Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ban on Homosexual Men From (Catholic) Priesthood Was Always in Place - Decision from 810 AD Cited
LifeSite ^ | November 30, 2005

Posted on 11/30/2005 9:48:05 AM PST by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 last
To: tuesday afternoon
Okay, explain where I'm wrong.

The core misunderstanding is the conflicting terminology between the world and the Church.

Let's take a different example. If you have an alcoholism problem, the world calls you an "alcoholic" even if you haven't had a drink in ten years. The Church will occasionally use similar terminology for counseling purposes, but from a "sin" standpoint and (more important to our discussion) from a "can he be a priest" standpoint... you're simply a person whose concupiscence is a weakness for alcohol, but who (through the power of the Holt Spirit) has overcome this desire. You CAN be a priest.

If, however, you have been sober for a decade, but you are consumed with an ongoing strong desire for drink (or if you're heterosexual and technically "celibate" but in no way "chaste") you are consumed by this sinful desire and must not enter the priesthood.

41 posted on 12/01/2005 3:27:27 AM PST by IMRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: IMRight

Yes, you are confused. Comprehension seems to be your Achilles' heel. Read the definitions for tendencies and inclination again until you understand them.


42 posted on 12/01/2005 9:44:59 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
Yes, you are confused. Comprehension seems to be your Achilles' heel. Read the definitions for tendencies and inclination again until you understand them.

What... the "definitions" that you chose to select? And I'm supposed to just take your word that's the one that was intended? BOTH words can be (and ARE in the cited portion of the catechism) dealing specifically with actions. 2357 makes this quite clear.

You have demonstrated that you don't understand what the Church is saying here. But it's quite clear in the paragraph you cited. Those candidates who cannot remain chaste (regardless of the reason) may not be priests. Those who CAN remain chaste (regardless of which way their "orientation" would lead them to temptation) may.

43 posted on 12/01/2005 10:25:52 AM PST by IMRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: IMRight

No I understand quite well what the Church is saying today and what it was saying in 1961.


44 posted on 12/01/2005 10:30:53 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
No I understand quite well what the Church is saying today and what it was saying in 1961.

IF you ever get around to backing that up in the face of contradictory evidence, you just let me know. :-)

45 posted on 12/01/2005 10:36:59 AM PST by IMRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: IMRight

Completely agree.


46 posted on 12/01/2005 7:33:45 PM PST by The Cuban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson