The Vatican Mob: Giving Shelter to Pedophiles and Thieves

I object to the use of the word "pedophile" to describe the scandal in the Church.

Pedophile is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children.

Pederasty refers to an erotic relationship between an adolescent boy and an adult male outside his immediate family.

I think that most people would agree that most of the sexual scandals involving priests have to do with adolescent boys. I feel it is dishonest to make this out as pedophilia, "since it masks the real nature of what is occurring: priestly homosexual activity with under-aged males."
See:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0211fea2.asp

The site above has another word for pederasty: ephebophilia.

"According to the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV, pedophilia is sexual attraction to children who have not yet arrived at puberty (DSM-IV, 528). While there have been priests who were pedophiles, the overwhelming majority of cases involved a disorder called ephebophilia, a term that refers to sexual attraction to minors who have arrived at puberty (i.e., teenagers)."

(I find it interesting that the DSM had to invent a word that means the same thing as "pederasty", instead of just using "pederasty". Perhaps that was to avoid all the baggage that pederasty brings along with it.)

The site has some interesting statistics in re: the number of "pedophile" cases vs. the number of "ephebophila" cases.

A 1992 study conducted in the Archdiocese of Chicago is the largest such study done to date. It examined the personnel files of all priests serving in the diocese. It found that out of the 2,252 priests who had served from 1951 to 1991, allegations of sexual abuse had been made against 59 of them, or 2.6 percent.

The study adopted a policy of favoring the accuser in cases of doubt, accepting hearsay testimony (which would not be allowed in court), and adopting a "preponderance of evidence" standard (as opposed to the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in criminal trials). With this methodology, it concluded that 18 of the allegations of sexual abuse did not stand up, leaving 41 probable offenders, or 1.8 percent of the priests who had served in Chicago in four decades. Again, "the overwhelming number of cases . . . involved homosexual ephebophilia-in other words, priests sexually attracted to young teenage boys. . . . There was only one founded case of pedophilia, involving a priest-uncle with two six-year-old nieces" (Philip Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis [1996], p. 81).

A recent study conducted in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania showed a 1.7 percent figure of priestly sexual abuse involving minors (cited by Philip Jenkins on "Catholic Answers Live," May 17, 2002, archived at www.catholic.com).

While there may be new accusations in the future, the national percentage of priests accused of abuse-0.53 percent-likely will never approach these figures of 1.8 and 1.7 percent. It appears that the archdioceses of Chicago and Philadelphia have had levels of abuse more than three times higher than the national average.

How do these numbers compare against the general population?

It's unclear, again because of inadequate scientific studies. To our knowledge no study has been conducted that isolates the primary problem: adult male homosexual abuse of adolescent boys. One expert in pedophilia, Dr. John Bradford, "estimates its [pedophilia's] prevalence at maybe four percent of the population" (John Cloud, "Pedophilia," Time, April 29, 2002).

If so, the percentage of pedophiles in the ranks of Catholic priests is significantly lower by all accounts than in the general population. This may be due to the psychological screening candidates for the priesthood are subject to prior to ordination-and to the practical fact that priests have less access to children than do typical pedophiles.

That's funny that you would hear so much about something in the press, like "pedophile priest", and yet the problem is really a "predatory homosexual priest", and the numbers are less than the population at large. I wonder what sort of zionist-owned media would create such a scandal? (Oops! I gave it away.)

The website above says this:

Because the Church expects higher standards of its clergy and members than do other bodies. Because the requirement of celibacy in particular rankles contemporary mores. Because the Church keeps a detailed dossier on members of its clergy, giving prosecutors more extensive evidence to work with. It is not paranoia to suggest that anti-Catholicism also plays a role.

Jenkins points out also that journalists often interpret new stories in terms of existing archetypes. Once the "pedophile priest" became an archetype in the press's mind, new accounts of priestly misconduct were poured into that mold. The fact that there is no corresponding "pedophile pastor" profile in the press's mind tends to cause instances of non-Catholic clerical abuse to be viewed as isolated incidents rather than as symptoms of a larger social problem

So what sort of baggage does the word "Pederast" have? Two words: Ancient Greece. From wiki:

According to Plato, in ancient Greece, pederasty was a relationship and bond – whether sexual or chaste – between an adolescent boy and an adult man outside of his immediate family. [M]ost Greek men engaged in relations with both women and boys...

And thus the old joke about the Greek boy who didn't want to leave his brothers behind...

But wait, there's more:

In Rome, relations with boys took a more informal and less civic path, men either taking advantage of dominant social status to extract sexual favors from their social inferiors, or carrying on illicit relationships with freeborn boys

Taking advantage of dominant social status to extract sexual favors from their social inferiors? Does that not describe this same situation?

The Catholic website above opines that an inordinate number of homosexuals have found their way into the priesthood. They quote statistics and then question them, so I won't bother. The website concludes:

What is clear is that the powerful homosexual subculture that exists in some dioceses and seminaries-what liberal priest Andrew Greeley has dubbed "the Lavender Mafia"-remains a significant problem. When the U.S. cardinals met with the Pope at the Vatican this year , Bishop Wilton Gregory admitted, "It is an ongoing struggle . . . to make sure that the Catholic priesthood is not dominated by homosexual men

The Lavender Mafia. When they rub a guy out, they REALLY rub him out. (Sorry)

So Church leaders under Pope Benedict XVI began advocating a more careful screening of aspiring clerics to keep out homosexuals. Does that make sense? Let's see:

1. There is a LONG history of homosexual men using adolescent boys for sex.
2. A number of homosexuals found their way into the clergy.
3. Some of those clergy used adolescent boys for sex.
4. The Church stopped letting homosexuals into the seminaries.

Makes sense to me.

Now I know there are some who will quote some psychological study that most men who have sex with underage boys are actually straight. To those people I say: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FREAKING MIND?

To make that statement is akin to saying: Most people who are overweight are actually underweight.

Look: If a man has sex with his own sex, he is a homosexual. Period. You don't accidentally have sex with someone of the same sex. The act defines the person's sexuality. (If some people want to say they just "experimented in college", that is fine. Whatever. It's none of my business. You were drunk.) But if a man is sexually attracted to adolescent boys, he is a homosexual. Period. End of discussion.

On a personal note, I was attending Mass at my local parish when the Church statement was passed down that disallowed homosexuals in the seminaries. I think most of us were thinking, "It's about time." But our priest was not pleased. He was offended. Why? Because he was in the Lavender Mafia.

He got in a big hissy fit and charged the Church with discrimination.

I thought it was interesting that this priest had made a solemn vow of obedience, but found no problem with attacking the Church's teaching DURING MASS! What a hypocrite. The only reason we were listening to him was because he was supposed to be representing the Church he was condemning.

A particularly accurate quote from the Catholic website:

The "gay" lifestyle is inherently narcissistic, placing it at odds with the sacrifices of priestly life.

That priest quit soon afterward. I'm not sure if the door hit him in the butt on the way out.

-----------------------

"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."

Point of the matter is young lives are ruined in a process of power relations between adults and young people who put their faitth in these authority/moral figures who then abuse the trust of children in order to satisfy their sexual urges. There is a legal convention, which defines the age of sexual consent--that varies somewhat.

Countless lives are destroyed by these sexual predators and attempts to confine this abuse within psychological terminology does these victims a disservice.

Definitely, Stern Gang. If you're gonna get offended, be offended by the gross conduct of the 'pederasts' and the young lives destroyed thereby.

Not sure what I think about gays being banned from your church though, Chris. All this talk about the Lavendar Mafia sounds distinctly xenophobic, but that's Christianity, isn't it. Anyway, Christians can do it their way, it's none of my business.

Stern Gang said:

"[A]ttempts to confine this abuse within psychological terminology does these victims a disservice."

Why? I'm kind of tired of the [fill in the blank] does [victim class] a disservice. e.g. [Asking for a 9/11 investigation] does [the families of the victims] a disservice.

Personally, I think that [making vapid arguments] does [thoughtful people] a disservice.

Let's say a guy has pains in his heart. He goes in to see the doctor. Doctor A, (who's a quack doctor) says, "You just have indigestion." Doctor B, who is a wicked smart doctor, says, "You have ischemic cardiomyopathy. Yeah, that's right. I said it."

Meanwhile, Doctor C, who graduated last in his class, says, "I think that trying to define the diagnosis within medical terminology does this patient a disservice." Doctor C doesn't really know why he said it. He just heard it on TV and it sounded cool.

So Doctor A turns to Doctor C and says, "How do you expect me to help this patient without properly diagnosing his illness?"

-----------------

And COZ said:

"Not sure what I think about gays being banned from your church though, Chris.

For the record, gays are not banned from the Catholic Church. They are no longer welcome in the Seminaries. I think I made a strong point that male homosexuals have a long history of pederasty. It is not politically correct, but there it is.

To me it seems odd that anyone would dispute the fact that the men who are buggering the boys are homosexual. I am not saying that all male homosexuals bugger young boys, BUT ALL men who bugger young boys are homosexual.

It's simple logic:
Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal.
Socrates likes to bugger young boys.

People are rightfully upset when young boys get buggered by priests. The Church decides to put a stop to the buggery by stopping homosexuals from becoming priests. And people get upset? WTF? Do people just want to get upset at the Church? Don't they want the Church to do anything about it?

All this talk about the Lavendar Mafia sounds distinctly xenophobic, but that's Christianity, isn't it."

Et tu COZ? How sharper than a serpent's tooth...

This xenophobic argument sounds familiar. Where have I heard it before? Oh yes, it sounds like the Anti-semitism cry that goes up whenever someone criticizes israhell.

I've got a better idea. Instead of just labeling something, why not try to dispute it? Tell me where I went wrong in my reasoning.

And I really liked the Lavender Mafia joke.

But that's Christianity isn't it? Sometimes when I am defending the Catholic Church, I feel like an I am helping an old man pick up his groceries while juvenile delinquents run by and kick him in the trousers. Defenseless target. Cheap shot.

-----------------------

"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."

*

Thanks for the info, Chris.

The media-yikes have everyone thinking that it's dangerous to attend a Catholic mass with your kids, when in reality, the occurrence of skinners in the Catholic church is less than that of the general population!!

The infidels want your children to be afraid of Christ.

Why is the Catholic church singled out by the so-called jew?

Could it be talmudic, belated revenge for something?

The Inquisition and forced conversion of the juse?

Maybe we should ask Jesus.

The Chicago study gives them away.

While there may be new accusations in the future, the national percentage of priests accused of abuse-0.53 percent-likely will never approach these figures of 1.8 and 1.7 percent. It appears that the archdioceses of Chicago and Philadelphia have had levels of abuse more than three times higher than the national average.

When the embellishes stories systematically,
joo know who has the alterior motives.

that bird is amazing !!!

thanks for sharing!

___________________________

"Money" has no value - people do.

You're welcome, qrswave! Perfect French! and much better than the tourettes dialect that some parrots parody, lol.

On any given Sunday in the Los Angeles archdiocese, Mass is said in as many as 80 languages, and liturgies reflect the vision of faith of dozens of different ethnic and immigrant communities.

From: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_/ai_20449158

You know why they don't say Mass in 90 languages? Because the Church is xenophobic. That's why.

-----------------------

"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."

The Parrot is a cannibal.

Alouette translated to English:

Lark, gentle lark
Lark, I will pull your feathers off
I will pull the feathers off your head
I will pull the feathers off your head
And the head - and the head
Lark, lark
O, o, o, o, o

That bird's a regular Hannibal Lecter!

-----------------------

"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."

Well written, well said - great arguments!

I agree with you 100%.

To me it seems odd that anyone would dispute the fact that the men who are buggering the boys are homosexual. I am not saying that all male homosexuals bugger young boys, BUT ALL men who bugger young boys are homosexual.

You're twisting me up here. I never disputed that at all. I didn't even go there. You know this.

This xenophobic argument sounds familiar. Where have I heard it before? Oh yes, it sounds like the Anti-semitism cry that goes up whenever someone criticizes israhell.

Come on now, don't put that on me. It's disingenuous.

I've got a better idea. Instead of just labeling something, why not try to dispute it? Tell me where I went wrong in my reasoning.

And I really liked the Lavender Mafia joke.

I didn't know your 'Lavendar Mafia' jibe was a joke. Sorry.

But that's Christianity isn't it? Sometimes when I am defending the Catholic Church, I feel like an I am helping an old man pick up his groceries while juvenile delinquents run by and kick him in the trousers. Defenseless target. Cheap shot.

You mean like comparing my remarks to Jewish cries of 'anti-Semitism'? That kind of cheap shot?

It isn't necessarily the Church that I was referring to, anyway. It was you, and I based it on more than just the comment above.

In another thread, you wrote:

The family is under attack today. The family is the basic unit of society. That is how we nurture our young.

Gay sex can't make babies. No matter how many times two men have sex, neither one will get pregnant. Ditto with women. Nature is violating their Equal Protection rights. They should sue Nature. Yep.

This seems to imply that gay relationships are unnatural, which is the position of mainstream Christianity. Maybe they are unnatural, I don't know, but they do occur in nature. That much is self-evident. But a sin against God? An attack on the family? That's where it gets offensive to gays, I would imagine.

I'm not gay - I'm extremely hetero, and I don't even have anal sex with my girlfriend, the arsehole just doesn't appeal to me - but I do have a few gay friends, most of them bisexual females. They're some of the most progressive, intelligent people I know, not that I believe intelligence varies along those lines.

I know some have posted material here claiming that the entire 'rainbow revolution' is or was a Jewish conspiracy. I don't buy that bullshit. It's just progression, the evolution of tolerance and culture. The African-American civil rights movement was a product of the same. The emergence of a thriving gay subculture would've emerged with or without Jewish influence.

Only you know what you think about gays, Chris; I can only infer an impression from what you write. You're a Christian, I know that much, and the Church hasn't been too kind to gays in recent history. Surely you're not suggesting that I couldn't provide you with examples of Christian 'xenophobia', because I most definitely could, and I think you know it. It's God's way or the highway as far as the Church is concerned.

Speaking of gays: I live with a Turkish chick, fully Australianised, born here, secular, despite some of her family being devout Muslims. One night she brought home a gay couple from across the road, who she'd met while working at one of the drive-through bottle shops in our area. She doesn't work there anymore, but she still visits these trendy, progressive, 'young professional' gays from time to time to hang out and smoke a bit of pot and share a bottle of wine, whatever.

Anyway, the more talkative one looked Middle Eastern so I asked him what ethnicity he was, and he told me he was Palestinian. I'd never met a Palestinian in Perth before, so I kind of pumped my fist and smiled and said something about the Palestinian resistance and Hamas, and fuck Israel, or some such thing (very eloquent of me, I know). Oh no, no he said, almost embarrassedly, and made some remark about the fact that he didn't support 'terrorists' or terrorism. I replied with something like oh, so you don't support Israel, but he confirmed that he was indeed referring to Hamas, as in the legitimately elected political body that won an overwhelming majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament.

Well that was it, I went into pitbull-on-a-poodle mode. What about the terrorists of the IDF and the Knesset and the Israeli executive branch? Do you have any idea how many of your people die at the hands of these bastards, civilians, women, children? What's the difference between killing civilians with Qassam rockets and U.S.-supplied Apache helicopter gunships equipped with Hellfire missile systems? Nothing, only the vastly disproportionate death rate. He was defending Zionism with everything he said, so on and on I went, between his awkward, apologetic little excuses.

It was a half-hour debate, but he was drawing on a TV news education while I was coming from a position of actual research, so he was looking quite the dick. I told him that he was a traitor to his people, but not in an angry way, and Ipek, my Turkish housemate, allowed me the liberty of saying so without interfering. Actually, I think she was pretty happy about the whole thing, because she's anti-Zionist herself.

Anyway, hopefully he went home with some food for thought. Traitorous little fag. (Just kidding.)

Who wants to drink from cans anyway?

Some customers might be too drunk to walk, but not to drive!

Who wants to drink from cans anyway?

Some customers might be too drunk to walk, but not to drive!

Only in Australia, he says. Haha, you gotta be kidding me. America is the great bastion of the drive-thru concept (I assume that's what you were referring to). Most Americans eat out of drive-thrus on a weekly basis, don't they? The whole damn country is a drive-thru, just ask the Messicans.

I guess you don't need drive-thru liquor shops in America because they sell alcohol at the corner store and supermarkets. I know you're Canadian, Grim. I'm guessing it's the same there. In Oz, you've gotta buy your booze from a bottleshop (liquor store). But thanks to the contagion of America's corporate pseudo-culture, the whole drive-thru thing is all over the place here today.

Vatican to use psychologists to weed out homosexual priests

Homosexuality was a "deviation" that must be rooted out in would-be clergy early on in order to prevent "tragedies", the Vatican decreed in new guidelines on the issue.

Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski, prefect of the Catholic Education Congregation, said that a celibate candidate with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" should be barred "not because he commits a sin, but because homosexuality is a deviation, an irregularity, a wound" that would prevent him from fulfilling his duties.

The guidelines, approved by Pope Benedict XVI, are designed to prevent the sort of sex scandals involving paedophile priests which have rocked the Catholic Church in recent years, triggering law suits costing hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements.

The decree appears to ignore the consensus among sex abuse experts that homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals.

This bit's funny. Queer eye for the Christian guy:

Another homosexual group said the Catholic Church was full of gay priests and threatened to 'out' them to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the Vatican's stance.

"We offer ourselves as consultants to help the Italian Catholic hierarchy trace all the homosexuals hiding away in the Vatican, in the college of cardinals, in dioceses, in parishes, in monasteries and so on," said Aurelio Mancuso, the president of Arcigay. "It would certainly be a haul to make the sacred buildings tremble".

I wrote about homosexuals not being allowed into the seminaries because of the buggery epidemic.

To which COZ responded:

Not sure what I think about gays being banned from your church though, Chris. All this talk about the Lavendar Mafia sounds distinctly xenophobic, but that's Christianity, isn't it. Anyway, Christians can do it their way, it's none of my business.

And then I said: To me it seems odd that anyone would dispute the fact that the men who are buggering the boys are homosexual.

And COZ said:

You're twisting me up here. I never disputed that at all. I didn't even go there. You know this.

BUT how else could I have taken your statement? You said gays were banned from the Church, which is not true. You said you were not sure about the Church's stance, so I restated my original position.

I don't think you can fairly look at what you said and say you didn't even go there. You kind of were there, or at least in the vicinity of there. IMHO, there was someone who looks like you getting on a bus headed for "there".

And you can't just call a brother's religion "xenophobic", and then get offended when they say you took a cheap shot.

I didn't think my comparison was unfair. The Anti-Semitism slam is used against critics of israhell when people haven't got any arguments of substance. I felt this was a similar occasion. You didn't correct my reasoning, but you just made the slam. That was an unsupported charge of xenophobia in response to my statements.

COZ said:

It isn't necessarily the Church that I was referring to, anyway. It was you, and I based it on more than just the comment above.

In another thread, you wrote...

I don't know where to start with this. COZ, I'm not mad at you, but you can't expect me to respond to what you are THINKING when it is different from what you are WRITING.

How am I supposed to know that you meant me when you were talking about the Church? And how am I supposed to know you are responding to another thread when you are talking about this thread?

COZ said:

This seems to imply that gay relationships are unnatural, which is the position of mainstream Christianity.Maybe they are unnatural, I don't know, but they do occur in nature. That much is self-evident.

In context, I was making the argument that there is a reason for marriage that is based in nature. The whole purpose for marriage is procreation, and gay sex cannot procreate. It's a very simple argument against same sex marriage.

My point was not to say that gay relationships are unnatural. But it's obvious that they are more unusual. Different. Peculiar. Whatever. Every word used to describe something is going to hang some value on it. I realize that there are gay giraffes and whatnot.

It seems kind of odd for people to get in long discussions over whether homosexuality is "natural" based on other animal species' behavior. But people wouldn't be having the discussion at all if the relationships were "normal", would they? It's odd, so people talk about it. People don't discuss how the bus normally went down the normal street and didn't hit anything.

COZ said:

But a sin against God? An attack on the family? That's where it gets offensive to gays, I would imagine.

When large groups of people vote to keep marriage defined as being between a man and a woman, they say they are defending the family. Viewed in the context that marriage is the basic unit that nourishes life, it is understandable that changing that structure would harm families.

I don't care if some gays find that offensive. I think people learn to be offended at a lot of things. Some people are offended when other people question the holocaust. But the holocaust is a myth. The people get all mad and weepy over a lie. Same deal here.

COZ said:

Only you know what you think about gays, Chris; I can only infer an impression from what you write.

As far as my personal feelings about homosexuals, that is not really relevant at all. I have friends who are gay. I think the guy who cuts my hair is gay.

COZ said:

You're a Christian, I know that much, and the Church hasn't been too kind to gays in recent history. Surely you're not suggesting that I couldn't provide you with examples of Christian 'xenophobia', because I most definitely could, and I think you know it.

I don't know that the Catholic Church is xenophobic. I think I provided a contrary example above.

I don't think the Catholic Church has been unkind to gays in recent history. The church teaches that: "acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law."

If I offended you in my previous post, I am sorry. I try to be evenhanded in my responses, but I'm sure I write things hastily sometimes, and I don't always say what I should.

Also, I am a smart-ass and a sh*t disturber, or so I have been told many times.

I'm glad that we can remain civil even if we might disagree.

-----------------------

"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."

First of all, and most importantly, you didn't offend me. I don't know why you'd think that. It's all good. It actually looks more the other way around, going by the intensity and tone of your posts.

I wrote about homosexuals not being allowed into the seminaries because of the buggery epidemic.

To which COZ responded:

And then I said: To me it seems [...]

And COZ said:

Chris, are you talking to me or a jury? I thought we were having a discussion. It's an open forum, but when I write a post I address you directly.

It isn't necessarily the Church that I was referring to, anyway. It was you, and I based it on more than just the comment above.

In another thread, you wrote...

I don't know where to start with this. COZ, I'm not mad at you, but you can't expect me to respond to what you are THINKING when it is different from what you are WRITING.

How am I supposed to know that you meant me when you were talking about the Church? 

Well, this is what I wrote:

Not sure what I think about gays being banned from your church though, Chris.

My mistake, no gays banned.

All this talk about the Lavendar Mafia sounds distinctly xenophobic,

The Lavendar Mafia was your term, not the Church's. The 'talk' was yours. I'm obviously referring to you.

but that's Christianity, isn't it. Anyway, Christians can do it their way, it's none of my business.

This is where and why you obviously thought I was referring to the Church, but I was actually referring to your Christianity. So you see, what I am THINKING is in fact the same as what I am WRITING. It was a misinterpretation, that's all. Apologies if I wasn't clear enough.

How am I supposed to know that you meant me when you were talking about the Church? And how am I supposed to know you are responding to another thread when you are talking about this thread?

I don't understand. I just told you. When I wanted to qualify my remarks about the potentially 'xenophobic' tone of your posts, I cited a comment of yours from another thread. Until then it was neither here nor there. I don't see the problem.

I didn't think my comparison was unfair. The Anti-Semitism slam is used against critics of israhell when people haven't got any arguments of substance.

If you could write off any and all criticism as being tantamount to the anti-Semitism canard, you'd be beyond raproach and virtually untouchable. No, I think the comparison was unfair. If you hated gays, which you don't, it would be ballpark reasonable to suggest that you were xenophobic. It wouldn't be without basis.

My point was not to say that gay relationships are unnatural. But it's obvious that they are more unusual. Different. Peculiar. Whatever. Every word used to describe something is going to hang some value on it. I realize that there are gay giraffes and whatnot.

It seems kind of odd for people to get in long discussions over whether homosexuality is "natural" based on other animal species' behavior.

When I wrote, "Maybe [gay relationships] are unnatural, I don't know, but they do occur in nature. That much is self-evident," I wasn't referring to animals. I was referring to human beings. We are of nature, we are natural. I was making the point that homosexual human relationships do occur in nature, and that it is self-evident. Human culture is a product of nature. Our allegedly advanced culture doesn't divorce us from the system, contrary to what some may believe.

Wasn't it you that wrote in the other thread that all things happen according to God's plan, and that we can not truly deviate from his will? I'm paraphrasing of course, and I admit I could have that totally wrong.

I don't think the Catholic Church has been unkind to gays in recent history.

I think it has been.

The church teaches that: "acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law."

Are gay relations a violation of natural law? I don't know. I wouldn't think so, because as I said, fags are the progeny of mother nature herself. They're not supernatural as far as I know. Free will is also natural. Don't tell me God didn't foresee a bit of male-to-male butt action when he gave it to us.

I'm playing the devil's advocate here, as I did when I went all pro-war on you in the other thread. I'm not passionate about this stuff, because the gay issue isn't personal to me or an interest area of mine. I'm not exactly keen on the idea of homosexual sex either (unless I'm in a threesome with two hot women), and nor am I keen to get into a religious debate with you.

Jesus is just alright with me, brother. Oh yeah. 

Coz -

"because as I said, fags are the progeny of mother nature herself."

"Anyway, hopefully he went home with some food for thought. Traitorous little fag. (Just kidding.)"

That 's not even ball park - sounds right on  xenophobic to me.

isn't my term. It has been attributed to Fr. Andrew Greely, who is a novelist. I didn't want to sound like I was taking credit.

The Lavender Mafia joke about "rubbing guys out" was mine. I have applied for a copyright, a trademark, and a patent. If anyone uses this joke, especially QRS, they have to send me a bunch of money via paypal.

I'm sorry if my tone sounded intense. I'm not sure of how I come across on the internets. I'm used to debating people on youtube, and citing their prior statements by "X said:". From now on, instead of using "COZ said:", I will refer to you as "the defendant".

Along those same lines, I notice that people will say things to me on a thread and then I reply to only one person. I don't want to be rude, but I don't want to spend all of my time saying "Hi".

Hi Rhiannon. Hi Grim. Hi Greg.

-----------------------

"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."

That was funny Grim....

Objection, your Honor.

That 's not even ball park - sounds right on  xenophobic to me.

With regard to my client's use of the word "fag", his original argument in defense of homosexuality should serve as mitigating circumstances, so I therefore suggest leniency for the defendant on the grounds that, a) it was a joke in both instances, and b) he is a deranged, maniacal hypocrite on majick mushrooms.

____

Cheers Chris, it was good talking with you.

Many A True Word Is Spoken In Jest.

Not sure whether or not you're serious, but just for the record, I'm not a homophobe. That much should be clear by now. I just tend to write the way I speak, albeit much more verbosely and eloquently. I actually speak like a foul-mouthed, monosyllabic, mullet-sporting bogan in person. 

This is a bogan

But the point is, I have gay friends, one in particular, that habitually refers to himself and his brethren as 'fag', quite in the same way African-Americans have embraced the word nigger, or 'nigga'. Yo. So I refer to him as a fag too, in jest, and it's all very casual. You didn't catch me in the middle of a Freudian Slip revealing my rabid hatred for gays, I can assure you.

But you're right. In a public forum, perhaps it's not the coolest word to employ in a discussion about homosexuality.

Apologies to any fags who may have been offended.

I don't know why you bother, coz, to make a comment explaining yourself, for the record as you say, perhaps trying to undo some confusion on your part.   This is all a bit noble, kind of touching, until we behold your last sentence, and a fancy one at that.

#800000">"Apologies to any fags who may have been offended."

...as anyone can see, you never intended to be sorry.  So really Coz, why even bother?

1. nigger ... fag....ARE offensive and they ARE xenophobic words.

2.  YOU are the one that used the slang "fag" and so you contradict yourself, as you also brought up "xenophobic".

3.  If gay people, and African Americans want to continue with this downward spiraling of self worth by calling each other such ugly words...that is one thing.  But for someone else to come along and throw the slang at them is entirely a different thing.

It's just like when I say things about my mother [and really I shouldn't, because that just shows my lack of integrity] ....but just anyone watch out if THEY should say anything to me about my mother.

It all boils down to respect and courtesy, Coz.

Which is what   R E L I G I O N    was all about, in the FIRST place, until humans muddled it up with their distorted perceptions.

It was a joke, Rhiannon. Humor. Dribble on and nitpick like a humorless anal retentive if you like, but you're on your own. I'm not interested in arguing.

The joke wasn't funny.  So who is being humorless?

And besides, no one was asking you for an apology.

When Sister Jane discovered that a priest in her church was molesting young men and stealing from the congregation, and when the evidence was ignored by the church, she contacted the press, creating a scandal.

For pointing out a viper in their midst, she [Sister Jane Kelly] gets the boot out of the Church, after 58 years of loyal service.

This is quite common in too many workplaces, different scenarios, same idea.  The one who stands up, and is verbal against another who is causing damage to the company - [in this case, the church] - and/or to certain persons [especially those who won't or cannot defend themselves] - usually, it is the courageous one that is treated like the "cowardly criminal". 

 Since this post is about religion, about the Catholic church,  yes,  it is a Christian's duty to rise to such an occasion as Sister Jane did.

And so what if Jane wasn't religious, wasn't a Sister, and actually an atheist?   All that truly matters is she stood up to bring to light and fight against something ugly, mean-spirited, and damaging.  This is what we are all responsible for, regardless of a religion we embrace or not.