Blame it on the Serpent.
I can’t remember the show, but I remember a quote that would be apropos here:
“I’ve always said God is not nearly so nice a person as people make him out to be.”
Sorry, I really should point out that it is disordered. Not a disorder.
Jesus, of course, would not agree with you - remember that he said just looking lustfully at a woman was as good as bending her over and rodgering her right there.
True, but is there a difference between committing lust in your heart for a woman vs lust in your heart for a man?
“Lust” is not a synonym for “sexual desire”, m’friend. Similarly, the Commandment which tells you not to covet your neighbour’s ass don’t titter does not forbid you to see the burro, think “What a nice donkey. You know, it would be really helpful if I had one. Maybe if I worked an extra hour a day for a while…”. It’s important to keep these terms straight.
Again, as with “natural law”, or “Pride”, the “Churchese” term that is rendered into English in the list of the seven capital vices as “Lust” does not mean the same thing as is understood in the common vernacular usage (of the manifestation of the sex drive, as per BrainGlutton’s example). It refers specifically to a disorderly sex drive. See lasciviousness, prurience, lechery.
Of course. The point is to fill people with guilt and self hatred so they are easy to manipulate, so they picked something near universal. It’s also good for persecution, since homosexual desires are something you can’t disprove, like witchcraft. As well, Christianity appears to be basically anti-happiness, and sex makes people happy.
I say out any that toe the homophobic party line; it points out the hypocrisy. Besides, the Church may dismiss or defrock him, which is one fewer priest; generally a good thing.
Heigh-ho. :rolleyes:
Way to ignore the last few posts right before yours in your crusade to make the world aware of the evil that is the Christianity.
I’d like to, but I’m at work.
If the priests are out gobbling knobs, out 'em. We would feel perfectly justified in doing the same for a straight priest who was boinking a female parishoner.
Taking the high road hasn’t done much good for the Secret Gay Agenda over the past decade or so - the RCC is still deeply homophobic and actively seeks to do gay people harm. If they stuck to hating the sinner and/or the sin, and didn’t attempt to influence public policy to make the world conform to their ideaology, I’d say leave 'em alone.
But that’s not what the Church is doing. They want to hurt gay people. So hurt 'em back.
Hell, if I’ve ever got an occasion to visit a bathhouse (“Yeah, I’m, uh, here to fix the computers. Really.”) and I caught one of my childhood parish priests in flagrante, I’d probably snap a few pics myself.
Thanks for digging that up, JR!
So, Martin, what do you think now? I hope you have learned that homosexuality is not a mental illness, even as defined by the Chruch.
But then you’re not hurting “them” back. You’re hurting their victims. Again, the conservatives in the church would love to have every gay priest outed. They would be perfectly happy to have a church that was 75% smaller and free of the “cafeteria catholics” who can’t even fill a single pew with their kids. I have to admit I did my part to help the process, but there are still people who wish to stay in the church and keep trying to reconcile. You might not think much of their decision, but you should respect it.
First, I don’t buy the rhetoric. Second, my feelings about how evil the Church is are obviously relevant to my feelings about outing priests. Since they work for so nasty an organization, I feel no sympathy for them, and no concern for the consequences for the Church.
Which would leave it much weaker and poorer; a good thing.
Has the Church shown any indication whatsoever that it is inclined to reconcile in the slightest? Who’s the new Pope, again?
There’s got to be a point when the more liberal Catholics come to accept that the hierarchy is not going to back away one iota from the position of bigotry. Then they’ve got two choices - stay, and be a party to the bigotry via their weekly contribution envelope, or leave, and join the Episcopalians or form a schismatic sect or something.
If that causes the Church to shrink by 75% and become even more hard-line, oh well. Numbers are political power, and if you can’t beat 'em, marginalize 'em.
I don’t buy the notion that actively gay priests are “victims” any more than I do that non-celibate straight priests are. They knew what they were signing up for when they took the vows, and I don’t see many of them standing up to fight the injustices perpetuated by the Church.
Actually, there are many options open to people within the church who believe that the church is still dynamic in discovering its positions on new issues. We simply develop patience that others do not share. The church was one of the last large institutions to embrace the concept of political democracy, but it now champions it fully. The church was the first great institution to condemn slavery (although it was pretty well ignored by its members until slavery became less profitable). Different issues are decided in different ways at different speeds.
Those who have no patience or sense of history are certainly compelled to remove themselves, now. Those with greater patience and a better sense of history feel no such compulsion.
There was an article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer a couple of weeks back that noted that, in the U.S., Catholics outstrip all other groups in support of Same Sex marriage. It was a disheartening 55% - 45%, but no other group approached those numbers.
People who are hoping to see the church shrivel up and blow away in their lifetime are doomed to disappointment. (Perhaps they should embrace the virtue of patience and a sense of history.)
And old aphorism states: The church thinks in centuries while the world thinks in years.
What if the woman were not a parishioner or even a Catholic? Would it still be everybody’s business?
Meh. The Church is just a band of priests. Priests are as mortal as anybody and they don’t grow up in a plastic bubble, much as they might wish it. Catholicism ain’t going away, but it can’t insulate itself from social changes in the long run.
And does this contradict anything I’ve said? Sometimes the Church is behind the curve (representative government); sometimes the Church is ahead of the curve (slavery). I note only that the changes and decisions are shaped in a longer process than that which people expect who see governments change every few years and political or social philosophies change every few decades. People who expect rapid changes will rarely find them in the Church.