Discussion:
Cafeteria Catholics: Gay Priests (part I)
(too old to reply)
gilbertlaw
2005-05-02 23:50:02 UTC
Permalink
I am not too knowledgeable to discuss this issue from a theological, sociological or from a medical perspective. Of course I could lagao bhathi like some of the posts.

So that I can learn, I hope the posters are strict about the problem they are trying to argue or post about.

Mervyn's past posts have been to the point and factual. However his post below is off the mark. The Vatican has not been slow to address this issue. This is not an issue for the Catholic Church. This was clearly conveyed to the US bishops during the legal turmoil in USA. As one Vatican Cardinal put it, "There is No Policy on sexual orientation. This does not exists in the Catholic Church."

Now to the Goans: What part of No / not allowed don't we understand? This thought will continue in part II which will adress the confusaum between Santosh and Fr. Ivo.

Pedophilia is not allowed. Period, End of story! No explanations!

There is no evidence that J.P. II or his predecessor knew that it existed let alone be "extremely slow in addressing the problem". This is like another poster who accused the Catholic Church in Goa and India of all sorts of non-sense. Then the same guy strongly supports the local cardinal for Pope. IMHO, the cover-up was at the level of the local Bishops and not even discussed at the regional Bishop's conference.

So the sexual orientation of priests is a non-issue. IMHO, the issue in today's Church is: What supportive mechanisms and monitoring mechanisms does each diocese have in place to evaluate and investigate any complaint of misbehavior among the priests and nuns. And what do you do if the local Bishop does not respond? Is going to the civil courts the only recourse?

Fr. Ivo would be better off telling us what is the local diocese doing to educate and put priests on notice that sexual practices is not allowed- period! No baba-puta sermaum ani philosphy of human behavior. Just a blunt message with consequences in this world not magir. (See what happens to doctors in the part II post).

Catholics should be looking at these and other solutions and learn rather than rehash the past with irrelevant theoretical issues.
Regards

Mervyn Lobo wrote:
Unfortunately, for the past 10 years, the Vatican has been extremely slow in addressing the problem of gays and paedophiles in its ranks.
gilbertlaw
2005-05-02 23:50:02 UTC
Permalink
I am not too knowledgeable to discuss this issue from a theological, sociological or from a medical perspective. Of course I could lagao bhathi like some of the posts.

So that I can learn, I hope the posters are strict about the problem they are trying to argue or post about.

Mervyn's past posts have been to the point and factual. However his post below is off the mark. The Vatican has not been slow to address this issue. This is not an issue for the Catholic Church. This was clearly conveyed to the US bishops during the legal turmoil in USA. As one Vatican Cardinal put it, "There is No Policy on sexual orientation. This does not exists in the Catholic Church."

Now to the Goans: What part of No / not allowed don't we understand? This thought will continue in part II which will adress the confusaum between Santosh and Fr. Ivo.

Pedophilia is not allowed. Period, End of story! No explanations!

There is no evidence that J.P. II or his predecessor knew that it existed let alone be "extremely slow in addressing the problem". This is like another poster who accused the Catholic Church in Goa and India of all sorts of non-sense. Then the same guy strongly supports the local cardinal for Pope. IMHO, the cover-up was at the level of the local Bishops and not even discussed at the regional Bishop's conference.

So the sexual orientation of priests is a non-issue. IMHO, the issue in today's Church is: What supportive mechanisms and monitoring mechanisms does each diocese have in place to evaluate and investigate any complaint of misbehavior among the priests and nuns. And what do you do if the local Bishop does not respond? Is going to the civil courts the only recourse?

Fr. Ivo would be better off telling us what is the local diocese doing to educate and put priests on notice that sexual practices is not allowed- period! No baba-puta sermaum ani philosphy of human behavior. Just a blunt message with consequences in this world not magir. (See what happens to doctors in the part II post).

Catholics should be looking at these and other solutions and learn rather than rehash the past with irrelevant theoretical issues.
Regards

Mervyn Lobo wrote:
Unfortunately, for the past 10 years, the Vatican has been extremely slow in addressing the problem of gays and paedophiles in its ranks.
gilbertlaw
2005-05-02 23:50:02 UTC
Permalink
I am not too knowledgeable to discuss this issue from a theological, sociological or from a medical perspective. Of course I could lagao bhathi like some of the posts.

So that I can learn, I hope the posters are strict about the problem they are trying to argue or post about.

Mervyn's past posts have been to the point and factual. However his post below is off the mark. The Vatican has not been slow to address this issue. This is not an issue for the Catholic Church. This was clearly conveyed to the US bishops during the legal turmoil in USA. As one Vatican Cardinal put it, "There is No Policy on sexual orientation. This does not exists in the Catholic Church."

Now to the Goans: What part of No / not allowed don't we understand? This thought will continue in part II which will adress the confusaum between Santosh and Fr. Ivo.

Pedophilia is not allowed. Period, End of story! No explanations!

There is no evidence that J.P. II or his predecessor knew that it existed let alone be "extremely slow in addressing the problem". This is like another poster who accused the Catholic Church in Goa and India of all sorts of non-sense. Then the same guy strongly supports the local cardinal for Pope. IMHO, the cover-up was at the level of the local Bishops and not even discussed at the regional Bishop's conference.

So the sexual orientation of priests is a non-issue. IMHO, the issue in today's Church is: What supportive mechanisms and monitoring mechanisms does each diocese have in place to evaluate and investigate any complaint of misbehavior among the priests and nuns. And what do you do if the local Bishop does not respond? Is going to the civil courts the only recourse?

Fr. Ivo would be better off telling us what is the local diocese doing to educate and put priests on notice that sexual practices is not allowed- period! No baba-puta sermaum ani philosphy of human behavior. Just a blunt message with consequences in this world not magir. (See what happens to doctors in the part II post).

Catholics should be looking at these and other solutions and learn rather than rehash the past with irrelevant theoretical issues.
Regards

Mervyn Lobo wrote:
Unfortunately, for the past 10 years, the Vatican has been extremely slow in addressing the problem of gays and paedophiles in its ranks.
gilbertlaw
2005-05-02 23:50:02 UTC
Permalink
I am not too knowledgeable to discuss this issue from a theological, sociological or from a medical perspective. Of course I could lagao bhathi like some of the posts.

So that I can learn, I hope the posters are strict about the problem they are trying to argue or post about.

Mervyn's past posts have been to the point and factual. However his post below is off the mark. The Vatican has not been slow to address this issue. This is not an issue for the Catholic Church. This was clearly conveyed to the US bishops during the legal turmoil in USA. As one Vatican Cardinal put it, "There is No Policy on sexual orientation. This does not exists in the Catholic Church."

Now to the Goans: What part of No / not allowed don't we understand? This thought will continue in part II which will adress the confusaum between Santosh and Fr. Ivo.

Pedophilia is not allowed. Period, End of story! No explanations!

There is no evidence that J.P. II or his predecessor knew that it existed let alone be "extremely slow in addressing the problem". This is like another poster who accused the Catholic Church in Goa and India of all sorts of non-sense. Then the same guy strongly supports the local cardinal for Pope. IMHO, the cover-up was at the level of the local Bishops and not even discussed at the regional Bishop's conference.

So the sexual orientation of priests is a non-issue. IMHO, the issue in today's Church is: What supportive mechanisms and monitoring mechanisms does each diocese have in place to evaluate and investigate any complaint of misbehavior among the priests and nuns. And what do you do if the local Bishop does not respond? Is going to the civil courts the only recourse?

Fr. Ivo would be better off telling us what is the local diocese doing to educate and put priests on notice that sexual practices is not allowed- period! No baba-puta sermaum ani philosphy of human behavior. Just a blunt message with consequences in this world not magir. (See what happens to doctors in the part II post).

Catholics should be looking at these and other solutions and learn rather than rehash the past with irrelevant theoretical issues.
Regards

Mervyn Lobo wrote:
Unfortunately, for the past 10 years, the Vatican has been extremely slow in addressing the problem of gays and paedophiles in its ranks.
gilbertlaw
2005-05-02 23:50:02 UTC
Permalink
I am not too knowledgeable to discuss this issue from a theological, sociological or from a medical perspective. Of course I could lagao bhathi like some of the posts.

So that I can learn, I hope the posters are strict about the problem they are trying to argue or post about.

Mervyn's past posts have been to the point and factual. However his post below is off the mark. The Vatican has not been slow to address this issue. This is not an issue for the Catholic Church. This was clearly conveyed to the US bishops during the legal turmoil in USA. As one Vatican Cardinal put it, "There is No Policy on sexual orientation. This does not exists in the Catholic Church."

Now to the Goans: What part of No / not allowed don't we understand? This thought will continue in part II which will adress the confusaum between Santosh and Fr. Ivo.

Pedophilia is not allowed. Period, End of story! No explanations!

There is no evidence that J.P. II or his predecessor knew that it existed let alone be "extremely slow in addressing the problem". This is like another poster who accused the Catholic Church in Goa and India of all sorts of non-sense. Then the same guy strongly supports the local cardinal for Pope. IMHO, the cover-up was at the level of the local Bishops and not even discussed at the regional Bishop's conference.

So the sexual orientation of priests is a non-issue. IMHO, the issue in today's Church is: What supportive mechanisms and monitoring mechanisms does each diocese have in place to evaluate and investigate any complaint of misbehavior among the priests and nuns. And what do you do if the local Bishop does not respond? Is going to the civil courts the only recourse?

Fr. Ivo would be better off telling us what is the local diocese doing to educate and put priests on notice that sexual practices is not allowed- period! No baba-puta sermaum ani philosphy of human behavior. Just a blunt message with consequences in this world not magir. (See what happens to doctors in the part II post).

Catholics should be looking at these and other solutions and learn rather than rehash the past with irrelevant theoretical issues.
Regards

Mervyn Lobo wrote:
Unfortunately, for the past 10 years, the Vatican has been extremely slow in addressing the problem of gays and paedophiles in its ranks.
gilbertlaw
2005-05-02 23:50:02 UTC
Permalink
I am not too knowledgeable to discuss this issue from a theological, sociological or from a medical perspective. Of course I could lagao bhathi like some of the posts.

So that I can learn, I hope the posters are strict about the problem they are trying to argue or post about.

Mervyn's past posts have been to the point and factual. However his post below is off the mark. The Vatican has not been slow to address this issue. This is not an issue for the Catholic Church. This was clearly conveyed to the US bishops during the legal turmoil in USA. As one Vatican Cardinal put it, "There is No Policy on sexual orientation. This does not exists in the Catholic Church."

Now to the Goans: What part of No / not allowed don't we understand? This thought will continue in part II which will adress the confusaum between Santosh and Fr. Ivo.

Pedophilia is not allowed. Period, End of story! No explanations!

There is no evidence that J.P. II or his predecessor knew that it existed let alone be "extremely slow in addressing the problem". This is like another poster who accused the Catholic Church in Goa and India of all sorts of non-sense. Then the same guy strongly supports the local cardinal for Pope. IMHO, the cover-up was at the level of the local Bishops and not even discussed at the regional Bishop's conference.

So the sexual orientation of priests is a non-issue. IMHO, the issue in today's Church is: What supportive mechanisms and monitoring mechanisms does each diocese have in place to evaluate and investigate any complaint of misbehavior among the priests and nuns. And what do you do if the local Bishop does not respond? Is going to the civil courts the only recourse?

Fr. Ivo would be better off telling us what is the local diocese doing to educate and put priests on notice that sexual practices is not allowed- period! No baba-puta sermaum ani philosphy of human behavior. Just a blunt message with consequences in this world not magir. (See what happens to doctors in the part II post).

Catholics should be looking at these and other solutions and learn rather than rehash the past with irrelevant theoretical issues.
Regards

Mervyn Lobo wrote:
Unfortunately, for the past 10 years, the Vatican has been extremely slow in addressing the problem of gays and paedophiles in its ranks.
gilbertlaw
2005-05-02 23:50:02 UTC
Permalink
I am not too knowledgeable to discuss this issue from a theological, sociological or from a medical perspective. Of course I could lagao bhathi like some of the posts.

So that I can learn, I hope the posters are strict about the problem they are trying to argue or post about.

Mervyn's past posts have been to the point and factual. However his post below is off the mark. The Vatican has not been slow to address this issue. This is not an issue for the Catholic Church. This was clearly conveyed to the US bishops during the legal turmoil in USA. As one Vatican Cardinal put it, "There is No Policy on sexual orientation. This does not exists in the Catholic Church."

Now to the Goans: What part of No / not allowed don't we understand? This thought will continue in part II which will adress the confusaum between Santosh and Fr. Ivo.

Pedophilia is not allowed. Period, End of story! No explanations!

There is no evidence that J.P. II or his predecessor knew that it existed let alone be "extremely slow in addressing the problem". This is like another poster who accused the Catholic Church in Goa and India of all sorts of non-sense. Then the same guy strongly supports the local cardinal for Pope. IMHO, the cover-up was at the level of the local Bishops and not even discussed at the regional Bishop's conference.

So the sexual orientation of priests is a non-issue. IMHO, the issue in today's Church is: What supportive mechanisms and monitoring mechanisms does each diocese have in place to evaluate and investigate any complaint of misbehavior among the priests and nuns. And what do you do if the local Bishop does not respond? Is going to the civil courts the only recourse?

Fr. Ivo would be better off telling us what is the local diocese doing to educate and put priests on notice that sexual practices is not allowed- period! No baba-puta sermaum ani philosphy of human behavior. Just a blunt message with consequences in this world not magir. (See what happens to doctors in the part II post).

Catholics should be looking at these and other solutions and learn rather than rehash the past with irrelevant theoretical issues.
Regards

Mervyn Lobo wrote:
Unfortunately, for the past 10 years, the Vatican has been extremely slow in addressing the problem of gays and paedophiles in its ranks.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...