.
Later in the day I read that Episcopal bishop, Gene Robinson, responding to a question posed by CNSNews.com at the National Press Club on Tuesday, regarding St. Paul's letter to the Romans wherein he condemns homosexual acts, explained:
.
"St. Paul was talking about people that he understood to be heterosexual engaging in same-sex acts," said Bishop Robinson. "It never occurred to anyone in ancient times that a certain minority of us would be born being affectionally oriented to people of the same sex. So it did seem like against their nature to be doing so.”
.
“The other thing about St. Paul,” Robinson said, “is that he was also speaking out against a practice known to him and both the Roman and the Greek world, and would have been known in the Palestinian culture there of an older man taking a younger boy under his wing, using him sexually, and so on. No one’s—that’s child abuse. No one is arguing for that today. We would all be against that. We would all agree with St. Paul on that.” - Source
.
I'm always surprised educated people still say such dumb stuff. Makes no sense - it's just a load of amyl-nitrite-revisionist exegesis.
Sodomy made right, huh? He could be on staff America Magazine. God please give me patience.
ReplyDeleteI have had good friends and family ask me why we don't sell the Vatican. I told them if we did that we'd feed the poor for awhile and then all the money would be gone and there would still be hungry people. They usually walk away then. Mabye I should ask them - and what are YOU doing to alleviat poverty?! Ten bucks says they are doing nothing.
ReplyDeleteAngela: right you are!
ReplyDeleteAngela - I'm going to steal that answer.
ReplyDeleteTerry - I read that about Robinson, and just shook my head. So was he sinning when he "acted against his nature" and had sex with his wife before he discovered he was "gay", or was he sinning when he was having sex with his boyfriend while he was acting straight, or was he....
Ah, forget it. When it gets that confusing, it becomes obvious that it's S-I-N.
+JMJ+
ReplyDeleteThe "sell the Vatican" shtick has been old since after Judas wanted to sell the ointment used to anoint Jesus.
This reminds me . . . I watched the The Greatest Story Ever Told a few weeks ago and was surprised to hear Jesus rebuke Judas for begrudging something not to the poor, but to Him. (I must not have been reading the Gospels very carefully.) The Vatican's treasures may be worth trillions today, but they are also worth a mere pittance if you note, as Angela does, that they will only feed the poor for a while and then the poor would still be with us. So the reason we don't "sell the Vatican" is so that we don't begrudge Jesus that pittance.
Enbrethiliel, doesn't your pastor regularly ask what you're holding back from God? Mine does.
ReplyDeleteSS doesn't understand that many of the items are the sort of thing that shouldn't be sold; one might argue that if the sort of people who could afford the stuff at the Vatican would donate money the poor would all be fed. She doesn't realize that the Catholic church feeds the poor...and didn't Christ also say that we'll always have the poor but won't always have him?
In any case, what's the White House doing with all that stuff? Shouldn't we sell everything in the Smithsonian to feed the poor?
What about the democrats? I can't cite you a statistic, but my understanding is that democrats don't actually donate much. What's Sarah doing to feed the poor?
I would also point out that beauty feeds the soul. Man does not live on bread alone, and since beauty inspires and lifts our thoughts to things above, isn't the Church to be lauded for patronizing and preserving the arts that lift our thoughts to God? Obviously, what Angela said is true -- so, I would ask anyone who offers such tripe, "OK, so we sell all of this beauty that gives glory to God and lifts the hearts and minds of the Vatican's millions of pilgrims, so it can be dispersed around the world into private collections and museums, so we can feed the world's poor for -- what -- a week???
ReplyDeleteSome people are drawn to Catholicism through the beautiful art and treasures. We need these things for the sake of possible conversions. They at least help to plant the seeds of faith through visual mediums.
ReplyDeleteI want our Catholic music, art and all of our treasures to stay right where they are.
Sarah Silverman is vile. I watched her over on youtube roasting her then boyfriend Jimmy and it was the most dirty thing that I've seen - joke wise. I turned it off and promised myself that I would never EVER watch anything with her in it again.
+JMJ+
ReplyDeleteNan: No, he doesn't. =P
"Koolaid stand economics" and "amyl-nitrate-revisionist exegesis"...I love it! You have a way with words, Terry.
ReplyDeleteE, I'm sorry. Mine does, beginning in Aug, with the Feast of the Elevation of the Guilt Trip, whereupon he reminds everyone that it's time to fill out forms and commit to another year of giving the church time and money.
ReplyDeleteTerry, in re: interpreting St. Paul, people will just bend over backwards to see what they want to see.
Angela's absolutely right, of course, that after that money is used up, then what? Poor still there.
ReplyDeleteBut the other point we should make is that the Vatican takes care of all of these treasures for not only Catholics and Christians, but for the entire world -- for FREE. The Vatican spends hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to upkeep these priceless treasures, keeping them accessible to all of humanity regardless of faith, class, education; anyone, rich or poor, can visit these works completely free of charge. If the Vatican sold them all, these masterpieces would then be, at best, in other museums which of course charge admission, or much worse, in private collections in the homes of rich people, making them accessible only to a few elite wealthy people. The poor would never have access to these works again. And THAT would be a great poverty.
So when all would be said and done, the poor would still be with us, and the beautiful works of human artistic expression at its most noble, would be lost as well.
+JMJ+
ReplyDeleteNan: No worries! =) My parish priest has other ways of tapping into our Catholic guilt. ;)
This is just more justification/rationalization by people who do not believe in the Word of God as given by Christ in the Catholic Church.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds so hip, so now, so rad...unless; if you just give these things some serious thought, they are like wisps of smoke; no substance; just blah, blah, blah!
Nan: Sorry...just read your post...LOL!
ReplyDeleteBend over backwards....I'm dyin' here!:>)!
NP, I have listened to womenpriest rationalizations. They're, um.... interesting.
ReplyDelete