1
   

Catholic Church Now Accepts Gays

 
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2005 04:26 pm
I would agree about people focusing on the parts they prefer to focus on.

I had to ask myself if I might be doing the same thing....but I said no.

<heh>
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2005 06:50 pm
catholic church
re. the sex abuse that took place in the anglican church alluded to by ebeth. we know one of the families whose two boys were abused. it's pretty well destroyed the family. when the whole mess blew up the canon was interviewed by the local newspaper. while he admitted that the abuse had taken place and while he expressed his regret; he also stated that when he was growing up as a boy in england, that it had happened to him and "these things tend to happen". at least one of the children that had been abused committed suicide as an older teenager because he could not live with the abuse visited upon him.

one of the worst abuse cases in canada took place at mount cashel in newfoundland. i'm providing a link, but would warn you NOT to read it unless you are prepared to read about some dastardly behavior. >>>
see link to MOUNT CASHEL at bottom of entry

some of the victims have simply given up trying to get satisfaction through the legal system and have settled for arbitration. it is hard to believe that after all the humiliation and abuse these people had to endure as children, they are now having a hard time getting their just claims acknowledged.

it is difficult for me to understand how members of religious communities/churches can commit these crimes and speak of god and jesus at the same time. hbg

...MOUNT CASHEL...
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2005 11:14 pm
Just for reference, indeed it ain't only Catholic priests:

Quote:
Catholic clergy singled out, historian says
Protestant sex scandals as common, get less play. Other differences cited


By Richard N. Ostling / Associated Press
Friday, April 5, 2002

The flood of sex abuse allegations against priests this year has focused attention on the Roman Catholic Church, but Protestant denominations have also faced sex scandals involving clergy over the years ...

... Penn State historian Philip Jenkins argued in his 1996 book Pedophiles and Priests that secular and Catholic media exaggerate the extent of Catholic cases involving minors, while downplaying Protestant abuse. For instance, the Rev. Robert Eckert of Grand Rapids, a minister in the African Methodist Episcopal Church, was sent to prison in 2000 for sexual involvement with a 15-year-old girl who worked as his baby sitter -- but the case received relatively little attention.

Jenkins, an Episcopalian, thinks a 1992 survey from the Chicago Archdiocese is more representative of the true picture in Catholicism.
Among 2,252 priests serving over four decades, 39 priests (1.7 percent) apparently abused minors. Only one abuser could be termed a pedophile under the strict, clinical definition of the word -- meaning the victim was prepubescent. "I am prepared to be convinced the Catholics have a bigger problem" than Protestants, Jenkins said, but nobody has good data, partly because Protestant groups are too numerous. "I certainly haven't seen anything, and I'm looking hard."

Minneapolis psychologist Gary Schoener agreed. "There are no real scientific data" on Protestants, he said. Since 1974, his Walk-In Counseling Center has been consulted on more than 2,000 cases of clergy sexual misconduct of all types, two-thirds of them with Protestants ...


Here are over 800 documented cases of sexual abuse by clergy NOT involving Roman Catholic priests

It would seem that when it comes to reporting sexual offenses by clergy, if the perpetrator ISN'T a Catholic priest, it doesn't make the cut for national news.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 06:00 am
That stuff really pisses me off. That is the most disgusting and plain wrong abuse of position. It makes me want to retake my position on the death penalty.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 07:45 am
I agree completely, thunder_runner32 - mainstream media needs to be shot.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 10:01 am
Right in the fu#@ing head!
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 11:42 pm
Another perspective on child-abuse is worth explorinng. Its a perspective which has nothing to do with clergy, and is far more troubling. A virtuallly unreported 2004 report commissioned by the US Department of Education (Educator Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature) indicates children within the public school sysyem may be as much as 100 times more likely to experience sexual abuse perpetrated by an adult employed within the public school system than are children at risk of abuse from Catholic priests.

Initially conceived as a framework from which to expand and develop an exhaustive, definitive national study, the report apparently shocked and dismayed the higher-ups of the public education system to such an extent that planning for further research has been shelved, and the report essentially has been buried. The report's working title had been "A Synthesis of Existing Literature in Connection With the Design of a National Analysis". The change to the as-published title is telling; some would prefer not to know - and prefer that no-one know - the extent and impact of the problem of child abuse in our public schools.

A letter from the Department of Education to the report's director, calling for the pre-publication title change, stated the department "has not made plans to conduct further work on a national study on sexual abuse in schools". Carlin Mertz, an Education Department spokesman, indicated the department no longer intended a full-blown study of the issue. "That's all we're going to do right now," said Mr. Mertz in an interview last year. "Right now, this is it."

The report found nearly 10 percent of American students are targets of unwanted sexual attention by public school employees, abuse ranging from sexual comments through inappropriate touching to forcible rape, at some point during their K-12 public education. The report estimates literally many millions of children are or have been affected, and indicates little proactive attention has been given the problem.

A widely publicized 2003 study conducted for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops found that in the 50-plus year period 1950-2002, 10,6667 allegations involving sexual misconduct with minors were levelled against Catholic clergy. By comparison, the tucked-under-the-rug 2004 Department of Education report estimated nearly 300,000 incidents of sexual abuse of school children by school employees took place just in the decade between 1991 to 2000.

It was found that 9.6% of all students in grades 8-11 reported sexual harassment by teachers, coaches, or other school employees. Included were reports of misconduct involving physical contact as well as such behavior as sexual remarks, jokes, or gestures, with 8.7% of respondents reporting "noncontact" harassment and 6.7% reporting harassment involving physical contact.

Over 4.5 Million school children are likely to have been "sexually harassed or abused by an employee of a school sometime between kindergarten and 12th grade," the report says. "This is about the same number of people who live in all of Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming."

Source: US Dept. of Education Policy and Program Study Service: Educator Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature (Note: 156 page .pdf file)
0 Replies
 
booman2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 05:17 pm
When I people "rethinking the death penalty", it really concerns me. You see, there are several reasons for being against capitol punishment. The most common, and strongest is the fact that many people are wrongly murdered by the state. Therefore, if certain heinous crimes, or crimes commited on someone close to you cause you to rethink state sanctioned murder, it means you're willing to kill some innocents, just to satisfy your personal lust for murder.
.....Now let's try this on for size: Could you bloodthirsty people look a child of yours in the eye and say, "Son someday when you're grown, you might be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and get arrested, convicted, and killed, for a crime you didn't commit, but this is okay, because we need this law in effect, so that we can legally kill people who are most likely guilty of certain heinous crimes.
0 Replies
 
NoNe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2005 09:32 pm
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win"
Mahatma Ghandi.
Sometimes it seems me that he said it about all those perverts and homosexuals idiots all around me. They have always existed, at least they used to hide their mental conditions, but today they are screaming all around about human rights and other bullshit. In my work I have to deal with those gays and lesbians a lot. Not so long time ago, I was arguing with a friend of mine about gay marriage. I was telling him that it is everybody's choice and they can do whatever they want to do untill it is mutual and nobody's forcing another one-it is not the business of the society. But, look how it works-I used to think it is ok to have gays among us, but HEY, what we see in the streets of san francisco is too much even for the leberal people. I do not want My kid to grow seeing those gays all around him and think that there are three kinds of people:women, men and gays. That is sick. The more rights they get, for the much more they demand. First they wanted it not to be illegal; then they wanted to have gay marriages, now they want to have kids in their families. Tomorrow they will have strikes demanding to grow their kids with Gay values and will be pissed of if. There are always borders, and does not matter how wide will be the space in this area, or how far will u strech up those borders-THERE IS ALWAYS SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO CROSS IT. Yesterday prostitutes were not so many as today. Today it is hilarious-Husbands talk how their wives were whores and stuff and it is OK. Today we see gays all around, gay CHURCH?? It's a Bull ****. Serious. That is an offend to God and The bible(though I am not a Christian myself) Religion is not something flexible which u can "wear" according the size of ur ass-To think up different reasons to protect ur sins. Gays-It is ok With God; Prostitues-It is ok With god and other crap.
Tomorrow those gays all around and gay marriages will become something common. And then U will see another group of sick people who will want to **** little kids or who will be protesting against the law which prohibits eating **** in the Public places, saying "Why nobody says anything to those who eat hamburgers and salads in the caffes, but it is not ok for me to eat my **** on the street?" and they will be "Kind" people who will protect them and their kids will grow among all those **** eaters. This is all sick!
God created male for a female and wise versa, not the man for the man or a man for a dog or other sick stuff. I do not know who u r, but this gay Church, is nothing bout the House of the Satan.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2005 10:38 pm
Hi NoNe.

Welcome to A2K.

I'm glad that you accept the fact that gays are around, and always have been. I'm also really glad that you realize that every adult should be able to marry whomever they choose.

But, where do we part ways from there?

How we got to people eating **** and hamburgers in the street just baffles me.

But, I'm glad you're here.

Can you tell me what bothers you about the gay church?
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 06:09 am
lash wrote:
Can you tell me what bothers you about the gay church?


none wrote:
Religion is not something flexible which u can "wear" according the size of ur ass-To think up different reasons to protect ur sins.


Exactly.
0 Replies
 
NoNe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 08:20 pm
Lash wrote:
Hi NoNe.

Welcome to A2K.

I'm glad that you accept the fact that gays are around, and always have been. I'm also really glad that you realize that every adult should be able to marry whomever they choose.

But, where do we part ways from there?

How we got to people eating **** and hamburgers in the street just baffles me.

But, I'm glad you're here.

Can you tell me what bothers you about the gay church?

The thing which bothers me is-That gay people, gay "Priests" and those who are finding this whole story "NORMAL" are calling themselves Good religious men, and acting against the Word and the will of the God. People, do not u understand that this Bretney Spears who gave a show in the Church, those Gay-Lesbi churches, those Priests molesting lil kids making the world to laugh at This Religion? U should not Fear the open Enemy as much as u should fear the enemy among urselves. Those who says that Catholicism is not a right way are not so dangerous as those who change the word of the bible, like those who corrupt the teachings of the Jesus. How can u commit such a sin and Pretend like nothing is going on all around? Why is the sexual desire is stronger than the Will of the God? How can u sommit such a sin as Speaking from the name of Holiness committing homosexual relationship? God Bless u. Do not Judge, and Will be not Judged. But I think, That if Jesus was alive, He would've Cried if he had seen what people have done to the House of his Father, and turned into the evil something. U guys who think that it is ok, Suck.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 05:58 am
Quote:
That if Jesus was alive, He would've Cried if he had seen what people have done to the House of his Father, and turned into the evil something. U guys who think that it is ok, Suck.


Yes, I think he would cry...but the next time Jesus is around, he will not be here to fix the church, he has bigger plans... if you know what I mean.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 10:49 am
thunder wrote :

"Quote:
That if Jesus was alive, He would've Cried if he had seen what people have done to the House of his Father, and turned into the evil something. U guys who think that it is ok, Suck. "

from what i know, jesus was a simple and humble person. no large buildings and edificies - called churches, for some reason - for him; a simple abode was enough for him.
no gold and silver and brocade vestments for him; simple clothes were all he ever wore, didn't he ?

i can't quite understand why most "churches" find it necessary to put up elaborate buildings in the name of jesus and god; do they approve ?

i believe there are some christian groups, the quakers and mennonites come to mind, that can practice christian religion without any elaborate trappings.

can anyone point out to me where in the bible it states that elaborate and expensive buildings - and other such things - are required for worship ? (particularly considering that millions of people in this world go hungry and cannot have their basic medical needs taken care of). i'm baffled. hbg
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 11:05 am
I don't think that they are necessary...just nice.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 08:44 pm
It begins to get more interesting:

Quote:
Priest Denies Gays' Supporters Communion

By JOSHUA FREED, Associated Press Writer
Mon May 16, 9:59 AM ET




A Roman Catholic priest denied communion to more than 100 people Sunday, saying they could not receive the sacrament because they wore rainbow-colored sashes to church to show support for gay Catholics.

Before offering communion, the Rev. Michael Sklucazek told the congregation at the Cathedral of St. Paul that anyone wearing a sash could come forward for a blessing but would not receive wine and bread.

A group called the Rainbow Sash Alliance has encouraged supporters to wear the multicolored fabric bands since 2001 on each Pentecost Sunday, the day Catholics believe the Holy Spirit came to give power to Christians soon after Jesus ascended to heaven. But Sunday's service was the first time they had been denied communion at the altar.

Archbishop Harry Flynn told the group earlier this month that they would not receive communion because the sashes had become a protest against church teaching.

Sister Gabriel Herbers said she wore a sash to show sympathy for the gay and lesbian community. Their sexual orientation "is a gift from God just as much as my gift of being a female is," she said.

Ann McComas-Bussa did not wear a sash, but she and her husband and three children all wore rainbow-colored ribbons and were denied communion. "As a Catholic, I just need to stand in solidarity with those that are being oppressed," she said.

While other parishioners sat or kneeled after going to the altar, sash-wearers remained standing with their hands cupped as a symbol they still wanted the sacrament. Their silent protest lasted about five minutes, until the congregation rose to hear the announcements and the benediction before being dismissed.

The Rainbow Sash Alliance says that by wearing the sash, members "publicly claim our place at Christ's table, sacramentally expressing the truth in our lives, and calling the church to embrace a new day of integrity and freedom."

Organizer Brian McNeill wrote to Flynn last month, explaining that the sashes are a symbol "to celebrate the gift of our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender sexuality."

Flynn wrote back to say the sashes are "more and more perceived as a protest against church teaching," declaring that it has never been acceptable "to use the reception of communion as an act of protest."

Parishioner Larry Pavlicek was not sympathetic. As a divorced man, he said he has to live with the church's teaching that he cannot remarry and cannot have sex outside of marriage.

"If you're going to be a Catholic, either live with it or call yourself something different," he said. "They're trying to change something that has been taught by the church for 2,000 years."

Archdiocese spokesman Dennis McGrath said Flynn made the decision to deny communion after a cardinal asked U.S. bishops to adopt a consistent policy on the sashes. Catholics in Chicago and other cities such as Melbourne, Australia, have also worn sashes. Some have been denied communion, others have not.

Last year, some conservative groups in St. Paul kneeled in church aisles to block sash-wearers from receiving communion.


This will have repercussions, ramifications, and permutations for sure.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 08:50 pm
hamburger wrote:
i can't quite understand why most "churches" find it necessary to put up elaborate buildings in the name of jesus and god; do they approve ?

i believe there are some christian groups, the quakers and mennonites come to mind, that can practice christian religion without any elaborate trappings.


'Tis the gift to be simple, 'tis the gift to be free,
'Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be,
And when we find ourselves in the place just right,
'Twill be in the valley of love and delight.
When true simplicity is gain'd
To bow and to bend we shan't be asham'd,
To turn, turn will be our delight
'Till by turning, turning we come round right.


-- Joseph Brackett, Elder of the Shaker Community, 1848
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 09:00 pm
"Wherever two or more of you are gathered in my name, so I am there in your midst."
(Matthew 18:20)

Doesn't seem to call for much pomp, circumstance, and panoply, does it?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 09:05 pm
No, but that has been the problem from the very earliest days of primitive christianity. Pauline doctrine dragged primitive christianity, kicking and screaming, into the temple, and foisted priests off on the adherents. Even if one limits one's reading to the badly flawed and incomplete texts of the four gospels of the accepted canon, it is obvious that this teacher bids people to find "heaven" within. It does not call for a temple, it needs no preist to explain, no intermediary to negotiate with the deity on behalf of the seeker.

Primitive christianity was seen as a threat to the established order because of its appeal to the simple, the down-trodden, the "weak and heavy-laden," the widow with her mite to offer . . . but there is the subtlety of perversion that modern christians do not recognize. It was an even bigger threat to established religious orders, because it needed no temple, it needed no priest.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 11:14 pm
Well, you know how it goes - in the chain from from design concept to mass-marketed product on the shelf, lotsa things get shuffled around.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 06:54:59