Catholic Church rejects LGBT ministers

|
(32)
Holy shit -- no gays at my party

I grew up in the Catholic Church, and it pretty much drove me away from religion. I could never quite get the basic contradictions between a message of love for all people and a politics of intolerance. (Jesus loves his children, except the women, who have to be second-class citizens, and the homosexuals, who are going to burn in Hell.)

Then there was the general wackiness: Every Sunday, we had to pray for "the Jews" in the hope that they would see the light of Jesus and be saved. I once asked our head parish priest, who was also the "Christian Doctrine" teacher at my Catholic school, what that was all about; the Jewish people I knew seemed to be doing fine on their own. They believed their thing, we believed ours, and so what? Were these folks all really going to suffer eternal damnation? That seemed so, you know, harsh.

The priest was very direct: Our way, the Catholic way, was the only way. Everyone else was wrong and would pay for it. People who didn't believe the same things we did were doomed to hideous torture in the flames of Hades until the end of time and beyond. Too bad for them.

Oh, and by the way: It wasn't just a sin to have sex, even with yourself -- it was a sin to think about it.Later, Father.

Before the blog comments start, let me acknowledge that there are many wonderful Catholics who have done wonderful things for the world. I have nothing but respect for them and they way they live their lives. The nuns who live next door to my mom in Philadelphia are really sweet and helpful to her, and they were great when my dad was dying. I'm a proud atheist, but whatever turns your spirit on is fine with me. Just don't tell me I have to agree with you.

That said, the dodos who run the organizational part of the Church have always been a bit of a problem.

For example: this is San Francisco, and there are a decent number of gay Catholics, and a lot of them go to Most Holy Redeemer Church in the Castro, which is about as welcoming to gay people as any Catholic institution can ever be. And what does the Great and Exalted Archbishiop, Geroge Niederauer, do? According to a nice scoop by Cythina Laird in the BAR, he kicks a few lesbian and gay ministers out of an Advent service:

At least three gay and lesbian clergy members were disinvited from participating in Advent services at Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in the Castro, the Bay Area Reporter has learned. ... "The basic reason is that Archbishop Niederauer felt the themes for vespers should better reflect the themes of Advent," Wesolek told the B.A.R.

The "themes of Advent?" The only "theme of Advent" I know is that it celebrates the upcoming feast of the birth of Christ, who, at the time of his miraculous arrival into this world, hadn't said a single thing about homosexuals.

Let's be serious: This isn't a religious statement, it's a political statement about same-sex marriage. The archbishop can't tolerate the idea that people -- even respected religious people who also believe in Jesus, one of them a damn bishop, for Christ's sake  -- who happen to disagree with his teachings on marriage might share the stage with his holy crew:

Charles was the Episcopal bishop of Utah and was married to a woman for many years. After his retirement in 1993, he came out as a gay man, divorced his wife, and moved to San Francisco. In October 2008 he married Felipe Sanchez-Paris, Ph.D. in a civil ceremony in San Francisco. The couple had a church wedding in 2004 that was covered in the San Francisco Chronicle .

He told the B.A.R. that he received a call the night before his scheduled appearance "indicating that my participation in a liturgical service was unacceptable to the Chancery (in all likelihood, the archbishop): presumably, my participation as the first openly out gay bishop, legally married according to the laws of the state of California, might suggest approval of gay marriage."

Kind of hard to believe. Or not.

I wish the folks at the archdiocese would talk to me about this, but they haven't returned my calls.

UPDATE: George Wesolek, spokesperson for the archdiocese, just called me. He acknowledged that the archbishop had decided to disinvite the three ministers on the grounds that "it appeared they might be going to talk about topics with agendas. Advent is not the time for politicizing this, for divisive issues, it's a time to bring people together."

In other words: If you want to talk about same-sex marriage, shut up.

 

 

Comments

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that the most vicious homophobes in this country (it's largely an American phenomenon) are gay. The RC Church is an institutionalized example of this. The Catholic clergy is a magnet for gays who then pontificate against the 'sinners' of their very own sexual orientation.

Posted by DanC on Dec. 20, 2011 @ 6:30 pm

No doubt at all. A Catholic Monsignor once confided to me that the late
Joseph Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago, the most powerful individual
Cleric in the Catholic Church was in fact gay. The had a younger man,
an African-American attorney in Chicago as his lover; who was a frequent
visitor to the Cardinal's mansion. Attorney-client priviledge indeed.
I was told by a member of the Franciscan Order, who is a dinstiguished
scholar and most creditable that nearly 50% of that order is gay. Fact is
the church could not function without their homosexual clergy.

Posted by Guest Frankjc on Jan. 02, 2012 @ 4:16 pm

I'm not sure I agree with you on your point about all the wonderful things Catholics have done for the world. I think history will net out negative for most religion as it tends to be dogmatic and intolerant of other religions and hence, societies. Millions and perhaps Billions have died because of it--and the worst truth? Overpopulation of this planet will cause the death of billions at some point due to epidemics (possibly man-made), global warming or warfare caused by a crashing environment--caused largely by religious opposition to birth control. Anyway, history will be the judge of it all.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 20, 2011 @ 7:12 pm

The bible emphatically disagrees with the sexual appetites that people have today, especailly gay and lesbian marriages. If author of the bible destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for thier unnatural sexual pratices, what makes you think its tolerated today? The bible has not changed its stance and religions who condone such acts are not follow the mandate of the bible. People and religion have been permissive in this heinous sexual acts and perverting Jehovah's gifts of marriage between male and female towards thier own view points. The bible predicted this in Romans 1:8 where it says that God gave them up to thier sexual appetites. In Luke 17:26-30 it talks about men and women marrying to themselves ( same sex marriages) and world carrying on with no regard to Jehovah God until the end came and wiped them out. If you want to know more about this world's outcome, please ask questions the next time you hear a knock on the door Sunday morning.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 20, 2011 @ 8:06 pm

a "Guest" claims that " Luke 17:26-30 it talks about men and women marrying to themselves ( same sex marriages)" Not in any of MY versions of the Bible! Did you write your own?

This same person claims that "the author of the bible destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for thier unnatural sexual pratices." There are many so-called "bible scholars who make this same false claim so this misinformed "guest" is in good company. But what do the bible authors themselves say is THE POINT of the story of Sodom and Gomorah? (It's NOT what you've been told!)

In Deut. 29: 23-26 . . ."destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which the Lord destroyed in his fierce anger – they and indeed all the nations will wonder, "Why has the Lord done thus to this land? What caused this great display of anger?" They will conclude, "It is because they abandoned the covenant of the Lord, the God of their ancestors, which he made with them when he brought them out of the land of Egypt. They turned and served other gods, worshiping them, gods whom they had not known and whom he had not allotted to them"
Deut. 32:32 also speaks of Sodom and Gomorrah, without any hint of homosexuality.
The prophet Ezekiel, for example, wrote in 16:49-50 : "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."
The first chapter of Isaiah speaks of God's unhappiness with Sodom and Gomorrah, but says nothing whatever about homosexuality. What it does say is " learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow." (1:17)
Isaiah mentions Sodom again in 3:9 and in 13:19, but there is no clear connection with homosexuality in either of those verses.
Jeremiah also mentions Sodom, but without any reference to homosexuality.
The Prophet Amos likewise mentions Sodom in 4:11, without any reference to homosexuality.
The Prophet Zephaniah likewise mentions the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah in 2:10 without any connection with homosexuality, but rather "in return for their pride, because they scoffed and boasted against the people of the Lord of hosts."
The Deuterocanonical books identify the sin of Sodom as the worship of competing gods (idols), as pride and as inhospitality:
In Wisdom 19:13-14, we read "...whereas the men of Sodom received not the strangers when they came among them."
In Ecclesiasticus 16:8 the sin is recognized as pride: "He did not spare the people among whom Lot was living, whom he detested for their pride."
In the New Testament, too, there is reference to Sodom and inhospitality:
In Luke 10:10-13, Jesus compares the fate of towns that are inhospitable to his disciples to that which beset Sodom of its inhospitality."Whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, 'Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near.' I tell you, on that day it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that town."
Paul referred to Sodom and Gomorrah only once ( in Romans, 9:29 ) and not in connection with homosexuality.
The same is true of the Book of Revelations, which referred to Sodom only once (8:11) and not in connection with homosexuality.
Peter likewise referred to Sodom and Gomorrah only once ( in 2 Peter 2:4 ) and not in connection with homosexuality.
Finally, in one of the very last books of the Bible, Jude (1:7), the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah is attributed to unnatural lust, i.e. "Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."
[ excerpted from my http://liberalslikechrist.org/God&gays.html ]

Posted by Rev. Ray Dubuque on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 5:58 pm

Yes, the JWs did write their own Bible. sigh...

Posted by Guest on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 4:19 pm

I don't quite understand the obsession with tolerance in this article. Why is it so angering for people to see someone adhere to a set of moral standards, besides the awful liberal doctrine of tolerance? Openly gay people take a public stance that directly opposes the teaching of the Catholic Church on human sexuality. The Church has every right to develop a teaching on human sexuality and marriage. As it exercises that right it should not be forced to silently consent to people who directly disagree with that teaching. No one forces gays to come to these religious celebrations. If gays disagree with the teaching of the Church then they are free to make that decision and not practice the faith. If they make that decision to leave the Church, why then do they need to return to the Church and 'pitch a fit' when the Church hasn't changed its teaching to accommodate them?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 20, 2011 @ 8:53 pm

Bravo! Thank you for standing up for the one true Church that Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, founded!

Posted by Guest on Dec. 22, 2011 @ 4:19 am

Advent is the celebration of the birth of Christ. A person who became incarnate so that He could die for the sins of man. Yes, people sin. They do things that are contrary to their own nature. If Adam had never fallen we wouldn't have this problem, yet his sin has deprived his progeny of the preternatural gifts. The practice of homosexuality is one of those actions that are contrary to the nature of man and therefore sinful. The Catholic Church, through its teaching and despite the human weakness of its members, strives to perfect human practice and discourages those actions that are contrary to man's nature. Therefore homosexuality is not tolerated because it flies in the face of what the Catholic faith stands for. As a result, quit crying about how you gays aren't accepted and think about the inherent nature of sexuality and how homosexuality relates to the purpose of sex.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 20, 2011 @ 9:01 pm

"I grew up in the Catholic Church, and it pretty much drove me away from religion. I could never quite get the basic contradictions between a message of love for all people and a politics of intolerance. (Jesus loves his children, except the women, who have to be second-class citizens, and the homosexuals, who are going to burn in Hell.)"

It appears you missed CCD class the day they discussed this:

"
II. The Vocation to Chastity

2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man's belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.
The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.

The integrity of the person

2338 The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him. This integrity ensures the unity of the person; it is opposed to any behavior that would impair it. It tolerates neither a double life nor duplicity in speech.124

2339 Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. the alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy.125 "Man's dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good and, by his diligence and skill, effectively secures for himself the means suited to this end."126

2340 Whoever wants to remain faithful to his baptismal promises and resist temptations will want to adopt the means for doing so: self-knowledge, practice of an ascesis adapted to the situations that confront him, obedience to God's commandments, exercise of the moral virtues, and fidelity to prayer. "Indeed it is through chastity that we are gathered together and led back to the unity from which we were fragmented into multiplicity."127

2341 The virtue of chastity comes under the cardinal virtue of temperance, which seeks to permeate the passions and appetites of the senses with reason.

2342 Self-mastery is a long and exacting work. One can never consider it acquired once and for all. It presupposes renewed effort at all stages of life.128 The effort required can be more intense in certain periods, such as when the personality is being formed during childhood and adolescence.

2343 Chastity has laws of growth which progress through stages marked by imperfection and too often by sin. "Man . . . day by day builds himself up through his many free decisions; and so he knows, loves, and accomplishes moral good by stages of growth."129

2344 Chastity represents an eminently personal task; it also involves a cultural effort, for there is "an interdependence between personal betterment and the improvement of society."130 Chastity presupposes respect for the rights of the person, in particular the right to receive information and an education that respect the moral and spiritual dimensions of human life.

2345 Chastity is a moral virtue. It is also a gift from God, a grace, a fruit of spiritual effort.131 The Holy Spirit enables one whom the water of Baptism has regenerated to imitate the purity of Christ.132

The integrality of the gift of self

2346 Charity is the form of all the virtues. Under its influence, chastity appears as a school of the gift of the person. Self-mastery is ordered to the gift of self. Chastity leads him who practices it to become a witness to his neighbor of God's fidelity and loving kindness.

2347 The virtue of chastity blossoms in friendship. It shows the disciple how to follow and imitate him who has chosen us as his friends,133 who has given himself totally to us and allows us to participate in his divine estate. Chastity is a promise of immortality.
Chastity is expressed notably in friendship with one's neighbor. Whether it develops between persons of the same or opposite sex, friendship represents a great good for all. It leads to spiritual communion.

The various forms of chastity

2348 All the baptized are called to chastity. the Christian has "put on Christ,"134 The model for all chastity. All Christ's faithful are called to lead a chaste life in keeping with their particular states of life. At the moment of his Baptism, the Christian is pledged to lead his affective life in chastity.

2349 "People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single."135 Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence:

There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others.... This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church.136

2350 Those who are engaged to marry are called to live chastity in continence. They should see in this time of testing a discovery of mutual respect, an apprenticeship in fidelity, and the hope of receiving one another from God. They should reserve for marriage the expressions of affection that belong to married love. They will help each other grow in chastity.

Offenses against chastity

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."137 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."138
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.

2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.

2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

2355 Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure. the one who pays sins gravely against himself: he violates the chastity to which his Baptism pledged him and defiles his body, the temple of the Holy Spirit.139 Prostitution is a social scourge. It usually involves women, but also men, children, and adolescents (The latter two cases involve the added sin of scandal.). While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure.

2356 Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them.

Chastity and homosexuality

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,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 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.

"2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is 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.

"2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."

You misinform your readers when you state that the Church's stance is to hate homosexual persons. Far from it.

The thing is that just as there is no truth without love, there is no love without truth. We would be lying to you if we say that sexual relations - rather, the simulation of sexual relations - between members of the same sex, when engaged freely and with full knowledge, are healthy to your body, mind, and spirit. They are not and if we lie, our love for you would be a lie.

The Archbishop of San Francisco acted correctly and in accordance to the stated Catholic doctrine. Inviting clergy engaged in same-sex couplings would have confused people - something the good Archbishop learned the hard way - giving the impression that it is "OK" for people who profess love for Christ and for the Gospel and even purportedly seek to serve Him in ordained ministry while engaging in behavior against Nature and against Nature's God.

We have to preach the Gospel in and out of season and now it's definitely out of season and in San Francisco, much out of place. But we are not going shy away despite the calumnies, the hate, and the lies thrown against us.

May the Lord richly bless you.
-Theo

Posted by TDJ on Dec. 20, 2011 @ 10:23 pm

get into it, honey. logorrhea is hottt.

Posted by marke on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 8:32 pm

religion is all bullshit.

If you have grown up and feel guilty about some religious bullshit, then get over it., and yourself.

If you worry about what everyone is up to, and then whine about it, you are a progressive and no one gives a shit!

Being antidisisestabishmentarianist just makes you a cliche.

Posted by matlock on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 12:06 am

Quote: "religion is all bullsh*t."

Profanity is the ready refuge of the ignorant. As for the sentiment expressed, we'll all found out in the end. We'll see.

Also, I apologize for the length of the comment. I meant the quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church to be much shorter. Being in a hurry and not having had my coffee, I forgot to trimm the quote down.

The shorter version of these comments is posted on my blog. (http://www.vivificat.org)

Thank you kindly.

-Theo

Posted by TDJ on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 1:59 am

I didn't read your thing, I have no interest in doctrine, as there is no god.

I was commenting on the progressive obsession with what other people are doing.

They are as doctrinaire as any Catholic and yet think it's bad when Catholics are.

Also, if you don't agree with Catholic doctrine, don't be one.

I should have used dissestablishmentarian when referring to progressives like Tim, he want to be the establishment and set the narrow rules around how everyone should live, like the Catholic church.

In this case you have to be a Catholic for the rules to effect you, while Tim wants to jamb his agenda down our throats through various laws.

Posted by Matlock on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 11:44 am
Posted by Michael La Rocca on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 5:27 am

@TDJ -- while you unintentionally posted a great deal more of the Catechism than you intended, you actually left out a rather important bit. The foundational statements pertaining to homosexuality (2357) -- stating that the Bible "presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity" -- is based, as per ref. 140, on four scriptures. The first is the Sodom story, which is quite explicitly about same-sex gang rape. The other three are from Paul's letters, and include Romans 1, which is explicitly about activities of people "inflamed with lust." All three NT passages ... the others are 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 ... are, according to Catholic translators/scholars behind the Church's own NAB translation, about things like pederasty, not homosexuality in general. (Visit the USCCB website and check out the footnotes for the 1 Corinthians 6 passage to confirm.) Basically, the core Catholic position on homosexuality is based on the assertion that homosexuality = rape/lust/pedophilia/prostitution ... no matter how much the Catholic leadership tries to sugar coat it. And that underlying attitude towards homosexuals is so apparent, I don't think you need to go much further than that to understand why so many people find the Catholic views on the subject so ridiculous and offensive. The fact that the Catholic Church is trying so hard to embed such views into discriminatory laws just makes things worse.

Posted by Dave N on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 6:58 am

Oh, I didn't miss the classes on chastity. By then I was in eighth grade, and about a third of the boys (and girls) in the class had already engaged in decidedly unchaste behavior, and the rest of us were trying desperately to join them.

If priests and mystics want to seek chastity as a virtue, whatever; some people think it's virtuous to deprive yourself of food, or to wear a hair shirt or beat yourself with a whip (kinky!). But to tell an entire generation of teenagers that we all have to pretend we aren't in a state of lust every moment of every day, and to teach that sex is dirty and bad, is just a recipe for creating fucked up adults.

Good thing everyone in my class ignored it.

Posted by tim on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 11:25 am

over progressive purity, you sure are whiny about it in another voluntary organization.

If I called myself a progressive and was, pro life, pro death penalty, and didn't agree with progressive race theory, I would not expect to get much attention from progressives? Would it be intolerant for you to laugh me out of your meetings?

There's something really off about demanding to be included in an organization that doesn't want you, while you can't adhere to it's centuries old doctrine. It's also odd to want to belong to a organization that so selectively enforces it's doctrine, while it picks and chooses it's way through it's text book, the bible. Like a progressive reading the constitution I suppose.

Posted by Matlock on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 11:54 am

I'm guessing if little Tim's parents actually gave him a choice, he probably wouldn't have attended those idiotic classes. But since kids generally don't get a choice, he did the only thing a rational eighth grader could do.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 3:45 pm

He doesn't have to worry about it.

Why does he worry what Catholics do at all? If people are upset about the Catholic church and it's views, quit.

This whole thing is about adults who want to take part in an organization that doesn't overly want them.

I would guess that there is a fair chance that when his kids get older they will groan to each other about his goofy politics.

Posted by Matlock on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 6:28 pm

You hate the Guardian, and yet you keep coming back here. Weird.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 7:02 pm

I'm far to open minded and tolerant to be a progressive.

Posted by Matlock on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 7:25 pm

"But to tell an entire generation of teenagers that we all have to pretend we aren't in a state of lust every moment of every day, and to teach that sex is dirty and bad, is just a recipe for creating fucked up adults."

First, why do you assume that teenagers are or must be in a state of lust all the time. Maybe if teenagers weren't bombarded with sexual stimuli (i.e. inappropriate advertising and immodest clothing to name a couple) we wouldn't have such a problem with teenage lust?

Second, while teaching them that sex is dirty and bad causes problems, they are minimal problems when compared to telling them there are no clear boundaries for sexual conduct outside of marriage. This creates a generation of really messed up people who have made and broken intimate emotional ties through their sexual activities multiple times in their lives. The virgin entering marriage thinking sex is bad is leagues ahead of the free loving whore who screwed everything possible growing up.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 2:58 pm

exactly why???

Oh wait... I see the worldview you're coming from:
"The virgin entering marriage thinking sex is bad is leagues ahead of the free loving whore who screwed everything possible growing up."

Nah, I say the free-love practitioner is better off... even if she (or he) is a whore (which of course is not the same thing).

" they are minimal problems when compared to telling them there are no clear boundaries for sexual conduct outside of marriage. "

Oh? There are clear boundaries? And here I was thinking sexual conduct is up to individuals deciding for themselves based on their own varied preferences, when in fact there are cut and dry boundaries and rules beyond which no one can explore. Silly me.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 3:42 pm

It is silly to assert that sexual conduct is entirely up to individuals. This is more than just some worldview. Sex has an inherent purpose and an end (telos) that the action is, or should be, directed towards. For example, one of the most obvious ends of sexual activity is reproduction. Once reproduction enters the equation a number of "boundaries" arise, such as refusing to accept contraception, homosexuality, masturbation, etc... There is no reason to rule out the pro-creative facet of sexual activity, yet it is often done for the sake of pleasure as an end in itself.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 6:06 pm

I have no problem with you setting whatever boundaries you want for yourself, as long as you give others the right to set their own boundaries for themselves. You have no right to set anyone else's boundaries for them based on some religious doctrine that you believe.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 7:07 pm

What would Jesus say? Think y'all can forget the Second Coming, no self respecting saviour would be seen dead - again - in this place.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 3:55 pm

The author of this article is nothing but a hateful and bigoted dodo bird. I hate to tell them this but women are NOT "second-class citizens" in Jesus' eyes nor in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Also, homosexuals are not automatically going to Hell. Nobody is automatically going to Hell unless they die in a state of mortal sin. And for a homosexual, it is only a mortal sin to practice your homosexuality, not to BE a homosexual! Also, if you are the one true Church, like the Catholic Church is and you believe that other religions are less true than you and only have a portion of the truth, why would it be such a bad thing to pray that Jewish people see the light, become Catholic, and go to Heaven???? That said, Jewish people are not necessarily going to Hell even if they don't convert to Catholicism. Nobody is going to go to Hell just because they are not Catholic. God judges each and every individual person by their heart. Yes, if you know that the Catholic Church is the true Church and yet you reject the Church and Her teachings then you have committed a mortal sin and will go to Hell if you die without confessing your sin! At least that is what I was taught.

As for the author, he/she really needs to do his/her research and get his/her information from Catholic sources, not anti-Catholic or liberal sources and he/she shouldn't rely on his/her own personal knowledge either because that knowledge may not be correct. He/she may not have actually learned the truth when he/she was Catholic. He/she may have been educated wrongly by his/her priest. Oh and by the way, I seriously doubt that his/her priest said what he/she says he said in the article. Why? Because that is not what the Church teaches and a priest would not lie about what the Church teaches. Therefore, I believe the author of this article is the LIAR! He/she needs to start believing in God and the Catholic Church again and get his/her ass to Confession! Why? Because lying is a mortal sin when you know full and well that it is grave matter and yet you choose to do it anyway and I suspect that is the case.

To everyone else, don't trust this article and don't believe a word of what it says. The author of this article is likely nothing more than a hateful, bigoted, liberal, anti-Catholic LIAR and therefore you shouldn't trust a SINGLE WORD that he/she says!

Posted by Guest on Dec. 22, 2011 @ 4:17 am

Jesus Christ didn't found the rc church, it was Constantine. And there shouldn't be a bravo because the rc church doesn't have the right to get into your personal life. I mean the church did do good things,my Methodist religion proably might have never been founded but this is the United States of America and we are free to practice any practices and the RC Church needs to stop trying to control us,that's medieval crap!

Posted by Guest on Dec. 22, 2011 @ 8:29 am

"Jesus Christ didn't found the rc church, it was Constantine."

This is not a true statement in any sense, much less historical. Constantine issued the Edict of Milan effectively ending the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire (for a while anyway). Just because the Christians were under persecution does not mean that there was no Church. Note the manner in which disagreements are resolved by Early Christians in Acts 15. The Council of Jerusalem brings together the leaders of the Christian movement who bring the controversy to Peter and discuss how to resolve the issue. This is strong evidence suggesting the presence of a hierarchically organized Church centuries before Constantine.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 22, 2011 @ 8:54 am

I didn't even read the article. I just want to comment :)

I went to Catholic high school and there were A LOT of gay priests who instructed us. They must of been from a generation where if you were confused about your sexuality and you knew you didn't like women (in that way :) , a possible life route was to become a priest. I think it had to do with some sort of denial - guilt trip thing where they conned themselves into the seminary. If you think about it, one would usually make a decision like that at a young age - when you don't know yourself well enough and you tend to lie to yourself more often.

All I'm saying is that the Catholic church is run by a bunch of gay men. If they have any policies against gays or lesbians, then it's the most hypocritical institution on earth.

I would also like to add that Catholic priests are not necessarily bad people - I knew a lot of good ones. And Catholics in general are pretty damn good people. Usually poor, hard working, earnest folks. Just like Jesus wanted.

Peace Out Ya'll.

Posted by Mank on Dec. 28, 2011 @ 11:16 pm

The Catlicker church is the largest property owner in America, and pays no property taxes to support the community it pilfers money from to spread a message of hate and willful ignorance. Is the earth stil flat? Is is ok to rape a virgin as long as you marry her? Do condoms still spread HIV? Is a woman on birth control a murderer?
Just a few of the oldies but goodies from the babble and poop.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 4:15 pm