# Conversation and Fun > Just Conversation >  Question to Catholics...

## drk

What say you, about this?
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican newspaper said on Tuesday that homosexuality risked "destabilizing people and society", had no social or moral value and could never match the importance of the relationship between a man and a woman.

The remarks were contained in a long commentary published to accompany the official release of a long-awaited document that restricted the access of homosexual men to the Roman Catholic priesthood.

The article by Monsignor Tony Anatrella, a French Jesuit and psychologist, said homosexuality could not be considered an acceptable moral alternative to heterosexuality.

"During these past years, homosexuality has become a phenomenon that is always increasingly worrying and in many countries is considered a quality that is normal," the article in L'Osservatore Romano said.

The article was specifically approved by the Vatican's secretariat of state.

"It (homosexuality) does not represent a social value and even less so a moral virtue that could add to the civilization of sexuality," Anatrella said. "It could even be seen as a destabilizing reality for people and for society."

The Catholic Church, the article said, had a duty to reaffirm its position that homosexuality is "against conjugal life, the life of the family, and priestly life".

"In no case is this form of sexuality a sexual alternative, or even less, a reality that is equivalent to that which is shared by a man and a woman engaged in matrimonial life," the Italian-language article said.

"It (homosexuality) cannot be encouraged or even less so, supported with pastoral initiatives," it said in an apparent reference to Catholic priests who administer to homosexuals without reminding them of the Church's position against gay sex.

It said homosexuality was "a sexual tendency and not an identity" and repeated the Church's stand against allowing gays to marry or to adopt children. It also called homosexuality "an incomplete and immature part of human sexuality".

It repeated some themes in the Vatican document, and added a list of ways seminary directors could determine if a candidate for the priesthood had overcome homosexual tendencies or risked not being able to respect the Church rule of priestly celibacy.



© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.

----------


## chm2023

I don't agree wiht the Church's position.  As you may recall, it was not long ago that Catholics were forbidden to marry non-Catholics.  Fortunately, neither of these views is a matter of dogma.

----------


## Chairtime

I support the church's view.  What do you say, drk?

----------


## drk

I bring this up to see what American Catholics think about a conservative Pope.  Is the church's position infallable?  Can you take or leave what the Roman Church says?  What, then, is the Catholic faith founded on?

----------


## Chairtime

The church may not be infallible, but you cannot just take or leave what it says. Obedience is an important virtue, and is the opposite of Satan's message of selfishness. Ever hear [certain so-called religious groups] say that they can decide what works for them and what doesn't? That's the opposite of obedience.

You may not be infallible either. But your kids would be well-served by being obedient to you.

----------


## chm2023

The church holds that the Pope--not the church--is infallible on matters of dogma. This position (homosexuality) is not a matter of dogma. See the link below for the complete listing of church dogma.

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/dogma.htm

----------


## Cindy Hamlin

I was born and raised a Catholic, but think that they are way off the mark here.  I cannot condone throwing stones at another "lifestyle" while you are in tremendous litigation matters and facing bankruptcy over the settlements of them.

I will probably be haunted by my Grandma for saying this, but Pope HEAL THY PRIESTS!  Is he not condemning a large number of the very people they protected and that they are prosecuting now?

Okay, I will climb off my soapbox as I got a little dizzy!  :Eek:

----------


## QDO1

> I was born and raised a Catholic, but think that they are way off the mark here. I cannot condone throwing stones at another "lifestyle" while you are in tremendous litigation matters and facing bankruptcy over the settlements of them.
> 
> I will probably be haunted by my Grandma for saying this, but Pope HEAL THY PRIESTS! Is he not condemning a large number of the very people they protected and that they are prosecuting now?
> 
> Okay, I will climb off my soapbox as I got a little dizzy!


Im glad a catholic said that, Because to the rest of us it is glaringly obvious

----------


## Spexvet

> I was born and raised a Catholic, but think that they are way off the mark here. I cannot condone throwing stones at another "lifestyle" while you are in tremendous litigation matters and facing bankruptcy over the settlements of them.


So, the question I have is - if you disagree with your religious institution on an issue, can you still consider yourself "belonging" to that institution?

----------


## Laurie

Hi Spexvet,

I ask myself that question alot.

I am Catholic, however, I lean towards "cafeteria catholicism" (i.e., selecting parts I believe, and kind of ignoring others)...not to appear disrespectful to the more devout among us.

I think terrible things happen in all denominations (ministers abusing young girls, or running away with their wive's best friend), etc. I guess it speaks more to humanity than religious denomination.

When the whole priest/abuse thing came out, I found myself attending mass more often...to show my local priest support, and that I don't group them all into one catagory. And, because I was sad for my church.

I am conviced that approx. 10 percent of us are born homosexual. I do not belive that it is a conscious choice. Pedophilia, however, is a totally different story, and, IMHO, completely unrelated to homosexuality.

And, I hold onto "God as the loving father", who would not abandon a child because of being gay. And, as one who has always been catholic and loves my church, I see the pope more as a political figure head/CEO. (no offense meant to those who feel otherwise).

I'll say one thing, though, corny or not, What a great country we live in to be able to talk about this stuff freely.



Laurie

----------


## Chairtime

> So, the question I have is - if you disagree with your religious institution on an issue, can you still consider yourself "belonging" to that institution?


Spexvet, that applies to you as well, doesn't it?  Do you consider yourself "belonging" to the Lutheran church?

----------


## Spexvet

> Spexvet, that applies to you as well, doesn't it? Do you consider yourself "belonging" to the Lutheran church?


I do not. I never said I "belonged", and in fact, never "joined". I "attended" - and stopped in June.

----------


## chm2023

> So, the question I have is - if you disagree with your religious institution on an issue, can you still consider yourself "belonging" to that institution?


Absolutely.  There's a name for religious institutions whose members always agree with them--they're called cults.

----------


## drk

I'm in a cult.  The cult of Jesus Christ!  You can agree with him and be in, or you can not, and you're out!  He's a pretty cool cult leader, though.

If you want to know what he makes us agree with, see the Bible.

----------


## Chairtime

> I do not. I never said I "belonged", and in fact, never "joined". I "attended" - and stopped in June.


Me thinks thou doth protest too much.;)

----------


## Spexvet

> I'm in a cult. The cult of Jesus Christ! You can agree with him and be in, or you can not, and you're out! He's a pretty cool cult leader, though.
> 
> If you want to know what he makes us agree with, see the Bible.


Should we agree with:





> 23But if there is harm,[c] then you shall pay life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.


or




> 38 You have heard that it was said, _An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth._[f] 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have _your_ cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.


 :Confused:

----------


## Chairtime

I agree with both of the passages, as I don't believe they conflict each other.

----------


## drk

The first part is Mosaic Law for ancient Israel, i.e. how to run their country. The second part is Jesus' expansion of the Law for the upcoming Church age, which takes "the Law" and internalizes it for each person, and it's a very different thing to discuss a nation's justice system and a personal code of behavior. Can you see Jesus saying: "If anyone offendeth thee, be the judge, jury, and executioner, and mete out like for like"? That would lead to anarchy, right?

If we did have an ancient Hebrew-like judicial system, nowadays, that would not _necessarily_ be in conflict with our personal ethos as described by Jesus.

Bottom line: the Bible, when taken as a whole, is consistent and understandable.

----------


## chm2023

> The first part is Mosaic Law for ancient Israel, i.e. how to run their country. The second part is Jesus' expansion of the Law for the upcoming Church age, which takes "the Law" and internalizes it for each person, and it's a very different thing to discuss a nation's justice system and a personal code of behavior. Can you see Jesus saying: "If anyone offendeth thee, be the judge, jury, and executioner, and mete out like for like"? That would lead to anarchy, right?
> 
> If we did have an ancient Hebrew-like judicial system, nowadays, that would not _necessarily_ be in conflict with our personal ethos as described by Jesus.
> 
> Bottom line: the Bible, when taken as a whole, is consistent and understandable.


I gather you're speaking ex cathedra?;)

----------


## QDO1

> The first part is Mosaic Law for ancient Israel, i.e. how to run their country. The second part is Jesus' expansion of the Law for the upcoming Church age, which takes "the Law" and internalizes it for each person, and it's a very different thing to discuss a nation's justice system and a personal code of behavior. Can you see Jesus saying: "If anyone offendeth thee, be the judge, jury, and executioner, and mete out like for like"? That would lead to anarchy, right?
> 
> If we did have an ancient Hebrew-like judicial system, nowadays, that would not _necessarily_ be in conflict with our personal ethos as described by Jesus.
> 
> Bottom line: the Bible, when taken as a whole, is consistent and understandable.


they are laws that bear no relation to my life... ancient and exploited

----------


## RGC_man

More interesting than the usual homosexual debate is that the Catholic church is about to abandon the centuries old concept of Limbo. That strange place where unbaptised babies go when they die.

Will they suddenly stop going there? Where have they been going these last several centuries? Will they change destination because a bunch of theological clerics say so? What does God have to say on the matter?

Just wondering like.

----------


## 2Quyen

This is suppose to be a thread about ophthalmic.   I think this topic is off subject intended for something else.

----------


## Judy Canty

> This is suppose to be a thread about ophthalmic. I think this topic is off subject intended for something else.


Actually, this forum is for general conversation.

----------


## mshimp

It has been said that good Catholics make good Mormons. Sounds like a good time for a change.

----------


## QDO1

perhaps the church is in need of "the truth" as it was so sucsinctly put in another thread

----------


## chm2023

> More interesting than the usual homosexual debate is that the Catholic church is about to abandon the centuries old concept of Limbo. That strange place where unbaptised babies go when they die.
> 
> Will they suddenly stop going there? Where have they been going these last several centuries? Will they change destination because a bunch of theological clerics say so? What does God have to say on the matter?
> 
> Just wondering like.


Thinking evolves.  "Limbo" was never a part of dogma, rather theological speculation, meaning you can believe it or not believe it within the confines of the faith.

----------


## QDO1

> Thinking evolves.


does your god?

----------


## chm2023

> does your god?


If I knew the answer to that I would be waaaayyyy too smart to be wasting my time on OB!!!;)   As I understand God (and by definition my or anyone else's understanding of God is grossly inadequate), no.

----------


## QDO1

> If I knew the answer to that I would be waaaayyyy too smart to be wasting my time on OB!!!;) As I understand God (and by definition my or anyone else's understanding of God is grossly inadequate), no.


so which of the many denominations is the most right?  many are in utter conflict with the others.  From the outside it looks rediculous

----------


## chm2023

> so which of the many denominations is the most right? many are in utter conflict with the others. From the outside it looks rediculous


Well, I will try to answer this. I believe God manifests himself to us in various forms and that our interpretation of God is naturally varied. Which is to say while I believe in the tenets of Catholicism re God and Christ, I believe that Allah, Buddha etc are all manifestations of the very same God. I don't think that the core beliefs of the various religions are significantly dissimiliar--all speak to the primacy of loving one's neighbor and of worshipping and respecting God/Allah etc. In other words, for my religion to be "right", yours doesn't have to be "wrong". How strange to think that a loving God would embrace such a notion!

Was having a discussion the other evening with my husband--while I believe in an afterlife, I think we are completely incapable of understanding what that might be, just as we are completely incapable of truly understanding the nature of God.  Which of course is why we call it "faith".

----------


## coda

> I will probably be haunted by my Grandma for saying this, but Pope HEAL THY PRIESTS! Is he not condemning a large number of the very people they protected and that they are prosecuting now?


I would like to point out that homosexuals are not pedophiles and pedophiles are not necessarily homosexuals (even when the abuse is man on boy).  This is, incidentally, the official position of the Catholic church, one they arrived at a couple of years ago after convening a scientific symposium on child abuse.

----------


## Cindy Hamlin

> I would like to point out that homosexuals are not pedophiles and pedophiles are not necessarily homosexuals (even when the abuse is man on boy). This is, incidentally, the official position of the Catholic church, one they arrived at a couple of years ago after convening a scientific symposium on child abuse.


I never implied they were one and the same.    

It is a matter of fact and public record that there are a number and have been a number of priests prosecuted for abusing boys (not men, but boys).  Correct me if I am wrong, but is not an adult "insinuating" themself on a child  a pedophile?

There have also been a number of priests lately that have come "out."  

I would like to add that I think there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, but do not condone pedohpilia.

----------

