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

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 ]

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