Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4
really bad move by my local diocese
Topic Started: May 28 2006, 08:45 AM (1,203 Views)
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Rick, interesting questions. I have one for you:

Would you support the church's decision if they removed the same man, but because he has sex with prostitutes or has incest sex each night? (Given that both acts are legal)

Would you fight for the man to keep his job?

Just curious...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DivaDeb
HOLY CARP!!!
The 89th Key
May 29 2006, 09:52 AM
Aqua Letifer
May 29 2006, 09:34 AM
Okay, let's assume this person in question was asked to step down for picking up prostitutes.  Now let's assume he's asked to step down because someone caught him in a lie, once. 

Hmmmm, are they the same thing?  After all, sin is sin. Let's not make this personal and case-by-case.

Aqua, I would agree with you if the man lied on a consistent basis. However, I guess I'm referring to those who hold "leadership" positions in the church, but continue to commit the same sin daily, without remorse. I would say the same thing if the person was known to go home and get totally wasted every single night, or would go home and curse at his wife, etc. Generally, the church should make an effort to set an example. Those in the body of the church can sin all they want, the church shouldn't do anything unless it physically endangers others. But those leading worship, music, the sermon, etc...if they are known to commit an abominable sin, whatever the sin might be, the church should try their best to set an example, regardless of the sin.

89th, I'm not sure, given the Scriptural listing of sins which are abominations to God in Proverbs 6:16-19, that your suggested criterion for policing church leadership is enforceable. Here's the passage:

"These six things doth the LORD hate:
yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,
feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies,
and he that soweth discord among brethren."

The only overt sin on the list is murder. The rest of them are mental attitude sins or sins of the tongue. You'd be hard pressed to find a believer anywhere, clergy or layman who has not fallen into the trap of one or more of the above on a fairly frequent basis.

Other abominations that are mentioned in Scripture are all sexual sin (not just homosexual sin and not just sex outside marriage), dishonest business practices, a haughty attitude, those who justify the wicked or condemn the just, even *prayer* if it comes from one who has turned his ear from the hearing of the law. A self-righteous spirit is described as abomination in Luke 16:15-16:

"And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. And he said unto them, "Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.""

It seems to me that "abomination" is used to describe nearly everything that is in conflict with the perfect righteousness of God. That's a long list and many of them are not as evident as others. I think that's because the list is for people to make an assessment of themselves, not for others to make the assessment for them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
The 89th Key
May 29 2006, 10:21 AM
Rick, interesting questions. I have one for you:

Would you support the church's decision if they removed the same man, but because he has sex with prostitutes or has incest sex each night? (Given that both acts are legal)

Would you fight for the man to keep his job?

Just curious...

Why do you continue to equate homosexuality with prostitution and incest?

When you are able to discuss homosexuality and homosexual acts in and of themselves as moral or immoral, then we can have this discussion. But as long as you are able to justify your condemnation of homosexuality only by drawing parallels to other actions, there is little for us to discuss.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
DivaDeb
May 29 2006, 10:31 AM
It seems to me that "abomination" is used to describe nearly everything that is in conflict with the perfect righteousness of God.  That's a long list and many of them are not as evident as others.  I think that's because the list is for people to make an assessment of themselves, not for others to make the assessment for them.

Very well said, Deb. I really like this.

If Christians spent more time on self introspection and trying to reach perfection themselves rather than on evaluating, judging, condemning and trying to control others, maybe Christianity would not be so highly reviled by so many.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Rick, I "equate" the two, because polygamy and incest is almost universally seen as wrong and sinful, yet homosexuality lately has become more accepted, more tolerant...yet all of those acts are considered sinful and sexually perverse.

So I bring them up because they aren't as politically correct as homosexuality, yet IMO are as sexually perverse as the other. If you fire a man because he has sex with his sister, yet don't fire him because he has sex with other men...that is intellectually inconsistent.

On a side note, Rick and Deb, I do agree (and you've seen via PMs) that I struggle with this. I do think Christians need to worry about themselves far more than others. The only problem I find with this...is it seems that if Christians remain silent when certain subjects come up...that those subjects (homosexuality for example) will start to be more and more accepted by everyone, including Christians. The same thing has happened for a myriad of topics - divorce, pre-marital sexual relations, etc. Don't get me wrong...we all sin, and we should all work on our OWN faults, me being at the front of the list. But it also is hard to remain silent when a doctrine of biblical error is being preached, or at least supported.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
The 89th Key
May 29 2006, 11:00 AM
Rick, I "equate" the two, because polygamy and incest is almost universally seen as wrong and sinful, yet homosexuality lately has become more accepted, more tolerant...yet all of those acts are considered sinful and sexually perverse.

So I bring them up because they aren't as politically correct as homosexuality, yet IMO are as sexually perverse as the other. If you fire a man because he has sex with his sister, yet don't fire him because he has sex with other men...that is intellectually inconsistent.

On a side note, Rick and Deb, I do agree (and you've seen via PMs) that I struggle with this. I do think Christians need to worry about themselves far more than others. The only problem I find with this...is it seems that if Christians remain silent when certain subjects come up...that those subjects (homosexuality for example) will start to be more and more accepted by everyone, including Christians. The same thing has happened for a myriad of topics - divorce, pre-marital sexual relations, etc. Don't get me wrong...we all sin, and we should all work on our OWN faults, me being at the front of the list. But it also is hard to remain silent when a doctrine of biblical error is being preached, or at least supported.

I understand why you draw the parallel, I just think it is an invalid one to draw. Each has to be taken on its own merits. Homosexuality cannot be deemed moral or immoral because incest is seen one way or the other.

The only question that can be asked is why homosexuality is moral or immoral.

It obviously cannot be because Scripture has called it an abomination since Scripture calls many things we do today an abhomination and we do not condemn those. Scripture also allows for discrimination and for social institutions which we today would consider immoral. Thus, inherently we recognize that Scripture must be interpreted within the times in which we find ourselves.

So, thus, we need to go to another basis.

Thumper goes to natural law. He argues that the human experience is that people come together for the purpose of procreation thus raising heterosexual realtionships to a level that homosexual relationships cannot achieve; indeed relegating homosexual relations to a disorder of sexuality.

I would argue that thumps misreads natural law. I would argue that the human experience is that people naturally gravitate into exclusive partnerships for fulfillment of themselves and their partner -- and the sexuality of these relationships has little or no bearing on this need in the human being. I argue that sexuality is not a determining feature because we find even children from the earliest of ages through and young adulthood gravitating to having "best friends" often without thought to sexuality, which I see as the the child's natural prelude and experimentation with the natural human experience of wanting and seeking a committed relationship.

Procreation to me, is an offshoot, not the purpose, of the human experience in this regard. I see this because so many people who are unable to procreate still naturally gravittate to and need a committed relationship. Thus, I do not see procreation as a universal motivating force, which to me is needed if something is to be considered an aspect of natural law.

Thumps and I will not agree on how to apply natural law here because we disagree over the basic premises of the argument. But thumps, at least, discusses homosexuality as right or wrong within itself; not because it parallels some other activity deemed right or wrong.

Within the confines of the situation presented for our discussion, 89th....

The pastor in this parish is required, in my view, to do his best to create and sustain a community which adheres to Catholic teachings, even with all of its apparent contradictions. Given what apple has laid out about this situation, I cannot understand on what basis the pastor of this parish decided that having a homosexual leading the choir is worse than having jealous, self-righteous, gossipy former choir members doing so. How did he decide one thing is worse than another in Catholic teaching?

And given that the people who started this are using the celebration of the Eucharist -- the Church's highest celebration of our unity as human beings, why did he allow them to cause such division? Indeed, why did he join them in doing so?

How much better of a teacher and pastor would he have been if, rather than taking the easy way out, used this as a means to teach the tolerance, acceptance and love of Jesus Christ, especially Jesus' acceptance of the social outcast? And how much stronger of a community would he have helped develop if he had helped people through this rather than simply trying to eliminate an easy target for hatred and condemnation?
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DivaDeb
HOLY CARP!!!
As you well know, 89th, I have an ENORMOUS problem with the preaching of false doctrine. I don't think that's at issue in this case though.

The church's decision seems to be in line with it's policies. I think it's worth mentioning that if all churches followed that policy and fired their gay employees today, next Sunday would be pretty quiet.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
I always have a hard time getting sympathy for these cases. A gay guy knowingly attaches himself to an organization that promotes gay-hating and gay-bashing, and then is upset when it turns on him. I suppose it is a good thing he wouldn't closet himself more, but even better would be if he never joined the organization to begin with.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Jeffrey, I don't believe the organization promotes gay-hating and gay-bashing. Please don't think most churches are like Phelps'. The Christian church promotes love, peace, grace, understanding and forgiveness.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
The Church did not remove him from the body of the Church, just the leadership.

Now, y'all can argue how many angels can dance on a pin all y'all want, but like it or not, the clergy is held to a higher standard than the laity, and that is just the way it is.

While a Minister of Music is not a true offical of the Catholic Church (as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong) he still is seen by the members as a quasi-church management.

Whether you agree with the Catholic Church's poaition on hoosexuality, or not, ask yourself this question: If I am engaged in a behavior that I know my employer will not tolerate, that can reflect negatively on my employer, what will be the response of my employer when they learn of the aforementioned activity?

If you are honest with your self, and not just arguing to argue, you will acknowledge that the chances of your continued employment look like slim and none.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Jolly
May 30 2006, 06:58 AM
The Church did not remove him from the body of the Church, just the leadership.

Now, y'all can argue how many angels can dance on a pin all y'all want, but like it or not, the clergy is held to a higher standard than the laity, and that is just the way it is.

While a Minister of Music is not a true offical of the Catholic Church (as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong) he still is seen by the members as a quasi-church management.

Whether you agree with the Catholic Church's poaition on hoosexuality, or not, ask yourself this question: If I am engaged in a behavior that I know my employer will not tolerate, that can reflect negatively on my employer, what will be the response of my employer when they learn of the aforementioned activity?

If you are honest with your self, and not just arguing to argue, you will acknowledge that the chances of your continued employment look like slim and none.

First off Jolly, your interpretation of the position is mostly correct. He is not an official of the Church, but not really management. But he is viewed as a leader within the parish he is in, perhaps kind of a member of a management team for a small piece of the opverall organization -- a team which is given only as much authority as the local Pastor wishes to give them.

As for the Church's right to dismiss this individual, yes it has the legal right to do so.

The question is whether it is morally right to do so (a valid question for a Church) and, given the other circumstances surrounding this and considering other actions of the Church, is it hypocritical for the Church to do so. If the Church is going to take such action based on disapproval of this man's actions, how can it do so when the controversy has arisen because of other';s actions which are contrary to Church teachings?
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Jolly
May 30 2006, 10:58 AM
If you are honest with your self, and not just arguing to argue, you will acknowledge that the chances of your continued employment look like slim and none.

How do you explain Cardinal Law then?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Rick Zimmer
May 30 2006, 11:16 AM
Jolly
May 30 2006, 06:58 AM
The Church did not remove him from the body of the Church, just the leadership.

Now, y'all can argue how many angels can dance on a pin all y'all want, but like it or not, the clergy is held to a higher standard than the laity, and that is just the way it is.

While a Minister of Music is not a true offical of the Catholic Church (as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong) he still is seen by the members as a quasi-church management.

Whether you agree with the Catholic Church's poaition on hoosexuality, or not, ask yourself this question: If I am engaged in a behavior that I know my employer will not tolerate, that can reflect negatively on my employer, what will be the response of my employer when they learn of the aforementioned activity?

If you are honest with your self, and not just arguing to argue, you will acknowledge that the chances of your continued employment look like slim and none.

First off Jolly, your interpretation of the position is mostly correct. He is not an official of the Church, but not really management. But he is viewed as a leader within the parish he is in, perhaps kind of a member of a management team for a small piece of the opverall organization -- a team which is given only as much authority as the local Pastor wishes to give them.

As for the Church's right to dismiss this individual, yes it has the legal right to do so.

The question is whether it is morally right to do so (a valid question for a Church) and, given the other circumstances surrounding this and considering other actions of the Church, is it hypocritical for the Church to do so. If the Church is going to take such action based on disapproval of this man's actions, how can it do so when the controversy has arisen because of other';s actions which are contrary to Church teachings?

Rick, should the man be removed from his position if he's known for picking up prostitutes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
John D'Oh
May 30 2006, 07:20 AM
Jolly
May 30 2006, 10:58 AM
If you are honest with your self, and not just arguing to argue, you will acknowledge that the chances of your continued employment look like slim and none.

How do you explain Cardinal Law then?

Want me to add more Cardinals and Bishops to that list, Jon? As well as lots of lay people in positions such as the one here, people who practice birth control, are divorced and remarried, who have had affairs, etc. etc. etc.

The Pastor here had the perfect opportunity to teach some very positive values about Chritian love, acceptance, tolerance. Instead, he chose condemnation, the easy way out, and created divisiveness and anger.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
Why are we talking about behavior here at all?

The only behavior the church has seen as far as I can tell is his affiliation with a gay men's choir. In other words, he's "out."

I repeat, they have no knowledge (at least as far as we know) of his acting on his homosexual inclinations. Being a member of a gay men's choir, and being openly gay, ain't behavior. It's labeling.

I thought the Catholic church's stand on homosexuality was that it was something that shouldn't be acted upon. Love the sinner, hate the sin and all that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Nina, that's a valid point. Usually I would assume if someone was "out" that he was acting on it or had a relationship or something....otherwise, why would he be "out"? Many variables go into that one...but bottom line is you're right. If he's not acting on it, there's nothing wrong....in fact, it's commendable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Just out of interest - does anybody think it would be acceptable to fire this chap if they found that he was using contraceptives in a heterosexual marriage?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
a woman was fired (choir director) from my church for having an affair (outside of marriage).
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Nina
May 30 2006, 10:08 AM
Why are we talking about behavior here at all?

The only behavior the church has seen as far as I can tell is his affiliation with a gay men's choir. In other words, he's "out."

I repeat, they have no knowledge (at least as far as we know) of his acting on his homosexual inclinations. Being a member of a gay men's choir, and being openly gay, ain't behavior. It's labeling.

I thought the Catholic church's stand on homosexuality was that it was something that shouldn't be acted upon. Love the sinner, hate the sin and all that.

It is, which is why he has not been divorced from the body of the Church. Just from its leadership...
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
John D'Oh
May 30 2006, 11:52 AM
Just out of interest - does anybody think it would be acceptable to fire this chap if they found that he was using contraceptives in a heterosexual marriage?

And if he joined a fund raiser for Planned Parenthood.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
John D'Oh
May 30 2006, 01:52 PM
Just out of interest - does anybody think it would be acceptable to fire this chap if they found that he was using contraceptives in a heterosexual marriage?

[I'm responding to my own questions here, a sure sign that I'm on the slippery slope to self-moderation.]

Maybe sins should have points awarded to them, and you're OK provided that you don't exceed a certain number.

For example:

Falling asleep during sermon - 1 pt
Falling asleep during sermon and having erotic dream - 5 pts
Dream about neighbours wife - 8 pts
Dream abour neighbour (same sex) - 15 pts
Dream abour neighbours goat - 86 pts
Having relations with any of above after service over - multiply score by 5
Not feeling guilty afterwards - multiply by 10 and add 10pts for enjoyment
Using contraceptive when doing the above - double and add the number you first thought of.
Having relations with any of above during sermon - excommunication, burning, etc.

Allowable limit:

Congregation member - 45 points
Church elder - 25 points
Priest - 10 points
Bishop - 5 points
Pope - 1 point
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
Jolly
May 30 2006, 01:01 PM
John D'Oh
May 30 2006, 11:52 AM
Just out of interest - does anybody think it would be acceptable to fire this chap if they found that he was using contraceptives in a heterosexual marriage?

And if he joined a fund raiser for Planned Parenthood.

probably the ax as well.

what bugs me about this particular case, besides that fact that i know this Joe, is that i know the sanctimonious people who ousted him.. born and raised in Kansas, devout, pious, judgemental and close minded - who actually had their own self interests in mind.

when he first came to the church.. he got rid of the polka rhythmed organists and cantors who only sang in one key.. made his share of elderly enemies... They talked and brewed among themselves for years. They put pamphlets on cars in other parishes. The diocese ignored them for years.. We got a new bishop and he felt , i presume, the pressure to be too much, in light of the recent priest scandals.

too bad for that community.. Joe was an asset extraordinaire.. he brought them real music and gave much of himself above and beyond his paltry salary.

it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
apple
May 30 2006, 02:22 PM
Jolly
May 30 2006, 01:01 PM
John D'Oh
May 30 2006, 11:52 AM
Just out of interest - does anybody think it would be acceptable to fire this chap if they found that he was using contraceptives in a heterosexual marriage?

And if he joined a fund raiser for Planned Parenthood.

probably the ax as well.

what bugs me about this particular case, besides that fact that i know this Joe, is that i know the sanctimonious people who ousted him.. born and raised in Kansas, devout, pious, judgemental and close minded - who actually had their own self interests in mind.

when he first came to the church.. he got rid of the polka rhythmed organists and cantors who only sang in one key.. made his share of elderly enemies... They talked and brewed among themselves for years. They put pamphlets on cars in other parishes. The diocese ignored them for years.. We got a new bishop and he felt , i presume, the pressure to be too much, in light of the recent priest scandals.

too bad for that community.. Joe was an asset extraordinaire.. he brought them real music and gave much of himself above and beyond his paltry salary.

My jokes aside, I think this is a terribly sad story. A great example of ignoring all the benefits someone can bring because they don't play by the rules, and allowing ourselves to be governed by the petty jealousies of the nondescript. Ignoring the religious aspect of the matter, this is typical institutional behaviour.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
apple
May 30 2006, 12:22 PM
Jolly
May 30 2006, 01:01 PM
John D'Oh
May 30 2006, 11:52 AM
Just out of interest - does anybody think it would be acceptable to fire this chap if they found that he was using contraceptives in a heterosexual marriage?

And if he joined a fund raiser for Planned Parenthood.

probably the ax as well.

what bugs me about this particular case, besides that fact that i know this Joe, is that i know the sanctimonious people who ousted him.. born and raised in Kansas, devout, pious, judgemental and close minded - who actually had their own self interests in mind.

when he first came to the church.. he got rid of the polka rhythmed organists and cantors who only sang in one key.. made his share of elderly enemies... They talked and brewed among themselves for years. They put pamphlets on cars in other parishes. The diocese ignored them for years.. We got a new bishop and he felt , i presume, the pressure to be too much, in light of the recent priest scandals.

too bad for that community.. Joe was an asset extraordinaire.. he brought them real music and gave much of himself above and beyond his paltry salary.

As I've said, I feel sorry for the gentleman.

The bottom line may be the "priest problem" causing a toughening of some stances within the Catholic Church, as you said. Some folks get caught in the fall-out...
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
collateral damage.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4