Too Much To Dream

Right, big shocker there.

But can I point out how disgusting I think it is for the Catholic church to so strongly condemn homosexuals while continuing to pander to their pedophilic priests?

Ick.

Sure, if you don't mind people getting mad at you for pedophiles with adult homosexuals who want to marry each other.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Anyway, I have no dog in that hunt. I'm not Catholic. I am not supporting the pope, merely pointing out that gay rights supporters aren't going to get the support of the head of that church any time soon. And of course, no one should buttfuck little boys.* Not that that had anything to do with what I was posting -- but then I don't automatically pair homosexuality and pedophilia the way other people seem to do, so that when you bring one thing up, the other naturally follows in the conversation.

That sentence should read "if you don't mind people getting mad at you for comparing pedophiles with adult homosexuals who want to marry each other." And then I meant to put an asterisked footnote saying: "Oh, here come the search engine hits now." I could just correct the entry but I don't feel like doing a site rebuild.

Yeah, that felt like one of Reynolds' standard "I'm not a righty!" posts he tosses off every once in a while to keep his indy cred.

The Catholic Church hasn't got a pedophilia problem - the vast majority of their abuse cases involve predatory homosexual priests abusing post-adolescent boys. That is not pedophilia, by definition - merely deviant sexual power-mongering by emotionally crippled failures-at-life. If anyone wants to sign off on their particular juju con, fine...

Well that's a whole other thing. And again, it doesn't really have anything to do with normal (as I will call them for want of a better word) homosexuals who just want some legal standing to their monogamous unions with someone in their own age group. And the older-men-exploiting-young-boys-for-power thing predates the Catholic church -- it's kind of funny that one of the things early Christians condemned pagans for later permeated the church just as it permeated every institution of power. You men, you -- why are you so bad? ;P

Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral. Making something illegal doesn't make it immoral, either. I could care less about same-sex marriages. In the same light, those seeking approval for this shouldn't look to an institution that has condemned it for 20 centuries.

It's because of George. When you understand George, you understand Seinfeld, and many more things besides.

At least the Catholic Church could have TOLD someone all these years it was actually against homosexuality, I mean, published it in a book or something, so people would know.

The real error the puppy blender made was that he said the Pope was "wrong" on both gay marriage and the war in Iraq, implying that they're equivalent decisions. The war thing is the Pope's personal opinion (for which he can be held responsible), whereas being against same-sex marriage (or same-sex anything really) is a long-standing Church policy, and you can't hold the Pope personally responsible there.

I'm not comparing pedophiles with adult homosexuals. Or saying that it's the same thing. Like you, I don't have a stake in this. And I'm also not Catholic.

That said, my point was that the stance of the Catholic church in this is disgusting and inconsistent. I don't care if you're talking about pedophilia or any other (and I'm speaking biblically here) sin - I don't understand why the Catholic church behaves as though homosexuality is a special sin that will send you straight to hell, and yet sits back and says nothing when members of the clergy commit acts that are both immoral and illegal.

I don't automatically connect the two either. They just happen to be the 2 (recent) issues in the church that have pissed me off - so no, I don't mind if anyone gets mad at me for saying so.

Well I was raised a catholic so I can claim a stake if I so choose. What the Pope said about marriage is long standing church policy... like oh 1970 years or so. So, how is the Pope saying it in todays world new some how? I guess some people just haven't been paying attention. And it is published in a book... the Bible I believe.

Personally I could care less about the Church's policy... haven't been a practicing Catholic for 25 years... but again, nothing new was stated by the Pope. And nothing unexpected if you know anything about Church doctrine. I think Sullivan needs to take a reality pill or something if he thought the Pope would say otherwise.

I started to write a post about the pedophilia priest issue, but that's really another topic. With regard to homosexuality, the Catholic church has had a consistent opinion. Love the sinner while rejecting the sin. While I have tremendous respect for Reynolds and his opinions, I was of the impression his degree was in law and not theology and it's ridiculous to say the Pope is "wrong" about Roman Catholic doctrine. I also wish people like Sullivan would quit whining about how the Catholic church regards homosexual relationships. Get over it. There are plenty of other faiths that are ready and willing to accomodate you and, despite what they think the Catholic church isn't going to collapse because it wouldn't change it's doctrine to meet the activities of some of it's people. Catholism isn't an ala carte religion where you get to pick and chose which ideals and morals you wish. It's an all or nothing package.

I am not Catholic (I'm one of those non-believing heathens), but it is completely false to state that the Catholic Church considers homosexuality a particularly bad sin. There are some protestants who act that way, but the Catholics don't. The church doesn't generally get into ranking sins, but their position on gay sex is exactly the same as their position on sex outside of marriage, masturbation, or divorce: sins, all. They have never treated homosexuality like it's worse than those things.

Furthermore, while it is correct that most of the priests involved in sexual abuse were gay men diddling adolescent boys, it is also a slander to suggest that the Catholic Church as a whole has not treated this like an abomination.

The specific problem of gay priests molesting teenaged boys is one that has occurred primarily in the United States. It is not, so far as anyone knows, a worldwide phenomenon. We should remember that: there are about a billion Catholics in the world, most of them outside the United States.

The church hierarchy has specifically declared that priests molesting boys is evil. It's enough to get you permanently defrocked. However, they have a pretty complicated (I amost said "byzantine") set of internal church laws they follow on these matters.

It is true that some American bishops have covered up for misbehaving priests. It is not the case--in fact, it's ignorant anti-Catholic bigotry--that the church itself is led primarily of child molesters who cover up for each other.

Er, it's anti-Catholic bigotry to SUGGEST that the church is led primarily by child molesters and people who cover up for them.

Because it ain't so.

I think it's important to note that gay rights activists (and non-Catholic gays in general) don't necessarily want the Catholic church to approve of homosexuality or gay marriage. The beef is that the church is strongly advocating the Family Marriage Amendment, which would write the Pope's position on gay marriage into law. I understand if the Pope doesn't want Catholics to be gay or to enter into same-sex marriages, but to extend that prohibition to non-Catholics seems to be crossing a line. I certainly don't want to make Catholicism illegal, but the Church wants to put legal restrictions on me. I think that's the meat of the beef, as it were.

I have yet to hear of even one consequence of "gay marriage" that would benefit anyone, except by:

1) giving homosexuals a claim to inclusion in certain redistributionist social programs, and:

2) giving homosexuals the ability to browbeat employers into insuring their lovers for free.

The marriage contract evolved as protection for vulnerable women and dependent children -- vulnerable to male promiscuity, fickleness, and the temptations toward abandonment. Inasmuch as, by definition, the parties to a "gay marriage" would be of the same sex, and the two could not produce children without elaborate prior artificial arrangements which could easily include a contract for responsibility and support, who would be protected by it, and from whom and what?

See also this.

I don't have a problem with legalizing gay marriage, but there are two caveats to that for me.

First of all, I don't want it to be called marriage. For 7000 years every human civilization has sanctioned marriage as a union between a man and a woman and that has been done for a reason. It provides a family atmosphere in which children can be raised to be good citizens (every dysfunctional country on the earth has witnessed the deterioration of the family as an institution). It's a survival trait on the national level. Don't mess with it. We've got enough problems with our society, we don't need to go looking for more.

The second caveat is that I don't want to see it in a christian church. The Bible clearly states our Lord's position on this sort of thing. I don't want ANY sin to become acceptable behavior in a House of the Lord.

If all gays are looking for is the same legal benefits of marriage, that's fine with me. I don't actually have a dog in that particular fight, nor do I want one in it.

Why not compare pedophiles and homosexuals? You were on the right track when you labeled it "sin". Sin is not in categories! There is no gray area! God did not say these two sins were worse than others but he did say they are an abomination to him. If it is an abomination to him, can it be any less to me? Now I know there are many that dismiss the scriptures as fiction. Fine! That is their free choice. The truth is there are no atheists or agnostics in hell. The ones already there are all "true believers". We live in a nation that accepts homosexuality, abortion, corruption in the highest offices, no morals or values and the list goes on and on. Anyone that truly believes that we will not have to give an account as a nation is a fool! God will have the final say and all the mockers and scoffers on this planet will not postpone it one second. Our judgement will come soon enough! Personally, I look forward to it! The reason is, I have faith in God but absolutely none in mankind! I grieve for the world but I look forward to its end with great joy!
If you are wondering why, just look around!

Too bad it's a sin to kill yourself, eh believer? Then you wouldn't have to wait for the glory of etenal life. My personal hell would be to spend an eternity surround by "true believers".

A believer: because its ludicrous to compare what happens between consenting adults and that which entails a man in a position of trust abusing a child in his care (ie flock).

If you can't see the difference between those two things you have some serious mental problems imo. Of course, that is not surprising since "blind faith" does entail some sort of thinking by-pass.

The fact that certain Dioceses around the world allowed pederasts to continue in their church is absolutely abomitable. The fact they covered it up and actively persecuted those who complained about it, is even worse.

I agree, Believer, there are no agnostics or atheists in hell. Nor, I might add, are there any Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Christians, Taoists, Santarians, Mormons, Greek or Roman mythologists or guano worshippers there. Except maybe as a metaphor for downtown Los Angeles, hell does not exist.

On a separate topic, I'm not sure where the "all sins are equal" sub-meme of the Christian meme comes from. It certainly does not come from the Old Testament, which punished some sins with death and others with slap-on-the-wrist fines. Nor could it have come come from the New Testament, which distinguished the "specks" in they eyes of ordinary, two-bit sinners from the "logs" in the eyes of the Pharisees. Nor could it have come from Catholic tradition, which has long distinguished seven "deadly" sins from a gazillion non-deadly ones. So where on earth does it come from?

I still don't understand why Seinfeld was so popular.

Oh, thank God! I'm not the only one!

There is a Christian doctrine which says God will punish us all for sins. So in that sense there is no gray area: you're a flawed sinner, and you're either redeemed by the blood of Christ or you're not.

But most Christians do know that there are various degrees of sin. In fact, the Catholic Church specifically has a doctrine of three levels of sin: venal (like swearing), cardinal (like rape), and mortal (like suicide). Actually it may be more than three, but I do remember those in specific.

Thanks for your interest John but as a "True Believer" I believe my wait for the "glory of eternal life" is growing short without doing myself in. It's according to God's plan, not mine. You said, " My personal hell would be to spend an eternity surrounded by "true believers". Just by reading your comments, I would say, you can stop worrying!
Love, Peace , Joy!

Seinfeld always grated on me too.

Andrew I made no such comparison! There is no "degree of sin with God! We are the ones that like to put them into categories. Maybe so ours won't look as bad as others. I don't mind the label, "blind faith" does entail some sort of thinking by-pass". People that are not of "the faith" usually take this stand. People have faith in something whether they acknowledge it or not. Your faith is obviously in this world. I am absolutely sure about the one in whom I have my faith. Take a look around and tell me if that in which you have your faith is holding up well!

Dean, you stated it well, "the Catholic Church specifically has a doctrine of three levels of sin". That is true. However the Bible does not. According to the Bible (KJV) the only unpardonable sin is "Blaspheming the Holy Spirit". I am not a Catholic and I have no desire to speak against the Catholic Church but I have to say there is a great difference in many of the doctrines. Another statement you made, "There is a Christian doctrine which says God will punish us all for sins. So in that sense there is no gray area: you're a flawed sinner, and you're either redeemed by the blood of Christ or you're not". AMEN!

I'm not suggesting that. But there does seem to be a certain amount of that going on. And why was this even a church matter? And what Andrew said.

Xrlq -

Based on my knowledge of the bible...
The first thing is that not all Christian religions specify 7 deadly sins. I don't know which, if any, others follow that particular idea, but I can tell you for sure that Lutherans don't. And I don't think the bible mentions those 7 things as such (but please correct me if it does and you know where it is).

As for the speck vs. log perhaps I'm missing something, but the passage that comes from has more to do with not judging others than it does with which sins are worse.

The third thing is that punishment given by government authority is just that. It's justice based on what the government and the people deem to be appropriate based on the crime. The idea that all sins are equal comes from several things - one of them possibly being James 2:10("For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.")...and in addition, God makes little distinction in what he forgives. There is nothing that can't be forgiven, and nothing that he requires a penance (or something similar) for in order to forgive because it is such a terrible sin. So in that respect, all sins are the same before Him even if we here on earth see them as different. In fact, the only place I can think of where God said anything about some sins being worse (and I can't think of where that was) was in the Old Testament, and it was between "accidental" sins (having bad thoughts, etc.) and sins of those deliberately rebelling against him.

"As for the speck vs. log perhaps I'm missing something, but the passage that comes from has more to do with not judging others than it does with which sins are worse."

It's about both. If the only point were not to judge those who are equally culpable, the more intuitive analogy would have been to refer to both sins as specks. If comparing one sin to a speck and the other to a log doesn't make it clear that one sin is greater than the other, then I don't know what else could. Also, I'm 99% certain that I recall certain passages in which Jesus referred to certain people in hell getting punished with more blows than others.

Xrlg, If you will read (KJV)Matthew 7 verses 1-5, I believe that makes it very clear that he is talking about judging people and not whose sin is worse. If anyone tries “intuitive analogy” of an infinite mind (God’s) they will never understand it. Bible truth is only revealed by the leading of the Holy Spirit. That’s why the scripture says it is “not subject to private interpretation”. That’s also the reason for so many denominations. Each one believing they have the only truth but the real truth is freely given to all that seek it. God Bless!

Xrlg, If you will read (KJV)Matthew 7 verses 1-5, I believe that makes it very clear that he is talking about judging people and not whose sin is worse. If anyone tries “intuitive analogy” of an infinite mind (God’s) they will never understand it. Bible truth is only revealed by the leading of the Holy Spirit. That’s why the scripture says it is “not subject to private interpretation”. That’s also the reason for so many denominations. Each one believing they have the only truth but the real truth is freely given to all that seek it. God Bless!

I apologize, I started to post anonymously then tried to cancel. As you see it didn't work!

Imaginary friends for big people. Does anyone know whWhere the grown-ups hang out?

The King James Version may sound like that, but only if your medieval English is rusty. In my book, logs are a tad bigger than specks, and the various and sundry references to who gets it worse than whom are not accompanied by "ha, ha, just kidding" disclaimers.

Seinfeld is popular?

These are all religious arguments, not legal.

There are already Christian churches who accept and affirm gay and lesbian members and who preside over their unions. Some call it "marriage", some do not.

The "redistributionist" benefits of marriage are more than just health insurance. We're talking about inheritance, hospital visitation, power of attorney, end-of-life decisions, child custody -- there are thousands of benefits of marriage that help to protect and sustain familial bonds over and through difficulty -- all benefits that same-sex couples currently don't have.

From a religious standpoint, it is the choice of each church to decide whether homosexuality is okay or not, and whether same-sex unions should be allowed and affirmed. However, the public arena isn't ruled by religion -- much less Christianity -- alone. There are Jews and Muslims and Buddhists and Wiccans and Agnostics -- and atheists like me. For me personally, God and religion has nothing to do with my choice to spend my life bound to another man, sharing all of our physical and non-physical possessions, supporting one anothers' lives and sharing in its joys. God doesn't enter into it one whit.

Churches can believe what they wish, and enforce whatever they wish on their members. However, I don't live in a religious context and I live accordingly.

If churches wish to disallow gay marriage within their own memberships, so be it. Certainly doesn't matter to me. But to say, "You sin; therefore the law applies to You differently" is not a compelling legal argument.

Maybe we should get a different word for our unions. As long as we get the same legal protection, it really doesn't matter to me. I know what my relationship is, I know what my family is, and I know what my life is. I don't need anyone to tell me that. I'm pair-bonded: physically, emotionally, and financially. I just want that bond to be legal as well.

"Pair-bonding" is good. I also like "life-partner." I think that the main mistake the gay marriage activists may have made is referring to what they wanted as marriage. Like it or not that word conjures up all sorts of basic images and emotions in most people, and when you mess with that area you get a primarily emotional response, usually a negative one, no matter how good or reasonable your intentions.

I may be indifferent to the whole idea of marriage -- to quote Florence King, at this point I'd rather be dead than married -- I still know that there is a reason there are so many bridal magazines, why they are all as thick as the New York City yellow pages, and why so many couples and their families end up spending thousands of dollars on what is really, in this culture, a mere formality. (You aren't really married, no matter how fancy your church wedding, until you get that marriage license from the county clerk. But I would bet that the majority of people don't really "feel" married until they have some sort of ceremony, religious or not. And that's just this country.)

Dean Esmay wrote "The specific problem of gay priests molesting teenaged boys is one that has occurred primarily in the United States. It is not, so far as anyone knows, a worldwide phenomenon. We should remember that: there are about a billion Catholics in the world, most of them outside the United States."

Er, nope. There have been major scandals in France and Australia, but the US gets all the ink.

John Kusch, Let me first say that I am not religious. It was "religious" people that nailed Christ to the cross. Also to me there is no argument about homosexuality. It is Biblical fact! Let me make it very clear that I am not trying to sell anything here. Each individual has to make their own decision about what they believe. I cannot argue anyone into Heaven or out of Hell. So, I don't try. I share Christ with anyone that is interested and for those that aren't interested, I leave then alone. I hope that doesn't sound like I don't care because I truly do. But after 23 years of being a Christian, I have learned, not everyone is interested in being a Christian. Just the opposite! Some absolutely loathe Christianity! Ok! That's fine! That doesn't change my Faith and I refuse to try and impose my Faith on someone else. Let me make this point in closing. There isn't a single true "Christian Church" that accepts and affirms gay and lesbian members. There are some that call themselves "churches" that do! There are some that call themselves "Christian" that do! But absolutely no "Christian Churches" do!