[lit-ideas] Re: LUMBERJACKS and Arabs IN BLACK DRESSES
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:52:06 -0600
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:
