Posted on 04/27/2002 9:42:33 AM PDT by Torie
I can't really disagree with anything he says here. However, if you don't recognize a number of code words here that have been repeatedly used to water down all rules with regard to sexual morality to the point that they eventually disappear, you must have been out of the room for the last 35 years.
I agree that the reasons for sexual morality need to be addressed on deeper levels than the authoritarian one. With the incredible deterioration in our society caused by the sexual revolution, this shouldn't be a difficult task. From what I've seen, a number of conservative Protestant groups have taken a lot better whack at this than most Catholic organizations have.
Perhaps this is because Protestants don't have an overarching authority to which they can appeal for final decisions.
Very little of what is said in this article should be accepted on trust or at face value, because it all has an ideological purpose: bash the Catholic Church, subvert it, and turn it into a toothless, politically correct organization that will no longer offer any impediment to the agenda of the Culture of Death: abortion, perversion, assisted suicide, euthanasia, cloning, and whatever comes down the pike next.
A research study cited in an article, itself cited in FR a couple of days ago, had 90 percent of the gay priests studied involved in active sexual lives with an average of about 225 sexual partners per man (the range was a low of 10 to a high of over 500). The article said, I believe, that this one study was the only one which has been done so far. Now, one study can certainly be flawed, but the results certainly do not support your contention that the majority of gay priests are celibate.
I am sorry, but I doubt that I can track down the article on FR again. There have been too many recently to wade through.
Well, yes, but one has to clarify what one means by "believe." Some may accept these teachings as true in some ideal sense, but not be willing to live by them.
There is a potential for schism if the Church moves too quickly to change. I seem to recall that one of Walker Percy's books featured a conflict between a liberal official Catholic Church and American conservative schismatics. An international organization has to keep time by a multitude of clocks which give different indications about what people are ready for. What seems to work in some parts of the world is manifestly a failure in others.
I have to wonder if the Church can be "saved" for many in the areas affected by the scandal. Maybe the predictions of Jefferson and Adams will come true after all and New England will become the Unitarian bastion they envisioned.
At the risk of going out on a limb here, if the Winter's vision becomes operative, perhaps Catholicism in the US will be not that much different the Episcopaleanism (just still a bit more hierarchical and no divorce perhaps). Episcopaleanism is not thriving in this land. It may well be that more cerebral and less emotive denominations tend over time to be crowded out by secular humanism in this day and age in developed countries. It may be an irrevisible trend.
Can you tell me where in the bible it says it is alright to be homosexual as long as you stay celibate. I thought homosexuality was a sin, period.
Becky
I agree. The prescription here is for the Catholic Church in the USA to become Protestant. Speaking as a Protestant, I would be sorry to see that.
There are some valid points. The Cardinals have not shouldered the blame they deserve. Perhaps sackcloth instead of fine robes for a few weeks may be in order. I also question the faith of some of the Church’s leaders – not just Catholic, but also that of many Protestant denominations.
However, I believe the root of the problem is the desire of Church leaders to be in tune with the World’s morality. When you’re hobnobbing with the great and the powerful the temptation to adopt the attitudes and prejudices of those around you can be overwhelming. When you are a Prince of the Church, you may find that you have stuffed your youthful faith (assuming it ever existed) into a closet and closed the door. You join the therapeutic society where sexual perversions are re-defined as lifestyles. Where diseases of the soul can be cured by with a little therapy. Where the relationship of man to God is sidelined while the relationship of man to man is the subject for the homily.
The writer calls on the Church not to look for scapegoats. But since the problem is sinful people, how can the problem be solved without removing the people who are the cause of the problem? If there is a cancer in the Church it must be removed, taking it to the psychiatrist’s couch will result in certain death.
Finally, he calls for the Catholic hierarchy in the US to remove itself from the Authority of Rome. Having allowed the present scandal to metastasize, his solution is for the people who caused the problem to gain greater power. As a plan for change, this article is not helpful. It has the same platitudes as the everlasting editorials about the need more money to reform our schools.
One of the things I have learned is to distinguish between BS and a plan. This is BS.
Only those who practice, promote, or condone homosexuality should be purged.
You can figure it out for yourself. Look up passages in the old and new testament regarding homosexuality. Each statement uses a verb, meaning a completed act, and the punishment for that act. Thus the implication is that the acts are what are considered sinful, or the most sinful, however you choose to look at the rest of it; i.e., urges, temptations versus acts.
Thoughts, temptations, and urges unacted upon in any way, such as viewing pornography, and other icky practices ;-), are not considered sinful in present-day catholic moral teaching.
Sorry, I'm not up to tracking down the exact biblical passages. Those people who wrote the bible weren't as explicit about these topics as we moderns, thus everything is couched in words such as "to lie with a man as with a woman".
And, of course, we know what happened to Sodom. Evidently they got blown away because of their acts, not their thoughts.
Yeah, I was OTL on that one. It's not what I meant at all.
I meant it like this:
Thoughts, temptations, and urges unacted upon in any way, ARE NOT considered sinful in present-day catholic moral teaching (if you read old catholic books you will get a different impression). Acting upon such thoughts, such as viewing pornography, fondling, and other icky practices up to and including sexual intimacy with a person of the same sex are considered sinful.
Somehow I don't think you will like what I said anyway and your insult was noted.
No biggie. Right now I just can't read many catholic books. I took up Thomas a Kempis with gusto and by about the second chapter he made some comment like "avoid women". I took it the wrong way, closed the book and never wanted to go back to it. That was several years ago.
I'm not familiar with de Sales. I did get into Alphonse Ligouri a bit and they all turned me off to some extent. So I took a long break.
I do appreciate your trying to be helpful and perhaps someday I'll recover my equanamity and be able to resume my spiritual journey.
Part of me needs and wants to be a "team" player, but we are all unique individuals and I lost part of myself trying so hard to conform.
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.