Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ban on Same-Sex Attraction & Sexual Activity Could Be Crucial Issue for Catholics' Attitudes
NY Times ^ | September 24, 2005 | By PETER STEINFELS

Posted on 09/24/2005 1:33:27 PM PDT by NYer

News reports surrounding the review of Roman Catholic seminaries in the United States that the Vatican has organized have focused on the possibility that Rome plans to bar gay men from ordination to the priesthood, regardless of their readiness to remain faithful to their pledge of celibacy.

Such a ban would have serious consequences, of course. It would reverberate far beyond the gay candidates for ordination whom it might directly affect and even beyond the celibate gay priests who would inevitably take it as a judgment on their own calling and years of service.

In fact, the Catholic Church's moral stance on same-sex attraction and sexual activity may well prove to be a touchstone issue for the next generation of Catholics' attitudes toward church authority, just as the renewed papal condemnation of contraception proved to be for Catholics in the 1970's and 80's.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: beasty; catholic; gaypriests; homosexualagenda; pope; seminary; vatican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-123 next last

1 posted on 09/24/2005 1:33:28 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NYer

And how many faithful Catholics are on the NY Times editorial board?


2 posted on 09/24/2005 1:35:47 PM PDT by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: american colleen; Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; ...
Does anyone know if the Evangelical Churches ban gay men from their seminaries? Or is this 'unique' to the Catholic, and I would imagine the Orthodox Churches. If so, why isnt' the NYT taking them to task?

Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list


3 posted on 09/24/2005 1:36:20 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

How do they propose to measure and regulate 'same-sex attraction' exactly?


4 posted on 09/24/2005 1:39:06 PM PDT by Canard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

It's about time...at least the panzer pontiff will bring the seminaries back to where they need to be regarding this whole, wretched matter. And the NYT usual banter that it might cause further rifts as did the contraception issue did in the past; big difference there obviously.

The Church needs to not only prevent the ordination of homosexuals but also defrock those that are known. Sorry, it's better to err on the side of safety then take a chance.

How many "dry" (i.e., non-practicing) homosexuals do you know? I know none, however, I suspect there's not many to begin with, given it is central to their lifestyle to do the deed so to speak.


5 posted on 09/24/2005 1:39:19 PM PDT by john drake (roman military maxim: "oderint dum metuant, i.e., let them hate, as long as they fear")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Evangelicals ban anyone indicating a proclivity toward homosexuality from participating in any form of leadership (most give personality tests, ask lots of questions and run background checks on prospects); answer to second question - "Why isn't the NYT taking them to task?" - they do but in a much more pernicious way as a number of so-called Catholics work at NYT but they most likely would never hire an evangelical protestant.
6 posted on 09/24/2005 1:40:46 PM PDT by zerosix (Native Sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Is the Church actually banning "same sex-attraction" or is that just an agenda headline for slamming on Catholics?
7 posted on 09/24/2005 1:43:36 PM PDT by Psycho_Bunny (If you snit at the hand that feeds you, you're probably a leftist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

Probably between zero and none;)


8 posted on 09/24/2005 1:43:36 PM PDT by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Canard

By gazing into each person's soul...


9 posted on 09/24/2005 1:45:40 PM PDT by sailor4321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Can the Church afford to lose 30-50% of new priests?


10 posted on 09/24/2005 1:46:10 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Canard
How do they propose to measure and regulate 'same-sex attraction' exactly?

I'm thinking it would be the same way that they regulate "human-animal-sex attraction."

To start, don't put up the poster of Lassie, or Mr. Ed's, crotch next to the Coors Girls in your room. If you are a guy, don't brag publicly about how much you want to drive the dirt road with Tom Cuise. Pretty simple rules.

11 posted on 09/24/2005 1:46:28 PM PDT by 69ConvertibleFirebird (Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Uh huh. And the New York Times says its the beginning of the end of the Catholic Church. No wonder they're upset Pope Benedict isn't being culturally trendy!

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
12 posted on 09/24/2005 1:47:05 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 69ConvertibleFirebird

I was assuming that it would already be uncommon for any priests who had unacted upon homosexual urges to have gay pin ups on their walls, but who knows!


13 posted on 09/24/2005 1:49:55 PM PDT by Canard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Psycho_Bunny
Is the Church actually banning "same sex-attraction" or is that just an agenda headline for slamming on Catholics?

We don't know yet. The document has not come out. The scuttlebutt (and that is all it is now) is that anyone who has engaged in homosexual activity, or has strong homosexual inclinations, would be best not to apply to a seminary and not to be accepted into a seminary. Even homosexuals who have been celibate for 10 or more years should not be admitted to seminaries if they have lived a homosexual lifestyle. But we don't know

14 posted on 09/24/2005 1:50:12 PM PDT by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jess35
Can the Church afford to lose 30-50% of new priests?

Is there a reliable source for those numbers? I keep hearing the same numbers, but they are never sourced.

15 posted on 09/24/2005 1:50:15 PM PDT by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Psycho_Bunny
Is the Church actually banning "same sex-attraction" or is that just an agenda headline for slamming on Catholics?

Of course the N.Y. Times words it to make the church look bad. The church is simply following the Bible in regard to homosexuality. A headline without bias would simply be Church, Based On God's Word, To Ban Homosexual Priests.

16 posted on 09/24/2005 1:50:17 PM PDT by 69ConvertibleFirebird (Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I'm not Catholic, but it seems that homosexuals are less likely to maintain celibacy, than heterosexuals. If you get into thinking about all of this, you may form all sorts of politically incorrect conclusions, and we sure don't want to risk that, do we?
One of these days, when I can afford some really decent Sour Mash, I will write an essay on my theory, that homosexuality is an expression of neotony. If I mispelled that, oh well, what can you expect from a talking Redneck?
It will all come back to what my Daddy told me, "son, if you can't control yourself, someone else Damned sure will".


17 posted on 09/24/2005 1:50:37 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (LET ME DIE ON MY FEET IN MY SWAMP, ALEX KOZINSKI FOR SCOTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Good for the Pope!!!


18 posted on 09/24/2005 1:51:31 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: TChad

That number is based upon the estimate that 40% of the current crop of priests are homosexual. There is no factual evidence for this, just 'gut feelings'.


20 posted on 09/24/2005 1:52:59 PM PDT by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NYer; american colleen; Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; ..

Did you see any mention of what is really motivating this move to 'ban' homosexual priests?

An independent committee that investigated the sexual abuse scandal among Catholic priests concluded that the vast majority (80%) were homosexual priests engaging in sex with boys!

Why did the NY Slimes fail to mention that fact as a motivation for the possible ban?


21 posted on 09/24/2005 1:53:28 PM PDT by JulieRNR21 (Mad about a red crescent at Flight 93 Memorial? Call 1-814- 443-4557 to leave comments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Canard

Yes, of course. The Times words the article to bash the church. The church is simply saying that the actual act of homosexuality is not where they will stop with the ban. Homosexual activity that does not involve actually having sex is also banned (read - participating in homosexual chat rooms, teaching that God's Word is wrong in regard to homosexuality, etc.)


22 posted on 09/24/2005 1:54:12 PM PDT by 69ConvertibleFirebird (Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Psycho_Bunny

Advancing the gay agenda: "Same sex attraction" is the politically correct term for homosexual and gay, apparently. Next come the lawsuits suing anyone calling a homosexual a homosexual. I'll bet the ranch on it.


23 posted on 09/24/2005 1:56:24 PM PDT by Veto! ( Left Coaster with nothing to fear but quakes and volcanos--and liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper
Until the NYT can produce a diagram of how a mans penis is supposed to naturally fit up another mans rectum

No doubt they have many of these diagrams on the walls of their NY Times offices already...

Watch for what you ask for :)

24 posted on 09/24/2005 1:56:55 PM PDT by 69ConvertibleFirebird (Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

It's based on several different questionares sent to Priests. If gay priests were represented in the church in the same percentages as in society, it wouldn't be an issue, would it?


25 posted on 09/24/2005 2:00:31 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JulieRNR21
Yes, that always bothered me about reporting in general about the priest scandals. It was always "sex abuse" never "homosexual predator priests." The media have been doing all they can to define the problem of homosexual priests as nothing to do with homosexuality but sex-abuse by all priests.
26 posted on 09/24/2005 2:01:06 PM PDT by 69ConvertibleFirebird (Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Canard
It will be self-regulating.
27 posted on 09/24/2005 2:03:55 PM PDT by Mulch (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jess35
Can the Church afford to lose 30-50% of new priests?

I thin the question is actually: Can the Church afford NOT to loose the homosexual priests. God always has a plan. It works better if we follow His Word. Will a church truly prosper is 30-50% of it's leadership actively shun God's Word?

28 posted on 09/24/2005 2:07:28 PM PDT by 69ConvertibleFirebird (Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jess35

I'm inclined to just say that's a pretty stupid question, but instead I'll ask what all these queer priests have already cost everybody - their victims, the Catholic faithful, the scandalized outsiders? Then, after all that, comes the huge sums of money these perverts have forced us to pay out.


29 posted on 09/24/2005 2:12:10 PM PDT by Emmett McCarthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
That number is based upon the estimate that 40% of the current crop of priests are homosexual. There is no factual evidence for this, just 'gut feelings'.

My gut feeling is that the 25%-50% figure does not come from reliable studies, and should not be cited. But that's just a feeling. I don't pretend that it is a fact.

30 posted on 09/24/2005 2:19:15 PM PDT by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Psycho_Bunny
Is the Church actually banning "same sex-attraction" or is that just an agenda headline for slamming on Catholics?

The upcoming "instruction" from the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education will reaffirm the church's belief that homosexuals should not be ordained.

In recent decades, Vatican officials have stated several times that gays should not become priests because their sexual orientation is "intrinsically disordered" and makes them unsuitable for ministry.

The latest document is scheduled to be distributed within weeks, just as an evaluation of all 229 American seminaries gets under way under the direction of the same Vatican agency developing the seminary statement. The review, called an Apostolic Visitation, was ordered by Pope John Paul II in response to the U.S. clergy sex abuse crisis which erupted in 2002. Among the questions the evaluators will ask is whether "there is evidence of homosexuality in the seminary," according to the agency's guide for the inspections.

31 posted on 09/24/2005 2:23:18 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jess35
Can the Church afford to lose 30-50% of new priests?

What's your source for that statistic?

32 posted on 09/24/2005 2:24:15 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Emmett McCarthy
...I'll ask what all these queer priests have already cost everybody - their victims, the Catholic faithful, the scandalized outsiders?

Ignoring the huge non-financial costs, the dollar figure that keeps coming up is >$1 billion.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex21.htm

33 posted on 09/24/2005 2:30:34 PM PDT by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TChad
Its probably the same source that says 10% of the general population are homosexual (when it is 3% at most)
34 posted on 09/24/2005 2:35:12 PM PDT by escapefromboston (manny ortez: mvp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 69ConvertibleFirebird
haha I bet they do, but you know what I mean...

What are the long term health issues of living a gay life style? Obviously the anus was not naturally designed by God for the purpose of having a life time of sex. After a decade or two or four of having a penis thrusting up a mans anus, what kind of problems are there of making a bowel movement for example? What kind of intestine problems are those people having? I bet they got diseases and conditions they never even tell us about.

It's strange how the MSM never reports on a study about that. And I think the MSM been having too much of a free ride with this language of "Same-Sex Attraction".

Let's bluntly say what it is... "Catholic Church is against one man forcing his penis against the natural design of another mans rectum, where it is only biologically natural for excrement to leave the body.

Those are studies and language terms the left MSM never want to have, b ut they will tell us all day about what is wrong with the Church.
35 posted on 09/24/2005 2:35:48 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Canard

same sex attraction is a temptation, not a sin.
Homosexuality, like the tendency toward alcoholism and heterosexual promiscuity, is partly inborn, partly developed by childhood/young adulthood experiences, and so is considered an innate disorder...
people with innate disorders are usually barred from entering the priesthood or religious life (in the middle ages, if you were born out of wedlock, you needed a papal dispensation on the recommendation of your bishop if you wanted to become a priest, the idea being you might be promiscuous like your parents)...ditto for alcoholism and drugs...a person who was deeply into the drug culture should not be allowed to be a priest, because it shows immaturity or psychological problems...

So if you are tempted into same sex attraction, or into lustfulness of your eyes, you are supposed to reject the thought and ask God for help in not dwelling on the thought or not acting on it.

And you are supposed to stay away from "near occassions of sin"...if you are heterosexual, it means no Hooters or strip clubs, if you are gay, it means not living with men in monasteries, the army, or the priesthood...

a good book about how overcoming such temptations leads to holiness is Michael O'Brien's new book Sophia House...

And one more thing: Since homosexuality is an innate disorder, those who do fall into sin are less "guilty" than if a person choses to do it...to commit a mortal (serious) sin, you need to know it is wrong and then do it anyway...
So a man "hiding" homosexuality and who stays away from temptation who nevertheless falls into sin is less "guilty"(since he has an innate tendency toward that sin) than one who chooses to follow the gay lifestyle: The sin is not the sex, but the chosing of a promiscuous lifestyle that opens you to sinful actions...

All of this is true not just for sexual sins, but for anger, greed, etc...

and pride, not sexual sin, is the highest sin...saying my ideas are right and God is wrong is the highest sin...


36 posted on 09/24/2005 2:36:59 PM PDT by LadyDoc (liberals only love politically correct poor people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

Your Daddy was a wise man:

"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites--in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity;--in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption;--in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere: and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
-- Edmund Burke


37 posted on 09/24/2005 2:55:00 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The NY Times is clueless. The new generation of Catholics who support gay rights are for the most part do not attend mass, and havent stepped foot in a parish in years.


38 posted on 09/24/2005 2:57:12 PM PDT by RFT1 ("I wont destroy you, but I dont have to save you")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

Check this out:

http://www.freerepublic.com/~scripter/#index

It contains links to the entire Homosexual Agenda Archives, organized by subject. If you spend a little reading time, you'll find out all you want to know and likely more than you wanted to know about the health hazards associated with same sex activity.


39 posted on 09/24/2005 3:02:25 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jess35; JulieRNR21; 69ConvertibleFirebird; TChad; eastsider; Liz
That number is based upon the estimate that 40% of the current crop of priests are homosexual. There is no factual evidence for this, just 'gut feelings'.

The percentage of gay priests will be considerably augmented in those dioceses run by liberal bishops who make the selections of candidates. This is especially true in NYS where at least two bishops were appointed by Archbishop Jadot whose agenda was to increase the number of homosexual priests and eventually see them elevated to the College of Cardinals. He also supported the ordination of women to the priesthood. Mercifully, Jadot's bishops are now aging and will some day be replaced with shepherds in full agreement with Church teachings.

The statistics you cite appear in an article from today's edition of (a NY daily), excerpted below.

* * * * *

"A pending Vatican instruction barring homosexual men from the Roman Catholic priesthood even if they are celibate is provoking fury and fear among some priests in New York and Long Island, who worry that good men will be scapegoated and the ranks of priests decimated." />

The instruction, which has not yet been published, is said to "grandfather" gay men who have been ordained. Nevertheless, some men who described themselves as chaste homosexual priests say they are considering speaking against the document, or even resigning.

"Do you want to work for an organization that barely tolerates your existence and says that people like you can no longer be accepted?" asked one New York priest who described himself as homosexual and chaste. "What kind of self-hatred is necessary to continue in a place like that?"

While the church has long recommended against ordaining men "affected by the perverse inclination to homosexuality or pederasty," many prelates acknowledge there is a higher percentage of gays in the priesthood in the United States than in the general population - anywhere from 30 percent to 50 percent, according to some estimates - despite the church's teaching that homosexuality is an "intrinsic evil."

Conservatives have tended to blame the priestly sex-abuse crisis on a priesthood riddled with homosexuality, while liberals point to a clerical culture of secrecy. But even some conservatives expressed reservations about a blanket ban.

"For the Catholic Church not to take seriously that there has been a gay subculture in the church would be totally irresponsible," said William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. "On the other hand, I don't support a flat prohibition. I think it would demoralize those priests I know who are gay and who are celibate and who are good men.

"While it is true that most of the molesters have been gay, it is also untrue that most gay priests are molesters."

Many priests oppose the targeting of homosexuals.

"I don't think it will solve the problem," said the Rev. Andrew Connolly, pastor of St. Frances de Sales Church in Patchogue. "It seems to paint all homosexuals with the same brush and say they cannot control their sexuality, which I don't think is true."

Experts in sexual abuse also expressed skepticism.

"You can't really screen for homosexuality," said Dr. Martin P. Kafka, associate clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. "Unless they're going to do visual sexual arousal testing, I suspect that all this is going to do is drive this underground."

Kafka, who was part of a panel of experts brought to the Vatican two years ago to discuss scientific findings about molesters, said that while homosexuality is a risk factor for molestation, it is not a cause. The great majority of homosexuals are not abusers, he said.

Spokesmen for the Archdiocese of New York and the Diocese of Rockville Centre, which run seminaries, declined to comment until they have seen the document. Both of those seminaries will be inspected as part of a Vatican-ordered review of seminaries looking for evidence of homosexuality and at how seminarians are prepared for lives of celibacy.

* * * * *

Of course the good news is that those heterosexual men called to the priesthood, can now accept that calling. Many of these good men were either turned away by some of the bishops or preferred not to spend their seminary years amongst the gay seminarians.

40 posted on 09/24/2005 3:04:42 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: EdReform; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; stage left; Yakboy; I_Love_My_Husband; ...

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

If you want to read the NYT's highly slanted take on the excellent news from Pope Benedict. If Grampa Dave reads this, he can tell us about the reporters employed by the NYT. A huge percentage of them are homosexuals, and I doubt if very many are practicing and believing Catholics.

Freepmail me AND DirtyHarryY2K if you want on/off this pinglist.


41 posted on 09/24/2005 3:05:33 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LadyDoc
saying my ideas are right and God is wrong is the highest sin...

Bears repeating! Thank you for the excellent exegesis.

42 posted on 09/24/2005 3:07:47 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
"is an expression of neotony."

explaine to another redneck? Sounds comical.
43 posted on 09/24/2005 3:19:25 PM PDT by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Does anyone know if the Evangelical Churches ban gay men from their seminaries?

Given evangelicals' views on practicing homosexuals, and the lack of a celibacy requirement for closeted homosexuals to hide behind, whether evangelical seminaries outright ban them or not, there aren't a whole lot that find their way into said seminaries.

So-called "moderate" seminaries, however, are another story. And since, in some mainstream Protestant churches (e.g., my own United Methodist Church), there are liberal as well as evangelical wings, it's not unheard of for places like Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary (NOT an evangelical institution) to host pagan mock-communions, let alone give a pass to practicing homosexuals.

44 posted on 09/24/2005 3:19:50 PM PDT by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Nothing new regarding what it says in the Bible, so the fact that Catholics are getting more strict in making sure no gays become stalkers of children is a good thing.


45 posted on 09/24/2005 3:22:04 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
As Ginsberg and others seek to go with laws of other countries to apply law in their rulings, I'm just so sure they are going to put what the Vatican just did right up there...
46 posted on 09/24/2005 3:24:08 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Veto!
Advancing the gay agenda: "Same sex attraction" is the politically correct term for homosexual and gay, apparently. Next come the lawsuits suing anyone calling a homosexual a homosexual. I'll bet the ranch on it.

I think your right!...Where on earth do they have their meetings where they co-ordinate this crap?...or does the NYTimes just do it for them!

47 posted on 09/24/2005 3:29:14 PM PDT by right-wingin_It
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 69ConvertibleFirebird
Very true! As it is said:

ISAIAH 55:

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
nor are your ways my ways, says the LORD.
9 As high as the heavens are above the earth,
so high are my ways above your ways
and my thoughts above your thoughts.

48 posted on 09/24/2005 3:30:17 PM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Canard
"How do they propose to measure and regulate 'same-sex attraction' exactly?"

Penile plesmythography

49 posted on 09/24/2005 3:41:47 PM PDT by mirabile_dictu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer

A question: What about priests that molest little girls. It is odd, the Pope has not said anything about that.


50 posted on 09/24/2005 3:41:59 PM PDT by punster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-123 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson