www.byzcath.org

"Crunchy Con" Rod Dreher [beliefnet.com] thinks Haggard is in 'da Nile'.

Well, let us keep him in our prayers as we pray for all men and women. Unfortunately, statements like his to the media will likely reinforce misconceptions that people have about "sexual orientation," "sexual preference," or whatever you want to call it. Also, it will reinforce the perception, among many Christians, that it is a person's fault if he finds within himself homoerotic passions and inclinations. There are people in my own family who think that all homosexual inclinations are freely willed, therefore, if one has homosexual desires, one is automatically part of the depraved lot that St. Paul is talking about in Romans 1. The interesting thing is that many studies have suggested that a large percentage of married "heterosexual" men have had homoerotic passions and inclinations at one point or another. All of us find disordered passions within us. I suppose if I were counseling someone in pastor Haggard's situation, I would suggest to him that three weeks isn't going to make one immune to disordered passions and that it is too soon to speak. Instead of worrying about whether he is a "true heterosexual" he would do better to focus on understanding the origin of the passions and conquering them through prayer, fasting, and humility (the old fashioned way)

JSMelkite,

Wise counsel.

CDL

Amen. For this to come out publicly sounds more like "PR" move for the EvFree Church and Brother Ted than anything substantive. I can see that he might emerge from these three weeks with a new resolve to manage the fanatsies and the behaviors, but real substantive change will not occur unless he follows the kind of program you recommend, Joe. Personally, I should think that he should keep quiet and hidden for at least 1-2 years.

But Protestantism as a movement, particularly in its Evangelical manifestation, is so personality focused and sometimes very ego driven, that Brother Ted will have to guard against the temptation to return to the fawning limelight of his once "successful" pastorate. (I put "successful" in quotation marks because how one measures that is often in a very worldly manner, instead of through a supernatural lens...) IMHO, after his recovery, he should seek to serve his family first, be an active layman and a penitent, and enter into the marketplace. He is an extremely talented guy and should have no trouble there.

Otherwise he could be swimming de Nile for quite some time...and there could be crocodiles ahead!

Gordo

you know what time it is, Gordo.
it is because of all this nonsense that I will give no credence at all to the irreligious right. I no longer find it astonishing that all this right wing preachers and their political hack pals who screech the loudest about homosexuality are turning tricks behind the podium.a number of years ago, we in Chattanooga had a street preacher that set himself up as a morals monitor, oh how he would rant and rave against abortion and homosexuality. while I agreed that abortion is what it is, murder, he managed, wonder of wonders, to turn off a number of his Fundy friends with his obnoxious presentation. he got tossed off a bus when he attempted to bring placards with pictures of aborted babies aboard. the driver was concerned for his passengers (especially ladies and children)having to be exposed to that. he appeared before televised City Council meetings and said Chattanooga needed to get rid of all the n-----s in order to get rid of crime. he also positioned himself at Gay bars to rain hellfire and damnation on those nasty old Sodomites (ah, chillen, he was also picking up Black men and I will not tell you what for, it ain't fitting).he tried to join First Presbyterian and was told NO, that he would not be allowed to use that venerable old parish to further his agenda. it gets even better, he actually GRADUATED FROM MY SEMINARY, but God is good, and that preacher was eventually told to return his degrees for all the disgrace he brought on Temple Baptist Seminary (not to mention the whole city). he and I were all too well aquainted with each other, as cruel fate would have it, and many a row did we have.
it is because of all the hypocrisy that made feel good about voting NO on the marriage amendment in Tennessee, that and I am quite pro-life libertarian in my views on personal liberty. I also don't mind telling y'all that I have voted for such people as Kerry, Nader, and look forward to Giuliani, despite what the Catholic hierarchy and their pals in the religious right may woof forth.
hypocritical Elmer Gantry types, whether they be priest or parson,and what ever their sexual inclinations, are nothing new.
Much Love,
Jonn

John,

You closed with "much love" but given the nature of your post it seemed rather hypocritical of you. Sorry about your seminary friend. Have you prayed for him?

CDL

many a time, have I and others prayed for him but as far as my being hypocritical is concerned, I beg to differ. try to put yourself in the Bible Belt and see what hypocrisy is all about. perhaps it is because of all the phoniness that a lower percentage of people in the Bible Belt attend religious service than say in New York, another city of which I am familiar.
Much Love,
Jonn

I also don't mind telling y'all that I have voted for such people as Kerry, Nader, and look forward to Giuliani, despite what the Catholic hierarchy and their pals in the religious right may woof forth.

If there were a law against being Catholic, neither Kerry nor Giuliani could ever be convicted.

A few points...

1. The hypocrisy of advocates for policy does not excuse taking the side of immorality.

2. What exactly is a "pro-life libertarian"? We have a Supreme Court ruling that guarantees the rights of abortion doctors and women to kill innocent babies for $$$. I'm glad you feel comfortable with your libertarianism, but you seem to vote for individuals who neither support the pro-life position nor the idea of limited government. And what of the principle that the rights of others end where my nose begins? Who will defend the rights of the unborn? I sense some cognitive dissonance here...

3. The Catholic hierarchy and their pals on the right? Not sure if you have been reading anything that has come out of the USCCB in the past 20 years, but I would hardly refer to the Catholic hierarchy in this country as right leaning. If anything, it is precisely the opposite, with the exception of abortion and euthanasia.

You are right to criticize the hypocrisy of others (whether they be right or left) but I think you need to review your own inconsistencies in thought and action (in particular, your voting habits) before spewing anymore venom "with love".

And lumping anyone with traditional values - be he parson or politician - with the idiocy of your former classmate, not to mention asserting that such individuals are "turning tricks" behind the podium, is completely absurd and bigoted. There are plenty of good, decent people who serve as pastors and politicians (more so the former than the latter - I share some of your sketicism of politicians...it is a peculiarly American passion) and they don't need to be lumped in with the Elmer Gantry's of the world.

I'm really shocked at your words.

Gordo

I am shocked and upset by that post too. I am probably one of the most disilllusioned people around concerning politicians right, middle or left but I can`t think of any reason that justifies voting for a politician who is upfront about being pro-choice when there is a (or at least claiming to be} pro-life candidate available.

Dear Friends,

While I agree that John's post may not have been expressed in the most appropriate terms, I find it hard myself to vote for some pro-life politicians who are, in my view, very undesirable in other areas.

If I were running for office myself, I would be very strongly pro-life, but all of my other views, especially around war, peace, economics, the environment, and the poor, would be like Paul Wellstone.

I do not vote for prochoice people because they are prochoice but in spite of it.

I do not say this to be offensive or argumentative, but I truly believe that Bush has been an mititgated disaster for the world and for our country. The current administration is corrupt and arrogant. I am sorry, I am not going to vote for people like them. Not ever.

Some people here may have felt the same way and more about the Clinton Administration, so can we please keep our words about our leaders more charitable and less offensive?

There is also a rule here to put the titles before politician's names, so that in this rule of lost etiquette, we force ourselves, as Christians, to be more respectful about our leaders.

Thank you.

Alice, Moderator

On homosexuality: for many years, as a Christian, I took the view that God that God accepted gay relationships just as he does heterosexual marraiges. I figured that St. Paul did not have our modern scientific and psychiatric understanding of human sexuality, and that he probably also was more likely referring to abusive sexual practices, such as pedastry and male prostitution.

But in very recent years, I have changed my mind. I have come back to a more traditional view of marraige in sexuality. there are many intellectual reasons for my change of mind, as well as certain testimonies from gay people. Also, my belief in the nature of revelation is more solid than it was a few years ago. I do feel bad, I admit, sometimes, that some people should forgo sexual love their whole lives in order to be faithful to their Christian vocation. I have felt like a hypocrite, because in my single life, as a professing Christian, I did not always live chastely. I am sometimes lonely, and remember what is was like and when I had a woman, someone special in my life.

But now I expect that God will bring someone into my life in an appropriate way, and that I will have, God willing, the joy of sacramental marraige someday.

I appreciate the teaching of the Catholic Catechism on sexuality.

The Catechism acknowledges the sinfulness of homosexual acts, but also the trial that the orientation (for lack of better term) is for some people. The Catechism exhorts gay people to prayer and chastity, and acknowledges their struggle. I realize that for some gay people, it may not sound compassionate, in that people are instructed that they have to live celibate and not have sexual love in their lives.

But I believe the biblical revelation and the traditional Christian approach to marraige.

I think the catechism's approach is far more compassionate than that of some Christian groups that promise gay people that they can "change their orientation."

Maybe some can, but I think those kinds of promises simply lead to heart break for people.

Alice, I am sorry- i was really making an effort not to be disrespectful. My feelings I have about the current administration are this visceral for me. the words I use, I do not know how to say them in a gentler way. I am not saying them to offend people, or start an argument. I do realize people feel the same way about Clinton (I voted for Nader in 1996, BTW). I am trying to share how I truly feel with my friends and fellow Christians here, how I truly perceive the administration. I do pray for President Bush every day. I do care about him, and I do give him credit when he does something right. But I am not going to vote for him.

I think that when we vote for candidates, we don't always know what we are going to get. Sometimes we may get bad people who do reasonably good work. Other times we may get good people who turn out to be inept. There are also times when what we perceive to be good qualities in a candidate, can become bad qualities under the right set of events and circumstances. I have lived long enough to take the political process with a grain of salt.