Christianity in the Queer World

[Ozio]

Originally Posted by Ben-Her

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Diva

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

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

Originally Posted by Bob

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.

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.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Ozio

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.

[Ozio]

Originally Posted by Bob

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.

[Diva]

Ozio and Bob....

Of course, You are both SO right and I am SOOOOOOO wrong.....what was I thinking? I won't even bother to play the sleep~deprived card. I was clearly wrong.

Of course, marriage won't change a pediphile's stripes. I'm trying to remember what in heaven's name I was thinking......

Please accept my apologies for my lame comment.

And yes. It was a shame that the Catholic church (and any other church who seeks to cover up such heinous activities) covered up the abuse and didn't fire them on the spot.

[Andrew, Jr.]

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!

[Andrew, Jr.]

I am Roman Catholic, someone asked.

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by Bob

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

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."

[Glenn]

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

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.

[Starbuck]

Let me begin by saying,

1. Yes, I believe it is okay for clergy to be homosexual because I do not believe God would create a love that is sinful in nature.

2. In Oklahoma, we do not have same sex marriage. Thus, if my pastor were to be openly gay/lesbian, I would prefer they be married in a state that recognizes same sex marriages, even though it is not legally recognized here...just for the simple reason they are not living together as an unmarried couple. Just because the government doesn't recognize a union (and I don't mean a civil union) doesn't mean God will not.

3. For lack of true knowledge, so many people mis-quote the Bible it's not even amusing. A lesbian friend of mine has a bible that is a direct translation of the original scriptures and would you believe there is NOT ONE instance where the word homosexuality comes up? Now it does say that it is wrong for men to lay with men as with a woman, and it says it is wrong for women to lay with beasts...but no where does it say it is wrong for women to lay with women! And why does it say that it is wrong for men to lay with men? Because it is "detestable," (Leviticus 18:22) a waste of seed (sperm), just as in male masturbation (semen was considered an unclean discharge...Lev 15:16). The book of Leviticus is the one I am referencing throughout. This same friend also has a 1950s bible that has the word homosexuality in it; it has been added.

4. The bible also talked about the right to have slaves. Now we all know that that is morally wrong and that's why we do not practice it today. Also, true to biblical times, when a woman was on her menses, that which she touched had to be burned and she was "unclean for seven days" at the end of her period. Just as in the previous example, what was practiced in history is not necessary today. Why? It was a matter of cleanliness, something we do not have to worry about nowadays.

Now, it is now 0920 am and I have literally been up 24 hours so I hope this post makes sense and doesn't confuse or irritate people. If it does, please allow me to apologize in advance and plead sleep deprivation by means of not taking my night medication (oopsie ) On the other hand, I hope this may have helped others as well. Take from it what you will and please don't bash me, I'm too tired for it!

[MsTinkerbelly]

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.

[Toughy]

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.

[Orema]

The Catholic Church is at war with itself over LGBTQ issues

by John Gallagher


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.

[Gayandgray]

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