Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything as a career. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought, or processed, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed. You know, as a career, I don't want to do that.
About Me
Blogs I Like to Read
- Amy's Very Cool Homeschooling Family
- Ann Douglas
- Blogging Baby
- David Rhoden
- Domestic Psychology
- First Impressionist
- Jonathan Hickman
- Lemuria Books
- Mamas Ink
- Marrit Ingman
- Martini Made
- Meagan Francis
- Mo's Journal
- Remembering Ward
- Suburban Turmoil
- The Vol Abroad
- This Woman's Work
- Women's Health News
- Zygote Daddy
Good Stuff on Being a Parent/Family Life
Books I"ve written/contributed to
Blog Archive
-
▼
2005
(844)
-
▼
November
(62)
- republicans before lee atwater
- poem of the day
- creative people have more sex...
- early weaning in sub-sharan africa
- listening to today...
- elliot reads
- ouch
- celiac disease
- when the glass ceiling is at home
- parenting
- "AA - America's Stealth Religion"
- gay priests
- "I celebrated Thanksgiving in an old-fashioned way...
- for the girls
- mamasink
- Thanks Giving
- breastfeeding has significant impact on your risk ...
- breastfeeding isn't a lifestyle choice; it's a cri...
- Tennessee Valley Hunt
- Walk the Line
- the morning after pill
- Les raisons d'etre
- quote o' the afternoon
- the turkey baster
- i hope my obit is half as interesting...
- shopgirl
- Tim Lee Band
- dating down?
- when children attack
- the state of feminism today
- listening to today ...
- decisions, decisions
- baseball in knoxville?
- vanity
- breast and bottle
- are you self actualized?
- sondre lerche
- Last night, after getting RG sufficiently well fed...
- weisstronauts
- Speaking of breeders (below), you should buy this ...
- metrospirituality
- tilting at windmills
- makes elliot happy
- new pornographers
- so very, very wrong
- And today it's...
- Listening to today...
- sylvia
- a rant
- loss
- Currently listening to...
- home
- I'm a huge Johnny Cash fan and can't wait to see W...
- greek for me
- Here's an article about the surge in planned c-sec...
- Janeane Garafolo on Karl Rove:"The only interestin...
- interiors
- irony isn't pretty
- meet the breeders
- It's a Boy: Women Writers on Raising Sons
- NanoWriMo
- the halloween squash
-
▼
November
(62)
11 comments:
I read the actual text. It is astounding in how clearly it oulines that gay men are not welcome into the priesthood and how they cannot relate to men and women because of thier deep rooted tendencies.
What would Jesus do? He would not bar, en masse, a group of people who are capable of doing good. This is shameful.
Katie,
While I respect your right to your opinion, I must caution you that you are out of line. As far as I am aware, you are not a Roman Catholic and therefore your critcism of the Church is that of an outsider seeking to undermine a fundamental tenant of the faith. Unless you are a praticing Catholic who is struggling with your church's teaching,you have no standing to challenge its doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church does not force anyone to join its ranks; nor does it coerce anyone to ramain within them. If you don't agree with the dogma, don't; but don't believe that your criticism of a two thousand plus year old faith should be afforded the credibility of those who have dedicated their lives to preserving it.
Besides, who is this alleged Catholic priest that you hold out as a legitimate spokesman for the faith? I found nothing in the article to confirm that he is in communion with Rome.
I am very disappointed in you for this attack on Catholicism and I strongly suggest that you abandon any further bigoted condemnations in your blog.
I respectfully disagree that I cannot have an opinion about the Catholic Church unless I am a member.
But of course, many many devoted Catholics also believe that the Vatican's latest missive on gay men in the priesthood is wrongheaded. Many dissenting Catholics believe that this new edict goes far beyond any previous teaching against gay men entering the prisethood.
Disagreeing with a position taken by Church leadership does not mean I am attacking the Church. It means I disagree with their view on one issue.
I certainly DO agree with you that the opinions of practicing Catholics carry exponentially more weight in this matter than do my own.
Obviously, you do not understand the meaning of the term "standing". As I previously stated, you DO have a right to have an opinion. The point that you missed is that this is not your church, therefore it is not your fight.
Please explain how Roman Catholic doctrine barring practicing homosexuals from taking Holy Orders affects your life.
One more thing, when you are attacking ANY tenant of the faith, you are indeed attacking not only its leadership but the Church itself .
You should stick with issues that you actually know something about.
exactly other anonymous. at least as far as Katie feeling that once again, her opinions are somehow straight from heaven.
I have seen this news item and thought at the time I read it that there is something seriously wrong with not forbidding something because people might lie about it if you do. imagine if a parent did that (come to think of it..a lot of them do...here Johnny..have your friends over for a beer and you and Susie can go have sex upstairs because if...GOD FORBID...I said "no" then you would sneak around and better the sin I know about than the sin I dont). perhaps if the catholic church offered something for homosexuals affording real change as opposed to "just suck it up and remain chaste" they would not have htis problem. the problem is a priesthood so far removed from the leadership displayed by Christ and the disciplies that one can scarcely believe that it was derived from that source. NO WHERE does it suggest a celibate priest in scripture. indeed, scriptural evidence points to married leadership. what the church has done is make the priesthood a haven for anyone struggling with any kind of sexual issue. these folks decieve themselves if they sign on for a lifelong role that involves putting a lid on their sexuality then they can just ignore the issues that they would rather not deal with. the fact that the scriptural model is of married leadership just underscores the commonsense of it all.
Okay, I didn't realize you meant the term "standing" in the sctrict, legal term of way. But of course, "standing" can only be used that way in that context. Of course I don't have "standing" to VOTE on this issue (like, say, a cardinal might), but I certainly do have standing to comment on it.
I believe that discrimination against gay people is a basic human rights issue. I am a human being, a mother and a child of God, therefore this issue impacts me.
Your attitude of "Stay out of it. This doesn't concern you and you don't understand the generations of tradition behind the ban on gays" sounds an awful lot like what segregationists said to "outsiders" who fought for civil rights in the 50s and 60s.
I also believe that if what the church is attempting to do is prevent future issues with sex abuse, this plan will actually have the opposite effect.
Respectfully,
Katie
One more thing, when you are attacking ANY tenant of the faith, you are indeed attacking not only its leadership but the Church itself .
Ah yes, similar to the old "America, love it or leave it" and "Criticizing the president hurts our troops" arguments.
Once again, you miss the point. This is not a basic human rights issue. It is not every human's right to be a priest.
Katie,
have you ever been fondled by a Priest?
Katie,
have you ever been fondled by a Priest?
I've felt up a nun or two. Talk about a thrill...
Post a Comment