Will RCC scandal affect UMC's decision?

[Anto9us]

After a week of reading near-surreal accounts of homosexuality and pederasty among the Catholic higher-ups, I cannot help but wonder what if any effect seeing all of that in the news will have on the UMC as they prepare to deal with the homosexuality issue.

And I don't know which way it might swing things -- a backlash against homosexual clergy ? -- or, otoh, perhaps a realization that REPRESSION of alternative sexuality might just drive it into secrecy and empower it?

To me, the Catholics have always seemed very repressive about sex --

claiming it only exists for procreation only,

insisting priests should be celibate (Orthodox and Episcopalians don't do that),

making it a dogma that Mary remained ever-virgin,

being totally against birth control --

could attitudes like that perhaps have helped foster an environment in which this 'gay clergy phenomenon' could take place?

Or will all the negative publicity of the Catholic heirarchy simply make the UMC say: "Wow, we don't want any of that business -- we better not let any acceptance of gay clergy/same-sex marriage go forward"?

In a way, I suspect the RCC scandal MUST have some kind of impact on the UMC's decision -- but I am at a loss which way that impact will be felt.

Any thoughts?

 

[Anto9us]

I am not out to diss Catholics -- I hurt along with our Catholic brothers and sisters who feel hurt and let down by the latest revelations -- I think Protestants and Orthodox alike feel sympathy for the RCC faithful.

But I stand by what I said about the repressive views on sexuality, heck, repressive even if homosexuality and fornication are out of the picture altogether - repressive even within the confines of heterosexual marriage relations. The biblical presentation of 'the marriage bed holy and undefiled in all' and that husband and wife are not to deprive each other has been replaced by a George Orwellian "our duty to the Party" concept of procreation being the BE ALL AND END ALL of human sexuality; it is a flawed and warped view, it is NOT biblical.

Christian leaders (bishops and deacons) were to be the 'husband of one wife' -- NOT the husband of ZERO wives.

I think it is evident that Paul's statements about "better to be as I am" were fueled by a sense of expectancy of the Lord's return -- we see PAROUSIA DELAY even in the NT letters of Peter and Paul -- we have had 2000 years of parousia delay.

Things are awful when secular State Attorney Generals have to be the force of correction on part of the Body of Christ, investigating 300 priests and a thousand of their victims.

Well, the UMC stands at a historic moment and who knows what will be decided.

The homosexual clergy are lower morally than the secular society around it; I think the general consensus of human sexuality would be heterosexual serial monogamy, by and large. Boy meets girl -- they have an exclusive relationship until something happens that they split up, then each looks for someone else to start it all over again.

Whereas we have a minority of committed lifelong partners among homosexuals, it would be naive to think that promiscuity is not rampant among male homosexuals. And it is also evident that there have been predators within the gay clergy, the heirarchical structure fostering an environment where that is enabled.

When you have PROMISCUITY and you have PREDATORS, what do you have? You have SODOM and GOMMORAH.

And the sin of Sodom is not same sex attraction, but rape and child molestation, as evident from our supposedly 'good guy' of the story, Lot, who was willing to give his 2 virgin daughters to a crowd of rapists instead of the two angels (but the angels took care of themselves).

 

[Anto9us]

I have no real deal-killing problem with a dogma of perpetual virginity of Mary, it is plausible that Jesus' brothers and sisters were from an earlier marriage of Joseph, that he was a widower.

Although none of that can be proven, a non-canonical book, Protoevangellium of James, pictures that scenario. But the plain sense of the language of "Joseph and Mary had no relations until after Jesus was born" carries the inference that they DID have relations afterwards.

If this subforum had a party, and it was said "no one got into the Guacamole Dip until Anto9us and Circuitrider arrived" -- what is the inference? Duh - that after Anto9us and Circuitrider arrived - people got into the Guacamole Dip.

There have always been bad examples and scandals by clergy of ALL denominations, but this latest RCC stuff is over the top. SECULAR LAW ENFORCEMENT is intervening, for God's sake, investigations, cop arresting 2 priests for lewd behavior in broad daylight -- the NON-CHRISTIAN WORLD doesn't even act like this...

So, in light of all this over-the-top stuff, the UMC has a chance to make a statement regarding human sexuality.

Will they/we address the wrong impressions that the Fall of Adam and Eve had anything to do with sex? Some people wrongfully think it did - though nothing in the Bible supports that.

That some people are celibate and the eunuchs have a special place in kingdom of God was stated by Christ Himself, but nothing ever was attributed to Christian leaders concerning celibacy, the opposite was, they were to be husband of one wife.

My first thought is that a reaction to the Catholic scandals will galvanize a resistance to any acceptance of homosexuals at all - a backlash against gays, but then on second thought, maybe accepting all orientations would be a good thing.

There will always be conservatives who see gayness as an abomination and that's all there is to it -- there will always be more liberal folks who say Jesus loves people of all orientations -- so is this a BIG MESS or a BIG OPPORTUNITY for the UMC; to learn from what is going on with the Catholics?

 

[Striver]

I look at it this way, we Protestants have our own scandals and our own houses to clean. The RCC scandals sadden me because these will be projected onto Christians in general since this is one of the largest contingents grouped under the big umbrella, so I think it will affect the current UMC division, albeit with probably no major changes to how either side approaches the matter. In one sense it is the mother church even though I side firmly with the Reformers myself.

Once again we have a problem of authority where the men who operate in these realms (it would be people in the UMC since males and females are in leadership) lose touch with many things. With God, with the people they're supposed to be serving, etc.

It's easy to pick on retired bishops for their palatial estates, but true professionalization of ministry yields a class of men (in this case) who, yes, think they are better than their sheep and are willing to justify their personal desires and behaviors. This scandal raises some very real questions about sexual orientation that many are prone to run from, but this will be glossed over. I will say no more than the #MeToo movement continues to astound me at the level of jerk out there when it comes to knowing how to treat a lady, but guys cannot clearly be trusted to keep themselves in check. This does have ramifications for ministry and this scandal, like it or not, as well.

Personally, all of this seems to be pushing towards a less centralized sense of denomination (or church, or whatever you want to call it). When a large amount of leadership is handed over, then abuses seem to occur one way or another. A lot of these problems stem from the fact that bishops/priests/pastors/etc are regarded as something above their own congregations. I'm not necessarily a congregationalist myself, but the UMC has long dealt with a bishop and academic class that doesn't believe what its lay members believe at least often, and probably most of the time. Those chickens are coming home to roost.

And yes, in the culture in which we live, if you don't have a healthy view of sex, the fruit of that realm will not be biblical.

 

[raschau]

deleted

 

[JCFantasy23]

But I stand by what I said about the repressive views on sexuality, heck, repressive even if homosexuality and fornication are out of the picture altogether - repressive even within the confines of heterosexual marriage relations.

I agree with you, I think there is an old-fashioned guilt about normal marital relationships and it's unhealthy. It's created a lot of unhappy and bitter people. It's just as bad in some of the old fashioned Puritan Protestant circles, though.

As to how it will influence Methodist's decisions now, I don't think it will affect it. I think that all Christians are dismayed by the troubles the churches are having with these scandals right now, but I don't think it will be connected with Methodist changes.

 

[hedrick]

I vote no effect. Liberals see no problems with homosexual priests and claim there is no causal relationship between homosexuality and pederasty. 'More supervision' is their "answer" to dealing with scandals.

Huh? Liberals historically have been more concerned with stopping abuse than conservatives. The liberal approach is to bring in police when there's an issue.

 

[Dave-W]

Liberals historically have been more concerned with stopping abuse than conservatives.

True. And that has always been a very strange thing to my mind.

Conservatives rigidly enforce certain traditional standards; why not that one?

 

[chevyontheriver]

True. And that has always been a very strange thing to my mind.

Conservatives rigidly enforce certain traditional standards; why not that one?

Is this something you have observed within Methodism? Or more generally?

 

[Dave-W]

More generally

 

[hedrick]

True. And that has always been a very strange thing to my mind.

Conservatives rigidly enforce certain traditional standards; why not that one?

No one, liberal or conservative, accepts abuse of women or children. But the tradition was to accept the authority of the husband, and to tell the wife that things can be worked out. It's kind of like the Catholic Church. I'm sure its leadership never wanted to allow abuse of children. But when you have a closed system, it's easy for the person in charge to make excuses -- the wayward priest is repentant and it won't happen again, and involving outsiders will just make it worse.

Sometimes there's no way to stop things without involving someone outside the system. Liberal Christianity is more suspicious of authority, and more willing to encourage people to go outside the family or church.

 

[chevyontheriver]

More generally

My experience is limited, somewhat a mixed bag, but with the least tolerant of abuse being the more orthodox. Then again we had a seemingly orthodox archbishop who may have been an abuser himself. So in the end a mixed bag.

 

[Basil the Great]

I doubt that the RCC scandal will impact the UMC vote next year, but I could be wrong.

 

[Striver]

Sometimes there's no way to stop things without involving someone outside the system. Liberal Christianity is more suspicious of authority, and more willing to encourage people to go outside the family or church.

I believe this to be a double-edged sword. Yes, liberal structures will traditionally upend some of the good old boys' clubs of yesteryear that endure. However, I recall a recent an article on Huffington Post involving a secular liberal himself who was quite adept at manipulating the same sense by establishing relationships with young women while effectively posing as a free spirit. He took them on socially important trips to relieve poverty or aid the environment. Manipulators will always work through any system or belief ecosystem, and declaring that one is necessarily better than another is a mistake. A con is a con.

This argument alone finds an exception in the Pope himself, as well.

 

[hedrick]

However, I recall a recent an article on Huffington Post involving a secular liberal himself who was quite adept at manipulating the same sense by establishing relationships with young women while effectively posing as a free spirit. He took them on socially important trips to relieve poverty or aid the environment. Manipulators will always work through any system or belief ecosystem, and declaring that one is necessarily better than another is a mistake. A con is a con.

Well of course. But doing this violates liberal sexual ethics. No system of ethics will in itself stop abusers. But a good one can define what is and isn't acceptable, providing guidance for those who want to do the right thing, and providing a basis for enforcement for dealing with abuse.

 

[bekkilyn]

What is happening in the RCC (and other denominations) isn't really a homosexuality issue. Many women have been and are being abused along with children of both genders in many churches, so it's more of a power/entitlement issue. Those with power (typically men) within a patriarchal church hierarchy abusing those with little or no power (primarily women and children).

The UMC has been putting measures in place (even before this scandal broke out) to protect children from abuse through Safe Sanctuary policies and background checks and creating more awareness in clergy and lay. Rather than having any effect on the current debate on homosexuality, it will open more discussion concerning sexual abuse in general.

It just seems to be two different issues entirely.

 

[FireDragon76]

And I don't know which way it might swing things -- a backlash against homosexual clergy ? -- or, otoh, perhaps a realization that REPRESSION of alternative sexuality might just drive it into secrecy and empower it?

If anything, this is more likely.

Mostly I don't think it is a factor.

To me, the Catholics have always seemed very repressive about sex

The Protestant Reformation brought a change in attitudes to family life and marriage, but only a shift in nuance about sexuality itself. However, Protestants took a somewhat more open-minded attitude to the family planning movement, as well as the sexual revolution. But at one time, birth control and sex ed was considered obscene even among Protestants (look up the Comstock Laws some time. Comstock was a Presbyterian social crusader that got hold of the Post Office).

Mostly now days, Catholics take church teachings with a grain of salt (as they have always tended to do throughout history). Roman Catholic laity are actually some of the most gay-accepting of all Christian groups. And their attitudes about contraception are likewise liberal. The hierarchy, though, is a different story.