Pope Francis' Comments On Gay Priests

[Apotheoun]

And as is expected there is theology clouding the discussion. I was not aware that diseases and psychological disorders were the result of a "spiritual fall" in humankind's early evolution, let alone that a fall actually occurred, or even that homosexuality is a disease. Maybe doctors can start prescribing "grace" and "confession" on there prescription pads instead of actual medications.

Actually, theology is a light that dispels the fog, and so it does not "cloud" anything; instead, it brings clarity.

 

As far as illness is concerned, it is the common teaching of the patristic tradition that mortality itself, and that includes the various diseases that bring death to man, are a consequence of the fall. God is not the author of death or corruption; instead, man - by his rebellion - is the cause of death and corruption (See for example St. Athanasios' treatise, "On the Incarnation of the Word").

Edited July 30, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

Right...so what is your point?

Odd that you ask that. My point is that I support the Church's doctrine on the disordered nature of the homosexual condition. It's as simple as that.

[Socrates]

While it's  best that persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies not be admitted to the priesthood (per the Church's instruction on the matter), once a man is ordained, he remains a priest.

 

I agree that a "witch hunt" against priests privately struggling with SSA, where no wrong-doing was involved, would be pointless and counterproductive, which I think was the point of the Pope's comments to the reporters.

 

The Church's teachings regarding homosexuality have certainly not changed in any way.  

 

Yet more silly media much-ado-about-nothing.

[Socrates]

Props!

 

Since the church regards this as a mental disorder (I dont really agree but we can just say it is for right now) then where do they draw the line?

Is there an official list of disordered that priest arent allowed to have?

Can a priest have ADD? Anxiety? Phobias? Those are all disorders as well.

If they think homosexuality is a disorder that will somehow make him unfit to do his job then what if he lost a leg? Or an arm?

Or he is blind?

I feel like they should really define these parameters so a priest knows he needs to be healthy.

Maybe they should to fitness entrance exams. 

 

The Church does not specifically use the term "mental disorder," but does teach that homosexual inclinations are "objectively disordered" - that is to say they are ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil.

 

" 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; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

 

(From the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" by Cardinal Ratzinger)

 

The other conditions you bring up are not in themselves strong tendencies towards moral evil, nor are things like stammering or blindness.

 

A good priest explained that candidates for the priesthood should be men who would make good husbands and fathers, yet willingly give up those goods for the higher good of holy priesthood and spiritual fatherhood.  The priesthood should not be a refuge for men whose sexual disorders make them unfit for marriage.

 

 

Also, while you may be unaware of this, men who are severely physically disabled must receive a special dispensation to be ordained to the priesthood.  This is to reflect the ideal of the priesthood as giving up the best for God, rather than being a refuge for those unable to perform other duties.  (In past times, for instance, a family might send a crippled son whose disability renders him unable to work on the farm or such to the seminary.)

 

There are also various psychological problems which can bar a man from the priesthood.

 

 

The priesthood of Christ is a special vocation with its own requirements; it is not just a "job" available to anyone who wants it.

[Socrates]

Probably correctly or incorrectly depending on your point of view finally, someone from the church hierarchy has said something that isn’t hateful, harmful, and anti-gay – and it was the pope!

 

So, do you mean to imply that everything said on the topic by members of the Church hierarchy prior to Pope Francis's remarks (including official Church statements and documents) has been "hateful" and "harmful"?

[Ice_nine]

Yes, St. Gregory of Nyssa pointed out the problem of using "is" in a way that identifies an action with the essence of a being. His solution, which he used to defeat the Eunomian heretics, was to affirm in every proposition using the word "is" in relation to God or man an invisible "is" that bears the weight of essentiality. Action flows from essence - according to St. Gregory - but it is not essential; instead, it is energetic. Actions reveal something about a person (e.g., whether the person is good or bad in relation to a specific activity), but the essence remains beyond comprehension.

 

Sometimes you sound like an undergrad philosophy major who has hit the bong too hard.

 

If you believe this is a mental disorder and that the only help is the grace of God then how do you explain that modern studies are discovering a homosexual phenotype?

Will the grace of God PHYSICALLY change them so that they become heterosexual again? And what if they cant physically change?

 

I study psychology, so I'm not knocking it, but it's a soft-science so the interpretation of data is predicated on the given culture. The idea of sexual-orientation is very modern phenomenon. In my humble opinion, it's not as simple as saying, well "the cingulate gyrus is larger in homosexual men therefore there is a biological basis for homosexuality ergo people are born gay"

 

For instance would these men with the associated physical traits, growing up in different contexts label themselves gay? Cross-historically, probably not before the 1800's or so, and cross-culturally? I'm not sure as it's hard to find societies that haven't been influenced by the modern west. Even within the present culture, say there were physical attributes associated with emotional and pain sensitivity, can we underestimate the effect that cultural conditioning has on the identify formation of young males who might have these traits? Don't forget how our ideas of sex have changed. The fact that most people view sex through a modernized/Christian/romantic lens shapes our sexual identities. In some cultures sex was just a matter of practicality, trade, recreation etc.

 

Just food for thought.

[CrossCuT]

Odd that you ask that. My point is that I support the Church's doctrine on the disordered nature of the homosexual condition. It's as simple as that.

Right, but even though we all share in the downfall of man and the results of sin, youre somehow better than these homosexuals because you didnt happen to be born with that particular "disorder".

You have more of a right to the priesthood than they do?

[CrossCuT]

Sometimes you sound like an undergrad philosophy major who has hit the bong too hard.

 

 

I study psychology, so I'm not knocking it, but it's a soft-science so the interpretation of data is predicated on the given culture. The idea of sexual-orientation is very modern phenomenon. In my humble opinion, it's not as simple as saying, well "the cingulate gyrus is larger in homosexual men therefore there is a biological basis for homosexuality ergo people are born gay"

 

For instance would these men with the associated physical traits, growing up in different contexts label themselves gay? Cross-historically, probably not before the 1800's or so, and cross-culturally? I'm not sure as it's hard to find societies that haven't been influenced by the modern west. Even within the present culture, say there were physical attributes associated with emotional and pain sensitivity, can we underestimate the effect that cultural conditioning has on the identify formation of young males who might have these traits? Don't forget how our ideas of sex have changed. The fact that most people view sex through a modernized/Christian/romantic lens shapes our sexual identities. In some cultures sex was just a matter of practicality, trade, recreation etc.

 

Just food for thought.

 

If you looked at the link I gave earlier in the thread, it was referencing a hypothesis.

There is no hardcore evidence for or against a physical link in homosexuality but that doesnt mean there isnt one.

Every step closer (even baby steps) helps us understand this more and more. I suggest always keeping an open mind to the information presented to you because soooo many scientist hypothesized ideas in which they were mocked for only to end up being completely right in the end.

[Apotheoun]

Right, but even though we all share in the downfall of man and the results of sin, youre somehow better than these homosexuals because you didnt happen to be born with that particular "disorder".

You have more of a right to the priesthood than they do?

Where have I said - in any one of my posts - that I am better than anyone else? And also where precisely have I said that anyone has a "right" to be ordained a priest?

[CrossCuT]

Thats the impression Im getting  :hmmm: 

[Socrates]

If you agree with the Church's teachings, you're holier-than-thou and think you're better than everybody.

 

End of argument.

[Norseman82]

Yes, St. Gregory of Nyssa pointed out the problem of using "is" in a way that identifies an action with the essence of a being. His solution, which he used to defeat the Eunomian heretics, was to affirm in every proposition using the word "is" in relation to God or man an invisible "is" that bears the weight of essentiality. Action flows from essence - according to St. Gregory - but it is not essential; instead, it is energetic. Actions reveal something about a person (e.g., whether the person is good or bad in relation to a specific activity), but the essence remains beyond comprehension.

 

Sorry, Todd, but I couldn't resist...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3KCEpzAcCg

[add]

The pope is right(ious)
Remember what the prophet said: "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" about per- judging

Edited July 30, 2013 by add

[CrossCuT]

Where have I said - in any one of my posts - that I am better than anyone else? And also where precisely have I said that anyone has a "right" to be ordained a priest?

I wasnt being very nice in my last post. Im sorry

[Ice_nine]

If you looked at the link I gave earlier in the thread, it was referencing a hypothesis.

There is no hardcore evidence for or against a physical link in homosexuality but that doesnt mean there isnt one.

Every step closer (even baby steps) helps us understand this more and more. I suggest always keeping an open mind to the information presented to you because soooo many scientist hypothesized ideas in which they were mocked for only to end up being completely right in the end.

 

 

I don't think you understood me. I'm a little bit familiar with some of these hypotheses, but as a social science the findings are often interpreted with the current social values in ethos in mind, whether conscious or not. I don't think anyone here would doubt that biology plays a role in homosexual attraction, but I doubt the ability of social science to determine how much biology influences it. Even if they are able to exclude other variables, they're only looking at subjects within the current culture, with its own values and norms that not only shape the interpretation of the data but also the subjects whom they are studying. Whereas biology, as a hard science, has remained subject to physical and chemical laws that, we assume, remain constant despite our ignorance of them.

[kujo]

Lol but that doesn't mean we can't hate them! I agree with apoth 100%. Stop defending the untouchables.

 

No comments on this? Really?

[kujo]

The Church does not specifically use the term "mental disorder," but does teach that homosexual inclinations are "objectively disordered" - that is to say they are ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil.

 

Thank you for pointing this out. Can't believe this wasn't corrected earlier in the thread.

[Apotheoun]

Yes, St. Gregory of Nyssa pointed out the problem of using "is" in a way that identifies an action with the essence of a being. His solution, which he used to defeat the Eunomian heretics, was to affirm in every proposition using the word "is" in relation to God or man an invisible "is" that bears the weight of essentiality. Action flows from essence - according to St. Gregory - but it is not essential; instead, it is energetic. Actions reveal something about a person (e.g., whether the person is good or bad in relation to a specific activity), but the essence remains beyond comprehension.

 

 

Sometimes you sound like an undergrad philosophy major who has hit the bong too hard.

 

Actually I'm opposed to smoking in general, but that is because I have lost several family members to emphysema and lung cancer. That said, my more quirky posts, like the one you were responding to, are normally based upon obscure texts that very few people probably would have any interest in reading. The above quoted post, which concerns the distinction between essential being, which is beyond any type of predication or knowledge, and activity, which is what reveals a man to those he interacts with, was from a book I read several years ago written by Dr. Scot Douglass entitled "Theology of the Gap: Cappadocian Language Theory and the Trinitarian Controversy" (see pages 33-56). I highly recommend the text to anyone interested in theology, and in particular to those interested in the theology of the Cappadocian Fathers.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Apotheoun

[MithLuin]

No comments on this? Really?

 

What do you want us to say?  :troll: ?

[CrossCuT]

No comments on this? Really?

Trolls everywhere