P. S. I think it is in the loosening of the strictures against homosexuals being admitted to seminaries and religious orders that we can see the “liberalism” I’m talking about at work here.Falco Knotwise wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 12:29 pmThat doesn’t matter. The rule of the Church has always been, and still is, anyone who identifies as gay or has strong inclinations towards that is not to be admitted to seminaries or religious orders. That’s the rule. It hasn’t changed. The Church simply continues to ignore it. They run the seminaries and are found among Cardinals, the most powerful prelates beneath the pope.Ken wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 12:13 pmIf you are gay, a society exclusively composed of men is going to be more attractive. And you are giving up nothing by giving up women. That is simple reality and has nothing to do with liberalism.Falco Knotwise wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 11:41 am My assessment: it’s certainly not a false claim, I just find it lacking insofar as not stressing the majority of abuse cases in priesthood involve homosexuality.
The Church seems willing to accommodate homosexuals in the priesthood even at the risk of ruining the lives of children/youth all over the world, because, you know, that’s what Jesus would do.
The velvet mafia within the Church is real.
Who is and has been advocating for the same thing everywhere in civil society as well? (Not arguing against that here.)
I suppose it’s just human (and therefore universal) to ignore Biblical principles and warnings, not especially liberal, but “liberalism” does turn this merely human ignorance into a principle of “freedom” and “progress.”
And since this obviously puts at risk the lives of children, youth and young adults across the world, why shouldn’t these “liberal” policies be singled out for censure?
Am I really that off just for recognizing these things as typically liberal? It’s doubtful that anyone here would call them conservative principles.
