Vatican to scapegoat, purge gay priests

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Se7en said:
i can't get over the fact that the pope wears designer clothing! catholicism is a joke...probably now more than ever.

I thought the Pope always wore designer clothing (and quite an exclusive label it was). Now, he is just wearing name brand designer clothing.
 
nbcrusader said:


I thought the Pope always wore designer clothing (and quite an exclusive label it was). Now, he is just wearing name brand designer clothing.



say what you (the collective "you") will about Benedict's theology -- though, i do have to say, his recent statements on romatic love were, well, lovely, and probably should have gotten their own thread -- but his couture is fabulous!!!


0,,1553351_1,00.jpg
 
:sad: I tried to start a thread about his remarks on romantic love but people were more interested in discussing his car and his shoes.

Maybe this is why popes wear designer clothes, megachurches have video screens and pop bands, Jews dance with embriodered Torah scrolls, Buddhists meditate on lotus flowers in a dish, Baptists pound the pulpit and shout, Hindus make offerings of jasmine and coconut, and pretty much everybody has sing-alongs...people want a spectacle! Nobody really looks forward to a dry theological disputation.
 
yolland said:
:sad: I tried to start a thread about his remarks on romantic love but people were more interested in discussing his car and his shoes.



you're right. you did.

i believe i was up to my ears in China footage at the time.

i'm sorry it never got its due.
 
Obviously they're completely wrong if they go through with this. Banning gay priests would be stupid. Isn't it the "action" that's bad, and not the homosexual orientation itself?

What is wrong with this decision? The catholic religion is against homosexuality, so naturally it would not be correct to allow gay priests. Allowing gay priests would be abandoning the principles by which they abide.

Religion doesn't change to cater to the people. People change to cater to religion. If you are homosexual how are you genuinely in your heart catholic? You can't pick and choose which religious principles to follow and then call your self that religion. The vatican adopting gay priests would represent the modern 'fall of catholicism'.

Damn this pisses me off.
 
djfeelgood said:


What is wrong with this decision? The catholic religion is against homosexuality, so naturally it would not be correct to allow gay priests. Allowing gay priests would be abandoning the principles by which they abide.

Religion doesn't change to cater to the people. People change to cater to religion. If you are homosexual how are you genuinely in your heart catholic? You can't pick and choose which religious principles to follow and then call your self that religion. The vatican adopting gay priests would represent the modern 'fall of catholicism'.

Damn this pisses me off.



the catholic church has been on record saying that it is not being homosexual that is wrong, but that the sin itself is homosexual sex. thus, celibate gay priests -- since being gay is more than just having sex with men -- were welcomed into the cloth.

now, needing easy scapegoats, the church is heading backwards.
 
djfeelgood said:
What is wrong with this decision? The catholic religion is against homosexuality, so naturally it would not be correct to allow gay priests. Allowing gay priests would be abandoning the principles by which they abide.

Religion doesn't change to cater to the people. People change to cater to religion. If you are homosexual how are you genuinely in your heart catholic? You can't pick and choose which religious principles to follow and then call your self that religion. The vatican adopting gay priests would represent the modern 'fall of catholicism'.

Damn this pisses me off.

Irvine511 is correct. I would say the "fall of Catholicism" has been Catholics who are ignorant of the Church's official teachings, allowing the Vatican to pull a good one over a lot of people.

And lest you believe that Catholicism never changes, 1600 years ago, there were women priests. Up until 1000 years ago, the Catholic Church was well-known for its large body of homoerotic literature, while nunneries / monastic orders were known to frequently have sex with each other--not to mention that priests were allowed to marry. 1000 years ago, the Catholic Church went heavily anti-sex, going so far as to condemn any sex not specifically resulting in having children and likely contributed to the prohibition of priests becoming married (since God was anti-sex and His ideal must be no sex at all, priests were to live the example).

Of course, back in these good old days, that meant heavy prohibitions against lusting after your spouse and women were expressedly forbidden to show any sign of enjoying sex. Employing the "rhythm method" to avoid pregnancy was a mortal sin until the 1930s.

The Catholic Church has openly admitted that its condemnation of homosexuality is based on its tradition, not the Bible. That's because the Church has excellent Biblical scholars who know better than to use mistranslated Biblical passages to justify their stance. Instead, the Vatican condemns homosexuality on the same 1000 year old prohibition against any sex that cannot result in having children. Well, if they're going to think that way, I want to see a crackdown on masturbation, oral sex, and birth control amongst heterosexual couples, because those are all still expressedly forbidden.

So now tell me that the Catholic Church never changes.

Melon
 
Last edited:
Angela Harlem said:
It's the vow of poverty, you see.

Ah, but you see only nuns and monks have a vow of poverty. Priests, bishops, cardinals, and the pope do nothing of the sort.

Melon
 
Back
Top Bottom