POLL: Would Your Permit a Woman or Homosexual to Serve Your House of Worship in Order to Save its Existence?

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by Nikk

They took homesexuality out of the DMV 4 because of a vote which was based on political correctness not scientific facts.

That is simply not true... they changed the diagnosis not out of "Political correctness," but because not all homosexuals are mentally impaired by their orientation. Sexual confusion or dysfunction is still listed as a disorder, but that doesn't describe ALL homosexual or bisexual people. Here's part of an article, and another link below it which I suggest you read:

" As Dr. Jon Meyer notes (see Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, 4th ed., eds. Kaplan & Sadock), "...this change reflected the point of view that homosexuality was to be considered a mental disorder only if it was subjectively disturbing to the individual....

The DSM-III committee and subcommittee charged with drafting the new manual (1976-78) settled on the diagnosis of ego-dystonic homosexuality, which, according to Meyer, "...represented a compromise between those individuals whose clinical experience, interpretation of the data, and, perhaps, biases, led them to the conviction that homosexuality was a normal variant of sexual expression..." By the time DSM-III-R (revised version of DSM-III) came out in 1987, the tide had shifted again. The category of ego-dystonic homosexuality was eliminated. As DSM-III-R itself stated, "...the diagnosis...has rarely been used clinically, and there have been only a few articles in the scientific literature that use the concept..."

However, one could use the category of sexual disorder not otherwise specified to include cases that previously would have been called ego-dystonic homosexuality. Our present DSM-IV does not include homosexuality per se as a disorder, but still permits the diagnosis of "Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified" for someone with "...persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation"." (Ask the Mental Health Expert Archives 2001-2004)


Homosexuality and Mental Health

[Woof]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by WoofA priest who disagrees with church doctrine is not stealing anything. Unless, that is, you believe that religion is unchangeable. I personally believe that religions who state that they cannot change are dead anyway.
If the church believes that a priest is not following his calling they should remove him from office and ban him from every church.

Yes, of course a priest who teaches atheism or other doctrines is stealing financial support from a church that wants authentic teachings and sacraments in their tradition. As you admit, they should remove him from office or even possibly excommunicate him if he continues to publicly teach (I'm speaking of the Catholic Church, other churches might do things differently).

So you’re of the opinion that a priest is bound by the people who visit his church? Or do you believe that the paying customer is always right?
If that is the case you then remind me of Jimi Hendrix fans that tried to boo him of the stage because Jimi only wanted to play his new material and refused to perform ‘golden oldies’. Does the public own a performer just because they paid money? If they don’t like it they should leave. I feel the same for the church. If people don’t like a priest for whatever reason they should then just stop going to that church.
I mean what will Catholics do if the pope decrees that homosexuals can become priests? Stop going to church? Renounce Catholicism?
Is the pope then by default limited by the will of the people, or by his faith? Or should the pope always avoid making unpopular decisions so he won’t risk losing any followers and consequently also their donations?

This is why I make the distinction between having faith and a having a religion. People who only have a religion have no faith in people who are 'different'; who decided to travel a road less travelled. Another reason is that I found out that most religions only ask the best of their followers, which often is nothing more then their money.

The people who support a church and priest need to leave?! Isn't that like the tail wagging the dog?

Now concerning what would happen if the Pope decides to say that homosexuals can become priests .... until this most recent Pope, that's actually what was allowed by the Vatican and the bishops in this country. Of course they were commanded to remain celibate (not that they often obeyed that command). At any rate, part of Catholicism is that one obeys the Pope whether or not he makes popular decisions - for example MANY Catholics disagree with the decision not to ordain women as priests. If Catholics believe he is teaching in contradiction to the faith, they can leave the Church .... if the majority of a particular parish believes he is doing that, in my opinion they should be able form their own church. The question of property ownership would have to be decided by courts .... but it's unlikely the Church would retain a particular church that can't pay for its upkeep.

You're certainly free not to belong to any particular religion - I don't belong to any myself. But I also wouldn't hijack a church to teach something against their beliefs.

By the way, personally I would have no problem going to a church where a woman or gay was preaching or administering sacraments.