Would fighting against gay bullying be promoting sin?

[Rock_Happy]

I think the choice most people refer to is homosexual behavior rather than same-sex attraction, though, admittedly, some do think same-sex attraction is also a choice. On the other hand, if one has same-sex attraction, it is usually difficult to choose not to engage in homosexual behavior since this is one’s only sexual form of expression with another person. Nonetheless, religions such as Catholicism, Torah Judaism, and some branches of Protestantism require one to remain chaste and not engage in what is regarded as immoral, sinful behavior. At the same time, all of these religions teach people to disapprove of the behavior, while not hating the person who commits the behavior. As I stated in my previous post, this is sometimes challenging for people to do, and some end up disapproving of the behavior as well as hating the person who indulges in it and not treating them with any measure of charity.

Some Christian denominations are choosing the higher moral ground, and examining the sources of condemnation more critically. Obviously, such change is controversial. But it can be safely stated that the concept of homosexuality as it is understood today was not addressed in scripture. So, any statements regarding sinfulness of homosexual behavior must be looked at critically, and not accepted at face value.

One of the challenges in Catholicism, in particular, which was pointed out by mental health professionals during the child abuse scandal, is that priests are often immature sexually, based on their life experience. This may help to explain the Church’s inappropriate response. But it does not bode well for coming to terms with this issue.

 

[EasterJoy]

No, what happens is, we get uninformed people coming on the Forum asking these questions; they are given the teachings of the Church, and then they argue with it, and then pro-homosexualists join in and start arguing, and that’s how it goes. The teaching of the Church is plain and simple. The confusion of modern people is what keeps the argument alive and kicking.

You know, the irony of this is that, this is one situation where the Bishops, instead of following the 2,000 year wisdom of the Church, decided instead to listen to modern science. Modern science said, “Don’t be so medieval - this is a mental illness and it is curable. Give these men therapy and pills, and they will be fit to go back to work.”

So they did that, and they sent these guys back to work after they were supposedly “cured” of their homosexuality by modern science, and guess what - the 2,000 year wisdom of the Church (which said, if a priest commits sexual sins, remove him from his priesthood forthwith, and ban him from all human company for the rest of his life) turned out to be correct.

Can’t win for losing, it seems.

By the way, it seems weird to me that homosexual priests are “bad, bad, bad!” but other homosexuals “need to be accepted and understood.”

What’s the difference (other than the priesthood) between homosexual priests, and other homosexuals?

Let’s not get homosexuality and pedophilia mixed up in our heads. They are quite different problems. Likewise, the propensity to fall into consensual sexual sin (homosexual and heterosexual) and the propensity to self-indulge sexually by preying on vulnerable people–children, students one is teaching, women going through a divorce, and so on–are quite different issues. Neither can be ignored, but the dangers posed to the faithful and the betrayal of trust that results when the clergy commit these sins are nevertheless of a profoundly different nature. Predatory priests are on a plane all of their own.

 

[Rock_Happy]

No, what happens is, we get uninformed people coming on the Forum asking these questions; they are given the teachings of the Church, and then they argue with it, and then pro-homosexualists join in and start arguing, and that’s how it goes. The teaching of the Church is plain and simple. The confusion of modern people is what keeps the argument alive and kicking.

You know, the irony of this is that, this is one situation where the Bishops, instead of following the 2,000 year wisdom of the Church, decided instead to listen to modern science. Modern science said, “Don’t be so medieval - this is a mental illness and it is curable. Give these men therapy and pills, and they will be fit to go back to work.”

So they did that, and they sent these guys back to work after they were supposedly “cured” of their homosexuality by modern science, and guess what - the 2,000 year wisdom of the Church (which said, if a priest commits sexual sins, remove him from his priesthood forthwith, and ban him from all human company for the rest of his life) turned out to be correct.

Can’t win for losing, it seems.

By the way, it seems weird to me that homosexual priests are “bad, bad, bad!” but other homosexuals “need to be accepted and understood.”

What’s the difference (other than the priesthood) between homosexual priests, and other homosexuals?

Interesting perspective, but I disagree with your narrative, as to how the Church handled the problem. But, I also freely admit that my perspective of it is entirely based on what was publicly presented by the media.

I did see a video clip where Cardinal Ratzinger was approaching his Mercedes limousine, and a reporter asked him a question about one of the more prominent sexual predators in the Church… I forget his name, but he was highly regarded by the Pope and spent time in his company. He was one of the largest cash cows for the Church, for bringing in large donations. It turned out that he was molesting seminarians. Incredibly, when Cardinal Ratzinger was asked a very simple and appropriate question, his response was to approach the journalist, slap his hands, and scold him for asking the question. This is documented. I was flabbergasted at the immaturity of his response, and wondered how such a person who was clearly uncomfortable with the question, and who acted out based on his discomfort, could possibly be a leader in the difficult situation.

This is a serious challenge for the Church, in my opinion. The immaturity of the clergy in sexual matters is a serious deficit, and colors their teaching and guidance.

 

[Rock_Happy]

No, what happens is, we get uninformed people coming on the Forum asking these questions; they are given the teachings of the Church, and then they argue with it, and then pro-homosexualists join in and start arguing, and that’s how it goes. The teaching of the Church is plain and simple. The confusion of modern people is what keeps the argument alive and kicking.

You know, the irony of this is that, this is one situation where the Bishops, instead of following the 2,000 year wisdom of the Church, decided instead to listen to modern science. Modern science said, “Don’t be so medieval - this is a mental illness and it is curable. Give these men therapy and pills, and they will be fit to go back to work.”

So they did that, and they sent these guys back to work after they were supposedly “cured” of their homosexuality by modern science, and guess what - the 2,000 year wisdom of the Church (which said, if a priest commits sexual sins, remove him from his priesthood forthwith, and ban him from all human company for the rest of his life) turned out to be correct.

Can’t win for losing, it seems.

By the way, it seems weird to me that homosexual priests are “bad, bad, bad!” but other homosexuals “need to be accepted and understood.”

What’s the difference (other than the priesthood) between homosexual priests, and other homosexuals?

You don’t “cure” someone of his or her sexual orientation any more than you “cure” someone of left-handedness. You point out the problem very clearly. Homosexuality is not a disorder, just as heterosexuality is not a disorder.

Pederasty is not strictly a homosexual issue. The percentages are higher in the hetero population.

If the Church incorrectly believed that homosexuality was the problem, when pederasty was the problem, that may help to explain why it failed.

 

[EasterJoy]

You don’t “cure” someone of his or her sexual orientation any more than you “cure” someone of left-handedness. You point out the problem very clearly. Homosexuality is not a disorder, just as heterosexuality is not a disorder.

That is a matter subject to debate, to put it mildly.

Even when it can be demonstrated that some propensity or other is both innate and ultimately immune to change, it does not mean that the propensity is therefore ordered or that it must be moral to give the propensity a direct outlet. How people give in to these assumptions–"he is just like that, he cannot change that, therefore it is not compassionate to expect him not to act on ‘the way he is’ "–without question is quite beyond me.

 

[jmcrae]

Let’s not get homosexuality and pedophilia mixed up in our heads. They are quite different problems.

The term “pedophilia” was misused in the media - none of these priests was having sex with any actual children. What was happening was that priests were having homosexual relationships with older teenage boys and young men - so, yes, they were young, and yes, these relationships should not have taken place, and there is much to regret - but the myth of priests molesting little children never actually happened; they never actually did anything illegal - which is why they were never arrested for anything, but were only sent for treatment for homosexuality.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Those who know you are doing this would, most of them, feel confident that you belong to that group of people promoting the goodness of gay sex…

I don’t think this is true at all. Anyone who did assume such a thing would be prone to the kind of bigotry and narrow-minded self-righteousness that causes bullying in the first place. Bullying is assault, plain and simple. It’s sin and a a very very bad sin.

Personally, I’d be quite happy to be gay myself, if my other choice was to be a bully. And I’d have much more interesting friends.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

I don’t think this is true at all. Anyone who did assume such a thing would be prone to the kind of bigotry and narrow-minded self-righteousness that causes bullying in the first place. Bullying is assault, plain and simple. It’s sin and a a very very bad sin.

Personally, I’d be quite happy to be gay myself, if my other choice was to be a bully. And I’d have much more interesting friends.

Bullying is a very very bad sin. This is why I think one should just fight against BULLYING. Because gays aren’t the only ones being bullied. Fighting against bullying in general would be much more helpful, I think.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[EasterJoy]

The term “pedophilia” was misused in the media - none of these priests was having sex with any actual children. What was happening was that priests were having homosexual relationships with older teenage boys and young men - so, yes, they were young, and yes, these relationships should not have taken place, and there is much to regret - but the myth of priests molesting little children never actually happened; they never actually did anything illegal - which is why they were never arrested for anything, but were only sent for treatment for homosexuality.

Sadly, you are wrong. Some priests sexually abused children, 10 and 12 year olds. These boys (and sometimes girls, when unchaperoned contact with girls was available) were not in “relationships”. The children and young people were victimized, and some were raped. Besides, even when the girl or boy is 16, Jmcrae, it is rape. It is sexual abuse and rape when it is your math teacher, when it is a coach, and when it is a priest. It is a crime. Even the older victims were not keeping “our secret.” They kept silence because they were traumatized and afraid. Even when we are talking about priests who preyed on the vulnerability of grown women going through a divorce–yes, the heterosexual priests did it, sometimes, too–it was a victimization. It is an abuse of a position of authority and a total abuse of a sacred trust, not some straying into an inappropriate relationship. It is the kind of thing over which a psychiatrist or other physician would lose their license to practice medicine. There was no excuse for ever allowing these men guilty of this kind of a violation into a position of trust ever again, not when a medical board did it, and not when the bishops did it.

While forgiveness is possible, as long as the charge can be substantiated, the behavior cannot be tolerated. The person must never be given the opportunity to repeat the offense.

For the record, some of the priests, such as Fr. Thomas Laughlin, were eventually arrested and convicted:
oregonlive.com/special/priest/index.ssf?/special/oregonian/priest/020630.html

BTW, one of the reasons the Church ought to consider an isolated life rather than defrocking a priest completely and kicking him out on his own is that if the priest is given a monastic existence, you know where he is. He isn’t in some small town with no supervision and no one aware of what is he capable of, passing himself off as retired Fr. Wonderful and doing it all over again. The goal, after all, is not to de-humanize the offender. It is to make sure the offense is never ever repeated.

 

[Rock_Happy]

The term “pedophilia” was misused in the media - none of these priests was having sex with any actual children. What was happening was that priests were having homosexual relationships with older teenage boys and young men - so, yes, they were young, and yes, these relationships should not have taken place, and there is much to regret - but the myth of priests molesting little children never actually happened; they never actually did anything illegal - which is why they were never arrested for anything, but were only sent for treatment for homosexuality.

When i was an acolyte, i was warned which priest not to find myself alone with, and was told never to change clothing with him around. the other priests knew that he was a pederast.

 

[kbwall]

What would be wrong with a poster that said:

"Go and learn the meaning of the words,f ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’
I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.” Matt. 9:13
“Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone” John 8:7

Gays are Children of God, too
Self-righteous Bullying is Still Bullying
Christians Don’t Let Other Christians Bully Gays

And why put up such a poster? Because of the number of people who pussyfoot around when it comes to sticking up for people they have decided are worse sinners than they are, that’s why. It is a specific message that a generic “don’t bully” doesn’t get across, because so many people think that being mean to someone for being gay or divorced and remarried or for wearing a dress when he’s a man isn’t “really” cruelty, but some weird form of righteousness by self-distancing.

If anything, society is starting to become too accepting of homosexuals and the like. I’m not a fan of bullying either, but from what I’ve noticed, the bullying is stopping, which don’t get me wrong, is a good thing. But the tables are starting to turn, and the attitude of society, whether people wish to admit it or not, is to be pro-gay and anti-Church.

And for the most part, Chirstians are leaving gays alone. The poster would basically be painting religion as more aggressive than it is against gays, creating the illusion of hostility, causing more gays to leave the Church or encouraging more people to become wishy washy Christians who see nothing wrong with homosexuality. In any case, it would reinforce the image that conservative Christians are the enemy and liberal Christians are friends, whether you intended it that way or not. Some people already consider those who believe homosexuality wrong to be bigots, even those who adopt the ‘love the sinner, hate sin’ approach.

Society should keep its dislike of homosexuality because frankly it is wrong. We should treat them with love and such, but homosexuality is not something to be embraced, which sadly it is starting to be. I will be very surprised if the notion of being anti-gay will even be remotely mainstream ten years from now.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Bullying people is wrong, I fail to see how them being gay should change that especially when the CCC says

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

 

[Julia_Mae]

But the tables are starting to turn, and the attitude of society, whether people wish to admit it or not, is to be pro-gay and anti-Church. .

I thought it was just pro-Do Unto Others and anti-Sin Against God through cruelty…

I do believe the first bolded part, is also pro-Church.

 

[SanAgustin]

Bullying is a very very bad sin. This is why I think one should just fight against BULLYING. Because gays aren’t the only ones being bullied. Fighting against bullying in general would be much more helpful, I think.

~ Pius :knight1:

Nobody says they’re the only ones being bullied, but there’s also nothing wrong about talking about this particular case of bullying, just like the CCC does.