Catholic Bishops Say Gays Should Remain Celibate

[Bronco_Beerslug]

No wonder church attendance is declining in this country! Do these "religious leaders" even realize what century they are living in?

------------------------------------------------------------
Catholic bishops say gays should remain celibate
By Andy Sullivan

BALTIMORE (Reuters) - U.S. Catholic bishops said on Tuesday that gay men and women should be welcomed in the church but that those who engage in same-sex activity should not receive Communion.

Guidelines adopted by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops encouraged gays and lesbians to participate in the church while reaffirming long-standing doctrine that gay sex is form of "moral disorder."

"Because homosexual acts cannot fulfill the natural end of human sexuality they are never morally acceptable," said Bishop Arthur Serratelli, who headed the committee that crafted the guidelines. "Such acts furthermore do not lead to true human happiness."

The head of a group of gay Catholics said the new policy would only drive gays and lesbians further from the church.

"They tell people they should just stay in the closet. It's not a healthy approach for anyone," said Sam Sinnett, president of the gay Catholic group DignityUSA, in a phone interview.

The church has publicly wrestled with sexual issues in recent years after the
Vatican barred adoption by gay couples and a pedophile priest scandal spread across the nation.

The new guidelines attempt to reconcile the church's strict teachings on sexuality with an American flock of 65 million that frequently ignores them.

One committee found that only 4 percent of married Catholics use the church's preferred method of natural family planning instead of artificial birth-control methods.

The new guidelines condemn discrimination and violence against gays and lesbians, but oppose same-sex marriages and civil unions and say that those who are openly gay should not serve as priests or nuns.

Adoption by gay couples is also discouraged, though children of gay couples can be baptized if they are likely to be raised within the church.

The guidelines acknowledge that gays and lesbians do not choose their sexual orientation and homosexual "inclinations" are not in themselves sinful.

But those who feel such inclinations should remain celibate and should not tell anybody other than close friends and family about them, the document says.
CONT (http://tinyurl.com/yf33f3)

[Smiling Assassin27]

Funny, I thought it was St. Paul that laid that one down, not the Catholic bishops. This is not new--Christianity has taught on this from day 1. But go ahead and assault the messenger, as i know this is where this thread is going. Just do yourself a favor before you make uneducated statements and read up on the origin of that teaching in Christian History.

[Smiling Assassin27]

p.s. If the Bishops had nads, they'd do the same thing to pro-abort politicians but they're too weak and afraid.

[Garcia Bronco]

If they weren't having sex...then they wouldn't be gay

[Smiling Assassin27]

is that medically verified or just inane ramblings?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Funny, I thought it was St. Paul that laid that one down, not the Catholic bishops. This is not new--Christianity has taught on this from day 1. But go ahead and assault the messenger, as i know this is where this thread is going. Just do yourself a favor before you make uneducated statements and read up on the origin of that teaching in Christian History.
Why? Have Christians always said Gays are welcome in the church?

[orangenblue2]

Why? Have Christians always said Gays are welcome in the church?

Touche'...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Touche'...Hey, I'm always up for being "educated". :)

[Rohirrim]

The church says that priests should remain celibate too. Of course, if they really believed that, they'd get rid of the choir boys. ;D

[TailgateNut]

The church says that priests should remain celibate too. Of course, if they really believed that, they'd get rid of the choir boys. ;D


I assume if a preacher has sex with a man/boy , he's protected because he's been "saved"!

[Rohirrim]

I assume if a preacher has sex with a man/boy , he's protected because he's been "saved"!

In the Catholic church he's protected because his bishop moves him to another parish.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

In the Catholic church he's protected because his bishop moves him to another parish.

:rofl:

[bendog]

Funny thing is that people of the rel right read Paul from their viewpoint, as if the words have the same meaning in their personal context as they did to whom Paul was writing. Yet, that's exactly the philisophical problem we "conservatives" have with Sup Ct. Justices who say the const is a "living document." That is, the rel right makes no attempt to get at Paul's 'original intent.' Just an ironic inconsistency that comes to mind sometimes.

[spdirty]

I assume if a preacher has sex with a man/boy , he's protected because he's been "saved"!

1st John Chapter 1 will give you the answer.

[spdirty]

Funny thing is that people of the rel right read Paul from their viewpoint, as if the words have the same meaning in their personal context as they did to whom Paul was writing. Yet, that's exactly the philisophical problem we "conservatives" have with Sup Ct. Justices who say the const is a "living document." That is, the rel right makes no attempt to get at Paul's 'original intent.' Just an ironic inconsistency that comes to mind sometimes.

And who is the "religious right?" Is it just Catholics? Catholics and Baptists? Or are you going to just lump everyone who claims to be christian together?

[spdirty]

No wonder church attendance is declining in this country! Do these "religious leaders" even realize what century they are living in?

So what are we suppose to do? Change the bible in order to get more attendees? Or just ignore those inconvenient passages in there to show we are 'more progressive' like this "church" did?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KRcv9u9x3z8

[orangenblue2]

So what are we suppose to do? Change the bible in order to get more attendees?

No. How about recognizing the bible for what it is. That would be a great place to start.

Or just ignore those inconvenient passages in there...

As if almost every self-professed "christian" doesn't already do that??? What the hell are you talking about?

[BroncoInferno]

As if almost every self-professed "christian" doesn't already do that??? What the hell are you talking about?

No kidding. I don't see the literalists executing children who talk back to their parents as is commanded in the Old Testament. I know, I know...that was the old law...God used to think it was a good idea to execute mouthy kids, but softened up a bit in his old age Hilarious!

[alkemical]

i would have been stoned to death a long time ago if we lived on OT law.

[spdirty]

No. How about recognizing the bible for what it is. That would be a great place to start.
Oh please elaborate.


As if almost every self-professed "christian" doesn't already do that??? What the hell are you talking about?

And please tell me, what passages do almost every self proclaimed "christian" ignore?

[RaiderH8r]

i would have been stoned to death a long time ago if we lived on OT law.

I would have been stoned a long time ago if my connection hadn't flaked on me.:afro:

[alkemical]

I would have been stoned a long time ago if my connection hadn't flaked on me.:afro:

everything costs as much as it's supposed to.... lol

[BroncoInferno]

i would have been stoned to death a long time ago if we lived on OT law.

Hell, many fundamentalist Christians would have been stoned to death going by OT law. God was a crotchety mo-fo back in those days.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Oh please elaborate.
And please tell me, what passages do almost every self proclaimed "christian" ignore?

It's clear you haven't had very much experience discussing religion around here (with orangenblue2).

[orangenblue2]

Oh please elaborate.

The "holy bible" is really sixty-six different books. These books had many, many unknown and differing authors. They have been translated, copied, edited, added to, and deleted from, literally, thousands of times. These 66 books are further broken down into two major sections, namely the "old testament" with 39 of the books, and the "new testament" consisting of 27. Catholic bibles add an additional 12 books known as the "apocrypha". In fact, different branches of Eastern Orthodox and others don't even include some of the books that you'll find in your bible. Presumably, they don't know what they're missing.;) The books now included in your "holy bible" were chosen at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. Nobody can say for certain why some books were included and others weren't. What is known is that there were many arguments and disagreements between the competing interests, but eventually these 66 were chosen. Now, to the crux of your query: I'm always happy to "elaborate" on what the "bible" is or isn't. The "bible" is an incoherent mishmash of blatant contradictions (often in the same book), ridiculous errors, patent absurdities, huge incongruities, outright fabrications, obvious parallels to much older religions/cults/myths/fables, and all around BS. What the "bible" isn't is the divinely inspired "word of god" that many people (yourself included, apparently...) believe it to be. Even a cursory perusal on your part should lead you to question the veracity of the "bible's" contents.




And please tell me, what passages do almost every self proclaimed "christian" ignore?

Holy crap... Where do you want me to start???

[orangenblue2]

I'm going to bump this because I want to hear what Spdirty has to say...He must have missed it way down on the bottom...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I'm going to bump this because I want to hear what Spdirty has to say...He must have missed it way down on the bottom...
I'm thinking spdirty is laying low from this thread now :)

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Bump for sp.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I guess sp doesn't really want his question answered after all.

[bendog]

And who is the "religious right?" Is it just Catholics? Catholics and Baptists? Or are you going to just lump everyone who claims to be christian together?

To me rel right is anyone who says the Bible (or NT) in inerrent and reads it from their own viewpoint ... rather than attempting to grasp the intent of whomever was writing the particular passage.