Christianity in the Queer World
 

Man has long used religious belief to control his fellow man. In Christianity this has historically been done through the deliberate misinterpretation of scripture and the demand that all conform to religious doctrine based on that skewed interpretation.
In modern times there have been a few christian churches arise from the rubble of the christian queer's demolished faith in organized religion. Those who stubbornly, and rightly, clinged to a belief in God and in correctly interpreted scripture and felt a need to congregate for fellowship, worship, and study of his word established churches and developed queer inclusive doctrines.
In recent years, many traditional denominations have seen the err of their ways, and developed queer tolerant, or queer accepting doctrines for their congregates, yet there still persists among the Clergy a "queer is bad" mind set. For some denominations it is perfectly OK for congregates to openly be queer, but it is frowned upon for a member of the clergy to be openly queer unless already partnered with someone.
Accepting churches seem fine with same sex partnering..and do not consider their congregates who are "partnered" instead of "married" to be living in sin, however, they hold clergy to a much higher standard. If queer clergy has not the benefit of same sex marriage, or legally sanctioned partnership, then cohabitation with their lover is, for them, considered a sin and the clergyman can be expelled from their position and the church.
I was curious as to the views of Christians on this site about queer Christianity and queer clergy. Is it OK for a member of the clergy to be openly queer? And if yes, then what about clergy in states that do not have same sex marriage laws or partnership acts? Is it a sin for queer clergy to cohabitate if there is no legal standing for the relationship in their state of residence? Would you lose faith in your pastor's ability to minister if she/he were openly cohabiting with a lover without legal sanction?

After our abbreviated discussions about this, I'm sure You won't be surprised when I say that I wouldn't have an issue at all with my pastor's ability to minister if he/she were openly living in a gay/lesbian, etc. relationship without legal sanction. Or single, either, and living an openly gay life.

First, I believe that a relationship ~ whether within the clergy or not ~ is sacred and goes beyond what any court could sanction.

Is it ok for clergy to be queer? Certainly. It is a part of who they are, just as being left~handed might be....I don't mean to trivialize, but really, it is just a portion of the person, is it not?

When the "higher levels of authority" pooh~pooh the idea, or sit in judgement upon gay clergy, I find their opinions to be more fear~based rather than Christ~based. We fear what we do not understand, is this not correct?

Paul was not married. And yet he ministered to many. Jesus, as well.....unmarried. And we are not privy to their private lives, unfortunately. It is one of my questions when I get "There", to be sure.

There were contradictions ~ I find ~ even in the New Testament ~ about same~sex relations (re: Cornelius) which I find interesting. But perhaps that is another topic altogether......forgive me....I'm rambling!

In closing, I must say there is just way too much judging (and fear) going on about what lies within each heart. And when we release THOSE things, it will cease to be religion and become Christianity.

:2cents:



~Diva :musicnote:

I'm a Catholic and I love my faith. The Church, in short, does not condone homosexuality because it is outside of marriage. I respect that. I also believe priests should never marry for profound spiritual and theological reasons. My inner self, and heart and spirit are made by God. My body is made my nature. Because I have qualities which I believe to be innate and given by God, I'm good with Him. But I also respect and love the Church for spiritual reasons outside of the issue of homosexuality and the Church..

I am protestant, but it is my understanding that the Catholic church condemns homosexuality, based on their interpretation of the scriptures, in particular, their interpretation of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Now, if I am incorrect, and they simply refuse to condone it based on legal issues of marriage, what about those countries and states within the US that have same sex marriage laws?
The archdiocese in the D.C. area has recently threatened to cease all humanitarian programs in that area if the proposed same sex marriage law there is allowed to go into effect. That is clearly condemnation of homosexuality, not only for it's clergy, but for it's congregates.
God made us all as we are, and loves us as we are, with all our imperfections.
My questions, however, were about denominations who do specifically tolerate or accept homosexuality within their congregations, and do not consider their partnered congregates without benefit of legal sanction to be living in sin, but do consider their partnered clergy under the same circumstance to be living in sin.

I agree, but I also think there is more than a little hypocrisy involved

No, its based engaging outside of marriage according to the catechesis.
The church does not condemn, which is really a medieval statement. The Church embraces homosexuals as children of God, but not the act outside of marriage. Secondly, the Church always concedes to God. But how that happens gets into heavy theologies that I don't need to concern myself. As a Catholic I love and respect my religion, regardless of my sexual orientation, and I know without illusions, that God loves me no matter the Church says or doesn't say. I choose to remain a Catholic.
And really, the bottom line in life or death, is between God and me.

Last, I would recommend anyone to read A Letter to Louise which can be downloaded at http://www.godmademegay.com/

Then you do not see the threat to cease humanitarian aid by the church in regions that enact same sex marriage laws as condemnation?
I'm not trying to change anyones religion of choice, I just was curious as to Christian queers views on same sex partnering in regions that have no same sex marriage/partnering laws.
The Catholic church requires all it's clergy to be celibate.

note: It is according to the Catholic churches doctrine, which I have read on theological sites, that their views on homosexuality are based on the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah, but I won't argue the point.

Views differ widely, even from one diocese to the next, and the reason for this is because of dissention in the Catholic Church in this century. It's been going on a long time as prophesized. I don't consider it "condemnation" I prefer "not condoning" because of Church doctrine. To condemn someone is right out of hell in my book...that's not from God. It's enough for us to understand that we are oved by God, and to always do the right thing. I can't help who I am or what i feel. These inside things are "God given" for reasons that are mysteries. Anyway didn't mean to get off track here. Hope you'll read A Letter to Louise which is scripture reinterpreted around the subject of homosexuality.

I did not intend this thread to be a discussion on catholicism, but a discussion on protestant clergy and partnering/marriage within denominations that are tolerant/accepting of homosexuality.

I am not condemning or condoning the views of the catholic church, or it's membership.

I have an extensive library of theological materials, Ol Jet, and while I can't say off hand whether or not the material you wish me to read is there I suspect that it is.

Your statement is very true, apretty.

When I was at NIH in Bethesda with my sister who was dying of skin cancer, I saw everything you can imagine. Diseases, illnesses, horrible treatment plans that are like a one in a billion chance it will cure your loved one. I would get on my hands and knees and pray to God to save my sister. Anything. Anything. She died.

Next came my Godfather. Same exact experience but his disease was multiple brain cancer.

Brutal. Grim. Sadness. Strength. Sorrow. The saying that whatever doesn't kill you does make you stronger is true. It does. But getting there is faith.

I really don't think it matters how you choose to believe, but to just have something to believe in - Protestant, Lutheran, Catholic, Jewish, Methodist, etc.

The clergy of any religion should have the choice of a partner/spouse. I am not a judge here on earth. I let that be God. And who really thinks that God would want anyone here to be unhappy?
:2cents:
Andrew

Very well said, apretty and Andrew, Jr.

Absolutely not. I believe in the separation of Church and State, which means whether or not a city/county/state what-have-you legalizes same-sex marriage should have no bearing on a church's position. Plain and simple.

I agree that it should not have a bearing on a churches stance, however the cessation of humanitarian aid by a church due to the enactment of same sex marriage laws certainly does constitute condemnation of homosexuality by that church. I see no way that it could be construed as tolerance or acceptance.

Agreed. And I agree with apretty, revoke tax-exempt status from churches engaging in political (and I feel your example is/can be) action.

I agree with that whole heartedly. I would further state that NO church should withold humanitarian aid in any region for any reason, political or theological in nature. That changes the nature of the aid from humanitarian
to extortionary.

I will attempt, once again, to bring the discussion back to the original subject matter. Should a denomintion tolerant/accepting of homosexuality in a region with no same sex partnering/marriage law disallow it's homosexual clergy to cohabitate with their partners while allowing it's congregates to do so?
Would you lose faith in a pastor's ability to minister if they did so?

I'm not a Christian nor religious but I will say yes, they should. In fact, if they truly are tolerant/accepting of homosexuality perhaps they could provide some 'humanitarian aid' to promote legislation that would allow their clergy to marry in their regions.

Paragraph I. No church SHOULD withhold humanitarian aid, but they WILL and DO. At this point, a church ~ or body of congregants ~ ceases to be humanitarian, and become hypocrites.

Paragraph II. I believe tolerance should be equal or both congregants and clergy in the areas of marriage.

And no, I would not lose faith in my pastor's ability to minister were he/she to marry.

Additionally ~ and perhaps this is a "whole 'nother can o' worms" ~ perhaps if a certain Pope~led religion were to allow said marriages, there would not be such a high incident of sexually inappropriate behavior within its ranks.'


~Diva:musicnote:

The incidence of pedophilia among clergy in the Catholic Church has nothing to do with their inability to marry.

And absolutely, churches should be taxed. It's positively obscene, the amount of wealth 'churches' (and not just the Catholics) are able to amass, primarily because of their tax-exempt status. Want to make money fast? Start your own quasi-Christian feel-good Joyce Meyer-esque 'church'.
Considering the amount of politicking going on from the pulpit, they should be viewed as political organizations with a thin veneer of questionable Christian theology.

I don't believe any organized church should become involved in politics for any reason. When they do, I feel they should have their tax exempt status revoked as they have ceased to be worship based and moved toward becoming a political organization.

A pedophile will not stop offending because they have married, and many of them (protestants and non clergy) are married. Reassigning them to duties that don't involve contact with children will not necessarily protect any child from them. It is my personal belief that they should be expelled from the clergy, and criminally prosecuted. Their church should be obliged to aid in that prosecution

The purpose of tax exempt status for organized churches is to promote their humanitarian efforts. To tax all churches would leave many unable to render much needed humanitarian aid abroad and to their communities. However, if they become involved in politics, then they should be taxed and listed as a ministry, not a church, and as a political organization.

I think we're mostly in agreement here, but I think the humanitarian aid being a reason for no taxation is something of a red herring. The Mormons, for example, take in an estimated $5.5 billion in tithing alone, and their expenditures for 'humanitarian aid' are in the amount of ~$40 million. (Presumably some of which was spent in the humanitarian relief effort to ban gay marriage in California.)

"The Catholic Church gave more than $500,000 to help enact a same-sex marriage ban in Michigan. The Catholic Church gave $200,000 directly (and up to $1 million more through networks like the Knights of Columbus) to efforts to take away marriage equality in California, by supporting Proposition 8 like gangbusters. This year, the Catholic Church is expected to give up to $2 million (they've already donated more than $100,000 to date) to take away marriage equality in Maine, spending yet more money to take away civil rights for gays and lesbians." (http://gayrights.change.org/blog/vie...or_health_care)

Do I think that churches perform humanitarian services? Absolutely. Do I think that other secular charities perform the same services without the politicking and hypocrisy? Absolutely. Tax exempt status is essentially a government subsidy to churches. So we also get taxpayer money going to 'faith-based initiatives' (also tax-exempt) like abstinence education and anti-abortion agitators. We have a separation of church and state in this country for a host of very good reasons, many of which appear to have been forgotten.

Non secular charities and non profit organizations also enjoy federal tax exempt status, but not if they are politically based or motivated. The same should be true for organized churches.
Ministries only enjoy partial tax exempt status. Expenditures that are strictly humanitarian, and provably so, are allowed to be deducted from their profits before taxation. I feel that denominations, or specific churches, who engage actively to influence politics, or have stated political objectives should be required to register as political organizations and at the very least be re-categorized as ministries, if not lose their tax exempt status altogether.

I edited to add: Organized churches who strictly engage in worship and humanitarian aid should not have their efforts hampered by taxation, as this could severely hamper much needed humanitarian aid. Just as a child should not be held accountable for the sins of the parent, a church should not be punished for the sins of it's peers.

I am struggling to understand all of this thread. It is quite confusing to be honest.

I never knew that sharing the simplest things could be so much fun and rewarding. Today I feed the homeless, hungry, and gave out a few gifts of personal care products that they could use. Things that you and I take for granite. The joy it gave me, I can't even begin to measure.

If you take out the politics of any and all religion, and focus on the problems, then I think we all would be so much better. I really don't believe that God would want us to be suffering like we are now.

I was being driven by a neighbor to the city, and there was a billboard with a sign up on it saying that if you had a good day today (Christmas Day), you didn't have to thank God (higher power, whatever you pray to). It was advertised by an atheist (sp?) group in Baltimore. I was a bit taken back. I think they have a right to advertise anywhere they wish too, however, I think it is wrong to say that their rights trumph mine. And I just wonder if business' are now feeling the pressure of this group and are now stopping employees from answering phones Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and so on and on.

Now Joseph had a pregnant girlfriend/fiancee, gaveup getting his diploma, and made the ultimate decision to be a disciple. He put God in front of everything. And instead of making a home for Jesus, he had his bastard son in a manger. So, who am I to say someone is right or wrong. I am not a judge here. I will let Jesus judge.

Namaste,
Andrew

PS: Merry Christmas to All!

Celibacy debate re-emerges amid Church abuse scandal

Tue, Mar 9 2010 By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor

PARIS (Reuters)
"Just because one doesn't live out one's sexuality doesn't mean it's been turned off. No, I must see how I react sexually and learn to deal with it," Hamburg Auxiliary Bishop Hans-Jochen Jaschk explained on German Radio on Friday.

Kothgasser told his interviewer he sometimes wished he had a family, especially when he met "beautiful people," and called this a "very natural" human feeling.

CELIBACY ATTRACTS PEDOPHILES

Jashke said celibacy was not the reason for sexual abuse but added: "The celibate lifestyle can attract people who have an abnormal sexuality and cannot integrate sexuality into their lives. That's when a dangerous situation can arise."

I strongly disagree with this statement by Jashke. Pedophilia has nothing to do with any Church, the priesthood, or a celibate lifestyle. Rather, it is the Catholic Church that attracts them to the Catholic Church or any other religion for that matter that does not punish this abnormal sexual drive. They should be put on a list like any other pedophile, and not be supported by a wait and see attitude. Many pedophiles are NOT involved in any religious organization.

Our Church website has been upgraded...you can listen to sermons, and interact in a bunch of new ways. Our Pastor says to get the word out (LOL), so the site is threecrossesministries.org Sorry---it goes live early this week.

All this talk about legal civil marriage and the clergy. I would think the important marriage of anyone in the clergy would be the religious/spiritual marriage.

Civil marriage is a legal contract and as such should have nothing to do with any religious/spiritual practice. I do not think preachers/pastors/rabbis/______ should be allowed to officiate at a civil marriage. Their realm is religious/spiritual marriage.

The Catholic Church is at war with itself over LGBTQ issues
 

The Catholic Church is at war with itself over LGBTQ issues

by John Gallagher

https://lgbtqnation-assets.s3.amazon...ed-500x334.jpg
Pope Francis greets the pilgrims during his weekly general audience in St Peter's square at the Vatican on September 10, 2014. Shutterstock

Is the pope Catholic? According to ultra-conservatives in the Church, not Pope Francis.

In an extraordinary move, the former Vatican ambassador to the U.S. is calling on Francis to resign over the Church’s sexual abuse scandal. But at the heart of the debate is the Catholic right’s insistence that Francis is heretical when it comes to LGBTQ issues.

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò issued the 11-page letter to two American websites tied to the Church’s right wing. The timing was clearly meant to embarrass the pope as he was finishing up a visit to Ireland, which has been reeling from the Church’s sex abuse scandals.

In the letter, Viganò says that the pope knew about allegations against Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and did nothing about them.

“Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example for cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick’s abuses and resign along with all of them,”Viganò insisted.

There’s no question that, even by the Vatican’s standards, the pope has been slow to address the rot behind the sexual abuse of thousands of children by clergy. But that’s not what Viganò really cares about. As his letter demonstrates, he’s animated by hatred of gay people in the Church.

Viganò devotes large chunks of his letter to rehearsing his grievances against “the homosexual current in favor of subverting Catholic doctrine on homosexuality,” implying that several high-ranking clergy are gay. Viganò’s makes clear that his real goal is that “the homosexual networks present in the Church must be eradicated.”

Like most right-wing Catholics, Viganò equates pedophilia with being gay. He believes that the sexual abuse scandal is entirely the fault of gay clergy, even though there is ample evidence of priests abusing girls as well.

Viganò is engaged in a take-no-prisoners culture war focused almost entirely on LGBTQ issues.

“I think Viganò represents the part of the right wing of the church that sees the LGBT issue as the defining issue of this millennium, or this century, and this pontificate,” Massimo Faggioli, a professor of theology and religious studies at Villanova University, told Slate.

“They think that anything can and should be done to stop Pope Francis from ushering in a more welcoming church for LGBT people. So in this there is a convergence between Viganò, who has always been obsessed with the gay lobby and gay conspiracy, and the American Catholic right.

Indeed, Viganò has happily inserted himself into the culture wars in the U.S. It was he who arranged for the notorious meeting between Pope Francis and Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Apparently, the import of the meeting caught the pope by surprise and Viganò lost his job. Adding to his grudge against Francis is the fact that Viganò was never named a cardinal.

Moreover, in the past, Viganò himself was happy to cover up for at least one closeted bishop. Viganò singlehandedly killed an independent investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct by then-Archbishop John Nienstedt of Minneapolis.

Nienstedt was credibly accused of frequently gay bars and hitting on men, but his willingness to crusade against marriage equality apparently mattered more to Viganò.

Credibility issues aside, the letter is really about a coup by the right to return the Vatican to the hardline era of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict. For an archbishop within the Vatican to make such politically fraught allegations against his boss is a sign of just how divided the Church is.

It’s not as if Francis is preparing to officiate at a mass same-sex wedding. He has carefully adhered to the Church’s doctrine on gay issues. But he has demonstrated that he cares about people as much as ideology, which makes him a threat to the right.

Viganò’s letter is the opening salvo in an open battle for the Church’s future. Already, several American bishops have lined up behind him.

“The corruption and filth which have entered into the life of the Church must be purified at their roots,” Cardinal Raymond Burke, a vociferous opponent of LGBTQ rights, told LifeSiteNews.

But the “filth” that the ultra conservative clergy want to eliminate are gay clergy, not abusive clergy. The sex abuse scandal is secondary to their bigger goal.

As for the victims of the abuse, they hardly seem to matter at all.

BUMP BUMP!!!!!!!!!!!