Gay Priests

[vianney]

So, you Catholics believe that priests, bishops, and popes should not get married, yet Peter, the first head of the church was married.

Did anyone say that?

Well you brought up the fact that peter was married and when i brought up the fact that st paul was not all the sudden you flip that on me...You cant have it both ways buddy

[[jas]]

I brought up nothing of the sort, my post you quoted was my first post in this thread.

What I'm saying though, is that if Peter was married and Paul wasn't, shouldn't that mean it's okay either way?

[ironmonk]

When Peter became an Apostle, he became celibate.

Here is a little history.... I know there is more, but I've already spent about an hour to an hour and half looking through the first 400 years of Christian writings...

Thus far....

Jerome - AGAINST JOVINIANUS, BOOK I (ON MARRIAGE AND VIRGINITY) 17. But if Enoch was translated, and Noah was preserved at the deluge, I do not think that Enoch was translated because he had a wife, but because he was[2] the first to call upon God and to believe in the Creator; and the Apostle Paul fully instructs us concerning him in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Noah, moreover, who was preserved as a kind of second root for the human race, must of course be preserved together with his wife and sons, although in this there is a Scripture mystery. The ark,[3] according to the Apostle Peter, was a type of the Church, in which eight souls were saved. When Noah entered into it, both he and his sons were separated from their wives; but when he landed from it, they united in pairs, and what had been separated in the ark, that is, in the Church, was joined together in the intercourse of the world. And at the same time if the ark had many compartments and little chambers, and was made with second and third stories, and was filled with different beasts, and was furnished with dwellings, great or small, according to the kind of animal, I think all this diversity in the compartments was a figure of the manifold character of the Church

26. ....

Nevertheless, with the exception of the Apostle Peter, it is not openly stated that the Apostles had wives; and since the statement is made of one while nothing is said about the rest, we must understand that those of whom Scripture gives no such description had no wives. Yet Jovinianus, who has arrayed against us Zacharias and Elizabeth, Peter and his wife's mother, should know, that John was the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth, that is, a virgin was the offspring of marriage, the Gospel of the law, chastity of matrimony; so that by a virgin prophet the virgin Lord might be both announced and baptized. But we might say concerning Peter, that he had a mother-in-law when he believed, and no longer had a wife, although in the[1] "Sentences" we read of both his wife and daughter. But for the present our argument must be based wholly on Scripture. He has made his appeal to the Apostles, because he thinks that they, who hold the chief authority in our moral system and are the typical Christian teachers, were not virgins. If, then, we allow that they were not virgins (and, with the exception of Peter, the point cannot be proved), yet I must tell him that it is to the Apostles that the words of Isaiah relate:[2] "Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, we should have been like unto Gomorrah." So, then, they who were by birth Jews could not under the Gospel recover the virginity which they had lost in Judaism. And yet John, one of the disciples, who is related to have been the youngest of the Apostles, and who was a virgin when he embraced Christianity, remained a virgin, and on that account was more beloved by our Lord, and lay upon the breast of Jesus. And what Peter, who had had a wife, did not dare ask,[3] he requested John to ask. And after the resurrection, when Mary Magdalene told them that the Lord had risen,[4] they both ran to the sepulchre, but John outran Peter. And when they were fishing in the ship on the lake of Gennesaret, Jesus stood upon the shore, and the Apostles knew not who it was they saw;[5] the virgin alone recognized a virgin, and said to Peter, "It is the Lord." Again, after hearing the prediction that he must be bound by another, and led whither he would not, and must suffer on the cross. Peter said, "Lord what shall this man do?" being unwilling to desert John, with whom he had always been united. Our Lord said to him, "What is that to thee if I wish him so to be?" Whence the saying went abroad among the brethren that that disciple should not die. Here we have a proof that virginity does not die, and that the defilement of marriage is not washed away by the blood of martyrdom, but virginity abides with Christ, and its sleep is not death but a passing to another state. If, however, Jovinianus should obstinately contend that John was not a virgin, (whereas we have maintained that his virginity was the cause of the special love our Lord bore to him), let him explain, if he was not a virgin, why it was that he was loved more than the other Apostles. But you say,[1] the Church was rounded upon Peter: although[2] elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. But why was not John chosen, who was a virgin? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the eider: one who was a youth, I may say almost a boy, could not be set over men of advanced age; and a good master who was bound to remove every occasion of strife among his disciples, and who had said to them,[3] " Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you," and, 4 " He that is the greater among you, let him be the least of all," would not be thought to afford cause of envy against the youth whom he had loved. We maybe sure that John was then a boy because ecclesiastical history most clearly proves that he lived to the reign of Trajan, that is, he fell asleep in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's passion, as I have briefly noted in my treatise on Illustrious Men.[5] Peter is an Apostle, and John is an Apostle--the one a married man, the other a virgin; but Peter is an Apostle only, John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a prophet. An Apostle, because he wrote to the Churches as a master; an Evangelist, because he composed a Gospel, a thing which no other of the Apostles, excepting Matthew, did; a prophet, for he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of the future Tertullian, moreover, relates that he was sent to Rome, and that having been plunged into a jar of boiling oil he came out fresher and more active than when he went in. But his very Gospel is widely different from the rest. Matthew as though he were writing of a man begins thus: "The book of the Generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham ;" Luke begins with the priesthood of Zacharias; Mark with a prophecy of the prophets Malachi and Isaiah. The first has the face of a man, on account of the genealogical table; the second, the face of a calf, on account of the priesthood; the third, the face of a lion, on account of the voice of one crying in the desert,[1] " Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight." But John like an eagle soars aloft, and reaches the Father Himself, and says,[2] " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God," and so on. The virgin writer expounded mysteries which the married could not, and to briefly sum up all and show how great was the privilege of John, or rather of virginity in John, the Virgin Mother[3] was entrusted by the Virgin Lord to the Virgin disciple.

Some of that applies to the fact that it was Peter who authority as Head Bishop...

It's also worthy to note that Peter spoke of how on the ark, since it was sort of a Church, that the men and women were seperated... One can logically draw the conclusion that this was brought up because Peter was in the Church and celibate.

God Bless,

ironmonk

Edited September 3, 2003 by ironmonk

[Winchester]

Why all the controversy? I hope priests are gay. I myself am sometimes gay, though I am given to fits of melancholy. What do we care if a priest is in a good mood or not.

You people are sourpusses.

Seriously: "WE" Catholics don't all think celibacy should be maintained as a discipline. Several Rites allow married priests yet enjoy full communion with Rome, so obviously there are quite a few loyal Catholics who support married priests, within their own rite (pun intended).

[skuba steve]

im can't be bothered reading all that... just thought i'd add this...

this is not my own view but if you actually see that way that Gay churches justify being homosexual through scripture...

you will find that their argument is very logical and understandable...

they say (and it is true) that the homosexual activity in the bible is much different to our intepretation of it today.

Don't be so quick to judge... im not saying what's right or wrong... but they are very strong in their convictions and can back them up with scripture.

But hey...

In God's eyes, what's the diff between a gay priest that brings stacks of good stuff to the world, and someone who breaks speed limits continuously?

[Winchester]

People who speed get into a lot of rear end collisions. It's dangerous to speed.

[ironmonk]

im can't be bothered reading all that... just thought i'd add this...

this is not my own view but if you actually see that way that Gay churches justify being homosexual through scripture...

you will find that their argument is very logical and understandable...

they say (and it is true) that the homosexual activity in the bible is much different to our intepretation of it today.

Don't be so quick to judge... im not saying what's right or wrong... but they are very strong in their convictions and can back them up with scripture.

But hey...

In God's eyes, what's the diff between a gay priest that brings stacks of good stuff to the world, and someone who breaks speed limits continuously?

I'll keep this short for you.

I guess the bible was too much for you to read also.

Please stop wasting our time.

Read it, or leave it.

-ironmonk

[cmotherofpirl]

I have read the Scripture, and their argument is bogus.

Leviticus ( which is what I am reading this week) is very clear:

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. Lev 20:13

There is no wiggle room in that sentence.

THis is the problem with private interpretation of Scripture. You can make it say anything you want if you squeeze it hard enough.

[skuba steve]

gay people also tend to sustain rear end damage.

Iron Monk, I was just trying to say that these people believe just as much as you that the way they live is the right way to live.

You just condemn them, why not try to help them?

[Joolye]

I'll keep this short for you.

I guess the bible was too much for you to read also.

Please stop wasting our time.

Read it, or leave it.

Don't be nasty, Ironmonk. That wasn't nice.

1. There's no evidence that St. Peter returned to his wife after he left to follow Jesus. Jesus told His disciples that if they love family more than Him, they are not worthy of Him. Although there is a record of St. Peter having been married prior to following Jesus, there's no record of him returning to his wife.

yes, but the Bible doesn't approve of divorce, which is what you are implying (or separation)

2. So, you Protestants believe that ministers should get married, yet Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles wasn't married.

We don't believe that minister MUST be married. They can be married OR single. We don't say that they SHOULD get married.

3. Jesus Himself recommended priestly celibacy when He said that some people become eunuchs for the kingdom of God, and that whoever can accept it should accept it. St. Paul reaffirmed this recommendation when he acknowledged that he was celibate, and that he recommended celibacy to others.

Agreed.

4. The priesthood is not a requirement, therefore no one is required to be celibate in the Catholic Church. The priesthood is a vocation; you either have it or you don't. It's a calling from God, it's not something you just choose to do. If God calls you to be a priest in the Latin Rite, then He is also calling you to be celibate. If not, then that's fine too. All the vocations -- married, priestly, religious, single -- are important.

I see the benefits of singleness in ministry.

I have read the Scripture, and their argument is bogus.

Leviticus ( which is what I am reading this week) is very clear:

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. Lev 20:13

There is no wiggle room in that sentence.

Here is an arguement for homosexuality:

Countering anti-homosexual interpretation of scripture

First of all, if you want to be against homosexuality, you can find those passages in the bible and I'm not going to convince you.

Also, if you don't believe you are interpreting the bible, then once again I'm not going to convince you.

However, interpretation is unavoidable, everybody does it. I don't see one handed, one eyed, Christians walking around. So either their hands and eyes have never caused them to sin, or they interpret what they read. So the question is "how do we interpret?", not "whether we interpret?".

I would argue that we must interpret all of the bible in the light of Jesus Christ, who is revealed in the bible.

For me, this calls rules into question. Jesus was a confronter of authorities and a breaker of rules. Particularly rules that excluded people. So I have a problem with hard and fast exclusionary rules.

However, you may not see Jesus that way, so I'll continue.

What about the NT concept of "judging by their fruits"? My testimony is, my witness if you like to this, is that both lay and ordained homosexual people that I've known have born great fruit for the church and for justice in the world. This experience makes an anti-homosexual stance hard to take. From what I've seen committed homosexual relationships are no more damaging than committed heterosexual relationships. And in fact homosexual relationships are under enormous pressure in society, despite legal changes.

If this is not your experience of homosexual people, then you won't agree. But please don't write homosexual people off if you don't know any.

Finally we get to the texts.

I find the argument by Wink compelling:

http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm

that the church is so selective about biblical sexual ethics that we can't accurately speak of holding to a biblical position.

We tend to ignore the biblical positions against:

* intercourse during menstruation

* celibacy

* exogamy (marriage with non-Jews)

* naming sexual organs

* nudity (under certain conditions)

* masturbation (some Christians still condemn this)

* birth control (some Christians still forbid this)

* And the bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not

And the bible allowed things we today condemn:

* prostitution

* polygamy

* levirate marriage

* sex with slaves

* concubinage

* treatment of women as property

* very early marriage (for the girl, age 11-13)

So the church is selective about what biblical sexual ethics it holds to and it is consistent for the church to disagree with the bible about homosexuality. In doing so it seeks to follow Jesus Christ, as revealed in the scriptures.

However, you may not agree so we'll look at the texts.

The Leviticus ones can be said to be not applicable to Christians. How many Christians follow the rules about the uncleanliness of menstruating women? However, if they are applicable, then they advocate death for men who have sex with other men. I don't hear many Christians advocating that (thankfully).

Sodom and Gomorrah is about homosexual rape, which is not being advocated. I'm sure everyone in the church is against all the men in a village surrounding a house and demanding that the men inside come out so they can have sex with them.

Rom 1, refers to people who have replaced God for an idol and engage in same gender sex. This is what happened in cultic sex practices at the time. People in faithful same sex relationships, who confess Jesus as LORD, are not replacing God for an idol -- they are followers of Jesus. This passage is not talking about them.

I may have missed some references, but I think this leaves the NT occurrences of the greek word 'arsenokoite' -- literally a "man-bedder". There are arguments over the meaning of this word. Some say it refers to male-prostitutes. But whatever it refers to I would argue that it is not talking about the concept of homosexuality as we know it today. This way of thinking about homosexuals was not around 2000 years ago.

When arsenokoite was being condemned the idea of "orientation", the idea of faithful same-sex relationships just wasn't around. I don't think that Paul was talking about the same thing that we are taking about today.

Let's not debate about what this person has said. I am not endorsing it. I do not approve of it. I am just showing you how some people think. I do not agree with it. I do not support it. I am against homosexuals being ordained as ministers. Clear?

[ironmonk]

gay people also tend to sustain rear end damage.

Iron Monk, I was just trying to say that these people believe just as much as you that the way they live is the right way to live.

You just condemn them, why not try to help them?

Joolye,

It was time to be blunt. It was not nasty.

Seperation is not divorce. We did not have the books together as the bible until 400 AD.

then why post an article for ssa? 

Truth is not realative... Truth is fact. The person that wrote that article has not a clue about the teachings of Christ.

The teachings of Christ are very well documented, by books in the bible, and those outside of the Bible.

All of the first Christian writings can be found at:

http://www.NewAdvent.org/Fathers/

God Bless,

ironmonk

WE DO NOT CONDEMN THEM!

The Catholic Church does help them.

IF YOU READ WHAT WE POSTED, YOU WOULD SEE THAT WE DO NOT CONDEMN THEM!

<rhetorical>

What is it when someone replies to posts that they didn't even read?

-ironmonk

[Joolye]

I posted the article because someone said about the things in Leviticus, and I was just showing them what the other side argues, although I don't advocate it.

[skuba steve]

if i was a gay person, and i came in here... i would feel condemned

you condemn me all the time.

You keep bashing me over the head with this "The only true truth can be found in the Roman Catholic Church" kinda stuff...

apparently i haven't found fullness of truth and everything i stand for is inferior to you....

it may very well be true... but I don't have a whole lot of respect in the integrity of the religions of people who treat people that way...

just being honest...

See, you can analyse all this and point out all the faults in this post, but at the end of the day... the impression i have of you can't be dictated to me by wise words... there isn't any doctrine that tells you how i feel... it's the way i feel and it's because of the way you treat me...

and if you don't care, you don't care. But who are you meant to care for???

The sick???

According to you I am a very sick person, i don't feel much care....

[jasJis]

Steve,

You are a bit off in your understanding of what we Catholics are telling you.

If you are following a Christian denomination, there are certain Truths that your denomination shares. The Truth of God is constant.

Even the Jewish Faith shares in certain Truths. The Old Testament is Truth, it is God's Word. They don't have the entire Truth because they don't accept the New Testament as well. They doesn't make them completely wrong, but it is impossible for them to be completely right.

Non-Catholics are viewed the same way. They have more Truth than the Jewish faith, but not the complete Truth. Also, just because a Christian Church has more Truth, it does not good if you don't seek it. Having a Bible on your coffee table does no good if you don't read it. Having the faith and belief in Jesus does no good if you don't live it and share it with others.

I don't think you're being condemned by anyone here. We're glad you're here. You would probably agree with a lot of "Catholic" Theology and understanding if you seek what you might agree with. If every topic is based on what you don't agree with, we aren't going to talk about what Truth we share.

[cmotherofpirl]

if i was a gay person, and i came in here... i would feel condemned

you condemn me all the time.

You keep bashing me over the head with this "The only true truth can be found in the Roman Catholic Church" kinda stuff...

apparently i haven't found fullness of truth and everything i stand for is inferior to you....

it may very well be true... but I don't have a whole lot of respect in the integrity of the religions of people who treat people that way...

just being honest...

See, you can analyse all this and point out all the faults in this post, but at the end of the day... the impression i have of you can't be dictated to me by wise words... there isn't any doctrine that tells you how i feel... it's the way i feel and it's because of the way you treat me...

and if you don't care, you don't care. But who are you meant to care for???

The sick???

According to you I am a very sick person, i don't feel much care....

Steve not one person has condemned you. not one.

WE have disagreed with you.

Big differrence.

THis IS the debate board.

THis is where we explain, dicuss, and defend our faith.