November 06, 2005



But if you exclude all those who sin from the priesthood of any church, you're not going to get any recruits at all or is homosexual activity the only sin that matters?

David Vance


We're ALL sinners, moi included. The point is that those who sin and choose to not repent of it are in NO position to spread the Gospel. Putting foxes in charge of a chicken coop is unwise - even if they paint themselves as victims of intolerance. The Bible is clear - homosexuality is sinful, along with many other things. It's those militant homsexuals, like Robinson, who are unfit to hold any office until they seek forgiveness from God for their sin.


If it's confrontation he wants then the basis has to be scripture and Razinger, as a theologian, will take his head off. As would thousands of well informed evangelical Protestants.

I also see it reported that Robinson claims it was God who told him to leave his wife and "come out".

I wonder will that be greeted with the same derision as the claims that George Bush was getting messages from God. Of course those reports turned out to be lies and these might too.

The Phantom

David's right here.

I happened to listen to the BBC last night, and heard this Gene Robinson interviewed. His basic response is " Well, I am what I am, and God would not have made me this way if it was in any way wrong, and I will not make any attempt to change my behavior in any way " . An argument that can be challenged on many fronts.

Open acceptance of homosexuality, including the gay parody of the institution of marriage, is at complete variance with Chrisitianity and with Judeo-Christian heritage and teachings.

You can have a Gay Church, which the ( Western ) Anglican Communion may be devolving into, but you cannot call it Christian.

Most of the world's Anglicans understand this very well. Robinson's only accomplishment is conflict and schism in the Church he claims to love.

David Vance


Thanks for those comments - glas we share a common view.

Dave t

So Catholic Church steadily increasing in membership - Anglican community, thanks to the likes of the new Archbishop of Canterbury and Gene Robinson declining steadily with result that the AFRICAN membership is the larger part now. If they decide to split as they have threatened then the gays plus Canterbury the Clot will be left on their own....

Madradin Ruad

Would "Christ" recognise any of the Christian churches ? I doubt it.

Dumb Brit

Madradin, He'd probably recognise the Orthies. In their teachings, anyway.


"I do admire Pope Ratzinger's determination to prevent practising homosexuals entering the Priesthood."


"It may madden liberals and enrage anti-Biblical clerics like Robinson but"

Isn't that something to celebrate rather than qualify and apologise for? I mean, if it makes people like O'Dwyer and Robinson angry, how can it be that bad?

"the fact is that homosexuality IS a sin, and that unless those who practise it repent of their sin (rather than wear it as a pink badge of honour) they have no place in the priesthood."

Agreed. Why can't they simply be removed from the Church?


I had heard that the Catholic seminaries here in the US are full of frigging flamers! So much so that a man who ISN'T a flamer is ostracized and pushed out.

felix quigley

This is the second posting on this. I am an atheist and I am dealing not with sin, but with politics.

I reject all these attacks on my fellow humans who are proud to be homosexual. They have a complete right to practice their sexuality. And not to be discriminated against in any way.

Somebody has to say it clearly.

David Vance


I understand your point but I am dealing with sin. And religion. I'm all for people being treated fairly but just as one would not employ a Paedophile to run a Children's Home. nor should one employ a Priest who boasts of his SIN. It's a matter of fundamental theology.


I find myslef agreeing with both Felix and David here.

In general I would agree wholeheartedly with Felix. I have no doubt that a lot of the anti gay commentary on this thread. stems not so much from Christian principle but the age old and cowardly human practise of feeling comfortable in attacking an 'inferior' minority group who are different.

However, and this is where I see David's point, Traditional Christian faith clearly states that sexual activity is only acceoptable beteen married couples of opposite sex, and I can understand why a position in the established church for sexually active gay people is not tenable.

The Phantom


I've seen no attacks on any group of people on this thread. Rather, most comments have been along the line that those who actively oppose important Christian and Judeo/Christian law, should not be bishops in a Church that presents itself as Christian.

This " bishop " has the right to do whatever he likes. But he should start his own religion, rather than trying to destroy the one he claims to be a part of.

"...just as one would not employ a Paedophile to run a Children's Home. nor should one employ a Priest who boasts of his SIN."

There is a fundamental moral difference between a child abuser and a gay man.



Some of the comments have not been written in the same reasonable way that you have, nor out of just a genuine respect for scriptural rules.

Felix Quigley


Is this a Christian site then. Or a political site in which we are looking at political issues in this actual material world.

As far as I am concerned the Catholic Church and other churches can do whatever they like as far as who becomes priests etc.

And if they bar gay people then that is their funeral!

I am objecting to this idea of labelling homosexuality as a sin.

let me get to the real nitty gritty here.

Along with the Jews and the Romany were the homosexuals, they all went into the camps and were liquidated together.

The Nazis picked up this PREJUDICE from Christian theology or whatever you call it. The Nazis then wove that prejudice into their own particular brand of poison. And this business of talking about homosexuals as being sinful IS a prejudice.

I will defend to the last the rights of people to practice religion. That is a big difference I have with the Bolsheviks of Lenin and Trotsky. Freedom of religion is a no 1 for me.

But when they start labelling groups as SINFUL. That is different.

The comments to this entry are closed.