If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Catholic Church renews ban on homosexual priests
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Story.
As well as homosexuals, "supporters of homosexual culture" cannot be ordained as priests either.
But out of the goodness of the vatican's heart, you can be ordained if three years have passed since "the end of a transitory problem". How kind is that?
Such a shame that religions are run by such sinister and evil men. The ordinary followers are good people, mostly.
As well as homosexuals, "supporters of homosexual culture" cannot be ordained as priests either.
But out of the goodness of the vatican's heart, you can be ordained if three years have passed since "the end of a transitory problem". How kind is that?
Such a shame that religions are run by such sinister and evil men. The ordinary followers are good people, mostly.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
This sort of thing is just for the Catholics.
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/sermons/dangcatholics.html
Apparently Catholics do not 'worship' Mary or the Pope - they reckon they are just praying to them for assistance/intercession.
I agree that the apparent reverence in which they hold both people does seem uncomfortably close to idolatry worship, especially when you wonder why if all they are doing is asking for assistance, why they don't include people like Mother Theresa.
The organisation known as The Catholic Church is a repugnant, sexist, homophobic, fundamentalist sect- even if most of their members are not.
The Vatican should be raided and all the billions of Pounds worth of treasure held there sold off and given to the needy.
That would be the first time the organisation had served a practical purpose.
That site is hardly impartial - in biblical times it was common to refer to a group of close friends or fellow worshipers as your 'bretheren' - it does not mean they were your blood family.
I'm not sticking up for Catholicism (far from it) but that's not the best site to use as a reference.
I'm glad
just thought i'd add that, according to the bible, all humans live with sin, however like anything its their actions that define whom they are, not what they think thus making a celebate homosexual preist as equally good as a heterosexual celebate preist
catholic preists cant get married so they're all celebate thus meaning they can take on gay preists
No, with some the thought is as bad as the deed.
but theres LOADS of sins that exist, and i cant remember anything in any religious text that would make gay thoughts worse than say contemplating hurting someone or nicking something or telling a white lie
resisting temptation is what a good religious person does, because everyone is human to my knowledge and we all get tempted by things, whether or not we go through with them is what seperates the good people from the lazy sods
I think you're getting confused with where the bible says "if a man shall look lustfully at a woman then he has committed adultary in his mind".
There's nothing wrong in being tempted (as was Jesus when he was in the wilderness for 40 days) - the sin is acting upon it.
Its not just sexual thoughts, its general thoughts of unpleasantness to others.
You are missing the point of Jesus being tempted, he was being tempted, not thinking 'hmm, that womans arse looks good' the two are very different.
It is quite a literal interpretation, but many Christians do believe in it.
It's different when you only think about putting money into the collection plate for some reason. The church says it only counts if you actually do it. Strange people.
Thing that gets me is - the follow none of the teachings of the bible. If I ever took up religion, it wouldn't be an organised one through such shite as that.
As for Homosexuality - Come on, Jesus ran about with 12 other chaps, often spending large amounts of time alone with them. But what should we expect from our Hitler Youth Pope? Then again, last one was much the same.
That's exactly what I said....
It certainly didnt sound like it, you said 'there is nothing wrong with being tempted' which in the context you used it sounded like it was alright to lust but not ok to act.
Just in the balance of fairness, I'd point out that this edict is not Papal, and that John Paul II actually was quite liberal and quite a reformer.
Starting from such an illiberal start means he won't get the credit for it, but if you consider where the Catholic Church started from he did a lot of good.
I am with Aladdin on this, let us launch a Crusade against the Vatican and all strongholds of Catholicism!
Given that Paul II was another homophobe who regularly ranted against cohabitation, premarital sex, and of course against the use of condoms even in AIDS-ravaged Africa... Are you quite sure he was a liberal?
Compared to the ones before him, John Paul was very liberal and a significant reformer.
He is a hero in Poland for a reason; he was active against the Russians, and helped the revolt there.
He reformed the Catholic Church, or started to put them onto the road to reform. Things that were huge leaps for Catholicism, such as mass in English not in Latin, aren't ever considered. That the Catholic Church effectively apologised for its role in WWII is never considered. The fact that women have more importance in the Catholic Church then ever before is not considered- they can be altar servers, they can read scripture- all things that were huge leaps for the Catholic Church when they happened. That you don't have to fast for 24 hours before receiving Holy Communion is never considered.
All these things were huge leaps for the Catholic Church to make. It's all about context; John Paul was a reformer, but reformers don't bulldoze, they mould. It's unfortunate that the senior clergy have decided to take a step back from the road John Paul started to walk down, but that isn't his fault.
Firstly, there is nothing wrong with being against co-habitation and pre-marital sex. If everyone waited until they were married then, as catholic doctrine states, everyone would be better off. AIDS is spread through pre-marital sex and through drug-taking- two things that are not desirable, and in the latter case is actually immoral. If everyone didn't inject heroin, and kept their pants on, then AIDS would disappear in a generation.
Scripture is quite clear that marriage is the joining of two people by God. Two people should not join without this. If you don't agree with scripture then fine, your choice, but to denounce a church for sticking to an important chunk of scripture is rather bizarre IMHO.
Scripture is also quite clear that this joining should only be between man and woman, for the purposes of procreation. Doctrine is that men can be homosexuals, but they can't get married, therefore they can't have sex. To have homosexual sex is a sin simply because the two people are not married, and can never be married.
You can disagree with scripture if you want, you can bring up the Old testament words about not eating pig on a Tuesday if you want, but the Church is following it's interpretation of scripture, and if you don't like it don't be a Catholic.
The people responsible for AIDS in Africa are the Africans who shag around, and inject drugs. Nobody else is responsible for the spread of HIV and AIDS- the Africans who shag around and do drugs are.
I think the latter is only really relevant to Catholics anyway, not being a Catholic I’m not really concerned with what they do; as long as they don’t advocate executing gays like a few oddball extremist evangelical Christians and fundamentalist Muslims do I really don’t see that much of a big deal.
What's happening in the UAE is far more disturbing. And that's bearing in mind that the consequences would be even more horrific elsewhere. Iran perhaps being the most barbarous example where gay minors have been executed.
according to the bible ...this is the teaching of demons!
loved klints link ...ammusing as it is it sounds like one of my rants against the catholic church.
Whether it is objectively true, or not, in my opinion doesn't dent the weight of Kermit's argument: You can't easily criticise the Catholic Church for actively and strongly advocating the beliefs and moral standards it holds to be true. You can disagree with those standards, and you can even try to argue that the church ought to change its views. But until it does, it would be illogical to suggest that they should teach something other than what they believe.
(this from a Christian who is increasingly unconvinced by arguments from Scripture regarding homosexuality - but quite convinced that religious groups should be able to live within their own moral codes)
Good point.
Personally I'm not bothered either way. Seems rather strange that homosexuals would want to be become a Priest anyway, considering what the bible has to say about them.
why not start your own religion?