EVERY ONE SOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHAT EVER THEY LIKE ITS 2005 TIME TO CHANGE

This is fantastic news! All christians need to accept that being gay is no bar on being a
worthwhile, productive member of society. Why are most christians the most bigoted of all social groups. I was always led to believe that
christianity was about peace, acceptance and love. I was obviously wrong. Well done you Scots.

The Scottish Episcopal church has broken with the Christian faith by declaring the acceptability of ordaining practising homosexuals to the priesthood. The true Church from its beginning has been opposed to homosexuality which was not uncommon in ancient Rome and Greece. We can't change the Lord's message to fit with the 'spirit' of the day.

Is that right Jack. You seemed
to have changed your interpretation of Levicticus' declaration that women who are having their period are not allowed in church, also that shell-fish are an abomination to eat at particular times of year, also that adultery is a sin, isn't the archbishop of Cantebury blessing the marriage of Charles and Camilla in a church? Face it Jack you are a homophobe. And your are using your religion and the Bible to justify your bigotry and intolerance. Why change the churchs view on so many issues and yet not this one. Hypocrisy? I think so.

How dare Nick C judge me to be a homophobe! He seems exceedingly judgemental and lacking in Christian charity. Moreover, nowhere in my posting do I make reference to the book of Leviticus, so how can he accuse me of changing it? My reasons for opposing homosexual acts and the ordination of practising homosexuals to the ministerial priesthood are based upon the "natural law". This does not refer to whether or not something can be observed as occuring in the natural world. It is a product of rational thought about the "nature of things" in relation to their "natural ends". One of the essential natural ends of sexual expression according to the natural law is procreation, something that is not possible in homosexual expressions of sexual activity. And as a consequence, since the sexual
relationship is one of the essential elements of marriage, procreation and education of children is likewise one of the essential ends of marriage. A very common misconstrual of "natural law" today by those who have not studied natural law theory, or who have at least failed to understand it, is the idea that it refers to things that can be empirically observed as occuring in nature. It does not. This betrays a lack of understanding of natural law theory. Since the Church's view of philosophy and its attitude toward what can and cannot be done by human societies is undeniably grounded in natural law theory, as is much of her theology and a great deal of the law of the Church, it is imperative that natural
law theory be understood correctly by anyone who wishes to represent the teaching of the Church or what the Church should or should not do, including what the Church can or should be advocating in civil society, and in fact what is considered imperative for societies themselves.
As we know from studying ecclesial law and its foundations, openness to and the capacity for the procreation and education of children is an essential element of what marriage is according to natural law; not just for the Church, as though this were the product of a religious belief, but for everyone (since it is required by the very "nature" of marriage by the natural law). As the constant jurisprudence of the Church has held, sterility does not detract from this requirement of the natural
law since it is a defect in what otherwise is a natural capacity of the person
(whereas there can be no natural capacity for procreation between two persons of the same sex); although impotence does detract from the ability to enter into marriage,
not entirely because it prevents procreation but rather because it prevents the very consummation of the marital covenant (and there is, of course, no small amount of
history standing behind the development of this understanding).
From all this it would be irrational (if not truly insane) to promote someone to the sacred priesthood who does not accept that homosexual acts are opposed to the natural law.

Jack you are a homophobe. Your long winded and meaningless rant proves my point entirely. You are using religion to justify hatred. In your initial post you claim we can not change the church's teachings to fit with the spirit of the day. Yet you ignore my examples of how the church has done just that. God will weep for people like you Jack.

I think that gay priest should be allowed in the church. They are after all just people. Also like all priest even gay priest can't have sexual intercourse. Therefore there is nothibg to be wierd about.