Catholic League: There's a Homosexual Crisis in the Priesthood, Never was a

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pro_Life_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mattyc4 said:
Funny. Your response to mine was humorous and not serious, correct? You are saying any intrepretation that does not coincide with your own, is inhernetly wrong, simply for being different? That, my friend, is incredible arrogance and hubris and I know it had to be a joke. Inge was just an example. There are millions of christians who think the same. If you aren’t willing to embrace other opinions and intrepretations and immediately fall back on–“who are you to say that” and “I am always right and infalliable”, the world would never improve. Your intrepretations have not been around for thousands of years…maybe a few hundred at most. The Bible is not exactly infalliable–it condones slavery, the oppression of women, and other equally morally reprehensible acts. You cannot go into a discussion and simply always think you are right.
Click to expand...
I am wating for you tell me why we should reject two thousnad years of teachings by every major religion in the world to embrace you perosnal interpretattion-or for that matter anyone elses new improved interpretation. Do you really think cut n pasing a couple of cites from obscure liberal scholars in enough to turn over the wisdom of the ages. Isnt that a little arogant? What changed ?

If, BTW, you want to start a thread about slavery and/or opression of women and the Bible have at it. You will find you are as mistaken about that as your homnosexuality. Besides why are you tearing doww the biblke when youu just told us per you insight it supports homosexual behavior?
According to whom? According to biblical scholars.
Click to expand...
Can you name any scholars who interpreted these verses this way prior to the rise of the homosexual “rights” movement? Seems we have alwfully inept God if he let everyone be in error on this for 2,000 years.
By what right do you dare tell me my intepretation is flawed? By what right do you dare have the incredible audacity to condemn behavior simply because you disagree with it?
I am simply providing an alternate view point. Maybe mine is right, maybe yours is right. At least I am not blindly following what I am told to do without questioning.
Click to expand...
I dont have a perosnal interpetation. I an not arrogant enough to believe that I am smarter and wiser than all those who went befoe me. There is no way I am going to reject the consistent teachings of the Church Christ founded to embrace the relatavist issue of the day.
Your last paragraph is rubbish and has no basis in fact. Thats like saying, there is no dispute except for people who disagree with it. A trivial, worthless statement.
Click to expand...
So why was there no dispute whatsoever prior to people wanting to legitimize homosexual behavior?
 
estesbob said:
I am wating for you tell me why we should reject two thousnad years of teachings by every major religion in the world to embrace you perosnal interpretattion-or for that matter anyone elses new improved interpretation. Do you really think cut n pasing a couple of cites from obscure liberal scholars in enough to turn over the wisdom of the ages. Isnt that a little arogant? What changed ?

If, BTW, you want to start a thread about slavery and/or opression of women and the Bible have at it. You will find you are as mistaken about that as your homnosexuality. Besides why are you tearing doww the biblke when youu just told us per you insight it supports homosexual behavior?

Can you name any scholars who interpreted these verses this way prior to the rise of the homosexual “rights” movement? Seems we have alwfully inept God if he let everyone be in error on this for 2,000 years.

I dont have a perosnal interpetation. I an not arrogant enough to believe that I am smarter and wiser than all those who went befoe me. There is no way I am going to reject the consistent teachings of the Church Christ founded to embrace the relatavist issue of the day.

So why was there no dispute whatsoever prior to people wanting to legitimize homosexual behavior?
Click to expand...
Your argument is eerily familiar to those made against the womens right movements, civil rights movements, and the emanicipation of slaves. Why not? Homosexuality was originally coined as a term in the late 19th century. The original writers of the bible had no knowledge of sexual orientation or other matters of modern science. Why was there no dispute? Who says there was not? If you had your head lopped off for being homosexual, would you parade that fact around?

How could you, as a decent human being, be okay with having second class citizens? Because you were told so? If you have considered the scripture, argued with it yourself, then came to your conclusion, I am fine with that. If you are blindly following what you are told…I am not.

Can I name any scholars? Is that a serious question? There are tons of scholars. Hell, some catholic priests are okay with homosexuality.

You don’t have a personal intrepretation? How am I arrogant for critically reading and evaluating? Do you think everyone disagrees with me? Just because my view isnt the one accepted by the catholic church, doesn’t mean it is neccesarily wrong. There are many other christians who would agree with me.

Your first paragraph addresses nothing I said. I told you why it was not 2000 years of tradition. Every major religion in the world? WOW–You are way off the mark here, buddy. Heck, a good portion of christians are fine with homosexuality, as are buddhists, wiccans, and a few others. The tides of injustice are slowly turning. “The arc of the moral universe is long but just”

Again, please make a valid point in your responses besides “tradition”.(Which is not neccesarily true either)

Also, how can you justify putting the word rights into quotation marks?

Matt
 
mattyc4 said:
Funny. Your response to mine was humorous and not serious, correct? You are saying any intrepretation that does not coincide with your own, is inhernetly wrong, simply for being different? That, my friend, is incredible arrogance and hubris and I know it had to be a joke. Inge was just an example. There are millions of christians who think the same. If you aren’t willing to embrace other opinions and intrepretations and immediately fall back on–“who are you to say that” and “I am always right and infalliable”, the world would never improve. Your intrepretations have not been around for thousands of years…maybe a few hundred at most. The Bible is not exactly infalliable–it condones slavery, the oppression of women, and other equally morally reprehensible acts. You cannot go into a discussion and simply always think you are right.

According to whom? According to biblical scholars.

By what right do you dare tell me my intepretation is flawed? By what right do you dare have the incredible audacity to condemn behavior simply because you disagree with it?
I am simply providing an alternate view point. Maybe mine is right, maybe yours is right. At least I am not blindly following what I am told to do without questioning.

Your last paragraph is rubbish and has no basis in fact. Thats like saying, there is no dispute except for people who disagree with it. A trivial, worthless statement.

Matt
Click to expand...
Arrogance and hubris? Didn’t you just apologize to someone for calling them arrogant?
 
iamrefreshed said:
Arrogance and hubris? Didn’t you just apologize to someone for calling them arrogant?
Click to expand...
His stance warrants it. If you are not open to change you assume a sense of infalliability for yourself. That is incredible hubris and arrogance to assume you are always right. I am open to the fact that I may be wrong–he is not…I do not regret it.
 
mattyc4 said:
His stance warrants it. If you are not open to change you assume a sense of infalliability for yourself. That is incredible hubris and arrogance to assume you are always right. I am open to the fact that I may be wrong–he is not…I do not regret it.
Click to expand...
I am open to the fact I can be wrong. I am not open to the fact the Church is wrong or for that matter every Christian and nearly every Civilization for the last 2,000 years was wrong. If one buys into you new improved interpretation of scripture one must believe that every Jew from the time Moses came down with the Tablets and every Christian since pentecost was a homosphobic bigot. We must also accpet that an inept God allowed this error to remain for 4,000 years. Is this is what you beleive? if you beleive that homosewxual behavior is not a sin how could you believe otherwise.?
 
estesbob said:
I am open to the fact I can be wrong. I am not open to the fact the Church is wrong or for that matter every Christian and nearly every Civilization for the last 2,000 years was wrong. If one buys into you new improved interpretation of scripture one must believe that every Jew from the time Moses came down with the Tablets and every Christian since pentecost was a homosphobic bigot. We must also accpet that an inept God allowed this error to remain for 4,000 years. Is this is what you beleive? if you beleive that homosewxual behavior is not a sin how could you believe otherwise.?
Click to expand...
Could you rephrase or edit that? I am having trouble reading it.

By the transitive property, you are not open to being wrong. My intepretation can hardly be called new, nor is it mine–it is shared by many. No, they were not homophobic bigots. They did not have the infomation we have now, nor were they actively oppressing homosexuals for all the two thousand years. I am going to scream in frustration the next time you say the same view has been around for 2000 years I am going to scream.:mad:

God does not make mistakes, people do. The bible is not infalliable.
 
goofyjim said:
It is a fringe group with an agenda of their own that still sees SSA by itself a psychological disorder. They do absolutely nothing to actually accept insurance and instead expect you to pay their exorbitant fees for something that really doesn’t stand any chance of working. I’m comfortable with chastity alone. There is no call to waste money I don’t have.
Click to expand...
Even Francis Collins, the noted scientist in charge of mapping of the genetic code, has made a statement expressing his belief that homosexuality was not biologically determined…is he fringe? I don’t think so. In your defense Jim, the evidence does point towards some likely predispositions to SSA but not biological determinents. Thus, it’s clear that other psycho-social factors must play a part in an individual’s having a same-sex attraction. A recent longitudinal and empirical study did find that at least 15% of those with strong homosexual attractions could successfully change their orientation. Other studies have shown that 30% are very successful and another 30% are somewhat successful. It’s seems that motivation to change does play a part in success. Jim, I (and obviously the Catholic church)respect your desire to not want to even explore reparative therapy (you’ve consistently stated your chaste status which I applaud)but I wish you wouldn’t callously dismiss it out of hand in the same way that the real gay activists do…it’s not being entirely objective.
 
Riley259 said:
Even Francis Collins, the noted scientist in charge of mapping of the genetic code, has made a statement expressing his belief that homosexuality was not biologically determined…is he fringe? I don’t think so. In your defense Jim, the evidence does point towards some likely predispositions to SSA but not biological determinents. Thus, it’s clear that other psycho-social factors must play a part in an individual’s having a same-sex attraction. A recent longitudinal and empirical study did find that at least 15% of those with strong homosexual attractions could successfully change their orientation. Other studies have shown that 30% are very successful and another 30% are somewhat successful. It’s seems that motivation to change does play a part in success. Jim, I (and obviously the Catholic church)respect your desire to not want to even explore reparative therapy (you’ve consistently stated your chaste status which I applaud)but I wish you wouldn’t callously dismiss it out of hand in the same way that the real gay activists do…it’s not being entirely objective.
Click to expand...
Could you cite that study? Please note the APA is adamantly against sexual reparative therapy. It causes great distress, and is ineffective, according the most recognized and accredited group.

Matt
 
mattyc4 said:
Could you rephrase or edit that? I am having trouble reading it.

By the transitive property, you are not open to being wrong. My intepretation can hardly be called new, nor is it mine–it is shared by many. No, they were not homophobic bigots. They did not have the infomation we have now, nor were they actively oppressing homosexuals for all the two thousand years. I am going to scream in frustration the next time you say the same view has been around for 2000 years I am going to scream.:mad:

God does not make mistakes, people do. The bible is not infalliable.
Click to expand...
If the Bible is not infallible why do you keep quoting it to try and bolster your contention? Is God Infallible? Why would an infallible God let epople live in error for thousands of years?

I a sure the reason you dont like me to mention that these teachings have been consistent for over 2,000 years is you can not explan why God would allow so many people to be so wrong for so long. Were all Christians homophobic bigots until the “enlightened” came along and told them how they should . interpret Scripture?
 
Riley259 said:
Even Francis Collins, the noted scientist in charge of mapping of the genetic code, has made a statement expressing his belief that homosexuality was not biologically determined…is he fringe? I don’t think so. In your defense Jim, the evidence does point towards some likely predispositions to SSA but not biological determinents. Thus, it’s clear that other psycho-social factors must play a part in an individual’s having a same-sex attraction. A recent longitudinal and empirical study did find that at least 15% of those with strong homosexual attractions could successfully change their orientation. Other studies have shown that 30% are very successful and another 30% are somewhat successful. It’s seems that motivation to change does play a part in success. Jim, I (and obviously the Catholic church)respect your desire to not want to even explore reparative therapy (you’ve consistently stated your chaste status which I applaud)but I wish you wouldn’t callously dismiss it out of hand in the same way that the real gay activists do…it’s not being entirely objective.
Click to expand...
I would be all for it then if they weren’t just in it for the money. They don’t take insurance because they are more concerned with lining their pockets over a somewhat possible success rate.
 
estesbob said:
If the Bible is not infallible why do you keep quoting it to try and bolster your contention? Is God Infallible? Why would an infallible God let epople live in error for thousands of years?

I a sure the reason you dont like me to mention that these teachings have been consistent for over 2,000 years is you can not explan why God would allow so many people to be so wrong for so long. Were all Christians homophobic bigots until the “enlightened” came along and told them how they should . interpret Scripture?
Click to expand...
I quote it because it probably has the best chance of convincing a christian, rather then appealing to their conscience.

God gave free will and allows people to make mistakes all the time. Homosexuals were not persecuted for 2000 years. It is only more recently that there has been an issue. I am upset because you keep avoiding all the points I bring up. They were wrong about slaves for 1800 years, women for 1900 years, why not gays for “2000”?
 
😃
mattyc4 said:
I quote it because it probably has the best chance of convincing a christian, rather then appealing to their conscience.

God gave free will and allows people to make mistakes all the time. Homosexuals were not persecuted for 2000 years. It is only more recently that there has been an issue. I am upset because you keep avoiding all the points I bring up. They were wrong about slaves for 1800 years, women for 1900 years, why not gays for “2000”?
Click to expand...
Nobody said homosexuals were persectuted for 2,000 years and of course in this country they are less persecuted than prety much any other time in the last 2,000 years. What has been pointed out is that Homosexuality has been taught as a sin for the last 4,000 years. You claim a special insight that shows you the Church and all major religions were wrong about this for over 4,000 years. As I said you have reduced all people of faith who went before you as homophobic bigots,all based on nothing more that your personal interpraion of a few random scripture verses anfd I am sure some very deep dscussion in your dorm with other people who share your special insight.

You distort scripture, you ignore history and you belittle the teachings of the Church. It is hard to take you serious when you make absurd statements about the Church and women and the Church and slavery. (I am sure we will soon be hearing about the Crusaades , the Inquisition and Gallelio)

Do you who the first European leader to condemn the African slave trade was? Do you know the diference between chatel slavery and slavery as Practiced in Christs time?

Have you heard of Magdeline? Martha? Mary? Agatha? Edith Stein ? Theresa? Bernadette? Agnes? Perpetua? Falicity? Do you think they would agree with you statments about Women and the Church. Do you have greater insight into the Church than they did? Dont you demean them when you claim the Church they loved and nutured and in some cases died for opressed them?
 
We should all go back and reread that article linked in the original post. It referenced the fact that the problem in the Church was not pedophilia/pederasty, the problem was homosexual rape of post-pubescent males. The article was, in large part, addressing the fact that the media and other left-wing “so-called” Catholic groups such as Call to Action and Voice of the Faithful have been unwilling to publicly recognize this fact. They continue to call it child-molestation, pedophilia, etc.

Can we agree or not on this assertion? If not, explain why. It has been clear to me for almost 15 years that the media is ready to pounce on the Church so long as it does not harm any of their pet causes. The problems in Los Angeles, Stockton, San Antonio, Milwaukee, Saginaw, etc. have been known to the media for years. Why didn’t the press jump on it back then? Why, after so much public information about the cover ups and did the press decide that they were going to unleash on Cardinal Law and the Archdiocese of Boston? Why are they still so quiet about the horrors in LA?

I will put it very bluntly: The left-wing media was, is, and most likely will always be infatuated with the bishops, archbishops, and Cardinal of those respective diocesebecause they are or were heterodox and anti-Roman! The press saw in Cardinal Law someone who was orthodox and conservative and the perfect whipping boy (although he deserved everything he got). To this day, you will be hard pressed to find anything about the horrors that Cardinal Mahoney has unleashed in the good people of LA.

Why doesn’t the press go after him? Because he is the poster-child for Catholic dissidents. He and his ilk are the friends of many in the left-wing media. When it came out that the beloved Rembrandt Weekland of Milwaukee was using Church funds to pay off one of his former lovers, did the media crawl all over him? For about two days. Some outlets were actually lamenting the passing of such a forward-thinking, innovative, heterodox Churchman. If he were the pope’s man, things would have been different.

Many of you reading this and similar posts probably think that it was some great discovery that was broken in Boston. That is hogwash! It has been out there for decades and the press still refuses to go after their favorite liberal Catholic prelates and continues to misinform the public about what was going on: homosexual battery. Why? It does not serve their purpose to point the finger at the homosexual community or at liberal prelates. If anyone is going to take the hits from the media for this, it will not be there favorite men and/or there favorite causes.
 
estesbob said:
😃

Nobody said homosexuals were persectuted for 2,000 years and of course in this country they are less persecuted than prety much any other time in the last 2,000 years. What has been pointed out is that Homosexuality has been taught as a sin for the last 4,000 years. You claim a special insight that shows you the Church and all major religions were wrong about this for over 4,000 years. As I said you have reduced all people of faith who went before you as homophobic bigots,all based on nothing more that your personal interpraion of a few random scripture verses anfd I am sure some very deep dscussion in your dorm with other people who share your special insight.

You distort scripture, you ignore history and you belittle the teachings of the Church. It is hard to take you serious when you make absurd statements about the Church and women and the Church and slavery. (I am sure we will soon be hearing about the Crusaades , the Inquisition and Gallelio)

Do you who the first European leader to condemn the African slave trade was? Do you know the diference between chatel slavery and slavery as Practiced in Christs time?

Have you heard of Magdeline? Martha? Mary? Agatha? Edith Stein ? Theresa? Bernadette? Agnes? Perpetua? Falicity? Do you think they would agree with you statments about Women and the Church. Do you have greater insight into the Church than they did? Dont you demean them when you claim the Church they loved and nutured and in some cases died for opressed them?
Click to expand...
Where are you pulling the number 4000 from? I am pretty sure it is coming out of thin air. There is plenty of evidence that homosexuality, at times, was condoned or allowed during different times in history. All I hear from you are excuses. Just because everyone does something, does not make it right. The Bible was used as an argument for the oppression of women and allowed slavery. Fact. That is now considered outdated, but it does not change the fact that it is there. I honestly hope you are not suggesting that because a few women recieved better than average treatment, that women were treated equally for the last 2000 years. That would be a slap in the face of history, and disrespect to every woman who has lived.

For pete’s sake, clean up your argument so it makes sense. I dont care who they first leader was, that is not my point. My point is the bible said slavery was ok…it is not anymore. Perhaps the bible said homosexuality is wrong…it is not anymore. You cannot have it both ways.

Homosexuals in this country aren’t persecuted? Are you serious or are you making a clever attempt at satire to further my argument? For the love of God, it is permissable to fire an employee for no other reason then his sexual orientation. Gay’s do not even have some fundemental rights. Gay’s cannot marry. Gays cannot recieve the same tax breaks. Gay mens’ partners cannot recieve health benefits. For the love of God, a PET has more rights in the federal government than the partner of a gay man. They pay for a pet to travel to a foriegn country to accompany you–but not a life partner. You honestly think you are morally justified in holding your position? Do you not have any empathy? Do you not see how utterly wrong it is to continue to treat gays with disrespect and disdain? You have been making insinuations about gays and equating them with pedophiles in more then one post while ignoring scientific evidence. Is that, as you are required to do in the catholic faith, treating them with respect and courtesy? If this is the least they have been persecuted in 2000 years then…

I distort scripture because I interpret it differently? I believe in a compassionate and morally just Creator, so that makes my arguments inferior?
It is hard to take me serious when I quote fact about history to you? Undisputed fact? Just because you do not like what history shows you, does not mean that you can simply ignore it. It is hard to take you serious because your arguments simply do not make sense. I only belittle inequality. On the whole, the church is a great entity and a benefit to mankind–that does not mean I will agree with every issue nor would I ever say the church has not made mistakes–they have. After all, they are only human, the church is not perfect.

I have not reduced everyone of faith to bigots and homophobes. I have never said that. I simply say that longevity does not lend credence nor does it imply correctness to any argument. Slavery was around for thousands of years–heck it was a tradition–apaprently so has your (mis)guided belief that homosexuality has been labeled as sin.

Please try reading my arguments before responding with nonsense that I have already countered. I would appreciate if you gave the courtesy of editing and proof reading your post as well.

Thanks
Matt
 
This thread is wandering off topic. The discussion is specifically about a homosexual crisis in the priesthood, not the broader issue of whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Please confine your discussion to the issue at hand.

A few posts contain some less than charitable comments about other posters. Please be warned that such conduct will not be tolerated. Clean it up, folks.

Thank you for your cooperation.
 
estesbob said:
It is interestng that one of the most commom scripture verses we see for jusifying sin is “love your neighbor” One uses that and ignore the rest of the bible. Thus "love your neighbor " become “sodomy is OK”
Click to expand...
True Christian charity demands fraternal correction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top