1. Since everyone else has weighed in on Pope Benedict XVI's resignation today, I thought that I would share here what I posted elsewhere earlier today:
No matter what you think of the man- and God knows I have some issues- it takes great humility to step down when you know that you have given all that you can give. May God bless him.
2. A group of Christianists in Indiana have decided to organize their own private prom so they don't have to attend with their gay classmates.
And so life goes on.
Pax et bonum
The better question would be - why did they even attend the same school? While I'm all for self-determination, but I'm against unnecessary problems like in this situation.
ReplyDeleteAs for the pope - it's not that much surprising given the fact that a man of a serious age was chosen as a pope, and many predicted that his pontificate would be shorter, because he might have been dead already. He's alive and wants to get some rest. Good for him ;)
It's a public school.
DeleteAnd that's the problem, Thom. There should be no public schools - for many reasons, including situations like this one.
DeletePublic schools are one of the better things this country ever perfected.
DeleteMaybe, but why are those public schools failing their own students? But in this context it's worth mentioning that right now institutions like public schools are inadequate - there's less and less we have in common, so why should we pretend we agree about public schooling?
DeleteIn 6th grade we had a lady come in to our gym class, and she showed us how to put a condom on a rubber dildo. I won't get into the dirty details of my required "health" classes. Now the trendy thing in school indoctrination is LGBT mania. Once again, forced on parents by legislatures (California), districts and teachers.
DeleteYep, I can't imagine why parents might not want to put their kids in public school. What's wrong with sexual "liberation"? It worked great for the Boomers.
Peter, I don't pretend to agree with you about anything. That's for sure.
DeleteJames/Childermass, then don't. I went to private school K-12.
Well. Perhaps the girls were afraid some dude would get elected prom queen and turn the evening into a farce. There was no hate expressed by these people. Though I do sense some on your part toward them. Hopefully you can work on that.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure where you sensed "hate." You must be feeling particularly self-loathing as it's the week of Valentine's Day.
DeleteVery charitable, Thom, as usual.
DeleteLikewise, James.
DeleteSo much for being in the world if not of it — whatever that may mean.
ReplyDeleteIndeed.
DeleteHmm...So the Roman pontiff breaks with centuries of tradition and many (myself included) are applauding his decision to stand with Conscience. This would be the same pontiff who decries women in orders (last female bishop was in the 11th century), marriage in the priesthood(from Saint Peter himself up through the 13th century) and recognition of homosexuality(same sex unions blessed in the church up through the 12th century). I love the smell of irony in the morning.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the video, I am hearing a lot of the same talking points handed down from the pulpit and Faux News over the last few decades. The idea is not dissimilar to the racially segregated proms which still happen in some parts of the US, where the 'black prom' is open to everyone and the 'white prom' is only for those who are racially pure....and yes, it IS the same thing. After a decade spent in Kentucky, I've plenty of first hand evidence that the mere presence of one of 'those people' (blacks, catholics, gays, jews, etc...your version of 'those people' may vary) is considered offensive.
@ Peter: If some straight christians have so much issue with people who aren't like themselves, then they should pay to put their kids in a private school populated by people who they consider good enough. It handicaps the children when they get into the real world, but that IS their choice. Note, it isn't the non-straight, non-christians who have a problem here, but rather those who are being told to tolerate/accept them. As a related aside, that's how/why cults are formed, when the rest of society holds a world-view which is radically different from the 'chosen' that they go off and form their own little utopia.
@ James: I think you are half-right. The fear for both sexes is that a non-straight would be elected king/queen (gender appropriate, as sexual orientation is NOT gender identification), which shows that 'those unholy people' are better than 'us righteous folk' in the eyes of their peers.
Married clergy doesn't solve any problems, but creates even more problems. How did it help to save Protestant churches? I think you know the answer. And, don't get me started on sexual abuse as many children are abused at home by their own relatives. And yes, there were married clergymen in the past, but this practice was banned due to practical reasons, including financial ones. Why something that didn't work in the past, will magically work now?
DeleteWomen in orders? If you mean those mythical womenpriests, you should try harder as there's no evidence thereof. Would it be a problem if we had instituted women in the priesthood? I don't know, but I see no reason to do that.
What you call recognition of homosexuality is as mythical as womenpriests. There's no proof of that, so we can stop right here. Homosexuality, whether understood as in the Ancient times, or now, has always been incompatible with the orthodoxy of Christianity. No amount of anger, shouting, crying, denying will change this fact. So, get over this and move on.
The problem in Indiana arises from the fact that people are forced to mix with each other instead of being able to form their own communities. If those parents objecting to gay students can send their children to private schools, so the parents of gay students can do that too. You say separating children from other children may be considered a handicap, but it doesn't have to be so. Why? In reality, we hang out with people, more or less, similar to us. It's normal and natural. So, why should anyone be forced to interact people he has little or no connection with? Why should anyone be forced to tolerate/accept (it's tricky because those aren't the same) anyone or anything? There wouldn't be a problem, had there been a separation - each group lives in its own world.
And no, calling them Christianists won't help much.
When doing pastoral care, the value having someone who has direct experience cannot be overstated. Whether that is a woman talking to another woman, marriage counseling from someone who is married or how to handle kids from another parent, direct experience is VITALLY important and can't be made up for by academics. As to why would it work now vs. then, because our society, economy, attitudes and pastoral needs have changed in the intervening 1500 years and we have historical evidence in multiple venues to show that it enhances the capability of clergy to perform their duties.
DeleteRe: female clergy and recognition of homosexuality, I've done a lot of reading on the matter and studied primary source documents. The evidence IS there, Peter, and no amount of denial will change that. Disregarding the evidence entirely, it is self-evident that society, gender roles and our understanding of sexuality has changed in the last millennium and that, to remain relevant and able to serve the pastoral needs of the people of God, rules within the church would need to reflect these changes.
You identify the problem as being that people are being required to associate with others who are not like them. There is great truth in this, as that is the very basis of society, to interact and work communally with others, regardless of their similarity to us. There is nothing which is preventing the 'straight christians' from isolating themselves from the rest of society, as is their choice if their Conscience dictates. The problem lies in excluding people who WANT to be part of society and are ready, willing and able to contribute to the community, whether they be the 'straight christians' or the 'non-straight, non-christians'.
Why should anyone be forced to accept or tolerate anyone or anything, you ask. For the same reason that I consistently attempt to respectfully engage and have dialogue with you....'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' T'would be far easier to say that someone you don't agree with is a troll, to engage in ad hominem attacks and say that they are not worth talking to, but as I would want someone to talk with me, to have dialogue and discussion, I must afford the other person that courtesy.
If it's true what you write, then all the psychologists should be allowed to practice only if they go through depression, schizophrenia etc. Otherwise, a patient with depression or schizophrenia wouldn't be served properly. Is that what you try to argue? Just because you're married doesn't mean you're a counselor material. And it's possible for people, if there's a need, to form groups of self-support, including married people. Why do we need married clergy, then? Where's this evidence you claim exists? Married clergymen abuse children, spouses, have affairs, can be addicted and list goes on, so what would that change if the priests were married? There would be many problems, including financial (I really want to see those eager parishioners providing for a priest and his family, especially if it's a big family), social (a family of a priest would be way much more scrutinized than other families), and what if such a marriage breaks down? Probably a divorce should follow re-establishing married clergy...
DeleteWhere is this evidence supporting female clergy and recognition of homosexuality? Show me if you can. I highly doubt it, but let's wait and see if you can prove it.
You write that attitudes in society changed. To some extent it's true, but I wouldn't overestimate its significance. Plus, you should remember that humankind went through many changes throughout the history - didn't German society change between the Weimar era and the times of Third Reich? It did, and many demanded that the Church should adapt accordingly to those social changes. So, why should we change the Church to reflect the changes happening right now?
If Lyotard is to be believed, then for some period of time, what we call society, this great narrative, is in crisis and the situation in Indiana perfectly reflects this crisis. There is almost nothing biding us on a larger scale, so I don't see anything wrong with desire to have a separate prom. It just reflects the fact that there are many societies. Let the people associate with whomever they find worthy of their time and attention.
RE: married clergy - The largest reason for young priests leaving the church, according to Andrew Greeley, is that they are NOT permitted to marry and that has harmed their ability to effectively counsel. Having been a member of multiple churches over the decades who have married clergy, I know that it is a system which works to the benefit of the parish and is not a burden, financially or otherwise.
Delete"And it's possible for people, if there's a need, to form groups of self-support, including married people. Why do we need married clergy, then?" Thus, if people feel a need, they may form their own church. Why then, do they need a priest? Eucharist? Eucharist is the only rite which is reserved to a priest, yet if one believes in the Catechismal teaching of Ex Opere Operato, the efficacy of the sacrament of Eucharist is assured regardless of the ontological status of the officiant. Well done, sir. You have outlined why clergy are not needed at all.
RE: female clergy. In addition to numerous inscriptions, we can simply go to the Council of Paris in 869 where it explicitly mentions the practices of bishops allowing females to preside over Eucharist and women being consecrated. More recently, the 1976 Pontifical Biblical Commission report on the Ordination of Women stated that there is no bar, either by Scripture or Tradition, to the ordination of women and that Christ's plan would not be transgressed by permitting the ordination of women. This report echoes the opinions of Thomas Aquinas 650 years earlier.
RE: blessing of same-sex unions, try reading the Vatican Graecus 1811 for one. It is a 12th century liturgy for the union of two men. There are over two dozen others, as well, dating from the 8th century through the 16th.
RE: Video - Personally, I don't believe Lyotard or other relativists, as I hold that there are objective absolutes in this world. *shrugs*
Look, I get that you would prefer that people who don't hold your opinions on certain issues lock themselves in a closet. That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. But that opinion does not invalidate, diminish or otherwise obviate the opinions of others. Biologically and anthropologically, humans are social beings who work together to in community to deal with perceived problems. To hold that a certain percentage of the community should be excluded because you judge them unworthy, it diminishes everyone, including yourself (Judge not...). By your own words, you should find a different community to associate with who you find worthy of your time and attention.
You weren't able, as I predicted, to prove anything. There isn't anything proving that being a married clergy makes you more effective. It may be the case, but it's virtually impossible to prove. The same goes for female clergy - mythical "Council of Paris" won't help you as there's no proof of that either. The same with homosexuality - obscure and incomplete text isn't a proof of anything unless you want to believe it proves something.
DeleteI don't want to lock anyone in a closet. I want people to be free to associate with like-minded people without fear of harassment from "inclusive" people like you. It's YOU who is the problem here. That's why privatization is a good thing - people will be allowed to do anything they want.
And here I was under the impression that we were having a spirited and healthy exchange of ideas. I did not realize that I was being a problem by attempting to include you and your opinions in the conversation, nor was I conscious that I was making you fearful.
DeleteI do sincerely apologize for that.
I shall endeavour to honour your wishes and not include you or your thoughts in my future conversations. It is unfortunate that, through reasoned discussion and sourced proof of argument, we have been unable to engage in substantive and fruitful dialogue.
Peace of the risen Christ be with you.
Blame it on me, Tim. Typical of people like you, but not surprising given the fact that you have no proof supporting your own claims.
DeleteYou don't make me fearful and, in case you haven't noticed, we do have a conversation. But we're not on the same page. This doesn't mean we can't discuss those matters further, but it might be harder to do.
And spare me condescending salutations like "Peace of the risen Christ be with you". I don't want and need it.
Plus, I'm perplexed as to why do you care what the Catholic Church does in its own realm? You have your female clergy, blessings for same-sex relationships, married clergy etc. So why does it matter? In case you might wonder, but the Church flourishes where nothing of those above mentioned things exists. Think about it, Tim.
Wishing someone the peace of Christ is not condescension.
DeleteI may misunderstood his intentions and if that's the case, then I apologize. That being said, I still maintain that Tim didn't present any sufficient proof.
DeleteIf they want their own prom, let them have it. I imagine it could be held in the parking lot of the local Chic-fil-A.
ReplyDeletesnicker.
DeleteI just wonder how these kids even know they are heterosexual at such a young age.
DeleteThe prom thing makes perfect sense. We cannot let the gays radically redefine the sacred institution of premarital adolescent socialization into temporary adult-aping heterosexual coupling roles! God made Teenage Adam and his prom-date Joy, not Teenage Adam and his prom-date Roy. What is society coming to??
ReplyDelete*grins widely* Well said!
DeleteAnd, what about live and let live, huh? Gays want to have a prom, good for them, let them have it. Christians want to have a prom, let them have it too. Where's the problem? It's not that much of a surprise if you take into account the fact that Christians and gays come from very different worlds.
DeleteWell said, A Sinner.
DeletePeter, you realize the other (official) prom wasn't going to be a
Deletespecifically "Gay Prom," yes? It was just going to be a regular prom
with maybe one or two brave same-sex couples attending. At most they'd
share a few slow dances; it's not like they were going to be having
sex right there on the dance floor! If one or two couples ruins or
taints the WHOLE prom for these Christians, and if these Christians
who disagree can't just ignore them, pretend they're just friends, or
avert their eyes during "controversial" moments (like *gasp* a hug for
the formal photo!)...well, if they think this sort of passive
tolerance constitutes being complicit or "condoning," then one wonders
how these Christians can even stand going to the same school or
grocery store or living in the same country even! I think the real
problem here must be, then, how the institution of "prom" in general
is used to socialize heteronormative gender roles in many people's
minds at the expense of those disenfranchised from that system
(whether queer or just, at that age, socially an outsider), and the
emotion some conservatives have apparently invested in the
specifically psychosexual dynamics of this "tradition" (as opposed to
just, you know, treating it as a party where people have a fun time,
rather than some sort of gendered rite of passage).
Of course, anonymous, you are right, but in my experience Peter doesn't consider such practicalities.
Delete"It's not that much of a surprise if you take into account the fact that Christians and gays come from very different worlds."
ReplyDeleteSimply not true. They come from the same world. Many gay people were raised Christians and remain so.
Amen.
DeleteI'm not denying the fact that gay people are raised as Christians and may remain so (or they claim to). What I want to say is those wolrds stand in stark opposition to each other.
Delete