"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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
"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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So andi, do you look forward to a day when pedo/eudophiles can practice their orientation which you say cannot be cured legally?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everytime I read this thread title, I see a mental image of catholics everywhere taking massive doses of laxatives.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dragonee did you ever get to see the full document? I'm curious as to what it actually said/the intent behind it.
Posts: 872 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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?
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
'Tis better that every priest gets defrocked than even one more person be hurt or killed in the name of Catholicism.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 872 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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)
