Men in Dresses

Why Presbyterians Have A Healthier Holier More Biblically Accurate Understanding of Human Sexuality and People Should Not Listen To Men In Dresses on the Issue of Anything having to do with it.
WHEN MEN IN DRESSES MAKE THE RULES [AND YOU WONDER WHY WE WANT A WOMAN PRESIDENT?]

When Celibate Men in Dresses and long white doilies Make the Rules an attractive female is an enemy whom they are free to kill, demean and insult so long as their version of their personal piety is preserved- be damned to the attractive female for existing-if she is a temptation you don't even need to talk to her to kill her off first. Convince her that her greatest value and greatest joy is in not even thinking about a man as a man. When Men in Dresses and long white doilies Make the Rules the Books and Songs of Solomon don't exist. Neither do any and all of the statutory scriptures regarding gender of which there are many. When Men in Dresses and Long white doilies Make the Rules, an attractive woman is perceived as only a threat and intrinsically unvirtious and must be disposed of. Men in Dresses think the words "Joy" and "Marital" are oxymorons.
When Men in Dresses Make the Rules holiness excludes any version of love that involves anything resembling taking care of another woman's emotional needs by any Man in a Dress- so don't even look there for that. They will in some cases run over your emotions like a Mack Truck over a wayward squirrel. In fact a woman's emotional needs are fair game for full manipulation by Men in Dresses when Men in Dresses Make the Rules. When Men in Dresses Make the Rules anything that evokes sex with anything other than another man's or boy's genitals is pure evil, while anything having to do with another man's or boy's genitals gets investigated-for a long time sympathetically-in more or less every State (because after all....they all more or less experimented and that is no big deal- face it-the Vatican is still investigating the Monsignor in the Vatican who didn't see anything perverse about hitting on a guy-a culture with about a 2 Billion dollar tab in the US for not so secret settlements).
When Men in Dresses Make the Rules, female emotion is per se dangerous and to be crushed. If crushing won't work, ridiculous stern condescending lectures on equating female virtue with the suppression of every female emotion as a condition of receiving communion is permitted. If threats of excommunication and banishment won't work, provide ridiculous stern condescending lectures by Men in Dresses with no clue about anything to do with women regarding the need for women to marshall and contain their emotions so as to not tempt any Man in a Dress with that ill advised state of being verging on falling in love which may send a man in a dress reeling into the romantic world of desire. That is not permitted because, remember, the Songs of Solomon don't exist. Attraction is a state of siege as opposed to something healthy. (Some men in dresses feel safest with women with figures like 15 year old boys for a reason; hysterectomied ones or long post-menopausal ones are also emotionally less risky because they are emotionally half dead already anyway or at least won't want children because under this perverse view wanting children is evil.) Married ones can keep a safe distance and rich widows are the best prey. Men in Dresses have a perverse view that reaching God means stepping on women because they don't count for anything but counting tithes.
When Men in Dresses Make the Rules only neutered females who have sworn off all sex for all time can get near them, and hopefully with hair fully covered under black cloth just so they won't think their hair smells nice. They must devote themselves to being sexless. When Men in Dresses Make the Rules only Sexlessness is Holy. Good deeds count for much less. Healing the sick, feeding the hungry, visiting prisons, sheltering the homeless are irrelevant if you lack the "virtue" of not cursing yourself and others into celibate barrenness.
When Men in Dresses emotionally manipulate women to hook many of them for financial gain when they have no intention of honoring any of them, certainly will never emotionally or financially support them, it's OK-clever even-- not what Presbyterians think: that it's evil and dishonorable and that Men in Dresses have committed the most hateful, misogynist hurtful insulting rude ignorant offenses against women in the interest of preserving their version of personal piety for purely selfish misguided unbiblical reasons that totally misunderstand the nature of Jesus the Lord, are devoid of basic Christian care, violate the commandment to LOVE one's neighbor and do unto them as one would like to be done unto and completely and profoundly disrespect women.
You insult my intelligence and slander my faith.
I am this close to turning in my Catholic Card and signing the Presbyterian Pledge unless you boys in black get your act together and start really reading scripture....at least as much as we emotional women do.
GROW THE F UP -you sick twisted men more evil than Pharisees.
MEN IN DRESSES ARE OFTEN JUST COWARDS HIDING WHO HATE WOMEN.
THEY HAVE ZERO STANDING OR AUTHORITY TO LECTURE WOMEN ON VIRTUE. The only thing more offensive than a Dominican lecturing women on Virtue is that any woman would sit there for more than five minutes and listen to it.
They have cursed women into barrenness under the false teaching that it is holiness. And to those Priests who have abused or SLANDERED good women by calling them or thinking them unvirtuous I say- go to Hell, go directly to Hell, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. And PLEASE do not shove a Eucharist communion wafer in my hand because I will throw it back in your face. I am not in communion with such ignorant evil misogynist stupid men. Please keep them all locked up at the Dominican House where they can all play with each other there.

Keep making up crap and calling it voce diem, solo verbum or post scriptura or non-solo scriptura or whatever else you want to call the fact that you are violating scripture and God's laws and spitting in God's face and hurting people by violating his commandments to Love neighbor and be fruitful and multiply. Keep ignoring God's law that he created man and woman in his image to put them together because there is no other suitable helpmate for a man than a woman. Keep just killing off all the problematic single women who inspire any desire and keep all the old and fat ones and ones that drank the Kool-Aid. Keep ignoring that for this reason a man is supposed to leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife. Keep minimizing that God stated directly through apostles and prophets that Bishops and Deacons had to be married to one woman with a household and children in order as opposed to them doing each other. Keep thumbing your nose at God and see if he doesn't land you square in Hell faster than you can say "Lazarus Save Me." Keep spreading lies, slander and gossip about attractive women calling them not holy or not virtuous because your Mother was too strict with you or emotionally bonded inappropriately with you and so you hate all women, and hide in a dress. Keep pretending you are holy because you wear a dress when you are whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones who completely lack love and don't practice a word of what you preach. You insult my intelligence. Let me say it again in the event you didn't hear me the first time: Go to Hell, Go directly to Hell, Do not Pass Go, Do not Collect $200.

If you want to come into my Confessional, make an appointment.

AND DOMINICANS THINK WOMEN NEED "FORMATION"?? DRINK YOUR OWN DAMNED KOOL-AID-
Sexual Abuse News
Priests' troubled pasts led here

A defrocked priest described in a Philadelphia grand-jury report as a man of "unrelenting depravity" for his sexual abuse of children lives in Central Florida.He can reside here without registering as a sex offender because the statute of limitations ran out and he was never charged criminally.Nicholas Cudemo, a former Philadelphia priest who is now 70, was described by a clergy superior as "one of the sickest people I ever knew" in a 2005 Philadelphia grand-jury report on clergy sex abuse. He has owned a house in southwest Orange County since 1989 but is not currently ministering here, Cudemo said this month.The grand-jury probe -- a three-year investigation that did not result in indictments -- found that Cudemo's dozen documented victims included an 11-year-old girl he raped and took to have an abortion when she was a teenager. Cudemo also was accused of molesting a fifth-grade girl in the confessional and facilitating a gang rape with other priests.The report said Cudemo -- and dozens of other priests -- could not be criminally charged because the statute of limitations had run out. "Unfortunately, the law currently stands in the way of justice for the victims of childhood sexual abuse," it said.Another defrocked Philadelphia priest accused of molesting seven boys while on a trip to Walt Disney World in the 1980s stirred concern in an Orange County community where he owned a home from 1993 to 1999. As recently as 2006, Stanley Gana, now 64, spent nine months in Orlando with a longtime friend who was unaware of the grand jury's findings.Gana's ties to Florida emerged in June, in a deposition connected to a civil suit against the Diocese of Orlando.Over time, the U.S. church has paid an estimated $2 billion to settle clergy-abuse litigation. Since 1968 when the Diocese of Orlando was formed, more than a dozen priests have been accused of sexually abusing minors, and the diocese has paid at least $5 million to victims.Orlando Bishop Thomas Wenski said in a written statement: "The Diocese of Orlando cooperates fully with law enforcement to aggressively safeguard vulnerable populations when presented with any allegation of abuse."Some within the Catholic Church maintain that not enough has been done to protect the public from abusive priests."When they're not charged criminally, there's no way to get them on a sex-offenders list or registry," said the Rev. Tom Doyle, a Catholic priest and co-author of Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes: The Catholic Church's 2,000-Year Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse. "What you're dealing with here is an issue of public safety and the safety of children."Mary Gail Frawley-O'Dea, author of Perversion of Power: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church, suggests the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops create a registry that lists, by diocese, the estimated 700 priests who have been removed from ministry after charges of sexual abuse or impropriety, and include their last-known addresses."A lot of them are getting retirement checks, so the church should know where they are," said Frawley-O'Dea, a Charlotte, N.C., psychologist and trauma specialist.Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger, of Evansville, Ind., suggested just such a registry at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops meeting in Dallas in 2002. But the proposal went nowhere.A long historyBoth Cudemo and Gana have a long history in Central Florida.Cudemo began bringing girls and young women to Florida for extended vacations in the late 1970s, according to the grand-jury report.An accumulation of sexual-misconduct accusations and at least one civil suit, alleging that he sexually abused a young female relative, prompted Philadelphia church officials to remove him from active ministry in the early 1990s. In 1994, the priest asked the Archdiocese of Philadelphia to reinstate him so he could minister in Central Florida, where he was spending more time.In early 1995, the archdiocese turned him down, "at least until the resolution of civil litigation."The civil litigation was dropped because the statute of limitations had run out, according to the grand-jury report. Cudemo was briefly reinstated but within months new abuse charges were made, and he was forced into retirement in June 1996.With a certificate of "good standing" from the Philadelphia archdiocese, Cudemo was free to act as any retired priest in Florida. On Feb. 12, 1999, Cudemo wrote the vicar of priests in the Diocese of Orlando, requesting permission to minister here.The Diocese of Orlando said it has no record or recollection of Cudemo's request, but, according to the Philadelphia grand-jury report, church officials here "had been reluctant to allow the priest to minister in that diocese."In response, Cudemo wrote: "Father, there is something that puzzles me. I have served for 21/2 years since being reinstated and continue to service in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia (and in some cases in the very area where my accusers reside) . . ."Cudemo was ultimately defrocked in March 2005, six months before the grand jury's findings were released.Reached by telephone this month, Cudemo said he is not currently engaged in ministry and spends most of his time caring for two aged relatives. "That's all I have to say," he said.Accumulation of charges Gana, according to a Pennsylvania grand-jury report, raped and "sexually abused countless boys in a succession of Philadelphia Archdiocese parishes" starting in the 1970s and continuing through the 1990s.After an accumulation of charges and several transfers to unsuspecting parishes, Gana began treatment Feb. 4, 1996, at a church-affiliated, sexual-abuse facility in Toronto. A month later, Gana walked away from the facility, took a taxi to the airport and flew to Orlando, according to the grand-jury report.Within two weeks of his arrival here, Sister Lucy Vazquez, then serving as chancellor of the Orlando Diocese, heard that Gana's presence in a west Orange County neighborhood was raising concerns, documents in the grand-jury report show. His neighbors on Calathea Drive called their priest, the Rev. Andrew O'Reilly, to report that a visiting priest from Philadelphia was living with a group of older teenage boys and young men.On March 16, Vazquez called Monsignor Michael McCulken of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, according to a memo McCulken wrote at the time, which was included in the grand-jury transcript."Sister Lucy noted that the diocese had recently experienced some cases of sexual abuse that were highly publicized and they were sensitive about such issues. They do not want any adverse publicity," McCulken's memo said.McCulken told Vazquez that Gana had resigned from his parish, gone to the hospital and then left the hospital without permission. However, McCulken's memo did not say whether he informed Vazquez of the charges of sexual abuse made against Gana.Vazquez denied any memory of the incident during a sworn deposition in an unrelated case. She said there were no files or documents at the diocese that would clarify the issue."I do not remember this call," she said in the June deposition in Orlando. "But we would always, if there was a credible allegation of child sexual abuse, we would report it to law enforcement . . ."Bishop Wenski said in the situation involving Stanley Gana in 1996, "we had no knowledge of an allegation of any wrongdoing or sexual misconduct." He added there was nothing more the diocese could have done.The Orange County Sheriff's Office has no record of any complaints or calls regarding Gana or his address in 1996.Gana eventually was removed from active ministry in 2002, after the highly publicized Boston sex-abuse scandal. Under pressure in 2005, he agreed to live "a supervised life of prayer and penance" in Philadelphia.Gana acknowledged to diocesan officials that he had paid a financial settlement to at least one of his victims, according to the report.After his removal from the active priesthood, Gana returned to Central Florida. From November 2005 through July 2006, he stayed with a longtime friend, Judith Seaman, who lives on the edge of Pine Hills, in unincorporated Orange County. During that time he was officially defrocked.Seaman said she knew nothing about the charges against Gana, and was shocked to hear them."There's no way I've seen any of that stuff," said Seaman, 66. "Absolutely none."
By: Mark Pinsky ,Orlando Sentinel

.....................................

One Organization's Views: Celibacy as Institutional Disease:
The History of Catholic Celibacy Priests had many concubines - too costly for the Church
The idea of Catholic celibacy is especially foolish when you realize the reason behind it. Before the middle ages it was allowable for Catholic priests to have multiple wives and mistresses (concubines). But with concerns for protecting Church property from inheritance Pope Pelagius I made new priests agree offspring could not inherit Church property. Pope Gregory then declared all sons of priests illegitimate (only sons since lowly daughters could never inherit anyway in society). In 1022 Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages and mistresses for priests and in 1139 Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives. This had nothing to do with morality, multiple women for males had long been the norm since before biblical times, but it was about MONEY. In biblical times many wives, concubines and breeders was common and never spoken against other than by Paul to the Elders of Timothy and Titus. In the Tanakh, Jewish priests suggest 4 wives was probably about the right number.The whole celibacy nonsense was also the result of middle age gnostic influences that false taught that the body was dirty and not spiritual and to be more spiritual you had to avoid natural sexuality.
Celibacy May Be More A Disease Than A Blessing
Someone who wants to be celibate may be showing a deeper emotional issue that needs to be dealt with. Celibacy may be more of a disease than a blessing - we are not created to be celibate. It seems to me that only someone quite immature would want to exclude one of the most powerful ways of sharing loving intimacy. If someone chooses celibacy it may be due to lack of self-esteem, performance anxiety, or religious false teachings based on shame based, sex negative tradition rather than true scriptural sexuality. .. By far the group that has the highest rate of HIV infection of any occupation is Catholic priests from gay relationships. It is logical that many gay men would choose the priesthood in an attempt to deny their natural sexual orientation. Eventually, with celibacy being so unnatural regardless if one is born heterosexual, homosexual or bi, few can remain celibate... [some consider whatever they do with fellow priests as not a violation or breach of any vow or notion of strict celebacy which they view strictly in heterosexual liason terms.]
Resources:From HISTORY OF MONOGAMY (very interesting other information)http://www.patriarchywebsite.com/monogamy/mono-history.htm CATHOLIC PRIESTS WERE MONOGAMOUS AND POLYGAMOUS BUT MADE CELIBATE Due to the widespread illiteracy of the scriptures, especially that of the Gentile believers who were totally ignorant of the Torah, whatever the Catholic priests said were considered as God’s Law and divine truths. One area of total distortion was that of marital relationship. Surprising to almost all of us, it was common for Catholic priests to have multiple wives and mistresses. In 726AD, it was acceptable for a man with a sick wife to take a second wife so long as he looked after the first one. With concerns for protecting Church property from inheritance however, offspring could not inherit church property and it was later declared that all sons of priests were illegitimate. In 1022, Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages for priests (monogamous or polygamous). Finally in 1139, Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives. All these were done to possess and protect money and church property. Making polygamy a sin and marriage unacceptable for a priest was a slow and purposeful process.http://www.natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives/041202/041202s.htm
The rich, the thoughtful ones who understood that their earthly goods were barriers to heaven, were delighted to hand over chunks of wealth to the priests and bishops as a down payment on easier transmission from one place to the next. (The soul’s equivalent, the wealthy presumed, of time-sharing a jet instead of having to stand in line at a purgatorial Southwest counter.)Not only were priests and bishops becoming wealthier, they were becoming worldier. Many were married, others just had “open marriages” -- concubines. Worse than that -- in the church’s eyes -- the priests and bishops begetting sons regarded the endowments being made to the church as personal property. So the same rollicking clerics were setting themselves up as landed gentry and passing the fortunes along to their primogenitor sons and heirs.In the 11th century, five popes in a row said: “Enough already.” Then came tough Gregory VII. He overreacted. He told married priests they couldn’t say Mass, and ordered the laity not to attend Masses said by married priests and naughty priests. The obvious happened. Members of the laity soon were complaining they had nowhere to go to Mass.The edict was softened a bit to allow Mass-going. As usual, the women were blamed. Concubines were ordered scourged. Effectively though, the idea of priestly celibacy was in -- though not universally welcomed among the clerics themselves. And handing over church money to sons of priests and bishops was out.The early, reforming religious orders, Franciscans and Dominicans, were scandalized by the licentious priests. And that’s the point -- it was the concubinage scandal and money, not the marriage that was at issue.
Indeed, at two 15th-century church councils, serious proposals were made to reintroduce clerical marriage.These proposals were fought back -- how modern it all seems -- by a group of ultra-orthodox church leaders (for whom marriage was probably too late a possibility anyway) because they’d come up with a better idea. They’d started to give out the impression that celibacy was of apostolic origin -- that it had been built in at the beginning.That’s power. Reinvent history.From Glimpses of Church History http://www.goacom.com/overseas-digest/Archives%202/history%206.html (8/06 unfortunately link now dead) Pope Gregory VII is held in high regard by Catholics because of his ascetic ways and for disciplining the clergy (most took bribes and kept mistresses). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09017a.htm
Second Lateran Council (1139)Innocent, in the month of April, 1139, convoked, at the Lateran, the tenth ecumenical council. Nearly a thousand prelates, from most of the Christian nations, assisted. ...the council drew up measures for the amendment of ecclesiastical morals and discipline that had grown lax during the schism. Twenty-eight canons pertinent to these matters reproduced in great part the decrees of the Council of Reims, in 1131, and the Council of Clermont, in 1130, whose enactments, frequently cited since then under the name of the Lateran Council, acquired thereby increase of authority. Canons 6, 7, 11: Condemnation and repression of marriage and concubinage among priests, deacons, subdeacons, monks, and nuns. http://www.polygamy.50megs.com/articles/polygamyoutline.html (8/06 unfortunately link now dead)Gives extensive details and history Back To Liberated Christians Main Menu Page

THE HERESY: CELIBACY AND ASCETICISM PROPAGATED AS HOLINESS
Backing up this hidden agenda, was an anti-human Greek doctrine concocted from the pit of hell by the hatred of Satan, manifested as holiness against all human nature and passions. It is called asceticism; the paganistic teaching that to be spiritual is to be poor, thus sex and all human passions would have to be denied for the highest fulfillment found only in monastic lifestyle. This distorted view of human passions and sexuality put a terrible burden on the shoulders of all who wanted to be spiritual. Worse still, it became the root and the source of much more other lies and deception regarding holiness and marriage forms in the whole Christian world.
Celibacy was propagated as the new standard of high attainment in holiness. Sex was taken to be unclean and sinful. Marriages were painted, at best as being a necessary evil to guard against sexual sins such as fornication. Because of such a heathen belief, monks and nuns were considered holier and closer to God than anybody else, and priests would necessarily be celibates. Marriage was considered an activity of the flesh, if possible, to be avoided by those seeking spirituality. Thus monogamy would be tolerated as an acceptable norm among the "less spiritual" and polygamy would be condemned as an abomination. Clearly, Greek philosophy and Roman monogamy were in control of the entire Church. This prevailed in what is known as the Dark Ages of the Church.