Posted on 10/18/2006 7:49:29 AM PDT by NYer
Very good points.
I've been thinking about this more, and I really feel it's a challenge to be less (ulp!) conciliatory. If we let the culture set the terms, as redhead mentioned, we'll never make any progress even among our own believers.
My teenage daughter mentioned recently that she's bored with being lectured on chastity at every Catholic youth event she attends. (And my 12-year-old son is desperately embarassed even to have it brought up!) There's so much to learn and do and experience in our Church ... why can't they get past, "It's not Christian to screw around ... it's not Christian to screw around ..."?
The answer, I think, is that we've stopped even speaking of general moral norms in the culture outside the Church. (I'm reminded of St. Paul's letters to the Corinthians, in which he seemed to be facing the same issue: "No, y'all, it's not Christian to screw around. Stop asking! The answer's not going to change!") Although it may be impracticable or inappropriate to consider legislating some of these moral rules, simply stating that the rules exist ought to be something we can manage!
***********
You're right. Maybe that's why the term "soldiers of Christ" was coined. It certainly seems like a battle at times.
Yes, and I hate upsetting people ... but I think I need to get over it!
************
You and me both. :)
"Yes, and I hate upsetting people ... but I think I need to get over it!"
And therein lies part of the underlying logic of political correctness. It relies upon people's natural desire to be accepted, not to stir up controversy, to get along, etc.
Here's the deal with the devil political correctness seeks to make. If you'll tell just a little bit of a lie of omission by not calling something what it really is, by not daring to attach a moral label to it, then you won't be forced to suffer the heat or embarassment that you might incur by calling something it's proper name.
So we tell lies of omission by failing to call things what they really are. And isn't it interesting how once the language becomes morally neutral, it becomes easier to just go ahead and accept the underlying evil that the language isn't adequately describing?
Language is usually how we express thought, and often how we internalize thought. If you can successfully change the language relating to a specific subject, then what you're doing in the long run is subtly changing the way that people think about that subject.
Words have power.
It's not impossible that the ones in positions of holding these priests accountable are in the same boat...
I would think in a religion where the clergy are not allowed wives, it would be a very good atmosphere to attract homosexuals, male and female...
And horror of horrors when a family sends their young son off to seminary to become a priest and he is preyed upon by homos in the clergy...
It's my belief that queers are recruited, not born...
But I wonder why the 'straight' priest don't 'out' the queer ones...Maybe it's only the queers that get promoted and the straights are under pressure to keep quiet...
I think you're on the wrong thread. This one is about an immoral interaction between an adult homosexual and a man who was in his 20's.
Excellent post, excellent! You are absolutely right.
I'm reading a book of essays by Theodore Dalrymple, the British commentator, and he made exactly the same point in one article. We Charismatics call this "a confirmation," when we get the same message from two or more unconnected sources :-).
Words have power.
***************
Excellent post. I couldn't agree more.
I guess that should be, "an immoral proposal from an older homosexual man to a man in his 20's who wasn't interested."
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.