Posted on 05/03/2002 7:54:20 AM PDT by american colleen
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:07:45 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WHEN AMERICAN cardinals met with the pope last week in Rome, our attention was directed to a policy for dealing with priests who abuse minors sexually.
Should it be a policy of ''zero tolerance''? Should it distinguish between pedophilia strictly speaking and consensual sex with adolescents just under legal age? Would it apply retroactively? The cardinals, apparently unable to agree among themselves, must carry these questions to the meeting of American Catholic bishops scheduled for June.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
On the whole, I liked the article, but it does not address the question of why almost all of the victims of the non-celibate priests are young teenaged boys.
This is the darkest cloud in our horizon. For the life of me, I can't understand why they are not addressing the homosexual issue.
It would be a good thing for the bishops to follow the policy that is already in place as written in the 1961 Vatican document "Sacred Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes".
It would be interesting to know if the author is a celibate homosexual.
I'm afraid it is because homosexuality is so pervasive in the hierarchy and priesthood.
It would be interesting to know if the author is a celibate homosexual.
Yes, that would be a good thing and certainly would have spared the Church the current tribulations she is experiencing.
It seems that he might be celibate, otherwise, would he have written the following?
"The call doesn't seem to deny same-sex desires; it seems instead to complete them. A vocation to the celibate, all-male priesthood is a grace. It is also a call to act out your manhood against social expectations, outside heterosexual marriage and in the company of other unmarried men."
Although, I notice that he left out "and in the company of other [celibate] unmarried men" ..... I think one of the curses of Bill Clinton is that we feel that everything written needs to be "read between the lines."
The teenaged boys are victims because they are minors. These non-celibate priests probably had an order of magnitude more adult male sexual partners, many of them fellow priests.
It will be interesting to see if Shanley blows the lid off of the can of worms in an effort to make a deal with the DA.
Remember when the press located him last week? He jumped in a car and left his long-time "companion" (a fellow priest) on the sidewalk to deal with the press. Shanley has already sold his soul to the devil, he has absolutely nothing to lose. I'm probably wrong, but I hope Shanley sings like a canary. Lance the festering wound, so to speak.
This is what happens when an intelligent human being is informed more by academic influences and doctrines than by the clear teachings of Scripture. When sin penetrates the intellect, we get essays about "Catholic homoeroticism," as if somehow there is legitimacy to be discovered, if one looks deeply enough. When Truth is discarded, you can find (little "t") "truths" just about wherever your sinful eyes want to take you.
1 Timothy 4 1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Matthew 7 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
This paragraph is illustrative how of Lust leads to disordered thinking and a darkened intellect. This is blasphemous; asserting the Mass has ANYTHING to do with male-male desire is beyong repulsive - it is SATANIC.
The Globe did not intend it this way but this is further proof that the poofters MUST be suspended a divinis and sent packing....Good Lord
I think this will happen with one of them. One will feel betrayed by their own and then spill the beans on the rest.
Frankly, he gives me the creeps.
Religious hypocrisy always makes the crime much worse. This is the fruit of disobedience to the word of God.
You might want to tell that to these Protestants, who didn't take vows of celibacy.
The subject is "Catholic priesthood" particularly gay men. I really don't care what religious flavor evil prefers, or how ancient the words of God are. Sodom was even then an ancient city, yet the inspired authors found it to be a fitting example of these ancient words.
2 Peter 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
Matthew 11:24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.
This is the fruit of disobedience to the word of God.
You contradict yourself and also got caught in the linguistic literalism trap of quoting Scripture out of context. Now how about posting those passages in Scripture where celibacy is praised by both Christ and Paul? That won't happen because you know it blows your argument out of the water.
And I might add, the article is not written by a member of the clergy, but a member of the homosexual community.
It seems what the author is saying is that the Church is so full of erotica (I take it that means the crucifix, paintings and statues) that the homosexual feels right at home. Kind of an insight into how this guy's mind works. (SEX, SEX, more SEX even in church)
Kind of an insight into how this guy's mind works.Perhaps even more than Professor Jordan intended. The images he uses to illustrate homoeroticism indicate a propensity for excrutiatingly painful sex: "The image-body hovers over churches and homes in graphic crucifixes, in prints of the Sacred Heart, in scourged statues of the Man of Sorrows."
The thing I have never understood about *some* *most* *a lot of* homosexuals is that EVERYTHING about them is in the context of sex. It is how the define themselves, what they are and in this case, how they think. It must be a terrible cross to bear, in all honesty. It is so limiting.
I'd assume I, being a heterosexual female, should have the same erotic feelings this guy has when viewing a crucifix, half naked statue, etc., etc., and until today, the thought never, ever crossed my mind.
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.