Print
Cardinal: homosexuality a form of prostitution
by Tony Grew, pinknews.co.uk
Thanks to Ivan Bailey for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-4338.html
The opposition of the Roman Catholic church to gay Pride parades reached a new low today when the Archbishop of Riga called homosexuality "total corruption in the sexual arena" and "an unnatural form of prostitution."
An open letter from Cardinal Janis Pujats demands a referendum on the issue of same-sex marriage and calls on crowds of people to take to the streets of Riga to oppose the Pride march on June 3rd.
"If there are 1,000 sexually crazy people acting foolishly in the square of Pride, then the people's march in Riga should have at least 40,000 or 50,000," he wrote.
"That proportion would give the government and public thought enough reason to leave sexual perversion outside the law."
The Roman Catholic leader recommends holding the "provocative demonstration (Pride), in a location that is closed and limited some way – a garden or square."
The Cardinal calls gay Pride a "foreign-inspired action" and his wide-ranging attacks show an underlying unhappiness with the new Latvia as an EU member.
"If a person's beliefs are godless, then there is little hope to get rid of sexual dependency.
"And it is not wonder that homosexuals, now that they have noticed quite a sexualised society, are attacking us with their perversions," he wrote.
The Cardinal claims that no human rights document covers gay people as a protected minority.
He also uses a report from 243 Latvian doctors as proof that homosexuality is an illness.
"The claim which says that homosexuality is a permissible version of normal behaviour or a special inborn disease is not true.
"The dependency created by this immorality and the resulting perverse behaviours must be seen as a sickness," the doctors' report reads.
Last month Christian groups in Latvia welcomed fundamentalist US preachers and to the country and talked tactics about opposing gay rights.
A meeting organised by Janis Vanags, Archbishop of the Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church, was attended by Cardinal Pujats and representatives of the Orthodox, Penecostals and other Christian groups.
They were addressed by Kenneth Hutcherson, who runs a 'super-church' in Seattle and is a vehement opponent of gay rights.
He told the Latvians that homosexuality was spreading rapidly, and that the "gay lobby" had increasing political influence across the world.
"We need to do everything to ensure that even in the European Union it does not lose its principles.
"It is a holy right of any nation to decide in what society to live," he told the assembled crowd, which included senior MPs.
Latvia joined the EU in 2004.
Mayor of London Ken Livingstone has pledged his support for the Riga Pride event, and London Pride has twinned with Riga as a show of solidarity.
Last year the march was attacked and missiles and human excrement were thrown at participants.
Gay and lesbian protesters were refused permission to march in Riga on the 22nd July 2006 by city officials, who cited security advice from the interior ministry.
A group of around 50 activists instead held a service of tolerance at a local Anglican church.
Hundreds of neo-Nazi skinheads, ultra-nationalists and members of the Orthodox church besieged the church, pelting the activists with excrement.
It was reported that local police stood and watched as events unfolded and declined to intervene.
The new Mayor of the Latvian capital has publicly backed the 2007 gay rights march in the city in June.
In an interview with Diena newspaper last month Janis Birks said he was ashamed at events last year and called for tolerance and understanding on all sides.
"The problem is not in the march but sexual orientation," said Mr Birks.
"We need to have discussion within society. What happened on the side of sexual minorities and the other side, I think we need understanding from both sides."
Mr Birks said that if security could be provided, the march could go ahead.
Ken Livingstone, welcomed his Latvian counterpart's comments, but urged Riga authorities to do more to protect gay people on the march.
"Security is something that is under the control of the authorities," said Mr Livingstone.
"It is their duty to ensure that demonstrators are able to exercise their right to peaceful protest."
The Cardinal's call to arms is bound to impact on the security situation at Riga Pride.
Telling Catholics that "we cannot keep quiet," he concluded:
"I can add that during this time, the faithful must not be passive. They must be witnesses of God, sufficiently active to defend their Christian values in a licentious world. Not with weapons, but with their position.
"Not just at worship services, but in civilian life. For all Christians whose faith is a matter of the heart, and for all others who love their families – you must be prepared to go out into the streets, not to create disorder, but to offer a disciplined position in support of the government, because on this very important issue of morals, the government is on the side of Christians."
Reposted from:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-4338.html
The opposition of the Roman Catholic church to gay Pride parades reached a new low today when the Archbishop of Riga called homosexuality "total corruption in the sexual arena" and "an unnatural form of prostitution."
An open letter from Cardinal Janis Pujats demands a referendum on the issue of same-sex marriage and calls on crowds of people to take to the streets of Riga to oppose the Pride march on June 3rd.
"If there are 1,000 sexually crazy people acting foolishly in the square of Pride, then the people's march in Riga should have at least 40,000 or 50,000," he wrote.
"That proportion would give the government and public thought enough reason to leave sexual perversion outside the law."
The Roman Catholic leader recommends holding the "provocative demonstration (Pride), in a location that is closed and limited some way – a garden or square."
The Cardinal calls gay Pride a "foreign-inspired action" and his wide-ranging attacks show an underlying unhappiness with the new Latvia as an EU member.
"If a person's beliefs are godless, then there is little hope to get rid of sexual dependency.
"And it is not wonder that homosexuals, now that they have noticed quite a sexualised society, are attacking us with their perversions," he wrote.
The Cardinal claims that no human rights document covers gay people as a protected minority.
He also uses a report from 243 Latvian doctors as proof that homosexuality is an illness.
"The claim which says that homosexuality is a permissible version of normal behaviour or a special inborn disease is not true.
"The dependency created by this immorality and the resulting perverse behaviours must be seen as a sickness," the doctors' report reads.
Last month Christian groups in Latvia welcomed fundamentalist US preachers and to the country and talked tactics about opposing gay rights.
A meeting organised by Janis Vanags, Archbishop of the Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church, was attended by Cardinal Pujats and representatives of the Orthodox, Penecostals and other Christian groups.
They were addressed by Kenneth Hutcherson, who runs a 'super-church' in Seattle and is a vehement opponent of gay rights.
He told the Latvians that homosexuality was spreading rapidly, and that the "gay lobby" had increasing political influence across the world.
"We need to do everything to ensure that even in the European Union it does not lose its principles.
"It is a holy right of any nation to decide in what society to live," he told the assembled crowd, which included senior MPs.
Latvia joined the EU in 2004.
Mayor of London Ken Livingstone has pledged his support for the Riga Pride event, and London Pride has twinned with Riga as a show of solidarity.
Last year the march was attacked and missiles and human excrement were thrown at participants.
Gay and lesbian protesters were refused permission to march in Riga on the 22nd July 2006 by city officials, who cited security advice from the interior ministry.
A group of around 50 activists instead held a service of tolerance at a local Anglican church.
Hundreds of neo-Nazi skinheads, ultra-nationalists and members of the Orthodox church besieged the church, pelting the activists with excrement.
It was reported that local police stood and watched as events unfolded and declined to intervene.
The new Mayor of the Latvian capital has publicly backed the 2007 gay rights march in the city in June.
In an interview with Diena newspaper last month Janis Birks said he was ashamed at events last year and called for tolerance and understanding on all sides.
"The problem is not in the march but sexual orientation," said Mr Birks.
"We need to have discussion within society. What happened on the side of sexual minorities and the other side, I think we need understanding from both sides."
Mr Birks said that if security could be provided, the march could go ahead.
Ken Livingstone, welcomed his Latvian counterpart's comments, but urged Riga authorities to do more to protect gay people on the march.
"Security is something that is under the control of the authorities," said Mr Livingstone.
"It is their duty to ensure that demonstrators are able to exercise their right to peaceful protest."
The Cardinal's call to arms is bound to impact on the security situation at Riga Pride.
Telling Catholics that "we cannot keep quiet," he concluded:
"I can add that during this time, the faithful must not be passive. They must be witnesses of God, sufficiently active to defend their Christian values in a licentious world. Not with weapons, but with their position.
"Not just at worship services, but in civilian life. For all Christians whose faith is a matter of the heart, and for all others who love their families – you must be prepared to go out into the streets, not to create disorder, but to offer a disciplined position in support of the government, because on this very important issue of morals, the government is on the side of Christians."
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Wednesday, May 9, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 61 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #38968 by BaronOchs on May 9, 2007 at 4:40 pm
The Roman Catholic leader recommends holding the "provocative demonstration (Pride), in a location that is closed and limited some way
How about the limited closed walls of your F***ING MIND!
I think after all the evils the church has caused these past 2 millenia it's time you learnt a bit of humility cardinal?
Other Comments by BaronOchs
3. Comment #38975 by Bonzai on May 9, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Instead of pointing fingers at sex between consenting adults the Church can single handedly remove a lot of "sexual corruption" in the world by stop covering up for child molesting priests.Jesus said, "You see the sliver in your friend's eye, but you don't see the timber in your own eye" Those hypocrites should at least remember the words of their master.
Other Comments by Bonzai
4. Comment #38976 by Pallinn on May 9, 2007 at 5:00 pm
I'm a bored law student myself, but news like this inspires me to continue my studies and try to get elected to parliament if possible, just to repel this kind of repulsive thinking if it ever encroaches on my beautiful little island! Other Comments by Pallinn
5. Comment #38978 by _J_ on May 9, 2007 at 5:01 pm
He also uses a report from 243 Latvian doctors as proof that homosexuality is an illness.
I say, I say, I say: how many Latvian doctors does it take to fabricate a Catholic-appeasing conclusion on homosexuality? Wow, the Latvian medical establishment must have a serious interest in gay sex...
Anyway [clears throat]: I hereby, devoutly and faithfully (experiencing a brief but convenient relapse into Christianity) call upon God to present His argument against gaiety in His divine person to the massed ranks of the 'sexually perverted' at this year's Manchester mardi gras (http://www.manchesterpride.com/) and to dispute the point with any counterarguments that should emerge. Both sides are encouraged to employ demonstrations as appropriate. (In accordance with normal sporting rules, if either side fails to show, they will be deemed to have lost the match.)
It'll be nice to have this settled once and for all this year.
Other Comments by _J_
6. Comment #38980 by mjwemdee on May 9, 2007 at 5:05 pm
This is truly dreadful. 'Of all the diseases that afflict mankind, religious moralities are the worst.' (AC Grayling)Full marks to the new Mayor of Riga, however, who was prepared to back the Pride March in the face of such opposition. I hope the marchers will not be daunted. This is, after all, why gay prides were necessary in the first place. If I had the money I would be over there marching with them.
Other Comments by mjwemdee
7. Comment #38981 by _J_ on May 9, 2007 at 5:05 pm
3. Comment #38975 by Bonzai on May 9:Instead of pointing fingers at sex between consenting adults the Church can single handedly remove a lot of "sexual corruption" in the world by stop covering up for child molesting priests.
Absolutely - but to my mind even that pales alongside encouraging the AIDS-blighted nations of Africa to cast aside their condoms. Sexual immorality? Well, at least the Cardinal is sticking to his church's specialist subject.
Other Comments by _J_
8. Comment #38995 by Linda on May 9, 2007 at 5:41 pm
This wicked man inciting hatred would be indicted if the word Jew was substituted for homosexual. Cardinal Pujats is guilty of perpetrating hate speech and incitement to riot. He's an emotional terrorist preying on the ignorant and illiterate.The Roman Church clergy is mostly homosexual so is this yet another case of 'do as I say not as we do' hypocrisy?
Other Comments by Linda
9. Comment #38998 by EvolvedDNA on May 9, 2007 at 5:50 pm
"If a person's beliefs are godless, then there is little hope to get rid of sexual dependency."I think the whole human race depends on sex..unless the Catholics still think that virgin births are still happening? And as far as "same sex" marriages,, well I've been married for 30 years!!!
The sooner the Roman Catholics allow their priests the basic human right of procreation the safer the kids will be, and maybe the priest hood can think of something other than sex to chase down.
Other Comments by EvolvedDNA
10. Comment #39004 by AdrianT on May 9, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Reading between the lines, this is a call by the catholic church to all the thugs in Latvia to do their dirty work for them. I hope the vast majority of Latvians have more compassion, otherwise, until they grow up, the EU should show them the door. Other Comments by AdrianT
11. Comment #39007 by nancy2001 on May 9, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Considering how many Catholic priests are gay, it's ironic that any member of the Catholic clergy would call homosexuality corrupt and unnatural.Other Comments by nancy2001
12. Comment #39020 by joshuaslocum on May 9, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Well, if I'm a prostitute (natural or otherwise), I demand to know why my pay is so meager. I've been gay my whole life, but I didn't realize my existence was a de facto occupation entitling me to recompense. To which office should I apply for back wages?Other Comments by joshuaslocum
13. Comment #39023 by foxfire on May 9, 2007 at 6:54 pm
The opposition of the Roman Catholic church to gay Pride parades reached a new low today when the Archbishop of Riga called homosexuality "total corruption in the sexual arena" and "an unnatural form of prostitution."
Of course ol' Riga (mortis?) doesn't seem to have any comments on this issue:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/12/portland-archdiocese-files-new.php
Which was recently settled:
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=23829
From the last link:
The archbishop announced a service for reconciliation and healing set for June.
Reconciliation with all who have been hurt is "the ultimate grace we seek," he said. He said he hopes the transparent bankruptcy process will ensure that civil and church institutions learn the lessons definitively.
Apparently, from Riga's statement, lessons are only definitively learned when one gets caught with one's hands in the "cookie jar", so to speak.
Oh Hypocrisy, your foul stench just keeps on truckin'.
Other Comments by foxfire
14. Comment #39026 by mandrellian on May 9, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I really don't know what's more ridiculous - Catholic priests presenting medical or scientific "evidence" that homosexuality is unnatural (we all know how much religionists love evidence, don't we?) or Catholic priests commenting on sexual behaviour (when their most solemn vows include one of celibacy).The areas of sexuality, science and medicine are three areas that NO Catholic, giant hat-wearing office-holder should go anywhere near. Please, good human brothers of ours, refrain from commenting on things you cannot possibly have any experience or any understanding of.
For that matter, any doctor worth his degree shouldn't be signing _anything_ that props up religious prejudice and hatred.
Other Comments by mandrellian
15. Comment #39029 by BaronOchs on May 9, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Someone mentioned the Clergy Abuse scandals in the Catholic Church. Pedophile abuse has pretty much always gone on in the Catholic Church but the public awareness surrounding the scandal, which peaked at the beginning of this century had been present and growing even since the sixties, which is a long time. Crucial to the fact that they nevertheless kept the lid on for so long is that the problem was never refferred to by the proper term - Pedophilia - ,rather homosexuality was said to be the problem. The church thus managed to pull the wool over people's eyes perhaps not without a little help from the still strong prejudice against gays over those decades.This has not changed. Take this for example, from the catholic journal "crisis":
"The crisis is mostly, however, about active homosexuals in the priesthood. Anyone (including an archbishop) who does not admit this is simply part of the problem."
"the media prefer not to treat homosexual behavior as the issue. Still, it is the issue, and if the hierarchy does not root it out—if it takes the easy approach of instituting "new procedures" for dealing with abuse only after it has occurred—then the devastation is going to continue."
Thus they manage to tar gays and distort the real responsibility for the problem.
They go on:
Homosexuals have a more serious problem with promiscuity and lack of restraint than do heterosexuals (see, for example, Spence Publishing's Homosexuality in American Public Life, edited by Christopher Wolfe). Forty percent of homosexual sex today is reportedly unprotected—this after two decades of safe-sex instruction.
Silly me for forgetting what a great promoter of sex education and protected sex the catholic church has been. Sorry to go on at such length but I feel this dirty tactic ought to be exposed.
Other Comments by BaronOchs
16. Comment #39032 by Bonzai on May 9, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Great point baron, even some commentators on this thread apparantly mix up pedophilia and homosexuality.Other Comments by Bonzai
17. Comment #39037 by GodlessHeathen on May 9, 2007 at 8:06 pm
(see, for example, Spence Publishing's Homosexuality in American Public Life, edited by Christopher Wolfe)For anyone who may not already know, Spence Publishing is a profoundly right-wing publisher. Pulling these supporting "facts" out of thin air, no doubt.
Other Comments by GodlessHeathen
18. Comment #39039 by justme on May 9, 2007 at 8:23 pm
As a former Catholic, this kind of stuff really pisses me off. Makes me wonder what I was thinking when I cut the RC Church leaders any slack in my youth. On the one hand, they don't have the morals to clean house and turn over pedophile priests to the courts, and on the other they promote persecution of consensual acts between adults.
While I find male homosexuality distasteful, I have a simple solution; I don't date dudes!
What consenting adults do, who they do it with, or how they do it is not a concern of mine. Especially if I can't see it.
Other Comments by justme
19. Comment #39041 by Bonzai on May 9, 2007 at 8:29 pm
justme wrote:>>I'm struggling to think of a non-religious group that cares at all about banning specific sex acts. <<
Actually I do have an example. In Singerpore anal and oral sex are illegal even for heterosexuals. Singerpore is not religious but it is the only country on earth that bans the chewing gum. It probably cites something like "public morality" to justify prohibition against certain sex acts.
Other Comments by Bonzai
20. Comment #39043 by justme on May 9, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Bonzai: "Actually I do have an example. In Singerpore anal and oral sex are illegal even for heterosexuals. Singerpore is not religious but it bans even the chewing gum. It probably cites something like "public morality" to justify the ban."Not too surprised about Singapore. While I haven't been there, one of my coworkers loves to visit because it is clean, safe, and has great places to shop.
She did mention the only downside is that if you step out of line the local cops will beat you first and might get around to asking questions later after they haul you off to jail. She is a polite person, so chances the cops will focus on her are small. Me, I'm loud.
Other Comments by justme
21. Comment #39046 by Jolly Wally on May 9, 2007 at 9:13 pm
I recommend this video of comedian Sacha Baron Cohen (aka Ali G aka Borat) playing his third alter-ego - Bruno - in an encounter with a homophobic priest:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW8_cz-6qro
XD priceless!
And for an encore, I recommend this interview starring Ali G in which he relentlessly mocks creationist Kent Hovind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB5VXJXxnNU
Other Comments by Jolly Wally
22. Comment #39049 by Planeten Paultje on May 9, 2007 at 9:29 pm
The cardinal talks about "an unnatural form of prostitution", implying that there is also a "natural form of prostitution". Is that progress?
Other Comments by Planeten Paultje
23. Comment #39050 by WilliamP on May 9, 2007 at 9:29 pm
...the Archbishop of Riga called homosexuality "total corruption in the sexual arena" and "an unnatural form of prostitution."With all the gay Catholic priests out there, I suppose this makes him a pimp. And that makes the Pope -the church's father- the "Pimp Daddy"! No wonder why he dresses so flamboyantly!
Other Comments by WilliamP
24. Comment #39053 by Planeten Paultje on May 9, 2007 at 9:36 pm
> "missiles and human excrement were thrown at participants"The united opposition against the Gay Parade is happily showing the colors of their shirts: shades of brown.
Other Comments by Planeten Paultje
25. Comment #39056 by BaronOchs on May 9, 2007 at 9:51 pm
The cardinal talks about "an unnatural form of prostitution", implying that there is also a "natural form of prostitution".
Augustine and Aquinas both argued that prostitution was a necessary evil, since it provided lustful men who otherwise would commit adultery and corrupt the sacred institution of marriage a means to vent off. Prostitutes therefore, they likened to the sewers of a city.
The hypocrisy and sexism could not be more obvious.
Other Comments by BaronOchs
26. Comment #39075 by Shuggy on May 10, 2007 at 12:03 am
"The crisis is mostly, however, about active homosexuals in the priesthood. Anyone (including an archbishop) who does not admit this is simply part of the problem."
"the media prefer not to treat homosexual behavior as the issue. Still, it is the issue, and if the hierarchy does not root it out—if it takes the easy approach of instituting "new procedures" for dealing with abuse only after it has occurred—then the devastation is going to continue."
The only reason you hear more about priests molesting little boys than little girls is that the girls' parents have more sense than to leave them alone together. If there were altargirls ...
Other Comments by Shuggy
27. Comment #39076 by pewkatchoo on May 10, 2007 at 12:10 am
joshuaslocum: to which office should I apply?The back-office of course (^8
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
28. Comment #39103 by Logicel on May 10, 2007 at 2:10 am
Gotta love this Pope--in his desperation to stem the unrelenting decline of Catholicism, he is hastening it. Keep it up, my silly old dear.EDIT: Oops, it is a cardinal that is hastening the decline of Catholicism, ok, that's good, though I think no additional efforts are needed as the Pope is doing a fine job all by himself.
Other Comments by Logicel
29. Comment #39107 by Corylus on May 10, 2007 at 2:37 am
Someone posted this link in a separate thread: I just have to repost it here as a response to this.http://www.cafepress.com/buy/atheist/-/pv_design_details/pg_1/id_16225116/opt_/fpt_/c_360/
I'd happily buy the Cardinal one of these.
Other Comments by Corylus
30. Comment #39203 by Phaderus on May 10, 2007 at 6:56 am
Bonzai and Justme,I have been to Singapore and while chewing gum, spitting on the sidewalk, smoking in a public building, picking fruit from trees on public land, and any number of other minor infractions are punishable by large fines, prostitution is completely legal and regulated by the government.
I was told by a local that it was believed that if prostitution were not allowed, rape would become rampant. Not sure if I buy into that logic, but Singapore is a country of many strange contradictions and a blending of many diverse cultures.
Other Comments by Phaderus
31. Comment #39319 by Sir John Falstaff on May 10, 2007 at 10:07 am
Well it's good to know they have neo-Nazi skinheads on their side. All they need now is the Ku Klux Klan and they'll have all the credibility in the world!Other Comments by Sir John Falstaff
32. Comment #39448 by foxfire on May 10, 2007 at 5:02 pm
BaronOchs wrote:Silly me for forgetting what a great promoter of sex education and protected sex the catholic church has been. Sorry to go on at such length but I feel this dirty tactic ought to be exposed.
Oops! I'm sorry, I should have pointed that out. In no way do I equate homosexuality with pedophilia. I was looking at the situation as here they are, once again, casting stones when they should be cleaning up their own act. They *finally* apologized for the Inquisition and now they apologize for not monitoring for/punishing pedophilia.
I can just see the day when they finally apologize for demonizing a perfectly natural segment of the population who happen to be born with a sexual preference for their own gender. Then it will be all "let us heal, yadda, yadda" with a "sorry folks, but who knew" to all the good people whose lives they destroyed. Ditto the same approach towards birth control.
Again, I apologize for not being clear and thanks Baron, for pointing out what truly is a dirty tactic.
Other Comments by foxfire
33. Comment #39453 by joshuaslocum on May 10, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Pewkatchoo:HA! Yes! Touche, or should I say, tush?
Other Comments by joshuaslocum
34. Comment #39583 by elfinabout on May 11, 2007 at 8:07 am
How pathetic. Only the deeply religiously crippled could possibly object so much to this. As a gay man, I would love to sit down and discuss these "certainties" with this man.I must chime in here with one point - the word pedofilia (sic - it's actually paedophilia) does not mean having sex with children - that is pederasty.
A paedophile is a person with a love for, and interest in, children, as an audiophile feels the same affinity with music, and a philatelophile with stamps. A pederast is the correct name for someone who has predatory sex with children.
It may be semantic, but the word is widely and inaccurately used, purely because it "sounds" worse in some way.
I love kids. I am therefore a paedophile. I am certainly not a pederast...
Discuss.
Other Comments by elfinabout
35. Comment #39592 by Philip1978 on May 11, 2007 at 8:28 am
elfinabout Funny how some people can get really weird just because some men have feelings for other MEN! Saying that this idiot might actually be gay himself but too afraid to admit it, look at Ted Haggard!
Other Comments by Philip1978
36. Comment #39598 by elfinabout on May 11, 2007 at 8:56 am
Philip1978:Indeed. The fervour with which those (usually "with faith") who pursue, demonise and vilify those of us who are attracted to members of the same sex has always, for me, pointed to a deep, deep questioning and fear of their own proclivities.
Take a group of deeply religiously indoctrinated men (who are probably highly insecure by that point), make them swear off sex for life (in fear of going to hell), surround them with other men and choirboys, make them wear garments that look suspiciously like dresses, then let them know that any "transgressions" will be dealt with in-house as opposed to with due legal process - you can see where I'm going here...
To quote Occam, the simplest explanation is usually the right one.
Other Comments by elfinabout
37. Comment #39601 by SRWB on May 11, 2007 at 9:13 am
Elfinabout,Not to cast aspersions on you, but you would do well to rethink your definition of paedophile (and paedophilia). According to Oxford Concise paedophilia means "sexual desire directed towards children". I know this is not what you mean, according to your post above, but it could certainly be construed that way in accordance with dictionary definition and common usage.
Other Comments by SRWB
38. Comment #39602 by BaronOchs on May 11, 2007 at 9:18 am
elfinabout good point, yes I agree that according to your definitions paedophilia is not a bad thing, whereas pederasty is probably harmful in all instances. Other Comments by BaronOchs
39. Comment #39617 by elfinabout on May 11, 2007 at 10:04 am
SRWB:Yes, unfortunately the Oxford Dictionary has a very unprofessional habit of redefining words according to common usage, ignoring completely their original, etymological roots. Most English words can easily be broken down into their Greek or Latin constituents, each of which is quite precisely defined.
Another of my annoyances (and I don't wish to offend anyone here) is the "Americanisation" of English words - the substitution of "z" for "s", arbitrary removal of letters, etc.
Thankyou for your concerns, but I made that comment and attempted to prompt discussion for this very reason.
BaronOchs:
I would definitely agree. Interestingly, I believe RD has quoted an "ex-religite" as saying that she would rather have been sexually abused than have gone through the religious indoctrination she suffered as a child, and has even suggested that religious indoctrination is a more sinister form of abuse.
Incidentally, did you know that our word "sinister" comes directly from Latin, and means "left"?
Other Comments by elfinabout
40. Comment #39622 by BaronOchs on May 11, 2007 at 10:36 am
Yes, well I understand the left-handed were regarded with suspicion in years past (based on some religious superstition probably). I had a teacher whose (right-handed) hand-writing was somewhat messy. She said this was so because she was really left handed but had been forced to use her right hand when she was a catholic school-girl. Other Comments by BaronOchs
41. Comment #39624 by hoops mccann on May 11, 2007 at 10:44 am
"He also uses a report from 243 Latvian doctors as proof that homosexuality is an illness."And as we all know, Latvian doctors are the best doctors. This bozo talks like Borat.
Other Comments by hoops mccann
42. Comment #39625 by pewkatchoo on May 11, 2007 at 10:46 am
elfinabout: While we are on about misuse of language. My pet hates are transportation (wots wrong wiv transport then?) and utilise (use anyone). Other Comments by pewkatchoo
43. Comment #39647 by SRWB on May 11, 2007 at 12:35 pm
elfinabout,Even if we agree, as you said that "the Oxford Dictionary has a very unprofessional habit of redefining words according to common usage, ignoring completely their original, etymological roots", the fact is that in a large part of the English-speaking world it is the standard (at least it is in Canada and the UK – I'm not sure about Oceania) and common usage trumps. Other dictionaries probably do likewise. Furthermore, etymology concerns origin and sources of words, nothing more. Language, like life, evolves. Let's take the word "gay" (not be flippant or "take the piss", as they say in the UK). Clearly it has origins that are no longer associated with its current meaning, and very few people, barring the elderly and outside the UK, use it in its original sense. You used the word "sinister" as an example. Outside of heraldry, its original meaning, left, has been lost. Another example is the English word "gauche", strangely enough, from the French for left as well (what is it with all this anti-leftist rhetoric?). See my point?
On the "Americanisation" of English words, I understand your comment. But as a Canadian, I guess I am uniquely placed to do so. I am guilty as charged, but I tend to drop letters, as in armor vice armour, and color vice colour, because to me it looks better phonetically (and although it's pretty idle, I'm lazy so I convince myself I'm saving letters and time – LOL). By the same token, why do Brits insist on saying things like aeroplane and aluminium?
Other Comments by SRWB
44. Comment #39697 by Ivan The Not So Bad on May 11, 2007 at 3:11 pm
As I understand it, a paedophile is someone with a sexual attraction towards children whereas a pederast is specifically a man who is attracted to boys. For the record, according to UK crime statistics 98% of sexual offences against children are committed by heterosexuals (usually the parents or, if not, a relative or family friend).
As gay and lesbian people make up around six per cent of the population but commit only two per cent of sexual offences against children, this gives lie to the deeply offensive connection (often promoted by the religious) betwen gay and paedophile.
Other Comments by Ivan The Not So Bad
45. Comment #39699 by Veronique on May 11, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Listen you guys. If you want to talk language, etymology and spelling here are some books that I delight in:Mother Tongue and Bryson's Dictionary of Troublesome Words by Bill Bryson
The Surgeon of Crowthorne by Simon Winchester
The Adventure of English by Melvyn Bragg
Native Tongues by Charles Berlitz
There's a great fun book on texting, grammar and her pet hates (apostrophes) etc by Lynn Truss called Eats Shoots and Leaves
Try to find a SOD - the etymology is always included. Any titles you can give me would be appreciated:-)
Back on topic:
Riga looks (from the photograph) like such a quaint little place. It's awful to think of the roiling divisiness being whipped up by the Cardinal (I also think he's a repressed homosexual) and his hench men, the neo-Nazis. When you think about it, it's not that different from that loopy born-again and his 14 or so children and hundreds of grandchildren, picketing the funerals of the forces' personnel in wherever in America.
Catholic priests used to be able to marry and lead ordinary sexual lives for a long time. I can't remember who put the kybosh on that one or when but it's not that long ago, as time goes.
The Catholics have so much to answer for. They are heaps worse than the evangelicals and charismatics, mainly because they have been around for so long, have amassed so much wealth and power and have peddled fear and 'sin' to so many poor, deluded people for so many generations that their particular set of memes are self perpetuating. It makes me sick.
I recall the first Gay and Lesbian Madri Gras in Sydney. The airwaves were full of it. There were the pickets, the supporters and the ho hums. Now, I believe, it's the biggest and most flamboyant in the world. They showcase all different groups as well - the police are represented, the arts, nurses, doctors, lawyers, the whole gamut as far as I know. It brings in thousands of people all over the world and Sydney has a ball (to coin a phrase).
If only it were the same everywhere....
Cheers
V
Other Comments by Veronique
46. Comment #39700 by BaronOchs on May 11, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Veronique, celibacy has been mandatory for catholic priests since I think the first lateran council in the C11th. Around about the same time women disappeared from the diakonate. Married priests remained however right up until the beginning of the C19th despite their being banned.Eastern rite catholics have always had married priests though. Also since the early 90's if you're a married protestant priest and you convert you can become a catholic priest. Which has irked some celibate catholic priests!
Ok I'm a lapsed catholic as you may have guessed! I think most people expect the married priest thing to change in the distant future. Women in the priesthood is of course completely unthinkable to the vatican!
Other Comments by BaronOchs
47. Comment #39798 by Veronique on May 12, 2007 at 12:50 am
47. Comment #39700 by BaronOchsWas it that early? I didn't realise. How did married priests remain until C19th if they were banned? I think you have a lot to teach me.
I have to confess that I know very sketchy bits about any religion and what I think I know may well have been only imbibed without thinking on my part.
I welcome education on this front.
Cheers
V
Other Comments by Veronique
48. Comment #39812 by elfinabout on May 12, 2007 at 2:28 am
BaronOchs & SRWB:
I understand the left-handed were regarded with suspicion in years past (based on some religious superstition probably). I had a teacher whose (right-handed) hand-writing was somewhat messy. She said this was so because she was really left handed but had been forced to use her right hand when she was a catholic school-girl.
My father was also forced to write with his right hand as a child, although he was left-handed (my heritage is Scottish, and for some reason a significant proportion of Scots are "lefties"). It eventually made him more or less ambidextrous. Strangely enough, although I favour my right, I'm virtually ambidextrous too.
Another example is the English word "gauche", strangely enough, from the French for left as well (what is it with all this anti-leftist rhetoric?). See my point?
Yes, lots of references to "left" are negative - I think left-handedness was seen as a defect or strangeness. I'm sure I read it was associated with "witchcraft" at some point, which certainly wouldn't have helped...
the fact is that in a large part of the English-speaking world it is the standard (at least it is in Canada and the UK – I'm not sure about Oceania) and common usage trumps. Other dictionaries probably do likewise. Furthermore, etymology concerns origin and sources of words, nothing more. Language, like life, evolves.
Very true, and of course, language does and should evolve. It just irks me because I'm a pedant when it comes to the English language... ;o)
By the same token, why do Brits insist on saying things like aeroplane and aluminium?
The snob in me wants to shout "because that's how the're spelled, dammit!" ;o)
Ivan The Not So Bad:
As I understand it, a paedophile is someone with a sexual attraction towards children whereas a pederast is specifically a man who is attracted to boys.
Sex is not differentiated in either expression. The prefixes "paed-" and "ped-" refer simply to children.
For the record, according to UK crime statistics 98% of sexual offences against children are committed by heterosexuals (usually the parents or, if not, a relative or family friend).
As gay and lesbian people make up around six per cent of the population but commit only two per cent of sexual offences against children, this gives lie to the deeply offensive connection (often promoted by the religious) betwen gay and paedophile.
Oh, don't get me started...
Veronique:
Wonderful - I have read Native Tongues and Eats Shoots and Leaves. Both very illuminating. I will find and read
Mother Tongue and Bryson's Dictionary of Troublesome Words - I like Brysons style, and I didn't know of these - thanks!
You may enjoy Mind the Gaffe by R. L. Trask. :o)
Back on topic:
Riga looks (from the photograph) like such a quaint little place. It's awful to think of the roiling divisiness being whipped up by the Cardinal (I also think he's a repressed homosexual) and his hench men, the neo-Nazis. When you think about it, it's not that different from that loopy born-again and his 14 or so children and hundreds of grandchildren, picketing the funerals of the forces' personnel in wherever in America.
Ah, Fred Phelps and the "Westboro Baptist Church". Yes, what wonderful people those children are growing up to be. I feel sorry for them if/when they realise in later life... Good ol' Granpa...
I think people have had enough of them now - just do a YouTube search. One of their most recent forays to an army funeral didn't go so swimmingly: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Jrxs9kUsHmc
I recall the first Gay and Lesbian Madri Gras in Sydney. The airwaves were full of it. There were the pickets, the supporters and the ho hums. Now, I believe, it's the biggest and most flamboyant in the world. They showcase all different groups as well - the police are represented, the arts, nurses, doctors, lawyers, the whole gamut as far as I know. It brings in thousands of people all over the world and Sydney has a ball (to coin a phrase).
I'd like to see the Sydney one - I live in Brighton (UK), and ours is pretty varied. Nobody bats an eyelid here, which is great. In fact, half the citys parents bring their kids along - it's seen as a great day out for everyone. And living in Brighton (often referred to as the gay capital of the UK), if you have seriously bigoted views on sexuality you're not going to make many friends. Most residents of Brighton moved here from elsewhere, and you really don't move here unless you're pretty open-minded. Fantastic city.
And if dear ol' Fred turned up here with his placards, I can guarantee he'd get lynched on sight.
Funny how a city with probably the least religious population in the UK is also so welcoming and accepting of differing lifestyles...
Other Comments by elfinabout
49. Comment #39909 by BaronOchs on May 12, 2007 at 8:58 am
Allright V I welcome this invitation into the fascinationg and complex world of church history!Celibacy was favoured right from the start, see for instance 1 Corinthians 7:7-9.
But not absolutely required, this, from Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm gives an idea:
St. Cyril of Jerusalem urges that the minister of the altar who serves God properly holds himself aloof from women (Cat. xii, 25). St. Jerome further seems to speak of a custom generally observed when he declares that clerics, "even though they may have wives, cease to be husbands".
So St. Jerome, who was writing in about the C4th-5th indicates married priests exist. He also gives a hint of the gruesome nature of this whole affair, if you imagine what it was like for women married to priests who had ceased to be husbands.
This passage reffering to about the C7th gives an idea of the situation in the first millenium which is pretty much the same as that in the orthodox church (and eastern catholic churches) today:
Celibacy in a bishop became a matter of precept. If he were previously married, he had at once to separate from his wife upon his consecration. On the other hand, this council, while forbidding priests, deacons, and subdeacons to take a wife after ordination, asserts in emphatic terms their right and duty to continue in conjugal relations with the wife to whom they had been wedded previously.
So married priests existed (but had to have been married before becoming priests). It does not tell us what happened to the bishops wives after they separated. If they were lucky they might have become nuns. Alternatively their fate may have been worse as we shall see.
So why did celibacy later become totally mandatory? I can suggest two factors:
The first is the inheritance of land by offspring, usually by the first son (primogeniture) but an alternative system prevalent in France, called Parage, had the land divided amongst all the sons. If a priest, who resides in church property has sons they will want to inherit the land. This passage indicates that sons of priests sometimes became priests themselves and took over from their fathers:
a large number of the clergy, not only priests but bishops, openly took wives and begot children to whom they transmitted their benefices.
This situation was bound to cause property disputes between priestly families and the church, and requiring celibacy is a good way for the church to remove this problem.
The other problem, around the turn of the first millenium was impious people becoming priests who had no concern for the interests of the church.
Bishop Odo of Bayeaux, who commissioned the Bayeaux Tapestry (and with four prominent appearances is the most prominent man there, more so than William the Conqueror!) is a good example of a bishop, to whom the episcopacy was just another avenue into the aristocracy. Priests were forbidden to spill blood, so when leading his troops Odo used a mace! He tried to raise an army to make himself pope by force, but this was his fatal move, William (the Conqueror) did not want him taking a substantial number of troops, whom he needed, away to Rome, so odo was imprisoned.
Essentially the church would not survive if it was entirely staffed by the likes of Odo, and part of the efforts to get a grip included requiring celibacy.
There is no single watershed date but a series of church councils made successive efforts to stamp clergy wives and families out of existence. This gives an idea:
The earliest decree in which the children were declared to be slaves, the property of the Church, and never to be enfranchised, seems to have been a canon of the Synod of Pavia in 1018. Similar penalties were promulgated later on against the wives and concubines (see the Synod of Melfi, 1189, can. xii), who by the very fact of their unlawful connection with a subdeacon or clerk of higher rank became liable to be seized as slaves by the over-lord.
The process was finally complete by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 (not the first as I said previously!), but priests could still get away with keeping mistresses or concubines. And there were still some married priests, presumably because there was enough corruption in parts for them to get away with it, also there were still a few loopholes which were not removed until the Council of Trent in 1545:
Henceforth all conjugal relations on the part of the clergy in sacred orders were reduced in the eyes of canon law to mere concubinage. Neither can it be pretended that this legislation, backed, as it were, by the firm and clear pronouncements of the Fourth Council of Lateran in 1215, and later by those of the Council of Trent, remained any longer a dead letter.
Laxity among the clergy at certain periods and in certain localities must undoubtedly be admitted, but the principles of the canon law remained unshaken, and despite all assertions to the contrary made by unscrupulous assailants of the Roman system the call to a life of self-denying continence has, as a rule, been respected by the clergy of Western Christendom.
I suppose I'm an "unscrupolous assailant of the Roman system"! The above passage does admit though that concubinage did go on, not to mention that seemingly every pope in the centuries surrounding the renaissance had at least one mistress.
Sons of Pope's were reffered to as "Nephews" and interestingly Nepotism derives from the italian for Nephew, as Popes were often trying to find positions for their uhh nephews.
Well I think I'll stop there for now! Questions are welcome! Essentially my opinion is that rather than making priests more pure and holy, mandatory celibacy just made life very hard for the partners and offspring of priests, so was a bad idea from the start.
Other Comments by BaronOchs
50. Comment #39940 by BaronOchs on May 12, 2007 at 10:56 am
elfinabout god I was getting depressed watching westboro baptist church on youtube. But this cheered me up:http://youtube.com/watch?v=S8cN2pB3MCE&mode=related&search=
Aware as I am of the irony in reacting to intolerance intolerantly I wouldn't blame anyone for lynching them. Also I have family in the military and if I ever saw one of those protests at a funeral I'd bayonet them all myself.
Other Comments by BaronOchs
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #38967 by drive1 on May 9, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Other Comments by drive1