10 Rules for Talking to Gays

[InSearchofGrace]

Michelle, it seems there is a continuing misunderstanding that chastisement and correction even when done in charity are not to be used in evangelizing to people who live the gay lifestyle, forgetting these too have scriptural basis and serve a high purpose as well. Your previous posts touched on this and it would be good to re-state it here.

[added bolded emphasis mine]
…
I would like to add something that is so frequently overlooked and ignored–every single person has a personality and a style and maybe even a mission. What is important as an area of apologetics to person A won’t be the same priority for person B. While person A has a gruff style, person B is sweetness and light. it doesn’t mean that that one is better than the other or one is wrong. I think it’s silly to expect us all to deal with the same situtation in the same way or to have the same effects.

re chastisement and correction

2 Tim 3:16

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

To imply that someone in this forum may be bludgeoning others or smashing heads, as you have just done, strikes me as uncharitable to the nth degree. Neither John nor I have done any such thing. So to whom are you referring? Are you referring to people who taunt homosexuals with their brokenness, or who actually punish them by smashing their heads and bludgeoning them, or even killing them?

I wasn’t accusing anyone of anything. I was speaking of general human tendencies. I don’t see an accusation against you or John or anyone, really, in what you quoted. If I had made such an accusation, it would, in fact, have been quite uncharitable.

I hope one day we can move past conversations that seem to run like:

A: Sometimes people can be cruel when they think they’re being loving.
B: Why are you accusing me of being cruel?

Ack.

The only part of your post that makes any sense is the following:

** Of course loving each other means correcting each other when we go astray …**

But then you had to go and spoil it with all that blah, blah, blah.

I’m glad some of it made sense before I ruined everything.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
VERO CRAS!

 

[Catholicpotato]

Some people certainly use immature tactics in debate, and like to twist a person’s words beyond recognition.

I said that I think I would have as much luck at converting a gay person by taking them to the abbey to listen to Gregorian chant, than I would being judgmental with them.

Think about that for a minute, and apply the three filters before you answer.

Neither method is likely to be particularly effective. But at least one of them is harmless.

immature? Well I can see why you don’t engage in any sort of conversion tactics. It isn’t immature, and it wasn’t meant as such. After your response I have to agree that FOR YOU the proper way to handle any sort of situation in which others do not share your worldview would be to take a passive approach lest you offend them by calling them names, thereby shutting the window of conversation.

I hope you talk to gays with more respect than you talk to fellow Catholics.

 

[OraLabora]

immature? Well I can see why you don’t engage in any sort of conversion tactics. It isn’t immature, and it wasn’t meant as such. After your response I have to agree that FOR YOU the proper way to handle any sort of situation in which others do not share your worldview would be to take a passive approach lest you offend them by calling them names, thereby shutting the window of conversation.

I hope you talk to gays with more respect than you talk to fellow Catholics.

Oh please don’t play the offended virgin; making fun of someone else’s post or viewpoint is hardly a useful debating tactic unless you’re running for office.

Oh, believe me, I too have eaten with many sinners: rapists, child molesters, thieves, drug dealers … even murderers. If you really want to get that log out of your eye, try out the prison ministry. The Benedictines will cheer you on.

When I eat with those sinners, I am eating humble pie. It will not taste good, but it’s good for you.

“I was in prison and you visited me.” Matthew 25:36

That’s very commendable; it’s not something I think I could ever do and I admire those who can.

But we’re talking working with hardened criminals vs talking to someone who could be in the next cubicle or assigned to work with you on your next project. Or your son or daughter. Or your neighbour, in a society that has managed to convince them that their sexuality is OK and OK to live to its limits.

 

[Catholicpotato]

Oh please don’t play the offended virgin; making fun of someone else’s post or viewpoint is hardly a useful debating tactic.

What would be a good debating tactic here? Please share.
Perhaps it is time to move on…
We are well aware of your view. time to move forward…

 

[OraLabora]

What would be a good debating tactic here? Please share.
Perhaps it is time to move on…
We are well aware of your view. time to move forward…

To engage the idea, propose alternatives, counter argue. I thought this was a serious debate. When I saw your reply I realized that I was wrong, so perhaps you’re right enough has been said.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I might still be willing to add a couple of things.

OraLabora:

Originally Posted by OraLabora
Some people certainly use immature tactics in debate, and like to twist a person’s words beyond recognition.

I said that I think I would have as much luck at converting a gay person by taking them to the abbey to listen to Gregorian chant, than I would being judgmental with them.

Think about that for a minute, and apply the three filters before you answer.

Neither method is likely to be particularly effective. But at least one of them is harmless.

immature? …

I hope you talk to gays with more respect than you talk to fellow Catholics.

It is misleading to say,

“ … I think I would have as much luck at converting a gay person by taking them to the abbey to listen to Gregorian chant, than I would being judgmental with them.”

… Misleading , because neither that poster , nor any of us would “have much luck at converting a gay person” at all, whether we took them to an abbey, had dinner with them, kissed their puppy and sent it a valentine, or even pretended to agree with everything they said. Only God can convert people. To think or express otherwise is an error.

I note that to make the point, the category conveniently shifts back to “a gay person” as opposed to someone “engaged in an active homosexual lifestyle” and the accusation of “being judgmental with them” gets inserted in place of* our obligation to judge the moral character of a particular situation*…changes the look of things – a good reminder perhaps why we shouldn’t relinquish the exact, precise terms of our argumentation to anyone – whatever their sexual preference.

The above alone, makes rule # 3 extremely impractical. Moreover, if we scratch beneath the surface, you’ll find that the *Rule # 3 mentality * is exactly what has been pushed on Human Rights Tribunals, judges and politicians resulting in some of the most slanted versions of (ahem) rights which have ever existed in my country and others and which continues to persecute many believing Christians. It gives homosexuals more rights than others.
The OP:

1. Agree to their terms: Truth is not a language game. If what you’re saying is true, you should be able to express it in any language. Insisting on terms like “homosexual inclination,” “lifestyle,” or “nature” (in the natural law sense) is basically a fancy form of begging the question. It’s good and right in theological documents from the Vatican, for the Bishops, but it is bad practice in practical evangelism. Figure out how to word your argument using their language, or neutral language that is not contested

Furthermore, it needs to be pointed out that after one more review of Father John Hardon’s definition of homosexuality from his **Modern Catholic Dictionary **
Modern Catholic Dictionary ; Father John Hardon:

HOMOSEXUALITY. In general, some form of sexual relationship among members of the same sex. From a moral standpoint, three levels are to be distinguished: tendency, attraction, and activity. Homosexual tendencies in any person are within the normal range of human nature, whose fallen condition includes every conceivable kind of impulse that with sincere effort and divine grace can be controlled. Sexual attraction for members of the same sex may be partly due to the peculiar make-up of certain individuals or, more often, the result of indiscretion or seduction and presents a graver problem; yet this, too, is not by itself sinful and may in fact be an occasion for great supernatural merit. When the condition is pathological, it requires therapy. Active homosexuality is morally indefensible and has been many times forbidden in revelation and the teaching of the Church. The most extensive declaration on the subject was by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by Pope Paul VI on November 7, 1975.

Rule # 3 directly interferes with it :

Father Hardon says we must differentiate between

• a) homosexual tendency
• b) homosexual attraction
• c) Active homosexual lifestyle ,

but rule # 3 answers to a) & b) : not to use terms such as “homosexual inclination” ;
and answers to c) : not to use terms such as “homosexual lifestyle”

Now if these terms had been meant exclusively for the “Vatican and for Bishops” , Father Hardon wouldn’t have deemed it necessary to put them in the Modern Catholic Dictionary so that everyone could understand them.

Clear language expresses clear ideas . Ambiguous language is breeding ground for prevarications, equivocations and their cousin – abstract arguments.

I can’t believe some of our members actually bought into this stuff.:doh2:

I think I have to start grabbing my Rosary much more often than I grab my keyboard and mouse.:yup:

 

[michelleds]

I think I have to start grabbing my Rosary much more often than I grab my keyboard and mouse.:yup:

I’m beginning to think the same thing.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Everyone should always notice that the word “sodomy” is always absent in these discussions. That is at the heart of the homosexual lifestyle. It is sodomy that is the elephant in the room that some people pretend not to see, the elephant on a rampage both in the homosexual and heterosexual community.

Sodomy should not be treated as the elephant in the room that nobody wants to see.

It is evil and sick. Either or both. Stop pretending it is just a log in your eye.

 

[OraLabora]

“ … I think I would have as much luck at converting a gay person by taking them to the abbey to listen to Gregorian chant, than I would being judgmental with them.”

… Misleading , because neither that poster , nor any of us would “have much luck at converting a gay person” at all, whether we took them to an abbey, had dinner with them, kissed their puppy and sent it a valentine, or even pretended to agree with everything they said. Only God can convert people. To think or express otherwise is an error.

OK for serious discussion I’ll play.

Essentially you’re right (about God converting people). My point was, as clumsy as it was, was that chastising an active gay person (I will clarify, I thought it was assumed that we’re talking sexually-active gays, not gays leading a chaste life), or taking them to a Mass sung in Gregorian chant, have about an equal chance of converting that person, which is approximately zero. But at least the Mass in Gregorian chant won’t do any harm, whereas chastising the person you’re trying to dialogue with may drive him/her away.

But I come back to my point that if a sexually-active gay is trying to engage you into dialogue to get you to validate their lifestyle, it must be because there’s a seed of doubt in their minds that perhaps, just perhaps, in spite of modern society’s attempts to prove otherwise, perhaps what they’re doing is wrong.

So it is from that point that we need to approach dialogue. How do you delicately make that seed of doubt grow into a deeper search for meaning and be the start of a transformative journey, without turning the person off completely?

I don’t think I would chastise. But if the person was persistently trying to engage me in dialogue, I might simply answer with a question: “do you think that you can find true joy, contentment and serenity through sex?”

It’s probably the same as asking an alcoholic or drug addict if the bottle can bring happiness. You can never find that perfect high.

We know the answer but I don’t think should answer for them. I perhaps a quiet, reflective question like that, may help them come to their own conclusion; as you correctly point out, God will lead them, if, and only if, they open their hearts and try to listen to Him. I don’t think I can chastise loudly enough to overcome 4 decades of society shouting from the hilltops that decadence is OK.

I can only say here that I speak from experience; I lead a pretty debauched life until I returned to the Church 14 years ago after a 22 year absence. I know the joy of being transformed and freed from serious sin. Not from temptation, it is always there, and even Jesus was tempted. But at some point, something tips, and it no longer is “all about me”, and once you make that realization, and realize that you’ll never experience “freedom” and happiness doing things that hurt the ones you love the most, you can find true liberation and a good measure of serenity.

I would like anyone in the clutches of serious sin, be it addiction to sex (of all kinds), alcohol, or drugs, cheating, lying or whatever, to know that joy.

Because you know, salvation doesn’t begin in some future afterlife. The transformation I am talking about brings you salvation here on earth. It saved my life and my marriage. Eternal life starts in the here and now. The wages of sin are death, and believe me I know what it feels like to be walking around with a dead soul. You don’t have to wait until death to experience hell.

I also know though, that moralizing didn’t work with me. In the end it was the realization of my own brokenness that brought me to God.

 

[michelleds]

I’d like to tell you, though, Michelle, and it may prove a comfort to you: you being right about the choices you’ve made has nothing to do with whether or not I’m in pain. It seems to me that you’ve made the choices that have brought you closer to God, and that’s more than terrific. But my pain, or the pain of anyone else whom you believe to be (rightly or wrongly) in a situation comparable to your former state, does not have anything to do with the choices you’ve made.

You should stick to eloquently obfuscating issues, Mark, your psychoanalytic skills aren’t very well-honed.

and for the lurkers and newbies, the “assumptions” that I was accused of making in Deo Volente’s prior responses me were based on his own prior posts, not created out of whole cloth by me.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Everyone should always notice that the word “sodomy” is always absent in these discussions. That is at the heart of the homosexual lifestyle. It is sodomy that is the elephant in the room that some people pretend not to see, the elephant on a rampage both in the homosexual and heterosexual community.

Sodomy should not be treated as the elephant in the room that nobody wants to see.

It is evil and sick. Either or both. Stop pretending it is just a log in your eye.

The problem is that the term sodomy only ever comes up when discussing homosexuality despite the fact there are probably more heterosexuals who do it every month than there are homosexuals leading to it smelling like hypocrisy.
And what exactly do lesbians do since that is not sodomy?
“Homosexual lifestyle”? What exactly is the “Homosexual lifestyle”?

Before telling them what they are doing is evil and sick you should explain why what they are doing is evil and sick otherwise you’ll alienate them

 

[OraLabora]

Everyone should always notice that the word “sodomy” is always absent in these discussions. That is at the heart of the homosexual lifestyle. It is sodomy that is the elephant in the room that some people pretend not to see, the elephant on a rampage both in the homosexual and heterosexual community.

Sodomy should not be treated as the elephant in the room that nobody wants to see.

It is evil and sick. Either or both. Stop pretending it is just a log in your eye.

Then as Dakota alludes to we should widen the scope of this thread to include sexual sin, period. Because sodomy, or other immoral sexual practices are not limited to gays.

There isn’t, in fact a single type of sex act that defines the “homosexual lifestyle”, unlike marriage. In fact it’s the main natural law arguments against same-sex marriage: opposite-sex marriage is validated by natural intercourse which is the only physiological process that requires two people to accomplish to its natural completion. As such is it at the same time a defining, unifying and procreative act. It defines the nature of marriage; it unifies the couple, and it leads to the creation of new life.

Same-sex activity does not have such a defining sex act, and nor are any of the sexual practices of homosexuals unifying or procreative, in a physiological sense.

But then many of the sexual practices of modern heterosexual couples also fall into the same category as same-sex acts, in that they do not, in a natural law sense, add to or define a marriage, which makes them just as immoral as in a same-sex context.

It is indeed somewhat hypocritical to single out homosexuals for this fact when there are many more heterosexual couples engaging in more or less the same activities.

In the end this thread really should be addressing those unfortunate souls in the clutches of addiction to their sexual preferences. I once travelled with a (married) traveling salesman who made a point of trying to get laid on every business trip; and this guy was truly sick, sicker and more promiscuous than most gay men I have known; this man even started an affair with his wife’s care giver when she was dying of cancer, and he bragged of his affairs. Yet I see few threads here on how to deal with the serial philanderer.

So aren’t we really just dealing with the sin of lust? Shouldn’t we be casting the net wider?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Then as Dakota alludes to we should widen the scope of this thread to include sexual sin, period. Because sodomy, or other immoral sexual practices are not limited to gays.

There isn’t, in fact a single type of sex act that defines the “homosexual lifestyle”, unlike marriage. In fact it’s the main natural law arguments against same-sex marriage: opposite-sex marriage is validated by natural intercourse which is the only physiological process that requires two people to accomplish to its natural completion. As such is it at the same time a defining, unifying and procreative act. It defines the nature of marriage; it unifies the couple, and it leads to the creation of new life.

**Same-sex activity does not have such a defining sex act, and nor are any of the sexual practices of homosexuals unifying or procreative, in a physiological sense.

But then many of the sexual practices of modern heterosexual couples also fall into the same category as same-sex acts, in that they do not, in a natural law sense, add to or define a marriage, which makes them just as immoral as in a same-sex context.

It is indeed somewhat hypocritical to single out homosexuals for this fact when there are many more heterosexual couples engaging in more or less the same activities.**

In the end this thread really should be addressing those unfortunate souls in the clutches of addiction to their sexual preferences. I once travelled with a (married) traveling salesman who made a point of trying to get laid on every business trip; and this guy was truly sick, sicker and more promiscuous than most gay men I have known; this man even started an affair with his wife’s care giver when she was dying of cancer, and he bragged of his affairs. Yet I see few threads here on how to deal with the serial philanderer.

So aren’t we really just dealing with the sin of lust? Shouldn’t we be casting the net wider?

Ay, there’s the rub

Many people here seem to believe that “homosexuality” corrupts everything it touches. Tell me this, if homosexuality corrupts everything if I nurse a man back to health because I love him, because I care deeply for him have I done some terrible act that I should hang my head in shame for or have I done an act of love? What are sins? Sins are the corruption of goodness. Why is sexual expression of a man’s love for a man wrong? Because it corrupts agape love, the love like a new snowflake so dazzlingly beautiful and immaculate.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[John21652]

John, I think you misread the entire post. I appreciate your breaking down your understanding of that paragraph, and I see that your criticism is certainly valid if you were to excerpt that paragraph from the entirety of the post–or indeed, from it’s place in the line of thought I’ve been developing in this thread.

No Deo, I did not misread your entire post. Nor did I misunderstand the excerpt I quoted and commented on. It was read in the context of your post and then taken out and dealt with on its own merits because it is crucial to the argument you have been trying to build. If your argument is to stand, then the foundational assertions and claims must also stand.

The excerpt I pulled out and quoted was this -

Either way, though, I cannot affirm that Jesus’ and Paul’s acts of correction indicate that we have an obligation to chastise. As St. Augustine points out, our one law, our one obligation is to love.

Now Deo Volente, can you tell me that paragraph was not written in support of your main assertion and of the train of thought woven through all your posts and which is best categorised by this from you in post 174 -

Our obligation should be loving correction (I’ve written as much earlier in this thread), being martyrs/witnesses of the all-gracious goodness of God, even if (particularly if) that means we must suffer or die with, on behalf of, or on account of those to whom we would witness.

.Can you not see a correlation between the two passages that you wrote and I quoted? Cannot you see that one is dependent upon the other and that th dependence is represented by one word? That word, your word, written by you, is “obligation”. Now go back please and see how I treated that conjunction.

It looks like another one of the problems that I encounter in these forums is that I assume that people will read things in context and take that context into consideration. I think I may have been wrong.

I put it to you that what you write is not necessarily cogent, nor cohesive and when others pick you up on that lack of cogency and coherency, you then blame them for ‘misreading’ you, or of having taken things out of context. Instead of arguing the point with me, you went down this path of blaming the other. You even repeated here the second quote so “we”. or me, or anyone else, would not mi9ss your message. All the while, you are not accepting of the criticisms which your argument attracts, nor do you analyze why the criticism are even forthcoming.

As an aside, if you bother to go back to my original response to Melinda Selmis, you will note that, in the vernacular, I wrote something very similar to your second quoted paragraph. Missed it, didn’t you?

My recent posts to InSearch also expand upon this. What I’ve been reacting to in this thread has been the argument that Melinda’s list is somehow soft or worthless because it goes about correction in a way that is different from what I and many others associate with the word “chastisement.” When Charlemagne wrote that we are obligated to chastise, it seemed to me that the stress was being put on the wrong action: our obligation is to love.

This statement of yours, DV, is exactly why I pulled your quote out and delt with it line by line.

Of course loving each other means correcting each other when we go astray (as I wrote above in the quote from previous posts). I was not once arguing against such a thing. I was trying to put the emphasis back on love.

To the best of my knowledge, DV, no-one ever shifted the emphasis. Most have also indicated that “chastisement”, whatever that is, is an out growth of “loving correction”.

My recent posts to InSearch also expand upon this… In addition, I was trying to make the point that if our correction amounts to “You’re going to hell, so repent” all the time, it won’t necessarily be the the most useful to those we’re trying to correct–and if we think that we can bludgeon people with the truth, which is an idea that was also introduced in this thread, then we do an injustice to the truth and to the people we are attempting to correct. Moreover, the moment we find ourselves wanting to bludgeon a brother or sister with the truth or with anything, perhaps we should examine ourselves and our motivations and reconsider our tactics.

No you are guilty of exactly what it is you accuse others of. I was probably the first on this thread to advocate a hard line when I responded to Melinda. I wrote about calling a spade a spade. However, I also gave an account of what I’d do if someone approached me. Now go back and read it DV and then come back here and tell me where I have even suggested what it is you are writing of in this paragraph. Then scoot through all the other responses and find where anyone is preaching what you say here is being preched. I for one have no recollection of any such approach. You singled out InSearchofGrace and yet she is one of the most charitable and lucid writers on this entire forum. Shame on you, I say.

The Psalmist prays (Psalm 141), “Let the righteous rather smite me friendly and reprove me. But let not their precious balms break my head.” My point, in part, has been that sometimes we forget the “friendly” part and wind up smashing heads instead of actually providing the loving correction that charity requires.

You mean, like Jesus once did?

 

[John21652]

The problem is that the term sodomy only ever comes up when discussing homosexuality despite the fact there are probably more heterosexuals who do it every month than there are homosexuals leading to it smelling like hypocrisy.
And what exactly do lesbians do since that is not sodomy?
“Homosexual lifestyle”? What exactly is the “Homosexual lifestyle”?

Before telling them what they are doing is evil and sick you should explain why what they are doing is evil and sick otherwise you’ll alienate them

Dakota, your entire point here is premised upon a “probably”. Yes, we know hetresexuals engage in sodomy, but to suggest it is more prevalent amongst heterosexuals is mere speculation.

Notwithstanding, it is indeed a misuse use of the human sex drive. However, at least it doesn’t begin with a disordered attraction in the first place. To argue against one does not mean even tacit acceptance of the other. This thread was started by Melinda Selmis to deal with how Catholics talk to gays, which is that group of people who supposedly suffer from attraction to the same sex. Introducing heterosexual sodomy into the debate is off topic, pointless and just muddying the waters.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Dakota, your entire point here is premised upon a “probably”. Yes, we know hetresexuals engage in sodomy, but to suggest it is more prevalent amongst heterosexuals is mere speculation.

Notwithstanding, it is indeed a misuse use of the human sex drive. However, at least it doesn’t begin with a disordered attraction in the first place. To argue against one does not mean even tacit acceptance of the other. This thread was started by Melinda Selmis to deal with how Catholics talk to gays, which is that group of people who supposedly suffer from attraction to the same sex. Introducing heterosexual sodomy into the debate is off topic, pointless and just muddying the waters.

What percentage of the population would you say is a homosexual male? 5%? 3%? 1%?

I’m not talking about the percentage, I’m talking about sheer numbers here.

To talk about homosexual sodomy and yet never talk about heterosexual sodomy smells strongly of hypocrisy, sodomy is sodomy.

 

[Hadrianus]

Clearly, at this point we need 10 rules for talking to people about 10 rules for talking to people about talking to gays.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Clearly, at this point we need 10 rules for talking to people about 10 rules for talking to people about talking to gays.

Thanks for the intervention, we needed that

 

[Hadrianus]

What percentage of the population would you say is a homosexual male? 5%? 3%? 1%?

I’m not talking about the percentage, I’m talking about sheer numbers here.

To talk about homosexual sodomy and yet never talk about heterosexual sodomy smells strongly of hypocrisy, sodomy is sodomy.

According to studies done in a number of Western countries, somewhere around 2% of the male population is exclusively homosexual. For a country such as the US that puts the number of male homosexuals at about 3 million. Though the number of practicing homosexuals is probably lower than that, and the number of men who have at least once engaged in homosexual behavior somewhat higher.

As far as this thread is concerned, we must also distinguish between those who take issue with immoral sexual acts, and those who take issue with same sex attraction itself.