Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    jim,
    
    i beg to differ with you..ACT-UP and Queer Nation taken together
    are a very small minority within the gay community. if you choose
    to believe that they represent gay people as a whole so be it but
    i can assure you as someone who has been "out" (a part of that
    community) for more than 20 years that they are indeed not
    representative neither in ideology nor in behavior.
    
    peter          

Is there a "good" way to express criticism to the church?

Is there a "good" way to respond to criticism?

Richard

    Peter,
    	  those that were present, probably don't represent the majority,
    but neither do those minority of Christians who attack gays represent
    the majority. I would also  say that those who do attack other
    people for no matter what cause, shouldn't call themselves Christian 
    period.
    
    
    Peace
    Jim

Re:  Topics 335 and 305 ....

These two topics are very powerful ones, not only for those who call
themselves "Christian" but also for those who once were Christian, as
well as those who have never been Christian but have associated with
Christians and Christianity -- ALL of us essentially!

First, let me address this spin-off topic, which seems to be seeking
respect and tolerance toward the Catholic church from -- peculiarily
enough --  gay persons.    (I'll address topic 305 a little later.)

I have a somewhat different perspective, Jim.  And it is this:  The
Catholic church has not earned, and does not deserve, the respect and
tolerance from gay persons -- most women too -- simply because the Catholic
church is disrespectful and intolerant of gays and women.  (Not their
so-called "sins" --  but disrespectful of THEM, the PEOPLE THEMSELVES.)  
This is a baffling phenomenon to many of us, since SO MUCH of the
Roman Catholic clergy comprises lesbians and homosexual men.   (Hey --
better to hide your identity and attempt a celibate/loveless life for
a GOOD reason, rather than to fake it and lead a double life, I
suppose.)

I liken the Catholic church to Southern lunch counters and bus
companies during the 50s and early 60s.  Like those establishments,
reeking with bigotry and intolerance, the church, too, generally
demeans the human dignity of gays and women.  Throwing condoms and
spitting out communion wafers is, in my eyes -- blind as I am ... I
know -- similar to the defiant acts of black citizens sitting at the
front rows in busses or sitting at Woolworth's lunch counter or
marching through the streets or rallying at town halls demanding
their right to vote.  Our mainstream society in those days was just as
OUTRAGED at the disrespectful, provocative behavior of these black
citizens as you are outraged now at similar behavior toward the
church by some gays.

You might argue, "Well, religion is not a matter of civil rights."
True.   But tens of millions of people are born into the Catholic
community, as well as many other Chritian communities.  So many
Christians -- gays, females, and others who are the targets of scorn
and intolerance -- want desperately to "belong" to the family of Christ. 
That's why harm inflicted by one's religion/church can cause as much
damage as harm inflicted by one's government or secular society. 
That's why it is so painful for people to simply "turn away."   Shame. 
Rejection.  Trampled dignity.  Religious disfranchisement can be as
painful as -- sometimes more painful than -- secular disfranchisement.

So, the issue is more complex than merely saying, "Well, if you don't
like our ways, go elsewhere."  People whose roots run deep in the
church have a stake in their religion, and, needless to say, their
God.  A lot of people have difficulty walking away from their
church/religion because it is supposed to represent the family of
Christ -- a family to which a lot of gays and others still want to
belong, even after their human dignity is trampled over (and over
again) by said church/religion.

By the way, Peter is right.  The vast majority of gay persons not only
do not participate in this sort of behavior (toward the Church) but
also are not yet out of the closet!  (Why would any gay or bisexual
person, living in mainstream Christian communities, in his/her right
mind, want to come out of hiding, as long as they know they will be
ridiculed, trashed, and demeaned by so many hateful persons out
there masquerading as "men/women of God."?)  Peter is also right when
he says the media, sadly, plays up these confrontations with the
church thereby giving you and the rest of us the impression that the
vast majority of gay persons, gays as a whole, like to throw condoms
and participate in similar protests.

Be that as it may, however .... Let me say, the sight of condoms
flying through the air, frankly, makes me laugh.   The thought of them
flying in the direction of Bernard Law is even funnier!  The bottom
line, IMHO, is this:  Why should anyone have sympathy for the
Catholic church?  For what good reason?  Because millions of people
demean and do not respect the church, its clergy, and what it stands for?
Who should care, really?  How can the church demand any more
respect or tolerance than those lunch counters?   The Church demeans
large numbers -- millions -- of people through the practice of its
very doctrine.  Making its young gay flock feel ashamed -- SO ashamed,
in fact, as to induce feelings of suicide, to prefer death over
acknowledging who/what they are.   Treating its young female flock in
a way that makes them feel subservient to males, in the eyes of God.
The CHURCH is the one wielding its VAST POWER over individual
parishioners, not the other way around, as you might have us believe.

As a former Roman Catholic, I know all too well. 

In recent years, the Church administration put out a decree in which
it differentiated between the gay "orientation," which, according to
the Pope is not a sin, and the gay "practice," which is a sin.  (This is
an impossible thing to differentiate, by the way.  If you condemn the
so-called sin in the case of homosexuality, you automatically condemn
the sinner, IMHO.  The sooner Christendom realizes this the sooner
it will stop young gay Christians from hating themselves and from
killing themselves.)   Anyway ... In this decree, the church condemned
physical violence against gays -- gay bashing.  In the same breath,
however, it said, in effect -- I am not sure of the precise quote:
"On the other hand, given that homosexual behavior is such a crime in
the eyes of God, it is understandable how some people can be driven to
violence against homosexuals."

Now how are good Catholics to read that?  Don't strike a gay person,
but if you do, we understand your motives?   If anything, it
fans the flames of hatred and fear.  And if the sheer number of
hateful, violent crimes against gays is any indication, apparently a 
lot of people may be interpreting the church's position as just that way.

And how are gay Catholics to read that?  Perhaps like this:  "The
church is more understanding of those who commit violent acts against
me than it is understanding of *ME*"  Or how bout this, especially for
gay teenagers or young adults:  "I am bad.  I am evil.  I am so evil in
fact, I don't dare reveal myself.  And if I DO, death is a much more
welcome fate than going through life as someone so evil, so full of
shame, as the target of incessant scorn."

THIS is the gist Christendom's legacy to its gay flock, irrespective
of all the good, decent Christians out there who celebrate God and
preach their faith with LOVE and COMPASSION in their hearts and with
OPEN ARMS.  Sadly, there aren't nearly enough of these folks.  They're
overshadowed by the seedier side of American Christianity.  Just tune
into the 700 club or Mother Angelica or Jimmy Swaggart, or ...

So let's put things in perspective.  When you talk about the poor
church being the target of SO much intolerance and demeaning behavior
.... well .... there is much to be said about two wrongs not making a
right.  But if you were to weigh the two sides -- the wrongs committed
by the church against gays and women (now and throughout the history)
alongside the wrongs committed by gays and women against the church,
I think the scale would break;  it would be weighted down and
crushed by so much heavy religious hatred, fear, intolerance,
scorn, judgement -- ANYTHING BUT LOVE.

So when the Church, like Rodney Dangerfield, whines about getting no
respect ...... I, for one, don't feel sorry for them.  Not one bit.
As Spiro Agnew used to say: "It's like listening to germs complaining
about disease."

More to come ....

Paul          

re Note 335.4 by BUFFER::CIOTO:

> Roman Catholic clergy comprises lesbians and 

        Given the usual definitions of "clergy" and "lesbian", not at
        all likely!

    RE:4
    Paul,
    	your note is so full of crap I can hardly believe you wrote it !

    In my 40yrs as a Catholic, I have never witnessed the Catholic  Church
    attacking gay people. Nor have I EVER heard a priest condemn someone
    for their sins. In fact, it would be a sin for any Catholic to do so.
    They condemn the practice, but so don't they condemn any sex outside of 
    marriage. But, the condemnation of the sin is  condemnation by God which 
    is found in Scripture. The way you want it, they should ignore 
    Scripture and let everything fly for the sake that somebody might feel
    ashamed. Well, even Jesus told the adultress, to sin no more.


     As far as women are concerned. No other institution has upheld the 
    dignity and respect for women more than the Catholic Church. Mary
    is honored, as well has other women who have become Saints. Women have
    been given doctorates by the Church, in recognition of their holiness.
    Read about St. Cathrine Of Sienna if you want to know what I'm talking 
    about. 

    You want it to be like secular society. Well, it can't be that way.
    Society moves by the fads and whims of the populace. The Church is
    moved by the Holy Spirit.

    Before you start justifying acts of violence against the Church, and
    comparing them to the segregation of days past, you should get over
    your own bigotry so that you can get factual information on where the
    Church was in the days of desegregation.

    The Church is in the process of canonizing a black slave. I don't
    recall his name, but it was the Catholic Church that helped gain
    his freedom.


    I find your note to be really narrow, and full of hate. I don't know
    why I even bothered to respond.

    Have a good day
    Jim

    "No institution has upheld the dignity and respect for women more than
    the Catholic Church".

    I think that is a bit of an exaggeration.  The Church's record with
    respect to women may not be all bad, and may even have its good points;
    but in certain areas it clearly lags far behind other denominations. 
    If and when the all-male hierarchy in Rome decides that women can be
    priests, or that a woman can become Pope, then I think it will have
    room to talk.

    -- Mike

    RE:Mike
     
    Well, perhaps not allowing women to become priest is only a sign of 
    disrespect in secular views. I'm sure there's more that goes into
    respect than giving out or restricting roles to people. I'm a  
    married person who is not allowed to become a priest or hold power
    in the Church, yet I don't feel disrespected by the Church.


    Jim

    Jim, calling my views "wordly" does not make them untrue.  Actually,
    given the rampant sexism that pervades the world, I would argue that
    the misogyny of the Catholic Church in this area is much more worldly
    than the more enlightened position that would treat men and women as
    equals.
    
    -- Mike

    RE:9


>    Jim, calling my views "wordly" does not make them untrue.  Actually,
>    given the rampant sexism that pervades the world, I would argue that
>    the misogyny of the Catholic Church in this area is much more worldly
>    than the more enlightened position that would treat men and women as
>    equals.

     Mike I meant no disrespect on your views, however it was you who
    pointed at the Catholic Church's position as being flawed. The point
    is that what the Church holds as being true, is often not held true by
    secular society, by the same token as you state here, that would not 
    make the Church's views untrue either.

    Peace
    Jim

    Jim, (.6)
    
    
<<    I find your note to be really narrow, and full of hate. I don't know
    why I even bothered to respond.
    
    Funny you should write that to Paul.  I thought of writing something
    similar to you regarding your recent notes on homosexuality.  I found
    some real hate and homophobia there, but I let it pass.  
    
    I read anger in Paul's note, justified anger, but I don't see hate.
    Guess it is all in the eye's of the beholder, huh?  Perhaps, this
    string will somehow teach us all to be less judgemental.
    
    I wonder Jim if your child came to you and told you they were gay,
    lesbian, or bisexual, just how you would react.  Then again perhaps
    with your attitude, your child would be afraid to come out to you.
    Would you still hate the sin and love the sinner?  Would you stop
    loving your child?  Would your views change?  I imagine you think this
    scenario could never happen to you.
    
    Ro

    RE: Ro

    I don't know where you've seen me attacking gay people in this
    conference nor have I justified any attacks against gay people.
    If you read .0 in this note, I clearly stated that I'm repulsed
    and saddened by what gays and lesbians have suffered in the name 
    of Christianity.

    Paul, in his note, justified the attacks that groups like ACT-UP 
    committed against people of the Catholic Church.

    How come you where silent then ? Perhaps you agree that people are
    justified in spitting and throwing condoms at people ?  I'm really
    surprised by the silence of people in this in this conference that
    would allow forms of violence to be justified. Your reply really
    has me concerned, cuz this is the same conference that complained 
    about the attitudes in the Golf::Christian conference. I guess
    the attitudes are really equal when all comes said and done ?


    Jim

    jim,
    
    in no way do i believe that Jerry Falwell and his ilk represent
    the majority of Christians. funny that you should use this analogy
    because i was thinking of using one somewhat like it to demonstrate my
    point about ACT-UP being a minority viewpoint.
    
    nor do i believe that you personally, jim, harbor any ill will towards
    gay people.
    
    peter

    Jim,
    
    I didn't say you 'attacked' gay people, I said I found 'real hate
    and homophobia'.  Here is the note I'm refering to (which is also found
    in the base note of this topic, although the offending paragraph was
    not included):
    
Note 305.52         On distancing yourself from Christianity            52 of 58
PCCAD1::RICHARDJ "Bluegrass,Music of Perfekchun"     28 lines  28-OCT-1991 17:27
                                    -<     >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    RE:50

   >> Please understand however, that I don't understand. That is, I don't
    understand the gay lifestyle, not that I'm condemning in anyway, I just
    don't understand it. I see gay males, having the ability to have sexual
    relations with women, but the thought of having a sexual relationship
    with another man, makes most heterosexuals including myself repulse the
    idea. It's not our fault, just as gays claim that their orientation is
    not  a choice. To further complicate things, we heterosexuals have
    Scripture to support (or at least we believe we do) our repulsive 
    feelings towards homosexual sodomy.

    I'm sorry Jim, but this whole paragraph indicates your underlying hate
    and clearly your homophobia.
    
    You say the 'ability of gay men to have relations with women', what
    does that mean?  Because they are physically capable of doing so, they
    should?  Huh?  They should be untrue to their core being.  Then you
    write "makes most heterosexuals' repulse to the idea. 
    
    Ah, nevermind, you don't even see how cruel and unkind your remarks
    are.  To me Christianity is about trying to walk a mile in someone
    else's shoes in order to understand, be compassionate and loving. 
    
    I'm sorry Jim, I've met you and I like you.  I just think that you are
    blinded on this issue by your own fears.  So when I see someone like
    you who is a decent nice person with a 'log in his eye' on this
    subject, I feel a sense of hopelessness...
    
    I guess I've never commented on this stuff before as I wasn't as
    sensitive to it as I am now.  I need to take a more active stand on
    this but perhaps C-P is not the forum for me to do so....
    
    Ro
    

    ro,
    
    i read a letter-to-the-editor in the paper the other day that
    impressed me. the author pointed out that when the Europeans first
    came to Polynesia one of the natives pointed out that when Europeans
    talked about morality they meant sex but that when Polynesians talked
    out morality they meant how they treated one another.
    
    one of things i remind myself of is "don't ascribe to malice what
    can be laid to ignorance". real cruelty and spite stem from the
    intention of doing harm. i know i've caused hurt because i wasn't
    tuned in to other's feelings. i hope that people recognize that
    fundamentally i am not a malicious person despite that fact.
    
    of course, you're correct regarding sexual orientation. i would
    feel profoundly "wrong" or perhaps "inauthentic" if i were to have
    a sexual relationship with a woman.
    
    peter

Jim,

    Your note is so full of crap I can hardly believe you wrote it !

Why?  Because I am usually so sensible?  ;)  I knew full well what I wrote 
would press a lot of buttons with Roman Catholics.  But I didn't write it
to press any buttons; I wrote it because I truly believe in the credibility
of what I said.  This is a very powerful, explosive issue.  My response on
the Catholic church, and American Christendom at large, regarding the way
it treats gays and women, is quite justified, considering the church's
track record.   Much of what you have said -- and what the church has said
-- strikes me as pure crap, and ridden with hate.  Such behavior naturally 
begets a strong response.   So don't be so surprised.

I have no apologies to make for what I said in .4 -- in fact, all I
said was I don't think the church has earned, or deserves, the respect
of gays and women.  Because of the way church TREATS gays and women. 
I also said I don't feel sorry for the church when it whines about not
getting said respect.

    In my 40yrs as a Catholic, I have never witnessed the Catholic  Church
    attacking gay people. Nor have I EVER heard a priest condemn someone
    for their sins. 

Oh wow.  You and I must know live in two different worlds .... unless, of
course, the way in which the church treats gays doesn't bother you and sits
well with you.  Then, naturally, you wouldn't notice it.... or even care
about it.

    In fact, it would be a sin for any Catholic to do so.

Please .... I know what Catholicism is all about.  I've been there.

Homosexuality, and any sexuality, is a state of being, not a "practice."  
You simply cannot attack the "practice" without attacking the state of
being.  Whether or not the clergy's INTENT is to demean, shame, frighten,
ridicule, and induce suicidal feelings in the minds/hearts of young
gay Christians is one thing.  But it DOES happen, whether the clergy
wants it to or not.  It happens a lot.

When the clergy uses words like "pervert" and "sick" to describe 
homosexuality, how do you think it is interpreted by those on the
receiving end?  Do you think it fosters an atmosphere/environment in 
which gay Catholics, especially the young ones, are treated with love,
compassion, and respect?   I submit that many mainstream churchgoers --
perhaps even the majority -- interpret their church's position on 
homosexuality in such a way that an environment conducive to
ridicule, disrespect, intolerance, and chastisement, is formed.   
And in this environment, this sort of treatment of gays is tolerated
as the norm.  Again, it may not be the church's intent, but it 
happens more often than not, IMHO.

    They condemn the practice, but so don't they condemn any sex outside of 
    marriage. 

The vast majority of Americans, including Catholics, do not save themselves
for their wedding nights, as the church teaches.  In fact, I think most
Catholic Americans do not agree with the church's forbiddance of pre-
marital sex.   Nevertheless, you know as well as I do that the church
and American Christianity as a whole do not create the same sense of
FRENZY and hysteria over the "sin" of premarital sex as it does over
the state of being homosexual.  So, again, it boils down to the climate
of feelings the church fosters among its flock;  the climate the church
fosters around premarital sex is different, much different.  It is
insignificant, really, to the point where young Catholics simply do not
feel it is that "bad" if they break the rules and have sex before marriage.  
However, compare this with what young gay Catholics feel about just BEING 
gay -- even the ones who have never had ANY sexual experiences!   
So what do we have here -- really?  Premarital sex is an activity, known 
as a "sin," over which the church does not generate a very strong feeling 
of shame, disgrace, intolerance, and disfranchisement.  On the other hand, 
homosexuality is a state of being over which the church DOES generate all 
of the above, to the point where it drives many young gay Christians to
induce self-hate and consider suicide.  How sad.  Before you compare 
sins as "separate but equal," first put things in perspective.

    The way you want it, they should ignore Scripture and let everything 
    fly for the sake that somebody might fee ashamed. 

Yes, biblical scripture has commonly been used as justification for
Christians to shame their brothers and sisters.  Is that Christlike?

    Well, even Jesus told the adultress, to sin no more.

He said a whole lot more about the self-righteous, arrogant, intolerant
Pharisees.  What do you think he would say about the clergy controlling
the upper ranks of the Catholic church?   There's a big difference between
the way Jesus treated the Pharisees, and say, prostitutes.

     As far as women are concerned. No other institution has upheld the 
    dignity and respect for women more than the Catholic Church. 

I have to laugh at this to keep from crying.  Talk about crap.  The
Catholic church has done more throughout the ages to delay the day
when women and men are considered equals, in the eyes of organized
religion as well as secular societies.   When the Pope comes
to America, in the face of large numbers of nuns and other females
in the church, protesting blatant discrimination within the church 
and an inability for women to serve in the upper ranks as priests, 
bishops, and cardinals,  and says:  "Women have their rightful 'place' 
in the church.  It is not a question of human rights ... priests
must be men because Jesus was a man,"  that says a lot about the
amount of dignity/respect the Catholic church affords women.

    Mary is honored, as well has other women who have become Saints. Women 
    have been given doctorates by the Church, in recognition of their holiness.

So women are "holy," but apparently not holy enough to serve the church 
as priests, bishops, cardinals?

    You want it to be like secular society. Well, it can't be that way.
    Society moves by the fads and whims of the populace. The Church is
    moved by the Holy Spirit.

Wrong!  Throughout history, the evolution of the Catholic church and
secular society have been very intertwined -- so intertwined, in fact,
at times throughout history it is difficult to tell the difference
between the norms of secular society and the norms of the church.  How
unfortuante.  If the church is and always has been moved exclusively
by the Holy Spirit,  it doesn't say much for the Holy Spirit .... or
the church.

    Before you start justifying acts of violence against the Church, 

Tell me about incidents where a gay/female protestor injured or killed
a Catholic clergy member and I will denounce it and certainly not
"justify" it.  I don't think spitting out communion wafers on the
sidewalk and throwing condoms at Bernard Law qualifies as "violence." 
It is not the sort of thing I would do, or even advise, but let's keep
this in perspective.

    comparing them to the segregation of days past, you should get over
    your own bigotry ...

All I said was this:  The church's treatment toward gays and women today
is very similar -- just as demeaning, intolerant, and disrespectful -- 
to the ways in which lunch counters and bus companies treated black 
citizens in the South years ago.  And it's TRUE, IMHO.  The church's
historic treatment of blacks is another topic... and, incidentally,
not as pristine as you think.

As for my own "bigotry" ...  I never pretended to be a saint or give off 
an air of false piety, though my personal relationship with God is very
deeply felt and important to me.  I usually react strongly to what
I see as intolerance, bigotry, chastisement, ridicule, and so forth.
I see it happening to a very large extent in American Christendom
today against gays and women.  Whether my strong reactions toward
bigotry constitues bigotry in and of itself remains to be seen
and judged by God.  

    The Church is in the process of canonizing a black slave. I don't
    recall his name, but it was the Catholic Church that helped gain
    his freedom.

How nice for him!  ;)

    I find your note to be really narrow, and full of hate.

Well, I do not feel hatred in my heart.  Anger and disgust and 
bewilderment perhaps, but I am not aware of hate.  However, if I did
feel hate toward the Catholic church, I suspect it would be dwarfed by
the face of what I perceive to be a policy and course of conduct
toward gay Christians, that does indeed involve LOT of deep, 
institutionalized hate.

Thank you for responding.  I'm glad we're getting all these viewpoints
out on the table.

Paul

    re:14 

    Well, Ro, I as I expressed in the first line of the paragraph, of which
    your referring, "I DON'T UNDERSTAND."  The point in which I wrote the note 
    was to try and get some understanding. How does my admission of not
    understanding translate into hate ? 

    I'll say it right now to be sure people are clear about my intention.

    I'am noway condemning homosexual behavior. I don't understand it, but 
    I'm trying. I also, apologize to anyone who felt hatred in anything I
    wrote. 

    With that aside, I'll just be quite and let the rest of you express
    your feelings to whatever degree you wish.


    Peace
    Jim

    Re: .17
    
    Your note and what you meant are very clear to me. I too don't
    "understand" the Homosexual orientation. I welcome calm,clear
    comments.
    
    Marc H.

re  .15    Ro, thanks for pointing Jim's statements out here.  You 
beat me to it.  This comment struck a real raw nerve with me as well:

    I see gay males, having the ability to have sexual relations with 
    women, but the thought of having a sexual relationship with 
    another man, makes most heterosexuals including myself repulse the
    idea. It's not our fault, just as gays claim that their orientation is
    not  a choice. 

    To further complicate things, we heterosexuals have
    Scripture to support (or at least we believe we do) our repulsive 
    feelings towards homosexual sodomy.

You may be respulsed by your thoughts of certain sexual relationships,
but your comment here is downright revolting.  And this is PRECISELY
the kind of thing that feeds into that church climate of disrespect, 
intolerance, ridicule, demeaning behavior toward gay Catholics
I talked about in .16.  If a 40-year Catholic can make such statements
such as these -- us-against-them statements that by their very nature 
incite hate, fear, shame, intolerance, and on and on -- so casually, 
I rest my case.

One can find the thought of LOTS of things of a sexual nature one can find  
"repulsive"... that's easy.  The thought of Richard Nixon having sex with 
ANYBODY, male or female, is pretty repulsive to me.  The thought of 
heterosexual couples using battery-powered toys is repulsive to many.   
What about two ugly people -- male and female -- having sexual relations?  
Do you find anything that involves non-beautiful people "repulsive"?

To a whole LOT of men the sight of any naked male body, including
their own, is repulsive;  they much prefer the thought of two
women having sex than a man and a woman.  (That's why lesbian porn
is so commonplace and why its audience is almost exclusively male.)
Does the thought of two males hugging/kissing each other, as they
do so casually in Mediterranean cultures, repulse you too?  When a
guy shakes your hand for more than four or five shakes, does that
repulse you too?  It's all RELATIVE!

What really gets me about what you said is :  "We heterosexuals have
Scripture to support our repulsive feelings toward homosexual sodomy."
This is divisive, provocative, and self-righteous.

If your views and perspectives represent the norm in the Catholic
church, then I rest my case on everything I said in .4 and .16.
To work yourself and other Catholics up into a frenzy by these
inflammatory, hateful comments in the name of God/scripture, pretending
God is on "my side" in all this -- this happens a lot in Christian 
circles -- is not consistent with the Holy Spirit you speak of so
frequently.

    Ah, nevermind [Jim] you don't even see how cruel and unkind your remarks
    are.  

Amen, sister.   And the church, as a whole, doesn't see, either.

    To me Christianity is about trying to walk a mile in someone
    else's shoes in order to understand, be compassionate and loving. 
    
Interesting perspective, Ro.

Paul
    
    
    P.S.  Jim, why do you so much want to *understand* something that
    you write off so quickly as a crime against God, a "sin."?  Do
    you finally recognize that hating the "sin" but not the "sinner"
    is much more complex than you realized?
    

  
   The posting in .2 asked a question about criticizing the church.
   	
   I ask why should they not be above critical inspection.  The church
   as an instution is not perfect, is is about people who are imperfect.
   It is not saying they aren't trying.  

   RE: last few

   There is violence, and insult. The actions of ACTup and others as
   I have seen (I may be unaware of some events) are of the rude and
   insulting kind but they are not violence.  No one gets physically
   hurt but, people are shaken by actions that are held as sacrilege.
   They become angry, and maybe even hate.  They now have expereinced
   the pain they(collective) subjected others too.  It's up to the
   church to recognize the expereince and meld it into actions that
   create peace not hate or anger.  My seeing those things do offend
   me at the same time I recognize that these people feel deeply hurt
   buy the actions of people in the name of the church.  Are their
   actions warrented?  I'm sure that the violence they experience is
   real and they would like it to end.

   Additional point:
   I grew up with the idea that any church/temple/whatever is a place
   where respect should be accorded as an peaceful act by an invited
   guest.  That respect does not negate disagreement or anger it only
   recognizes certain rules of behavour.  I will not attend a Roman
   Catholic service except to be respectful of those that practice and
   wish me there.  I left that church because they can not accomodate nor
   recognize me as a unique human.  I am critical of that church and it's
   limitations, I do respect the idea that many people draw strength and
   support from it.  

   Allison

    Jim,
    
    In .6 you said it's OK to condemn the "practice" of homosexuality.
    Yet in .17 you said "in no way am I condemning homosexual behavior."
    
    This strikes me as two opposite positions.  Which is it?
    
    Paul

    Yeah, your right Paul in whatever you say !( You can take whatever I write
    out of context and use it to inflame rather than understand or help to 
    understand.

    My .17 was meant to say that I don't condemn any homosexuals,
    and also, that  I don't understand the behavior because FOR ME,
    the attraction to another male, doesn't make sense. OK ?

    I was trying to make an apology as well. Somehow you missed it
    or you  chose to ignore it.

    I'm through talking here. I'm too pissed off to continue in this
    discussion with you.

re   .22

    Yeah, your right Paul in whatever you say!

How flattering.  ;)

    You can take whatever I write out of context and use it to 
    inflame rather than understand or help to understand.

I find it uncanny that you're asking ME to make a noble attempt to try 
to understand you when you level comments like this at me:

 "Your attitude is a problem ... Your note is so full of crap I can 
 hardly believe you wrote it ... I find your note to be really narrow
 and full of hate.  I don't know why I even bothered to respond."

    My .17 was meant to say that I don't condemn any homosexuals,
    and also, that  I don't understand the behavior because FOR ME,
    the attraction to another male, doesn't make sense. OK ?

Maybe the way in which a lot of Catholics do not "understand" people 
different from themselves inadvertently comes across, as Ro put it, "cruel 
and unkind."  I think saying that scripture supports your feelings of 
repulsion falls into that category.   Maybe gay Catholics don't know
that you and the church do not mean to hurt them.  Like I said, 
irrespective of clergy's intent, the damage is indeed happening
bigtime, whether you choose to see it or not.

As for "attraction to another male doesn't make sense"  -- well,
let me take a stab at this:  Are you married or do you have a girlfriend?
Did you ever bother to ask her:  "Why are you attracted to me physically?
Why are women in general attracted to men physically/sexually/emotionally?"
I think perhaps your "obstacle" could be acknowledging that the male form
is capable of being attractive to ANYONE, even females.  You are not
attracted to your own body, physically/sexually, but presumably your 
wife is/was.   I got a hunch that if you collect answers from females,
these answers would be very similar to those things about men that
are attractive to gay men.   Better yet, go ask gay men what attracts
them to men!   Am I making any sense?  Perhaps not.  ;)

I mean, when you say you don't "understand" the attraction, what I hear
is something like, "I don't understand why you enjoy tropical climates;
I hate them"  Or "I don't understand why you enjoy the taste of fish;
I hate fish!"  Or, "I don't understand why you enjoy the sound of
classical music; I hate classical music."   So, in a sense, I guess
I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to understand.
The difference, I think, between sexual attraction and attraction to
food/music/weather is important;  that is, I think sexuality is more 
engrained and "hardwired" to one's soul and deep-rooted instincts than is
attraction to food/music/weather.   Also.... I think we are all born
with our basic sexuality, hetero, homo, or bi, for the most part.

One thing to remember Jim:  The human species is truly remarkable.
We are, as a race, capable of bisexuality, in that large segments of
humanity are born bisexual and homosexual.   It always has been that way, 
and it always will be that way.   And in that sense, bisexuality is a 
NATURAL part of our species, part of nature, part of the creation.
I don't understand why we continue to pretend that we as a race are not 
the way we are. I know this comment will trigger a lot of outrage, 
but that's my opinion.

    I was trying to make an apology as well. Somehow you missed it
    or you  chose to ignore it.

I missed it.  Thank you.

    I'm through talking here. I'm too pissed off to continue in this
    discussion with you.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way because I think it is important to
get these feelings out in the open.  I think we all could stand to
learn something via this very candid exchange.   But consider this:
If my comments hurt your feelings or pissed you off so sufficiently 
to cause you to walk away from this discussion -- and you and I don't
even KNOW each other -- think of how hurt and dejected millions of gay
Christians must feel when they perceive their family of Christ -- the one 
they grew up with, trusted, relied upon -- has demeaned their human 
dignity and has tormented them to the point where they feel THEY 
have to walk away from the church.   

I know it sounds harsh ... but... given this stark reality of 
Christian treatment of gays, I personally do not have much sympathy
for whatever backlash the church may be experiencing right now.
It dwarfs by comparison, IMHO.   Maybe that shows I lack 
sensitivity -- you know, what's good for the goose ...  
but that's just the way I feel.

Paul             

Re: .12 Jim

>    How come you where silent then ? Perhaps you agree that people are
>    justified in spitting and throwing condoms at people ?  I'm really
>    surprised by the silence of people in this in this conference that
>    would allow forms of violence to be justified. Your reply really
>    has me concerned, cuz this is the same conference that complained 
>    about the attitudes in the Golf::Christian conference. I guess
>    the attitudes are really equal when all comes said and done ?

You've raised some difficult questions, Jim.

Although I sympathize with the goals of ACT UP I don't approve of their
tactics.  In some ways ACT UP is similar to Operation Rescue (although I doubt
that there is very much overlap between the two groups :-) ).  Both groups
seem to think that their cause is so just that it gives them the right to
be obnoxious and harrass other people.

On the other hand, I also don't approve of many of the positions taken by the
Catholic Church.  I think the Church has contributed to the oppression of gays
and women.  Now the problem is, how can I oppose the Church's moral teaching
without becoming a mere "Catholic basher"?

I try to strike a balance: I respect the right of Catholics to hold certain
religious beliefs, but at the same time I criticize those beliefs where they
are contrary to my own sense of morality.  I try not to let my disagreement
with Catholic doctrine turn into hatred of Catholics in general or of the
Church hierarchy.

As a moderator I'd like to ask everyone in this discussion to avoid criticizing
individual people, since this just leads to bad feelings.  Each of you may wish
to review the conference rules in note 8.

				-- Bob

In all fairness to the Roman Catholic Church, I must assert that
whatever criticism can be leveled against it cannot be leveled
against it *exclusively*.

Furthermore, there are some important exceptions within the RCC.

Many of my friends are Catholic.  Some are religious by vocation.
Three women in particular come to mind.  One is a Francisican Sister,
one a Benedictine Sister, and one a Sister of Charity.  All three are
outspoken advocates of rethinking concerning the role and status of
women and persons blessed with minority sexual orientation within
the Church.

Two of these woman played an integral part in presenting a sermon
last summer at the church where I worship, the composition of which is
predominantly gay.  And yes, they knew it.

Peace,
Richard

    Well, it's Monday and I've had a week-end to get away from this
    discussion and take time  to try and purge whatever feelings that 
    were left over from from last Friday and start with a
    fresh new approach to this topic.
    
    To me, there seems to be an attitude, that goes, if the Church and
    that includes most Christian denominations, condemns the homosexual
    act, that in itself is condemnation of the homosexual person. 

    Perhaps, because I'm not on the receiving end, and  probably due 
    to my inability to relate to the homosexual orientation, I'm not 
    sensitive to what it  is like. However, when the Church, other Christians 
    and myself included, read Scriptures condemnation of the homosexual act, 
    and in conjunction  to our own feelings towards homosexuality, we end up 
    denouncing the  sin, and in so doing, offended homosexuals. This is not 
    the intention and I'm only just starting to become aware that this is 
    indeed what is happening.

    What I hear gay people saying to both Church and Christians is, "don't
    condemn the sin, because in doing so, your condemning us."

    I believe divorced people as well, may have similar feelings when the
    church has condemned divorce as it did in the past. 


    My question right now is, what is the Church suppose to do ? Can the
    Church simply ignore Scripture ? I don't think it can. To me, it is
    impossible for the Church to look at homosexual acts, in relation to
    what Scripture says and simply say,  "it's not a sin." I think the 
    Church would be contradicting Scripture to do so. The issue at this
    point is, will the Church end up being looked at as being bigoted 
    views towards homosexuals ? Apparently this is the attitude
    many people are developing in their view of the Church. Perhaps a
    closer look at how the Church interprets Scripture, and how the Church
    responds to it, would give people a different view of what the
    Church is really saying.

    In all, this seems to be a very difficult issue to resolve.

    Peace
    Jim

<    I believe divorced people as well, may have similar feelings when the
<    church has condemned divorce as it did in the past. 

   Jim,

   Not a perfect analogy but it comes close.  Homosexuals are not alone
   in that respect.  There are many who the church (I'll limit myself to
   RCC that I know) would expell or condem for their actions.  I know
   my own situation though different from above is outside the accepted
   for the RCC.

   You pose some good questions about scriptural interpretation.  Up till
   now most of what I have encountered is to support the "it is a sin"
   and therefore bad belief.  Might there be as much support in scripture
   for living the best life possible given who and what you are?   We are
   all born with gifts and how productively we use them to enhance our 
   life and those lives around us is what life is about.  

   Allison

> Might there be as much support in scripture
>   for living the best life possible given who and what you are?  
	
	There might but I doubt it. It goes contrary to what I've been
	tought all my life that the best we can do is not enough.

>  We are
>   all born with gifts and how productively we use them to enhance our 
>   life and those lives around us is what life is about.  

	That may be what life is all about to you but it is not to everyone.
	Life is all about serving God to me.

				Alfred

re:27

    Allison


>   You pose some good questions about scriptural interpretation.  Up till
>   now most of what I have encountered is to support the "it is a sin"
>   and therefore bad belief.  Might there be as much support in scripture
>   for living the best life possible given who and what you are?   We are
>   all born with gifts and how productively we use them to enhance our 
>   life and those lives around us is what life is about.  

    IMHO, Scripture tells us how to live a good life by obeying the
    commandments of God. For many the Ten Commandments are binding,
    to believers, they are liberating. The Commandment to love
    God, and to love your neighbor as our self is a way of living
    a good life. Can we love God with our heart and soul, and our neighbor
    as ourself, and still not commit sin ?  To love God would mean to me,
    that we would be doing the best we can to obey his commandments.
    Ignoring his commandments would be trying make our love for God
    conditional. The condition being, that I'll love God with the condition
    that certain commandments can be ignored or not taken seriously.

     Jesus gave the disciples, the first leaders of the Church, the authority 
    to forgive sins or hold them  bound;

    "If you forgive men's sins they are forgiven them; If you hold them
     bound, they are held bound" John 20:22 

    Note however, that I don't believe Jesus would  have given this authority 
    had he not known that the Holy Spirit would be sent to guide them.

    Today, it seems that people believe that God is love and any
    commandments given to us is contrary to the Love God has for us.

    I don't see it that way. To me, the commandments God gave us, is a 
    sign of his love for us, for they teach us how to live free lives
    which will bring us closer to Him. This in my opinion, is what a good
    life is all about.

    Peace
    Jim

   Alfred,

   I am not prepared to go to extremes on this. My beliefs are different
   but funamentally compatable.

   Perfection, a goal only.  In my day by day I try to achieve the best
   I can do.  When the day is done I forgive myself for my limitations
   and resolve to make tommorrow better.

<	That may be what life is all about to you but it is not to everyone.
<	Life is all about serving God to me.
<
<				Alfred

   Since what I wrote was very general in scope, can you accept that by
   using my gift(s) of life wisely and well (non-hedonistic) that I would
   serve my concept of god well.

   Peace,
   Allison

My question would then be, how is it possible to "love thy neighbor 
as thyself" as the church teaches and then turn around and drive
gay people from the spiritual fellowship because they express 
their God-given sexuality?  In condemning the gay lifestyle this
is often the result what the church effects.

And how do you follow God's commandments if they contradict each other?

The "love thy neighbor as thyself" is the second greatest commandment,
second only to "Love the Lord, thy God with all thy...".  It seems to
me that the things that the Bible teaches about human sexuality (and a
lot of things, for that matter) contradict that.  Does loving God 
entail putting loving your fellow humans at the bottom of the priority
list in terms of how a Christian acts?    

And another observation, the commandment is to "love thy neighbor as
thyself", not "understand thy neighbor as thyself".  I don't know
about the rest of you but, for me, loving implies acceptance.  You
don't have to understand someone in order to accept them for who and
what they are.  It seems to me that if God doesn't accept the person 
and their lifestyle, well, that's between that person and God.  No one
else has the right ot make that jugdgement, whether they be an 
individual or a collective church body.

I've said more than I intended to so I'll just disappear again for awhile.

Nanci

   Jim,

   Please don't attack an idea or a possible concept.  I hold different
   beliefs but at no time did I say throw the book out.  Your response
   was far stronger that I would have expected based on simple ideas
   and beliefs presented.  I did suggest that some of the scriptures
   oft quoted are used to convict "sinners", I ask is that holding
   judgment of another?  In my beliefs that is itself a sin against
   my higher power as I am responsable for what I do and will be judged
   by what I did in life.

   I neither ask others to change their beliefs nor would I judge an
   individual for their beliefs.  That would place me in the position
   that I know better than they, and I don't.  

   Peace,
   Allison

    I could not agree more with the importance placed on loving God and
    loving our neighbor.  In fact, that is really the point.  I don't
    believe that these two stances are in any way contradictory or mutually
    exclusive.  When we express bigotry or intolerance towards our fellow
    humans, we are not only working against the principle of loving
    others--we are also not expressing our love for God.  That is the
    problem with the prejudice towards homosexuality that many churches
    promote.  If we believe that God commands us to behave in a hurtful and
    prejudicial fashion towards others, perhaps the problem lies with our
    understanding of God and God's will.

    A few years ago, a couple who belonged to a fundamentalist church were
    so dedicated to the principle of tithing at all costs that they ended
    up starving their child to death.  I don't remember all the details,
    but the point here is that these people believed that they were obeying
    God's commandments.  Was that an expression of love for their child? 
    Does God wish for us to obey commandments even if it means starving our
    children to death?  If we ask ourselves what it means to love our
    neighbors, really love our neighbors, then we have to come to some hard
    conclusions.  It means coming to the conclusion that intolerance
    against homosexuality makes no sense, is not expression of love for
    others, and amounts to no more than a mindless rendering of
    "commandments" instead of a full expression of the commandment to love
    others.

    When I hear certain Christians condemning homosexuality, I sometimes
    feel honest despair about the human capacity for empathy.  This rigid
    adherence to a set of supposedly divinely mandated rules at all costs,
    even at the cost of compassion and empathy, is truly amazing to me,
    especially in light of the kinds of battles that Jesus fought against a
    doctrinaire religious sensibility.  Where is the compassion in that? 
    Where is the love?  Is is really so hard for those who throw their
    stones at others to consider what it might be like to walk in another
    person's shoes?  When they tell others that they are not allowed to
    experience the loving, tender relationship with another human being
    that the person doing the condemnation freely and fully has the right
    to enjoy, for reasons that are not the other person's fault, because
    them's the rules and there's no way around it--I sometimes feel like
    throwing up my hands and saying, "What has happened to empathy, anyway?
    Is that the kind of God you worship?"

    Unfortunately, I see this often in Christianity.  The Bible is often
    perceived to be a kind of divine rule book, and Christianity becomes
    not a religion of love and compassion but of intolerance, rigidity, and
    adherence to culturally inherited prejudices.  Prejudice, violence, and
    even hatred are thus justified in the name of the Bible.  Christians
    have in common, despite their diversity, the historical figure of
    Jesus; but the interpretation of his live and teachings for us is so
    diverse among Christians as to be truly amazing.  Did Jesus preach a
    religion of love, forgiveness, and reconciliation, or a religion of
    rules and vengeance?  You'll get completely different answers,
    depending on who you talk to.  Frankly, I have to wonder if some people
    have read a completely different New Testament than I have, because
    their images of Jesus and the Christian faith seem so devoid of the
    commandment to love one's neighbor and to love God.  Christianity is
    supposed to be a liberating faith; but what I often see instead is a
    religion that binds and oppresses, with rigid rules and a suppression
    of the compassionate instinct.

    -- Mike

re  .26  

Thanks Jim for your very thoughtful, sincere entry here.  In spite
of the rough way I came across in past replies, I honestly believe you
truly do not mean to hurt anyone and that you are sincerely trying to
understand.  Moreover, I will try very hard from now on to phrase my
viewpoints in a way that does not outrage anyone or does not add fuel
to the flames.  After all, I want everyone to understand the meaning
of what I am saying rather than get caught up in, offended by, the
inflammatory way in which I might say it.

re  .33  Mike .... I always enjoy reading your beautifully worded,
powefully articulate entries.  I agree with almost all of what you
say and admire your command of the language.  (Are you channeling 
something inspired from above?)  ;)  Good job!
    
Jim ... you pose a good question:  How does the church reconcile sticking to
its doctrine while reaching out to, and not offending, gay Catholics
simultaneously.

Let me share with you a real-life story that happened to me over
the weekend.  It's funny how this situation happened in my life right
now, in the middle of this hot and heavy debate ....

I've known this young man, Danny, for several months now.  He's a
friend of a friend, but he and I have become pretty close friends
ourselves in recent months.  Danny is a 24-year-old guy -- a very
kind-hearted, soft-spoken, shy Irish-Catholic young man, who comes
from a large Irish-Catholic family (one of eight kids) from a
prominent middle-class Boston suburb.   Danny is also sort of a "jock"
type.  He is a very masculine, handsome young man who played high school
and college baseball and soccer.  He still hangs around with and
plays soccer/baseball with some of his "jock" buddies.  They
all like to get together to drink and carouse once in a while.

Anyway, over the weekend Danny and I bumped into each other.  We
got to talking about his life -- ups and downs -- and out of the blue,
he tells me that he is gay.  He said I was the only person he felt safe
enough to tell -- he's told no one else -- and that he needed to talk
about it with someone because the isolation, the hiding, and the 
pretending (to be someone he is not) was driving him crazy.  

[For some strange reason, in recent years, many young men have
felt comfortable in opening up to me.  It never used to be that way,
but I do welcome this trend.  Perhaps many young men sense that I am
a guy they can feel safe enough with, to talk about subjects other than
business and sports ... the usual fare between males.]

Danny is living in great fear ... fear of someone -- ANYONE -- finding
out.  He's terrified of getting rejected, snubbed, and disowned by his
family, his athlete friends, people in the church, and society at
large.  Having lost his job and being forced to move back home with
his parents is making him extra vulnerable and nervous now, simply
because he is convinced that his traditional-Catholic parents would
disown him and throw him out of the house, if they found out.  He is
convinced his brothers, also macho athletic types, would either
ridicule him or refuse to talk to him.  He said his family verbally
lambastes and scoffs at a gay cousin behind the cousin's back, regularly.

He is also convinced his buddies would treat him the same way -- maybe
even harm him physically -- if they found out.

Danny says he "plays the game" pretty well.  That is, he says he can
hide his true identity very effectively, since he is athletic and non-
effeminate.   Girls are a tricky problem, however.  Most girls, he
says, find him very attractive and think nothing of asking him out
on dates.   He turns them down gently -- finnesses excuses to give 
them -- yet sometimes they become persistent and do not take 'no' for
an answer.  He says it gets downright exhausting sometimes having to
come up with alibies, not only for the girls, but also for his
male friends, who regularly ask:  "So, why aren't you going out
with Kathy yet?"

To date, he says he has had sexual relations with just a couple guys
-- these both began as anonymous encounters, in dark, outdoor
places, like their cars.  (There was no where else to go without being
"caught," he says.)  One of the guys he has seen several times, and says
that, for the first time in his life, he is getting emotionally
attached and is finding himself falling in love with this person --
and that it is scaring him to death, he says, because he knows he
is "not ready" logistically.  In other words, he believes that if he
plunges head-on into a love affair with this person, it would dramatically
increase the chances of his being "found out."  It's too risky,
he says.

I asked Danny point blank:  "What do you want out of life?"
He responded, without hesitation, "I want a loving, caring, committed
relationship with one guy -- something that lasts a long, long time.
I want to share my life with one other guy.  But it may be a long time
before I can reach the point of safely having that kind of
relationship.  I mean, I can't consciously imagine others finding
out about it.  I couldn't bear the thought of getting rejected
and treated like an outcast by just about everyone in my life.
It's too risky right now."  He continued to say that, for now, he
must put all his energy into hiding his true identity, rather than
in cultivating the kind of relationship he wants ... he believes
it's out of reach, like an "impossible dream" right now.

Being close to tears at this point in the story, I enquired about his
spiritual life.  He said that he abandoned the Catholic church about a
year ago, though he said he does have a strong belief and faith in
God.  He concluded that he could not reconcile "who and what I am"
with the church's views and treatment of homosexuality.  He said the
church -- clergy and parishioners alike -- "just do not understand
what I am all about, what it means to be gay.  This is the way I am,
the way God created me.  It's part of me."

Trying to be objective, I continued my questioning:  "You realize that
the church condemns the act of homosexuality, not the homosexual person,
don't you?"  Danny shrugged his head and said, "They would have me become
a celibate old man, someone who would die without knowing what it means
to be in love with another person.  In fact, if I don't get over my
fears about being 'found out,' I just might end up that way.  They
just don't understand that they are asking me to reject MYSELF."

I continued:  "The church says that if you pray to Jesus long and hard
enough, Jesus will deliver you from Satan's evil deceptions -- in this
case, the illusion that you are homosexual -- and bestow a miracle on
you, making you heterosexual."    Danny got a little irritated with this 
one.  He laughed and said, "That's silly.  I'm sure God has better things 
to do.  I might as well pray to God to change the color of my eyes.  
That's not the way it works."

I asked him if he was ever made to feel ashamed or dumped on by his
Catholic friends, churchgoers in general, or by the church itself.  He
said that he heard a lot of denegrating, negative comments -- jokes,
names, and other things -- in his CCD classes while growing up; he also
said the CCD group leaders didn't seem to care that there might be gay
children in the class and that they might be hurt by all the negative
comments.   He said that the clergy never out-and-out condemned
homosexual people; however, he said they DID condemn homosexuality.
And each time he heard a priest/nun knock homosexuality, he
interpreted it as condemnation of him, his being, rather than some
sort of  sinful "activity" that he might perform.   "There's no other
way to take that," he said.  He added that the negative bombardment on
homosexuality came from all quarters -- his friends, from school, his
family, AS WELL AS from the church community.  He viewed the church as
just another part of society that didn't care and didn't understand --
just one more slice of society to hide himself from, for fear of
rejection and chastisement.

NOTE:  I noticed that most of his friends and family were and still
are Catholic.  And, sadly, these are the people who he fears would
lambaste him the most.

I gave Danny my personal advice in several areas.  I told him that,
though it was easier said than done, he should not worry about what
others might think of him, that others might not like him, that others
might even reject/torment him if he ever came out to his
family/friends/church.  I said he has a birthright to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness and he has a right to fulfill himself in
life -- especially in the area of love/romance -- as long as he didn't
hurt anyone else.  I told him these feelings and yearnings for a
loving relationship were not going to go away, and that they might
drive him even more crazy, as the years pass, if he continued to deny
himself a love life.  I told him to go easier on himself, to love
himself, and allow himself to BE himself -- if not in public,
then in private.

He said, "Yeah, I know you're right, except I sort of feel like a
Jewish person living in Germany in the 30s, hiding my identity.  Right
now I just can't imagine myself acting in any other way except
continuing to 'play the game' by 'playing it straight.'  Maybe it
won't be THAT many years before I can be more myself."

I finally gave Danny a copy of a fantastic book I read over
summer vacation:  "Behind the Mask" by Dave Pallone -- the bestseller
autobiography of a National League umpire who came to grips with
his homosexuality before and during the time he served in the major
leagues, between 1979 and 1988.  It is a very powerful, poignant story
not only of his private life, but also of some of the startling
behind-the-scenes daily life in professional baseball.  In the story,
Pallone reveals his painful coming-out process, from his childhood
to the point where he left the major leagues.  It seemed to address
many of the situations and feelings that Danny is experiencing in
his life right now.  And it goes without saying ... Danny (like Pallone)
is also into baseball and has also always been involved in the
sports world.  I'm sure Pallone is someone to whom Danny can
relate.  He may benefit greatly by realizing, "Hey -- this guy is
just like me.  I'm not alone, after all!"

Since Danny chose to confide in me -- not without a lot of fearful
trepidation, I'm sure -- I pray that the advice and support I gave
this wonderful young man will have a positive, constructive effect on
him and will help enrich his life.  

Perhaps Danny will at some point ask me, as a former Catholic, to
share my perspectives on Divinity, the Holy Spirit, as well as the
nature of my personal relationship with God.  While I look forward
to that day, I am not going to press the issue.

Paul

P.S.  Jim ... to answer your question, I really don't know how the
Catholic church and American Christian community in general can or
should reconcile its doctrine with its treatment of homosexuals.
All I can say at this point, with all due respect, is this:  The way
in which the church approaches gay Catholics and homosexuality in
general -- condemning the "act" and the "practice" rather than the
person -- just doesn't seem to be working.  I cannot recommend a 
better approach the church might take, as long as it believes that
homosexuality should be condemned.   Maybe it should just leave the
issue alone and let each Catholic work out this issue privately,
with God.

Do you have any suggestions? I mean, the church tells its gay
parishioners:  Homosexuality is bad;  it's a crime against God.  OK,
but now what?  What would you, Jim, say to someone like Danny.  I
really would like to know in order to understand where Catholics are
coming from these days.  You're a long-time Roman Catholic, who has
deep faith in the church and its teachings, and I am sincerely
happy for you.  But what about Danny?  Pretend Danny is sitting
across from you.  Specifically, what do you say to him?

            

    RE:34
    Gee Paul, I'm really moved by Danny's story ! It's gonna take time
    to digest and reflect on. I pray that he finds what Christ wants
    for him, no matter what it may be. His faith in Jesus Christ is paramount
    to his affiliation with the Church. Without Faith, the Church would only
    end up being equivalent to a poor social club.

    As far as how should we as Catholics respond in retrospect ?
    For one, Catholics should  love gay people as they love
    themselves. I know that Catholics including myself, have been
    anything but loving towards gay people. The high school jokes
    were almost taken in the sense that we were talking about some
    non-existent entity. I never realized how damaging this attitude
    was until my conversion to Christianity some years ago.

    How should the Church respond ? I really don't have an answer, but
    I'm searching, that's why I've been involved in this dialog. When
    the Church put a ban on gay activities in the Church, such as gay
    support groups, etc., their reasoning was, that to allow it would
    be the same as approving homosexuality itself. They compared it
    to allowing swinging couples groups to have support groups within
    the Church as well. 

    I suppose the closest parallel that I can think of in terms of
    what a gay person, such as Dan, can come to, is the heterosexual
    male, that also desires a relationship with someone, but isn't able
    to find some one  because they just aren't attracting to females or
    they just don't have the skills in the dating scene. I know many single
    males, who would love to find the right woman to share their lives with
    but, cannot. Many of these guys also, find that the Church is condemning 
    in their sexual activities such as masturbation or going with prostitutes 
    to fulfill their sexuality which they feel is a very natural part of them
    and should not be suppressed. Now, I don't mean to equate sleeping with 
    prostitutes with gay relationships, I'm just attempting to show that there 
    are lonely people that are asked to remain celibate outside of marriage, 
    other than gay people.
     
    The Church's advice is to pray, and this is not so gay people can be
    cured of sexual orientation or heterosexuals to be relieved of sexual 
    desires, but to pray so that the  power of Christ can guide the person 
    in their struggles. Even St. Paul says; "And now my brothers, I beg you 
    through the mercy of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice holy 
    and acceptable to God, your spiritual worship." Romans 12:1 The only way 
    you can be successful in what St. Paul says, is to Pray. This is difficult
    to say the least! Myself, as a married heterosexual, have to realize that 
    it's  easier for me to give advice to live a life I don't have to live, than
    it is for the person who may have to live it. But, nonetheless, it's the
    only answer I have right now. Pray !


    Peace
    Jim

>   Since what I wrote was very general in scope, can you accept that by
>   using my gift(s) of life wisely and well (non-hedonistic) that I would
>   serve my concept of god well.

    Sure. The focus is different. You would be serving God as a side effect
    of using your gift(s) well. I would serve man as a side effect of
    serving God. I see this as a significant difference however.

    		Alfred

>My question would then be, how is it possible to "love thy neighbor 
>as thyself" as the church teaches and then turn around and drive
>gay people from the spiritual fellowship because they express 
>their God-given sexuality?  In condemning the gay lifestyle this
>is often the result what the church effects.

    I am sure that the church's attitude towards stealing drives some
    people out as well. What would you have us do? Must we abandon all
    principles and beliefs so as to include all?

>And how do you follow God's commandments if they contradict each other?

    	Fortunately they don't.

>The "love thy neighbor as thyself" is the second greatest commandment,
>second only to "Love the Lord, thy God with all thy...".  It seems to
>me that the things that the Bible teaches about human sexuality (and a
>lot of things, for that matter) contradict that.  

    	I disagree. I believe that what the Bible teaches about sexuality
    fully supports love. I believe that those who demand the church accept
    homosexuality are showing less tolerance than the church. And a whole
    lot less love. You don't encourage people to do self destructive things
    if you love them. And the changes to the church involved in accepting
    homosexuality as valid would most definitely be self destructive.

    		Alfred

    sorry, Alfred
    
    but i can't buy the argument that being gay is the same as
    stealing...doesn't wash with me...nor do i buy into the idea
    that it's the same as prostitution or masturbation.
    
    neither will i accept the idea that somehow gay people are
    intolerant of the church...to my way of thinking this is
    merely blaming the victim...
    
    peter

>    but i can't buy the argument that being gay is the same as
>    stealing...doesn't wash with me...nor do i buy into the idea
>    that it's the same as prostitution or masturbation.
 
	I didn't say it was the same. Not at all. I just said that asking
	people to disregard any one thing is in principle the same as asking
	them to disregard any other thing in the Bible.

>     neither will i accept the idea that somehow gay people are
>    intolerant of the church...to my way of thinking this is
>    merely blaming the victim...

	Glad to hear that gay people accept the idea that it's ok to
	disapprove of homosexuality. I somehow got the idea they felt
	otherwise. Thanks for clearing that up.

			Alfred

    Last several:
    
    Alfred, much of what you say sounds nice and pristine in theory.
    But how about applying these theories to real life.  Specifically,
    what would you say to, advise, that young man I wrote about in
    reply .34?  That's a classic real-life example of what we are
    talking about here if I've ever heard one.
    
    Also Alfred, I think there is a big difference between the
    church leaving gay Catholics alone to be who and what they are,
    to be themselves, and "encouraging them to to self-destructive
    things to themselves."   Would you care to define 'self destructive'?
    
    Paul
    

    Alfred .37,
    
    > You don't encourage people to do self destructive things if you 
    > love them.  And the changes to the church involved in accepting
    > homosexuality as valid would most definitely be self destructive.
    
    Could you elaborate a bit further on the issues of self-destructiveness 
    you perceive Alfred?  
    
    If I understand correctly, it sounds as if you see homosexuality as 
    inherently self-destructive to the homosexual, so the church would be
    wrong to "encourage" such behavior.  Is this correct?  And if so, 
    could you elaborate on how you see homosexual behavior as being self
    destructive?    
    
    Conversely, are you saying in your next sentence that it would be 
    self-destructive for the church to alter its doctrine to a more tolerant, 
    accepting position on homosexuality?    
    
    Thanks,
    Karen

    alfred...
    
    i don't know where you got the idea that i said that gay people
    condone the proposition that's "it's okay to disaprove of
    homosexuality"...personally, i concur with this but wherever you
    found this is something only you know.
    
    i don't at all agree with your statement "disregard(ing) any one
    thing is in principle the same as asking them to disregard any other
    thing in the Bible"...this is entirely too simplistic. 
    
    tell me (if you would please) do you hold as closely to the teachings
    on divorce? and if you do, would you want the legal system to reflect
    your religious views on the matter?
    
    peter

    Perhaps the what the Church ought to be doing is discarding bad
    principles and emphasizing good ones.  The bad "principles" are those
    that are hurtful, unloving, and lacking in compassion, such as the
    condemnation of homosexuality; good principles, on the other hand, are
    those that emphasize loving one's neighbor.
    
    -- Mike

>  Specifically,
>    what would you say to, advise, that young man I wrote about in
>    reply .34?  That's a classic real-life example of what we are
>    talking about here if I've ever heard one.

	Advise I have none. All I could tell him is that I love him. I'm
	not qualified to tell him what to do about coming out/staying in.
	Perhaps if I were face to face God would give me other words but
	right now I don't have them. This is what I've done in the past
	and I know of no reason to change.

>    Also Alfred, I think there is a big difference between the
>    church leaving gay Catholics alone to be who and what they are,
>    to be themselves, and "encouraging them to to self-destructive
>    things to themselves."   Would you care to define 'self destructive'?
  

	I'm not sure where this question is coming from or how to answer.
	I believe that asking the church to approve homosexual behavior would
	be destructive to the church because it would create internal 
	inconsistancy. Thus all doctrine based on the Bible would have to
	be concidered discardable and the church loses all moral authority.
	This I regard as self destructive.

			Alfred

>    If I understand correctly, it sounds as if you see homosexuality as 
>    inherently self-destructive to the homosexual, so the church would be
>    wrong to "encourage" such behavior.  Is this correct? 

	Not correct. See .44.

>    Conversely, are you saying in your next sentence that it would be 
>    self-destructive for the church to alter its doctrine to a more tolerant, 
>    accepting position on homosexuality?    
 
	Tolerant and accepting I don't see as a big problem. Calling homosexual
	sex OK would clearly be self destructive to the church. See .44.

			Alfred

>    i don't at all agree with your statement "disregard(ing) any one
>    thing is in principle the same as asking them to disregard any other
>    thing in the Bible"...this is entirely too simplistic. 

	I disagree.  
   
>    tell me (if you would please) do you hold as closely to the teachings
>    on divorce? and if you do, would you want the legal system to reflect
>    your religious views on the matter?
 
	Which teachings are those? What verses of the Bible do you refer
	to?
				Alfred

    RE: .42 In .38 you said:

>    neither will i accept the idea that somehow gay people are
>    intolerant of the church.

    	As tolerance of homosexuality as always been equated to
    approving of it I assumed that when you said that homosexuals
    were tolerant of the church that meant they approved of the
    churches right to believe what it does. So either the church is
    not intolerant of homosexuals or homosexuals are intolerant of
    the church. Which is it? Thank you.

    		Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    i'll admit your last reply..that is the one dealing with
    tolerance...has me confused as to what you are trying to
    say.
    
    but then your brand of logic has eluded me in the past...
    
    i question the proposition that "tolerance of homosexuality
    is equal to approval"...
    
    the fact that gay people are not intolerant of the church does
    not that they approve or disapprove anything...are you just trying
    to bait me?
    
    ...
    
    divorce
    
    if you hold so very tightly to the strictures regarding heterosexual
    marriages...i believe the discussion is found in Chapter 10, Gospel
    according to St. Matthew..then straight people are not to divorce.
    
    if you hold to that teaching, are you against our legal system allowing
    heterosexuals to divorce one another?
    
    peter

    I think we have come to the crux of the matter.  Not only do I not see
    anything wrong with opening up for discussion any and all church
    doctrine, even those ostensibly based on the Bible, I in fact think it
    is a very good thing indeed.  But then, I have never had any use for a
    Church hierarchy telling me what to think.  An earlier note in this
    topic (I don't remember which one) suggested that the Church might want
    to consider leaving the question of homosexuality up to each individual
    member.  What a radical concept--allowing people to think for
    themselves!  But this is the one thing that many churches will never
    accept.  This really boils down to the question of creeds, and
    doctrinal authority within a denomination.  For some, it is unthinkable
    that a Church would not spell out in detail what its membership can and
    can't believe.  Openness, uncertainly, and a lack of dogmatic certainty
    is definitely discomforting for many people.

    As an alternative, I prefer an environment that is more open than that. 
    I suspect that a moral authority that must be enforced by Church fiat
    is of questionable value to begin with, and that perhaps a moral
    concept should carry its own moral authority, without the need for
    institutional repression of ideas.  It is certainly threatening to a
    ridigly established dogma to begin questioning any of the elements of
    the belief structure, because then the entire belief system might
    crumble.  The problem then becomes one of holding on, at all costs, to
    "principles" that are immoral, hurtful, or bigoted, simply because they
    are part of the doctrinal edifice.  Thus taking a compassionate and
    enlightened position towards homosexuality is resisted, despite the
    lack of empathy and love that underlies this position.

    -- Mike

    re  .44  Alfred,
    
           "Advice I have none ... I'm not qualified to tell him what to do
            about coming out/staying in."
    
    This startles me.  It's real good news, however.  What happened to
    all this talk about not tolerating the sin of homosexuality.  Are
    you advocating that the church treat its gay Catholics with a hands-off
    live-and-let-live policy?  That is a radical departure from what I have
    heard from you, Jim, and others, who say that the sin of homosexuality
    ought to be condemned by the church.  It is  also a radical departure
    from what I find in Catholic circles these days in general.
    
    I am confused.  Please clarify. I continue to want to know 
    how Catholics in general would approach that guy I wrote about in .34.  
    (You all seem to be ignoring that story!  ;) I slave over a hot keyboard 
    all night, and see how you treat me in turn???  ;)  ;)  ;)).   Seriously, 
    what would Catholics say to him?   What should priests say to him?  I 
    think we could all benefit by knowing this.   Please spell it out.
    
    .49  Mike,  nice note, as always.
    
    I think it was me (I) in .34 who said something like:  Perhaps the
    Catholic church should just leave its gay flock alone to be themselves,
    and to leave the issue of homosexuality up to each individual gay
    Catholic and God -- let the person and God work through it between
    themselves, privately, without interference from any church "position".
    I said this because it it is clear that the current approach to
    homosexuality -- condemn the sin but not the sinner -- is not only
    a paradox but is failing miserably. 
    
    Paul
                                       

    Thank you, Paul.  I think that the approach you suggest makes sense.  
    
    -- Mike

    

    So then, why don't gay Catholics or anybody that interprets Scripture 
    differently than what the Catholic Church does, just go ahead and form their
    own denomination of believers, and stop asking the Church to reject
    what it believes ? Why isn't there tolerance for allowing the Church to
    believe what it does, from those who don't want to accept it ? Isn't 
    freedom of religion still guaranteed in the U.S. ? 

    Peace
     Jim

>    i question the proposition that "tolerance of homosexuality
>    is equal to approval"...

    I agree but that is the proposition that seems commonly advanced by
    those who criticize the church. If you don't accept that proposition than
    the church is generally tolerant of homosexuality. And I definitely am.

>are you just trying to bait me?

    	Of course not. Are you me?

>    if you hold so very tightly to the strictures regarding heterosexual
>    marriages...i believe the discussion is found in Chapter 10, Gospel
>    according to St. Matthew..then straight people are not to divorce.

    I read this chapter twice and do not find the reference to divorce.
    In fact I could find not reference to divorce in all of Matthew though
    there may be one without using the word divorce. In general I believe
    the Bible says that divorce is undesirable but not prohibited. There
    have been Jewish rules allowing it since Old Testament days.

>    if you hold to that teaching, are you against our legal system allowing
>    heterosexuals to divorce one another?

    There appears to be some thought that I want to legal system to outlaw
    all that I do not approve of. That is not the case.

    		Alfred

   Paul, Mike,

   It's more than that.  Consider all the "decrees" sent down from Rome
   stating the churches position on things of importance to the parisoner
   such as divorce, interfaith marriage, even their own identity.  The
   people that feel the most hurt are not against the church yet at the
   same time the church has attacked the reality of their life.  Hands off
   is much to trivial an approach.  Life can be difficult, the support of
   your chosen church is important to maintaining a healthy spritual life.

   It's upsetting when I can name a document from Rome that declares me
   invalid and unacceptable to the church for who I am.  There is a
   difference between what the scriptures contain and church doctrine
   (law?).  Yet if doctrine stands long enough it too becomes scripture
   to a future generation hundreds or thousands of years from now.

   Allison

>           "Advice I have none ... I'm not qualified to tell him what to do
>            about coming out/staying in."
>    
>    This startles me.  It's real good news, however.  What happened to
>    all this talk about not tolerating the sin of homosexuality.  Are
>    you advocating that the church treat its gay Catholics with a hands-off
>    live-and-let-live policy?  That is a radical departure from what I have
>    heard from you, Jim, and others, who say that the sin of homosexuality
>    ought to be condemned by the church.  It is  also a radical departure
>    from what I find in Catholic circles these days in general.

    I see no contradiction. This is the same way I would treat anyone. I
    also see no contradiction between condemning the sin of homosexual
    sexual relations and a hand-off-live-and-let-live policy. I see no
    radical departure in my statements.

    		Alfred

    RE:54

    Allison, 
            could you please provide us with the name of the doctrine put
    out by the Catholic Church that says you are invalid because of who you
    are ? I'd be interested in reading it.


    Thanks
    Jim

    Paul,
    
    I think having you to talk to was a wonderful first step for the young
    man.  My advice would be to have him find a support group to join.
    
    Did you say he was in college?  Many colleges today have gay/bi/lesbian 
    support groups for their students.  Even if he doesn't attend, he might
    be able to join one or find out more through them.  Another possibility
    is for you to give him a copy of the latest EarthStar publication; it
    has a reference section with counselors who specialize in support
    groups.  He needs to know that he is not alone...becoming acquainted
    with others in a similar situation helps.
    
    Ro
    

    jim,
    
    in regards .52...why would gay catholics wish to remain within
    the church? ...as you may already know, many do not. many gay
    christians do leave their "native" church and join more welcoming
    congregations. and if you're not aware of it there is MCC whose
    ministry is primarily for gay and lesbian peoples.
    
    but why remain? i've asked myself this more times than i could
    possibly count. the best reply i could give you is to try 'n turn
    this around so you can place yourself in the position that gay/lesbian
    catholics are in..i recognize that this may be difficult..
    
    but what if the church taught you something that you absolutely could
    not (in good conscience) go along with...i have friends who support
    a woman's right to an abortion for example...would you leave the church
    because of it? i get the impression that it would take more than a
    doctrinal disagreement to get you to relinquish the faith you have
    in the church.
    
    at one point the church held that the earth was flat...if no one
    questioned this (in your words, if folks were tolerant of this
    falsehood) then perhaps all us European-American types might still
    be in Europe. there's no growth without questions. i find it difficult
    to believe that you would stifle all dissent within the church.
    
    peter

>    but what if the church taught you something that you absolutely could
>    not (in good conscience) go along with...i have friends who support
>    a woman's right to an abortion for example...would you leave the church
>    because of it? i get the impression that it would take more than a
>    doctrinal disagreement to get you to relinquish the faith you have
>    in the church.
 
	More than a doctrinal disagreement? You mean there is something bigger?
	Not for me. Would I leave a church that supported abortion? In a 
	minute. 

			Alfred 

Re: .53 Alfred

>>    i question the proposition that "tolerance of homosexuality
>>    is equal to approval"...
>
>    I agree but that is the proposition that seems commonly advanced by
>    those who criticize the church. If you don't accept that proposition than
>    the church is generally tolerant of homosexuality. And I definitely am.

I didn't quite understand your second sentence; did you mean "*then* the
church is generally tolerant..."?  It seems to me that the Church isn't exactly
"tolerant" of homosexuality, since it actively opposes gay rights laws etc.

>>    if you hold so very tightly to the strictures regarding heterosexual
>>    marriages...i believe the discussion is found in Chapter 10, Gospel
>>    according to St. Matthew..then straight people are not to divorce.
>
>    I read this chapter twice and do not find the reference to divorce.
>    In fact I could find not reference to divorce in all of Matthew though
>    there may be one without using the word divorce.

	"It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a
	certificate of divorce.'  But I say to you that everyone who divorces
	his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an
	adultress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
						Matthew 5:31-32


Also Matthew 19:3-12, which I don't have time to enter right now.

				-- Bob

    RE:58

    Peter,
          there may be differences on certain teachings that I may not
    agree with but I choose to obey and just offer it as a sacrifice. Of
    course they would not be to the degree that a gay person would
    have to deal with. If however, I was certain that what the Church
    taught against me was wrong, it wouldn't take much for me to leave.

    Dissent is an issue that is being talked about more frequently in 
    Catholic news print, such as "The Catholic Free Press." They often
    talk about dissent of Saints and how their first rejection was later
    met with approval. However, there is a difference in the dissent
    of certain individuals and those of the Saints in that, saints such
    as St. Francis of Assisi or St. Catherine of Sienna, in that they
    were called to change the church by Christ revelation of his will through 
    apparitions, and their method of dissent was through obedience, not 
    rebellion. They lived the gospel so purely that the Church came to realize 
    what this person was saying came from God. Most of the people who dissent 
    these days do so solely on their own, which is why they don't succeed. When
    one wants to change the Church for their own merit rather than the will of
    Christ, they are sure to fail. 

    I often wonder why it is that some of the clergy who have dissented on
    issues of women's ordination, or abortion, have not gone to Christ to
    have the Church change ? It's probably because they don't really believe 
    that He still guides His Church ? Pope John XXIII prayed that the Church
    would experience a new Pentecost when he was only a seminarian. He became
    Pope, and changed it in a way that no one thought possible and I
    believe it has experienced a new Pentecost.

    Peace
    Jim

    I think that loyalty to one's denomination is often a difficult issue
    for people who disapprove of what the denomination does at an
    institutional level.  Each individual has to work out in their own mind
    the boundary between, on the one hand, loyalty to a church that one
    feels an affinity for as one's home, and on the other hand leaving a
    hopeless situation.

    Undemocratic institutions do not change very easily under pressure from
    below.  The RCC never claimed to be a democracy, and in fact claims to
    be the One True Church with its authority proceeding directly from the
    Holy Spirit, if I am not mistaken.  If you believe that a current Pope
    is a hopeless reactionary, do you sit on your hands and hope that the
    next one is more benevolent and responsive to progressive change? 
    Note that the RCC hierarchy appoints its own successors.  True, genuine
    reformers *can* emerge out of a self-perpetuating hierarchy (for
    example, Gorbachev and Dubcek in the political arena), but I suspect it
    helps if there are strong practical pressures for reform (e.g.,
    economic problems in the USSR).  Do those exist in a religious body, or
    are practical considerations irrelevant when dealing with the realm of
    religious ideas?  What can induce someone like John XXIII to make
    positive changes for the church?  What can serve as a kind of
    theological crisis that can push a church out of its firmly entrenched
    medieval paradigm?

    As far as I can tell, the RCC is not a church that advocates free and
    open debate over theological issues.  My understanding is that it does
    not admit even the possibility that it can be wrong about its formally
    conceived doctrines (I have been told that there is a distinction
    between mere teachings and actual doctrines, but that is another
    issue).  Members are thus expected to accept unquestioningly what they
    are taught, as formulated from above.  If a denomination defines itself
    in that way, it doesn't seem to leave much room for dissent, since that
    is inherently opposed to the church's self-definition.

    To me, the problem is only partially that a church teaches or doesn't
    teach a particular doctrine that I may or may not disagree with; it
    also lies in how those doctrines are formulated, and in how the laity
    is expected to react to those doctrines as they are formulated.  I
    believe this because, after all, it is often the case that many people
    find no church that is an exact fit for them on doctrinal matters; and
    if this is so, there are other issues that may also come into play in
    denominational loyalty.  A church may be a "best fit", and may present
    the member with a sense of community affinity.  With the RCC, then, it
    is not just a matter of what its doctrines are, but also how they are
    conceived and disseminated; and in this case, they are conceived and
    disseminated strictly from the top down.  How does that leave room for
    dissent?  I am not sure that I see that it does.

    Many are comfortable in that kind of environment; others may prefer a
    creedless church where specific doctrines can be more freely explored. 
    The whole issue of loyalty and affinity is often difficult, though, and
    perhaps other factors besides doctrine come into play.

    -- Mike

    RE:   Christians.....
    
                          IMHO...I believe that its important that the
    Christian bring *PEOPLE* to the cross and let God handle the situation.
    What could be more easy?  
    
    
    Dave

   Dave,

   I think it's because everyone wants to do it right.  They read the
   books and fervently believe they got the best answer and are serving
   god right and their way is the only way.   Please nobody get that
   wrong and take it as condemnataion.  We do disagree in the path to
   whatever our definition of salvation is and being human  we fix on 
   the idea ours is the correct path.  We have to believe we are right 
   or it's going to be a long stay in a bad place...

   Maybe a better way to say it is when I claim speaking the one true
   way I'm just as wrong as anyone else.  I hope not... ;-)

   Peace,
   Allison	

    The RCC does not believe that their way is the only way to salvation.
    Since Vatican II it has taught that there is salvation outside of
    the Church. That God's graces fall where he will's. However, the Church
    does believe that their way is a valid way, and that people can find
    the salvation of Jesus Christ within it. 

    As far as dissension, there is room for dissent when that dissent is
    motivated by the will of Christ. Again, I mention St. Catherine of
    Sienna because, she was the catalyst for change at the time of the
    reformation. One of her followers was, Martin Luther. The difference
    was that Christ appeared to her, and directed her in order to
    accomplish the change he wanted. She couldn't even read, and ask Jesus,
    "How can I go to the doctors of the Church and convince them ? I don't
    even know how to read." Jesus said, "I will teach you." And sure enough
    He did, because she not only was listened to, she was given a doctorate
    of the Church. The point is that, change to the church must be of
    Christ will, not ours. We pray in the Lords Prayer, "Thy will be done."
    It is important to keep that in mind when we talk about dissent within
    the Church, which is the body of Christ.

    Peace
    Jim

    RE: .58
    
    On the general topic of "why not leave the church?"
    
    I did just that. I left the RCC because I could not support some of
    its teachings and the "structure" of the church. I also removed my
    family. We have since joined a Congregational Church,which has improved
    my life greatly.
    
    My reasons had nothing to do,however,with homosexuality.
    
    Marc H.

    I didn't say that the RCC claimed to be the only way to salvation.  I
    said that the RCC claims to be the One True Church.  Those are two
    completely different issues.  What I refer to here is the RCC's
    self-defined role as an institution, and how it believes that it
    relates to God.  As a corporate body, it claims to be the only true
    heir to the apostles, for example; and (as I understand it) it claims
    that its doctrines infallibly proceed from the Holy Spirit.  The RCC
    does not see itself as just one Christian denomination among many; that
    is a Protestant concept.  True, it doesn't claim that Protestants will
    go to hell (not any more, anyway--at one time the Church catch phrase
    was "there is no salvation outside the church"), but it does believe
    that it, and no other Christian church, is a divinely sanctioned
    institution.  Others may be saved outside of it as an institution, but
    that is really another issue.  Analogously, the RCC believes that some
    non-Christians have the possibility of achieving salvation, although it
    believes that Christianity is the One True Religion.  

    Does the RCC officially admit the possibility that one of its doctrines
    could be wrong?  My understanding is that it does not, and that
    therefore reversing itself on an official doctrine is out of the
    question.  By this I mean that (as I understand it) the Church admits
    the possibility of continuing developments in theological
    understanding, expressed through the Church and formulated and enforced
    by those in authority--but not outright reversals.  And if that is
    true, that does not leave much room for dissent.  It seems to me that
    thinking for yourself is really not an option if you are going to be a
    Roman Catholic, and that if you don't agree with its doctrines your
    choices are "love it or leave it".

    -- Mike

re Note 335.59 by CVG::THOMPSON:

> >    because of it? i get the impression that it would take more than a
> >    doctrinal disagreement to get you to relinquish the faith you have
> >    in the church.
>  
> 	More than a doctrinal disagreement? You mean there is something bigger?
> 	Not for me. Would I leave a church that supported abortion? In a 
> 	minute. 
  
        Some of us believe so strongly that "the Church is one" that
        the issue can never be abandoning the Church, joining, or
        even founding a new one, but MUST be to reform the one and
        only one, no matter how impossible the odds.  (The unity of
        the church appears to be a major doctrine in the new
        testament, much more so than, for example, teaching on the
        subject of abortion.)

        (I would amplify this by saying that I believe that all the
        apparently separate denominations on earth are in fact one
        organization, one with some real problems.  I am not simply
        saying that the Roman Catholic Church organizationally is
        identical to the one church. I could conceive of, for
        example, joining an Anglican denomination, yet my task would
        be the same and the object of that task, reform of the  one
        true church, would be the same.)

        Bob

    RE: .68 I suspect we agree pretty closely. There are churches and
    there is The Church. The Church is the whole body of Christ. That
    I would not and could not leave. Individual collections of people
    that make up a church - that I could and would leave over doctrine
    differences.
    
    		Alfred

    RE:67
    Mike,

    The Catholic Church claims to be "the one true Church" established
    by Christ. This claim is Scriptural based.

    As far as  doctrines and infallibility, I believe you misunderstand
    what it means. Papal writings, such as encyclicals and statements
    by the different conference are not held to be infallible and can be
    and have changed. There have been few infallible teachings made  that the 
    church claims to be without error. The Pope officially speaks ex cathedra 
    when  making a teaching infallible. Since 1870 the only doctrine that has 
    been proclaimed infallible is the Assumption of Mary. Another infallible 
    doctrine is the divinity of Jesus that was made in the first century,
    in response to Gnostics that were teaching otherwise.

    Doctrines on birth control, divorce, etc. are not infallible
    and can be changed.

    The point is that it is Christ who changes and guides the Church. I
    feel people really don't believe that Christ has the power to change
    whatever he wants changed.

    Peace
    Jim

re: Note 335.52 by Jim "Bluegrass,Music of Perfekchun" 

>                 -< If The Church Is Wrong, Why Stay In It ? >-

Maybe because they love it?  Because they have made some level of commitment 
that they are responding to?  Maybe they are called to reach out, not asking 
the church to reject what it believes, but to honestly and prayerfully think
about what it believes, because maybe even after 20 centuries there is still
room for growth and maturity?  Maybe for the same good reasons that some
people stay married, in sickness and in health, for rich or for poor...and not
get a divorce the moment some difficulty or disagreement comes up? 

Sometimes one must walk away, but everyone needs to prayerfully find their own 
way to tread the path that Jesus trod.

Peace,

Jim

    Re: .71
    
    Nicely said Jim!
    
    Marc H.

<re: Note 335.52 by Jim "Bluegrass,Music of Perfekchun" 
<
<>                 -< If The Church Is Wrong, Why Stay In It ? >-

   I think Jim in .71 said it well.  Also It's hard to say the church is
   wrong because it is not wrong about everything in the monolithic sense.
   There are choices love it and try to change is is one, leave it and
   seek one that is able to see the difference another.

   It's not easy to leave your church, I did when I was young about 13
   because I could not reconcile the differences...  They (clergy at that
   time) did make it easier by saying they wouldn't help me.

   Peace,
   Allison

    RE:71
    I agree with you too Jim ! However within the context of this note, the 
    description of what the Catholic Church's treatment of certain people
    that has been described here, would be hardly anything that one could love.
    If it caused the pain described, I would hardly see a reason for
    remaining.

    I think that the position that I'm really trying to emphasize is the
    power of prayer, and submission to the will of Christ. If I pray and
    surrender myself totally to Christ, I will be able to live according
    with the Church, and offer those things that I don't agree with as
    a sacrifice. 
    
    Years ago, when my daughter was in the second grade at our Catholic parish 
    school, we were told that we would have to find another school for
    her. We were told that they could not put up with her un-Christian
    behavior. Well, my wife and myself were devastated. My daughter was
    an "A" and "B" student, but because of a hearing disorder which we
    found later, she gave them some trouble. Mostly getting out of her
    seat to see the board or constantly asking the teacher to explain
    things that she didn't hear to begin with. I became bitter, to the
    point of leaving. I was angry because, I put so much faith and energy
    into the Church and ...look what they were doing ?  My bitterness followed
    me to a week-end retreat at Calvary retreat center in Shrewsbury, Mass.
    I went in to confession and talked with the priest about by bitterness.
    He said; "you have every right to be bitter you were treated unjustly.
    However, what I would like you to do is, to reflect on the Blessed Mother 
    Mary, and how it must of been for her. Here she was, a devoted Jewish woman
    who obeyed her religion and was faithful to it all her life. She
    raised her son in it, and followed all the traditions of it. Then look
    what they did to her son ?" The priest then said," ask Mary to help you
    get through your pain as she got through hers." So I did. Mary led me
    back to the cross that Jesus died on, and I came to really understand what
    he meant by, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." My 
    feelings of bitterness left me, and in their place I was filled with
    compassion and forgiveness for those who had wronged my daughter. I
    felt the freedom that only Christ peace can give.

    My only advice I can give to anyone how is feeling hurt and wronged,
    is to Pray.

    Peace
    Jim

Hi Jim (.75),
    
    
    <<My only advice I can give to anyone how is feeling hurt and wronged,
    is to Pray.

    I agree with your advice and I would take it a step further to say 'then
    let the Holy Spirit guide your actions'.  I find I turn more and more
    of my problems over to the Holy Spirit, especially when I am tempted to
    speak out in anger or fear...A Course in Miracles has been instrumental
    in teaching me how to do this.
    
    Ro
    

    Re: 70 (Jim)

    I am aware that Papal infallibility applies only to statements made ex
    cathedra; however, I was not referring to ex cathedra infallibility. 
    However, I was working on an assumption that, beyond the specific
    question of ex cathedra statements, the Roman Catholic Church
    assumed a position of inerrancy on matters of faith and morals, at
    least in certain areas.  Perhaps I am incorrect in that assumption, and
    if so I stand corrected, although the issue is far from clear to me as
    an outsider.  It seems to me, thought, that the Church assumes a de
    facto posture of infallibility in that Catholic theologians are not
    allowed to dissent from the Church's official teachings; in other
    words, they are expected to propagate unquestioningly the doctrines
    officially formulated by those in authority.

    I brought up the issue of the RCC claiming to be the One True Church, 
    not to debate its validity, but merely to point out that this is part
    of the church's self-understanding.  Whether or not there is scriptural
    basis for this claim can be debated, although I would think that it is
    a bit irrelevant, given that the Catholic Church disagrees with the
    fundamentalist Protestant perspective of "sola scriptura".  The RCC
    points out (and I agree) that the New Testament is itself a product of
    the church, and its various prevailing traditions which were inherited
    from the early Christian community.  Furthermore, since the church
    claims to be the One True Church, it claims the right to interpret the
    Bible; the Protestant claim of sola scriptura inevitably results in
    individual differences in interpretations (or, as one commentator in
    the Catholic magazine New Oxford Review wrote, "everyone becomes their
    own Pope").  From this I infer that Catholic criticism of Protestant
    theology relies on a certain assumption of the desirability of
    monolithic control over doctrine.  Is this where the Magisterium fits
    in?

    -- Mike

    RE:77
    Mike,
    	only doctrines that the Pope speaks ex cathedra are infallible.

    As far as dissent, this is also misunderstood. Theologians may disagree, 
    but where theologians, such as Fr. Curan get into trouble, is that  they 
    teach their own theology as being correct. Fr. Curan is not allowed to 
    teach at the Catholic University as a theologian, because  what he taught 
    was contrary to Catholic doctrine, on matters of birth control, abortion 
    etc. Now that didn't mean that he couldn't disagree, what it meant however, 
    until a study is done by the entire theological body of the Church, and 
    this includes lay theologians as well as clerical, consensus agreed upon, 
    and then accepted as official church doctrine, he could not teach it.

     Theologians can try to have the church accept their theology, but
     it must be accepted by theologians as a whole. 

     Also, you should be aware that the western countries of the world,
    such as the U.S. and Europe, only make up less that 1/3 of the
    Catholic Church. The more than 2/3  of the Catholic Church is in second and
    third world countries. So when the church teaches on certain doctrines, 
    it takes into consideration the majority of Catholics, who come from
    cultures that are much different than ours. We Americans tend to think
    the world evolves around us, and in the secular world it does, in the
    religious it does not.

    Peace
    Jim

    Jim, according to the discussion in topic 648 in the Catholic-Theology
    conference, I am getting a different impression.  In reply 3, the
    writer quoted from a book "The Catholic Catechism", stating that the
    Magisterium is inerrant:

        5. The scope of the collegial infallibility extends to the whole
        ranges of doctrine on faith and morals, comparable to what the
        First Vatican Council had defined regarding the Pope.  Accordingly,
        the freedom from error is not limited to matters of strict
        revelation, but covers also whatever is in any way connected with
        revealed truth and on which the bishops of the Catholic world agree
        in their authentic teaching, i.e., in their official capacity as
        shepherds of the flock of Christ.  In the moral order, the Church's
        teaching on contraception exemplifies this kind of inerrancy.

    From that, I infer that Church infallibility applies not just to papal
    ex cathedra pronouncements, but to general matters of doctrine
    (including the teaching on contraception, according to that quote).  If
    that interpretation is correct, that leave no room for dissent. 
    Perhaps the above passage is an incorrect formulation of Catholic
    doctrine; but, if so, it is apparent that the question of Church
    inerancy is not fully agreed upon or universally understood by
    Catholics.
    
    But, even if we grant that theologians can disagree with Church
    doctrines and still be good Catholics (which differs from the above
    statement), the problem is, as I mentioned earlier, that they must
    nevertheless  propagate ideas that they disagree with and that they had
    no direct role in formulating.  You mentioned Curan, and he was in fact
    who I had in mind (along with Kung).  From these individuals, we can
    see that there is a de factor inerrancy in place here--if the Church
    formulates a doctrine, it expects its theologians to promote and teach
    those doctrines, no questions asked.  What's wrong with that, you ask? 
    Well, nothing, if you believe that these doctrines are inerrant.  But
    if you admit the possibility that they might be wrong, then you admit
    that the dissenting theologian might just be right in disagreeing with
    the Church.  Maybe all those doctrines that they wanted to teach but
    were forbidden to do were right all along after all.  If that is the
    case, then the suppression of dissenting views makes no sense--not to
    me, anyway.  That is the whole point of academic freedom.  Thus, in my
    view, the Church takes a position of de facto inerrancy in its
    doctrines.

    I think you raise a valid point by mentioning the fact that the Roman
    Catholic Church spans a diverse number of cultures.  The basic problem
    is that the democratic spirit, which is so important to North
    Americans, is not necessarily accepted universally among all Roman
    Catholics.  The RCC operates under a medieval paradigm of strict
    hierarchy and top-down dissemination of doctrines, which is consistent
    with the political culture of many nations.  Concepts like academic
    freedom, or freedom of thought in general, are not necessarily a part
    of the society and culture of all who belong to the Church.  Thus the
    Church's methodology is probably very comfortable to many Catholics
    worldwide; on the other hand, this may explain why there is perhaps a
    greater tendency to dissent among American Catholics.

    -- Mike

    
    Mike,
         I stand corrected on my reply in .78 teachings other than 
         what the pope speak ex cathedra on are infallible. Here's
         what I found.
            
        Infallibility does extend to the Bishops as a
        group, along with the pope. My understanding is that if
        they are in disagreement, it is then that the pope would
        speak ex cathedra on an issue. Here what the book I have
        in my hand says.

        "Catholic Answers to Fundamentalist Teachings" by 
          Phillip St. Romain.

            
       "Vatican II states, 'The infallibility promised to the Church resides
        also in the body of bishops when that body exercises supreme teaching
        authority WITH (my emphasis) the successor of Peter.'"
        
        So to me, the bishops have to be in agreement as a group along
        with the pope for a teaching to be considered infallible. The
        book goes on;
      
       " Furthermore, recalling that the pope and bishops are the voices of
         the authentic, 'sensus fidelum' (the consensus of the faithful) and
         that the faithful are 'the Church', we can rightly say that it is 
         'the Church,' under the guidance of Spirit, which proclaims what is
         and what is not authentic Catholic belief. As Vatican II states,
        'The body of the faithful as a whole, anointed as they are by the
         Holy One cannot err in matters of belief.'
    
         Finally, it is important to remember the role of conscience. It is
         possible to have a moral conviction that is at odds with Church
         teaching. If the person studies and reflects and prays, and then is
         still convinced that his or her conscience is correct, the person is
         morally obliged to follow conscience."
    
     Also form the same book;
    "Papal writings, such as encyclicals, and statements by conferences, 
     regional groups, of Catholic bishops are authoritative documents.
     But they are not statements proclaimed ex cathedra by the pope. Because
     these documents are expressions of the Church's authentic teaching,
     however, faithful Catholics give these writings full consideration
     when forming their consciences on topics in question."
    
     Peace
    Jim          
     

    Jim, thanks for posting that information.
    
    -- Mike

    Hi all,
    
    Very interesting discussion going on here.  I'd like to add a few 
    points to Mike's reply.
    
    >>From that, I infer that Church infallibility applies not just to papal
    >>ex cathedra pronouncements, but to general matters of doctrine
    >>(including the teaching on contraception, according to that quote).  If
    >>that interpretation is correct, that leave no room for dissent. 
    >>Perhaps the above passage is an incorrect formulation of Catholic
    >>doctrine; but, if so, it is apparent that the question of Church
    >>inerancy is not fully agreed upon or universally understood by
    >>Catholics.
    
    You are right. All teachings of the Church are infallable and upon 
    reflection you realize that they really have to be.  To not claim
    infallability with moral issues is simply stating "We have the
    keys to the kingdom, but we don't know where to find the door..." ;^)
    
    >>But, even if we grant that theologians can disagree with Church
    >>doctrines and still be good Catholics (which differs from the above
    >>statement), the problem is, as I mentioned earlier, that they must
    >>nevertheless  propagate ideas that they disagree with and that they had
    >>no direct role in formulating.  You mentioned Curan, and he was in fact
    >>who I had in mind (along with Kung).  From these individuals, we can
    
    I think your forgeting Mike that these people that propagate these
    ideas have taken a vow of obedience to the Church.  I know that must
    sound a bit lame, but its their JOB to proclaim what the Church is 
    teaching.  If someone has a problem with a teaching of the Church they
    shouldn't join it, or choose a job that doesn't deal with teaching the
    issue they have the problem with.  And I think that ALL Catholics take
    part in formulating doctrine.  The Church does not tell us we must 
    bow down to the teaching and except it unconditionally.  The Church 
    invites all of us to take the time to sit down and find out why the 
    Church teaches what it does.  I only agree with what the Church 
    teaches on abortion, contraception, etc... because I've only formulated
    and agreed with them in my own mind.  Sadly, to many priests as well
    as Laity do not take the time to work these issues through to know
    why its wrong.
    
    >>Well, nothing, if you believe that these doctrines are inerrant.  But
    >>if you admit the possibility that they might be wrong, then you admit
    >>that the dissenting theologian might just be right in disagreeing with
    >>the Church.
    
    I think everyone has a right to disagree.  Just because a priest is
    not allowed to teach his doctrine in the classroom, church, or the
    confessional does not mean that he can not go to his superiors or the
    head of the Diocese and start proceedings that re-examines the issue
    in question.  It all comes down to this:  You can do it with discretion
    and go through the proper channels and bring it to prayer and ask God
    to change things or you can go to the press, start teaching it in the 
    classrooms, etc... but I really believe by doing this you are not going
    through the right channels, and your giving your opinion in all the
    wrong places.
    
    >>Maybe all those doctrines that they wanted to teach but
    >>were forbidden to do were right all along after all.  If that is the
    >>case, then the suppression of dissenting views makes no sense--not to
    >>me, anyway.  That is the whole point of academic freedom.  Thus, in my
    >>view, the Church takes a position of de facto inerrancy in its
    >>doctrines.
    
    But, Mike, how are we supposed to know that?  Just because one man stands
    up and disagrees are we supposed to change everything and agree with
    him?  You have to remember the Church has been around for 2000 years.
    All these arguements that people bring up have been heard before. 
    Their nothing new, believe me.  And even if they are new, when put
    against the Church's philosophy, natural law, they can be easily
    dispelled because natural law is unchanging.  You can add to it only
    if nothing contradicts it, and you can never take away from it.  And
    the fact of the matter is that a lot of these arguements try to do this. 
    
    >>The basic problem
    >>is that the democratic spirit, which is so important to North
    >>Americans, is not necessarily accepted universally among all Roman
    >>Catholics.  The RCC operates under a medieval paradigm of strict
    >>hierarchy and top-down dissemination of doctrines, which is consistent
    >>with the political culture of many nations.  
    
    I agree!  The Church is run under a VERY strict medieval paradigm! 
    And that is the way it should be.  The Church could NEVER be a Democracy. 
    How could ANY church run under a democratic system? We are governed by
    a KING! Are we going vote God out of office? ;^) ;^) Just because we are
    rational beings does not mean that every one of us knows what is truly 
    right and what is truly wrong.  We cannot run the Church by a show of
    hands, throwing out teachings that are not popular and replacing them
    with different ones that agree with the majority of people.  As a
    matter of fact a lot of things that have been considered morally wrong
    have been to most people down through the centuries perfectly fine.  
    That is why the Church is there, because most people don't think about
    what is right or wrong, they just want to do what they want.       
    
    >>Concepts like academic
    >>freedom, or freedom of thought in general, are not necessarily a part
    >>of the society and culture of all who belong to the Church.  Thus the
    >>Church's methodology is probably very comfortable to many Catholics
    >>worldwide; on the other hand, this may explain why there is perhaps a
    >>greater tendency to dissent among American Catholics.
    
    I agree, there is a greater tendency to dissent among American
    Catholics because a lot of people in this country have forgotten that 
    with freedom comes responsibility.  We have taken freedom to such
    an extreme in this country that we have become immoral in the process.
    One good look at the way this country should show give you 
    all the proof in the world why the Church is set up the way it is.    
    
    Mike, if you could set up the Church any way you wanted to, how would
    you?  I'd be very interested in hearing your view.
    
    The Lord be with all,
    
    Jeff
    
    

re Note 335.82 by NEMAIL::WATERS:

>     You are right. All teachings of the Church are infallable and upon 
>     reflection you realize that they really have to be.  To not claim
>     infallability with moral issues is simply stating "We have the
>     keys to the kingdom, but we don't know where to find the door..." ;^)
  
        "They really have to be" is far from the truth.

        For every Christian teacher or theologian who claims this,
        there are as many who do not.  Your second sentence above is
        pure emotionalism, not logic.  It also happens to be
        incredibly self-serving on the part of those teachers who
        proclaim it.  

        We are told to be "wise as serpents" -- self-serving
        pronouncements should set off an immediate red flag.

        Of course, in religion as well as politics, nothing, and
        certainly no logic, beats a good dose of emotionalism.

        Bob

    RE: .82
       
    
                 I will have to agree with .83.  For *ANYONE* to claim that
    their idea's are "infallable" is running the risk of being *SO* far
    outside the will of God that they won't even recognize truth when it
    jumps up and smacks them in the face.  I am in a constant searching
    mode for truth as God gives it to me.  I believe that it is important
    for every Christian to be open to Gods will at all times in their
    lives.
    
                  I *AM* fallable.
    
    
    Dave
          

    Jeff,

    
    I am not a Catholic.  Most of my comments are in the form of
    observations from the point of view of an outsider.  My intention was
    not really to engage others in a debate on how the Catholic Church
    should be run, since it really isn't my business.  The point I have
    been making in this discussion is that the Roman Catholic Church has a
    certain self-understanding which affects the whole question of dissent. 
    Whether that is good or bad depends on your perspective, and as I
    mentioned before many people are no doubt comfortable with its medieval
    hierarchical paradigm which, it appears, may not allow for dissent.  
    The issue here for me is whether or not those who are *not* comfortable
    with that the church's self-understanding would be better off leaving
    the church for a denomination organized in another way.

    You mentioned on the one hand that the Church's teachings are
    infallible, but then you said that the Church does not tell its members
    to "bow down to the teaching and accept it unconditionally."  I am not
    sure to reconcile those two statements, but at one point in your note
    you *appear* to be implying that if everyone studies the Church's
    teaching they should come to the conclusion that the Church is right
    after all.  I don't think monolithic agreement is a realistic
    possibility.  The fact is, if you have people within any denomination
    who think honestly and seriously about important matters (like
    theology), there are bound to be disagreements.  A Church that claims
    infallibility for itself but which also expects its membership to think
    for themselves has to brace itself for the problem of diversity of
    views.  The Church can dismiss disagreement as irrelevant; those who
    disagree are simply wrong, and must obey.  Either that, or thinking is
    not an option in the first place.  But in either case, the question
    still arises, for me anyway, on when dissent is preferable to simply
    leaving the Church.

    You have justified the Church's treatment of Curran and Kung on the
    basis of the Church's self-understanding and the resulting role that
    theologians must play.  I have not really been defending dissent within
    the Church at all, as perhaps you infer I have; I have in fact have
    been posing the question of why dissidents remain within the Church,
    rather than leave it for a more democratic denomination.  So in a sense
    I am in sympathy with the point you raise--that the Church seems (as
    far as I can tell) to expect its theologians to serve as mouthpieces of
    the Vatican, and are not entitled to the freedom of creatively
    formulating theological ideas, with the subsequently dangerous
    consequence of letting the chips fall as they may.  Whether that is how
    Catholic theologians *should* be operating is not a question that I, as
    a non-Catholic, can answer.  The fact that I am not a Catholic has
    partly to do, in fact, with the fact that I don't choose to participate
    as a loyal dissident within such a hierarchical mode of
    organization--so I admit that the question of Catholic dissent is
    something that I don't fully understand.

    Your comments about proper and improper methods of dissent presuppose
    the validity of the Church's strictly hierarchical paradigm.  I think
    that it goes along with the Church's understanding of its role as a
    divinely established institution, and its corresponding method of
    formulating doctrine in the first place.  Restricting dissent to
    private channels is a way of maintaining Church authority, I believe,
    since open and public dissent in any undemocratic institution can
    present problems in the perceptions of legitimacy.

    What is boils down to is that you believe that the Church's strictly
    hierarchical paradigm is the proper one.  I don't have a problem with
    that--what I have been saying all along is that many people are clearly
    comfortable with that style of organization.  However, you also suggest
    that this is not only the best way, it is the *only* conceivable one. 
    How could a church not be this way, you ask?  Well, perhaps given the
    church's self-understanding, you could make a case that there *is* no
    other way.  Other Catholics might disagree.  In any case, the fact is
    that denominations are run in a variety of different ways;  as a member
    of a non-creedal denomination , I can attest to this, and the reason I
    belong to that denomination is that its mode of organization suits me;
    it might not suit everyone.  Now if you wish you can certainly argue
    that the Church, or denominations in general, should be organized in a
    strict hierarchy; but it is not true that this type of denomination
    does not or cannot exist. 

    I think it gets back to the question of what people are comfortable
    with.  Many people are loyal to a given denomination for a variety of
    reasons, and the reasons behind some individuals' decisions to leave
    their denomination form an interesting topic in itself.

    -- Mike

    Hi Bob,
    
    >>    "They really have to be" is far from the truth.

    >>    For every Christian teacher or theologian who claims this,
    >>    there are as many who do not.  Your second sentence above is
    >>    pure emotionalism, not logic.  It also happens to be
    >>    incredibly self-serving on the part of those teachers who
    >>    proclaim it.  
    
    I think your confusing emotionalism with an act of faith, Bob.  My
    arguement I believe is very rational. Could you explain what your saying 
    a little bit more?  The impression I get from the above paragraph 
    is telling me that you MIGHT believe that a God came down from Heaven
    and died a horrible death for our sins and then returned to Heaven, 
    leaving us in darkness on how we can follow Him there. Is THAT logical?  I 
    think not.  Sure doesn't seem like it.  Why would an all loving God,
    that is supposedly very eager to see us walk the way of Truth not 
    leave something that we can follow?  A moral code that we can follow?  
    A Church that we can look to that has the ONE Truth.  To think that a
    all-loving God would just brush us off and let us "figure it out for
    ourselves" seems very illogical; especially if you believed that He did
    die a horrible death.  I'm sorry if I misinterpreting you, but I don't 
    know what angle your coming from here.          
    
    >>    Of course, in religion as well as politics, nothing, and
    >>    certainly no logic, beats a good dose of emotionalism.

    I agree!  But, the strongest faith in God a person can have is faith
    based on reason.  Over 2000 years Aristotle (or was it Plato - no, not
    Playtoe, but the other guy :^) by way of logic proved there was one
    God.  Yes, he was considered but one unmovable act, and not personal,
    but the point is that the existance of God was proved through reason. 
    Why should our faith be based on anything less?
    
    
    The Lord be with you,
    
    Jeff

    Hi Dave,
    
    >>             I will have to agree with .83.  For *ANYONE* to claim that
    >>their idea's are "infallable" is running the risk of being *SO* far
    >>outside the will of God that they won't even recognize truth when it
    >>jumps up and smacks them in the face. 
    
    Read the previous reply to answer your question, Dave.  I'd like to add
    here that your statement is a bit circular.  You said, "For *ANYONE* to 
    claim that their idea's are 'infallable" is running the risk of being 
    *SO* far outside the will of God".  What your saying here, I believe,
    is that anyone that thinks they are incapable of erring; incapable
    of failing. Certain. Will never know the truth of God, right?  You go on 
    to say "they won't even recognize truth when it jumps up and smacks them 
    in the face."  Now if the Lexical definition of Truth is the conformity
    to knowledge, fact, or TO BE CERTAIN, what your statement is REALLY saying
    is that someone should not make a choice at all, and wait and see approach.
    The only reason you think the Church is wrong is because it
    has made a choice, thus taking them "out of the running" of what real
    truth is.  But, Dave, your saying there is no Truth. If truth is 
    the conformity to knowledge, to a fact, to be CERTAIN about something,
    and your telling me that anyone that makes a choice and stands by that 
    choice as being infallable does not know real truth, then my friend,
    THERE IS NO TRUTH.  Because with infallability comes "true" Truth.  And
    if you truly believe in what you said above, you can't even argue with
    me!  Because the Truth that your arguing is not truth at all but just
    something you believe until something better comes along.  

    >>I am in a constant searching
    >>mode for truth as God gives it to me.  I believe that it is important
    >>for every Christian to be open to Gods will at all times in their
    >>lives.
    
    That's Great.  What is important though Dave is that you make a choice NOW.
    Because if all your doing is going through life picking up what you
    believe is "Truth" and then putting it down for another one that looks
    better is not Truth.  Truth is unchanging.  God can reveal to
    us MORE Truth of the TRUTH down through the ages, but he can NEVER 
    change it.  In doing so he would be contradicting himself, and God
    cannot do that.  God is limited in that way (you know the ol' saying
    can God make a rock he can't lift?)  That is why I'm amazed how some
    people sitting around waiting for things immoral to become moral.
    Abortion, contraception, homosexuality, pre-marital sex or phone sex is 
    one day not going to be moral.  ITS NOT.  It never will be.  Because to 
    pull one brick out would be pulling the whole building down.  And that 
    cannot happen without TOTAL CHAOS. 
    
                                            
                >>  I *AM* fallable.
    
    Hey, I can appreciate that.  Humility leads to TRUE knowledge, right?
    I'm fallable to!  I was never given the right to be infallable.  Christ
    gave that infallability to the apostles telling them things like:
    
    "On this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not 
    prevail against it."
    
    and
    
    "but when he, the Spirit of Truth, comes, he will guide you into ALL
     TRUTH"  
    
    There is a candle in the window gentlemen.  We have a Church to look
    to that points straight to the way home. 
    
    The Lord be with you all,
    
    Jeff
    
    
                                  
    

    Hi Mike,
    
    I'm not going to be able to get to your note tonight.  I would
    like to say that I do respect your opinion, and we actually see
    eye to eye on more things that at least I thought we did.  The
    one thing about your memo that can't understand is how could a
    Church proclaim the word of God within a Democratic format.
    Its impossible.  Could you shed some insight on this?  I do agree
    that those that are dissented with the Church should leave, but
    I don't always think that is the best way.  That is because I 
    believe that if one were to study the Church's phiolosophy 
    (natural Law) properly I think it is the most sound foundation 
    that was ever created.  And if would people would take the time,
    they would be very suprised indeed.  I will save the rest for later.
    
    Peace be with you,
    
    Jeff
                                            

    Jeff,

    As I mentioned in my earlier note, I don't consider it realistic for
    any church--I don't care what claims for the Truth that is makes about
    itself--to assume that if everyone seriously studies a given issue,
    they will realize that the church is really correct after all.  This
    kind of expectation of monolithic agreement among thinking people has
    nothing to do with the real world that we live in.  In fact, I find the
    suggestion rather insulting, since it implies that if I disagree with
    the Church over an issue then I must not have thought about it enough. 
    To me that is shear condescending nonsense.  What it really boils down
    to is that if a church is going to claim infallibility for itself, and
    thus clamp down upon any dissenting voices, then I see only two options
    for the membership when they disagree with the Church: leaving, or
    unquestioning obedience.  This is no doubt a problem for theologians,
    and probably explains why they are sometimes prone to dissent; they are
    expected to think (since their job requires it), but not too much
    (because their superiors prohibit it).

    I think that your question about denominational democracy presupposes
    the Roman Catholic self-understanding.  Given the RCC's conception of
    itself as an institution established by God and infallibly informed by
    the Holy Spirit, then yes, there is no possibility for a democratic
    organization.  If that is how you view the Church, then its
    mode of organization is no doubt appropriate to you.  I have been
    trying to avoid getting into the issue of whether the Roman Catholic
    Church's self-understanding is right or wrong, correct or incorrect,
    good or bad.  What I have been trying to understand is how individuals
    within the Church can relate to it, given its self-understanding.

    As you know, not all Christian denominations share the Roman Catholic
    institutional paradigm.  Protestant churches typically reject the
    concept of institutional infallibility, although conservative and
    fundamentalist churches replace that with a strong reliance on
    scriptural infallibility.  There are some who reject both conceptions
    of infallibility, and they are unlikely to feel comfortable in either
    type of church. 

    There is a discussion about the various positions concerning doctrinal
    authority in topic 26.

    -- Mike

    RE: .87  Jeff,
    
                     I have seen Churches (and Christians) who are *SO*
    sure that they are right that even if God wanted them to change, they
    couldn't.....or wouldn't recognize God was speaking to them.  IMHO..it
    is *VERY* easy to believe that you (me) have all the answers.  When
    that happens I believe that your no longer seeking truth but now you
    are trying to *MAKE* it.  I also believe in first steps....step out in
    a direction, with God in your life, and I think that you will be "set"
    on the right path.
    
                     Its like witnessing.   My thought is to bring people
    to a knowledge of God (Christ) and then assist them to trust in God.  I
    never want to be in a position of telling them what God's wants when
    God can do it so much better than I can.
    
    
    Dave

    RE:90

    The difference between what the other Churches believe and what the
    Catholic Church believes is found in Scripture.

    "Then he breathed on them and said: 
     'receive the Holy Spirit.
      if you forgive men's sins,
      they are forgiven.
      If you hold them bound,
      they are held bound." 
    John 20:22-23

    Jesus gave the keys to heaven to his apostles, who in turn handed them
    on to their successors, the Bishops of the Catholic Church. Other
    denominations have their belief's based on their own teachings.
    The  Catholic church has Scripture and 2000 years of history to base its 
    belief in authority on.


    Peace
    Jim

    
              Just for clarification....the Baptist Church is *NOT* a
    protestant organization and can trace their roots back to the time of
    Christ.
    
    
    Dave

Hi Dave,

>              Just for clarification....the Baptist Church is *NOT* a
>    protestant organization and can trace their roots back to the time of
>    Christ.
    
That's really interesting.  As someone who knows little about the origins 
of the various denominations of Christianity, I always assumed that Babtists
(or anyone non-Catholic) were considered protestants.  I'm sure a lot of 
other people (outside this notesfile) think this way as well.

What *is* the origin of the Babtist Church?

Jeff

    
RE:92
        
>              Just for clarification....the Baptist Church is *NOT* a
>    protestant organization and can trace their roots back to the time of
>    Christ.
    
    
      Yeah, except that we've only been hearing about its claim to origin
      recently.
    
      Not much if anything mentioned about the Baptist throuhout the past
      2000 years in historical documents. Jeff Waters is the historian,
      maybe he can help ?
    
      
      Peace
      Jim

    Re: .93
    
    Jeff,
    
    	I know what Dave is speaking of.  United Methodists also embrace
    all of church history (for better or for worse) beginning with Jesus
    of Nazareth.
    
    	Methodism, like the Anabaptists, did not deliberately set out to
    "become a new denomination."  Rather these, as with most groups called
    Protestant, were initially "movements."
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    
             I am "reaching" for this but I believe that Anabaptists began
    in Greece as a result of Christians traveling north thru what is now
    Turkey and crossing over during Christ's ministry.  At any rate there
    are some documents which refere to the early Anabaptists.  They weren't
    highly thought of.....like now. :-}
    
    Dave

    It is interesting to note that many Quakers don't consider themselves
    to be either Protestant or Catholic, but a "third way" (admittedly, not
    a "way" that very many people have chosen to follow).
    
    -- Mike

Re: .95 

Richard,

>    	Methodism, like the Anabaptists, did not deliberately set out to
>    "become a new denomination."  Rather these, as with most groups called
>    Protestant, were initially "movements."
    
I guess what I hadn't realized was how early the Babtists got started, 
assuming (as Dave says) it started with the anababtists.  Some denominations 
(like the Methodists) occured much later, like between the sixteenth and 
eighteenth centuries.  I hadn't realized that any non-Catholic denomination
had been around since the time of Christ, or even within a few hundred years
of that time.

Thanks for the responses...

Jeff

    Re: 335.89
    
    Hi Mike,
    
    >>As I mentioned in my earlier note, I don't consider it realistic for
    >>any church--I don't care what claims for the Truth that is makes about
    >>itself--to assume that if everyone seriously studies a given issue,
    >>they will realize that the church is really correct after all.  This
    >>kind of expectation of monolithic agreement among thinking people has
    >>nothing to do with the real world that we live in.  In fact, I find the
    
    I do not agree.  Simply because if you really feel that way Mike, then
    your just claiming a free for all that is anything but real. You can 
    believe what you want Mike, all I ask is you make it your own...:^)
    To walk through life thinking that nothing is binding, everyone is free
    to look on Truth as they see it is not consistent.  All I am claiming
    is that I believe there is ONE Truth, and ONE Church, that has the
    crystal clear Truth.  I also claim that if anyone studies the Church's
    moral teaching properly they will come to the conclusions of what the
    Church teaches pertaining to morals.
    
    >>suggestion rather insulting, since it implies that if I disagree with
    >>the Church over an issue then I must not have thought about it enough. 
    >>To me that is shear condescending nonsense.  What it really boils down
    
    I thought maybe this would come up.  Instead of explaining it myself I
    brought in Thomas Aquinos's "Summo Theologica"  to explain it for me.  
    Thomas was posed with that same objection.  Thomas response was this:
    
    	"We arrive at a understanding of Natural Law by making 
    	conclusions following closely from the first commom 
    	precepts already evident in Natural Law. "
    
    The first commom precept of Natural Law is that good is to be done
    and promoted, and evil is to be avoided.  
    
    	"It is the first evident principles that cannot be blotted out
    	from men's hearts.  In this way there is no difference of
    	knowledge of Natural Law in man."
    
    Which is true.  *ALL* men and women know that good is to be done and 
    promoted and evil is to be avoided.  This is because NO ONE can will
    evil as evil because the proper object of the will is the
    intellectualy known good.  If we choose evil it is either by involuntary
    ignorance, not knowing any better; or voluntary ignorance were we
    choose to reject the standard for judging that moral action.  This next 
    part is critical to your response.
    
    	Conclusions, which are derived from the first principles may be
    	different among people to the extent of EACH MAN'S CAPACITY TO
    	REASON.  Man's capacity to reason for instance could be defective
    	through weakness, corrupt habits, or vicious customs. 
    
    I'm an not saying that anyone is stupid, Mike, but not everybody has
    the capacity to understand things because their opinion, habits, life-
    style, etc... can interfere with that reasoning.  And that is why a lot
    people will probably not understand what I'm talking about - because
    they let their opinion interfere with their reasoning.  To truly under-
    stand ANYTHING we must put are opinions, habits, lifestyles, aside and 
    look at the FACTS and make a decision based on reason the best that we
    can.  
       
    Thomas goes on in the sixth article, "Whether Natural Law can be
    Abolished from the heart of man" to say:
    
    	"There belong to Natural Law common precepts that are known to
    	 all.  And secondary precepts which are conclusions following 
    	 closely from the first principles.  As to the common principles
    	 they cannot in any way be blotted from mens hearts.  But, they can
    	 be blotted out in the case of particular action (applying the
    	 first principle "Do good and avoid evil" to particular action such
    	 as abortion, homosexuality, Euthanasia, divorce, etc...) insofar
    	 as reason is hindered from applying the common principle to the
    	 particular action because of consupiscence or some other passion.
    	 Secondary precepts (the understanding of moral issues) can be
    	 blotted out from the human heart by evil persuasion, viscious 
    	 customs, corrupt habits, and unnatural vices."
    
    You want to reason for yourself about morality, Mike?  Go right ahead
    my friend, but you are really obligated to find out what the great
    thinkers have said about it first.  To not understand their view before
    formulating your own view is not being informed.  
    
    >>to is that if a church is going to claim infallibility for itself, and
    >>thus clamp down upon any dissenting voices, then I see only two options
    >>for the membership when they disagree with the Church: leaving, or
    >>unquestioning obedience.  This is no doubt a problem for theologians,
    >>and probably explains why they are sometimes prone to dissent; they are
    >>expected to think (since their job requires it), but not too much
    >>(because their superiors prohibit it).

    You can disagree, lets make that clear.  I have friends that are
    priests that are pro-choice and they speak their opinions privately.
    But, when it comes to instructing the community their opinion means
    NOTHING because they took a vow to teach the Church's teaching.  Look
    at someone like Thomas Aquinos, he voiced his opinion that he could
    find nothing in Scripture to prove the Assumption.  He submitted to
    the Church's teaching however because he felt it better to submit
    the Magistarium (Sp?) of the Church then listen to his own opinion.
    
    >>As you know, not all Christian denominations share the Roman Catholic
    >>institutional paradigm.  Protestant churches typically reject the
    >>concept of institutional infallibility, although conservative and
    >>fundamentalist churches replace that with a strong reliance on
    >>scriptural infallibility.  There are some who reject both conceptions
    >>of infallibility, and they are unlikely to feel comfortable in either
    >>type of church. 

    Yes, and I find a problem with protestents idea of Scriptural
    infallibility.  They don't consider that the Bible means nothing
    without a body (that is quided by the Holy Spirit) behind it.  Everyone
    has their own opinion on what things mean and that is a terrible way
    to look at Scripture, because everyone is not entitled to their
    opinion.  Christ made that clear.  Those who reject both should not
    even be a Church because their teaching is strictly their opinion and
    that is not based on anything, because nothing is true.
    
    See, guys, I am not sitting here telling you to become Catholic. That is
    not the point I'm trying to make.  What I'm claiming is that I believe
    ONE Church has the complete Truth.  If any Church disputes a moral 
    teaching of the Church (say abortion) the Church can prove that organiz.
    wrong by reason.  That is one thing about the Church that is different
    from the rest.  Most Church's define by Scripture what is right or wrong 
    but they give no reason for believing that way.  The Catholic Church defines
    its moral code by reflection.  Its a powerful thing to be able to not 
    only point to Scripture to teach morality, but also base that teaching
    on reason that if understood clearly (as St. Thomas states) is 
    irrefutable.  

    The Lord be with you all,

            Jeff
    

Note 335.98

Jeff,

> Some denominations 
> (like the Methodists) occured much later, like between the sixteenth and 
> eighteenth centuries.  I hadn't realized that any non-Catholic denomination
> had been around since the time of Christ, or even within a few hundred years
> of that time.

While what you say here is true, I am speaking more in terms of church
roots or heritage.  Yes, Methodism is a little over 200 years old.  At the
same time, Methodism sprang from the Anglican Church, which has historic links
to the Roman Catholic Church, which traces its roots to Christ and the Twelve.

Peace,
Richard

    Re: 335.99 (Jeff Waters)
    
    In order to avoid going any further down a rathole, I have entered my
    reply to your comments a different topic, note 26.30.
    
    -- Mike

    Hi guys,
    
    After reading Dave's reply about Baptists not being Protestant, and
    questioning that claim I decided to do a little research into the
    subject, because I always thought baptist were Protestants.  Dave
    was right, they are not Protestants.  Here's a little history about
    how they were formed and what they believed:
    
    The anabaptist movement was found by Conrad Grebel around 1525 because 
    some people believed that Luther and Zwingli had not carried their
    ideas to their logical conclusion and regarded Lutheranisn and 
    Zwinglianism as almost as bad as medieval Catholicism.  Anabaptism was
    especially attractive to those peasents, weavers, miners, and artisans
    who had been adversely affected by the economic changes of the age.
    By the way, one of the earliest anabaptism movement was found in
    Zurick, Switzerland.  This is what they believed:
    
    The true christian church was a voluntary association of believers who
    had undergone spiritual rebirth and had been baptized into the Church.
    
    Anabaptists advocated adult rather than infant baptism.
    
    They took seriously a return to the practices and spirity of early 
    Christianity.  Adhering to the accounts of early christian accounts
    in the New Testament, they followed a strict sort of democracy (there's
    your Democracy, Mike ;^) in which all believers were considered equal.
    
    Each church chose its own minister, who might be any member of the 
    community since all Christians were considered priests (women were
    excluded from this).
    
    Anabaptists rejected theological speculation in favor of simple 
    Christian living according to the pure word of God.
    
    The Lord's supper was interpreted as a remembrance.
    
    Anabaptists believed in the complete seperation of Church and state
    (which was VERY different from the Catholic and Protestant movements
    of the time).  Not only was gov't to be excluded from the realm of
    religion, it was not even supposed to exercise political jurisdiction
    over real Christians.  They also refused to hold political office or
    bear arms (although some anabaptist groups did become quite violent).
    
    They were prosecuted by Catholics and Protestants, and executed in the
    most ruthless ways.
    
    Peace be with you,
    
    Jeff
    
    

    RE:Jeff,
    
    The fact that the anabaptist  refused to be in communion with the
    universal or Catholic Church would make them protestant, wouldn't it ? 
    I believe that's how the Catholic Church see's it.
   
    Jim

    Jim, I can't speak for the Anabaptists, but Quakerism often identifies
    itself as neither Protestant nor Catholic; so, even though Quakers are
    not in communion with the Catholic Church, it is not (in this view) a
    Protestant denomination.
    
    -- Mike

    Re: .104
    
    	I understand in Northern Ireland where there exists a great deal
    of tension between Catholics and Protestants, Quakers are not
    categorized as either.
    
    	Quakerism is about 300 years old.  It, too, started out as a movement,
    but not in protest of church teachings, polity or policies.  Rather,
    Quakerism was an entirely fresh attempt to discover and reinitiate
    "primitive Christianity."
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Hi Jim,
    
    I don't think so, only because they did not "originally" break away
    from the Catholic Church in the first place.  Those church's that
    are referred to as Protestant are called that because of their direct 
    seperation with the Church in the reformation period.  The anabaptists
    on the other hand broke away from the Protestant movement directly, 
    and formed something VERY different because the Protestant movements
    of that period still resembled the Church in a lot of ways.  So, I
    would say they are FAR from being Protestant.  The belief over whether
    the Bread and wine is the real presence of Christ really has nothing
    to do with it.
    
    The Lord be with you,
    
    Jeff 

    
    
    A wound caused by words is more painful than a wound caused by an
    arrow.
    
    
    
                            Ray