www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Cause of Sex Scandal in RCC

Sprague is clearly a heretic and Broadway UMC is clearly not a Christian Church. Your friendship with Mr. Sprague does not surprise me.

Dan lauffer

Dear Steve D.,

I have a question about your statements of 6/21 that were posted at 5:38 PM.

You said, "The reasons why the bishops are so soft on this issue is that a lot of them are active homosexuals. The church needs to be cleaned and such people need to be defrocked."

Here's my question. Do you personally know with knowledge certain that a lot of the bishops are active homosexuals, or is this an unsubstantiated opinion? Do you know that even one bishop who has not admitted it is an active homosexual?

Here's why I ask. The charge that you present here is a serious one that alleges immoral behavior on the part of "a lot" of bishops. The Bishops have asked that any person, Catholic or not, who has knowledge of such behavior report it to the Apostolic Nuncio.

If you have knowledge certain that a lot of bishops are active homosexuals, or even that one bishop is an active homosexual, you have a serious moral duty in justice to report it to the Nuncio. I have read that others have stated that they know of priests who are engaging in inappropriate behavior with youngsters or adults. The bishops have asked that such behavior be reported to the superior of such priests.

If you are merely stating your unsubstantiated opinion in your statement, you have an equally serious moral duty in charity and justice to say so. It is as much a sin to slander someone as it is to engage in homosexual behavior with full knowledge and a fully free will.

For a person to have such knowledge and for them not to act on it is the same behavior that you rightly attribute to some of the bishops. They have recognized their error and have apologized for it. Certainly we should follow their example when we do likewise.

I agree with you that, "The church needs to be cleaned ...." Being made up of sinners as well as saints, it is always in need of being cleaned. Clearly it needs to be cleaned of actions which erode the trust between bishop and laity. Homosexuality is not the only sin; sins like failure to do the actions demanded by justice or slander are serious matter, no?


Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

John,

Though I am "dogged" in my efforts to understand the truth I'm nevertheless not a dog. Therefore, I have no interest in chasing the rabbit you have set before me. It leads nowhere. When Holy Mother Church declares homosexual sex not to be a grave sin then there will an ocassion for possible worthwhile discussion of topic of how a priest determines a specific set of actions to be a sin. Until then this side street is not worth anyone's time.

BTW I'm truly shocked to learn that the Baltimore Catechism was not written last year. You must continue to enlighten us.

Inawe,

I do agree with your post. I'm sure you find that surprising. Nevertheless, I have no evidence that "many of our bishops are active homosexuals" except the now retirement Rembert Weakland but if I did I would report them to the Papal Nuncio. As regarding our BC bishops I have no such knowledge at all. I note that one BC priest has been charged with homosexual rape and solicitation of minors. I note with sadness that these charges have been made not only against this priest but against others for many years. These charges were made with credible evidence but the then Bishop of Parma refused to act to discipline the wayward priests. Punishment was exacted against the messengers instead. Let us pray that the new found resolve of our bishops will translate into righteous action.

Dan Lauffer

And yet again: Dan locuta, causa finita. :p I feel so honored to have such an infallible voice on this forum...NOT! :p

Moe,

What new bully boy tactic will you play on me this time?

Curly

Dear Dan,

I was glad to read your response to my questions to Steve D and the reasons for which I asked them.

But what do you mean by this: "I do agree with your post. I'm sure you find that surprising?"

Here's why I ask.

I thought that all fair minded persons would agree!

Forgive my poor attempt at humor!

Steve


By the way, you haven't responded to my questions of 6/21 in the thread Liturgy & Clericalism. I'm really interested in hearing your perspective.

Sorry, inadvertant double posting of the above!

[ 06-22-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Dan, I'm just playing the game according to the rules you play by. Anything goes when it fits your point of view, but don't ever try to listen to or respect anyone els's. After all, you know the mind of God and have all the answers.

All through my years of Catholic schooling I was taught that it was wrong to judge another person when they are following his/her conscience...that even the great Aquinas taught that an individual is bound to follow his/her conscience even if it incurred excommunication. However, since you don't seem to be aware of this teaching, I will make an exception in your case. I want to be sure that you and I are playing by the same rules, and since you have arbitrarily decided what the rules are...I will too! You attack and vilify people you don't know (such as Dr. John who I respect for his clarity, wisdom and true Christian charity) because their views don't happen to coincide with your narrow Calvinism...fine, then I'll just give you the same treatment. You were the one who started this nonsense, if you can dish it out you should be able to take it in return!

And stop making fun of my name, I was named after the Prophet Moses and have been called Moe since childhood.

Moe

Ahhh, PROPHETS are without honor in their own TOWN.

But a wrecked congregation sometimes can come back to life when Christ is the keystone. A phoenix rises from the ashes of an attempted destruction. Praised be to God!

Whoever causes one of these little ones to suffer, it is better....

Axios

[ 06-22-2002: Message edited by: Axios ]

Moe,

You may indeed be pushing for excommunication. I'm not interested. As I said earlier in response to one of your snide posts "Call me whatever you wish. I don't know you and you don't know me. So go ahead. But don't expect me to change my position because you are snide and choose to call me names."

Axios,

Your response is very arcane. Is that intentional?

Dan Lauffer

[ 06-22-2002: Message edited by: Dan Lauffer ]

O Lordy, I've been threatened with excommunication by Pope Dan the First!!! I'm so frightened. Moe

Let's review and re-focus this discussion.


1. What does the Church teach about sin?

a) The Church teaches that choosing certain courses of action (including all sexual activity outside marriage) is always wrong.

b) The Church teaches that, while it is always wrong to make certain choices, the sinfulness of such choices is based upon the chosen action (object), the intention of that choice (what was hoped to be accomplished by this choice) and the circumstances why this choice was made. Dr. John quoted the traditional western understanding from the Baltimore Catechism: "There are three things necessary to make a sin mortal. They are serious matter, sufficient reflection and full consent of the will." The classical eastern approach speaks of sins committed "deliberately or through human frailty, voluntary and involuntary".


2. What does the Church teach about sexuality activity outside of marriage, including sexual activity by priests who have taken a vow of celibacy?

a) The Church teaches that those who choose to engage in any type of sexual activity always, without exception, are making a wrong choice. Anyone (priest or lay person) who chooses to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage is always making a wrong choice.

b) The Churches that, while such a choice is always wrong, the level of sinfulness of this choice is dependent upon (to use the Western understanding):

--b-1) Whether the activity was intrinsically wrong (in this case it is always wrong).
--b-2) The intention behind choosing this activity (how voluntary was this choice and how much reflection was done in making this choice).
--b-3) The circumstances upon which the choice was made (killing someone in self-defense is always wrong but not necessarily sinful [it would always be sinful if one purposely went into the nastiest section of town at night wearing flashy jewelry and hoping to be attacked in order to kill in self-defense]; a homeless mother stealing tomatoes from someone's garden to feed her hungry children is a different circumstance than a teenager stealing the same tomatoes to throw against passing vehicles).


3) What does the Church teach about homosexuality and homosexual activity?

The Church teaches that the tendency towards homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, that it is not wrong to be homosexual or have homosexual desires but that it is always wrong to engage in homosexual sex or put one's self in circumstances that might lead to such activity.


4) What does the Church teach about priests engaging in either heterosexual or homosexual sexual activity (apart from those priests who are in marriages blessed by the Church)?

The Churches that all sexual activity by celibate priests is wrong but that the level of sinfulness is influenced by his intentions for engaging in this activity and the circumstances under which it was committed.


5) What should be the response of the Church to those priests who are currently involved in sexual activity (either homosexual or heterosexual)? How can we as lay people take action to lovingly call these priests (and, indeed, all people) to discontinue making wrong choices and minister to them?

Although the topic here has focused upon homosexual activity let's address this in light of how we would treat priests or any lay person who would embezzle money, is an alcoholic or drug addict and etc.


My thoughts regarding this discussion are not comprehensive and I do not pretend to have any or all the answers. I am only hoping to re-focus this discussion in a way that will help the Church deal with the situation at hand.

Administrator

Administrator,

Thank you for the refocus. The issues that you have pointed us to are indeed the issues that are important in this thread.

Kindness, Compassion, and honesty and the ways that everyone, including wayward priests, ought to be treated when caught in sin.

Why this subject keeps drifting away from the topic is open to speculation. But that question is not as important as the fact that you have accurately refocused the thread.

I pray that our bishops will now act with integrity based upon their resolve at Dallas. If they do this nightmare will be over. If not it will continue.

Dan Lauffer

I appreciate the Administrator for posting what is clearly the Catholic Church's views on the matters raised. Much harm could be avoided if all were so temperate.

Axios

Axios,

If you referred to Mr. Sprague as a prophet in his own town you of course know that he is not from Chicago. He's from Ohio. He's a good administrator but a horrible theologian.

Dan Lauffer

[ 06-23-2002: Message edited by: Dan Lauffer ]