A Casual Acquaintance of Yours Is a Homosexual

[felra]

Other Eric:

Hi felra!

Christ calls different people to different challenges. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that solitude is the challenge that He has commissioned for the homosexual. The Way of the Cross is not meant to be pleasant, and as my father is fond of pointing out, isolation made saints out of the hermits. It seems to me that the homosexual must overcome his disordered passions alone. To do otherwise, as trelow has pointed out, is to invoke the sin of scandal and live out just another sinful lifestyle choice.

If you understand the disorder of homosexual desire as pscyhological and social in it’s origin and repair, then isolation is contraindicated. Research has demonstrated a recurrent causal factors for a person developing the disorded desire of homosexual attraction is in fact due to the *absence *of healthy same sex relationships/bonding in critical phases of psychosexual development. Hence, sexual identity disorder requires the experience and development of healthy same sex relationships as integral for repairing/“overcoming” disordered passions. Then, God may call this person to a hermitage existance with it’s own Way of the Cross to bear.

 

[Other_Eric]

Other Eric:

Hi Lisa N!

Why can’t we sterilize them? as far as I know, Buck v Bell has not yet been overturned.

Hi Lisa N!

I’m sorry. I was wrong. Buck v Bell was overturned in 1942 by Skinner v Oklahoma.

 

[Lisa_N]

Other Eric:

Hi Lisa N!

I’m sorry. I was wrong. Buck v Bell was overturned in 1942 by Skinner v Oklahoma.

I’m not surprised. There have been many courts that have upheld the right to procreate. Apparently a judge tried to force a man who had literally dozens of out of wedlock children to get a vasectomy. He fought and won. It’s sad but true that anyone can become a parent if they have the physical ability. No license or qualifications required!

Lisa N

 

[Brad]

Jesus spoke very clearly on adultery and the nature of marriage. This suffices.

In addition, I haven’t seen too many pro-malice parades, nor do I see anyone looking to receive special benefits because they are selfish.

Perhaps most importantly, I don’t see any groups attempting to claim that envy is equivalent to caring.

It is the institutionalization of sin, the undermining of the traditional family, and the unwillingness to speak out against ANY immorality amoung the majority of the priests that we are against.

 

[Other_Eric]

Lisa N:

I’m not surprised. There have been many courts that have upheld the right to procreate. Apparently a judge tried to force a man who had literally dozens of out of wedlock children to get a vasectomy. He fought and won. It’s sad but true that anyone can become a parent if they have the physical ability. No license or qualifications required!

Lisa N

Hi Lisa N!

It may be true that anyone can become a parent if s/he has the physical ability but I’m not so sure it’s sad. Do we really want the government deciding who is fit to procreate?

 

[Lisa_N]

Other Eric:

Hi Lisa N!

It may be true that anyone can become a parent if s/he has the physical ability but I’m not so sure it’s sad. Do we really want the government deciding who is fit to procreate?

Absolutely not.

However as I said, in the past to get IVF or AI or any of those techniques needed for asexual reproduction, the applicant had to be married. Now anyone can walk in the door and get the technology provided they can pay for it. Singles, homosexuals, groups, you name it. Ironically I heard that Medicaid paid for AI because of the established right to procreate! Also I wonder if there might be some way to restrict the “stud muffins” who have babies that they do not support or conversely the women who have child after child without the means or ability to care for them. But I suspect that is going too far although apparently some judges are asking for voluntary sterilization for the major offenders.

As to homosexuals, along with procuring a child through technology, they can also adopt. I’d definitely like to see this restricted substantially.

As to unfit parents, I think that anything that can be done to identify and assist these parents in improving their parenting skills or responsibility is appropriate and where the government in the form of social services comes in.

Lisa N

 

[springbreeze]

fix:

What bothered me was the phrase monogamous relationship. What does that mean when speaking of celibate homosexuals? And I do not see it in the vatican document.

Hi Fix

Yes I see what you are saying. The Priest who explained this pastoral care explained ‘monogamous’ as not having multiple relationships as is often seen in homosexuals and for that matter hetrosexuals. To lead the individual who is homosexual into having one relationship and building on that relationship so as not to define a relationship by sex (which often happens, which could account for short-lived relationships based on sex and fizzling out rapidly). Then to lead them into total abstinance from sex and to share as I posted above a single chaste relationship with the person they love.

It is progressive and continual pastoral care that leads the homosexual into a chaste life and in union with God. This doesn’t happen over-night, as it is with all sin, it is a fight against it and a need for repentance, confession and repeated intention to refrain from all sin, so it is with a homosexual person and it is perfectly achievable with good pastoral care and the souls will united to God’s.

It is accepted by the Church that homosexuals may share life together and remain chaste by their abstinance from sex as the act of homosexuality is the sin, not being homosexual. Celibate is also accepted by the Church for a homosexual as a chaste life.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[springbreeze]

Other Eric:

Hi springbreeze!
As I see it, the homosexual couple invokes the sin of scandal any time that they have a close relationship with a person of the same gender. It seems therefore that the Church would have to condemn any close intimate relationship the homosexual would enter into. This is why the Church’s Courage ministry is inherently flawed. It allows homosexuals intimate contact with exactly the type of people they should not have that type of contact with . . . other homosexuals. In a Christian sense, the only appropriate life for the homosexual is one of isolation and solitude. I have not yet met anyone who can raise a credible argument as to why this is not the case.

Hi Eric

Ask the Bishops, Cardinals and Priests. This is the Churches advice and I go by the Church.

I do not think for one minute that homosexual couples share a home and seek each other out because sex is the most important thing. Love is the most important thing. No-one should be deprived of love, I think the Church recognises that and therefore does not condemn the homosexual relationship that abstains from sex.

All people desire to love and be loved.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[Trelow]

springbreeze:

Hi Eric

Ask the Bishops, Cardinals and Priests. This is the Churches advice and I go by the Church.

I do not think for one minute that homosexual couples share a home and seek each other out because sex is the most important thing. Love is the most important thing. No-one should be deprived of love, I think the Church recognises that and therefore does not condemn the homosexual relationship that abstains from sex.

All people desire to love and be loved.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

Please site an official document enforcing you position. Until you do the only prudent way to view it is as scandal.

I do believe that you have a rather limited view of what love is.

 

[springbreeze]

Trelow:

Please site an official document enforcing you position. Until you do the only prudent way to view it is as scandal.

I do believe that you have a rather limited view of what love is.

Hi Trelow

I am quoting my Priest as he spoke on Cardinal Ratzingers document, (maybe I have not provided the right one)and this is what is taught everywhere. I have never heard anything saying homosexuals may not share a life together and abstain from sex.

Would you please tell me where any Church teaching states that homosexuals may not share a life together that is chaste?

Love is not confined to sex, of course for a married couple sex is part of their life of love together, but I love God, Blessed Virgin Mother Mary, my daughter and my mother, my brothers and sisters, my friends, animals, all people.

If a married couple cannot have sex for whatever reason, say disability, they do not love each other less, their love is still as profound and a reflection of God’s love as human love is a reflection of God’s love.

Love is not synonymous with sex, though of course for those who are married it is part of their marriage, but still is not paramount and all married Catholics should practice abstinance if they are to time their offspring. Sex between married couples is a part of the expression of love and in this make share in creation and the creation of human life in covenant with God, well Trelow, you know that, you don’t need me to explain the covenant with God.

Would a man love his fiance less because he and his fiance have remained chaste until marriage? No that love is still as profound, of course growing and evolving over the years they are together.

Do homosexual chaste couples not love each other because they do not have sex? I would say they Love God and each other.

Where is my understanding of love lacking?

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[Trelow]

springbreeze:

Hi Trelow

I am quoting my Priest as he spoke on Cardinal Ratzingers document, (maybe I have not provided the right one)and this is what is taught everywhere. I have never heard anything saying homosexuals may not share a life together and abstain from sex.

Would you please tell me where any Church teaching states that homosexuals may not share a life together that is chaste?

Love is not confined to sex, of course for a married couple sex is part of their life of love together, but I love God, Blessed Virgin Mother Mary, my daughter and my mother, my brothers and sisters, my friends, animals, all people.

If a married couple cannot have sex for whatever reason, say disability, they do not love each other less, their love is still as profound and a reflection of God’s love as human love is a reflection of God’s love.

Love is not synonymous with sex, though of course for those who are married it is part of their marriage, but still is not paramount and all married Catholics should practice abstinance if they are to time their offspring. Sex between married couples is a part of the expression of love and in this make share in creation and the creation of human life in covenant with God, well Trelow, you know that, you don’t need me to explain the covenant with God.

Would a man love his fiance less because he and his fiance have remained chaste until marriage? No that love is still as profound, of course growing and evolving over the years they are together.

Do homosexual chaste couples not love each other because they do not have sex? I would say they Love God and each other.

Where is my understanding of love lacking?

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

How can it be love for them to be constintly invoking scandal and to put each other in the occasion of sin? I don’t understnad that. And what of the children who see this behaviour normalized and accepted?

Is the want of thse poor people worth the scandal done to these chlidren?
fr. Anthony J. Paone My Daily Bread published 1954:

If you carry it willingly [the cross], you will find greater strenght in the cross., and it will lead you towards heaven. If you bear it unwillingly you only make it a greater burden than it already is; and you still have to carry it. One who runs away from the cross is only running towards another cross, prehaps even a heavier one.

Nobody has a right to be in a relationship. No more than every child born has the right to see, or to walk, or to hear. Our crosses are not given on merits of worth, rather on merits of what we can carry.

I do feel for them, but that said they have no right to cause scandal. As I have stated previously we do not know if they are chaste, nor shoudl we inquire. For the very situation to come up is a grave sin.

Love is wanting for someone what God wants for them. Not enjoying a movie with them, or snuggling up at night and telling anticdotes about the day. It is drawing them closer to God’s vision for them. And reveling in grave sin is not the way to do that.

 

[Other_Eric]

Trelow:

How can it be love for them to be constintly invoking scandal and to put each other in the occasion of sin? I don’t understnad that. And what of the children who see this behaviour normalized and accepted?

Is the want of thse poor people worth the scandal done to these chlidren?

Nobody has a right to be in a relationship. No more than every child born has the right to see, or to walk, or to hear. Our crosses are not given on merits of worth, rather on merits of what we can carry.

I do feel for them, but that said they have no right to cause scandal. As I have stated previously we do not know if they are chaste, nor shoudl we inquire. For the very situation to come up is a grave sin.

Love is wanting for someone what God wants for them. Not enjoying a movie with them, or snuggling up at night and telling anticdotes about the day. It is drawing them closer to God’s vision for them. And reveling in grave sin is not the way to do that.

Hi Trelow!

So, would a private appointment, behind closed doors, between a male homosexual and a priest who is his spiritual director also invoke the sin of scandal?

 

[springbreeze]

Other Eric:

Hi Trelow!

So, would a private appointment, behind closed doors, between a male homosexual and a priest who is his spiritual director also invoke the sin of scandal?

Hi OtherEric

Exactly. Two chaste people of the same sex who partake in no sexual sin cause no scandal.

Just to add on…

The occassion of sin can only be assessed on a person to person basis, with loving and kind pastoral care.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[Trelow]

Other Eric:

Hi Trelow!

So, would a private appointment, behind closed doors, between a male homosexual and a priest who is his spiritual director also invoke the sin of scandal?

Is the priest a known homosexual?

 

[Other_Eric]

Trelow:

Is the priest a known homosexual?

The priest has not disclosed his sexual orientation one way or the other. Most don’t.

 

[Trelow]

Other Eric:

The priest has not disclosed his sexual orientation one way or the other. Most don’t.

Well I think the answer would be obvious then.

In order for one to be a homosexual one hase to commit homosexual acts.

Otherwise they are simply a chaste person who has an intrinsicly disordered attracton. Most commonly reffered to as SSA or Same Sex Attraction. Thre should be no way to tell them from anyone else.

Funny how people talk about seperating the sinner from the sin, except when it comes to sexual deviancy.

 

[Other_Eric]

Trelow:

Well I think the answer would be obvious then.

In order for one to be a homosexual one hase to commit homosexual acts.

Otherwise they are simply a chaste person who has an intrinsicly disordered attracton. Most commonly reffered to as SSA or Same Sex Attraction. Thre should be no way to tell them from anyone else.

Funny how people talk about seperating the sinner from the sin, except when it comes to sexual deviancy.

Hi Trelow!

I would have thought that the term “homosexual” was a clinical description of same-sex attraction. Homosexuals who are both sexually active and public about it usually refer to themselves as “gay.” THe only place I have seen the phrase “same-sex attraction” used in in the books by Fr. Harvey, Fr. Groeshel, and David Morrison. That, however, is a semantic debate.

The question I would like for you to answer is whether two men who both have same-sex attraction can live a chaste life sharing quarters with each other.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Lisa N:

Sorry but you don’t see the selfish, malicious, envious, wrathful etc trying to normalize that behavior. You don’t see other sinners upholding their sin as normal behavior. You don’t see other sinners trying to enlist others to lie, cheat, steal, or murder. There are no “Liars Lobbyists” or PAC supporting adulterers or the proud.

1.Then why does it so often happen that Christian X says:​

“You are being an anti-Catholic [or anti-Protestant - or anti-something-else] bigot”

only for Christian Y to respond:

“I’m not a bigot - I’m acting out of love” ?

1. Of course those things don’t have lobbies - they are widely-accepted behaviours, so they don’t need support from lobbyists. That is exactly the problem. Or is lying a moral act once it becomes very widespread ?

People normalise their bad behaviours very simply - they give them a religious, political, or other sanction: so intrusive bad manners becomes “witnessing to Jesus”, slandering other Christians becomes “zeal for the faith”, gossip about the clergy becomes “concern for true doctrine”, breaking solemn promises becomes “care for the public interest”, or “putting my country first.”

Or do vices cease to be deformed and vicious once we deceive ourselves into sanctifying our own basest and nastiest passions ? It is because human beings are experts in justifying the unjustifiable that they do wrong. ##

THat is such a red herring although it gets tossed out repeatedly. Please differentiate between those who make a public issue of their behavior, who have ‘gay pride’ parades or “Gay Day” at school. If indeed we had 'Addicts Pride" parades or school days dedicated to learning to be greedy and envious, I imagine you’d see plenty of objections. It’s the PUBLIC displays that many find disturbing. What people want to do in the privacy of their homes is their business.

There are plenty of denunciations of homosexuals simply as homosexuals - quite apart from whether their acts are public.​

But trying to normalize abnormal behavior and designating anyone who doesn’t play a long a homophobic bigot is a different story. I feel the same way about all such behavior issues. Keep them to yourself and we’ll both be happy. Don’t enlist school children or others to carry your sword to battle.

Perhaps politicians should stop using children like this too.​

Don’t try to influence confused teenagers into thinking they might be homosexual when they are just confused teenagers.

As usual, the homosexual apologist overstates the case. NO ONE HAS SAID OSTRACIZE the homosexual.

Isn’t not inviting someone a form of ostracism, if it is because of what they are, and not what they do ?​

No one has said persecute, harass or bother the homosexual. We should treat everyone with compassion and kindness but that does not mean agreeing with supporting or justifying deviant behavior of any kind

Lisa N

That is why I don’t support or agree with the attitude of those who object to other human beings simply because of what those human beings are.​

Or is that thread on “The Elephant in the Church” a mere mirage ? ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Other Eric:

Hi Lisa N!

Why can’t we sterilize them? as far as I know, Buck v Bell has not yet been overturned.

Why not gas them ?​

 

[Trelow]

Other Eric:

Hi Trelow!

I would have thought that the term “homosexual” was a clinical description of same-sex attraction. Homosexuals who are both sexually active and public about it usually refer to themselves as “gay.” THe only place I have seen the phrase “same-sex attraction” used in in the books by Fr. Harvey, Fr. Groeshel, and David Morrison. That, however, is a semantic debate.

I prefer to use the term sodomite myself, but am refraining at this time. There had to be a distinction made, and I refuse to pervers the word “gay”. Simply using the term normalizes the behavior, for all but the last 40 years or such it was a grand thing to be gay.

The question I would like for you to answer is whether two men who both have same-sex attraction can live a chaste life sharing quarters with each other.

Im sure thay can. Just as a man and a woman may be able to live in a chaste life sharing quarter with each other outside of the scarcement of marriage. Both are immoral. There is no difference.

For that matter, there is no difference between masterbation, fornicatinon, and sodomy. Why do we tend to single out sodomy? Because of the fact that it starts with a physiological disorder, and therefore is much more difficult to treat.