NationStates Jolt Archive

You know, I hear a lot of complaints about Pat Robertson, and I've heard a few complaints about the Pope, but this takes the cake for today:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2005-11-29T153741Z_01_SIB956185_RTRUKOC_0_US-POPE-GAYS-VATICAN.xml&rpc=22

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican newspaper said on Tuesday that homosexuality risked "destabilizing people and society", had no social or moral value and could never match the importance of the relationship between a man and a woman.

The remarks were contained in a long commentary published to accompany the official release of a long-awaited document that restricted the access of homosexual men to the Roman Catholic priesthood.

The article by Monsignor Tony Anatrella, a French Jesuit and psychologist, said homosexuality could not be considered an acceptable moral alternative to heterosexuality.

Whoooo...I'm Jewish but I totally agree with the Church on social issues like these. Go pope, straighten out those heretics!

I'm glad that there is some sense left in the world.

I remind Holy Roman Catholics, like myself, that homosexuality is still not a sin. Anal and oral intercourse are considered morally reprehensable and they are done without the goal of repoduction.

You know, I hear a lot of complaints about Pat Robertson, and I've heard a few complaints about the Pope, but this takes the cake for today:


Meh!

Considering their efforts to hide pedophilliacs; they really can't talk about morality....

A catholic in self imposed exile ;)

Whoooo...I'm Jewish but I totally agree with the Church on social issues like these. Go pope, straighten out those heretics!

I'm glad that there is some sense left in the world.

Hmmm weren't Jews considered heretics? ;)

Yea, that was all in the news in the other day... bahh screw them.


PS: I study in a Catholic university.

Hmmm weren't Jews considered heretics? ;)

Ah...they WERE.....not anymore though...and anyway homosexuality is considered a sin in my bible so regardless of what Christians think I will beleive it to be bad...I'm just glad that people (the Church) are speaking out against it.


The heritic part was a joke...as nobody is a heretic anymore cuz there is freedom of religion lol.

I sometimes disagree with the church on issues, this one is debatable though.

Ah...they WERE.....not anymore though...and anyway homosexuality is considered a sin in my bible so regardless of what Christians think I will beleive it to be bad...I'm just glad that people (the Church) are speaking out against it.


The heritic part was a joke...as nobody is a heretic anymore cuz there is freedom of religion lol.
you have your own bible?! Can I get a copy of that?

As for the pope, just because you wear a funny hat doesn't mean you're right.

If you don't like the rules don't join the club. I used to be catholic. I don't try to force them to accept atheism. I just don't show up to church anymore.

you have your own bible?! Can I get a copy of that?

As for the pope, just because you wear a funny hat doesn't mean you're right.

You can have a copy of my bible...but you have to convert to Judaism

As for the pope, if your about to start arguing with me that the pope is left, well then you've got another thing coming.

i guess the church feels it can step up the outsourcing of priest by bringing even more in from india and africa.

I always figured that American Catholicism and Catholicism coming from the Vatican were totally different things anyway. Didn't John Paul II constantly condemn the American Church and its waffling on issues like abortion and homosexuality?

The headline on Fark for this:
"World's largest child rape club says gays are bad for society"

As for the pope, just because you wear a funny hat doesn't mean you're right.
Couldn't have said it better :D

I remind Holy Roman Catholics, like myself, that homosexuality is still not a sin. Anal and oral intercourse are considered morally reprehensable and they are done without the goal of repoduction.
Thank you for pointing that out Rotovia. I think that everyone should remember that the Roman Catholic Church condems all kinds of sexual acts which are not open to reproduction. This rule is consistent for everyone straight, gay, or bi. Also, the Church is not saying that homosexuals contribute nothing to society. It is saying that homosexuality has no value. The attitude is entirely "hate the sin not the sinner." That said, as a Roman Catholic myself, I strongly disagree with the Church's policy on restricting gays in the priesthood. (BTW, the Church is considered fallible in matters of policy such as this.)

I always figured that American Catholicism and Catholicism coming from the Vatican were totally different things anyway. That's absolute bull. There is only one Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church. Read your Catechism.
Didn't John Paul II constantly condemn the American Church and its waffling on issues like abortion and homosexuality? Papal letters often are written Bishops around the world to ensure consist doctrine accross the Church.

ensure consist doctrine accross the Church.
I concur. The Roman Catholic doctrine has consistantly been crap over the last two decades, I can testify.

I concur. The Roman Catholic doctrine has consistantly been crap over the last two decades, I can testify.
In you opinion. The fact is The Catholic Church doesn't and shouldn't give a flying fuck what you think.

Papal letters often are written Bishops around the world to ensure consist doctrine accross the Church.

Alright, but the Catholic Church in the USA is still different for American political correctness is seeping into religion.

Alright, but the Catholic Church in the USA is still different for American political correctness is seeping into religion.
Nope. Individual Preist or even the American Assembly cannot set doctrine.

Catholics, not Catholic Parishes, in the western world tend to be more liberal then their coounterparts. It is the same in most chrisitan organizations.

In you opinion. The fact is The Catholic Church doesn't and shouldn't give a flying fuck what you think.
Seeing as I am a member of said Catholic Church, they should give a flying fuck(whatever that is) what I think.

Although, since I've realized over the year they don't and probably never will, I started looking to get myself out of that den of corrupt, moralizing hypocrites.

Nope. Individual Preist or even the American Assembly cannot set doctrine.

Catholics, not Catholic Parishes, in the western world tend to be more liberal then their coounterparts. It is the same in most chrisitan organizations.

Shouldn't the parishoners agree with Church doctrine? These subjects are spoken against of in the Bible so there should not be any disagreement if they are pious in their faith.

Alright, but the Catholic Church in the USA is still different for American political correctness is seeping into religion.
O.K. so the Catholic Church in America is a little different than the Catholic Church in Europe or Africa, but those differences are almost entirely in the individuals who practice the faith. That is to say that the Church in America officially agrees with every dogmatic decree from the Vatican. Furthermore, differences in the Roman Catholic Church accross national borders are much less significant than that of any other denomination. Did you know that every single Roman Catholic Mass around the world has the exact same construction (albeit in a different language since Vatican II)?

Hmmm weren't Jews considered heretics? ;)

No, Jews were heathen.

I think heretic refers to Christians with heterodox beliefs.

Seeing as I am a member of said Catholic Church, they should give a flying fuck(whatever that is) what I think.

Although, since I've realized over the year they don't and probably never will, I started looking to get myself out of that den of corrupt, moralizing hypocrites.
Then leave. The rest of won't miss you.

Shouldn't the parishoners agree with Church doctrine? These subjects are spoken against of in the Bible so there should not be any disagreement if they are pious in their faith.
Not all of us give the same weight to two or three lines in the book of Leviticus and the message of the son of God.

Do not judge others, or you could be judged yourself. I live true to that teaching.

Shouldn't the parishoners agree with Church doctrine? These subjects are spoken against of in the Bible so there should not be any disagreement if they are pious in their faith.
No. Because the "Freedom of Conscience" from the Second Vatican Council allows individual Catholics to continue to practice their faith and disagree with Church Policy, where so lead by their conscience.

Then leave. The rest of won't miss you.
You obviously won't. And believe me, the feeling is mutual.

But the Church authorities are deluded when they think most of their base actually mindlessly follow whatever hateful message they send, actually forgetting the really important things found in the Gospels: a message of love, understanding, and inclusion.

At least in Canada most Catholics tend to disagree with the Vatican's policy. Don't wonder why the churches just get emptier with each passing year.

You obviously won't. And believe me, the feeling is mutual.

But the Church authorities are deluded when they think most of their base actually mindlessly follow whatever hateful message they send, actually forgetting the really important things found in the Gospels: a message of love, understanding, and inclusion.

At least in Canada most Catholics tend to disagree with the Vatican's policy. Don't wonder why the churches just get emptier with each passing year.
Remember that you can disagree with Church policy all you want. The Magesterium does not claim infalibility on matters of policy. You are only required to believe the moral doctrine that homosexual actions are wrong in the same way that any other sexual act not open to reproduction is wrong.

No. Because the "Freedom of Conscience" from the Second Vatican Council allows individual Catholics to continue to practice their faith and disagree with Church Policy, where so lead by their conscience.

It is things like that which makes me wonder what the point of religion is for. If you can just say "this is right for me, but I believe in Jesus!" then why do you need a church? I am fuzzy from my own church experience but I do remember that following what is in the Bible is important. That is why it is the Bible if you don't follow it then decide for yourself what is right which is what most people do anyway.

It is things like that which makes me wonder what the point of religion is for. If you can just say "this is right for me, but I believe in Jesus!" then why do you need a church? I am fuzzy from my own church experience but I do remember that following what is in the Bible is important. That is why it is the Bible if you don't follow it then decide for yourself what is right which is what most people do anyway.
It's hard to explain to a non-Catholic. But being Catholic is not just a sunday religion. It's something much more, a community, a family even

You obviously won't. And believe me, the feeling is mutual.

But the Church authorities are deluded when they think most of their base actually mindlessly follow whatever hateful message they send, actually forgetting the really important things found in the Gospels: a message of love, understanding, and inclusion.

At least in Canada most Catholics tend to disagree with the Vatican's policy. Don't wonder why the churches just get emptier with each passing year.
Most Catholics are true Catholics and not heritics. Those of us that practice our faith and disagree with policy do so with respect and humility. I would strongly reccomend finding a new path.

It's hard to explain to a non-Catholic. But being Catholic is not just a sunday religion. It's something much more, a community, a family even

Should rename yourselves the Catholic Club then instead of Church.

You are only required to believe the moral doctrine that homosexual actions are wrong in the same way that any other sexual act not open to reproduction is wrong.

I am required exactly nothing. I think for myself. The Vatican doesn't tell me what to think.

Their stance on sexuality is archaic, illogical, and a poorly-hidden attempt to control the sexuality of the members of the church in order to have them breed like rabbits to make more "good little catholics" to control.

The Church, like the State, has nothing to do in people's bedroom.

The fact that their sexual interdictions come from an outdated book, written by who knows who 6000 yars ago, and that it condones selling your daughter as a slave or condemn women on their period attending Mass just goes to show what bullshit their stance on sexuality is.

I don't like the fact that the Roman Catholic Church picks what passages fits their own prejudiced views on sexuality, and forget the core of the Christ's message. I don't like their hypocrisy regarding the repeated agressions their priests have committed upon children, yet still pretend to have the moral high ground to claim what's sexually acceptable or not.

Sex outside of marriage isn't immoral. Sex for means other than procreation isn't immoral. Sex between two consenting adults of the same gender isn't immoral. Raping children is.

The church has lost sight of what's it's real mission: teaching everyone the news of a loving God brought by his son two-thousand years ago. It has forgotten all about it, in favor of teaching everyone how to hate and despise others whose sexual behaviors does not fit what the Church has deemed acceptable and moral.

That's why I have become disillusionned and will most certainly leave the Catholic Church sometime during the coming year.

Should rename yourselves the Catholic Club then instead of Church.
I appreaciate the attempt humour. But, it's missplaced. Most religions are based on the acceptance of a series of beliefs, Catholicism as based on the acceptance of Church.

Most Catholics are true Catholics and not heritics. Those of us that practice our faith and disagree with policy do so with respect and humility. I would strongly reccomend finding a new path.
Please, precise your thinking: are you saying I am an heretic because I am outspoken against the policy of the Church? That's wafully reminiscent of the Dark Ages.

The heart of the matter is: the pope and all his cardinals as every bit as human and faillible(dare I say even more so?) than I am.

They are certainly not justified in claiming they hold the absolute truth on morality based on their past actions. However, they pretend it is the case every time they get the chance. I oppose that. Their views on morality are irrelevant: the point of this Church is to spread the message of the Christ, not impose on everyone their so-called morality, which has nothing to do with the message sent to us by God through his son.

I appreaciate the attempt humour. But, it's missplaced. Most religions are based on the acceptance of a series of beliefs, Catholicism as based on the acceptance of Church.

Thx, I was worried it might be taken as an insult... Anyway, isn't the entire point of organized religion to follow the church's set beliefs? It is why there are so many denominations of our major religions since everyone has slightly different ideas. Catholics don't agree yet they call themselves one religion. I guess though it is like American political parties since in Europe parties like the Republicans would be at least three different parties.

I am required exactly nothing. I think for myself. The Vatican doesn't tell me what to think.

Their stance on sexuality is archaic, illogical, and a poorly-hidden attempt to control the sexuality of the members of the church in order to have them breed like rabbits to make more "good little catholics" to control.

The Church, like the State, has nothing to do in people's bedroom.

The fact that their sexual interdictions come from an outdated book, written by who knows who 6000 yars ago, and that it condones selling your daughter as a slave or condemn women on their period attending Mass just goes to show what bullshit their stance on sexuality is.

I don't like the fact that the Roman Catholic Church picks what passages fits their own prejudiced views on sexuality, and forget the core of the Christ's message. I don't like their hypocrisy regarding the repeated agressions their priests have committed upon children, yet still pretend to have the moral high ground to claim what's sexually acceptable or not.

Sex outside of marriage isn't immoral. Sex for means other than procreation isn't immoral. Sex between two consenting adults of the same gender isn't immoral. Raping children is.

The church has lost sight of what's it's real mission: teaching everyone the news of a loving God brought by his son two-thousand years ago. It has forgotten all about it, in favor of teaching everyone how to hate and despise others whose sexual behaviors does not fit what the Church has deemed acceptable and moral.

That's why I have become disillusionned and will most certainly leave the Catholic Church sometime during the coming year.
What I meant by "you are required to believe..." is that if you claim to be a Roman Catholic, the only logical option is to accept those things which the Church declares in its infalible capacity concerning faith and morals. Secondly, the leaders of the Church don't have much "moral high ground" at all. That simply doesn't matter. No matter how corrupt the individuals within the Magesterium are, the Church is still guided by the Holy Spirit to be infalible its declarations on faith and morals. That is the most basic tenent of Roman Catholic belief which differs us from the other denominations. If you do not believe that, then it is only logical to find another denomination. Finally, I wish you luck on your search for a faith more compatible with your understanding of morality.

Thx, I was worried it might be taken as an insult... Anyway, isn't the entire point of organized religion to follow the church's set beliefs? It is why there are so many denominations of our major religions since everyone has slightly different ideas. Catholics don't agree yet they call themselves one religion. I guess though it is like American political parties since in Europe parties like the Republicans would be at least three different parties.

Once a religion gets as big as Catholicism it can't control all of its members' beliefs. People cluster around it, but things decided on by the upper echelons don't always filter down. It's just organizational fact.

BTW, Rotovia, are you being run by someone else right now? The spelling mistakes and insistence people who don't agree with the doctrine leaving (I mean, aren't you a Catholic Atheist?) seem uncharacteristic. If I'm completely wrong please ignore my speculation.

Please, precise your thinking: are you saying I am an heretic because I am outspoken against the policy of the Church? That's wafully reminiscent of the Dark Ages.

The heart of the matter is: the pope and all his cardinals as every bit as human and faillible(dare I say even more so?) than I am.

They are certainly not justified in claiming they hold the absolute truth on morality based on their past actions. However, they pretend it is the case every time they get the chance. I oppose that. Their views on morality are irrelevant: the point of this Church is to spread the message of the Christ, not impose on everyone their so-called morality, which has nothing to do with the message sent to us by God through his son.
You are a heretic because the of the way position yourself in relation to the Church.

I believe in the love between members of the same sex, I believe in the freedom of Clergy to marry & I believe in a woman's right over her body.

However, I acknowledge the Church and continue to practice my faith through the grace of Freedom on Conscience.

BTW, Rotovia, are you being run by someone else right now? The spelling mistakes and insistence people who don't agree with the doctrine leaving (I mean, aren't you a Catholic Atheist?) seem uncharacteristic. If I'm completely wrong please ignore my speculation.
I haven't slept in days. Ex-naye on the theist-aye

What I meant by "you are required to believe..." is that if you claim to be a Roman Catholic, the only logical option is to accept those things which the Church declares in its infalible capacity concerning faith and morals. Secondly, the leaders of the Church don't have much "moral high ground" at all. That simply doesn't matter. No matter how corrupt the individuals within the Magesterium are, the Church is still guided by the Holy Spirit to be infalible its declarations on faith and morals. That is the most basic tenent of Roman Catholic belief which differs us from the other denominations. If you do not believe that, then it is only logical to find another denomination. Finally, I wish you luck on your search for a faith more compatible with your understanding of morality.

I most certainly will. However, I feel compelled to point that I was not given much of a choice being Catholic. It's really NOT a matter of me claiming to be Catholic, but more of the Catholic Church claiming that I and so many more Canadians are Catholics despite the fact we are in strong disagreement with the Institution, even where the Church declares itself "infaillible".

While your faith that the Holy Spirit still guides the Church is admirable, I also find it a little naive. God hasn't bothered sending us many miracles lately, IMHO because he must deem us intelligent enough to get the message without him spelling it out for us. The message is what was brought for by his son, the Christ; not a set of moral beliefs built by faillible men upon the following centuries.

I don't think I'll be looking for another denomination at all after this. I can perfectly reflect on my spirituality by myself, and by consulting those dear to me who share similar beliefs, without the need for an organized Church imposing it's will on us.

At the risk of repeating myself: the Catholic Church is wrong on oh so many issues, and its worst flaw is that it is too closed to the voice of it's own members. This shall be its downfall.

I most certainly will. However, I feel compelled to point that I was not given much of a choice being Catholic. It's really NOT a matter of me claiming to be Catholic, but more of the Catholic Church claiming that I and so many more Canadians are Catholics despite the fact we are in strong disagreement with the Institution, even where the Church declares itself "infaillible".

While your faith that the Holy Spirit still guides the Church is admirable, I also find it a little naive. God hasn't bothered sending us many miracles lately, IMHO because he must deem us intelligent enough to get the message without him spelling it out for us. The message is what was brought for by his son, the Christ; not a set of moral beliefs built by faillible men upon the following centuries.

I don't think I'll be looking for another denomination at all after this. I can perfectly reflect on my spirituality by myself, and by consulting those dear to me who share similar beliefs, without the need for an organized Church imposing it's will on us.

At the risk of repeating myself: the Catholic Church is wrong on oh so many issues, and its worst flaw is that it is too closed to the voice of it's own members. This shall be its downfall.

You know, the reasons you're listing are exactly the reasons Protestantism came into being. Why don't you become some form of Protestant?

Whoooo...I'm Jewish but I totally agree with the Church on social issues like these. Go pope, straighten out those heretics!

I'm glad that there is some sense left in the world.
Your people were nearly burnt to the ground by one who considered you sinful and inferior, yet you are so small minded that you agree with the Catholic Church on this matter.

I have much respect for the Catholic Church, yet as a homosexual I will not support it on such issues. I am not purely Christian, yet it saddens me to see a Church founded on love and respect for all being so narrow minded. I hope it finds the light it so preaches about one day.

Damnit, If The POPE and the CATHOLIC CHURCH HIERARCHY say it is a sin, and you wanna remain a Catholic. It's a sin.

Otherwise, it's called PROTESTANTISM, BABY!

I wonder if there is any scientific research backing the Church's position, or do they still believe one chooses to be gay? :rolleyes: One is born bi-, hetero- or homosexual, its not a choice.

you have your own bible?! Can I get a copy of that?

As for the pope, just because you wear a funny hat doesn't mean you're right.

Doctrine of PAPAL INFALLIBILITY! Learn it, Live it, LOVE it like you love Mary and her li'l Christ.

Its no longer as strong as it used to be.

I wonder if there is any scientific research backing the Church's position, or do they still believe one chooses to be gay? :rolleyes: One is born bi-, hetero- or homosexual, its not a choice.

And how do you know it's not a facet of personality derived from the development of the psyche and personality? Or is your personality preprogrammed by the time you get spat out?

In terms of what I prefer, ie male or female? I think that is pretty much pre-programmed. Homosexuality is evident in animals even, which arguably are based solely on instinct and lack personalities. As for people who act gay, well that is an entirely different matter. Sexuality is very poorly understood. It is hardly a matter of choice. More research must be done to figure it out, rather than prejudicially determining what it is or isn't.

And how do you know it's not a facet of personality derived from the development of the psyche and personality? Or is your personality preprogrammed by the time you get spat out?

The way I see it, there's biological homosexuality and preference homosexuality. Biological homosexuality, or being born to react to the sex stimuli of the other gender, is well proven. There are, however, people for whom homosexuality, if not a choice, is something gotten into over time, in a sort of Pavlovian manner. Both exist, and occasionally people exhibit a little of both.

Precisely. In my case, and in that of most homosexuals, it is a matter of birth rather than psychological development.

Don't you people understand that 80% of the sex-abuse cases in America come from homosexual priests? Homosexuality is a deviation that leads with time to other sorts of deviations. The Vatican's document has been written with the help of numerous professionals in psychology, sociology, that clearly demonstrate the incapacity of the church to work coherently with such priests.

Don't you people understand that 80% of the sex-abuse cases in America come from homosexual priests? Homosexuality is a deviation that leads with time to other sorts of deviations. The Vatican's document has been written with the help of numerous professionals in psychology, sociology, that clearly demonstrate the incapacity of the church to work coherently with such priests.

I'm not sure where I heard this statistic, but straight people are more likely to be pedophiles than gays.

Sorry, but I would never molest children simply because I prefer men. The very idea of it to me is repugnant. I fail to see a link between being homosexual and being a paedophile.

Don't you people understand that 80% of the sex-abuse cases in America come from homosexual priests? Homosexuality is a deviation that leads with time to other sorts of deviations. The Vatican's document has been written with the help of numerous professionals in psychology, sociology, that clearly demonstrate the incapacity of the church to work coherently with such priests.

Actually your numbers are way off. Most pedophile cases are done by family members(ie uncle) or friends of family.

Homosexuality != pedophillia.

Even if this document was in place 100 years ago; guess what? The pedophile cases would have still happened.

The vatican is deluding itself if they think this will increase the amount of men who want to be Priests. Sorry but I really don't see guys saying Yea the icky gays are gone so now I will join up.

Ahh well.....

Sorry, but I would never molest children simply because I prefer men. The very idea of it to me is repugnant. I fail to see a link between being homosexual and being a paedophile.

Well let me explain their rather simpleminded logic.

You see Priests are men and the majority of reported cases involve boys. So male on male makes them homosexual right? :rolleyes:

Though I recently heard that we should be hearing an increase of women comming forth. Women tend to not want to report such matters. That is changing.....

Don't you people understand that 80% of the sex-abuse cases in America come from homosexual priests? Homosexuality is a deviation that leads with time to other sorts of deviations.
Most homosexuals are not priests, therefore the problem is not homosexuality. It is priesthood, or the combination of the two.

I deny working as an agent for Pope on NS ...

(See Location)

Well let me explain their rather simpleminded logic.

You see Priests are men and the majority of reported cases involve boys. So male on male makes them homosexual right? :rolleyes:

Though I recently heard that we should be hearing an increase of women comming forth. Women tend to not want to report such matters. That is changing.....
That is assuming the priests in question are homosexual indeed. Their actions may be of such nature, but the mind of the paedophile is a strange one indeed. Little boys and little girls aren't that different in how they look, at least before 13. One would have to be aware of why these priests fall to such behaviour to ascertain whether it is truly of homosexual nature or is it heterosexuals abusing children.

I wonder if there is any scientific research backing the Church's position, or do they still believe one chooses to be gay? :rolleyes: One is born bi-, hetero- or homosexual, its not a choice.The Church in fact does accept that sexuality is a born thing. What is done with that sexual orientation is choice, however. Being homo/bisexual does not preclude someone from following divine law on sexuality. Premarital sex is a sin no matter who it's with, and since marriage is between one man and one woman, homosexuals are called to chastity.

One should make a difference, though, as the document does, between homosexuals and gays. Homosexuality is an orientation, gay is a lifestyle. Homosexuals can be people fully accepting of the Church's laws and become holy saints. Gays oppose natural and ecclesastical law.

The Church in fact does accept that sexuality is a born thing. What is done with that sexual orientation is choice, however. Being homo/bisexual does not preclude someone from following divine law on sexuality. Premarital sex is a sin no matter who it's with, and since marriage is between one man and one woman, homosexuals are called to chastity.

One should make a difference, though, as the document does, between homosexuals and gays. Homosexuality is an orientation, gay is a lifestyle. Homosexuals can be people fully accepting of the Church's laws and become holy saints. Gays oppose natural and ecclesastical law.

What's natural law???

That is assuming the priests in question are homosexual indeed. Their actions may be of such nature, but the mind of the paedophile is a strange one indeed. Little boys and little girls aren't that different in how they look, at least before 13. One would have to be aware of why these priests fall to such behaviour to ascertain whether it is truly of homosexual nature or is it heterosexuals abusing children.
Part of the problem here is that we're assuming the sole purpose of this document is to prevent child abuse. Though it is absoultely necessary to find and root out the issues causing this abuse and the Church is seeking answers to it, there are other things about the priesthood the Church must concern itself with, especially when it comes to ordaining men who seem to resent their own vows in supporting gay culture.

There are priests out there now publicly "coming out" to show their opposition to the document, which shows the problem with these priests. Imagine if a priest came up to the pulpit one day and said to his parishoners, "Today, brothers and sisters, I must make an announcement: I am heterosexual." What would you conclude? That he is a righteous man who is trying to fight for his rights? No, that his sexual orientation really shouldn't be a big issue when it comes to his vocation, and if he does focus so much on his own sexuality, perhaps he's focusing on something other than his ministry. At heart, that's the real issue: whether you're hetero or homosexual, anyone who plans to enter the priesthood should expect to be celibate and should actively live that celibacy. They don't let you into seminary if you have a girlfriend, why should it be any different for someone who advocates premarital sex?

If you ask me, that's what the document's trying to get at. It's not a witch hunt, it's a call to actively living out holiness.

One should make a difference, though, as the document does, between homosexuals and gays. Homosexuality is an orientation, gay is a lifestyle. Homosexuals can be people fully accepting of the Church's laws and become holy saints. Gays oppose natural and ecclesastical law.
Gays are following natural law, by living according to their natural-born sexual inclinations. Ecclesiastical law defies nature, in trying to enforce an unnatural celibacy on both gays and priests.

Part of the problem here is that we're assuming the sole purpose of this document is to prevent child abuse. Though it is absoultely necessary to find and root out the issues causing this abuse and the Church is seeking answers to it, there are other things about the priesthood the Church must concern itself with, especially when it comes to ordaining men who seem to resent their own vows in supporting gay culture.

There are priests out there now publicly "coming out" to show their opposition to the document, which shows the problem with these priests. Imagine if a priest came up to the pulpit one day and said to his parishoners, "Today, brothers and sisters, I must make an announcement: I am heterosexual." What would you conclude? That he is a righteous man who is trying to fight for his rights? No, that his sexual orientation really shouldn't be a big issue when it comes to his vocation, and if he does focus so much on his own sexuality, perhaps he's focusing on something other than his ministry. At heart, that's the real issue: whether you're hetero or homosexual, anyone who plans to enter the priesthood should expect to be celibate and should actively live that celibacy. They don't let you into seminary if you have a girlfriend, why should it be any different for someone who advocates premarital sex?

If you ask me, that's what the document's trying to get at. It's not a witch hunt, it's a call to actively living out holiness.
Then what you are arguing is that all priests should remain celibate and keep their sexuality a hidden matter. If this is what you indeed say, I will agree. If priests are meant to stick to being celibate, then sexuality is irrelevant either way.

Agreed Candelar. :)

In you opinion. The fact is The Catholic Church doesn't and shouldn't give a flying fuck what you think.


And I don't and shouldn't give a f--- what you think. The church dropped the ball on this one. This is what happens when we let the Grand Inquisitor be Pope. If this crap doesn't stop, I'm seriously considering leaving the church.

It's the Catholic church. Really, who gives a fuck about them? They can ban gays, but go on protecting paedophiles. It's just what they do.

Hey, if its tradition, why question it? :p At least that is what they will counter-argue.

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican newspaper said on Tuesday that homosexuality risked "destabilizing people and society", had no social or moral value

Is it just me, or do more people agree that if you replace "homosexuality" with "Catholicism" you get a much more accurate statement ?

Or can someone tell me what exactly what the RC church has done to make it morally superior ? Please illustrate with well documented historic evidence.

As for the pope, just because you wear a funny hat doesn't mean you're right.

Becareful!

Remember that NOObody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Becareful!

Remember that NOObody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

I prefer the Crusades. A papal order (Urban II I believe) called for holy war against the Muslims. I'm sure this was a morally superior action for a "representative of God" to take. :rolleyes:

I prefer the Crusades. A papal order (Urban II I believe) called for holy war against the Muslims. I'm sure this was a morally superior action for a "representative of God" to take. :rolleyes:
Well, as it was in response to the Muslim invasion of Constantinople and Tugrul Bed's Seljuk Turks killing Shiites, Jews, and Christians alike in the Holy Land, yeah, maybe it was a morally correct thing to do.

Or can someone tell me what exactly what the RC church has done to make it morally superior ? Please illustrate with well documented historic evidence.

Morally superior to what? It might make a difference in the argument you know. :p

Actually it is a very silly question. You can always find a lot of morally good people and morally rotten people in any institution.

Still I bid one Francis of Assisi and raise with one Theresa of Calcutta.

Morally superior to what? It might make a difference in the argument you know. :p

Actually it is a very silly question. You can always find a lot of morally good people and morally rotten people in any institution.

Still I bid one Francis of Assisi and raise with one Theresa of Calcutta.And there's guys like Pope St. Gregory VII, telling the a Muslim Sultan in North Africa: “Most certainly you and we ought to love each other in this way more than other races of men, because we believe and confess one God, albeit in different ways, who each day we praise and reverence as the Creator of all ages and the governor of this world.”

And I don't and shouldn't give a f--- what you think. The church dropped the ball on this one. This is what happens when we let the Grand Inquisitor be Pope. If this crap doesn't stop, I'm seriously considering leaving the church.
i say, give it one more pope. this guy is old and was selected because he is old. the next one may be better. (but dont hold your breath)


i just wonder where they are going to get priests when they just disallowed the biggest source of priests in the US.

once you disallow women, married men, and gay men you just dont have that many men left with a true vocation to the priesthood.

how many churches can they close until there just arent enough to serve the faithful?

i say, give it one more pope. this guy is old and was selected because he is old. the next one may be better. (but dont hold your breath)


i just wonder where they are going to get priests when they just disallowed the biggest source of priests in the US.

once you disallow women, married men, and gay men you just dont have that many men left with a true vocation to the priesthood.

how many churches can they close until there just arent enough to serve the faithful?
Just because the American and European churches are in decline doesn't mean the Church as a whole is. In Africa and Asia, many men are lining up at the seminary doors. Now its these younger Dioceses that are sending priest missionaries to the US and Europe. It's not really an unexpected thing, either. I read somewhere (I'll say where if I can remember the source) about Cardinal Ratzinger saying a few years ago that the Church will probably shrink considerably over the next few decades in response to heretical movements separating themselves or being separated from the Church.

Besides, reducing the requirements for being a preist is likely to make the priesthood even less orthodox than the men who flocked the seminaries in the twenty or so years following Vatican II. There's still men joining the priesthood, but they are fewer and more devoted to the Church. I'll take quality over quantity any day.

If you're Catholic and actually consider yourself a Catholic in faith, the Pope making a stupid decision should not warrant you leaving the Church. If that's enough to make you leave, why haven't you left already due to all the other stupid things that have happened? Church makes mistakes, Church is fallible - its first Pope, Peter, was the one who denied Christ three times.

Why is the Church's disregard of people's opinions going to lead to its downfall? The Church has never paid much attention to people's opinions, and it's survived for the last 2000 years.

Funny how a "better" Pope is one who agrees more with contemporary social norms… don't get me wrong, the homosexual-priest thing strikes me as excessive and badly thought through, but why would a "better" Pope be one who doesn't uphold Catholic teaching? The Pope simply cannot dismantle core Catholic teaching - he's unable to by canon law.

...but why would a "better" Pope be one who doesn't uphold Catholic teaching? The Pope simply cannot dismantle core Catholic teaching - he's unable to by canon law.Heh, finally someone said it.:D

I don't care who is elevated to the papacy, you can't go changing doctrine around all willy-nilly. People greatly misunderstand the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome.

[QUOTE=Liskeinland
Why is the Church's disregard of people's opinions going to lead to its downfall? The Church has never paid much attention to people's opinions, and it's survived for the last 2000 years.
[/QUOTE]

HOw about declining enrollment in "modern" countries? They are only making leaps in countries where education is rather poor. Hmmmmm

Now could that survival be because people think it needs to be around or due to the fact they hold enough assets to buy and sell countries?

Well, as it was in response to the Muslim invasion of Constantinople and Tugrul Bed's Seljuk Turks killing Shiites, Jews, and Christians alike in the Holy Land, yeah, maybe it was a morally correct thing to do.

From a purely militaristic point of view maybe. But religion was used as an excuse to fight the infidel and steal back the Holy Land. Given that Europeans at the time were barbaric animals who had the nice practice of killing all the inhabitants of a city. Jerusalem especially where they killed killed Christians as well as Muslims. Really it was just a chance to steal some land and get rich.

From a purely militaristic point of view maybe. But religion was used as an excuse to fight the infidel and steal back the Holy Land. Given that Europeans at the time were barbaric animals who had the nice practice of killing all the inhabitants of a city. Jerusalem especially where they killed killed Christians as well as Muslims. Really it was just a chance to steal some land and get rich.
To be fair, slaughtering entire cities was par for the course of any army of that era. Not to say it was right. To be sure, the Crusades produced many saints and demons on every side. And Muslim practices were often not much better than Europeans. You know how they hardened the steel of their swords? Immidiately after forging, the blade was thrust into a slave. Chemical reaction hardens the metal.

Let's at least be fair in implicating the Crusades without making it good guy Muslims v. bad guy Catholics.

From a purely militaristic point of view maybe. But religion was used as an excuse to fight the infidel and steal back the Holy Land. Given that Europeans at the time were barbaric animals who had the nice practice of killing all the inhabitants of a city. Jerusalem especially where they killed killed Christians as well as Muslims. Really it was just a chance to steal some land and get rich.
Barbaric animals? Excuse me? :rolleyes: Byzantine Empire, Charlemagne etc etc...we were hardly barbarians.

Morally superior to what? It might make a difference in the argument you know. :p

Superior to whatever they claim is worth less. Here they claim that

1. homosexuality is "destabilizing people and society" - so I want evidence that the Church itself does not.
2. homosexuality has no social or moral value - so I want evidence that the Church itself has.

Actually it is a very silly question. You can always find a lot of morally good people and morally rotten people in any institution.

Yes, but this particular institution goes around passing judgement, without first judging itself.

I remind Holy Roman Catholics, like myself, that homosexuality is still not a sin. Anal and oral intercourse are considered morally reprehensable and they are done without the goal of repoduction.
1. I don't know who told you homosexuality is not a sin. It most certainly is. Why do you think the vatican keeps coming out against it, because it is healthy???
2. In the State of Ohio, sodomy is not only morally reprehensible; it is criminally illegal!

Don't you people understand that 80% of the sex-abuse cases in America come from homosexual priests? Homosexuality is a deviation that leads with time to other sorts of deviations. The Vatican's document has been written with the help of numerous professionals in psychology, sociology, that clearly demonstrate the incapacity of the church to work coherently with such priests.
I'd be more inclined to say that the priest and their forced celibacy is the cause of the abuse, not their homosexuality.

Look up some stats outside the church and you'll see homosexuals are by no means more inclined to abuse children.

1. I don't know who told you homosexuality is not a sin. It most certainly is. Why do you think the vatican keeps coming out against it, because it is healthy???
2. In the State of Ohio, sodomy is not only morally reprehensible; it is criminally illegal!


Hmmm Ohio? I know there is a sheep joke in there somewhere.

I'd be more inclined to say that the priest and their forced celibacy is the cause of the abuse, not their homosexuality.

So lack of access to a woman makes them go to children?

Barbaric animals? Excuse me? :rolleyes: Byzantine Empire, Charlemagne etc etc...we were hardly barbarians.

Barbarians yes. Comapred to the Muslims and their culture the Europeans were a bunch of dirty, smelling, foul mouthed primitives who would shit in the street and basicly revolt the advanced Muslims. Besides, Constantinople got sacked by other Christian Crusaders so they have nothing to brag about.

Barbarians yes. Comapred to the Muslims and their culture the Europeans were a bunch of dirty, smelling, foul mouthed primitives who would shit in the street and basicly revolt the advanced Muslims. Besides, Constantinople got sacked by other Christian Crusaders so they have nothing to brag about.
What are you on about? You must think the Muslims were this clean, civilised race. Newsflash! They were not. I do not know what gave you such an idiotic misconception. Unless you speak with bias. Look at the Byzantine Empire or any of the great Western European kingdoms. This was the High Middle Ages. The idea of dirty, barbaric Europeans is not characteristic of this age.

I most certainly will. However, I feel compelled to point that I was not given much of a choice being Catholic. It's really NOT a matter of me claiming to be Catholic, but more of the Catholic Church claiming that I and so many more Canadians are Catholics despite the fact we are in strong disagreement with the Institution, even where the Church declares itself "infaillible".
It would probably help, then, to officially end your association with the Church by no longer identifying yourself as a Roman Catholic. The problem, in some cases, is that people vehemently disagree with Church doctrine but still identify as Catholics. I say that those people are being dishonest to themselves.

While your faith that the Holy Spirit still guides the Church is admirable, I also find it a little naive. God hasn't bothered sending us many miracles lately, IMHO because he must deem us intelligent enough to get the message without him spelling it out for us. The message is what was brought for by his son, the Christ; not a set of moral beliefs built by faillible men upon the following centuries.

It's absolutely true that there have been relatively few miracles in the past couple of centuries. So I would say that the guidance of the Holy Spirit has become minimalistic, in that in the contemporary Church the Spirit's guidance merely serves to preserve the Magesterium from error in official declorations on issues of faith and morals.

I don't think I'll be looking for another denomination at all after this. I can perfectly reflect on my spirituality by myself, and by consulting those dear to me who share similar beliefs, without the need for an organized Church imposing it's will on us.[QUOTE]
I used the term "denomination" very loosely to mean "spiritual path." Not that you should particularly care, but I see nothing wrong with rejecting organized religion if your conscience behooves you to do so.

[QUOTE]At the risk of repeating myself: the Catholic Church is wrong on oh so many issues, and its worst flaw is that it is too closed to the voice of it's own members. This shall be its downfall.
This is where we disagree. Even though I strongly disagree with the Church's policy, I still agree with Her doctrines on faith and morality.

First time I have seen a gender being assigned to the Catholic Church :p Hey, if it works with nations or ships, why not institutions I guess? :p

First time I have seen a gender being assigned to the Catholic Church :p Hey, if it works with nations or ships, why not institutions I guess? :p

Thought the Catholic Church is also Mother Church or something like that. :confused:

I have no idea. It just strikes me as odd to call an Church a She. :confused: Guess you learn something every day. Unless it is a personal way of addressing the Church, in which case its a different matter entirely.

Just because the American and European churches are in decline doesn't mean the Church as a whole is. In Africa and Asia, many men are lining up at the seminary doors. Now its these younger Dioceses that are sending priest missionaries to the US and Europe. It's not really an unexpected thing, either. I read somewhere (I'll say where if I can remember the source) about Cardinal Ratzinger saying a few years ago that the Church will probably shrink considerably over the next few decades in response to heretical movements separating themselves or being separated from the Church.

Besides, reducing the requirements for being a preist is likely to make the priesthood even less orthodox than the men who flocked the seminaries in the twenty or so years following Vatican II. There's still men joining the priesthood, but they are fewer and more devoted to the Church. I'll take quality over quantity any day.
just as spending time with your kids is a matter of quality over quantity, there is a minimum requirement

too many communities have lost their local church due to lack of priests. are we going to end up with a totally foreign clergy? thats not a theological problem but it sure could end up with a sociological one.

it seems to me that in the eyes of the church it IS a numbers game and since the numbers in africa and asia are growing they dont mind ignoring the needs of the north american and european parishes.

You know, I hear a lot of complaints about Pat Robertson, and I've heard a few complaints about the Pope, but this takes the cake for today:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2005-11-29T153741Z_01_SIB956185_RTRUKOC_0_US-POPE-GAYS-VATICAN.xml&rpc=22

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican newspaper said on Tuesday that homosexuality risked "destabilizing people and society", had no social or moral value and could never match the importance of the relationship between a man and a woman.

The remarks were contained in a long commentary published to accompany the official release of a long-awaited document that restricted the access of homosexual men to the Roman Catholic priesthood.

The article by Monsignor Tony Anatrella, a French Jesuit and psychologist, said homosexuality could not be considered an acceptable moral alternative to heterosexuality.

Appalling. thanks for posting this, even if it makes me nauseaous.

I remind Holy Roman Catholics, like myself, that homosexuality is still not a sin. Anal and oral intercourse are considered morally reprehensable and they are done without the goal of repoduction.

Although I agree with you (as to what the Churches position has been), it sounds like the Church is moving towards calling homosexuality itself a sin. The article condemns homosexuality itself, not just the sex acts.

First time I have seen a gender being assigned to the Catholic Church :p Hey, if it works with nations or ships, why not institutions I guess? :p
The Church has been called "she" for centuries, ever since she was called Mother Church. Also stems from the Church being the Bride of Christ.

Thanks for the knowledge :) I never knew that.

Although I agree with you (as to what the Churches position has been), it sounds like the Church is moving towards calling homosexuality itself a sin. The article condemns homosexuality itself, not just the sex acts.
I'm curious as to the translation. The article was printed in L'Osservatore, an was thus in Italian. I don't know anything about Italian, but maybe there's not separate words for "homosexual" and "gay"? Could an Italian speaker find an original copy of the article and clarify? Just curious.

I don't trust the pope. He was a Nazi and the Catholic church has waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many flaws. (Not the actual members or churches themselves but the fundemental flaws.) I.e. Not allowing women to become reverends and the whole sex thing... Get a damn grip already...

Just goes to show how much you should fear the fearful.

There goes a flaming fag we must save society smack bash kick stomp. Good for us we have saved society.

The Cathlic church and all old book religions in general remind me of the part in the Lord of the Flies movie where a mob of boys run into a cave poke a boy to death with pointy sticks than celebrate that they have killed a monster.

If you don't like the rules don't join the club. I used to be catholic. I don't try to force them to accept atheism. I just don't show up to church anymore.

This is pretty much the view I take on it.

I don't trust the pope. He was a Nazi and the Catholic church has waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many flaws. (Not the actual members or churches themselves but the fundemental flaws.) I.e. Not allowing women to become reverends and the whole sex thing... Get a damn grip already...

He was not a Nazi. He was a member of Hitler Youth because every German youth was automatically a member. Learn the facts before you shoot your mouth off.

Just goes to show how much you should fear the fearful.

There goes a flaming fag we must save society smack bash kick stomp. Good for us we have saved society.

The Cathlic church and all old book religions in general remind me of the part in the Lord of the Flies movie where a mob of boys run into a cave poke a boy to death with pointy sticks than celebrate that they have killed a monster.

When did the church EVER advocate the beating or killing of homosexuals? Never. That's when. Don't be such an ass.

.

When did the church EVER advocate the beating or killing of homosexuals? Never. That's when. Don't be such an ass.

The church never needed to. Just strip the the undisirables of thier humanity the drones will take care of the rest.

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican newspaper said on Tuesday that homosexuality risked "destabilizing people and society", had no social or moral value and could never match the importance of the relationship between a man and a woman.

Hmm Does it look like hate speach?

The voice of God told me this: Katzisanzaiality risks "destabilizing people and society", has no social or moral value and could never match the importance of being a Dark Shadowy Nexusian.

The church never needed to. Just strip the the undisirables of thier humanity the drones will take care of the rest.

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican newspaper said on Tuesday that homosexuality risked "destabilizing people and society", had no social or moral value and could never match the importance of the relationship between a man and a woman.

Hmm Does it look like hate speach?

The voice of God told me this: Katzisanzaiality risks "destabilizing people and society", has no social or moral value and could never match the importance of being a Dark Shadowy Nexusian.

It does indeed sound like hate speach. But remeber that their very own doctrine which they preach forbids violence and killing. The Vatican has spoken out aginst violence against homosexuals just as strongly as they have spoken out against homosexuality, if not more so.