Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The media distorted it like they do all interviews. All the Popes accepted gays, just not their sin. Why not listen to ALL his words? It was taken out of context.
Sorry, no. I didn't hear the last pope accept gays. Do you want disillusioned catholics to come back to the church or not because its a dying breed. We want gays to accepted as equals, we want women to serve in the ministry. I think this pope is our hope to do that.
Eugenics and the Nazis believed in intrinsic characteristics of people. People like the Jews. Believing homosexuality is intrinsic is all of meaningless in the science of biology as it relates to the logic of artificially selecting for desirable traits.
As I have stated in the past--from comments Bishops of the Catholic Church have made--I suspect most Catholic Bishops believe people are born gay through genetic inheritance. Yet most of them teach that homosexual sex is immoral (just as they believe heterosexuals are born heterosexual and premarital sex is immoral). I'll also hazard a guess they view homosexual sex as more immoral than obesity.
But most Catholic Bishops are educated in theology and not the science of biology or other sciences.
I have suggested to conservative lay Catholics online that obesity is more immoral (due in large part to adverse health effects) than homosexual sex, which angered some. Unlike many Catholic Bishops I do not subscribe to the hypothesis that people are born gay or born with any sexual orientation.
I also think you're comment that homosexuality makes a person think, feel, and love differently that bisexuals and homosexuals as largely poetic nonsense. Homosexuals are not really much different than heterosexuals. They can perform perfectly fine practicing law and can love their parents and siblings the same as their heterosexual siblings do. I don't think homosexuality or heterosexuality or bisexuality or even pedophilia has much of anything to do with love but has everything to do with sexual arousal.
The are plenty of women I see in images that I think due to some sexual attraction that I wouldn't mind banging. If I were gay or a heterosexual pedophile the only difference would be that certain images of certain types of men and certain images of certain types of little girls would turn me on respectively.
Of course, homosexuals and heterosexuals want to fall in love with someone they are attracted too.
So according to you (the first year college student 'expert' on everything) - neurobiology, endocrinology etc aren't 'biology'?
The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb.
There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.
The scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the opposite sex.
"This is the most robust measure so far of cerebral differences between homosexual and heterosexual subjects," she says.
Previous studies have also shown differences in brain architecture and activity between gay and straight people, but most relied on people's responses to sexuality driven cues that could have been learned, such as rating the attractiveness of male or female faces.
To get round this, Savic and her colleague, Per Lindström, chose to measure brain parameters likely to have been fixed at birth.
"That was the whole point of the study, to show parameters that differ, but which couldn't be altered by learning or cognitive processes," says Savic.
"This study demonstrates that homosexuals of both sexes show strong cross-sex shifts in brain symmetry," says Qazi Rahman, a leading researcher on sexual orientation at Queen Mary college, University of London, UK.
"The connectivity differences reported in the amygdala are striking."
"Paradoxically, it's more informative to look at things that have no direct connection with sexual orientation, and that's where this study scores," says Simon LeVay, a prominent US author who in 1991 reported finding differences(pdf) in a part of the brain called the hypothalamus between straight and gay men.
I'm saying it is a fact most of those Priests were pederasts. It's a simple, glaring fact, most people to timid to stand up to the social pressure of Political Correctness will simply overlook. And this is no pressure as great as having Nazi persecution in the 1930s and 40s if you spoke up against the prevailing rhetoric. So, it takes no hard imagination to figure out most Americans today would have been utter cowards living in Germany back then.
I could have told you what a study done by John Jay would conclude about homosexuals. They are educated like many Bishops, which comes with the paradox of being stupid. All educated people need long statistical studies to figure out if a pedophile (not pederast) will be likely to re-offend. A blue collar plumber doesn't.
In another thread I think I posted some quotations out of a book about a psychiatrist from Harvard University, that was on a panel of psychologists and psychiatrists the Vatican asked to study the whole pedophilia thing and how to physiologically identify people with this problem etc. That psychiatrist had the testicles to state the glaring obvious: he can't be sure homosexuality was not linked in some way to priestly sex scandal given so many of the victims were boys.
It's not like these priests were locked in prison or held aboard Navy ships (in the 1800s the U.S. Navy had a huge and common place problem with both pederasty and pedophilia--homosexual sex between adult sailors was common place too). These priests had access to women like every other man living in the U.S.
But human sexuality is rather fluid. So, I can see, to some extent, a gay man banging a woman and a heterosexual man banging a small boy.
But I think my greater point about Pope Francis' comments is that his statements reflect the attitudes of most Catholic Bishops prior to the sex scandal. The idea that sinners (be they laity or clergy) are normal in society, that everyone is a sinner in one way or another, that sexual sin occurs frequently in society among human beings, that gay sex and even pedophilia as well as pederasty is ancient, that judgment of a person is really left up to God, permeated the decades of the sex abuse. Unlike modern Americans the Catholic Church does not think as in black and white terms about people being "good" or "bad." And there is an old saying about the Catholic Church, the Church is "hard on heretics and easy on sinners."
That's a frequently complaint about the Catholic Church by non-Catholics: they have lots of sinners. The Church responds with more or less a shrug of the shoulders. That's why the Protestant Reformation has been called by one historian as a conservative movement. And some Protestants claim all Christians are saints. Whereas the Catholic Church says few people are saints or evil and most of us--even the saints--have our flaws and good points.
Also, after watching Class 2 and 3 of these videos on the history of canon law, which adopted ancient Roman views of law, I'm starting to wonder if the concepts of the Latin ius vs lex had something to do with how the Church hierarchy responded. Also I wonder that because my Catholic formation made me regard morality as superior to city, state, federal laws, and therefore whereas some Americans in another thread have stated one must shoot a person even if it kills that person rather than shooting into the ground to scare them away, because "the law says so," I viewed that as just dumb, and that no law made by man can trump what's right in the "eyes" of God. That context matters.
Speaking of 'stupid' - wasn't it you who linked to NARTH to support your sadly uneducated prejudiced views as if they were a credible source of information on the topic of homosexuality?
Ignorance combined with arrogance is not only not attractive, it can be dangerous.
Love how the clueless Leftists have jumped on this comment as some sort of breakthrough. This is pretty much what many of us have been saying on this board and it is standard Catholic practice. You love the sinner not the sin. If a homosexual seeks Gods mercy all is forgiven. As the pope correctly points out it is the lobbying that's the issue.
Notice I start my threads with the "Gay agenda". It is sinister and unholy.
Why do so many clueless Christians use the phrase 'Love the sinner, hate the sin' when it's not found in the Bible and is not a concept taught by Christ? (according to the gospels)
Sorry, no. I didn't hear the last pope accept gays. Do you want disillusioned catholics to come back to the church or not because its a dying breed. We want gays to accepted as equals, we want women to serve in the ministry. I think this pope is our hope to do that.
I don't think they should come back thinking the church will now marry gays, won't happen and they will just leave again. I know he said no women will ever be priests----why? Because Jesus said so. Don't tell me where did He say that----He did when He chose 12 MEN to be his apostles/ministers.
I don't think they should come back thinking the church will now marry gays, won't happen and they will just leave again. I know he said no women will ever be priests----why? Because Jesus said so. Don't tell me where did He say that----He did when He chose 12 MEN to be his apostles/ministers.
No. He chose 12 men because in his day and time women were not accepted as equals. But he had very close women disciples. Look at Mary Magdalene - they were very close, and there were many others. And it was the women he first appeared to after the Resurrection. But men wrote the Bible and wanted to downplay the role of women. Only recently have Biblical and church scholars admitted that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute at all.
I don't think they should come back thinking the church will now marry gays, won't happen and they will just leave again. I know he said no women will ever be priests----why? Because Jesus said so. Don't tell me where did He say that----He did when He chose 12 MEN to be his apostles/ministers.
Romans 16:7 "Greet Andronicus and Junia my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was."
In commenting on Romans 16:7, early Church father John Chrysostom (347-407) states:
"Greet Andronicus and Junia...who are outstanding among the apostles: To be an apostle is something great! But to be outstanding among the apostles - just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of thiswoman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle."
No. He chose 12 men because in his day and time women were not accepted as equals. But he had very close women disciples. Look at Mary Magdalene - they were very close, and there were many others. And it was the women he first appeared to after the Resurrection. But men wrote the Bible and wanted to downplay the role of women. Only recently have Biblical and church scholars admitted that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute at all.
No. He chose 12 men because in his day and time women were not accepted as equals. But he had very close women disciples. Look at Mary Magdalene - they were very close, and there were many others. And it was the women he first appeared to after the Resurrection. But men wrote the Bible and wanted to downplay the role of women. Only recently have Biblical and church scholars admitted that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute at all.
Wrong,there were many priestesses in other religions, like the Pagan ones and others. Jesus honored women and they were close to Him but not apostles or ministers. If Jesus wanted women in the ministry he would have had them there. The bible does not downplay women or the role of women. Our roles are just different not better or worse. I don't look at our society as women are better or worse than men and it was like that with Jesus.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
