So the CC is banning gays from becoming priests. The same church that shielded child molesters. What would Jesus do? Or was he a bigot as well?
Wow, that was a really stimulating argument you made there.
Troll
.
See, this is the problem if the churches try to accomodate all people and all viewpoints instead of sticking to the bible for guidance.
Does the bible say gays can’t be priests? Does it say women can’t be priests? Honest question, because I really don’t know.
Does the bible say gays can’t be priests?
No. Theologically speaking, one’s sexual orientation alone would not disqualify one from the priesthood. I think the current action by the pope is not so much designed to address the higher question of whether or not gay men, per se, can be priest, but whether in today’s environment, taking into account the culture and the Church’s experience with the gays that *have *been ordained, it just isn’t a wise thing to do, from a pastoral point of view.
Does it say women can’t be priests?
It doesn’t list it as the secret eleventh commandment, if that’s what you mean. The Catholic position on not ordaining woman as priests is based on the example of Christ.
To my knowledge there is no passage that explicitly says “Thou shalt not” … however…
There is considerable debate about the female priesthood. I know the Southern Baptists do not “ordain” women, while other Baptist churches do. I was a member of a Methodist church for a while who had an excellent female pastor. And my “hometown” (also Methodist) church has one as well.
Biblically, I believe the male/female leadership issue is somewhat ambiguous. Women and men are quite clearly on an equal footing before the Lord. However, some NT passages show they have different roles to play on the “team” (or in the Body). Generally, these passages indicate men should “lead” while women should “submit” (willingly). One must be very careful not to mis-quote or take out of context. Jesus’ idea of leadership is quite different from the world’s, and generally involves large doses of servitude and sacrifice. There are also a number of NT women who served as leaders in their church, though it may not be clear (to me at least) whether they were “ordained” or not.
As for the gay issue, this is again hotly debated. There are at least a few well known passages in both OT and NT where homosexual activity is categorized as sinful behavior… as far as “an abomination”. Since sin is, by definition, behavior directly opposed to the will of God, it is difficult to understand how one could actively profess to be involved in an activity defined as sinful while serving as a “priest” of God. Would seem quite hypocritical. Not that we all don’t fit that bill at one time or another.
OTOH, I’m sure one could make a biblical argument why God would not be opposed to homosexuality. Personally, I’d like to see such an argument, so I could analyze it.
Still, as private organizations, I fail to see the issue where a given denomination should be castigated for saying “Here’s our core set of beliefs and where we find them Biblically. If you don’t ascribe to them, go lead your own church somewhere else.” Whether or not their biblical interpretation is correct is not relevant to their right to do so, IMHO. Whether their interpretation is defensible SHOULD influence whether one attends and listens to their preaching…
To put it in another context. If somebody put together an NFL team but insisted they be allowed to use the “forward pass”, would we castigate NFL, Inc. for saying no, you can’t join our league, because the rule book we play by says “no forward passing”?
Jesus would drive out the devils that made them gay.
Are you Catholic?
“…whether in today’s environment, taking into account the culture and the Church’s experience with the gays that have been ordained, it just isn’t a wise thing to do, from a pastoral point of view.”
And, out of curiousity… exactly what kind of Church’s experience with gays would that be? The last I looked it would be very difficult to define gay when fathers are not allowed to marry. What if a father is gay but never tells anyone? In that situation, I guess that makes him OK as a priest.
And, is there a infuence difference between the potential effect on the congregation or is just church politics between differentiating between a ORDAINED Gay person and non-ordained gay person? Those seem like some strange differentiations to me.
FWIW Joe Moya
You are new here aren’t you?
Okay, if you say so. That will save me a lot of time and effort over the rest of my lifetime not to mention all the fun I will have making fun of people who aren’t in on our little secret. Thanks for the info.
And, out of curiousity… exactly what kind of Church’s experience with gays would that be?
It would be the experience in recent decades, in which gays make up anywhere from 25% t0 75% of the priesthood in America, according to most estimates. It would be the experience that the Church has had with a large number of those men who don’t actually accept the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, and have willfully subverted that teaching from inside the Church. And not least of all, it would be the experience the Church has suffered with the sexual abuse situation, which is largely the result of homosexual priests.
The last I looked it would be very difficult to define gay when fathers are not allowed to marry.
I don’t see why that is.
What if a father is gay but never tells anyone? In that situation, I guess that makes him OK as a priest.
And it would make it hard to enforce the ban, as well.
** there a infuence difference between the potential effect on the congregation or is just church politics between differentiating between a ORDAINED Gay person and non-ordained gay person? Those seem like some strange differentiations to me.**
Uh . . . why is that?
What would Jesus do? Or was he a bigot as well?
That’s precisely the problem, mop. According to your worldview, He was.
That might mean that He was a bigot, or it might mean that there’s something off-kilter with your worldview.
I dont think Jesus said a word about gays.
I dont think Jesus said a word about gays.
Pshaw. The argument that Jesus thought homosexuality was acceptable because He didn’t say anything about it in the Gospels doesn’t even bear discussion. Let’s not waste our time with that, OK?
Besides, I wasn’t talking simply about the gays, but more generally.
So the CC is banning gays from becoming priests. The same church that shielded child molesters.
So the priests who molest boys aren’t gay?
I think most of the church’s viewpoints on homosexual behaviors derive from textual readings from the Old Testament, more than from the New. “The sin of Ham” might be one example of exegesis:
In Genesis 9, where it talks about Shem, Ham, and Japheth when they go in and Ham looks at Noah, and he’s naked and everything, and he goes out and tells his brothers, why was it a sin and why was he cursed? Why were Canaan’s children cursed just because of that?
Answer
There’s nothing specific there to tell us why. The implication is that he did something in there that was perverse, that was not right, sinful. That’s all we really need to know, the details of which God didn’t choose to tell us. He looked upon his father’s nakedness. It may have been lustful, it may have been a leering, it may have been a mocking of his father, it may have been several other things that we really don’t need to go into, but we don’t know specifically. But the indication of the text, by virtue of God’s response in cursing him, is that whatever he did was in fact very sinful. And it sets in motion, as all of Genesis does, the fact that God will bless righteousness and God will punish wickedness. And out of that of course God curse Ham and we know that those who descended from him became the servile peoples and then Japheth was enlarged. Most biblical anthropologists…I know Oliver Buswell III says, that he feels that that became the colonizing people that ultimately colonized Europe, they enlarged, they are the colonizers, and Shem became the Semitic people through Abraham’s loins, the Arabs, and the Jews. So it became at that point the division of God’s plan for the populating of the world, but it is clear that no matter what the sin was, that it definitely was a sin and God punished him for it.
From reading this, one can see how the traditional disapproval of homosexuality in Christianity could have evolved, I think.
T.
I think most of the church’s viewpoints on homosexual behaviors derive from textual readings from the Old Testament, more than from the New.
The Church’s viewpoints on homosexuality derive from several sources. I think jhc has pretty much abandoned the Old Testament as having any validity, though. I *would *mention St. Paul’s writing about it in the New Testament, but I think jhc has also abandoned everything in the NT as well, except for the four Gospels . . . No, wait, everything except for the Synoptic Gospels, that’s right. And probably he only considers valid those parts of the three Gospels that which he agrees with.
So I don’t think using the Bible is going to get you very far with jhc. One would like to think, though, that jhc would be so kind as to acknowledge that the Catholic Church actually does take it seriously.
And then there’s Leviticus 20:13 “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (NIV)
This is part of the Law purportedly the word of God Himself… and is part of a long chain of sexual “dont’s”, including adultery, incest, polygamy, bestiality, etc…
And then there’s Leviticus 20:13 “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (NIV)
This is part of the Law purportedly the word of God Himself… and is part of a long chain of sexual “dont’s”, including adultery, incest, polygamy, bestiality, etc…
Don’t forget eating shellfish and pork - abominations according God himself