Liberal intolerance of religious diversity

Before Benedict 16 was Pope, he was "in charge" of dealing with the pedophile priest horror. He wrote an infamous letter to American bishops telling them, in effect, to keep it quiet. There had been other memos, from popes, before him, concerning hush money payment, silence, etc.

Here is the link for Ratzinger's letter:

http://www.opusbonosacerdotii.org/ad_exsequendam_ecclesiasticam_legem.htm

I am wondering why Cardinal Levada, the pedophiles' Archbishop, he who is now holding out the welcome mat for disaffected Anglicans, is in the Vatican, rather than in a California prison.

The Reality of Homosexuality Continued:

Hmmm, the NT says nothing about gay sex? Au Contraire!!! Thou shalt Not Commit Adultery and Thou Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbors Wife/Husband/Partner with the corollary of Thou Shalt Not Fornicate pertain not only to heterosexual couples but also homosexual couples. This probably is no concern to non-Christians or non-Jews but it should be a major concern to those religious types that believe in the teachings of the OT, NT, the Commandments and all of its corollaries.

So we have a Christian God who supposedly created all of us to include homosexuals. Said God is therefore responsible for the defective gene/mind-set/whatever that causes homosexuality? One might conclude from this that the Christian God would therefore approve same-sex unions since that is the only sin-free state where any type of couple-sex can be performed.

When we are speaking of the RCC, let us recall that an odd sense of morality applies generally, not merely with respect to gays. Deneen is Donohue with a better suit. Now here is a bit of interesting information re the Roman Church and gays. Cardinal William Levada, now Vatican doctrinal watchdog, was in his previous life Archbishop of San Francisco.
The good Archbishop led 1,000 of his coreligionists on a march against gay marriage.

He also shielded for years one of the worst Catholic clerical pederasty rings in the nation. Not the worst, but among the top, say, ten or so.

"Salesians hold world record for pedophile priests -- guest writer Joey Piscitelli lists their names and connections to William Levada
*****
The Salesians go on trial in LA April 14. Plaintiffs say the Order let pedophile priest Titian Miani have access to children at St. John Bosco High in Bellflower. Piscitelli sued the Salesians in 2006. -- ke

By Joey Piscitelli
The Salesians Clergy of California have shattered the World Record for the most accused child molesters in one area, by a landslide. There is no religious order in the world that we know of that is even remotely close in the number of accused molesters. And the list is growing. At latest count, there are 21 local (California) Salesians accused and/or convicted pedophiles, 19 of them named as child molesters in lawsuits! This tally is so far off the charts.

The following Salesians have been accused of sex crimes in California, including abuse, molestation, rape, sodomy, lewd and lascivious conduct, felony child abuse, copulation, and sexual deviation: Fr. Larry Lorenzoni, Fr. Richard Presenti, Fr. Bernard Dabbenne, Fr. Steve Whelan, Bro. Sal Billante, Bro. Jesse Dominguez, Fr. Jim Miani, Fr. Harold Danielson, Bro. Mark Epperson, Fr. Mario Blanco, Bro. Anthony Juarez, Bro. Ernie Martinez, Fr. Emanual Palayo, Fr. Juan Sanchez, Bro. John Verhart, Fr. Fleming, Fr. Al Mengon, Bro. John Vas, Bro. Ralph Murguia, Bro. Dan Pacheco, and Mr. Sam Vitone.

Cardinal William Levada shielded and covered for so many Salesian accused molesters that victims of the Salesians have nicknamed the Salesian pedophiles -"Levada’s Boys". Still, Levada has shown no shame or remorse, nor has he apologized

"Why do you think so many straights are emotional about homosexuality? My main interest in the issue is that gays are another persecuted minority. "
Posted by Carstonio

I honestly don't know. It's not just homosexuality. Check out some of the American southern reaction to ending segregation in the early 1960's. Some people seem to need to have someone to look down on, and get very frightened at having to accept their favorite whipping-boy as a fellow citizen, with equal rights under the law. The need to keep "the other" down is both powerful in some of us and dangerous to any democracy.

I know that comparing discrimination based on race to discrimination based on sexual orientation will upset some conservative Christians, but I am old enough to remember the "biblical" justifications used for segregation, and they are very similar to the statements coming out now about gay rights. I didn't create the similarity in the arguments, I'm just pointing it out.

Homosexuality is not a "defect" any more than heterosexuality. Obviously gay couples cannot reproduce on their own, but that's neither a good thing nor a bad thing. Homosexuality has been observed in animal species in times of population stress, and there's a theory that it serves to relieve stress until the population stabilizes.

Part of the problem is authoritarianism, specifically the false belief of normality where prevalence is confused with goodness. Science has the right approach, using "normal" and "abnormal" to connote prevalence or lack of it but in a value-neutral context.

The concept of "yucky" is not even worth considering as a substitute for a moral principle. That would be like me saying that eating sauerkraut is wrong simply because it turns my stomach.

Maybe the following are the reasons why CUA does not permit a gay group on their campus??

Once again, some observations about homosexuality:

Hmmm, lets see, in gay sexual activity, who plays the guy and who plays the gal? Who is on top and who is on the bottom? A coin flip? To say the least, an unusual situation. Then there are those "made in China" toys/strap-ons. Lets hope the FDA has checked them for lead and other toxic components. And do said "toys" come with sanitizers and/or sterilization instructions.

Lots and lots of "gays" doing their hot and heavy things on Internet tube sites but nothing about coin flipping, who is on first, and sanitizers sites?? There must be some "Gaying It For Dummies" books out there somewhere. Hmmm, I wonder if said books/sites have to have FDA and CDC approval??

Is said activity wrong and worthy of a trip to hell? Of course not but to the general heterosexual population it is yucky, unusual and not normal to them. With that mind set, approval by the majority is not always sanctioned in law.

The general population to include many of the voters in California, rightly or wrongly, find gay sexual activities, married or not, to be "yucky" and unusual and typically associate such activity with the spread of AIDS which is of course wrong. Said AIDS epidemic in the gay male community at the start of the AIDS crises will always remain unfortunately a stigma on the gay community.

continued below:

And after all of this rhetoric, gay "marriages" simply simplify and somewhat sanitize what are still "yucky" acts caused by a variant gene(s) and/or hormone imbalance. One wonders if stem cell research will find a cure??

Hmmm, would the embryos formed from the sperm of gay guys and the eggs from gay gals make more ethical embryos for this and other types of research?? "

Impressive list of gay people who did not let their yucky defect get in the way of being a contribution to society. Unfortunately, they were not able to contribute to the evolutionary process of DNA improvement via procreation.
And one will never know whether they would have achieved even greater achievements without said defect.

From below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, gay sexual activity is still mutual masturbation caused by one or more complex sexual defects. Some defects are visually obvious in for example the complex maleness of DeGeneres, Billy Jean King and Rosie O'Donnell. Of course not all having these abnormal tendencies, show it outwardly as alluded to in the following synopsis:

From Wikipedia:
"Biology and sexu
al orientation is research into possible biological influences on the development of human sexual orientation. No simple cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental. Many think both play complex roles.[1][2] The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have both stated that sexual orientation probably has multiple causes.[3][4] Research has identified several biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual orientation. These include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure. Conclusive proof of a biological cause of sexual orientation would have significant political and cultural implications. [5]"

Hmmm,"Carstonio"?? Where have we seen that name before?? Let us check our list. Yes, there it is.

This blog by a evangelical Christian refutes Deenan's argument in a slightly different context:

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2009/04/one-cheer-for-fred-phelps.html

when the folks at NOM insist that their opposition to same-sex marriage is a matter of "religious liberty," the liberty they're talking about has to be the liberty to exceed the Fred Phelps standard -- the liberty not just to restrict membership on religious grounds, or just to preach against homosexuality as a sin, or to condemn and denounce homosexuals as people hated by God, but the liberty, apparently, to go beyond all that, beyond anything even Fred Phelps has imagined.

Fred Phelps is a free man, so if you think your freedom is going to be restricted, you must be planning to outdo Fred Phelps.

Ah, that old canard, "Liberals are hypocrites about diversity cause they don't 'tolerate' my intolerance and railing against diversity."

Not all Catholics are anti-gay. That's *part* of your diversity, even if you don't want to accept it. You don't have any essential 'right' to defame and harm others. Nor to stop people affected by this from being represented, and say such exclusion is in the name of 'diversity' or 'tolerance' itself.

Gimpi, thanks for your comment. Why do you think so many straights are emotional about homosexuality? My main interest in the issue is that gays are another persecuted minority. That affects everyone, not just as a matter of social justice, but also because anyone could be mistaken for gay depending on the circumstances. (I read years ago "don't ask, don't tell" is very often abused for retaliation against women - apparently in such cases, if a female service member objects to sexual harassment or refuses advances from a male comrade, he accuses her of lesbianism.)

"While I appreciate your point, why pass judgment in the first place? Whether one believes that homosexuality is innate or a choice, the fact remains that it poses no intrinsic harm. The only valid criteria for judging personal behavior is its effect on others."
Posted by Carstonio

Thank you for the response, Carstonio. In principle, I agree totally with you. In fact, however, it appears that judgment of behaviors are mostly emotional responses which people do without thinking much. I can't make people think, but I can try to prevent them from passing those emotional responses into law.

"In this case, in my view, the Catholic University of America is free to pass judgment of a Gay-Lesbian student's lifestyle, but not to deny them the same rights any other student has."

While I appreciate your point, why pass judgment in the first place? Whether one believes that homosexuality is innate or a choice, the fact remains that it poses no intrinsic harm. The only valid criteria for judging personal behavior is its effect on others.

"Yet many cultural and religious traditions are not indifferent to the question of how we should live -- they are, to use an unpopular word, judgmental. Can an overarching culture of toleration in fact tolerate a judgmental stance?"

The way I personally deal with this is simple. I accept anyone's right to believe as their own heart calls them. However, in a free society, control of the behavior of others can only be permitted to prevent harm to others. In this case, in my view, the Catholic University of America is free to pass judgment of a Gay-Lesbian student's lifestyle, but not to deny them the same rights any other student has. If other students can organize, that judgment of disapproval can't be allowed to trump equality before the law.

The short phrase I use to regulate my own tendency to pass judgment is this: You can believe whatever you want, but you can only pass laws based on what you can prove.

I just put this out there to show one way to make these judgment calls.

Hyprocricy is better viewed from the genocides committed by various races in the name of religion and/or secularism. See the body counts at http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm

This essay is a classic example of Orwellian double-speak, implying that discrimination against gays is part of Catholicism's a conservative rather than a liberal, one of many "diverse cultural and faith traditions."

I suspect that the Church now uses a related discourse to justify all kinds of offensive practices, such as praying that"Let us pray for the Jews.

"May the Lord Our God enlighten their hearts so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, the savior of all men."

Given the history of the Catholic Church toward Jews, its current members behavior, Jews would do will to begin a prayer for the Catholics.

"May the Lord Our God enlighten their hearts so that the cease their idolatry of a dead man who may or who may not have existed."

Catholics justify their prayer as doing the work of Christ. Not so different from holding up the banner of religious diversity to persecute gays. Jews might introduce a counter-prayer for the Catholics in hopes that they will cease the discrimination and bigotry to which they have been heir.

What do you think, Pat? Btw., what "faith or cultural tradition" justifies Georgetown's historic acceptance of Arab donations, oil money, in the interest of "curriculum development"?

What faith or cultural tradition justifies the Vatican's refusal for sixty years to make public its records from the Hitler era?

What faith or cultural tradition justifies Vatican Bank's refusal to settle with the heirs, return the loot deposited by 200 murdering Croat priests?

Yes, we Jews should pray for you to see the light, stop your idolatry, hypocrisy, etc.

fr the article:

>...The editorial stated that "Catholic identity must, understandably, be affirmed at a Catholic institution -- but it is also important to be sensitive to changing social dynamics." For this reason, the editors' called for CUA to follow Georgetown's lead in recognizing an LGBTQ group on campus....

And well they should follow it.

How long has it been since liberals wanted diversity of IDEAS?

They just want every institution to include people of every conceivable demographic to agree with them.

Mr. Deneed,

I think you missed Hoya's point. Their article did not mention "diversity," though you spend your entire article railing against it as if that was their argument. It isn't.

Did you read their opinion? The authors are doing exactly what you are advocating: they are judging CUA as immoral. CUA judges gays as too immoral for campus, Hoya judges you as immoral because of your judgment. They are not arguing that you should not be allowed to restrict gay groups (if they were, they would be proposing legislation to make it so), they are arguing you are morally wrong.

The thing you are feeling is not "intolerance" for religion, but intolerance for what you believe. Since this message is coming from fellow Catholics, it might make sense to evaluate your beliefs, not claim oppression.

This from a "university" who sold its soul to Islam by accepting $20 million dollars from an Arab sheik with the understanding that GU would present Islam as a "peaceful" religion??

Some of the "peaceful" actions of said religion:

1a) 179 killed in Mumbai/Bombay, 290 injured

1b) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh

2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured

3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US Troops, 3,474 killed in action, 878 in non-combat accidents and 93,552 – 102,083 Iraqi civilians killed, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

5) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

7) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

8) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

9) The execution of an eloping couple in Afghanistan on 04/15/2009 by the Taliban.

10) Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan: US troops killed in action 614 and 182 killed in non-combat situations as of 10/15/09

"an attendant danger of a globe of indifferent liberal individualists in which everything is permitted, but nobody really cares"

That's offensive on many levels. The idea of behavior being permitted or forbidden is an authoritarian one that has nothing to do with morality. True morality is about making choices about one's own behavior to help others or avoid hurting others. When one refrains from judging behavior that doesn't harm others, that's not a sign of indifference. Instead, it's a sign that one cares passionately about others to let them make their own choices about their lives.

Do I sense a bit of cross-town rivalry, here?

"Yet many cultural and religious traditions are not indifferent to the question of how we should live -- they are, to use an unpopular word, judgmental...From the perspective of the person whose worldview is defined by liberal toleration, those who judge certain behaviors and ways of life to be praiseworthy and others to be wrong would appear to be intolerant."

This has nothing to do with toleration and everything to do with personal boundaries. No one has any business judging what is best for another competent adult. The only grounds for judging another's way of life is if that way brings harm to others. In fact, the only basis for saying that ANY action is wrong is whether the action can cause harm to others. Although I've been straight all my life, I strongly sympathize with gay rights - since homosexuality doesn't intrinsically cause harm, there is no basis for deeming it to be wrong.

The HOYA of GU excoriated CUA, which is BTW under the direct auspices of the VATICAN, to conform to a new norm... REALLY !!

There are other colleges and universities in the capital/region which are more conforming to the 'new norm' - if it we're we, I'd leave CUA and move to GU or to other 'conforming' schools.

Like these students did not know that the Catholic Church is ANTI-EVERYTHING. Why did these students enroll in CUA, anyway?