Posted on 09/22/2005 6:06:19 PM PDT by BIRDS
bump!
Yes!
The only way to stand up to evil is to stand up to evil. This is a little later than we would all like, but just as the Catholic church has been unwaivering in its stand against the evil of abortion, so also must they stand against the immoral action of a homosexual.
US citizens think that everything is up for a vote - but some things are absolute evils. (period).
Go Pope Go!
I agree. Now I want Law on a plane home. I have a few questions.
Yes they do. I pray this is the first step on a very hard path.
Lunatic Fringe said: "Celibacy is celibacy. Even if your thing is goats!"
I think this ruling just goes to show that the Pope believes that in real life, celibacy is discreet sexual relationships. He thinks that discreet heterosexual relationships will be restricted to the consensual with those of legal age to consent. It would certainly be an improvement if the sex were restricted to adults. It remains to be seen whether the Pope is right. It also remains to be seen what effect this ruling has on vocations.
I agree, completely. Former Pope identified it as the evil it is, unfortunately did not take correct steps to help to prevent and eradicate it soon enough.
But underway now, and for that, I rejoice.
Yeah, that's it exactly.
I've tried to write about this before, that homosexuals in the priesthood are still homosexuals, whether "celibate" or not (but many are not, sadly).
There's a different scale involved here, and I am very glad to read that our new Pope is speaking to the heart of this issue. I am sure he'll now be mobbed with much evil but, well, he's doing the right thing here.
I'd even go so far as to encourage those disgruntled homosexuals currently in the Priesthood to go ahead and depart. I'm not saying they are not good people, but that they don't belong in the Priesthood. A lot of people feel as I do, from experience both humanly and with scripture.
Glad we cleared that up. Next?
Perhaps the AP writer is a frustrated novelist. Or perhaps it is just the writer's mind roiling right before our eyes.
Many are not remaining celebit, thats the problem.
I had a gay priest as a neighbor for a couple of years. He had more dates than a palm tree.
Yeah, that's the point that leaped out at me, too, and about which I find peculiar, AP (the "religious writer" at that) headlining some "American Church" being "roil(ed)" by a Vatican instruction...it suggests a disconect and separation that doesn't exist.
What and who IS "roiled" is liberals who want to force ideologies and cultural issues throughout the rest of population...to overrule the Freedom of Religion based upon cultural trends and insistences.
I'm proud of the Pope for this decision, truly proud. AND I'm an American, live here, attend church here, don't consider any "American Church" other than my local Catholic parish as place of worship, among other Catholic churces I attend now and then. The writer is just trying to get an argument going, as if it's the Vatican against "America."
Since this 'instruction' has not been issued and no one knows the actual language, how did you arrive at this conclusion? You may have a future as an AP writer.
No, this instruction does NOT "go to show" what you opine, and what you opine is just more of that evil that the instruction and the Pope is working to confront and get out of the Church.
Yes, celibacy is celibacy but celibacy is just one aspect of who a Priest is in the Catholic Church. One aspect. The whole person is taken into account and that's what the Pope is saying here.
Hahahahaha!
~;-D
The question is: Unless the applicant is caught red-handed
(brown-p*******), how will they tell? Seems that there are
two cases:
1. Homosexuality is truly gene-determined, in which case they will have to wait until the faggot gene is identified and then require a blood test.
2. Otherwise. In this case they will have to devise some
kind of a test based on behavior. One idea would be to hire
prostitutes, and expose the applicants to naked women. Or
hire male prostitutes with the same idea.
Maybe there are other ideas.
Nice!
Ok, for clarity here, does this ban men who've had sex with men from entering the priesthood, or does it ban virginal men who are attracted to men instead of women from entering the priesthood? I can see a world of difference between the two.
Show me the scripture that would apply to the man who has never lain with another man and who never intends to lie with another man.
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.