Homosexuality In The Priesthood.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='29 August 2009 - 10:02 AM' timestamp='1251561722' post='1957850']
I love that argument. "Well, if a man suffers from SSA, he must not be able to live around other guys."

I have never in my life felt a disordered sexual attraction to either the males or females I have lived with or spent the majority of my time with.

Is it an occasion to sin? Maybe. Depends on the person. But I take offense to the characterization that it is absolutely unacceptable in all cases.
[/quote]
No man has a right to be a priest, and so the Church is free to establish rules for admittance, and whether a man who is afflicted with SSA is strong enough to resist the temptations of being in an all male environment or not, the Church must be cautious about admitting anyone with a known condition that could cause scandal or harm.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='29 August 2009 - 12:02 PM' timestamp='1251561722' post='1957850']
I love that argument. "Well, if a man suffers from SSA, he must not be able to live around other guys."

I have never in my life felt a disordered sexual attraction to either the males or females I have lived with or spent the majority of my time with.

Is it an occasion to sin? Maybe. Depends on the person. But I take offense to the characterization that it is absolutely unacceptable in all cases.
[/quote]

I agree. The same croutons about a homosexual priest not being able to relate to his male parishioners (I actually saw that in an interview with ZENIT). My two best friends are heterosexual males.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='29 August 2009 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1251561834' post='1957853']
We are talking about men who define themselves as "homosexuals" joining the priesthood. Holy Scripture written by Saints under the supervision of the Holy Spirit refers to "homosexuals" as sodomites, so I use the same term. A man that defines himself as a "homosexual" should not be a priest. Similar to a man that defines himself as a thief should not work at the US Mint.
[/quote]

No. A person is not a "sodomite" unless they commit sodomy. Also, what's with picking apart the term homosexual? It doesn't neccesarily suggest any approval or acceptance of the disordered desires.

Would you say it's wrong for someone to describe themself as a sinner? Same question to you, Apotheon.

Edited August 29, 2009 by OraProMe

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='29 August 2009 - 10:08 AM' timestamp='1251562089' post='1957858']
No. A person is not a "sodomite" unless they commit sodomy.
[/quote]
Yes, it is important to distinguish between one who suffers from homosexual desires, which - although they are objectively disorder - are not a sin, and one who performs homosexual acts, which are always gravely immoral.

Edited August 29, 2009 by Apotheoun

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='29 August 2009 - 12:16 PM' timestamp='1251562619' post='1957862']
Yes, it is important to distinguish between one who suffers from homosexual desires, which although they are objectively disorder are not a sin, and one who performs homosexual acts, which are always gravely immoral.
[/quote]

Thanks
You didn't answer my question though. You think it's inappropriate for a man to call himself a homosexual because you said it makes it a "self-identifying characteristic" and presents it as a "positive characteristic". Do you then think it's inappropriate for a man to describe himself as a sinner?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='29 August 2009 - 10:20 AM' timestamp='1251562836' post='1957864']
Thanks
You didn't answer my question though. You think it's inappropriate for a man to call himself a homosexual because you said it makes it a "self-identifying characteristic" and presents it as a "positive characteristic". Do you then think it's inappropriate for a man to describe himself as a sinner?


[/quote]
It is improper if by it he means that he is ontoligcally sin itself, which is what Martin Luther thought. One is only a sinner because he commits sins, if he has not committed sins -- like Job, who is called righteous in scripture -- it follows that he is not a sinner. Since "homosexuality" is not an ontological state of being, but an act, to call a person a "homosexual" implies that he commits homosexual acts.

Is the Theotokos a sinner? No, because she never committed any sins.

Edited August 29, 2009 by Apotheoun

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='29 August 2009 - 12:23 PM' timestamp='1251563021' post='1957866']
It is improper if by it he means that he is ontoligcally sin itself, which is what Martin Luther thought. One is only a sinner because he commits sins, if he has not committed sins -- like Job, who is called righteous in scripture -- it follows that he is not a sinner.

Is the Theotokos a sinner? No, because she never committed any sins.
[/quote]

You're a slippery one

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='29 August 2009 - 10:26 AM' timestamp='1251563200' post='1957872']
You're a slippery one
[/quote]
Not really.

I simply do not -- as an Eastern Christian -- accept the Augustinian worldview.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='29 August 2009 - 10:26 AM' timestamp='1251563200' post='1957872']
You're a slippery one
[/quote]
Alas, you are confusing "desires" and "actions."

[Kitty]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='29 August 2009 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1251561834' post='1957853']
Chaste Sodomites still present a danger, because they one suffer from SSA, and two define themselves as
"homosexual." And it will not be pleasant to hear, but sodomites are in great part to blame for the sexual abuse scandal that has effected the Church. Studies have show that most of the abuses were on adolescent males, committed by priest who suffered from SSA. That's a problem no one wants to hear, and no one wants to talk about. But like it or not it is a real problem that has to be dealt with. Allowing sodomites to be priest is highly dangerous and risky.
[/quote]

Don't forget that other CHURCH authorities who had the power to stop the abuse were also to blame for the abuse scandal.

Instead of pushing away "sodomites" (a stupid label and extremely rude) why doesn't the church HELP these people who are homosexual who want to become priests. "Dealing with the problem" does not mean completely ignoring homosexual people.

[mamalove]

Just because a man [i]wants[/i] to become a priest doesn't mean he [i]should[/i] become a priest. There is a reason some men are denied entry into the seminary and ultimately the priesthood, homosexual or not.

[Winchester]

Ignoring them would mean not saying anything about them.

As society, so the Church. Schools, businesses, families, they all cover up sex abuse. The government doesn't permit citizens to defend the innocent, anymore and puts predators back out on the street. Everything is geared toward not dealing with the problem.

[CatherineM]

In the beginning the bishops were caught in a very tight spot. The had the experts they were turning to telling them that pedophilia could be cured, and they were often bound by the seal of the confessional. That doesn't just mean they can't tell what they heard, but it also means they can not act of what they heard.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='29 August 2009 - 10:04 AM' timestamp='1251561861' post='1957854']
No man has a right to be a priest, and so the Church is free to establish rules for admittance, and whether a man who is afflicted with SSA is strong enough to resist the temptations of being in an all male environment or not, the Church must be cautious about admitting anyone with a known condition that could cause scandal or harm.
[/quote]
I don't disagree, but i think it's a lame excuse.

[Winchester]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='29 August 2009 - 08:19 PM' timestamp='1251591580' post='1958086']
I don't disagree, but i think it's a lame excuse.
[/quote]
It's not an excuse. The Church isn't making excuses for it.