Had a glance at this and am tempted to say: This from a man who adheres to a Church that came about because of a man who wanted his own way..with women...and beheaded two of his six wives? But I will be charitable and less flippant ! But coming from a man from a state which has just legalised killing... assisted suicide... at the same time denying cash for palliative care services to the original owners of this land, our indigenous brothers and sisters in the more remote areas of the state? Sitting around pontificating about the Catholic Church's failures while allowing extra judicial killing in his state to take hold? Now that seems to be skewed thinking to me. I mean, it isn't as if the scandal of sexual deviancy and crimes in the Catholic Church hasn't escaped widespread scrutiny... and witnessed senior Catholics clerics jailed... on however flimsy evidence...the whole foundation of our judicial system turned upside down to accommodate such incarceration... the responsibility for the prosecutor to prove guilt ..not the accused to prove innocence. The Catholic Church which includes the laity as well as the clerics, with the grace of God, will weed out the evil within it." Behold, I am with you all days even until the end of the world." And encourage the embrace and beauty of of chastity ..for the hetero and homo sexually inclined...for clerics as well as the laity..all the time loving and welcoming those who stumble along the way..without the help of a Hollywood actor earning mega bucks..and no doubt without any real concern about the gravity of the bad example given to the faithful, especially the young, within the Church. Meanwhile writers with the profile of a Peter Sellick need to enhance their credibility by taking to the streets to demand Mark McGowan's assisted suicide legislation stops before it starts. That is the urgency now.. not this endless preoccupation with sex and the Catholic Church!

I'm all in on cardinal sarah being the next pope,

Denny,
Is there a chance that you are a white man living in Australia? If so, you are so completely discredited by the history of colonialism in this country you have no right to speak about any other subject other than your own shame.

Your truly
Peter.
(admitted miserable creature)

'It is impossible for the Church to maintain its position on sexual acts now that the sexual activities of priests towards minors and the concentration of same sex attracted men at the highest offices of the Vatican has been revealed'

dear oh dear, what sick reasoning. Judas was a thief so that means that the 'church' must embrace thieving as acceptable. Peter obviously has not used any of his biology knowledge to see that men were not designed to have sex with men.

Looks like COVID-19 is not only killing people, it makes some even more insipid !

Proposing the gospels as a form of art; then conflating the art form into acceptance of homosexuality, then downplaying the sin it is, with the add-mixture of divorce, is simply giving the argument and the act, poetic license.

Homosexuality is problematic in the Catholic Church, since the vast majority of its child abuse victims (87% by some studies), were adolescents, not young children.
So the proof is in the pudding here.

Homosexuality is a sinful act from a Christian perspective, whereas heterosexuality is not. Connecting the two is incongruous, and will forever remain so.

Dan

Does not the Bible teach that woman are agents of evil, from Eve "the temptress of Adam" onwards?

Therefore it is morally safer to keep sexual acts in the Catholic all-male priestly family?

Therefore sex with male minors (eg. choirboys) easily available to the Catholic priesthood, is less sinful than sex with grown women?!

Thus justifying 2,000 years of paedophilia, silently shunted between diocese...

'Does not the Bible teach that woman are agents of evil, from Eve "the temptress of Adam" onwards?'

actually the bible teaches those who twist Scripture are evil.

Another abortive comment runner.

Why defend 2,000 years of paedophilia?

Speaking of today's headline http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-02/george-pell-ballarat-allegations-revelation/12109952

"Two new accusers say George Pell abused them when they were boys in the 1970s"

"For decades, 53-year-old Bernie* kept the secrets of his childhood deeply buried.

As a boy growing up in a Ballarat orphanage in the 1970s, Bernie told the ABC's Revelation program that he was abused on multiple occasions by George Pell, then a priest in the diocese of Ballarat.

For years Bernie was convinced that if he reported the abuse, he would not be believed.

"I would hear Pell's become Bishop," Bernie says.

"Pell's become Archbishop. Pell's become a Cardinal. Who's gonna believe a little boy from a home against that conglomerate? You know against that bloody goliath?"..."

Jesus responded to critics who complained that He socialized with sinners in this way:

“Healthy people don’t need a doctor—sick people do. I have come to call not those who think they are righteous, but those who know they are sinners and need to repent." (Mathew 9:12, Mark 2:17, Luke 5:31-32).

In this way I agree with you Peter, and the tv show, that as the church need to be there for the drunks and drug addicts; the homosexuals, adulterers, and prostitutes; the abused and the abusers; the weak, the vulnerable, the needy; the orphan, widows, homeless, impoverished, and imprisoned. Yes all of these people and more should be welcomed into the church for no other reason then to have mercy and love and be compassionate.

The part to welcome the down trodden including the gay, is half of the point. The other half though is to help people in their sins and struggles, not just to accept their struggles as a positive. We try to help the poor within their struggles and that is kindness. It isn't kindness to praise them for being poor, homeless, or hungry; and do nothing to help them.

Peter - You inspire me to finally have a look at Damascus - a book I received as a Christmas gift 3 months ago.

I appreciate your attempt to match the power of art and the need of continual renewal within human institutions.

But I wonder whether a broader ecclesiology (consider Kevin Giles “What On Earth is the Church?” for example) that recognises the soft places to land within the Body of Christ that already exist (even in what some might consider the most fundamental type places entitled church) has been overshadowed by the ‘need’ for the oldest and most hierarchical structures to be ‘fixed?’

Sells,

I found this to be an excellent expose of what happens in some churches and you highlight the Catholic Church and the Vatican:

<<It is impossible for the Church to maintain its position on sexual acts now that the sexual activities of priests towards minors and the concentration of same sex attracted men at the highest offices of the Vatican has been revealed. It has been caught out denying its own impossible precepts.>>

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Your own Anglican church has been exposed with the revelation that 'The data shows that 1,115 complaints of child sexual abuse were received by the church between 1980 and the end of 2015, involving 22 of the 23 Anglican dioceses in Australia. Those complaints were made by 1,082 survivors against 569 named and 133 unnamed perpetrators.

'The alleged abuse took place at the hands of 285 laypeople and 247 ordained clergy. The royal commission has referred 84 alleged perpetrators to police, four of whom have been prosecuted and 23 are still under investigation (The Guardian, Australia Edition, 17 March 2017), http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/mar/17/royal-commission-reveals-scale-of-child-sexual-abuse-in-anglican-church

The Newcastle Anglican bishop, Greg Thompson, resigned, 'saying he was threatened after revealing sexual abuse by clergy....Thompson has told the inquiry people of power and influence provided a protection racket during decades of abuse by clergy and lay people in the diocese. He said the criticism, threats and harassment had taken a toll and he had security installed in his home because he did not feel safe', http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/mar/16/newcastle-bishop-resigns-saying-he-was-threatened-after-revealing-abuse-by-clergy

Peter,

You stated: <<It is not the rich and powerful who will enter the kingdom of heaven, but those who grieve, the persecuted, the meek, the pure in heart etc.>>

I agree, according to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:3-8), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt+5%3A3-10&version=NIVUK

Notice what you did in your article. You turned to Scripture to determine who will enter the kingdom of heaven. That's an excellent place to begin.

But what do you do with morality and ethics for same-sex couples? You turn to political correctness to define your position: <<The Church has done us a disservice by not differentiating behaviour that is rightly illegal in common society, based on harm done to others, from loving acts between same sex attracted couples. It has alienated those who have experienced genuine marital breakdown and who want to make a new life.>>

You go further: <<It is impossible for the Church to maintain its position on sexual acts now that the sexual activities of priests towards minors and the concentration of same sex attracted men at the highest offices of the Vatican has been revealed.>>

I find the behaviour of the priests to be despicable. Your call for the Church to change its position on sexual acts is like calling for me to stop eating tomatoes because I found some rotten ones in the bag.

When will you take a strong stand in support of the teaching of Scripture over PC?

The biblical position will not change, in spite of Sells' promotion of a PC view.

Scripture shows how hollow your view is before God: 'Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God' (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Cor+6%3A9-11&version=NIVUK

Deputy
I like the idea of soft places in the church for people to land. As an Anglican I have no argument with the structures even though I have suffered under them. I found that the Uniting Church that went with a flat structure of interlocking councils meant that no one was really in charge, and I suffered from that system as well. Bishops can be inept, councils subject to group think, so take your pick.
Peter

Not-Now.Soon,
I totally agree with you. We certainly should help the drug addicted, thieves,, adulterors etc not to continue their destructive behaviour. However, we are in a new place as regards the same sex oriented. We have found sexual orientation is deeply embedded within the human psyche and cannot be "cured". The church is quite right to walk a different path to that outlined in scripture when loving same sex practice and relationships are concerned, just as we do on some gruesome OT texts that recommend stoning of sinners. Content is all in this. In NT times innate same sex orientation was not recognised and was interpreted as against the will of God because it subverted his creation. We now know that the same sex attracted can live in loving and creative partnership and that to deprive them of that would condemn them to lives of loneliness and frustration. They would live incomplete lives.
Good to hear from you.
Peter

OzSpen,
I take exception to your suggestion that I cling to PC rather than scripture. The difference between us is not between scripture and PC but our different ways of interpreting scripture. For my part, you cannot simply import the moral dispositions from scripture into our time. You certainly do not do that but only cherry pick the verses you think support your case. If you read Damascus you will find out what the ancient world, Judaism included, prescribed for so called sinners.

To Sells.

It's good to hear from you too. Hope you're doing well.

Look at homosexuality from a different angle instead of about it being a sin like stealing is a sin. Because I don't think we're going to agree with eachother on that. Instead regardless of it being a sin or not, and regardless if it can be cured, homosexuality still has issues. Some both glaringly bad, and equally ignored. I'd compare it to poverty or alcoholism in this way, because both of those have church support to help out. Either to get out of the negative atmosphere (such as AA trying to help people walk away from their drinking issues), or in general trying to help those in need that can't get out of their situation so easily, (such as homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and food donations for the poor).

With homosexuality though there are four glaring issues to look at. Health, because people are not made that way so disease and cancer are much more common among active homosexuals. Domestic abuse, because that too is more common among homosexuals, perhaps programs like the ones to protect battered wives and to help them to not return to the same abusive relationships. And last is both the atmosphere of drugs and casual sex. Both of those should be recognized for the harms they do and how they aren't supported in the bible. If there was a focus on seeking secure and healthy relationships within homosexual communities, instead of open relationship (even among married homosexuals), then that would be a start. But if there was more out there to actively fight drug use and drug culture in homosexual groups then that would be a huge element to show kindness.

With most of these issues, an attitude of absence and accept loneliness, is better then trying over and over again getting into a unhealthy relationship, hoping this time it will be better.

If the church looks at homosexuality and tries to welcome them, then it should do so with a compassionate motivation instead of just a blanket acceptance of the lifestyle.

Sells,

<<I take exception to your suggestion that I cling to PC rather than scripture. The difference between us is not between scripture and PC but our different ways of interpreting scripture. For my part, you cannot simply import the moral dispositions from scripture into our time.>>

Please show me where the Scriptures support homosexual marriage. Or, are you saying that the postmodern, PC worldview is more harmonious with today's society than biblical Christianity?

'For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.'

Could not be much clearer

Peter,

<<It is impossible for the Church to maintain its position on sexual acts now that the sexual activities of priests towards minors and the concentration of same sex attracted men at the highest offices of the Vatican has been revealed.>>

Following your approach, it would be impossible for me to support the supermarket that supplied me with rotten potatoes in the bag. Yours is nonsense reasoning. Bad apples do not make for a rotten crop.

<<For my part, you cannot simply import the moral dispositions from scripture into our time. You certainly do not do that but only cherry pick the verses you think support your case.>>

Since Golgotha, we are under the New Covenant and the moral strictures for the nation of Israel were under the Old Covenant / Old Testament.

If you dispose of 'moral dispositions' from the New Testament, please tell if where I will be or not be one minute after my last breath.

runner,

<<For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting....>>

That passage from Romans 1 could not be clearer but perhaps Sells would say to you what he said to me: <<you cannot simply import the moral dispositions from scripture into our time. You certainly do not do that but only cherry pick the verses you think support your case>>.

What do you and I do with our interpretation of the New Testament? I trust that we both take the whole of the NT seriously and do not cherry pick verses.

This morning I listened to a live-streamed Christian message from a Qld church where the preacher found plenty of applications for today from the Book of Joshua, without saying God was obliged to repeat what he did for Joshua.

ozspen

'That passage from Romans 1 could not be clearer but perhaps Sells would say to you what he said to me: <<you cannot simply import the moral dispositions from scripture into our time. You certainly do not do that but only cherry pick the verses you think support your case>>.'

Yes Ozspen. Sells raises the topic and choosing the scriptures that relate to that topic is hardly cherry picking as you know.

What do you and I do with our interpretation of the New Testament? I trust that we both take the whole of the NT seriously and do not cherry pick verses. '

I agree Ozspen. It's not what we don't know that is a problem , its what we do know which is a challenge to do what is written clearly for all to see.

I really don't know why people like Sells bothers when it is clear they are intent on twisting Scripture to suite their ideology rather than the other way around.