Gay priest who help found Dignity (gay Catholic group) dies at 90...

[none2_none2]

One of the big news items on gay topics recently is all the talk about the pope meeting with the KY lady and how many are disappointed because they thought this pope was going to show more tolerance... (Unfortunately, I just am not in the mood to give that lady any more thought right now...)

Anyway, while reading up on that, I ran into a fairly recent story (2 weeks ago -- 22-Sept-2015) about a gay former Jesuit priest who died at the age of 90. His important contribution was that he was one of the first vocal priests to press for the church to be more tolerant. While some may be turned off by religion in any form, it must be said that there have been religious people (both gay and str8) who have fought for gay rights. Here are a few articles:

His obituary:
http://gaycitynews.nyc/father-john-mcneill-gay-catholic-pioneer-dead-90/


Here is a short video made about his life a few years back:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_nq6djC9LU

When I do see some religious articles that condemn homosexuality, I am amazed at the level of vile in some of the comments that are even more homophobic than the articles themselves. Personally, I don't blame religion for anti-gay sentiment. Rather I think it is the other way around: people with anti-gay sentiment use religion to justify their vile. If it wasn't for religion, they would just use some other reason to justify their hatred. Unfortunately, some people's fuel is and always will be hate.

Anyway, I am proud of what this priest tried to accomplish in a day and age when there were few role models to make it safe to come out. He could have lived a very comfortable life, and he was popular in some circles because he was so anti-Vietnam War. However, he took a leap of faith to come out to help others. He is also know for the contraversial book he wrote in 1976: "The Church and the Homosexual".

Note, the obituary has him with 3 other priests in some march. They too were early priest fighting for our rights. I am proud of their courage.

 

[Halen]

One of the big news items on gay topics recently is all the talk about the pope meeting with the KY lady and how many are disappointed because they thought this pope was going to show more tolerance... (Unfortunately, I just am not in the mood to give that lady any more thought right now...)

Anyway, while reading up on that, I ran into a fairly recent story (2 weeks ago -- 22-Sept-2015) about a gay former Jesuit priest who died at the age of 90. His important contribution was that he was one of the first vocal priests to press for the church to be more tolerant. While some may be turned off by religion in any form, it must be said that there have been religious people (both gay and str8) who have fought for gay rights. Here are a few articles:

His obituary:
http://gaycitynews.nyc/father-john-mcneill-gay-catholic-pioneer-dead-90/


Here is a short video made about his life a few years back:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_nq6djC9LU

When I do see some religious articles that condemn homosexuality, I am amazed at the level of vile in some of the comments that are even more homophobic than the articles themselves. Personally, I don't blame religion for anti-gay sentiment. Rather I think it is the other way around: people with anti-gay sentiment use religion to justify their vile. If it wasn't for religion, they would just use some other reason to justify their hatred. Unfortunately, some people's fuel is and always will be hate.

Anyway, I am proud of what this priest tried to accomplish in a day and age when there were few role models to make it safe to come out. He could have lived a very comfortable life, and he was popular in some circles because he was so anti-Vietnam War. However, he took a leap of faith to come out to help others. He is also know for the contraversial book he wrote in 1976: "The Church and the Homosexual".

Note, the obituary has him with 3 other priests in some march. They too were early priest fighting for our rights. I am proud of their courage.

Michael Burgess died this week at 70.

 

[werwolf]

I don't really understand what people were expecting. He's the *Pope*, not the President. No matter how otherwise progressive or compassionate he is(and he is), he by definition advocates views on a lot of issues that are profoundly at odds with much of modern Western culture, and he isn't going to ditch millennia of Catholic social teaching to have MSNBC say nice things about him. An attitude of "their rights should be protected, love the sinner" and "we've got better things to focus on" is probably the best we are going to get.


With that being said, without gays, the population of priests would be decimated. I've always been interested-even as an unambiguously straight man-about homosexuality in classical and Renaissance cultures, and how it seems to mesh more smoothly with religion back then. Very interesting societal implications on why that changed-it all leads back to power incentives, every time...

 

[none2_none2]

I don't really understand what people were expecting. He's the *Pope*, not the President. No matter how otherwise progressive or compassionate he is(and he is), he by definition advocates views on a lot of issues that are profoundly at odds with much of modern Western culture, and he isn't going to ditch millennia of Catholic social teaching to have MSNBC say nice things about him. An attitude of "their rights should be protected, love the sinner" and "we've got better things to focus on" is probably the best we are going to get.


With that being said, without gays, the population of priests would be decimated. I've always been interested-even as an unambiguously straight man-about homosexuality in classical and Renaissance cultures, and how it seems to mesh more smoothly with religion back then. Very interesting societal implications on why that changed-it all leads back to power incentives, every time...

The Church does change, but it moves at the speed of a glacer. (Ignore the recent trends of global warming. I mean the classical sense of VERY SLOW.) That is probably something to consider a positive as for anything to last a long time it cannot constantly change direction with the popularity of the moment.


I think most were upset not because they expected this liberal Pope to suddenly approve of gay marriage, but because someone as extreme as the KY clerk got a personal visit. It sounds now like it was not something he specifically asked for, but someone scheduled it regardless. The KY clerk represents everything that some of us resent about right-wing, hypocritical, fundamentalists, Christians -- they can screw anybody they want. They can commit adultry, fornicate, have children that are not by their married spouse. They simply have to say that all those "naughty" actions were BEFORE they found God. Where as if two people of the same sex fall in love and express that physically, they are evil -- even if they met the core of marriage values: monogamous. If a gay person wasi in church every Sunday of their life, they are damned in the minds of many of these right-wingers -- unless they never act on it. That too to me always seemed hypocritical via Biblical standards. The Bible states if you lust after a woman, you have committed adultry even if you did not do the deed. If you have same sex attraction, you are going to find some people of the same sex desirable. However, you CAN desire them, and Christians will say you are fine as long as you do not act upon it. However, appllying the straight standards, you commit the "sin" by simply desiring it even if you don't act on it. They tell a straight to put a ring on the person of your desire, then it is ok. They should do the same for gays...

Now as to male homosexuality in earlier times, I'm not sure there was ever a time where it was totally on par with heterosexuality. We all hear about classical time Greek homosexuality, but realize it was much different than modern day homosexuality. If there were a time machine that could take us back then, we would probably be shocked. The ideal was a man would take a "boy" as a mentor and they would be lovers. Sure their may have been some homosexuality of men of the same age, but that was not what was glorified. Some believe that the reason for the obsession for boys is that women were not on equal par, and access to them for sex was more to make children. Whenever a culture puts women in a seperate place, then plenty of men will turn to boys which are considered closer to females than another adult male would be.

For a modern day comparison, there has been recent reports of pedo practices in Afghanistan to the point that it is kind of institutionalized. What is strange is that while we tend to detest the Taliban, the fact is they were one of the few groups that actually spoke out against it. Plenty of men would take advantage of a youth. Again, that sounds so strange to us, but keep in mind that women in their culture are off limits. There was a whole PBS Frontline story on it. It was shocking that a culture would allow such practices.

Now as for the Renaisance period, I don't think it was that acceptable then either. We have ideas that some like Michelangelo may have been homosexual. Still, people from his day are believed to have been homosexual, but it cannot be proved 100%. I don't think it was tolerated to the point that they could freely say they love and have sex with another male. That is why you have to read in between the lines as to how they treated some men to determine if they were homosexual. Keep in mind that men could still be executed for sodomy, so there was a limit to just how tolerant society was.

Modern homosexualty while it does have a lot of emphasis on youth and beauty, most gay men would be angry if someone dared to compare us to pedo's. I would too, although it shocks me the number of gay men who would jump the bones to an 18 year old -- as though something magically happens to a male between the last day he is 17 and the first day he is 18. I never had any physical desire to be with someone who looked like a "boy" regardless of their chronical age. In fact, to be honest though I was a total virgin until I was 21.5 years old (definitely a legal adult), I had thought of adult men sexually for YEARS prior to that. However, I too would not have not have met the classical period definition of a homosexual. In the Greek model, the youth took the passive role. I wanted the adult to take the passive role. Luckily, I had the sense not to approach an adult in that way. I feared some masculine adult man would beat the crap out of me if he thought I was interested in that.

I'm glad we don't tolerate the ancient type of homosexuality. It just didn't seam healthy to me when I read about it. Youth should be free from such pressures from adults.

As to modern homosexuality, while many churches may still not accept it, society seems to be more tolerant than it used to be. That being said, I am not sure I would ever let myself be totally "out". That is because it wouldn't take much for the pendulum to swing the other direction. As an example, pre-WWII Germany was a very liberal time for homosexuals. Yet Nazi Germany was very anti-homosexual. It is funny that at the same time they condemned it, they had plenty of closeted homosexuals in the SS and they had plenty of homoerotic art.

 

[Halen]

The Church does change, but it moves at the speed of a glacer. (Ignore the recent trends of global warming. I mean the classical sense of VERY SLOW.) That is probably something to consider a positive as for anything to last a long time it cannot constantly change direction with the popularity of the moment.


I think most were upset not because they expected this liberal Pope to suddenly approve of gay marriage, but because someone as extreme as the KY clerk got a personal visit. It sounds now like it was not something he specifically asked for, but someone scheduled it regardless. The KY clerk represents everything that some of us resent about right-wing, hypocritical, fundamentalists, Christians -- they can screw anybody they want. They can commit adultry, fornicate, have children that are not by their married spouse. They simply have to say that all those "naughty" actions were BEFORE they found God. Where as if two people of the same sex fall in love and express that physically, they are evil -- even if they met the core of marriage values: monogamous. If a gay person wasi in church every Sunday of their life, they are damned in the minds of many of these right-wingers -- unless they never act on it. That too to me always seemed hypocritical via Biblical standards. The Bible states if you lust after a woman, you have committed adultry even if you did not do the deed. If you have same sex attraction, you are going to find some people of the same sex desirable. However, you CAN desire them, and Christians will say you are fine as long as you do not act upon it. However, appllying the straight standards, you commit the "sin" by simply desiring it even if you don't act on it. They tell a straight to put a ring on the person of your desire, then it is ok. They should do the same for gays...

Now as to male homosexuality in earlier times, I'm not sure there was ever a time where it was totally on par with heterosexuality. We all hear about classical time Greek homosexuality, but realize it was much different than modern day homosexuality. If there were a time machine that could take us back then, we would probably be shocked. The ideal was a man would take a "boy" as a mentor and they would be lovers. Sure their may have been some homosexuality of men of the same age, but that was not what was glorified. Some believe that the reason for the obsession for boys is that women were not on equal par, and access to them for sex was more to make children. Whenever a culture puts women in a seperate place, then plenty of men will turn to boys which are considered closer to females than another adult male would be.

For a modern day comparison, there has been recent reports of pedo practices in Afghanistan to the point that it is kind of institutionalized. What is strange is that while we tend to detest the Taliban, the fact is they were one of the few groups that actually spoke out against it. Plenty of men would take advantage of a youth. Again, that sounds so strange to us, but keep in mind that women in their culture are off limits. There was a whole PBS Frontline story on it. It was shocking that a culture would allow such practices.

Now as for the Renaisance period, I don't think it was that acceptable then either. We have ideas that some like Michelangelo may have been homosexual. Still, people from his day are believed to have been homosexual, but it cannot be proved 100%. I don't think it was tolerated to the point that they could freely say they love and have sex with another male. That is why you have to read in between the lines as to how they treated some men to determine if they were homosexual. Keep in mind that men could still be executed for sodomy, so there was a limit to just how tolerant society was.

Modern homosexualty while it does have a lot of emphasis on youth and beauty, most gay men would be angry if someone dared to compare us to pedo's. I would too, although it shocks me the number of gay men who would jump the bones to an 18 year old -- as though something magically happens to a male between the last day he is 17 and the first day he is 18. I never had any physical desire to be with someone who looked like a "boy" regardless of their chronical age. In fact, to be honest though I was a total virgin until I was 21.5 years old (definitely a legal adult), I had thought of adult men sexually for YEARS prior to that. However, I too would not have not have met the classical period definition of a homosexual. In the Greek model, the youth took the passive role. I wanted the adult to take the passive role. Luckily, I had the sense not to approach an adult in that way. I feared some masculine adult man would beat the crap out of me if he thought I was interested in that.

I'm glad we don't tolerate the ancient type of homosexuality. It just didn't seam healthy to me when I read about it. Youth should be free from such pressures from adults.

As to modern homosexuality, while many churches may still not accept it, society seems to be more tolerant than it used to be. That being said, I am not sure I would ever let myself be totally "out". That is because it wouldn't take much for the pendulum to swing the other direction. As an example, pre-WWII Germany was a very liberal time for homosexuals. Yet Nazi Germany was very anti-homosexual. It is funny that at the same time they condemned it, they had plenty of closeted homosexuals in the SS and they had plenty of homoerotic art.

Simply put. If you dont like the way something is run, you get out. Why force your beliefs on it? Its no better then islamics trying to enforce their honor killings in a western society. The catholic church has been around thousands of years, accepted homosexuality by the masses not even 30. I'm all for acceptance totally against forced acceptance. Or being persecuted for not accepting. Im 100% pro choice meaning for it or against it That is your choice and used to be your right in the USA not anymore.

When do we start persecuting for voting wrong? Not liking same sex, not listening to top 40 radio? The reason norh america was great was because you had freedoms which are being eroded in the name of hate speech and everything PC

 

[Bramblethorn]

Simply put. If you dont like the way something is run, you get out.

Or you stay and try to fix it. We'd never move ahead if everybody practiced "love it just the way it is or leave it".

Why force your beliefs on it? Its no better then islamics trying to enforce their honor killings in a western society.

Nope. Being required to treat LGBTI people decently is not morally equivalent to murdering people.

When do we start persecuting for voting wrong? Not liking same sex, not listening to top 40 radio? The reason norh america was great was because you had freedoms which are being eroded in the name of hate speech and everything PC

Well, it was pretty great for straight cis white guys. But a lot of other folk might tell you that they have more freedom now than they did back in the "good old days".

 

[none2_none2]

Simply put. If you dont like the way something is run, you get out. Why force your beliefs on it? Its no better then islamics trying to enforce their honor killings in a western society. The catholic church has been around thousands of years, accepted homosexuality by the masses not even 30. I'm all for acceptance totally against forced acceptance. Or being persecuted for not accepting. Im 100% pro choice meaning for it or against it That is your choice and used to be your right in the USA not anymore.

When do we start persecuting for voting wrong? Not liking same sex, not listening to top 40 radio? The reason norh america was great was because you had freedoms which are being eroded in the name of hate speech and everything PC

First I have to agree with Bramblethorn on the comment about honor killings. Comparing acceptance of what group you are sexually and/or romantically interested in with acceptance to kill someone is not logical. LTGB people are not black widows. We do not kill who we have sex with after we are done mating.

As to this idea of basically love it or leave it, that is rather an over simplistic way of dealing with conflict in life -- run away. The fact is that each and every human being is unique and do not necessarily agree with every opinion that another human being has. Does that mean everytime there is a disagreement, one should simply leave? All that accomplishes is constant fracturing of human groupings. I myself tend to have unique opinions on most topics. How that affects my life is that seldom will you see me get very close to ANY group except for those times when it makes sense. When it doesn't I keep some space between myself and that group.

While some people put it down, I think most rational people who don't mind organized religion treat it as a cafeteria meal. You take what you like and pay for it, but leave the stuff you don't like for someone else in the line. Like jello? Pick it up and pay for it. Don't like spinish? Don't put it on your tray. Some put down the idea of being a "cafeteria Catholic" or for that matter cafeteria on anything, but it simply is how plenty of people really deal with disagreements.

Think of other topics within the Catholic church. Do you think all the str8's that are Catholic practice natural family planning instead of using modern contraceptives? I would also bet that plenty of str8 Catholics see nothing wrong with modern methods of dealing with infertility such as artificial insemination, etc. They simply do not bring it up in the context of Church since they know people would make a fuss about the "official doctrine". Heck the Church condemns oral sex within marriage if it is used to reach orgasm in and of itself as opposed to just stimulating to get the body ready for procreative matings. Do you think all str8 married Catholics keep to that restriction?

One could expand this beyond the realm of organized religion. For instance, take the topic of law. Do people up and change their state/province and or country if they don't like the people or party in charge? The answer is probably no for the majority of people. Likewise, do you think homosexuals did not engage in sodomy before the federal laws were changed in the 1990's? I doubt it.

My own personal view is that laws be it religious, or legal, etc should be viewed as suggestions/guidlines for how to conduct yourself and treat other's fairly. I never did see them as black/white or good/evil.

As for forcing others to accept things, I have my own take on that. No, I don't think a florest, backery, pizzaria, or other such optional businesses should be forced to accept money from non-str8's. Why? Quite frankly, because they don't deserve money from the LTGB community. Now, if it is a necessary service, then I do draw the line. Medical facilities and providers for the most part should not descriminate on who they serve. Imagine an EMT who would not perform CPR on an LTGB individual. That is unacceptable. (Granted I do think that some of that happened during the height of the AIDS crisis. I cannot completly condemn that because it wasn't so much about being anti-gay as not wanting to catch a deadly disease with a transmission method that was not well understood at first. I would also perhaps put housing, clothing, food in the same category. Rule of thumb is if you cannot truly do without a product or service to survive, then someone does not have a right to turn you down:

basic food; water; basic clothing; housing including utilities such as water, gas, electric; medical including pharmicies are the kinds of things I'm talking about.

Things that are not essential such as a florist, baker, art gallery, video rental (if any of them still exist) are all examples where if they want to descriminate, then they shouldn't get a dime of money from LTGB people. If churches don't want to marry gay people, that is there right. There are always denominations or others who will.

Government officials may not all provide services to survive, but because they are public officials they have to serve ALL their constituents. The KY clerk needs to get over herself. The same goes for judges for those seeking a non-church weding. Would a government worker who religiously opposes killing animals have a right to not give out hunting/fishing licenses? Would a government worker whose religious beliefs do not include marrying divorced people, people of different faiths, people of different races, etc. be allowed to descriminate? I think not.

As for freedoms in North America, that has always been a journey, not a fact. I cannot speak for Canada, but in the USA originally only white men who were land owners were even allowed to vote. So we have come along way. I'm not in favor of PC speech as it just means different opinions are surpressed and fester in the hearts/minds of those forced to keep quite. Still if we looked back in time we have always had challenges to deal with. I don't know if/when PC speech was "invented" or whether it was always around, but in limited practice. Regardless, we didn't go from wonderful freedoms to this. We have always had struggles to improve our society and maximize freedoms.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Imagine an EMT who would not perform CPR on an LTGB individual. That is unacceptable. (Granted I do think that some of that happened during the height of the AIDS crisis. I cannot completly condemn that because it wasn't so much about being anti-gay as not wanting to catch a deadly disease with a transmission method that was not well understood at first.

Still happens. I've seen way too many stories about trans people being denied medical care, sometimes fatally :-/