The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Absolam

So you think the other poster's posts are subtle and intelligent? I imagine they'll be delighted with the compliment

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

So you think the other poster's posts are subtle and intelligent? I imagine they'll be delighted with the compliment

I am!

lazybones32

aloyisious wrote: »

Wouldn't the church's apology - when it come's - be inclusive of him as a member of the church?

If it comes, it would be inclusive of all members.

aloyisious wrote: »

I am assuming that the church, in whatever manner and by whomever it is delivered, will take note of what the Pope said to reporters and deliver an apology to the different groups he had in mind.

I doubt it, unless he were to write or commission it himself. It'd probably deal with historical attitudes but I can't see it happening soon. You're not waiting with bated breath, are you?

Cabaal wrote: »

So its basically, we know we were dicks, we perfectly acknowledge that and we think we should offer an apology...but we're not going to, yet

I'll give you credit, you never let an opportunity go unused.

Cabaal wrote: »

Imagine if a child or teenager took that same stance to their parent when they were asked to offer an apology for doing something wrong? You'd think the child was trying to be smart with you,

Imagine if it were adults who were speaking? You wouldn't have to force insincere apologies nor add your own interpretation of what people said or meant to say...

aloyisious

lazybones32 wrote: »

Originally Posted by aloyisious View Post
I am assuming that the church, in whatever manner and by whomever it is delivered, will take note of what the Pope said to reporters and deliver an apology to the different groups he had in mind.

I doubt it, unless he were to write or commission it himself. It'd probably deal with historical attitudes but I can't see it happening soon. You're not waiting with bated breath, are you

You think the church (my bad, I actually meant the Vatican) would NOT take note of what the Pope said to the reporters and, in whatever manner and by whomever it is delivered, apologize to the different groups he had in mind? Tut tut, a rebellion in the curia, call out the Swiss guard!

I actually thought the Vatican would, seeing as it generally goes hand in glove with his public pronouncements, even if it's slightly differently worded.

My oh my...... I wonder will his handlers get a slap on the wrist for letting him talk to reporters so openly.

lazybones32

aloyisious wrote: »

You think the church (my bad, I actually meant the Vatican) would NOT take note of what the Pope said to the reporters and, in whatever manner and by whomever it is delivered, apologize to the different groups he had in mind? Tut tut, a rebellion in the curia, call out the Swiss guard!

I actually thought the Vatican would, seeing as it generally goes hand in glove with his public pronouncements, even if it's slightly differently worded.

My oh my...... I wonder will his handlers get a slap on the wrist for letting him talk to reporters so openly.

Not really. Francis was only responding to a question (one Q in a 57min interview) based on an interview given by a Cardinal Marx in Ireland some weeks ago. The Cardinal said the Church should apologise for how gay people were marginalised. I assume that the pope was asked something along these lines or if he agreed with it (I couldn't find what question was put to him, only how he replied.)

“I say what I said on my first trip (from Rio), I say what the Catechism says: they must not be discriminated against, they must be respected and accompanied pastorally.”
“I believe that the church should not only say sorry, as Cardinal Marx says, it should not only say sorry to the person who is gay that it has offended, but also it should say sorry to the poor and to women who are exploited, and the children who are exploited for work.”
“When I say church I mean Christians. The church is holy but we are sinners. Christians must say sorry for not having accompanied them, for not having accompanied many choices, many families.”
“Christians must say sorry and not only for this. They must ask forgiveness, not just say sorry” and also ask God’s pardon. “It is a word that we forget a lot today".
He spoke about Brexit and Luther too; you interested in that part of the interview?

Just read on cruxnow.com "Francis was speaking in response to a question that linked the call for an LGBT apology to the recent massacre at Orlando's Pulse Nightclub."
I really can't see any apology coming...and rightly so. Something happens and the RCC must apologise? If it were a Q based on actual marginalisation by the RCC, then I could understand but this...

aloyisious

lazybones32 wrote: »

Not really. Francis was only responding to a question (one Q in a 57min interview) based on an interview given by a Cardinal Marx in Ireland some weeks ago. The Cardinal said the Church should apologise for how gay people were marginalised.

Really?... Cardinal Marx in Ireland???? I used to have a fit of giggles whenever I read Cardinal Sin's name in the papers.........

He spoke about Brexit and Luther too; you interested in that part of the interview?

Eh no, that mix is too deep for me, even given the German connection..........

Just read on cruxnow.com "Francis was speaking in response to a question that linked the call for an LGBT apology to the recent massacre at Orlando's Pulse Nightclub."
I really can't see any apology coming

Yes well, admittedly that was an odd question, somewhat like asking Salah ad-Din to apologize for the Crusaders sack of Jerusalem.......

Cabaal

lazybones32 wrote: »

Imagine if it were adults who were speaking? You wouldn't have to force insincere apologies nor add your own interpretation of what people said or meant to say...

Funny, and yet thats exactly what the church did about the sex abuse scandals,

It wasn't sorry for what it did (the Vatican covering up abuse), it was sorry it was found out. You should be under no illusions as the church has no problem providing insincere apologies when it feels it must do so.

aloyisious

A FG TD, Josepha Madigan (newby in the seat of Alan Shatter) is bringing in a bill next week to reduce the divorce waiting time from 4 to 2 years. It's likely the bill will be debated in the autumn and it's reported Ms Madigan say's it has the blessing (lol) of Enda and the MOJ. There will also have to be a(nother) referendum as the constitution has a section since 1996 allowing for divorce replacing the original ban in it. I presume this change in law will be across the board on all marriages.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fg-td-brings-bill-to-cut-divorce-wait-time-from-four-years-to-two-1.2704512

aloyisious

The UN Human Rights Council in Geneva has voted 23 to 18, with 6 abstentions, to appoint a Global Monitor for LGBT rights. Pakistan is reported to have lead the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation in voting against the resolution.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiJl7q3kdLNAhWsK8AKHUZPDLoQFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftheweek.com%2Fspeedreads%2F633385%2Fun-votes-appoint-first-global-monitor-lgbt-rights&usg=AFQjCNEzxAFZ54i21sW6FACP1KPzBkMuew

Cabaal

aloyisious wrote: »

A FG TD, Josepha Madigan (newby in the seat of Alan Shatter) is bringing in a bill next week to reduce the divorce waiting time from 4 to 2 years. It's likely the bill will be debated in the autumn and it's reported Ms Madigan say's it has the blessing (lol) of Enda and the MOJ. There will also have to be a(nother) referendum as the constitution has a section since 1996 allowing for divorce replacing the original ban in it. I presume this change in law will be across the board on all marriages.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fg-td-brings-bill-to-cut-divorce-wait-time-from-four-years-to-two-1.2704512

about time,
Having seen some really crappy situations its not before time,

ShoulderChip

Cabaal wrote: »

aloyisious wrote: »

A FG TD, Josepha Madigan (newby in the seat of Alan Shatter) is bringing in a bill next week to reduce the divorce waiting time from 4 to 2 years. It's likely the bill will be debated in the autumn and it's reported Ms Madigan say's it has the blessing (lol) of Enda and the MOJ. There will also have to be a(nother) referendum as the constitution has a section since 1996 allowing for divorce replacing the original ban in it. I presume this change in law will be across the board on all marriages.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fg-td-brings-bill-to-cut-divorce-wait-time-from-four-years-to-two-1.2704512

about time,
Having seen some really crappy situations its not before time,

yes I am surprised its four years! and a refferendum to bring it to two is just daft, next it will be another one to bring it to 1...

aloyisious

ShoulderChip wrote: »

yes I am surprised its four years! and a refferendum to bring it to two is just daft, next it will be another one to bring it to 1...

It had to be done that way, as divorce was banned by the 1937 constitution - different era. Only the people could alter/delete it by vote. An '86 referendum brought by FG Garrett FitzGerald's Govt lost by 25%, John Bruton's FG Govt in '94 brought in an amendment bill, it went to referendum in '95, passed by just over 0.5 of the vote & signed into law on 17th June '96 after FF Senator Des Hanafin lost his High and Supreme cases against it.

Fairly simply-worded question for the people to decide on....

Deletion of the entirety of Article 41.3.2:
No law shall be enacted providing for the grant of a dissolution of marriage.

Substitution of new Article 41.3.2:
A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that—

i. at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the previous five years,

ii. there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,

iii. such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and

iv. any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

aloyisious

Read written/heard this Floating Voter podcast interview with Josepha from Irish Indo.... I'd better point out in advance here and now that the latter half of the podcast enter's into the abortion issue with the show presenter interviewing Niamh Horan, a Sunday Indo journalist, so if you want to just listen to the divorce part, listen out for the intro of Niamh and fast-forward to the interview end or switch it off. Niamh is a fairly straight-speaking individual. Her article in the same Indo re ladies gardens was revealing, after a fashion.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/floating-voter-podcast-fine-gael-td-wont-go-to-war-with-catholic-church-over-reducing-divorce-wait-time-from-four-years-to-two-34849727.html

Thinkingaboutit

The Man Behind the Curtain: Michael Voris and the Homosexual Vortex

The well known Catholic broadcaster Gary Michael Voris admitted in April that he lived as a sexually active gay man for many years. He claimed the archdiocese of New York was about to reveal his past (he was a seminarian expelled for 'spiritual immaturity' which is regarded as code word for gay). E Michael Jones suggests otherwise and used a great many internal emails of CMTV) to suggest Gary Michael Voris is HIV positive, that his claims about Archbishop Dolan are false, and that CMTV was operated in an unethical way (the beneficial ownership of the venture and its assets were surprisingly allocated without the knowledge of investors, one of whom Marc Brammer might be a source). E Michael Jones is controversial, and he uses what might be regarded as outdated psychology in relation to whether and how Mr Voris is gay, but it offers a very plausible account of the motivations of someone who was relentless in attacking a supposed 'lavender mafia' in the Church. He suggests it was part of an effort to create an ultra masculine crusader persona for Mr Voris. The writer notes that Mr Voris keeps hold on to some relics of his gay past like cartoon artwork. This might be personal dispute on one level, but it is an interesting story. A preview can be got for this Kindle book.

aloyisious

Interesting hoo-hah going on at Maynooth ref Seminarians, homosexuality, homosexuals and Grindr.

Timberrrrrrrr

aloyisious wrote: »

Interesting hoo-hah going on at Maynooth ref Seminarians, homosexuality, homosexuals and Grindr.

Those penises were just resting in their accounts.

aloyisious

Can't make out (pardon the use) if the church and Maynooth were accepting what was in the anonymous reports received there ref homosexual activities. I was wondering how they knew for certain of the Grindr usage, like did they access other persons messages to verify the reports or how they got answers from the seminarians, and what route they took to get replies from the seminarians; merely relying on questions and honesty and/or the use of the sacrament of confession.

If they accessed Grindr to ascertain the truth of the reports, other peoples replies would be on the phones. Accessing those might be an offence under the Data Protection Act, if done without warrant or permission from the Data Commissioner.

There seem's to be a great amount of non-contact between the various church bodies to ensure they've got the others backs.... :-)'.

Timberrrrrrrr

aloyisious wrote: »

Can't make out (pardon the use) if the church and Maynooth were accepting what was in the anonymous reports received there ref homosexual activities. I was wondering how they knew for certain of the Grindr usage, like did they access other persons messages to verify the reports or how they got answers from the seminarians, and what route they took to get replies from the seminarians; merely relying on questions and honesty and/or the use of the sacrament of confession.

If they accessed Grindr to ascertain the truth of the reports, other peoples replies would be on the phones. Accessing those might be an offence under the Data Protection Act, if done without warrant or permission from the Data Commissioner.

Yeah

Because the RCC are so law abiding in this country.

aloyisious

Now this i like and see as a possible game-changer in N.I.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/ruth-davidson-claims-north-will-soon-back-same-sex-marriage-747832.html

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Can't make out (pardon the use) if the church and Maynooth were accepting what was in the anonymous reports received there ref homosexual activities. I was wondering how they knew for certain of the Grindr usage, like did they access other persons messages to verify the reports or how they got answers from the seminarians, and what route they took to get replies from the seminarians; merely relying on questions and honesty and/or the use of the sacrament of confession. If they accessed Grindr to ascertain the truth of the reports, other peoples replies would be on the phones. Accessing those might be an offence under the Data Protection Act, if done without warrant or permission from the Data Commissioner. There seem's to be a great amount of non-contact between the various church bodies to ensure they've got the others backs.... :-)'.

Is there any reason to think 'the Church' knew anything for certain about alleged Grindr usage? The Times said
"Asked about the decision of the Dublin archdiocese to send its three seminary students next autumn to the Irish Pontifical College in Rome rather than to Maynooth, Dr Martin told The Irish Times: “I wasn’t happy with Maynooth... “There seems to an atmosphere of strange goings-on there, it seems like a quarrelsome place with anonymous letters being sent around. “I don’t think this is a good place for students,” he said."
Since the Archbishop spent quite a lot of time in Rome himself, it doesn't seem extraordinary that he'd think it's a better place for seminarians than somewhere with what seems to be a fractious environment for students at the moment...

Delirium

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Those penises were just resting in their accounts.

MOD NOTE

Less of the vulgar jokes please.

Thanks for your attention.

Timberrrrrrrr

Absolam wrote: »

Is there any reason to think 'the Church' knew anything for certain about alleged Grindr usage? The Times said
"Asked about the decision of the Dublin archdiocese to send its three seminary students next autumn to the Irish Pontifical College in Rome rather than to Maynooth, Dr Martin told The Irish Times: “I wasn’t happy with Maynooth... “There seems to an atmosphere of strange goings-on there, it seems like a quarrelsome place with anonymous letters being sent around. “I don’t think this is a good place for students,” he said."
Since the Archbishop spent quite a lot of time in Rome himself, it doesn't seem extraordinary that he'd think it's a better place for seminarians than somewhere with what seems to be a fractious environment for students at the moment...

Well some seem to think there is a "gay culture"

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/bishops-leave-martin-isolated-in-split-over-maynooth-gay-culture-34934293.html

Archbishop Martin has withdrawn his trainee priests from Maynooth due to what he described as allegations of a "homosexual, gay culture, that students are using an app called Grindr, a gay dating app".

Cabaal

aloyisious wrote: »

Now this i like and see as a possible game-changer in N.I.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/ruth-davidson-claims-north-will-soon-back-same-sex-marriage-747832.html

They need to realise that it's happening, it's just a matter of when. It also has zero effect on religious marriages.

Absolam

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well some seem to think there is a "gay culture"

I doubt that's all that new... but it doesn't seem like they had investigated what was actually done on Grindr, only that they were aware that it was being used. So no apparent abuse of the sacrament of confession, or breaches of the Data Protection Act, from what is being reported.

Timberrrrrrrr

Absolam wrote: »

I doubt that's all that new... but it doesn't seem like they had investigated what was actually done on Grindr, only that they were aware that it was being used. So no apparent abuse of the sacrament of confession, or breaches of the Data Protection Act, from what is being reported.

What I'm winderin is this

Are they moving the gay priests away from the straight ones or are they moving the straight ones away from the gay ones?

Absolam

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What I'm winderin is this Are they moving the gay priests away from the straight ones or are they moving the straight ones away from the gay ones?

Might they not be moving the gay ones away from the other gay ones? The ones that turned the others down on Grindr, thereby creating the 'atmosphere' that was being referred to?

Timberrrrrrrr

Absolam wrote: »

Might they not be moving the gay ones away from the other gay ones? The ones that turned the others down on Grindr, thereby creating the 'atmosphere' that was being referred to?

Who knows? It's all being hushed up as usual.

I feel sorry for the majority of trainee priests who have done nothing wrong but yet are now in the firing line with the spotlight put on all of them- and ironically by the ArchBishop. What about the families of these young men? What are they thinking?

While i'm all for openness when it comes to actual priests administering etc, I think this issue needed to be sorted out behind closed doors.

If going on Grindr is something that's happening to some trainee priests, then obviously they need to be treated sympathetically but in confidence. If they are gay, then maybe priesthood isn't for them. But no need to make a national media incident out of it.

Obviously, there's a serious concern around whether they should continue towards priesthood but that's not our decision. It's the decision of the clergy who are supposed to be looking out for them.

I think right now, it's actually none of our business. But the Archbishop has made it one. That's just strange.

Absolam

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Who knows? It's all being hushed up as usual.

What is being hushed up?

tommy2bad

Deleted User wrote: »

I feel sorry for the majority of trainee priests who have done nothing wrong but yet are now in the firing line with the spotlight put on all of them- and ironically by the ArchBishop. What about the families of these young men? What are they thinking?

Yeah it's hard on the ones that have no connection to this other than being in the same campus.

Deleted User wrote: »

While i'm all for openness when it comes to actual priests administering etc, I think this issue needed to be sorted out behind closed doors.

Maybe it could have been done a bit more discreetly but I'm not comfortable with behing closed doors. This need to be dealt with in the open. Otherwise it's going to always be hanging their to turn up in the media later with coverup headlines.

Deleted User wrote: »

If going on Grindr is something that's happening to some trainee priests, then obviously they need to be treated sympathetically but in confidence. If they are gay, then maybe priesthood isn't for them. But no need to make a national media incident out of it.

No reason being gay disqualifies you from priesthood. Its no different from being hetro as far as temptation and struggling with celibacy is concerned. Going on Grinder doesn't 'happen' you it's chosen and indicates how little they are thinking about celibacy. OTOH they are not priests yet so what they do is their own buisness. For all we know the hetro ones are on tinder!

Deleted User wrote: »

Obviously, there's a serious concern around whether they should continue towards priesthood but that's not our decision. It's the decision of the clergy who are supposed to be looking out for them.

the decision seems to be not so much about the individual candidates as the fear or suspicion that their is grooming of people. This is the real danger.

Deleted User wrote: »

I think right now, it's actually none of our business. But the Archbishop has made it one. That's just strange.

The Archbishop had decided to deal with this publicly, a brave thing to do but IMNSHO the right thing. Once it's sorted Maynooth can go back to business and the whole thing will be dealt with. It would be far worse if it were let continue because of fear of scandal, no matter how well intentioned trying to do this discreetly would allow the possibility of it continuing but hidden. Not to mention the scandal in waiting bit.