New SanFran Bishop ! IS Benedict Conservative?

[mlchance]

Gottle of Geer:

No - love takes people as they are, without conditions, because that is how God takes us, in all our vast unlovability.

Love also demands that we change. When Love forgave the woman caught in adultery, he told her to go and sin no more. Are all people welcome in the Church? Certainly. Are all activities and opinions? Certainly not. All people must be firmly and clearly told the truths about sexual sins, and this must include admonishing homosexuals that homosexual activity is always gravely disordered.

Libero:

You can twist the definition of paedophillia all you want to suit your case, but really a 15 year old post pubescent boy and a 44 year old man is not homosexuality, it is paedophillia.

The twisting comes from asserting that the two disorders are mutually exclusive. The majority of pedophiles self-identify as either homosexual or bisexual.

If the bishop of San Francisco, or any other bishop for that matter, advocates ordaining homosexual men, he does so contrary to long-standing and recently restated Church policy. Has this particular bishop advocated such?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[fix]

Libero:

Maybe he is saying that paedophillia and homosexuality are very different? You can twist the definition of paedophillia all you want to suit your case, but really a 15 year old post pubescent boy and a 44 year old man is not homosexuality, it is paedophillia.

Incorrect, it is not pedophilia. The male is post pubescent. It is homosexual predation.

I wonder if Jesus would do that, “sorry you are a sinner - go away” Maybe there is the constant release of documents condemning homosexuality that makes a homosexual uneasy? Maybe they will just feel like their orientation seems to be receiving so much more attention from the church than anything else?

There is a Catholic Archbishop trying to love the sinner as people here are always going on about, and instantly becuase of that you start complaining about him. Strange…

Hyperbole. That those publicly gay want to normalize such behavior does not mean the Church should be silent.

 

[MikeWM]

mlchance:

The twisting comes from asserting that the two disorders are mutually exclusive.

The Catechism clearly calls on us to treat homosexual people with dignity and respect. I don’t think assuming them to be predatory paedophiles is quite what is meant.

Mike

 

[mlchance]

MikeWM:

The Catechism clearly calls on us to treat homosexual people with dignity and respect. I don’t think assuming them to be predatory paedophiles is quite what is meant.

And I’ve made no such assumption. All I did was point out a readily verifiable fact: Most male pedophiles self-identify as either homosexual or bisexual. Those who insist that pedophilia and homosexuality are mutually exclusive disorders are either dishonest or misinformed. Likewise are those who cannot distinguish between these two statements: Most pedophiles are homosexual/bisexual (a true statement), and most homosexual/bisexual men are pedophiles (a false statement).

Also, since it is true that all people - not just homosexual persons - must be treated with dignity and respect, it is therefore paramount that the Church correctly teach matters of sexual morality for the genuine benefit of all people. Part of that teaching is this: All homosexual activity is gravely disordered. Homosexual persons are called to chastity, which is a right ordering of sexual activity.

This means either confining sexual activity to marriage with one person of the opposite gender, or else refraining from sexual activity entirely. This teaching applies equally to all persons regardless of sexual orientation.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[James_2_24]

mlchance:

Love also demands that we change. When Love forgave the woman caught in adultery, he told her to go and sin no more. Are all people welcome in the Church? Certainly. Are all activities and opinions? Certainly not. All people must be firmly and clearly told the truths about sexual sins, and this must include admonishing homosexuals that homosexual activity is always gravely disordered.

The twisting comes from asserting that the two disorders are mutually exclusive. The majority of pedophiles self-identify as either homosexual or bisexual.

If the bishop of San Francisco, or any other bishop for that matter, advocates ordaining homosexual men, he does so contrary to long-standing and recently restated Church policy. Has this particular bishop advocated such?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Libero]

The Catechism clearly calls on us to treat homosexual people with dignity and respect. I don’t think assuming them to be predatory paedophiles is quite what is meant.

Exactly.

Incorrect, it is not pedophilia. The male is post pubescent. It is homosexual predation.

This is a distorted view, it is illegal for a 15 year old post pubescent boy to be in a sexual relationship (no matter who with), it is not for two 44 year old men. That in itself has got to tell you something, taking the primitive view that as soon as one has any form of puberty they are sexually mature is ignoring the complexity of the human being.

Hyperbole. That those publicly gay want to normalize such behavior does not mean the Church should be silent.

Are you publicly accusing an Archbishop of the Catholic church of wanting to normalise homosexual behaviour? Not only is this ucharitbale, but you have no authority to do so. Further more, this is not even what the bishop is trying to accomplish, it is irrelevant.

 

[Adonis33]

Libero:

This is a distorted view, it is** illegal for a 15 year old post pubescent boy to be in a sexual relationship (no matter who with)**, it is not for two 44 year old men. That in itself has got to tell you something, taking the primitive view that as soon as one has any form of puberty they are sexually mature is ignoring the complexity of the human being.

Depends on what state you are living in. It wasn’t that long ago that the legal age of consent in Louisiana was 14 (I beleive it still is, but I could be wrong).

 

[otm]

bgaCath:

a liberal bishop does much more harm than a liberal Catholic politician. if any liberal Catholic choose politics as a career, that’s his free choice. However Church must do everything to prevent them get to high position. Excommunicating priests, bishops and theologians that support immoral politicians is the first step. what goes on in Venezuela and Bolivia should get Vatican’s attention. Socialism and Communism have been officially condemned by Vatican. South American are predominantly Catholic. whoever help socialism/communism gain popularity there should be punished.

It may come as a surprise, but the Church does very little in terms of excommunication. As much as some might wish that people like Charles Currin or Hans Kung would be excommunicated, that simply doesn’t happen. And as a ppoint, the Pope recently had lunch with Kung, a theologian he worked with during Vatican 2, and who was forbidden to teach as a Catholic theologian in Catholic universities; that in itself should be a telling statment to all who wish for excommunications to be passed out.

 

[otm]

Libero:

Maybe he is saying that paedophillia and homosexuality are very different? You can twist the definition of paedophillia all you want to suit your case, but really a 15 year old post pubescent boy and a 44 year old man is not homosexuality, it is paedophillia.

this is straying fairly far off topic, but no, as a matter of fact that is not correct. Pedophilia is the aqttraction to a child who has not yet reached puberty. Ephibophilia is the sexual attraction to post pubescent children. And that is a big difference.

 

[Walt_Oliver]

Let’s get back on topic, please.

---

Thanks,

---

Walt

 

[Libero]

Depends on what state you are living in. It wasn’t that long ago that the legal age of consent in Louisiana was 14 (I beleive it still is, but I could be wrong).

14? Wow, that is low. What age are you legally allowed to consume alcohol. I heard that practically all of America is really uptight about that.

this is straying fairly far off topic, but no, as a matter of fact that is not correct. Pedophilia is the aqttraction to a child who has not yet reached puberty. Ephibophilia is the sexual attraction to post pubescent children. And that is a big difference.

But still, there is a huge difference between homosexuality and ephibiophillia. We can not claim that if you are one, then you are more than likely to be the other.

It may come as a surprise, but the Church does very little in terms of excommunication. As much as some might wish that people like Charles Currin or Hans Kung would be excommunicated, that simply doesn’t happen. And as a ppoint, the Pope recently had lunch with Kung, a theologian he worked with during Vatican 2, and who was forbidden to teach as a Catholic theologian in Catholic universities; that in itself should be a telling statment to all who wish for excommunications to be passed out.

Hans Kung should’nt be excommunicated anyway, the only thing he really really disagrees with is the infallible pope idea, which I do to an extent agree with, because it makes simple sense.

 

[Walt_Oliver]

Second and final warning: One more off-topic post and this thread will go bye bye.

---

Walt

 

[Libero]

Woops sorry

Anyway, I’m hoping to kill this thread before any one else does Muhhaaahhhhaaa

Is there anyone here who has actually met the Bishop, or is even under his jurisdiction?

 

[UtahMaggie]

I have been reading my most recent Intermountain Catholic newspaper. (Unfortunately, the web site still has the previous edition). This is from vol. 67 No. 45. In an interview with local Catholics, James Hamburge, principal of Judge Memorial Catholic high school made the comment about Bishop Niederauer that he is highly regarded for his intelligence, compassion, wit, and sensitivity. Do those of you who have doubts about him think it’s possible that he is just trying to be compassionate and make ALL Catholics feel welcomed by the Church but still adhear to her teachings?
Hopefully the web site will be updated today with the new issue dated Dec. 23, 2005. Again, I urge all to be patient and not pass judgement on him yet. He’s done so much for our community and considering this is where the LDS church has it’s headquarters, that is saying a lot.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Andreas Hofer:

Connection is only good when coupled with truth. If practicing homosexuals are pondering leaving the Church because they feel unwelcome, we don’t need someone to welcome them.

If they leave the Church, where they are not welcome, and which they are told to get out of, they will be committing the sin of apostasy, which is mortal.​

Not quite the best possible pastoral style, IMHO.

“Love only ceases to be a demon, when it ceases to be a god” (La Rochefoucauld) - I think this applies to truth as well. Truth is a good thing: but it’s not good when it ceases to be united with charity. Truth by itself is not enough, because by itself it can all too easily become an idol - just like anything else that is not God. And the better a thing is uncorrupted, the greater its corruption will be when it is corrupted. ##

We need someone that will do the loving thing by helping them realize they have already placed themselves outside the Church by their actions.

Not even sodomy - let alone anything else generally associated with homosexual living incurs excommunication. So “acting up” won’t put them outside the CC. So to give them that message will be neither loving - nor true.​

If someone, who does not act out same sex attractions, fully embraces the teachings of the Church, what is there to make them feel unwanted?

Because they live in an atmosphere which is profoundly unwelcoming to people with whom they have something in common; and not something superficial, either.​

Suppose a non-American attacks the USA’s foreign policies: plenty of people from the States will be very indignant, because attacking one aspect of the USA’s activity is hardly different from attacking the USA. So they wil come to their country’s defence.

That is why such a homosexual may feel unwanted. ##

There are different “gay Catholic” groups in America. One is called Courage and is a support group for those tempted by SSA but striving to live chaste lives. Another is Dignity, which is a dissident group, and happens to be the one that is quoted supporting the bishop. This should rightly give one pause.

Did the bishop choose his “supporters” ? I doubt it.​

It needs to be shown that what Dignity said in this instance was incompatible with being Catholic - after all, not everything said even by a heretic is heretical. Even if what was said is indeed incompatible with being a Catholic, it does not follow that the bishop is responsible for it. Otherwise, one might as well argue that because Luther was in error in some respects, he must also be in error in believing that Jesus Christ is God - the fact that he believed it, ought to give us pause.

IOW, some discrimination is needed, so that we don’t jump to unwarranted & unfair conclusions by careless use of reason.

So, none of this kerfuffle about homosexuality tells against the bishop in any way - unless failing to be agressive to homosexuals is somehow to be evidence of his unfitness. But why should it be ? The Church is meant to be Catholic: IOW, to be universal - start kicking people out, and it ceases to be.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Andreas Hofer:

Truth is not even relatively unimportant; He happens to be the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. We are admonished to “speak the truth in love.” But we also know that “the truth shall set you free.” It needs to be said.

It certainly does​

Failing to teach just to make people feel wanted and get them to accept the rest of the package is a failure of love.

Perhaps we are just disagreeing about the “how” to teach,

Possibly - I’m not sure. A medium like this is not the best there could be, for discussions such as this.​

Not teaching what is true would indeed be a failure of love - it is not the only possible failure of love. ##

but the article linked above gives me doubts that the bishop is not in line with the proper “what” to teach.

The Person is antecedent to what we call Him, though - the Person is “The Truth”, but truth is not the Person; just as love is not God, though God is Love. No one suggested there should not be teaching - the Church is rather good at teaching; less good, at telling gentleness from weakness.​

Besides, people should feel wanted - people are social animals. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Andreas Hofer:

Truth is not even relatively unimportant; He happens to be the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. We are admonished to “speak the truth in love.” But we also know that “the truth shall set you free.” It needs to be said. Failing to teach just to make people feel wanted and get them to accept the rest of the package is a failure of love.

Perhaps we are just disagreeing about the “how” to teach,

Possibly - I’m not sure. A medium like this is not the best there could be, for discussions such as this​

but the article linked above gives me doubts that the bishop is not in line with the proper “what” to teach.

The Person is antecedent to what we call Him, though - the Person is “The Truth”, but truth is not the Person; just as love is not God, though God is Love. No one suggested there should not be teaching - the Church is rather good at teaching; less good, at telling gentleness from weakness.​

Besides, people should feel wanted - people are social animals. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

mlchance:

Love also demands that we change. When Love forgave the woman caught in adultery, he told her to go and sin no more. Are all people welcome in the Church? Certainly. Are all activities and opinions? Certainly not. All people must be firmly and clearly told the truths about sexual sins, and this must include admonishing homosexuals that homosexual activity is always gravely disordered.

Of course - but some people seem to want other people chucked out; that is why this bishop is so refreshing - his approach does not expect instant change: which is exactly what a good many seem to expect: which is simply unrealistic. Sometimes, people do change quickly - but not everyone can. Which is why patience is required. But a Church without “liberals”, homosexuals, or whoever, doesn’t need patience.​

There is nothing new in hearing the teaching again - anyone could learn in an hour or two; probably most people on the CAF could recite it backwards. What would be refreshing, would be some of that change you mention: otherwise, appeals for change simply become a device for manipulating those who are told to change; such appeals become self-serving. Which is why change has to be universal, not limited. Unless one is to say that homosexuals (say) have a monopoly of disorderliness - but that could hardly be true, because it would imply to a claim by others of impeccability. Conversion is life-long - we all need to change.

So we seem not to disagree ##

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[rwoehmke]

DreadVandal:

Well said Andreas. My hunch is that the liberals in the Church really do not have a strong conception of sin or hell. I know for a fact that many of them don’t believe in hell or they believe that if there is a hell, only Hitler and Stalin are there. I think this is one of the major problems in the Church today: too few sermons on the reality of hell and God’s hatred of sin.

Umm, I guess I am not sure at all that Stalin or Hitler are there. I guess that doesn’t brand me as a liberal since liberals believe that Hitler and Stalin are the only ones there. Does the Church teach that they are there along with Judas or are liberals just making an assumption. You know what they say about people who make assumptions. I always wondered too about that guy in the front of the synagogue who told the Lord that he was grateful for not being like the guy in the back beating his breast. Whatever happened to him?