Now that is what I like to see. A confession by a religion that they are absolutely nuts. I mean really, how twisted a line of bull can anyone concoct to support a belief system whose basic premise is based on fraud to begin with?

You do have to admit though, it is handy having "somebody" to blame. I am reminded of those old Family Circle cartoons, in which a ghost-like figure, labeled "not me" was frequently held responsible for shenanigans around the house.

Clay, Clay...where are you??

Beyond the odd mind that came up with this etiology for all the Vatican's woes, think of the pain and elaborate denials that must be engaged to accept it. Not that there isn't evil in the world -- there sure is --but its starkness is only shrouded by those who want to make simple things much more complicated. I feel nothing but compassion for the many Catholic people who are asked to swallow that what appears to be the result of human passions and foolhardiness (hiring prostitutes, etc.) is somehow mistaken by addled old celibates for the Devil working overtime. It is truly a humanly pathetic scene at the Vatican, and I feel only pity for those embroiled in this labyrinthine obfuscation. But on one matter the overwrought exorcist may have a point. I know of several people that I knew in the seminary, who now hold positions of power in the Church, who I knew for sure did not believe a word of it. I pity them, and especially pity those on the other end of their inexplicable -- and faithless! --judgments.

The Rev. Gabriele Amorth:
In the interest of knowledge and protection of the Church, we should install Closed Circuit Television in the Vatican. Also Rev Gabriele Amorth should film his exorcisms to prove his claims of sharp objects being expelled of the mouths of Exorcism subjects.
I saw the Exorcist in London and was indeed very scared when I moved to America and used to live in Georgetown.
There is no such thing as a possessed individuals only poor human beings who have gone mad due to too much stress.
Throughout the world magicians and Tricksters pretend to own genies that can to magic. The Pope must restrain this reverend from making such ridiculous claims about Satan in Rome.

Satan is very much a part of the Vatican and the Catholic Church, mainly because this church invites him in by being associated with Rome and paganism to begin with, in addition to traditions (confess to a mortal human instead of God) that pull this church away from God. Of course the devil is in every church. It is just that this one makes it more easy for him than most.

Please do not be foolish and ignore this story as you are inclined to. Dark spiritual forces are occupying this world as seen daily on any newscast. For more insight into the depth of darkness please read:

http://contedefazio.blogspot.com/2009/12/pope-benedict-xvi.html

But, Clay, I'm confused.

YOUR Satan is a creature of and about the Roman church.

THEIR Satan is attacking the Church.

What gives?

Well the two people I expected to see here didn't disappoint. I knew this was too good a possibility for Robert or Clay to pass up.

All I can say about Father Amorth is it's time for him to retire and the Vatican would do well to keep him from talking to the press anymore.

ravensfan - Anytime religion lays down in the road and screams "Run over me", the opportunity must not be ignored. Clay is his own train wreak.

S. Try this simple thought experiment. Imagine that someone outside the Church's bosom had made the same charges. Imagine that someone said that evil was at the very heart of the Catholic Church -- the Vatican -- and that this was causing all sorts of evil effects. Well, you would have a phalanx of Catholic apologists rising to denounce the person who suggested such a thing. They would call him every name from "ANTI-CATHOLIC BIGOT" to to just plain wacky. I think this show the the rather fatuous nature of these criticism against anyone who wishes to point out the weaknesses of the human beings who occupy the Catholic Church. Does this not show what a strange logic people like Bill Donahue use. Will Mr. Donahue denounce the Exorcist? By the way, historical note: the Catholic Church has previously been forced to recant these ascriptions of Devil possession and worship because they have been hornswoggled by frauds and mountebanks. Sadly they don't seem to recall the documented cases where they have been duped in the past. Recalling those cases should make any reasonable person wary of these ascriptions, and desirous that they learn to confront the very human, all too
human etiologies for these problems.

Satan is neither a metaphysical notion nor an intellectual construct. Father Amorth "gets it."

It isn't a popular view. But it is true to his experience as an exorcist. I don't hold to all of his views but over the years I have come to respect his sincerity. I feel much more secure with a man who believes in the destructive power of evil than a man who doubts that it even exists.

Thats for sure Dana. I complain about the Catholic Church but I wouldnt be foolish to say that there arent people there on fire for God who are on the right track.

"On fire for God," you say!

Dear Clay, are you a fan of Joan of Arc also?

We have so much in common. Now as far as that complaining about the Catholic Church business. Take a look on your left shoulder and see if there's a little guy in a red jumpsuit there. No Clay. He is not with the band.

That guy seems to have come in mainly with Rome and Constantine, as far as the Catholic Church goes. That is why Martin Luther said, 'the Pope has no more power to forgive people for sin than any other man" and the church split to begin with. If he jumps on my shoulder, I make every effort to get him off, but he isnt at the altar of my church with people pretending that it is ok. If I wasnt trying to help I wouldnt mention it. Thanks.

Gabriele Amorth deserved the vomit projected on his form and face by the exorcised. Can't believe the Catholic Church is abdicating responsibility for the canker that is eating away at its flesh by blaming Satan for all its woes. Gabriele Amorth has the support of the Pope who would have all diseases and mental ailments treated as the Devil's handiwork. The Catholic Church is a medieval monstrosity that must be dismantled and buried before more kids are sacrificed to the lust and primitive fanaticism of its hierarchy. Clay, you and the Catholic Church belong together--two peas in a pod-- devil obsessed, devil opposed and absolutely devil aroused.
Ravensfan Anon

Interesting observation Dana. I would agree with you.

Clay - Something to note as it pertains to your comment about the RC church's "ties to Satan" is that the closer one is to Christ -- theologically speaking -- the more "vulnerable" one is to the opposite. In other words, the more one strives for Christian perfection, the stronger the temptation and appeals of the "Evil One". Because such fullness of faith requires extraordinary will and focus to achieve, it makes sense that only a tiny amount of deviation is allowable by those standards, so thus the intensity of the opposite. The opposing force, or "Satan" as you wish, does indeed realize this and seeks occupation or replacement of what is good.

The closer one is to Christ, the farther they are from satan. The Catholic Church doesnt need to be dismantled, it needs to get rid of Rome, the Pope, the statues and get down to some exciting worshiping that isnt hung up on traditions that are contradictory to the word of God, like confessing to mortal humans or praying to them or believing that a wafer is the body of Christ. Thanks.

Clay - All tradition in the Roman Church is based in scripture. The authority of the church is based in scripture. Man has separated from the one church by his own accord. Jesus spoke of unity within "His Body"; He is the head, the faithful his body. He spoke not of confusion and fragmentation but of unity and the fulness of "His Body" -- the church.

It then makes sense that Evil seeks to destroy that which is united and true. The Roman Church has literally battled tangible manifestations of this evil for centuries -- serious cases of supernatural evil require the tradition and authority of the Roman Church to handle any given situation correctly.

Cases of evil are simply handled by getting down on ones knees and praying, reading the word of God and sticking to it. The more church traditions that must be followed that arent true to scripture, the more the devil comes in. Took many Catholic traditions are justified by scripture that doesnt really justify them, and to be associated with Rome is to be associated with paganism to begin with. Maybe the Catholic Church can be headquartered in Jerusalem, but it doesnt need a headquarters on earth anyway.

Clay - The thing that seems to continuously escape you or you choose to ignore is that scripture and tradition are linked. Go back and read Paul's letters. Here are two examples 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15. How does a tradition being justified by scripture not justify them? It was through the church traditions that the NT books ended up being accepted & assembled. Maybe you should consider the possibility that the one being led astray could be you.

Your faith is admirable Clay. I believe what is being referred to in this forum is not evil defined as the "feeling of guilt you get from taking a cookie from the cookie jar..." where "simply getting down on ones knees..." would bring resolution. Rather, a force which is beyond reason and comprehension physically/psychologically attacking a persons being -- the diametric opposite of the goodness which we profess our faith in. Unique situations could intensify beyond an individuals control and may require unique intervention and I am quite sure, getting down on ones knees and pleading would be reflexive in such a case. It would serve best not to worry our dwell on details -- I agree with you there -- just focus on the goal who is Christ. Only know and respect the reality of these forces Clay, which is why the church has designated individuals with the strength and credence to address special situations if they arise.

And...if I can weigh in from my "neutral" (that is, non-believing) perspective....

I always find it amusing (and somehow ratifying of my having left organized religion altogether) that the Clays of the world seem fixated on the minutia of worship and liturgy (I once had a heated discusssion with a 'born-again' friend about how my very dear Roman Catholic friends were going to hell because they observed a 'non-biblical' liturgical calendar, complete with color-coded altar hangings....), while ravensfan and pattycakers seem just as adamant that the RC church (with its specific liturgical and doctrinal traditions) is the "one true" route to salvation. Surely a benificient god won't be sending anyone to eternal perdition for adopting what -- in the scheme of things -- are very small variations in worship style....

OK..have at me, boys!

BankStreet - I hope this doesn't sound like I'm having at you. I actually find your posts refreshing compared to many other non-religious individuals who frequently post. You ask your questions and make your points without having to resort to person attacks on people. While I have taken exception to Clay’s comments on more than one occasion I do not hold the Catholic Church as the “one true route to salvation” as you put it. I don’t believe anyone is saved by the denomination they belong to or the particular church they attend. At the risk of sounding like your born again friend it’s faith in Christ and living that faith that takes you down the route to salvation. Actually I agree that far too many of us Christians spend far too much time arguing over minutia and missing the bigger picture.

Good point BankStreet. Personally, I do not think anything wrong with the "varying styles of worship" themselves, yet it is the progression away from the "one church" and the traditions of that church which is where subjective and personal interpretation are likely to occur. We really cannot judge other "worship styles" insofar as to say whether they are right of wrong or what "God intended". What we can do is put faith in that which makes sense. We should all be actively seeking to know about our faith (if we choose to accept any particular faith).

As you are "neutral" observer of the "Christain interdenominational tussles" I would simply ask if the following scenario seems reasonable (all things being equal):

1. Jesus lived, died, established a devout following.
2. He appointed friends as teachers of His message going forward.
3. These men were adherent to Jesus' instructions and thus taught and celebrated with rituals and traditions akin to those times.
4. Over time, these customs traveled the globe yet stayed similar in fundamental significance and spiritual meaning in order to keep the goal of "pleasing God" and adhering to Jesus' instructions.
5. Scriptures were written and filtered down through the ages; being revised and edited by councils.
6. As a complete "Holy Book" the bible was created as a guide for finding truth and living in faith.
7. Along with traditions, rituals, and scripture, the establishment of Christianity has a structure; A figure head (pope), teachers (priests and religious), a congregation of devout followers (people of faith) all with the goal of praising a God-head and continuing Christ's work on earth.

Seems reminiscent of the system which was used from the begining: Jesus - disciples - faithful followers. What is being missed here is that TRADITION and RITUAL came before the scriptures were written. The church, in order to grow, NEEDED such tradition and ritual for it's passing along, formally, socially and spiritually. It is reasonable to think so and therefore to put ones faith in the teachings and customs within the framework of the organized church. Without such framework and leadership, is it reasonable to assume that one could use the bible for personal interpretation and misguided rationalization? Without tradition and teaching, what are we to make of the scriptures? Did Jesus say "Do this in remembrance of Me..." or "Read and interpret yourselves in remembrance of Me..."?

The RC Church is the "One Church" precisely because it incorporate ALL crucial elements of faith:
Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium. This makes sense.

Any thoughts?

To say that the RC Church is the ONLY way to salvation is impossible. How can anyone know this? One may find what is truthful through learning and living what they believe. For some, including myself, they believe it is the RC Church because with all the resources available to us, it makes sense.

pattycakers,

When I posted my query/observation, I guess I really didn't intend to arbitrate the debate...more to referee, I guess. I have no dog in this fight. I regard your "evidence" as something *you* find meaningful and convincing. If pressed, I would say that I find your chosen mythology pleasant enough, with an ancient pedigree, although I am distressed with some of the ways in which its adherents have applied their supremacy over the centuries....into our own time.

I will be curious to see if Clay has the wherewithal to counter.

I will say, you lost points with me by including the Magisterium, which seems a bit circular. Correct my understanding (via Wikipedia): "the 'teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church' " if it is incorrect. If that understanding is good, then, by saying the RCC has its "authority" as one of its "elements of faith" you beg the question.

Still reflecting on Magisterium...

I take it that you refer to the received wisdom of Catholic thought, as embodied in the "official" Vatican line. I guess that's where my innate/latent Protestantism rears its head. Whereas you are content with accepting the Magisterium in its totality, without question, my nature balks at that. I value all teachers, all perspectives. I sort and select ... and find application -- all within the moral framework you would deny I have.

While the Magisterium provides you with the comfort of all things being answered for you, I do wonder how you accommodate its evolution. Say, for example, when that day comes (as come it will) when the Church acknowledges same-sex love as equally deserving of its blessing. Assuming you are still an alive, observant Roman Catholic when that happens (I'm not holding my breath, and you shouldn't either ... it will take two or three papacies, I'd say...), will you just tug at your forelock and toe the line (to mix metaphors)?

BankStreet. Just to clarify on the magisterium. The teaching authority of the Church is reserved to itself. In other words the Church reserves the right to say what the Church believes. This does not preclude diversity of opinion. It merely prevents dilution of the faith. In rare cases the Church will insist that a certain view not be taught at seminaries, or, as theology, at Catholic universities.

The magisterium, as I understand it, is meant to prevent the promulgation of contrary views as dogma, or as though they are accepted Catholic teaching. I sincerely do not believe that this is done to stifle individual spiritual growth or to prevent inquisitive thought.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states: "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant"

Further comment on the Vatican exorcist. He, Fr. Amorth, appeared on CNN this evening, March 16th, and it was very revealing. First of all, has any of the press done the basic due diligence with this guy.? He struck me as a complete mythographer, and utterly unbelievable. He claims to have performed 70, 000 exorcisms. HAS ANYONE DONE THE SIMPLE COMPUTATIONS TO SEE WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN? Since he has been an exorcist since 1986 that would mean that he was performing more than 7 exorcisms a day --every day. Unbelievable! The rest of his spiel was similarly incredible. He sees the devil everywhere. But strangely in the most dastardly events -- the abuse of children -- the devil seems to have an attenuated presence, since it is only sin involved which only requires "conversion" . Hilariously, with his phony 70, 000 exorcisms he claimed on CNN to have not performed even one on a literal devil in flesh who abused a child. Truly what perplexed convoluted people these are, not even consistent in their own demented myth.

If Gabriele did 70,000 exorcisms, but never on a child rapist/molester, then what exactly did all those people DO? They can't all be murderers? He actually believes that raping and molesting defenseless children is worse than what--adultery? cheating on taxes? cursing at a priest? This man can't be for real. The Church shows zero respect for its victims by letting a fool like this make these comments to the media. Then, he tries to be media-friendly at the end with a "joke." His favorite movie is The Exorcist...not something more human and uplifiting?

Thanks, Dana.

Your point speaks (somewhat) to my first concern: the lack of divergent views. But my question about how evolution is accommodated by the pious remains.

Good point, John.

And ... thanks for rescuing the thread from a distracting swerve.

After seeing the exorcist described here on Wolf Blitzer's program on CNN, the question of basic journalistic fact checking occurred to me. Has anyone asked how this man who has done supposedly 70,000 exorcisms could have done so since he only became an exorcist in 1986? That works out to an incredible number per day, and as such his whole story is cast in the light of fraudulence.

I dunno, Peter...my (very) rough calculations would have him doing just under eight exorcisms per calendar day. If he REALLY applied himself ... and took no time off to re-charge....

BankStreet,

Thank you for your honest inquiry. I think Dana has done a good job in summing up the church's "Magisterium". It is also of benefit to stress what Dana also mentioned about freedom of spiritual growth, thought and inquiry: the Magisterium is not in existence to suppress the faithful; by contrast, it is there specifically for growth in faith along with the traditions which are all verifiable and based throughout scripture. For a Christian, what could be more complete and beautiful?

Let me use an analogy: If we are to maintain physical health, we seek professional assistance from doctors and health specialists when the need arises. We could also do research prior to problems arising to live a healthy life. We are very much free to treat our bodies as we wish -- we can exercise, smoke, sun-tan, work long hours, drink excessively, eat healthy -- however certain practice seem more obvious then others to stay away from; it's our call. When any of these practices lead to more complex situations -- illness, injury, disease, or even just a headache or soreness -- we become curious. We can speculate at the root cause of the situation, we can even become educated to the point we feel able to act ourselves to fix the situation; sometimes it's called for; other times, it is beyond us. This is where professionals become relevant; not only do they contribute largely to the "deposit of information" for healthy living, they are specialists trained and equipped for the multitudes of tasks and situations which may arise. They have a code and a standard by which they know people should live in order to keep a healthy body -- with information and publications available to us all -- we have the choice of how to use the information, teachings and services if we see good in them.

What is interesting is that the health organizations which uphold standards for maintaining a healthy body (among other things), ultimately have been established and contributed to by doctors and professionals. In a similar way, the "Magisterium" has been established over centuries by "professionals" who specialize in their chosen calling all to provide the framework for a healthy and objective life within the Catholic faith. Like health professionals, there are "specialists" -- the Pontiff and cardinals among others -- all devoted to upholding the goodness of their chosen field through objective learning and teaching. Note that these men have devoted their entire being to a life in the church; as do doctors of medicine and heath to their professions.

The Magisterium of the church simply keeps the goals and teachings of the faith objective (focused on Christ). Competing opinions and dogmas are many -- just as I am sure their are various theories and opinions in the health care circles -- however, the formality, hierarchy, structure and professionalism of the recognized authoritative bodies by which all else is measured is undeniable. This keeps things progressing; you cannot progress unless you have a goal. The Catholic Magisterium upholds the goals of the faith for all to grow within.

Here is the "bread and butter" below for anyone to reference:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm#890

thanks, pattycakers....

But I am still curious as to how you (or other observant Roman Catholics) handle changes in Catholic teaching. Many years ago, I had an ancient aunt, who was such an observant Catholic. She was aghast at the "rulings" of VaticanII (especially the vernacular mass and the abandonment of Friday fasting) ... but she "complied."

Surely the Magisterium evolves, albeit slowly.

My question to you remains: assuming you are still living *when* the RCC acknowledges the "sanctity" of same-sex love and relationships (again...don't hold your breath), what will be your reaction? Accept it as part of the Magisterium?

And don't say it'll never happen. Just ask Gallileo. And, by the way, *when* it does happen, the men and women of Dignity will have seen the simple reward of their hard work and patience.

BankStreet,

First, I see what you are getting at and I acknowledge that "evolution" or change happens within the church. That said, change is necessary to move forward through generations -- I agree with you there.

Second, to address your confidence in the notion that the Magisterium will inevitably recognize same-sex union, you must first know the differences between your Galileo example versus the same-sex agenda. Simply put, Galilean heliocentrism has been shown to be observable and scientifically true; the church accounted for this. Conversely, how does one observe morality? How does one measure if same-sex unity is right or wrong? Science cannot do this; science can reveal the mechanics and theory of a subject, yet it possesses limited power to term something "right" or "moral". Science has shown that biological factors, among others, contribute to same-gender tendencies. So what? Even if -- and it has not been done to date -- science could show that homosexuality was an "irreversible, intrinsically innate state", does that make it morally right to promote, strictly by using only those terms? Hardly BankStreet. As it is, modern science has done little to provide some, if any, conclusive evidence to suggest the homosexual state as an innate, safe and above all: a pro-family institution to embrace.

Note that this is what the Catholic Church is going to have to consider JUST from the scientific community -- never mind the philosophical and theological implications of same-gender promotion. As I mentioned before, science has limited power in matters of morality, so in the context of the Magisterium -- using far deeper means by which to develop the faith besides the "science of something" -- the Roman Church, in my opinion, would never reach the point of promoting same-sex union; the clear scriptural condemnation of it alone is cause enough, the science is inconclusive and mostly irrelevant, the fullness of humanity is completed by the bringing about of a new life and the male-female complement will never be undermined by the church in favor of "sexual freedom". Once this happens, all else crumbles BankStreet. Your opinion seems to think that the issue is simply a matter of "recognizing same-sex unions". The subject is far more reaching and much deeper then mechanics and politics alone, therefore, revising doctrine on a subject of such magnitude -- given the churches position on the family as the ultimate foundation for everything else -- would just not happen.

The RC church is a whole other ball-game my friend, so don't worry, I am not holding my breath. I don't see the need to. It sounds to me like you may need to "come up for air" pretty quick though.

Cheers to St. Patrick's Day by the way!

While The Magisterium of the Church can evolve over time it will not change in regards to homosexuality.

http://www.thebible.net/modules.php?name=Read&itemid=81&cat=9

Fortunately, the Magisterium is not part of my ethical/moral cosmology, except in so far as the Church violates my civil rights.

I would maintain, though, that the Church has seen fit to modify its views (all clearly "supported" by Scripture) on other moral issues, including slavery, attitudes toward the Jews, the role of women, and capital punishment. I remain confident that the Church will eventually acknowledge that same-sex love attraction, love, and commitment are indeed based in innate, immutable, and (if you will) God-given qualities of humanness. The truth of this (which you, my friend cannot possibly fathom, despite reams of scientific evidence -- to which you are blind and deaf) will out.

If by suggesting that I "come up for air" you would have me deny this ... I am more than happy to remain exactly where I am, thank you. The "air" you offer is of no interest to me.

I am both amused and infuriated that you regard homosexuality as somehow not "pro-family." I wish I could introduce you to the many, many families in my circle, in which same-sex couples bond, raise children, and grow old together (creating very real families). The notion that homosexuality is somehow anti-family makes no sense, unless you would make the point that I, for example, should have stayed with my wife and daughter in 1993, rather than end that marriage and emerge as a much healthier and honest man. My responsibility (having made the mistake of entering into the marriage in the first place) was to exit it honorably and to be an active father to my child. This I did. Homosexuality did not destroy my family; my attempting to conform to a heterosexual norm, however, did. What is truly anti-family is the larger culture's reluctance to acknowledge homosexuality as a legitimate alternative and to provide young people with models for how to become responsible Gay adults. Fortunately, this is changing. It's just too bad the Church (at least the Roman church) chooses to impede this process.

I do not doubt you know fantastic gay couples. I know fantastic gay persons -- not couples with children mind you -- but is that fortunate notion homogeneous to your experience?

Also, forgive me for asking: Do you truly believe that your former wife and child have not been adversely effected by your decision to "come out"? You used the term "honorable". How BankStreet? Do the ones you separated from think this?It's really non of my business and you don't have to answer, but just a thought...

BankStreet. First in answer to your question about how evolution is accommodated by the pious. The answer is clear from the words of the current Pope: "...there is no opposition between faith’s understanding of creation and the evidence of the empirical sciences."

When he said this he was expressing solidarity with the view expressed by both Pius XII and John Paul II. The caveat that he added was taken from the Catechism: "Thus the Magisterium of the Church has constantly affirmed that 'every spiritual soul is created immediately by God – it is not ‘produced’ by the parents – and also that it is immortal," he said.

Thus the scientific reality of evolution and the spiritual reality of you and me being made in the image of God are not mutually exclusive. Sadly there are many among the laity who cannot accept LGBT people. These people have missed the point entirely on what it means to be Christian. In the words of John Paul II; "These divisions are explained but not justified by the weakness and limitation which are part of our fallen human nature. These remain and are also expressed in the members of the Church and in her leaders too."

The Church is in the grip of a determined few who would maintain it as an exclusive country club. It was never meant to be this way.

BankStreet,

Upon thinking about my last post, I realize I was totally out of place to ask such questions. Some of my "typing before I think" showing through. I do apologize.

Pattycakers

pattycakers,

In response to your first question (if I understand it): yes happiness is typical of the Gay couples I know. I have known unhappy couples (usually as a result of infidelity) ..but I suspect you have, as well. Nothing new there.

I have no doubt that both my wife and my daughter were profoundly hurt by my deciding to leave the marriage. I am neither so insensitive nor so stupid as to think otherwise. That being said, I will forever be convinced of the necessity of what I did seventeen years ago. I stopped lying, to them and to myself. My marriage was a sham. I was unfaithful to my wife on more than one occasion (which, by the way, has not been true in any of the three relationships I have been in with men).

When I spoke of "honor," I was referring to my conduct as an ex-husband and as an "absent" father, which was honorable. I was a much better father after I left the marriage than I ever was (or could be) before.

What guilt I have is about the hurt I caused my wife and daughter. It is not about deciding to be an openly Gay man. The "sin" I committed was in being married to a woman, not in leaving the marriage. And my homosexuality is no sin, because it does not involve choice (as sin must).

Unless you are saying you can't control your sexual urges then it is a sin. Being homosexual isn't a sin. Giving in and performing the acts is a sin. You seem like a caring and compassionate person, but you are rationalizing why doing what you want is ok.

I will "control" my sexual urges as soon as you do, given that my "urges" are as much a part of me as yours are of you.

Your God made me a Gay man. Are you saying He made a mistake (or a joke), for which I must now pay a price of perpetual celibacy?

The ease with which you make this prescription would be laughable, were it not for the fact that many would take it seriously.

As to my "rationalizing," I daresay you depart from the literal teachings of Jesus each and every day .... and I'm pretty sure, if pressed, you could come up with some pretty good excuses (rationalizations) for why this is necessary.

BankStreet,

Thanks for sharing that last post; I do respect what you must have went through and the courage it took to get to where you are.

At the end of the day, what Christians are challenged with -- regardless of sexual orientation -- is a faith which defines objective "challenges" for our betterment. Abstinence until marriage is just that: abstinence until marriage. I would argue it is more human to control and pursue these challenges then to give in to our "animal urges" as you will. It is simply a matter of human will, patience, sacrifice and hope which leads to intellectual, spiritual and societal growth. That's it. And yes, we falter and fail in our humanity but there is ALWAYS a second chance through forgiveness; real animals could not even hope for such blessings.

To Bankstreet. No problem I'm already controlling my sexual urges. Never said they weren't part of you.

God does not make mistakes. I can not explain why you were given a tougher road to walk than I. I am not God. Christ indicates that each of us faces different crosses to bear. I can offer no reason why yours is what it is.

You shouldn't get upset because some choose to actually follow the path to God. If you don't want to that is your right and no one should be forced to walk it.

You are right I fall short of being what Christ wants many times. That is why I make no judgements on anyone else and leave that to God as Christ called for. There are no excuses for why I have sinned. All I can so is the same as anyone else and ask God to forgive me and trust that in His mercy and love He will because of the sacrifice Christ made for all of us who believe in him.

Pattycakers,

Ah yes ... abstinence until marriage.

All well and good, if one is allowed to marry the person one loves.

Until I am, I operate within my own moral code:

-I will not facilitate infidelity.

-I will not be unfaithful to my committed partner (if I had one!).

As you already know, my moral/ethical structure, while perhaps "informed" by my Chritian upbringing, is not defined by any dogma.

And this works just fine for me!

In the Christian faith -- we have gone down this road in a secular context before -- marriage is specifically between a man and a woman. That's it. If it means another calling all together (such is the case for homosexual individuals) then you choose to live that faith without compromise because you believe it. In a civil union, though I disagree with it, I see it as your civil right when living in the specific jurisdiction which allows for it BankStreet -- all the power to you.

The RC Church could not allow for this. Not now, nor ever. If by chance the day came and I was alive to witness it, that would mean the papacy had been overturned and the collapse of the RC Church would be but days away. No fun for myself and millions of people, yet a joyous occasion I'm sure for the "Littels" of this world. What would be interesting is a world without the RC Church's authority from Rome; As Clay likes to say "Catholic's would be better without Rome". While he has no idea what he is talking about, I would bet the mortgage that the day that happens, it would be the first day of the beginning of the... wait for it!...

pattycakes - The day that the Catholic Church (and ALL the others) have a going out of business sale, will be the most momentous and celebrated day in the entire existence of Humanity. I know it won't seem like that to the mindless gnomes (like you) who need an artificial and simple rationale to give their lives meaning (while at the same time making others miserable trying to push their fairy-tale imperatives on the rest of us), but you will be better off once you have eschewed delusionalism in favor of reality.

pattycakers.

Then, I assume I can count on your support in the voting booth, when/if Maryland (I assume you are in Maryland) puts the question of CIVIL same-sex marriage before the voters. Remember, this vote will be for CIVIL marriage, having absolutely nothing to do with the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. The fact that the State uses the term, "marriage" is only a semantic red herring. When I head to the Courthouse Marriage Bureau, I will make a point to avoid any proximity to your church, and any other that does not want to sanctify my marriage sacramentally. The fact that you "disagree" with my "civil union" (i.e., civil marriage) only means that you would not get one (fair enough). The fact that you see it as my civil right assures me of your support as a voter, no?

BankStreet,

Hope you enjoyed your weekend. As per your last post, your sarcasm is indeed refreshing -- can I assume this is the nature of your calling for my vote? If, by chance, you are honest in your inquiry, I respectfully say "no, you cannot count on my vote". Why does it matter if same-gender union is "civil" or "religious"? The reasoning should be quite apparent to you BankStreet.

An end note...
Using your logic, if civil law permits the killing of a fetus, and my church faith does not -- the two institutions are two separate entities -- then I should obviously vote for a person who supports murder in the civil arena as long as it does not infringe on my faith organization? Sorry BankStreet, I'm sure you are in the midst of answering that one for me...

"The day that the Catholic Church (and ALL the others) have a going out of business sale, will be the most momentous and celebrated day in the entire existence of Humanity"

How correct. That will mean it's judgement day and those of us who had faith will be rewarded.

No, pattycakers,

What you (very strangely) mistook for sarcasm was, in fact, naivete -- my hope that my plea for civil parity and fairness just might prevail against dogmatic narrow-mindedness. My hope that perhaps you were honest in acknowledging my civil rights. My hope that perhaps you had finally come to understand that I pose no threat to your Sacraments and to your marriage. My hope that logic and reason could speak to a closed heart.

I was wrong.

Nothing sarcastic here. Just disappointment. No surprise, though.

Oh...and about your "end note": the abortion parallel, while a sure-fire conversation stopper, doesn't apply. No one (not even a non-sentient cluster of cells) dies when two loving people form a family, with or without your sanction.

(Fake) Anonymous - Judgement day has already arrived. People like you have been judged to be inane, delusional, and, because the rest of us have lept ahead, no longer fully Human, by our standards. Proto-Human Theocratism is the new Neanderthal mentality, and you seem to be their poster child.

Robert Littel - Are you aware that people who need to insult are usually angry, envious, frustrated, ill-mannered, self-centered, bad-tempered, spiteful, sadistic, and lacking empathy. Somehow that sounds much more like a Neanderthal mentality to me. Maybe you should try treating people as you wish to be treated. I don’t believe Neanderthals practiced any of what Christ taught – love your enemies, turn the other cheek, do not judge others.

Nice backhanded comment, anonymous. you have charged yourself and Robert at the same time.

Monty - I make no charges against anyone.