they just don't get it

[cmotherofpirl]

[color=blue]This is from the National Catholic Reporter, those lovely people who think faithfulness is not progressive enough. They [b]really [/b]don't get it. [/color]


For what it's worth, our condolences

To all those in positions of leadership in the Roman Catholic church who also happen to be homosexual, we offer our commiseration and sorrow that once again you have been forced to hear your sexuality, an element intrinsic to your humanity, described as an objective disorder.

This time the phrase appears in the document with the ridiculously unwieldy title: “Instruction concerning the criteria of vocational discernment regarding persons with homosexual tendencies, considering their admission to seminary and to Holy Orders.” In other words, the document on gays and seminaries.

The description is repugnant, of course, to all those in the church, gay and straight, who understand that homosexuality is, in the overwhelming number of cases, not a chosen orientation but as essential a part of one’s nature as heterosexuality is for others.

As this document is aimed particularly at the ordained clergy, our thoughts go especially, then, to all the deacons and priests, religious superiors, bishops and cardinals, who might have a homosexual orientation while dedicating lives of integrity to the service of the Gospel and the church. Such an ugly characterization from the church you serve is unnecessary.

Already the document is being parsed to shreds, but to little avail. Without being too dismissive of the efforts of canon lawyers and other church authorities, the document will remain a puzzling and unclear instruction because it is, itself, fundamentally disordered. It uses words that have no precise meanings and definitions that are rooted in air. It posits absolutes where there aren’t any, and it asks spiritual counselors to do the kind of searching of another’s soul that only God can do.

The language, of course, is more the product of ignorance and fear than of enlightenment. To some it will provide easy answers to complex problems. But such language -- standing smugly in defiance of the insights of scientific, biblical and social science research -- is, in the end, no answer at all.

The document correctly points out the need to screen for emotional maturity of candidates for the priesthood. Unfortunately, the only disqualifying element spoken about at length is sexual orientation.

Emotional maturity takes in a wide spectrum of issues. Our experience in the pews suggests that homosexuality is low on the list of indicators of immaturity. We in the pews see the greatest signs of immaturity, for instance, among priests who seem to dislike dealing with their own parishioners; who have an undue fascination with wearing peculiar garb as a symbol of office; who are unable to engage in collegial efforts; who believe that leadership and authority comprise issuing dictates; who hold the conviction that Christianity is a religion of rules and rubrics, not a community of right relationships.

We are told that the document grew out of concern over the sexual abuse crisis. But the suggestion that homosexuality was somehow responsible for the abuse of vulnerable boys and girls or for the complicity in criminal activity of some occupying the most significant positions of authority is not only insulting to homosexuals, but way off the mark.

This document merely affirms old prejudices and misconceptions but solves nothing. There are reasons, and we’ve reported on them, to be concerned about homosexuals acting out inappropriately in seminaries and as priests. There is at least as much reason to worry about the persistent reports of heterosexual activity and about priests who have affairs with women and sire children, yet remain unaccountable to those relationships. Honoring vows and promises is one thing (and something about which the married people in the pews have a working understanding). Homosexual orientation is quite another.

We know that homosexuals have had powerful and faithful ministries in the church, have contributed in major ways as writers and musicians, artists and liturgists, preachers and activists.

Homosexuals in the church understand, in the deepest wells of their humanity, that this is a document issued out of confusion and fear, one that thrashes about for a rationale and a discipline where none exist.

We are grateful for those homosexual Catholics who have found the courage to stay -- from those in the back of the church trying to hang on in a hostile environment to the ordained who inhabit seats of power and enforce the rules, from those holding their orientation in secret to those who openly declare it.

[Timothy]

[photosynthesis]

and they call themselves "Catholic"...

[morostheos]

sigh... when will they understand? the "us against them" isn't American Catholic vs. the Vatican, it's God vs. Satan - and God's already won the battle!

[Guest Rick777]

American Catholics vs. The Pope , that seems to be thier motto.
It should be thier new title........

[Timothy]

I protest, they should be stripped of their title

[beatty07]

What are you crazy people talking about? Thank God for the National Catholic Reporter. If not for them, who would teach us the Deposit of Faith, entrusted to the Apostles and passed down through the generations? Without the NCR, how would we know with certainty the authentic interpretation of Scripture and Tradition?

You are all heretics, dissenting from the inherited dogmas of progressive orthodoxy. I hereby pronounce you anathema and bar you from all our GBLT marches and drum circles and yoga sessions.

[Timothy]

[rkwright]

[quote name='beatty07' date='Dec 7 2005, 11:53 AM']What are you crazy people talking about?  Thank God for the National Catholic Reporter.  If not for them, who would teach us the Deposit of Faith, entrusted to the Apostles and passed down through the generations?  Without the NCR, how would we know with certainty the authentic interpretation of Scripture and Tradition?

You are all heretics, dissenting from the inherited dogmas of progressive orthodoxy.  I hereby pronounce you anathema and bar you from all our GBLT marches and drum circles and yoga sessions.
[right][snapback]815439[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

aw man does this mean I don't get a church faithful title

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='beatty07' date='Dec 7 2005, 01:53 PM']What are you crazy people talking about?  Thank God for the National Catholic Reporter.  If not for them, who would teach us the Deposit of Faith, entrusted to the Apostles and passed down through the generations?  Without the NCR, how would we know with certainty the authentic interpretation of Scripture and Tradition?

You are all heretics, dissenting from the inherited dogmas of progressive orthodoxy.  I hereby pronounce you anathema and bar you from all our GBLT marches and drum circles and yoga sessions.
[right][snapback]815439[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Timothy]

ohh yeah........

[argent_paladin]

I went to a Christopher West talk last Saturday and he briefly commented on this. He said that we don't ever ask "What is an ear for?" or "What is an eye for?" or "What is a thumb for?" but we ask "What are our genitals for?" For some reason, some cannot figure it out.

They are for making babies! Another way to say it, is that they are *ordered toward* procreation. Homosexual activity would make them "disordered", that is, not ordered toward what they should be ordered toward.

If you regularly used your ears as pencil holders, we could say that your behavior is intrinsically disordered. Or if you use your head to pound nails. Or your tongue to check to see if the light sockets work. (or more seriously, if we abuse drugs or alcohol, etc) These are abuses, disorders, and ultimately self-destructive. The thing is, if we abuse our bodies, treat them in a way God didn't intend, we won't be happy.

[jezic]

don't you mean progressive heterodoxy?

[Socrates]

[quote name='beatty07' date='Dec 7 2005, 12:53 PM']What are you crazy people talking about?  Thank God for the National Catholic Reporter.  If not for them, who would teach us the Deposit of Faith, entrusted to the Apostles and passed down through the generations?  Without the NCR, how would we know with certainty the authentic interpretation of Scripture and Tradition?

You are all heretics, dissenting from the inherited dogmas of progressive orthodoxy.  I hereby pronounce you anathema and bar you from all our GBLT marches and drum circles and yoga sessions.
[right][snapback]815439[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

LOL

[Nathan]

These people are neo-Protestants at best.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Nathan' date='Dec 7 2005, 04:50 PM']These people are neo-Protestants at best.
[right][snapback]815816[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That gives Protestants a bad name!

They're just secular-styled liberals calling themselves "Catholic" while opposing everything the Church stands for.

[Nathan]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 7 2005, 04:54 PM']That gives Protestants a bad name!

They're just secular-styled liberals calling themselves "Catholic" while opposing everything the Church stands for.
[right][snapback]815820[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

They certainly do oppose quite a lot of what the Catholic Church teaches and has always taught to be calling themselves "Catholic." It makes one wonder why they would find a faith that they so often disagree with so attractive -- at least attractive enough to want to call themselves followers of it.

They want to have their cake and eat it too. Someone needs to tell them that a real, mature faith doesn't work that way.

Edited December 8, 2005 by Nathan

[Socrates]

[quote name='Nathan' date='Dec 7 2005, 05:05 PM']They certainly do oppose quite a lot of what the Catholic Church teaches and has always taught to be calling themselves "Catholic." It makes one wonder why they would find a faith that they so often disagree with so attractive -- at least attractive enough to call themselves followers of it.

They want to have their cake and eat it too. Someone needs to tell them that a real, mature faith doesn't work that way.
[right][snapback]815833[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Remember LittleLes?

[Nathan]

Vaguely. What was he all about again?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Nathan' date='Dec 7 2005, 05:11 PM']Vaguely. What was he all about again?
[right][snapback]815842[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Pretty much like you described.
Modernist troll. Called himself Catholic, yet denied just about everything in the Creed - the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the divinity of Christ, the Papacy, the Bible, etc., etc., etc.

And he loved to use lots of obnoxious smilies.