| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Those Revoltin' Episcopalians! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 17 2006, 06:18 AM (2,178 Views) | |
| Dewey | Dec 19 2006, 03:56 AM Post #76 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Conviction certainly enters into the equation. Conviction is a key precursor to repentance, which is a necessity for our salvation. But I believe that just we are never fully successful in our repentance, neither are we fully successful even in our conviction. I believe that human ability can at best only partially meet God's demands of perfection, all the way down the line when considering how humans must be in order to be saved. I can never fully, perfectly achieve even one aspect of the process. This, in fact, is the meaning of that phrase "total depravity" that you hear believers of Calvinist origin throwing around. It doesn't mean, as many misunderstand, that there is no good at all in us, or that we're all just as bad and sinful as we can possibly be. It simply means that there is no aspect of our existence that is totally pure, perfect, and untainted by sin. There is not one tiny aspect of us that is the pure "spark" that we can depend on to save us of our own doing, if we would only nurture it. There is no perfect illumination, no perfect conviction, no perfect repentance. We cannot rely at any point in the process on our perfect execution of God's requirements for salvation. We all are reconciled only through God's grace, which is bestowed solely where, when, and how God wills. And this is every bit as true of those in the pulpit as those in the pew. My position is not a call to continue to living in a sinful manner. Just the opposite, actually. But I am saying that every single believer, past, present, and future, lives in the middle of this contradiction of the demand for holiness and human self-deception and willful sinfulness. It's a simple reality of the makeup of human beings. While ordained servants are expected to make every effort to live lives generally more in accordance with Scriptural standards than other people, those in charge of ordaining have always had to make compromises (knowingly and unknowingly), deciding which sinful aspects of an ordinand's existence was minor and still permitted ordination, and which were major and barred them from such status. The question is whether the overall package of the person's life was such that they were fit to represent God to others - were they a model, even if highly imperfect, as even the most perfect human could ever be, of God's love in practice for the people of the church and the world? In the past, and continuing into the present, one of those non-negotiatiable lines has been the sin of homosexual activity. It has been, and continues to be held, that this one type of sin is a "major" sin - one that, even in the face of an otherwise exemplary life befitting ordained service to God's Church, would be a humanly defined non-starter for a person sensing a call to ordination. I've simply come to believe that this is not a fair interpretation of scriptural dictates and God's will. I do not believe that using homosexuality by itself as a club to beat an ordinand with - to use as a make-or-break determinant in discerning the validity of a call that, we need to remember, originates from God, not our own respective Books of Order - is a mistaken application of the actual teachings of our faith. This isn't (or shouldn't be) a debate over whether engaging in homosexuality is a sin or not. It is a debate over whether anyone seeking ordination must be perfect in the conviction, repentance, and living of their lives in accordance with scriptural dictates, in order to be worthy of ordination. I personally don't believe that this is even possible, let alone that it is actually the case, for those ordained or not. Frankly, if any ordained person made a claim to me that they were, in fact, such a paragon of human perfection, I'd quickly find another, more honest, spiritual advisor. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Dec 19 2006, 09:32 AM Post #77 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
But whether we like it or not, humans will tend to grade sin, even if God does not. If you are a drunkard, most will not accept you in the pulpit down here. If you are a whoremonger, most will not accept you in the pulpit down here. OTOH, if one repents of his sin and endeavors not to repeat his mistakes, even among the most conservative he can find acceptance. Methinks the question may be how much sin will a congregation tolerate, before you have no congregation at all? |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Dec 19 2006, 10:32 AM Post #78 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Yes, we all do. This is partly because of our own biases, and is further reinforced by the requirement of rendering gradations of sin as is required by trying to establish a civil legal code that is as moral, just, and merciful as humanly possible. But, as regards our doing so in the realm of faith, that doesn't make it right. We have no moral authority to render such gradations to the extent that we render forebearance, tolerance, and love in one measure for ourselves, and in lesser measure for others (i.e., I may be ordained because my own sins are more hidden or more socially acceptable to my immediate community of faith, while someone else who is equally devout and equally called may not be ordained, because their sins are of a less hidden or socially acceptable type). Grading sin is in itself sinful - particularly if we use our human gradations to obstruct and frustrate another person's call from God to a chosen vocation within God's Church. Ordination comes from God, not humans.
So do I, and to that I will say not only "how much" but "what kind" of sin. And in your post, you've alluded to part of the answer - "down here," particular types or combinations of sin may not be congregationally acceptable, while others are more tolerable. "Over there," and "up here," and "across those hills," the human priorities for which types and quantities of sin are tolerable will similarly vary. You've stated the issue correctly: each sub-community chooses to be more tolerant of some sins than others. While that's obvious and factual, it's also wrong and hypocritical. To be really honest, to me it's actually a little - I don't know, "annoying" isn't the perfectly appropriate adjective, but it comes close enough - that this is really discussed as a "gay issue." Despite the fact that that's the turf on which it's most often fought in current times, to me it isn't simply a "gay issue" at all. My position on this is based not at all on matters of sexuality, but on the issue of equal treatment and forebearance among the brethren. We are all equally, if differently, flawed, and as a Christian, I must - I am commanded to - offer loving forebearance and tolerance to all others who are just as flawed as I am, in equal measure as I'd hope and expect from them - and from God. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Dec 19 2006, 10:48 AM Post #79 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
But what you are suggesting is non-differentation of laity and clergy. In a pefect world, that would be the case. It is not hypocritical to work within the realms of what our reality is - and in this case, since perfection cannot be achieved, we have those who are more perfect vs those who are less so. To cite an extreme example, is there no difference between Mother Theresa and an unrepetent murderer, given the quality of their Christian witness? |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Dec 19 2006, 11:31 AM Post #80 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I'm doing no such thing. I'm pointing out that both laity and clergy are similarly inescapably flawed due to their shared humanity. Beyond that, I will say that there is not truly a whopping difference between laity and clergy, but the difference that does exist is primarily that of call to a specific task of leadership (pastoral, teaching, governing), and specialized training to execute that call. It certainly does include a commitment to a higher example of moral living, but it does not extend to become a requirement of flawlessness. The example of Mother Teresa versus an unrepentant murder is not applicable to this issue(although in God's eyes, Mother Teresa is no more able to save her own soul through her acts of charity than is the unrepentant murderer). A more applicable, more direct, example would be the case of a believer who you've known your entire life. He grew up in the church. His faith has rarely strayed, even through turbulent teen years. Over the years, you've seen an unquestionable, special aspect about him - a spirit of keen perception regarding Biblical interpretation, a deeply compassionate heart to help those in need, a powerful ability to teach, challenge, and inspire others to love God and to live as God's disciples, honoring God and expressing God's love to those around us. He's one of those people that when he speaks about spiritual issues, people just stop, listen, and marvel at his insights. Clearly, this man has been empowered by the Holy Spirit, and called by God to an ordained ministry. But he's gay. For most of his adult life, he's lived a normal, relatively quiet life partnered with another man, and they've been living in an openly gay manner, and been part of the community as such, for years. In all else in this man's life, he is an example for others to follow, in terms of his sense of spreading the word of God, living selflessly in service to others, and speaking with unusual, perhaps even prophetic, voice regarding understanding the Scriptures. But he's gay. So, because of that one criterion, he is barred from an ordained ministry, despite the fact that taken as a whole, his life and his gifts to the Church are actually more exemplary than those of many other ordained ministers, who simply don't share this one particular characteristic in common with this man. I do not believe that denying this man the right to pursue a vocation that God has called him to, due to arbitrary human prioritization, is in any way compatible with the entire message of Christian Scriptures - not the Gospels, not the letters of Paul, and not the Hebrew Bible. This kind of treatment would simply be inconsistent with the entire message of Scripture. How will we answer Christ when, in anger, he asks why we had the gall to stand in the way of God's purpose for this man's life in the kingdom, and the gifts that God gave him? How many lives may go unsaved, or unchallenged to become better disciples? How many troubled gay or lesbian teens will slide into drug or alcohol use, and depression, or have suicidal tendencies, because this man wasn't available to provide a positive, affirming word and example to them? How many people will continue in the sinful delusion that it's okay to treat others with a different yardstick than we measure ourselves with - that that's the reality, just the way it is? |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Dec 19 2006, 12:30 PM Post #81 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
I'm sorry, but what the gentleman is engaged in is a known sin, and he is an unrepetent sinner. In fact, he promotes the sin through his actions. As such, I think it most certainly hurts his witness, and I would submit it does disqualify him from the clergy. It does not disqualify him or preclude his association with the laitey. I'm not standing in the way of his walk with God, he is. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 19 2006, 12:33 PM Post #82 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You presume a whole lot, Dewey, about what God's purposes are for *this man*. Many are called but few are chosen. I understand that you consider the matter of sexual orientation to be not important, and I know you understand that I disagree with that. It is a matter that involves the whole person -- their ego, self esteem, habits, conditioning, formation, existential struggles, what affirms the individual, passions, appetites, etc. That is not to say that anyone dealing with any particular set of issues cannot find holiness and sanctification through it -- which is, I think, that only truthful thing that can be said about "God's purpose for this man's life in the kingdom". Nor is it to say that God does not or cannot employ any of us in his plans and purposes. But exchange any other set of virtues/vices: does not irascibility, or intemperance, or stinginess, covetousness, womanizing, porno-oriented, gluttony, etc. limit our effectiveness? The scalpel must be sharp and without defect or rust -- as sharp as it possibly can be with our efforts cooperating with God's grace. If homosexuality is indeed salutary to the person (and not a disorder of the passions in the way that the other "vices" are) then the notion that one ought not consider it part of the personal existential struggle toward holiness is correct. That is far from proven -- in fact, given the man that you described, once you bracket out the homosexuality, you are describing a virtually perfect man. A complete saint. Another mahatma. Perhaps he is, but I have my doubts (without ever having met the man, just from my observation of virtually every other person I've ever met). The bottom line is that I am not clear if you are bracketing out homosexuality as part of the fallen human condition. Is the homosexual inclination not another manifestation of that deeply personal cross that we are called to take up and carry? Do you instead consider it to be a positively beneficial component in the human person? Or is it just a preference as some folks like vanilla and others chocolate? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Dec 19 2006, 12:50 PM Post #83 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
The issue is not that he has sin in his life, but that we are willing to tolerate other sins by other people while we would demand a different and higher standard from him. You keep reverting back to the "I'm sorry, what he's doing is sin; he has unrepentant sin in his life" statement; to which my answer remains "Well duh; so do you, and so does your own pastor, whether you like to admit it or not." I have never said that engaging in homosexuality is not a sin. I have said, and continue to say, that it is no greater a sin than those sins in my own life that I cannot avoid and that, frankly, occasionally I don't even want to give up or even concede is sin. As I said earlier, I do not believe that either our repentance, or our initial conviction, is ever possible to be perfect. You seem to want to believe that clergy must, and do, achieve such perfection. I simply don't believe they are capable of doing so, and that a person can be an effective and powerful witness to God and their faith despite some evidence of their sinful nature. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Dec 19 2006, 01:10 PM Post #84 |
|
MAMIL
|
Are big fat unrepentant cake-snaffling lard-arses permitted to be priests? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Dec 19 2006, 01:19 PM Post #85 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Uh, no I don't. There are things I've done, and things I do, that I continually kick myself over, and ask a hopefully benevolent God for his Mercy. I can only go and try to ascribe to the lofty goal of "sin no more". I'm not going to make it, I can only hope for a Second Working of Grace, as some describe it...so that I can resist temptation and do better than before. But let me be unequivocal in this...we all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God...but the man who does not get on his knees and at least try to make things right as best he can, does not deserve to wear the cloth. The collar may be white, but the feet are cloven. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Dec 19 2006, 01:27 PM Post #86 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Of course I do. I'm trying to make a point regarding how we have historically graded homosexuality as a more heavily weighted sin than other sins for which we all have our own customized levels of toleration.
Although you didn't mean it as such, that's actually my point - that in determining whether one is fit to be ordained, the ordaining body must look at the whole person, not a single aspect of his or her life.
Obviously, yes, and here again, you're making my point. While there are certain vice you've listed that might make ordination tough, I doubt that someone would be refused ordination because they were inclined toward stinginess, irascibility, covetousness, self-pride, etc. The point is that we all operate under limits on our effectiveness as a result of our sinful nature, ordained and otherwise. To say that the hypothetical guy from my earlier post should be denied being considered for ordination because his homosexuality would limit his witness or effectiveness in the office any more than someone else's different sets of vices would, is to make a judgment that I don't think we're qualified to make, and is acutally a mistake that is inconsistent with Scripture.
Of course I am. It's my illustration; I'll frame it however I want. I deliberately made the illustration so stark to make the point that what bugs people about the situation is not the quantity of the sin. And it's not really that it's *any* sin. Rather, that the issue is this *particular* sin, that we place a higher degree on. The point was exactly that: if this person truly had only *one* sin - that this would be far less sin - that is, that he would be living a more holy lifestyle - than any randomly selected ordained clergy member could claim. Yet because it was *this particular sin*, some would automatically rule out his ordination. That was precisely my point. And if you make this hypothetical "Mahatma" more realistic - just an average, decent, run-of-the-mill guy, the illustration remains true - because so are the rest of the lives of the ordained clergy members otherwise rather average, decent, and run-of-the-mill, except for whatever their particular Achilles Heel happens to be.
I don't think the issue is simply a vanilla/chocolate thing. I do see its origin in creation's fallen nature. However, being forced to live this side of the fall, I see it as an unavoidable reality of our existence that is to be faced and dealt with in love, and in accordance with scriptural calls for toleration and forebearance equal to that which I would hope for from others, and from God. To that end, I see it as having a potential benefit, to the extent that a gay or lesbian person can help exemplify to other people who are also gay or lesbian understand that God loves them and has a place for them at the table, too. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Dec 19 2006, 01:40 PM Post #87 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Then you would effectively be arguing for eliminating the clergy, because every single one of them - and us - clings onto some sin or sins in their lives that they know is wrong, yet they cannot or will not eliminate from their life. I know that you disagree, and I understand and respect that disagreement. I held the same belief for most of my adult life. I just don't agree with it any more. And I don't like disagreeing with you Jolly, because while we differ on a few matters of faith, we actually agree on far more. You and Ivorythumper both fit into this category with me, and it grates on me whenver this subject comes up because I know that we'll inevitably end up in different corners of the boxing ring. On this count, though, we'll just have to disagree. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| OperaTenor | Dec 19 2006, 03:04 PM Post #88 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
Dewey, thank you for all of the things you write. I learn a lot from you. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| George K | Dec 19 2006, 03:22 PM Post #89 |
|
Finally
|
Dewey is smart. Very smart. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Dec 19 2006, 03:23 PM Post #90 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Of course, there are those who would say I'm causing you more harm than help. Listen to both sides of the discussion, because there are lots of very good points made by my "opponents" in this particular issue, too - both of whom I hold in very, very high regard. Despite our obvious differences, we're all sincerely, and with the best intentions of discerning God's will, trying to understand and come to grips with a complex issue. We've just come up with different opinions on this one. And make no mistake, while many others agree with my thoughts on the matter, it is still a minority opinion within the faith. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Dec 19 2006, 04:01 PM Post #91 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Oh, I don't mind disagreeing, it's how we Southern Baptists propagate! And I understand your position, I just don't agree with it. Since you a reasonable man, I just have to find a winning argument...
|
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Dec 19 2006, 04:11 PM Post #92 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
I agree with all three of you. It's all a consequence of the Fall that makes us imperfect. |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Dec 19 2006, 05:02 PM Post #93 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
I admit I haven't read the whole thread ....just the last two pages. A fascinating discussion. Let me pose a question to Dewey, and I'm sure Jolly and others may want to weigh in as well. Dewey, out of that series of sins or character flaws -- irascibility, stinginess, all the way to homosexuality (and I might add bigotry, among others) you argue that homosexuality should not be held up as a particular barrier to ordination. It is no more of a problem than any other ones on the list. On the other hand, if someone of otherwise good character had one of these behavioral traits other than homosexuality, wouldn't we expect them to struggle with that flaw in order to attempt improvement over time. We certainly wouldn't expect them to accept their inclinations or behaviors as their particular flaw without any attempt to change. If homosexuality is a problem on that list, wouldn't we expect a clergy member, like any of the laity, to struggle against that flaw? As an Episcopalian myself in Virginia, this is now a really pressing issue, isn't it! Like you, I'm in the big-tent wing of the church. Right now I'm just trying to nail down exactly what your logic is. |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Dec 19 2006, 07:31 PM Post #94 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Dewey can correct my misrepresentation, but if I can boil his argument down in a nutshell, it is basically that all humans are flawed, that we cannot achieve perfection and that to demand a higher standard in the clergy is to ignore our human frailty. It fails to give due credit to the magnanimity of God's Grace. In essence, the perfect is unobtainable, and most definitely the enemy of the good. My argument is that even though perfect is unobtainable, we are commanded to toil towards that goal. And in my own twist, I could even add that we are given a Second Work of Grace in order to help in that pursuit. Lastly, I would add that sin comes in two flavors - the stuff we try not to do, but fail and must repent from...and the sin we know is wrong, yet we do not repent or turn away from, which is most hindersome in our relation with God. In essence, the only way to walk in the light given us is to put sin and Satan behind us, using the tools God has given us. (Do next time jump in earlier, the more the merrier... )
|
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Dec 19 2006, 07:32 PM Post #95 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
That's an excellent queston, PD. In fact, your point is parallelling the primary thrust of Jolly's position, just stated a little differently. I believe that homosexuality is, in the vast majority of cases, not a simple learned behavioral trait that can simply be overcome. I believe that it has genetic origins, or that it is otherwise so deeply embedded in a person's makeup that whether it's actually genetic or not is really a moot point. As such, I believe that if anything, toleration of gay ordinands should be more likely than toleration of other human shortcomings from God's ideal that are of less fundamental/structural origin. But that's just it - none of us can completely rid ourselves of committing even those "easier" kinds of sins. My belief in how far removed we are from meeting God's ideal goes even further: Not only are we incapable of completely and perfectly ridding ourselves of such sins, we're not even capable of completely and perfectly wanting to rid ourselves of them. Put in more theological terms, we will feel conviction, but it will be incomplete and imperfect conviction. Our conviction will result in repentance, but it will be incomplete and imperfect repentance. I believe that's the best we're capable of, and that we must rely on the grace of God to bridge the gap between our incomplete half-step toward God, and where God needs us to be for reconciliation with God. Thankfully, that's the whole message of the Gospel, that this is exactly what Christ does for us. Going one step further, I don't believe even the imperfect half-step that we make in God's direction is possible without God's first acting in our lives to cause it. So yes, our lives are to be a process of constantly refining and improving our lives to that end - that's the process of "sanctification." Yet, even our striving and continual improvement will be imperfect. And how much more unreasonable it is to expect someone whose sin is much more structural in origin (as I believe homosexuality to be) than our own, to reach a state of turning away from sin that we can't achieve for ourselves in dealing with sins of a less structural basis(by this, I mean that all of our lives, we sill still have sins that we know are sinful and still refuse to let go of). Also, don't forget this: no one's life is beset by only one particular sin. The hypothetical "Mahatma" that I described earlier doesn't exist anywhere in the real world. We all have multiple fronts on which we battle sin and gradually work toward sanctification. While a gay man may never reach God's ideal regarding human sexuality, he may be working on, and making improvements in, other areas of his sinful nature in his walk of faith. So a gay man's not dealing with one specific aspect of falling short of God's ideal is no more, or no less, evidence of his worthiness for ordination than is our own failure do deal with one specific aspect of our own having fallen short. There's plenty of shortcomings on both of our plates. I don't believe that a decision regarding potential ordination should come down to one specific serving on that plate; rather, I think it should depend on the entirety of the person's being, and the potential to serve God through the particular anticipated ordained office. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Dec 19 2006, 07:47 PM Post #96 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I think you boiled that one a tad too long; the latter half of your analysis doesn't resemble my position very much at all. In that summary, you cobbled together a given and a goober. But it's late, and I'm tired. Another day, bud. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 19 2006, 08:15 PM Post #97 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
OK, that's not my issue, nor the Catholic Church's. Homosexual behavoir (from the evidence of the medieval penance books) is not considered particularly odious. Any sort of signicant vice or character defect would recommend a person be not admitted to ordination. More about that later.
I would suggest that sexuality is sufficiently encompassing of the whole person, determinative, identifying, and existentially significant, that it is can not be considered a single aspect. Can't speak for the Presbies, but such a candidate would (and ought) be barred from seminary formation and ordination under canon law. Part of the vocational selection process and seminary formation is to discern whether the candidate is healthy, of solid moral character, living the life of Christian virtue, etc. Anyone who would give cause to scandal by ordination is to be dismissed. That is not to say that the system is perfect, or that some unhealthy candidates fly under the wire, or that some work the system and get ordained regardless, but the vast amount of evidence shows that the system does work reasonably to weed out those who lack the qualities beneficial to ordination and promote men of excellence and solid character. So bishops are instructed in canon law to admit only men "whose human, moral, spiritual and intellectual gifts, as well as physical and psychological health and right intention, show clearly that they are capable of dedicating themselves permanently to the sacred ministeries". (can 241.1) A bishop would be quite negligent in his duties to knowingly ordain a man inclined to stinginess, irascibility, covetousness, self pride, etc.
Again, since the question for us Catholics is not about trading vices for vices, that is not the sort of hypothetical that makes much sense to me. However, I doubt that your communion would intentionally ordain a known gambler, or someone given to a life of ostentation and sybaritic luxury, would they?
So would (or should) a gambler, womanizer, drunkard, pot smoker, greedy sonofabitch be excluded. Anyone whose lifestyle or habits or relational patterns are unhealthy or give rise to scandal needs to go get healthy first before assuming that they are fit for ministry. That seems a pretty sensible rule whether your are selecting a ministerial candidate or a receptionist for your business. But also, you made the point that they are *gay*, which implies practicing in the lifestyle, and not merely a homosexual struggling to be chaste and to pursue holiness with this as part of their cross they carry. So I don't see what would distinguish that from the womanizer or the gambler or the irascible man who is not similarly seeking to become perfect in Christ.
The question is not how we are called to compassion and acceptance of all, nor of whether God can use any of us schlepps for his plans and purposes. It is about suitability to ordained ministery and church leadership. I know all too well the feet of clay that we all have, but it makes no more sense to ordain a known and active homosexual than a known and active gambling addict or angry and selfish sonofabitch or a glutton or anyone with a significantly disordered passion or appetite. But what I am really confused about is that if you think that homosexuality is not salutary, and is a manifestation of the fall, then how can you think that this should be celebrated in homosexual commitment ceremonies in your communion? How can sin be celebrated? If its not a sin, then no problem; but if it is then we should look for Christ's healing and not facilitate it with some strange sense of social justice through ordination and religious commitment ceremonies. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| David Burton | Dec 19 2006, 09:02 PM Post #98 |
|
Senior Carp
|
I skimmed most of this, actually read some of it, but nowhere did I find my unique perspective anywhere among you, so here it goes: A “church”, any church, is by basic definition an organization not made up of “everybody” but instead is a group “called out of the world,” and in a sense set up “against the world” and in some instances stands against practically everything “the world” symbolizes, particularly as Jesus refers to it in John’s Gospel. The Catholics think of themselves as “universal; representing a core of beliefs that will be believed by all,” but there isn’t much that’s “universal” about them in any sense, certainly not after Vatican II. If anything, the Roman Church has been getting more and more splintered though it manages to stay together by not getting too far from its basic traditions. When I was a child we were all dragged to church and told that it wasn’t “a social club.” What a monstrous lie! Not that my folks didn’t believe what they were telling us, it’s just that churches have become nothing more than social clubs where people can sit and hear what they want to hear on Sunday and never have to remember anything that was said afterward, since it has become the preacher’s job in more cases than I’d care to recount, to sound erudite and polished without actually saying anything that would get people to think deeply about a troubling problem, like the vast differences in wealth in the world (it IS a problem) or just what to do with people who will not be like everyone else ever, especially homosexuals. If a church is nothing more than a social club then by all means let everyone in and let them do as they please. But if church was always intended to be something else, even a rallying post from which people could keep the faith going until the absent but rightful king comes back to take over and put his enemies to death before his eyes, as in Luke 19, then I suppose that the only true churches are those that adhere in the strictest possible way to what Jesus would have expected of them; not to be part of any state, not to support anything going on in society especially if it be considered sinful in the traditional sense, etc. And of course, we’ll never get that either. It’s probably one reason why increasingly my views of religion as it is commonly conceived of or carried out are as personal as everything else I bother to think about seriously. And to top it all off, if a being called itself God and wanted anyone to perform something that was dangerous or silly and still wanted to be “worshiped” as God, then would that being in fact really be God? “Question your own God,” a frank admonishment from my old Unitarian uncle when I was I guess 12 or 13 sure seems relevant on these matters. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 19 2006, 09:16 PM Post #99 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Given its uniqueness, how could it have been found here? ![]() Thanks for the usual sapient reflection, David. I agree with you about the "calling out" and consequent non conformity. I despise when the planks from the 1970s Democratic party are rehashed by churchmen as "prophetic". |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Dec 20 2006, 12:29 AM Post #100 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Yes but I am afraid they will have to stand in line behind Satanic half man- half pig people. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |








)



11:33 AM Jul 11