To: Notwithstanding
NB: If one claims the label "gay" then he is claiming that the disordered desire to engage in homosexual acts is fun and a positive aspect of his life. Someone with that attitude should NOT be a shepherding a Christian flock, whereas one who HATES and resists the temptation to act out homsexuality could make a fine priest.
Its like an alcoholic claiming that having the uncontrollable desire to drink is a fun and enriching aspect of his life. Someone with this attitude should not be leading a flock either, whereas one who hates this addiction and fights it could make a fine priest.
To: Notwithstanding
More specifically, Catholics are debating whether being gay should be sufficient cause to exclude a man from the priesthood or whether a man's ability to honor vows of celibacy --regardless of his sexuality --should be decisiveThe first thing every Catholic should do is drop the word "gay" from their vocabularies when referring to homosexuals
3 posted on
05/12/2002 12:53:56 PM PDT by
JimVT
To: Notwithstanding
I will not allow priests who are potential homosexual molesters to EVER be alone with my teenage sons. I will not allow homosexually active priests to EVER be around my teenage sons. I will not allow homosexual priests who are not active to be around my teenage sons, because I don't trust them to teach true Catholic and Christian sexual morality to my sons. Since I do not know who is who, I will NEVER, EVER allow a Catholic priest to be alone or in close quarters with my teenage sons. The Catholic Church must decide - if they want a predominantly homosexual male clergy, my family and my sons will distance ourselves from this church.
To: Notwithstanding
State College resident Herman Knoble, 59, is a Penn State research associate and a committed Catholic . . . "The Catholic Church needs to take a strong look at itself in how it tries to use orthodoxy to control people -- that is the crux of the issue," Knoble said. "Anything that has to do with sexuality, they want to control, not just people in the pews but everybody." Yeah, like all that nasty anti-choice stuff they used to push . . . back in the days before the NYTimes nailed them all as pedophiles!
6 posted on
05/12/2002 1:03:29 PM PDT by
madprof98
To: Notwithstanding
The mere fact that there is apparently a "debate" implies that there is something to debate. This implication alone signifies a spiritual sickness.
To: Notwithstanding
Sad the church seems over run by the homosexual culture and their liberal friends.If the attiude of the bishops is gay is ok, then show them it's no vote with your feet.It's sad to see the death of a great church but if they have forsaken the gospel then let them stand with the other so called main line churchs on the house in the sand.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson