Posted on 04/09/2002 9:11:52 AM PDT by Slyfox
I did a double take also when I first read it. I do have on videotape a liberal priest and nun at the 1993 White House Inaugural recieving line when the Clinton's were letting the masses come to worship them. These two liberal religious could not have been more fawning.
Yes we do. And we know where He stands on adultery, pre-marital sex, birthcontrol, masturbation and a whole lot of other sins against the 6th commandment. Don't see many people getting upset about this kind of behavior. Sex with 16 and 17 year old young men could easily have been stopped. All the young men would have to do is say "no". They were old enough to do so. Same way with drugs. Just say "no."
Of course, all the bishops had to do was say "no" as well. Instead they said nothing at all or at most sent the abusers somewhere else. But its God's will those bishops were there and who are we to question him, right? One can't expect the Pope to get involved, either- he's too busy worrying about important things like people using condoms or a few hundred murderers being given the death penalty.
And no, these boys weren't all 16 or 17; many were 13 or 14 and kids that age are generally completely sexually inexperienced and very impressionable. I'd say a 30 or 40 y.o. priest who is in the position of authority has the greater responsibility to behave himself.
Finally, to put masturbation, pre-marital sex, and birth control in the same category as statuatory rape is completely absurd. Adultery is a darker shade of grey but at least the participants are adults and know what the stakes are.
It's all mortally sinful i.e. cuts us off from God's grace. Both the priest and the teen ager is cut off from grace. Both need to confess their sins. It's all about grace. Everything is grace.
Although off topic, I don't think those missionaries where not compassionate, however I do believe putting themselves unecessarly in harms way, to convert peoples who obviously don't want to be converted was less than noble.
Once again I don't want to start anything, so don't give me any "You don't think dying for God is noble", plz.
Perhaps you are are speaking exclusively of the Catholic Church.
I don't think those missionaries where not compassionate, however I do believe putting themselves unecessarly in harms way, to convert peoples who obviously don't want to be converted was less than noble.
They weren't trying to be "noble" they were trying to bring people to the saving grace of the gospel.
As for them not wanting to be converted, how will they know unless we tell them?
In the intellectual discipline known as logic, conclusions are based on premises.
One of Herek's premises is that people who volunteer to look at child porn are a truly random sample of persons - a foolish notion.
Another premise of Herek's is that miniscule samples using widely divergent methodologies can be extrapolated into one homogeneous result for a population of millions - another foolish notion.
Another premise of his argument is that selecting only three surveys with widely divergent methodologies from the entire literature available is good research - yet another foolish notion.
A conclusion which is based on even one false premise is valueless. A conclusion based on a variety of false premises, as Herek's is, is more than valueless - it is shameless propaganda.
No scientist is unbiased. Some just use methods that are more independently verifiable than others are.
This is far from over, scientific inquiry, that is. Just wait. I know it's a tough pill to swallow for some of you guys, but don't be scared. We're not going away and we don't bite.....hard.
I'm not sure who "we" are (I suppose you mean the amalgamated horde of sexual misfits our society has produced) and I'm not sure why you believe "science" is on "your" side. If your side is Herek's, then science has indeed been a cruel mistress for him and a great ally of we Herek critics.
Herek was among those predicting an epidemic of heterosexual AIDS in the US - an eventuality which never happened. Those of us who pointed out that the only people who had anything to fear from AIDS were perverts, addicts, persons who consort with perverts and addicts and those foolish enough to rely on municipal bloodbanks - why, we were proved correct.
The "gay gene" shell game is also falling apart - and was based on flawed reasoning to begin with.
Ahhh...the bastardization of classic terminology.
nature, n. 1.) The inherent or essential quality or constitution of a thing.
Unnatural in this context has nothing to do with prevalence in (Mother) Nature, i.e. the animal world. It is not natural for a human to breathe underwater. It is not natural for a human to fly. It is not natural for a human kidney to be able to filter all the salt out of seawater. Yet all of those qualities occur in other organisms.
The reason those things are not "natural" is that they are not part of the essential constitution of man, even though they might occur in other living things.
Let's go back to Darwin. Why did the Reproductive system evolve? To Reproduce. It's not the Pleasure system, it's not the Degrade-myself system, it's not the Be-cool-in-Hollywood system. The nature of the genitals is to generate. You cannot postulate any model of Darwinian selection whereby these organs come about for any reason other than reproduction. It is simply not possible biologically.
Homosexuality, like all sexual perversion (bestiality, masturbation, etc.), is unnatural precisely because it denies the true theological and evolutionary nature of the genitals: reproduction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.