Investigators appointed by the Vatican have been instructed to review each of the 229 Roman Catholic seminaries in the United States for "evidence of homosexuality" and for faculty members who dissent from church teaching, according to a document prepared to guide the process.
quote: The Rev. Thomas J. Reese, a sociologist who resigned in May as editor of the Jesuit magazine America under pressure from the Vatican, said that with the shortage of priests, the church can hardly afford to dismiss gay seminarians.
quote: The seminary review, called an apostolic visitation, will send teams appointed by the Vatican to the 229 seminaries, which have more than 4,500 students. The last such review began about 25 years ago and took six years to complete.
...
¶"Is there a clear process for removing from the seminary faculty members who dissent from the authoritative teaching of the church or whose conduct does not provide good example to future priests?"
¶"Is the seminary free from the influences of New Age and eclectic spirituality?"
¶"Do the seminarians or faculty members have concerns about the moral life of those living in the institution? (This question must be answered)."
¶"Is there evidence of homosexuality in the seminary? (This question must be answered)."
The questionnaire also asks whether faculty members "watch out for signs of particular friendships."
The Rev. Thomas Baima, provost of the largest seminary in the United States, St. Mary of the Lake, in Chicago, where the Vatican is sending nine interviewers, said such questions were no surprise.
"The reason we're having an apostolic visitation now is precisely in the aftermath of the clerical sexual-abuse scandal," Father Baima said. "Issues about screening our candidates, about formation for celibacy, about how we teach moral theology are going to get more attention than how we teach church history."
But one gay priest, who said he would not give his name because he has been told by his order not to speak out, said the seminary review would demoralize gay priests.
"It says to gay priests, many of whom are hard-working, faithful men who live their promises of celibacy with integrity, that you should never have been ordained," he said.
As many other churches move to open leadership roles to types of people, and thinking, formerly shut out, it will be interesting to see how this plays out in America.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Sorry, couldn't resist. It seems like this is the slow, entirely too late reaction to the sexual abuse scandal, and that they're going way overboard, IMHO. I'd hope that they could do something about priests who are molesting children without using such a wide-brush approach that they affect gay priests who are maintaining their celibacy.
"Is the seminary free from the influences of New Age and eclectic spirituality?" Does that bit mean they'll be talking to any priests who own the Harry Potter books?
--Enigmatic
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Why are they kicking out homosexuals to get rid of pedophiles?
It's kind of like getting rid of all the white priests to get rid of the mass murderers.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
The article sounds worrisome. Some of the quoted questions above, however, do not. Like, is there evidence of homosexuality in the seminary. I would think heterosexual evidence would be frowned upon, too.
And the question about "special friendships" is not new. That is an old, old question I think. Theory is that adults shut up for long periods of time with same sex can develop relationships that are not consistent with vows and lifestyle. Priests, nuns, monks are warned to be watchful of falling into such habits. They're probably warned not to watch porn or have pinup posters too.
Questions about moral life, again, we're talking about seminaries here. Not unexpected nor particuarly shocking.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
It absolutely infuriates me that the hierarchy of the Church seems to think that homosexuality is the reason for pedophelia. The average child molester is a white, upper-middle class heterosexual man.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I suspect the Chruch is taking bold strides towards irrelevancy, a direction it cannot afford to go.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
What I find saddest, in a way, is that some in the church seem to be refuting what I see as the primary belief of the church--that acceptance of Jesus into your heart can transform you, anyone, into a new person.
Those that say that some sins irredeemably scar a person and leave them forever unfit to hold office in the church, they deny this fundamental belief of the church, do they not?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
No...it doesn't mean they haven't changed, but it does mean that there is no possible way they will be allowed to continue being who they were....
Or doing what they were doing.
The reoffend at an amazing rate, that has been proven over and over throughout the years, regardless of their religion, so the ONLY responsible thing to do is remove them from positions of power.
They can no longer be active as preists, although only God know what the final judgement of their souls will be in the end.
Forgiveness doesn't mean forgetting it happened, or allowing them unfettered access to children again.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
What I find offensive about this (aside from the implied gay=pedophile connection) is the implicit assumption that homosexuals are somehow less able to control themselves than straight people.
In my understanding, priests are supposed to be celibate. If this is the case, why does it matter in what direction their sexual preferences lie? They are supposed to be controlling them to the point of not acting on them whatever they are. Lust is lust.
I think the church will shoot itself in the foot on this one. I doubt there are hoards of straight men waiting to jump into the seminary "if only they'd get rid of the gays." The article already mentions a shortage of priests. I predict this will go the way of "don't ask, don't tell" when the bottom line issue becomes retention of troops. (so to speak)
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
KarlEd, I hear ya.
I see no problem with the Catholic church reforming current practices if that means preventing children and anyone else from being abused, but I do have a problem with misguided actions in kicking out people who are actually doing no harm.
On the other hand, it's not my church, so it's not like I have any say.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
If I did have a say, my solution would be to first clean house of the offenders, publicly in cases of criminal abuse. Next, develop a program to assist priests whose struggle with celibacy manifests itself in temptation toward children. Part of this program would be to help them recognize the temptations they face, and to teach them to remove themselves from situations where the temptation might be strongest. (For example, priests in this program would be forbidden to be alone with children.)
I'd have The Church publicly commit to seriously investigate all charges of abuse or even impropriety. Priests found guilty of impropriety would be required to enter the above program or leave the priesthood. In cases where evidence suggested actual abuse, rather than mere impropriety, cases would be turned over to civil authorities according to the laws of the land.
In seminaries, I'd encourage would-be priests to examine their strengths, motives, and weaknesses and provide counseling and training to ensure they understand and are committed to their vows, including celibacy. (This is of course assuming I was one to believe priests should be celibate in the first place.) I'd also make it clear to those in the seminary that child sexual abuse is a crime and will not be tolerated in the church. There would be no illusions that fear of public embarrassment would keep the church from weeding out priest who would betray such a basic holy trust.
And then I'd stick to those policies.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
That sounds ideal, KarlEd. And that's pretty much what I would have suggested.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:But one gay priest, who said he would not give his name because he has been told by his order not to speak out, said the seminary review would demoralize gay priests.
"It says to gay priests, many of whom are hard-working, faithful men who live their promises of celibacy with integrity, that you should never have been ordained," he said.
I can understand this man's concern. I came to terms with my sexuality while serving in the USAF. At no time did the fact that I was gay make me a less effective airman or compromise my ability to perform my job. Those facts didn't stop certain military officials from saying that gay servicemen were hurting the military and never should have enlisted in the first place.
From a Catholic perspective, I'd think that it would be invaluable to the institution to have some priests who intimately understand the struggles of homosexuality and are still able to be good Catholics and priests. As it is, the message they are sending is that the mere inclination or temptation of homosexuality somehow taints you in some way different from all other temptations of the flesh. The more that message is sent, the more they will drive good people away and exacerbate pain and dysfunction in many Catholic families.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
*sigh* I guess I just have a hard time believing that that article is accurate.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:"It says to gay priests, many of whom are hard-working, faithful men who live their promises of celibacy with integrity, that you should never have been ordained," he said.
I really don't see how the church can dismiss homosexuals if they are living a celibate life anymore than they would heterosexuals who are faithful to their celibate Catholic vows. If you are celibate, doesn't that somewhat negate the heterosexual/homosexual issue altogether? You're choosing to NOT have sex with either gender.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I can't make any judgment one way or another without seeing the full document. There's too many unanswered questions about the intent.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
What happened to hate the sin, love the sinner?
Is the act of homosexual intercourse the sin, or is it the lust you feel for members of your own sex instead of lust you feel for members of the oppositte sex?
Would your church, whether its Catholic, Baptist, LDS, or whatever, accept into their fold a couple of men who hold hands, talk of their love for each other, and even, occasionally, kiss, but that for fear of their mortal souls, never consumate thier feelings physically?
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
In the LDS church, homosexuals and bisexuals are expected to maintain the same law of chastity that heterosexuals are expected to live by. That means no sex and nothing like unto it outside the bounds of marriage between man and woman - the simplified version. I have no idea of the hand-holding and occasional kiss. I've never thought of it, to be honest. But the bottom line is that as long as the person lives the law of chastity, it doesn't matter who they're attracted to.
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
THe church seems to be loosing what it considers to be its founding principals of forgivenss and love for its neighbor. Its the pedophiles that should be gone after and to assume the pedophiles are homosexual is stupid.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think much of this incredibly wrong-headed reaction by the Church is to distract us from holding the Bishops (who covered this up for generations) accountable. It is scape-goating a vulnerable minority and for this, and many other reasons, is contrary to the teachings of Jesus.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I think many of you are junmping to conclusion about what is going on here. My initial reaction is that Farmgirl is right... they shouldn't be "weeding out" chaste homosexuals, but I don't see that intent in the document. Weeding out homosexual *activity*, on the other hand, makes perfect sense in a Catholic Seminary. There is the point about not appearing to search for heterosexual activity... not sure how much heterosexual activity would be in evidence at a Catholic seminary... *are* there female Catholic seminarians? I believe that heterosexual activity would be frowned upon as well.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I think if they had just changed this to "weeding out Sexual activity" nobody would have minded, even if they added "including homosexual" though then I would have wanted "and pedophilial".
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Well, the thing is, we don't have a copy of the document, but the words we have don't say anything about weeding out anyone. That's why I put them in quotes.
and I have been informed that there *are* female Catholic seminarians.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:It absolutely infuriates me that the hierarchy of the Church seems to think that homosexuality is the reason for pedophelia. The average child molester is a white, upper-middle class heterosexual man.
...unlike the average molesting priest, who is a homosexual man. Not that any of that is relevant.
There's so much wrong with this discussion.
Very little of the so-called pedophile priest scandal had to do with pedophilia. The overwhelming majority was priests molesting teenagers, not children. So statistics on pedophilia in the general population would be irrelevant, even if priests were randomly chosen from the general population, which they aren't.
Most sex abuse cases are girls victimized by men, so that's heterosexual, by definition. Most molester-priest victims are teenage boys, and their abusers are of course all men, so that's homosexual, by definition.
And it's irrelevant to this ecclesiastical decision. Or it might be. The article suggests this is a response to the pedophile scandal, but we don't really know. The article also conceals the name and location of the document; there aren't even any search terms so we can find out for ourselves. Why are they concealing the facts? It's like looking through a window that's so smudged I can't see what's on the other side.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Why does a celibate gay priest automatically not believe in the Bible? If he is celibate, he may be struggling against impulses he believes are wrong just as a priest with a tendency towards violence, theft, or gambling would also struggle against what they considered sinful desires.
Doesn't make him an unbeliever. Quite the contrary.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Couple things. Most molester-priest situations happen when there is no access to little girls, so homosexuality is not as definite as you imply. And pedophilia should be separated from hetero- and homosexuality, just as when someone commits bestiality it makes no difference, legally, what gender the animal was. The attraction is to children, and at that age there aren't any secondary gender-based sexual characteristics. Pedophilia is not the same as straight or gay attraction.
Also, "pedophilia" is not limited to little kids. The term varies legally here and there, but generally refers to sex with people 13 and younger.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I agree with what you say about celibate gay priests, Chris, as does, officially, the church. I don't see it as internally consistent to go after them for being homosexual. I presume from this that the question "is there evidence of homosexuality?" is directed at *behavior*, not orientation. If it isn't, then I would agree that there is something wrong here.... as would the Catholic Catechism.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
In the majority of the underage sex abuse cases in the Catholic church the victims were teenagers -- hence not pedophilia, which refers to attraction to pre-pubescent children.
Attraction to underage but post-pubescent children has anther name -- I think it's eudophilia, but I'm not sure of the spelling. The difference between being attracted to someone who is physically a child or who is sexually mature (physically) is an important distinction for studying and treating the psychology of the offender.
Maybe not so much a distinction on the moral level, though.
Edit: and the majority of the sex abuse cases in the Catholic church (and Protestant churches) are clergy having affairs with adult female parishioners. Those just don't get as much press.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I give up. Why does a celibate priest automatically not believe in the Bible, whatever his attractions? I can't find anything in my posts that suggested that, and I don't believe it.
You say most molester-priest situations happen when there is no access to little girls. What reason could you have for saying that? Catholics don't sex-segregate their parishes.
What dkw said.
And, as far as we can see, this remains irrelevant to the document NYT is both revealing and concealing. To the church, "homosexuality" refers to behavior, not identity, which is a fairly new concept and not one the church embraces. If we read question 4 using the new definition, we can get it to mean something it doesn't, but interpreting the text in a vernacular it wasn't written in is bound to generate wrong conclusions.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Will B,
quote:Experts in human sexuality have cautioned that homosexuality and attraction to children are different, and that a disproportionate percentage of boys may have been abused because priests were more likely to have access to male targets - like altar boys or junior seminarians - than to girls.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I'm Catholic, and we have altar girls.
Seminarians, of course, are not children; so that wouldn't apply either.
But it is worth considering. If it were true, it would change the nature of the debate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Again, I think this is a ploy to deflect attention away from the Bishops.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Most of the abuser priests are, for whatever reason, are psycho-sexually immature and unable to form adult sexual relationships - either homosexual or heterosexual. This may be a reason some of them become priests in the first place - hiding from sexual issues.
The Bishops who keep covering this up need also to be held accountable.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
In some ways more than the offenders, really.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I want to clarify, that I am not saying that there are not homosexuals who sexually abuse young people both children and teenagers. I'm not. There are homosexuals (men and women) who abuse children and teenagers just as there are heterosexuals (men and women) who abuse children.
I have a question. Does anyone know if the Catholic Church conducts a criminal background check on those who are entering Seminary? When I was considering the ministry (I am a United Methodist) before I was allowed to begin the exploration process (more than a year before I would have entered Seminary if I had decided that the ministry was my calling) I was required to undergo a criminal background check. Homosexuals who are looking for children or teenagers to abuse will behave in a similar activity to heterosexuals who want to abuse. They will look for a job or a life that will give them a great deal of access to those who will be their potential victims. That's why the Boy Scouts don't want gay people in leadership positions. Not because gay people have no control over themselves, but because those who may be looking for victims are likely to volunteer, realizing that there are dozens of potential victims in that arena.
The same is true of the priesthood. Many Priests work in a parish which has a school which could have hundreds of potential victims. Since most people of either sexual orientation probably begin offending while they are teenagers, they may already have a criminal record. So, I'd like to know; does the Catholic Church conduct a criminal background check on those considering the preisthood? If not, couldn't the implementation of that help prevent "problem Priests" from ever reaching ordination and their potential victims?
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote: That's why the Boy Scouts don't want gay people in leadership positions. Not because gay people have no control over themselves, but because those who may be looking for victims are likely to volunteer, realizing that there are dozens of potential victims in that arena.
Of course, this, in and of itself is unfair. We don't see assumptions that heterosexual men and women who volunteer to work with scouts or young people are going to molest. But this may be heading for a new topic.
EDIT: At least, the paranoia is to a lesser extent.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Most sex abuse cases are girls victimized by men, so that's heterosexual, by definition.
Actually, most experts agree that the majority of molestation cases go unreported, so we have absolutely no way of knowing if that's true. In addition, pedophelia is, in and of itself a sexual orientation. Pedophiles prefer children, female or male. Many pedophiles molest children of both genders.
EDIT: This is why there is no such thing as a "cure" for pedophilia. You cannot cure someone of their sexual orientation.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I know a few people who work for teh Boy Scouts...not just Kat, but her as well...
There are a ton of reasons why the BS won't allow gays to become Scout Leaders....
That is not one of them, as far as I have heard. If it was it would prevent, by your own logic, ANYONE from becoming one.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
It's actually one of the main defenses that they used when taken to the Supreme Court for violations of civil rights.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Which doesn't answer the point...if there is no statistical difference between abuses of different sexual orientation (actually there is....more heterosexual males abuse than gay ones ) how can that logic be used to defend excluding the group with a lower overall rate of offences?
I have no problem wiht the BS stance, BTW...well, I don't like it... but they ARE a private, semi-religious groups intitled to have their own rules.
The "logic" of that argument doesn't work at all, though, not as stated here.
[ September 17, 2005, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
True, true.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: It's actually one of the main defenses that they used when taken to the Supreme Court for violations of civil rights.
Next time you make a claim like that, so me a favor and save me the trouble of reading the entire brief at 2:40 am...only to find out it wasn't included in their arguments for the SCOTUS after all...
Make sure your statment is ACTUALLY IN the brief, as you have claimed.
I read most of it....and scanned perhaps the last 10%, and nowhere in it was that argument. As I remembered, the court acutally ruled that the BS stnce on homosexuality had little to nothing to do with the merits of the case at all.
I could have missed it..if I did, please tell me what page it is on.
It's the Catholic Church that made that bullshit up.
It's amazing to me how corrupt a religion or church can become and people still treat it like it is GOD or/and JESUS.
Wake up, people. Wake up.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hey Thor, why don't you find somewhere else to call people's religious beliefs "bullshit"?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I second that.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Come on.
The Roman Catholic Church has KILLED hundreds of thousands of people. The Roman Catholic Church has covered up one of the largest pedofile rings in America.
And i can't call that BS?
That is so stupid and cowardly on y'all part.
You want me to treat the Roman Catholic Church like it is Jesus?
No thanks.
"judge not, lest you be judged"
The roman catholic church judges people all the time, so it deserves judgement. It doesn't get a free pass.
The idea that Jesus dis-allows his most faithful the right of marriage is totally bogus.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You want me to treat the Roman Catholic Church like it is Jesus?
You use this a lot: people treat the Church like Jesus, people treat Bush like Jesus, yada yada yada.
I think this says a whole lot more about how you think of Jesus than it does about the people you are judging.
Regardless, you are in clear violation of the rules of this board. There are lots of ways to talk about policies of particular churches that you don't like. It's done here all the time.
But calling it "bullshit" without even formulating the beginning of a coherent argument isn't one of them.
I am asking you to please stop being so insulting. I'm not even asking that you bother engaging in dialog about the many pronouncements you make from on high, although that would be nice to do on a discussion board. But I'll settle for some basic courtesy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
U.S. Asks Court to Dismiss Abuse Suit That Names Pope
quote: By The Associated Press The Justice Department has told a Texas court that a lawsuit accusing Pope Benedict XVI of conspiring to cover up the sexual molestation of three boys by a seminarian should be dismissed because the pontiff enjoys immunity as head of state of the Holy See.
In a filing on Monday, Peter Keisler, an assistant United States attorney, said that allowing the lawsuit to proceed would be "incompatible with the United States' foreign policy interests."
There was no immediate ruling from Judge Lee Rosenthal of the Federal District Court in Houston. But American courts have been bound by such "suggestion of immunity" motions submitted by the government, Mr. Keisler's filing says.
A 1994 lawsuit against Pope John Paul II, also filed in Texas, was dismissed after the federal government filed a motion similar to the one filed by Mr. Keisler.
Mr. Keisler's motion had been expected, because the Vatican Embassy in Washington had asked the United States government to issue the immunity suggestion and do everything it could to have the case dismissed.
The pope, the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was named as a defendant in a civil lawsuit by three plaintiffs who say that Juan Carlos Patino-Arango, a Colombian-born seminarian on assignment at St. Francis de Sales church in Houston, molested them during counseling sessions in the church in the mid-1990's.
Mr. Patino-Arango has been indicted in a criminal case by a grand jury in Harris County, Tex., and is currently a fugitive.
The lawsuit says the pope, who as Cardinal Ratzinger headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican, was involved in a conspiracy to hide Mr. Patino-Arango's crimes and help him escape prosecution. The lawsuit cites a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger, dated May 18, 2001, and written in Latin to bishops around the world, explaining that "grave" crimes like the sexual abuse of minors would be handled by his congregation and that the proceedings of special church tribunals handling the cases were subject to "pontifical secret."
Daniel Shea, a lawyer for one of the plaintiffs, has said such secret proceedings amounted to a conspiracy to cover up the crimes.
The Vatican and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have said that the secret church procedures in the sexual abuse case were not designed to cover up abuse or to prevent victims from reporting crimes to law enforcement authorities.
The document deals with church law, not keeping secrets from secular authorities, the Vatican and the conference say.
The pope's lawyer, Jeffrey Lena, said yesterday that it was appropriate that the Justice Department determined that the pope was "the sitting head of state of the Holy See."
In a telephone interview, Mr. Lena said the motion would now be considered by the Texas court.
Many lawsuits stemming from the church sexual abuse cases have named the pope, the Vatican and high-ranking church officials, but they have failed because the officials could not be served with the papers.
Cardinal Ratzinger, however, was served with legal papers.
Mr. Shea said yesterday that he would challenge the constitutionality of the diplomatic recognition of the Holy See on the grounds that it goes against the First Amendment clause barring laws "respecting an establishment of religion."
Mr. Shea said that in trying to have the case dismissed, the pope's lawyers had admitted in court papers that the Holy See was a church.
A May 26 motion to dismiss the suit, citing the First Amendment, said the case should be thrown out because it would "invite court intrusion into the internal affairs of the Roman Catholic Church."
Officials at the United States Embassy to the Holy See said they were familiar with the case but had no comment.
The Vatican also declined to comment.
Besides the pope, the lawsuit names as defendants Mr. Patino-Arango, the Diocese of Galveston-Houston, Archbishop Joseph Fiorenza and the Rev. William Pickhard, Mr. Patino-Arango's vocational director.
I wonder how this will play out. Very interesting in terms of both Church/State issues and the accountability of the Bishops in the matter of covering up these crimes.
My gut reaction is that airing this out in open court would do a world of good.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
When I read this thread I immediately thought of those old PSA's that played after school...the one with the bulemic girl.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Its interesting how much people are extoling the virtues of homosexuality in regards to ones eligibility for priesthood. I too believe that somebody who has the weakness of homosexual urges yet chooses to control them is a perfectly acceptable person within any religious order.
BUT how do you KNOW that every homosexual priest is an non practicing one? Well you have to interview them. As priests they must be completely honest when questioned by superiors. I am not for removing anybody just because they have a weakness only if it is a possible liability. In many casses homosexuality can be especially with everyone applauding when a priest comes out as a homosexual and gives the finger to the church he belonged to.
Somebody made the arguement that priests are celebate therefore their sexual orientation is irrelevant. That is WRONG. Priests though celebate are supposed to encourage men and women to marry and have children. To become a priest is a very personal descision. If you are a practicing homosexual priest you are in direct violation of the rules of your own religion. How can you be expected to encourage others to obey the tennants a faith you yourself do not agree with?
The catholic church has an obligation to appoint priests that believe in their tenants with all their heart and mind. If you dont like it, dont be a priest, or find a religion that you feel is closer to the truth. I will NOT condemn a religion for actually trying to practice its beliefs instead of letting society dictate what God's will ought to be.
Oh and if you are angry at me for calling homosexuality a weakness, thats fine but that how I believe, you are free to call it a virtue if you will, I am not angry at YOU for doing so.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Blade:
Where do I even begin? Okay. Just to pick a few:
"Weakness of homosexual urges" - different from the "weakness" of heterosexual urges? Rather than a "weakness", I believe (as I was taught, by my Catholic religious instructor) that human sexuality is a gift to be treasured and respected.
How do we "KNOW" that every heterosexual priest is a non-practicing one? How is a celibate priest of any sexuality "practicing". Okay - don't answer that.
God's will doesn't change; our understanding of it does.
Now what do you think about suing the Pope?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Its the pedophiles that should be gone after and to assume the pedophiles are homosexual is stupid.
While it is in general stupid to assume that pedophiles are homosexual, in this particular instance it is not. In the sexual abuse scandals, nearly all of the cases were instances of abuse of boys. This means that the problem within the catholic church is not simply "pedophilia" but homosexual pedophilia.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Blade:
Where do I even begin? Okay. Just to pick a few:
"Weakness of homosexual urges" - different from the "weakness" of heterosexual urges? Rather than a "weakness", I believe (as I was taught, by my Catholic religious instructor) that human sexuality is a gift to be treasured and respected.
How do we "KNOW" that every heterosexual priest is a non-practicing one? How is a celibate priest of any sexuality "practicing". Okay - don't answer that.
God's will doesn't change; our understanding of it does.
Now what do you think about suing the Pope?
Yes the weakness of homosexual urges. Heterosexual urges are weaknesses if used in the wrong way. A when I say PRACTICING I mean somebody who acts regularly on their sexual drives. Sexuality is indeed a gift but like all gifts it becomes a vice when used inappropriately, from my own study I have yet to see Jesus or his father inform us that homosexuality is now an acceptable outlet for sexuality.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ...from my own study I have yet to see Jesus or his father inform us that homosexuality is now an acceptable outlet for sexuality.
I'd like to see you point out one place where Jesus says it's a sin.
Note that I am not saying that is not stated in places in both the Old and New Testament. However during my struggles with questions on the way the church treats homosexuals (and I mean all bodies of the church not just the Catholics) I picked up a copy of Strong's Concordance and looked it up and you know what??? Jesus never said anything about it one way or the other.
EDIT: In fact, I just pulled it out again to look, and the only place that homosexuality is directly referenced in the New Testament is in Romans, and Paul isn't even claiming to quote Jesus.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: A when I say PRACTICING I mean somebody who acts regularly on their sexual drives.
I think kmbboots point is that if a priest is being faithful to his vow of celibacy then he is not "practicing" homosexuality whether he is gay or not. Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Who is the final authority? Christians have chosen over the millenia to ignore entire sections of the Bible. Why do so few Christians keep the Kosher food laws. Jesus never said we should start eating anything we wanted. In fact he said more than once that he came to fulfill the law not remove it (or similar words). If that's so, then why should we be surprised that these issues are at hand. In fact shouldn't we all be following all of the ancient laws? Isn't that the requirement? Jesus bridged the gap between man and God, but He never said we should stop following the law. So frankly, when the same people who quote from Leviticus stating that homosexuality is an abomination, start remembering that the verse right before it says that eating shellfish is an abomination and give up foods like shrimp, then they can have a discussion with me on following the law of the Torah.
Either we follow all the law, in its entirety, as God originally set it forth, or we accept that Jesus came to save us from our sins and that following the law is no longer necessary. No picking and choosing though...all or none.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In fact shouldn't we all be following all of the ancient laws?
Not according to Acts:
quote: 1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. 4When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
12The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon[a] has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: 16" 'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, 17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things'[b] 18that have been known for ages.[c]
19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath." The Council's Letter to Gentile Believers 22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.
Thanks, Andi330. Exactly.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote: Not according to Acts:
That was my point. And that's not the only place. Paul has a fit about it in Galations too. Of course, most men today are circumcized so......
Edit: Galations 5:2-6 New International Version Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly awai throught the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision no uncircumcision has any falue. The only good thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
Paul is stating that if you have taken on the part of the law that states you must be circumcised you must then follow all of the law. Peter had shown up in Galatia preacing circumcision even after James (the brother of Jesus and leader of the early Christian Church) made the decision in Acts.
He is speaking to adult men in this passage, but the same holds true for infants who were circumcised at the time. Most people were circumcised in infancy.
[ September 22, 2005, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: andi330 ]
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Again I ask, what is the definition of sexual immorality. There are historians who argue that the type of homosexuality that was prevelant at the time of Christ and previously was old men and little boys, which of course we still find wrong today. What is the definition. There are those who state that any sexual act outside of the missionary position between married men and women is an immoral act because the sex act is for procreation.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330:
quote: Not according to Acts:
That was my point. And that's not the only place. Paul has a fit about it in Galations too. Of course, most men today are circumcized so......
Galations 5:2-6 New International Version Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly awai throught the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision no uncircumcision has any falue. The only good thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
Paul is stating that if you have taken on the part of the law that states you must be circumcised you must then follow all of the law. Peter had shown up in Galatia preacing circumcision even after James (the brother of Jesus and leader of the early Christian Church) made the decision in Acts.
He is speaking to adult men in this passage, but the same holds true for infants who were circumcised at the time. Most people were circumcised in infancy.
Edit: So if we are required to follow all the law if we take on part of it, that means and male who is circumcised is required to follow all of the law...Christian or not.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
*sighs*
Historical and socialogical context, andi330. Most men who have been circumcised today haven't been done so in accordance with Jewish Law, as were those who were being circumcised among the early Christians.
It was if they didn't have full enough faith in the Apostolic teachings that they still thought they needed to go that 'extra step'.
Paul was saying, "If you don't believe what we teach when we say 'you don't need it', then you might as well go the whole way."
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Actually, the argument between Peter and Paul was an ongoing one. Peter (who had of course been one of the twelve with Jesus) stated that in order to be Christian you had to be Jewish first. Paul (who was a Pharisee by his own admission) stated you didn't need anything except faith in Jesus. In the passage in Acts quoted above, James the first leader of the early church said to let Peter go to the Jewish population and Paul to the Gentiles and they weren't supposed to cross over. Edit: Paul himself agreed that those who had taken on the law could be Christians but that they were also required to continue following the Law until their death, they could not forsake their Jewishness for the sake of Christianity and he himself spoke of continuing to follow the Law; despite advising Gentiles that they were not required to. Genesis 17:9-14 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you who is eight days old must be circucised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner--those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they musgt be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
Originally, when God first decreed circumcision, the only requirement was that it be within eight days of birth. If that is the rule the way God first handed it to Abraham, then most males circumcised today fulfill it.
[ September 22, 2005, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: andi330 ]
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Regardless however, everyone seems to be ignoring the question as it regards to the majority of discussion. That question is, where is the definition of sexual immorality? Not just for homosexuals but for all people? What exactly is immoral and where is that coming from? There was comment earlier that this is about sexual weakness by homosexuals and sexual weakness in certain circumstances by heterosexuals. If that's true, what's the definition? Because if the only true moral sex act is the missionary position by married people, there are a lot more married and unmarried heterosexuals in trouble than most people want to consider. And if not, then where is the line for heterosexuals. That's actually what got me started on the tangent, and it's being ignored.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Priests though celebate are supposed to encourage men and women to marry and have children. [...] How can you be expected to encourage others to obey the tennants a faith you yourself do not agree with?
Why wouldn't a homosexual priest want his congregration to marry and have children? I have yet to hear a gay person say that everyone should be gay. Ever. Even practicing homosexuals, whatever that means.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Priests though celebate are supposed to encourage men and women to marry and have children. [...] How can you be expected to encourage others to obey the tennants a faith you yourself do not agree with?
Why wouldn't a homosexual priest want his congregration to marry and have children? I have yet to hear a gay person say that everyone should be gay. Ever. Even practicing homosexuals, whatever that means.
Not to mention a growing movement among the homosexual population to be allowed to marry and have legal rights to adopt children. Bravo.
There have been homosexuals across the world as far back as history has been recorded. Frankly, the homophobia that pervades society today didn't always exist. For example: In the movie Troy Achilles joined the battle because his cousin Patroclus was murdered. In Homer's epic, he joined the battle because his lover Patroclus was killed. It was changed because of the movie writers feared that homophobia would drive down box office sales. Particularly because the American public is still more comfortable seeing homosexuals as nonsexualized beings in the media.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Tries...not...to joke...about "practicing" a form of sexuality...in a serious thread.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So andi, do you look forward to a day when pedo/eudophiles can practice their orientation which you say cannot be cured legally?
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
No, because that's different. It will always be wrong for an older adult to target younger people for predatory sexual acts. I have never made the argument that they should be allowed to. It will always be wrong for heterosexuals to target young people for predatory sexual acts. It will always be wrong for one adult of either sexual orientation to rape another.
I pointed out that there are psychologists who state that pedo/eudophiles are a sexual orientation strictly for the purpose of showing a reason that they cannot be cured. Not to argue that they should legally be allowed to prey on others and I am horribly offended that you should take it that way. It's not worded that way.
Rape is rape. Adutls raping people who are underaged is even more horrible. But sexual acts between two consenting adults are different.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Unfortunately, I now have to leave for work and cannot continue this conversation. However I would like to ask that you not continue to take my words out of context.
Frankly I suspect that everyone in this forum assumes at this point that I am a lesbian. Let me state catagorically that I am not. I was however raised in a church that believes that there should be equal civil rights under the law for all people. Homosexuals who have 50 years of a "commitment" should be allowed to sit at their partner's hospital bed while they are dying, in a hospital with family only rules. They should be allowed the tax advantages that married heterosexuals get, and things like second parent adoption should be legal, so that if one partner dies, the other has the legal rights to their child.
If you think that believing in these things requires me to believe that sexual predators should be allowed legal rights for their predatory acts then you need to reexamine your idea of right and wrong. That's disgusting, and horribly offensive. Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Per the above, I did feel the need to clarify that I am not homosexual, simply because I suspect, that most people who argue against civil rights for homosexuals assume that any who argue for homosexual civil rights are gay. Two of my closest friends just had their commitment ceremony. The unfortunate fact is that until laws are changed they have no rights as a couple. They'll have to fill out joint tennancy agreements, durable power of attorney and about 5000 other legal forms in order to come close to similar rights to heterosexuals and frankly, it makes me very angry. They are two consenting adults and they should be entitled to the same legal rights as two consenting heterosexuals.
Edit: Please note the use of the word consenting. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For the record: I never made any assumptions about your sexuality. I also agree with pretty much everything you've said - wholeheartedly.
And I warned you about going down that "practicing" road...
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I understand that some mental health professionals call pedophilia an orientation. You stated it as if it were an irrefutable fact. Sorry to have set you off, and I appreciate your clarification. It was not my intent to demonize you or your viewpoint.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: [QUOTE]Originally posted by BlackBlade: ...from my own study I have yet to see Jesus or his father inform us that homosexuality is now an acceptable outlet for sexuality.
I'd like to see you point out one place where Jesus says it's a sin.
Note that I am not saying that is not stated in places in both the Old and New Testament. However during my struggles with questions on the way the church treats homosexuals (and I mean all bodies of the church not just the Catholics) I picked up a copy of Strong's Concordance and looked it up and you know what??? Jesus never said anything about it one way or the other.
EDIT: In fact, I just pulled it out again to look, and the only place that homosexuality is directly referenced in the New Testament is in Romans, and Paul isn't even claiming to quote Jesus. [/QUOTE
The law of moses was NOT the original law of christianity. It was a special set of conditions, ordinances, and laws FOR the nation of Israel. You will find that before moses there were many prophets. We will use Abraham, he met with some angels of God who said that they were going to the cities of Sodom and Gummorah to investigate whether it truely was as evil as had been reported. These angels while in Sodom visiting Lot (by lots request) were almost the victims of homosexual rape by the people outside Lots house who demanded that Lot surrender his guests. Eventually you all know the details hell fire and brimstone and the cities were leveled if we are to believe the bibles account.
If you want to argue that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality well here you go.
Sodomy a word for any unorthodox sexual practice comes from the above city.
If God was destroying cities for sexual lewdity before moses, then it remains to be proven that he has changed his mind since moses not that he remains the same yesterday today and forever.
Here is the account of the angels and the men outside Lots house:
Genesis 19:5 - And they (the men) called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men (angels) which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may "know" them.
I am not a hebrew scholar but I have heard MANY passages of scriptured explained to me to understand that KNOW is euphanism for "to have sex with". As in "Adam knew Eve" etc.
People dont believe Paul so here is Jude
Jude 1:7 - Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire
"going after strange flesh" when used right after the subject of fornication would have to mean any form of sexual conduct not considered traditionally acceptable. The Israelites NEVER at ANY TIME believed Homosexuality to be an acceptable practice.
Christians cannot logically pick and choose which passages of scripture to live by and which to refuse to live by. Just as there were Christians that thought the law of moses was still in force and had to be told by Paul that that was not the case, some Christians today still do not hear the message.
Look I know I am coming across as just another closed minded Christian fundamentalist that hates homosexuals. There is some truth to that, I AM a christian, alot of my beliefs I consider to be tried and true. I do NOT hate homosexuals. I have friends that have come out about being homosexual. I do not consider it my responsibility to force them back. I can only be their friend and set an example. Homosexuality is certainly not the most heinous sin in the bible, but either homosexuality is wrong and I am obligated to refuse to take part in it, or it is right and acceptable and I am sinning for not accepting it as a valid way of life. I have heard MANY passages of scriptures decrying homosexuality, I have heard ZERO telling me to accept it.
I do not need to prove that Christianity does not accept homosexuality, you can explain away scriptures all day if thats your inclination but they are there. There is not a single scripture asking us to accept it, it is therefore for YOU to prove to ME that God feels contrary to the way I do.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Ah but the definition of the word soddomy does not simply refer to sex between two men, it refers to anal or oral sexual acts between people of either gender in either heterosexual or homosexual relationships. It may be derived from the town of Soddom, but people also like to forget that Lot actually offered to let those men rape his daughters.
I have my own set of beliefs on this and so do you it is obvious. I am not arguing that the church of any denomination or religion be required to marry and or accept homosexuals who are to your words "practicing" my problem in this instance is an attempt to purge the church of all of its "non-practicing" homosexual priest whom, if they are being true to their vows of celibacy are behaving just as their hetersexual counterparts are living a life for God in the best way they know how while fighting their bodies natural inclinations. And yes I do believe that homosexuality just like heterosexuality is something that is predetermined from birth.
Think of me in this most recent conversation an the Devil's Advocate. Attempting to bring a new perspective to a conversation that looked to me to be very one sided and with little balance. We (and I do mean we) as Christians have become very one sided and living in the South as I do, I hear very little regarding civil rights for homosexuals. It upsets me. Civil rights for gays and lesbians will not require any denominations of the church or any religion to open their doors to homosexuals if they do not wish to, that's what's so great about living in a country with freedom of religion. The government can't dictate to the religions what they may or may not teach, or whom they may or may not accept. However that does not preclude homosexuals from having Civil Rights in this country. In fact it cannot because if this country is based on freedom of religion, there must also be freedom from religion. We as Americans cannot force anyone to join a specific religious belief, or any religious belief. As a result, we should not be allowed to deny any minority group of people equal civil rights under the law simply because our religion tells us that what they are doing is wrong. Believe me, I know that it says that. I studied religion for four years in college, and I've done exgetical studies on numerous passages and read dozens of books on various religious subjects. But since we cannot legally require anyone to accept our religious beliefs we cannot deny them civil rights based on beliefs that they are not legally required to share.
As for the passage you quoted in Genesis regarding Lott. It is true that this was a case of rape of two men. Rape is not homosexuality it is rape, regardless of which gender is being attacked and which is attacking, which is, I suspect, why Strong's Concordance does not list that particular passage as one directly relating to homosexuality.
You are free to believe what you believe, and so am I. I for one above all other verses remember the one that says "Judge not lest ye be judged." And that is how I live my life, because in the end, I am no better than anyone else, and despite all of my good qualities, am far worse than many people as well. I also remember, that in the passage in Romans where Paul speaks of homosexuality he also writes of murder, theft and being disrespectful to your parents, showing that no one sin is greater than another.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I'd like to see you point out one place where Jesus says it's a sin.
Note that I am not saying that is not stated in places in both the Old and New Testament. However during my struggles with questions on the way the church treats homosexuals (and I mean all bodies of the church not just the Catholics) I picked up a copy of Strong's Concordance and looked it up and you know what??? Jesus never said anything about it one way or the other.
This argument really, really gets under my skin. A lot of Christians try to dismiss certain things in the Bible because "Well, Jesus never said it."
First of all: Yes he did. The human incarnation of Christ may not have said it, but the divine part most certainly did if it's found in the Bible. (assuming, of course, that you accept the Bible as the inspired word of God)
Second of all: You have no idea if the incarnation of Christ said it or not, it may very well have been said and just not written down. Remember that verse that says that if everything Jesus said and did was written there wouldn't be enough books to hold it?
If you go to the thread KarlEd started about the changeability of God, you'll find some discussion of the law in posts by me on the second page. Jesus came to fulfill the law - not to annul it. Certainly some parts of the law were abrogated but that doesn't mean that nothing in the Old Testament has any value any more.
Finally, if a priest is keeping his vows and not acting on sexual urges I could care less what those sexual urges are. I do think that a priest who has homosexual urges should take care not to put himself in places where temptation may be too great - like too much alone time with men just as I think priests with heterosexual urges should limit the time they spend with women alone.
Pedophile priests is a different story because I do think pedophilia is an illness and that the potential for abuse and harm to children is too great to take the risk. But a celibate priest who has homosexual urges but never acts on them I have no problem with.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Jesus came to fulfill the law - not to annul it.
Actually, I said this myself in one of my earlier quotes. The fact that you are pointing it out like it should be a new thought to me, means you didn't read everything I wrote. My point was that if Jesus came to fulfill the Law, which He Himself said, then we shouldn't throw any aspects of the law away. We should not be allowed to pick and choose. This is exactly what Paul argued for against Peter to James the leader of the early church. If Paul was correct and the only thing needed for salvation is Jesus and those of us born Gentiles who choose the Christian faith do not need the law, but only faith then zeroing in on points of Old Testament law is incorrect. If we as Gentile Christians choose to take on some parts of the law (this is what spawned the discussion on circumcision) then we are required to take on the whole of it.
This was Paul's main argument, and it was the reason that James decided to send Paul to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jewish populaion. Paul stated that the Law is only required for those who were raised in it, or choose to take it on. This is the reason that the Kosher food laws do not apply to modern Christians etc. If you don't agree, that's your perogative but it is what he said the entire book of Galations is a rant about it because Peter showed up in Galatia and tried to convert a group of Gentiles to the Law by telling them that to be Christians they had to be circumsized.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
With regards to your statment about whether Jesus actually said it or not, I am going by the current Biblical Cannon, which is what the Church (in this case it was the Catholics originally) determined were the books most important to be followed regarding the teachings of Christ and the prophets, which is supposed to be the guide for our understanding of Christ.
Quite frankly, if you've never read any non-cannonical works you should. They are most interesting. There's also a reason they weren't included. My personal favorite is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, where Jesus does such things as tell a man who bumps into him at the market that "You shall go no further on your way," and the guy drops dead. There's a whole bunch of other stuff too. Interesting, but painfully obvious why the early church chose to leave it out of the cannon. Don't you think?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:The fact that you are pointing it out like it should be a new thought to me, means you didn't read everything I wrote.
Do not assume that just because something gets repeated it means someone hasn't read everything. It might just mean I felt like I wanted to emphasize it in my own post.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Everytime I read this thread title, I see a mental image of catholics everywhere taking massive doses of laxatives.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yeah, or gagging themselves with a spoon.
I figured out last night what caused me to make the conclusion I did about andi's statement that pedophilia is an orientation. My concept of "sexual orientation" is that it is a point along the spectrum of healthy human sexuality. The reasoning that pedophilia cannot be cured and therefore is an orientation would in my mind imply that those people think it is healthy. What kind of doctor assumes that because a condition cannot be cured, it is not a disease? Anyway, I feel it is a disservice to those who have orientations that struggle for recognition in society to have pedophilia piled on to their platform, and I have to wonder at the motives of the professionals who do so. I don't think andi falls into this group.
I mean, I know it is a common straw man attack on gay marriage to say this will result in a slippery slide where people wind up married to their pets and assorted other depravity being acceptable. I was not attempting to make that point. I was particularly responding to an issue you raised of how pedophilia is regarded by the mental health community.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
How can you tell the difference between a celibate homosexual and a celibate heterosexual?
(I'm soooo tempted to say [insert appropriate/inappropriate joke here], but I won't)
So, instead of not thinking of having sex with people of the opposite sex, you're really, really not supposed to be thinking of having sex with people of the same sex?
And I thought that pedophelia wasn't about love, it was about control--like rape. I assume that the RC Church doesn't allow their preists to commit pedophelia (beyond the current "well, sort of not") and rape, correct?
Maybe they could pass an edict that their celibate priests shouldn't not have sex not in the missionary position, or something.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
No offense to missionaries, of course.
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
Dragonee did you ever get to see the full document? I'm curious as to what it actually said/the intent behind it.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"assuming...that you accept the Bible as the inspired word of God"
Even with acceptance, the Bible is also a record of "men behaving badly". One should take that into consideration before deciding whether or not to accept their words as the Word of God.
"You have no idea if the incarnation of Christ said it or not, it may very well have been said and just not written down."
Convenient. So any time ya wanna commit an ethically reprehensible act, all ya hafta do is claim, "Jesus said it was okay. His disciples just didn't have room to record it." and that makes everything hunky dory?
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I admire the Catholic Church for deciding to reinforce their principles.
I understand that a lot of people here think that homosexual behavior is not immoral. You have the right to think that way.
However, any church has the right to determine what they believe is morality and to hold to that morality. If one doesn't like it, don't join.
The Catholic Church has been burned terribly, both by pedophilic (and as it's man-boy, homosexual) predators in it's midst, and on the other hand, by vicious haters of Christianity who will use any tool available. In some ways, it seems that as far as popular opinion goes, the Catholic Church can do no right.
I believe that people can change, that they can repent, even some of these predator priests. And I give the Catholic Church the benefit of the doubt, that when they have allowed these predators to remain, that they are doing so in hope and belief that they repented.
Unfortunately, all too often, they didn't repent. Then, people who do not understand repentance attack the Catholic Church for "protecting" the predators. Perhaps in some cases, they are right.
So now, as the Catholic Church has been burned so many times, they are turning to draconian measures to take care of the problem. And good for them. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to tell the difference between someone who is controling his urges, and someone who is hiding his actions. Look at it this way, all ye who think that the Catholic Church is going overboard:
'Tis better that every homosexual priest, even non-practicing homosexuals, gets defrocked than even one more boy gets raped.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
'Tis better that every priest gets defrocked than even one more person be hurt or killed in the name of Catholicism.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I believe that these "draconian measures" are a way to deflect our attention away from the bishops who should be held accountable for not only allowing this to happen but for helping to conceal these crimes for generations. Blaming homosexuals in general is finding a scapegoat in a vulnerable minority. It will not solve the problem. What will help is transparency in governance.
And I pray that the Catholic Church has higher "principles" than exclusion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
tern, Your facts are not correct. The Catholic Church has not been burned only by man-boy pedophilia, but rather by pedophilia and sex scandals of both types. There were plenty of cases where the priests where raping little girls too.
And the Church has not so much been burned by having priests who molested children, but by covering it up and lying about it, especially in such a way that these men went on to sexually abuse other children. That's the thing that has really gotten people angry with them. The Church can hardly contain the all actions of each individual in it's ranks, but the administrators of the Church have a duty towards their parishoners and to the world in general that they failed to live up to. Many of the cases of abuse that came to light in the Boston and mor recently Philadelphia scandals were by repeat offenders. One of the more vivid ones from the Philadelphia was a priest who was having sex with children for over 30 years, at one point getting a 13 year old pregnant and then coercing her into having an abortion.
One of the central figures in the Philadelphia scandal, who, for example wrote letters of good conduct for the child-rapist above, is now the pastor of a large church in the diocese. After a grand jury, though uncovering tons of cases where he knowingly covered up serial child abuse, was unable to convict him because of statutes of limitation, he went before his parishoners and defended himself with lies, deceptions, and vague "But I'm a good guy." statements. For example, he said "They only even questioned me about 3 cases.", which was true, except that he failed to mention that he apparently refused to testify on the grounds that it would incriminate himself. Despite clear prrof that he knowingly covered up the abuse committed by men who then went on to abuse more children, he claimed that he would never let children come to harm.
Cardinal Law, whose policies of covering up child abuse led to the severe decimation of the Boston Archdiocese, was rewarded with the charge of one of the top Cathedrals in Rome. He was honored with giving one of the 5 homilies after the death of Pope John Paul.
The current Pope has gone on record saying that the child abuse scandals in America are a case of the media making a big deal over nothing. I wonder if he'd be so cavalier if he were face to face with one of the hundreds or likely thousands of people who were sexually abused because the Catholic Church chose to hide his crimes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thank you, MrSquicky. Exactly. Right.
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
tern,
As a Catholic I feel anything but admiration for the possible implications of this decision. If this statement says what it is being touted to say then I actually feel betrayed and lied to by the Church. I have had frequent discussions about homosexuality with various priests and lay ministers throughout the years. I have a good number of friends and a few family members who are gay and this is a fairly important subject with me. The standard line has always been that the Church accepts everyone for who they are and accepts their inherently sinful nature because all of us have sinful inclinations. It's the whole despise the sin and not the sinner concept. I feel that one possible implication of this statement action is that this is no longer the message.
I have mixed feelings about the Church's stance on gay relationships anyway. But at least I could understand that position. I feel that excluding someone from the priesthood because of an inclination is a very scary precedent.
Basically you're saying that the Church should just play it safe. But in the case of religion you don't play it safe. You just don't. Faith is about a relationship with your Creator. You don't exactly play it safe with something like that. Also there is evidence to suggest that homosexuality has nothing to do with molesting boys. In fact many men who molest boys are actually straight. Molestation is often about power rather than your normal sexual inclinations. There is a large difference and I feel equating molestation as either heterosexual or homosexual relations is not really appropriate.
The Church neglected it's obligation to remove people from a position where they were doing bad things. The Church also is responsible for the leading the faithful and helping the members of it's flock I feel that the decision is possibly in opposition to this responsibility. I feel the Church has an obligation to rectify the first mistake in a way that is not hypocritical.
I bumped this thread because I wanted to make sure I understand the full implications of what exactly was written and was having some trouble getting it from other places and thought Hatrack could help. I have been deeply disturbed by this whole thing. Religion and faith in God is not exactly something that comes naturally to me. I am a very logical and sorta methodical person. So I'm more often than not just doubting most of the Catholic faith. But this has been an issue where that really makes me feel that I can't continue to go along struggling with my own search for answers within this organization.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sarahdipity,
Remember that the Church is so much more than the hierarchy. We are all the body of Christ - all of us make up the Church.
And many of us feel just as you do about these issues. Please feel free to e-mail me if you want to talk more about this.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
The average child molester is a white, upper-middle class heterosexual man.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) how can that logic be used to defend excluding the group with a lower overall rate of offences?![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
Attempting to bring a new perspective to a conversation that looked to me to be very one sided and with little balance. We (and I do mean we) as Christians have become very one sided and living in the South as I do, I hear very little regarding civil rights for homosexuals. It upsets me. Civil rights for gays and lesbians will not require any denominations of the church or any religion to open their doors to homosexuals if they do not wish to, that's what's so great about living in a country with freedom of religion. The government can't dictate to the religions what they may or may not teach, or whom they may or may not accept. However that does not preclude homosexuals from having Civil Rights in this country. In fact it cannot because if this country is based on freedom of religion, there must also be freedom from religion. We as Americans cannot force anyone to join a specific religious belief, or any religious belief. As a result, we should not be allowed to deny any minority group of people equal civil rights under the law simply because our religion tells us that what they are doing is wrong. Believe me, I know that it says that. I studied religion for four years in college, and I've done exgetical studies on numerous passages and read dozens of books on various religious subjects. But since we cannot legally require anyone to accept our religious beliefs we cannot deny them civil rights based on beliefs that they are not legally required to share. ![[Mad]](mad.gif)