It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gay bishop attacks Catholic stand

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 03:12 AM
link   
As far as I know Gene Robinson choose to take part in the Roman Catholic church. He must have known that gay people go against the brainwashing of what ever version of reglion he choose to take part in.

I dont think Gene is suited to reglion he show signs of being able to think for himself.




posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
There is no hypocrisy here.

The Anglican church is welcoming gay members.


- Well that is true but only to a point; they wish to swerve and dance around over the issues of 'practising' etc.


That's different than what the bishop wants to do - he wants to push for gay bishops in the CC. That's where it becomes nunya.


- As I understand it he is 'pushing' for gay people not to face any kind of discrimination in any Church or in any 'office'.

I don't think the 'focus' of what he is doing is specially aimed at the RC's.


Since I believe his ultimate goal is to form an Association of Gay Bishops, with him at the head seat. It would go a long way toward validating the choice he has made.


- This is news to me.

Have you a link to back this claim?


I said earlier that I didn't wan to talk about those issues in this thread. They distract. Start a new thread if you think that homosexuality and pedophilia are related.


- Excuse me?

That was absolutely not my point.

The only 'relation' I am suggesting is the Churches' approach to dealing with each, not those behaviours themselves (I am well aware some want to try and link the two but I do not).



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Just about half the priesthood is gay.
That's what happens when you have celibacy.


Uh .. no. Psychology tells us that absolutely this is false.
Going without sex doesn't change a person's sexual orientation.
Men working with other men won't change their sexual orientation.
Priests can leave the priesthood at any time and get married if they
want to. I personally know one who did. So we can't say that they
don't have access to women if they choose to.

Science says this statement is false. Sorry Amethyst.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
I agree with Max, I think it's more like 75% are gay.


Proper estimates are impossible to get. There are too many
agendas and politics are playing out ...

The actual percent of homosexual men in the world is estimated
at 2% of males. Homosexual men, for the most part, know they are
homosexual from an earlier age then women who are lesbians.
Lesbians make up 1% of the female population. They usually
'discover' their lesbianism later in life then men.

www.religioustolerance.org...

All estimates have the gay priest population much higher than the
2% of the general population. However, the figures change according
to the agenda of the people gathering the information.

The AVERAGE across the board is %33 .



[edit on 11/10/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Hey I just realized Amuk is back! Welcome back, Amuk!



Thanks my friend.

How could I stay away from here? I have just now got a computer. Although I am living in a HUGE (for me) city of 60,000, I plan on being back in the hills soon. I dont see how people can stand living this close to each other.

now back to the subject



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
All estimates have the gay priest population much higher than the
2% of the general population. However, the figures change according
to the agenda of the people gathering the information.

The AVERAGE across the board is %33 .


- I don't think it is going to be a huge secret to anyone that if one is gay and wishes to live a life in a predominantly male environment largely away from women then the Church is a prime career and life-style choice (ditto the armed forces).

Surely it would not be so surprising to anyone that men preferring an environment surrounded by other men would choose this kind of life/calling?

I would not be at all surprised if the numbers of gay clergy already within the Church were a lot higher than imagined/claimed.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Amethyst
Just about half the priesthood is gay.
That's what happens when you have celibacy.


Uh .. no. Psychology tells us that absolutely this is false.
Going without sex doesn't change a person's sexual orientation.
Men working with other men won't change their sexual orientation.
Priests can leave the priesthood at any time and get married if they
want to. I personally know one who did. So we can't say that they
don't have access to women if they choose to.

Science says this statement is false. Sorry Amethyst.




I think psychology is nothing more than quackery to be honest.

I think--and this is just what I think, mind you--there are more gays studying to be priests because it's easy for them not to get involved with or marry a woman.

"Celibacy" to Romanism means not getting married.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   
According to Jesse Monteagudo of the reliable investigative site "Gay Today":



"Noel I. Garde, in his 1964 book "Jonathan to Gide: The Homosexual In History", included John XII (r. 955-964), Benedict IX (r. 1033-1045; 1047-1048), John XXII (r. 1316-34), Paul II (r. 1464-1471), Sixtus IV (r. 1471-1484), Alexander VI (r. 1492-1503), Julius II (r. 1503-1513) and Leo X (r. 1513-1521), along with Julius III, in his list of “gay popes.”


Let's remember here folks that celibacy is the standard to meet for the Catholic Church, not homosexuality. A sexually active heterosexual is just as "sinful" as an acrive homosexual. In addition to the popes listed I know for a FACT that Cardinal Krol, former Cardinal of Phil. had "Wed. nights with the Boys"- I attended several. Cardinal Spellman of NY, a beloved clergyman, was also openly Gay.

jsobecky said:



Homosexuality is not the primary reason that the Catholic church is losing membership and leadership. Forgetting for a moment the pedophilia issues, there are two other issue that immediately come to mind:

Birth control
Women priests



I agree, but IMHO, the largest issue of the misogynistic hierarchy, is the refusal to allow married priests. As long as Rome refuses to acknowledge the importance of restoring God-given, natural sexual inclinations to the preisthood, and insists on keeping the clergy an all boys club, expect the priesthood to attract Gays- or men who deny their sexuality. or have not devloped it enough to realize they are Gay.

A celibate, all male clergy is an invention of men seeking power, not borme out by examination of either the scriptures or early Church traditions.

I know many married former priests who would jump right back into the priesthood if they were allowed. That would end the priest shortage.

In a strikingly hypocritical move, John Paul II admitted 39 conservative married Episcopal Priests into the priesthood, when they felt the Episc. Church was becoming too liberal (before the Bishop Robinson affair). The Catholic Church is also in communion with all the Orthodox Churches- all of whom have a married priesthood.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   
There was a time when there were married priests in the church. Why did it change? Here's a snippet with two reasons; which one do you think is more plausible?


Some historians say the edict in the year 1139 that required priests to remain celibate was designed to elevate priests to Christ-like status. Others say the decree stemmed from concerns that priests were leaving their property to their wives and children, not the Vatican.

www.record-eagle.com...

IMO, the second is the real reason. Land and estates were being left to wives instead of the church.

Today, the church is probably one of the biggest landowners on earth.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky


Some historians say the edict in the year 1139 that required priests to remain celibate was designed to elevate priests to Christ-like status. Others say the decree stemmed from concerns that priests were leaving their property to their wives and children, not the Vatican.

www.record-eagle.com...

IMO, the second is the real reason. Land and estates were being left to wives instead of the church.

Today, the church is probably one of the biggest landowners on earth.


I agree with your opinion, the 2nd reason is most probably why.

The idea of homosexuality in churches just doesn't sit well with me, I may be ignorant in that and I am definitely not homophobic, to each their own by all means, but this subject of gay priests just bothers me in it's entirety. As does all these cases of child perversions coming out of them.

Is this really just being accepted ?



[edit on 10-11-2005 by ImJaded]



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   
No, it is most definitely not being accepted, at least not by the members.
Rather, there has been a pattern of coverup and shuffling priests from parish to parish when they are exposed by the members of the church.

The history shows that they did not expel them from the church, as they should have.

Boston, MA. has a very infamous past with coverups. The man responsible for the area "leadership", Bernard Cardinal Law, was very popular and powerful in Boston, until his pattern of re-assigning guilty priests was exposed. After tens of millions of dollars paid out in hush money, Law was re-assigned to Rome. In effect, he was promoted.

And the coverup went higher than Law.

Edit to make it clear that I was talking about priests that molested children.

[edit on 11-11-2005 by jsobecky]



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
I think psychology is nothing more than quackery to be honest.


Some in psychology are whackos for sure. Freud! Oh my ...
he was a perv who projected his own disorders onto the
rest of humanity to make himself feel better. Many of his
theories have been shredded by modern psychology.

There are others - like Skinner and Pavlov - who made great
strides in understanding human behavior.

I just read a book on Evolutionary Psychology. Most of it
would fit into your 'quackery' area (IMHO). Everything we do,
EVERYTHING, is based on sex and passing down our genes.


But some things in psychology have scientific studies to back
them up. Homosexuality is one area that has been and is being
studied. So far, it says that men volunteering to be celebate
won't cause them to become gay. Men working with other
men will not cause them to become gay. The priests who are
gay were gay BEFORE they entered the priesthood.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
As far as I know Gene Robinson choose to take part
in the Roman Catholic church.


That's kinda the point ... he ISN'T Catholic!
So why he is mouthing off about how someone
else's religion ought to be run is a mystery.
His own religion of choice hasn't even got the
homosexual situation figured out and yet
there he is ... blathering.

Guess he just likes to be in the news or something.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Let me start of by saying I'm catholic. I don't understand what the issue of being Gay, or straight has to do with the Catholic Priesthood.

As far as I know being a priest means being celebate and not acting on sexual desires or having a romantic, emotional or physical relation with anyone. So if i was to become a Catholic priest I would not look at others in a sexual or emotional way, but as "Brothers and sisters".

So this "Bishop" character seems to be confused as far as i'm concerned.

[edit on 11-11-2005 by niato007]



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
That's kinda the point ... he ISN'T Catholic!


- He isn't 'Roman Catholic' but he is a member of a 'Catholic' Church actually FF.


So why he is mouthing off about how someone
else's religion ought to be run is a mystery.


- No it isn't.

The various 'Catholic' churches (which includes the Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Grek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox etc) have had, for decades now, a beneficial 'ecumenical dialogue' going where they debate the differences between themselves (and within themselves) to try and help arrive at a sound resolution to their problems.


His own religion of choice hasn't even got the
homosexual situation figured out and yet
there he is ... blathering.


- If you think this isn't an issue for the RC's too you are kidding yourself.


Guess he just likes to be in the news or something.


- Well if you want to you can personalise this and claim it is all about an individuals' personal benefit to help dismiss the issue if you like but it won't just go away you know.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by FlyersFan
That's kinda the point ... he ISN'T Catholic!

- He isn't 'Roman Catholic' but he is a member of a
'Catholic' Church actually FF.


He specifically said 'ROMAN Catholic' when running off his mouth.
He is NOT Roman Catholic. That's who he was directing his
'you ought to do it this way' speech at. He is NOT part of that
church. He is in a different church which has it's own problems
- some of those problems include HIM.

People can spout all the ecumenicalism they want. The absolute
truth of the matter is - unless you fully believe and profess the
truths of the Roman Catholic faith that are required beliefs to be
a Roman Catholic - (Apostolic succession, the Eucharist,
Virgin Birth, Christ's rising from the dead, Mary's eternal virginity, etc.)
and unless you have ROME and the Pope who stands in Peters shoes
as the head of your church ...... you are not Roman Catholic.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 02:49 AM
link   
This is a very interesting topic in that why should someone, a Bishop at that, have any say in how the Catholic church should, according to him, runs things?

I see him as a person who wants to be in the limelight and bring attention to the his "needs" yet again. He has no jurisdiction in the field of catholicity and shouldn't even contend with the religious aspects of the church, let alone another denomination.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Well said Douglas.

And add to that ... he has his own issues to deal with ...
Such as his unrepentant adultry (he cheated on his wife
whom he married in his church and took vows with in his church)
and his abandoning his family.

He has no business telling anyone or any organization what to
do. He has no business telling people what is moral and what
isn't. He doesn't know the meaning of the word moral and he
obviously doesn't know right from wrong behavior. He didn't
follow the basic Christian rules of marriage and taking care of
a family - when he had promised to do so in God's house.

He's just a selfish freak looking for attention.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ptownrob
The priesthood didn't even exist until the 3rd century, and Deacons and bishops (including Peter) were women, gays, and married. Required celibacy was not put in force until the 9th Century,, and that was a political move by Rome to stop priests from passing down their lands to their children (given by noblemen for their service to the Manor). No marriage, no legitimate children or heirs.




You have voted ptownrob for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join