www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall I've had enough

Robert, good point.

**************************************************

ND, never have I advocated that Priest that are guilty of pedophilia should be placed around children again. Excommunication however is to strong a penalty. Normaly adjusted adults are not attracted to pre-pubecent children, nor to the point of loosing everything that have in life over it. I believe they have will of course, but that that will is surrendered to their cumpulsion.

I would favour your monastery ideal.

I would also like to point out for others that these "screening test" people take to map out their psychological make up, are depended on the persons taking them being honest. They are not that good of qualifiers for rational persons. They however are very accurate in "picking up" irrational persons that suffer from complexes of dallusions.

I've taken these test, and one can easily lie about their sexual attractions, desires, and frequency of masterbation. But if you want to pin the Priesthood on these tests I suppose we could do that and then wait for the result.

**************************************************

And sorry all for completely screwing up the Our Father. I missed putting in the - "hallowed be thy name" and so forth. I knew I was missing something.

Robert K. wrote "In fact, anyone, even the Pope could fall and yet my faith in our religion would still remain because that faith is based on Jessus Christ and his Gosple and not the actions of fallible men." Amen and Amen. You paraphrased nicely the second antiphon from the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in the Russian tradition. FatherDeacon Moshe Zorea

Yes, the Pope could very well fall from grace (AS some have done before). But as a loyal Catholic, I feel that it should be pointed out that this would not mean that he could teach any doctrinal error when speaking "ex cathedra". My point had more to do with moral then doctrinal issues least anyone think that I was denying Papal infallibility.

Robert K.

The traditional term for sinlessness is impeccability. None of us is impeccable. As RobertK has rightly noted: impeccability and infallibility are different. The individual members of the Church are peccable, capable of sin. But the Holy Spirit of truth guides and guards the purity and integrity of the Church's teaching that the Church may proclaim only that gospel which leads to eternal life.

The Church has also traditionally taught (and you almost NEVER hear about this anymore) that in addition to obeying the laws of God and the Church, we are to obey the just laws of man.

That's why these attempts by the hierarchy to dodge law enforcement are so bogus.

Once again, I refer to the dictum of Christ that bids us love God to the best of our abilities and to love our neighbor as we care for ourselves.

The fact remains that there may very well be situations where age is a concern; but if the relationship is not subjugating nor coercive, then it does not appear to contravene the Gospel mandate. Sometimes the "odd couple" does fall in love. And it is not our responsiblity to judge them.

The real and underlying issue is (and I hate to bring it up) sin. Whatever contravenes the law of Love of God and Neighbor is sin. Plain and simple. The astute Christian will realize this and do whatever possible to negate the effects of this sin and to reform one's life to make sure that it never happens again.

It is clear, to me at least, that an invidual who engages in coercive activities over those who are susceptible, is guilty of sin.

I will remind the community that there are those teenagers who, perforce of society and social norms, consider themselves 'sexual' beings and who wish to work out their sexuality regardless of the strictures and norms of the community. ONe must be very careful in admitting statements from the "young" as to the dynamics of the an "interaction". Sometimes the kids are confused and interpret the actions of adults in sexual/erotic terms when the other party had no such mindset. This can only hurt the innocent party who was merely present at the interaction, and the accuser who has lived with a misinterpretation by the 'aggrieved' party.

Let us pray to be wise in all such circumstances.

Christ is Risen!!!

Yes. And they did so because this is, in fact, true.

Without a doubt, the difficulties the Catholic Church is going through right now has been made worse because you have a "man" like Cardinal Law on the one hand, be absolutely cruel towards the right of gay people to live in peace in a civil society, but on the other hand, tolerate sexual abuse of children by his own priests.

The press was very kind to the Catholic Church and the Pope in anticipation of the recent meeting at the Vatican. However, the results were worthless and the laity is now in near revolt.

When Catholic leaders say that when two adult men openly love each other, they should be imprisioned while when priests subject to their authority are not disciplined in anyway when they rape and abuse children is a scandal. These individuals have truly disgraced themselves.

Axios

Axios,

First of all if it is true of homosexuality then it is true of pedophilia.

Secondly, can you answer a question for me? My question is this - if the "marriage" of homosexuals should be legaly recognized by the law, should bi-sexual persons be allowed to marry two persons one of the female gender the other of the male gender? Or do you not recognize the validity of bi-sexual persons sexual urge and attractions?

Personaly I don't think we can honestly address the true disposition of homosexuality with out adressing the true disposition of bi-sexuality and heterosexuality.

And I think your being unjust with the Catholic Bishops teachings and approach to homosexuality. If they had the hate for homosexuals that it sounds like you believe they do, then there would be a grand Inquisitor set up to run homosexuals out of the Priesthood and out of the ranks of the laity.

Personaly I'm rather pleased with what the Cardinals came out of the Vatican with. And I don't see the laity in an uproar. Of course I will like to see them come up with some better concrete ways of dealing with this problem, but we will wait and see.

Maximus,

I can't answer you on same sex marriage. It is not a proposition I have ever had much interest in.

First of all if it is true of homosexuality then it is true of pedophilia.

I am open to learning from you about bisexuality. It is also I topic I have little knowledge of.

I think you miss my point about certain Catholic bishops. Criminal sanctions for adult, lay gay couples; "reassignment" for their own child abusing priests.

Read the newspapers on the lay response. It is strongly negative with little interest to "wait and see" as children are being abused.

Axios

I think I understand and sympathize with Axios' comments. The key element for Christians is to love God and one's neighbor (all of them equally). If we are not doing this, then we are guilty of some degree of sin.

Certainly the sacrament of Matrimony is a key element in the structure of the Christian community; there is no question about this. But, at the same time, this cannot and should not allow us to cast a differential upon those who love each other outside of marriage. By exalting the sacrament of matrimony, we should not at the same time diminish loving interpersonal relationships. We have talked about the 'collegiality' of the priests and their loving brotherhood; we have talked about parents' love for their children; we have talked about the Holy Father's love for the children of God; and we venerate saints who have spent their lives serving God's people, including those (like Fr. Damien) who have laid down their lives "for the ones they love".

So, I would hope that we would not follow the red herrings of 'gay marriage' or some triple-whammy 'bisexual' marriage (--marriage means 2, not three so this would appear to be a non-starter). Nor should we be totally adamant about demanding that "marriage" is the only one and holy way to love people. I know any number of single people who are all mutual friends and who would be there is a nanosecond should anyone need them. Is this 'true love'? No question in my book. I also know a gay male couple who have been together for 30 years. Is this 'true love'? No question in my book. So, I am just suggesting that we not restrict our concept of 'loving relationship' to the marital state.

Let people find their paths; support that which is loving, and be concerned about anything that stands in the way of living a Gospel life of love of God and love of one's neighbor. Whether a celibate priest who loves God's people; the Holy Father who loves the Church as his child; the missionary who gives his whole life to the service of others; the physician or nurse who serves the sick as a volunteer out of love; the elderly retirees who live together in love without marriage because their benefits would be reduced and they couldn't survive; the gay person who is totally in love and committed but who can't marry; the 'opposite faith' folks who can only get a 'civil marriage' because their religious communities won't let them marry: all of these cases are situations where love can and does exist, but where marriage is not a possibility.

There are waaaay too many people who live love-less lives for a variety of circumstances; I am uncomfortable about forcing truly loving relationships into the shadows because they don't fit our notion of what is permissible. I'm not sure that this is what Christ is teaching us. (Today is Samaritan Sunday -- Our Lord broke all kinds of strictures just speaking to this woman, and really pushed it when He asked her for some water from the well. But He turned it into an opportunity to bring people to the Father. Can/should I do less?)

Christ is Risen!!!

PS: It was NOT the American Psychological Association, but rather the American PSYCHIATRIC Association (the medical doctors) who removed homosexuality from the manual of mental disorders in 1973. The psychologists followed suit in their non-medical nomenclature about 2 years later. The critical element in the decision lay in the definition of mental illness: a mental illness is any circumstance that interferes with a person's ability to function (intrapersonally or within society) and that led to distress in one's daily life. Since the psychiatrists were confronted with large numbers of gay people who were not in distress- either intrapersonally or socially, it was difficult/impossible to state that homosexuality was in itself a mental disorder. I worked for the Psychiatric Association for a dozen years; and as a public affairs person, I was responsible for explaining this to the press and to the lay public who called.)

[ 04-28-2002: Message edited by: Dr John ]

Dr John & Axios,

You both are correct that it is wrong, hateful, and contradictory of any Bishop to suugest on the one hand that gay men should be thrown into jail and on the other hand shuffle pedophile Priest from one parish to the next.

However, while I fully understand that persons other then two heterosexual married persons, can participate in the fullest extent of human love. That was not what I was talking about regarding marriage. Love in and of it's self can not be the only determinate for marriage. This is secular logic, and in such is logic for the circle of marriage of the bisexual trio! Marriage is also a social contract, so is the Priesthood or Nunnery, I think the Church would agree.

But enough of that.

What I do want to say is that, it seems that you both are limiting *love* between people not I. You two would seem to say love between people whether in a trio of bisexuality, a homosexual couple, or a trio of heterosexuality, is all healthy and good and should be supported. But on the other hand you two would seem to deny that love cannot be possible between a 13 year old and 32 year old. I'm sure you two would qualify other terms to the emotional affair of those two persons i.e. infatuation, lust, and so forth. Or you two seem to deny that some pedophiles have any love for their victims but rather contempt and hate or at least total disregard -- this is totally not true.

I've been fortunate enough to have been forced or threatened into taking classes with pedophilers when I was on probation for my sexual intercourse with a 17 year old, after my jail time. Though I was not court ordered to go to these classes, my probation office sought it one of the things necessary to compel me to do or subjugate me back into jail time. Interestingly enough the class experience actually worked the opposite of what the probation office hoped for I guess. I grew to actually hold these pedophile people into less contempt. I grew to know them as people who where like me in every respect save for their problem towards children. They are people too of love, compassion, and good industry. But for some reason they are compeled to this attraction for children, mind you they can also be attracted to adults as well, and even raise families. Most of them where sexually abused as children themselves.

Of course some people that sexualy assault children are close to that line of evil if not having crossed it already. But that in my opinion can be said of heterosexual people attracted to adults as well. I personaly don't find a husband who would forcibly sodimize his wife against her will, repeatedly, the closest thing to saintly love. Nor would I consider a heterosexual male that has raped, abducted, murdered, and mutilated, a woman or several, as and no less evil then a grown man that has for the first time fondled a 12 year old boy.

Of course predjudice is often blind.

I have always thought that was the big problem with Vatican II. Not what it said, but when it occurred, at the begining of the 60's. Vatican II, at least in this country was highjacked by the age of Aquarius.

ALity

Is it not time Cardinal Law, NCRegister and some others stopped blaming gay people for these troubles and started fully accepting responsbility themselves?

Axios

Brother Axios, I am in general in agreement with the perspective that you propose.

My only question and suggestion is: it is adherence to the "love of God; love of neighbor" commands that should guide our lives.

There are those who have had people half their age declare their love. Should they respond? There are those who are of different or the same gender express their love. Should they respond? There are those who are 'restricted' in love because of religious or political strictures. Should they respond?

My only response is: if the two are loving of God and loving of their neighbors, and if there is no coercion or involuntary subjugation, then we should be more or less accepting of the relationship. Who are we to judge the relationships of others, if they appear to be loving and mutually supportive?

Guess I'm just an old softy; but I do believe that love is something ingrained in our persons, it is really thin ice to start making judgements about other folks (especially if we are removed from the reality), and that we should be encouraging of loving relationships among mature people, including those who are living with all sorts of restrictions.

Christ is Risen!!

Yes it is Axios.