I’ve had several requests for a response to the recent BBC documentary segment Sex Crimes and the Vatican (click the link to watch it), and I plan on dealing with it soon. In fact, I’m working on the issue now.
Unfortunately, there is so much material I need to evaluate that, given the methodical way I work on such matters, it’s going to take me a few days. (I like to engage such situations loaded for bear.)
In the meantime, though, I’d like to provide some links to responses that others have prepared.
FIRST, CHECK OUT ED PETERS’ RESPONSE.
ALSO, CHECK OUT A STATEMENT FROM THE DIOCESE OF BIRMINGHAM (THE ONE IN ENGLAND, NOT ALABAMA)
AND HERE’S AMY ON THE SUBJECT.
More from JA.O soon.
Ed Peters should have a bigger bully pulpit. Go Ed!
Thanks Jimmy. I found Amy’s link most useful as it specifically covered the Crimen Sollicitationis in some detail because some people and even Catholics read this without regard to the overall context and get worked up.
sdg: i dunno, just me ‘n my little blog are happy. besides, if you get linked on jimmyakin, that’s usually good for several hundred hits.
As usual, the Bishop of Birmingham misses the point. The issue is NOT whether child molestation is a crime, or whether violation of the seal of the confessional transgresses church law. No one disagrees on either of those points. Instead, the question is what response did the Roman church make when it was confronted with irrefutable evidence that it had occurred? Not much of anything, in many cases, other than to intimidate the victim and his family into silence and reshuffle the offending priest to an unsuspecting parish.
No, John, you missed the point: The BBC engaged in a false and slanderous attack of Pope Benedict.
In other breaking news, this just in: The pope is Catholic.
Film at eleven.
“The pope is Catholic.” That may actually *be* news to some members of the MSM. After the death of JPG, a CNN reporter stated that he was the first non-Catholic pope in over 450 years.(“The only thing most reporters can quote accurately is silence.”–Bobby Knight).
SDG,
In other breaking news, this just in: The pope is Catholic.
Film at eleven.
CNN is going to resurrect Crossfire and let the other John take the opposing position.
On a slightly broader issue.
Does celibacy cause paedophilia?
Wifeless, celibate CATHOLIC priests are assumed to be so desperately sexually frustrated that some relieve their frustration on children.
To expose the falsity of this assumption, consider this:
Most adult males will probably have experienced periods of intense sexual frustration sometime in their life. Yet even at their most desperate they were not remotely aroused by children. Instead they may have sought relief by:
a. prayer/distraction/sublimation
b. self-gratification
c. visiting a prostitute
d. trying to pick up someone/having an affair
yet never ever thought of sexual contact with a child and the months of grooming needed beforehand.
The unspoken assumption that “celibacy causes paedophilia” is absurd and dangerous – most paedophiles are married and most abuse takes place in the extended family circle.
“If only priests were allowed to marry – all their sexual problems would be over” /irony.
BTW I am not arguing for or against priestly celibacy.
you missed the point: The BBC engaged in a false and slanderous attack of Pope Benedict.
The following is what the BBC said about the Pope. Please identify the statements which are objectively false.
PAUL KENYON: The man responsible for enforcing it was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI… The man in charge of enforcing it for 20 years was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the man made Pope last year. In 2001 he created the successor to the decree. In spirit it was the same, overarching secrecy with a threat of excommunication. He sent a copy to every Bishop in the world. But now he ordered that the Vatican must have what it calls ‘exclusive competence’. In other words, all child abuse allegations must go exclusively to Rome.
FR. DOYLE: It’s all controlled by the Vatican, and at the top of the Vatican is the Pope. So Joseph Ratzinger was at the middle of this for most of the years the crimen was enforced. He created the successor to crimen, and now he’s the Pope. This all says that the policy and the systematic approach has not changed.
KENYON: Cardinal Ratzinger’s new decree was a missed opportunity to modernise the church’s approach just as its biggest scandal was about to break in America.
KENYON: There’s clearly a tension between the rule of law and the rule of the church, between child protection and the orders of Cardinal Ratzinger.
KENYON: This was during the period when Cardinal Ratzinger instructed all allegations of child abuse to be sent to the Vatican. So if it knew about the criminal charges against Father Tarcisio why did it allow him to continue working as a priest in close contact with young children?
KENYON: Father Tarcisio’s decades of abuse were finally brought to an end. Not because of any action by Cardinal Ratzinger’s Vatican office, but by the police.
KENYON: Cardinal Ratzinger’s instruction to send all allegations of child abuse to the Vatican is proving frustrating for police and social workers trying to catch and jail priests suspected of abuse.
FR. DOYLE: Cardinal Ratzinger, who now is Pope, could tomorrow get up and say ‘here’s the policy for throughout the church. Full disclosure to the civil authorities. Absolute isolation and dismissal of any convicted cleric. Complete openness and transparency. Complete openness of all financial situations. Stop all barriers to the legal process. Completely cooperate with the civil authorities everywhere.’ He could do that.
Most adult males will probably have experienced periods of intense sexual frustration sometime in their life. Yet even at their most desperate they were not remotely aroused by children. Instead they may have sought relief by:
a. prayer/distraction/sublimation
b. self-gratification
c. visiting a prostitute
d. trying to pick up someone/having an affair
B,C, and D are forbidden for priests and therefore not valid options for relief, and option A is no guarantee.
B, C and D are forbidden for EVERYONE. As for A being “no guarantee,” what does that mean?
I’ll tell you what is “not guaranteed”: marriage. There is no absolute right to be married; celibacy (i.e., singleness) is sometimes a choice, sometimes not. Some men and women would like to be married but haven’t found the opportunity (i.e., the right partner).
All single men and women, whether single by choice or not, are morally obliged to remain chaste. Our faith assures us that it is possible to keep the moral law and obey mortal sin. Nobody is forced to sin, and certainly no one is driven by ordinary desires to suddenly have perverse and disordered desires.
Any Christian, married or not, avowedly celibate or circumstantially single, is capable of chastity. Chastity does not drive men, or anyone else, to lust after children. Nor does marriage exclude such desires — many child molesters are family men. Pedophilia is a deep-seated perversion that has nothing to do with marital status.
The presenter, is a victim himself, and may have some understandable axes to grind.
The known scandals mean that many will consider “the church” guilty of ALL allegations regardless of the evidence in any specific case.
The humans within the Catholic Church are not alone amongst institutional and corporatate managers in:
– finding it difficult to believe that men can be so cunning and cruel to children
– trying to sort out problems ‘inside the family’
– believing one’s staff when ‘customers’ complain
– wanting to avoid washing their dirty linen in public
– wanting to avoid bad publicity and huge compensation claims
– not realising the serial and addictive nature of this disorder.
Note that no active malicious intent is required for the above to be acted upon.
Any scandal is aggravated because the Church is called to show the world a better way.
bill912 is right: i gave an interview to MSM types in the early 1990s. the lady did not know JP2 was pope. “You mean, it’s not pope paul?” no, he died about 15 years ago. “oh, but there was a pope paul, right?.” yes, paul 6. “See, I thought so.”
oh, btw, anon, re your “please identify the statements that are false.”
that will be easy, but you’ll have to wait to read it in my hard copy. till then, toodles!
B, C and D are forbidden for EVERYONE.
Yes, but the common argument regarding priestly celibacy is made from the perspective of those who say that married persons should be allowed to be priests. The argument presented by them is that by requiring celibacy, even to the extent of saying it’s wrong for a priest to later change his mind, it fosters certain problems in the Church to a different degree than outside the Church. Therefore, your counter argument that B, C and D are forbidden for everyone is not relevant to their argument.
no one is driven by ordinary desires to suddenly have perverse and disordered desires.
My experience with people who pursue celibacy is that many do not simply experience “ordinary” desires during celibacy, and that such un-ordinary desires which they experience during celibacy lead many to engage in some rather unusual and harmful behaviors, sometimes breaking celibacy and sometimes not. However, when such people engage in (b) for example, they report prompt relief. Some people do find such relief options to be preferable to the alternative.
Pedophilia is a deep-seated perversion that has nothing to do with marital status.
The majority of the abuse in the Church involved adolescents rather than pre-pubescent children. As such, it’s ephebophilia.
B, C and D are forbidden for EVERYONE.
Yes, but the common argument regarding priestly celibacy is made from the perspective of those who say that married persons should be allowed to be priests. The argument presented by them is that by requiring celibacy, even to the extent of saying it’s wrong for a priest to later change his mind, it fosters certain problems in the Church to a different degree than outside the Church. Therefore, your counter argument that B, C and D are forbidden for everyone is not relevant to their argument.
no one is driven by ordinary desires to suddenly have perverse and disordered desires.
My experience with people who pursue celibacy is that many do not simply experience “ordinary” desires during celibacy, and that such un-ordinary desires which they experience during celibacy lead many to engage in some rather unusual and harmful behaviors, sometimes breaking celibacy and sometimes not. However, when such people engage in (b) for example, they report prompt relief. Some people do find such relief options to be preferable to the alternative.
Pedophilia is a deep-seated perversion that has nothing to do with marital status.
The majority of the abuse in the Church involved adolescents rather than pre-pubescent children. As such, it’s ephebophilia.
Argument? That’s not an argument.
Whether there are problems in the Church is one question. Whether those problems exist to a different degree than outside the Church is another (witness the recent evidence that abuse rates among public school teachers are much higher than in the Church). And whether there is any causal connection between such problems in the Church, or the rate of such problems, and the disciple of celibacy is a third question.
So far I see no evidence of those on the anti-celibacy bandwagon correctly distinguishing and engaging these questions.
Whatever that might be. Since you give no identifying information, there is no way to gauge the value of what you attribute to your experience. You could be anyone from the founder of SNAP to James White. This is not to impugn your comments, merely to put them in perspective.
This strikes me as a deeply problematic generalization, one that I can easily falsify, on the evidence of the experience of more than one individual.
True, and the same applies to abuse in schools. This doesn’t establish correlation with celibacy, let alone any causal connection.
witness the recent evidence that abuse rates among public school teachers are much higher than in the Church
If you listen to the BBC, they’d likely say it’s because the Church has a more effective system in place to cover it up. Nevertheless, neither the Church nor public school teachers are random samplings of the public at large.
Since you give no identifying information, there is no way to gauge the value of what you attribute to your experience.
I don’t expect personal and professional experience to be convincing. I only suggest, as experience relates, that there’s more to the subject than your simplistic absolutist claim of “no one is driven by ordinary desires to suddenly have perverse and disordered desires.” Indeed, your claim is not only unproveable but actually quite limited if not irrelevant in regards to the subject, as neither sexual desire for children nor priests themselves are “ordinary”.
This strikes me as a deeply problematic generalization, one that I can easily falsify, on the evidence of the experience of more than one individual.
Perhap you have problems with reading comprehension. I did not generalize to all people, or even to most people, nor did I seek to do so. I referred to “many” people in “my experience” who “do not simply experience ‘ordinary’ desires during celibacy” for whom it may lead to “rather unusual and harmful behaviors.” As such, I’m not necessarily referring to the average joe blow off the street who hasn’t simply found a wife, but to some specific cases. If you want to fantasize that you can falsify that, go ahead, but it would seem to be quite real in the minds of the people I’m referring.
True, and the same applies to abuse in schools. This doesn’t establish correlation with celibacy, let alone any causal connection.
No it doesn’t establish a correlation with celibacy, nor does it necessarily discredit a possible correlation. It may simply be that comparing the Church to school teachers is like comparing apples and oranges. They’re both fruity, with access to children, but beyond that, without clear evidence, is only speculation.
What is clear from this is the BBC’s public mission to slander the current pope. Perhaps they got a little scared when the largest funeral in human history was conducted in honor of JPG, despite the MSM’s attempt to spin him as unpopular and backward.
The event drove home a very powerful point. You may disagree with a man’s views, but when the person in question speaks with a courageous consistency, even his opponents will admire him. Everyone likes a fighter.
In light of the Regensberg speech tragedy, which the BBC and Reuters created out of whole cloth, those same reporters got a glimpse of what could happen when a man like Pope Benedict XVI catches a tidal wave of gushing approval from not only Catholics but Christian Conservatives everywhere. That is, namely, the dawn of the new Age of Evangelization prophesied by the very same JPG.
The MSM is desperate to cover up the truth about where concepts like universal human rights, natural sciences, (the correct) separation of church and state, modern democratic government and a whole host of everything else that makes the ideals of the West a shining beacon for all the world come from.
So instead of true journalism, we get fake news. Instead of the media courageously living up to her aim of informing the public, we get hacks going back to their same-old punching bag, the Church.
Good ol’ Vatican. Never sues for slander or for libel. Always ready to take at least a little blame. Never issues a fatwah or says a criticizing word about the very media that makes its bread and butter by selling these Secular bogeyman stories as gospel truth.
We know the cowardice of the media and all other convenient enemies of the Church by their lack of condemnation nay, even approval, of the reaction of violent militant Muslims around the world.
Stand up for families and it is “shame on you Rome!” Kill a nun, and it is still “shame on you Rome!”
What secret malice animates this double-standard? Perhaps it is the image of an mild-mannered 80-something old man showing the world for the first time in over half a century what a real rebel looks like. After generations of faking an anti-Big Brother orgasm by attacking a completely benign and even friendly and cooperative Church, people around the world saw how a real hero stands against real danger.
And the BBC, being the author of the event (Joker to Rome’s Batman), is desperately spinning its wheels to cover up the fact that they helped show the world our only real safe bet for freedom is in fact Rome.
The shrill, limp-wristed and effete media elites can take their playtime Nerf journalism home to their mommies now, because a man has entered the fray — not to fight pretend monsters — but to sacrificially defend all of us from the forces of intellectual and spiritual cowardice from without as well as from within.
I have had a stint as a reporter and let me tell you, it is real easy to find trouble in the world that will haunt you your entire life and could very possibly result in your own murder. How many of these same journalists have exposed leaders of organized crime, tracked down drug lords, suspected murders, purveyors of sex slaves or the human smugglers who help them?
How many of these reporters have actually stood up for the weak in the face of real danger? Let’s have another of week of Vatican “crimes”! Like that old chestnut has ever helped someone in need of saving. These people are more than cowards, they are phonies.
I have not seen the report (hey, I’m on dial-up here!) but from what I gather from the many comments, it appears the BBC has overlooked the obvious:
Both JPG and Pappa Ben have come out with a silver bullet resolving the priestly pedophile issue: barring practicing homosexuals from the priesthood.
If you are inclined to do the press’ job of researching for yourself, (which you must do because the BBC is too busy “discovering” previously published “secret” documents) then you might notice that many of the worst scenarios were instances of homosexual priests being protected by their fellow pederasts in the Church hierarchy.
In one case in Hawaii (where I live) a young man who had been molested by a priest was also molested by that priest’s successor when the original retired. The same “replacement” priest, when ordained Bishop of Honolulu, appointed a homosexual drifter priest from LA as a pastor. The scene only becomes more sordid after that.
The cause of the problem were gay priests creating inviting umbrellas of gay-friendly atmosphere where people could have boyfriends and solicit sex from minors.
So thank you BBC for helping the Church in her crusade to point out the fact that homosexuality is a psychological disorder very much like, and at times almost indistinguishable from, pedophilia.
Of course, unless you are some backward moron, you already know this. There is no such thing as a “gay gene”. If you ask a geneticist to tell you where or what such a thing is, he will not be able to answer you. But there is a truckload of research showing that homosexual tendencies are the result of certain types of trauma suffered during the formative years.
This is also something I can attest to from back when I was actively pro-gay rights and (you guessed it!) a reporter.
If anything, what can be understood from this “scandal” is that there are serious ramifications for ignoring Church teaching on morality that extend far beyond the simple darkening of one person’s intellect. It leads to widespread chaos throughout the social community threatening to rend the very fabric of civilization.
How anyone with an iota of knowledge can walk away critical of the morally upright rule of celibacy is beyond me.
A phenomenal act of splendid dupery if ever I saw one.
I would like to see the same media outlets do a follow-up report 20 years from now when the recent definitive action taken by Pope Benedict has had time to bear fruit among the clergy.
But knowing the BBC’s utter disdain for journalistic integrity and open hatred for the Catholic Church, we probably should not expect much.
The cause of the problem were gay priests creating inviting umbrellas of gay-friendly atmosphere where people could have boyfriends and solicit sex from minors.
No, that’s not the problem. The problem is child-abusing priests who created umbrellas. Gay and child-abusing are not the same.
Well, that settles that, then. Because the BBC’s reporting on church cover-ups is so authoritative.
Which is why I gave the public school example as a parenthetical example.
Unquestionably there is “more to the subject.” Whether my claim is “simplistic” is another question.
What sort of rebuttal is that? My statement stipulates the non-ordinariness of sexual desire for children. As for the non-ordinariness of priests — whatever that would even mean — my statement makes no presupposition in this regard.
You are correct, I took “people who pursue celibacy” as the main subject of your comments without sufficiently attending to the full context, sorry.
Well, I’m glad we cleared that up. That leaves us where we started: the unproved status of the claim — I like your new word “speculation” — that celibacy “fosters certain problems in the Church to a different degree than outside the Church.”
My statement stipulates the non-ordinariness of sexual desire for children… As for the non-ordinariness of priests — whatever that would even mean — my statement makes no presupposition in this regard.
Your claim was, “no one is driven by ordinary desires to suddenly have perverse and disordered desires.” As such, your claim is referring to a presumption of priests as a group having ordinary desires as the driving force, which has not been established to be the case. Your claim is a strawman.
That leaves us where we started: the unproved status of the claim
It’s tentatively “proven”, shall we say, to the persons I’m referring. It was never meant to be a general claim for all people, but simply a response to the implied notion that “no one” is driven to unusual desires by celibacy.
Non sequitur. My statement doesn’t even reference priests, so it is fallacious to predicate any particular presumption about priests as a class on my statement.
My statement says what it says, no more and no less: Disordered appetites, when and where they occur, in priests or in anyone else, are not caused by celibacy. Whether as you suggest the pursuit of celibacy correlates to a greater degree than average with a tendency to disordered desires is a separate subject — one for which, FWIW, I have seen no clear evidence.
Whether it addresses the construction of the claim that celibacy “fosters certain problems in the Church to a different degree than outside the Church” advocated by you is one question; whether it is a strawman is another. The notion that celibacy itself is such an unnatural state that actually causes perversion is a thesis that is held, I can confidently assert, by men of flesh and blood, not just men of straw. If you are not such a person, I was speaking past you, but not setting up a strawman.
Granted the existence of these hypothetical persons, and the accuracy of your characterization of their experiences, such individuals might be convinced of the relationship in their own case, but this would have no direct implication for the larger question whether the problem exists “in the Church to a different degree than outside the Church” — let alone the separate question whether, if such a state of affairs obtains, it is causally connected to celibacy.
ephebophilia
That’s a laugh riot. If a 35-year-old man lusts after a 14-year old girl, he’s a pervert. But in the looney world of sodomy apologia, if a man lusts after a 14-year old boy, he’s an ephebophile, which has nothing to do with homosexuality. Yeah right.
One just needs to look at the current events of a scandal of a politician who sent a “suggestive e-mail”-No proven crime of physical abuse as of yet and he is destroyed where the church, from JPII with his soft cushy job that he gave Cardinal Law to all of the Bishops who have covered up for their abusers and how to day only a handful have ever seen any jail time. Our Lord made it clear that better a millstone be around their neck then harm a child, and we now have a priesthood upwards of 50, 60, 70% homosexual.
It is clear what our Lord taught, and the dementia and perversion that has crept into the church not even to discuss what goes on in the seminaries
Mat 18: 1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them 3 and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Luk 9: 46 An argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest. 47 But Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts, took a child and put him by his side 48 and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For he who is least among you all is the one who is great.”
“we now have a priesthood upwards of 50, 60, 70% homosexual.”
Fake statistics from an out-of-control odometer. Nice. Now how about you try and discuss this matter *seriously*, okay?
“we now have a priesthood upwards of 50, 60, 70% homosexual. ”
Don’t believe it for one minute.
Careful, John. Satan is “a liar and the father of lies”.
John, your statistics change with every post. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously? For many people reading these comments may be the only time they ‘rub shoulders’ (so to speak) with traditionalists. Do you think you are doing your cause any favors? Perhaps you should consider reviewing your comments for accuracy and charity before posting them.
margin of error: ±70%.
“what response did the Roman church make when it was confronted with irrefutable evidence that it had occurred? Not much of anything, in many cases, other than to intimidate the victim and his family into silence and reshuffle the offending priest to an unsuspecting parish.”
Yeah, right. Rome has turned a deaf ear. So much so that many parishes have gone bankrupt while paying out hugh sums of money to these victims and their blood-thirsty lawyers.
hippo354,
Perhaps you should consider reviewing your comments for accuracy and charity before posting them.
What’s he going to have left to say?
If a 35-year-old man lusts after a 14-year old girl, he’s a pervert. But in the looney world of sodomy apologia, if a man lusts after a 14-year old boy, he’s an ephebophile, which has nothing to do with homosexuality.
If a man’s sexual desire is primarily or exclusively directed to adolescents girls and/or boys, he’s an ephebophile. It is not exclusive of homosexuality or heterosexuality if the man also has significant sexual desire for adults as well.
SDG, Hippo and Tim
Statistics change with every Poll-You Are all such fools I must say-do you not read the newspaper????
Do you not believe USA today, KC Star, NY Times all bastions of liberal voices who have published these statistics?
Call me what you want, but I cant recall the last time I have heard a non “Effiminate voice” at a Novus Ordo Mass. You state that I am not doing my “cause” any good”-I have no cause but the restoration of all things in the name of Christ.
Our Lady said the church would be corrupt from within and homosexuality and pedophilia have taken root-Do you not deny the latest huge payout in Los Angelas?
The following was instituted in 1961 by John XXIII-why was it not followed?? That is easy-because the church wanted a liberal priesthood-got what they wanted, then realized they had let all the candidates that believed in Protestanism, reform, and woman ordination (aka Homosexual Male) and did not realize they let the genie out of the bottle and now have a huge problem, if you get rid of the gay priests-you basically have no priests left!!
THE CANON LAW DIGEST
Officially Published Documents Affecting the Code of Canon Law 1958-1962
Volume V
Canon 973
Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders (S.C. rel., 2 Feb, 1961) pp 452–486
Excerpt pp 468–472
D. THE REQUIRED CHASTITY
29. Importance of this point; young persons are to be properly instructed and warned of its dangers
Among the proofs and signs of a divine vocation the virtue of chastity is regarded as absolutely necessary “because it is largely for this reason that candidates for the ranks of the clergy choose this type of life for themselves and persevere in it.” Consequently:
a) “Watchful and diligent care is to be taken that candidates for the clergy should have a high esteem and love for chastity, and should safeguard it in their souls.
b) “Not only, therefore, are clerics to be informed in due time on the nature of priestly celibacy, the chastity which they are to observe (cf. can 132), and the demands of this obligation, but they are likewise to be warned of the dangers into which they can fall on this account. Consequently, candidates for Sacred Orders are to be exhorted to protect themselves from dangers from their earliest years.”
c) Although virginity embraced for the kingdom of heaven is more excellent than matrimony, nevertheless, candidates for Sacred Orders should not be unaware of the nobility of married life as exemplified in Christian marriage established by the plan of God. Therefore, let them be so instructed that, with a clear understanding of the advantages of Christian matrimony, they may deliberately and freely embrace the greater good of priestly and religious chastity.
d) But should superiors find a candidate unable to observe ecclesiastical celibacy and practice priestly chastity, then, completely ignoring any other outstanding qualities, they should bar him from the religious life and the priesthood (cf. Stat. Gen., art.: 2,4), confirming to the following directives and using all prudence and discretion in the application of the same, namely:
30. Those to be excluded; practical directives
Do you believe in Christianity today as a source?
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/106/26.0.html
What about USA Today??
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/04/25/gay-catholics.htm
Try the following:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02Homo&Clergy.html#crisis
If a man’s sexual desire is primarily or exclusively directed to adolescents girls and/or boys, he’s an ephebophile. It is not exclusive of homosexuality or heterosexuality if the man also has significant sexual desire for adults as well.
Yes. My point mainly being: putting male member into another male orifice=homosexual act. I bring it up because our VIRTUS training tried to paste over this point by getting cute with the ephebophile distinction.
Do you believe in Christianity today as a source?
Feh.
What about USA Today?
Meh.
Try the following:
I have better things to do than visit traditioninaction.org. Like eating used kitty litter for instance.
John,
“I cant recall the last time I have heard a non “Effiminate voice” at a Novus Ordo Mass.”
I can. It was last Sunday.
“The following was instituted in 1961 by John XXIII-why was it not followed?? That is easy-because the church wanted a liberal priesthood-got what they wanted, then realized they had let all the candidates that believed in Protestanism, reform, and woman ordination (aka Homosexual Male) and did not realize they let the genie out of the bottle and now have a huge problem, if you get rid of the gay priests-you basically have no priests left!!”
Put periods in your posts if you want to be understood. It would also be nice if you backed up your last assertion with a reliable source(not that the rest of your “facts” were trust-worthy).
And since you mention the KC Star, you might recall how a certain Monsignor Applegate (you know, one of those non-existent non-homosexual priests) received a lot of heat from the secularist readers for removing a homosexual choir director after said choir director refused to stop promoting homosexual activism. I guess I dreamed that one up.
Scott and David
Boo hoo hoo
Tell me when your head comes out of the sand to breath
Yes I forgot anything with the word “tradition” in it is not a viable source
Lets see how many dioceses claim bankruptcy while they support the sins of these disordered clergy who are your bastion of liberality and homosexuality before reality sets in
At one time the church was the envy of the world for its teachings, its unwavering attachment to the revealed truth, its Art, its music-Now it is the butt of jokes and pedophilia
My point mainly being: putting male member into another male orifice=homosexual act.
The Church’s definition is “homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.” As such, sex acts with children is not relations between men or between women, and thus not homosexuality. Likewise, if the priests or their victims themselves do not “experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”, then it is not homosexuality. If they have at least as much attraction for persons of the opposite sex, it does not quality under the Church’s definition.
ATTENTION JOHN!
THIS IS YOUR RULE 1 WARNING.
EITHER LEARN SOME MANNERS OR CEASE COMMENTING.
SHAPE UP OR SHIP OUT.
In the words of St. Jerome, “Oh, if only the Lord Jesus Christ would suddenly transport me to you as Philip was transported to the eunuch, and Habakkuk to Daniel, with what a close embrace would I clasp your neck, how fondly would I press kisses upon that mouth which has so often joined with me of old in error or in wisdom. But as I am unworthy (not that you should so come to me but) that I should so come to you, and because my poor body, weak even when well, has been shattered by frequent illnesses; I send this letter to meet you instead of coming myself, in the hope that it may bring you hither to me caught in the meshes of love’s net.”
“Lets see how many dioceses claim bankruptcy while they support the sins of these disordered clergy who are your bastion of liberality and homosexuality before reality sets in”
John,
Where did I sue for a homosexual priesthood? Where did I promote liberal Catholicism? It is obvious from how quickly you responded that you haven’t read my post and are more interested in baseless and irrational personal attacks than in a logical discussion. Before you repeat your tired lines, know that I will not waste my time reading your mind-numbing posts anymore.
If only Rep. Mark Foley’s e-mails could have been so poetic. Speaking of Rep. Mark Foley, he reportedly said through his lawyer that he was sexually abused by a clergyman between the ages 13 and 15. He declined to identify the clergyman or the church, but Foley is Roman Catholic.
Someone had better explain to St. Francis de Sales’ parents that relations with teenagers is disordered. He was 43 and she was 14 when they got married. In fact, up until about 60 years ago, many older men married teen age girls.
Not defending the practice today, just trying to keep things in perspective.
As far as the Foley thing:
As far as the “Church Sex Scandal”:
If a priest tried to “touch me inappropriately” when I was a teen-ager he’d be missing teeth!
If my “vocations director” tried to do to me what he did to some altar boys (the last time I saw him was on the local news in a mugshot) he’d also be missing teeth and have a few mangled limbs.
The point is that we trust teen-agers to drive cars, play dangerous sports, choose a college, choose a career, and to stay home by themselves. Teen-agers are old enough, smart enough, big enough, and strong enough to make their own decisions.
Let’s not pretend that these teen-agers didn’t know what was going on.
Not defending anyone’s abominable sins, but let’s be real here. If those teen-agers didn’t want to be touched, they would have stopped those priests/teachers/friends/etc… mental disorders not withstanding.
Having written what I’ve written, I hope that the seminaries can be purged of the predators who use their influence to perform abominations.
Anon, your claim that male-on-male relations is not homosexual because one of the participants was a child is mere straining at gnats and not a distinction anyone will buy. The over-narrow interpretation you try to put on the Church’s definition of homosexuality comes off as nothing more than a desperate ploy.
Could it be, that, just as your Foley example shows, a person can be a pedophile with homosexual tendencies and thus a homosexual pedophile? Or are you trying to say that these two things are so exclusive that once a person becomes a homosexual, he cannot possibly fall into pedophilia? Or a pedophile cannot possibly become a homosexual?
Where are drawing this bit of dogma of total mutual exclusivity?
If a man has relations with a 16 year-old boy in one of the many states where the statute of limitations is 16, then he is just a gay guy.
But if the same thing happens in a state where the age limit is 18, then he is guilty of statutory rape.
Is the same man with the same partner just a pedophile in one state and just a homosexual in another state?
Apparently in your world brunch is an impossibility.
But what is even more delicious about your citing of former congressman Foley’s case, is that it is yet another of the countless examples of people succumbing to the homosexual psychological pathology after being subjected to a formative childhood trauma.
Thanks!
Not to mention that it is yet another case where a man who proudly proclaims “I am a homosexual!” and solicits sex from a minor.
And what does Foley himself attribute as the cause of his homosexuality? According Foley, he was victimized by a homosexual priest as a child. Thus establishing the same sequence of causality I pointed out in my first post.
In the end, the most damning (and ironic) scandal here is the Church’s inability to weed practicing homosexuals out of the priesthood and how this oversight, and the resultant cover-up has spawned yet another generation of young people scarred by their homosexuality.
But the odd thing is, as much as the BBC hates the Church and our pope, this is the one claim they will never make because they would have to work on the presumption that homosexuality is a disorder caused by the environment and not the result of a phantom gene. Ironic!
So … thank you very much for proving every single one of my points with every one of your arguments.
I suppose we should end the charade, eh friend?
Yes, that is right! Anon has been working for me the whole time! Take a bow, Anon!
The check is in the mail.
Let’s not pretend that these teen-agers didn’t know what was going on.
Many children and adolescents lack the skills to handle difficult situations with adults. It even happens among adults in a workplace environment where the power and threat of authority is exerted.
The point is that we trust teen-agers to drive cars, play dangerous sports, choose a college, choose a career
We don’t trust 13-year olds to drive cars. Even 16-25 year olds aren’t trusted when I check the insurance rates.
I can some what agree with the above comment.
People my age are 99.99% stupid, ignorant, corrupt and emo or crazy. And drug users and alcoholics.
I’m extremely lazy. And a whole mess of other defects.
and I’m addicted to Gatorade/Powerade.
the end, the most damning (and ironic) scandal here is the Church’s inability to weed practicing homosexuals out of the priesthood and how this oversight, and the resultant cover-up has spawned yet another generation of young people scarred by their homosexuality.
It is not the inability and it is not THE Church’s either.
It is the deliberate steps of SOME members of the Church, even if it is ALOT of the SOME.
The Church is perfect its members are not.
“Many children and adolescents lack the skills to handle difficult situations with adults. It even happens among adults in a workplace environment where the power and threat of authority is exerted.”
Yet they’re still trusted to use the Frydaddy. And, they’re still told that to have sex before marriage will damn them. Teen-agers are not as innocent as we think, or have you forgotten when you were one?
The over-narrow interpretation you try to put on the Church’s definition of homosexuality comes off as nothing more than a desperate ploy.
No, if you do not agree with the interpretation offered, then it is the Church’s own definition which lacks the essential qualities for an effective definition, namely definition and clarity.
Is the same man with the same [16-year old] partner just a pedophile in one state and just a homosexual in another state?
No, if he’s dealing with a 16-year old, he is not a pedophile, and he may not even be a homosexual or a bisexual. He may be heterosexual.
The paraphilic focus of pedophilia involves sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). Individuals with pedophilia generally report an attraction to children of a particular age range. Some individuals prefer males, others females, and some are aroused by both males and females. Those attracted to females usually prefer 8- to 10-year-olds, whereas those attracted to males usually prefer slightly older children. Pedophilia involving female victims is reported more often than pedophilia involving male victims.
But what is even more delicious about your citing of former congressman Foley’s case, is that it is yet another of the countless examples of people succumbing to the homosexual psychological pathology after being subjected to a formative childhood trauma.
No, the indication is in regard to a cycle of abuse, whereby the abused can subsequently become an abuser in about 1/3 of the time some studies suggest. However, it should be noted that it is reported that Foley does not blame the trauma he sustained as a young adolescent for his e-mails.
In addition, it’s important to note that a history of molestation between the ages of 13-15 does not suggest homosexuality resulted from “formative childhood trauma.” By age 13, it’s quite likely Rep. Foley already knew he was gay and/or he was living in fear of it.
Not to mention that it is yet another case where a man who proudly proclaims “I am a homosexual!” and solicits sex from a minor.
No, he didn’t “proudly proclaim” he’s a homosexual until after he’d checked himself into treatment. His statement was part of his recovery, and his conversations with minors happened prior.
According Foley, he was victimized by a homosexual priest as a child
No, he didn’t say the clergyman was homosexual. You simply assumed he was. I might assume he was as well, but we don’t know.
caused by the environment and not the result of a phantom gene.
It’s actually quite irrelevant whether homosexuality is caused by a gene, by the mother’s womb, by birth order, by the environment or by God, in the sense that by any of those, (a) it’s not chosen; and (b) it is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem per more than 40 years of objective, well-designed scientific research which has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems.
Teen-agers are not as innocent as we think, or have you forgotten when you were one?
No, have you? Not all teenagers are alike, and I bet the abusing priests realized that as well.
SomeDay, I agree with your clarification. My wording was an attempt to offer the anti-Catholic media a better-crafted attack that would actually resonate with reality.
Anon, you once again resort to special pleading to avoid explaining your principal of mutual exclusivity between the conditions homosexuality and pedophilia.
As for the “consensus” that homosexuality is not a disorder, this did not come about through a deeper understanding of the condition, but through a change of the social morays of the doctors conducting the test.
But if the shifting attitudes of society are your guide, then you have no grounds to claim pedophilia or incest are disorders either. This is especially clear when when you consider cases where the parties concerned are of the age of consent (which is also dependent on the views of society).
Pretending to use science to dictate morality is as destructive and backward as using Scripture to prove a geo-centric universe.
Relying on the brute force of majority public opinion to determine right or wrong is the bloodiest error of human thought.
Also, you seem to be operating under the assumption that pubescence is an instantaneous moment. Most people remember it more as an extended period lasting over several years. Is it not possible for a 16 year old to be neither pre-pubescent nor post-pubescent but pubescent?
This reality again undercuts your dogma of mutual exclusivity.
“Only a Sith thinks in absolutes!!”
As far as your argument concerning the unknown causes of homosexuality are concerned, I have to admit that the outcome of that argument would not affect the Church attitude towards how the homosexual is called by God to exercise self-control and avoid non-procreational acts of pleasure.
However, the argument from genetics is used to great effect by activists despite the complete lack of proof. My point in brining it up is to point out the activists as the superstitious frauds they are.
It is scandalous and depressing, it affects the credibility of the Church generally and specifically on sexual issues
It creates cultural problems for priests and makes us a joke (Catholics as in us I am not a priest)
It is very very very sad
Anon, you once again resort to special pleading to avoid explaining your principal of mutual exclusivity between the conditions homosexuality and pedophilia.
Do you want to imply that homosexuality includes attraction to children? Because if so, you’ll need to include attraction to children as part of heterosexuality as well.
As for the “consensus” that homosexuality is not a disorder, this did not come about through a deeper understanding of the condition, but through a change of the social morays of the doctors conducting the test.
No, it came about through deeper understanding of the issues. Please review the following post for details on the history and scientific studies which led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder/illness:
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/09/helping_a_broth.html#c23306722
But if the shifting attitudes of society are your guide, then you have no grounds to claim pedophilia or incest are disorders either.
Incest does not belong to a diagnosed category of mental disorders, and pedophilia is not classified as a disorder unless it causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. As such, people can experience attractions to young children and not be classed as pedophiles.
Pretending to use science to dictate morality is as destructive and backward as using Scripture to prove a geo-centric universe.
Science is a process for discovering truth. If you find the discovery of truth to be destructive, you are not in agreement with Church teaching. Science is not telling anyone to engage in same sex genital acts, nor is anyone on this board that I can see. Do you have an imaginary friend who’s saying otherwise?
Relying on the brute force of majority public opinion to determine right or wrong is the bloodiest error of human thought.
Homosexuals continue to be subject to the brute force of majority public opinion.
Also, you seem to be operating under the assumption that pubescence is an instantaneous moment.
No, if you would look at what was written rather than on what you thought was written, you’d see I wrote “generally age 13 years or younger.” It is always a matter of judgment as to the appearance of the child as to whether he/she is “prepubescent” in the eyes of a pedophile.
This reality again undercuts your dogma of mutual exclusivity.
I have at no time issued any dogma of mutual exclusivity. To the contrary, I wrote, “It is not exclusive of homosexuality or heterosexuality if the man also has significant sexual desire for adults as well.”
the homosexual is called by God to exercise self-control and avoid non-procreational acts of pleasure.
Your statement is a false synopsis of Church teaching. To begin with, you speak of “non-procreational acts” when you should be saying “non-procreational genital acts.” There are a vast number of non-procreational non-genital acts which can be pleasurable and which are not sinful. For example, being a good friend, and yes, even a “lover” (in a non-sinful way).
However, the argument from genetics is used to great effect by activists despite the complete lack of proof. My point in brining it up is to point out the activists as the superstitious frauds they are.
Does an insecurity drive you to say such uncharitable things? You alone raised the subject of a gay gene on this board. There is no “activist” here claiming any gay gene.
“pedophilia is not classified as a disorder unless it causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. ”
So, according to the APA, if you’re OKAY with your pedophilic tendencies… well then, GOOD FOR YOU. As long as you’re happy and feeling well-adjusted to your sexual attraction to children, you CAN’T be sick.
Please explain, “Anon”, how one takes a homosexual lover in a non-sinful way. I’m dying to hear this one.
So, according to the APA, if you’re OKAY with your pedophilic tendencies… well then, GOOD FOR YOU.
The standard requires that it not be causing impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
Please explain, “Anon”, how one takes a homosexual lover in a non-sinful way.
Generously, selflessly, communally, as oneself, in obedience to God.
Please explain, “Anon”, how one takes a homosexual lover in a non-sinful way.
Generously, selflessly, communally, as oneself, in obedience to God.
In other words, by abstaining.
In other words, by abstaining.
In love, there is no restraint.
In love, there is no restraint.
Actually, there is.
>>Actually, there is.<< No, there is no restraint as love, in love. God is love, not limited. As God says, "I will do all that I please."
This is a genuine question asked out of sincerity, but isn’t celibacy a matter of discipline and not doctrine?
Weren’t some of the Apostles married as well as other leaders in the Early Church?
Celibacy is said to be in accordance to certain Pauline teaching as a matter of discipline, but is it doctrine?
If it is a discipline, would it be possible to have this requirement rescinded and, if so, how can it and will it ever be made possible? Further, would it really be so awful to have such a requirement abolished?
Albeit, celibacy is a beautiful gift to God especially in those who seek that purity of spirit and genuinely seek that which is pleasing to the Lord.
But, I’ve heard even those who come into the Catholic Church (converts like those from the Anglican Clergy who are married) are permitted to remain as clergy even in the Catholic Church.
Also, in an EWTN Journey Home program, Marcus Grodi actually had a guest who was a married minister convert who was even invited by the Church to serve as clergy (e.g., priest) in the Catholic Church. Marcus went on to add this was not to undermine the Church, though.
If this requirement should be relaxed for converts, why not for actual Catholics seeking vocation as well?
And you please God by loving and PROMOTING (the very thing that got heretics killed in the Inquisition) disorderly passions?
How can allowing priests the opportunity to marry promoting disorderly passions?
Did not some of the Apostles have wives?
Did not those who were leaders in the Early Church?
Also, as mentioned, those converting to the Catholic Church have been permitted by the Church to maintain their clergy status even in the Catholic Church in spite of the fact that they’re married.
Remember, marriage, too, is a pleasing thing to God. This is not a disordered passion nor should it even promote that. The fact that God even raised it to the status of a Sacrament should clearly illustrate its significance.
But but the virgin apostole was also the most loved, John.
St.Paul said that marriage was good, but not geting married and dedicating his life to God was better. Marriage is indeed a vocation, a glorious one, not for everyone. So not to diminsh it, but to perfect the Priesthood and Matrimony, they are separated to be fully dedicated to one or the other.
not sine (NO ITS A MATH TERM!)
Some.
but to perfect the Priesthood and Matrimony, they are separated to be fully dedicated to one or the other.
That’s the theory anyway. How is it in practice?
Case in point:
A wonderful convert to the faith, Alex Jones, who has inspired countless of Catholic Faithful by his conversion from the Pentecostal faith to the Catholic Faith.
He has been and is still married to his lovely wife, Donna. Yet, he is allowed, in spite of his marriage, to become a priest should he wish to become so.
According to an article: “While there is a possibility that Pastor Jones could enter the seminary and become a Catholic priest or deacon, none of that is certain, although married pastors of other faiths have done just that.”
http://www.stanwilliams.com/Hanson.htm
So, what would be so wrong if we should allow our priests to become married when we already permit our fellow married minister converts this opportunity already?
The Mother Church is wise. Not only over 2000 years in “age wisdom”but over 2000 years of assitance from God.
The Vatican has more diplomacy than Talleran and more info than the CIA.
So in an effort to prevent a worst effect by instituting a more perfect thing, it is cautious on pushing it. That is why the Eastern Churches and your example is allowed. Is it better for the Eastern Churches to damn themselves in schism or to be in the Holy Mother Church, with or without married priests?
See how it works?
It is the same reason why many of you ask “well look at bishop so and so, the Vatican still has him nice and fat in his dio…”
Well the same applies. To rip off the weeds right away might kill the whole harvest.
“…celibacy is a beautiful gift to God…”
Bishop Sheen said otherwise: “(I)t is not man’s gift to God; it is God’s gift to man.” (“Treasure In Clay”, chapter 13, “Reflections On Celibacy”, p. 203.
Bishop Sheen also wrote: “Both are good. Celibacy is not higher; marriage is not lower. They are both signs of God’s covenant with man. Each has its call to perfection….Celibacy is more directly related to the Kingdom of God.
“The fallacy in a discussion about celibacy and marriage is the comparison of one vocation with another; it is like arguing about the relative perfection of the right leg over the left….The celibate is working for the Kingdom of God by ‘begetting children in Christ’ in Baptism; the married by having children through the profound unity of two in one flesh. God has two kinds of lovers–those who go directly to the ultimate, such a the celibate, and those who go mediately through marriage.” Ibid, p. 202.
“Did not some of the Apostles have wives?
Did not those who were leaders in the Early Church?”
But no priest ever ‘married’ AFTER he became a priest. Some of the priests of the early Church were married and THEN were ordained to the Priesthood.
Anon, so much to correct so little time…
I would like to respond to your understanding of science and its relationship to truth-seeking.
I think we both agree that the pursuit of science inasmuch as it gives us a greater understanding of reality can also elevate the human intellect to a greater understanding of the author of reality.
Where we disagree is your simplistic understanding that science seeks truth and therefore all science is good.
There are instances where science, despite its lofty aims, crosses the line from good to evil. For example, much truth has been gleaned from cruel human experimentation in the past century (and it still continues). Also, truths learned in research can always be put to evil uses — this is another formerly unforgettable lesson of the 20th century.
If science is unmitigated goodness, then how does one explain the presence of this evil?
Coming from the Christian tradition, we understand good to be the basic state of the universe and evil as “gaps” in the fabric of good created by humans who, in our fallen state and suffering from clouded intellects, make wrong choices.
So we know two things: 1) Sin clouds the intellect and 2) truth-seeking is good.
The underlying difference between our understanding of reality and your understanding of reality is your materialistic worldview accepts 2 but has no concept of 1 — so naturally your worldview cannot propose methods or tools for dealing with the veil of sin.
Your materialism is betrayed by your ethics which rely solely on observable negative effects. If two grown men share some fun time in private then no harm, no foul, no sin.
A supernatural understanding of reality sees such actions as reverberating beyond simple observable datum. This is especially the case with homosexual acts which are viewed as sinful in all the world religions. So anyone with an once of dedication to penetrating the veil and finds themselves in any one of the great world faiths understands the wrongness of this one act.
You do not. Someone got to you before you could penetrate the veil.
The point of all this is, some people are more astute morally than others. You agree with this or you would not be here trying to convince me of the rightness of your views over my own. Scientists, like all human beings, require guidance from beyond the veil. Seekers all know this guidance comes from Sacred Scripture, clerics, priests, prophets and seers — all of which you believe are mere fashion statements; psychological adornments for the modern “liberated” soul.
Finally, while science seeks truth, science never declares truth. With every new bit of data, formerly accepted theories are subjected to further scrutiny and can be altered or thrown out completely.
Theology deals in dogma, revealed truth. This means that once something is understood to be true (God’s triune nature, for example) the understanding cannot be diminished or declared invalid.
The reason for this difference is because science (scientia, knowledge) is mainly pursuit for truth from within while dogma is pursuit of truth from without. In science, the primary operator is the mind of the scientist reaching up for truth. In religion, the primary operator is God (Truth) reaching down to the believer.
So while science can do great good, it needs moral guidance not from opportunistic scientists, but from people who understand the supernatural reality and why beliefs like universal human rights come from dogma that teaches the brotherhood of man is the image of God.
Imagine a story of a priest that was martyred under this liberal and SOFT concept:
The only requirement to die is to have lived, and what a way to live to die for the Cross.
Father John Doe died today after being shot by the Talibans after droping his kids the daycare. He left his wife (two if the slipery slope keeps it coming) and 14 children ( same mother?).
10 year-old Jhoana Doe (future priestess) said “the reverend Daddy used to celebrate mass with my sandwhiches in the shorts grandma gave him on his 2 aniversary ( he got “dispensed”and now has lucky bride numba 4) . He said it was fake anyways.”…
Get the picture…..
Don’t drink and dri…Whoops!
I mean don’t run down the steps to Hel..
NO! I mean, Kumbaya———————-
O————–Kumbaya.
There are instances where science, despite its lofty aims, crosses the line from good to evil. For example, much truth has been gleaned from cruel human experimentation in the past century (and it still continues)
I’m not addressing the ethics of various forms of scientific investigation, simply looking at all the information which we have available in front of us, to include the vague words of the Church on the subject which members of the Church have interpreted in numerous ways, and the ever growing body of scientific information, which itself is also open to expansion and interpretation.
The underlying difference between our understanding of reality and your understanding of reality is your materialistic worldview
To be polite as possible, you are way off base.
Your materialism is betrayed by your ethics which rely solely on observable negative effects. If two grown men share some fun time in private then no harm, no foul, no sin.
You must be breathing some funny gases because I never said anything of the sort.
This is especially the case with homosexual acts which are viewed as sinful in all the world religions.
Actually, “all” the world religions do not view it as you claim. You’ve again gone off into the extremes.
You agree with this or you would not be here trying to convince me of the rightness of your views over my own.
Your problem is you don’t even know what my views are. You’ve clearly demonstrated your failure to read English.
Theology deals in dogma, revealed truth. This means that once something is understood to be true (God’s triune nature, for example) the understanding cannot be diminished or declared invalid.
Anything that’s been declared in words at any point in time is always open to reinterpretation and expansion. That is the nature of all things.
Your problem is you don’t know what your views are. You’ve clearly demonstrated your inability to communicate in English.
No, I’m simply not buying into the prejudices that surround so many words. For example, I don’t subscribe to “intimate” simply meaning sex, or that “gay” must mean licentiousness, or “lover” meaning a sex partner. To restrict oneself to narrow-minded definitions simply for the sake of conversing is, well, to participate in prejudice.
But how can we know what you mean by anything you write, since “Anything that’s been declared in words at any point in time is always open to reinterpretation and expansion”?
Ergo, your words mean anything you want them to mean, which means you cannot communicate rationally.
And I’m through jello-wrestling.
Anon: “[StubbleSpark] speak[s]s of ‘non-procreational acts’ when [he] should be saying ‘non-procreational genital acts.'”
Precious.
Was the clarification really necessary? Given the context of this post and given the flow of the discussion as presented in these comments did you really need to make the distinction between “procreational acts” and “procreational GENITAL acts”?
I mean most people already distinguish between recreational acts like kayaking or hiking or creative acts like painting or poetry. Most people understand that we humans procreate through genital contact (although given your views the confusion is understandable).
What more can I do? It’s text, so I assume I shouldn’t have to spell it out. Aya wode maya!
Of course, there is no reason why my argument is suddenly rendered null because I did not use the word “genital” but for some reason this follows your logic. For your information, this is what is known as a non-sequitur (which means “does not follow” — great now I gotta explain every little thing).
Then comes the kicker:
“There are a vast number of non-procreational non-genital acts which can be pleasurable and which are not sinful.”
Your statement contains three negatives describing the manner of some acts “which can be pleasurable”. The nature of the qualities being negated are rather specific and most people will understand “non-genital” and “non-procreative” as needlessly redundant. I think it would be safe to say the vast majority of pleasurable acts could safely be categorized as:
non-procreative (and hence)
non-genital and
non-sinful.
So, in a nutshell, what you are saying is “there are pleasurable acts.”
Oh really? Thank you for that little bit of wisdom from afar.
I would consider it a deliberate attempt to insult my intelligence, but I have to consider the source and out of charity operate under the assumption that you really thought the readers of JA.O are that much in need of Secularist enlightenment.
So thank you light-bringer.
How you envision the God (or Allah or Buddha or Vishnu)-fearing homosexual as engaging in a personal gay relationship “without restraint” but in manner that is consistently moral (ie, not engaging the genitals) is quite beyond me.
The reason why I am having trouble with this is because if you are agreeing alltheworldreligion’s teachings concerning homosexuality, then why are you here arguing with the Catholic position?
Unless what you really want to do is convince that gay sex is not morally abominable.
But if that is your goal, could you quote something authoritative from Scripture that could prove your view rather than try to argue this from a purely materialistic stance?
Anon: “In love, there is no restraint.”
Really? Spouses of the world! Take heed! The next time your significant other has a headache, remind them that “In love, there is no restraint”!
The next time you fight an urge to say something out of malice, remember: “In love, there is no restraint.”
The next time you are tempted to cheat on your spouse, remember “In love, there is no restraint.”
Restraint and control have nothing to do with love! So that’s what we’ve been doing wrong all these years!
Where did we go wrong? Well, if you look at Sacred Scripture, you get all these rules and laws and statutes regarding how we are supposed to behave the vast majority of which are “don’t”s. Why even the word for adultery and idolatry are the same in the OT!
So obeying God was the problem all along! We shouldn’t have been obeying God! Thank you Anon, for showing us what dupes we have been.
I cannot wait to write that down in crayon and stick it to my refrigerator.
Only God can love without restraint, Anon and the only reason we cannot is because our vision is clouded by the veil. Deus caritas est, says Pope Benedict and he is right and because he is also perfect truth and perfect goodness, there are no restraints.
The reason God calls us to restrain ourselves is because he knows about the veil.
This is why we know about the veil.
And this is how I know you don’t know about the veil.
Because in our present fallen state, love without restraint quickly becomes animalistic desire or destructive passion or depravity or, worst of all, love of self. And this is exactly what gay sex is, sex with one’s mirror image. Not different but same. Not other but myself.
Anytime someone says something as childish as “In love, there is no restraint” a red flag instantly goes up in the mind of the enlightened because they will know that what you preach is not about right versus wrong or good versus evil but abandonment to the id versus unfavorable peer pressure.
Also, there are many different kinds of love, including paternal love. Paternal love is so much about restraint that one of its primary goals is to teach restraint and self-control to the child.
“In love, there is no restraint.” Man, that is so gay-culture!
That is so contraceptive. That is so self-serving. That is so masturbatory. So not self-sacrificing.
“In love, there is no restraint.”
That would give me the absolute gibblies if I were in a relationship with someone who said that. Especially a long-distance relationship because those are all about self-sacrifice and restraint. How could you trust anyone who spews that kind of tripe?
Of course, now we will get treated to another of Anon’s definition-tweak-and-runs: “Well, we all know IS THAT A RED HERRING!! anyway so naturally we can see that God is really a Care Bear named No-Inhibition Bear and so I am right.”
What are some more straightforward ways to say “In love, there is no restraint”? How about:
Chivalry is dead.
The stronger partner always wins.
There is no greater mystery beyond self.
Eros trumps agape.
Pleasure before peace.
Better to feel good and be bad than to be good and feel bad.
I am the center of the universe.
My way or the highway.
Let’s have Patrick Swayze Christmas.
All are winners in the contest to see who no longer belongs in civilization.
Or would care to modify your statement to indicate that perhaps indeed real love is not mutually exclusive from restraint?
“In love, there is no restraint.”
And remember the context (I feel compelled to add for fear that you will once again force me to call the Obvious Embassy to tell them I found their ambassador).
“Anything that’s been declared in words at any point in time is always open to [my] reinterpretation and expansion.”
Too bad for you, because I am an interpreter by trade!
I make my living off of meanings and definitions. In my world, a bad day is when I do not have a grasp of the definite meaning of words.
And here I am trading quips with someone whose lexicon is a blank dictionary (a book that lists the definitions of words).
If words do not have definitions (or indefinitions in your case I suppose), then why even bother to communicate in the first place?
If anything spoken or written is subject to anyone’s reinterpreatation or expansion, then that includes anything YOU say or write as well. Which means that I or anyone else can take whatever you say and twist it however we want even to the point to where it contradicts itself one day or becomes completely meaningless the next.
Shakespeare had some real negative views of people who do not understand the power of words. He depicted them as puerile, dim-witted, un-heroic, impotent, lawless, bad leaders, and unreliable.
But you are probably nothing like that.
You are free of the scourge of that pesky little … what do you call it?
Oh yeah!
Meaning.
All sound and fury signifying nothing.
Anon: “Actually, ‘all’ the world religions do not view it as you claim. You’ve again gone off into the extremes.”
And I yet here I am still waiting for you to provide me ONE example proving that I am wrong.
For your benefit (because I know how people from your country are), I will have you note that I said “all WORLD religions”.
These include Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism but you might as well search for any other smaller sect, cult or coven as well because I keep coming up nil on the “religion that approves homosexual acts” search.
I mean, I am sure there is probably some tantric sex club/religion out there. Some group where the liturgy requires much Vaseline and children usually are not allowed. But I still cannot find it and it is driving me crazy. So tell me, who disagrees with the one thing Moses, Jesus, Paul, Mohammed, Sidhartha, Joseph Smith, the Dali Lama, and Vishnu all agree on?
Because that would take cajones.
Probably not smart, but that is exactly why I say “cajones”.
Anon: “That is [my limited understanding of] the nature of all things.”
You know what?
Maybe you were right about that whole “words don’t have permanent meaning” thing.
“Oh Trumpy you and I are going to have such fun!”
But how can we know what you mean by anything you write, since “Anything that’s been declared in words at any point in time is always open to reinterpretation and expansion”?
Perhaps the Holy Spirit will guide you.
Ergo, your words mean anything you want them to mean, which means you cannot communicate rationally.
If you believe that, then the same rules would apply to you as well.
Was the clarification really necessary? Given the context of this post and given the flow of the discussion as presented in these comments did you really need to make the distinction between “procreational acts” and “procreational GENITAL acts”?
I wasn’t making a distinction between procreational and procreational genital. I was using repetition for emphasis, to drive from you clarification of what you mean on this subject, or at least attempt to. To which you responded:
non-procreative (and hence) non-genital and non-sinful…
in manner that is consistently moral (ie, not engaging the genitals)
Now I will list for you some non-procreative acts that homosexuals could engage in, which would apparently meet your definition of non-sinful and moral:
(a) going on a date
(b) holding hands
(c) kissing
(d) living together
(e) sleeping in the same bed
(f) committing to one another in love
(g) civil union
(h) adopting children
(i) raising children
How you envision the God-fearing homosexual as engaging in a personal gay relationship “without restraint” but in manner that is consistently moral (ie, not engaging the genitals) is quite beyond me.
That is up to God. To be in love is to be in God’s hands. God makes one stand firm. It is trust in God, trust in love. True love will create the good of persons and of communities, regardless of sexual orientation, and transcend differences and cover all wrongs.
why are you here arguing with the Catholic position?
I’m not.
Only God can love without restraint
In selfless love for one another, God lives in us and His love is made complete in us. Such love is without fear, without restraint.
the only reason we cannot is because our vision is clouded by the veil
Whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away and there is freedom.
And this is how I know you don’t know about the veil.
Guess again.
in our present fallen state, love without restraint quickly becomes animalistic desire or destructive passion or depravity or, worst of all, love of self.
God can assist anyone to stand that He chooses.
a red flag instantly goes up in the mind of the enlightened
Is that like the red flag that instantly goes up when anyone claims to be enlightened?
what you preach is not about right versus wrong or good versus evil but abandonment to the id versus unfavorable peer pressure.
No, that’s not at all what I’ve been saying, not in the least.
“In love, there is no restraint.” Man, that is so gay-culture!… How could you trust anyone who spews that kind of tripe?
You only think it’s “gay culture” and “tripe” because you perceive it through your filter.
Too bad for you, because I am an interpreter by trade!
Do you imagine you are doing well here?
If words do not have definitions (or indefinitions in your case I suppose), then why even bother to communicate in the first place?
Who said they have no definitions?
All sound and fury signifying nothing.
Yes, you do that quite well.
“That is up to God. To be in love is to be in God’s hands. God makes one stand firm. It is trust in God, trust in love. True love will create the good of persons and of communities, regardless of sexual orientation, and transcend differences and cover all wrongs.”
‘why are you here arguing with the Catholic position?’
“I’m not.”
Yes, you are.
I,you keep placing your beliefs in God’s mouth, and then telling us that, since it comes from (your version of) God, we should agree.
No, thank you.
Yes, you are. I,you keep placing your beliefs in God’s mouth, and then telling us that, since it comes from (your version of) God, we should agree.
That’s your fantasy. You might enjoy it, but I don’t tell you you should agree with it.
Anon:”If you believe that, then the same rules would apply to you as well.”
Anon, you are the one who castrates the meaning from your speech. Though you are of course free to think whatever you want about my words, the world knows differently and because what is at stake is my reputation as a man of integrity, you are once again challenged with the daunting task of trying to convince everyone of the rightness of your view in the face of overwhelming contradicting facts.
Because you have been in that position since we started this little exchange, I still have high hopes for your ability to recover.
Or should I say “had” high hopes? Your last post is an abysmal string of childish “I know you are but what am I” counter arguments. Is that as substantial as you could get?
At least you dropped the pretense of trying to use rational thought and logic. I don’t think anyone was really fooled by that.
I will tell what I was fooled by, however, I was fooled by your occasional attempts at putting together theological-sounding assertions to back up your ideas.
I thought: “Clearly he is not enforcing the revealed dogma of Church Christ established. Yet he seems to have done some research. I can tell he is a Relativist, but maybe, like myself, he reads the teachings of those who hold opposing views in order to more sincerely engage them in debate. What a wonderful opportunity!”
Boy, was I wrong.
I have gone over your posts and discovered you were merely engaging in a kind of tactical rhetoric — peppering your speech with Catholic-esque phrases and teachings with no regard for creating a greater cohesive unity.
You argue as if you approached the original sacred material (teachings and Scripture) not with the aim of understanding what the original author intended them to mean (hence the attitude that all dogma is ultimately subjected to your approval) but with the goal of scanning for phrases you could use to bolster your argument.
In order to do this, you must have been working under the assumption that believers rely on a hodge-podge of contradicting rhetoric simply because it makes us (believers) feel good about ourselves or because we need to opportunistically twist the sacred to justify our actions.
And you thought “well, if it is just a bunch of contradicting rhetoric and propaganda, then I can use the same material with the same self-serving goals to win them over.”
That was your greatest mistake.
Anon, we as Catholics believe that Truth is a unity and therefore it is impossible for Truth to contradict Truth. Truth is also eternal which means that it is unchanging. Truth that changes was never truth in the first place. How could it have been? Truth is what always is.
Therefore: Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. The teachings of the Majesterium cannot contradict Scripture. The teachings cannot contradict themselves. Everything is part of a cohesive unity. This is how we detect bull — it comes wrapped in situational ethics and always with a form of slavery to sin disguised as “liberty”.
But more immediately (and important for you if you are going to take your goal of converting us seriously), any argument that is not cohesive or unified is instantly repugnant to us. A cohesive argument is rational construct that reflects the cohesive nature of God and is therefore beautiful to us.
So I would like to make a couple of suggestions that will help you in using Catholic teachings and Sacred Scripture more effectively:
1) When you approach our writings for ammunition, try to look for the unity and consistency that we understand it to have. If you are confused or cannot grasp that unity, please just ask — here at JA.O or at the free forums at Catholic Answers online (that is, if you want the Catholic understanding). One very strong note of caution: do NOT assume that simply because the greater unity of Truth in the literature in question evades you, that you have suddenly stumbled upon some Achilles heel. Have the humility to find an explanation first.
2) Never use broad phrases like “in love, there is no restraint” unless you are prepared to admit the consequences of those phrases. What I mean is, remember that ideas matter and have ramifications that extend far beyond the scope of text on a page or verbal missiles in a debate. Thinking involves connecting things and following them through to their conclusions. Modern man likes to avoid drawing conclusions and say he is merely avoiding extremes when what he is really doing is not thinking. You probably still do not understand fully how vile and soul-destroying your statements on love and truth are. I invite you to explore the chasm in understanding between us. Get in my shoes just as I once lived in yours (you sound like me seven years ago).
3) Avoid relativistic phrases like “Anything that’s been declared in words at any point in time is always open to reinterpretation and expansion.” because it sucks all the power out of your argument. If your argument is organically unified, then the words you use to create that unity are similar to the cells in our body. When those cells do not work together properly, you have negative reactions that threaten the life of that organism. Just as our DNA gives our cells programed routines to perform a function, respect for the power of words gives your argument greater health and vitality by maintaining the organic unity between the words themselves.
Words ARE more powerful than any other weapon. That is not rhetoric, but a fact. Because of this, they need to be treated with the utmost of care and respect. Believe in words. Respect the words. You will go far.
Imagine yourself as the kind of speaker who only ever says true things. That is what you must strive to be.
4) Finally, lighten up. Everyday up to 7000 innocent people are killed in the womb in America, why should we let that injustice ruin what little joy we have left? Joking is one way of letting everyone know that you do not take yourself so seriously. Adding levity is something everyone, even your opponents will find disarming. Try to avoid falling into the trap of being the joyless, dour one. It did not work for Nixon, why do you think it would work for you?
Just some thoughts…
Posted by: StubbleSpark | Oct 6, 2006 10:56:22 PM
what is at stake is my reputation
What a joke.
No, my jokes are much more witty than that. The line about brunch for example.
Or the Nixon comment.
Or the unbearable lightness of no meaning.
Or the dictionary full of indefinitions.
Or the light-bringer comment.
Or the care bear comment.
Putting your wisdom in crayon.
The Sith reference.
It’s all good, really. You just got to take your pick.
But in the end, saying “what a joke” does not really amount to my 4th bit of advice which enjoins you to show more levity and not take yourself so seriously.
It was a nice try, I suppose. At least it had the word “joke” in it. It is just that it is not so funny, you know. I mean even something like “such a joke” would probably be funnier that “what a joke”. Or how about “What? A joke?” or “This is a joke” or “Nanto iu joudan” or “wan’er de hao”
But even those would really not be funny at all. Just because you say the word “joke” does not really make it a joke.
In the end, not funny.
E for effort. (But I am sure you can use your powers of perception to change that E into something with a good meaning.)
StubbleSpark: You think that (typing “What a joke”) took effort? I know you’re being charitable but ….
“True love will create the good of persons and of communities, regardless of sexual orientation, and transcend differences and cover all wrongs”
It is the Grace of God that produces good and it is only when a person willingly accepts that grace that s/he is able to produce good works.
This Grace of God, then, is what ‘create the good of persons and of communities’.
Of course, people can always refuse this gift of grace that God offers as in the case where they end up following their own will instead of God’s and intentionally will to do wrong and, in the end, becoming enslaved to sin.
It is God, then, who is only able to help us transcend and to cover our wrongs — blotting out our sin as in Psalm 50 (51).
You cannot simply say, “True love will create the good of persons and of communities”, since this ‘true love’ can mean anything, subject to anyone’s interpretation, and not necessarily corresponding to Truth.
For example, to others, this ‘true love’ can end up being a ‘true love’ for sin if not tempered with God’s Truth.
One can always substitute God’s Truth for his/hers, but will that truth save him in the end, that’s the question?
This is why God gave us the Church, something that would anchor us to the Truth, and not to be tossed to and fro, carried by every wind of doctrine:
Eph:4:14: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
Thus, the Church is the Final Authority as revealed in Matthew 18:17:
17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let
him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
That’s why in order to communicate the severity of disobedience to the Church, Christ uses the strongest language possible:
The Greek word used for the word “hearing” in Mt 18:17 is parakouo. This means to “disobey”; it is from this word we get parakoe which is the same word used for Adam’s disobedience in Rom 5:19. This is quite significant since there’s another word which could have been used for disobedience which is the Greek word: apeitheia.
Also, Jesus compares those who disobey the Church with two worst groups of people that the Jews despised at the time. He says he who rejects the Church is to be treated as a heathen or a publican.
Thus, the paradigm of 1st Cen. Christianity was a Visible & Authoratative Church established as a Gift by Jesus Christ, Commisioned with Divine Authority: To Preach, Teach & Guard the Truth of Scripture. It is seen both from Scripture and Tradition (from the Earliest Christians, in fact; see the Writings of the Early Fathers) that all Christians were bound to adhere to this Visible & Authoratative Church with the consequences of condemnation for refusal to submit.
St. Iraneaus, Against Heresies, Bk 3, Par 4 150 AD
“What if there should be a dispute amongst some matter of moderate importance? Should we not turn to the oldest churches where the Apostles themselves were known and found out from them the clear and certain answer to the problem now being raised? Even if the Apostles had not left their writings to us, are we not to follow the rule of Tradition which they handed down to those to whom they committed the Churches? “
“How you envision the God-fearing homosexual as engaging in a personal gay relationship “without restraint” but in manner that is consistently moral (ie, not engaging the genitals) is quite beyond me.”
I, your response to the above question of how you could believe that ‘God-fearing’ homosexuals could do most of the things that married, straight couples do, was to say:
“That is up to God. To be in love is to be in God’s hands. God makes one stand firm. It is trust in God, trust in love. True love will create the good of persons and of communities, regardless of sexual orientation, and transcend differences and cover all wrongs.”
BUT you weren’t putting words in God’s mouth, right? Got it.
In love, there is no restraint.
While that may be true in some respects for God, it is also true that the Son of God freely emptied himself, and demonstrated His love by freely restraining Himself on the Cross.
You are confusing self-indulgence with love.
Indeed. All one need do is to imagine our Lord in the garden crying out to God over and over sweating blood and asking for this cup not be given to him.
If restraint and love are incompatible, then our lord is some of kind of soulless robot who was merely obeying his programming.
It is God, then, who is only able to help us transcend and to cover our wrongs — blotting out our sin as in Psalm 50 (51).
That’s what I said. Are you my echo?
You cannot simply say, “True love will create the good of persons and of communities”
Of course I can, as I’ve just shown you, but whether you understand what I’m saying is another matter.
This Grace of God, then, is what ‘create the good of persons and of communities’.
I never said otherwise.
BUT you weren’t putting words in God’s mouth, right?
No more than God was putting the words in my mouth.
it is also true that the Son of God freely emptied himself, and demonstrated His love by freely restraining Himself on the Cross.
I wouldn’t expect any homosexual who wishes to abide in God to do anything Jesus wouldn’t do.
If restraint and love are incompatible, then our lord is some of kind of soulless robot who was merely obeying his programming.
We are called to freedom in Christ, as in not constrained, yet you would err if you think I encourage freedom be used to do evil. As an example, you are free to rob a bank. Do you think I’m now advocating you rob a bank? Instead, I would advocate you examine any desire you might have to rob a bank in the light of truth and see what that’s all about. Hiding from such thoughts doesn’t make them go away.
“No more than God was putting the words in my mouth.”
Hmm. Wasn’t it Saint Paul who warned the followers of Christ to beware of men who called themselves prophets? Maybe I’m missing something here. Could you tell us where we can find your name in the Scriptures?