Another "Straight" man caught being 'gay'

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PriuStorm @ Oct 14 2007, 05:07 PM) [snapback]525597[/snapback]</div>

First, not all priests agree with the current church teaching. There doesn't seem to be a distinction drawn in this case whether this is simply a personal moral failure by a man employed by the church, or a hypocritical stance taken by a decision maker formulating policy for others that he himself will not follow. That's the usual criteria for the new sport of outing people. You can make a case that it makes sense and is "news" when its a congressman or Senator who has voted against gay rights, or a Bishop that formulates and enforces policies. But a priest is often just a worker bee, who may realize he's gay and is trying to come to terms with it.

Unless you think propositioning someone of the same sex should be illegal. Then it makes sense, I guess.

Its as despicable as "outing" men who visit houses of prostitution in Nevada. It does far more harm to the person than his "crime" deserves.

I think there is a latent homophobia among some who take delight in these "outings", even if they are those that assure us that "there's nothing wrong with being gay ... but did you know Cheney's daughter is a lesbian?"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Oct 15 2007, 02:43 PM) [snapback]525932[/snapback]</div>

Galaxee~

Thank you for pointing it out from the other side of the coin and you are correct!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Oct 15 2007, 09:03 AM) [snapback]525863[/snapback]</div>

Yep, and he lost his job because of it. Did the "hit on" guy complain? I've only had it happen once, and I thought it was incredibly funny (the gay guy laughed too, but not at first).


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Oct 15 2007, 09:03 AM) [snapback]525863[/snapback]</div>

Yep, I think those that enjoy these stories when it affects someone they don't like are also nurturing that little part of themselves that is still homophobic.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Oct 15 2007, 10:51 PM) [snapback]526178[/snapback]</div>

True... not all priests agree with the current church teaching, thankfully.

But no matter how you slice this, I feel his statement that 'he was doing this as part of his job' is kind of low... I mean, if he agrees with the teaching and was trying to 'trap' or 'trick' someone, that's pretty low. And if he disagrees with the teaching, propositioned someone, then back-pedaled and gave the lame excuse that it was part of his job when he was 'found out', well that's not much better. Agreed, too, that it's not really newsworthy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pyccku @ Oct 14 2007, 07:59 PM) [snapback]525617[/snapback]</div>

Zoinks! What a great thought! I'd like to repeat it, if I might:

"If he's a priest, shouldn't he be celibate anyway? I wouldn't think it would make much difference to be a celibate gay priest vs. a celibate straight priest."

You're, sadly, about ten generations ahead of our time.
[smile]

 

Some information on becoming and maintaining Priesthood..

Or Here

:mellow:

 

dbl post

 

Why is the US so homophobic???

Here in Quebec we actually had a Party Leader run in the last elections. He never hid the fact.

In fact the only thing people really criticized about him was his age, party leaders below the age of 40 rarely make it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Oct 17 2007, 09:15 AM) [snapback]526903[/snapback]</div>

Nothing more clearly reveals the IGNORANT IMMORALITY of the church than this list of what it thinks are moral transgressions. The thought that someone born with a disfigurement would be regarded as insufficiently "moral" for the church should compel any decent human soul to spit in the high priest's face. Can you imagine any more vile, despicable insult than to point at someone like, say, Stephen Hawking and tell him he's morally unworthy?

And then there's that baffling phobia about sex - WHAT is it about sex that so terrifies the church? A more compact catalogue of despotic anti-humanness would be difficult to construct.

This is the institution that practices ritualized cannibalism - a "communion" with its 2,000 years old dead thought leader that involves pretending to eat the guy's flesh and drink his blood, a disgusting ritual that in ANY other context would be immediately recognized as mindless savagery.

How can any thinking person NOT despise such an institution?

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mark Derail @ Oct 17 2007, 12:03 PM) [snapback]526936[/snapback]</div>

I know that's a rhetorical question...

I don't know; what's most painful to me is actually not the homophobia, specifically, but the way we Americans use our personal traits against each other (primarily to increase the influence of political and religious power groups).

It's simply not productive. To sound terribly crass now, it's also bad for business. Not working together as a unified whole, for the things which benefit us all, is --I believe-- actually devaluing the intrinsic worth of this Country.

While Democrats and Republicans and Conservatives and Liberals and different factions of the Church fight it out for smaller slivers of the pie, our house becomes more divided against itself.

To me, it seems counterproductive and selfish and wrong. But, that's just me.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Oct 17 2007, 12:58 PM) [snapback]526965[/snapback]</div>

It *is* a bit baffling, but some Christians still seem like really nice people.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Oct 17 2007, 05:10 PM) [snapback]527078[/snapback]</div>

Yes there are many types=denominations of christians, not all are holy rolling bible thumpers.

As Ive heard ot said in a St Marks church, homosexuals? Who cares their moneies the same color as everyone elses.... :huh:

Again if your holding a position of a religious leader, wether your gay or straight womanizer, you shouldnt be openly practicing your sexual choices in the publics eye. where it can place you and the church in an embarassing situation.

What goes on behind closed doors stays there.

Have you taken a look at other countries becides the USA?
Iran: they hang you if your caught being gay.

Saudi Arabia: they decapitate you.

Nigeria/Africa:
the government has been taking steps to strip gays and lesbians (and presumably bisexuals and transgenders/transsexuals as well) of all their civil rights, even to the point of making a non-gay meeting with a gay group for any reason illegal. The law would also make criminal the distribution of any information on AIDS/HIV illegal. Both of these would be punishable by 5 years imprisonment with hard labor. Apparently there are also cases of death by stoning and amputation of limbs as punishment.

There are many countries that are still anti homosexual and it is concidered a crime with harsh penalties..

I believe there are plenty that choose to not rock the gay boat, so to speak but really do not stand behind the movments.

 

Frankly, I'm jealous of closeted gays.

If I say to my wife, "Honey, I love you and our children, but what I really want, you know, sexually, is to have sex with this man from work. It would just be a physical thing, and I really want to continue our relationship as it is."

Her response would likely be to accept my sexual needs, and maybe we could work out an understanding.

Why am I jealous? Let's try this again:
"Honey, I love you and our children, but what I really want, you know, sexually, is to have sex with this WOMAN from work. It would just be a physical thing, and I really want to continue our relationship as it is."

She would NOT be as understanding.

;-)

Nate

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(naterprius @ Oct 18 2007, 12:12 PM) [snapback]527350[/snapback]</div>

:lol: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Oct 16 2007, 11:30 PM) [snapback]526743[/snapback]</div>

That's exactly the position of groups like Focus on the Family and other evangelical conservative organizations. I'm surprised to see you joining their emphasis that it isn't sinful to be gay, but is sinful to engage in sex with a partner.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Oct 17 2007, 10:58 AM) [snapback]526965[/snapback]</div>

Read the article before you go off on the phrase "moral ordination". It doesn't refer to morals in the normal sense of the term, and its clear from the greater context of the article ... which is an opinion and not a doctrinal statement ... that disfigurement can be a disqualifier from the priesthood because of the revulsion of the people the priest is serving. There's much there to be critical of, but your diatribe looks like religious bigotry rather than an informed difference of opinion.

And equating the celebration of Holy Communion with cannibalism is either ignorance or hyperbole (and is, by the way, the justification used by Diocletion to kill Christians).

 

But for a priest, it IS sinful to have sex with a partner!

It has nothing to do with what Focus on the Family believes, and it's for entirely different reasons. FoF doesn't mind sex, in the sanctity of marriage, and with the right gender. But if you are a Catholic priest, sex with ANYONE of ANY gender at ANY time is a huge no-no.

 

I cant open the link here in the office.. :angry:
www.catholictradition.org/Priests/priesthood1-4.htm

Hmm, more reading material....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Oct 17 2007, 10:58 AM) [snapback]526965[/snapback]</div>

Nope.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Oct 17 2007, 10:58 AM) [snapback]526965[/snapback]</div>

This has always baffled me. One theory is that the sex prohibition was invented to prevent new converts from double-dipping: attending a monotheist church while also practicing the old religion at the same time.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Oct 17 2007, 10:58 AM) [snapback]526965[/snapback]</div>

I've always found this to be ghoulish in the extreme. But it's consistent with holding an instrument of torture as their highest symbol.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Oct 17 2007, 10:58 AM) [snapback]526965[/snapback]</div>

Hundreds of generations of brainwashing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Oct 18 2007, 07:41 PM) [snapback]527586[/snapback]</div>

Well, let's look at what I said:

"This is the institution that practices ritualized cannibalism - a "communion" with its 2,000 years old dead thought leader that involves pretending to eat the guy's flesh and drink his blood, a disgusting ritual that in ANY other context would be immediately recognized as mindless savagery."

First, is it an ignorant statement? Does it reflect inadequate knowledge of the ritual: e.g. leaving out any important components of the ritual in the description? No. I've done "communion", in my younger days when I gave church a try; I know the ritual well. The church puts out biscuits and wine (or juice) that it pretends to have "converted" to the "actual" flesh and blood of a human being, and the congregation eats and drinks them in a formal ceremony. The church could have as easily baked a rum cake in the shape of Christ, claimed it was not a cake but the "real" corpse, cut it up and served out the slices on plates for the worshippers to eat, or invited the worshippers up to the table to tear off hunks of the cake with their bare hands. The details of the performance are immaterial to the fact at hand: that a pretense of eating the real flesh and blood of a dead human being is indulged and celebrated. So, no, the statement is not ignorant.

If not ignorant, then is it hyperbole? This is Wikipedia's description of hyperbole: "a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, and is not meant to be taken literally." Is there anything in my statement that is exaggeration? No, its description of the ritual is precise and accurate. Is my statement not meant to be taken literally? Again, no, I meant exactly that it be taken literally; it is a literal description. Is it meant to evoke strong feeling? Yes. However, for a statement to be hyperbole, merely evoking strong feeling isn't enough. Saying "I love you" under certain circumstances can evoke the strongest feelings we're capable of feeling, but is hardly hyperbole. Since my statement lacks exaggeration, and is meant literally, it isn't hyperbole.

You may not LIKE the fact that the ceremony of communion is at its core cannibalistic, but since its core is a simulation of eating the real flesh and blood of a dead human being (and many worshippers believe it's NOT a simulation), there's nothing else to call it BUT cannibalism.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

I wouldn't call it mindless savagery. Some ancient cultures would eat their dead in a formal funeral feast. It was a way for the living to honor, or even perserve, the deceased by taking their essence into themselves. It could also be the final contirbution of a member to the society.

Communion is cannibalism, but not all cannibalism is in the intent of a creepy guy in a basement with a bloody apron and a hacksaw.