s/o: if you're catholic, how do you deal with sticking by the church?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with the prior PP. Basically what she is saying is that it was a gay problem and not a pedophile problem. How to stop that? Let priests get married.

I totally disagree. Normal gay people do not have sex with children.

"Children" is a broad term. Young priests having sex with teenage alter boys are not pedophiles.

I am a male. If I were a 23 year old high school guidance counsel having sex with 16 and 17 year old female high school students, what would that make me?

It would make you a statutory rapist.

Regardless, the incidence of molestation went down in the years when gay men entered the priesthood. Seriously, it is all in their official report. It's right here and it was done by John Jay, a non-Catholic institution: http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with the prior PP. Basically what she is saying is that it was a gay problem and not a pedophile problem. How to stop that? Let priests get married.

I totally disagree. Normal gay people do not have sex with children.

"Children" is a broad term. Young priests having sex with teenage alter boys are not pedophiles.

I am a male. If I were a 23 year old high school guidance counsel having sex with 16 and 17 year old female high school students, what would that make me?

It would make you a statutory rapist.

Regardless, the incidence of molestation went down in the years when gay men entered the priesthood. Seriously, it is all in their official report. It's right here and it was done by John Jay, a non-Catholic institution: http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
"Children" is a broad term. Young priests having sex with teenage alter boys are not pedophiles.

I am a male. If I were a 23 year old high school guidance counsel having sex with 16 and 17 year old female high school students, what would that make me?

If you were the 21 yr old older brother of her best friend, I wouldn't think too much of it. But as someone in authority at school over a minor, it is creepy and wrong. There is a huge difference between dating someone a few years older that has no authority over you, and dating a teacher or other authority figure, even if the age difference is small. And at this age, 6-7 years age difference is huge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not the poster you are responding to. I think that what your wrote is a beautiful, poetic expression of what sex can be. I think those human thinkers you cite have articulated a lovely idea of sexuality as sacrament. But I don't agree that GOD SAYS SO. I don't believe any human or any book speaks with the authority of God.

Unless Jesus said it, I don't buy it. So what did JESUS actually say in the Bible about the sacrament of sexual love?

Are you a faithful Catholic? If so, you accept the authority of the Church. If you are not Catholic, then you can submit to any authority of your choosing--your conscience, societal norms, the exact words Jesus spoke that were written down in the Gospels.

The Catechism is the authoritative teaching of the Church, and this is what the Catechism says about marriage and sex:

III. THE LOVE OF HUSBAND AND WIFE

2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146

2363 The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

* Conjugal fidelity...

The fecundity of marriage

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153

2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.154 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."155

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156

2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man's exalted vocation to parenthood."157

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160
2371 "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny."161

The gift of a child

2373 Sacred Scripture and the Church's traditional practice see in large families a sign of God's blessing and the parents' generosity.163

2374 Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. "What will you give me," asks Abraham of God, "for I continue childless?"164 And Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!"165

2375 Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed "at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God."166

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."167

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."168 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."169

2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."170

2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord's Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And most Catholics I know had premarital sex. And most lie to the priest at pre-marital counseling saying they don't, just so they can get married in the church. And I believe most priests *know* they are having sex, but just don't pursue the answer.
So yes, many faithful Catholics fully and openly defy church teachings.
And yes, we can expect the Church to conform to our will. For how many centuries did the Catholic Church refuse to say Mass in the native language of believers? How about 12 centuries. It changed with Vatican II. And the funny thing is, in early Christian days, it was celebrated in native languages, and only got coverted to Latin later. And Jesus didn't speak Latin! So yes, the Church does change. It is slow. It is methodical. And it is at the whim of really old old men who have tacitly condoned pedophilia, never had a wife or children, and live in opulence, only seeing the poor masses from a bullet proof gold plated mobile booth, in which they wave at the poor masses like Miss America at her crowning.

Then you do not understand what the Catholic Church is, if you believe it to be what Jesus claimed it to be. Or perhaps you have just confused Church doctrine, which does not change, and Church discipline, which can, and does change:

The Catholic Church has never changed its doctrines. Doctrine is not changeable because they are truths revealed by God–such as the Incarnation and the Trinity. But disciplines are practices the Church decides to use to help lead the faithful to a deeper faith and relationship with Our Lord. So while a largely celibate priesthood is a discipline, there have always been married priests, and more married priests may be permitted in the future. And the language of the liturgy can change, but it is far from a doctrine that masses must be said in Latin or a native language. But Church teaching about human sexuality cannot change.

[Anonymous]

Oh please. The pope just revised Church position on condoms. There are now some allowable justifications. Never say that the church cannot change on something. It shows a lack of education on church history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Emotionally stunted? Not "technically" a pedophile? You sound like a defense attorney.

You win for the most ridiculous post of the thread. And you also win for explaining how people stay with the church - by deluding themselves.

You lose - for continuing to think that ad hominem attacks are the same thing as rational argument.

SE crimes are sex crimes, no matter what the pathology. Hiding them is criminal. That is not an ad homonym attack.

And ad for your wishful thinking on membership there are some Episcopal parishes converting due to issues of ordaining gay bishops. But have you checked to see the size of the Episcopal church here in the us? There will never be enough episcopalians to cover the loss of disaffected Catholics. One in three children born Catholic leaves the faith.

http://pewforum.org/Faith-in-Flux(3).aspx

[Anonymous]

Hominem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with the prior PP. Basically what she is saying is that it was a gay problem and not a pedophile problem. How to stop that? Let priests get married.

I totally disagree. Normal gay people do not have sex with children.

"Children" is a broad term. Young priests having sex with teenage alter boys are not pedophiles.

I am a male. If I were a 23 year old high school guidance counsel having sex with 16 and 17 year old female high school students, what would that make me?

It would make you a statutory rapist.

Regardless, the incidence of molestation went down in the years when gay men entered the priesthood. Seriously, it is all in their official report. It's right here and it was done by John Jay, a non-Catholic institution: http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/



80% of the victims were male

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh please. The pope just revised Church position on condoms. There are now some allowable justifications. Never say that the church cannot change on something. It shows a lack of education on church history.

Absolutely untrue. Completely false:


The supposed backing down of the longstanding pro-life teaching is creating a stir with secular media outlets and opponents of the Catholic Church making it appear Pope Benedict changed the Catholic Church’s position on condoms — though the top Vatican spokesman says otherwise.

However, Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi responded to those speculations in a statement, saying, “the Pope is not reforming or changing the teaching of the Church but he reaffirms it, putting it in the perspective of the value and dignity of human sexuality as an expression of love and responsibility.”

Regarding those cases in which sex may result in a deadly disease, Lombardi said: “In such a case, the Pope does not morally justify the disordered exercise of sexuality,” but using a condom may be “a first act of responsibility” and “a first step on the path toward a more human sexuality” rather than risking the life of another person.

“In this, the reasoning of the Pope certainly cannot be defined as a revolutionary turning point,” Fr. Lombardi said.



The Pope said that using a condom can be an indication that a person has stirrings on the truth about human sexuality from his conscience. That does not change doctrine--it affirms doctrine.

[Anonymous]

Wake up. He just used a complicated way to say that you aren't going to hell for using a condom if it keeps your wife from getting aids and possibly dying of it.

Can you not think for yourself? Do you have to have every utterance massaged for you by a priest or bishop?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And most Catholics I know had premarital sex. And most lie to the priest at pre-marital counseling saying they don't, just so they can get married in the church. And I believe most priests *know* they are having sex, but just don't pursue the answer.
So yes, many faithful Catholics fully and openly defy church teachings.
And yes, we can expect the Church to conform to our will. For how many centuries did the Catholic Church refuse to say Mass in the native language of believers? How about 12 centuries. It changed with Vatican II. And the funny thing is, in early Christian days, it was celebrated in native languages, and only got coverted to Latin later. And Jesus didn't speak Latin! So yes, the Church does change. It is slow. It is methodical. And it is at the whim of really old old men who have tacitly condoned pedophilia, never had a wife or children, and live in opulence, only seeing the poor masses from a bullet proof gold plated mobile booth, in which they wave at the poor masses like Miss America at her crowning.

Then you do not understand what the Catholic Church is, if you believe it to be what Jesus claimed it to be. Or perhaps you have just confused Church doctrine, which does not change, and Church discipline, which can, and does change:

The Catholic Church has never changed its doctrines. Doctrine is not changeable because they are truths revealed by God–such as the Incarnation and the Trinity. But disciplines are practices the Church decides to use to help lead the faithful to a deeper faith and relationship with Our Lord. So while a largely celibate priesthood is a discipline, there have always been married priests, and more married priests may be permitted in the future. And the language of the liturgy can change, but it is far from a doctrine that masses must be said in Latin or a native language. But Church teaching about human sexuality cannot change.

Actually, then its you who do not understand. Scripture itself is not always sufficient to distinguish between authentic Christian doctrine and authoritatively imposed discipline. Quite simply, the Bible is not the single-source answer to all questions concerning the Christian faith. One must look also to Sacred Tradition and Magisterial teaching. This is what the Catholic Church says about discipline versus doctrine. And what it does is give them the FLEXIBILITY to chnage what they decide is doctrine or decide is disciplie. For a long time, mass was said in Latin. In 1570, Pope St. Pius V defined certain elements of the Mass’s celebration as doctrine, thus unchangeable. But wait, Vatican II changed this!!! So therefore, there is wiggle room between doctrine and discipline. The Catholic church does acknowledge that celibacy is a discipline, not doctrine, and therefore can change. And that is what many of us are asking for! So yes, it can and does change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wake up. He just used a complicated way to say that you aren't going to hell for using a condom if it keeps your wife from getting aids and possibly dying of it.

Can you not think for yourself? Do you have to have every utterance massaged for you by a priest or bishop?

Actually, the forum was not just addressing sexual relations inside a marriage. It was about AIDS. P.E.R.I.O.D. Not AIDS in the context of marriage.

[Anonymous]

I know. His specific quote was for male prostitutes. But of course he is still going to condemn prostitution. Bit if you pit his statement in a marriage it is an inescapable change.

I get that a pope can't admit that things change. But we don't have to play stupid about it. Abortion wasn't always looked at the same way by the church. Humane Vitae is younger than I am. IVF is a modern topic. Married priesthood is an ancient subject. Women deacons is a biblical topic.

If some guy waves a watch in front of you and says "nothing has changed, nothing has changed" don't keep staring at the watch.

[Anonymous]

As a Catholic believe me I am not sitting here thinking: "Wow, what a great point, maybe I should be Episcopalian."

What in the hell are you people still yammering about?