Vatican renews ban on gay priests

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

the catholic church is often referred to as "the church"...

Sometimes when this place gets kind of empty
Sound o' their breath fades with the light
I think about... the loveless fascination
Under the Milky Way tonight

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

get your head out of the fucking sand. that ban is, in part, in direct response to the priest sex scandal.

Bull shit...that ban was in place well before the scandal...they just re-affirmed it...didn't fucking help the first time around...did it?

Quote

there are pedophile priests. they deserve severe punishment, as do those in the hierarchy who colluded to keep it quite.

Your almighty church doesn't agree with you. Only repeat offenders are elligable for defrocking. So if you suck the cock of an altar boy only once, you can happily continue to be a priest.

Quote

it is ignorant to call someone a "gay pedophile." the "orientation" of a pedophile isn't to a specific gender, it is to an age. and a good bit of the scandal of recent years, which the media did not seperate out, was priests who took advantage of post-pubescent boys, which ISN'T pedophilia. Pedophiles aren't attracted to post-pubescent children. those cases are more of homosexual orientated priests abusing their authority.

Ohh good, some were in their middle teens, well that makes it all better....

Quote

as for "all they want are money and power"... THAT is what is laughable... why it is true in some cases, your blanket accusation is so full of shit that it's easily dismissed. How many priests do you know? Do you know their salaries? Know their general living conditions? Know of their attachments in their souls to material things?

Actually I am related to several. Are you?

One being so obviously gay, that everybody in the family knows he became a priest to not have to tell the family about his sexual orientation.....and it isn't the individual priest looking for the power and money....but the organization certainly does...and I have seen the pope's living arrangements...not so bad, don't you think....

Quote

I didn't think so.

Think again.....

[sinker 0]

Quote

>admitting the earth is round and not the center of the universe
>changes nothing regarding faith and morals.

Right, because they decided that the parts of the bible that DEFINE the earth as flat are not to be taken literally. Someday they will decide the same thing about gays.

Face it, the church keeps changing. It has changed a lot (which is a good thing!) and will change in the future. And a future version of you will state quite emphatically that the change from the church's anti-gay stance had absolutely nothing to do with faith or doctrine, and had everything to do with following the central message of the new testament. But allowing AI's to worship? Now, the church will never, ever ever accept that, and that's final!

the church's fundamental teachings on matters of faith and morals has not changed.

the church's stance on homosexuality has EVERYTHING to do w/ faith and morals. To say otherwise is the heighth of ignorance. Most human actions, by their very definition, are moral acts, save incidentals like clipping your fingernails.

break out the bible verses that define the earth as flat... be sure to include references to the literary style of said book and it's relevence to the work in question as well as it's impact on theology. Most importantly, please explain, how in the hell does a flat earth impact faith and morals? it's incidental.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[sinker 0]

Quote

How is my statement Bullshit? As far as I can tell falling in love in NOT conscious action but a sub-conscious emotional one.... You can suppress the physical acts but not the nature of them.....

.

are you not in control of your emotions?

is love an emotion or a choice in terms of a long-term, committed relationship?

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[Zenister 0]

Quote

from the catechism of the catholic church...

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

yet another example where the Church proves it has no fucking clue what actually happens "naturally" in nature...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[sinker 0]

Quote

Quote

from the catechism of the catholic church...

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

yet another example where the Church proves it has no fucking clue what actually happens "naturally" in nature...

wrong again honey. the natural law and laws of nature are not the same thing. try again.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[shropshire 0]

<> - No, I dont believe that I am... what I think, is that I am [more] in control of how I deal with them.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

How is my statement Bullshit? As far as I can tell falling in love in NOT conscious action but a sub-conscious emotional one.... You can suppress the physical acts but not the nature of them.....

There are some things about us humans that are autonomic. Feeling hungry when we're running low on gas is a good example. Our reactions to these things, though (such as grabbing a bag of cookies), is entirely under our control, and we're responsible for those actions we take.

That's an easy one: internal autonomic motivator, and a resulting action. Let's look at another.

You're at a stoplight on your way home from the dealership in your brand new car. Some punkass crossing the street decides it'll be funny to plow his foot into your fender.... How do you emotionally respond? Anger? Hurt? Pity for the individual who feels compelled to do something like that?

Your emotional reaction is also entirely within the scope of your control. You can choose to surrender yourself to impulse, but you cannot absolve yourself of your responsibility for your response. Any attempt to do so is a copout.

"Falling in love," is a misnomer in my opinion. The use of the word, "falling," is a silly attempt at denying responsibility for one's response to their environment -- in this case, an individual's presence.

"I couldn't help it."

Bullshit. You just didn't.

Make sense?

[billvon 3,120]

>the church's stance on homosexuality has EVERYTHING to do
>w/ faith and morals. To say otherwise is the heighth of ignorance.

Once again, that's going to change. You would at one point have been put to death for suggesting that God did not create the earth in seven days. Heck, it says it RIGHT THERE IN THE BIBLE! Page one! Big letters! Ignoring the Word of God is the height of both ignorance and arrogance!

Why? Because people back then had no doubt whatsoever that contradicting the literal word of God was going against everything the church stood for. They believed that as firmly as you believe what you say above. Of course, nowadays we have come up with explanations that allow us to believe that the earth was not _literally_ created in seven days, and woman did not _literally_ come from Adam's rib, and that an ark did not _literally_ contain two of every single land species on the planet today.

And future versions of you will have explanations that are just as good as to why homosexuality is not an evil bad thing, and why "love your neighbor" is more important than "gays shall be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

[shropshire 0]

Nice post.... but I think that it misses the point..

I suggest that you cannt help who you fall in love with but you can control your actions during and after the fact..

So, in my view, your Bullshit comment, would be better aimed at those that try to excuse their actions, not their feelings.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 3,120]

>Your emotional reaction is also entirely within the scope of your control.

??? Can you decide to not be sad if a close friend dies? Can you decide to not be angry if some idiot killed him by doing something stupid?

We cannot control our emotional reactions to things; that's why they're emotional reactions, because they're not under rational control. But we can decide what to _do_ about what we feel. In the above case, you may be sad, and angry as hell at the idiot who did it, but decide not to beat the crap out of him. Or you might decide to pound him - but that's your decision, not an inevitable result of an emotion.

[sinker 0]

Quote

Bull shit...that ban was in place well before the scandal...they just re-affirmed it...didn't fucking help the first time around...did it?

it wasn't enforced. now perhaps it will be. i'm not disagreeing w/ you here on this. the church fucked up big on this. did you miss that part of my post?

Quote

Your almighty church doesn't agree with you. Only repeat offenders are elligable for defrocking. So if you suck the cock of an altar boy only once, you can happily continue to be a priest.

not true.. read some more... as for punishing hierarchy, it's harder to prove cover ups, but if it can be proven, they will be punished. but remember, the church is not like the american justice system.

Quote

Ohh good, some were in their middle teens, well that makes it all better....

there is a clinical, pathological difference. and it bears noting. and since it's more common than true pedophilia, this reinforcement of not allowing gay priests can only be seen, therefore, as a step in the right direction. i don't particularly care if you don't want to see it.

Quote

Actually I am related to several. Are you?

yes.

Quote

One being so obviously gay, that everybody in the family knows he became a priest to not have to tell the family about his sexual orientation.....

i'm sorry to hear that. it must be difficult for him and many others.

Quote

and it isn't the individual priest looking for the power and money....but the organization certainly does...and I have seen the pope's living arrangements...not so bad, don't you think....

yes, i've seen them. i've had mass w/ JPII in his private chapel. but your argument is faulty. they aren't HIS living arrangements, they are the POPE'S... they are for the person IN OFFICIO, like that big fancy white house on Pennsylvania Avenue. It doesn't belong to W, it belongs to the Govt., for use by the person occupying the office of the Presidency.

Right now, another man I've met, Pope Benedict, is occupying that same residence. And when he dies, the next successor to Peter's throne ascends, he too will occupy it.

Have there been abuses of power and a lust for wealth in the church? Of course. Is such a thing exclusive to catholicism and not other religions? Hardly. Other hierarchical entities? Say it isn't so!

When Pope JPII was alive, a man I'd met and deeply loved, when he was a cardinal in Poland, he was so detached from material possessions, as all priests should be, his shaving razor was old, nicked and dull. When given a new one from a parishioner, he'd graciously accept, but soon give it away to a poor person. When given a new pair of shoes to replace the worn saddle shoes he had, he would give those away as well. Same w/ new blankets and sheets. He was not attached to "the finer things."

Same with Mother Theresa, with whom I spent some time in 1988. When she received the Nobel Peace Prize, not a dime was kept. And the medal, soon after she was dressed with it, was removed by her and handed to someone else.

It is categorically, morally WRONG of you to accuse the catholic church of being a power/money grabbing institution.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

Once again, that's going to change.

The day a part of the Catholic Church changes on this matter of doctrine is the day you will have a new Protestant faith. The true Catholic Church will never change on this matter. And that is a fact.

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[sinker 0]

one last time bill... from someone more "on the inside" than you...

don't. hold. your. breath.

you'll soon be dead if you do. ABC is still verbotin, as will homosexuality be... but you have a church that accepts both, evidentally, so have a good time there...

edited to ask... in your opinion, what makes homosexuality "ok," licit, acceptable, nonpathological, bill?

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[billvon 3,120]

>It is categorically, morally WRONG of you to accuse the
>catholic church of being a power/money grabbing institution.

The catholic church is worth trillions, so it is quite literally a money grabbing organization. As you mention, it has many fine people in it, and most of them are not money grubbers or hoarders or greedy capitalists. But enough of them are that the church is one of the richest organizations on the planet. They have billions in gold alone in the Vatican. The Boston archdiocese alone has about 600 million dollars in the bank. That's one archdiocese, in one city, in one state, in one country. If they wanted to, the church could feed every hungry person on the planet for a decade.

That they choose not to do that is not a condemnation; perhaps they are saving up for something else they consider worthy (saving souls, popemobiles, whatever.) But they certainly do not follow the standard set by the people you describe.

[sinker 0]

Quote

>It is categorically, morally WRONG of you to accuse the
>catholic church of being a power/money grabbing institution.

The catholic church is worth trillions, so it is quite literally a money grabbing organization. As you mention, it has many fine people in it, and most of them are not money grubbers or hoarders or greedy capitalists. But enough of them are that the church is one of the richest organizations on the planet. They have billions in gold alone in the Vatican. The Boston archdiocese alone has about 600 million dollars in the bank. That's one archdiocese, in one city, in one state, in one country. If they wanted to, the church could feed every hungry person on the planet for a decade.

That they choose not to do that is not a condemnation; perhaps they are saving up for something else they consider worthy (saving souls, popemobiles, whatever.) But they certainly do not follow the standard set by the people you describe.

the church's worth is found in the property is has, primarily. a few years ago, it was nearly bankrupt.

i know nothing of gold. are you talking bullion (sp?) or in art? if it's art, well, that's another topic, partially.

i do not know boston's assets, but 600 mil? w/ it's lawsuits? hmm... funny, that's odd.

remember bill, it takes money to run an organization. that isn't to say it's efficient as it is.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[billvon 3,120]

>ABC is still verbotin . . .

Atomic, biological, chemical? Good thing; I'd hate to see the Vatican's WMD's used on protestants! (kidding, I'm kidding)

>in your opinion, what makes homosexuality "ok," licit, acceptable,
>nonpathological, bill?

Because the gay people I know are as sane as anyone else. I know a few people who have been convicted of sex crimes - and all of them were straight.

Being gay means that one part of your psyche is different; something got wired differently. It takes some wisdom to realize that "different" isn't "evil" or "bad." If there's a couple out there who uses birth control, or who likes anal sex, or who likes to dress up like cops n robbers, or who likes to tie each other up, or who likes public displays of affection - they are no better or worse than anyone else, even if they're different. And even if the two people are the same sex.

[shropshire 0]

It may appear the churches are seen as employers here in the EU... but your idea is covered by the following..

Quote

or religious organisations, such as churches and Christian charities, the new law gives employers some flexibility to discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief so that they can fairly recruit and promote staff from the faith base of their organisation. The law says that this discrimination will only be allowed where the post in question has "a genuine occupational requirement” which relates to the “organisation’s ethos" for the employee to be of a particular faith.

I guess that this would stop an Othodox Jew becoming an RC Priest, for example and you could argue that discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation would be covered by the organisation’s ethos too.....

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[sinker 0]

>Atomic, biological, chemical? Good thing; I'd hate >to see the Vatican's WMD's used on protestants! (kidding, I'm kidding)

you're such a dork bill, and by dork I mean whale's penis. (kidding, I'm kidding)

Quote

Because the gay people I know are as sane as anyone else. I know a few people who have been convicted of sex crimes - and all of them were straight.

Being gay means that one part of your psyche is different; something got wired differently. It takes some wisdom to realize that "different" isn't "evil" or "bad." If there's a couple out there who uses birth control, or who likes anal sex, or who likes to dress up like cops n robbers, or who likes to tie each other up, or who likes public displays of affection - they are no better or worse than anyone else, even if they're different. And even if the two people are the same sex.

a little self-disclosure in there?

ok, so you judge the "normalcy" of homosexuality based on the relative saneness of the gay people you know, correct?

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[billvon 3,120]

>ok, so you judge the "normalcy" of homosexuality . . .

Here's where we differ. Homosexuality isn't normal. Neither is having red skin, or being albino, or skydiving, or wearing a tophat, or climbing mountains. None of those things are pathological, though, unless the climber is insanely reckless, or the skydiver is trying to kill himself, or the guy's wearing a tophat and nothing else and exposing himself to people in the park.

It would be pretty silly to claim that albinos shouldn't be priests, or that skydivers shouldn't be allowed to adopt because "they're not normal" - even though some people find albinos creepy or find skydivers insane.

[sinker 0]

Quote

>ok, so you judge the "normalcy" of homosexuality . . .

Here's where we differ. Homosexuality isn't normal. Neither is having red skin, or being albino, or skydiving, or wearing a tophat, or climbing mountains. None of those things are pathological, though, unless the climber is insanely reckless, or the skydiver is trying to kill himself, or the guy's wearing a tophat and nothing else and exposing himself to people in the park.

It would be pretty silly to claim that albinos shouldn't be priests, or that skydivers shouldn't be allowed to adopt because "they're not normal" - even though some people find albinos creepy or find skydivers insane.

ok, so that's why I restated... I want to truly understand where you are coming from.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[artistcalledian 0]

Quote

or the guy's wearing a tophat and nothing else and exposing himself to people in the park.

are you watching me

________________________________________
drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

>Your emotional reaction is also entirely within the scope of your control.

??? Can you decide to not be sad if a close friend dies? Can you decide to not be angry if some idiot killed him by doing something stupid?

Absolutely. Great examples.

Quote

We cannot control our emotional reactions to things; that's why they're emotional reactions, because they're not under rational control.

Heart rate would be a biological function which most would consider to be outside of rational control. Why is it, then, that I can consistently knock it down from around 60 to 37-ish just to screw with whoever's taking my pulse? And you should see them light up when I make it skip a couple of beats outright.

As far as controlling emotional response, imagine a line running from your sensory input devices to your impulse-gland. There's a switch on that line, and it's called, "will." For people who are completely accustomed to surrendering their will to their impulses, it's very difficult to learn how to operate that switch. The more reactive the situation, the more difficult it is to intercede.

Do I, personally, intercede on every occasion? Oh, hell no! But I'm humble enough to accept responsibility for my responses (there's an etymological goody there), whether by my will or by my surrender to impulse.

I have free will. It's my responsibility. And unless I'm being farcical, "I couldn't help it," is not in my lexicon.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Nice post.... but I think that it misses the point..

It hits the point; we just disagree.

[billvon 3,120]

>Why is it, then, that I can consistently knock it down from around 60
> to 37-ish just to screw with whoever's taking my pulse?

Cause you're a freak! (j/k)

>I have free will. It's my responsibility. And unless I'm being
>farcical, "I couldn't help it," is not in my lexicon.

Well, right. But if someone's friend died, and they cried about it, "I can't help it" seems reasonable to me. Most people don't have much control over such reactions. Using the same excuse to pound the daylights out of someone isn't reasonable.