Why do they so not get it?
Dear Pope Benedict,
Once again, the Vatican has demonstrated that ignorance holds the day. Doesn't anybody read a dictionary? Use their brain? Think?
Since the answer is obviously 'no', allow me first to introduce some working definitions:
celibacy: abstaining from sexual relations, as due to religious vows
homosexual: being sexually attracted to members of the same sex
heterosexual: being sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex
pedophilia: an adult who is sexually attracted to children
children: immature young; applies to both males and females
If priests are to be celibate, then they are to be celibate. That means no sexual relations with men, women or children, period, regardless of sexual orientation, preference, or predilection.
A married man who engages in normal heterosexual relations with his wife, who also molests his daughters and/or step-daughters and/or any underage female child whether or not related to him, is a pedophile.
A single heterosexual man who may or may not from time engage in normal heterosexual relations with an adult female, who has a predilection for underage female children, is a pedophile.
A married man who engages in normal heterosexual relations with his wife, who also molests his sons and/or step-sons and/or any underage male child whether or not related to him, is a pedophile.
A single heterosexual man who may or may not from time engage in normal heterosexual relations with an adult female, who has a predilection for underage male children, is a pedophile.
A homosexual man, who may or may not from time to time engage in normal heterosexual relations with an adult male, who has a predilection for underage male children, is a pedophile.
A adulterer is a married man who, while still married, has heterosexual or homosexual relations with an adult man or woman.
Adulterers may be heterosexual or homosexual.
Pedophiles may be heterosexual or homosexual.
Banning homosexuals from the priesthood strictly because they are homosexual, ignores the fact that some priests have abused female children, and some have had sexual relations with adult women. It also ignores the fact that heterosexual men sexually abuse male and female children, either preferentially or indiscriminately.
Banning homosexuals will not do a damn thing to curb the abuses of priests that are assuredly still going on, nor do anything to improve the Church's or Vatican's image or relations with the young and adult survivors of priest abuse who have already come forward.
It will, however, be yet another example of the Vatican and Church turning its back on a problem rather than taking an active role in dealing appropriately with it, dragging the Church back into the Middle Ages rather than out of it.
While I have your ear, may I ask a question that has been puzzling me for some time? I understand that nuns are considered "brides of Christ", symbolically wedding Christ when they take their vows. If nuns are brides of Christ, who are priests husbands of? Or are they stand-ins for God? And why is this whole thing so creepy and smacking of misogynism and paternalism?
And, please, before you tell me "well, the bible says homosexuality is an abomination" and not to be condoned or permitted, what about all the other things proscribed in the bible? all the things we are supposed to do? Or is it acceptable for the Catholic church and fundamental Christians, like radical and fundamental Moslems, to pick and choose what they want to observe and try to force others to abide by from their respective holy books?
For instance, how about the points covered in this?
The following is from my neice, Soma. It is nice to know that, nature or nurture, some things hold true through the family tree...
Once again, the Vatican has demonstrated that ignorance holds the day. Doesn't anybody read a dictionary? Use their brain? Think?
Since the answer is obviously 'no', allow me first to introduce some working definitions:
celibacy: abstaining from sexual relations, as due to religious vows
homosexual: being sexually attracted to members of the same sex
heterosexual: being sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex
pedophilia: an adult who is sexually attracted to children
children: immature young; applies to both males and females
If priests are to be celibate, then they are to be celibate. That means no sexual relations with men, women or children, period, regardless of sexual orientation, preference, or predilection.
A married man who engages in normal heterosexual relations with his wife, who also molests his daughters and/or step-daughters and/or any underage female child whether or not related to him, is a pedophile.
A single heterosexual man who may or may not from time engage in normal heterosexual relations with an adult female, who has a predilection for underage female children, is a pedophile.
A married man who engages in normal heterosexual relations with his wife, who also molests his sons and/or step-sons and/or any underage male child whether or not related to him, is a pedophile.
A single heterosexual man who may or may not from time engage in normal heterosexual relations with an adult female, who has a predilection for underage male children, is a pedophile.
A homosexual man, who may or may not from time to time engage in normal heterosexual relations with an adult male, who has a predilection for underage male children, is a pedophile.
A adulterer is a married man who, while still married, has heterosexual or homosexual relations with an adult man or woman.
Adulterers may be heterosexual or homosexual.
Pedophiles may be heterosexual or homosexual.
Banning homosexuals from the priesthood strictly because they are homosexual, ignores the fact that some priests have abused female children, and some have had sexual relations with adult women. It also ignores the fact that heterosexual men sexually abuse male and female children, either preferentially or indiscriminately.
Banning homosexuals will not do a damn thing to curb the abuses of priests that are assuredly still going on, nor do anything to improve the Church's or Vatican's image or relations with the young and adult survivors of priest abuse who have already come forward.
It will, however, be yet another example of the Vatican and Church turning its back on a problem rather than taking an active role in dealing appropriately with it, dragging the Church back into the Middle Ages rather than out of it.
While I have your ear, may I ask a question that has been puzzling me for some time? I understand that nuns are considered "brides of Christ", symbolically wedding Christ when they take their vows. If nuns are brides of Christ, who are priests husbands of? Or are they stand-ins for God? And why is this whole thing so creepy and smacking of misogynism and paternalism?
And, please, before you tell me "well, the bible says homosexuality is an abomination" and not to be condoned or permitted, what about all the other things proscribed in the bible? all the things we are supposed to do? Or is it acceptable for the Catholic church and fundamental Christians, like radical and fundamental Moslems, to pick and choose what they want to observe and try to force others to abide by from their respective holy books?
For instance, how about the points covered in this?
The following is from my neice, Soma. It is nice to know that, nature or nurture, some things hold true through the family tree...
posted by Melissa at 12:47 PM
3 Comments:
Poor Jesus, he is so used and abused! He had some pretty decent ideas, but my, how people twist his words.
I am a lapsed Catholic, and a lapsed Christian. I believe in some sort of God but I have no religion. In fact, I now run screaming from organized religion,but that's my own personal thingie. I believe we should have freedom of religion!
The Catholic church is hopelessly behind the times and the new Pope is a conservative nutbar. All I can say is I'm glad I no longer belong.
Here in Canuckistan, gay marriage is legal and I'm GLAD we are so tolerant (most of us; I live in a right-wing, conservative religious backwater that I must escape in the near future!) I don't know how the mother church hopes to retain any significant membership when it is so picky about who gets to belong, but whatever...
Love the Jesus card your niece sent along.
PS I hate insurers. I have mentioned that? :D
PPS You know, I have forgotten my catechism. I don't know WHO priests are married to. I think of them as mouthpieces for the big guy. Well, I guess they really aren't grooms of anybody, not the way nuns are bridges of Christ. They took the sacrement of priesthood in lieu of the sacrament of marriage.
Maybe Phyllis has a better explanation for this! Me, I'll be burning in hell with the gay priests.
Brides of Christ, not Bridges of Christ! Yeesh! My blood sugar is low...
Hi Melissa,
You ask some good questions (probably meant rhetorically), but they deserve a serious theological answer.
The fact is that most of the sexual abuse cases were done by hebephile priests. A hebephile is someone who molests post-pubescent children (i.e., those under 18). Pedophile plays better in the press because it sounds more shocking. In most cases, it was statutory rape where the youth was 12 or older, usually male, and abused by a priest.
I don't know why most hebephiles and pedophiles are men going after boys, but it seems to be the case. You don't see a huge rash of reports about nuns, who also take vows of celibacy, going after children.
I think what it comes down to is this: the priests who are hebephiles are gay men who are preying on the naive and innocent just like a 30 year old man seducing a naive 16 year old girl. There are plenty of gay priests who keep to their vows of celibacy, and plenty of straight priests that don't.
But the fact of the matter is that in the current scandal, it is by an overwhelming majority of gay men going after post-pubescent boys. To say different would be denying a plain fact. What that fact means is up for debate - will barring homosexuals from the priesthood fix the problem? Who knows?
The Church has always barred openly homosexual men and women from the religious life - it was the originator of the "don't ask don't tell" policy. Now, it is going to ask. That's what has changed - not the banning of homosexuals from religious life.
So, while I believe part of your criticism is valid, I think some of the facts behind your argument are skewed.
If nuns are the brides of Christ, who are the priests married to? They are married to the Church. They are "alter Christus" - they function as Christ in his place by saying Mass, hearing confession, etc. The Bride of Christ is the Church, and by "Church" it is meant all the faithful on earth, Catholic or not.
I don't really find it creepy or smacking of paternalism. Remember that the Church views Christ as God-Man, so that puts the highest revered purely human person as - Mary, his mother.
The Church reveres Mary above all other saints, and believes God trusted his Son to her. In the New Testament, it is Mary who is there from his birth (duh) to his death, and the Church has special venerations for her. So, I don't see this as misogynist at all. In fact, it was early Christians who fought against the Roman practice of killing their daughters (as we see in China and India with selective abortion now) because to the Christians a man and a woman have an equal value before God. Their roles may be different, especially in a religious life as a priest or nun, but that doesn't mean they aren't valued equally, and the most valued of all is a woman - Mary.
One last thing. The snopes page you refer to is interesting, but it has no bearing on Christianity. The Mosaic Law and its penalties was ended by Christ. In the NT Paul condemns homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, and a whole bunch of other things.
The theological argument (from a Catholic perspective) for that is this:
Before the Messiah, there was no atonement for sin. That's why God went around smiting and smacking and people got stoned to death. With the death of Christ, the final perfect sacrifice was made for all time - for all people from Adam and Eve to the last humans that will survive. No other sacrifice could really fit God except the sacrifice of God himself.
I don't expect you to believe or agree with that, but that's the reasoning. And just because an atonement was made, doesn't mean we can do what we want or even what we feel compelled to do.
Let me be blunt: I'm a red-blooded male with raging hormones. Don't you think if I got a chance to "hook up" with some twins my blood would be boiling? Heck yeah. But that doesn't mean I can do it. So if I am attracted to members of the same sex - and the reason - nature, nuture, whatever - is irrelevant. I'm still not supposed to do it if I believe what the religion and the Bible say.
What I think it comes down to is this: If one claims to be part of a certain religion, then one is bound to the teachings of that religion. Otherwise, the faith is false and has no meaning. Better to spend Sundays watching football instead of putting up a charade of faith.
Anyhow, I found your posting well-reasoned and straightfoward. I hope I have kind of answered your rhetorical questions or at least given a small part of the other side.
Post a Comment
<< Home