I usually reserve this space for stories about my adventures, but I am about to jump out and make some possibly politically, and definitely religiously, incorrect statements regarding the article I just read on CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/11/23/vatican.homosexual/index.html)
I think that this is really ridiculous. I understand that there are certain moral values that belong in the church. However, I don't understand why a "don't ask, don't tell" policy wouldn't be appropriate. I think I am split on the issue, but I think it is time the church took steps into understanding the science of the issue. There was a time in the past when priests and other religious figures were the smartest people in the land. They relied on scientific instruments, they were astronomers, farmers, artists, chemists, scribes - you name it, you got it. Now, the entire religion seems to have turned its back on science.
Through a number of studies, there is significant evidence to defend the idea that homosexuality is not a matter of choice, but a matter of biology. Even if those studies are unsupported, it has been widely agreed that homosexuality is not a disorder of any kind; much less a "psychosexual disorder." At what medical school did the church receive the degree to declare someone ill? Don't make up science if you aren't going to accept actual science.
Secondly, and this is where I am slightly torn on standards, when there is such a shortage of men willing to become priests, why would we turn away people who were willing to devote their lives to God? If you are celibate, does it matter who you might be having sex with if you weren't? Are we going to ban women from going to church because they might be attractive to the priest? If heterosexual priests are able to control their hormones, why wouldn't homosexual priests be able to do the same? Is the church trying to define homosexuals as a lesser race of men unable to control themselves? Now, in general, if you are against a sin, I can understand you not wanting to admit someone into the seminary who was a sinner. But our sins (as preached by the church) are between us and God. If God doesn't like what we are doing, then we can have that chat when we meet. The Catholic Church is going against its own acceptance policies by discouraging and forbidding potential seminarians who are committing what they consider a sin. Since all sins are worth the same, isn't a priest who has dated women committed the sin of adultery because he looked at someone? If we are going to go the literal route, let's do it. But, if we are going to be subjective, then we need to stop being selective about our subjectivity.
Now, to the issue that annoys me more than anything else... Homosexual priests are no more likely to molest children then heterosexual priests. Availability was the issue, and in twenty years there will be stories (sadly) of altar girls who have been harrassed. It just so happens, that it was only boys who were serving before. Science (yup, back to that again), and particularly psychology, has more or less decided that pediphilia is an actual disorder. Like alcoholism, OCD, and other psychological issues, this is an actual disorder. (Although it hasn't been declared so by the highly trained medical expert of a Pope we have, so maybe it isn't yet!) These priests were pediphiles - sick people who got pleasure out of hurting children. It is an illness. However, they are responsible for controlling themselves. Those men couldn't. By national standards, the number of incidences of pedipliclic priests is significantly lower than the number of pediphilic men in the country.
But, we expect more of our priests, we expect godliness. Go back to CCD friends, because it just isn't going to happen. So, stop making policies about things based on fears. Stop making policies based on subjective bias. If you have a moral issue with someone committing a sin. Cool, we're square, I gotcha. But don't tell me that I should go to confession and be forgiven for the things I have done wrong and that I am still welcome in the church if you are going to throw my friends out for their sins. Because unlike life, church should be fair. Jesus died for everyone. Even homosexuals.
P.S. - The Bible explicitly states that the act of homosexual intercourse is forbidden. Could someone please find me some Bible passages where homosexual urges are considered sinful in the New Testament? The Old Testament, which I love and respect, says I should take out someone's eye if they take out mine. I am not inclined to believe that Jesus would have done that (justification: "turn the other cheek"). So, New Testament passages that say you cannot have emotional connections or sexual urges for someone of the same gender. I am interested to see Biblical support for the Pope's statement.
**I am sorry for this religious diatribe after 4 days of no messages and 2 weeks of scanty and undetailed messages. I promise to get back to regularly scheduled programming soon. I just couldn't contain my anger on the subject any longer, and I don't think the argument would come out as strong in my completely inept french grammar. Hugs and kissses and another message soon. Love always, ~Heather
I think that this is really ridiculous. I understand that there are certain moral values that belong in the church. However, I don't understand why a "don't ask, don't tell" policy wouldn't be appropriate. I think I am split on the issue, but I think it is time the church took steps into understanding the science of the issue. There was a time in the past when priests and other religious figures were the smartest people in the land. They relied on scientific instruments, they were astronomers, farmers, artists, chemists, scribes - you name it, you got it. Now, the entire religion seems to have turned its back on science.
Through a number of studies, there is significant evidence to defend the idea that homosexuality is not a matter of choice, but a matter of biology. Even if those studies are unsupported, it has been widely agreed that homosexuality is not a disorder of any kind; much less a "psychosexual disorder." At what medical school did the church receive the degree to declare someone ill? Don't make up science if you aren't going to accept actual science.
Secondly, and this is where I am slightly torn on standards, when there is such a shortage of men willing to become priests, why would we turn away people who were willing to devote their lives to God? If you are celibate, does it matter who you might be having sex with if you weren't? Are we going to ban women from going to church because they might be attractive to the priest? If heterosexual priests are able to control their hormones, why wouldn't homosexual priests be able to do the same? Is the church trying to define homosexuals as a lesser race of men unable to control themselves? Now, in general, if you are against a sin, I can understand you not wanting to admit someone into the seminary who was a sinner. But our sins (as preached by the church) are between us and God. If God doesn't like what we are doing, then we can have that chat when we meet. The Catholic Church is going against its own acceptance policies by discouraging and forbidding potential seminarians who are committing what they consider a sin. Since all sins are worth the same, isn't a priest who has dated women committed the sin of adultery because he looked at someone? If we are going to go the literal route, let's do it. But, if we are going to be subjective, then we need to stop being selective about our subjectivity.
Now, to the issue that annoys me more than anything else... Homosexual priests are no more likely to molest children then heterosexual priests. Availability was the issue, and in twenty years there will be stories (sadly) of altar girls who have been harrassed. It just so happens, that it was only boys who were serving before. Science (yup, back to that again), and particularly psychology, has more or less decided that pediphilia is an actual disorder. Like alcoholism, OCD, and other psychological issues, this is an actual disorder. (Although it hasn't been declared so by the highly trained medical expert of a Pope we have, so maybe it isn't yet!) These priests were pediphiles - sick people who got pleasure out of hurting children. It is an illness. However, they are responsible for controlling themselves. Those men couldn't. By national standards, the number of incidences of pedipliclic priests is significantly lower than the number of pediphilic men in the country.
But, we expect more of our priests, we expect godliness. Go back to CCD friends, because it just isn't going to happen. So, stop making policies about things based on fears. Stop making policies based on subjective bias. If you have a moral issue with someone committing a sin. Cool, we're square, I gotcha. But don't tell me that I should go to confession and be forgiven for the things I have done wrong and that I am still welcome in the church if you are going to throw my friends out for their sins. Because unlike life, church should be fair. Jesus died for everyone. Even homosexuals.
P.S. - The Bible explicitly states that the act of homosexual intercourse is forbidden. Could someone please find me some Bible passages where homosexual urges are considered sinful in the New Testament? The Old Testament, which I love and respect, says I should take out someone's eye if they take out mine. I am not inclined to believe that Jesus would have done that (justification: "turn the other cheek"). So, New Testament passages that say you cannot have emotional connections or sexual urges for someone of the same gender. I am interested to see Biblical support for the Pope's statement.
**I am sorry for this religious diatribe after 4 days of no messages and 2 weeks of scanty and undetailed messages. I promise to get back to regularly scheduled programming soon. I just couldn't contain my anger on the subject any longer, and I don't think the argument would come out as strong in my completely inept french grammar. Hugs and kissses and another message soon. Love always, ~Heather
Comments