"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.