Coincidence? I think not...
Today's vote on the same-sex "marriage" legislation coincides with today's readings on....you guessed it...SODOM AND GOMORRAH! How creepy is that? The Catholic Church's daily Mass readings are set years in advance. The story of the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah for sexual sins (especially homosexual sins) is also joined with the reading from Matthew about the storm when they were all in the boat and Jesus asked why they were so afraid. This story talks about how we should still have hope. I guess my last post seems to be devoid of that, and I'm sorry. Our faith is one of hope, and an orthodox Canadian must be assured of the victory of Christ.Canada needs our prayers...
posted by Becky @ 9:48 PM
90 Comments:
You have yet to find God. Keep looking. He's not in intolerance and hatred.
Oh my....if saying things that you disagree with is "intolerance" or "hatred" then I'm afraid you're going to have a rather difficult life.
I may be a sinner, but I have found God in Christ and his Church - the source of Love and Truth. Now that I've found this source, I will never leave to search for something else.
Becky, dear...
"A fanatic is someone who redoubles his efforts when he has forgotten his aim"
- George Santayana
Is the goal of living a Christian life to increase the love in the world, or to constantly condemn? There is too much anger in your soul.
Your obsession with gay people
is unlike any obsession I have
ever witnessed. Are you curious or just angry?
God is the God of all goods, including humor! Sodom and Gomorrah, indeed, yet if we can find just 5 righteous Canadians (I'm counting three already) then the country will be spared.
I'm not angry at all. It is a concern to me because sexual ethics is something I study. I think that JPII's philosophical and theological works on human sexuality are novel and beautiful. The homosexual lifestyle (and any other lifestyle that is destructive to a true understanding of sexuality) is in contradiction to the teachings of the Church and JPII's "theology of the body."
Is it bad that I devote a lot of time to attempting to explain the Church's beautiful vision for sexuality? I don't think so.
So that's it. I love the late Pope's thinking on the meaning of sex and I think it has the potential for great good in today's society. The homosexual lifestyle is in contradiction to that way of thinking, so I talk about it.
Seriously though, what law student, at some time or another, hasn't suspected the Beckster of being a lesbian. I mean, c'mon, the self-loathing is almost too much.
Hasn't anyone who has taken basic college scripture courses learned that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality, but inhospitality? Those in the Church who read an anti-homosexual agenda into this passage in particular are missing the message that the Doctrine of the Church and the whole of the Gospels embraces--that our call is to love with hospitality, to welcome the stranger. I am well aware of your views on how Christians should love homosexuals, and while I respectfully disagree, I leave that comment for another time.
Well, I'm not, but I have to ask you - what if I was? Would it be so weird for a homosexual to follow the teachings of the Church and live in orthodoxy? There are many that do, and they live a joyful life in the light of Christ, despite the cross that they carry.
Self-loathing would be a rather un-orthodox thing to do, wouldn't you say?
Our current Pope disagrees with this interpretation of Scripture (seeing the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as only a sin of hospitality). He's a bit of a Scripture scholar.
In any case, I usually don't rely on that particular piece of Scripture to make my case theologically. I prefer the basic "he created them male and female" and JPII's exegesis of Genesis in "Theology of the Body."
Still think the coincidence was worthy of mention...
Do you have any gay friends?
Yes, and why do people who disagree with me always ask me that? It's the standard question, as if my beliefs would suddenly change if my mother, brother, or best friend were gay. I think about it a lot, actually, and I can assure you that the things I say on this blog are informed by a little check that says, "Would you still say this if your best friend was gay?" I love my homosexual brothers and sisters, but that does not mean that I will encourage them to live a lifestyle that is objectively harmful to them. Au contraire, I will continue to stress that love means encouraging them to live a chaste lifestyle - the same lifestyle I encourage for myself.
That is a very fair response orthodoxyeh. God in the hizzzouse!
My prayer for you comes from the heart of Romans 2:1, where it reads: "Therefore thou art inexecusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things."
You have confounded God's message in your attempt to find his one true love. Leave what is for God to decide to God and in your heart follow the message of Christ as he spoke in the Ten Commandments:
When asked in Matthew 22, "Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law?" Jesus answered "Thou shalt love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as they love thyself. On these two commandments hang all the laws and the prophets and for those who obey them shall there be favor with my father who is in heaven."
As human beings we are imperfect. We seek truth and understanding. To each of us sit trials. For some, sexuality may be a trial. Whether this is so or not is for God and not man to decide. I pray that your faith does not blind you into righteousness. For by judging the lifestyles and choices of your fellow man, you deny the unconditional love Christ asks of us and judge in a way God forbids.
It is also worth noting that Christ said: "Not every man who call on the name of the Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but only those who do the bidding of my father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21)
I seek not a reply to my message. The reply should come from within.
In the spirit of a united love,
John
Becky,
Here's the point, babe... There are about a million and a half worse evils in the world than homosexuality. A true follower of Christ (in this anonymous person's most humble estimation) would choose a more noble, more helpful, more loving crusade than the one you have chosen. There's a lot of evil in the world, Becky... homosexuality isn't really much in the grand scheme of things...
ps -- in all of the New Testament, I can recall Jesus discussing homosexuality... never. Not once. He talked a whole lot about love, though... maybe you should use this as your guide in the future when considering where to expend your time and energy.
Sincerely,
Dad
John,
Thank you for your honest response. My heartfelt reply is that I seek not to judge but speak God's truth. I will work on doing this with more sensitivity, but I must insist that love sometimes hurt. Love includes telling people (in a loving way) when they harm themselves and others.
I am seeking only to do the will of my Father in heaven. I believe that it is His Will that I not hide his light, but proclaim it to the world. I'm sorry if this is offensive. I think you misinterpret what it means to judge.
anon,
I already explained that my concentration is in sexual ethics, not homosexuality. I am convinced that the world's problems today are the result of a messed up view of the human person and sexuality in particular. The homosexual lifestyle and the subsequent acceptance of it as normal is one symptom of this.
Summary: I do, in fact, think that bad sexual ethics is at the root of all problems and therefore is worthy of most of my attention.
And just to throw in one verse in the New Testament about homosexuality so that we all know they exist:
"That is why God has abandoned them to degrading passions: why their women have turned from natural intercourse to unnatural practices and why their menfolk have given up natural intercourse ot be consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameless things with men and getting an appropriate reward for their perversion." - Romans 1:26-27
Hmmm - was that Jesus's letter to the Romans? Nope. That dude was just tossin' the love. He had no time for your hatin'.
"Men doing shameless things with men ". I don't get it: were they playing croquet?
The sin of Sodom was ignoring the poor, according to the Book of Ezekiel.
What's the hardest part about rollerblading...?
Telling you're dad that you're gay.
As I alluded to on another thread here, I have to disagree with your assertion that "the homosexual lifestyle and the subsequent acceptance of it as normal..." is the "...messed up view..." that is the root of the world's problems.
I'm sure you have pondered this a lot, but I must point out that homosexuality has been around for a LONG-A$$ time. There are references to homosexuality in ancient Greece, Rome, the middle-ages, the colonial times, and today. World Problems then and now have not been all the same, and I just can't see the connection that our view of sexuality and the "homosexual lifestyle" (what is that anyway?...) has caused all of the problems of the world.
Basically, a logical statement according to your argument would be:
If homosexuality never existed, and humans HAD no view on the matter b/c it never was, we would not have any problems in the World.
When you consider this, it is sort of hard to believe.
Wow.. lot of random posting going on here, eh?
BLAME CANADA!!!!!!!!!
Wondertwin,
You misquoted me, or at least took what I said out of context. I said that messed up sexuality in general is at the root of all our problems, not homosexuality in particular.
If you look at Genesis, the first sin of Adam and Eve after the fall was was a sort of lust. The consequence of sin was a messed up view of sexuality. "They realized they were naked and covered themselves." Sex was no longer a perfect communion of persons, it was tainted by sin and made into something just for pleasure...
Please be nice to Becky.
It was said about people like our bloggish host "Zeal for your house consumes me, and the insults that fall upon you, fall upon me." Plus
(1) She's never done an unkind thing to anyone. at least in blogolopoland (and as far as I've known her, anywhere else).
(2) She prays for people who treat her with indignation.
(3) She evaluates fairly articulated arguments logically instead of firing back with emotive or incensed responses that define the world conclusory.
(4) She does not use the word "intolerance" every other half thought when confronted with a different perspective (one of the world's great ironies for you intolerance aficianados).
There's a this little passage in scripture. Whoever causes one of these little ones to stumble, millstone, neck, word. See, we're all little ones. And there's this big stumbling block called free will (it sort of resembles two banks separated by a tiger pit). The IDEA is that marginally intelligent minds in the span of history - Aristotle, Aquinas, the communication minister in Baathist Iraq - will nock noggins to figure out ways of getting around the perilous pit (spare me your knee jerk desire to analogize this to hellcasting). Well sure some feelings were hurt when people disagreed about how to avoid peril and unhappiness, but when they all got around for a beer and realized they were all working toward the same goal, they had a humble learning laugh about their mistakes. The best thing was everybody got a little smarter.
Then these demonic adventurers called relativists infected the camp and told everyone that any old way you think of climbing over that pit is right as rain. Braver ones suggested there was no pit at all. The grandest learned to mimic the sound TV makes when the cable's out.
As any good conquerer does, these invaders quickly made it illegal (at least by threat of social ostracism) to be anyone but themselves. Strangely, they purported to outlaw "judgment" at the same time.
Anyway, stop beating up my friendsees with anonymous invective - it's "cowardicial". Dream with me of some idyllic age when insulting a woman as you did would earn a blade through the heart before you could draw a breath for more petty giggles. (am I not entitled to my own definition of sweet charity? )
: happy face )
disclaimer. the author of this message does not advocate the life path he has chosen as appropriate generally. Being a orthodox rogue catholic bastard may case loss of friends and public respect. You also get shot first for running your mouth when the Neo-Stalinitzcheans start popping caps in anyone who believes in anything other than talking backwards. Is next Tuesday good for you ? - I'd rather go out after a good dental visit.
who would have known that andrew is even more bizarre in blogging than he is in real life? who would have even thought it possible?
ROGER (musing): I understand now...The thing i should be fighting is the terror inside of me. Something I have always been afraid of. And yet I have never admitted to myself to have existed. Pretending not to see. . . . What I should...fight against.
DOROTHY: (interrupting)"Roger Smith".
ROGER: You called me Roger Smith just now . . . And is it appropriate for me to play Roger Smith ?
DOROTHY: You said play...but thats ridiculous. You are not an actor, Roger Smith.
ROGER: Yes...that is right. R. Dorothy Wayneright . . . . My name is Roger Smith. In this city that has lost its memory. I am a negotiator.
To all those who feel Becky is passing judgment on homosexuals...A good friend of mine told me there is a huge difference between judging and speaking the Truth. We are not called to judge for only God is the true judge, but to speak and live the Truth. If we get caught up in complete tolerance—thinking that people can do whatever they please—where has God's Truth gone? We must hate the sin, but LOVE the sinner.
In a reference back to an earlier post quoting Matthew 22, the first part of that referenced verse is all about loving God with you whole heart, mind and soul. If we take this scripture verse seriously, which I do and I know for a fact Becky does, and we truly do love God with all our heart, mind and soul, would it not be out of love for Him that we stand and defend His Truth. And then out of love for our brothers and sisters in Christ help them to live a life in the light of Christ.
Do not confuse tolerance of sin with "loving thy neighbor as thy self". True love would not tolerate sin, for sin is what separates us from God, love and everlasting life. Becky's comments speaking out against the acceptance and tolerance of homosexual marriages are solely routed in her love for God and all his children and her hopes that all might be able to share in the Joy of Christ.
Peace and prayers to all…especially our homosexual brothers and sisters who need our prayers, our love and God’s Truth. <><
Twenty bucks says little flower is Tawressey.
Super-catholics, UNITE!!!! (group touches super-catholic power bracelets together).
Wierdos.
Well, it can't be 20 to 1 ALL the time, friends. Geesh.
Never thought of myself as a "super-Catholic" before. I thought I was just doing the bare minimum...
Homosexuals wouldn't exist if god didn't create them.
Ah I see... maybe a well-placed comma in your previous posting could have avoided that.
So I was in error. Easy to take something out of context online, it would appear. My bad.
It is unfortunate that there are those who seek to hide behind faith and the Church - using that faith as reasoning for their genuine bigotry.
Hopefully our blogging host and those that are seeking to spread the teachings of the Church are not like those horrible few.
We must remember there is a fine line between USING judgements and PASSING judgements.
Great discussion. I felt inspired to share the following:
Becky says what she does because she loves the truth, and also as a devout Christian, loves God and all people. Precisely becaus she wants the best for all people and for Canada (homosexuals too), and children (I really believe that children are the real victims that are forgotten in this whole "redefinition" of marriage), Becky has an intense desire to speak the TRUTH. For TRUE FREEDOM is found in the truth ("The truth will set you free"). And though we all know that "the truth hurts", in the end it is always best to live in the truth. And what is the truth? That God loves every single one of His creatures. God took on human flesh and died for every single persons because He loves them so much.
And how did He create these human beings that he loves with infinite love? This quote from Gen 1:27 captures it pretty well:"God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; MALE AND FEMALE he created them." Then it immediately continues "God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth."" Kind of interesting that this fruitfulness which is only possible through the union of a man and a woman was God's first commandment to humanity. (this was before the fall, so love for God and one another was already there).
Becky is right in saying that with the fall the true understanding of who we are and our sexuality was marred. Though it may be hard to see now we are in a fallen world, it is still fundamental to the truth of who wer are as persons (persons made for love--to love God and to love our neighbor, and in an even deeper personal way with a spouse of the opposite sex with whom a deep communion of love is possible--a love so amazing that a whole new, unique person is created in!). I don't doubt that people with homosexual inclinations don't have a very deep love for their partners--but really, you can't equate these two fundamentally different relationships.
OK, and here is my point that I want to make:
The problem with the Canadian government claiming that it can redefine "marriage" to mean simply a union between 2 persons, is that IT IS MISSING THE FUNDAMENTAL REALITY OF MARRIAGE IN THE 1st PLACE!
The media and gay marriage proponents have convinced Canadians that this is an issue of human rights: It's all about gay rights, right? Redefining marriage means giving homosexuals rights, right? And marriage is simply a deep loving relationship between 2 persons, right? So to say that only heterosexuals can have state recognition that they are in a deep loving relationship, while there are homosexuals who are in a deep loving relationship but cannot have that state recognition of being "married", is discrimination. So according to this logic, it would seem that gay marriage proponents are right, eh?
Actually, NO. (and this is where Becky has a point in saying the other day that Canadians are "brainwashed").
The problem all stems from the false notion that marriage is simply a deep and loving relationship with another person.
Marriage is so much more than that!!!! It is a relationship of self-giving love between a man and a woman (because only a man and a woman can truly be complimentary--different but equal--to each other and are fruitful) that has natural potential for bringing new persons into the world, stability to children and family (stats prove that the ideal environment for a child is in a family with a mom and a dad. True, in our fallen nature this isn't always possible, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for the ideal!).
Society DEPENDS on this reality. Becky is right to be concerned for the future of Canada, for this "redefinition" would deny this fundamental reality of exclusive relationship of men and woman who have the natural potential for bringing new citizens to society (and a reality that has been around for thousands of years--and is also why you and me are here today!!!)
This act by the government WILL have negative consequences. Just look what has happened to marriage, family life and children in Sweden and Netherlands (marriage and having children has been devalued. Less marriages, less children).
So the government has actually no right to "redefine" something that IS. They may call an apple tree a fern, but it is still an apple tree! I'm sure giving it the wrong name will confuse people though...ferns don't grow sweet edible apples...
I also just want to say that true Catholics love homosexual people, but they do not love homosexual behavior which hurts the homosexuals themselves, and others too!
God bless everyone!
Maria
Maria, you idiot. Seriously, you are an ignorant halfwit. How in the hell do you know that two people of the same sex cannot be complimentary? Have you been in any lesbian relationships lately? And how, HOW, do you contend that children are hurt by gay couples. Have you talked to these children? Have you read any research? Becky makes points based on informed opinion, which, from what I can tell, is quite respected. You, however, make these blanket assertions and then wedge in a biblical passage to try to assert your point. Half-wit.
Please try to be cordial, anonymous. If you need the research that Maria talks about, please go to the Michigan Family Forum's website and download the document "What Every Child Needs," a document I worked on last summer. The research is very clear.
Maria's statements come from reason and common sense - they don't need to be backed up by date-like proofs.
Homosexuals wouldn't exist if god didn't create them.
That's a really airtight argument.
While it's not Jesus saying, it is an inspired book of the New Testament and it seems pretty explicit when it comes to the things that will bar us from the kingdom (of course if you are an Evangelical who thinks all you have to do is accept Christ as your savior this passage doesn't make any sense):
Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites
nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)
That seems pretty explicit. But of course the Catholic argument that non-marital sex is sinful isn't based solely on Scripture. So even if we take the freaky-deaky interpretation that the Sodomites' sin was a lack of hospitality -- a laughable interpretation--that doesn't mean that there isn't a religious and a rational argument against homosexual sex.
It must be nice to hide behind anonymity (if you e-mail me at thereluctantlawyer at yahoo [dot] com, I will respond. I just don't like posting under my name on blogs because of work) and make disgusting comments like the following:
Seriously though, what law student, at some time or another, hasn't suspected the Beckster of being a lesbian. I mean, c'mon, the self-loathing is almost too much.
I mean c'mon this probably shouldn't even be dignified with a response (I dare you to e-mail me and stand behind your assinine and disgusting comment that says more about you than Becky). But having known Becky for much longer than you and having spent countless hours with her I don't even know where you begin to characterize her as someone consumed with self-loathing. She is a loving, caring, wonderful woman whose feminine genius shines through in countless and beautiful ways. She also challenges inanity that masquerades as thinking these days but is also willing to listen and address arguments. Frankly, it never occured to me that Becky might be a lesbian and this is not something doesn't occur to me about people. And what if she were? Would that undercut her argument? Of course not? Her own struggles or lack thereof are not a premise of her argument. But of course those posting anonymously here make everything personal. And what of someone who is an active homosexual/lesbian? We are called to love them and show them kindness just as we are called to show the local Don Juan love and kindness though he's engaged in destructive behavior serially sleeping with women.
I would venture to guess that each of us struggles with broken sexuality in some way or another. But the point is we are called to struggle, to ask Christ for the grace to integrate our sexuality and to live chastely. Becky's not judging. She's holding out a standard which she attempts to live herself, much more successfully, I would guess, than I do.
If the interpretation offered above for judgement were followed, this world would be even crazier.
"For by judging the lifestyles and choices of your fellow man, you deny the unconditional love Christ asks of us and judge in a way God forbids."
Are you serious? So what about a murderer (in no way am I comparing the great, great evil of murder to sodomy)? A pedophile? A rapist? Don't judge them guys, you might deny them unconditional love. That is asinine garbage. Of course you can't mean that. You mean, don't judge in the realm of sexuality. And note Becky isn't judging anyone's culpability. We can't know the state of someone's soul. What she is saying is that these actions depart from the objective norm written into the world and our bodies by God himself.
If you believe that homosexual sex is the best thing since sliced bread, then why the hell do you care what Becky or anyone says? So what? Just ignore us.
There is a different way from that given us by the world. We don't have to think that every desire we have must be affirmed by the world. I know of a priest who is a homosexual who came to terms with what he believes is a disordered sexuality before his ordination many years ago. His chaste living in light of Christ's teaching on sexuality is a great witness to me and others. He has chosen the better part -- the road less traveled.
And because it seems like a requisite for these arguments other than that priest I also have a lesbian cousin. Does that give me street cred' to discuss this stuff? Or does it make me intolerant because I am unwilling to affirm my cousin's desires?
Does JPII's "Theology of the Body" speak to any of the thousands of Roman Catholic priests who raped young boys and girls in the decades of his reign, at a rate unparralleled among any profession in modern history?
It seems like a lot of the free world feels differently, and is starting to ignore you, Reluctant Lawyer (i.e. Spain). Also, I've posted under a "real name" so that I won't be anonymous, per your request.
I think it's really easy to squash other people's desires when it isn't your own that are being suppressed - it is convenient to use religion for this purpose.
buddy elf,
Give me a break. I "squash" my own desires all the time. (Although I prefer to refer to it as channeling my desires and honing them into a chaste lifestyle) Homosexuals are from the only people that are required to live chastely - we all are. We are sexual beings, and we all have these "desires." It's what you do with these desires that triggers moral implications and therefore, the Church's teachings.
I think homosexuals are asked by the Church to give up more than the rest of the general population, in terms of family and sexuality. You have the right to marry and raise children within the Church, homosexuals do not, yet.
Priests in the Roman rite can't marry and neither can any other religious who takes a vow of celibacy. There are more than you think that do this, and they are the happiest people I know. Not everyone is called to marriage and a sexual relationship. They hold out for the better communion of love in heaven with Christ. Marriage is just a small taste of the total communion between Christ and His Beloved.
Becky, you seem like a nice kid, but seriously, a question seems in order.
How do you figure "misguided" sexual ethics are the biggest problem facing society today when people with the proper sexual ethics you espouse have done so much damage in the world? Bush told the american people that God told him to invade Iraq. He's got a wife and kids and seems to love god. But innocent people are dying.
And what about all the priests sexually abusing kids, can we get an explanation here? Is sex really the most important thing? Would it not be a greater ideal to help people who are starving or don't have health care or a place to live? There's plenty of religious folks who go out and work at missions that build hospitols and teach kids to read. You've seem to have a lot of energy, not to mention time, and if you really love people, why not act instead of talk?
You people frustrate me.
Where is GOD's love if you speak of it in a way that implies that all homosexuals are wrong? Where is the love in that? We need to love them to help them OVERCOME their predicament? My ASS.
A man and a man can't be complimentary? A woman and a woman can't be complimentary? My ASS.
Moreover, a man and a woman are complimentary? Not all of them. For example, I couldn't STAND many of the people of the opposite sex on this blog, and I'm sure we would not compliment each other. I can agree that maybe another term or another institution that is the same as marriage might be a better thing to implement than tacking on same-sex couples to marriage. I have conceeded on that point - but that does not mean that we shouldn't be able to recognize the union of two individuals.
And I can't equate same-sex coulples to heterosexual couples? EXCUSE ME miss Maria. You are severely mistaken. The love between 2 people of the same-sex can be EXACTLY the same as the love between two heterosexuals. Give me a break. Moreover, even the love between two DIFFERENT heterosexuals may be different. The ONLY difference is that one can produce children via sex and the other cannot. Maybe that is a fundamental difference a reason for maybe wanting to create a different institution that is the same as marriage for homosexual couples, but that DOES NOT cheapen the relationship in any way.
Yet I am apparently still wrong. Becky believes so, Maria believes so, (and Andrew.. well.. he has other things to say about everything).
And so we are lost people. We are getting nowhere and this is just getting silly.
The difference between the priesthood and other religious figures and homosexuals is that the religious figures make a conscious choice to give up marriage and family, whereas homosexuals never have a say. I don't think the two could be compared.
Priests make a conscious choice to follow a call that has been on their life since the beginning. Homosexuals may also choose to obey or disobey a calling to be celibate that has been on their life since the beginning.
I'm not saying that it's not hard, but it is also beautiful. Many homosexuals have accepted this cross and have made it into something beautiful by living chastely.
You might be able to say that some priests don't conciously do so, but I understand your point buddy elf.
The difference is really that one group of people is coerced into doing something, whereas the other group is not. I think "societal bullying" is a reasonable term for this.
That might be true, Becky - but for those who do not WANT to be that way, they cannot. And that is not fair when the rest of the world can.
Believe me, most priests don't WANT to be called to a life of celibacy. But they make an act of obedience and do it anyway. Homosexuals will be the same way. They aren't forced into obeying the Church's teachings. They may do so if they want to follow Christ in his Church.
While I do believe that some priests have been called to their profession from the beginning, I feel as though many priests enter the priesthood because they are out of options within in the Catholic church. I'll explain. I feel that the reason we have seen the amount of sexual abuse we have in the church is that a large proportion of priests (maybe not a majority, but a significant number) are homosexuals who, because of devout Catholic upbringings, sadly found themselves with only one option to justify their existance on Earth - the priesthood. Perhaps if the Church would be more tolerant in its views of human sexuality, it wouldn't alienate such a large number of its followers, and the Church would experience less problems in other areas (such as child molestation). Okay, now I'm rambling - apologies.
Hm... I'm not sure I can agree with you buddy elf on that one. Interesting food for thought, but I'm not entirely convinced.
Hey, let's see if we can get 100 comments!
Not rambling. I understand what you're saying. And I probably agree that some priests enter the priesthood because they feel "out of options." That doesn't mean, however, that they should. The religious life is a choice to live out God's call.
A lot of the scandals DO come from priests who entered the religious life with a messed up view of sexuality and what it means to be chaste and celibate. That doesn't mean that the Church should change it's teaching on the priestly life. It has set a standard, and most priests have beautifully held to that standard. Through that, we have reaped the rewards of their loving service.
Well, as a gay man who almost took the road myself, and who have met other people who have done the same, I can tell you that it has happened. As far as sexual abuse however, that is just speculation on my part.
buddy elf,
I know that it does happen, and I know that the Church is attempting to deal with this in the most loving way possible.
And I do think that many homosexual men join the priesthood without truly being aware of what is required of them and the sacrifice it will take. And then, I think we get things like the scandals. But again, this is not the Church's fault. Her teaching on sexuality is beautiful, and when lived out, brings much joy and happiness (for both those who are celibate and those who are married).
Obedience is hard. No one ever said it was easy. But the joy and ultimate happiness that comes - well, I can only say from experience that it is so wonderfully good to live according to God's plan.
The best way to discourage unhealthy ideas about sex (or at least pedophilia) would be to say: See what Catholic priests do, and do the opposite
I don't know who thought little flower was me, but alas, you are incorrect. I've been slaving away at work, and haven't been able to read becky's blog for a few days. Sorry! But I'm catching up now!
Looking at the scandal statistics, it looks like on average in America, 1 out of 100 priests were known to participate in abuse. That's way too many, of course, but a little to few for a blanket statement about Catholic priests, don't you think?
Correction: "to" should be "too"
I agree with Becky, I think it's unfair to make any blanket statements regarding groups of people, including priests and religious zealots.
Hm... that's what I was looking for, some stats. Agreed. Not enough for a blanket statement, but I believe buddy elf was correct in classifying it as a "...not a majority, but a significant number."
When you consider the number of priests, 1% is significant.
wondertwin,
Of course it's significant! It's a tragedy of cosmic proportions. But again, it is also significant that 99% do not engage in this behavior, when they regularly have so much contact with children and people in general. The amount of pedophilia among public school teachers (where amount of access to children is comparable) is much, much higher.
All of this boils down to one thing: you claim the shield of orthodoxy and of Truth, and I respect your fervent beliefs and what I truly believe is a purity of heart and innocence of faith that is admirable.
That said, it's my Church too. I have a mind and a heart and a prayer life. I have a conscience, informed by the teachings of the Church, the Scripture, and a deep a fulfilling relationship with God and the People of God on earth.
I respect you, Becky, and the rest of you who agree with her, for your devotion to your ideals and to the current teachings of the Church.
I also believe, however arrogant you think this to be, that the Church has been wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future, because though it too is divinely inspired, it is lead and followed by other humans--however bright, holy, and righteous they are.
I believe with my whole heart that the Church is in a crisis of many mistakes right now, and that blind allegiance to orthodoxy perpetuates them. I challenge people as do you to live a life in the Catholic faith. But I don't think that challenge precludes discussion on what God truly wants of us, even if my community, Becky, or Benedict disagrees.
All I seek is the recognition that the Catholic tradition, up until these fear-filled times, is not one of closing discussion and debate about WHO GOD IS, about WHAT WE DO TO SERVE GOD, about HOW WE LIVE TOGETHER AT HUMANS.
As I said, I respect your strength. But I feel equally strongly that it is misguided. And I feel equally at home in my Church and my Catholic faith. I don't laugh at orthodoxy--I challenge it daily to see that Revelation is the CONTINUING story of salvation history--and that maybe, just maybe, the rumblings of a few today will be the orthodoxy of tomorrow.
I am proud of my Canadian brothers and sisters in Christ who supported this step.
Becky, I agree completely. Good comparison to the teachers too - since you have to weigh pedophilia among priests to the "background" of the rest of the World in order to get a real picture of the problem and whether or not it is correlated to priesthood.
Buddy Elf, isn't the problem that homosexual priests acted out their sexuality by seducing minor boys? How is that the fault of the Church's teaching?
"Does JPII's "Theology of the Body" speak to any of the thousands of Roman Catholic priests who raped young boys and girls in the decades of his reign, at a rate unparralleled among any profession in modern history?
Of course it does. It speaks of it as a great moral evil. That's one reason that John Paul II said there was no place in the priesthood for those who engaged in such heinous acts. Also, I am not sure your claim about the abuse occurring at a rate higher than any other profession is factually accurate. Do we know that?
It seems like a lot of the free world feels differently, and is starting to ignore you, Reluctant Lawyer (i.e. Spain). Also, I've posted under a "real name" so that I won't be anonymous, per your request.
I do disagree that much of the free world is taking another (bad) approach on this stuff. Certainly, that doesn't speak to whether you are right or whether I am right, right? Give us an e-mail that we can get in touch with you instead of hiding behind anonymity. Again, I am willing to do it. Are you?
But of course much of the world, nay, most of the world has not taken the approach of Spain or Canada, right?
Thanks for your honesty, anonymous. Fortunately, there are some teachings of the Church that have never changed, and never will - and those are the teachings on fornication (any sort of sex outside of marriage).
The Church will change and continue to develop its pastoral response to this, but the essential teaching will remain the same - past Benedict, past me, past many generations until the end of time. The Church only teaches what was written on our hearts since Creation itself. A few men cannot change this.
Thanks again for the discussion - it was a discussion! I appreciate your faith.
Well, reluctant lawyer, you are still hiding behind anonymity. You have an email, but that is simple enough to give (real or fake). You might even have a profile that has A name in it... again though, the name you use may or may not be your own.
I would ask that you not criticize someone for being anonymous if you identify yourself as "the reluctant lawyer." On the internet we are all anonymous.
I respectfully disagree that the Church's teaching will always be the same, but that's fine. I just want you to know that not everyone who deeply disagrees with you is a secularist or not a catholic. Think whatever you want of me and my views--I am confident in my place in the Church and my responsibility to it. I just want to be clear that some of us reach our disagreement out of a deep and, while in disagreement on some points, abidingly traditional Catholic faith. There is room for discussion and there is room for all of our prayers. That's all.
I do appreciate your response.
Wondertwin,
If you doubt my e-mail try it. I will respond.
Of course I am anonymous in the sense that I am not posting with my name but as I said, I am willing to reveal that and discuss via e-mail. What I can't countenance is the cowardice of sniping and uncharitable anonymous comments. With a valid e-mail address one is at least somewhat accountable, no?
I think it profoundly unjust and unfair for someone to make the comment, "Seriously though, what law student, at some time or another, hasn't suspected the Beckster of being a lesbian. I mean, c'mon, the self-loathing is almost too much."
I challenge that person to reveal himself or herself (not necessarily on this blog but to e-mail me or to e-mail Becky).
We can all play that game. Seriously though, what reader of anonymous' comments hasn't suspected her to be a moral idiot devoid of rational thought. I mean c'mon, the stupidity is almost too much.
I of course am joking. I have no idea whether anonymous is a moral idiot or devoid of rational thought. I do know that there is an uncharitable ass however. (Query: is it less charitable to make some disgusting comment of this sort or to make some general principled arguments like Becky does? I think the answer is pretty clear. Becky hasn't, in this post and from my reading of her blog, made any sort of charge like this against anyone.
Someone writes: how, HOW, do you contend that children are hurt by gay couples. Have you talked to these children?
I am willing to admit that it is likely that if you took polls of those raised by gay parents or analyzed indicators like intelligence, schooling, earnings, etc. that you would probably find children of gay parents praising their experience and in many cases testing higher for intelligence and doing better in those indicators. But of course the argument is not about utilitarian measures of that sort. It is a question of moral harms.
TRL,
I do not doubt you would respond to email and that your email is not genuine, but I wanted to point out that this is not always the case and presenting an email alone should not be all you need for respect on these postings. Moreover, if you provide a fake email, you are still not really accountable.
I would like to see a lot less of the sniping (on both sides, ladies and gentlemen) though, especially since that doesn't get us anywhere.
Moral Harms? What does this mean. On the one hand you argue that homosexuality is an inherently deviant behavior that if condoned will greatly undermine the fabric of our society. You say this is not based purely on religion but on Truth guided by reason (you didn't say this exactly- I'm trying to paraphrase from the general arguments that are being made along these lines- if I'm way off base, please let me know). Yet, you then say that it may well turn out that children raised in loving homosexual families are well adjusted intelligent loving people. If there is no observable harm (i.e. there is no greater percentage of children who get screwed up by homosexual as opposed to heterosexual parents) then the only harm is the "moral harm" that these children don't grow up learning that heterosexuality is the only correct expression of sexual love. But if there is no evidence of harm, then it really is not "objective" Truth b/c it is only supported by biblical teachings on homosexuality. In this case, it is faith (admittedly perhaps guided by reasons that lead one to believe that the bible is literal Truth), but it is not some kind of objective natural truth that homosexuality is an inherently disorderd way of living.
Tara
You are thinking in terms of utility. Moral harms would be things like a schewed and distorted view of human sexuality, a damaged ability to properly intergrate one's sexual desires, and an inability to see the intelligibility and good of marriage. Now you could have a distorted sexual life that leads you into rampant promiscuity but still be incredibly successful. Think of President Clinton or a Fortune 500 CEO who sleeps around. These people are living deeply impoverished lives (and polluting our society's moral ecology) yet successful by society's measure, no?
Now let's also not discount the real moral harms that many heterosexual parents visit upon their children. It's one reason that instead of just opposing same-sex marriage we should be working to end no-fault divorce and permissive divorce laws.
Reluctant lawyer:
You just posted a comment about how sniping was a bad thing - love how you just managed to snipe in about Clinton.
Bastard
I don't think that making an observation that one very visible person in society is living an impoverished life is a "snipe."
The man committed adultery, everyone knows it, he's proud of it, so I think it's ok to say, "Clinton committed adultery and that's probably not very good -impoverished, in fact."
At least TRL didn't call him a "bastard..." *sigh*
Clinton and President Bush (the first) have done so much to raise money for the Tsunami victims. I'll take a leader like that in a second. Who cares if he got a beej from an intern. Whoop tee-do. His wife was okay with it so how can you be angered by it?
Jiggly,
Bill Clinton is a known serial adulterer. I have no idea whether he's proud of it but I used him as an example as a man who like us all has struggled. He however has struggled in ways that suggest a pretty bad handle on his sexuality and in a very public way. I don't see how that is sniping.
And I will be the first to admit that chastity is hard even for a married man. I know how much I need God's grace to avoid sin and the near temptation of sin. I can understand how a man could fall short of living out his marriage vow. But someone like Bill Clinton or take a conservative example like Deal Hudson (see here http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7162 and here http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn081904.htm) seems to think that he is exempt from the 10 Commandments. Perhaps not. Maybe Bill Clinton really has a horrible sexual addiction (which may well be the case) but my point was that he was capable of great wordly success while struggling morally.
His wife was okay with it so how can you be angered by it?
His wife was okay with it? I really don't think that is the case. Reports had them sleeping separately for quite awhile. That she didn't leave her husband says nothing (and in fact is commendable in my mind).
Maybe, but I still wouldn't say that he is living "an impoverished life..."
honestly, thank God for all the religious nutjobs at Notre Dame Law. While they're fighting the good fight against homosexuality, I'm studying hard and taking the jobs they don't want.
Thanks!
Yours truly,
Du Lac Frat
COCAINE... CHEAP!!! BUY NOW!!!
Reluctant Lawyer,
For some reason, you provoke anger in me. My name is Andy Bolton, I have no qualms about introducing myself on here. I'm glad you think you are a badass for offering your email and then challenging others to do the same. I'll remind myself to run if I meet you in a dark alley. Oooor, I may just fall over laughing. Get a life. By the way, buddy elf = Andy Bolton.
PS. Who are you to call a life impoverished. Last I checked, that was a decision for God to make by himself - I seriously doubt he needs your help, or your proclamations.
Andy,
I don't think I am a badass. I was attempting to make people who were insinuating disgusting things own up to them.
I am sorry that you were offended by my use of the term impoverished to describe debauched lives. But I am not sorry because I regret having said it -- in fact I stand behind it -- but because you seem not to recognize this as a possibility. I think sleeping around, getting fellated (sp?) by an intern, etc. does real moral harm to those acting in such a manner. Could I be wrong? Of course. But I am willing to bet my life on the fact that I am not.
But all of this focus on rules and evils and impoverishment misses the real point and that is there is a person who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. These hard words and sayings are just clanging cymbals if we don't dig deeper to the source and fulfillment of all our desires. That person is Christ. He changes everything and brings us joy. So ulitimately battles over same-sex marriage don't matter because there was a man 2000 years ago who changed everything and is the answer to the question in Bill Clinton's heart, my heart, your heart. Now of course encountering him changes us and demands that we respond and will often mean that we will have to break down the hardness of our hearts with his grace to become more fully human.
I guess what I am trying to say is that everything here today has been debate -- often in snarky tones -- about sex. Well there is someone who answered these questions and answered our longings and he lives and dwells among us and to paraphrase Matt Lickona I get to eat him every Sunday (and heck everyday if I want) in the Holy Eucharist. Imagine that I eat God; Christ comes to me. I know people are going to think I am a nutjob (a term already used I think in this thread) but that's okay. I don't think I am God nor do I think I am above him nor do I think that I somehow can justify living in opposition to his call mediated and taught to us by the Church.
reluctant lawyer,
My point is that I guess I'm missing how you can define this as a moral harm based on reason rather than pure religion if we can't see the moral harm. Are we supposed to just trust that though there is no discernible harm, somehow, magically heterosexual marriage is the only legitimate expression? I think that it's hard to make an argument based on reason that homosexual relationships are truly destructive and bad without relying on a faith that though we can't see it, these are somehow morally destructive. That's what I was attempting to say. I think that this argument is often said to transcend religion by calling it some kind of natural or intrinsic evil. I don't see this at all. I can understand this argument with say the abortion debate. That comes down to an argument about whether a fetus is a human life deserving of rights. That argument does not depend on purely religious teaching, but reason about the propriety of taking a human life. I'm not trying to open up the abortion debate here- just drawing a distinction. I fail to see how homosexual behavior is somehow intrinsically wrong apart from religious belief.
So Buffy, season 5. Buffy is concerned she isn't going to be able to defeat Glory. She's on a self-doubt binge and asks Spike to teach her about how he was able to kill two slayers during his time. After ordering him some buffalo wings, he gives his life story but refuses to tell her how he did it. To give her a kernal of an example before she gets too upset, he corners her at the pool table. As he launches an unexpected assult, Buffy reaches for a pool cue to use as a stake. Before she can attack, Spike has already grabbed her arm and vamped out.
He explains, a slayer always has to go for her weapon first. The enemy has his weapon within him.
I read a lot of sincerity in these posts. There's a lot of really smart people behind them. I know they can do more than just reach for that pool cue in a panic, reach for the tired words like bigotry, or a targeted kind of meanness for their classmates. Instead, learn from your enemy. They aren't reaching for a stick to throw, they're channeling something from within. If they're wrong about who you are, fine, but you've got to believe in who you are first to convince them. (Kurt Russel sez: "Play your game. Play your game!") I'm just not feeling it. If it's there, well, you're only hiding it with pain and anger. It's a rare bird to love and understand himself ipso facto. You're not the only persons in the world who feel persecuted for their beliefs. At the very least, you can have that as a beginning of compassion - to suffer with.
If you like my comments, tell others. If you don't, tell . . . well just keep it a secret and tell people I'm smart and funny anyway.
Old lady: He called you a cowboy. What are you ?
Spike (Speigel): Just an ordinary bounty hunter, ma'am.
umm... andrew is smart and funny. ;-)
Post a Comment
<< Home