Last month, the editors of the Houston Chronicle decided to lecture the Pope on the proper way to run the Catholic Church. Today, the Chron sets its sights on Catholic Lite:
The division over the role of gay and lesbian church members is not unique to Episcopalians, once dominant in Establishment circles and still influential. The denominational divide mirrors a similar ideological and partisan split of American society.
This is an era when the nation is at war with global terrorists and could be attacked at any time. Many Americans are trapped in poverty and ignorance, and most face an uncertain future. At such a time, the deep national divide and animosity over same-sex unions is unnecessary and inappropriate.
Got that? We have poverty and terrorism, so church doctrine should go out the window.
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
26 Responses to “Chron editors dictate church policy, again”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
I’m in full agreement with their words, but completely opposed to their intent:
The gays and lesbians should stop trying to force acceptance of their abnormal behavior until we have time to deal with the distraction.
Just my opinion, but it seems the Church has much bigger problems than the Chron’s opinion.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3861645
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/05/24/dangerous_patterns/
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/14865212.htm
I ain’t a Catholic (I am one of those pesky eeevangelical Christians), but I will say this: God is quite clear on what comprises sinful behavior in the Bible. He’s also quite clear on what is expected of Church leaders. If the Church (as a whole, not just Catholics) start picking and choosing which of God’s directions to follow, they are not too smart.
And the Chronicle editors should leave that which they obviously don’t understand alone.
Shame on the Chronicle. And they wonder why sales are down???!!
When is Benzion going to buy the Chronicle? We need new leadership!
We need to quit bashing gays.This country can be so much more colorful if we just embrace them.
Yes #3… exactly right. Furthermore, there is a good litmus test on certain items in the Bible. If a declaration of a subject is declared in the Old Testament and is then repeated in the New Testament, then that is the way it is. Homosexuality is declared a sin in both the Old and New Testaments, and with dire consequences from both.
Also… a little practical thought here… The English language uses words that describe such behavior; such as, queer, pervert. You can find these words in any dictionary. They have been around a long time, and they have retained their meaning since origination. They are used to describe certain behaviors such as homosexuality, beastiality and pedophilia.
On the subject of this behavior, anyone who practices, promotes, perpetuates or propagates it must fall under the category of at least one of the two words used above. This goes for both the Chronical and the Epicopal church.
Saying that this battle is unnecesary is not being honest. The homosexuals have brought the battle to the normal people. Heterosexuality has been the normal forever, and homosexuality the abnormal. It is the homosexexual community that is determined to battle their way into mainstream, and the battle is aligned against the hetrosexual, and you must believe that they have declared war.
I promise you that they are after your sons and daughters, because they want sex with them. I say they must be stopped.
Sorry to be so direct.
Who’s bashing gays? I am just saying that a church that bases its structure on biblical standards will not have gay clergy…
They claim they should be a minority and get special considerations. Well the black guy did not CHOOSE to be black, the indian did not choose to be indian. You will never convience me they were BORN gay! Circumstance, lifes hardships, whatever and thier own desires made them that way.
They also have the choice to abstain. To not LIVE the gay lifestyle. They do not HAVE to sleep with anyone, or have an intimate relationship with anyone.
I choose to live alone - I like it that way. They too can choose to live alone.
We didn’t ask, but they want to tell us anyway. Personally if they want to be ungodly, that is thier right as long as they leave me alone.
But they refuse to leave me, you or anyone else alone. They want yo be in our face. They want to DEMAND our acceptance and approval, well get the heck over it - they will not get approval or acceptance from me.
The Bible says it, I believe it and that is the way it is and will always be.
The Chuch has rights too. No one has the right to step on OUR rights in favor of thier own.
blonde,hate to diss you but i have evidence that some gay people are born that way.
I have 3 cousins. When we were growing up they pretty much were not doing the things the other kids were doing. The boys wanted to play with dolls and tumble and the girls wanted to play baseball and get dirty. We never thought anything other than that was how they were and move on. Well, my male cousins all wound up coming out and are gay,same with the females. They are all adults and happy with their partners and we are all family. No problems on my side. These kids at age 2,3,4,5 and so on had the tendancies and traits of the opposite sex.Boys fem and girls butch.
We have a young boy in our cul-de-sac. 5 years old. He plays dolls and make up with the girls and has no interest in playing ball with the other boys. We treat him like everybody else but we all know the kid is going to be gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Dont get me wrong. There are some people who chose a gay lifestyle but I bet the vast majority are born with some type of gay gene (my term) that makes them who they are. They should have the same rights as everybody else. Dont be so afraid. It only hurts the first time.Muwaahhhhaaaa
Gregg, i hate to diss you but i have evidence that some murderers are born that way. There was a little boy on my street who always killed things. He ended up becoming a murderer. He was just born that way. He had no interest in preserving life. He didn’t choose to be that way. He has a murderer gene.
If i told you i have a “i like to have sex with little boys” gene, you’d lock me up. That is a lame argument, re-read #7 Bigbozo’s comments.
wrong t-bone! While many are obviously born with less masculine and more feminine tendecies, we are, after all, living in the 21st century - a time when sexual promiscuity and all out pursuit of any sexual experience rules the day. The vast, vast majority of homosexuals practice it out of sheer hedonistic pursuit of a different weird sexual experience. I believe they actually know it is wrong, but the standard of right and wrong is left on hold for the pursuit of whatever the experience is. In this case, it is homosexual sex.
I am not speaking as one who knows little about homosexuality. I watched my brother die of AIDS. When I witnessed that, I set out to find out about homosexuality. I just happened to inform myself, and I found out out wretched and dispicable the lifestyle is. GOD WAS RIGHT! And you people try to make him wrong by claiming gene problems.
I think there’s an important distinction to be made between homosexuality as an incination, and homosexual behavior.
I believe that someone with a homosexual inclination — that is, someone who is attracted to the same sex — can still lead a chaste life, just as we are all called to do. I think the homosexual inclination is disordered, but I don’t think it’s sinful in and of itself.
The sin comes when the person succumbs to temptation and commits homosexual acts.
Let me put this situation to y’all: let’s say there’s a good, churchgoing guy who is attracted to other guys. He knows his orientation is messed up, so he stays single. He resists temptation and doesn’t engage in homosexual behavior. Is he sinning?
I agree it is a gene problem; it is the Sin gene. We all have the capacity to any sin in the book, it is just the redemption power and the choice of not sinning that keeps us all from, robbing a bank, murder, or homosexuality.
Having sex is a natural born thing as well yet we can choose not to have it!
As far as the Chron. goes, who are they to decide what is appropriate or neccesary for discussion?
Bigbozo, I watched my brother die of aides as well, it is not a pretty site. However neither was exclusive behavior of his mate and friends. Totally undeserved to my parents. Tolerance? I think not.
#6 - that’s FUNNY!!
Who do they think they are, dictating internal church policies? Of ANY religion? Unlike govt, if you don’t like your faith you are free to move on. Nobody is forcing anyone to believe anything, as long as you don’t go hurting anyone else (like cutting of heads and stuff). The arrogance of the Chronicle just galls me. And Clinton p***d me off when he asked to receive Catholic communion and the PRIEST CAVED IN! I swear, that man must walk funny, his testicular volume must be of Guinness proportions. As for the Chronicle - just who died and made THEM God?
(As you can tell, people messing with religion without the proper IQ, knowledge, or understanding sends my blood pressure into the stratosphere.)
Glad they found and burned all the witches in Salem. Got rid of that problem. The church wasnt too happy with all that conjurin up spells and craziness. Until hetro marriage gets below 50% divorce rate dont bother me with all this sanctity crap.
Until the Church can make young boys safer at church than they are at Michael Jacskons ranch they need to solve their own problems. As far as AIDS. How bout that blonde infecting all the brothers in the UK. I guess she though she could only “contract” AIDS!!
Matt, I would take it one step further and say that people with homosexual tendencies can still live happy, heterosexual, happily married (to the opposite sex) sex-filled lives. It’s about attitude.
Nobody cries over the internal torment of the guy who tends toward violence (for whatever reason) and still chooses not to behave in a violent fashion.
Well, Gregg, see my #18 and know this: We live in the good ol’ USA. 2 guys or 2 gals or a group of 30-40 folks are free to have all the sex they want, and you know what? I don’t really care. I can live next to, hang out with, drink a few beers with, talk to, or whatever.
My only beef is this: don’t give me this “equal rights” crap. At least have the stones to come out and say “we want a new right, and it’s called Gay Marriage”. Don’t fundamentally alter the definition of “traditional marriage” instead and then try to pass it off as the same thing. Besides, divorce is a completely different problem than whether or not gays should be allowed to marry.
And finally, don’t biotch and cry if the Church won’t let gays in the clergy. They don’t have to if they don’t want, and it isn’t anything personal.
The Chronicle really irritates me when they pretend to be qualified to write on religious matters.
I think we should be kind to gays, but giving Civil Rights to sexual preferences is nuts. The moment you do that you get the changes Massachusetts has seen - http://www.massresistance.com/. As long as you don’t mind having illustrated gay fiction read to your 2nd graders, I suppose it is no big deal.
As for the Episcopal church, they continue to mock the Work of God at every turn. Ironically, it appears that this lady was selected as the leader of a large denomination not because she knows how to interpret the Bible, but because she doesn’t know how to.
I’m guessing that there are a number of people here well versed in Biblical knowldege, so can someone indicate exactly where the Bible defines homosexuality as a sin?
Also what does the Bible say about multiple wifes and/or concubines?
Additonally, what did the Bible say about human slavery or people as the property of others?
How are the millions of children and heterosexual people in central and west Africa that are suffering from HIV infection be viewed in terms of the Bible and sin?
Some people try to excuse this behavior but it comes down to this, homosexuality is NOT natural.
#21 - Old Testament References (what is unique about these references is that they fall under the old Law, which specified the death penalty for many sins):
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. Leviticus 18:22
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. Leviticus 20:13
New Testament:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 1 Corinthians 6:9
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Romans 1:27
AIDS was a disease that got its start with some form of sexual immorality. Unfortunately, God does not generally protect people from the natural consequences of their actions, which unfortunately means that innocent people are affected by sin. So the children and blood transfusion recipients, etc. who contract AIDS may not have deserved it, but it was ultimately sin which brought it into the world and that puts their suffering on the heads of those who DID sin and help to spread the disease via that sin.
#23 -
So I take that to mean that you think a priest who molests a young boy in his church, should be put to death - not protected from criminal punishment and civil litigation by the church leaders?
Good questions, Mike S. and good answers from Jimb.
Re. the multiple wives / concubines - The Bible is a thoroughly honest book and records history as it really happened - even when it is highly unflattering to the leaders at the time. While polygamy was more common during those times, the Bible is clear that God’s ideal is for one man and one woman in marriage. Genesis 2:24 is quoted 3 times in the New Testament (For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.) The Bible shows the bad consequences that come with multiple wives. 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
Regarding #24, the punishments set forth in the Old Testament were specifically for the Israelites. Government would set the punishments today. All sins separate us from God, so we all need a Savior. But the punishments the Bible prescribes do reflect the gravity of the sins.
The best resource I have seen on this debate is titled “Responding to Pro-Gay Theology and it can be found here - http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/dallas.html. It includes every verse referring to homosexuality.
With respect to human slavery, the Bible acknowledged that slavery existed and pointed out that we are all believers in Christ have equal value (Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.). But it was not talking about the type of slavery in the U.S., where people of one race kidnapped people in their country and sold them to people of another race in another country, and where the slaves were mistreated.
#24 - That’s Old Testament Law, fulfilled by Christ’s death and resurrection. I think that the law of the land should be followed.