Based on the intolerance of the beliefs he spouts, how about ImperialWizardBrian286?

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

Come on...give him some credit. He is a hard line Catholic and stands firm in his faith...I am a hard line hetrosexual and stand just as firm (heh...firm) in my sexual beliefs. I for one at this point can only see that he is a stand up guy who is firm in his views of god and life - I respect that. You dont have to agree with him, but he is only wrong in your eyes (and a few million others).

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

Based on the intolerance of the beliefs he spouts, how about ImperialWizardBrian286?

So if he disagrees with you, his beliefs are intolerant, huh?

And such irony- Imperial Wizard, huh? It might have escaped your attention, but Catholics were one of the KKK's big targets. If there's anyone in here who's following in their footsteps, it ain't Brian.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

While I was being slightly glib, the fact remains that the inolerance & prejudice that the Catholic church shows toward gays is directly in line with the "preachings" of the KKK.

And while I'm no expert on the KKK, I thought their main religious targets were Jews?

And yes, the Catholic Church's doctrine against women and homosexuals lead to intolerant beliefs.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

And while I'm no expert on the KKK, Get out!

I thought their main religious targets were Jews? The three main targets of the KKK were Blacks, Jews, and Catholics.

the Catholic Church's doctrine against women and homosexuals lead to intolerant beliefs.

There is no Catholic doctrine against women. There's not even any doctrine against homosexuals- only against homosexual behavior. And no, it doesn't lead to "intolerant" beliefs, unless you just consider disagreement with your position "intolerance." Funny how that works.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

The three main targets of the KKK were Blacks, Jews, and Catholics. What was the rational for attacking Catholics (and what religion did the KKK subscribe to?)?

There is no Catholic doctrine against women. Where to start on this one? Lets just go for the top--no women priests. Are they not equal?

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

"There's not even any doctrine against homosexuals- only against homosexual behavior"

There is Catholic language (I'm not sure what would constitute "doctrine") against homsexuality, not just the physical act, but the inclination itself.

"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed to those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not"

That quote was written, by the way, by then Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI in the "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" of 1986.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

What was the rational for attacking Catholics (and what religion did the KKK subscribe to?)?

Uh- does it matter?

no women priests. Are they not equal?

Because men and women aren't the same doesn't mean they're not equal. No male mothers- biological evidence of the inferiority of men? Hardly.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"and what religion did the KKK subscribe to?"

Most KKK claim to be Protestants. Don't make the mistake that many do of thinking "Catholic" and "Christian" mean the same thing.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"No male mothers- biological evidence of the inferiority of men? Hardly."

Well now you just sound silly. The reason there aren't "male mothers" isn't because the Church is preventing it, as is the case with female clergy.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

There is Catholic language (I'm not sure what would constitute "doctrine") against homsexuality, not just the physical act, but the inclination itself.

Do tell.

I fail to see how you think that's evidence of intolerance of homosexuality. It says, in effect, that the tendency towards homosexuality is an objective disorder. Which it is. Just like every other tendency to sin is an objective disorder. It doesn't say that people who merely have the tendency towards homosexuality are sinful or evil, even if they don't practice homosexuality. It says, basically, that special care should be taken with those who have the inclination, so that they don't fall into actual sin.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

In one of those moods today, huh commodore?

OK, I'll spell it out for you. The Church says that there are real differences between men and women, which is a pretty unremarkable statement. Just as pregnancy isn't suitable for the male nature, the priesthood is not suitable for the feminine nature. It doesn't make women of any less value.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"I fail to see how you think that's evidence of intolerance of homosexuality"

How do you fail in that? The letter pretty clearly says that homosexuality is an immoral condition. It may not be a mandate to go stomp homos, but it certainly isn't a statement of tolerance and acceptance. But if that isn't enough for you, how about pope John Paull II in his 2005 book Memory and Identity,when he labeled homosexuality an “ideology of evil,” saying when discussing gay marriage that, “It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man.”

Not particularly tolerant. The argument that the church doesn't like homosexuality, but is tolerant towards homosexuals is just crap. Regardless of whether or not you believe that homosexuality is a choice or genetic or whatever, you have to acknowledge that gays think it's not a choice, and that calling their inclinations and their movement an "ideology of evil" isn't particularly tolerant.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"In one of those moods today, huh commodore?"

I get into those moods when people make ridiculous statements.

"Just as pregnancy isn't suitable for the male nature, the priesthood is not suitable for the feminine nature. It doesn't make women of any less value"

Except that pregnancy is a function of having ovaries and a uterus, whereas being clergy is a matter of deciding that because Jesus only had male apostles, the clergy should only be male. The Church, as far as I know, doesn't point to any physical limitations which prevent women from being competent priests.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Ok, usually I'll just lurk on these threads, but this one definitely has caught my interest. WTF are you talking about??? What kind of analogy is that? What about the feminine nature is not suitable for priesthood?

Please, you said you would spell it out, so start s-p-e-l-l-i-n-g.

---

Dan Hollingsworth

Nobody grows old by merely living a number of years. People grow old only by deserting their ideals. Years may wrinkle the skin, but to give up interest wrinkles the soul." - Douglas MacArthur

Okay, I'll bite. I know men are not suited for pregnancy as a biological fact. I also know that there are real differences between men and women, most of which are biological, but some of which (generalizing, of course) are tempramental (sp??). But what is it the church says about the feminine nature that would make it unsuitable for priesthood?

By the way, I'm just curious. I really don't have the emotional or intellectual fortitude to be drawn into a Slowtwitch religious debate.

By what possible logic could you conclude the Catholic Church has intolerance toward gays? For all we know the Pope is gay. I would not be surprised if a large percentage of Catholic priests in this country are gay.

The Church teaches that sex outside of marriage is morally unacceptable. The Church teaches that marriage is only between a man and a woman. The Church has no issues with homosexuality at all, only with homosexual acts.

Apparently you are as well informed about the Catholic Church as you are about the KKK. You might want to consider what it is in your life that causes you to be so threatened by the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Jesus taught us to love our neighbor as ourselves. He didn't carve out any exceptions.

Isn't that akin to saying, I have no issues with triathletes, just those who choose to swim, bike and run.

That argument is beyond absurd!!!

---

Dan Hollingsworth

Nobody grows old by merely living a number of years. People grow old only by deserting their ideals. Years may wrinkle the skin, but to give up interest wrinkles the soul." - Douglas MacArthur

"Apparently you are as well informed about the Catholic Church as you are about the KKK. "


Art, maybe you need to read some of the above posts before you tell others they don't know what they're talking about. the Church absolutely has issues with homosexuality itself, not just the acts.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

The letter pretty clearly says that homosexuality is an immoral condition.

It says nothing of the sort. It says the inclination to it is objectively a disorder.

Just as the inclination towards alcoholism is an objective disorder. Just like the inclination towards violence is an objective disorder. Just like the inclination towards any particular sin is an objective disorder. Everyone has some objective disorder or another- we all have our own weaknesses, our own particular vices that we struggle against. Merely saying that we have to struggle to avoid whatever sin we incline to doesn't mean we're in an immoral condition.

how about pope John Paull II in his 2005 book Memory and Identity,when he labeled homosexuality an “ideology of evil,”

How about it? I don't think he said homosexuality itself is "an ideology of evil," just because of the obvious fact that homosexuality isn't an ideology at all. Clearly, what he was talking about was the ideology that homosexuality is A-OK.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I know men are not suited for pregnancy as a biological fact. I also know that there are real differences between men and women, most of which are biological, but some of which (generalizing, of course) are tempramental

OK, so we can agree that there are real differences between men and women in the natural order, and I hope we can agree that those differences, or acknowledging those differences, don't make one gender inferior to the other. Now let's assume a supernatural order, which is what we're talking about when we're talking about the priesthood. What reason is there to think that there aren't differences between the genders supernaturally, as well as naturally? And what reason is there to assert that these supernatural differences make one gender less than the other?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Your statement is meaningless. Of course the Church has "issues" with homosexuality. It has "issues" with heterosexuality as well. The Church has "issues" with most major areas of human disagreement.

Try again.

the Church absolutely has issues with homosexuality itself, not just the acts.

The Church doesn't have any more issues with someone's homosexuality than it has with my laziness.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

It is not absurd at all. It is perfectly logical and consistent. You simply disagree with it.

If the Church considered swimming, biking and running to be immoral, it would have no intolerance to triathletes whatever, it would frown on those to the extent that they acted on their inclinations.

Once again, love your neighbor. No exceptions.

"the Church has "issues" with homosexuality. It has "issues" with heterosexuality as well."

Perhaps the word "hang-ups" would be more appropriate.

Yeah, that whole free love thing was such a boon to mankind.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

We are trying to have an adult conversation here.

It's not that I merely disagree. I find this argument illogical.

What is homosexuality without the homosexual act?

---

Dan Hollingsworth

Nobody grows old by merely living a number of years. People grow old only by deserting their ideals. Years may wrinkle the skin, but to give up interest wrinkles the soul." - Douglas MacArthur

Homosexuality makes one predisposed to engaging in homosexual acts. Heterosexuality makes one predisposed to engaging in heterosexual acts. The Church has no problem with either.

The Church does have a problem with heterosexual acts out of marriage. It is considered sinful. Homosexual acts are, by definition, outside of marriage, since the Church considers marriage to be between a man and a woman.

In a different context, clearly some people are more inclined to be violent than others. The Church has no problem with the proclivity itself, but acting on the proclivity is sinful.

For all any of us know, a majority of the Conclave cardinals are homosexuals. Given the celebacy vow, it is simply not an issue.

"Of course the Church has "issues" with homosexuality"

Then you probably shouldn't have said:

"The Church has no issues with homosexuality at all."

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I hope you realize when Amy asks what the differences are between men and women that preclude women from bein priests, and answer like "What reason is there to think that there aren't differences between the genders supernaturally, as well as naturally?" is pretty darn worthless.

Tell her the reason(s) already, dont ask if she can imagine some.

---

_______________________________________________

"For all any of us know, a majority of the Conclave cardinals are homosexuals. Given the celebacy vow, it is simply not an issue"

You should really stop using this argument. If the Church had no problems with homosexuality, then we would know about priests who were gay, because they wouldn't have any reason to hide it, just so long as they didn't act on it.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

On what basis has the Catholic Church made this decision? I'm not aware of it (I promise I'll try looking it up later, but if you know of good sources I'd appreciate them). I'd ask how we know that Cahtolicism didn't get it wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're answer will be that you have faith that it didn't.

To me it reads like physical differences don't lead to one gender being better than the other, yet you are saying something about gender equates to a supernatural superiority. Assuming though, that being a priest is supernaturally superior to not being one, which is what you are saying.

Either I'm not getting it (highly likely) or what you are saying does not make sense (likely, though if you knew me, you'd know less likely than me not getting it).

Are you honestly arguing that the only reason the catholic church condemns homosexual acts is because they occur out of wedlock? They don't separate the two?

We're not that naive.

---

Dan Hollingsworth

Nobody grows old by merely living a number of years. People grow old only by deserting their ideals. Years may wrinkle the skin, but to give up interest wrinkles the soul." - Douglas MacArthur

I hope you realize when Amy asks what the differences are between men and women that preclude women from bein priests, and answer like "What reason is there to think that there aren't differences between the genders supernaturally, as well as naturally?" is pretty darn worthless.

And I hope you realize that describing a specific spiritual difference between men and women is a bit more difficult than explaining why men can't have babies.

Be that as it may, I don't think it's a worthless argument at all. The body and soul are linked- they're bound together in a very real way. Given the obvious and irrefutable natural differences between men and women, I think one is making a pretty big leap to say that they're aren't any spiritual differences. What would that belief be based on, exactly?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

On what basis has the Catholic Church made this decision?

The Church came to the conclusion because of Christ's example. Now before everyone jumps to ridiculous conclusions, that doesn't mean that it's just mindless imitation. (Though one could do worse than to mindlessly imitate Christ, I suppose.)

The reasoning, I think, is like this: Christ chose only men to be his Apostles. (Don't even get started with the idea that Jesus only chose men because He was afflicted by the chauvinism of His day. It's a ridiculous argument.) Since we don't think He chose His Apostles arbitrarily and capriciously, there must be have been some underlying reason why He didn't choose any women for that role.

yet you are saying something about gender equates to a supernatural superiority. Assuming though, that being a priest is supernaturally superior to not being one, which is what you are saying.

I'm not saying that. Granted that the priesthood is a very great gift, I'm not sure that I would say being a priest is supernaturally superior to not being one. In sort of the same way that motherhood is a very great gift- I don't know that I'd say being a mother is superior to not being one.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

So are you saying that women are spiritually incapable of being priests, or maybe it's not you but the Catholic Church in general.

I am admittedly not well versed in the teachings of the catholic church. I am just taking what you type at face value. To be quite honest, it looks like spin to me.



Now for a procedural question: When did everybody start using bold text to indicate a previous poster's quote? What happened to using the quote button. I feel like the un-cool kid who is missing out on the latest fashion trend. Maybe it'll be like parachute pants, here today gone tomorrow.

---

Dan Hollingsworth

Nobody grows old by merely living a number of years. People grow old only by deserting their ideals. Years may wrinkle the skin, but to give up interest wrinkles the soul." - Douglas MacArthur

So are you saying that women are spiritually incapable of being priests

That's what I'm saying.

When did everybody start using bold text to indicate a previous poster's quote? What happened to using the quote button.

I got tired of seeing my posts disappear, as sometimes happened when I used the quote button. And sometimes I only want to quote part of a post. It's easier to keep things straight to use bold.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

If the Church had no problems with homosexuality, then we would know about priests who were gay, because they wouldn't have any reason to hide it

Right, because priests- and people in general- make a big habit of advertising their inclinations towards sinful behavior. Be serious.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"Right, because priests- and people in general- make a big habit of advertising their inclinations towards sinful behavior. Be serious."

No vitus, you be serious. If the church is tolerant towards gays, just not towards homosexual behaviour, then there would be at least some priests that are openly gay, but do not practice homosexual acts. Art claimed that a large portion of the clergy could be gay in secret, and that that somehow proves that the Church has no problems with gays. That's a pretty poor argument, and it doesn't hold water. Having to keep who you are secret from the organization of which you are a member, is not an indication of that organizations tolerance.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"Don't even get started with the idea that Jesus only chose men because He was afflicted by the chauvinism of His day. It's a ridiculous argument."

just out of curiousity, why is it ridiculous? Obviously I don't think Christ was a chauvinist, but almost all major characters of the Bible are men. God is always referred to as male. Even if Jesus wanted to have female apostles, they wouldn't have been very effective given the prevalent attitudes towards women at the time.

Another question. What does being an Apostle have to do with being a member of the clergy? The Apostles were Jesus closest followers and friends. they were directed to spread the word, but so were all Christians. The Apostles weren't given a secret copy of the Book of Common prayer or some equivalent.

Lastly, what is it about women that makes them unsuitable for the clergy? It is easy to say that they just are because the Church says so, but is there anything specific about females that the Church has ever pointed to that makes them less able to do the job than a man? In other words, has anyone at any time ever been able to pin down the reason why Jesus only chose men to be his apostles or do they just accept that since he did, there must be some reason, even if that reason is a mystery?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Hide it? I don't understand. For what possible reason would I want to know the sexual preference of a priest?

There is nothing to hide because there is nothing to discuss.

It is not that you are naive, it is that you are uninformed. You probably get your knowledge of Catholicism from the NY Times.

The simple answer to your question is yes.

That does not mean that homosexuality is not more of a problem, since the obvious outlet of marriage is not available.

"Hide it? I don't understand. For what possible reason would I want to know the sexual preference of a priest?

There is nothing to hide because there is nothing to discuss"

You may not be interested, but they aren't hiding it from you specifically. No disrespect, but you aren't that important. There is something to hide, because if a candidate for the priesthood came out and said he was gay, but planned on not participating in any homosexual acts, I think he'd have some obstacles to deal with in the Church. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there are any openly gay Catholic priests. You said that there might be any number of gay priests that no one knows about, and that that somehow proves the Church is ok with homosexuals. That's bunk. The imaginary existence of some unknown number of gay priests, who, if they exist, are living in secrecy, is not proof of Church tolerance.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"The simple answer to your question is yes"

Are you cracked? Do you really believe that the only reason the Church has decided homosexual acts to be sinful is because they are outside of marriage? Art, you need to lie down and take some aspirin because you aren't thinking straight. If that was the case, then why is the Church also against gay marriage? Allowing gays to marry would surely allow all those people to have gay sex and not be sinning. Unfortunately, the late Pope called the gay marriage movement an "ideology of evil." The Church's problems with homosexual sex have nothing to do with sex outside of marriage, and everything to do with sexual acts that aren't focused towards procreation.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Actually I get my knowledge of the catholic church from my catholic mother, my catholic step-mother and my catholic grandparents-in-law. And I guess from the catholic posters on this forum.

Have never read the NY Times, except for the obviously lilberally biased article they wrote about Ed Whitlock the 73 year-old marathon runner ;-p

---

Dan Hollingsworth

Nobody grows old by merely living a number of years. People grow old only by deserting their ideals. Years may wrinkle the skin, but to give up interest wrinkles the soul." - Douglas MacArthur

I have to admit that I am overwhelmed at the lack of knowledge here. I have always assumed that maybe even a majority of the priests, at least in this country were homosexuals. I have never signed up for the priesthood, but I would expect the only issue a candidate who professed himself to be openly gay would have is that sexual preference issues are irrelevant in the context of the celebacy vow and are not a topic for discussion, one way or the other.

News flash: The heterosexual priests are living in secrecy too. What is the issue here?

I don't understand the bit about the Church proving its tolerance. The Church's philosophy is very easy to understand, but very difficult to live up to.

Love your neighbor. No exceptions. Easy to understand. Try living your life that way. I can't live up to that standard all the time. I think John Paul II did, at least most days.

This is why I found Howard Dean's "George Bush is not my neighbor!" scream so offensive.

 If the church is tolerant towards gays, just not towards homosexual behaviour, then there would be at least some priests that are openly gay,

What exactly does "openly gay" mean when we're talking about the celibate priesthood? You think a priest should get up and tell everyone, "I have an inclination towards homosexuality?"

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

No, I am not cracked. Just a bit better informed.

The Church is against gay marriage since the sacrament of marriage as blessed by Jesus was between a man and a woman. The making of wine at the marriage at Canaan was between a man and a women. For 2000 years it has not been an issue. Sorry, the Church doesn't take polls to decide what its beliefs should be today.

There is a teaching somewhere in one of the gospels that states that sex even in marriage should be strictly for the purpose of procreation. This is a rather odd teaching, coming from one Apostle and without any such reference from Jesus directly. I have always considered it rather suspect. I do not know what the Church's actual position on that would be. Good question though.

I consider myself appropriately chastized.

Oops.

"You think a priest should get up and tell everyone, "I have an inclination towards homosexuality?"

i don't think he would have to, but I think that if the Church were as tolerant as you and Art claim, it would have happened at least once. I certainly don't think that claiming that there are some unknown amount of gay priests none of whom have acknowledged that inclination is any kind of evidence that the Church is tolerant of gays.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"The Church is against gay marriage since the sacrament of marriage as blessed by Jesus was between a man and a woman. The making of wine at the marriage at Canaan was between a man and a women. For 2000 years it has not been an issue. Sorry, the Church doesn't take polls to decide what its beliefs should be today."

What are you talking about now? You told LT Dan that the reason the Church is against gay sex is because it's outside of marriage, and that's simply not true.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

just out of curiousity, why is it ridiculous? Obviously I don't think Christ was a chauvinist, but almost all major characters of the Bible are men.

So what? The argument that Jesus was constrained from choosing female Apostles because, basically, He was steeped in the chauvinist attitudes of His day is ridiculous, because it ignores all those instances in which He demonstrated His complete disregard for contemporary societal conventions.

Even if Jesus wanted to have female apostles, they wouldn't have been very effective given the prevalent attitudes towards women at the time.

I think if there was nothing else barring female Apostles other than their lack of effectiveness, Christ could easily have found a way to make them effective, despite the attitudes of the time. How effective do you think any of the Apostles could be expected to be by themselves? Not very.

What does being an Apostle have to do with being a member of the clergy?

Everything.

The Apostles weren't given a secret copy of the Book of Common prayer or some equivalent.

But of course, that isn't the Catholic Church's belief. Very much the opposite, in fact? You're an Anglican? Doesn't the Anglican Church also make claims about the Apostolic succession? Why is that?

has anyone at any time ever been able to pin down the reason why Jesus only chose men to be his apostles or do they just accept that since he did, there must be some reason, even if that reason is a mystery?

To be honest, I'm not sure. I'd be somewhat surprised if someone hasn't pinned down why, but on the other hand, I'm not sure that it has been considered necessary to do so until fairly recently. For me, it's enough to accept that Jesus must have had some reason, which we can get hints of simply by observing the natural state of affairs.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I think that if the Church were as tolerant as you and Art claim, it would have happened at least once.

And you have some knowledge that it hasn't, I guess?

any kind of evidence that the Church is tolerant of gays.

Well, I guess I'm still waiting for you to provide some kind of evidence that Church doctrine is intolerant of homosexuals.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I don't know whether such an announcement about an inclination toward either homosexuality or heterosexuality has happened or not. Either would be completely inapprorpriate.

Priests are to be celebate. That is just the end of the discussion as far as the individual priest is concerned. Further comments are as appropriate as the recent question to Scalia asking whether he sodomizes his wife or not.

"Everything. "

Thanks, that was very specific. How about this: Other than "just because the Catholic Church says so", what about being an Apostle has anything to do with being a priest? What skill set did the Apostles use that the modern day priest also must use?

"But of course, that isn't the Catholic Church's belief"

My point about the prayer book is that the Apostles didn't do, more than a thousand years ago, the same thing a priest does today. So why does a priest have to be of the same gender as an Apostle?

"You're an Anglican? Doesn't the Anglican Church also make claims about the Apostolic succession? Why is that?"

I'm a lapsed Episcopalian with about 9 years of Lutheran grade school under my belt. The Episcopalian Church in this country allows women clergy.

"For me, it's enough to accept that Jesus must have had some reason, which we can get hints of simply by observing the natural state of affairs"

So you have no idea what makes a man more suitable for the clregy except for that it's always been that way, the Church says so, and the Apostles were all male?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"But what is it the church says about the feminine nature that would make it unsuitable for priesthood?

By the way, I'm just curious. I really don't have the emotional or intellectual fortitude to be drawn into a Slowtwitch religious debate."

I take a shot at it. The following from www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0001.html

The Catechism of the Catholic Church sets it out clearly, quoting the decree Inter insigniores:

Only a baptized man (vir) receives sacred ordination. The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord Himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.

That's why no female priests. Read the whole article. It gives a lot more detail.

Except that's not true, as the early Christian church did in fact have female priests.

I think the reason, plainly speaking, is "because we say so'.

---

_______________________________________________

"Well, I guess I'm still waiting for you to provide some kind of evidence that Church doctrine is intolerant of homosexuals. "

That's because you won't open your mind and see that telling a gay person that the essence of who he believes himself to be is evil, that anyone who wants to allow him to marry is espousing an ideology of evil, and that homosexuals should be counseled not to act on who they are is intolerance.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

What skill set did the Apostles use that the modern day priest also must use?

You're misunderstanding the nature of priesthood, I think. "Skill set" isn't the most apt phrase for the job. Non-believers look at the Church and see that that it's largely administered by men (ordained clergy). They then make the assumption, basically, that the role of the priesthood is the administration of a big organization. But that isn't a priest's primary purpose. Even preaching isn't his primary function. His primary function is sacremental.

My point about the prayer book is that the Apostles didn't do, more than a thousand years ago, the same thing a priest does today.

Fundamentally, they do.

The Episcopalian Church in this country allows women clergy.

Yes, and I think they're wrong about that, but that wasn't my question. You asked what the Apostles have to do with the clergy, and I pointed out that even the Episcopalians think that the Apostolic succession is important.

So you have no idea what makes a man more suitable for the clregy except for that it's always been that way, the Church says so, and the Apostles were all male?

I wouldn't say that I have no idea, but even if that were true, would it matter? You think the other conditions are meaningless, I guess, but I don't.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"Either would be completely inapprorpriate. "

if the Church were actually tolerant of gays, a gay priest or two would stand up, say "I'm gay, but I don't act out on those urges, and you can be gay, be saved, and live a good life too if you follow my example." However, that's not what the Church has done.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

the early Christian church did in fact have female priests.

AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ! ! !

Tell me, was this before or after the Church taught that women don't have souls?

Put down the DaVinci Code, already.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"ou're misunderstanding the nature of priesthood, I think."

No I'm not. I don't mean a physical skill set. I'm asking what about a man's soul, or spirituality, or whatever besides "the Church says so" makes him qualified to be a preist more than a woman.

"Fundamentally, they do"

No, they don't. The Apostles and modern clergy are miles apart. If what you mean is that they all spread the word of God, that could apply to anyone, it doesn't take ordination.

"even the Episcopalians think that the Apostolic succession is important. "

Which is not nearly the same thing as saying all priests must be male.

"I wouldn't say that I have no idea, but even if that were true, would it matter? You think the other conditions are meaningless, I guess, but I don't. "

I'm not saying the other things mean nothing at all, but any curious catholic should ask the question "Why does the Church believe what it believes?" If you have some ideas about this, share them. Non-Catholics don't believe in the infallibility of the Papal decree, so give us some sort of reason besides the Pope said so. If there aren't other reasons, or if you don't know them, say so so we can move on.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

a gay priest or two would stand up, say "I'm gay, but I don't act out on those urges, and you can be gay, be saved, and live a good life too if you follow my example."

And like I asked earlier, I suppose you have some mystical knowledge that this has never happened? Cause if it had, someone would have notified you, right?

However, that's not what the Church has done.

You know, like a lot of other people popping off about the Catholic Church lately, you really don't have any idea of what you're talking about. The fact is that there are a lot of gay priests. They aren't keeping it a secret from the Church. It's an issue that comes up as a matter of course in the formation of priests at seminaries. There was a controversial report last year sometime that recommended considering closer scrutiny of those in the seminary who identify themselves as homosexuals in light of the sex abuse scandal, and the report was shouted down pretty thouroughly.

But I guess since you personally haven't heard any of them proclaim their gayness from the pulpit, they're persecuted by the Church.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Such an approach would be completely inappropriate. There is no reason for a priest to use himself as an example. He is not the issue. If an example is needed, a third party could be cited.

Priests need to be humble. They do not hold themselves up as examples, since, like all of us, they are sinners. Anyone who holds himself up as a moral example will be discredited when their inevitable weakness comes to light.

You never saw John Paul II get up and say "I am an example, you should be like me." He showed us how to live and he showed us how to die by example, not by self promotion.

If what you mean is that they all spread the word of God, that could apply to anyone, it doesn't take ordination.

I like how you completely ignored what I posted about the fundamental role of a priest. Not like that's important, or anything.

Which is not nearly the same thing as saying all priests must be male.

Which, for the second time now, isn't the point I was addressing there. Try to keep up.

so give us some sort of reason besides the Pope said so.

In the first place, I already have. In the second place, I don't why I should be expected to.

if you don't know them, say so so we can move on.

I thought I already did that. And yet here we are, stuck.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"Except that's not true, as the early Christian church did in fact have female priests."

Take a look at the link I provided.(It's not long, just longer than belongs in a post.) It accounts for the role of women and not as priests.

Let me know what you think.

"nd like I asked earlier, I suppose you have some mystical knowledge that this has never happened? Cause if it had, someone would have notified you, right?"

Have you ever heard of it happening vitus? You are the supposed be all end all of all Catholic knowledge, so show me a priest who has ever been allowed to publicly acknowledge his sexual preference and use it to help save some gays. The church may know that some of it's priests are gay. In fact i'd bet that they've known that for a long time. However, knowing, and being tolerant aren't the same thing. If the priests have to keep that side of themselves quiet, then that's not tolerance.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"There is no reason for a priest to use himself as an example"

again I'll ask,...are you kidding? A priest is certainly supposed to be an example of how to live and be more as God would like.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Take a look at the link I provided.

Pfft. Why bother with a link like that when he's got his copy of the DaVinci code to thumb through?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Have you ever heard of it happening vitus?

Personally? No, but then- why would I? I haven't heard any priests get up and say they have a problem with anger, or alcohol, or any other specific sin, either.

You are the supposed be all end all of all Catholic knowledge No I'm not.

The church may know that some of it's priests are gay. In fact i'd bet that they've known that for a long time. However, knowing, and being tolerant aren't the same thing.

That's funny, because I could've sworn that earlier you were trying to make the case that priests who had to keep their orientation secret from the Church was evidence of intolerance. Now that it turns out not to be true, it's of no consequence all of a sudden.

If the priests have to keep that side of themselves quiet, then that's not tolerance.

Please. I guess you'll only be satisfied if they're allowed to fly a rainbow flag outside the rectory, huh?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"I like how you completely ignored what I posted about the fundamental role of a priest. Not like that's important, or anything."

I read what you said about priests role being sacramental. However, the sacraments originated with the Church. the Apostles weren't the only ones allowed to baptize. the certainly didn't conduct confirmation. Communion is given out by unordained ministers. Reconciliation is a function of the Catholic church, not one of the Apostles.

You said the fundamental role of the apostles was the same as the priest. I don't see how. Explain it to me.

"Which is not nearly the same thing as saying all priests must be male.

Which, for the second time now, isn't the point I was addressing there. Try to keep up"

What discussion are you participating in? The one we've been having is all about the requirement for males to be priests. you said the reason was because of the Apostles. I said the Apostles and the modern priest don't do the same thing, so why should there be a requirmement for them to be the same gender. where did you get lost?

"In the first place, I already have. In the second place, I don't why I should be expected to."

In the first place,...no you haven't. you continue to dance around the question. you even said that you didn't think it had been thought about much until recently. In the second place, you don't have to, except that I asked. If you don't care whether or not people understand why the Church does what it does, then you should stop posting on these threads claiming to know.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"That's funny, because I could've sworn that earlier you were trying to make the case that priests who had to keep their orientation secret from the Church was evidence of intolerance"

You could have sworn wrong. The priests have to keep their homosexuality secret because of the Church's intolerance, not from the church itself.

"Please. I guess you'll only be satisfied if they're allowed to fly a rainbow flag outside the rectory, huh? "

getting tired huh? you keep making less and less sense. I could give half a shit if the priests can openly claim they are gay or not, but I do care when people claim to be tolerant of something when they obviously aren't. Just stand up and say the church is not tolerant of homosexuals. The Church thinks homosexuals should change their ways. It thinks the very act which defines their existence is evil. It is opposed to allowing them to marry or to openly be gay, and be a priest. Just don't try to pull the wool over anyones eyes.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

However, the sacraments originated with the Church.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there, but I don't agree anyway. The sacrements were instituted by God.

the Apostles weren't the only ones allowed to baptize.

True, and even today, lay people can carry out Baptism.

the certainly didn't conduct confirmation.

They did, in fact.

Communion is given out by unordained ministers.

The Communion wafer can be handed out by unordained ministers, yes. But only the ordained can carry out the sacrement itself- only a priest can carry out the act of Consecration.

Reconciliation is a function of the Catholic church, not one of the Apostles.

Another one instituted by God.

You said the fundamental role of the apostles was the same as the priest. I don't see how. Explain it to me.

I think you see how just fine, you just don't agree with it. Like I said, the key function of a priest is sacremental- the ability to consecrate Communion, the ability to forgive sins, etc.

no you haven't.

Here's what I said, in so many words: Christ only chose male Apostles, and I can only assume that He had some valid and serious reason for that. It seems to me that assuming that reason is because the feminine nature isn't suitable for the role is reasonable- the assumption that there are spiritual differences between men and women strikes me as not too crazy. That combined with the fact that the Church has always maintained the practice and the Church has spoken definitively on the matter is enough, given what I believe about the Church, and it's relationship to Divine Revelation.

If you're asking me to categorize and define what exactly that spiritual difference is, yes, I'm terribly sorry, but it's quite beyond me. I don't know, myself, if someone else better able than me has attempted to do so, or if they succeeded.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I am not kidding. A priest or a Pope should be an example by his actions. They are not televangelists. It is not about them. They are mortal. They are weak. They will stumble and fail.

Any priest that preached do what I do rather than preach this is what Jesus taught us and you should do as he does would need to be replaced.

He won't say the Church is not tolerant of homosexuals because it simply is not true. I have stepped through the logic very clearly. What part don't you get?

"A priest or a Pope should be an example by his actions"

And how is a gay priest openly acknowledging that he's gay, but still living within the church not being an example by his actions? i'm not suggesting a world tour or anything. Just saying that if the Church was so tolerant of homosexuality, they would attempt to show gays that they can be good Catholics and still be gay, by putting good examples in front of them in the form of clergy.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

You could have sworn wrong. The priests have to keep their homosexuality secret because of the Church's intolerance, not from the church itself.

So it was some other slowguy who wrote this?

Having to keep who you are secret from the organization of which you are a member, is not an indication of that organizations tolerance.

So now, though, you're saying that the priest can tell the Church about it, but he has to keep it secret from everyone else? I don't know what you think goes on at Mass, commodore. I've never heard a priest get up there and say he's gay, and he struggles with it, but I've never heard a priest get up there and talk about any of his personal struggles in that manner of specificity, either. Like Art keeps saying- they aren't televangelists. It's not an AA meeting, or something like it. I have absolutely no doubt that if an individual went to a gay priest for help dealing with his sexuality, the priest would have no compunctions against using his own experiences to help the person.

The Church thinks homosexuals should change their ways.

Uh, yeah. No kidding. (That is to say, if they're actively engaging in homosexual relationships, the Church thinks they should change their ways.) That doesn't mean the Church is intolerant of homosexuals.

It thinks the very act which defines their existence is evil.

Yikes. The Church doesn't believe that homosexual acts- or any sexual acts- define one's existence. That there is a pretty distorted view of humanity, if you ask me.

Just don't try to pull the wool over anyones eyes.

I am, like, so totally not.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"He won't say the Church is not tolerant of homosexuals because it simply is not true. I have stepped through the logic very clearly. What part don't you get?"

I don't get the part where "tolerance" means not allowing them to marry, not allowing them to openly become clergy, calling those in favor of gay marriage perptrators of an "ideology of evil," calling the inclination towards homosexuality itself a "disorder," etc, etc.

It's great that the Church doesn't out and out say that all gays are damned. It's great that they call for priests to try to save them from the trial of soul that homosexuality is. However, that doesn't equate to tolerance.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

And how is a gay priest openly acknowledging that he's gay

Tell me again how you think something like that should happen. I mean, I'm not getting it. He should take out an ad in the paper and notify the public that he struggles with his sexuality?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

The problem is that it personalizes the teachings. It is not about the priest. It is about God.

If the priest holds himself up explicitly as a positive example, it will inevitably backfire because he is flawed. Part of the Church's teachings is that we are all flawed. It is philosophically abhorent to hold oneself up as an example. Such a thing would be the commission of the sin of pride, which I believe is one of the seven deadly sins.

Part of the ordination ceremony is laying prostate, face down in front of the Cardinal. It has a way of getting the message of humility across.

I acknowledge that abiding with the Church's teachings is really difficult for a homosexual. Sorry, but the level of difficulty is way down the list of expectations, which none of us meet. Try living up to love your neighbor as yourself for the love of God. That one makes struggling with homosexuality a walk in the park.

It is not like our flaws are any secret. That is why we have sorrow, repentence, the sacrament of Confession, forgiveness and penance.

"I have absolutely no doubt that if an individual went to a gay priest for help dealing with his sexuality, the priest would have no compunctions against using his own experiences to help the person"


Really? I highly doubt that at all. I think the priest would try to talk the person out of being gay.

"So it was some other slowguy who wrote this?

Having to keep who you are secret from the organization of which you are a member, is not an indication of that organizations tolerance."

Let me be a little more clear. It is my impression that Catholic priests who are gay, if they exist which one must assume is the case, are not free to confirm that inclination to the church or anyone else. The fact that the Church may know that there are gay priests in general, or that a few may have recieved guidance in the protection of a confessional booth is not the same thing as being free to discuss your sexuality. Rather than expressing how tolerant the Church is by allowing these men to come forwad and live openly as an example of how a gay person can still live a good Catholic life, the priests are "in the closet" so to speak.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"Tell me again how you think something like that should happen. I mean, I'm not getting it. He should take out an ad in the paper and notify the public that he struggles with his sexuality?"

Who said anything about struggling? All I said is that a tolerant Church would have gay priests who are known to be gay and who serve as an example for gays for how to be gay and still be a good Catholic. Instead, the fact that they are gay is kept a secret (although a poor one in some cases).

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

It's great that they call for priests to try to save them from the trial of soul that homosexuality is. However, that doesn't equate to tolerance.

So what you're saying is that if the Church is intolerant of sin, it just follows necessarily that it's intolerant not only of the sinner, but to anyone who successfully struggles against that sin.

Right. Then I'm a victim, too. The Church has condemned all sorts of behavior I've engaged in, and all sorts of behavior that I'm tempted to. Who can I sue?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"Sorry, but the level of difficulty is way down the list of expectations, which none of us meet. Try living up to love your neighbor as yourself for the love of God. That one makes struggling with homosexuality a walk in the park"

Really? So completely never acting on your sexual impulses is a walk in the park huh? At the risk of touching on a nerve here, how's that worked out for the clergy over the years?

"It is not like our flaws are any secret. That is why we have sorrow, repentence, the sacrament of Confession, forgiveness and penance."

Yet without positive examples of gay Catholics, and in the face of rhetoric that is easily intepreted as anit-gay, the Church pushes gays away from the fold, rather than bringing them in.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I think the priest would try to talk the person out of being gay.

If you mean the priest would try to talk the person out of committing homosexual acts, of course he would.

Now, though, it's not enough that a gay priest provides guidance to someone else, using his own experience- he's got to validate that person in what the Church says is sinful? I think the expectation is unreasonable.

It is my impression that Catholic priests who are gay, if they exist which one must assume is the case, are not free to confirm that inclination to the church or anyone else.

And like I already said, that impression is just incorrect. But don't let that stop you.

allowing these men to come forwad and live openly as an example of how a gay person can still live a good Catholic life

And I'm still trying to figure out how a celibate priest lives openly as a homosexual.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"Right. Then I'm a victim, too. The Church has condemned all sorts of behavior I've engaged in, and all sorts of behavior that I'm tempted to. Who can I sue?"

Last I checked, you're not being kept from marriage by any of those sins. Last I checked, you haven't been told you have a disorder.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Last I checked, you haven't been told you have a disorder.

You should check again. We all have one spiritual disorder or another. Catholic doctrine 101.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I give up. It's been a long day and I'm clearly not going to convince you or Art that the Church might be in error about anything. Suffice it to say that the homosexual population doesn't feel tolerated or welcomed by the Church. Many have expressed concern over the election of Pope Benedict because of his past vies on this subject. The fact that you guys don't have a problem with how gays are treated doesn'tmake the church tolerant of homosexuals or homosexuality.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Following the Church's teachings is a really tough process. None of us ever live up. On a good day, we do the best we can. Some of us don't have a lot of good days.

Marriage is a sacrament, instituted by Jesus and exemplified in the marriage at Cannan (sp?). It is between a man and a woman. Clearly the restrictions affect some more than others. I think you were an active part of the polygamy thread a while back, so I won't step through all the unequal burdens the definition of marriage and the demands of fidelity place on Catholics.

Gays can certainly be members of the clergy. Being open about individual sexual orientation, one way or the other is wrong as described above.

I don't know that the Church teaches homosexuality is a disorder. I have never heard such a thing. From a practical basis, it is a serious burden on the gay person in terms of living up the Church's teachings. Your argument that is not fair to that person is based on solid reasoning, but loving Kim Sung Il is a serious hurdle for me. I haven't gotten over that hurdle just yet. Maybe someday.

I suppose it has not been proven scientifically, but it is pretty likely that God made some people homosexual. So what is not to love of one of God's creations?

Lest I commit the sin of Pride, let me be very clear that I don't live up to all the Church's teachings either. I am a rather poor example.

"I don't get the part where "tolerance" means not allowing them to marry, not allowing them to openly become clergy, calling those in favor of gay marriage perptrators of an "ideology of evil," calling the inclination towards homosexuality itself a "disorder," etc, etc."

By "tolerance" are you really saying that the Church should condone homosexuality? That is, accept the practice of homosexuality? There are no married priests (exceptions do exist, but not for your point) so gay or straight does not matter. As for the existence of gay priests, guess what? They exist. Both the practicing and non-practicing. How is being "openly" gay, by which I think you mean practicing, "tolerance" when it is expressly forbidden by Church doctrine?

The Church does have a position on the practice of homosexuality. It also has a position on the orientation. The first is wrong, evil. The second is the subject of pastoral care.

"It's great that the Church doesn't out and out say that all gays are damned. It's great that they call for priests to try to save them from the trial of soul that homosexuality is. However, that doesn't equate to tolerance."

Again, it sounds like tolerance equates to acceptance in your model. What is tolerance to you?

The fact that you guys don't have a problem with how gays are treated doesn'tmake the church tolerant of homosexuals or homosexuality.

And objecting that the Church condemns some behavior that one wants to engage in doesn't make the Church intolerant of a group of people, either.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Yes, compared to loving your neighbor as yourself, not acting on your sexual impulses is a walk in the park.

I would like to think that Mother Teresa lived up to the standard of loving her neighbor, at least most of her life, but maybe not. She will eventually be a saint. I never will.

I acknowledge that the Church's teachings are not designed to attract gays. Some may well leave the Church because of the teachings. Others will violate the teachings, but stay. Jesus teaches a standard that is impossible for any mortal to live up to. Some will be driven away, and all will fail, but the standard will remain.

In reality, if you look at the religions that are rapidly growing, it is mostly the strict, value based religions. The Mormans are the obvious example with which I am familar. They really take the love your neighbor teaching seriously.