OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 26, 2014, 12:45:19 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Austrian cardinal OKs gay man for parish council  (Read 5599 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« on: April 02, 2012, 05:52:16 PM »

Quote
VIENNA (AP) — Austria's cardinal has overruled one of his priests and is allowing a gay Catholic to serve on a parish council.

Florian Stangl lives in a registered domestic partnership. The 26-year-old was overwhelmingly elected to the council recently, but it was overruled by the priest — a decision initially backed by the archdiocese.

Such councils include lay people and discuss local church and parish affairs.

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn changed his mind over the weekend after hosting Stangl and his partner for lunch, declaring Stangl to be "at the right place."
....
Cardinal Schönborn said that he had initially intended to uphold the priest’s decision--but then, he said, “I ask myself in these situations: How did Jesus act? He first saw the human being.” 

I think what the Cardinal did is an example of oikonomia.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2012, 05:56:11 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2012, 06:16:44 PM »

I think it's an example of ilithiotita. Christ also said "Go forth and sin no more", not "Go forth and be in a registered domestic partnership; it doesn't matter, since you're a human being, after all."
Logged

Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2012, 06:19:25 PM »

I think it's an example of ilithiotita. Christ also said "Go forth and sin no more", not "Go forth and be in a registered domestic partnership; it doesn't matter, since you're a human being, after all."
Is a "domestic partnership" in itself sinful?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,990


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2012, 06:24:53 PM »

I think it's an example of ilithiotita. Christ also said "Go forth and sin no more", not "Go forth and be in a registered domestic partnership; it doesn't matter, since you're a human being, after all."
Is a "domestic partnership" in itself sinful?

Not always.  But sometimes it's code.  Does Australia allow homosexuals to marry?  If not, and this "domestic partnership" is a practicing homosexual partnership, then the answer to your question is "Yes!" 
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,652



WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 02, 2012, 06:35:51 PM »

unless he posseses a specific skill, accounting, IT, graphics etc that will benefit the parish financially, in which case it's peachy-keen.
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,312


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #5 on: April 02, 2012, 06:38:19 PM »

I'm pretty sure everyone on our Parish council is gay.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #6 on: April 02, 2012, 06:43:42 PM »

Apparently Austria has recognized same-sex relationships in the form of "civil partnerships" since 2010 (source), while not accepting gay marriage. So it seems that this is as Gabriel has mentioned: Code for "gay couples living as marrieds", in which case, yes, it is sinful.
Logged

Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 02, 2012, 06:45:05 PM »

I think it's an example of ilithiotita. Christ also said "Go forth and sin no more", not "Go forth and be in a registered domestic partnership; it doesn't matter, since you're a human being, after all."
Is a "domestic partnership" in itself sinful?

Not always.  But sometimes it's code.  Does Australia allow homosexuals to marry?  If not, and this "domestic partnership" is a practicing homosexual partnership, then the answer to your question is "Yes!"  
What if it's not a "practicing" relationship?
« Last Edit: April 02, 2012, 06:46:24 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,209


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #8 on: April 02, 2012, 06:51:26 PM »

Does Australia allow homosexuals to marry? 


Logged
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #9 on: April 02, 2012, 07:42:32 PM »

I think it's an example of ilithiotita. Christ also said "Go forth and sin no more", not "Go forth and be in a registered domestic partnership; it doesn't matter, since you're a human being, after all."
Is a "domestic partnership" in itself sinful?

Not always.  But sometimes it's code.  Does Australia allow homosexuals to marry?  If not, and this "domestic partnership" is a practicing homosexual partnership, then the answer to your question is "Yes!"  
What if it's not a "practicing" relationship?

Why are you straining to make this something other than what it is? The article that you quoted refers to the young man's "partner". If they're living as roommates or brothers or what have you (some sort of non-romantic/non-sexual arrangement), then where does "partner" come in? Are they partners in a law firm or something? Of course not. It's a romantic/sexual term. Quit kidding yourself.
Logged

GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,990


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #10 on: April 02, 2012, 07:53:46 PM »


Is a "domestic partnership" in itself sinful?

Not always.  But sometimes it's code.  Does Australia allow homosexuals to marry?  If not, and this "domestic partnership" is a practicing homosexual partnership, then the answer to your question is "Yes!"  
What if it's not a "practicing" relationship?
[/quote]

 Here I will speak about this as it relates to the Orthodox Church.  The role of the Church is not to condemn anyone regardless of what they have done.  She accepts everyone where they are in their life.  But should a person choose to join the Church, though She accepts them were they are, they may not remain in that state but must be fighting their sinful inclinations always.  This pertains to me just as much as a practicing homosexual.  Do you drink to excess?  You must stop.  Do you take advantage of people?  You must stop.  Do you practice sex outside of marriage?  You must stop.  Do you take drugs?  You must stop.  The Church is there to help us stop these things.  If it condones sin, then it is saying, "You don't need to stop."  If it condones sin, then it is saying "The Church is not a hospital and you are not sick."  
 If two people living together are homosexual, and they are of the same sex, it would be reckless for the Church to permit that, IMO.  Why?  For the same reason an alcoholic does not go to a bar and tell himself, "I'll just have a Coke; I can resist."    
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,209


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #11 on: April 02, 2012, 07:59:05 PM »

I think it's an example of ilithiotita. Christ also said "Go forth and sin no more", not "Go forth and be in a registered domestic partnership; it doesn't matter, since you're a human being, after all."
Is a "domestic partnership" in itself sinful?

Not always.  But sometimes it's code.  Does Australia allow homosexuals to marry?  If not, and this "domestic partnership" is a practicing homosexual partnership, then the answer to your question is "Yes!"  
What if it's not a "practicing" relationship?

Why are you straining to make this something other than what it is? The article that you quoted refers to the young man's "partner". If they're living as roommates or brothers or what have you (some sort of non-romantic/non-sexual arrangement), then where does "partner" come in? Are they partners in a law firm or something? Of course not. It's a romantic/sexual term. Quit kidding yourself.

Quite a few saints were not only partners with, but were even married to, someone without being romantically involved. They lived together but didn't have sex. Now if Orthodoxy wants to argue that being gay isn't a sin, that it's the thoughts/activity that is the problem, and two gay people live together without having such thoughts/activity, then what is the problem?
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 02, 2012, 08:07:02 PM »

I think it's an example of ilithiotita. Christ also said "Go forth and sin no more", not "Go forth and be in a registered domestic partnership; it doesn't matter, since you're a human being, after all."
Is a "domestic partnership" in itself sinful?

Not always.  But sometimes it's code.  Does Australia allow homosexuals to marry?  If not, and this "domestic partnership" is a practicing homosexual partnership, then the answer to your question is "Yes!"  
What if it's not a "practicing" relationship?

Why are you straining to make this something other than what it is? The article that you quoted refers to the young man's "partner". If they're living as roommates or brothers or what have you (some sort of non-romantic/non-sexual arrangement), then where does "partner" come in? Are they partners in a law firm or something? Of course not. It's a romantic/sexual term. Quit kidding yourself.
...Now if Orthodoxy wants to argue that being gay isn't a sin, that it's the thoughts/activity that is the problem....
I don't think even the "thought" would be the problem, but rather the "attachment to", or "grasping at", such a thought.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,990


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #13 on: April 02, 2012, 08:10:39 PM »

I think it's an example of ilithiotita. Christ also said "Go forth and sin no more", not "Go forth and be in a registered domestic partnership; it doesn't matter, since you're a human being, after all."
Is a "domestic partnership" in itself sinful?

Not always.  But sometimes it's code.  Does Australia allow homosexuals to marry?  If not, and this "domestic partnership" is a practicing homosexual partnership, then the answer to your question is "Yes!"  
What if it's not a "practicing" relationship?

Why are you straining to make this something other than what it is? The article that you quoted refers to the young man's "partner". If they're living as roommates or brothers or what have you (some sort of non-romantic/non-sexual arrangement), then where does "partner" come in? Are they partners in a law firm or something? Of course not. It's a romantic/sexual term. Quit kidding yourself.

Quite a few saints were not only partners with, but were even married to, someone without being romantically involved. They lived together but didn't have sex. Now if Orthodoxy wants to argue that being gay isn't a sin, that it's the thoughts/activity that is the problem, and two gay people live together without having such thoughts/activity, then what is the problem?
Temptation.  Thoughts don't happen in a vacuum, friend.  
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,209


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #14 on: April 02, 2012, 08:22:01 PM »

I think it's an example of ilithiotita. Christ also said "Go forth and sin no more", not "Go forth and be in a registered domestic partnership; it doesn't matter, since you're a human being, after all."
Is a "domestic partnership" in itself sinful?

Not always.  But sometimes it's code.  Does Australia allow homosexuals to marry?  If not, and this "domestic partnership" is a practicing homosexual partnership, then the answer to your question is "Yes!"  
What if it's not a "practicing" relationship?

Why are you straining to make this something other than what it is? The article that you quoted refers to the young man's "partner". If they're living as roommates or brothers or what have you (some sort of non-romantic/non-sexual arrangement), then where does "partner" come in? Are they partners in a law firm or something? Of course not. It's a romantic/sexual term. Quit kidding yourself.

Quite a few saints were not only partners with, but were even married to, someone without being romantically involved. They lived together but didn't have sex. Now if Orthodoxy wants to argue that being gay isn't a sin, that it's the thoughts/activity that is the problem, and two gay people live together without having such thoughts/activity, then what is the problem?
Temptation.  Thoughts don't happen in a vacuum, friend.  

So, when St. Thomas the Apostle got invited to a wedding, and counselled the couple not to consumate their marriage, you would have corrected him? Or would you have told the saints that have been in that situation to divorce so as not to risk sexual sin, in spite of being in love? I don't think I could say that to someone in love, but then I have larger issues with the subject here, I admit...
Logged
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #15 on: April 02, 2012, 08:28:06 PM »

Quite a few saints were not only partners with, but were even married to, someone without being romantically involved. They lived together but didn't have sex. Now if Orthodoxy wants to argue that being gay isn't a sin, that it's the thoughts/activity that is the problem, and two gay people live together without having such thoughts/activity, then what is the problem?

Unless you think that this is the ideal that the Austrians had in mind when accepting "civil partnerships" in lieu of gay marriage, I don't see what this has to do with anything. In contemporary political speech (such that created "civil partnership" as a legal category specifically for gays in the first place, following the passage of the "Civil Partnership Act" in the UK in 2004), it does not mean that. It means a partnership comparable to civil marriage. Whether or not that contains romance or sex, well I guess that depends on the couple, just as in a heterosexual marriage.

This sort of defense of civil partnerships reminds me of the legends about Rasputin surrounding himself with naked, willing young women as a show of his self-deprivation. Why put yourself in such an arrangement? I thought we were to flee from temptation and evil.
Logged

Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,209


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #16 on: April 02, 2012, 08:33:16 PM »

Quite a few saints were not only partners with, but were even married to, someone without being romantically involved. They lived together but didn't have sex. Now if Orthodoxy wants to argue that being gay isn't a sin, that it's the thoughts/activity that is the problem, and two gay people live together without having such thoughts/activity, then what is the problem?

Unless you think that this is the ideal that the Austrians had in mind when accepting "civil partnerships" in lieu of gay marriage, I don't see what this has to do with anything. In contemporary political speech (such that created "civil partnership" as a legal category specifically for gays in the first place, following the passage of the "Civil Partnership Act" in the UK in 2004), it does not mean that. It means a partnership comparable to civil marriage. Whether or not that contains romance or sex, well I guess that depends on the couple, just as in a heterosexual marriage.

This sort of defense of civil partnerships reminds me of the legends about Rasputin surrounding himself with naked, willing young women as a show of his self-deprivation. Why put yourself in such an arrangement? I thought we were to flee from temptation and evil.

So, when St. Thomas the Apostle got invited to a wedding, and counselled the couple not to consumate their marriage, you would have corrected him? Or would you have told the saints that have been in that situation to divorce so as not to risk sexual sin, in spite of being in love? I don't think I could say that to someone in love, but then I have larger issues with the subject here, I admit...
Logged
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #17 on: April 02, 2012, 08:46:06 PM »

I'm glad that you've found that example, Asteriktos, but I don't find it any more convincing in response to me than in response to Gabriel. Remember, please, St. Paul's epistle to the Corinthians [1 Corin 7:8], where he tells them: "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

Hence it can be argued, not to the determent of St. Thomas' example, that homosexuals are among those for whom it is better to stay unmarried/outside of partnerships that legitimize their lifestyle, as there is no circumstance in which they may satisfy their passion without transgressing God's law.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2012, 08:46:33 PM by dzheremi » Logged

ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,754


look into my lovable alpaca eyes


« Reply #18 on: April 02, 2012, 10:53:51 PM »

Quite a few saints were not only partners with, but were even married to, someone without being romantically involved. They lived together but didn't have sex. Now if Orthodoxy wants to argue that being gay isn't a sin, that it's the thoughts/activity that is the problem, and two gay people live together without having such thoughts/activity, then what is the problem?

Unless you think that this is the ideal that the Austrians had in mind when accepting "civil partnerships" in lieu of gay marriage, I don't see what this has to do with anything. In contemporary political speech (such that created "civil partnership" as a legal category specifically for gays in the first place, following the passage of the "Civil Partnership Act" in the UK in 2004), it does not mean that. It means a partnership comparable to civil marriage. Whether or not that contains romance or sex, well I guess that depends on the couple, just as in a heterosexual marriage.

This sort of defense of civil partnerships reminds me of the legends about Rasputin surrounding himself with naked, willing young women as a show of his self-deprivation. Why put yourself in such an arrangement? I thought we were to flee from temptation and evil.

So, when St. Thomas the Apostle got invited to a wedding, and counselled the couple not to consumate their marriage, you would have corrected him? Or would you have told the saints that have been in that situation to divorce so as not to risk sexual sin, in spite of being in love? I don't think I could say that to someone in love, but then I have larger issues with the subject here, I admit...

Whoa... Consummating your marriage is a sexual sin since when? If this couple had at any point in their lives "slipped up" and had sex- it wouldn't be a sin. They're married, they're allowed. If they never consummated it, that's a pious above-and-beyond. That's the difference between these scenarios.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #19 on: April 02, 2012, 11:10:48 PM »

I'm pretty sure everyone on our Parish council is gay.

 Cheesy
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,209


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #20 on: April 02, 2012, 11:32:11 PM »

Just to clarify...

Quite a few saints were not only partners with, but were even married to, someone without being romantically involved. They lived together but didn't have sex. Now if Orthodoxy wants to argue that being gay isn't a sin, that it's the thoughts/activity that is the problem, and two gay people live together without having such thoughts/activity, then what is the problem?

Unless you think that this is the ideal that the Austrians had in mind when accepting "civil partnerships" in lieu of gay marriage, I don't see what this has to do with anything. In contemporary political speech (such that created "civil partnership" as a legal category specifically for gays in the first place, following the passage of the "Civil Partnership Act" in the UK in 2004), it does not mean that. It means a partnership comparable to civil marriage. Whether or not that contains romance or sex, well I guess that depends on the couple, just as in a heterosexual marriage.

This sort of defense of civil partnerships reminds me of the legends about Rasputin surrounding himself with naked, willing young women as a show of his self-deprivation. Why put yourself in such an arrangement? I thought we were to flee from temptation and evil.

So, when St. Thomas the Apostle got invited to a wedding, and counselled the couple not to consumate their marriage, you would have corrected him? Or would you have told the saints that have been in that situation to divorce so as not to risk sexual sin, in spite of being in love? I don't think I could say that to someone in love, but then I have larger issues with the subject here, I admit...

Whoa... Consummating your marriage is a sexual sin since when? If this couple had at any point in their lives "slipped up" and had sex- it wouldn't be a sin. They're married, they're allowed. If they never consummated it, that's a pious above-and-beyond. That's the difference between these scenarios.

The sin I was speaking of was supposing they stuck together but lived as brother and sister, leading to temptations (e.g. lust). In other words, if the risk of falling into sin because of temptation is a justifiable reason for two people not to live together in a loving but non-sexual situation, then that should apply to heterosexual as well as homosexual couples.

But again, I probably have a lot of extra "stuff" I'm bringing into this.
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #21 on: April 03, 2012, 02:07:21 AM »

I suppose gay people better not join monasteries either, you know, in case there's another gay guy there.  It could be a temptation.  It's also probably best that they either go live a convent, or out in some secluded area of woods or desert, so that they need not be tempted into sin.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,235


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #22 on: April 03, 2012, 11:23:55 AM »

What do we actually know about the men referred to in the article?  That they live in a registered domestic partnership, and that one of them was elected to a church council.  That's it!  From that "starting point" pretty much everything else about them written here is nothing but assumption and speculation, from which conclusions about their moral state seem to have been unjustifiably reached.  Perhaps Cardinal Schoenborn has somewhat more detailed knowledge of their situation and the fitness or lack thereof of Florian Stangl to serve on his church council, and perhaps we should, unless and until we know more ourselves, give them both the benefit of the doubt.

By the way, I don't think this is just a "Catholic" issue, either.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,594


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 03, 2012, 11:48:17 AM »

Temptation is not a sin, and being gay is not a sin. Being gay and engaging in sexual contact is a sin. If the gay guy on the council is not a "practicing homosexual" then more power to him. If he is, then he should not be on the council.

As for the domestic partnership question I would like to know of anyone who has this domestic partnership but is not having sexual relations.

Some things are assumed, whether correct or incorrect.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,621



« Reply #24 on: April 03, 2012, 12:01:24 PM »

Not always.  But sometimes it's code.  Does Australia allow homosexuals to marry?  If not, and this "domestic partnership" is a practicing homosexual partnership, then the answer to your question is "Yes!" 

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,235


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #25 on: April 03, 2012, 12:01:44 PM »

Temptation is not a sin, and being gay is not a sin. Being gay and engaging in sexual contact is a sin. If the gay guy on the council is not a "practicing homosexual" then more power to him. If he is, then he should not be on the council.

Indeed!



Some things are assumed, whether correct or incorrect.

You know what "they" say about when you assume something, right?  You risk making an "ass" out of "u" and "me".  (Not that I've *ever* assumed anything, myself  Grin Grin--yeah...right  Roll Eyes!)

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,711


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #26 on: April 03, 2012, 12:14:53 PM »

You know...a surprising remedy to homosexual activities is perhaps a companionship with someone who has the same urges, but encourages co-celibacy with the other.

Call me crazy, but sometimes I feel that the encouragement of a partner (or a group) to a goal of chastity given whatever the situation might overpower the temptations that they are plagued with.

I might be wrong...but there's that what if...

What if it's not that obvious?  What if two people who are inclined to a certain temptation but wish to resist it actually help each other out rather than fall into the temptation as is generally assumed?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #27 on: April 03, 2012, 12:40:38 PM »

Temptation is not a sin, and being gay is not a sin. Being gay and engaging in sexual contact is a sin. If the gay guy on the council is not a "practicing homosexual" then more power to him. If he is, then he should not be on the council.

Indeed!



Some things are assumed, whether correct or incorrect.

You know what "they" say about when you assume something, right?  You risk making an "ass" out of "u" and "me".  (Not that I've *ever* assumed anything, myself  Grin Grin--yeah...right  Roll Eyes!)



Regarding this assumption business, I think "u" make a bigger "ass" out of yourself by assuming that all possible arrangements are equally likely. "Domestic partnership", presented as it is as a legal equivalent to marriage, are considered as essentially marriages in all but name. So it is appropriate to reflect on the incidence of marriages without physical contact, as a way of assessing just how likely it is that there would be tons and tons of civil partnerships without contact. No doubt there are some marriages (and civil partnerships) that are this way, but if they are rare enough to make those living chastely in marriage examples of especially noteworthy piety (which they are), then how likely do you think they are among those who are essentially married? Probably just as likely, or at least not more likely than in actual marriages.

And another thing: The RC church, as far as I understand, does not recognize these civil partnerships as being valid, either as alternatives to recognized marriage or as their own category. Given that, how likely do you think it is that this man and his partner would disobey the rules in a very serious way in order to get a registered partnership, but then stop short of further actions against their faith, such as homosexual activity? It doesn't seem very likely, and it seems as though an argument could be made (if the cardinal were more traditional) that being in the civil partnership in the first place should disqualify this man, even without sexual activity.

If I have not been fasting and praying during this time, and yet I present myself for holy communion, the priest is right to withhold it from me if he feels that my (in)actions show a frivolous attitude toward the faith and the sacrament. Even if I have kept every other rule of the church, he may decide against me due to the serious nature of my disobedience and laxity. I would think that the same principle should hold in the case of the original priest who thought it best to not have the man on the council. Yet the cardinal overruled him using other logic.

I don't know. It's not my church. Perhaps that's how things are meant to work in the RC. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
Logged

ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,754


look into my lovable alpaca eyes


« Reply #28 on: April 03, 2012, 12:51:31 PM »


And another thing: The RC church, as far as I understand, does not recognize these civil partnerships as being valid, either as alternatives to recognized marriage or as their own category. Given that, how likely do you think it is that this man and his partner would disobey the rules in a very serious way in order to get a registered partnership, but then stop short of further actions against their faith, such as homosexual activity? It doesn't seem very likely, and it seems as though an argument could be made (if the cardinal were more traditional) that being in the civil partnership in the first place should disqualify this man, even without sexual activity. 

Which brings up the whole issue the RCC has with causing "scandal" (not scare quotes, just quoting their term).

Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #29 on: April 03, 2012, 01:52:00 PM »

Press statement from the Cardinal begins:

Quote
I thank the many candidates for the parish council elections. By their candidacy they showed their concern for the Church and the Faith. Thus they witness to the vitality of the Church. In their diversity they reflect the diversity of the life and faith journeys of today. Thus there are many parish councilors whose lifestyle  does not in every way conform to the ideals of the Church. In view of the life-witness that each of them gives taken as a whole, and their commitment to the attempt to live a life of faith, the Church rejoices in their efforts. She does not thereby call the validity of her ideals into question.

and concludes:

Quote
Today in the bishop’s council [Bischofsrat] we discussed the complex Stützenhofen case, and unanimously decided on the following decisions:

1. The diocesan leadership does not challenge the validity of the election and its results.

2. The bishop’s council mandates a revision of the rules for parish council elections in order to clarify the pre-requisites for candidacy in the context of continuing deliberation about the nature and purpose of parish councils.


Mr. Stangl, the parish council candidate had this to say about his situation, in an interview with Die Press [my translation]:

Quote
On whether he thinks, as a homosexual member of the Catholic Church, that his concerns have been taken seriously, Stangl says "I feel I've been taken seriously, otherwise I would not have had the conversation with the Cardinal." Stangl doesn't particularly see a contradiction between his life-style and the teachings of the Church: "I feel committed the teaching of the Church. To make demands for homosexual chastity, though, is relatively far from the realities of life. How many people can live completely chastely?"
« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 01:53:07 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,235


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #30 on: April 03, 2012, 02:02:33 PM »

Press statement from the Cardinal begins:

Quote
I thank the many candidates for the parish council elections. By their candidacy they showed their concern for the Church and the Faith. Thus they witness to the vitality of the Church. In their diversity they reflect the diversity of the life and faith journeys of today. Thus there are many parish councilors whose lifestyle  does not in every way conform to the ideals of the Church. In view of the life-witness that each of them gives taken as a whole, and their commitment to the attempt to live a life of faith, the Church rejoices in their efforts. She does not thereby call the validity of her ideals into question.

and concludes:

Quote
Today in the bishop’s council [Bischofsrat] we discussed the complex Stützenhofen case, and unanimously decided on the following decisions:

1. The diocesan leadership does not challenge the validity of the election and its results.

2. The bishop’s council mandates a revision of the rules for parish council elections in order to clarify the pre-requisites for candidacy in the context of continuing deliberation about the nature and purpose of parish councils.


Mr. Stangl, the parish council candidate had this to say about his situation, in an interview with Die Press [my translation]:

Quote
On whether he thinks, as a homosexual member of the Catholic Church, that his concerns have been taken seriously, Stangl says "I feel I've been taken seriously, otherwise I would not have had the conversation with the Cardinal." Stangl doesn't particularly see a contradiction between his life-style and the teachings of the Church: "I feel committed the teaching of the Church. To make demands for homosexual chastity, though, is relatively far from the realities of life. How many people can live completely chastely?"


Big sigh  Sad.


Prayers ascending for all concerned.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 02:03:16 PM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #31 on: April 03, 2012, 02:06:45 PM »

Yes. I pray that this man should see that the "far removed from reality" demands of the Christian faith do not speak highly for reality, and therefore come to deny himself, as we all must deny ourselves and live chastely outside of marriage.
Logged

orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,621



« Reply #32 on: April 03, 2012, 02:08:21 PM »

Mr. Stangl, the parish council candidate had this to say about his situation, in an interview with Die Press [my translation]:

Quote
On whether he thinks, as a homosexual member of the Catholic Church, that his concerns have been taken seriously, Stangl says "I feel I've been taken seriously, otherwise I would not have had the conversation with the Cardinal." Stangl doesn't particularly see a contradiction between his life-style and the teachings of the Church: "I feel committed the teaching of the Church. To make demands for homosexual chastity, though, is relatively far from the realities of life. How many people can live completely chastely?"


With a name like Florian what were his chances?

Seriously through, your translation is a bit misleading.

Quote
Forderungen nach Keuschheit zu stellen, ist aber relativ fern von der Lebensrealität. Wie viele Menschen leben keusch?

http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/religion/743105/Schwuler-Pfarrgemeinderat_Kein-Aus

Forderungen zu stellen is more than to demand something typically, it is to make something a requirement.

And there is no word modifying Keuschheit, where you write homosexual chastity.

It seems clear the point being made is that the Church cannot make chastity as such a requirement for being within the Church. After all we all fall short.

EDIT: I want to point out that Herr Stangl isn't arguing in this passage with Church teaching at all, but whether following teachings perfectly should be requirements to participate within the body of the Church.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 02:10:58 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,235


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #33 on: April 03, 2012, 02:34:12 PM »

Mr. Stangl, the parish council candidate had this to say about his situation, in an interview with Die Press [my translation]:

Quote
On whether he thinks, as a homosexual member of the Catholic Church, that his concerns have been taken seriously, Stangl says "I feel I've been taken seriously, otherwise I would not have had the conversation with the Cardinal." Stangl doesn't particularly see a contradiction between his life-style and the teachings of the Church: "I feel committed the teaching of the Church. To make demands for homosexual chastity, though, is relatively far from the realities of life. How many people can live completely chastely?"


With a name like Florian what were his chances?

Seriously through, your translation is a bit misleading.

Quote
Forderungen nach Keuschheit zu stellen, ist aber relativ fern von der Lebensrealität. Wie viele Menschen leben keusch?

http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/religion/743105/Schwuler-Pfarrgemeinderat_Kein-Aus

Forderungen zu stellen is more than to demand something typically, it is to make something a requirement.

And there is no word modifying Keuschheit, where you write homosexual chastity.

It seems clear the point being made is that the Church cannot make chastity as such a requirement for being within the Church. After all we all fall short.

EDIT: I want to point out that Herr Stangl isn't arguing in this passage with Church teaching at all, but whether following teachings perfectly should be requirements to participate within the body of the Church.

That's quite a different meaning from the one presented by Jetavan.  Interesting....
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #34 on: April 03, 2012, 02:37:32 PM »

Mr. Stangl, the parish council candidate had this to say about his situation, in an interview with Die Press [my translation]:

Quote
On whether he thinks, as a homosexual member of the Catholic Church, that his concerns have been taken seriously, Stangl says "I feel I've been taken seriously, otherwise I would not have had the conversation with the Cardinal." Stangl doesn't particularly see a contradiction between his life-style and the teachings of the Church: "I feel committed the teaching of the Church. To make demands for homosexual chastity, though, is relatively far from the realities of life. How many people can live completely chastely?"


With a name like Florian what were his chances?

Seriously through, your translation is a bit misleading.

Quote
Forderungen nach Keuschheit zu stellen, ist aber relativ fern von der Lebensrealität. Wie viele Menschen leben keusch?

http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/religion/743105/Schwuler-Pfarrgemeinderat_Kein-Aus

Forderungen zu stellen is more than to demand something typically, it is to make something a requirement.

And there is no word modifying Keuschheit, where you write homosexual chastity.

It seems clear the point being made is that the Church cannot make chastity as such a requirement for being within the Church. After all we all fall short.
Yes, I added "homosexual" to modify "chastity", because I don't think Stangl is saying, for instance, that someone who is visibly, publicly promiscuous, should be eligible for parish-council, whereas I do think Stangl is saying that someone who is visibly, openly, homosexually active, should be eligible, even if contrary to current Church discipline, because of the level of commitment and self-sacrifice within a monogamous sexual relationship.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 02:38:41 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,621



« Reply #35 on: April 03, 2012, 02:44:42 PM »

Mr. Stangl, the parish council candidate had this to say about his situation, in an interview with Die Press [my translation]:

Quote
On whether he thinks, as a homosexual member of the Catholic Church, that his concerns have been taken seriously, Stangl says "I feel I've been taken seriously, otherwise I would not have had the conversation with the Cardinal." Stangl doesn't particularly see a contradiction between his life-style and the teachings of the Church: "I feel committed the teaching of the Church. To make demands for homosexual chastity, though, is relatively far from the realities of life. How many people can live completely chastely?"


With a name like Florian what were his chances?

Seriously through, your translation is a bit misleading.

Quote
Forderungen nach Keuschheit zu stellen, ist aber relativ fern von der Lebensrealität. Wie viele Menschen leben keusch?

http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/religion/743105/Schwuler-Pfarrgemeinderat_Kein-Aus

Forderungen zu stellen is more than to demand something typically, it is to make something a requirement.

And there is no word modifying Keuschheit, where you write homosexual chastity.

It seems clear the point being made is that the Church cannot make chastity as such a requirement for being within the Church. After all we all fall short.

EDIT: I want to point out that Herr Stangl isn't arguing in this passage with Church teaching at all, but whether following teachings perfectly should be requirements to participate within the body of the Church.

That's quite a different meaning from the one presented by Jetavan.  Interesting....

I'm not trying to go all Talmud on a few sentences. After all:

Quote
Stangl doesn't particularly see a contradiction between his life-style [Lebensform] and the teachings of the Church

Could be problematic. But the thing is, he also says he is committed to the teaching of the Church.

Without going all Private Dick into his life, this is difficult to spell what this means.

We could talk about this all day. So, I'll stop here for now.

One thing is clear, the Cardinal met with Mr. Stangl and gave his nod.

And that www.katholisches.info might be some CoIntelPro, since they used this photo for their reporting on the coming together:



http://www.katholisches.info/2012/04/03/kardinal-schonborn-die-homosexualitat-und-der-relativismus-in-osterreichs-kirche/
« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 02:49:50 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,235


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #36 on: April 03, 2012, 02:49:55 PM »

Mr. Stangl, the parish council candidate had this to say about his situation, in an interview with Die Press [my translation]:

Quote
On whether he thinks, as a homosexual member of the Catholic Church, that his concerns have been taken seriously, Stangl says "I feel I've been taken seriously, otherwise I would not have had the conversation with the Cardinal." Stangl doesn't particularly see a contradiction between his life-style and the teachings of the Church: "I feel committed the teaching of the Church. To make demands for homosexual chastity, though, is relatively far from the realities of life. How many people can live completely chastely?"


With a name like Florian what were his chances?

Seriously through, your translation is a bit misleading.

Quote
Forderungen nach Keuschheit zu stellen, ist aber relativ fern von der Lebensrealität. Wie viele Menschen leben keusch?

http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/religion/743105/Schwuler-Pfarrgemeinderat_Kein-Aus

Forderungen zu stellen is more than to demand something typically, it is to make something a requirement.

And there is no word modifying Keuschheit, where you write homosexual chastity.

It seems clear the point being made is that the Church cannot make chastity as such a requirement for being within the Church. After all we all fall short.
Yes, I added "homosexual" to modify "chastity", because I don't think Stangl is saying, for instance, that someone who is visibly, publicly promiscuous, should be eligible for parish-council, whereas I do think Stangl is saying that someone who is visibly, openly, homosexually active, should be eligible, even if contrary to current Church discipline, because of the level of commitment and self-sacrifice within a monogamous sexual relationship.

You "think" he is saying...And you "don't think" he is saying...

So...what *is* he *actually* saying??  Seems like you and orthonorm have different translations.  Whose is the most accurate and reflects the true meaning of Stangl's statement?  Is either of you a native German speaker or a professional translator of German or otherwise equally qualified to render a true and accurate translation?

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing.  I just prefer to read what someone actually says rather than what someone else thinks they said.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #37 on: April 03, 2012, 02:50:24 PM »

Wow. That picture sure is...festive. Hmm.
Logged

J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,235


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #38 on: April 03, 2012, 02:51:10 PM »

Mr. Stangl, the parish council candidate had this to say about his situation, in an interview with Die Press [my translation]:

Quote
On whether he thinks, as a homosexual member of the Catholic Church, that his concerns have been taken seriously, Stangl says "I feel I've been taken seriously, otherwise I would not have had the conversation with the Cardinal." Stangl doesn't particularly see a contradiction between his life-style and the teachings of the Church: "I feel committed the teaching of the Church. To make demands for homosexual chastity, though, is relatively far from the realities of life. How many people can live completely chastely?"


With a name like Florian what were his chances?

Seriously through, your translation is a bit misleading.

Quote
Forderungen nach Keuschheit zu stellen, ist aber relativ fern von der Lebensrealität. Wie viele Menschen leben keusch?

http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/religion/743105/Schwuler-Pfarrgemeinderat_Kein-Aus

Forderungen zu stellen is more than to demand something typically, it is to make something a requirement.

And there is no word modifying Keuschheit, where you write homosexual chastity.

It seems clear the point being made is that the Church cannot make chastity as such a requirement for being within the Church. After all we all fall short.

EDIT: I want to point out that Herr Stangl isn't arguing in this passage with Church teaching at all, but whether following teachings perfectly should be requirements to participate within the body of the Church.

That's quite a different meaning from the one presented by Jetavan.  Interesting....

I'm not trying to go all Talmud on a few sentences. After all:

Quote
Stangl doesn't particularly see a contradiction between his life-style [Lebensform] and the teachings of the Church

Could be problematic. But the thing is, he also says he is committed to the teaching of the Church.

Without going all Private Dick into his life, this is difficult to spell what this means.

We could talk about this all day. So, I'll stop here for now.

One thing is clear, the Cardinal met with Mr. Stangl and gave his nod.

And that www.katholisches.info might be some CoIntelPro, since they used this photo for their reporting on the coming together:



http://www.katholisches.info/2012/04/03/kardinal-schonborn-die-homosexualitat-und-der-relativismus-in-osterreichs-kirche/

Be honest, now...you got that pic from isaAlMisry, didn't you laugh laugh?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,621



« Reply #39 on: April 03, 2012, 02:55:39 PM »

Mr. Stangl, the parish council candidate had this to say about his situation, in an interview with Die Press [my translation]:

Quote
On whether he thinks, as a homosexual member of the Catholic Church, that his concerns have been taken seriously, Stangl says "I feel I've been taken seriously, otherwise I would not have had the conversation with the Cardinal." Stangl doesn't particularly see a contradiction between his life-style and the teachings of the Church: "I feel committed the teaching of the Church. To make demands for homosexual chastity, though, is relatively far from the realities of life. How many people can live completely chastely?"


With a name like Florian what were his chances?

Seriously through, your translation is a bit misleading.

Quote
Forderungen nach Keuschheit zu stellen, ist aber relativ fern von der Lebensrealität. Wie viele Menschen leben keusch?

http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/religion/743105/Schwuler-Pfarrgemeinderat_Kein-Aus

Forderungen zu stellen is more than to demand something typically, it is to make something a requirement.

And there is no word modifying Keuschheit, where you write homosexual chastity.

It seems clear the point being made is that the Church cannot make chastity as such a requirement for being within the Church. After all we all fall short.
Yes, I added "homosexual" to modify "chastity", because I don't think Stangl is saying, for instance, that someone who is visibly, publicly promiscuous, should be eligible for parish-council, whereas I do think Stangl is saying that someone who is visibly, openly, homosexually active, should be eligible, even if contrary to current Church discipline, because of the level of commitment and self-sacrifice within a monogamous sexual relationship.

You "think" he is saying...And you "don't think" he is saying...

So...what *is* he *actually* saying??  Seems like you and orthonorm have different translations.  Whose is the most accurate and reflects the true meaning of Stangl's statement?  Is either of you a native German speaker or a professional translator of German or otherwise equally qualified to render a true and accurate translation?

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing.  I just prefer to read what someone actually says rather than what someone else thinks they said.

Yes.

But now you are baiting me into a philosophical discussion . . .

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,235


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #40 on: April 03, 2012, 03:04:07 PM »

Mr. Stangl, the parish council candidate had this to say about his situation, in an interview with Die Press [my translation]:

Quote
On whether he thinks, as a homosexual member of the Catholic Church, that his concerns have been taken seriously, Stangl says "I feel I've been taken seriously, otherwise I would not have had the conversation with the Cardinal." Stangl doesn't particularly see a contradiction between his life-style and the teachings of the Church: "I feel committed the teaching of the Church. To make demands for homosexual chastity, though, is relatively far from the realities of life. How many people can live completely chastely?"


With a name like Florian what were his chances?

Seriously through, your translation is a bit misleading.

Quote
Forderungen nach Keuschheit zu stellen, ist aber relativ fern von der Lebensrealität. Wie viele Menschen leben keusch?

http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/religion/743105/Schwuler-Pfarrgemeinderat_Kein-Aus

Forderungen zu stellen is more than to demand something typically, it is to make something a requirement.

And there is no word modifying Keuschheit, where you write homosexual chastity.

It seems clear the point being made is that the Church cannot make chastity as such a requirement for being within the Church. After all we all fall short.
Yes, I added "homosexual" to modify "chastity", because I don't think Stangl is saying, for instance, that someone who is visibly, publicly promiscuous, should be eligible for parish-council, whereas I do think Stangl is saying that someone who is visibly, openly, homosexually active, should be eligible, even if contrary to current Church discipline, because of the level of commitment and self-sacrifice within a monogamous sexual relationship.

You "think" he is saying...And you "don't think" he is saying...

So...what *is* he *actually* saying??  Seems like you and orthonorm have different translations.  Whose is the most accurate and reflects the true meaning of Stangl's statement?  Is either of you a native German speaker or a professional translator of German or otherwise equally qualified to render a true and accurate translation?

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing.  I just prefer to read what someone actually says rather than what someone else thinks they said.

Yes.

But now you are baiting me into a philosophical discussion . . .



"Yes" what?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #41 on: April 03, 2012, 03:05:55 PM »

This seems like less of a translation issue than a "this guy wants to have it both ways" situation. He's faithful to the teachings of the church...except for those ones he feels are unreasonable, and hence has consciously decided to not follow. That's unfaithfulness in any language.
Logged

Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #42 on: April 03, 2012, 03:08:13 PM »

Mr. Stangl, the parish council candidate had this to say about his situation, in an interview with Die Press [my translation]:

Quote
On whether he thinks, as a homosexual member of the Catholic Church, that his concerns have been taken seriously, Stangl says "I feel I've been taken seriously, otherwise I would not have had the conversation with the Cardinal." Stangl doesn't particularly see a contradiction between his life-style and the teachings of the Church: "I feel committed the teaching of the Church. To make demands for homosexual chastity, though, is relatively far from the realities of life. How many people can live completely chastely?"


With a name like Florian what were his chances?

Seriously through, your translation is a bit misleading.

Quote
Forderungen nach Keuschheit zu stellen, ist aber relativ fern von der Lebensrealität. Wie viele Menschen leben keusch?

http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/religion/743105/Schwuler-Pfarrgemeinderat_Kein-Aus

Forderungen zu stellen is more than to demand something typically, it is to make something a requirement.

And there is no word modifying Keuschheit, where you write homosexual chastity.

It seems clear the point being made is that the Church cannot make chastity as such a requirement for being within the Church. After all we all fall short.
Yes, I added "homosexual" to modify "chastity", because I don't think Stangl is saying, for instance, that someone who is visibly, publicly promiscuous, should be eligible for parish-council, whereas I do think Stangl is saying that someone who is visibly, openly, homosexually active, should be eligible, even if contrary to current Church discipline, because of the level of commitment and self-sacrifice within a monogamous sexual relationship.

You "think" he is saying...And you "don't think" he is saying...

So...what *is* he *actually* saying??  Seems like you and orthonorm have different translations.  Whose is the most accurate and reflects the true meaning of Stangl's statement?  Is either of you a native German speaker or a professional translator of German or otherwise equally qualified to render a true and accurate translation?

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing.  I just prefer to read what someone actually says rather than what someone else thinks they said.
Well, if he's saying that an openly, publicly promiscuous person (who is married, with kids) should be allowed to be on a parish council, then that would be something I've never heard any Catholic say. However, I've heard many Catholics be supportive of monogamous homosexuals being active in the parish.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,209


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #43 on: April 03, 2012, 03:08:47 PM »

"Yes" what?

Yes to the question of whether he is "otherwise equally qualified to render a true and accurate translation."
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,235


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #44 on: April 03, 2012, 03:15:26 PM »

"Yes" what?

Yes to the question of whether he is "otherwise equally qualified to render a true and accurate translation."

Thanks.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.211 seconds with 72 queries.