The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionConversation on sexuality begins
Though some note missing voices, first session draws praise
Sep. 27, 2011
Audience members talk during a break at the “Learning to Listen: Voices of Sexual Diversity and the Catholic Church” conference at Fordham University in New York Sept. 16. (Alice Popovici)
NEW YORK -- One night during Holy Week last year, Kate Henley Averett was too upset to sleep, so she sat at her computer and wrote what she calls her “breakup letter with the Catholic church.” It began: “My heart is so heavy right now I’d swear it was causing serious damage to my other internal organs. I feel like I can’t quite catch my breath. It’s not quite that I can’t breathe, but that I can’t seem to be able to breathe deeply enough -- like if I could just get one giant gulp of air in my body, it would feel better, normal, not so tight, not so heavy. Do Catholics who leave the church always feel like this?”
She wrote about the teachings that inspired her and about the hierarchy’s cover-up of priests’ abuses, and about feeling worn down. “I no longer look to the church and see any of my values, my priorities, my convictions reflected back at me,” she wrote. “This place has become too foreign to me, and I can no longer call it home.” Averett said she sent the letter off immediately that night, without editing a word, in an e-mail to a few people who were important to her.
On Sept. 16, she read it to a couple hundred people gathered at Fordham University’s Lincoln Center campus in New York for a conference titled “Learning to Listen: Voices of Sexual Diversity and the Catholic Church.” It was the first of a four-part series of conferences meant to expand the conversation on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues within the Catholic church, to bring more voices out into the open so the conversation becomes, like the title of the series, “More Than a Monologue” -- “monologue” referring to the voice and perspective of the Catholic church. (More details are available at www.morethanamonologue.org.)
“I can’t pinpoint in my memory the specific first time I learned that being gay was not OK, or even when I learned what being gay was, but I can tell you thousands of stories about learning that heterosexuality was right. About all the emphasis on marriage,” said Averett, who is 29 and studying for her doctorate in sociology at the University of Texas in Austin. “It wasn’t about being told, ‘You’re wrong and you’re bad,’ but about being told what is right and what is good, and not feeling like I fit into that.”
Hilary Howes, a 56-year-old event designer and transgender activist from Washington, D.C., who said she was born “with male genitalia and a female brain,” talked about the unique position of transsexual people who are Catholic. Howes “transitioned to live as a woman” through a sex-change operation 16 years ago, and was baptized and confirmed as a Catholic eight years ago. “[I] remain in my Catholic marriage of 33 years, to the most understanding woman in the world -- making ours one of the few same-sex marriages affirmed by the Roman Catholic church,” Howes continued, drawing laughs from the audience. (A 2003 Catholic News Service article, discussing a secret Vatican document on the matter, said that the church may continue to recognize a marriage even after one of the partners has a sex-change operation. To read the article, visit the NCR Web site: NCRonline.org/node/26662.)
Preview NCR's Family Life Issue
Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.
You won't find these articles on our website. Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.
The stories came from other vantage points as well. Eve Tushnet, a D.C.-based writer who called herself “openly gay and faithfully Catholic” talked about the decision she made in 1998 to lead a life of celibacy in keeping with the teachings of the Catholic church.
Deb Word of Memphis, Tenn., talked about her gay son, who “is Catholic in a way that doesn’t let the church get in the way,” and about volunteering at a shelter for gay and lesbian teens, who wouldn’t be safe in city shelters.
Fr. John Duffell, of New York City’s Church of the Ascension, said he believes “the church is perhaps the only way of affecting change in the world,” but he added: “The church is not perfect.” To an audience member who asked, in writing, how he should deal with the feeling that he is “broken” after being told he cannot enter the priesthood because he is gay, Duffell answered: “You’re not broken, the system is broken, and therefore you deal with it as a broken system; you lie.”
A few audience members posted updates, questions and criticism on Twitter, under the hashtag #mtam2011. “Interesting start. But where are the collars? Is a convo between the marginalized moving the ball forward?” asked LLebrija.
According to New Ways Ministry: “Fr. Duffell: as a way of welcome, he frequently mentions sexual orientation in homilies. Response to him is positive.”
From Paul Snatchko: “Spoke with a @Fordham senior during reception at #mtam2011. He made a good point: there are no undergraduate voices on any of the panels.”
Snatchko later tweeted: “The evening panel at #mtam2011 also has no conservative voices. All speakers in agreement. What happened to having a conversation?”
Joe Moreshead, a 20-year-old philosophy student at Fordham who is considering entering the priesthood, said he was surprised by the direction of the conversations. “I expected it to be a discussion of church teaching, but instead it kind of assumed that church teaching was wrong -- and I wasn’t expecting that,” he said. “I didn’t agree with a lot of their [panelists’] conclusions, but I was impressed with its thoughtfulness.”
Overall, audience members -- including theology students, retirees and others mingling at a reception before the evening panel -- praised the event.
“It’s very encouraging to me because it’s coming from an institution of higher learning,” said 82-year-old Erma Durkin of Maryland. “The church better start catching up with them.”
Bill, a 77-year-old retired naval officer from New Jersey, said the event was “a great eye-opener,” and added: “I get a certain consolation from realizing that there were a lot of people growing up as I did, with the same problems, the same uncertainty, the same pain.” Bill, who attended with his partner, asked to be identified only by first name because some family members don’t know he is gay.
Fordham theology professor Christine Firer Hinze, a member of the faculty planning committee who organized the conference, estimated that about 400 people filtered in and out of the auditorium throughout the day, including a few Catholic priests. She said the panelists were not “a perfect representation of everyone in the church,” but that “our approach to this was that the Catholic church teaching is the context for this whole conversation.”
“What was very striking to me and moving,” Hinze said, “was the love for the Catholic church that came through in all the voices.”
[Alice Popovici is an NCR correspondent. Her e-mail address is apopovici@ncronline.org.]
Dialogue continues:
The remaining three sessions in “More Than a Monologue” are:
Oct. 1
“Pro-Queer Life: Youth Suicide Crisis, Catholic Education, and the Souls of LGBTQ People,” Union Theological Seminary, New York
Oct. 22
“Same-Sex Marriage and the Catholic Church: Voices from Law, Religion, and the Pews,” Yale Divinity School, New Haven, Conn.
Oct. 29
“The Care of Souls: Sexual Diversity, Celibacy, and Ministry,” Fairfield University, Fairfield, Conn.
Jesus had very little to say
Jesus had very little to say about sex, except in the case of the woman caught in adultery, or the woman at the well. His real anger was for those pretending to be holy who had secret sins. Hypocrisy!
With all that science has to say about people being born gay and not choosing that orientation, the church needs change its view.
A lot of young people in relationships today have sex outside of marriage. I am sure some of these people are catholic. Is it better to wait until marriage? Yes, but not because it is called a serious sin but because it lessens the need for commitment in a relationship. You could say God calls things a sin because they bring pain into our lives. Something is considered sin because the practice is bad for us.
Sexual matters have always been hard for the church to deal with openly. Part of that might be because clerics are supposed to be celibate, and have little personal experience with sexual relationships.
"With all that science has to
"With all that science has to say about people being born gay and not choosing that orientation, the church needs change its view."
Please, be specific. Where is the "born gay" study and how is there "scientific" evidence, let alone proof, that sexual orientation is pre-determined as opposed to influenced or chosen.
It is fundamentally important that an appeal to the "well of course WE KNOW stuff now that wasn't known in Biblical times" be followed by how we know it and whether it is KNOWN, or simply offered as a popular theory.
Christ also said nothing
Christ also said nothing about murder, rape or genocide so your argument isnt valid.
UPSTAIRS/DOWNSTAIRS?.........
UPSTAIRS/DOWNSTAIRS?...........Thank you, Alice, for your full report on this positive event. Unfortunately, while sincere Catholics were trying to sort out in an open dialogue a Christian approach to homosexuality, Archbishop Dolan and his enforcer, Bill Donahue, were launching the typical presidential year charade against gay marriage. The charade goes like this. The US bishops bash non-clerical gays. Right wing Republicans echo the bishops. The bishops steer wealthy Catholics to the Republicans. The Republicans keep the taxes on the wealthy low. The wealthy Catholics, e.g. Knights of Malta, FADICA, etc., then make more contributions to help Dolan, Chaput, Donahue, et al. in their futile efforts to try to bury all reports on the ongoing child abuse scandal. Meanwhile, Democrats just shamelessly keep their heads down. Adult Catholics can with good conscience handle their own sexuality without clerical coercion. Let the bishops focus on cleaning up their own house. As Richard Sipe at http://www.richardsipe.com/ has shown convincingly, celibacy is in practice often optional and clerical homosexuality is common. The big secret is out. It is time for bishops (as well as the pope) to cease this hypocrisy, which is more about maintaining power and certainly hardly about Jesus. Let us use this election to press our political leaders to adopt national legislation to protect children from all pedophiles, clerical and others. And let's tell us political leaders to stay out of our bedrooms once and for all. For an excellent statement by a prominent Catholic New Testament scholar on the biblical case for the Christian acceptance of homosexuality, I encourage you to click on to http://commonwealmagazine.org/homosexuality-church-1
How would a young person
How would a young person under the age of 18 even know for sure they were "gay" unless they were sexually active? I ask from a Catholic perspective where we all ought not be introducing young people to sexual behaviors but rather encouraging them to remain chaste....
Or are we saying that with the secular culture's drive to sexualize children at an ever younger age and encourage them to 'experiment' sexually at an ever younger age (dating when only 8 or 9), that by the time they're 13, it's to be expected and assumed that girls and boys can indeed know FOR SURE that they are certainly and for-ever either heterosexual or homosexual?
Now, if the latter is true, and they are to be assumed 'sexual active' and this sexual activity is to be utterly uncontested if not honored and promoted, how do we adults not run the risk of statutory rape, endangering the health of a child, etc. etc.?
I would suggest that with respect to minors, it's not psychologically certain that any can positively, absolutely, and morally "know for sure" that homoerotic feelings must mean that they are "queer" and hence they must forever be categorized in that most highly protected minority.
I would also suggest that with respect to bullies, that all people sin and hence, any group will include bullies. The fact that a child is bullied does not automatically make that child's ideology, politics, or moral choices right, true, or good for them or other people. But that is how it's being played right now to advance the LBGTQ agenda - as though the sad cases of teen suicide by those kids who claim to be 'gay' somehow proves that anyone who disagrees with the lifestyle can ONLY be a bully and anyone who claims to be an ally or member automatically must always be right, good, and a victim?
If bullies are wrong then bullies are wrong. For everyone.
And if adult Priests introducing minors to sexual activity is today's "worst crime imaginable" then why is it suddenly OK for adult homosexual activists, allies, and parents to be "ho hum" about introducing, promoting, supporting, encouraging, and honoring young people, minors under the age of 18, to "come out" as gay?
Sure, one is 'abuse' because the child victim of pedophila (and ephebophila) is generally unwilling....but isn't it still statutory rape or endangering youth? If not, why not?
John, Where were you between
John,
Where were you between the ages of 14 and 21? You don't have to be sexually active to have a pretty firm grasp on your sexual identity.
It is clear that many of the
It is clear that many of the young people who have committed suicide have been dishonestly labeled "gay" posthumously, when the gay lobby cynically exploits these tragedies to try to rally support for their agenda.
The evidence that is usually offered that a case was a "gay suicide" is that somebody reports that somebody else is believed to have called the deceased "gay." This really means nothing; the word "gay" is a common youth-speak synonym for "lame" or "loser."
The gay lobby should stop smearing dead kids and have a little respect for their parents' grief. Nobody wants to hear that his or her kid was "gay."
The recent case in Buffalo was truly disgraceful. Anybody who watches the kid's video can see he was a perfectly healthy heterosexual boy, who had been convinced to call himself "gay" by people who pretended they would offer him protection, while really wanting to use him for their own purposes.
"How would a young person
"How would a young person under the age of 18 even know for sure they were "gay" unless they were sexually active?"
How does the 'under the age of 18' make a difference? Would you suggest that a straight person cannot know for sure that they are straight unless they were sexually active? I knew way before 18 that I was straight....and not through sexual activity :) IMHO one cannot define/prove one's orientation only through active sexual experience--one's orientation is comprised through the intersectionality of a multitude of factors.
Cheers,
In all my almost 80 years I
In all my almost 80 years I have watched people such as these grow more and more into "cafeteria Catholics." If the Christian rules of the Bible and the Church do not please, bend them to suit yourself. Jesus, Lord and Savior is the one to learn from, not some phony priest or secret, shady professor or teacher.
This is no more than more of the same that has been growing with the aid of those who are shadows of what they tolerate and promote. The shame has come out into the open, dragging along those that hide or hid what they are.
This did not just occur recently, it has been fomenting and developing for some years. What is overlooked at individual expense is that Judgment is not to go away just because people wish to be disobedient. Judgment will be attended by the individual with no one standing along with him or her. Have your day now, God will not be mocked. He is the same today as yesterday and forever. Only the foolish change with the secular times. The gate to heaven is narrow, right? You will find it very easy to pass through the wider gate. Jesus has said so. And if He does not know what he is talking about, who does? God be with you and have mercy on you.
You are absolutely right.
You are absolutely right. Jesus would NEVER approve of these "aberrant" expressions of sexuality. So it is a choice between human freedom/dignity and the God of Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed. If you wish to live in fear and deny who you are, follow these desert gods. But if you wish to live in human freedom and dignity, reject these Bronze-era myths and embrace reality. The choice is yours. Live in slavery to mythical gods or leave in freedom with the person you love.
The Catholic Church's
The Catholic Church's problems began and continue because of their inclusiveness in accepting gay men (and women) into religious orders. It has been proven that gay clergy, not pedophiles are the true problem.
Being homosexual in itself is not a problem for a clergy member. It is when the vow of celebicy is broken that the problems arise.
Homosexuality can never be in line with God's plan because it takes away the primary work of His people-to procreate. That does not mean we shouldn't love or be sympathetic to homosexuals. It does mean we should discourage their having or adopting children and deny them the Sacrament of Marriage which is reserved for mixed sex couples.
"It has been proven that gay
"It has been proven that gay clergy, not pedophiles are the true problem."
Please provide the 'proof' otherwise you are just posting because you have a keyboard and homophobia........................
Here is a link I posted previously:http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
" Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members....................................It has also been raised in connection with scandals about the Catholic church's attempts to cover up the abuse of young males by priests. Indeed, the Vatican's early response to the 2002 revelations of widespread Church cover-ups of sexual abuse by priests was to declare that gay men should not be ordained."
"For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women. "
"Thus, these studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children. However, each of them failed to prove the alternative hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents. "
"In a more recent literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women" (p. 259).
This well known lack of a linkage between homosexuality and child molestation accounts for why relatively little research has directly addressed the issue. Proving something we already know simply isn't a priority."
"Conclusion
The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so."
Secondly, your exegesis of Genesis is really eisegesis.........
Cheers,
Joseph Kenny on Sep. 27,
Joseph Kenny on Sep. 27, 2011.
You stated:
"The Catholic Church's problems began and continue because of their inclusiveness in accepting gay men (and women) into religious orders. It has been proven that gay clergy, not pedophiles are the true problem.
Being homosexual in itself is not a problem for a clergy member. It is when the vow of celebicy is broken that the problems arise.
Homosexuality can never be in line with God's plan because it takes away the primary work of His people-to procreate. That does not mean we shouldn't love or be sympathetic to homosexuals. It does mean we should discourage their having or adopting children and deny them the Sacrament of Marriage which is reserved for mixed sex couples."
----------------------------------------
Pray tell, where has "it been proven that gay clergy, not pedophiles are the true problem"? Cite your sources, please.
"Homosexuality can never be in line with God's plan because it takes away the primary work of His people-to procreate".
If homosexuality is not in line with God's plan---why would God create homosexual animals? And God has created homosexual animals. More than 1000 species of animals representing insects, fish, reptiles, birds and mammals has been examined---and a minority of animals in each species of animals has been found that favors animals of its own gender for its mates.
Sources
(Bagemihl, Bruce "Biological Exuberance" 1999) and (Roughgarden, Joan "Evolutions's Rainbow" 2006)
The purpose of marriage is 1) the love of God; 2) the love of the couple for each other; and 3) the procreation of children.
If couples are unable to have children, should they be denied the Sacrament of Marriage?
Finally, for children to grow up healthy and well-balanced---they need to be loved and encouraged by their parents. Those parents can be a woman and a man or they can be parents of the same sex.
Working to refuse gay couples the right to adopt children----is a violation of the virtue of Justice.
In dealing with gays/lesbians---for decades the Catholic hierarchy has declared them to be "objectively disodered". But to this date, the church as not produced one iota, one shred of verifiable evidence to support its claims. It either refers to the Bible or to the Doctors of the Church (who were paid and supported by the Church) for its proof.
The Bible contains the core message of God's love for creation, and especially for human beings. It speakes to people of all cultures. But the Bible was not written to be a book kof astronomy. It is not a textbook of biology. It is not a handbook of genetics. The Bible cannot PROVE that homosexuality is CHOSEN.
Sadly, this seems to be a
Sadly, this seems to be a voice of dissent and heresy pretending to be a faithful Catholic event. However, young Catholics like myself recognize the truth the Catholic Church and Popes like John Paul II and Benedict are teaching. We will not be lied too by fundamentalist of the "sexual revelation" nor will we bow down to your false idols of sex without consequence and moral relativism.
God Bless His Church and may He protect Her teachings and Her Bishops.
Well as my kids would say
Well as my kids would say "epic fail". As for me and my house we will serve the Lord and His most Holy Catholic Church.
I have been thinking for many
I have been thinking for many years as this problem came to light that homosexuality is latent in all of us. It is a stage of intimacy that we go through. First our mother (in the womb), after we are born we gather intimacy with father and siblings -if there are some -later with other kids outside the home and between ages 8-12 or so "best friends" whom we share secrets and games. After that comes puberty and intimacy broadens to the other sex. When any of our stages find a block, we have trouble with going into the next one and feel isolated. We stay immature in our intimacies.
The main block is the one between best friend sexes. We should be able to let go somewhat our same gender best friends and move into opposite gender best friends. Not feeling able to be best friends with the opposite sex is an immature intimacy stage. Many things may cause it but treating it could be as simple as obtaining an opposite best friend to be intimate with. Intimate means sharing feelings, likes, dislikes. Share secrets, share fun things, likes and dislikes, politics, charitable giving action, family gatherings, or anything that a person can open up inner thoughts, likes and dislikes. Having a close oppposite gender friend is necessary -even a brother or sister. A really good marriage is defined as best friends.
“I no longer look to the
“I no longer look to the church and see any of my values, my priorities, my convictions reflected back at me.” From the above article, it appears that this line of thought is common with the presenters and most of the audience at this conference. It assumes that the purpose of the church instituted by Christ and perpetuated by the apostles and their successors is to conform its teachings to individual conscience, rather than for the members of the church to conform their consciences to 2,000+ years of authoritative teaching on faith and morals.
This view may (emphasis on the MAY) be some version of Protestantism, with the appeal to individual interpretation, but it is impossible to define it as Catholic, unless one envisions a future Catholicism devoid of authority - which of course would not be Catholicism at all, since Catholicism without authority is Protestantism.
It is of course true that "the church is imperfect" insofar as the church is its members, and its members are all sinners and therefore imperfect. However, if the church teaches error, for example declaring a behavior sinful when it is not, then not only is the church "imperfect," but its teachings are unreliable. If its teachings on marriage and sexuality are unreliable, then its teachings on truthfulness, justice, charity etc. are unreliable, too, no?
Starting off a vocation to priesthood with a lie because the lie is justifiable? Why be a Catholic priest at all if the price of admission is a sin?
Honestly, where is any shred of Catholic thought to be found anywhere in the many quotes sprinkled throughout this article, other than Mr. Morsehead's observation?
"rather than for the members
"rather than for the members of the church to conform their consciences to 2,000+ years of authoritative teaching on faith and morals."
These 'authoritative teaching(s) on faith and morals' you write of, do they include raping children and then 'covering up' that practice through deceit? Does it include the discrimination against women which JPII apologized for in his "Letter to Women"......while continuing to oppress them:
"Unfortunately, we are heirs to a history which has conditioned us to a remarkable extent. In every time and place, this conditioning has been an obstacle to the progress of women. Women's dignity has often been unacknowledged and their prerogatives misrepresented; they have often been relegated to the margins of society and even reduced to servitude. This has prevented women from truly being themselves and it has resulted in a spiritual impoverishment of humanity. Certainly it is no easy task to assign the blame for this, considering the many kinds of cultural conditioning which down the centuries have shaped ways of thinking and acting. And if objective blame, especially in particular historical contexts, has belonged to not just a few members of the Church, for this I am truly sorry. May this regret be transformed, on the part of the whole Church, into a renewed commitment of fidelity to the Gospel vision. When it comes to setting women free from every kind of exploitation and domination, the Gospel contains an ever relevant message which goes back to the attitude of Jesus Christ himself." (par 3)
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-i...
Does in include silencing and excommunicating people who voice a thought or follow their informed consciences? (Bishop Morris, Fr. Bourgeois, Leonardo Boff, Oscar Romero, Sr. McBride and the family in Phoenix that Olmsted abused and then excommunicated....to name a few...)
"unless one envisions a future Catholicism devoid of authority - which of course would not be Catholicism at all, since Catholicism without authority is Protestantism"....perhaps you should take this issue up with Jesus because he, being our model, defied the 'religious authorities' of his tradition, a tradition he believed in and followed, throughout the gospels.....
"If its teachings on marriage and sexuality are unreliable, then its teachings on truthfulness, justice, charity etc. are unreliable, too, no?"
This type of thinking, either/or (black or white), is unfortunately non-productive and circular. Both/and is better and is less "sure" on one level;on another level it is the only sure path to follow because we must follow Jesus, we must rely upon him. We can see that even the apostles did not understand Jesus but they knew they had to follow him. Generally, Jesus was not an 'either/or' teacher--recall in the gospels when Jesus said, "You have heard it said......but I say to you......." (Matt 5)
Cheers,
Truthteller on Sep. 28,
Truthteller on Sep. 28, 2011.
You stated:
(“I no longer look to the church and see any of my values, my priorities, my convictions reflected back at me.” From the above article, it appears that this line of thought is common with the presenters and most of the audience at this conference. It assumes that the purpose of the church instituted by Christ and perpetuated by the apostles and their successors is to conform its teachings to individual conscience, rather than for the members of the church to conform their consciences to 2,000+ years of authoritative teaching on faith and morals.
This view may (emphasis on the MAY) be some version of Protestantism, with the appeal to individual interpretation, but it is impossible to define it as Catholic, unless one envisions a future Catholicism devoid of authority - which of course would not be Catholicism at all, since Catholicism without authority is Protestantism.
It is of course true that "the church is imperfect" insofar as the church is its members, and its members are all sinners and therefore imperfect. However, if the church teaches error, for example declaring a behavior sinful when it is not, then not only is the church "imperfect," but its teachings are unreliable. If its teachings on marriage and sexuality are unreliable, then its teachings on truthfulness, justice, charity etc. are unreliable, too, no?
Starting off a vocation to priesthood with a lie because the lie is justifiable? Why be a Catholic priest at all if the price of admission is a sin?
Honestly, where is any shred of Catholic thought to be found anywhere in the many quotes sprinkled throughout this article, other than Mr. Morsehead's observation?)
----------------------------------------
The Catholic Church operates within time, place and cultures. The Catholic Church is not ABOVE history. Even Jesus lived within history, and person of his time and culture.
Apparently, you Truthteller, seem to have imbibed the intoxicating brew poured out by the hierarchial Church that states that laws of the Church can "remove the Church from the variations, mutations and competitions that occur in history" (Cardinal Gianbattista Re, 2009). In other words, if the people follow orders from Rome, they can be above history.
But nobody who has lived on this earth---saints, sinners, emperors, kings, popes, or anyone else---is above history. Secondly, your concept of 'authority' is strictly that of a monarchy. Are you aware that for centuries---the pope was 'the first among equals'. He did not RANK above his brother bishops.
Your ideas came from Pope Gregory VVI (1831-1848) who opposed freedom of conscience, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, separation of Church and state, forbade the use of railways in the Papal States, and banned streetlights (so folks would not gather under them at night to plot against him).
Source "Mirari Vos" 1832.
Finally, Jesus NEVER stated that he was beginning a "Church". There IS NO word for "Church" in the Aramaic tongue (a derivitave of Hebrew). Aramaic is the language that Jesus spoke. Saying to Cephas (Peter), that he (Jesus) would build a Church upon Peter---would have made no sense at all to Peter or to any of the disciple who followed Jesus. Churches did not exist in Israel. There was the Temple (Jerusalem) and there were synagogues in other towns and villages. But there were NO CHURCHES.
Could anyone, anywhere please
Could anyone, anywhere please explain to me how a relationship that is anatomically incompatible and ontologically incorrect be on par with the lifegiving relationship of a man and a women?
Frankie, You are aware that
Frankie,
You are aware that some heterosexual couples engage in the same type of sexual practices attributed to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, right?
If memory serves one of the papal decrees or encyclicals OK'd it as long as the couple finished up with 'traditional' sexual intercourse. If my memory is distorted someone will undoubtedly correct me!
Perhaps you might enlighten us with how you determined and described gay and lesbian relationships as ontologically incorrect? :)
Cheers,
It's good to hear that really
It's good to hear that really old people are still supporting homosexuality. GET WITH THE TIMES, GRANDMA! Today's Catholic youth (like myself: I'm less than a third of the age of these people!) don't support abortion, don't support homosexuality, and we DO support our Blessed Mother, her Son, and Pope Benedict!
Rex Humana and the Catholic
Rex Humana and the Catholic Catechism are very explicit that Homosexual Sodomy is a Mortal sin and is disordered. This is not unlike the Catholic churche's comdemnation of Incest, Bigamy, Polygamy, Polandry, and Bestiality.This is why the largely Homosexual priests praying on young post puberty males largely thirty years ago over too long a time ther church had taken belated steps lt to expel the Homosexual priests from the clergy. Sadly For Decades the bishops sent Homosexual priests to consuling at places like the Hartford Int. of Living in Ct..They ignored church canon law and followed the monumentaly bad advice from the Counseling and Phyciatric professionals in past decades instead of booting them out of the clergy. Studies by non Catholics indicate that 70 percent of Homosexuals such as Chaz Bono were abused as youngsters.This is why they are homosexuals to begin with. That is why the Catholic and other faiths put Homosexual sodomy in the same category with Pedophilia and Incest etc.. Those other perversions-Bigamy, incest etc. are sexual orientations as well which why the Catholic faith(Rex Humana and Catholic catechism) condemns ALL of them for the exact same reason.
I have read an article in a
I have read an article in a recent Liguorian online magazine, where the author highlights Cardinal Wuerl, and his service and fairness to the people of God. The article stated that while he thought the concept of marriage was one man and woman--there was a possibility that same sex unions could be called by another name. I think it's a great solution, as long as the same legal, state, federal and civil rights were granted. Many gay lifepartners call their committment ceremonies--Holy Unions. Indeed, if two people, no matter in what combination, make a vow to love and care for the other, the rest of their lives to God--Well, what does anyone have to say against it? It is now between the higher power of God and the couple--not the regulation of any church.
A very odd article, beginning
A very odd article, beginning with wanting to see one's own values reflected back at oneself. I always thought we looked to the Church to find Christ's values (purity, humility, patience, mercy etc.) reflected back at us, at least in Church teaching, if not neessarily in the sinners who make up the Church on earth. Instead, I now know it is simply an echo-chamber for our own thoughts.
First, to be Catholic means
First, to be Catholic means you believe the chair of Peter to be infallible in terms of faith and morals. That's the HUGE difference between Catholics and our protestant friends. Once they split, they split into 40,000 denominations because no one can agree. There are 6 major sects of lutheranism now. So if you say the pope is a liar, hiding the truth, etc, you immediately negate any and all Catholic teaching on any topic of faith or moral values. The pope is either 100% protected by the Holy Spirit or not. There's no in between as a Catholic. Which means The Blessed Virgin may not be a virgin, or, contraception is okay, or that divorce is okay, or that abortion is okay. This doesn't mean we lap it up like dogs, it means we have to learn, study, read, listen, observe.
For example, why is it that marriages that do not contracept are 300% less likely to end in divorce? Before saying you don’t agree with the church, I guess I would ask, have you read all that the church has to say about this matter. Encyclicals, papal bulls, other official documents, to see why the mind of the Church is saying something about any particular topic. Second, there is much evidence to refute the ‘gay gene’ and those in the research field say the research was skewed. So if you are one that basis your argument on a gay gene, your premise may be flawed which means you may have your house on sand.
Lastly, if you look at simple natural law, if being gay were natural, why is it that gay men die 10 years younger than the average straight male. This is in countries where the gay life style is accepted. This is factual information based from Netherlands and other European countries. Also, if you look at the disease rate among the gay culture, it is significantly higher, so is the cancer rate. There are things going on around the male orifice and it wasn’t designed to engage in this type of activity. I think we have to simply look at what nature is telling us. What would be the outcome of a society that has all gay people? It would die quickly. What has been the fate of societies that was open and permissible to the gay lifestyle, they do not last.
Additionally, what about the children. If a lesbian couple wants to have a baby, the invite a male friend to donate. This male friend may or may not be gay. The ‘split’ if you will, split rate, is much higher in the gay culture, so if they decide they are splitting, who’s child is it? Is it the mom who carried the child. Is it the dad who supplied the sperm, is it the other woman who lived in the house and may have raised the child for many years? This is an actual court case going on in Canada right now and this gets very messy. No one needs a court to decide who the parents are in a male-female relationship, nature decided this for us and we recognize that. But now we have courts that have to decide and if they say, all three should have rights, then what is left of the child. Anyone who has had any contact with our foster system will know that these children, who go from house to house, and even those who have been through a divorce where they bounce back and forth between mom and dad, become very unstable. And later in life, these children are much more highly prone to crime, mental illness, inability to hold down a job and end up being on social welfare programs which create a drag on society. I’m not saying social welfare programs are bad at all, but they should be used as safety nets until a person can provide for themselves. We are not meant to live off of others for long periods of time, just when we are in need. Lastly, when a mom and a dad have a child, even if they divorce, they almost always maintain a special bond with their children. A natural, caring, loving bond and anyone who has children knows that you can certainly love other children that are not yours, but there is something different about your own.
I appreciate you allowing us to comment. I guess we have different views on this.
"First, to be Catholic means
"First, to be Catholic means you believe the chair of Peter to be infallible in terms of faith and morals."
Nino,
---Not true for thinking Catholics who have taken ownership of their faith, but for non-thinking 'Roman Catholics' your statement is true.
"So if you say the pope is a liar, hiding the truth, etc, you immediately negate any and all Catholic teaching on any topic of faith or moral values. The pope is either 100% protected by the Holy Spirit or not. There's no in between as a Catholic. "
---Actually, there is a lot of 'in-between'!! Have you read this article: http://www.ncronline.org/blogs/essays-theology/shortest-pontificate-and-...
or this one: http://www.romancatholicism.org/honorius-heresy.htm
---Uh, where was that 100% protection?
"This doesn't mean we lap it up like dogs, it means we have to learn, study, read, listen, observe."
---Respectfully, sounds like that is what you are advocating, otherwise why bother to study, observe and listen if you are only going to believe the pope???
"For example, why is it that marriages that do not contracept are 300% less likely to end in divorce? Second, there is much evidence to refute the ‘gay gene’ and those in the research field say the research was skewed. So if you are one that basis your argument on a gay gene, your premise may be flawed which means you may have your house on sand."
--Please provide sources, studies or links or your own words convict you..."your premise may be flawed which means you may have your house on sand."
"Lastly, if you look at simple natural law, if being gay were natural, why is it that gay men die 10 years younger than the average straight male. This is in countries where the gay life style is accepted. This is factual information based from Netherlands and other European countries."
--Again, provide the studies that show that these men die 'because' of being gay---of course, this reminds me of the joke that says that married men die ten years earlier than married women......the punchline is that it is because they want to :) And if that is true then should heterosexual marriages be abandoned? If the percentage of married men who become alcoholics is higher than single should we disallow marriage? Not your strongest argument, Nino!
Might I suggest a book to you? It is "Navigating Right and Wrong:Decision Making in a Pluralistic Age" and Daniel E. Lee, the author, states on page 52, "Those who purport to see moral values in nature tend to pick and choose. Robins and other songbirds that provide for the nutritional needs of their offspring provide a good role model. Lions that devour their young are quite a different matter. In the final analysis, those who claim to derive ethical values from nature are in reality making certain value assumptions about nature--value assumptions that provide a screen to sort out what they like from what they don't like.. In short, instead of deriving ethical values from nature, they are bringing their set of ethical values to nature and interpreting nature in light of these values"
"Also, if you look at the disease rate among the gay culture, it is significantly higher, so is the cancer rate."
---So, should we also look at the cultures that have the highest cancer rates and from those findings suggest that God made a mistake creating that culture? That somehow 'that culture' is the REASON for the cancer? Doesn't make a lot of sense..................again, provide the studies and your sources otherwise you are just giving voice to your homophobia and fear of thinking independently of Rome. Unfortunately many people have been inculcated with this mindset.
Cheers,
I only could go as far as
I only could go as far as your first statement of "thinking Catholics". If you want to "rethink" the faith you might as well invent your own New Age religion, then go the way of the pigs in Mark 5:13: running at full speed towards the cliff and falling down through it.
"then go the way of the pigs
"then go the way of the pigs in Mark 5:13: running at full speed towards the cliff and falling down through it."
Blaze_pascal,
Thanks for your kind wishes, I don't think Christ could have said that any better! Sure does give a different light to "Treat others the way you would have them treat you: this sums up the law and the prophets" Mt. 7:12 NAB Are you suggesting, in Christian love and charity, that I'm a pig or that I am a member of the unclean spirit society called "Legion"? :) Or are you suggesting that I commit suicide? :)
"I only could go as far as your first statement of "thinking Catholics"." So, you didn't read the rest of my comments? You couldn't read past the first statement because your priest/bishop had to OK that?
Cheers,
The church really has to get
The church really has to get with the times. Jesus never had much to say on downloading and sharing music online! Its not stealing, get with the times! And he never had anything to say about sex changes either! Hello? Get with the times! And pornography? Not mentioned once in the bible!
Wait, that's why jesus left behind a church to teach in his name with his authority until the end of time? Thats why he gave them the power to bind and loose? That's why he said "he who hears you hears me"?
Nevermind.....
JaneK A lot of them are very
JaneK A lot of them are very old. Most never had a big family as they used birth control. The kids they did have walked away from the "faith" as it was told to them by their mom and dad. Thay are old and angry.
The purpose of Marriage is
The purpose of Marriage is for Man and Woman to express their love and procreate.
Homosexuals are disqualified by nature. Same sex couples should find their own title to define the relationship. Get with the Times.
I received a message to
I received a message to possibly add or say something positive about an issue, I think about the LGBT community and religion. We all know what the KJV as translated says about two men laying together as a Man (husband) and a female (wife). It says nothing about two females or those who identity as Bisexual. We are also told that we are not to judge others and that all of us have “Agency” or “Free Agency”. Agency or Free Agency is Jesus’ plan for salvation. We individuals or groups have the freedom to accept God, Jesus, and try our best to live a just life. Under his plan we can choose what, how, where, and for better or worse interpret how we understand his teachings. The scriptures say anyone who interferes with or tries to take away someone’s Agency is doomed, in hot water, or on the big NO NO list. It was Satan (Lucifer) plan to force us to believe a certain way or be doomed. We would have had to believe and do as he said with no variance, different thoughts, or interpretations of writings and teachings.
I do not care what church or religion you may be, Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, Muslim, mainstream or a non-denominational Christian. All churches and religions have a basic or general ideology, but are still affected by the local communities their meeting houses, chapels, churches they are located. Here lies the major problem and depending upon their views and beliefs often if not affect the whole church one way or another.
Within the Catholic and other big churches to gain power, be promoted or advance you need the support of many people who will desire for your progress. Unfortunately the ones that seem to be applying the most pressure to drive a church in a direction they approve of do not want you to have any Agency what so ever. Forget what the basic doctrine is, they want, no demand that their way is the only way. This is the one major problem. Being Gay, Transgender, or different may and in some instances be a problem. However, it generally is not the problem; it is the community that one lives in and their control of the church.
I can only speak of those who we call Transgender today. I am Cherokee, considered by some “Two-Spirit” and Mormon (LDS). The Cherokee are one the chosen tribes listed in the Mormon Church and can trace their ancestry directly to the Lamanites who are descendants of ancient Israelites. In recent DNA ancestry tests, some Cherokee can trace their origins directly to ancient Israel.
Why do I mention this? Because we those who are called Transgender can trace their heritage, culture, and existence throughout time and in every world culture. In every corner of the world where ancient civilizations have been found or known to exist persons as we are mentioned and the duties we held, dating as far back 10, 20, 30, 40,000 BC. What we did or those who chose to do were counselors, teachers, spiritual leaders, and guides. Guarded and protected that which was holy, served as protectors of Kings, held high government positions, protectors of the treasuries, business leaders, and more.
We the Transgender are born with the spirit gender of one (female or male) and the physical body of the opposite sex of the gender (female or male). Whether you believe or accept it is merely a birth defect or abnormally or has a spiritual purpose. There are references to us in just about every religious writings. In the KJV Matthew 19;12 we are the first group of individuals mentioned. “For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” We were born this way. We did not make ourselves this way.
From what I understand we as a people were not connected to the LGB community until the 1960‘s or 1970’s. This I believe, was and has been a mistake as most people hear Transgender and think Gay, Drag Queens and prostitutes. They as we have forgotten our past and that it was honorable duty and responsibility to the Kings, church, and God as we served him as in Isaiah 56; 4 & 5.
4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
The important thing is this whether we called Transgender, Cali, Two-Spirit, or any other name we are who we are. Whether you are conservative, liberal, gay, straight, or whatever you call yourself or associate with, we are not to judge each other, accept and protect our agency and that of others and treat each other as equals.
Some if not most say or believe we are in the last days and Satan is working his hardest to destroy not only us, our faith and beliefs, but to turn us away from God and returning home to him. How far do you have look to see great religions and churches not teaching what we should be doing as they are spouting evil, dissent, hatefulness, spitefulness, and worse.
The question is how we can change this. What can we do? First, we can start by setting the example, educating people on who we are. Second, we can start respecting each other and each other’s agency to believe as they feel. In doing so we can spread the right message.
For those Transgender interested in seeking additional spiritual connection or information, I have a yahoo group LDSTGmembers.
Jesus demanded nothing less
Jesus demanded nothing less than sexual purity. He said it multiple times in the Gospel. Obviously he endorsed the 10 commandments that demand 1.- Not to commit adultery. 2.- Not to desire your neighbor's wife. and 3.- Not to fornicate.
This is supposed to be a Catholic news site. They should know better, but apparently have no idea.
Wow! I can't believe the
Wow! I can't believe the bigotry and hatred that is wrapped up and delivered as "God's word" in the comments above, let alone the total abandonment of logical thinking, reason, or common sense.
As one example of the later, if the only reason for sex is procreation (as one commentor suggested) then should the church forbid sex when the result won't be conception? Should infertile couples be told to abstain? How about the old? The infirm?
Or let's look at the marriage argument that uses that same procreation rhetoric. Should couples that cannot conceive for any reason be forbidden from marrying? How about those who intend to use birth control? How about the marriage between a woman who is pregnant and guy who is not the father?
Should marriage be compelled between a rapist and his victim as the old testament states?
Reason tells any normally minded person that marriage is about love anc ommitment. Most do not go into marriage with a total commitment to having children right away and themn abstaining from sex after the children are born.
Nor should the church prescribe the sex acts performed by and between consenting adults.
When asked this simply question, "Should the church have an interest in preventing the marriage of two loving people?" most people would say "No".
That should be the case, too, regardless of the sexes of the people wanting to get married. I wish this energy were used doing God's work rather than getting in between two loving people. Hunger,crime,illnesses,homelessness, spreading his love - these are the things that should be talked about by devout people.
Post new comment