Posted on 03/18/2011 8:25:51 PM PDT by marshmallow
UPDATE: the full report is here.
The relevant paragraphs would appear to be 22, 29 and 35:
22. It is necessary to provide a policy with guidance to clerics on the dangers of emotional abuse arising out of the inappropriate use of pastoral supervision or theological teaching.
29. The cleric as role model, as seen by children and young people is significant. This needs to be fully recognised and appreciated by the Church in Wales. Inappropriate and unacceptable conduct such as discriminatory behaviour involving aggression, bullying or attitudes such as homophobia should not be tolerated and can in some instances be emotionally abusive. This should be a professional development issue and where necessary, subject to disciplinary procedures.
35. Reference has been made earlier to the need for policy and guidance in relation to certain approaches to ministry within the Church in Wales (see 21 and 22 above). It would be appropriate to initiate a debate on the subject which would include exploring the importance of ensuring responsible attitudes towards age appropriate emotional and spiritual growth. This would ensure that the Church in Wales exercises its duty to protect children and young people from spiritual and emotional abuse.
From the Church of England Newspaper, March 18th:
On March 9, the church released the findings of an 18-month investigation conducted on its behalf by social worker Elaine Cloke of the Children’s Commissioner for Wales’ office. It called for stricter sanctions for clergy engaged in physical, emotional and spiritual abuse, including homophobic attitudes.
The investigation reviewed 1381 clergy files. Of these 219 were referred for further action.
However, the “majority of these referrals related to incomplete service records and other complaints in relation to clergy conduct and personnel issues. Of these cases only five files were identified as containing information relating to child protection and safeguarding which required further action. These were referred on to the appropriate agencies following discussions with the relevant Bishop,” the report said.
The police declined to take any action against the five clergymen.
The report offered 36 recommendations for strengthening the Church’s child protection policies, including compulsory child abuse prevention training, increasing awareness of domestic violence, and providing guidance to clergy “on the dangers of emotional abuse arising out of the inappropriate use of pastoral supervision or theological teaching.” [My italics]
Hmmm. Any further information, anyone?
So, if we disagree with them, we’re phobic?
Associating mental diseases with a difference of opinion is what Stalin did.
I agree that clerics should not discriminate against anyone -- this is Biblical. But the Bible also gives rules for dealing with someone who is in the congregation and refuses to live as they should. HOWEVER, the cleric still has the responsibility to preach what is taught in the Bible, regardless of how it is received.
Not a fear, just disdain.
HomoPhobic? Not even close.
PervertDisgust.
My deophobia exceeds my homophobia.
I agree that clerics should not discriminate against anyone — this is Biblical.”
Not “discriminate” against anyone? To discriminate against is to treat differently - how about pedophiles? Murderers? and, of course, sodomites? These are all abominations. A clergyman who doesn’t discriminate against them inside and outside the pulpit in both word and deed is unfit for office. I would also add that failing to “discriminate” is not Biblical. Our actual obligation is to use Biblical standards when we do.
Discrimination in favor of, and against, some things and some people is not only necessary and unavoidable, to fail to do so would be grossly immoral.
As I stated earlier, the congregation (not necessarily the cleric) has the responsibility to keep it membership free from "defect" (so to speak), and this is Biblical. By the way, when a congregation excommunicates a person, it is a JUDGMENT, not descrimination.
I’ll assume you mean that in the sense that “Our God is an Awesome God”.
With all that this implies.....
The Anglican Church is losing members at a record pace. Many in England are converting to Catholicism and joining the new ordinate.
Homosexuality is an intrinsic disorder. It is unnatural. It is an illness. Marxists turn everything upside down....they want to destroy Christianity...That is there no. 1 item to destroy, along with the natural family because “roles” for human beings have to be destroyed to create complete equality.
Biology is denied, Natural Law Theory is denied by these insane people....It is to make the Bible, “Hate Speech” and deny people the freedom of religion—the one religion (with Judaism) which teaches individual rights and dignity to all men and women.
They want to destroy freedom of thought —which this does—it also creates UNJUST law....forces unnatural acts to be embraced which goes against nature—which is unconstitutional in this country because our legal system is based on the laws of nature.
Marxists LIE — they are redesigning the human being to be just an animal with no moral agency. That means they can herd and enslave you. THe homosexual agenda is a Marxist one.
No.
It implies that Scripture provides all we need through faith in Christ, to perform every good work He has ever predestined us to perform.
This is a hope available to the Church of Latter Day Saints.
Whether believers accept what He provides independent of any other, is for them to decide on their own volition, through faith in Christ.
Almost. Agree on the responsibility to share and on being flexible on how that is done!
The cleric and the congregation both have an obligation, not just the congregation. “Discrimination” is judgment plus action. Excommunication is clearly discrimination.
My apologies, I confused this thread with another.
Technically, my AGAPE for God exceeds my fear of homosexuals.
I stated my DEOphobia or fear for God exceeded my homophobia or fear of homosexuals.
“Associating mental diseases with a difference of opinion is what Stalin did.”
That should tell you a lot about sodomites and their fellow travellers.
We agree in principle on the approach. I will argue that you are taking words not used in the Bible and applying them to Biblical situations where other Greek words are used. Nonetheless, your approach seems to be one I concur with.
Right.
Sorry, I wouldn’t have asked had I seen your tag line.
We do have an atheist contingent here on FR as I’m sure you know. Their fear of God is quite different from yours and mine.
Thanks.
One, I have never met or even heard of anyone who had a fear of homos. Not one, ever. Disgust, yes, but that's hardly the same as fear.
Two, parsing that word literally means a "fear of sameness". Does this imply then, that those who insist on 'diversity' must then be 'homophobic'?
So... are they Atheistic or Theophobic?
Satan is claiming victories he has not won, through his mouthpiece, the newspaper. The juxtaposition of unrelated paragraphs creates a false context, making it seem like the report is saying something it is not saying.
Paragraph 22 does NOT establish that disapproval of homosexuality is a form of child abuse, theological, emotional or otherwise.
Paragraph 29, which suggests that “homophobic attitudes” may be a form of “emotional abuse” refers to bullying by others. The role of the priest as a role model, divorced from Paragraph 22, appears related to his role in correcting the abuse of others. Properly read, then, Paragraph 29 calls for proper intercession by the priest to prevent bullying and emotional abuse among children, such as homophobic bullying. It does NOT establish that recognizing the sinfulness of fornication, such as homosexual sex, constitutes homophobia.
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.