I know this is a TOUGH topic and I hope this forum can handle it respectively. I came accross this article:
http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=1&art_id=12597 The key word is "one." One priest had been accused of assaulting a prepubescent child. The other allegations involved priests and sexually mature, but under-age, adolescents � mostly boys.
"Those Chicago numbers are not unusual. This is, in fact, part of a pattern we see in diocese after diocese," said Father Donald B. Cozzens, former vicar for clergy in Cleveland and then rector of a graduate seminary in Ohio.
"Of course, any abuse of children is horrifying and it is just as wrong � morally and legally � when sexual abuse occurs with teenagers. But it isn't helping matters, right now, for people to keep blurring the lines between these two conditions. This isn't just about pedophilia."
Debates about sexuality and the priesthood will only heat up, if that is possible, now that a crucial Vatican voice has spoken. A close aide to Pope John Paul II told The New York Times that it's time to slow or even stop the flow of gays into the priesthood. "People with these inclinations just cannot be ordained," said psychiatrist Joaquin Navarro-Valls.
Cozzens stressed that he agrees with researchers who believe sexual orientation is irrelevant in discussions of pedophilia. But what if pedophilia is not the issue?
By definition, pedophiles are sexually attracted to boys and girls who have not reached puberty. But Cozzens said reports he has studied, and his own experience as a counselor, indicate the more common problem among Catholic clergy is "ephebophilia." This is recurrent, intense sexual interest in post-pubescent young people � teenagers.
The term "ephebophilia" is rarely used in church debates and the press. Yet, Cozzens said that whenever clergy vicars held conferences 90 percent of the sex-abuse cases they discussed fell into this category. Yet church authorities are reluctant to investigate this reality.
Why this conspicuous silence?
"Perhaps it is feared that it will call attention to the disproportionate number of gay priests," wrote Cozzens, in his influential "The Changing Face of the Priesthood," published in 2000. "While homosexually oriented people are no more likely to be drawn to misconduct with minors than straight people, our own experiences was clear and, I believe, significant. Most priest offenders, we vicars agreed, acted out against teenage boys."
In his most controversial chapter, Cozzens quotes reports claiming about 50 percent of U.S. Catholic priests are gay, with the numbers higher among priests younger than 40. Talk of a "gay subculture" grew in recent decades as 20,000 men left the priesthood to get married.
The seminary climate changed - radically. Cozzens cited a survey in which 60 percent of one seminary's students identified themselves as gay, 20 percent were "confused about their sexual identity" and 20 percent said they were heterosexual.
Cozzens concluded: "Should our seminaries become significantly gay, and many seasoned observers find them to be precisely that, the priesthood of the 21st century will likely be perceived as a predominantly gay profession."
This is the proverbial elephant in the sanctuary that few bishops want to discuss.
Cozzens said that, along with many other researchers, he does not see a direct link between homosexual orientation and sexual abuse. Yet the cloud of secrecy and denial that swirls around the gay subculture makes it hard to discuss urgent issues � such as ephebophilia.
"Pedophilia is a totally different kind of sickness and it can't really be treated," he said. "You simply have to do what you can to help the abuser and then make sure all future contact with children is cut off. There is no other way. ...
"But there are many bishops out there who, for a variety of reasons, have been convinced that priests can be successfully treated and reassigned to other parishes if the sexual contact was with teenagers. Now, that belief is being shaken."
Dear +Ray,
I don't know if we really need to look at this issue again.
I don't trust the social statistical procedures of journalists with BA's in English, if that.
Why doesn't the press ever report the really good things celibate priests do, their sacrifices and hard work in the Vineyard of Christ?
Alex
No.
Most priests are not homosexual, or pedophiles. Some, A VERY FEW are one or the other or both, and the results of their actions have been tragic, and have been poorly handled by the Church for years. But MOSt priests, the overwhelming majority of priests are celibate heterosexual men trying to lead holy lives. Of course that doesn't make the headlines.....
Sheesh.
Sharon
Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com
Alex,
I respect your position but I think I might agree that a large percentage of priest are homosexuals. Now that does not mean they are ACTIVE homosexuals.
Now I don't want this topic to degrade into something not Christian but I think it is worthy of discussion.
FYI, the articles author:
(Terry Mattingly is a senior fellow for journalism at the Council For Christian Colleges and Universities and a member of Holy Cross Orthodox Church in Linthicum, MD. He writes a weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service.)
God, I hope not.
Sharon and Alex are right. The problems that we hear more and more about now are frightful, but in all fairness to the priesthood, this doesn't seem to be the problem of the majority of priests, but of the few who then manage to get themselves on TV, because the media loves this stuff. Unfortunately, it's influencing how people view the priesthood, and in that sense, this might deter vocations, and those who aren't deterred will probably find their ministry that much more difficult.
I can't help but think that there was never a more opportune moment to restore the married priesthood in the Byzantine Churches.
Bless me a sinner, Reverend Father!
I agree, but I think that there is some sort of smear campaign going on against celibate priests and I don't like it.
When I was in Catholic high school (Latin Church, of course
), and said I wanted to a priest, everyone, except for my friends, thought of me as being homosexual and told me that to my face.
(It was a much worse experience than having OneHoly use the term "crap" in reference to my person yesterday
I would have preferred "Crap" to "Fag.")
Even when I told them my Eastern Catholic bishop PROMISED to look after the matter of my being a married priest, they didn't pay attention. (My bishop said, "You worry about studying, Alex, and I'll worry about everything else, including your presbytera . . .").
That was hurtful, and if I am ever critical of Catholic education, it was largely due to similar experiences.
The only thing that was truly "Catholic" about that high school was the Crucifixes in the classrooms.
Alex
[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]
Mor E.
I am not stating that the problems we are facing today is the result of Homosexual priest! In fact statistics suggest that Ped. are more likely to come from Heterosexual men than Gay men.
What I am suggesting is that many men may feel that it is a blessing from God that they are not called to be a part of the Nuclear family and they find Fulfillment in the Priesthood.
Not to get off the subject too much I had a college professor from Berkeley who had many friends in Hollywood. He told me that most of Hollywood was run by Homosexuals. Now I know this might sound like a stereotype but I assure that my professor assured me that it was pretty much a given. So where is this leading? Well, as we know Hollywood is considered an Artistic Industry and on the edge of Cultural Norms. In addition, most people would agree that the Media is quite liberal because a lot of the media comes from artistic background. Now I could go on and on about the connection between Homosexuality and the Artistic influences they have in our modern culture. The correlation that I am suggestion here is that in my opinion Homosexuals tend to be more Artistic and �Free Thinkers� in society today. In addition, I think we can all agree that they are liberal even to an Extreme.
Think about post Vatican II. Think about the RCC document on the Environment and Church Architecture. Consider the new trends in Church Architecture and the radical departure of traditional Church norms. Now look at the �fringe groups� of the priesthood today. Doesn�t these �fringe groups� tend to support the new changes within the Church. Aren�t these Changes very liberal? I wish I could develop this further but I am at work. Maybe tonight I will help build this case. Finally, don�t you see the connection with a �Homosexual Culture� element inside the Church today?
[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: aRomanCatholic@Work ]
Dear +Ray,
Well, no, actually.
I also think your professor is anti-Semitic as well as being Homophobic. It doesn't speak well to his academic credentials nor to his credentials as a human being.
And, frankly,I think the greatest blow against terrorism was struck by the words of Ellen Degeneris when she told all Americans to get on with their lives in the aftermath of the 911 tragedy.
"That will hurt the terrorists more than the picture of a woman in pants surrounded by Jews."
For me, that is "Churchillian" in terms of its impact.
As for homosexuality, it is something we know very little about.
Yet, we have had homosexual Church leaders and saints, who have talked openly about their homosexual orientations while remaining celibate.
The Caesars practiced homosexuality as heterosexuals, something to mark them off from the common people, and the scriptures certainly condemns this.
Can a homosexual become a Priest or a Monk? Or course!
The idea that somehow homosexuality is linked to child abuse or pedophilia is sheer nonsense.
Heterosexuals are more than likely to be pedophiliacs and engage in all manner of sexual deviancy.
There are books written about this, responsible and scholarly, by theologians and, as Anastasios/Dustin would say, we need to read them.
Otherwise, this is beginning to sound like the childish rantings of students in a sociology 101 class.
At this time, I would ask the Moderator to review this thread and share with us his own perspective on its continued legitimacy on the Forum.
Alex
[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]
[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]
Let me clarify something the above opinion is not neccasary my opinion. It was just a thought I had and I was trying to logically think it out. Rather, a theory if you want...
Dear +Ray,
I understand where you're coming from.
But I've asked the Moderator to review this as it involves a tacit assumption about the Priesthood and the Church that I don't believe is appropriate for this Forum.
I won't post anything further here until the Moderator has had a chance to review it.
I think that's only fair and I will abide by the Moderator's decision.
Alex
Originally posted by Sharon Mech:
No.
Most priests are not homosexual, or pedophiles. Some, A VERY FEW are one or the other or both, and the results of their actions have been tragic, and have been poorly handled by the Church for years. But MOSt priests, the overwhelming majority of priests are celibate heterosexual men trying to lead holy lives. Of course that doesn't make the headlines.....
Sheesh.
Sharon
Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com
Sharon in no way am I trying to be hard on you, but how do you know what the majority of Priest are? But I do agree with you that the majority of Priest are heterosexual - even if that majority would come out to a percentage point of 51% to 49%.
However I, trying to be honest with myself, have come to accept RomanCatholic@Work position on this. Infact a Priest I knew as a child has admited already sometime ago of molesting a little boy. A Priest at my highschool was known to be found of highschool boys, infact two Priest at my cousins highschool were known to have been quite fond of highschool boys. I know a Priest that is homosexual, well let me say I can't say that for fact, but I'm older and wiser and my good instincts tell me so. But he is a good Priest and so what would I care if he is gay. Infact gay Priest that are active with adult males are preferable to heterosexual Priests that are active with adult women. One can produce children the other can't.
I've already written some of my suggestions to some with authority in the Church. I doubt they'll be taken seriously. And I'm sure as long as catholic laity will bury their heads in the sand the Church higher ups will go on with buisness as normal and just court the wealthy and powerful when another tragedy occurrs and is broadcast for the world to see.
But I like my brother, and so many others, am looking to the virtue of Buddhism over that of the tribal conflicts, scandals, and intellectual and financial arrogance of the Christian world. If Christ is true, I will have to stay in the Church, but that doesn't mean I have to remain in the "community". The Buddhist I'm sure of this respects the human, and I personal prefer to be in that kind of community of "honor" then what I see inside of Christianity.
flame away.
Dear Maximus,
The point is that pedophilia and homosexuality are two separate things.
Many pedophiliacs are actually married and have heterosexual lives etc.
We tend to blame celibacy and other things on priests.
We have had sports coaches charged with pedophilia here as well as other, married ministers of Protestant churches.
And +Ray is going beyond this in opening this thread.
I don't accept the simplistic psychology underlying this, if you two agree, I would say you've bought into the media propaganda against the Church on this as well.
I call on the Moderator to review this and determine the legitimacy of this thread continuing.
Alex
To aRomanCatholic@Work,
I know quite a few homosexual Catholics (not priests) who tend to be more "High Church" than anything esle. They seem more likely to build a Gothic Cathederal with Latin inscriptions than anything modern in style. Although I can appreciate your theory, I think you have it backwards.
Dmitri.
Another expert weighs in on clerical pedophilia.
Date: 2002-03-11
"The Myth of the Pedophile Priest"
A Researcher Puts Scandals in Context
PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania, MARCH 11, 2002 (Zenit.org).- Philip Jenkins, a Penn State University professor of history and religious studies, is author of "Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis" (Oxford University Press, 1996). He wrote this article for the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, which published it March 3 under the headline "The Myth of the Pedophile Priest."
* *
By Philip Jenkins
Every day, the news media have a new horror story to report, under some sensational headline: Newsweek, typically, is devoting its current front cover to "Sex, Shame and the Catholic Church: 80 Priests Accused of Child Abuse in Boston." Though the sex abuse cases have deep roots, the most recent scandals were detonated by the affair of Boston priest John J. Geoghan.
Though his superiors had known for years of Geoghan�s pedophile activities, he kept being transferred from parish to parish, regardless of the safety of the children in his care. The stigma of the Geoghan affair could last for decades, and some Catholics are declaring in their outrage that they can never trust their church again.
No one can deny that Boston church authorities committed dreadful errors, but at the same time, the story is not quite the simple tale of good and evil that it sometime appears. Hard though it may be to believe right now, the "pedophile priest" scandal is nothing like as sinister as it has been painted -- or at least, it should not be used to launch blanket accusations against the Catholic Church as a whole.
We have often heard the phrase "pedophile priest" in recent weeks. Such individuals can exist: Father Geoghan was one, as was the notorious Father James Porter a decade or so back. But as a description of a social problem, the term is wildly misleading. Crucially, Catholic priests and other clergy have nothing like a monopoly on sexual misconduct with minors.
My research of cases over the past 20 years indicates no evidence whatever that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination -- or indeed, than nonclergy. However determined news media may be to see this affair as a crisis of celibacy, the charge is just unsupported.
Literally every denomination and faith tradition has its share of abuse cases, and some of the worst involve non-Catholics. Every mainline Protestant denomination has had scandals aplenty, as have Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah�s Witnesses, Jews, Buddhists, Hare Krishnas -- and the list goes on.
One Canadian Anglican (Episcopal) diocese is currently on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of massive lawsuits caused by decades of systematic abuse, yet the Anglican church does not demand celibacy of its clergy.
However much this statement contradicts conventional wisdom, the "pedophile priest" is not a Catholic specialty. Yet when did we ever hear about "pedophile pastors"?
Just to find some solid numbers, how many Catholic clergy are involved in misconduct? We actually have some good information on this issue, since in the early 1990s, the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago undertook a bold and thorough self-study. The survey examined every priest who had served in the archdiocese over the previous 40 years, some 2,200 individuals, and reopened every internal complaint ever made against these men. The standard of evidence applied was not legal proof that would stand up in a court of law, but just the consensus that a particular charge was probably justified.
By this low standard, the survey found that about 40 priests, about 1.8 percent of the whole, were probably guilty of misconduct with minors at some point in their careers. Put another way, no evidence existed against about 98 percent of parish clergy, the overwhelming majority of the group.
Since other organizations dealing with children have not undertaken such comprehensive studies, we have no idea whether the Catholic figure is better or worse than the rate for schoolteachers, residential home counselors, social workers or scout masters.
The Chicago study also found that of the 2,200 priests, just one was a pedophile. Now, many people are confused about the distinction between a pedophile and a person guilty of sex with a minor. The difference is very significant. The phrase "pedophile priests" conjures up images of the worst violation of innocence, callous molesters like Father Porter who assault children 7 years old. "Pedophilia" is a psychiatric term meaning sexual interest in children below the age of puberty.
But the vast majority of clergy misconduct cases are nothing like this. The vast majority of instances involve priests who have been sexually active with a person below the age of sexual consent, often 16 or 17 years old, or even older. An act of this sort is wrong on multiple counts: It is probably criminal, and by common consent it is immoral and sinful; yet it does not have the utterly ruthless, exploitative character of child molestation. In almost all cases too, with the older teen-agers, there is an element of consent.
Also, the definition of "childhood" varies enormously between different societies. If an act of this sort occurred in most European countries, it would probably be legal, since the age of consent for boys is usually around 15. To take a specific example, when newspapers review recent cases of "pedophile priests," they commonly cite a case that occurred in California�s Orange County, when a priest was charged with having consensual sex with a 17-year-old boy. Whatever the moral quality of such an act, most of us would not apply the term "child abuse" or "pedophilia."
For this reason alone, we need to be cautious when we read about scores of priests being "accused of child abuse."
The age of the young person involved is also so important because different kinds of sexual misconduct respond differently to treatment, and church authorities need to respond differently. If a diocese knows a man is a pedophile, and ever again places him in a position where he has access to more children, that decision is simply wrong, and probably amounts to criminal neglect. But a priest who has a relationship with an older teen-ager is much more likely to respond to treatment, and it would be more understandable if some day the church placed him in a new parish, under careful supervision.
The fact that Cardinal Law�s regime in Boston seems to have blundered time and again does not mean that this is standard practice for all Catholic dioceses, still less that the church is engaged in some kind of conspiracy of silence to hide dangerous perverts.
I am in no sense soft on the issue of child abuse. Recently, I published an expose of the trade in electronic child pornography, one of the absolute worst forms of exploitation, and my argument was that the police and FBI need to be pressured to act more strictly against this awful thing.
My concern over the "pedophile priest" issue is not to defend evil clergy, or a sinful church (I cannot be called a Catholic apologist, since I am not even a Catholic). But I am worried that justified anger over a few awful cases might be turned into ill-focused attacks against innocent clergy.
The story of clerical misconduct is bad enough without turning into an unjustifiable outbreak of religious bigotry against the Catholic Church.
Alex,
This thread has NOTHING to do with pedophilia. I agree 100% that most priest are pedophilia free. I am trying to have an open discussion on Sexual Orientation in the priesthood. I presented some facts (i.e. the above article) and I am asking for opinions nothing more. I am not trying to make a point in anyway.
Please forgive me if I did not make myself clearer.
God Bless!
Dmitri Rostovski,
Thanks! That is the kinda opinions I was looking for...
"I respect your position but I think I might agree that a large percentage of priest are homosexuals. Now that does not mean they are ACTIVE homosexuals."
Is this like saying:
"Men are rapists, but that doesn't mean they are ACTIVE rapists."
or:
"Women are abortionists, but that doesn't mean they are ACTIVELY getting abortions."
[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]
J Thur,
I don't understand Homosexuality nor do I claim too. I am a big enough sinner that I have no room to judge Homosexuals. I don't think it is a genetic thing or we would see it in Twins. Nor do I think it a choice. It must be something else. Something we don't understand yet. With that said I think it is possible for people to have Homosexual thoughts but remain celibant and not act on those thoughts. That is just my humble opinion. I am open to other thoughts on the subject.
Dear Roman Catholic at Work,
I am trying to think of a rule that might have been broken here, but everyone has spoken respectfully and no "epithets" have been used.
Still, posting a long quote, just to see what reaction it will cause is not the best way to initiate a serious discussion. In fact this one, with an inflamatory thread title, will win a prize!
The thesis suggested, that the liberal excesses in the Roman Catholic Church are due to pediphiles, homosexuals and jews seems is simply ludicrous.
You have managed to raise all the "red flags" that have been given much attention on this forum over the past month, with a curious twist. Once again, these topics have managed to get our attention.
While there are possibly some serious topics for discussion hidden here, they have not managed to get a serious attention on this thread.
Keeping in mind that we are approaching the holy days, when graver and more serious approaches to our conversation should be made, may I suggest that we cease and desist here.
May I humbly make a suggestion? If you wish to open up a discussion on one of these topics, and propose what point you want to make, and why you think it is important just now, please open a new thread with a more modest title?
I think experience has shown, that simply posting an article for "reaction" is not really the best way of initiating a serious discussion!
Thanks,
Elias
Bless me a sinner, Reverend Father Elias!
Thank you for your wisdom and erudition!
Kissing your right hand, I again ask your blessing,
Alex
Originally posted by aRomanCatholic@Work:
Alex,
I respect your position but I think I might agree that a large percentage of priest are homosexuals. Now that does not mean they are ACTIVE homosexuals.
Now I don't want this topic to degrade into something not Christian but I think it is worthy of discussion.
FYI, the articles author:
IMHO, this is one of the many attitudes, and in my book one of the main causes, that chase young men away from the priesthood.
That of, most priests are gay. So, logically, if I think I have a calling to be a priest, I must be gay. WRONG.
Until we fix this attitude, along with the other causes, we will continue to have a vocation crisis.
David
[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: DavidB ]
Dear David,
How right you are!
Also, I think that the way we ask questions is often more a statement or affirmation of the conclusions we have already personally reached.
Alex
DavidB,
Until we fix this attitude, along with the other causes, we will continue to have a vocation crisis.
How do you suggest we change this attitude?
Monk,
The thesis suggested, that the liberal excesses in the Roman Catholic Church are due to pediphiles, homosexuals and jews seems is simply ludicrous.
I for one NEVER wanted to make a correlation with the Jews. I regret placing that in my original statement. I did so as to not to exclude any of my former professors comments. Please forgive the confussion!
Also, pediphiles is NOT part of this thread. Nor am I trying to suggest there is a link between Homosexuality and pediphiliea (spelling).
[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: aRomanCatholic@Work ]
DavidB,
Exactly.
The logic in their heads:
PRIESTS ARE ALL GAY,
X IS STUDYING TO BE A PRIEST,
THEREFORE X IS GAY.
Boys grow up today being told not to get too close to Father. In the Latin Church the girls are encouraged to serve at the altar and boys are ignored. In my mother's large family not one boy serves at his parish church. But the girls do.
So ... between the fear of pedophilia, homosexuality, and being passed over for girls, how does a boy or young man develop a vocation?
There are many good priests out there, but a few bad apples spoiled it all.
Joe
[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]
My dear Father Elias,
EVERYTHING in the Catholic Chuch is the fault of Jews. Judaism is matrilineal. The most holy Theotokos (the greatest Jewish Mama of all time) was a Jew, and so was her Son.
Glad we've cleared that up.
Shalom, y'all
Sharon
Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com
Dear Joe Thur and David,
Actually, I have to THANK +Ray for bringing this up, not because I like his thread - I don't.
But because somehow we've gotten on to this topic that was so painful to me so much so that I've never shared this with anyone before. I was too ashamed to and this is what actually turned me away from the priesthood for good.
And somehow there was the implication among my "good friends" at the time that had I gone into the priesthood, I would "wind up Gay."
The experience for me was quite traumatic. I filled out my application form to the seminary and then mailed it.
I later called to say I wouldn't be coming and then hung up and wailed for a while.
I don't know if things were different had I not gone to a Catholic school, I just don't know.
When my friends get ordained and I am at their ordination, I often have to look away.
My wife then looks at me and says, "You are sorry it isn't you up there with the bishop laying hands on you, aren't you?"
I never know what to tell her.
Blaming the Church for this or that would come very easy for someone like me, let me tell you.
I'm not a convert, but my gripes are deep-seated. I am a bit angry.
But I like to think that God will bring good out of any situation.
While I won't be a priest or a monk, I want to be God's servant, at His disposal to help others, to feel pain for others.
That's all the Priesthood I want.
Is that being gay? I couldn't be more gay and happy
.
(During one of my religion classes, I told a troublesome fellow named Jeremy to come up to the front of the class so I could keep an eye on him. He turned to the class, and said, "The man must be Gay!" To this, one Simon quickly responded, "So what, Jeremy, these are the nineties!"
)
God bless and thank you for this opportunity to take a load off my soul!
Alex
Alex,
Your comments is exactly what I would like talked about in this thread!
Rest,
I edited my previous statement to exclude Jews at all in this thread. They had NOTHING to do with this topic so please let's not talk about them in this thread.
Thanks
RC@work,
Please specifically delineate your reason for beginning this thread.
Was it just to see what reaction it would bring?
Was it for some other reason? Please be very specific in telling us exactly what your motives were for starting this thread and what type of responses you expected.
Pedophilia is indeed a problem within the Church. Some Catholic bishops have indeed failed to act earlier in removing such priests from parishes permanently and it is correct to call them on the carpet for their failure while at the same time supporting the efforts they are now taking.
As sad and as sinful as the behavior of these priests and certain bishops has been, it should be noted that the experts tell us that the rate of pedophilia among Catholic priests is no different in terms of percentages than that of Protestantism. It should also be noted again that the rates of pedophilia appear to be similar among heterosexuals and homosexuals, be they clergy or lay people.
Again, this could be a valuable discussion in you discipline yourself and provide your reason for starting this thread along with your expectations for those responding to your post. Since you are a Roman Catholic, you might also tell us if you have posted this article on Roman Catholic boards and what the reaction was there.
Thank you,
Administrator
Alex,
I am so sorry you had to experience what you did. I have to wonder if the sort of struggle you had is perhaps the modern world's contribution to the BOATLOAD of stuff qualifying for "Blessed are you when they insult you and utter every kind of curse against you because of me." In our sex-obsessed culture, accusations, implied accusations or even mere implications (valid or not) about someone's sexuality strikes to the core of their being. It is a violation of sorts, deeply hurtful - especially when it is based on a lie.
My very dear, dear brother in Christ, please let God lift the burden from you, heal the memory, the anger & the hurt - and bring you peace. A wise man once said that Jesus Christ is the biggest garbage collector in the world. (I know He's collected enough of mine to exhaust a landfill!) Let Him collect this.
Presanctified tonight. Fair warning, I'm gonna drag you there with me tonight....
In Christ,
Sharon
Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com
I'm not anti-roman, but I think that the East has avoided this problem because the west and its obligatory celibacy generated false vocations. On the contrary, the churches of the East ordain mature married men to priesthood, and those who have true monastic vocations go to the monasteries.
I'm sure that one day the Roman church will have to accept the prdaination of married men in order to solve this problem (recently the Roman church accepted that some priests have been child molestors)
I sympathise with the sentiments which Alex has so eloquently expressed, as well as those of others with similar experiences. When someone asks me if I want to be a priest, I don't say yes or no, but say that I leave it to God. Many tell me not to, since "it will make you gay". Others, even those closest to me, question whether or not I am a homosexual already, even for entertaining the idea...usually after a while, people realise I most certainly am not, but some are tougher nuts to crack.
These things are a cause of pain to me, and I'm sure to others, as Alex has given witness to. On the one hand, I don't want to be perceived as something I'm very much not. On the other hand, I feel like I might be being drawn to a clerical vocation, regardless of others' opinions. I must say that it doesn't have much of a role in my vocational discernment, as I regard it as simple ignorance on the part of others. Nevertheless, it is something that could affect one's ability to minister to others properly. It also serves as a big deterrent to people who may have a vocation...it prevents them from being able to embrace what might be a calling, and that is a shame.
Alex's experience with having to turn his head away at ordinations is one I also share whenever I go to one. It's a mix of feelings, really...part of it is a desire to put thoughts of a vocation out of mind, something which an ordination doesn't really allow you to do...and on the other hand, it's a desire to have it all now. Go figure. It's very confusing, and I will re-live these feelings shortly after Pascha.
Sorry if this post isn't as organised as I try to make my posts...everything that this thread speaks of or refers to has given me much to think about, esp. in the past couple of weeks, and my feelings are very jumbled.
Dear Mother Sharon and Brother Phil,
Thank you for your kind comments and wishes.
I've had a good cry over this and am ready to get back to work!
I'll be with you in spirit tonight, Mother Sharon.
Some times one can't recite enough Psalms in a day.
Alex
Remie wrote:
I'm not anti-roman, but I think that the East has avoided this problem because the west and its obligatory celibacy generated false vocations.
Reme, can you quote authoritative statistics for the East that lead you to this conclusion? The published research indicates that this problem exists at the same percentage rates regardless of faith group. Since Eastern Christians are a minority in the United States there will be fewer numbers in absolute terms and this is only to be expected. As I stated in my earlier post,
this problem occurs at similar rates in Churches with married and single clergy and is statistically similar among married clergy as they are among non-married clergy and across all faith groups.I am aware that at least one of the larger Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States is currently in the process of implementing the same process of dealing with pedophilia as was developed by the Diocese of Fall River and refined by the Boston Archdiocese. While I think that the Boston Archdiocese has done too little too late they are at least sharing what they have learned in how to deal with this situation with other Churches. This is to their credit.
Alex,
Thank you for sharing your story. It heart warming to know that you aren't the only one going though a certain experience, even when that experience is a negative one.
At this time, I haven't really shared my vocation ideas with my family or friends outside of you great people here and those at another catholic forum I am a member of.
I think my mother is getting suspicious, what with all the retreats I have been going on and my visits to a certain priest friend in Pittsburgh.
But my mother's comments about how all priests are gay. How she says that only a homosexual would want to be a priest, that the priesthood was/is a place for gay men to hide.
It is very hard on me right now and I am getting discouraged.
Your brother in Christ,
David
Dear Friends,
I had to come back and share something else.
I've always thought my wife to be against me entertaining any thoughts for the Priesthood etc.
I have a priest-friend whom I had the pleasure of working with, sharing with him what spiritual resources God has blessed me with in terms of books, articles, what have you.
When he got ordained as a married priest, my wife and I attended. I turned away again hoping Tanya wouldn't notice.
I had told my friend all about our Orthodox saints and their cult. I've told you often enough and I thank you for never telling me I bore you with those stories!
During the dismissal, my friend included about ten Orthodox Saints and then winked at me standing to the side.
I smiled . . .
Then his Presbytera came by to hug us and said, with a boastful (and rightly so) attitude, "We have a great young priest!"
To this, my wife said, "Well, he had a great teacher!" The Presbytera paused for a moment, wondering what that was all about.
I smiled . . .
On the way home that evening, following the festivities, my wife was pensive, looking straight ahead, knowing I was grateful to her without saying so . . .
I was still smiling . . .
God bless you Servants of Christ our God!
Alex
Admin,
Either A. you did not read my post or B. you and many on this forum can NOT seperate pedophilia with Homosexuality. I at NO time ever wanted to go off on a discussion of pedophilia. Pedophilia has NOTHING to do with this topic.
What I would like to see discussed in this thread:
1. The article I posted (from a conservative Catholic source) suggested that a majority of priest are Homosexuals. Do you believe this to be true? If so why? If not Why Not?
2. If we can not come up with and absolute to the question of whether or not a majority of priest are Gay are there any other ways we might come up with a resolution to the question?
3. Why is there a bias toward associating Priest as Gays?
etc etc etc....
Dear David,
I can well empathize with you.
My mother was against me even entertaining any thoughts of the priesthood.
She would ask my brother to get on my case, and it was he who, unfortunately, used the "Gay" label on me - "You want to be a priest? Are you Gay or something?"
Today, my mother understands that I probably would have made not too, too bad of a churchman of some sort
.
Mothers like to see grandchildren.
Perhaps you could be a married priest and keep everybody happy!
Alex
Okay, as the moderator I'm going to weigh in here...
First, I agree with Fr. Elias that this topic skirts right along the edge of what is acceptable. Because of the tenor of the discussions I've not said anything, nor taken action to close the discussion.
I am concerned that this could be misconstrued, however, and for that reason I suggest that we do as the Administrator has suggested -- focus on a specific aspect of the original question.
For what it's worth, I do not believe that there is a large number of homosexuals in the priesthood. This is based upon my association with priests from many different parts of the country over a lifetime of being Catholic.
Edward, deacon and sinner
Dear Friends,
I applaud the Moderator, whom I mistook for Fr.Elias earlier, and I apologize to the Reverend Father Deacon Ed - whom I ask to bless me!
Let me throw in another thought here and that is that I believe that a lot of this anxiety over "homosexuality" is also connected with a societal problem involving men having difficulty relating to other men in relationships other than ones related to violence or competition.
It's O.K. for women to be "pals" but men have to compete in sports, fight, argue or else go out on a night on the town to participate in dubious and often immoral amusements.
The artificial male construct of our society seems to present an image of the male as someone incapable of tenderness, feeling and emotion. Men aren't supposed to cry or express their hurt feelings. Men have to appear with their "tough guy" image.
I would suggest that this fake image of what men are about is a large part of the problem of why men have difficulty relating to women, their wives and even sexual dysfunction.
Men aren't John Wayne sex machines ready to pull out their six-shooter as a passive phallic symbol.
Male identity is something we men need to rediscover, so messed up it has gotten to be in recent times.
Or so I see it . . .
Alex
RC@Work,
The first seven paragraphs of the article you quoted discussed pedophilia. You chose to quote these paragraphs. Homosexuality was not mentioned until the ninth paragraph. The link to the article shows that the subtitle clearly indicates that the major focus of the article is pedophilia. Yet you titled the article to discuss homosexuality in the priesthood without placing your questions in any context whatsoever. And later in your posts you, along with other participants, discussed both pedophilia and homosexuality.
See how important it is to clearly state your intention for beginning a thread?
Administrator
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
Dear Maximus,
The point is that pedophilia and homosexuality are two separate things.
Many pedophiliacs are actually married and have heterosexual lives etc.
We tend to blame celibacy and other things on priests.
Alex
Alex I never said pedophilia and homosexuality were the same thing. I notice that it seems to be a common practice on this forum *add* things to persons arguments or comments that are not there. This is infact unacademic if we are infact trying to be academic.
Nor did I ever blame celibacy. Assumptions are used on this forum as fact. Fact is I have always and still support Latin celibacy for the Priesthood. Infact I have contemplated a vow of celibacy in my own secular life for the future.
The question is does the Priesthood have a very real problem with pedophilia and is that pedophilia predominatly of the heterosexual orientation or of the homosexual orientation? Another question that has nothing to do is - does the Latin Priesthood have a large population of homosexuals. As I have stated in my previous post I think active homosexual Priests are preferable to active heterosexual Priests. So before anyone feels the need to add anything to my posts or comments that aren't there please don't or ask me for clarification.
**************************************************
A critque my brother has of me is that ever since I came out of the Marines I know how to do nothing half way. And this is the misunderstanding many on this forum have of me when it comes to Catholicism. It is not that I attack problems in the Church because I say "what the hey" there's nothing else better to do. But that if Catholicism is to be the way I go, I am to be either loyal to it with all of me and with all I've got or not to be loyal to it at all.
As it is right now I don't know if Catholicism/Christianity is the *truth* and the way I'll continue to go. Many laity many years back failed to take notice and action when the Cross was spread throughout Peru by Fransico Pizzaro and his conquest of Peru. And I will no longer participate silently as the Cross is now spread by Priest who rape our children. I fail to see the action of Christ in that or my supposed *loyalty* to the Church.
A telling circumstance is that one of the Priest in my cousins high school was found to have his walls covered with pictures of nude boys. In the Corps which is highly homophobic I would not dare nor would any other Marine to put pictures of nude men up on the walls of our room. Lest you be identified as a homosexual and thus taken to task phycologicaly if not physicaly. The mere fact that a Priest can be care free about posting his pictures of nude boys on the walls of his room tells me he certainly did not have a fear of *Inquisition*.
No matter if you don't like it or if every other member on this forum or in the Catholic world would hate me - if I was of any authority I can assure you would fear to tread the ground of the Priesthood if you where a pedophile prior to stepping one foot into the seminary. I was bent and broken in the Corps and once I picked up rank I bent and broke others, but my job was not to ignore pedophilia within my ranks, but lionize those under me... and that is what I set out to do.
Originally posted by J Thur:
Is this like saying:
"Men are rapists, but that doesn't mean they are ACTIVE rapists."
[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]
J Thur, yes I for one believe all men are potential rapists.
Step away for a little while and you really can miss alot!
The topic, I guess, is the original article which has been edited to exclude the anti-semitic comment made by the author. On that point, I would object. I think we have a right to know that the source of these negative opinions towards gay people holds similiar views towards Jews. Speaking for myself, I am not surprised.
From my years in the Catholic Church, I would guess at around a third to half of priests are constitutional homosexual, though the majority of them sexually inactive with others.
I think the Vatican spokeperson's statement was extremely unwise. I don't care to debate the merits of the statement, but when your organization has been insuffiently prudent in policing itself, it is time to stand up and take the heat, not try to shift the blame in a weasally fashion (can I say that?).
We have a good number of gay priests and a couple of bishops in the American Orthodox Church as well.
In my experince, having socialized with a large number of gay people, lay and clergy, Orthodox and Catholic, I don't think our opinions are uniform enough for us to be part of any great scheme.
Axios
Axios,
I can assure that NO anti-sematic statements were made by me the Author.
God Bless!
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
Dear Friends,
I had to come back and share something else.
...
During the dismissal, my friend included about ten Orthodox Saints and then winked at me standing to the side.
I smiled . . .
Then his Presbytera came by to hug us and said, with a boastful (and rightly so) attitude, "We have a great young priest!"
To this, my wife said, "Well, he had a great teacher!" The Presbytera paused for a moment, wondering what that was all about.
I smiled . . .
Alex
Dear Alex,
I'm so sorry to hear of your sad story as a young man. But I am glad the Lord sent you to us as our "Web Rabbi". Keep coming back, keep sharing, and keep teaching those Priests.
--------------------------
As far as this thread is concerned, I have met two Priests who have had "sex problems", both of whom have since passed away. One was a local pastor who pleaded guilty to abusing a boy in the parish and was removed.
The other was more prominent. I met Archbishop Eugene Marino when he was an auxiliary to Cardinal Hickey in Washington, DC. He had to resign as Archbishop of Atlanta because he had a relationship with a woman. He lived the rest of his life counseling clergy with drinking problems and passed away a couple of years ago.
I think most Priests are trying hard to keep their vows. There are those who fall, but they are mostly better people than I am. Unfortunately, when they fall, they attract more attention. Even the worst sinners are very good at being bad examples.
There is, of course, a big difference between what you think about or are attacted to, and what you do about it.
John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the phrasing of the various questions about 'homosexuality', 'heterosexuality', 'bisexuality', and 'pedophilia'. The implication is that these are adequate descriptions for people. I'm sorry to say it: but I think it's not.
The psych types tell us that people move along a spectrum of sexuality from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual with a number of potential stops in the middle. Determinedly heterosexual men who get sent to jail get transformed into determined homosexuals while incarcerated, and then revert when released. It's just their sexuality.
For the clergy, there is the constant psychological orientation to love everyone; and I suspect that sometimes this orientation puts priests in the middle of the Kinsey spectrum.
But the issue of sexuality is not the critical one when dealing with the revelations about Boston, St. Louis, Philadelphia, etc. All human beings are sexual. BUT, the critical issue is one of adhering to one's vows. I knew seminary colleagues who transgressed -- and it disgusted me. Not because of the sexuality or sexual activity, but because the man didn't have the guts to live up to his word. (This is a real bugaboo of mine -- a man, to be a man, must keep his word.) If one professes celibacy and chastity, then, damn it!!, that's what you need to do. And if one can't do that, then resign.
Sexuality is not an illness. It's a God-given gift. Vows are also a gift, given by man and accepted by God. Neither one should be abused or disregarded.
As for pedophilia, it's an illness and the person should be sent to a mental institution for lifelong treatment. Inside.
So, yes. There are priests who are all along the sexuality spectrum. All well and good. But if one has a vow of chastity, then it is to be kept, unconditionally. Those weaklings who violate it sin twice: once by violating their public vows; secondly by causing scandal in the Church and denigrating the office of priest.
I don't mean to be harsh. But for me, growing up rather poor and blue collar, we didn't have much; but a man's word was his bond and his treasure. And I have little sympathy for those who don't keep their word. It doesn't cost them anything. And if one can't do that, then of what value is one's life?
Let us remember all the good priests who are now becoming suspect just by being priests. Let us pray for them; let us be supportive of them; and let us show them the familial love that should be the characteristic of the Christian family.
Blessings!
Dr. John,
I liked your post. There is much in it to reflect on, including your point about how people move through various degrees of sexuality you are right. Even at the age of 30 I am just coming to grips with my sexuality, although to most it would appear I always was totaly secure, confident, and understanding in it. For instance most heterosexual men fantasise at times about raping women (not in the bloody sense, but in the erotic take charge sense). How does this jive with ones Chistianity and devotion to the Holy Mother? I don't know.
You are a bit more hardcore then I, I would not refer to persons that engage in pedophilia as weaklings, though I suppose I come of as hardcore sometimes.
Anyways I appreciate what you said about your blue collar and poverty background. I do think these things can build "character" in a person. For myself I never grew up hungry or went without, and I was raised in a middle class neighborhood with a number of poor people living throughout that neighborhood. It wasn't the best of worlds but it wasn't the worst. And good things were instilled as well as bad. But ones word was one of those things that was given "esteem" if you will
Having said all that let me say that as an adult I have not always kept my word and thus Dr John you help me remember to look at the beam in my own eye while I'm try to take the torn or beam out of other peoples eyes. *Mea Culpa, Mea Maximus Culpa*.
Dear Friends:
I can't believe that a topic of this nature, started less than 24 hours ago, has already received so many responces.
You will excuse me then if I do not post a reply myself, I could post a few very pertinant occurances, but this topic touches on the sanctity of the Priesthood and I would rather not.
Sincerely
defreitas
PS.
My Grandfather told my Grandmother: "If I should fall ill don't call him."
Maximus,
Men are also potential murderers, adulterers, Sodomites, thieves, etc,...
But the key word is "potential" and this is why all men - and women - are asked to pray to our Father not to be led into temptation. You can't hold something against someone simply because they have the "potential" to do something evil or sinful for such charges ignore the good that comes from people who keep temptation away and lead good lives. If it ends up that people get prosecuted for having potential to do something then we are in grave danger. It leads to the idea that one is "guilty" first whether evidence is present or not. Then we must ask who has the ability and authority to lay charges against one's brother or sister without evidence and without any 'acts' being done?
We are alarmed about homosexuality and pedophilia in the priesthood (and it IS there and it HAS caused much destruction in our churches), but fail to realize that the public schools play the Turkey Dance too with their wayward teachers. It's not just bishops who are covering up such things. I saw many good men leave the Latin seminary due to this issue. Most of our seminarian conferences were about celibacy and homosexuality. It was a freaky experience after one such homosexuality spirituality conference that several of my classmates proudly "came out of the closet." Many friendships were destroyed that weekend. There is much focus on the crotch while trying to accept the heavy "gift" of celibacy. The obsession with sex and the 'act' was too much. Most of my brother seminarians (all being Latins) are now married with children. They still want to serve the Church but marriage is an "impediment" - just as it is in our Byzantine Catholic Church. My question: what exactly does marriage "impede" that homosexuality does not?
As for a more extensive list of "potential" and "actual" sins, I would like to refer you to Romans 1:18-32. This is aimed at men and women.
Let's pray that the Holy Spirit remains present in the hearts of all men and women as they are confronted with temptation and "alternative" lifestyles that do not reflect the sacred mysteries or Christian virtue. Let us forgive those brothers and sisters who have caused much grief and destruction to our communities of faith by their personal sins. The coming feast of the Resurrection and Pentecost shows that it is God who has crushed sin and triumphed. We just have to comply. In the Byzantine doctrine of Theosis it is called "Synergy."
Let's synergize with God!
Joe
[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]
They still want to serve the Church but marriage is an "impediment" -
I would take strong objection to the statement that marriage is an impediment to serving the Church, in principle or fact, in East or West. Were I a bishop, I would refuse to ordain a candidate who asserted this, on that statement alone.
K.
My question: what exactly does marriage "impede" that homosexuality does not?
Good question...
Well, in my opinion, sexual orientation has nothing to do with Theosis. Whether a priest is homosexually oriented or not is beside the point. The celibate struggle is just has hard if not harder. I feel a priest can be just as holy regardless of his sexual preference.
Dmitri
Kurt,
I don't compute what you are trying to say. I was simply referring to the fact that marriage is still something that prevents a married man to be ordained a priest in either the Latin Church and Byzantine Catholic Church in this country. As far as I know, the ban on married priests still hasn't been lifted since 1929 - unless you know something I don't. It is not so much the candidate who asserts this reality, but the fact that our bishops still enforce it.
I think MOST priests are priests because they feel called by God in a special way to serve their fellow sinners.
We're ALL sinners, after all and we all live with our various weaknesses and temptations. Priests aren't immune from this any more than the rest of us and the priesthood isn't a life to choose to hide from one's own weakness. We should continue to pray for those who serve the people of God in the church.
I feel the church should cooperate fully with the civil and criminal justice system if a priest commits a crime.
The priests, nuns, and monks I knew as a kid where all great people and had a profoundly positive effect upon my friends and me.
Dmitri,
We are all "oriented" to sin and alternative lifestyles that can lead us away from sanctity.
Taking your logic to another application: Can a man be "just as holy" in his marriage by being a practicing homosexual? Can a man be "just as holy" in his marriage if he is a practicing adulterer? Can a man be "just as holy" in his relationship to his children if he is a practicing pedophile while teaching at school? How can one be "just as holy" if one is blaspheming God in the meantime? What saves many in these types of discussions is the key term "orientation". What in creation is orientation? How do you police it? How does one quantify or recognize it? Whatever happened to the term "temptation"? Unless sin doesn't exist anymore, I guess orientation can serve as a better term in a world of relative morality.
Let me post Romans 1:18-32 (a weekday reading in our Typicon, so it will never be proclaimed at Sunday-only congregations) for a quick refresher course:
* * *
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
* * *
It is odd how we are so hell-bent to return to our ancient and venerable traditions in liturgy and church governance that we forget our ancient and venerable traditions in Christian ethics.
Men and women have always had the propensity to abandon natural relations with each other for unnatural ones. Men also have, in turn, abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another.
We have become "foolish" and "futile", and those who attempt to teach the truth are penalized for simply relaying what is natural. I understand fully well the political correctness of the issue regarding homosexuality. Unfortunately, we have spent too much time defending it at the expense of promoting marriage. Marriage still represents a little Church.
It is unfortunate that we don't head Isaiah. God's wrath against Sennacherib the Assyrian king and against the infidelity of Judah is because by their acts and lifestyle they did not worship the Creator. Therefore, their rubric-correct Temple liturgies and their blowing of incense was rejected. God is a jealous God. You can't say "I am just as holy" when you reject God's commandments and principles of morality and sexuality.
Let us pray that we are not led into temptation. This means all of us. Homosexuals don't have a monopoly on vice and sin. We should also be ready to forgive and welcome back the Prodigal son or daughter in the love of God.
Joe
[ 03-15-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]
Slava Isusu Christu!
Oh boy! Here we go!
Underlying all of these issues is sin. The Eastern Church does not categorize people according to their sexuality. We are created in the image and likeness of God. Our job is to become deified and to have that image of God restored fully in us both soul and body. There is no such thing as a homosexual person, only a child of God who is being tempted to break the commandments of God. Again for the Eastern Christian to label oneself by ones sin or "sexuality" is grievous. Many are afflicted by feelings of same gender attraction and of many other things not befitting God's People, BUT they are not to identify with that sin. I am speaking from the Eastern perspective because I am an Eastern Christian. We cannot define ourselves by the DSM of the APA. We are not children of this world, but Children of God. The world has defined us into categories when God has called us His Children and made us in His Image and Likeness.
All people are created by God normal, we BECOME disordered because of sin; we are RESTORED by the CHURCH to our ORIGINAL ESTATE in GRACE by virtue of the Sacred Mysteries by the Sacred Priesthood. These are issues of sin and must be corrected by the wisdom of the Church. I believe priests who confess to be identified as "homosexuals" should be disciplined. If they are practicing they should be removed. But if they are struggling with it and wish to overcome it as any other sin they should be given all the support of the Church, both lay hierarchial, and on a private pastoral level. All pedophiles et al. should be removed and prosecuted. These are issues of common sense; they have been trumped up by the media because they glory in what they see to be the hypocrisy of the Church and they want good RATINGS as well.
These reports will have drastic negative affects on vocations for the Latin Church and that is the REAL drawback to all of this. They are having such as drastic vocation crisis as it is as us poor Rusyn Catholics are. The Church is going to have to do MAJOR DAMAGE CONTROL on this for YEARS and I think another Ecumenical Council is in Order to straighten out all this.
Again calling oneself a homosexual or a heterosexual et al is verboten from the patristic and Eastern perspective. All people are created normal by God, again, we become disordered because of sin and we are restored by God through His GRACE in the Mysteries. So does this topic have validity? No, it is fruitless; and ends up as a circular form of gossip. Did the topic starter have good intentions? Sure. But,our job is to glorify the Priesthood and to pray for and support the good and holy priests in our Church who are faithful to be PR agents for them
. When it comes to legal issues et al. Unless we are personally involved we must mind our own business. If a priest has fallen, we must pray for him and his victims and let the law, both Church and civil, sort out the rest. The bottom line is this: 1. Gossip is sin. 2. We cannot participate in it. 3. If someone is sinning we must pray for their salvation. 4. This topic ends in hurting the image of the Church, and Her priests, therefore it is innapropriate.
True Church Reform and Restoration will come about as it always has, through Saints and holy men and women of God both clergy and lay. It has never come about through a witch-hunting campaign (Not that this has anything to do necessarily with the topic starter). We are better men and women to pray for our priests then adding to the negative publicity. It is better to quelch our desire to discuss scandal and contraversy and to pray secretely for those victimized by sin and the attacks of the Devil.
In the Theotokos,
Robert
Robert,
Yes. Good points.
The message of Romans 1 is basically: We are all screw-ups.
In Theosis it is not only the Image of God in us but the "likeness" that needs perfected and aligned via Synergy with God's Energies.
I do disagree with Item 4. If we fail to address child abuse and incest because such topic do damage to the image of Fatherhood and Parenting, then we allow the innocent children to continue being ignored. It is not Fatherhood, Parenting or Priesthood that is damaged - even though the Evil One loves to convince us that is the case - but innocent lives corrupted or victimized by sinful people.
Joe
[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]
Dear Maximus,
You have to forgive me, Brother!
I see now that my reaction to +Ray's initial thread topic was largely due to the fact that, by it, he scratched off the scab that had been covering a festering inner wound in me.
I shouldn't have reacted that way to you, and apologise.
I wanted to thank you and +Ray and Joe Thur, Mother Sharon, David, Mor Ephrem, John and Dr. John and everyone who posted here (to date, hopefully more are on the way!).
I've never had the experience of pouring out my soul on the internet in this way before.
Believe me, it all shook me in a way I haven't been shaken before.
By the end of the day, a wonderful peace was mine, thanks to you.
I know I have more healing to do.
But thanks to you, I've started out on the right path.
A lot of thoughts are racing in my head today and I need a bit of a while to go away and be alone for a bit.
God bless you all!
Alex
I use the term orientation because it does not necessarily involve actions. I feel homosexual orientation is more complicated than most of the vices you mentioned, Joe. I respect your opinion but do not agree with your logic.
DMitri.
Dear Dmitri,
The way you have raised the issue, yes absolutely.
As we know, there were Saints with a homosexual orientation and the Church was aware of this when it canonized them.
Alex
Dmitri,
When we discuss any ethical topic concerning "orientation" we will never arrive at an answer. It also becomes fruitless because we are all "oriented" to sin and are in need of God's energies.
Whatever happened to terms like temptation, sin, and responsibility in morality discussions?
One of the reasons for growing beards in the monasteries was to prevent the temptation to diddle beardless youths. St. John Climacus mentions this in his classic "Ladder of Divine Ascent" which is traditionally read in Byzantine monasteries during Lent. He knew what orientation can do if given the temptation. Whether it be orientation or public flaunting of alternative lifestyles, this has always had a history of wrecking communities of faith as adultery has wrecked marriages and families.
For something so "complicated" as orientation it sure has a nasty way of trashing churches, the number of vocation applicants and people's trust.
Interesting thread, but me must go to work now and earn my dollar.
Joe
[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]
Yes, but that is my point - Orientation itself is a non-ethical issue. If someone is homosexual but never acts on it, there is no sin in my opinion.
Dmitri
I tend to agree with Dmitri's Last comment. I would like a opinions of orientation.
FYI, I was listening to "Focus on the Family" a protestant Radio program. The quest speakers were two Doctors who suggested studies that Homosexuals can change into becoming straight. Anyway, it was interesting program. I think the site is
www.family.org [
family.org]
Orthodox Catholic,
No problem, and your experiences are as valid as anyones else.
***
Joe,
Of course your right about what you said in your post regarding people and their "potential" to sin. But you would of course agree also, that in the case of men biologicaly being potential rapists, that it is strong social factors that predominatley govern the actions of men in this area that is the greater reason *why* men don't rape women? Without these social factors - to even include negative consequences as prison - you would agree the majority of men would rape women? What does this have to do with the discussion - particularly about pedohilia in the Priestly ranks? It seems to me (to me at least) that our Bishops have failed to creat an enviroment, a social climate if you will, in the Church where sex with children by Priests are to say undesireable to say the least.
Locking Priests behind the walls of a monastary for the rest of their lives would be starts for creating an enviroment that intimidate canidates who have the intention of useing the Priesthood as cover and resource for sexual desire for children.
***
What does marriage impede that homosexuality does not? Children, family, the economics behind it, and placeing a burden on the Church of moving Priests to whatever area of the world the Church wants to move them to, then you have safety issues if you happened to be posted in a country where people have names like Bacha Khan. Pluse, personaly, I feel it demonstrates an obeideince and a certain surrender that is not commonly demonstrated in our secular world. It's a good teacher.
Joe,
Kurt,
I don't compute what you are trying to say. I was simply referring to the fact that marriage is still something that prevents a married man to be ordained a priest in either the Latin Church and Byzantine Catholic Church in this country. As far as I know, the ban on married priests still hasn't been lifted since 1929 - unless you know something I don't. It is not so much the candidate who asserts this reality, but the fact that our bishops still enforce it.
Your error, and I consider it a grave error, is you seem to equate "serving the Church" with being ordained to the priesthood. Very unCatholic, very unByzantine, very unChristian. Admitted, it is an attitude that some Catholics have and one I think should be unacceptable for priestly candidates.
BTW, yes, the 1929 is null as to the Ruthenian Church.
K.
Originally posted by Maximus:
Of course your right about what you said in your post regarding people and their "potential" to sin. But you would of course agree also, that in the case of men biologicaly being potential rapists, that it is strong social factors that predominatley govern the actions of men in this area that is the greater reason *why* men don't rape women?
Maximus,
This is a bit off topic, but I must ask it.
By reading what you said above, I take it that you do not believe that women can be rapists? That to be a rapists there is a need to have a certain biology that only men have?
I hope I misunderstood what you were saying.
David
I agree with Bro Thur that there is an 'orientation' towards sin in human beings -- it's our wanting our own way when 'our way' does not show love for God and neighbor.
I think, however, when talking about 'orientation' in the sexuality context, it is a different breed of cat. Perhaps the word 'preference' would better serve our needs. As others have mentioned above, one's 'preference' in sexuality involves a spectrum. And this spectrum involves a lot of socio-cultural aspects in it as well. (One need only look at the cults of sports stars, grown men going ga-ga at NASCAR, or [Lord help us!] on Super Bowl Sunday.)
But again, the key issue for me is not the sexual orientation/preference, but rather the way an individual lives his/her life, and how well the love of God and love of neighbor are played out. If you're a priest or religious with a vow of chastity/celibacy, or if you're married and have made a lifelong commitment to one's spouse, then that's it. You've given your word. If you break it, then can anyone ever trust your word again?
As I've mentioned before, I think that we really need to come up with a thoughtful (and coherent) theology of sexuality. And once that is done, then it can help us understand both the sacrament of matrimony as well as the sacrament of orders in a rational way that is complementary to both. (And we -- hopefully -- won't have to tap-dance in the minefield of sexuality any more.)
Blessings!
Kurt wrote: "Your error, and I consider it a grave error, is you seem to equate "serving the Church" with being ordained to the priesthood."
The topic, Kurt, is the priesthood, not any other ministry in the church. I wasn't aware that we were discussing other ministries on this thread but the priestly ministry. Were you? Did I miss something from the initial post? The men who were in the seminary were studying to be priests, not cantors, deacons or any other or else we would have been discussing them too since the initial post by RC@W. It was a Latin seminary, Kurt. Read my posts again. The issue was about "priests" and the place I mentioned was a "seminary.” My words have to be read in that context and not in any other context you wish to make it. Serving the church was in the context of priestly ministry. If you want to include all other ministries then we will be going off the subject of priests and the problem of homosexuality.
"Very unCatholic, very unByzantine, very unChristian. Admitted, it is an attitude that some Catholics have and one I think should be unacceptable for priestly candidates."
This is the second time you mention what is unacceptable for priestly candidacy. What are you driving at? What is so “unCatholic, very unByzantine, very unChristian” about staying on the topic?
"BTW, yes, the 1929 is null as to the Ruthenian Church."
Interesting. I wasn't aware that our particular law was changed.
Cantor Joe Thur
Dear Kurt,
I do think you could have been a bit kinder and gentler to Joe.
You should take an example from me . . . on the other hand, please don't.
Alex
I apologize, I didn't mean to be "curt" with Joe. I do think that phrase should never be used to inicate singularly the priestly ministry regardless of context and that sadly such an viewpoint does exist in the Church. I was abrupt only because I assumed Joe and all others here do in fact share that view.
Yes, the 1929 issuance is null for us Ruthenians. I very positive development, I think.
K.
P.S. Let me get my other sore point out of the way. I don't think anyone here has made this error, but some Church spokespersons have in the press. Concerning the scandals of recent note, I have read the phrase priests "not following their vows". Leaving aside the inacuracy of eparchial/diocesean priests having 'vows', i think a substantive differenc exists between a priest obligated to celibacy falling in love with another adult and the much more serious matter of abusing an underage person. I know those saying it are guilty only of a slip of the tongue, but they should be more careful.
K.
[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]
Yes, the 1929 issuance is null for us Ruthenians. I very positive development, I think.
I will believe it when I see it. If that is the case sign me up to the Priesthood. You don't have to support me I have a very flexable job already and a strong will to server the Lord. I would like to be a married priest.
Originally posted by DavidB:
Maximus,
This is a bit off topic, but I must ask it.
By reading what you said above, I take it that you do not believe that women can be rapists? That to be a rapists there is a need to have a certain biology that only men have?
I hope I misunderstood what you were saying.
David
Well that's probably a rather good question - I don't know?
I was not thinking of women at all, at least as being rapists.
But I don't think that in general, a 30 year woman school teacher can rape a 14 year old boy - no. Infact I find it rather ridiculous that women school teachers stand trial in the courts of law and can be convicted and sent to prison for sleeping with a 14 year old boy.
I think that men unlike women are biologicaly driven to rape. I didn't use to think this, but now I do. And for whatever it's worth I think lower animal forms rape. I think male dogs rape female and male cats very often.
But certainly women have sexualy assualted other women even male children that haven't gone through puberty, perhaps under certain limited circumstances even men. But I doubt women have a biological drive for rape.
Originally posted by Maximus:
Well that's probably a rather good question - I don't know?
I was not thinking of women at all, at least as being rapists.
But I don't think that in general, a 30 year woman school teacher can rape a 14 year old boy - no. Infact I find it rather ridiculous that women school teachers stand trial in the courts of law and can be convicted and sent to prison for sleeping with a 14 year old boy.
I think that men unlike women are biologicaly driven to rape. I didn't use to think this, but now I do. And for whatever it's worth I think lower animal forms rape. I think male dogs rape female and male cats very often.
But certainly women have sexualy assualted other women even male children that haven't gone through puberty, perhaps under certain limited circumstances even men. But I doubt women have a biological drive for rape.
Having done research on this topic because of the bias out there I can say for a fact that yes women can and do rape.
I do not think that either sex has a biological dirve to rape, I think it is a perverted thing that causes rape.
Any person in a position of power, be it a man or a woman, who takes sexual advantage of a child is guilty of sexual abuse, so yes, I do think a female teacher that has sex with a 14 year old child should go to jail. I do not understand how anyone could think that this is acceptable.
Just do a search on the internet, you will see that women do rape. There are even mail lists out there where women tell other women how to rape a man.
Yes we are sinful beings but to say that we have a biological drive to rape is to say that we were created to do evil. I can not and will not agree with this.
David
It seems to me that the main issue is: assault. One person uses aggression and assaults another; and sexual activity is the instrument. It is, of course, wrong and sinful because it refuses to acknowledge the independence and free will of the victim.
And I think we could fill in the "X assaults Y"" grid with all the possible variations: male, female, older, younger, etc. Some paradigms are more common than others, but they are all wrong because they abuse the person.
Blessings!
Dear Kurt,
No problem, Friend, no problem.
You make very intellectually sensible and responsible arguments.
And I've always admired you for that.
Your Catholicism is a deeply rooted one that comes from a mature conviction.
Alex
about "orientation"...let's cut through the...well, you know
The modern world doesn't like to talk about sin - if it did, there might have to be repentance!
When someone refers to a "homosexual orientation", the statement really should be "temptation to sin through homosexual activity".
A temptation to sin is something to be resisted and overcome by the grace of God. End of story.
An "orientation", OTOH, is something in this modern world that not only can be glossed over, it can, and often should, be cultivated and acted upon! Anything is OK if its an "orientation".
There are temptations to drunkenness, avarice, etc., Homosexuality is another one of a long list of temptations to sin.
Originally posted by DavidB:
There are even mail lists out there where women tell other women how to rape a man.
David
David you are certainly free to your opinion.
But I would be rather interested in the in finding out more info on the above.
I'm not sure a room full of drunk women trying to take advantage of me is the worst experience I could think of.
We don't want to go to far off topic here but I want you to know I do acknowledge a womans capability to sexualy assualt a man, that is in narrow circumstances. There have been cases I believe where men who on a "one-nightstand" have allowed a woman or two to tie them up, and then the women would place masks on their heads and turn on a camera and assualt the tied up man with objects. But this is a rarity and speaks to other criminal things also. And it also suggests that you shouldn't let strange women tie you up.
Other then that I'm unaware of womens propensity to rape men. It would be almost non-existent. On the other hand homosexual men are just as potential to rape other men as heterosexual men are potential to rape women.
On the minor point of the the 1929 issuance from the Holy See, it became clearly null with the adoption of our own Ruthenian particular law on that subject.
On the issue of orientation, I think the Church's statement "Always Our Children" speaks to that.
Kurt
Originally posted by Kurt:
On the minor point of the the 1929 issuance from the Holy See, it became clearly null with the adoption of our own Ruthenian particular law on that subject.
On the issue of orientation, I think the Church's statement "Always Our Children" speaks to that.
Kurt
Wasn't that the document that the Vatican criticized?
anastasios
Kurt and Anastasios,
Here is a clip from:
Vatican Update
[JUL. 13, 1999]
Catholic World News Service
* VATICAN DISCIPLINES TWO AMERICANS
================================================
VATICAN (CWNews.com) -- The Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will forbid two American religious from exercising their pastoral ministry among homosexuals, because their views on the morality of homosexual acts have been judged "unacceptable."
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has signed a note from the Congregation, with the express approval of Pope John Paul II, pointing out that Father Robert Nugent, SDS, and Sister Jeannine Gramick, SSND, are at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church insofar as they do not recognize the intrinsic immorality of homosexual acts. The note from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was made public on Tuesday, July 13.
For more than 20 years, Father Nugent and Sister Gramick have directed New Ways Ministry, a Washington-based organization dedicated to promoting "justice and reconciliation" for homosexuals and lesbians. They are the authors of the book, Building Bridges: Gay and Lesbian Reality and the Catholic Church (1992), and editors of Voices of Hope: A Collection of Positive Catholic Writings on Gay and Lesbian Issues. They have also been influential in the preparation of documents such as "Always Our Children," a statement on homosexuality issued by the administrative committee of the US bishops' conference."
================================================
From
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Igpress/CWR/CWR1197/Dossiera.html we read this from Philip F. Lawler:
"AOC did include a bibliography of Church documents regarding homosexuality, and that list included the 1986 statement by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on 'Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.' But nowhere in the text does AOC cite that Vatican document. In its response to the bishops' pastoral message, Courage pointed out that the Vatican statement had left no doubt that homosexuality "is 'objectively disordered,' because it urges a person, not toward the inherent good of marriage and procreation, but toward sinful conduct." That crucial message can be found nowhere in the American bishops' latest statement. As Women for Faith and Family noted in a forceful public statement, AOC "seems to have deliberately set out to muddy the waters the Vatican had made clear in 1986."
=================
From the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 'On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.' Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church, October 1, 1986 as found at:
http://www.newadvent.org/docs/df86ho.htm "As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God's liberating grace."
"... this Congregation wishes to ask the Bishops to be especially cautious of any programmes which may seek to pressure the Church to change her teaching, even while claiming not to do so. A careful examination of their public statements and the activities they promote reveals a studied ambiguity by which they attempt to mislead the pastors and the faithful. For example, they may present the teaching of the Magisterium, but only as if it were an optional source for the formation of one's conscience. Its specific authority is not recognized. Some of these groups will use the word "Catholic" to describe either the organization or its intended members, yet they do not defend and promote the teaching of the Magisterium; indeed, they even openly attack it. While their members may claim a desire to conform their lives to the teaching of Jesus, in fact they abandon the teaching of his Church. This contradictory action should not have the support of the Bishops in any way.
15. We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin."
====================
For an earlier document on this topic, please see 'Persona Humana' [Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics] December 29, 1975:
http://www.newadvent.org/docs/df75se.htm "... homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of."
====================
As for a Byzantine statement, we have this http://www.melkite.org/bishopQA.htm#Homosexuality: from Bishop John Elya, Melkite bishop of the Eparchy of Newton:
"To admit that one is homosexual -- "God created me that way" -- is a statement of fact which should not offend adult people who discuss issues and not persons. To admit that one is active homosexual or active heterosexual out of marriage, and to brag about it does cause scandal in a Catholic assembly, and is contrary to two thousands years of Christian tradition based upon the Judeo-Christian ethics. The teaching of the Church is deeply rooted in the Sacred Word of God. It is a fact that in our American society there are many homosexual people, regardless of the controversy whether this condition is innate or acquired, whether it has to be cured or lived with.
No discrimination (and no preferential treatment either) should be practiced against or ln favor of those with homosexual orientation. However, the fact remains, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, that sex out of marriage is gravely sinful, whether it is among homosexuals or heterosexuals. To point a finger at the homosexuals while condoning heterosexual promiscuity is prejudicial and hypocritical. We are all sinners in need of the mercy of God; but we are not allowed to brag about it or to condone it as if it were the right thing to do."
------------
He mentions the AOC letter:
"The Pastoral Letter on the subject issued recently (1997) by the Administrative Committee of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops titled "Always Our Children" asks the parents of homosexual children to show them love and affection and not to let their religious conviction spoil their family relationship. However it did not change the stand of the Catholic Church as mentioned above."
=========================
Kurt stated that: "On the issue of orientation, I think the Church's statement "Always Our Children" speaks to that."
My question for Kurt is: Why did you ignore the other documents from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the entire 2,000 years of Church Tradition (which Bishop John speaks of) if you were interested in what the Church teaches?
Joe
[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]
Maximos notes above: "There have been cases I believe where men who on a "one-nightstand" have allowed a woman or two to tie them up, and then the women would place masks on their heads and turn on a camera and assualt the tied up man with objects. But this is a rarity and speaks to other criminal things also. And it also suggests that you shouldn't let strange women tie you up."
How's about 'un-strange' women? <g>
Actually, I think that that is just "theater"; it is a way to 'adorn' the experience with psychological 'decorations'; it is not really an assault.
Reminds me of the new Yoplait commercial where the wife is dressed as a French maid and is 'seducing' the husband into trying some yoghurt. And the daughter walks in and says: "My parents are SOOOOO weird." Just a little erotic tinge to life.
Blessings!
Dr John,
LOL! Yes un-strange women also.
As for the theater experience, it becomes assualt when your not willfully participating.
Seen the commercial, humorous enough. My problem is I can like things like that... while at the same time unable to reconcile anything "erotic" with the Virgin Mary. Bringing in another question I might start a thread on but not to really offer any comments on.
Wasn't that the document that the Vatican criticized?
Actually, no, though some anti-gay activists groups claimed it did. In a lengthy statement, the Vatican asked for about seven words to be revised to provide more clarity. Obviously, as a gay man, I don't agree with the Vatican's position. But I respect them. It is the small but vocal element of truly hateful people who seek harm to me and others.
Axios
"It is the small but vocal element of truly hateful people who seek harm to me and others."
Axios,
The Church, in all of its statements, asks for us not to hate any homosexual, but to recognize that it is against 2,000 years of tradition and teaching. If we were to "hate" anyone who was a sinner or had a natural propensity to sin we would hate mankind altogether. But God's creation is "good" and we are all made in the Image of God. As for our Likeness, we all need improvement.
The Church is only being clear and asking for clarity and truthfulness is presenting its teachings. The invitation to holiness is aimed at the homosexual (oriented or practicing, however you may define) and those heterosexuals who are either married or single. No one is immune from complying with the Commandments and Beatitudes and especially Love. God never asks us to harm anyone. Those who do are not of God.
Those who hate homosexuals and act on their hatred by harming them also fail to head the words of all the Church documents. By singling them out in such negative ways places us in the same shoes as those men who wanted to stone the woman caught in adultery.
I remember a group of seminarians who may fit the description of hate you made; I also remember a small vocal group of homosexual seminarians who were just as pitiful.
Getting back to the original topic: When one experiences these things it becomes a burden to those whose only desire was to serve God by being a priest. Both groups of hateful people ruin the experience of priestly preparation, especially for naive seminarians who recently got out of high school. There were times when homosexuals caught on to these naive seminarians and came on to them without mercy, like hyenas surrounding a newly born wildebeest; vocation directors telling young students that touching another man's genitals was considered a valid expression of love; the countless homosexuality and celibacy conferences; and the time when young seminarians would learn what really happened in 1929 with the enforcement of mandatory celibacy on our Church, a story rarely heard of or ever discussed - a story one would have to go to a Latin seminary to learn the history of one's own church.
I will stop here. Resentment is beginning to set in and I run the risk of saying too much.
Joe
[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]
Axios,
The Church, in all of its statements, asks for us not to hate any homosexual...
Yes. And while not a Catholic, I appreciate that. I just wish that it was more effective with that minority of her children who are hateful towards gay people or indifferent to acts of violence or discrimination against us.
Axios
Originally posted by Axios:
Yes. And while not a Catholic, I appreciate that. I just wish that it was more effective with that minority of her children who are hateful towards gay people or indifferent to acts of violence or discrimination against us.
Axios
Historicaly many of the most macho men were lovers of men. Alexander the Great - one tough hombre, a multitude of the Roman legion, the Greeks had some primitive commando outfit that was as homosexual as you can be, and unknown to most people - the Samurai were frequent enjoyers of homosexual sex.
Yet these men were not only true lion-hearts but excelled in virtues often times that far exceded that of your regular heterosexual males. Infact the Samurai rarely learnt math at any real level because money was not his concern, and to ask the Samurai to swear his word on anything would have been insulting, for to the Samurai his word was good enough and it was his honor.
Some how I can't take the word of some heterosexual bully that he is more "man" then any homosexual man till I see him stand, and not run, and fight sword and axe under a dark blue sky with frost on the ground and his breath visible in the air against a foe bigger then him and stinking worst then him, like so many Roman soldiers did some time ago.
Everyone can't beat everyone up, so what I would do is carry some pepper spray with me, use it in the aggressors eyes, and then punch him in the throat. And if he ends up on the ground ask him how he's doing now. And remind him that God forgives but gay men don't. ------- Just my advice though, you can take it or leave it.
Originally posted by aRomanCatholic@Work:
I tend to agree with Dmitri's Last comment. I would like a opinions of orientation.
FYI, I was listening to "Focus on the Family" a protestant Radio program. The quest speakers were two Doctors who suggested studies that Homosexuals can change into becoming straight. Anyway, it was interesting program. I think the site is www.family.org [family.org] I think these types of groups can be very dangerous, and I could not in good conscience ever encourage someone to participate in something like this.
One man I know who participated in a Protestant "conversion" group ended up in the Psych unit after attempting suicide.
From my understanding and limited experience, I consider this school of thought to be lacking.
Greetings to all!
Stefan
Hi,
My answer to the thread question is I don't know.
If it's true, is God calling these folks to the Priesthood? Mr. Thur pointed out several Scripture verses that condemn acting on those types of desires. Why would the Bible have those types of statements, then in the 21st. century the true Church is being led spiritually by gay men? The two just don't go together. If there are men who promote that lifestyle in the Church as Mr. Thur pointed out in an earlier response, why do they think it's OK. That fact that someone who is a or aspires to be spiritual leader and ignores the word of God in such an obvious way is scary.Not to mention because if they are Priests they are held in stricter judgement by God. You have to wonder if they believe in eternal damnation? Babas need to be in charge of religious vocations.
Nicky's Baba
To All Participants:
Since this thread has drifted from the original topic I'm going to close it. I, respectfully, submit that this sort of topic not be raised again.
Edward, deacon, sinner and Moderator