[lit-ideas] Re: LUMBERJACKS and Arabs IN BLACK DRESSES

Yes, Julie, your concerns are the concerns of all intelligent people.  The 
Church's conflating of homosexuality with pedophilia is not only disturbing, 
it's an insult to pedophiles everywhere.  Having once been accused of being a 
"purported" pedophiliac by none other than the gracious David Myers, I feel 
qualified to speak for pedophiliacs everywhere.  Pedophiliacs are not 
necessarily homosexuals nor are homosexuals necessarily pedophiliacs -- no more 
so than heterosexuals are.  I speak for pedophiles everywhere when I say: give 
me your YOUNG -- your males, your females.  I need to have my way with people, 
but I don't feel adequate enough to deal with adults.  I find the naive 
sexually attractive in that way. 

As for the UAE police -- they've obviously never belonged to any university 
fraternities.  What would fraternities do without drag fashion shows?  Boys 
will be girls, as they say.  Send the UAE to college!   A little learning is a 
deranging thing.  Along these lines, let me say that I feel so sorry for women 
who have so little testosterone that they can only live normal lives.  There 
should be testosterone supplements for women to take so that they too can 
experience the joys of anaclisis. 

Mike Geary
Memphis

   
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx 
  To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 1:16 PM
  Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: LUMBERJACKS and Arabs IN BLACK DRESSES


  Forgive me if I'm overlooking the obvious, or stating that which is assumed 
here.  The thing which troubles me the most about this document is not the 
Catholic stance on homo-sexuality.  It is that it seems that barring those who 
have not "'clearly overcome' homosexual tendencies" is perceived as a step 
toward preventing the kinds of sex-abuse that has been on the front page of the 
media for a few years, sex-abuse of minors by Priests.  I'm disturbed that no 
distinction is being made (seemingly) between homosexuality and pedophilia -- 
surely the Catholic Church does not understand it to be de rigeur for 
homosexual men to prey on minors.  The statement re. those already in the 
Priesthood is equally discomforting.  And....praytell....even were this 
approach to eliminate potential sex abuse, how in the world would it be 
determined whether someone had "clearly overcome" "tendencies"???   Nothing 
about this makes any rational sense to me.  It is, rather, as though the Cath 
Church is placating the world by seeming to do something when, in fact, it is 
only playing silly games.  Someone (Catholic?) please correct my above twisted 
thinking.  Below are statements which I found most troublesome from this 
morning's news report, and a bit on homosexuality in the UAE.  I do need to 
google about and find an English translation of the document somewhere -- I can 
muddle through some Italian, but not well enough to be sure of careful wording 
as this must be.
  <<(CNN) -- The Vatican has published a controversial document on gays and the 
Catholic priesthood, affirming its policy against gay priests but saying anyone 
who has "clearly overcome" homosexual tendencies can start the process of 
becoming a priest.

  <snip>The short document has already prompted debate both in and out of the 
church. Conservatives see it as a key step in reforming the priesthood, while 
liberals fear it could drive gay priests underground or create a greater 
shortage of priests in the United States.>>

  <<Meanwhile, gay groups have said the church is using homosexuals as 
scapegoats for its sexual abuse scandals, Reuters reported.>>

  Well, it wasn't heterosexuals who were abusing same-sex kids; on the other 
hand, perhaps gay groups are also thinking it is not merely homosexuality which 
was at play in those cases.

  <<In spelling out its position, the Vatican office that deals with education 
within the Catholic Church made a distinction between deep-seated homosexual 
tendencies and what it called "the expression of a transitory problem.">>

  'Scuse me?  This reminds me too much of a piece on homosexuals in Dubai (what 
exactly is the "transitory problem"?: 
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/29/uae.gay.reut/index.html

  <<DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (Reuters) -- Men arrested at what a United Arab 
Emirates official said appeared to be a gay wedding are to be given hormone 
therapy, officials said on Tuesday.

  The U.S. State Department condemned the forced medical treatment of gay 
couples in the Muslim Gulf Arab state and called on the UAE to comply with 
international legal standards.

  Police raided a hotel earlier this month where 26 homosexuals of Asian, Arab 
and UAE origin were at a party. At least 12 were dressed in women's clothes and 
wearing makeup at what an official said appeared to be a wedding celebration.

  Colonel Najm al-Sayar told Reuters the foreigners were likely to be deported 
while the locals, who are being held in the capital Abu Dhabi, would undergo 
hormonal therapy -- most likely induced testosterone.

  "They will be given psychological, medical and sociological treatment. Some 
of them will be given male hormones because some actually took female 
hormones," Sayar said.

  "This kind of behavior is immoral in our society and so we must address the 
issue."

  Homosexuality is forbidden by law in most Arab states.

  In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said: "The United 
States condemns the arrest of a dozen same-sex couples in the United Arab 
Emirates and a statement by the Interior Ministry spokesman that they will be 
subjected to government-ordered hormone and psychological treatment.

  "The arrest of these individuals is part of a string of recent group arrests 
of homosexuals in the UAE. We call on the government of the United Arab 
Emirates to immediately stop any ordered hormone and psychological treatment 
and to comply with the standards of international law.">>

  Back to the piece on the Cath. document -- 

  "The church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot 
admit to the seminary and to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, 
present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support the so-called gay 
culture," the document said, according to Adista.

  But the document said when "homosexual tendencies are only the expression of 
a transitory problem ... these must be clearly overcome at least three years 
prior to deaconate ordination."

  That position is just one step short of the priesthood.

  The 21-paragraph document -- which advises bishops and seminary rectors on 
how to deal with potential gay priests entering the church -- did not spell out 
how the "transitory problem" could be overcome, or how a potential priest could 
offer proof that he no longer had such tendencies.

  The Catholic Church has had a long-standing policy against homosexual 
priests, with a 1961 document saying homosexuals should be barred from 
priesthood.

  But in recent years the Vatican has seen a need to issue updated guidelines, 
partially as a result of the sex abuse scandal that rocked the church in the 
United States.

  That scandal, which broke out in 2002, involved abuse of teenage boys by 
priests.

  In covering one of the most sensitive issues in the Roman Catholic Church, 
the document did not cover men who are already priests but only those entering 
seminaries to prepare for the priesthood."

  I see ....

  Obviously I haven't had enough coffee.  Again.

  Julie Krueger
  ========Original Message========

        Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: LUMBERJACKS IN BLACK DRESSES 
        Date: 11/29/05 12:50:28 PM Central Standard Time 
        From: judithevans1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
        To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
        Sent on:     



  Tuesday, November 29, 2005, 4:51:18 PM, Mike Geary wrote:

    

  MG> I'm pleased to see that Pope Benedict has finally  outlawed
  MG> gays from the priesthood. 


  I imagine he had to after what he said about gays.

  On a brighter note:  Liberal Jewish Synagogues here will perform gay
  marriage ceremonies, presumably as of December 21 (December 20 in
  Scotland) when civil partnerships will begin to be celebrated.  The
  Methodists are going to perform blessings of civil partnerships; the
  Anglicans are of course scared of schism but Anglican priests will
  enter into civil partnerships.  (Bishops are supposed to ask them if
  they're celibate.  Yeah right... .)

  Guess what.  Presumably in the "no sex we're British" tradition, civil
  partnership law doesn't admit the dissolving of a partnership for
  non-consummation.  So heterosexual same-sex couples who want the tax
  advantages of a cp can enter into one. Otoh there's no cp "divorce".


  -- 
  Judy Evans, Cardiff, UK

                             mailto:judithevans1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  ------------------------------------------------------------------
  To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
  digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: