Posted on 04/23/2002 5:22:57 PM PDT by NYer
Edited on 07/06/2004 6:37:24 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
"I think what the behavioral scientists are telling us, the sociologists, it's not truly a pedophilia-type problem but a homosexual-type problem."
Another BUMP for Msgr. Clark!
And contempt and derision for Joe Zwilling.
These guys still don't get it.
He needs a PR firm. His first chance to say something strong and meaningful, and this is it?
Glass houses...stones...
What does all of non-Catholic Christianity now teach regarding that other, now forgotten sodomitic sin??? (At least our Church STILL teaches that ALL forms of non-procreative sex is sinful. Non-Catholic Christianity has fallen into apostacy on contraception, the result of which has been the legalization of abortion. See my profile page for further documentation.)
Martin Luther (1483 to 1546) - "Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed."
John Calvin (1509 to 1564) - Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race.
John Wesley (1703 to 1791) - "Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone, refused to raise up seed unto the brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord - And it is to be feared, thousands, especially single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.
Examining sermons and commentaries, Charles Provan identified over a hundred Protestant leaders (Lutheran, Calvinist, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Evangelical, Nonconformist, Baptist, Puritan, Pilgrim) living before the twentieth century condemning non- procreative sex. Did he find the opposing argument was also represented? Mr. Provan stated, "We will go one better, and state that we have found not one orthodox theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900's. NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it."
So what happened?
It's the old story of Christians attempting to conform the world to Christ and the world trying to conform Christians to its ways. Protestants fought bravely, but in 1930 the first hole appeared in the dike (in the Anglican Church) and lead to a flood. In the next thirty years all Protestant churches were swept away from their historic views on this subject. One interesting point is that just a few years earlier the Anglican Church condemned contraception.
In 1908 the Bishops of the Anglican Communion meeting at the Lambeth Conference declared, "The Conference records with alarm the growing practice of the artificial restriction of the family and earnestly calls upon all Christian people to discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare."
The Lambeth Conference of 1930 produced a new resolution, "Where there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, complete abstinence is the primary and obvious method., "but if there was morally sound reasoning for avoiding abstinence, "the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of Christian principles."
By the 1958 Lambeth Conference, contraception was an accepted part of life among most Anglicans, and a resolution was passed to the effect that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children was laid by God upon the consciences of parents "in such ways as are acceptable to husband and wife."
The Anglicans present an excellent microcosm of what happened among Protestant churches in the 1900s.
A constant Christian teaching was completely undone among Protestants in a mere thirty years. This brings up an unsettling choice...either the Holy Spirit was not guiding Christians before 1930 or Protestant Churches have been ignoring His guidance after 1960.
Where is the statement:"ALL members of clergy who are found EVER to have engaged in sexual relations with minors SHALL be expelled from the Church. Investigations shall begin immediately"...
Instead we get the expected generic reminder from the Pope about "abuse" and "sin", but NO SOLUTION and NO decree to clean "house."
I mean, you must be convinced based upon your own broad experience and high achievements compared to his that you know better than he does. You will forgive Catholics for begging to differ.
I don't think that homosexuals and pedophiles would ever be satisfied by a woman, nor that a heterosexual priest would prey on members of his own sex.
If there was any truth to that statement, there would be no married homosexuals/pedophiles and we all know that they do exist.
Celibacy is NOT the problem. The problem (IMHO) is that they lowered the standards when recruitments started to dry up, allowing these perverts to enter the priesthood - what better cover for their disgusting behavior than the priesthood?
Please don't compare this Pope to THAT scumbag!!!
With all due respect to both you and the Pope, even he realizes he is no more a mortal man than are you and I. Unless you see it differently?
Furthermore, you sir/madam, must be reminded of the outrage of Christ, who overturned the money-changers table at the sight of any mockery within the bounds of His Church.
Once again, pure and simple -- the Pope -- IF he is to emulate our Lord regarding the outrageously heinous sins against His children, should be making an UNEQUIVACAL statement to the effect ALL members of Catholic Clergy who have participated in such abuse (under the guise of serving the Lord) of HIS children, MUST be expelled from the Church.
Tell us -- do you you have a problem with this decree?
Did you read the Pope's statement, on the thread linked to above?
What part of:
People need to know that there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young. They must know that Bishops and priests are totally committed to the fullness of Catholic truth on matters of sexual morality, a truth as essential to the renewal of the priesthood and the episcopate as it is to the renewal of marriage and family life.
isn't clear to you?
SD
WHO is totally "committed"?? And what of "the fullness of Catholic truth"?
This is embarrassing...
WHO is totally "committed"?? And what of "the fullness of Catholic truth"?
The Bishops and priests. You see it says "..that bishops and priests are totally committed." The subject of that clause is "bishops and priests." Is this really that confusing?
What is the fullness of Catholic truth? Try reading the Catechism. It is very clear that sexuality is a gift from God to be used only within a marriage of man and woman.
That means anything else is forbidden. Do you really not know what Catholics teach about sex?
This is embarrassing...
It certainly is. To not understand a simple sentence.
SD
Quite frankly Rome MUST take a "zero-tolerance" position against perpetrators within clergy regarding ANY past, present, OR future sexual abuse towards children. I don't care how far the the offense went back, nor how "good" that particular member of clergy is today. Any other position compromises the Word of God.
As for "Catholic truths" my friend, there can be only ONE Truth...
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.