homosexuals in priesthood

[Socrates]

Like everyone else said . . .
Mr. Lowell's post was way off topic (and rather ad hominem).
There are plenty of threads on this forum about Bush, the Iraq War, the Republican Party, etc., etc. etc. (you can run a search to dig them up.)

What Mr. Donahue said here was quite legitimate, and is rather unrelated to the topic of his political affiliations.

Here on the phatmass debate table, we try to keep threads on the topic under consideration, and not just use them as a soapbox for making political rants unrelated to the topic.

[Fidei Defensor]

Wow, he put it exactly how ive been trying to put it for the past couple of months. The debate was never about letting those "who practice homosexuality, who present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or who support the so-called gay culture" become priests. It was about making sure those men who have been granted the grace to rise above those temptations be allowed to become priests if called by God, because they neither support homosexuality nor practice it, so should have a fair chance to become a priest.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 25 2005, 08:47 PM']Like everyone else said . . .
Mr. Lowell's post was way off topic (and rather ad hominem).
There are plenty of threads on this forum about Bush, the Iraq War, the Republican Party, etc., etc. etc.  (you can run a search to dig them up.)

What Mr. Donahue said here was quite legitimate, and is rather unrelated to the topic of his political affiliations.

Here on the phatmass debate table, we try to keep threads on the topic under consideration, and not just use them as a soapbox for making political rants unrelated to the topic.
[right][snapback]800372[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The debate board goes off topic all the time, and is gently nudged back in the right direction. John is a newbie, so kindly give him a break. At least it was an interesting hijack.

[John Lowell]

cmotherofpirl,

You say, and I might add with uncommonly good taste, "At least it was an interesting hijack".

Truth be known, cmotherofpirl, my initial post never was intended as a hijack. I considered the fact that Donohue's comments were central to the topic and that having made them, comments about him were germaine. I'd also observe that it would come as no surprise to learn that those offering the hijack complaints are almost uniformly Donohue enthusiasts, a fact made eminently clear by MCJust's rather honest disclosures. Anyone else want to come clean?

Socrates,

You remark: "Like everyone else said . . .
Mr. Lowell's post was way off topic (and rather ad hominem)".

Ad hominem, ad schmominem. Would you like a take from this quarter about the spiritual quality of the personal reception I've gotten as a new registant on this supposedly Catholic forum today, your's inclusive? I'd be pleased to share one with you.

John Lowell

Edited November 26, 2005 by John Lowell

[Socrates]

[quote name='John Lowell' date='Nov 25 2005, 10:21 PM']cmotherofpirl,

You say, and I might add with uncommonly good taste, "At least it was an interesting hijack".

Truth be known, cmotherofpirl, my initial post never was intended as a hijack. I considered the fact that Donohue's comments were central to the topic and that having made them, comments about him were germaine. I'd also observe that it would come as no surprise to learn that those offering the hijack complaints are almost uniformly Donohue enthusiasts, a fact made eminently clear by MCJust's rather honest  disclosures. Anyone else want to come clean?

Socrates,

You remark: "Like everyone else said . . .
Mr. Lowell's post was way off topic (and rather ad hominem)".

Ad hominem, ad schmominem. Would you like a take from this quarter about the spiritual quality of the personal reception I've gotten as a new registant on this supposedly Catholic forum today, your's inclusive? I'd be pleased to share one with you.

John Lowell
[right][snapback]800539[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Your remarks had no bearing on the topic of Vatican policy on homosexuals in the seminary. If they did, you might care to explain the connection to us.

[John Lowell]

Socrates,

You're not interested in having me share my feelings about the quality of the reception I've gotten from some, you included, at this supposedly Catholic site? If I recall, that was the question I addressed to you in my last post, was it not? You're not hijacking now, are you?

John Lowell

Edited November 26, 2005 by John Lowell

[argent_paladin]

[quote]“The Vatican is prudent not to have an absolute ban on admission of homosexuals to the priesthood: there are too many good men with homosexual tendencies who have served the Church with distinction,” said Donohue.

“But there is a monumental difference between someone who is incidentally homosexual and someone for whom the gay subculture is central to his identity,” Donohue pointed out. “Only those blinded by sexual politics will fail to make this distinction.”

Donohue also made reference to the sex-abuse scandal in the Church, stating that while most homosexual priests were not molesters, most molesters were homosexuals.

“The John Jay Report made this clear: 81 percent of the victims are male and almost as many are postpubescent. This is not called pedophilia—it is called homosexuality,” he said.[/quote]
I think that these two points are not sufficiently getting across. We need to reiterate them as often as possible. Banning someone who is homosexual or gay, is banning someone for whom that part of themselves is a defining part of their identity. It is not the same as banning someone who has that tendency under control. In that case, it is not the defining part of their identity.
Also, many critics say that this is a distraction from the real issue of pedophilia. Donohue correctly points out that sexual interaction with postpubescent boys is more accurately associated with homosexuality, rather than pedophilia. And laxity in standards due to homosexuality, I would think, correlate with laxity in standards of pedophilia.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='John Lowell' date='Nov 25 2005, 11:34 PM']Socrates,

You're not interested in having me share my feelings about the quality of the reception I've gotten from some, you included, at this supposedly Catholic site? If I recall, that was the question I addressed to you in my last post, was it not? You're not hijacking now, are you?

John Lowell
[right][snapback]800614[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

John,

Hang around and you'll realize there are some very vocal people on this site. Sometimes folks get a bit testy. It's a problem, we keep rehashing old debates as we get a steady influx of new people. So, the questions you've raised have been dealt with and the battle lines drawn. You'll certainly find those who are more in line with your thinking, trust me.

I voted for Bush though...he was electable.

[John Lowell]

toledo_jesus,

Thanks for chiming in. It's a pleasure to meet you.

Not to drag-out this discussion, but the pragmatic impulse that moved you and so many others to vote for Bush rather than sit out the election as I did itself has had more than its share of untoward consequences. It is precisely the dilema of such pragmatism that it made possible Bush's taking for granted the knee-jerk support of the main Evangelical leadership, Dobson, Land, Colson & Co., when he nominated Harriet Meirs for a seat on the Supreme Court. Predictibly, Dobson almost vomited on the rug in his rush to support her. Other conservatives, sensibly, either rejected her or took a wait and see attitude. The resistance paid-off with the withdrawal of Miers and the substitution of Alito, a Catholic with a Catholic's outlook on social questions, it would seem. Catholics owe Bush nothing for the Alito appointment. Being forced on him it had absolutely nothing to do with his core instincts. In 2001, we got federally funded stem-cell research together with the usual accompaniment of lies and distortions from Bush as another consequence of this pragmatism. I'm glad I have not been a party to this guy's version of "pro-life", thank you. With every respect to you personally, I think you bought the farm, frankly.

Best regards.

John Lowell

Edited November 27, 2005 by John Lowell

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='John Lowell' date='Nov 26 2005, 11:14 PM']toledo_jesus,

Thanks for chiming in. It's a pleasure to meet you.

Not to drag-out this discussion, but the pragmatic impulse that moved you and so many others to vote for Bush rather than sit out the election as I did itself has had more than its share of untoward consequences. It is precisely the dilema of such pragmatism that it made possible Bush's taking for granted the knee-jerk support of the main Evangelical leadership, Dobson, Land, Colson & Co., when he nominated Harriet Meirs for a seat on the Supreme Court. Predictibly, Dobson almost vomited on the rug in his rush to support her. Other conservatives, sensibly, either rejected her or took a wait and see attitude. The resistance paid-off with the withdrawal of Miers and the substitution of Alito, a Catholic with a Catholic's outlook on social questions, it would seem. Catholics owe Bush nothing for the Alito appointment. Being forced on him it had absolutely nothing to do with his core instincts. In 2001, we got federally funded stem-cell research together with the usual accompaniment of lies and distortions from Bush as another consequence of this pragmatism. I'm glad I have not been a party to this guy's version of "pro-life", thank you. With every respect to you personally, I think you bought the farm, frankly.

Best regards.

John Lowell
[right][snapback]801320[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yes well, in a perfect world we could have all written in Pope John Paul II or Cardinal Ratzinger. Pragmatism shows results, purists are often disappointed. Cultural wars are won in increments.
I'd be interested to know who you voted for. Peroutka perhaps? LaRouche? I'm just kidding with that last one...

[dandy777]

Where did you get that article from MC Just?

[MC Just]

i get all the new articles in my email from Catholic league.

[dandy777]

i see. can you give us the link to the website please. i'd like to know more. thanks.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

the Iraq war protesters are wrong becasue the reason they are protesting the war is incorrect. If anyone should protest the war it should be the Holy Father which he did and no one else.

[MC Just]

[url="http://www.catholicleague.com/05press_releases/quarter%204/051123_gays_priesthood.htm"]http://www.catholicleague.com/05press_rele..._priesthood.htm[/url]

i deleted the one in my email after i posted it.lol here is what the site has.