Anti-gay pastor is gay shocker...(ethics of the violating support group confidence)

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

If I am a gay priest and I go around compaining that the church is too lenient with it's laws on accepting homosexual priests when I myself am gay is that not hypocrisy? Should I not, if I want to appear consistent, not quit my job in order to live up to the hate-doctrine I myself would force on others if I could?

That is the first aspect of this hypocrisy.

The other part, which I think you are all focusing on, and is really not the important issue here, is the hypocrisy of a gay man criticizing other people for being gay.

To me, I believe that a man forcefully denying his own nature, which he can't change and therefore is that which he deny's, is hypocritical for criticizing others for being that which he himself is. To deny what you are and then criticize others for being that which you are is hypocrisy, but I see others do not agree - that's fine but I don't think your right.

The important issue here, if you actually thought about the article, is that a man criticizes the church for accepting people like him and that he hasn't already resigned in order to be in accord with his beliefs...

He is a hypocrite, wanting other gay people not to be in the church but he himself would stay there, under the cover of annonymity i.e. people assume he's straight, and if it wasn't for a journalist doing his job this wouldn't be public knowledge and he wuld continue to lie to the people.

It isn't hypocritical because he is saying that homosexual actions are a sin, moreso than homosexual desires. Him choosing not to pursue his desires is completely in line with what he preaches (which is: "don't pursue your sexual desires")

Also, he's a gay man criticising others for acting on their desires, which isn't something he does.

I've talked to religious people before about this anti-gay business in particular, and while they may not reflect the official stance, they said things like "it's the lifestyle that's bad", "Love the sinner hate the sin" etc etc.

The catholic church is all about resisting their desires, this anti-gay stuff is in the same category as extramarital sex.

If he had been found to be actually engaging in homosexual acts I might have felt a degree of smugness at his misfortune. But to be honest he hasn't really been caught out doing anything wrong. Hey may have some warped views, but in a weird way it's actually less hyprocritical of him considering he knows what homosexuality is actually like. It always p*sses me off when straight men give out about homosexuality when they haven't any expereince of what it feels like to be gay.

So yeah, I think that stunt was a very low blow and slightly unethical. I might dislike organised religion, but I hate the tabloid media even moreso :mad:

gulf wrote: »

All extramarital sex that doesn't involve both a unitive bond the intention to procreate is sinful.

Ignoring the rest of the ridiculous sentences there, why is the above true?

gulf wrote: »

They're both sexual perversions. All extramarital sex that doesn't involve both a unitive bond procreate is sinful.

In the eyes of your particular cult/church/religion, maybe.

gulf wrote: »

So no, the church does not specifically target homosexuals like certain homosexual groups like to think (or at least that's what they tell their members). The teachings are very clear: get married and be fruitful. If you wish to remain a bachelor, you should remain chaste and spend what would otherwise be family time, doing charitable works. If you've a calling from God, you should become a priest or a religious order.

Unless of course you do not follow any archaic 'religion' and chose to make decisions for yourself rather than being forced to in order to avoid the wrath of God.

Religion is for a time when people were a lot more naive. However, if anyone does chose to follow a 'religion' and follow the rules and rituals, its up to them.

Whether the Pastor is trying not to be gay or not is neither here nor there. He IS gay, and this is against the rules of his religion. So intentionally or not, he is being hypocritical. He can not train himself not to be gay, but he can still train himself to be celibate should he wish.

You cannot 'treat' homosexuality like an addiction, so these 'groups' are completely nonsensical anyway IMO.

gulf wrote: »

Ah yes, the "in this day and age" logic.

As opposed to your 2000 year old logic. :rolleyes:

Humans and society has mostly moved along with the times, religion, has not.

gulf wrote: »

Google: HUMANAE VITAE (1968)

Ah... I see, in other words because a self-contradictory parchment dictates something to be the case it necessarily follows that this is the way life should be :rolleyes:

This reminds me of the Russian Old Believers, the fight between the peasants who learned a lax version of certain doctrine's and then when the old, more rigorous ones were re-inforced the peasants criticized the people enforcing the old, original ways of the church with going against the true word of God :pac:

Enjoy living with this dictating your path through life

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

You people are defending a gay man for hypocritically insulting people just like him from the sanctity of a religious pulpit.

You people are defending this man for hypocritically demeaning, with pseudo-authority, people who are naturally just like him.

I'm sure you don't mean to do that, but you are implicitly conceding that when you condemn the journalist for exposing the truth.

No Sponsoredwalk, I am not defending the pastor's stated views, and I made that clear in my post. If the journalist wanted to attack the message being put out by the pastor, then he should do so. This is a democracy, and all views should be open to reasoned debate. Instead he attacked the messenger, which is the lowest and cheapest form of journalism. So what if the pastor is being hypocritical?? Indeed the article doesn't even confirm that he is a hypocrite, merely that he himself has gay tendencies.

When a doctor tells a patient to give up smoking in order to improve their health, is this advice any weaker if the doctor himself is a smoker?

As a martial arts instructor I teach non-violence to my students, but I also teach them how to defend themselves with lethal force if necessary. I myself have a furious temper which I keep under control through meditation and exercise. Does this make me a hypocrite for insisting that my students must exercise restraint??

The issue which concerns me is that the journalist and editor were so keen to attack the pastor that they violated the confidentiality of a support group. In doing so, they will discourage others from using support groups for fear of being "outed". It doesn't stop at GLBT support groups, it affects alcoholism support groups, drug user support groups, and sexual deviance support groups. If people benefit from support groups to control their damaging behaviours, then the publication of this article may weaken that support as people opt not to risk being identified as participating in these groups.

And what was it for? How is the argument against this pastor's teachings strengthened by pointing out that he has gay tendencies?? It isn't.

(I use the term "gay tendencies" because as I understand it, he is now a non-practising homosexual, though I may be wrong about that).

The pastor's teachings are based on an interpretation of the teachings of Christ by a male-only church. If the journalist believes those interpretations are wrong, then that is the point which should be debated, not whether one of the clergy, vocal or otherwise, is gay.

It is my view that even if all of the clergy were straight their stated interpretation of Christ's teachings would still be wrong, just as they are wrong about women priests & many, many other things.

We are all hypocrites at some level. Finding a convenient hypocrisy in others that suits your bias is of no value in a debate. Breaking the confidentiality of a support group to bring us this story does not serve the overall public good.


Be kind to each other,

Z