Commentary
It's being reported by the News & Observer (of Raleigh, NC) that;
The newly elected president of the N.C. Council of Churches, Stan Kimer is typical of those who served before him: a retired business executive, longtime churchgoer and member of several nonprofit organization boards.
He's also openly gay.
According to Kimer's self-penned biography;
He [Kimer] currently resides in Raleigh, North Carolina with Rich, his partner of 19 years.
I would venture it a safe bet that Kimer is a proponent of the homosexual lifestyle. I'm also quite sure that he has rectified that with his particular brand of Christianity.
I'm also a big believer in Free Will. If Mr. Kimer so desires to legitimize and live the homosexual lifestyle, that's his business. Just like you and me, we all make choices and we have to live with the consequences.
But I digress, the same N&O article stated;
He cited the council's efforts to educate churches about immigration, obesity and disease, as well as about the need for diversity in public schools.
Doesn't the salvation of souls factor in there someplace? No mention of a certain Jewish guy who just celebrated a birthday? Oh... that's right. Churches are suppose to save societies, not souls. What was I thinking?
But if you happen to be curious if this lil' lash-up is a theological organization or a political one, here's another quite telling snippet from the N&O article;
Kimer anticipates tough battles ahead as the state legislature transfers power to Republican hands. The council promotes a left-leaning legislative agenda on immigration, health care, tax policy, guns and the death penalty.
Wow. A shock to, mmmmm.... no one.
Membership Has Its Disadvantages...
The overwhelming majority of members of the NC Council of Churches are Protestant communities. But there are two notable exceptions - both of the Catholic diocese (Raleigh and Charlotte) in this state are members of the NCCC. (Conspicuously missing from the membership list are our Sister Churches of the various Eastern Orthodox Churches, as well as the Southern Baptist Convention. Good for them.)
And not only are the only two diocese in this state members of this particularly hard-left leaning theological and political organization, Catholics are in positions of leadership and responsibility. Such as;
Second Vice-President: Ms. Alberta Hairston, Greensboro, NC (Catholic Diocese of Charlotte)
At-Large Members: Brother Bill Martyn, Cary, NC (Catholic Diocese of Raleigh)
Destruction From Within...
The N&O also pointed out that the election of Kimer;
...signals an acceptance among member denominations - Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians and Roman Catholics - that even if they have theological differences about homosexuality, they are OK with a gay man at the helm. Or at least, they don't see it as an issue worth fighting.
Personally, I could care less if Kimer was just elected president of the NCCC. If anything, congratulations to him. If the NCCC wants to elect him as their prez, that's their call. Like I said, I really don't care.
What I do care about is my Church giving an air of acceptance, respectability and legitimacy to 1.) a sexual inclination and 2.) a sexual act that the Church officially has deemed to be 1.) a grave moral disorder and 2.) intrinsically evil.
Those aren't my words, those are the words of the Catholic Church, no matter how hard many of the rebellious milquetoasts in Roman Collars lisp and hiss their disapproval at me.
I also find it interesting that WRAL.com (Raleigh, NC) has reported that;
Calls to spokesmen for the dioceses of Raleigh and Charlotte were not immediately returned Monday.
I can't help but wonder how much money both the Diocese of Charlotte and Raleigh contribute to the NCCC?
We were warned...
Yet again, what passes for leadership in the Catholic Church in the United States yet again ignore the Church-approved apparition and message that Jesus Christ sent His mother to give the world at Akita, Japan in 1973;
"The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres (other priests); churches and altars will be sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.
"The demon will be especially implacable against souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer pardon for them. - The Blessed Virgin Mary
If you like this article, please click on the SUBSCRIBE button above (it's free) to receive e-mail alerts when a new article is published by this Examiner, or click here to add Kevin's News Portal Page to your favorites.
Comments
Spot on article. Nice job focusing on the real issue, not the man's decision to live his lifestyle but the two diocese's legitimizing it. The church could use this as a teachable moment and bring this man back into communion with the church but instead they move him further down the road in the wrong direction.
To understand just how stupid this is just think if instead of this guys issue being homosexuallity he was an abortionist. How would the diocese view it? We know the NC Catholic would not care but I assure you the diocese would.
Will somebody please tell me what the “gay lifestyle is”? As a gay man, I go to work, hang out with friends and family, eat a couple of meals a day and worry that my stomach seems to be getting bigger. In other words, I’m doing exactly the same things my straight counterparts are doing.
What I find most amazing is that you actually have a problem with your church legitimizing humanity. I get that you want to cling to your dogma that homosexuality is somehow morally wrong, or evil, but you have no basis for it. How do we have a discussion when truth isn’t even allowed to participate in the debate?
Homosexuality is a product of evolution. That’s right, evolution. Whether or not you accept the premise of evolution doesn’t make it any less true. Let’s not forget that Copernicus and Galileo were soundly criticized by the church because they claimed the Earth revolved around the sun instead of the other way around.
I don’t think that you understand the significance of evolution (or more generally, biology) to this discussion. You say homosexuality is "un-natural," that humans choose out of some sort of evil motivation. The fact that sexual behavior with members of the same sex is common throughout the animal kingdom demonstrates that homosexuality is actually perfectly normal and natural. And evidence suggests that there are distinct advantages to species that engage in this sort of behavior. The argument that homosexuality is somehow "harmful" is demonstrably false.
Part II
I also find it reprehensible that Lot was considered moral even though he offered his two virgin daughters to be raped and savaged to save his two guests.
You seem to be supporting policies which categorically discriminate against gay people. Dehumanization is the process of categorically asserting the inferiority of an entire group of people, usually based on some sort of scapegoating, stereotyping or discriminatory motivations. In this case, you are asserting that all gay people are inferior based on the religiously-motivated stereotype that being gay is "sinful."
This is where this issue becomes dangerous. This is not a biblical issue and it should never be treated as such. This is not an issue of morality, and it should never be treated as such. This is an issue of human sexuality. Just because you believe that one aspect of human development is harmful and damaging, the reality is… that’s just your belief and it is not supported by nature, by physics, or by science.
If you cannot provide an objective criticism of homosexuality that doesn't involve the inherently subjective and circular argument that "the bible says so," then your opposition is irrational and your denigration of all gay people is unjustified and dehumanizing.
Regardless of your long winded response, you obviously don't understand "Those aren't my words, those are the words of the Catholic Church".
You (again obviously) don't understand the basic mechanics of the human body. Allow me to be the first to tell you this, Ben... sloshing one's penis about in another man's feces filled colon is far from normal.
If you can't figure out that basic bit of human physiology, then (yet again) obviously, I'm not the one with the problem of understanding what the definition of "normal" is.
Have a nice day.
Part II
Ben, you aren't going to get a platform here for disseminating your POV.
I've already made it abundantly clear that I am not launching into a tirade about Kimer choosing to live the homosexual lifestyle. I've also made it abundantly clear that I support my Church's teaching on homosexuality.
That obviously doesn't sit well with you.
If you don't like it... that's just too bad. Last time I checked, there were certain freedoms we are guarenteed as Americans. Speech and Religion being two of them.
Nonetheless, you have made you position ever so clear. Like I said, you will absolutely not be given a platform here.
Any further comments by you will be unread and automatically deleted.
If you so choose to advocate for the homosexual lifestyle, please feel free to open your own Examiner account.
Have a happy day.
Kevin,
I too support freedom of speech.
However, I do not support freedom of stupidity.
If you have an opinon, that is great. I love it. However, if you CANNOT logically validate your opinon, then I'm afraid it's utter tripe, and your opinon deserves to be harrangued for all the idiocy that it is.
Despite your cowardly hiding behind your church, the fact is YOU AGREE that homosexuality is "unnatural" - how, exactly, is it any more "unnatural" than, for example, scubadiving? Than flying? than driving 300 km/hr? than wearing cheap polyester shirts?
Your opinion is logically indefensible. sorry. THEREFORE, your opinon is utter rubbish. THIS conclusion is not actually MY opinion, it is a logically defensible point. It's not MY point, it follows naturally from the rules of logic.
The same rules of logic that gave YOU medicine, agriculture, food, heating, warmth.. and internet where you spread your rediculous, indefensible inanities.
Hi - Stan Kimer here, who this discussion is about. I do not plan on entering into a debate but for fairness do want to factually clarify the miselading headline. As president of the NC Council of Churches the Catholic Dioceses do not "answer to me." It is a collaborative organization where I lead discussion among the members . . . no member "reports" to me or "answers" to me as the headline implies.
Stan,
As the News & Observer states, you are the man "at the helm".
Am I to understand that as the president of this organization, you have no authority? Do you call meetings, set agendas, set both long and short term goals, responsible for anything at all?
I would also like to clarify that this discussion is not "about" you. What it is about, is if the two diocese in question should be members of an organization that is both politically and theologically leftist.
Some, of which I consider myself as one, who would consider many of the stances of the NCCC not only to be non-Catholic, but anti-Catholic.
But I do thank you for your comments.
Yes I can call meetings, set the agenda with the exec director, etc, but I believe in the biblical concept of collaborative servant leadership, not thinking others should report to me or unilaterally setting an agenda or lording over others. My role is one of leading a collaborative process where we work hard to reach consensus and listen to each other with open hearts and minds, and seek direction from the Holy Spirit.
Yes, on a few issues there may be areas of disagreement but overwhelmingly in our work the Council and Catholic Dioceses are aligned.
I believe we have a disagreement as to what "answer" means in the context of your presidency of this particular organization.
Yet again, I thank you for your comments
Stan, I should have added this earlier, but I'm sure you noticed that there is a question mark in the title. I leave it up to the reader to determine for themselves if the two diocese in question answer to the president of the NCCC in any way, shape or form.
Kevin, I'm just chuckling at your resonses to Stan.
Stan has told you exactly what he does, and does not do. The confusion is obviously not on his behalf, but on yours.
What makes me chuckle is that you are actually haggling the point with the man - as if he doesn't know what his own job is - but you do.
"I leave it up to the reader to determine for themselves if the two diocese in question answer to the president of the NCCC in any way, shape or form"
It's not up to the reader in ANY way, shape or form. The relationship between the diocese and the NCCC is established, and you've been told what it is. The fact that you ignore what you've been told, or claim that it's deliberately left undefined in your blog title is, in fact, entirely irrelevant.
Man up, and bow to fact when you're corrected kevin, bleating on and pretending you've not actually made a mistake is simultaneously amusing, and utterly disingenuous on your behalf - in ALL ways, shapes and forms.
enjoy!
Greetings all:
To address some of Ben's comments:
To state that the Church has no basis for it's teaching on homosexuality is not factual; it is Ben's opinion. Not only that, but the teaching can be traced back to it's Jewish roots, and, I would argue like St. Paul, further back to the (eternal and immutable) Divine Law (for more info google "Divine Law" "Catholic")
Ben's argument from "nature" is flawed. One reason is because if we are going to look to the animal kingdom for what is permissible and what is not, and we are going to be logically consistant, then there should be no problem with eating one's own young, right? I don't think so. Ben's argument doesn't take into mind the Catholic viewpoint that Creation is good, but that also death entered the world through sin and now evereything is not the way it should be (thank God for his intervention in sending Christ to detsroy the works of the devil.)
Also, his complaint that we can't have a debate when truth isn't allowed to enter could be echoed by the Catholic, but what would that do? Does this prove something? His a priori assumption of [Darwinian and macro] evolution is a logical fallacy because it puts the cart before the horse. Then it almost seems like he is poisoning the well with the comment: "That’s right, evolution. Whether or not you accept the premise of evolution doesn’t make it any less true."
continued...
I know this is only part I, but well said, Nick!
I'll take up these points.
The problem, nicholas, is the lack of a definition of "natural".
So, I urge you to supply one.
Please do so, if you do not, I will continue with the working assumption that "natural" means "that which is observed to occur without human interverntion". does that sound okay? Please correct me otherwise.
This means that yes, eating one's young IS natural - i.e. it happens in nature. As for WHY it happens, there are very good reasons for it - clearly you're not up to speed on why it happens, but I suggest you find out.
The question then remains - "do humans have to do ALL natural things"?
the answer, of course, is no. We don't for example, fly - FLYING is a Natural occurance - however it is NOT NATURAL for humans to fly - yet fly we do.
The point is, you are confused about what "natural" means, and how that applies to human behavior. Define these, and you'll have point. So far, you're just babbling disingenuous dogma.
It is clear that Ben is working with his own "dogmas" and a priori assumptions.
Ben says that it is not a Biblical issue. I agree to the extant that it's not *only* a Biblical issue. For the Catholic, the three Sacred Scripture (the Bible), Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church are absolutely clear on the issue.
Furthermore (PARENTAL GUIDANCE ADVISED),
To address specifically the male homosexual act (not that the Church or I for that matter do not condemn the female homosexual act as well) :
if the homosexual act is carried out to climax on the part of one or both people, we have the teaching that one is not to waste their seed.
To quote St. Clement of Alexandria:
"Because of its divine institution for the propogation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted [Instructor of Children 2:I0:9I:2 (c. A.D. 197)].
"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature [ibid., 2:I0:95:3]." (Akin, Jimmy, "The Fathers Know Best", Catholic Answers. San Diego: 2010. Page 238.)
It should go without saying, that also (specifically) condemned in these passages would be the following: contaception, masturbation, bestiality, and both the male and female homosexual acts.)
Along the lines of what you stated about how in nature it's not rare to see animals eating thier young, it's also not unusual *in nature* to see animals deficate where they eat, as well as actually eating fecal matter and vomit.
By Ben's logic, human beings should do the same.
kevin, again you're conflating "natural" with "obligation".
your claim is that homosexuality is unnatural. This is actually a lie. Homosexuality occurs in nature all the time.
Therefore, this point is invalid.
It makes no difference if animals eat their young or not, it's irrelevant. The fact remains that "homosexuality is unnatural" is an incorrect, and invalid statement. Do you understand this point?
REGARDLESS of your agreement of the acts, the statement is STILL FACTUALLY INCORRECT.
now, should humans eat their young? of course not, because we don't have the same ecological pressures as lions etc. We have medicine and so there is more to be lost than gained by eating our children. Stupid? sure, but you brought it up without knowing what you were talking about.
Find out WHY lions and other animals eat their young FIRST, then rant. Not the other way around.
Unfortunately, you can lead a fundie to knowledge, but you can't make them think
A liberal is someone who is so open minded, all their brains have fallen out.
Case in point: the above comment.
seriously juvenile quip kevin.
Ben's point is valid - you are raising points without thinking about them. you are making assertions without understanding their ramifications.
EVEN though you have been shown that your assumptions are incorrect, false, or disingenous, you still doggedly refuse to think about them.
This is what is described as dogma. You don't know what you're saying - not only do you NOT think about it, but you actually WON'T think about it. it's a trait you've been pummelled by since you cracked your first bible.
Now, kevin, I need you to do something for me.
I want you to define "natural".
Can you do it?
oh, bear in mind that humans fly, scubadive,, and we wear polyester and that we can very easily move in excess of 100km/hr. none of which were are we actually "naturally" able to do.....
now, I want to see if you can incriminate homosexuality on "not natural" grounds, and validate scubadiving.
Sounds simple? then do it.
enjoy!
"He cited ...the need for diversity in the public schools," which, of course, to him means teaching young, innocent, impressionable children that anal sex and other perversions are the equivalent of sexual relations within marriage.
Is that opposed to teaching young impressionable children that an angry jealous god will drown you if you don't "voluntarily" do everything he says?
AND that this same, baby-drowning god will let you suffer for eternity, without lifting a finger, simultaneously pretending to be "all loving"?
Is this opposed to teaching chlidren that they should apply logic, reason and basic commonsense.... except when blindly and illogically asserting that an all-powerful, angry and jealous god exists and will refuse to save you, even if you live a perfectly harmonious and loving life?
just checking.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!