Posted on 05/13/2012 9:19:33 AM PDT by markomalley
From Catholic World News:
Theologians blast US bishops on same-sex marriage
Three theologians who teach at Jesuit institutions [Jesuit schools again ... what a surprise...] –Paul Lakeland of Fairfield University, Daniel Maguire of Marquette University, and Frank Parella of Santa Clara University–blasted the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for its opposition to same-sex marriage. [A suggestion to parents of children approaching college age: refuse to help or to pay for anything for children to go to any of these schools!]
“[Cardinal Timothy] Dolan and the United States Catholic Conference are misrepresenting ‘Catholic teaching,’ [This is rich,] and are trying to present their idiosyncratic minority view as the ‘Catholic position,’ [Whose view is idiosyncratic?] and it is not,” said Maguire in an e-mail. “The bishops will stand with Dolan and the US Catholic Conference, but on this issue, they are in moral schism[ROFL! He must be getting soft in the head.] since most in the Church have moved on [to] a more humane view on the rights of those whom God has made gay.” [How many things are wrong with that? God doesn't make people "gay" (and I hate the misappropration of that word, which disguises the moral turpitude of homosexual acts). That's absurd. Even if it could be demonstrated that there is a strong "nature" argument, homosexual acts are contrary to human nature. Thus, it is far more inhumane (which term seems to me more applicable to how we treat dogs than human beings) to approve of actions that kill the soul, offend God, and create social confusion. Moreover, Maguire knows better than to suggest that Catholic doctrine is determined by majorities or shifting mores. That's just plain stupid.]
“Most Catholic theologians approve of same-sex marriage [Gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Thus, NO, Macquire, they DON'T. Furthermore, if there were a majority among those who self-identify as "Catholic theologians", such a statement would exclude them from actually being "Catholic theologians". They might be "theologians" of some sort, but they would not really be "Catholic" in an authentic sense, because they would be upholding something directly contrary to perennial Catholic doctrine.] and Catholics generally do not differ much from the overall population on this issue,” [So what?] Maguire added. Maguire, an ex-priest, has also been a stalwart defender of legal abortion. [But remember: Jesuits give him a paycheck.]
Parella said he sees “nothing in the Gospels” [Two problems: Holy Scripture is more than the Gospels alone, and Catholic doctrine is not determined by Scripture along.] that should lead the Church to oppose same-sex marriage, [piffle] while Lakeland said that the US bishops’ opposition to same-sex marriage is “not really an argument that has a theological justification.” [I can't see any justification for him to receive a paycheck from a Catholic school.]
Homosexual acts are sinful.
Same-sex marriage is NOT a civil rights issue.
Same-sex relationships cannot be true marriages.
Calling such relationship “marriages”, even legally, will not make them true marriages in the eyes of God and Holy Church.
They sound like slithery, cold-blooded bastids.
You’re right! I did mean ‘mores’. That was typing too fast.
“What percentage of “gays” were sexually molested as minors?”
Add in “or seduced,” and the figure reaches 100%.
If I believed you I would have the greatest sympathy for you and pray that you find healing and the ability to forgive. For some reason I don't fully believe you and will still pray that you find healing and forgiveness.
Peace be with you.
I think I understand why you said that, in context, because when people who publicly represent "the church" commit horrible sins, the scandal is especially shocking and wounding.
However the assertion that these sins are "rampant" in the Catholic church, is factually incorrect.
If you are really interested in understanding the research on the "who, why, when and how" of sex abuse, you would find that Priests no more likely to commit sex abuse than other men, researcher says (Link)
Penn State professor Philip Jenkins (who is not a Catholic) has written the most objective book on the subject, and he summarizes his arguments in this excellent article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "The Myth of the Pedophile Priest" (Link)
His findings can be summarized as follows:
Mind you, this is not to deny that pedophilia wherever found, is a depraved and disgusting act. Particularly so when the offender IS a priest, a group from which we have a right to expect the absolute highest standards. However, Philip Jenkins found, based on his own research and the comprehensive John Jay College of Criminal Justice study, that less than 1.8% of Catholic priests were ever implicated in any category of sexual misdeed --- in other words, over 98% were (and are) innocent.
These are the facts. Which should be important, to those who seek a fact-based view of this problem.
As for your own sufferng, I can say I have sometimes felt disgusted to the point of nausea myself. But it is wrong to let disgusted feelings take over (to "take scandal") in a way that blinds you to the truth of the Church which Christ has established for all time.
In the words of St. Francis de Sales: "He who gives scandal and drives people from the Church is committing spiritual murder. He who takes scandal --- who permits himself to be driven from the Church ---is committing spiritual suicide."
http://www.wbay.com/story/18369479/2012/05/13/trial-against-green-bay-diocese-begins-monday
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news/2003_03_22_Rohde_AbusivePriest.htm
http://www.thegaygospels.com/
All concentrated in lil' ol' Green Bay, Wisconsin.
I'm actually understating my doleful story of growing up Catholic in rural Northeastern Wisconsin and my experiences as a young man who actually considered at one time the priesthood.
Basically, they were all gay. Or they had some other type of deep personality defect.
I'm not anti-Catholic, just "anti-clerical" if you will.
——There is nothing so perverse a gay marriage.——
Absolutely. This will not end well.
Homosexual “marriage” is a meaningless term because it’s nonsensical. The movement is really a pretext for the adoption of children by homosexuals (shudder), and the propagandization of young children in government schools.
For those who are indifferent to the movement, think of yourself being adopted and raised by two homosexuals. How can anyone justify being a party to this?
It isn’t just the Jesuits. Based on my considerable experience, the American clergy is pretty gay as a group. I learned that you have to presume that a priest is gay until proven otherwise.
It is hard for me to imagine any theologian, after considering the history and tradition of the Church AND the history and tradition of the Bible, coming out with the uneducated mess that comes out of the mouths of these in this article.
I’m not proud of our Canadian and British allies in their efforts to squelch, through power of law and abolition of free speech, the religious and biblical understandings of homosexuality, but AT LEAST I know they’re GOOD READERS.
They decided against the stupid game of “It doesn’t really say that” regarding homosexuality, because they evidently took the time to read Church history and the Bible, and being LITERATE, they concluded the obvious — Church history and the Bible truly do vehemently oppose homosexuality.
These Jesuits are not theologians. They are theo-dalliants, wasting everyone’s time with an illiterate view of what is clear to everyone else.
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.