Argument: The Church has adapted before, it can adapt now

The Church has adapted over the centuries on a number of social and natural issues as it seeks to re-interpret and re-explain God’s message of love in the terms of modern society. For example Churches have adapted to the problems that science has thrown up, even the Catholic church, often the slowest to embrace change did eventually agree with Galileo over the earth going round the sun. [1] The acceptance of homosexuality and admission of gay priests is a necessary next step for the Church today. There will be others in the future.

[1] Butt, Riazat, ‘The Vatican may be cosying up to science but it will never go all the way’, Notes&amp;Theories guardian.co.uk, 23 February 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/feb/23/vatican-science-evolution-stem-cells

Candidate 1: "Infanticide is a part of nature, as is cannibalism. What separates humanity from the rest of the natural world is our ability to appreciate morality beyond ‘what is natural’.

One of the moral rules that God has imparted to us is that the only moral sexual behaviour is between man and wife. Other moral systems obviously take a different view of sexual ethics, but they aren’t relevant how a Christian Church should organise itself."
Candidate 2: "There can be no description of human reality, in general or in particular, outside the reality of Christ. We must be on guard, therefore, against constructing any other ground for our identities than the redeemed humanity given to use in him. Those who understand themselves as homosexuals, no more and no less than those who do not, are liable to false understandings based on personal or family histories, emotional dispositions, social settings and solidarities formed by common experiences or ambitions. Our sexual affections can no more define who we are than our class race or nationality. At the deepest ontological level, therefore, there is no such thing as "a" homosexual or "a" heterosexual; therefore there are human beings, male and female, called to redeemed humanity in Christ, endowed with a complex variety of emotional potentialities and threatened by a complex variety of forms of alienation. [1]

[1] The Lembeth Conference 1998. Resolution I.10 http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1998/1998-1-10.cfm"
Candidate 3: "Priests act as representatives of God towards members of their congregation, not vice versa. The argument against women priests is that, while women are children of God and part of the church, they cannot represent Jesus in performing the communion service simply because he was male. The same applies to homosexuals; they cannot represent Him in the same way. The rule against gay priests but not against gay laity is not hypocritical but merely reflects the application of differing standards of discipline."
Candidate 4: "Ordination is not a right.

Ordination is a privilege of service granted to men deemed mature enough in all aspects of their lives to be able to be faithful to that service

It is Catholic doctrine that Homosexuals are incapable of perceiving human nature as God as created it, consisting of male and female persons meant for mutual attraction, complementarity, and, God-willing, marriage and children.

Instead, they see members of their own gender as mutually attractive in a sexual sense. They do not see females as such. In other words, they do not see or experience objective reality. Since this is so, it follows that homosexual priests possess a serious handicap which makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to serve well as ordained ministers. [1]

[1] Abbott, Matt C., ‘Three priests speak on ‘gay priest’ ban’. September 2005. http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/050922"
Candidate 5: "Religion is not a political party, changing and catering to the views of the current electorate. The Church acts as the curator of God’s Word and maintains its principles no matter how unfashionable they may be. This is especially important in an increasingly secular age when Christianity will only survive by virtue of it maintaining a clear, consistent message."
Candidate 6: "The Church condemns all sex outside of marriage, hetero or homosexual in nature

There can be no doubt that the Bible and Jesus strongly condemn sex outside of Christian marriage (or ‘fornication’). Indeed for much of Christian history sex even within marriage has been seen as a necessary evil that should only be for creating children, as a result priests, monks and nuns had to be celibate. [1] Although Jesus spent time in the company of adulterers, He loved "the sinner, not the sin" - and ordered them to cease their behaviour. His response to homosexuals would have been just as unequivocal.

[1] Bacchiocchi, Samuele, ‘Marriage and Sex’, The Marriage Covenant: A Biblical Study on Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/marriage/3.html"
Candidate 7: "Homosexuality is a sin in the Bible

Homosexuality is "a grievous sin" in the Bible (Gen 18:20), a capital crime (Lev 20:13), and punishable by exclusion from the Kingdom of Heaven (1 Cor 6:9-10). Christians - especially priests - must accept the Bible as the ultimate authority. Christian ministry is therefore incompatible with homosexuality. Jesus was a radical teacher and overturned Jewish tradition where He saw it was necessary to do so; His silence on homosexuality indicates that He saw no need in this case."

Religion is not a political party, changing and catering to the views of the current electorate. The Church acts as the curator of God’s Word and maintains its principles no matter how unfashionable they may be. This is especially important in an increasingly secular age when Christianity will only survive by virtue of it maintaining a clear, consistent message.
