Posted on 07/12/2012 8:00:48 AM PDT by cleghornboy
Pope Benedict XVI has stated it clearly: homosexuality is incompatible with the priesthood. But Elizabeth Scalia, a writer/blogger for First Things and The Anchoress on Patheos, disagrees. In a blog post which may be found here, Ms. Scalia writes, "If Christians have any interest in reaching out to the gay community, if we have any hope to speak a message which can touch their hearts as well, we absolutely must be willing to live as their family. Behind his blundering obscenity, behind his facile attempts to explain Scripture away, behind the blatant hypocrisy of his behavior toward those who disagree with him, what Dan Savage means to tell us is, 'The church has far too often, and for the most wrong-headed reasons, failed to be family to gay people.'
I completely agree. And I really believe that the way to begin to do that is for our bishops and the curia to stop turning a blind eye to a simple truth, that numbered among our priests are faithful, celibate, joyful priests who are homosexual...
(Excerpt) Read more at lasalettejourney.blogspot.com ...
I don't think I agree. Paul described even the attraction as "vile affections" ("to use the biblical term") and I don't believe one who has been given over to such "vile affections" can be considered beyond reproach. I'm not saying that doesn't make them regenerate or beyond salvation but I don't think they are a proper candidate for Pastorship. E. Pluribus pointed out an excellent reason why.
I don't think I agree. Paul described even the attraction as "vile affections" ("to use the biblical term") and I don't believe one who has been given over to such "vile affections" can be considered beyond reproach. I'm not saying that doesn't make them regenerate or beyond salvation but I don't think they are a proper candidate for Pastorship. E. Pluribus pointed out an excellent reason why.
OK, I hadn’t read your comment when I posted. Celebate homosexuals can remain in the priesthood if they are really celebate. But I would agree with Church policy not to admit them INTO the seminaries in most cases, if their preferences are known, because that is asking for trouble.
Seems to me that it is precisely that moment when someone comes to understand that they need saving that they are most receptive to the gospel. So, as long as we continue to call them names and tell them to go to Hell, we are increasing the chances that they will become receptive?
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8
“If Christians have any interest in reaching out to the gay community, if we have any hope to speak a message which can touch their hearts as well, we absolutely must be willing to live as their family.
...........................................................
I don’t have any intention of reaching out to them or touching their hearts or any other part of them that they may wish me to touch.
God Almighty reached out to them in Sodom.
Keep screwing around with them and he may reach out again.
You wouldn’t like that Ms. Scalia.
If you believe in God you should listen to his words and see his actions.
PS: Maybe you should lose a few pounds too.Gluttony is another sin.
It is NOT an inherited trait or legacy such as one's ethnicity or physical characteristics.
HEAD'S UP-- THERE NOT A "GAY GENE"!
These moral/relational choices and acted-out behavior patterns are nothing more...
The homosex and LGBT "community" has decided/defaulted into the philosophical commitment, and affirmed among themselves (circular logic)... that...
"WHAT THEY DO" ...is indeed "WHO THEY ARE".
They have confused their actual identity with & by their (social/sexual) behavior patterns.
When any person declares themselves a member of the opposite sex "trapped" in the wrong body....
They are calling God a liar...
--AND--
By taking extreme steps through medical science for gender "reassignment"...
They are declaring that God didn't know what he was doing when he made them.
The Bible tells us in the OT Law and the explanation of NT Grace that these unnatural behaviors are an abomination before God, contrary to nature, and ultimately, worthy of divine judgment and eternal condemnation.
Even some traditional streams of faith have defaulted, and/or embraced this intentional confusion: "Behavior?? or Identity??"
My point is summed up simply --
Regardless of human passions, affections, and original tendencies...
GOD IS NOT CONFUSED!
Redemption through Christ's ransom remains God's loving offer to all mankind.
And to deny that in Christ alone...
Forgiveness, cleansing, transformation, and healing of the sin-damaged soul, the power of God delivers a sinner from these behavior/identity sin-traps--
...And all the others under the sun...
Such denial is unbelief -- pure and simple.
Denial of God's word, refusing God's offer of salvation, and avoiding God's own power to save...
The moment opinion, commentary and analysis fails to defend this most basic point: that homosex is a chosen behavior pattern-- In truth -- it's NOT a biological identity--
...alas, the argument is lost.
Speak truth to deception...
Shine light into darkness...
Sing a hymn...
Pass the plate....
May God bless those who know Him and all who seek Him.
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Mark 2:17
_____________________________________________
This verse speaks to repentant sinners, those who wish to learn and live the righteous way.
Having said that, If a priest is a homosexual, he must be the sort that acknowledges the burden of his SIN, stay in prayer and not practice deviancy clearly shown as against G-d and nature.
Being human, we all sin in many ways. We also may have the propensity towards particular sins due to heredity and/or environment. It is in confession and a willingness to follow Christ that forgives the sin.
Gays have to change THEIR ways and come to the CHURCH, not the CHURCH changing IT”S ways.......Lizzie is dancing on the TRAPDOOR of HELL.
You entirely missed the point. The very term, “reaching out the the gay community” validates the “gay community” as something substantial and authentic - which it is not.
Can you imagine the phrase “reaching out the the pedophile community”??? Do you see how that term validates their existence?
There is no “community” of pedophiles! There is no “community” of gays to reach out to!!!
There is just a group of people enslaved to and ravaged by a horrible sin.
You “reach out to the gay community” the same way you reach out to all sinners - by preaching Christ and him crucified. If someone is of the elect they will be regenerated in God’s time and circumstance after hearing the Gospel. If they are not elect then no amount of “reaching out” will ever convert them.
While I agree with what you’re saying, I would still worry about going down the same road that I see Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams traveling.
First homosexual Priests are OK as long as they’re celibate.
Then it’s OK if a homosexual Priest chooses to live with another man because, you know, they aren’t necessarily having sex.
I think we all know what the next step will be.
Unless I am mistaken Jesus was speaking to his disciples and answering a question raised by the Pharisees.
16 When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they said to His disciples, “Why is He eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 And hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Mark 2:16-17
I am not diminishing the importance of confession and repentance. I am merely trying to point out that as long as Christians find insulting homosexuals to be some kind of sport, there will not be much much opportunity to share the Gospel with them. (For the record, the unclear reference in the previous sentence is intentional.)
My pastor had a brief aside in his sermon this last week regarding homosexuals. He said he is often asked if being homosexual is natural. He said there are a lot of things that are natural, that are not good. You could be born with a genetic problem, or acquire a disease like cancer, and maybe even be born homosexual ... but none of that matters. With Christ you can become a NEW creation, and be born again. The arguement is not whether one is born homosexual, it is whether they choose to put aside the old and live a life ordained by God, which would mean ceasing all homosexual activity.
I think you directed this to the wrong person. I agreed with your conclusion, but not, perhaps, for the same reason.
Sorry. It gets confusing when multiple recipients are posted to.
So your criticism of Scalia is simply a matter of semantics? But you have no problem with actually reaching out to the, uh, how should we put it, the group of people who self-identify with the totally specious name "gay community"?
I don't completely disagree with you. We reach out to individuals, not so much groups, but those individuals see themselves as part of a group and if we deny that before establishing any kind of relationship, we put up a pretty big wall.
The Catholic Church isn’t a politician running for President; it has no mandate to “reach out” to special interest groups. In current terms, “reaching out” merely means adopting the beliefs and mores of the special interest group whose support is being sought, for purely political gain.
The Church’s tenets are immutable and have no need of being massaged to give the Church broader appeal. People - all people - are welcome to join the Catholic Church and embrace its beliefs and teachings, but on the Church’s terms, not their own. The gay mafia finds this intolerable, an organization that actually has clearly articulated standards, ones that don’t bend with the winds of personal desire. Right and wrong are clearly delineated, and personal - or sexual - convenience are not taken into account.
Time for the gays to grow up.
This woman is just an angry dyke. Who cares what she thinks?
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.