View Full Version : Vatican bars gay cleric after interview
avatar4321
10-13-2007, 09:08 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071013/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_gay_monsignor
I am at a loss of words. the guy is actually claiming he didnt know it was a sin to have sex with gay men...
I have to ask any catholics on here, is there anything unclear with the Churches teachings or something that would actually make a cleric say such a thing?
82Marine89
10-13-2007, 09:24 AM
Been a Roman Catholic all my life, spent 10 of 12 years in Catholic school. I never got buggered by a priest. We were all taught that being a pillow biter was a sin. Succinct enough?
diuretic
10-13-2007, 09:34 AM
Just cognitive dissonance. He is gay, his religious faith tells him that having sex is wrong. He's having gay sex. But he convinces himself having gay sex isn't wrong. It's a real pity that the Catholic church is so hung up on sex, they need to get over it.
82Marine89
10-13-2007, 09:43 AM
Just cognitive dissonance. He is gay, his religious faith tells him that having sex is wrong. He's having gay sex. But he convinces himself having gay sex isn't wrong. It's a real pity that the Catholic church is so hung up on sex, they need to get over it.
Nice try. They're not hung up on sex. They don't have a problem with married men and women having sex. They disagree with homosexual sex and premarital sex.
diuretic
10-13-2007, 09:46 AM
Nice try. They're not hung up on sex. They don't have a problem with married men and women having sex. They disagree with homosexual sex and premarital sex.
They're hung up on sex. Vatican roulette anyone? If they have a problem with gay sex and premarital sex they're hung up on sex.
82Marine89
10-13-2007, 09:51 AM
They're hung up on sex. Vatican roulette anyone? If they have a problem with gay sex and premarital sex they're hung up on sex.
Because they believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ they are hung up on sex? I have a problem with illegal immigration, but I'm not hung up on it.
diuretic
10-13-2007, 09:53 AM
Because they believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ they are hung up on sex? I have a problem with illegal immigration, but I'm not hung up on it.
I don't know if Jesus had much to say about sex. Apparently Paul is the one that went on about it.
Said1
10-13-2007, 10:08 AM
They're hung up on sex. Vatican roulette anyone? If they have a problem with gay sex and premarital sex they're hung up on sex.
The Vatican is not alone in their stance on pre-marital and gay sex. Priests ordained in the eastern orthodox rite as opposed to the latin rite interestingly enough, allows for priests to married. Decons can also marry as well.
I don't think pre-marital sex is an issue for future priests today, as long as it didn't involve a member of the same sex and that they are celibate in the future. Don't quote me on that one though. :laugh2:
Just cognitive dissonance. He is gay, his religious faith tells him that having sex is wrong. He's having gay sex. But he convinces himself having gay sex isn't wrong. It's a real pity that the Catholic church is so hung up on sex, they need to get over it.
I think your issue is with God, not the church:
Lev
22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Of all the mosaic laws, this is, I believe, the only one that says the particular act/sin is an abomination. The church is merely following God's law.
I suggest you contact God and make your complaint heard. First you get a kneel phone, then dial, praywithme.
Works everytime.
:)
Guernicaa
10-13-2007, 12:27 PM
Of all the mosaic laws, this is, I believe, the only one that says the particular act/sin is an abomination. The church is merely following God's law.
God wrote that did he?...Wheres the proof?
Does God have a copyright?
The real author (a human) wrote that and put gods name on it. The likely cause, as with most of the bible, is that these things were based on peoples opinions...not some higher power speaking to them.
avatar4321
10-13-2007, 01:41 PM
I don't know if Jesus had much to say about sex. Apparently Paul is the one that went on about it.
Cant imagine why God would be concerned about life can you?
diuretic
10-13-2007, 10:22 PM
Sorry av, I don't see the connection between my point and yours.
avatar4321
10-13-2007, 11:35 PM
Sorry av, I don't see the connection between my point and yours.
naturally, you cant see a connection between sex and life.
diuretic
10-13-2007, 11:45 PM
naturally, you cant see a connection between sex and life.
No, you're not making sense, if you're trying to make a point then you've failed because all I can see is a sequence of non-sequiturs. If you need a hand understanding my point I'm only too happy to help. This is how it works:
82Marine89
Because they believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ they are hung up on sex? I have a problem with illegal immigration, but I'm not hung up on it.
Me
I don't know if Jesus had much to say about sex. Apparently Paul is the one that went on about it.
Now my comment reflected the assertion that it's inaccurate to say that those who believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ are hung up on sex. Fair point. I don't believe that Jesus did say much about sex either. He did pronounce on marriage though. But Paul did have a bit to say about sex and he in fact laid the groundwork for Christian teachings about sex.
You then referenced me and posted:
Cant imagine why God would be concerned about life can you?
That didn't make any sense to me as it didn't address my point. So I responded with:
Sorry av, I don't see the connection between my point and yours.
And your response:
naturally, you cant see a connection between sex and life.
My response - quit digging :laugh2:
God wrote that did he?...Wheres the proof?
Does God have a copyright?
The real author (a human) wrote that and put gods name on it. The likely cause, as with most of the bible, is that these things were based on peoples opinions...not some higher power speaking to them.
Where's your proof He didn't?
JackDaniels
10-15-2007, 08:23 PM
Where's your proof He didn't?
When some dude starts walking around saying God spoke to him and told him to write a bunch of shit down, the burden of proof is on the guy to show its the word of God...end of story.
When some dude starts walking around saying God spoke to him and told him to write a bunch of shit down, the burden of proof is on the guy to show its the word of God...end of story.
He did. He performed miracles. Besides, He does not have to show proof, His divinity does not require it nor does my faith. You, however, seem to believe that you can call Him a fraud and not have to offer any proof for your "factual" assertion. Your assertion is your belief. You have no proof and that is why you got so upset over my post.
JackDaniels
10-15-2007, 08:43 PM
He did. He performed miracles.
This is where the burden of proof comes in. When someone claims to have performed a miracle, the burden of proof is on that person to prove it was a miracle.
Besides, He does not have to show proof, His divinity does not require it nor does my faith.
So you just blindly believe. That's really intelligent.
You, however, seem to believe that you can call Him a fraud and not have to offer any proof for your "factual" assertion. Your assertion is your belief. You have no proof and that is why you got so upset over my post.
You don't get it. If someone claims to have performed miracles, that person needs to somehow validate that. If I came knocking on your door and told you I could perform miracles, you'd call the cops. You don't just blindly believe...of course, unless it's that quaint myth about the hippie.
This is where the burden of proof comes in. When someone claims to have performed a miracle, the burden of proof is on that person to prove it was a miracle.
So you just blindly believe. That's really intelligent.
You don't get it. If someone claims to have performed miracles, that person needs to somehow validate that. If I came knocking on your door and told you I could perform miracles, you'd call the cops. You don't just blindly believe...of course, unless it's that quaint myth about the hippie.
People wrote down his miracles. It is you who now say those witnesses are lying and that those who did give proof are lying. Thus, the burden is shifted onto you. Go bone up on some law.
Additionally, your reasoning is illogical. You require me to have proof that Jesus is divine, yet, you do not need proof for your assertion that he is not. Nice.
It really is to bad you feel you have to keep insulting Jesus. What did he say or do to you that causes you to insult Him?
diuretic
10-15-2007, 09:16 PM
People wrote down his miracles. It is you who now say those witnesses are lying and that those who did give proof are lying. Thus, the burden is shifted onto you. Go bone up on some law.
Additionally, your reasoning is illogical. You require me to have proof that Jesus is divine, yet, you do not need proof for your assertion that he is not. Nice.
It really is to bad you feel you have to keep insulting Jesus. What did he say or do to you that causes you to insult Him?
The problem with miracles is proving they exist at all. The Roman Catholic church, wisely, is highly sceptical of the claims of miracles by other than Jesus. The Devil's Advocate is a very important role in the beatification or canonisation process.
Jesus' miracles are largely hearsay but there is a process whose name I can't think of right now which relies on the gathering of many independent accounts of the miracles and which, when taken together, tend to prove they occurred. I'm not convinced but that's neither here nor there.
On Jesus' divinity. It can't be proven. If it's an article of faith it doesn't require proof for the believer. For the believer in the face of the non-believer there is no proof to be given. Asking for proof on either account is missing the point.
JackDaniels
10-15-2007, 09:51 PM
People wrote down his miracles. It is you who now say those witnesses are lying and that those who did give proof are lying. Thus, the burden is shifted onto you. Go bone up on some law.
The Bible was not written by people who knew Jesus. It was written a generation later. Therefore, your argument is invalid.
Additionally, your reasoning is illogical. You require me to have proof that Jesus is divine, yet, you do not need proof for your assertion that he is not. Nice.
It's not illogical to assume that no one should ever be considered divine without proof of the divinity first. You have failed to show that. Therefore, your argument is invalid.
The Bible was not written by people who knew Jesus. It was written a generation later. Therefore, your argument is invalid.
.
It's not illogical to assume that no one should ever be considered divine without proof of the divinity first. You have failed to show that. Therefore, your argument is invalid.
2000 years ago oral tradition was very much alive. If you are going to make arguments, get some understanding first. It is irrelevent if it was "written" a generation later, the eye witnesses told their stories and back then, that was as good as someone writing it.
Then again, you can make all sorts of hogwash claims and then cry that you don't have to prove any of your claims. Its like you came to a debate but refuse to debate because "you say so."
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.