, "any atheist willing to follow their beliefs to their logical conclusion" - that's why I figured she was generalizing to all atheists (other than those deluding themselves about the meaning of their beliefs I guess).

Not rattled - just wanted to correct the false stereotypes about atheists.

 

[Eagle1]

The apostle, I forget which one, said they're "your servants", so I'm not sure the priesthood is a high office.

Remember how women got out of keeping heads covered, by saying that was just a custom of that day? Probably any and everything could be called just a custom of the day, but in churches that have women clergy, be warned, you do sometimes see some jealousy of other women, pettiness you really don't want to have to see in church. We should just relax and enjoy our turn to be served, instead of probably viciously critiqued and resented.

Paul, rather than Jesus Himself, seemed to be making a lot of decisions, but the Lord had appeared to him personally so I guess he was inspired to say there's no male or female, etc., just when we thought we were superior.

Jesus was putting us women on a pedestal in a sense, I guess, and weren't He and the Disciples living outdoors, or just staying wherever they could? That'd be a good reason not to call any women. Plus, they often hopped into a fishing boat to cross a sea.

Why would Paul say women should have heads covered "because of the angels"? Anyone have a clue? The professor couldn't explain it, didn't seem to know any more than we did, frankly.

 

[Nova]

Funny how the same posters who are offended by a poster's characterization of the Catholic Church as a "cult" feel free to assume that those who object to the status of women in the church are raising a "red herring," not responding out of genuine conviction. And, to use another example from this very thread, atheists are said to "refuse to believe," not to reach a different conclusion based on their own rational evaluation of the available evidence.

Maybe Christians wouldn't inspire such resentment if they weren't so impossibly smug and condescending. (And, yes, my office is actively aiding hurricane victims. So are other nonreligious groups to which I belong - which is to take nothing away from the fine efforts of churches, which we should all applaud.)

If your faith is strong, good on you. There's no need to belittle the considered beliefs of others. IMHO, of course.

 

[GonzoReiter]

If your faith is strong, good on you. There's no need to belittle the considered beliefs of others. IMHO, of course. (edited)

don't be such a spoil sport...your philosophy might result in rampant peace and harmony.

 

[Dark Knight]

Funny how the same posters who are offended by a poster's characterization of the Catholic Church as a "cult" feel free to assume that those who object to the status of women in the church are raising a "red herring," not responding out of genuine conviction. And, to use another example from this very thread, atheists are said to "refuse to believe," not to reach a different conclusion based on their own rational evaluation of the available evidence.

Maybe Christians wouldn't inspire such resentment if they weren't so impossibly smug and condescending. (And, yes, my office is actively aiding hurricane victims. So are other nonreligious groups to which I belong - which is to take nothing away from the fine efforts of churches, which we should all applaud.)

If your faith is strong, good on you. There's no need to belittle the considered beliefs of others. IMHO, of course.

SOME atheists refuse to believe. It should have been quantified.

 

[Eagle1]

"

The apostle, I forget which one, said they're "your servants", so I'm not sure the priesthood is such a high office.

Remember how women got out of keeping heads covered, by saying that was just a custom of that day? Probably any and everything could be called just a custom of the day, but in churches that have women clergy, be warned, you do sometimes see some jealousy of other women, pettiness you really don't want to have to see in church. We should just relax and enjoy our turn to be served, instead of probably viciously critiqued and resented.

Paul, rather than Jesus Himself, seemed to be making a lot of decisions, but the Lord had appeared to him personally so I guess he was inspired to say there's no male or female, etc., just when we thought we were superior.

Jesus was putting us women on a pedestal in a sense, I guess, and weren't He and the Disciples living outdoors, or just staying wherever they could? That'd be a good reason not to call any women. Plus, they often hopped into a fishing boat to cross a sea.

Why would Paul say women should have heads covered "because of the angels"? Anyone have a clue? The professor couldn't explain it, didn't seem to know any more than we did, frankly.

"

You're not referring to my post, are you? Because you know it's never my intent to sound condescending! Come on!

Some of the women just have been feeling terrible about Discrimination, and need to be comforted. Their situation has been around for many centuries, frankly lots worse than yours, which should cheer you up.

We are glad to be women, of course, couldn't have made a better choice if there had been a chance to make a choice. Without women, you, and I, wouldn't even be here! Some of us may be mad enough about the sabotages that have happened to us to make the devil look like the cowardly wimp that he is, if he ever let us see the whites of his eyeballs. All those demonstrations and celebrations are sad, not gay?

Now will someone venture an opinion about my question? What could "because of the angels" mean? Not that our heads are too dazzling for their eyesight, I'm sure, ha ha. DarkKnight, take a stab at it?

Rosa Parks passed away, and today's Detroit News has a whole special section about her. She lived here. They say there's more racism here than any other city in the country. I don't know about that. I'm saving the paper until my sometimes vision gets well enough to read a little of a newspaper. We never heard of her doing any complaining. Just did what she had to do.

 

[IrishMist]

They are entertwined for those spiritually mature enough to pull it off. They are not mutally exclusive.

I'm not going to judge anyone's spiritual maturity, seems to me there is really no way nor reason to do that...

But I disagree that faith and religion aren't mutally exclusive. One can certainly have faith without religion. Can one have religion without faith? I think so. I've read stories of people who feel they are just going through the motions, and find themselves questioning or even losing their faith.

To some, they may be intertwined, but they do not have to be.

 

[Dark Knight]

I'm not going to judge anyone's spiritual maturity, seems to me there is really no way nor reason to do that...

But I disagree that faith and religion aren't mutally exclusive. One can certainly have faith without religion. Can one have religion without faith? I think so. I've read stories of people who feel they are just going through the motions, and find themselves questioning or even losing their faith.

To some, they may be intertwined, but they do not have to be.

The SHOULD be entertwined. Christ didn't establish His church just for the fun of it. And spirituality is a maturation process just like anything else. Those just going thru the motions have a ways to go, obviously, but maybe aren't getting the support they need, or maybe aren't seeking it, or even asking for it in prayers. Hard to say. But separating the two sounds like a "New Age" cop-out to me, and always has. No offense to you intended. :blowkiss:

 

[dakini]

Funny how the same posters who are offended by a poster's characterization of the Catholic Church as a "cult" feel free to assume that those who object to the status of women in the church are raising a "red herring," not responding out of genuine conviction. And, to use another example from this very thread, atheists are said to "refuse to believe," not to reach a different conclusion based on their own rational evaluation of the available evidence.

Maybe Christians wouldn't inspire such resentment if they weren't so impossibly smug and condescending. (And, yes, my office is actively aiding hurricane victims. So are other nonreligious groups to which I belong - which is to take nothing away from the fine efforts of churches, which we should all applaud.)

If your faith is strong, good on you. There's no need to belittle the considered beliefs of others. IMHO, of course.

Perhaps, some posters feel belittling others is part of their "job" as representatives of their point of view.

 

[angelmom]

Perhaps, some posters feel belittling others is part of their "job" as representatives of their point of view.

Yes, and unfortunately there are people like this on all sides of any given issue. Nastiness does not discriminate based on race, age, sex, or creed. I think it's important to remember that a few bad people or bad experiences shouldn't cause one to generalize about an entire way of life.

It would be like saying that because we have some slimy politicians we should rip up the Constitution.

Maybe we should just vote the slimy ones out of office.

 

[dakini]

angelmom says: "Yes, and unfortunately there are people like this on all sides of any given issue. Nastiness does not discriminate based on race, age, sex, or creed. I think it's important to remember that a few bad people or bad experiences shouldn't cause one to generalize about an entire way of life. "


Good point.

Why not work on what is truly within the domain of the individual to change -one's own heart and mind.

My Lama says it may be the other person's "job" to challenge your patience and to judge you as lacking and your job to be kind and patient and uphold the principles yourself without judging the other's short-comings. He says pay more attention to what you have to improve within yourself and less to what someone elses flaws.

 

[Nova]

Perhaps, some posters feel belittling others is part of their "job" as representatives of their point of view.

I'm sure the posters I referenced didn't mean to belittle anyone. They really aren't like that. It's just a rhetorical habit that people of like minds fall into sometimes. That's why diversity is good; it insures there's always an outsider around to say, "Uh, folks. Lots of fine, smart, well-meaning people honestly hold other opinions."

(No, Eagle, I wasn't referring to your posts.)