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

Skip to comments.

In defense of Catholic teaching on homosexuality
St. Paul Pioneer Press ^ | 02/11/2008 | PAT PHILLIPS

Posted on 02/12/2008 5:29:53 PM PST by Zender500

In concluding her Jan. 30 column about homosexuality and the Catholic Church ("It's not a mortal sin to work for justice"), Mary Jean Smith writes: "The archbishop and others are wrong on this issue. I am not guilty of mortal sin. It is not a sin to love my daughter and work for justice on her behalf."

Here is what Archbishop John Nienstedt actually said:

"Those who actively encourage or promote homosexual acts or such activity within a homosexual lifestyle formally cooperate in a grave evil and, if they do so knowingly and willingly, are guilty of mortal sin," he wrote. "They have broken communion with the church and are prohibited from receiving Holy Communion until they have had a conversion of heart, expressed sorrow for their action and received sacramental absolution from a priest."

What Smith fails to see (or at least acknowledge) is that we can, we may and we must judge actions. It's not the person who is attracted to the same sex whom the church says is bad. The church, in fact, demands that all persons love and respect all other persons as reflections of God himself. It's the surrender to the impulse to act, sexually, on that attraction. That surrender is what the church judges to be wrong. We must love our children and others, but not the sins they commit. Any form of sexual action between two people of the same sex is inherently wrong. It obviates the purpose for which that faculty is intended, procreation.

The author finds "it strange that any reference to persons of homosexual orientation is always reduced to sexual acts." That's because it's not being attracted to the same sex that is wrong, but homosexual acts. The author's story touches the heart, truly. However, it would be no less touching to hear of a son or daughter who had some other condition. The affliction does not justify taking actions that are inherently wrong. At the same time, we (everyone who responds to Christ's call to love and respect all people) are saddened at the injustice and persecution of people, particularly children, who have same-sex attraction. It is not easy to tell them that they must remain chaste, but as Nienstedt said in a further article:

"As a priest and bishop, I have the responsibility before God and in the name of Jesus Christ to call all men and women to conversion, the first step of which is recognizing sinful activity for what it is. Sometimes that is not a comfortable thing to do, but it is always the compassionate thing to do."

Smith has her facts wrong about priests. Only a very small percentage of Catholic priests, about 4 percent, abused children. And 80 percent to 90 percent of the priestly abuse attacks of minors were committed by priests (males) on post-pubescent males. See the report from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice titled "The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States."

There are good priests, of course, who are afflicted with same-sex attraction, probably some of the most caring and concerned. The vast majority do not give in to the desire for sex with another male, let alone a minor.

Nienstedt, in admonishing those who advocate and condone homosexual activity, either for their children or others, does not act on his authority alone. He is conveying the teaching of the church's magisterium, its teaching authority, as that teaching has existed since the church's inception. We are thankful for him and his insight into and readiness to take on those who, while calling themselves Catholic, misrepresent this important teaching of the church.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; US: Minnesota
KEYWORDS: anticatholic; catholic; celebratesin; disorders; homosexualagenda; manslaw; psychology; religiousintolerance; samesexattraction; sin

1 posted on 02/12/2008 5:29:55 PM PST by Zender500
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; narses; Salvation

Ping


2 posted on 02/12/2008 5:30:43 PM PST by Zender500
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zender500
That's because it's not being attracted to the same sex that is wrong, but homosexual acts.

Sure? I thought I read that "lust in the heart" is sinful.

3 posted on 02/12/2008 5:46:49 PM PST by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast ( Peel back tabs for tagline. Do not remove this label. Obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zender500
In defense of non-denominational Christian teaching on homosexuality and all sexual sin.
4 posted on 02/12/2008 5:48:31 PM PST by Bosco (Remember how you felt on September 11?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Zender500

I hope the stance is similar for incest and pedophilia, and what about animals.


5 posted on 02/12/2008 5:49:32 PM PST by Neoliberalnot ((Hallmarks of Liberalism: Ingratitude and Envy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
It's true. Jesus said it in his sermon on the mount in Matthew chapter 5.

There needs to be a complete change of heart, and the Holy Spirit is up to the task. Religion won't change a man's heart.

6 posted on 02/12/2008 5:52:40 PM PST by Bosco (Remember how you felt on September 11?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast

“Sure? I thought I read that “lust in the heart” is sinful.”

I think it depends on how far you take it. Being tempted with anything is not a sin. For example Jesus was tempted by Satan. He rebuked the temptation and was therefor sinless.

Following up on the temptation, such as imagining yourself committing what has tempted you, is a sin.


7 posted on 02/12/2008 5:52:46 PM PST by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver; 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
> Being tempted with anything is not a sin... Following up on the temptation, such as imagining yourself committing what has tempted you, is a sin.

That's a pretty fine gray line. What sort of temptation is NOT accompanied by the thought of "what if"? And who has so little imagination that they wouldn't ponder something of the choice to do, or not to do, the tempted thing.

It's hard to call it temptation if it's not attractive enough to cause one to have to make a decision.

So I guess I'd cut someone slack for imagining the act, and only denounce them for doing the act. What of starting to do it and then stopping? That too shows weakness but then courage, maybe even requiring more than not starting in the first place. Maybe...

Tough call.

8 posted on 02/12/2008 6:08:31 PM PST by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Zender500

I know 4 percent is a small percentage, but it is still much too large for comfort.


9 posted on 02/12/2008 6:16:18 PM PST by Ronin (Bushed out!!! Another tragic victim of BDS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast

You are correct.

When Jesus was giving His Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, he said that if a man looks on a woman with lust he has committed adultery. If we hate somebody we’ve committed murder.

Jeremiah 17:9 says “the heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can undersand it?” The desires of our heart are evil. And naturally inclined towards evil.


10 posted on 02/12/2008 6:16:49 PM PST by Secret Agent Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Zender500; ConservativeTrucker; SavannahJake; PaulZe; AKA Elena; Oshkalaboomboom; LikeLight; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

11 posted on 02/12/2008 6:18:36 PM PST by narses (...the spirit of Trent is abroad once more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zender500
This issue is always a constant struggle for homosexuals... when in fact it's quite simple but they don't seem to have the confidence of their convictions to just do what they want.

The struggle -- they know it's a sin in the eyes of the Catholic Church so they continue to try to get the Church to accept them on their terms. That will NOT happen ever so they may as well go off and join another Church --> like the Episcopalians or the Methodists who both accept homosexuals openly.

12 posted on 02/12/2008 6:21:46 PM PST by xtinct (I was the next door neighbor kid's imaginary friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zender500

I have long suspected that one of the reasons some supposedly Catholic parents are so non-judgmental or even celebratory about their children’s intimate activities is because the parents themselves want a pass on their own sexual incontinences, multiple marriages, contraception and abortion. Rather than risk being branded hypocrites for their faults and having to admit that they were wrong and regret their error, it is easier to pretend that there is no sin.


13 posted on 02/12/2008 6:22:03 PM PST by informavoracious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver; dayglored; Secret Agent Man; Bosco; Zender500
For example Jesus was tempted by Satan.

That's a very different thing. That was an external tempter. The "lust in the heart" kind of temptation is from, shall we say, our inner devil, or original sin; which Jesus did not have. And he specifically said that it wasn't what comes from without, but what is within us, that makes all the trouble. (He was referring to food but one could extrapolate to other things.) Disclaimer: I'm not a theologian. :)

14 posted on 02/12/2008 6:30:38 PM PST by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast ( Peel back tabs for tagline. Do not remove this label. Obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: informavoracious

Right on.


15 posted on 02/12/2008 6:31:49 PM PST by Mach9 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast

“The video proves the cop committed the action beyond a reasonable doubt. “

IMO it doesn’t really matter as none of us are without sin. The point of the article is that someone condoning sin and making excuses for sin is different than someone who has turned away from the sin and is seeking to be with God.

The former is an example of being apart from God, of setting your personal rules above Gods law. The latter is an example of someone subordinating themselves to Gods law.

Disclaimer, I’m not catholic or a theologian. This issue captures my interest as several protestant denominations have a similar problem and its nice to see someone make a stand.


16 posted on 02/12/2008 6:45:06 PM PST by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast

“Lust in the heart” is not the feeling of attraction, but the inward consent to a sin. “I would do it if I dared,” or “Hmm, wonder if I can get her drunk...” are examples of “lust in the heart.” Merely experiencing the attractiveness of a man or woman is not “lust.”


17 posted on 02/12/2008 6:56:09 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver; 668 - Neighbor of the Beast

Whoops, just noticed my cut-n-paste was from another thread. Hopefully you get my meaning.


18 posted on 02/12/2008 7:02:15 PM PST by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ronin
Actually, that post was a bit misleading. in the last 50-60 years, only 4 percent of priests ever abused any MINOR. Only a handful--Shanley, Geoghan, and a very few others--abused CHILDREN. Sixty-six percent of bishops engaged in coverups, perjury, spending church money for hush money, etc. Indicating that the bishops have been systematically selected from among the worst priests, not the best.
19 posted on 02/12/2008 7:03:50 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
“That’s because it’s not being attracted to the same sex that is wrong, but homosexual acts.”

“Sure? I thought I read that “lust in the heart” is sinful.” (668 - Neighbor ...)

You are correct. If it is adultry to look upon a woman to lust after her, one can only conclude that it is sodomy for a man to look upon another man to lust after him. That, whether physical contact is ever made, or not made.

But the modern psychology, of course contradictory to the Word of God, is to separate being a homosexual from committing homosexual acts. Or, separating being “same-sex oriented” from the acts of sex with someone of the same sex. It is the “orientation” or the lust that leads to the act.

I have seen many reports now of parents defending their children for being “same-sex oriented” somehow, while saying that they would discourage the acts. Such parents are just setting their children up for the entire death style of sodomy.

20 posted on 02/12/2008 7:20:36 PM PST by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
Indicating that the bishops have been systematically selected from among the worst priests, not the best.
How are Bishops selected? Who chooses and how?
21 posted on 02/12/2008 7:22:10 PM PST by narses (...the spirit of Trent is abroad once more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Zender500
In concluding her Jan. 30 column about homosexuality and the Catholic Church, Mary Jean Smith writes: "The archbishop and others are wrong on this issue. I am not guilty of mortal sin."

Mary Jean needs to be excommunicated. She's a stubborn public sinner who has taken the further step of repudiating her bishop on an issue where she's plainly in the wrong.

For what it's worth, Mary Jean, there is neither love nor compassion in enabling a child in a sinful relationship. It is only cowardice--the inability of a parent to tell their child that what they're doing is wrong and unacceptable, even if it means estranging that child.

Confirming someone in their sin is a worse sin, if you ask me.
22 posted on 02/12/2008 7:52:23 PM PST by Antoninus (Looks like 2008 could be McCain vs. Hussein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
....."Confirming someone in their sin".....

Romans 1: the last 4-5 verses. If you support sin, even if you don't participate, you are as guilty as the perp. That's the fallacy behind Guliani saying, I don't like abortion, but I don't want to tell a woman what she can't do........Guilty!!

23 posted on 02/12/2008 8:10:00 PM PST by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
Right, Jesus has no sin nature. "He who knew no sin became sin on our behalf" - 2 Corinthians 5:21

Also correct, His was an external temptation - not to go to the cross. Have it all here and now. Eat his fill, have the world as His kingdom.

The same power that raised Christ from the dead is also able to change lives if we would but avail ourselves of it. Sins of all sort fall by the wayside, sexual or otherwise.

24 posted on 02/12/2008 8:28:48 PM PST by Bosco (Remember how you felt on September 11?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: chuckles
I believe you're referring to Romans 1:32 - "Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Another Scripture is appropriate as well - "To him who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin." - James 4:17

That comes from the argument that Giuliani knows what the right thing is.

25 posted on 02/12/2008 8:32:58 PM PST by Bosco (Remember how you felt on September 11?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dayglored

There are always exceptions to that rule. A friend of by brothers is a conservative Catholic, a newspaper columnist who constantly stands up against evil yet all his life he has had male attraction/temptation. Yet he does not submit to his temptations nor does he entertain them. His faith is far stronger than his weakness and he refuses to let that darker side rule. His submission is to Christ and the rule of the Church. I must say that I am hard pressed (pun not intended) to think of a man I admire more!

Blessings

Mel


26 posted on 02/13/2008 4:06:16 AM PST by melsec (A Proud Aussie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: melsec
"... Yet he does not submit to his temptations nor does he entertain them."

Why would one submit to something they don't entertain? Don't let this man disappoint you. I have never heard of such a non-practicing homo or hetersexual person in mind.

27 posted on 02/13/2008 4:25:56 AM PST by moonman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Zender500; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Agitate; AliVeritas; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; BabaOreally; Balke; ..
Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

28 posted on 02/13/2008 5:01:49 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

The bishop is right, of course, in arguing that homosexual acts are sins. Jesus’ words about “lust in the heart” seem to indicate, however, that the bishop needs to rethink whether “same sex attraction” is also a sin.

Homosexuality is destructive, it kills, and it perverts the mind. These are reasons we can understand for God calling it a sin. There are probably other issues that we don’t see, but that God does see. Therefore, those things God calls sin are sin whether I understand it or not.

The bishop (and the Catholic Church) are only injuring themselves by trying to draw a distinction between priest who abuse children and those who abuse adolescents.

It sounds as if they are attempting to excuse sinful behavior. The bishop is entirely off base by bringing it up, and it plays very badly in the media and among those who support the church in its efforts to clean up its system.


29 posted on 02/13/2008 5:24:22 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain -- Those denying the War was Necessary Do NOT Support the Troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I think you need to go back and re-read this. It seems to be an editorial by a Catholic laywoman and what you are taking issue with is her opinion and she is the one who tries to minimize the damage done by pedophile priests. (Of course, I've been known to be wrong.)

The bishop seems very forceful in his views that homosexuality is a sin both in thought and deed:

"As a priest and bishop, I have the responsibility before God and in the name of Jesus Christ to call all men and women to conversion, the first step of which is recognizing sinful activity for what it is. Sometimes that is not a comfortable thing to do, but it is always the compassionate thing to do."

30 posted on 02/13/2008 5:34:45 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

You are right. There are actually 3 voice in that article. The author’s, Smith’s, and Archbishop Nienstedt’s. My quick reading did get the 3 a bit mixed up in terms of what was being advocated by whom.


31 posted on 02/13/2008 5:41:44 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain -- Those denying the War was Necessary Do NOT Support the Troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Yeah, I had to read it a couple times myself try to distinguish who was advocating which position. It seems that we have a bishop who is absolutely correct in his position, being defended by a well-meaning Catholic layperson who MOSTLY gets it, and an apostate who seems to think that Christianity should become just another new age cult.


32 posted on 02/13/2008 5:51:48 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot

The MA legislature is mulling over S905 that would repeal those “archaic” laws. Surprised?


33 posted on 02/13/2008 6:19:01 AM PST by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

We had a judge at our local court who set bail at a mere $2,000 for a pre-op tranny who along with his boyfriend kidnapped and raped a 14 year old girl because he wanted to see the tranny have sex with a girl one last time. The judge had previously been Geoghan’s lawyer.


34 posted on 02/13/2008 6:24:23 AM PST by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Zender500

“Only a very small percentage of Catholic priests, about 4 percent, abused children.”

ONLY 4 percent???? I’m guessing that’s HUGE compared to the general population.


35 posted on 02/13/2008 6:25:24 AM PST by gracesdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonman

Well put it this way - as much as is possible he makes every thought captive. I struggle with even wanting to struggle in the area of the mind most of the time.

Mel

He will not disappoint me as I don’t put my trust or hope in men.


36 posted on 02/13/2008 7:40:16 PM PST by melsec (A Proud Aussie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: moonman

Well put it this way - as much as is possible he makes every thought captive. I struggle with even wanting to struggle in the area of the mind most of the time.

Mel

He will not disappoint me as I don’t put my trust or hope in men.


37 posted on 02/13/2008 7:40:36 PM PST by melsec (A Proud Aussie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: narses

In general, they are recommended by those who are already bishops. As documented in Randy Engel’s book, The Rite of Sodomy, many bishops have been recommended by the bishops they were sleeping with.

The worst bishops in the U.S. (Bernardin, Wuerl, Niederauer, Ryan, Law, Mugavero, Cushing, Untener, McCarrick, etc., etc.) can be traced back, step-by-step, to Abp. O’Connell of Boston and Cardinal Spellman of New York. Both notorious gay bishops. They created a kind of hierarchy within the hierarchy. Engel lays out a kind of gay genealogy. Almost every bishop who has actually been caught in some kind of sexual scandal, and the worst of the enablers, are part of this group. (There have been plenty of corrupt, enabling bishops who aren’t part of this gay family tree, also.)

This is why these bishops are so malleable in the hands of the Church’s enemies. You don’t think that the pro-aborts who march up to receive Communion from “Donna” Wuerl don’t know all about him? And that he doesn’t know that they have the power (and the information) to destroy him, if he makes the mistake of becoming a Catholic?


38 posted on 02/13/2008 10:01:07 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot

What’s your point?


39 posted on 02/13/2008 10:04:52 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

I’m not sure what practical result you are looking for.

You say there’s no real distinction between homosexual acts and being attracted to people of one’s own sex.

Should it be somehow prohibited for people to be attracted to people of the same sex? I don’t how you could enforce that.


40 posted on 02/13/2008 10:10:15 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: gracesdad; Zender500

“ONLY 4 percent???? I’m guessing that’s HUGE compared to the general population.”

It would be, but not compared to the population of men afflicted with same-sex attraction disorder. About a third of the sex crimes involving children are committed by this two percent of the population.

However, I think the 4% number refers to priests who misbehaved with parishoners of all ages and both sexes. Only a tiny, tiny number actually molested children. The huge bulk — I’ve heard numbers ranging from 80% to 99% — were the archetypal predation of men who suffer from SSAD on youths past puberty but not yet to full adulthood.


41 posted on 02/13/2008 10:13:32 PM PST by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: moonman

You don’t seem to know the definition of “entertain” in this context.

In Catholic moral theology, to “entertain” a temptation is not the same thing as merely having a temptation. To “entertain” is to choose to keep the tempting thought or image in mind, to keep one’s attention on it deliberately.

Having a certain attraction, even being bothered by it, even being sometimes obsessed with it, or even suffering in the process of resisting it, is not the same as “entertaining” it.


42 posted on 02/13/2008 10:16:15 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: gracesdad

Four percent is a BETTER average than the general population.

A group that is WAY above the general population with regard to sexual abuse is public schrool teachers.


43 posted on 02/13/2008 10:19:50 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
What we are looking for is to encourage right thinking about what God says is sin and debauchery, and to discourage modern godless psychology. For example, we need to openly speak out against the kind of psychology that sends an 8 year-old little boy to school dressed as a girl (subject of other recent threads).
44 posted on 02/14/2008 6:26:06 AM PST by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

I was being sarcastic. If one group of deviants demands attention the others should also demand acceptance by Catholic teachers. Don’t get me wrong, I am in full support of the Catholic doctrine on the issue of deviant behavior is sinful and should be taught as such. Sorry for the confusion.


45 posted on 02/14/2008 11:00:03 AM PST by Neoliberalnot ((Hallmarks of Liberalism: Ingratitude and Envy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Zender500; All
Romans 1:25-27 tells us that same-sex sexual relationships are a consequence of idolatry. In other words, such relationships are a consequence of disobeying the 1ST COMMANDMENT, a major aspect of the GREATEST COMMANDMENT, to love the jealous God with all your being.

Homosexuals need to keep in mind, however, that the good news of the gospel is not about how God despises same-sex sexual relationships. In fact, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 indicates that certain members of that church had been slaves to such relationships but had been cleansed in Jesus' name. So these former homosexuals had evidently repented and accepted God's grace to straighten their lives out.

John 3:16
Revelation 3:20

46 posted on 02/14/2008 11:35:00 AM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“The bishop (and the Catholic Church) are only injuring themselves by trying to draw a distinction between priest who abuse children and those who abuse adolescents.”

I’ve heard this argument before. But, it infers to me a lack of understanding of what is being discussed in the differentiation between sexual abuse of children vs postpubescent adolecents. The point of this clarification is not to lessen the seriousness of either of these actions, but to clarify that most of the abuses were homosexual in nature rather than true pedophilia. In fact, I have read many times that often homosexuals will cultivate relationships with teenagers as a way of recruiting more into their circle.

The biggest irony in this entire subject is that liberals insist that the Catholic clergy abuses are pedophilia; and at the same time insist that the boy scouts must include homosexuals as leaders. It is obvious why the MSM does not want to clarify the true nature of the majority of the priestly abue cases. It would make their actions against the boy scouts seem ridiculous!


47 posted on 02/14/2008 11:52:23 AM PST by Gumdrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

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