View Full Version : A little bit blown away by this...
OK...I've been struggling with whether to post this or not, but I was emailed a news story last night that completely blew me away.
I shared it with the mods, because I just wasn't ready to post, but I needed to share it with somebody.
I felt that it was a perfect fratching discussion, and they agreed, but told me to post it when I felt ready.
This man (http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/11/12/11717636-sun.html)is my former parish priest, and was like a member of our family for many years. He officiated at the weddings of at least 3 of my family members, and the baptisms and First Communions of several of their children.
He was often at our dinner table on Christmas Day, and would sit and have breakfast with our family after church.
We all knew he was gay, but for us, because he was a Catholic priest and celibate, his sexuality was irrelevant. He was an excellent priest.
When he publicly came out in 2005, it was a bit of a "ho hum" moment for us. (It was similar to when kd Lang and Rosie O'Donnell made their announcements.)
I have been reading various message boards today trying to get a feel for the public opinion, and it angers me that, just because he is a priest and is gay, it's assumed he molested his altar boys. To me, that's like assuming all gay men molest boys.
I realize that sexual abuse by Catholic priests is a hot topic, but to be honest, not one of my brothers has ever reported being touched in any way by him.
All of that aside, I am also angered at him for this latest action.
I don't know the whole story on how he came to lose his parish and ended up banished to Toronto, but there was a bit of a smear campaign started by people who didn't like the fact that he had a young HIV+ man living with him in the rectory, so they started making accusations of misappropriation of funds.
As far as I know, it wasn't true, but the fact that he refused to put the young man out on the street angered the powers that be in light of all the other scandal within the church. Added to that, he was an admitted alcoholic, and there were signs that he was falling off the wagon due to the stress.
To me, his public "outing" in 2005 was more of a slap in the face to his bishop than anything else. In my opinion, it was less about his own personal convictions, and more an attempt to embarrass.
I may be wrong, but I see this latest act as something similar.
The fact is, whether you agree with it or not, the Catholic church demands that its priests be celibate. He chose to become a priest and make the vows that came with that job.
How can he now turn his back on those vows?
I would be just as upset if he had chosen to marry a woman.
In my opinion, it makes everything he ever taught to me seem hypocritical, and that upsets me.
Boozy
11-14-2009, 10:31 PM
I am a bit confused by how this is going to work. The Catholic church demands celibacy for its priests, no? So if he gets married...will he be fired? Excommunicated?
Arcade Man D
11-14-2009, 10:35 PM
The fact is, whether you agree with it or not, the Catholic church demands that its priests be celibate. He chose to become a priest and make the vows that came with that job.
How can he now turn his back on those vows?
I would be just as upset if he had chosen to marry a woman.
In my opinion, it makes everything he ever taught to me seem hypocritical, and that upsets me.
To my knowledge, the Catholic vow of Celibacy in the Latin Rites is only as long as they remain a priest. Now that he is retired, he is no longer bound by that vow.
And secondarily, was he ordained in the Latin Rites, or was he ordained under rites (which, though rare, do exist) that do not require celibacy?
Well, I believe excommunication is one route. I know several bishops have been excommunicated for ordaining married priests.
If I'm not mistaken, in the Catholic church, under canon law, it's once a priest, always a priest, as evidenced by the words used in the ordination ceremony, taken from Hebrews 7:17 "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek."
Any Latin-rite priest is automatically suspended under Canon Law 1394 the moment he gets married.
That law states:
"A cleric who attempts marriage, even if only civilly, incurs a latae sententiae (automatic) suspension. If, after warning, he has not reformed and continues to give scandal, he can be progressively punished by deprivations, or even by dismissal from the clerical state.”
I believe that covers both retired as well as active priests.
Flyndaran
11-14-2009, 10:45 PM
So ignoring one catholic rule that doesn't matter is ok, but when he chooses to ignore another rule that doesn't matter, the op gets upset?
It doesn't sound like the priest is the one being hypocritical.
So ignoring one catholic rule that doesn't matter is ok, but when he chooses to ignore another rule that doesn't matter, the op gets upset?
It doesn't sound like the priest is the one being hypocritical.Excuse me?
The fact that he was gay was not a choice he made. As far as I knew, he was remaining celibate when he was in our parish.
How does it make me a hypocrite because I was fine with his homosexuality because he wasn't acting on it, but am angered that he has now chosen to not only act on it, but to break his vow of celibacy in the process?
Flyndaran
11-14-2009, 11:03 PM
Excuse me?
The fact that he was gay was not a choice he made. As far as I knew, he was remaining celibate when he was in our parish.
How does it make me a hypocrite because I was fine with his homosexuality because he wasn't acting on it, but am angered that he has now chosen to not only act on it, but to break his vow of celibacy in the process?
I thought the church likes to kick out gays? If not, then never mind.
I don't see any problem with not being celibate when there isn't any chance of children. That is why the whole thing started; too many kids being a drain on the parish.
I don't see any problem with not being celibate when there isn't any chance of children. That is why the whole thing started; too many kids being a drain on the parish.No it was not.
Celibacy in the Catholic church is not only historical and traditional, but it is also scripture based.
"And Peter said, 'Behold, we have left all and followed You.' And He said to them, 'Amen I say to you, there is no one who has left house, or parents, or brothers, or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who shall not receive much more in the present time, and in the age to come life everlasting."' (Lk. 18:28-30)
It is believed that Christ lived a life of celibacy, and the role of priest is to represent Christ in the church.
Celibacy allows for a priest to better able make his church and his parishioners a priority. It has nothing to do with a parish having too many mouths to feed.
After all, protestant churches manage quite nicely.
BlaqueKatt
11-14-2009, 11:47 PM
In my opinion, it makes everything he ever taught to me seem hypocritical, and that upsets me.
why because he changed his mind after the fact?
look at it this way-if he had been say a science teacher, that decided after you graduated decided that evolution was wrong and strictly believed in ID and that darwin was wrong would he still be a hypoocrite?
People are allowed to change their minds/beliefs-doesn't make them hypocrites.
Am I a hypocrite because I was formerly a youth minister for a church and am now a Buddhist?
People are allowed to change their minds/beliefs-doesn't make them hypocrites.
To me, this is more than a case of changing one's mind about something.
He continues to call himself a Catholic priest, yet he is doing something that completely flies in the face of the Catholic church.
If someone is standing up for years in front of a congregation and talking about the teachings of the church and instructing us on them, asking us to apply that in our lives, it seems a bit hypocritical to then go against those teachings.
Divorce is forbidden in the church, because marriage is performed as a sacrament. He performed marriages and instructed my family on the importance of the vows of marriage.
When he baptised their children, he asked for the godparents and parents to make a vow to raise their children as Catholics, and he expressed the importance of those vows.
When I was confirmed, while the Archbishop administered the sacrament, he provided the instruction and stressed the importance of the vows we would be making on that day.
He was ordained as a priest in the church, and he took those vows in the sacrament of ordination.
Doesn't that make him hypocritical, after years of instructing others in how to live their vows and follow the teachings, to then turn around and break the vows that he made, yet still refer to himself as a "Catholic priest"?
Arcade Man D
11-15-2009, 12:07 AM
To me, this is more than a case of changing one's mind about something.
He continues to call himself a Catholic priest, yet he is doing something that completely flies in the face of the Catholic church.
If someone is standing up for years in front of a congregation and talking about the teachings of the church and instructing us on them, asking us to apply that in our lives, it seems a bit hypocritical to then go against those teachings.
Divorce is forbidden in the church, because marriage is performed as a sacrament. He performed marriages and instructed my family on the importance of the vows of marriage.
When he baptised their children, he asked for the godparents and parents to make a vow to raise their children as Catholics, and he expressed the importance of those vows.
When I was confirmed, while the Archbishop administered the sacrament, he provided the instruction and stressed the importance of the vows we would be making on that day.
He was ordained as a priest in the church, and he took those vows in the sacrament of ordination.
Doesn't that make him hypocritical, after years of instructing others in how to live their vows and follow the teachings, to then turn around and break the vows that he made, yet still refer to himself as a "Catholic priest"?
That's all true if he's a Latin-rite priest. Is he? Or is he a priest who was ordained under an ordination rite that doesn't require a celibacy vow?
That's all true if he's a Latin-rite priest. Is he? Or is he a priest who was ordained under an ordination rite that doesn't require a celibacy vow?
This is the second time you have mentioned it, but I thought it was obvious that he was Latin Rite, or I wouldn't be so upset.
Flyndaran
11-15-2009, 12:59 AM
No it was not.
Celibacy in the Catholic church is not only historical and traditional, but it is also scripture based.
"And Peter said, 'Behold, we have left all and followed You.' And He said to them, 'Amen I say to you, there is no one who has left house, or parents, or brothers, or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who shall not receive much more in the present time, and in the age to come life everlasting."' (Lk. 18:28-30)
It is believed that Christ lived a life of celibacy, and the role of priest is to represent Christ in the church.
Celibacy allows for a priest to better able make his church and his parishioners a priority. It has nothing to do with a parish having too many mouths to feed.
After all, protestant churches manage quite nicely.
So you call all other christians not following the bible? Wow, bigot much? The bible has so many internal contradictions that wildly opposing factions can still say they follow it.
You just don't like it when someone doesn't follow the edicts you like, even when they don't follow others you don't like.
So a catholic priest must follow all edicts dictated by the church? There is no such thing as dissent?
I say that not showing dissent is sign of agreement. He would only be hypocritical if he didn't show his dissent.
So you call all other christians not following the bible? Wow, bigot much? Ummm...what?
Did you miss a word, because that didn't make sense.
You just don't like it when someone doesn't follow the edicts you like, even when they don't follow others you don't like.Again..what?
I assume you are referring to the fact that I did not have an issue with his homosexuality.
If homosexuality was actually a choice, then I would have had an issue, but the fact is, people are born with their sexual preferences. My church calls it a sin when a person engages in a homosexual relationship.
The church believes that any sexual relations outside of marriage is a sin. Since same sex marriages are forbidden in my church, then, yes, his having a gay relationship is a sin in the eyes of my church.
As I said before, if he had been acting on his sexual preference when he was in my parish, then I would have had a problem with it.
So a catholic priest must follow all edicts dictated by the church? Duuuh!! Of course, if he is going to call himself a Catholic priest". There is no such thing as dissent?Again, not if he's going to refer to himself or the media is going to refer to him as a "Catholic priest".
Did you even read anything I wrote, or did you just decide messing with Ree when it comes to the topic of her religion seems like a fun way to kill a few hours, just because you don't subscribe to the same beliefs that I do, and you find them ridiculous.
I'm not here to debate whether my Catholic religion is valid, or whether any of the edicts of the church have merit in your opinion.
The fact is, I am Catholic, and this was my priest, and he has chosen to go against everything he has been taught, everything he taught me, and everything for which he chose to take a vow, and that upsets me.
Arcade Man D
11-15-2009, 01:18 AM
This is the second time you have mentioned it, but I thought it was obvious that he was Latin Rite, or I wouldn't be so upset.
You didn't explicitly mention it, and I never assume anything in cases like this. Too many times it's come back and bitten me in the butt.
You didn't explicitly mention it, and I never assume anything in cases like this.Fair enough.
I guess I take things for granted.
It's just that I thought I had shown that I do know a bit about my religion, and for me to be upset would mean that he must be a Latin rite priest.
gremcint
11-15-2009, 01:26 AM
Duuuh!! Of course, if he is going to call himself a Catholic priest". Again, not if he's going to refer to himself or the media is going to refer to him as a "Catholic priest".
I agree it is hypocritical in this case.
As for how you should feel...
The original lessons he taught do not all come from him he is using thousands of years of teachings and presenting it to you in a way that is to help you, just because he goes against it later it doesn't change what it means. Further did he ever preach about homosexuality or say that marriage is a man and woman only? because if not it doesn't actually go against his teachings. Also just because something's in the bible doesn't mean it's worth following (condoning of slavery, eating shellfish) so people are choosing to pick which lessons they want to take from the bible for themselves all the time so he has chosen to go against one specific one in this case, it doesn't make him a hypocrit. The reason he is a hypocrite is because he joined a group with an oath of celibacy and still claims to be in that group while breaking that vow.
Further did he ever preach about homosexuality or say that marriage is a man and woman only? Actually, yes he did.
The reason he is a hypocrite is because he joined a group with an oath of celibacy and still claims to be in that group while breaking that vow.Exactly!
Thank you for getting my point.
gremcint
11-15-2009, 01:39 AM
Actually, yes he did.
Exactly!
Thank you for getting my point.
in that case he's even more of a hypocrite. and you're welcome.
BlaqueKatt
11-15-2009, 01:44 AM
He continues to call himself a Catholic priest, yet he is doing something that completely flies in the face of the Catholic church.
from what I got out of the article-the media is refering to him as a "Catholic Priest" he himself is not, he refers to himself as a "man of the cloth"-which has been used for those that were defrocked as well-so not the same.
Divorce may not be "allowed" in the Catholic faith, but while I was going through my second divorce and becoming a single mother a Catholic priest blessed me and my son, and told me we were welcome in the church-and explained to me that it was part of God's plan, and that he(God) understood humans are fallible.
Maybe this is part of God's plan*, maybe God spoke to him to stand up against the injustice carried out in his name-I don't know, no one does-but as per your faith you are not to judge(Matthew:7, v1-3), that is the domain of God himself-yet you are, are you now a hypocrite?
Not trying to argue, just pointing out, you're upset that he has gone against the teachings of the church, and in judging him you are doing the same.
*and if you truly believe in God, it kinda has to be or it wouldn't happen-God knows everything-God couldn't write the bible himself, and if you believe it was "inspired" by God-well it had to filter through imperfect human minds/hands-and is it not possible their own prejudices tainted what they wrote? Maybe he's trying to correct that through this man.
BlaqueKatt
11-15-2009, 02:15 AM
No it was not.
Celibacy in the Catholic church is not only historical and traditional, but it is also scripture based.
actually no it's not (http://www.arthurstreet.com/celibacy1993.html#Anchor-Th-1269)-it's church law only
Pope Pelagius I made new priests agree offspring could not inherit Church property. Pope Gregory then declared all sons of priests illegitimate (only sons since lowly daughters could inherit anyway in society).
In 1022 Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages and mistresses for priests and in 1139 Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives.
Another article on the subject (http://www.catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp)
from what I got out of the article-the media is refering to him as a "Catholic Priest" he himself is not, he refers to himself as a "man of the cloth"-which has been used for those that were defrocked as well-so not the same.He does state "the first man of the Catholic cloth." I have no doubt that he privately speaks of it as "first Catholic priest" nor do I doubt that he still thinks of himself as a Catholic priest.
Knowing him, though, I suspect he has used that term publicly simply to avoid accusations that he is referring to himself as a priest, since he knows he's probably going to be in enough of a pile of crap.
Divorce may not be "allowed" in the Catholic faith, but while I was going through my second divorce and becoming a single mother a Catholic priest blessed me and my son, and told me we were welcome in the church-and explained to me that it was part of God's plan, and that he(God) understood humans are fallible.And that's wonderful for you, but I was referring to the teachings and examples of this particular priest, who spoke of the breaking of the marriage vows as wrong.
as per your faith you are not to judge(Matthew:7, v1-3), that is the domain of God himself-yet you are, are you now a hypocrite?
Not trying to argue, just pointing out, you're upset that he has gone against the teachings of the church, and in judging him you are doing the same.
Thank you for reminding me of that. That certainly helps me a bit to reconcile myself with the situation.
I really don't see myself as judging him, though.
He certainly never judged me when I went to him to confess my sins, so it's not for me to judge him.
In fact, I am praying for him.
I don't see how I am judging him because I am upset that a man who was like a member of my family and was such a part of the development of my faith in my teen years has turned against that faith by his actions today.
Maybe he was being called by God to do this, I don't know. I just can't help but feel that a large part of it was done as a slap in the face to his superiors.
A few years ago, he tried to run for a seat on the Catholic school board. Some time in the late early 80's, because of problems with priests holding public office, there was a ruling made that priests could not run for public office without permission from their bishop.
Since he was pretty much a priest without a parish, and he was in a diocese that didn't belong to him, but was being forbidden from celebrating mass publicly in that diocese, I think he felt it was OK to run for that seat.
The Archbishop of that diocese sent out a letter to his churches explaining that this priest did not have permission to run.
He was basically telling people not to vote for him, without actually doing it.
He ended up losing with only 29% of the vote.
It may have been because of the letter, or it may have been public disapproval of his lifestyle. I don't know. I think he blames his bishop, and this is his way of throwing it in his face.
That's my take on it.
Again, I may be completely wrong on that. I am certainly far from perfect.
actually no it's not (http://www.arthurstreet.com/celibacy1993.html#Anchor-Th-1269)-it's church law only Not disputing it, but you are aware that this is a thesis written under the guidance of a priest who is no longer active in the priesthood, and is now married, and is an advocate for marriage in the priesthood?
Not disputing any facts given. Just pointing out that a thesis is slanted to the writer's own personal view.
Another article on the subject (http://www.catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp)From that link, "priestly celibacy is not an unchangeable dogma but a disciplinary rule".
Yes...and the rule right now is that priest are not to marry, and certainly not to engage in a same sex marriage.
As far as I know, there is nothing currently in the works to change that ruling in the church.
In my words that you quoted, I said it was historical, traditional, and scripture based.
I see nothing in what you posted that refutes what I said.
BlaqueKatt
11-15-2009, 04:26 AM
In my words that you quoted, I said it was historical, traditional, and scripture based.
I see nothing in what you posted that refutes what I said.
David Rice presents a comprehensive historical look at celibacy in his book about resigned priests entitled, Shattered Vows. Rice credits Catholic theologian Edward Schillebeeckx in The Church with a Human Face with asserting that clerical celibacy originated in "a partly pagan notion of ritual purity"
that is not scripture based-and there is actually no scripture that supports it-it was the council of Trent that was worried about losing church property to the priest's family upon death, prior to the council of trent and decisions of the popes it was allowed and encouraged-until the property disputes began, why else allow marriage and declare all male offspring illegitimate, and have them agree that their children could not inherit-the scripture you quoted was about the rich man entering the kingdom of heaven.
BroomJockey
11-15-2009, 06:18 AM
Ree, him being a hypocrite or not, your feelings are incredibly selfish on this subject, I think.
He devoted a large part of his life to the Church, putting everyone before himself. Now he's found someone who presumably means as much to him as your husband did to you, and since his time preaching is finished, he decided to legitimize that relationship. And all you can think is "now does anything he taught mean anything?"
And I do think it matters that he's gay. You can say it'd upset you as much if it was a woman he was marrying, but your statement of "as long as he wasn't having sex, his sexual preference didn't matter" puts the lie to that. That tells me you were able to comfortably push the issue to the side and ignore it before, but now it's being thrown directly at your face, and you can't dodge it. *That* is why you're questioning everything he taught. Because you no longer can think of him as just a priest, but as a regular human with wants and needs, and those wants don't line up with your morality. How can anything he taught be worth anything if he's so immoral?
If he was still preaching actively, it might matter. But he's not. If God can't allow someone a few years of selfishness after 33 years of sacrifice, God's a dick. So be happy for him, and take those lessons for what they were worth to you when they were taught, not for what you want to add to them now.
HYHYBT
11-15-2009, 09:20 AM
Not being at all Catholic myself, I may be completely wrong on this, and I realize that this is not what he did in this case, but aren't priests allowed to leave the priesthood to marry?
I just can't help but feel that a large part of it was done as a slap in the face to his superiors.Sometimes, superiors NEED to be slapped in the face, and in my non-Catholic highly biased opinion, within the Roman Catholic Church the subjects of both non-celibate homosexuality and marriage for priests fit in that category.
And I do think it matters that he's gay. You can say it'd upset you as much if it was a woman he was marrying, but your statement of "as long as he wasn't having sex, his sexual preference didn't matter" puts the lie to that. Actually, no.
It was poor wording, but the fact that he was gay didn't matter to me at all.
Flyndaran was accusing me of selecting what to be offended by in overlooking one thing that was against the church teachings and being upset by others.
His sexuality doesn't matter to me at all. If he had been heterosexual, I wouldn't care, either. I meant it was irrelevant because, presumably, he was living a life of chastity and celibacy, while preaching to us the importance of chastity and celibacy outside of the marriage.
Now, he is acting on it. Whether he is gay or not, he has been carrying on an out of marriage sexual relationship, which is against his own teachings, and he is married, which is against the vows he took.
Personally, I wouldn't have any issue if the church decided to allow priests to marry. As I said, though, there are no plans to do that any time soon.
As for him finding someone who means as much to him as my husband did to me, that's lovely for him.
However, he knew going into it what he was being asked to do, but he chose to be ordained and take that vow of celibacy.
There was a time when I did consider entering the religious life, myself. What stopped me was that I knew I wanted to be married and have a family, so I never pursued it.
Cal me selfish and judgmental if you wish, but I can't help how I feel on this.
Rapscallion
11-15-2009, 01:10 PM
Many moons ago back when I was unemployed and unemployable, I watched quite a bit of morning TV. There was a programme called GMTV or TVAM (they kept changing the names) and one of the presenters was Mike Morris. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnLyt4bM5Ig he's in that clip with Kylie Monologue.
Anyway, there was a 'news' story about how a priest had begun a sexual relationship with a female sunday school teacher, and the Catholic church had dismissed him from service or something along those lines.
They were there in another studio being interviewed and broadcast into his on a screen, and he asked them what their problem was. They were stunned.
"Well, we don't think they should have done it..."
"Hang on, it was part of your conditions of employment, and you broke them, and they dismissed you from service. What's to complain about?"
"Well, we don't think they went about it very nicely."
It stopped being a news article after that.
Anyway, for me the worry about the initial post is whether or not the conditions of work are do-able. We're human - we're supposed to go out and breed by our nature. However, the terms are ones that he accepted, and he's supposed to be an example for everyone in his parish. If he can't follow the rules he's spouting, why should anyone else?
Rapscallion
Slytovhand
11-15-2009, 01:57 PM
I have to side with Ree on this (yep - Pagan and Catholic, hand in hand :p)
He seems to be a massive hypocrit (again with that word!! What's going on here??).
He (the priest) makes a very long and vocal stance on an issue in one direction, and then goes and does the exact opposite. It would throw up doubts and confusions in anyone's mind. After all, she must be thinking "Is all he said in all of those years a pack of lies?" Is his vow completely meaningless???
If a Catholic priest led a life-long journey of espousing peace and love thy neighbour, and then goes and goes on a murderour rampage - what would you be thinking?? Or led a life preaching equality to all, and then blurts out racist propaganda, you'd be left pretty gobs-smacked too!
So now, Ree, you've somehow got to reconcile those two opposing thoughts... have you tried to contact him? Cos I'm damn sure you're not the only one to think like this!
(btw, I do actually admire his stance though! Well, other than making a vow, and then throwing it away.... damn that 'sacrifice' thing! Lucky he won't get crucified for it! oh, snap!)
I have to side with Ree on this (yep - Pagan and Catholic, hand in hand :p)Not so far fetched.
I have many pagan friends and acquaintances, and I have great respect for their beliefs.
Peppergirl
11-15-2009, 05:09 PM
Not so far fetched.
I have many pagan friends and acquaintances, and I have great respect for their beliefs.
It's nice to see that it's possible for a person with a certain set of beliefs that is capable of respecting someone with completely different ones.
AdminAssistant
11-15-2009, 06:09 PM
I have nothing to add to the debate, Ree, except that I'm sorry...perhaps talk to your current priest? He might be able to help you.
JuniorMintz
11-15-2009, 06:48 PM
When did Catholic bashing become so en vogue around here?
I'm pretty sure if I posted threads about how much Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, Pagans, etc sucked and talked shit about them at every chance I could get, I'm pretty sure some of you guys would be lining up to rip me a new asshole (and rightfully so, I might add!)
Seriously guys, I'm not even Catholic and I'm offended at the way some of you have been behaving about this. If you have issues with the Catholic Church (or even religion in general), fine, but please stop taking them out on the Catholics members of this board.
If you have issues with the Catholic Church (or even religion in general), fine, but please stop taking them out on the Catholics members of this board....Especially a "Catholic" member who hasn't criticized anyone else for their own beliefs, or their lack of belief, but has merely defended her own.
I don't recall condemning anyone on this board for believing as they do.
When I was confronted by people who said they don't believe in Christ, God, or organized religion, I don't believe I criticized them for that fact or tried to convert them to my belief.
Even in the "Non-Christians celebrating Christmas" thread, I didn't condemn them for celebrating Dec 25. I just asked that they stop using a name that references Christ if the celebration has nothing to do with the celebration of his birth.
At no point did I say they didn't have a right to celebrate.
In the "I hate Christians and Christianity" thread, I simply pointed out that the title was implying, as a Christian, that I was worthy of hatred because of the actions of others.
I never said that all Christians, or even Catholics, were free from scorn. I merely pointed not all were equally worthy of it.
I don't think I have tarred an entire group of members with a brush labelled "Godless heathens who should burn in hell", but I feel like I have been tarred with a pretty broad "Catholics are the devil" kind of brush.
RecoveringKinkoid
11-16-2009, 06:25 AM
When did Catholic bashing become so en vogue around here?
.
Geeze, or Christianity in general.
If you substituted the word "Christian" for any other group name, there would be screams and blood in the streets around here. They're the last group it's okay to be bigoted against.
Well, them and Amway. :rolleyes:
Flyndaran
11-18-2009, 01:44 PM
...
As I said before, if he had been acting on his sexual preference when he was in my parish, then I would have had a problem with it.
Duuuh!! Of course, if he is going to call himself a Catholic priest". Again, not if he's going to refer to himself or the media is going to refer to him as a "Catholic priest".
...
The fact is, I am Catholic, and this was my priest, and he has chosen to go against everything he has been taught, everything he taught me, and everything for which he chose to take a vow, and that upsets me.
I won't continue to post in this thread after I try to explain myself.
You don't think he can be catholic and not believe everything the church officially says. You don't believe anyone can be catholic and have a gay relationship, because it's illegal and the catholic church denies it.
That alone makes your position bigoted.
But it does make you internally consistent which I misunderstood initially.
I'm sorry for that.
Slytovhand
11-18-2009, 03:19 PM
Staying OT, but no... the brush has actually been painted against a couple of religions on here fairly broadly...
It's take me quite a bit to fight for scio to get shown even a modicum of respect on this board (go check earlier threads), and the Jedi dude has copped a nice flaming from some on here as well...
From an outsider's point of view, there is some elements of the brushing from which the paint should stick, as has been argued (elsewhere).
And on this particular thread, while the whole problem does actually seem to be about Ree's feeling lied to, some may see it as something indicative of a larger issue... (I presume).
I won't continue to post in this thread after I try to explain myself.Perhaps that would be best since you obviously don't seem to get it.
You don't think he can be catholic and not believe everything the church officially says. As I already said, not and remain an active Catholic priest, since it goes against the doctrines and vows that he promised to uphold. I don't understand what part of that is so difficult for you to grasp.
You don't believe anyone can be catholic and have a gay relationship, because it's illegal and the catholic church denies it.Again...DUUUH!!! I don't understand why you have such difficulty with that one.
First of all gay relationships aren't illegal, as far as I know. They are, however, forbidden in the Catholic church.
Let me give you an anlaogy. You join a gaming site or league. The rules state you cannot do certain things if you wish to remain an active member there.
You decide you don't like some of those rules, because they are inconvenient to you and put a crimp in how you like to do things.
Do you really think you are going to be allowed to continue to participate and call yourself a member of that group?
That alone makes your position bigoted.I am so glad you did an edit, there, but, sadly, I already got an email with your original wording, so, too little, too late on that one.
I still don't see why you are choosing, yet again to toss that word around here. I strongly suspect it was to achieve the effect of agitating and stirring me up.
If that was the case, then to that, I say, "Once upon a time, there was a troll who loved to play with flames..."
So, perhaps it is best that you stay away from this thread.
You don't seem to be able to resist personal attacks, even though you apparently have the sense to go back and edit them out to avoid the appearances of that.
Flyndaran
11-19-2009, 01:10 AM
...
You don't seem to be able to resist personal attacks, even though you apparently have the sense to go back and edit them out to avoid the appearances of that.
Calling homophobic beliefs such is not a personal attack any more than calling a member of the KKK a follower of racist beliefs is. It's a statement of fact.
If it hurts, then maybe you should reevaluate your beliefs.
I understand that stating my views may get me banned. But this time I will not apologize for calling bigoted beliefs such.
JuniorMintz
11-19-2009, 01:49 AM
Calling homophobic beliefs such is not a personal attack any more than calling a member of the KKK a follower of racist beliefs is. It's a statement of fact.
If it hurts, then maybe you should reevaluate your beliefs.
I understand that stating my views may get me banned. But this time I will not apologize for calling bigoted beliefs such.
Is it possible for you to make even ONE post without behaving like such an utter cock?
Flyndaran
11-19-2009, 01:56 AM
Is it possible for you to make even ONE post without behaving like such an utter cock?
I loathe homophobia. I cannot believe that I am in the minority in this.
JuniorMintz
11-19-2009, 02:04 AM
I loathe homophobia. I cannot believe that I am in the minority in this.
So do I, and so does Ree. You are being deliberately thick at this point, as it's been explained to you over and over and OVER again.
Stop being such a goddamn martyr. No one's buying it. :rolleyes:
Boozy
11-19-2009, 02:08 AM
I hate having to close threads. It's not fair to those who follow the rules and avoid personal attacks.
Apologies to those of you who were enjoying the debate and behaving themselves.
Calling homophobic beliefs such is not a personal attack any more than calling a member of the KKK a follower of racist beliefs is. It's a statement of fact.
If it hurts, then maybe you should reevaluate your beliefs.I don't know why I am responding, but you obviously missed the part where I acknowledged that I PERSONALLY BELIEVE that homsexuality is innate, and is not a choice, and I do not discriminate based on sexuality.
You have chosen to ignore everything I have said regarding my own personal Catholic faith, in this thread and in 2 other separate threads where you also debated me, just to further your own vendetta against Catholicism and Christianity.
I have stated numerous times, but will state it again, even though I know it falls on deaf ears and a closed mind, that my problem with this priest was NOT his sexuality.
I was upset by the breaking of his vows, and his going against all that he had previously taught us.
Have I cut this man from my life?
No.
Do I feel he deserves to burn in hell?
No. I have seen what he has done on the streets, ministering to the dregs of society that everyone else has forgotten.
You do not know me.
You do not know my heart, and you do not know my personal relationship with God.
You do not see me in my everyday life and how I interact with others.
I find your words here completely contradictory to what you posted here in this thread (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?p=38203#post3820):
I don't believe that most religions do teach love and promote peace.
I judge them by what their followers do, not by what they may say...and yet, here you are judging when you refuse to see what I, as a follower do, because you DON'T EVEN KNOW ME beyond words on a message board.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.