Axis Mundi X discussion

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27453318/

Seriously... I really just want to know how they're going to screen for that sort of thing. Put up pictures of muscle men and naked women and watch for uncontrollable boners? Track lisps? Perhaps go through their things for secret stashes of sequins, or a pile of every issue of Jugs magazine?

Oh Vatican. Truly. You are infalliable. At amusing me.

(... and I was raised Catholic, too.)

No, Kelly, I dont imagine there will be a Vatican-employed doctor in a white lab coat seated between the prospective priest's legs training his gaze on the subject's bits and pieces, waiting for said "uncontrollable boner" as porn is being offered up.

No? Damn. You think they going for the more tradtional "Can you resist dancing to disco music?" test?

Put up pictures of muscle men and naked women and watch for uncontrollable boners?

This would have to be a highly controlled experiment. You couldn't show them both at the same time, because how would you be able to tell which stimuli, if not both, caused the boners? And what if the subject gets a half-boner? Or a quarter-boner? What of that? Where's the line?

By the way, my fourth grade teacher, a nun, would say "I pulled a boner" when she made a mistake. I still laugh when I think of it.

Oh good one, Sherri! But what if the D&C belt fighters are merely metrosexuals? Surely, we'll have to go for more- like an enforced marathon of Golden Girls, perhaps. If you don't claw the doors and windows begging to get out, you're gay.

You see! That's why you'd have to control the experiment better.

Damn metrosexuals fucking everything up. I hate them. For a myriad of reasons.

The article I read indicated that the Vatican was going to force them to watch chick flicks - if they sit through Fried Green Tomatoes without attempting to slit their wrists, they send them packing.

Maybe they'll turn on some Judy Garland and see who swoons.

(By the way, Rusty, I watched some of Gray's Anatomy with my wife and I found myself getting drawn in...it was terrifying.)

We've all been there, RA. The important thing is denying it ever happened.

Oh, wait.......

RA: Getting drawn into Grey's Anatomy in the first season or even second season, totally valid. I knew straight guys who watched it then. After that... I think that might be a test the Vatican could employ as well... even I have trouble watching that show now. (Also, it conflicts with the Office. Tragedies, oh noes!) :)

Sherri: Good one! You'd have to do it in a sneaky way, though. If you just come right out and ask them questions about show tunes, they might hide their knowledge. You'd have to just start humming "Everything's Coming Up Roses," while asking other questions and see if they pick it up.

Chemical castration would be illicit under Catholic moral teachings.

Questioning the intelligence of Vatican officials is not helpful in generating any discussion of the larger issue.

If you are truly interested in the answer and not simply taking pot-shots at Catholics, I would recommend that you at least read the official announcement and understand what exactly the Congregation for Catholic Education is trying to do. To be fair, it would be even better to reserve judgment until the actual document was released to the public in English. So far, we only have a very limited idea of just how psychometric testing is expected to be used other then it is at the option of the seminary rector as one of many tools he may use to evaluate his seminarians.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stor...

In addition, you might want at least a passing familiarity of psychometric testing along with where and how it might be used effectively and what its limitations are; it is actually a very common tool used by an increasing number of US employers to evaluate potential employees and it is still very controversial within the Vatican itself.

Oh, now /there's/ the way to bump up the ranks of the priesthood.

My favorite part was when they said they were testing for "grave immaturities."

So.. isn't that the majority of the male population? :) *ducks*

No, I'm sorry, Kristjan, but the Catholic Church is way off base here.

The issue the church is ostensibly dealing with is the sexual abuse of boys by priests. That is NOT homosexuality. That is pedophilia. For the church to pin the blame on homosexual urges is incorrect, and insulting to GLBT community.

Until the church stops conflating homosexuality with perversity, I will have no respect for its policies.

Further, I think the requirement of celibacy for priests is inhuman, no matter what one's orientation is, anyway. Adults should not be expected to give up having a partner and a family life.

And until it shows respect and equal treatment for women by allowing women to become ordained, I have no use for anything the church says, as it is not living in MY world, it is trapped in some medieval mindset of less and less relevance to the world.

And that's only a start of my dislike for Catholic policies.

Incorrect ... the issue that the Catholic Church is dealing with is the fitness of candidate priest to serve with a celibacy requirement. An examination of sexuality within the moral framework of the Church is obviously required. I see no indication within the current press release nor the referenced documentation that 'conflates' homosexuality and pedophilia, both of which are not compatible with Church doctrine. The issue of homosexuality arises from an examination of current seminary populations which has reportedly revealed a strong homosexual subculture which the Church does not condone. This was primarily seen as a result of Church doctrine which doesn't condemn homosexuality as much as it prohibits homosexual behavior, for which a vow of celibacy was thought to a proof against. As a result of the abuse crisis, the Church has re-examined how to predict whether or not a priest (heterosexual OR homosexual) will honor the requirement of celibacy ... Not whether or not homosexual priests are more likely to abuse children.

Your bias is showing ...

Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter[8:].

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/con...

This letter to our president may help enlighten us on the Catholic Church's stand on homosexuality:

Dear George,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws?(Lev.20:14)

Thank you for all your help

http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~craft/bush/...

Wow, Kristjan, way to harsh everyone's mellow. Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed or are you always this sullen and rigid?

Nobody likes to be picked on yes?

I'm not picking on you, I'm picking on the Catholic Church and it's boneheaded stand on human rights, Kristjan.

also... I think it's telling enough that they are planning on testing for only "strongly heterosexual" urges but testing for homosexuality is enough.

also... the day the Catholic Church *actually* deals with the pedophilia crisis is the day the apocalypse rains fire on us all. Those evil bastards are in NO WAY actually ever going to deal with, take responsability for, or in any other way DEAL with the pedophilia crisis. The fact that they are taking on the homosexuality issue within the church like this and think that is more serious than pedophilia is PROOF of that. Nasty, backward, evil, Nazi bastards.

Kristjan... are you the Pope? Then stop taking it personally. We have a right to hate on the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church hates on me.

No ... the Catholic Church may disagree with you, but it does not hate you.

uhm... yes it does. I'm a) pagan b) bisexual c) a woman

It eats and breathes hating me.

"This picking and choosing of which Biblical texts one must follow and which one may skip seems rather suspect to me."

In all fairness, Sherri - many Christians believe that the laws of the Old Testament were fulfilled by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (sacrifices of living creatures being one of those laws), and replaced by his doctrine.

then tell me where, Rusty, Jesus ever said that being homosexual is wrong.

I do not always condone the behavior of my children (or even my parents at times) ... that does not mean that I hate them. I even have difficulty with some Catholic traditions ... that does not mean that I hate the Church either. Why is the Church seen as hateful when it neither condones nor agrees with others? I truly do not understand this.

I wasn't addressing the homosexual thing, Charissa. I was just responding to an oft-asked question about the Bible.

Rusty... I didn't mean to put you on the spot. I have heard other people say that about New vs Old Testament.... but those same people still follow some of the Old Testament, rather selectively. If we all truly simply followed the teachings of Christ, just the things he actually said himself, the world would be a much better place. But that is not how Christianity is practiced among most of the followers. I just don't know how people justify their selectivity.

Kristjan... the Catholic Church teaches that people like me will burn in Hell for Eternity... how is that not hateful? Their actions in the world have the consequence of being hateful. They promote prejudice and discrimination, they promote the subjugation of women, they promote ignorance, they promote population increase in a world that is already horribly overpopulated, especially in the developing countries.

These are just the short list of the hate the Catholic Church practices on a daily basis.

I'm a) pagan b) bisexual c) a woman

I think you should use that line whenever you meet new people. I guarantee you'll make lots of friends:)

I've said it before, and I'll say it now...like just about every organization with any history on this planet, the Catholic church has some great beauty in its history, and it has great horror in its history. I don't want to discount either.

Kristjan: "Your bias is showing ... "

and so is your own uncritical allegiance.

this sort of emotional position posited as a rational defense of an institution that has failed to clean up the hatred still radiating from it's dogma and its - oh wait - i'm sorry i can't pass this up - bullshit is one of the things i cannot respect.

it's a little like a lot of republican race and class baiting. I don't really think all those screaming yahoos believe Obama is a muslim - i think they like getting to pretend they do based on spun manipulative crap designed to fluster and distract reality-based voters.

i am compelled to respect faith when i hear it - but not when that faith masquerades as reason.

Instead of testing sexual urges, abolish the whole dang celibacy! Since that's no where in the Bible (except of course Paul who IMO is lunatic - hates sex and women much?) that calls for celibacy, it's a Church rule added on later. So if the Church created it, the Church can easily overrule it.

Sincerely,

The Christ Killer Jew :)

jackie said: Interestingly enough, the Bible is silent on the issue of female homosexuality.

well, one of my fave philosophers argued that there is not such thing as lesbian sex, since sex (at least 20 years ago) is defined by intercourse to wit penetration by pen of vag.

(edited this paragraph)
but the church - for all its frowning on the "special friendships" of nuns- has a lineage (the judeo in judeo-christian) that began with a definitive concern for ownership of progeny. so while female lovers are certainly not good since they're not producing, the 'sex' they have, because it doesn't create progeny, by the same token wouldn't seem to involve or violate the property laws regarding women that were the foundation for western marriage law.

thus the bible names the sin of Onan - the spilling of that precious seed ( and i think even if we dint have leviticus, boy/boy sex of any sort involves the seed going somewhere babies will never come from) - as sin.

but as i once said to the OBGYN when she asked about my birth control method, spit don't make babies, so the bible doesn't legislate its use & girl/girl connections kinda fly under the biblical radar.

I wonder if a woman has only ever had lesbian sex she can technically still be considered a virgin.

guess that depends on the technician and/or his manual.
back to church we go ;->

Charissa, what is your definition of pagan? Do you just mean you're not Christian, or do you bring something new and exotic to the term? Dragnet (the movie with Tom Hanks and Dan Akroyd) taught me that pagans were People Against Goodness and Normalcy, who like to play dress-up, but I realize that may not have been historically accurate.

Rusty...don't change the subject...they were talking about lesbian sex!

:)

Sorry, dude.

Whether or not the Sin of Onan is the Spilling of Seed or something else entirely is still widely debated and was certainly not the interpretation of early commentators. While I find the current Church opinion on the story not very compelling, I should point out that this is not the basis for the current view with regard to homosexuality and all other sexual activities intended to circumvent procreation (which are all equally proscribed).

In my view, the greater Sin of Onan was his deceit in accepting his obligation with a levirate marriage while privately refusing to honor it. Onan was in essence murdering his brother and was so punished.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/r...

Jude: I can assure you that I am not uncritical in my allegiance to the Catholic Church. There are many areas where I do not agree where I am allowed to, and several more where I find the presented defense unconvincing.

Kristjan, I'm glad there's someone here to provide the Catholic perspective.

my definitive concern (and point of departure) is to what degree the Catholic perspective can be considered a christian one. If you represent that perspective with nuns, clergy and layworkers saving lives (not necessarily souls) in the third world, fine. If you are talking about the Vatican, no.
I do not question the passionate faith of some there, any more than i think everyone in the senate is bought and paid for, but i refuse to define a political class with that much power and that much distance from the lives it shapes by the exceptions to its insensitivity and corruption.

Jude, I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "to what degree the Catholic perspective can be considered a Christian one."

Could you explain?

The straightforward answer to that is that the Catholic perspective is one of the earliest Christian perspectives... and while of course there are many others, I'm just confused about why you believe Catholics don't have a "Christian" perspective.

... btw, things have changed quite a bit in here since I opened this. Oh my, I did not mean to open this particular can of worms. Kristjan, I just want to say again, I was raised Catholic, even if I disagree with a lot of what the Church says now, and I don't think having a little fun at the expense of a policy that seems... not very well thought through.. is tantamount to an insult to the Church. I'm sure they mean well.. in their way.

Thanks Kelly ...

I don't really have a problem with critiquing (or even poking fun at) the policy ... it deserves it; however, the tone of the thread was shifting to a more direct assault against the Church hierarchy and its ability to formulate any policy/teaching ... and by implication attacking all Church teachings and the faithful who follow them. There are reasons for what the Church says and I guarantee you that those Church teachings are well thought out (it took three years to draft this policy) ... That does not remove the possibility that they are wrong (contrary to popular opinion, not everything the Church says is considered infallible), especially if they are based upon incorrect assumptions.

Rusty... my use of the term 'pagan' to describe myself has many nuances. I enjoy using the term as a way to reclaim it's integrity. It has been a perjorative for hundreds of years used by the Abrahamic religions to describe non-Judeo-Christians. But to me it is more than that as well. My belief system and religious practices center around what can be described as shamanism. I subscribe to the Neo-pagan belief that immanence (the incarnation of the divine) is everywhere. That God is literally contained within all of creation. This belief is informed by my understanding of quantum physics, as well as my direct religious experiences which have included visions, buddhist meditation, taoist tai chi, and neo-pagan rituals. I think I can also say that the work of Joseph Campbell was also influential, in helping peel back the layers of metaphor contained in all religions throughout the world, helping to provide an understanding of the archetypes which are present in all religious teachings.

In terms of my direct religious experiences, they have mostly centered around encounters with Pele, the Goddess of Fire, and similar incarnations of the Divine which wear a female face. However, in more recent years I have also had significant encounters with the male face of the Divine, the G-d of the Abrahamic traditions, much to my surprise. While I have a deep and abiding respect for Jesus, so far he has not been a significant visitor to my inner life.

I've also been know to identify myself as a witch. But I have found that many people identify that term with Wiccan practices, which is much too formalized for my taste. I hate calling myself a shaman, it's so damned pretentious. So I stick with pagan, for want of a better term.

Kelly - first of all i mean the Catholic perspective as emdodied by it's political heart - the Vatican and the hierarchy of leadership and teaching. And as it is embodied by it's stereotypical hateful edge - the thoughtless and raging edge that spews hatred at race, diversity, choice, independent and/or critical thinking. Those people have parishes and priests and bishops whose mission it is to instruct their sheep in the ways of christ.

i mean is the Catholic church's presence in the world a reflection of Christ's teachings? Do we see there the "fruits" that he told us to judge the tree by? Do we see an embodiment of the sermon on the mount or a political institution riddled with pharisees?

Is love - love for human beings, love for the least of these, love for the despised and outcast - is love at the heart of the Catholic Church's teaching and practice? Does love shine out from it's pulpits and diocesan offices? Not concern for salvation, order, obedience, but love for people?

I was raised Catholic - 12 years of parochial education, devout and engaged parents, a mother raised in a convent school and a father born in Italy. At church i was given stories and ritual, at school i was given rules and fear, at home i was given a conscience spelled out within terms that fit the essence of the stories of Christ's life and teachings.

The conscience survives, the respect for Christ the teacher persists. The conscience - not the atheist - cannot reconcile itself with the corruption, cynicism and abandonment that has triumphed in the Vatican since the death of John XXIII.

As an atheist whose values were shaped by christianity, other people's interpretation of what god wants it not the issue, it is their behavior and its consistency with the heart of Christ's teachings. And frankly the Christ i was raised to love would have no truck with anyone presuming to speak for God or to judge others' conscience. We are what we do. The Catholic church as a body politic fails again and again to foster loving action and a christlike concern for the lives of others. As an atheist i have no choice but to assess the action of that political entity, but i cannot comprehend any person of that particular faith who does not make the same sort of accountability part of their continued engagement in that church.

edited to add -

That really does sound like a rant, and i don't want anyone to think i threw any babies out the window. i am all about the babies - the children of what they experience as god.

This is in no way to cast aspersions on the people of faith within the church who are loving, active, engaged and concerned, or to imply that anything as simple as being anti-choice, etc, could ever qualify my respect for and gratitude to the millions of Catholics living Christ's rule as loving action. What i am implying is that such christianity is in them, not in the Church. Which i think has to be true always, in any church - it's all about what any formal Church does to foster christianity.

Thanks for the explanation, Charissa. I guess Dragnet led me astray.

Although, if I recall correctly, you do like to play dress-up.

Jude: Thank you for clarifying.

Before I respond, I just wanted to note that I think its interesting that it is the Catholic church that manages to provoke such immediate ire from many people. Immediate, intense, emotional anger, as if the mere /word/ is enough. This isn't a knock at anyone, and I certainly understand it as someone whose been entangled with it her whole life. I'm just curious if we could come up with another religion on earth that provokes this mindset?

first of all i mean the Catholic perspective as emdodied by it's political heart - the Vatican and the hierarchy of leadership and teaching.

Fair. That, I can get behind and sympathize with, and the myriad of reasons why that is fucked up and can't really work, etc, etc. At least, the leadership part. Teaching, I don't know about that. I'll get into that later.

And as it is embodied by it's stereotypical hateful edge - the thoughtless and raging edge that spews hatred at race, diversity, choice, independent and/or critical thinking.

That, I can't. And its mostly due to my criticisms of the first. You can't hold an entire church responsible for that particularly when it is indeed an "edge" that does that, and when the tone has varied so greatly from Pope to Pope, from Bishop to Bishop, etc. You note yourself that there are many Catholics living Christ's loving word, I think you have to apply the same logic to Bishops and Popes, even. You say that's just people, well, so is the stereotypical harsh edge that you talk about. And I don't think that you can blame that entirely on the Church itself. The structure of the church is not to blame for that.

The Church is a worldwide, complicated institution that takes in many people. That's the way it was built. That's the way it survived. By incorporating local traditions, local tenor of worship and institutions and folding them in. (I'm sure Charissa, our resident pagan, could talk about this a little bit, how much Christianity stole from the pagans.) Just because there was a central authority in Rome didn't change that. I think that spirit still pervades the institution to a degree, and so I think its hard to discount local churches and parishes and bishops as not part of the "body politic" of the church, since that's the way it was for so long. For me, all I knew was my local church for a long time. That made it really hard for me to connect it to the pronouncements I heard every so often coming out of Rome as I started to pay more attention when I grew older. My priests would never say such things, I thought, and generally, when I heard the sermon the next week, they didn't. We never /ever/ got fire and brimstone preachers, the focus was always on Christ's teachings and his humanity. We were a very liberal district, and the Church was affected by that. I guess what I'm trying to say, in effect, is that all politics are local, and to a certain extent, so are the workings of the Catholic Church. It is affected by its parishoners, too.

One of the things I /do/ like about the Church is that it has so many faucets and ways of exploring getting to the answers you want. Not all are useful, or in some cases even acceptable, but I do not think you can ascribe whole opinions to the body politic, not when so many of these ways of seeking are officially sanctioned and encouraged and do indeed focus on. The various orders of nuns and priests who focus on charity, working in poverty, and intellectual inquiry are good examples.

The Jesuits, for instance. I think they're a good example of the intellectual inquiry idea. They started out the "soldiers of the church," firebreathers, radicals... and ended up with institutions of learning all over the world, promoting argument (so much so the adjective "Jesuitical," came to describe people, "using subtle or oversubtle reasoning; crafty; sly; intriguing."... hardly a description of people who are blind followers), free inquiry, philosophy, and making up your own mind through your education in your faith and the world around you. The priests of this order are some of the smartest, most educated people I've ever met. I believe that most Jesuits hold multiple degrees. It was a Jesuit priest who kept me in the faith for a long time.

What i am implying is that such christianity is in them, not in the Church.

I think this is very interesting, and true in some respects. Of course we could go down a laundry list of Christs' teachings and how they are reflected, or not, in the Church. But the church is made up of so many "thems". It isn't an institution that stands without people supporting it. In terms of how it fosters Christianity... all I can do is speak from my personal experience and say that my schooling and discussions with my family, hearing the sermons every week.. a formal Church structure offers you the place, the framework, and the nudging towards thinking about questions that maybe you wouldn't find a place to start with otherwise. I think we do need a starting point to question at. The Catholic Church in particular... offers quite a few starting points, for all aspects of faith and belief. It offers up everything on the menu to wrestle with. It can tell you as much what you don't believe as what you do. It is full of people taking its teachings and trying them out, all in their individual, or local ways. It has such a huge history... a history that is in many ways the story of modern religion, and has so manyy paths leading away from it and rebelling against it, rejecting it entirely... that it cannot fail, I think, but to lead you off somewhere that you find interesting, that may be your own spiritual home.

... at least, that's what its done for me.

Wow, that rambled all over the place. Again, I don't practice, I'm not trying to defend an institution that has been full of evil at many points, and of course the historical presence of the Church is a hot button issue that I won't even get into... those are just my thoughts.

(edited)

kelly - i think i've said too much trying to make a fairly simple point and if i can't do a better job, that's my lookout :->!

any church can be a vehicle for the kind of personal growth and accountability that faith can sustain, and i am glad for what yours brought you. i too had wonderful priests around when i was in my twenties, and was thrilled at the political activism of many of the clergy of my day. perspective and timing mean a lot - i grew up singing a latin mass :-> And i tried to share here what i think i owe to my faith-based childhood that i cherish and value.

as my own journey toward integrity has become more and more personal, i am more and more critical of the vehicles of faith that try to narrow that path from the outside, constricting motion rather than shining a light to dance by.

and you are right of course that many communities within Catholicism DO dance. i just don't think the fact that the church requires many of them to dance up hill and on their heads is to the church's credit. Adversity does keep you honest and strong, and resistance can indeed be the secret of joy, but that doesn't make the entity you are wrestling with a nice guy.

Rusty... ha ha ha ha ha... yes indeed. Even when no one is around to enjoy it. ; )

nice labrys, Bunwat.