I thought a vow of celibacy was a vow of celibacy. Gay or straight, the rule is NO SEX.
If you’re going to stick to your vows, what possible difference does it make?
however it’s the specific groups that are being condemned that people take issue with (obviously).
Of course. Which is my point.
Why doesn’t the church condemn divorcees with the same veracity that it (some) condemns homosexuality?
Well, which church? I guess there are some few that still do. With regard to the Catholic Church, I agree, it should be much stronger in its stance against divorce than it is. (Although it should be said that the Church is still, officially, agin it.)
Why does it not condemn those who eat unclean flesh or wear certain fibers of clothing, as it says in Leviticus? It’s a matter of prejudice, not adherence to biblical instruction.
No, it’s a matter of religious belief. Now it’s OK for you to tell a church what it should believe, and what it shouldn’t?
Again, prejudice disguised as righteousness.
It has nothing to do with prejudice. It’s only that you disagree with the Church’s position- that doesn’t make the Church prejudiced.
And suppose the Church did follow every aspect of the Bible literally? Let’s say that the Church decided that, “hey! DualFuel is right, he obviously knows much more about our beliefs than we do! Let’s adopt OT Judaic law!” Would that make it’s beliefs any more acceptable to non-religious people?
Now it’s OK for you to tell a church what it should believe, and what it shouldn’t? No more than for the church to tell me what I should or should not believe.
It has nothing to do with prejudice. It’s only that you disagree with the Church’s position- that doesn’t make the Church prejudiced. Then explain why the church seems to selectively enforce certain elements, while glossing over others. And yes, if the church’s position is anti-gay, it is prejudiced (meaning to have a bias against.) whether you like the word or not.
No more than for the church to tell me what I should or should not believe.
If you’re going to say, “I believe in and you should, too,” that’s one thing. If you’re going to say, “I don’t hold any of your beliefs, and won’t, but you should also believe or your belief system is invalid,” that’s quite another thing.
** Then explain why the church seems to selectively enforce certain elements, while glossing over others.**
Like what? Mosaic law? I think Christians pretty much settled that question about the time of Sts. Peter and Paul. Minor dust-up, it was.
yes, if the church’s position is anti-gay, it is prejudiced (meaning to have a bias against.) whether you like the word or not.
In the first place, we should define what we mean by “anti-gay.” The Church is certainly anti-gay behavior. It is not against gay people.
More importantly, having a bias against something is not the same thing as being prejudiced. The accusation of prejudice implies that one is against something for no reason at all, without having given it the proper consideration, merely out of some uninformed distaste, or whatever. That is most certainly not the case with respect to the Church’s position on homosexual behavior, or any other behavior the Church considers a sin.
In the first place, we should define what we mean by “anti-gay.” The Church is certainly anti-gay behavior. It is not against gay people.
“Gay behavior”? I believe that the latest “behavior” they are putting their weight behind is banning the act of two adults joining into a committed, binding, monogamous union. Those wacky gays!
**More importantly, having a bias against something is not the same thing as being prejudiced. The accusation of prejudice implies that one is against something for no reason at all, without having given it the proper consideration, merely out of some uninformed distaste, or whatever. **
Where did you get that definition of Prejudice? Totally incorrect. They are synonomous.
“Gay behavior”? I believe that the latest “behavior” they are putting their weight behind is banning the act of two adults joining into a committed, binding, monogamous union. Those wacky gays!
Not this again. Can you really not see the point I was trying to make? Their is a difference between a person who’s oriented towards homosexuality, and homosexual behavior. The Church is against the latter. I realize you disagree, I’m simply trying to clarify the Church’s position.
**Where did you get that definition of Prejudice? Totally incorrect. They are synonomous. **
***Prejudice- 2 a *(1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion
** I fail to see how a determination of bigotry (at least, in the way in which most reasonable people think of classical bigotry) can apply to disapproval of a voluntary lifestyle choice which not only most religions formally disapprove of but which the majority of society at least frowns upon, all things being equal.**
Voluntary lifestyle choice? You actually used those words & believe that homosexuality is a voluntary choice? Thanks for the giggle of the day.
Majority of society frowns upon? Maybe in your neighborhood. While there is resistance to gay marriage (for now), I would hope that the majority of society in this day & age do not disapprove of homosexuality.
Disapproving of homosexuality is akin to disapproving of minorities: another form of bigotry or church-directed racism.
I appreciate your honesty and respect your views. I agree, the teachings of Jesus have in some cases been hijacked by the extremists, and it’s sometimes hard to separate the Church as a historical institution from the man it celebrates as a result.
"…the Church has suffered with the sexual abuse situation, which is largely the result of homosexual priests. "
Hmmm… this assumes that sexual abuse is a by-product homosexual behavior… It seems that is equivalent as saying that you would eliminate blacks because they are predominately criminals.
I don’t buy that aurgument… but, it definately fits into the reasoning… which is reasoning based on bigotry, bias and prejudice.
The last I looked it would be very difficult to define gay when fathers are not allowed to marry.
I don’t see why that is.
Well, the sentence taken out of context doesn’t make sense… but, tell me… exactly how do tell if someone is gay? The stereotyping does not always apply. Which is why the following is correct…
What if a father is gay but never tells anyone? In that situation, I guess that makes him OK as a priest.
And it would make it hard to enforce the ban, as well.
Exactly… so where is the justification for banning gays then. This sounds more like a political statement designed for window dressing.
there a infuence difference between the potential effect on the congregation or is just church politics between differentiating between a ORDAINED Gay person and non-ordained gay person? Those seem like some strange differentiations to me.
Uh . . . why is that
Well… that is a good question. You used the term “ordained” in your original post - as if it made some kind of difference.
It seems, the reputation of the church is more in question… and, the simple fact is this… the CC church finds it acceptable to blame gay’s for a problem that is not likely be gay based in cause… in fact, it’s probably not. And, the likelihood is that it will only make gay priests actually lie about being gay.
This smacks of the typical ignorance by those who find it easy to blame all ills of sexual abuse on gays… it seems that the CC finds it much easier to blame a sexual preference than it is to look at it’s own miscomings. Why blame the institution when it is much easier to promote a version of bigotry.
FWIW Joe Moya
this assumes that sexual abuse is a by-product homosexual behavior
I don’t think so. It only assumes what’s already in evidence: the vast majority of the cases involve abuse of a male. It assumes, in other words, that the priests who carried out the abuse are usually homosexual. The syllogism that says that since most of the priests involved in the abuse cases were homosexual, most homosexuals are sexual abusers is obviously not valid.
It seems that is equivalent as saying that you would eliminate blacks because they are predominately criminals.
No. It would be equivalent only if the priesthood was infested with a bunch of criminals, who upon closer inspection all happened to be black, and if there was some reasonable justification for believing that they committed their crimes due to being black.
Well, the sentence taken out of context doesn’t make sense… but, tell me… exactly how do tell if someone is gay? The stereotyping does not always apply.
I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that we line up all the seminarians and look for the ones with limp wrists and a lisp, Joe. I suppose the easiest way is to ask.
Exactly… so where is the justification for banning gays then. This sounds more like a political statement designed for window dressing.
I’m not sure why you think that because a ban might be difficult to enforce it isn’t justified. The justification, as I’ve said, is that the Church has found that it has a serious problem with gays in the priesthood. Not simply by virtue of the sexual orientation, but because many of them simply do not believe in what the Church teaches about homosexuality, and have actively undermined Church teaching on the matter. Now, if a homosexual man disagrees with the Church on the issue, that’s fine. But it seems unreasonable to me to insist on some right to the priesthood, if that’s the case.
You used the term “ordained” in your original post - as if it made some kind of difference.
It does. That’s what we’re talking about, isn’t it? Whether or not gay men can or should be ordained to the priesthood?
the simple fact is this… the CC church finds it acceptable to blame gay’s for a problem that is not likely be gay based in cause
Again, the sex abuse scandal is not the only factor in this decision. But even if it were, I think it’s not entirely settled that the problem isn’t gay based in cause. Not by a long shot.
it seems that the CC finds it much easier to blame a sexual preference than it is to look at it’s own miscomings.
Or it might be that this is one step in correcting those mistakes. I think the issue is partly this: The Church has in the past several decades ordained many, many homosexual priests. Many of those priests did not share the Church’s beliefs about sexuality, and were not committed to living by those beliefs, or teaching about those beliefs. While it is probably the case that a gay man** ***could *do so, recent experience has not shown that many will.
***Prejudice- 2 a *(1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion Bias- **a. **A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment. **b. **An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.
Fine. In which case the Catholic Church is neither prejudiced nor biased against homosexuals.
Happy?
Or both.
No, as I’ve said, the Church has solid grounds for opposing homosexual behavior. It isn’t a matter of uninformed prejudice reached without thought, and just because you disagree with it does not make it so.
I wonder if you think the Church is prejudiced for opposing adultery?
Voluntary lifestyle choice? You actually used those words & believe that homosexuality is a voluntary choice? Thanks for the giggle of the day.
Majority of society frowns upon? Maybe in your neighborhood. While there is resistance to gay marriage (for now), I would hope that the majority of society in this day & age do not disapprove of homosexuality.
Disapproving of homosexuality is akin to disapproving of minorities: another form of bigotry or church-directed racism.
Hmmmm…you’re so misdirected that it’s hard to know where to begin. I’ll start by saying that you’re the perfect illustration of the old story about Pauline Kael, the NY Times’ theater/movie critic: She was stunned when her preferred presidential candidate didn’t win the election. She remarked that she couldn’t see how that was possible, as everybody that she knew (which was probably people confined to the Manhatten area) voted for her guy. Same with you. You’re likewise constricted in your view. I’m pretty sure that *everybody *that you know thinks the same way you do about homosexuality, the evil Catholic Church and so forth.
We’ve had this argument about homosexuality previously on this forum. Suffice it to say that not much, if any (so far) evidence has yet passed muster that proves that homosexuality, other than possibly being a *predisposition, *is not a voluntary, conscious behavioral decision on a person’s part. Call it what you will.
Poll after poll, survey after survey, and state ballot after state ballot has proven that society’s tolerance for *certain *homosexual demands, the right to a full and unfettered marriage being primary among them, has its limits. Not to mention such natural law arguments as the complementarity of the sexes, which mitigates against homosexual-exclusive pair bondings.
You’ve made the blanket assertion that disapproving of homosexuality is akin to disapproval of minorities. This doesn’t stand up to the logic or science test. To begin with, a minority (say, a black person) is defined by a totally benign (that is, something that one is born with and cannot change, no matter what) characteristic. Also, you haven’t proven that homosexuals as a class (and it’s one of the wealthiest and highest educated classes in our society) suffer a disproportionate and unfair burden, other than that others in a society don’t agree, again, with what is still considered to be a voluntary lifestyle choice.
Now, I’m sure that the view is slightly different on both coasts (and I’ve lived on both, so I’m aware that there might be a somewhat higher propensity to be accepting of an alternative lifestyle…though even California voters, in a previous referendum, declined to allow homosexual marriage), but I again point to the fact that so-called “defense of marriage” initiatives have been overwhelmingly successful at the ballot box in generally most every state in which they’ve been put to a vote of the people.
You cannot logically make the argument that disapproval of a homosexual lifestyle automatically equates to some sort of discrimination against minorities, much as you cannot logically automatically expect that homosexuality is worthy of categorization as a protected class.
T.
I imagine that 40 years ago Casey would have dismissed the civil rights movement as relativism too. What a good way to dismiss a serious ethical issue. Good ditto head thinking.
The bottom line is that discrimination against gays is the last socially acceptable form of bigotry in the US. So bigots can feel free to discriminate against them institutionally, just as they did 50 years ago with blacks. Fortunately, I do see progress, and my guess is that, in another 30 years, we’ll see Rick Santorum, and other retro-minded folks like him, being remembered much as Strom Thurmond was at the end of his blighted career. Bigots usually end up on the wrong side of history.
Would it make you happier if they allowed gays to be priests? Would it change your opinion of the CC or Christians in general?
See, this is the problem if the churches try to accomodate all people and all viewpoints instead of sticking to the bible for guidance. You will never please everyone and will only end up watering down the bible to please the relativists who change their views on the world every week.
The church has “solid grounds” for opposing many things. It doesn’t mean that they apply all of them in their current teachings. I believe the idea of eliminating all earthly wealth is a New Testament idea, but does the church advocate living in poverty so that its followers may fit through the eye of that needle? Probably not.
Personally, I couldn’t care less what the church advocates. It is an organization that you are free to agree with or disagree with, to join or disavow. They don’t need to conform to modern social standards to maintain credibility. And as long as the church, the mosque and the synagogue remain separate from our system of government, all will be free to continue practicing their beliefs without fear of losing that right.
But if they’re celibate what difference does it make???
“I don’t think so. It only assumes what’s already in evidence: the vast majority of the cases involve abuse of a male. It assumes, in other words, that the priests who carried out the abuse are usually homosexual. The syllogism that says that since most of the priests involved in the abuse cases were homosexual, most homosexuals are sexual abusers is obviously not valid.”
So, for some uhknown reason… it seems the CC has mostly gay priests that happen to be sexual predators. So, the direction to take to solve this problem is to prohibit homosexuals. Imagine that thought process was used with other minority groups. That wouldn’t be very popular… but, since it’s homosexuals… this is the approach that is taken.
"No. It would be equivalent only if the priesthood was infested with a bunch of criminals, who upon closer inspection all happened to be black, and if there was some reasonable justification for believing that they committed their crimes due to being black. "
I buy that logic… but, it doesn’t justify the CC’s idea of a “solution”.
“…I suppose the easiest way is to ask.”
Easiest? Well, probably… but, definately not the best way. If your a criminal that happens to be priest and a homosexual I guess your first instinct is say, “Heck yea, I’m a homosexual! Now, kick me out of this perfect environment for a sexual predator.” I doubt that will happen. This is why I think it just political window dressing by the CC. And, this political window dressing is at the expense of homosexuals that just that and nothing more. It’s not a solution… it only perpetuates narrow minded and bigoted thought with regard toward homosexuals.
With that said, how could that be a direction toward solving the problem… I wouldn’t…
However, it would a direction toward making the church more politically correct and transfering the blame for it’s problems.
Nope… it only makes the church look like what it is… a social institution that perceives itself as a projection of christian thought. And, I can’t think of a policy that goes more counter to that direction.
So, it seems the CC has decided on a policy that is not easy to enforce… and, only implicates homosexuals (as a group) in a negative light…and, doesn’t even solve the problem. Now - that is what I call faith based brilliance.
FWIW Joe Moya
But if they’re celibate what difference does it make???
Exactly. And if they molest children, why aren’t they booted out for breaking that vow (among other problems).