| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Edict From The Pope; No gays allowed in Cath. Seminary | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 27 2005, 09:18 PM (1,911 Views) | |
| PRT | Sep 30 2005, 11:53 AM Post #91 |
|
Member
|
I'm a Catholic and I think it's a mistake. Some clergy apparently do too. This is entire text of Puli's article. He posted the link, but I'm just going to post the article for fear no one will go read the link. I feel the article is quite good. Sorry for the length.
|
![]() |
|
| Psycmeistr | Sep 30 2005, 11:54 AM Post #92 |
|
Member
|
Seems to be a "peanut gallery" comment... The Catholic faith is the Catholic faith. The Catholic Church is not subject to political correctness, or the whims of the day, only the Truth as the Catholic Church sees it. Homosexuality, or at least the practice thereof, is considered a sin by the Catholic church. In the recent past, it has been boys who have largely been the ones who have been preyed upon by priests-in-name only (present company included.) Rightfully, An outcry ensued. The Church is finally taking action. Then it is criticized on the sidelines for not taking a politically correct action? Political correctness is not a pseudonym for effective outcomes. |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Sep 30 2005, 11:59 AM Post #93 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
And yours, psych, it the religiously correct view. Mine was a gallery comment, but Pat's was not. The correct action, neither politically nor religiously correct, is to deal with pedophiles and the cover up, not expound and play on homophobia which will have no effective outcome but to split the church...again. Talk to Scalia about the Pope's infallibility. lol |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| campingken | Sep 30 2005, 12:00 PM Post #94 |
|
Member
|
Psycmeistr, Based on your logic perhaps only EUNUCHS should be ordained as Priests. If being gay causes a Priest to molest boys then wouldn't being heterosexual also cause a Priest to molest girls? Child abusers are PEDOPHILES they are not straight or gay. If you don't like gays that's fine but please do not equate homosexuality with child abuse. Ken |
![]() |
|
| Psycmeistr | Sep 30 2005, 12:14 PM Post #95 |
|
Member
|
Well then I would guess that the pedophiles who have thus turned up in the priesthood have been gay pedophiles. I have experienced this first hand. I know what I am talking about. And even your reasoning does not dismiss the fact that homosexual behavior is considered a sin in the Church. |
![]() |
|
| puli-one | Sep 30 2005, 12:49 PM Post #96 |
![]()
Member
|
I think there is a mistake being made with this edict for one very basic simple reason; Not all homosexuals are pedophiles, nor are all pedophiles homosexual. Is it the act of homosexuality that you disagree with, or the person who is a homosexual. If you accept the person for who he/she is, and not for what they are, are you not accepting the creed that "all people are created equal". Stretch this out a bit and you can add "in the eyes of God". Question: Where does this leave the "edict" - against or with the teachings of Christ. I think the Pope is wrong, and not for the right reasons. |
|
Don & Donna Puli Pup - Kelly | |
![]() |
|
| Jelly Bean | Sep 30 2005, 02:43 PM Post #97 |
![]()
Member
|
I BELIEVE you psych thank you for being willing to share the truth, and at the same time your experience takes a lot to do that |
![]() |
|
| Jelly Bean | Sep 30 2005, 02:50 PM Post #98 |
![]()
Member
|
I have gay friends too! I don't use the bible to separate anybody but to help bring people to the truth...they listen, and some are actually in counseling. Not everybody chooses to stay in their sin, but actually try and overcome their sinful desires. It is difficult like with anything. Adultery, alcoholism, smoking...so many things that we "know" are not good for us in God's design, and even harmful to our health, we can't seem to overcome. Why people reach to programs, to others to try and help them. It's fortunate that the Christian community has designed programs to minister to the gay population, as well as those who suffer from the other problems mentioned. |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Sep 30 2005, 04:20 PM Post #99 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Ken makes a very good point. If because some percentage of pedophilia among priests is by homosexuals, and by reason of hasty generalization all homosexuals should be excluded from the priesthood, then by the fact some other percentage of pedophilia among priests is by heterosexuals and the same logical fallacy, then all heterosexuals should be excluded. I mean we do not want to be politically correct here and apply a partial and therefore ineffectual solution, now do we. So we see by the unintended consequences of the Pope's unconstrained and liberal solution, it leads to absurdity when we speak of real people here, of loved ones. Jelly, that truth you speak is that your subjective truth? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| corky52 | Sep 30 2005, 04:25 PM Post #100 |
|
Member
|
Castrate all the priests and put them on suppressive drugs, should solve the problems and would work across the board. Not like they'd be losing anything they haven't already pledged to give up! |
![]() |
|
| PRT | Sep 30 2005, 04:33 PM Post #101 |
|
Member
|
I didn't get the impression from things I read, not necessarily here, that this proposed edict had anything to do with the pedophilia issue in this country. I saw it had been in the works for ten years...1995. Pre-scandal, but not pre-pedophilia. Now if the Vatican was aware of the coverup in the US for more than ten years, that's another can of worms. Nothing would surprise me any more. My impression was that it was to be "pastoral" in nature; protecting as it were the seminarians. Doesn't seem to be having that effect. And, as many have said, if celibacy is followed there is simply no issue. I don't agree with this whole edict as I've said before, but I'm just giving you my take on it. It's the wrong thing for the wrong reason at the wrong time. John Paul began the process, but I don't see why Benedict is making this his opening act. I'll be interested to see if the American clergy - mentioned in the Times article - are successful in their campaign. Don't think this is going away any time soon. Unfortunately. |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Sep 30 2005, 04:37 PM Post #102 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Well, that blows away 90% of what's been said right there.
Can I ask what you mean "pastoral"? Idyllic or idealism or something ele altogether. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| PRT | Sep 30 2005, 04:39 PM Post #103 |
|
Member
|
No, not idyllic. Speaking as a pastor to a flock, shepherd to a flock kind of thing. Caring for the seminarians. |
![]() |
|
| Jelly Bean | Sep 30 2005, 04:41 PM Post #104 |
![]()
Member
|
corky, I think there were actually some men in the Bible, who did that very thing. True enuchs, they made themselves. |
![]() |
|
| Jelly Bean | Sep 30 2005, 04:53 PM Post #105 |
![]()
Member
|
no, I don't see hasty generalizations, but folks very close to the picture, who after first NOT being listened to, have now been able to share that there was a very big problem brewing and now over boiling, and they have come with the studies that it is truly a statistically problem! Not hasty at all. Studies. They did the same thing in nursing in California. Nurses and Dr's and patients for years have known that patients have suffered at the bedside because not enough staff to tend to their needs. To the point of death. So after years of not being listened to. They did studies, and had a big public health hearing and they listened to the testimonies of ALL, including those who support that it was all just a myth. The department of public health ruled to have a safe nurse to patient ratio. They didn't do it hasty. They listened to all sides and looked at the statistics. That is what the catholic church has done. They have their statistical study now, they have listened to the testimonies of ALL involved. And they have come to their conclusion. Only time will tell if it is a right one. Will deaths go down at the hospital because we can watch our patients closer? I believe it will, because I have seen it already. We are able to transfer an unstable patient to the ICU more readily now then ever before! Will studies show that molestations will decrease in the church with this new practice of the church, I believe it will. But as I said, only time will tell. Hastiness, not at all. Why my first post in all this was..."IT's about time", this problem has been talked about years on years, on years. You already have had another poster share from his PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, that it is TRUE. |
![]() |
|
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Register for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |









1:04 PM Jul 11