the vatican getting ready to ban gay priests!

Sorry Don, but that sort of reasoning brings us to a slippery slope. Human beings must have some form of absolutes or else they will soon find themselves debating over what Right and Wrong even means. During Nero's reign, the said emperor was the most popular King Rome ever had. EVER. Why? Because he ate his impregnated Sister's baby out of the womb in the fashion of Zeus. He confirmed his demi-God status in the eyes of Romans. Yet later he became one of the most unpopular emperors Rome ever had. Why? Because he claimed to be a God before he died. That's an extreme example of what happen's when human beings don't conform to absolutes, the basic differences between Right and Wrong. There is a moral abyss for people who say a fetus is a baby once he's out the woman, but magicaly continues to be a fetus before he is born. A moral abyss. I believe in Right and Wrong, my values are derived from a divine source not my own fallible intuition which will just selfishly guide me to what is most convenient. That is my view over why the homosexuality issue DOES matter. The RCC can decorate the Vatican with purple pornographic pinhatas for all I care though since I am not Catholic but Protestant.

Ok seriously folks,
lets think about the basic fundamentals of being a preist. You are supposed to be a representative of the word of God and the holy scriptures. The bible says it's wrong for homosexuality to exist. Something about a man shall not lie down with anyone other than his wife. I have no problem with anyones sexual preference. But it would be hypocritical to allow homosexual preists, to preach against homosexuality. I think that the catholic religion is fubared, I am a catholic, but I honestly can't see what the fuss is about.

Being a Christian is voluntary, being a Catholic is voluntary. Some might argue that accepting a faith isn't voluntary because, more often than not, a child does not necessarily have a choice since he will, most likely, be raised as a Christian or a Catholic. But, of course, a child can rebel. Certainly, as an adult, a person can choose to be a Christian, a Catholic, an Agnostic, Atheist, whatever. If one chooses to be a Christian or a Catholic, it is a voluntary act.

Why would a person "choose" to be a Catholic if they did not want to follow the precepts of Catholicism?

Why would a person "choose" to be a Christian if they do not believe in the teachings of the Bible? If they do not follow the teachings of the Bible then one might easily consider those people as not being Christian.

If a person does not follow the teachings of the Church, does not believe in the Pope, the titular head of the Roman Catholic Church, why would such a person remain in the Church? They aren't, by definition, Catholic.

Why, I must now ask, would a man choose -- voluntarily -- to become a priest when he clearly know that in doing so, he must accept a vow of celibacy? If the Bible condemns homosexuality as a practice, then it is clearly a sin. It is not a sin to be homosexual. It is a sin to practice homosexuality.

If the Roman Catholic Church bans homosexual priests, then why would a homosexual want to be a priest without accepting all of the teachings of and regulations surrounding this Sacrament? Oh, of course, he might desire to be a priest but surely he can see that he is morally unable to accept the Holy Orders because a homosexual, by Papal Order, is not allowed to be a priest.

Is this that difficult to understand?

Of course one can argue that the Church is wrong and unjust to ban homosexuals. One can argue that the Bible is wrong about homosexuality. this is all well and good. People are free to argue, debate and protest all that they want however, surely it is clear that being a Christian or Catholic and all that it entails is a voluntary act. It's all a matter of free will.

I have no problem with anyones sexual preference. But it would be hypocritical to allow homosexual preists, to preach against homosexuality. I

It's been said twice on here and this will be the third time: A priest should not be gay or straight. A priest is not supposed to be interested in sex....and if he is, he is in the wrong profession. So how can a true priest with a calling and a belief in the Catholic teachings and the Bible, etc...be gay? It doesn't make sense! If a priest is gay, he should not be a priest. If a priest is atttracted to women, he shouldn't be a priest. HELLO> Pretty simple.

This, again, is the Catholic Churches way of trying to divert people's attention from the real problem in the church which is not gays, but pedophiles and psycopaths! Why doesn't the church work on THE REAL PROBLEM????

I UNDERSTAAAAAND It's Been said twice before I'm tired of people getting snotty around here.
No offense but STFU...You refuse to see the redundancy of this entire debate. Who The H cares whether preists get banned if their gay? If they're truly taking on the Catholic faith as a preist, they are 7 years celebant. If not, like you and someone else said, they shouldn't be in to begin with, and they sure as doo doo shouldn't be claiming sexual preference. And as for the pedophilia scam, unfortunately, no matter what you happen to be involved with, there will ALWAYS be sickos who like to touch children, no matter who gets banned, it ain't just the catholic church.

And for the record, there are many preists that find women attractive, it's just called willpower, and self discipline, that keeps them from going a step further. Just because you're on a diet, doesn't mean you can't view the dessert menu, you just can't have the TIramisu, and cheesecake.

Making castration legal is the only answer.



[edit on 3/10/2006 by denial28]

posted by Nakash[/I]
Sorry Don, but that sort of reasoning brings us to a slippery slope. Human beings must have some form of absolutes or else they will soon find themselves even debating over what Right and Wrong means.

Geez, Nakash, I thought everyone KNEW all things are RELATIVE? All the more so in the realm of human conduct. Has not Einstein established that? Today’s issue is NOT whether all things are relative, a given, but what standards we are to employ deciding which things to do and which things to avoid. The notion that there really are “absolutes” IF only we knew how to discover what they are and ALSO, if we can see to it that everyone accepts the same ABSOLUTES that I accept. Hmmm? Now that’s the “slippery slope” we ought to avoid, Nakash.

During Nero's reign, the said emperor was the most popular King Rome ever had. EVER. Why? Because he ate his impregnated Sister's baby out of the womb in the fashion of Zeus.

So Nakash, what’s this Nero story got to do with SITUATIONAL ETHICS in 2006?

Nero confirmed his demi-God status in the eyes of Romans. Yet later he became one of the most unpopular emperors Rome ever had. Why? Because he claimed to be a God before he died.

Nakash, I’m concerned when I see the superlative used too often. I accept that ancient Romans relied on reading the entrails of dead pigeons before making important decisions. I accept that Alexander went to Delphi for a glimpse of the future, but archaeologists are now conjecturing leaking methane gas was putting people into an oxygen deficient environment causing hallucinations which accounts for the visions but not the outcomes?

Religion is powerful. I have no doubt the people at Fatima believed the sun stood still or danced, but I know and you ought to know it did not happen. Copernicus shattered that myth. Verified by Galileo. John Calvin was an absolutist. How many people did Calvin order to be burned at the stake? No thanks, sir, I’ve had enough of absolutes and absolutists. All things are relevant, speaking absolutely.

“ . . absolutes, the basic differences between Right and Wrong. I believe in Right and Wrong, my values are derived from a divine source not my own fallible intuition which will just selfishly guide me to what is most convenient. That is my view over why the homosexuality issue DOES matter. [Edited by Don W]

Nakash, I understand where you are coming from. But you got a bum steer, you hit a detour and did not realize it. You are grasping for something that is not there. You want to know what is to be done without learning either the why’s or why not’s.

The Book of Deuteronomy* says an unruly child is to be stoned to death. No juvenile delinquency in old Israelite times. The Holy Book says a person found in adultery is to be stoned to death. The same book also says anyone taking the Lord’s name in vain is to be stoned to death. Lucky for me, I do not know what “in vain” means. I rather imagine an ABSOLUTIST would know. Why is that? That one person would know something I would not or could not know? Why? That is important to me to hear the answer.


*Deuteronomy 21:18-21 - “If a man has a rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother, his father and mother shall take him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard. All the people shall come and stone him to death. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.” See also another example in Leviticus 20:9 - "If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.”

[edit on 3/11/2006 by donwhite]