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."