Posted on 08/22/2018 9:56:49 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Due to the sensitive nature of this article, it's important that I make some preliminary statements. There will be enough controversy if my words are rightly understood, let alone misunderstood.
First, I am not a Catholic basher. Second, I am not claiming that the Catholic Church has a monopoly on sexual scandals. Third, I believe the vast majority of homosexual men stand with me in denouncing pedophilia and "man-boy love." Fourth, as we focus on predatory priests, we must not forget their victims. Some of the abused have lost faith for life. Others bear their scars in different, significant ways. They must not be forgotten in the midst of our outrage and grief.
The question, then, is simple: Does the Catholic Church have a homosexual problem?
According to Cardinal Raymond Burke, "It was clear after the studies following the 2002 sexual abuse crisis that most of the acts of abuse were in fact homosexual acts committed with adolescent young men.
There was a studied attempt to either overlook or to deny this. Now it seems clear in light of these recent terrible scandals that indeed there is a homosexual culture, not only among the clergy but even within the hierarchy, which needs to be purified at the root. It is of course a tendency that is disordered."
If you're surprised to hear this candid admission, you're not alone. As Cardinal Burke observed, "There was a studied attempt to either overlook or to deny this."
Yes, it was fine to talk about Catholicism's problem with pedophilia. It was fine to discuss sexual scandals in broad terms. But it was basically forbidden to connect them directly to homosexuality. Is it true that homosexual pedophiles are more likely to abuse boys then heterosexual pedophiles are likely to abuse girls?
According to a 2007 Mayo Clinic study, "The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9 per cent to 40 per cent, which is approximately four to 20 times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men (using a prevalence rate of adult homosexuality of 2 per cent to 4 per cent). . . . This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, just that a larger percentage of pedophiles are homosexual or bisexual in orientation to children."
But even if this study is accurate (I have seen other evidence to support this), I don't believe that pedophilia (in terms of men abusing prepubescent children) is the primary issue within the Catholic sex scandals.
This is confirmed by Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. (Donohue holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from New York University; in his 11-page report, he seeks to debunk the notion of widespread sexual sin among the clergy.) Pointing to a 2004 study, Donohue notes, "The John Jay study found that 81 percent of the victims were male, 78 percent of whom were postpubescent. Now if 100 percent of the victimizers are male, and most of the victims are postpubescent males, that is a problem called homosexuality. There is no getting around it.
"How many were pedophiles? Less than five percent. That is what the John Jay study found. Studies done in subsequent years—I have read them all—report approximately the same ratio. It's been a homosexual scandal all along."
In the words of blogger Matt Walsh, "the real problem in the Catholic Church isn't pedophilia but gay priests. As the statistics clearly show, the vast majority of predators in the clergy were homosexual and the vast majority were not pedophiles."
What, then, should we conclude from this? That homosexuals are far worse sinners than heterosexuals? Actually, there has been a flood of scandals involving heterosexual female teachers and their underage, heterosexual male students. What does this prove? The vast majority of pornography that is produced is for heterosexual use (since the vast majority of people are heterosexual). What does this prove?
It proves that sexual sin is everywhere. And all of it is ugly, especially when it takes advantage of others. So, my point here is not that homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals (even though there is evidence to support this). And my point is not that homosexuals are more prone to pedophilia than heterosexuals (although here too, as noted, there is evidence to support that).
My point is simply that the vast majority of devout, heterosexual Catholic men will not want to give up marriage for the priesthood. However, a devout Catholic man who is attracted to the same-sex would be more likely to give up marriage for the priesthood, since he cannot "marry" a same-sex partner and be faithful to Catholicism.
And what do you expect to happen when you have thousands of homosexual men who are single for life, some of whom are fairly young, and who are in intimate environments with teenage men? Read the horrific reports about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. That's exactly what you would expect.
As Ross Benes explained, "While doing research for my book The Sex Effect, I came across many scholars who suggested that preventing priests from marrying altered the makeup of the priesthood over time, unintentionally providing a shelter for some devout gay men to hide their sexual orientation. By continuing to disqualify women and married men, the priesthood attracts men who desire to forgo sex for the rest of their lives in an attempt to get closer to God. Because the church denounces all gay sex, some devout gay men pursue the celibate priesthood as a self-incentive to avoid sex with men, which can help them circumvent perceived damnation."
This, in turn, has produced what some claim is a gay subculture within the Catholic Church, from the local parish to the seminary and beyond. The sordid results that follow are utterly unsurprising.
From my perspective as a non-Catholic, the clergy should be allowed to marry, while those with the gift of celibacy should refrain from marriage. As for priests (or potential priests) who are same-sex attracted, they should seek out help for their sexual conflicts, not being allowed to serve until they have a clear and persistent track record of holy, disciplined living.
To do anything else is to be unfair to them and, far, far worse, to be unfair to their potential victims.
.
The Greek translations were obviously not “inspired.”
They were a wrecking ball swung through the Hebrew gospels, likely under the direction of Eusebius, who was trying to make Constantine the Messiah.
He called him a hard throwing pebble, because he was so obstinate. He was constantly a self agrandiser.
John 1:42
42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
In Greek it is stone in Hebrew and Aramaic it is rock, it was further translated into Peter.
Changing the names does not change the object.
Also
Mathew 16
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Revelation 21:8
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
How hypocritical.
“The Greek that Scripture was inspired in is nothing but trash to you?”
Not exactly but the scripture John 1:42 is self explanatory.
which is by interpretation, A stone.
Cephas is rock in both Hebrew and Aramaic but stone in Greek
and exactly the same thing.
It is farther translated to Peter but it is not possible to change the object by changing the name.
Maybe you should consider this.
Matthew 18:18
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
I have no doubt you will come up with excuses, don`t you get it? if you believed anything Jesus said you would have no need of trying to change what he said.
It is like you said every one has a right to their own opinion but the most undependable people in the world is those who will base their opinion on bias toward those who believe different.
Many protestants only holds the view you seem to because of your bias against the Catholic Church, that is not a very good way to understand scripture.
“and build it instead on the English translation, which is really not as precise.”
The great majority of scholars believe that Jesus and his followers spoke in either Hebrew or Aramaic and the majority of them believe it was Aramaic.
In John 1:42 Jesus plainly spoke in one of them when he used the word Cephas other wise Cephas would not be there since the Scripture was wrote in Greek.
So if you want to know what Jesus really said go to Hebrew or Aramaic, Cephas is rock and a thousand different translations is not going to make it anything else.
But i have no doubt you know all of this but you just can not get away from this bias B.S.
.
A totally wasted response!
Paul tells us who *petra* is, and it's NOT Peter.
1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock (petra) that followed them, and the Rock (petra) was Christ.
http://biblehub.com/text/romans/9-33.htm
Peter does too.
1 Peter 2:1-8 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.
As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”
and
“A stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
Peter is *petros* not *petra*. There's that distinction for a reason.
Paul tells us who *petra* is, and it’s NOT Peter.
We do not need Paul or Peter to tell us what Peter was called, although Paul himsef called Peter rock.
Jesus himself told Simon that he would be called Cephas which is rock in english.
It makes no difference if it is a small rock or a cliff, Peter obviously came from the word Petros.
The matter here is not about how much authority Peter had it is about what Peter was called.
New International Version
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).
New Living Translation
Then Andrew brought Simon to meet Jesus. Looking intently at Simon, Jesus said, “Your name is Simon, son of John—but you will be called Cephas” (which means “Peter”).
English Standard Version
He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).
Berean Study Bible
Andrew brought him to Jesus, who looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which is translated as Peter).
Berean Literal Bible
He led him to Jesus. Having looked at him, Jesus said, “You are Simon the son of Jonah. You will be called Cephas” (which means Peter).
New American Standard Bible
He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas “ (which is translated Peter).
King James Bible
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
Christian Standard Bible
and he brought Simon to Jesus. When Jesus saw him, he said, “You are Simon, son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which is translated “Peter”).
Contemporary English Version
Andrew brought his brother to Jesus. And when Jesus saw him, he said, “Simon son of John, you will be called Cephas.” This name can be translated as “Peter.”
Good News Translation
Then he took Simon to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “Your name is Simon son of John, but you will be called Cephas.” (This is the same as Peter and means “a rock.”)
Holman Christian Standard Bible John 1:42
and he brought Simon to Jesus. When Jesus saw him, He said, “You are Simon, son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which means “Rock”).
In Greek it is stone and is translated to Peter.
International Standard Version
He led Simon to Jesus. Jesus looked at him intently and said, “You are Simon, John’s son. You will be called Cephas!” (which is translated “Peter”).
Good News Translation
Then he took Simon to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “Your name is Simon son of John, but you will be called Cephas.” (This is the same as Peter and means “a rock.”)
Contemporary English Version
Andrew brought his brother to Jesus. And when Jesus saw him, he said, “Simon son of John, you will be called Cephas.” This name can be translated as “Peter.”
NET Bible
Andrew brought Simon to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon, the son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).
New Heart English Bible
He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “You are Simon the son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which is translated, Peter).
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And he brought him to Yeshua and Yeshua gazed at him and he said: “You are Shimeon, son of Yona; you shall be called Kaypha.”
which also means rock
GOD’S WORD® Translation
Andrew brought Simon to Jesus. Jesus looked at Simon and said, “You are Simon, son of John. Your name will be Cephas” (which means “Peter”).
New American Standard 1977
He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).
Jubilee Bible 2000
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jonah: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
King James 2000 Bible
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, You are Simon the son of Jonah: you shall be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
American King James Version
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, You are Simon the son of Jona: you shall be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
American Standard Version
He brought him unto Jesus. Jesus looked upon him, and said, Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter).
Douay-Rheims Bible
And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.
Darby Bible Translation
And he led him to Jesus. Jesus looking at him said, Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas (which interpreted is stone).
English Revised Version
He brought him unto Jesus. Jesus looked upon him, and said, Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter).
Webster’s Bible Translation
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas; which is, by interpretation, a stone.
Weymouth New Testament
He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon, son of John: you shall be called Cephas” —that is to say, Peter (or ‘Rock’)
World English Bible
He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas” (which is by interpretation, Peter).
Young’s Literal Translation
and he brought him unto Jesus: and having looked upon him, Jesus saith, ‘Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas, thou shalt be called Cephas,’ (which is interpreted, A rock.)
With out any exceptions Jesus said Simon would be called Cephas which means rock.
I have read some of your other posts or comments and you appear to be sensible and stick to scriptue but on these Peter and Mary discussions your bias takes you away from scriptue so much that you deny so many things Jesus said.
Why do you and some of the others feel the need to make Peter and Mary your enemies? just because of your bias toward the Catholic Church? what has Peter and Mary done to you.
I believe you need to do a little re thinking, Peter holds the keys to the Kingdom or do you insist on denying that also?
Actually i do not believe Peter would pass you by as long as you believe in Jesus, but how can you deny so many things Jesus said in plain words if you do believe in him?
A totally wasted response!
Gee, look at this, will you?
A public school teacher accused of sexual misconduct was an *inactive* PRIEST.
Hey, Sal, imagine that......
Read the GREEK.
It's there if you are willing to look.
It’s there if you are willing to look.
Since it means stone in Greek the only reason petros would even come into play would be to confuse the issue.
Stone and rock has the same meaning and most likely petros has the same meaning except for the people who can not stand the idea of Simon being called rock.
Even Paul called Simon Cephas ( rock )no less than five times.
So i prefer to translate the language that Jesus spoke, which is most likely Aramaic into English then we have his exact words.
Cephas = Rock, Stone =Rock, Petros = Rock, Kepha = Rock, Kaypha = Rock.
New International Version
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
New Living Translation
Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it.
English Standard Version
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Berean Study Bible
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.
Berean Literal Bible
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades not will prevail against it.
New American Standard Bible
“I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
King James Bible
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Christian Standard Bible
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
Contemporary English Version
So I will call you Peter, which means “a rock.” On this rock I will build my church, and death itself will not have any power over it.
Good News Translation
And so I tell you, Peter: you are a rock, and on this rock foundation I will build my church, and not even death will ever be able to overcome it.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the forces of Hades will not overpower it.
International Standard Version
I tell you that you are Peter, and it is on this rock that I will build my congregation, and the powers of hell will not conquer it.
NET Bible
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
New Heart English Bible
I also tell you that you are Peter, and on this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“Also I say to you, that you are Kaypha, and upon this stone I shall build my church, and the gates of Sheol will not withstand it.”
GOD’S WORD® Translation
You are Peter, and I can guarantee that on this rock I will build my church. And the gates of hell will not overpower it.
New American Standard 1977
“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.
Jubilee Bible 2000
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, a small rock and upon the large rock I will build my congregation {Gr. ekklesia – called out ones}, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against her.
King James 2000 Bible
And I say also unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.
American King James Version
And I say also to you, That you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
American Standard Version
And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Darby Bible Translation
And I also, I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly, and hades’ gates shall not prevail against it.
English Revised Version
And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
Webster’s Bible Translation
And I say also to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Weymouth New Testament
And I declare to you that you are Peter, and that upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the might of Hades shall not triumph over it.
World English Bible
I also tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.
Young’s Literal Translation
‘And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it;
I prefer to read English and it has no doubt been translated thousands of times and the ones recognized are above and not one of them gives a hint that the rock is anything other than Peter.
Thank you anyway.
placeholder
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.