Apotheoun Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Thats the impression Im getting :hmmm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 If you agree with the Church's teachings, you're holier-than-thou and think you're better than everybody. End of argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 No comments on this? Really? What do you want us to say? :troll: ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 No comments on this? Really? Trolls everywhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 As far as the priesthood goes, it's not like they don't screen seminarians. Lots of people think they want to be priests, but either it's not a good idea or they have terrible reasons for it. The Church has an obligation to consider the men applying, and to tell some of them...'no'. And yes, sometimes this is for health reasons - including mental health. But it's for all sorts of reasons; not everyone is cut out to be a priest. I was recently working with the pre-novices for the Salesians in Ethiopia. They had 11 young men, all of whom applied for the novitiate. Three of them were denied. For one, the decision was definitely mutual. He had been frequently sick throughout his prenovice year, and just wanted to go home. In addition, his English skills were weaker than the others, which meant the possibility of him successfully studying for the priesthood was slim. I was (of course) not privy to any of the discussions or decisions about which ones to accept or which ones to send home. So, I can't say for sure what the reasoning was. But I do know they observed them living in community for a year, including their interactions with the children in the project, and that they sent them for a doctor's checkup (including an AIDS test) near the end before the final decision was made. Any red flag would mean...sorry, you can't continue with our community and be a priest. I do know that at least one of the three young men who was rejected was considering joining a different Catholic order, so he at least had not given up on his desire to be a priest. And one presumes that he was told 'we don't think you're a good match for the Salesians' rather than 'you should never be a priest'. He'd been newly confirmed in the hopes of entering the novitiate, but maybe another order will be a better match for him. So to get back to the questions being discussed on this thread. What if a young man is homosexual? What then? Well... regardless of orientation, the Church is going to have some concerns about celibacy for all applicants to the priesthood. So, in an American diocese, the man will be asked frankly when was the last time he had sex? The answer could be 'never; I'm a virgin,' but that is not the required answer. What the Church is looking for is an answer that shows he has some practice and experience living a celibate life. If he says '2 months ago', they'll reject his application and tell him he's not yet ready to enter the seminary. If he says '5 years ago', they'll see that he's committed to this lifestyle and knows what he's getting himself into. Obviously, an applicant could be dishonest, but as I pointed out in the Salesian example, they could request that he be tested for STDs as part of the application process. So, that's one question. When the Church refers to 'deep-seated' tendencies, the focus is on people who are not willing to put aside that identity in favor of the identity as Catholic priest. Now, I realize that putting aside an aspect of one's identity is hardly an easy thing to do. But as the Church views the relationship of the priest to the Church in terms of a man and his bride, the man would have to be able to embrace that as he studied and prepared for the priesthood. If a man is not capable of that, then he's really not cut out to be a priest, and yes, at some point in his training or application, he should be denied. Just as many holy and wonderful men before him were denied entrance to the priesthood. (As an example: Bl. Louis Martin, the father of St. Therese of Lisieux) Where I'm going with this is that being a priest isn't a 'right' - it's not something anyone earns or deserves or anything like that. It's a mutual discernment process. The man has to say, 'yes, I want to be a priest,' and the Church has to say 'yes, we want you to be one, too.' (The Church in this case is represented by the bishop in the diocese or the leader of the religious order.) If someone does not like the criteria the Church is applying, they are welcome to not offer themselves as a candidate to become a priest. If the Church accepts every single applicant to the priesthood, then the meaning of the priesthood would be diminished (or even lost) and formation would be nearly impossible. It would be... unwise... to forget to screen incoming seminarians. That is, of course, a separate issue from how one should treat an ordained priest. Obviously, such a person has met the criteria, completed his studies, and been given ordination by the Church. So, it's now an issue of whether or not he is living out his priesthood in obedience to his bishop and following the will of God and the teachings of the Church. If he's doing that... then the people of the Church really shouldn't judge him harshly for what they perceive to be his shortcomings (and that goes for lots and lots of issues). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG45 Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 I love that the most accurate coverage I've seen on this came from The Daily Show. I'm not kidding, guest host Jon Oliver (though mocking it) showed clips from Cardinal Dolan explaining how the mainstream media was getting the statements wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 And here is what Cardinal Dolan had to say: http://cardinaldolan.org/index.php/what-the-holy-father-said/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now