You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
In the wake of sex scandals involving children, the Roman Catholic Church should either change its mores or close its doors. Since 1950, the United States arm of the church has paid an astounding $2 billion to settle claims of childhood sexual abuse. Yes, that is billions with a capital "B" that could have gone towards raising orphans, housing the homeless and feeding the "foodless." Instead, the church has had to reach deep inside its pockets, because some priests can't keep their hands out of the pants of others.
About a quarter of the fortune paid to the unfortunate victims has come from the Los Angeles archdiocese. Its leader, Cardinal Roger Mahony, apologized Sunday to the hundreds of abused who will be compensated, as if you can put a price on the church's vice.
"There really is no way to go back and give them that innocence that was taken from them. The one thing I wish I could give the victims...I cannot," he said. "Once again, I apologize to anyone who has been offended, who has been abused. It should not have happened and should not ever happen again."
Of course, it will happen again, since none of the underlying structural problems have been addressed. The church simply cannot continue its practice of recruiting spiritual leaders from a pool of repressed, self-loathing, sexually and emotionally stunted men and not expect a sordid sequel.
An apology without genuine reform is an empty gesture and mere disastrous dogma that will continue to strip-mine more weeping souls. What substantial measure has the church taken to prevent future victims? Have they even once broken with orthodoxy or taken difficult steps that actually matter? The answer is an emphatic, shameful "no."
There are only three reforms that will alter the status quo:
* Ending celibacy and allowing priests to marry * Ordaining openly gay people * Allowing women into the priesthood.
Anything short of these dramatic changes is mere window dressing that will lead to future problems.
Celibacy: This largely discredited idea of "sexual purity" rarely works in practice. It may succeed for people with unusually low sex drives, but for normally functioning males, it is seldom a viable way of life. Sex is a natural drive and love is its magnificent emotional counterpart. To deny this aspect of one's humanity over an extended or indefinite period of time is wishful thinking. Until priests can get married and experience human touch, they will be dangerously out of touch. Sometimes, such deprivation leads to a twisted mindset that drives priests to take advantage of vulnerable people - such as altar boys.
Allowing marriage will also help end the priesthood as a place where self-loathing gay people can shield their true identity. Homosexuals (and heteros too) with such unresolved internal conflicts do not belong in the priesthood, as their repression may sometimes manifest in unhealthy ways.
Openly Gay Priests: Once the Church has weeded out emotionally disturbed closet cases, it can attract morally and spiritually secure gay people. To do this, however, Rome would have to allow marriages - or commitment ceremonies - for gay priests. Sadly, the Pope seems more interested in blaming gay people for the churches' scandals and calling them "disordered."
It is insulting for the morally compromised Catholic Church to blame gay people for its own dishonorable record. After all, if homosexuality alone was responsible for child abuse, it would be the gay rights organizations getting sued, not the Vatican. Rome's anti-gay campaign might be good politics, but it will also foster the perpetuation of pedophilia, even as they apologize for past transgressions.
Women Priests: The primary reason to allow women into the priesthood is because it is fair. Rome should terminate its archaic and discriminatory policy of sexist exclusion and send sisters to seminary. A secondary reason to admit women is that it will end the bad boys club that currently exists. Having women giving mass will make it more difficult to have mass cover-ups. Of course, this is common sense, which is a commodity in short supply if you consider the blithely blind child abuse record of the Holy See.
Unfortunately, there is a moral vacancy at the Vatican, so the drumbeat of denial goes on. Some "Good Fathers" will continue to fondle, the hierarchy will hide the horrors, Rome will retreat from reality and spin its festering sin. I don't have the faintest idea of where God resides in this dreary drama. But, faux apologies aside, it is my impression that Rome has yet to really go to confession.
31 Comments:
That guy is positively ghoulish looking. Ironically (or maybe not)he looks like the devil himself
posted by Priya Lynn, at
7/17/2007 8:38 PM
You miss the greater issue of the Roman Catholic Church's approach to homosexuality. A person doesn't just become sexually tormented, it arises from one's social, religious and cultural environment.
As Prefect of the Congregation For The Doctrine of the Faith (formerly known as "The Inquisition"), Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (current Pope Benedict) defined homosexuality as "a tendency towards an intrinsic moral evil" - "an objective disorder."
The Catholic Church's fundamental stance towards homosexuality (and sexuality in general) leads many Catholics to become tormented about their sexuality, to hate themselves, and to arrest their psychosexual growth and maturity.
The Church will continue to have self-loathing, internally conflicted priests as long as it stubbornly persists in its unhealthy, unbalanced teaching of human sexuality.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/18/2007 1:40 AM
What do we do about people like William Donohue, president of the Catholic League on Long Island? He holds a sociology degree and considers that an qualifaction to make outrageous statements that pedophilia = gay, overwhelmingly I might add. Nobody with authority on the subject ever takes him to task.
Robert, You are EXACTLY right. We see the same thing with "Drs." Dobson and Laura. And, because their biases are built in religion, that furthers the media giving them a platform when talking about gay issues/rights in this country. It is sad that whenever gay issues are being discussed, many in the media feel as if we must give the not so religious wrong a forum to spout off their ignorance.
I heard one of the victims on the news say it was a hollow apology, 'they're only sorry because they got caught and have to pay up'. No Catholic family should allow their children to be altar boys (or girls if they allow that yet) until major changes are made. I advise any miserable gay Catholics to come over to the Episcopal church. It's nice to see and hear women priests at the altar. If interested, check out the website http://www.integrityusa.org/ an organization for GLBT Episcopalians.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/18/2007 9:58 AM
Matthew, thank you. What puzzles me to this day is why Americans have this deeply entrenched adherence to religion in their psyche whereas much of western Europeans don't even though they live with state religion. We have the highest number of believers and people who practice their religion than any other western nation, its mindboggling considering we're supposed to have secular government which we do not. There are even some, mostly in the republican party who believe that there is a provision in the constitution for state religion, Bush is one of them.
I blame the electorate first and foremost, twice they "voted" for this government although I would describe it as a "junta" and an oligarchy combined. The contested ballots in Florida for example and the refusal by the state to count all the votes and the recent revelation of voter caging in the last election and the decision of Kathleen Harrison to give the election to Bush would be called an "coup d'état" in other western countries. Yet this electorate of ours does nothing! Its no wonder religion has hijacked government and the voting system.
Just watch when 2008 rolls around. You'll see the Catholic church meddling in the campaigns using abortion and gay marriage as wedge issues once again. If they dare do it, then we as a voting bloc should petition our politician's to have their tax-exempt status removed. We MUST call for impeachment of Bush and Cheney, along with Rice Rove and Rumsfeld, immediately. Nancy Pelosi needs to grow a party as does her party!
The vast majority of Catholic Hierarchy are atheists. I believe this to be true based upon their actions in response to the pedophilia scandal. If they truly, REALLY believe that there is a Deity who sees everything and will punish the wicked, then they would not have transferred KNOWN PEDOPHILES to far away parishes. They did this KNOWING that the lives of other young children would be ruined in the future. It seems that the "Great Whore" is, indeed, exactly that.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/18/2007 10:31 AM
Chris, you're probably right. My personal belief is that religion is a chosen state of mind and not permanent. I'm proof of it, was once a believer but long since have remained an affirmed atheist, no going back, and happier for it. The Catholic church is a business enterprise. The fact that its paid over a whopping $2 billion in retribution for the pedophilia scandal is evidence of its vast financial resources and even had to sell of property to offset the recent $640 million paid out in LA county. Its an evil institution. If it were truly christian and truly believed in the scriptures, it would have sold everything and given to the poor, just as they were commanded by their leader, Jesus Christ. They and the republican party have cornered the market on hypocrisy.
But if they sold everything and gave it to the poor, how could THAT MAN aka Benedict wear that Prada dress, have that fabulous art collection, and eat with a golden fork at his castle on Lake Gandolfo? He's have to go out and get a job.
Seriously, read Frederick Corvo's Hadrian the 7th. 100 years old, and it attacks those questions directly.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/18/2007 11:26 AM
Where are all the right wing scriptural posters when we need them. you'd think they would be here jumping on the chance to jump on the Whore of Babylon.
More reagrding celibacy, child molestation, and the priesthood-- here's somethinhg I wrote a few years ago.
I read the front page article, "AIDS said to kill hundreds of priests", first with interest, and then with growing anger. There is too much in it to let it pass as just another "foibles of the church" article.
According to the article, "hundreds of Roman Catholic priests across the country are dying from AIDS related illnesses, and the cause is often concealed on their death certificates. (This) has forced the..church to acknowledge that a significant number of its clergy are gay...(They) cited the case of Bishop Moore, (who) died in a hospice of an AIDS-related illness. His death certificate attributed the death to unknown natural causes and listed his occupation as laborer in the manufacturing industry... Some priests believe that the Church has scared priests into silence by treating homosexuality as an abomination and the breaking of celibacy vows as shameful."
Let us examine first the moral, and then the theological implications, of this story.
1) The priests who have gotten HIV from sex, whether from women or from men, have broken solemn vows regarding chastity and celibacy which they made, if not to God, at least in God's name. In that they didn't stop this behavior, but hid it until AIDS made it impossible to hide any longer, they have lied about it to the church and to the people. Those priests having sex with men are demonstrating that they have within them what the Pope has been pleased to call "intrinsic moral evil." And they knew it. Liars and hypocrites.
I realize that they are only human, but to see the church's capacity to forgive it's own for being "only human", especially when it's to the advantage of the church to do so, but to condemn gay people, especially the secular and non-Christian, continually for the same offense, is sickening. The example of the former Archbishop of Santa Rosa, who had a consensual (his word!) affair with a priest, is a very clear example of this. But that is only the beginning.
2) The Church is aware that a significant portion of its clergy is gay, and has hidden this fact. (Father John McNeill stated it publicly some 20 years ago, and I remember articles in the local papers on that subject). What staggering hypocrisy! And of course, someone had to collude with the authorities to falsify a death certificate, which I believe is a criminal offense. It's also a lie, and hypocrisy.
3) Of course priests are not speaking out about it, but it probably has more to do with fear of losing their jobs and the place they have in the community than it does with the church's official attitude. That's called being in the closet, something that many gay people have to suffer every day, courtesy of the Church. I'm sure that one could find 500 gay priests. And what if they were to stand up and say to the Pope: "You've got 500 ordained queers standing here". We might start having a really serious, honest discussion about homosexuality in religion and in our society. But they won't. They'll just go along with the program, like good Germans. What enormous hypocrisy, monumental dishonesty, and a total lack of integrity. Jesus said, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." Indeed!
Those are just the moral implications of this. The theological implications are truly momentous. Per the article, the Church knows that a significant number of its priesthood is homosexual, a condition it no longer considers morally neutral, and that a significant percentage of those priests are sexually active. The Pope calls homosexuality an intrinsic moral evil, something mostly immutable and inherent. This is not filching pennies from the collection basket.
1) These people who have intrinsic moral evil-- and I don't believe any other sin has ever achieved that status, flying as it does in the face of everything I have ever read about the nature of sin and free will-- are handling the Blood and Body of Jesus with the Church's knowledge and blessing. They are also dispensing the other sacraments, especially the sacrament of marriage, which the Church feels is not a gift from God to all of his children, but only the ones the church has decided are worthy of it.
2) One does not become a priest by seeing the Holy Recruiter down at the mall, thinking that it looks like a good job, and filling out an application. To become a priest one must have a vocation, literally a calling to God, which is a charisma, a gift from God. Without this, one CANNOT be a priest. The church goes through a lengthy process to ascertain that candidates do have a genuine vocation, because many do not. The candidate must go through a tremendous amount of religious and psychological evaluation. And only after that may they be ordained.
We must conclude then that God is calling gay men to the priesthood, that they must have a favored place in church and society. Apparently, God does not share the church's view on homosexuality, as the Church itself is certifying that these people have the gift from God. To then condemn gay people as intrinsically, morally disordered, and not worthy to receive the sacrament of marriage to another of God's children, is either rank hypocrisy or stupefying blindness. Their certification process, which leads to ordination, is clearly meaningless, because either it cannot recognize God's clear message, or it is completely bogus. To claim any authority, let alone a place as the sole interpreter of what God wants for humans, especially gay people, is ludicrous.
3) Ordination is a sacrament. I believe that a priest can only be ordained by a bishop. A bishop is further up in the Church hierarchy, and is thus closer to the Fount. (The Pope is officially God's Viceroy on Earth, about as high as you can go). So, a gay bishop, who can only be ordained by another bishop? What is God saying here? A bishop, acting on God's will, is conferring a sacrament, a sign of God's love, on someone who is intrinsically, morally, evil and disordered, according to the church. And let's not get into this stuff about momentary lapses and fallible human beings. A gift from God is not a fallibility. Being gay has not ever been a momentary lapse, which even the Church admits. Either the Church's process is unable to distinguish God's clear will, or the Church hasn't a clue of what God's will is. Or maybe the Church really doesn't have much to do with God at all, but just represents itself.
To grant this authority to either the monumentally clueless or the monumentally hypocritical makes no sense. It makes me ask how this organization came to be the moral judge of anything. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. But, he did say on numerous occasions that one should not sit in judgment of others.
As the Buddhists put it, if you think you know, you haven't a clue.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/18/2007 11:36 AM
Ben, if every gay priest or monk left the oppressive institution they've chosen to live in, then I think it would force the church to take a different look at homosexuality and sexuality in general. The wake-up call comes from Ireland where only one seminary exists. If this trend continues which it is, particularly in England and other western countries where not only seminaries are closing but churches, this will only have more serious implications for its survival. Already, in the NY area, 21 churches have been forced to close. My wish is that all seminaries close to hasten the demise. If it can't adapt to modern 21st century life, then it has no longer has any relevance.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/18/2007 11:52 AM
Wayne, the RC church often equates pedophilia overwhelmingly with being gay. William Donohue who I mentioned in a previous posting oversees an organization equivalent to what GLAAD is to the LGBT community, the fair and accurate reporting in the media and elsewhere, in their case catholic bashing, its prime mission.
During the child molestation proceedings the Vatican hired right wing psychiatrists to issue a report prior to the eventual ban on gays in the seminaries. In that report, catholic psychiatrists equated pedophilia and being gay as one and the same. Hence, the ban was put in place. Its official and the official teaching of the church.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/18/2007 12:37 PM
The Catholic Church doesn't bother me much at all anymore. I just don't take them seriously. Maybe it's because I went to Catholic high school and saw firsthand what a bunch of psychologically maladjusted beings that they were. They live in a crass cesspool of their own making, and I am glad that all I have to do to get my revenge for their homophobia is to simply sit back and allow them their existence. :-)
posted by Anonymous, at
7/18/2007 1:32 PM
And for your penance Chris, come sit on Father's lap and bounce up and down. Seriously though, this shit is nothing new, they, like most of the human race never learn from the past. The medieval artists always had popes and bishops in their paintings of hell; because they were just as fucked up and corrupt back then as they are now. And people knew it. We know from the recent news that fundos are just as hypocritical as the RC church is. God knows what goes on in islamic countries behind closed doors considering how oppressed those assholes are!
posted by Anonymous, at
7/18/2007 1:45 PM
I know so many people who DONT go to church anymore because of the abusive way they were treated in school by nuns and priests. You'd think an institution as old and supposedly as shrewd as the RC church would know you dont attract and keep people by treating them like shit---especially children, who are often scarred for life by these sexually repressed miserable clergy persons. When I was a child in the 60s, a next door neighbor who went to Catholic school would dress up like a nun and have a pretend school in her basement with her dolls as the pupils. She would pretend that they got the answers wrong and then beat the shit out of them with a yardstick or pointer. We would laugh because they would flying all over the room. In retrospect, that was her way of getting the rage out from being treated that way herself in school. Gary (NJ)
posted by Anonymous, at
7/18/2007 3:10 PM
Mark Jordan's book, "The Silence of Sodom", published in 2000, is perhaps the most insightful look at a weird paradox: a church that makes such a fetish of procreation seems to have been a haven for the sexually unconventional throughout all its history.
Saint Thomas Aquinas even concluded that masturbation was more heinous a sin than rape! Evidently the semen was not going down the correct hole in the first instance. Now there's something to embarrass a Thomist philosopher with! (The philosophy departments of many Catholic colleges and seminaries still have plenty of these fossils; so have at it, young whippersnappers!)
The idea that the Church would somehow reform itself is laughable. Like the heads of the Chinese Communist Party, the Vatican evidently observed the results of Mikhail Gorbochov's attempts to reform Soviet Communism and concluded that total collapse of the hierarchy lies at the end of that road.
So they will continue to muddle through--buying off victims through out of court settlements when they can. (Though less often now than in the past, when shame and misplaced loyalty to the Church kept many victims from taking legal action.), Taking their chances in court when they must.
I have laughed and laughed over your story about the neighbor girl dressing up as a nun and having Catholic School in her basement. And even though it's wickedly funny from this vantage, I do catch the waves of anger from that little girl today. Anger does not serve us well though. To be angry with the Catholic Church is to give that institution the importance that they are gradually losing. (About time!) Best thing, I think, is to leave it and ignore it. It will eventually go away. I agree with Robert if the seminaries close down then it's just a matter of time for the closing their doors or/or facing a total reformation.
As to the poster who recommends the Episcopal Church and Integrity for the GLBT crowd. Been there, done that! Whereas the Anglicans have the music market cornered (best music programs of any church), they are still continuing to talk about "the topic" and trying to accommodate their fundies from Africa and the South. Enough talking. If any church should be open to gay marriage or any marriage at all, it should be the Anglicans. Didn't they make a case for Henry VIII remarrying at least 7 times? I hear the Church of Christ allows and welcomes gay marriage.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/18/2007 6:28 PM
Richard, yes, the Anglicans have some fine music, but in my former "catholic" days, I marvelled at the divine office, good old-fashioned plain chant...the ditties as I would call them such as Ave Maris Stella, Pange Lingua Gloriosi, Tantum Ergo all sung or chanted in latin. You now have to travel to London's Westminster Cathedral to hear all this on a daily basis though. Its a real shame that the RC church's teaching can't be as beautiful as its liturgical music.
Getting back to the Anglicans though...Rowan Williams, the current Archbishop of Canterbury at one time was very liberal and very supportive of gay clergy and members of his church, though deep down I think he still is. He's caught up in a potential schism that I hope happens. I think it would do a whole lot of good if that came about. Who needs arch bigots such as Akinola of Nigeria, the mirror image of what is sitting in the Vatican today? A schism with him and his rabble would have a very negative impact and would cut off a major source of its revenue from the mother church in England and Episcopal church in north America. Then and only then would the Anglicans I think come around to recognizing same-sex marriage and put an end to the ridiculous concept of ecumenism which would give the RC church more power over our lives.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/19/2007 7:58 AM
I heard that Nigerian clown quoting Leviticus (their all time favorite) and of course he got it wrong. He said, 'man shall not lie with man blah blah blah' AND 'woman shall not lie with woman' BUZZZZ---wrong! Those cultures were and still are so patriarchal, they really only cared about what men did. That fortune cookie in Leviticus doesnt say squat about women. (Lesbians get a free pass here). I wonder if the Archbigot eats shell fish or wears clothes made from different fabrics? He's the only abomination in this whole scenario.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/19/2007 9:49 AM
Anonymous, Akinola of Nigeria is a neanderthal who needs to crawl back into his cave where he belongs along with the rest of the bigots in his church and elsewhere for that matter. Actually, the Leviticus "cookie was never uttered by Jesus Christ either, in fact JC never once mentioned homosexuality, let alone condemn it. These religious bigots cherry pick their belief system deliberately to suit their own agenda. We're the last vestige of hatred, the only ones they can hate because its ok and sanctioned by government legislation, much like the DOMA and DADT legislation whose roots emanate from religious bigotry. Akinola's church permits divorce but its not permitted in the bible, the bible they claim is the word of their socalled god.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/19/2007 11:59 AM
I am amazed! Did that backwards Nigerian clown really say that Leviticus says "WOMAN shall not lie with woman?!" Yup, he made a very embarrassing mistake on that one as it does only refer to men. But this is a teaching moment because we can see how the homophobia existed in the clown's own mind BEFORE he found it in the Bible. This is exactly the condition which befalls the American fundamentalist, too.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/19/2007 12:22 PM
I would love to ask all of the mainstream religious leaders if they believe in the scriptures. If they all said yes, then I'd have my list of references to pose to them. I think Akinola would turn white with rage! I bet you they'd feel uncomfortable when it comes to the issue of divorce, forbidden in the bible and one of the commandments; stoning one's wife to death permissible if she commits adultery (no mention of men commiting adultery either); also permitted, the killing of one's children for being disrespectful; the cutting off of one's hand or the plucking out of one's eye if something is offensive; eating of shellfish forbidden, shaving one's beard forbidden; husbands must be far away from women she is unclean (having her period); women's heads should always be covered; women should walk behind men, and the one I love most, polygamy, permitted. What wouldn't I give to see them all squirm in a same-sex marriage forum. I'd also like to pose these questions to Clinton, Obama and Edwards on August 9, questions that I hope Melissa Etheridge and others pose. Its long overdue.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/19/2007 1:17 PM
I read an article recently in which a biblical scholar said the correct translation from the Hebrew in Leviticus is "a man shall not lie with a man with the lying of a woman". It does not say AS with women. It sounds like a prohibition of threesomes, but the scholar claimed that in the very patriarchal, misogynistic world in which this was written, it really means you cant act like a woman when having sex. It's simply bigotry against bottoms, tops get off scott-free. One wonders if this applies to lesbians who use strap-ons?! Any straight guy who is passive in bed with his woman or allows her to finger-fuck him is committing the same 'abomination'. Red V
posted by Anonymous, at
7/19/2007 2:30 PM
John boswell says the correct translation is literally "sleep the sleep of a woman." What the hell (reference intended) does it mean, seeing as it appears nowhere but two two cited passages of leviticus? To say the leviticus condemns lesbians is of course making it up. but then the hwole thing is made up.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/19/2007 2:38 PM
Red V, that is interesting. There was a series on the History Channel several weeks ago dealing with manuscripts that were forbidden for inclusion in the bible, some of them are kept under lock and key in the Vatican of course and elsewhere. Bibilical scholars who researched this had reason to believe that these manuscripts contained information that today would turn religion on its head and put them in a not so favorable light. Probably that homosexuality wasn't sinful or that maybe some of the disciples were gay or in fact Jesus might have been gay or had sex with women. Its open to interpretation but it makes you wonder why keep them locked up, why not let the public see what they're about if there's nothing to hide. Just goes to prove that the bible is flawed and full of superstition and contradictory statements.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/19/2007 4:01 PM
Just a few quick corrections/questions:
1) For the Anonymous that posted at 7/19/2007 9:49 AM, you make the mistake - indicated by your wondering whether the "Archbigot eats shell fish or wears clothes made from different fabrics" - of seemingly equating the Law of Moses with the Law of Christ.
However, the clear teaching of the New Testament is that the Mosaic Law has been made inoperative with the sacrificial death and Resurrection of Yeshua the Messiah. The Law of Moses, all 613 commandments, does not have authority over the Christian.
The new law the Christian is under is referred to as both the Law of Christ and the Law of the Spirit of Life. This is the "law" which contains all the commandments which are pertinent to a New Testament believer in Jesus Christ.
Now, the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ do have many similar commandments, but this doesn't mean the previous "law" is still in effect. So, while nine of the Ten Commandments are found in the Law of Christ, this doesn't mean the Law of Moses is still in effect. After all, there are many differences as well. For example, under the Mosaic Law one was not permitted to eat pork. Under the Law of Christ, one can eat all the ham sandwiches, bacon, and pork chops they desire.
2) Robert claims that Jesus "never once mentioned homosexuality, let alone condemn it." Not true. Jesus did in fact address the issue of homosexuality. The Torah is as much the Words of Jesus as are the New Testament Gospels. This Trinitarian reality is a given to Christian theologians, and ought to at least be acknowledged and dealt with by any detractors.
Now, Robert may still insist that Jesus Himself, when He walked the earth, never explicitly classified homosexuality as a sin (the relevancy of this would be questionable and he would still of course have to answer the Trinitarian argument above).
Jesus also never explicitly classified bestiality and incest as sins either. Would you say that's because Jesus didn't believe bestiality and incest were sins (contrary to the Torah, which He claimed on many occasions was the Word of God), or would you say that's because Jesus didn't need to explicitly classify homosexuality and bestiality and incest as sins because it was such an obvious given in light of the Torah's clear teaching that they were sins? Perhaps another reason?
3) Robert claims that divorce is "not permitted in the Bible." Not exactly true. While the Bible clearly indicates divorce is not God's ideal and is more often than not sin, divorce is permitted (note: not commanded) under the Law of Christ for martial unfaithfulness and the desertion of a Christian by their non-Christian spouse. Certainly reconciliation should be the highest priority if possible.
4) I'm not a "mainstream religious leader" Robert, but I am a follower of Jesus Christ and believe the Scriptures are God-breathed, infallible, and inerrant. Ask away.
5) Robert keeps making claims concerning the formation of the canon of Scripture that just demonstrate (with all due respect) his ignorance of the subject and tendency to believe conspiracy theories over historical facts.
And since when did the History Channel become worthy of quoting in debate or discussion? Should a person even take that seriously? Probably about as seriously as the argumentation and scholarship of Friend of Jonathan.
6) There is much explicit talk and implicit assumption in Robert and other posters about right and wrong and many other claims related to ethics. On what basis are these moral standards and judgments made? How are they justified?
posted by Anonymous, at
7/20/2007 6:40 PM
Holy See and Hypocrisy. Check out this weblog June 3 - Benedict XVI and his Private Secretary Georg are GAYS. From Georg's interview, they live together, wake up together, eat together, travel together, appear in public together, holiday together, 24 hours, until the Pope is buried.
Before you point out what you imagine to be a speck in the eyes of GLBTQ people, hadn't you better do something about that huge log of bearing false witness in your own eye?
You sinned against me, AJ, bearing false witness against my with vicious and sick accusations about my relationship. Please, for your own sake, repent.
posted by Friend of Jonathan, at
7/28/2007 8:09 PM
AJ
I'm still waiting for you to repent of your sin of bearing false witness against me, and your sin of lying about me.
I also think you owe everyone else here an apology and repentance for your sins against them, but that is just my opinion rather than a call for you to repent; it is up to them to ask you directly.
I do encourage everyone who is feels wronged by AJ's posts to ask him to repent, as often as seems relevant to you. We are not to give up on him, but to offer him infinite opportunities to repent and seek our forgiveness.
posted by Friend of Jonathan, at
7/29/2007 4:16 PM
