It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

the vatican getting ready to ban gay priests!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
If the Catholic church believes what the Bible says, then they would most assuredly ban gay priests, period. Regardless of what you or I or anyone else believes or does.

What do I believe? Not what the Bible seems to say.




posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Biblical Law: sell your daughter to her rapist, wearing two fabric clothing is a sin - if we're going to follow Biblical Law then follow it all okay? The other option is to consider that these laws do not apply to our society. "Be fruitful and multiply" - are you bloody nuts? I don't think God stopped reavelaing Godself with Revelation - the story is still being written therefore we need to keep responding.
Do you realize that half the Priests in the RC Church are gay? In Ontario they're mobilizing to approach the Vatican to oppose these proposals. What is the RC Church going to do without half its priests? This is going to be interesting indeed.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   
First, I'd like to comment on an aspect of this thread. The initial thread post made no mention whatsoever about pedophilia. The thread is dealing with the ordination of homosexual priests.

Pedophilia within the Church is a problem indeed and one that the Catholic Church should have confronted and dealt with openly and honestly. Unfortunately, the Church was often too wrapped up in preventing "scandal". How ironic that in their attempt to prevent, or more appropriately, hide scandal they created a greater one.

As for the ordination of homosexual priests. I cannot help but feel that this is within the aegis of the Church to decide. Frankly, this really has more to do with celibacy and it would seem that Church has deemed that men of a homosexual persuasion seem to have difficulty with the concept. Whether this is true or not, it is still Biblical in nature and the Church can certainly follow the teachings of the Bible.

I tend to think of the Catholic Church as a "private club". If one does not like the rules, there are certainly plenty of other religions and churches that one can join. In a sense, it is similar to the old conservative slogan that right-wing Americans bandied about during the Viet Nam War --
"America, love it or leave it". Well in the case of loving or leaving Ameridca, that was a ridiculous statement. America, The United States, IS the totality of all it's citizens. Protest is an cherished concept in America and everyone has a right to their opinion.

As far as the Church goes, people do not have a right to protest the Church. Oh sure, you can right letters and send post cards but the Church is the Church and it will do what it wants and deems appropriate. If the Church says no more homosexual priests then..... Still, it ultimately is a matter of celibacy. whether a man is heterosexual or homosexual really doesn't matter in the context of celibacy.

If a priest, of either sexual persuasion, wants to practice their sexuality -- great.....but first leave the priesthood or, I have to ask, why did they even enter the priesthood? Celibacy is not a very recent concept.

Celibacy is centuries old but, I will agree, not a scriptural one. At one time, priests were married and some rites of the Catholic Church still allow married priests (the Marion Rite comes to mind). Celibacy was a reaction to the sins of simony and from preventing favoritism for family over the community and the church.

Anyway, it's clear cut....the Church will not allow homosexual priests....I suppose that a gay man in a seminary could always simply lie (but that would be a sin).



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant[/I]

I tend to think of the Catholic Church as a "private club". If one does not like the rules, there are certainly plenty of other religions and churches that one can join. In a sense, it is similar to the old conservative slogan that right-wing Americans bandied about during the Viet Nam War - "America, love it or leave it". Well in the case of loving or leaving America, that was a ridiculous statement. America, The United States, IS the totality of all it's citizens. Protest is an cherished concept in America and everyone has a right to their opinion. As far as the Church goes, people do not have a right to protest the Church.


Any organization as large as the RCC, about 30% of the population, needs to conform to our nation’s laws respecting discrimination. Not as to its theology, but as to its practices that effect the rights of Americans, or as is suggested in this case, it may decide to ignore them.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   
IMO the problem is not who you accept into the priesthood, but the unrealistic and unbiblical requirement of celibacy placed upon them. The church of Rome invented this policy as a money saving measure, so as not to be responsible for whole families, merely single priests. The love of money being the root of all evil proves to be quite true.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Indeed, celibacy is a virtue but not a requirement of the NT. Also the RCC is not a forum for debate, this is dogma and people should have no say into it (can you debate God?). I'm not Catholic, but if you believe that stuff of the Pope being a Vicar, then can you debate Christ? err....no



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
Indeed, celibacy is a virtue but not a requirement of the NT. Also the RCC is not a forum for debate, this is dogma and people should have no say into it (can you debate God?). I'm not Catholic, but if you believe that stuff of the Pope being a Vicar, then can you debate Christ? err....no


You've laid hands upon the central error of the RCC. Anti-Christ means not only against Christ, but in place of Christ. The RCC has replaced Christ with the Pope and so invented 'another gospel'.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 03:44 AM
link   
My only question is - if the Vatican slaps a ban on gay priests, what will become of the five clergy men that remain?



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 04:44 AM
link   
The idea that the Roman Catholic church replaced Christ with the Pope is ludicrous. The Pope is nothing more than the titular head of Christ's Church on Earth. Christ bestowed this "power" to St. Peter when Christ said, "upon you I build my Church". Since that time, Peter became the first Pope. Following the earliest Christian tradition, subsequent "heads of the Church" or Popes, descended from the lineage that Peter started.

As far as a subsequent comment regarding the lack of priests.....well, the Church has faced difficulties before and persecution that drove the earliest Christians -- the Catholics -- underground, literally, into the catacombs. If the Church does lack priests and clerics because of "cleansing" then so be it. However, the traditions and history of the Church, I would think, are so ingrained that the Roman Catholic Church will continue to exist as long as Christianity exists.

I am often at a loss as to how there are Christian "sects" that could condemn Catholicism as being a false church when, essentially, Catholicism was the first Christian Church.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
No. That's propaganda. Christ never bestowed Peter the title of Vicar (which is to say Peter is some sort of Pharoah speaking for Christ on Earth with the Pope as his succesor).




AN'TI, n. [Gr. See Ante.]

...in place of.
Webster's 1828 Dictionary


Antichrist.

In place of Christ...



"[W]e hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."

--POPE LEO XIII

THE GREAT ENCYCLICAL LETTERS OF POPE LEO XIII
p. 304, Benziger Brothers (1903)


VIC'AR, n. [L. vicarius, from vicis]
...a substitute in office.
Webster's 1828 Dictionary

"For the Roman pontiff (pope), by reason of his office as VICAR OF CHRIST, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal POWER over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise UNHINDERED."


--CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, 1994, P. 254 #882


...the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

2 Thessalonians 2:2-4


"...I will be like the most High."

LUCIFER, ISAIAH 14:14



No, this just isn't right.


[edit on 5-3-2006 by Nakash]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   


the vatican getting ready to ban gay priests!


Maybe they should be more concerned with taking care of the pedophile priests that are already out there and the psycopath priests that are already out there. This is the pathetic catholic church's way of taking the attention off of the real problem: the pedophiles and other freaks that the religion attracts because it doesn't allow priests to marry.

Let the priests marry. They are human...it goes against nature. I could care less if a preist was gay. A gay priest (if he is not a pedophile) isn't going to rape and sodomize and altar boy. Just like a hetero priest that is not a pedophile isn't going to molest any children either.

I'm also confused. Because, in reality, priests shouldn't be gay or hetero should they? They can't have sex with anyone (supposedly), so how could they be gay or straight? Just the fact that the church wants to ban gay priest proves they know there is a huge problem out there and the problem is not gay priests!

FIX THE REAL PROBLEM!!!!!!!!



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Celibacy is the secret of the Catholic church. It allows the priests a tremendous amount of time to devote themselves to ways to expand the church. That's why they will never allow priests to marry (even if scripture says they can).



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 07:06 AM
link   


Celibacy is the secret of the Catholic church. It allows the priests a tremendous amount of time to devote themselves to ways to expand the church.


It's a secret? It gives them tremendous time to turn into freaks, not to devote themselves to the church. get real!



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
Celibacy is the secret of the Catholic church. It allows the priests time to devote to ways to expand the church. That's why they will never allow priests to marry.



The RCC and its off-shoots, including Protestants, are wrangling over the “meanings” found in forged scriptures. There is a lot of the “early” history I do not know, but there are some things I feel comfortable about.

First, because the First Church Council (disregarding the call by James and Peter to Paul to come to Jerusalem) was held at the call of Emperor Constantine and not the call of the pope, it is obvious the bishop of Rome was not specially regarded. It has been a long time since I read a list of the attendees at Nicea, but I am of the opinion the bishop of Rome was not invited and was not there. It is absolutely certain that the bishop of Rome had no particular standing at that time. Scholars place no credence on internal RCC papers or documents.

Second, because the First Church Council was held in Nicea, it is obvious that Rome was not specially regarded.

Third, it is agreeable to admit Paul did go to Rome but it is not certain he died there. Maybe he did, maybe he did not. In any case, it is positive he was never a bishop of Rome, and most certainly never a pope, an office that did not exist until about 400 AD.

Last, it is apparent to me that Peter never traveled to Rome. The last books contained in the NT were written in the last decades of the First Century or the first decade of the Second Century. Mark and Paul’s letters being among the first books. Had Peter traveled to Rome at all, it seems this event would have been mentioned by an early writer, if any religious connotations were put on such a trip. Further, travel in those days was very hazardous. Read Paul’s account of the hazzards of travel. No one took such a trip without strong motivation. If the sea voyage was dangerous, to travel over land was impossible.

Based on the NT, each congregation had its own leaders or bishops as they were sometimes called, elders at other times. I’d surmise that when Paul went to Rome - around 55 - 64 AD - there may have been several congregations in Rome, so it is entirely consistent with my understanding that Rome likely had more than one bishop or elder at the same time, early on.

In the first century church, when a person was referred to as ‘bishop of Alexandra’ or ‘bishop of Damascus,’ it was as legitimate to infer that the man so described was a resident of Alexandria or Damascus and not necessarily that he was the superior religious person of the whole city. Again, there may have been a dozen bishops in Alexandria, for example. There is no mention in the early writings in the NT that there was one person acknowledged or designated as a superior in religion in each city.

In conclusion, I assert the Christian religion was founded by Constantine, was given its fundamental theology by Augustine who was a disciple (follower) of Aristotle. Jesus was only incidental in the whole process. In fact, I believe if you refer to the Jefferson Bible, you will get the best impression of what early churchman might have felt. Before Constantine formalized the religion. I also recommend Gibbons’ “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” as the best and most thorough history of the growth of the Roman papacy.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Well, I agree for the most part, but:

1)Protestants are not an offshoot of the RCC. This is simply because Protestantism didn't start with Martin Luther, Martin Luther merely attempted (and succeeded) into placing into the mainstream the theology which the RCC persecuted without mercy for centuries. There have been always two churches in Christendom- institutional and underground.

2) Well, I agree that the voyage towards Rome was risky and dangerous, however, we must take Paul's story of what happened (and the motivation was undoubtably there). He shipwrecked once in Malta I believe, and some sort of divine intervention occured during that incident which prevented the ship from collapsing and having everybody killed. From Malta he sailed without problems to Rome. A Shipwreck did occur, but it wasn't fatal. Paul had to go to Rome to await trial, one way or another, it's just a question over whether he survived (which I believe he did).

I believe Constantine was the first Pope, and Augustine of Hippo probably the first Catholic (at leats he was one of the first theologians of Catholicism). The history and facts suggest that.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
CNN Headline Alert -- Roman Catholic archdiocese of Dublin report says 102 priests are suspected of sexually or physically abusing at least 350 children since 1940, The Associated Press reports.


Originally posted by skep
With the Vatican's history of concern for justice and fairness, I assume that Gay Bishops and Cardinals will not be banned under the announced purge of “Gay Priests”! After all, the reputation of the Catholic Church must be secured. What? Skep [Editied by Don W]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Excellent and long overdue. The church is not some government humanist socialist globalist organization that all the liberals and lefties can mould to their own desired shape. About time



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash[/I]
Well, I agree for the most part, but:

1) Protestants are not an offshoot of the RCC. This is simply because Protestantism didn't start with Martin Luther, Martin Luther merely attempted to place into the mainstream the theology which the RCC persecuted without mercy for centuries.

2) Well, I agree that the voyage towards Rome was risky and dangerous, however, we must take Paul's story of what happened. Paul had to go to Rome to await trial.

I believe Constantine was the first Pope, and Augustine of Hippo [was] one of the first theologians of Catholicism. The history and facts suggest that. [Edited by Don W]


DISCLAIMER. Let me stress I have no quarrel with “good” Catholics who are “sincerely” following the tenets of their religion. What a person believes, so long as it does not harm others, is not my business. For example, I do not accept the doctrines of the immaculate conception, the perpetual virginity of Mary or the transubstantiation of the Eucharist. And etc. but that is me. I cannot demand any one accept or agree with me.

RESUME. I am however, very much critical of the politics and practices of the historic RCC, and especially its actions in the 2nd millennium. Much of that history is of the struggle of man to become free of thought control, especially as practiced often, best and most by the RCC.

In other realms, the RCC managed to prevent Italy from unifying, for example, in furtherance of its own non-religious political and economic agenda. Italy became a single political entity on March 17, 1861. In 1929, Prime Minister Benito Mussolini and for Pope Pius XI, Cardinal Pietro Gasparri, papal secretary of state, signed 3 agreements or treaties, ending the RCC’s claims on the old Papal States. Finally, in 1984 a revised treaty was signed which, among other things, ended the Church's status as the state-supported religion of Italy.

Other Reformers or Protesters.
Arnold of Brescia. Arnold sounded one of the earliest voices against worldliness in the church. Innocent II banished Arnold from Italy. Frederick Barbarossa arrested him and burned him at the stake.

Peter Waldo (or Valdez or Valdo) of Lyons. He gave away his goods to follow Christ's example. Waldo's devotion soon drew disciples. He sent these followers out two-by-two just as Jesus sent out the 70. Waldensians rejected oaths, warfare, magistracy, capital punishment, and some of them renounced self-defense. Others rejected the doctrines of transubstantiation, infant baptism, and tried to return to simple apostolic Christianity. In 1181, the Archbishop of Lyons ordered the Waldensians to stop preaching. Although Waldo's followers stood firm in their convictions, they were soon to be the most persecuted group in Europe. Slaughtered to a man in the 1300s under papal orders.

John Wyclif, a Yorkshire native. During the Avignon period, England recognized the Pope was zealously representing the interest of France. The English and the papacy often found themselves at odds. When England's national identity grew strong so did its distrust of France and its relationship to the Pope. Pope Boniface VIII claimed Scotland in 1299.

Wyclif, as Rector of Lutterworth, served as the English church's liaison to the Avignon papacy. Wyclif rejected papal authority prior to the Great Schism in 1378. He felt church fiscal matters were badly in need of reform. He denied transubstantiation, called the Pope the anti-Christ, argued the priesthood of all believers, condemned the saint cult and the veneration of relics. He repudiated the sale of indulgences and masses for the dead. Wyclif then translated the New Testament into the vernacular English by 1380.

John Hus, born 11373, educated at the University of Prague, became the university president. He took priestly vows in 1400. He attracted attention because he preached in both Latin and Czech. In 1410, Prague's Archbishop obtained a papal order prohibiting Hus preaching in private chapels and calling for Hus's books to be burned. Hus’s public support came partly because he railed against the FIRST John XXIII's sale of indulgences.

The Council of Constance ordered Hus to appear before it in 1414. Sigismund guaranteed Hus safe conduct. Hus went, thinking he could leave at any time, and confident that he could successfully argue his opinions with the theologians. He was wrong on both counts.

The Council arrested Hus immediately. Once jailed, he found that guarantees to heretics don't count. Sigismund protested the action but had no power to stop it. The Council imprisoned Hus for six months, tried him and burned him at the stake for heresy on July 6, 1414.

The church needed reform, but the church refused to listen. The church felt their reform method was superior to all others. To their shame, their method - Conciliarism - had failed.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   
lets put this into perspective. priest take a vow of sullabicey. that means they are sapposed to be above the trappings of physical attraction. when they look at some one they should not feel an attraction wether they are a man or woman. theyre for preast should not be straight or gay but more like asexual. therefore any priest who claims a sexuality should be banned
from the church....straight or gay !!!!!!!!



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
The bible says Pastors can marry. Unfortunately the RCC isn't biblical, it keeps the celibacy rule so it's members can devote full energy to it's tasks (no matter the cost). Forget it, the RCC will never allow married priests, nor Gays (since homosexuality is so clearly condemned in the Bible that allowing this will make it look bad).




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join