SanFrancisco bishop Thinks Gay Propaganda Film Brokeback Mountain is "Very Powerful"

[irenaeus1]

Libero:

That is very different, we cannot compare the two, those who would take advantage of children, would usually do so without them consenting to the acts, that is not the case fore homosexuals, also a childs mind and body have not developed fully, thus they cannot be a participant in sex.

There is forgiveness to be found in even the worst of sins - Cormac Cdnl. Murphy O’Connor, with forgiveness should come an element of love and respect.

Consent has nothing to do with the sinfulness of the act. Yes, they are different sins, but that is not the point. The point was made to determine whether you would change your criteria with respect to when a shepherd is responsible to admonish a sinner rather than coddle him

But for the sake of making it easier on you, let us choose a sexual sin that requires consent since, apparently in your estimation, that makes a person less culpable. Should the bishop also take the same approach with those who suffer with sexual addiction and act out their addiction through extra-marital affairs, wife swapping swingers’ groups, internet porn, fornication, etc. (you fill in the blank with any consensual sin of your choice)? According to your reasoning, we should give them encouragement and love WITHOUT admonishing them concerning their indulgence in such behavior for fear that they will feel ostracized and unwelcome in the community.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[MikeWM]

irenaeus1:

Consent has nothing to do with the sinfulness of the act. Yes, they are different sins, but that is not the point. The point was made to determine whether you would change your criteria with respect to when a shepherd is responsible to admonish a sinner rather than coddle him

Who is being coddled? The Catholic position is clear. That doesn’t mean we should only condemn those struggling with homosexuality, the same as we shouldn’t only condemn those struggling with any sexual problem - which 99.9% of us will have had at some time in our life, whether homosexuality, fornication, masturbation, paedophilic tendancies, anything. You make the position of the Church clear, but you also make clear that they are still loved by God and he, and the Church, is there for them.

Mike

 

[Libero]

So if the child is a consenting participant in sexual activity with an adult it’s okay?

Cases of child abuse are usually unique, few are the same as others. I would not want to generalise or attempt to brand my own personal thoughts on to such a huge matter, we have to look at the issue from a number of different angles, including what affect the issue has had on the child. That aside, this is not the appropriate place to be discussing the matter of child abuse, should you wish to, start a new thread, or feel free to PM me

 

[Libero]

Consent has nothing to do with the sinfulness of the act. Yes, they are different sins, but that is not the point. The point was made to determine whether you would change your criteria with respect to when a shepherd is responsible to admonish a sinner rather than coddle him

But for the sake of making it easier on you, let us choose a sexual sin that requires consent since, apparently in your estimation, that makes a person less culpable. Should the bishop also take the same approach with those who suffer with sexual addiction and act out their addiction through extra-marital affairs, wife swapping swingers’ groups, internet porn, fornication, etc. (you fill in the blank with any consensual sin of your choice)? According to your reasoning, we should give them encouragement and love WITHOUT admonishing them concerning their indulgence in such behavior for fear that they will feel ostracized and unwelcome in the community.

To the first point, Mike appears to have addressed the matter well.

To the second, I will not generalise on this matter - we have to look at the individual before making a decision. In the example you have provided, you mention an addiction - this would lead me to believe there is some form of psychological problem, which should be addressed, or otherwise that the person is clearly not happy in their marriage. These issues have to be addressed through help and support, not treating somebody like less of a person.

Falling into sin, does not mean that God no longer loves us, nor does it qualify a bishop to display a lack of love or encouragement in the messages he sends out to the children of God he is supposed to be helping.

Nobody should feel as if they do not belong in the community of God - and the church that represents him.

 

[Libero]

Both are MORTAL sins. Both behaviors endanger their immortal souls. The greatest kindness one can show those who enage in homosexual behavior is to condmen that behavior. I find that the best way to do it is to give them the pertinent paragraphs in the Cathecism. Their is NOTHING about homosexual behavior that deserves love or respect. The person enaging in such behavior deverves our Love but most certainly does not deserve our respect.

That is clearly your attitude. But ask yourself, would Jesus treat one who is in sin without love and respect. Would he treat them like a lesser being because they are flawed?

I would like to think not, and I shall not be changing that attitude. Jesus would not, and his representatives should certainly not.

The catechism is useful, but it is not that useful. It is a book, it is merely words on paper, it does not show the true love of Christ, and that is very necessary for one to change (sometimes) - when words fail to show this, then it is down to the bishops.

 

[miguel]

GloriaPatri4:

So if the child is a consenting participant in sexual activity with an adult it’s okay?

NO PERIOD…no ifs, ands, or buts…and I wouldn’t talk to a person who’d even entertain the possibility.

 

[setter]

That is clearly your attitude. But ask yourself, would Jesus treat one who is in sin without love and respect. Would he treat them like a lesser being because they are flawed?

I would like to think not, and I shall not be changing that attitude. Jesus would not, and his representatives should certainly not.

I am not sure what the the big squalk is all about: love the sinner, hate the sin.

The catechism is useful, but it is not that useful. It is a book, it is merely words on paper, it does not show the true love of Christ, and that is very necessary for one to change (sometimes) - when words fail to show this, then it is down to the bishops.

This is an interesting statement. How is one to know how to love the sinner unless one is informed what comprises sin and why; so as to be better equipped to charitably explain how chosen behavior is offensive to God and to direct the sinner toward the path to forgivenss and reconciliation with Jesus? It is very difficult to love someone whom you do not know (especially God, whom the CCC deepens our understanding of Him).

 

[Libero]

I am not sure what the the big squalk is all about: love the sinner, hate the sin.

We should resent the sin, God does not hate. I would not attempt to strongly show this “hate” of the sin, if that may comprimise the love that you show to your children. How is it going to look, if your first messages as bishop are ones of “hate”?

This is an interesting statement. How is one to know how to love the sinner unless one is informed what comprises sin and why; so as to be better equipped to charitably explain how chosen behavior is offensive to God and to direct the sinner toward the path to forgivenss and reconciliation with Jesus? It is very difficult to love someone whom you do not know (especially God, whom the CCC deepens our understanding of Him).

Does merely saying that the sin is “objectively disordered” show the sinner why? I think that the CCC shows a Catholic how to live, the bible is far more useful with why these teachings are so.

 

[fix]

Libero:

We should resent the sin, God does not hate. I would not attempt to strongly show this “hate” of the sin, if that may comprimise the love that you show to your children. How is it going to look, if your first messages as bishop are ones of “hate”?

We live in an age which places a very strong emphasis on tolerance, mutuality, and acceptance. I have heard repeatedly over the years that “Jesus never judged, condemned or excluded anyone.”…

In our “compromising age” we are loath to name something too strongly. If we do, we are accused of harshness, judgmentalism, perhaps arrogance, certainly intolerance and possibly pharisaism. While it is always necessary to speak the truth with love, the Church also believes and teaches that it is also necessary to speak the truth with strength. It is necessary to defend truth and not be too quick to rationalize, justify or excuse misleading teachings or teachers. There is a point at which passive “tolerance” allows misleading teachings to be spread and propagated, thus confusing or even misleading the faithful about the truths of the Church…

sentinel.org/articles/2006-7/14481.html

Do you agree?

 

[Libero]

Do you agree?

To an extent, I would not go as far to accuse this bishop of “passive tolerance” though. He has been in this position for what? Nearly a week, and so many have written him off for life. Such a shame…

 

[GloriaPatri4]

Originally Posted by GloriaPatri4
*So if the child is a consenting participant in sexual activity with an adult it’s okay? *

miguel:

NO PERIOD…no ifs, ands, or buts…and I wouldn’t talk to a person who’d even entertain the possibility.

Miguel,

I absoutely was not entertaining that possibility. I was being sarcastic (guess I didn’t do such a good job). There are many people who believe that if an underage person is a consenting participant in a sexual act with an adult then it’s okay (Nambla). I was trying to determine if this what Libero meant.

Originally posted by Libero

That is very different, we cannot compare the two, those who would take advantage of children, would usually do so without them consenting to the acts, that is not the case fore homosexuals, also a childs mind and body have not developed fully, thus they cannot be a participant in sex

 

[Libero]

Miguel,

I absoutely was not entertaining that possibility. I was being sarcastic (guess I didn’t do such a good job). There are many people who believe that if an underage person is a consenting participant in a sexual act with an adult then it’s okay (Nambla). I was trying to determine if this what Libero meant.

Hey Gloria,

I don’t like NAMBLA - for the record (I was shocked when I heard they existed - and how that was possible) I would also say that really, a child probably never truly consents, it is more likely that the adult has somehow convinced them into “consenting” - but, I don’t really want to generalise to much.

As for sarcasm, I have tried it in the past too, it has always backfired on me…

 

[GloriaPatri4]

Libero:

Hey Gloria,

I don’t like NAMBLA - for the record (I was shocked when I heard they existed - and how that was possible) I would also say that really, a child probably never truly consents, it is more likely that the adult has somehow convinced them into “consenting” - but, I don’t really want to generalise to much.

As for sarcasm, I have tried it in the past too, it has always backfired on me…

Thanks for clearing that up. I’m relieved to know that’s not what you meant.

 

[miguel]

GloriaPatri4:

So if the child is a consenting participant in sexual activity with an adult it’s okay?

Libero:

Cases of child abuse are usually unique, few are the same as others. I would not want to generalise or attempt to brand my own personal thoughts on to such a huge matter, we have to look at the issue from a number of different angles, including what affect the issue has had on the child. That aside, this is not the appropriate place to be discussing the matter of child abuse, should you wish to, start a new thread, or feel free to PM me

Miguel:

NO PERIOD…no ifs, ands, or buts…and I wouldn’t talk to a person who’d even entertain the possibility.

GloriaPatri4:

Miguel,

I absoutely was not entertaining that possibility. I was being sarcastic (guess I didn’t do such a good job).

Not for one moment did I think you were entertaining that possibility.

GloriaPatri4:

There are many people who believe that if an underage person is a consenting participant in a sexual act with an adult then it’s okay (Nambla). I was trying to determine if this what Libero meant.

I realize that. Libero’s response to your question should have been a simple no. I am highly suspicious of people who can’t answer a simple question. There is no excuse for this type of behavior. NONE. It is also a criminal act.

 

[Libero]

I realize that. Libero’s response to your question should have been a simple no. I am highly suspicious of people who can’t answer a simple question. There is no excuse for this type of behavior. NONE. It is also a criminal act.

All right all right, calm down, firstly, there was the issue of what constitutes a child, and what constitutes an adult.

Child - 16
Adult - 18 (UK) - is this always wrong?

That is hardly taking advantage of a child, simply put, I always think paedophillia is wrong, but, I would not treat a paedophile as a lesser person, the majority probably have serious problems.

Also, as I have stated this is not really the appropriate thread…

 

[miguel]

Libero:

All right all right, calm down, firstly, there was the issue of what constitutes a child, and what constitutes an adult.

Child - 16
Adult - 18 (UK) - is this always wrong?

Yes always if it is a homosexual act, or if the two are unmarried. Statutory rape laws vary from place to place, but if it isn’t permitted by law, it is also a criminal act.

Libero:

That is hardly taking advantage of a child…

This is not pedophilia, but a 16 year old is not a mature adult either. So it is taking advantage. And in many places this is considered statutory rape. And if you did that to my daughter (or son), I’d kick your but.

 

[Libero]

This is not pedophilia, but a 16 year old is not a mature adult either. So it is taking advantage. And in many places this is considered statutory rape.

Well I’m British, so it wouldn’t really be rape to me, and I would also disagree that a 16 year old is not mature enough either, as really, some 16 year olds may suprise you. And I wouldn’t do that to your daughter or son, as I am 15, and I am in England.

But anyway, the issue has been addressed, and now, back to the topic

 

[GloriaPatri4]

From Lifesite article
The San Francisco Chronicle has posted an interview with the incoming archbishop, conducted by the paper’s ‘gay and lesbian issues’ newsman Wyatt Buchanan. During the interview, Archbishop Niederauer makes a disturbing statement which could easily imply that while pedophilia is abnormal, homosexuality is certainly not.

Something that came to mind yesterday and I’ve been thinking about ever since. The bishop granted an interview with the SF Chronicle’s gay and lesbian issues newsman Wyatt Buchanan. The purpose of this section of the newspaper is** not to condemn but to advocate the homosexual lifestyle**. In a way the bishop was an (willing or unwilling) accessory to sin by granting the interview and by commenting on the movie. The bishop’s quote “Very Powerful” is a very powerful statement for the Gay rights movement especially when coming from a Catholic bishop.

Even though our society (in some places) has validated the sinful homosexual lifestyle with equal rights to marriage and adoption of children and their own section in newspapers doesn’t mean our Catholic priests should assist by flattery or praise in their movies or books.

Most people would be appalled if a priest or bishop granted an interview with a reporter who covers a Pederast, swinger, fornication, masturbation or beastiality issues in a publication. But because the rest of society has granted this particular sinful lifestyle acceptance into our society then I guess it’s become appropriate for bishops to do the same so that they are not branded with the INTOLERANT IRON.

Sometimes we are unwilling (sometimes willing) enablers to sinful lifestyles without even knowing it.

 

[Libero]

Sometimes we are unwilling (sometimes willing) enablers to sinful lifestyles without even knowing it.

An enabler? I think that may be a bit of a stretch, the fact that the article appeared in the gay and lesbian section is not a suprise, he discusses a film all about the topic.

As for the idea that he is condoning any lifestyle, I really don’t think he is, I think you have to read very far into his statement to find such ideas, further into it than he probably intended or even thought about.

 

[GloriaPatri4]

Libero:

An enabler? I think that may be a bit of a stretch, the fact that the article appeared in the gay and lesbian section is not a suprise, he discusses a film all about the topic.

As for the idea that he is condoning any lifestyle, I really don’t think he is, I think you have to read very far into his statement to find such ideas, further into it than he probably intended or even thought about.

If a bishop or any member of the clergy granted an interview with a reporter from Nambla on a movie about man boy love relationships and calling the movie “Very Powerful” would that not be in someway enabling?