Archdiocese criticized for implementing Courage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Holly3278 said:
Is anyone else as sickened by this as I am?
Click to expand...
Its hard to tell whether the public criticism would have been made if the news outlets hadn’t first approached gay rights organizations to “get the other side of the story.” The Archdiocese of Hartford issued a press release announcing the formation of Courage. And it seems likely that news outlets would try to balance (or juice up) their reporting about it by looking for controversy.
 
I really just don’t understand why these gay rights activists have such a big problem with a faith based organization that aims to help homosexuals live a chaste life. Courage is not like the various fundamentalist faith based organizations in existence that supposedly try to help homosexuals. Courage takes a much more reasonable approach so I don’t understand why these gay rights activists have such a problem with Courage. I mean, if a homosexual man or woman wants help living the chaste life in a Catholic context then why would these gay rights activists have such a problem with that?
 
Predictable - when is the last time gay rights activists have been POSITIVE about the Church’s stance?
 
Holly3278 said:
I really just don’t understand why these gay rights activists have such a big problem with a faith based organization that aims to help homosexuals live a chaste life. Courage is not like the various fundamentalist faith based organizations in existence that supposedly try to help homosexuals. Courage takes a much more reasonable approach so I don’t understand why these gay rights activists have such a problem with Courage. I mean, if a homosexual man or woman wants help living the chaste life in a Catholic context then why would these gay rights activists have such a problem with that?
Click to expand...
Yes and as you wrote the Courage apostolate assists those same sex attracted people to embrace chastity. Courage doesn’t suggest that same sex attracted people reverse their attraction.

GLBT rights activists want same sex marriage and for no religion (or any law) to impede upon their sexual practices.

EWTN “Life on the Rock program” reaired a program with Fr. Paul Check as a guest. He did a great job explaining the Church’s position on same sex attraction and the Courage apostolate.

youtube.com/watch?v=PzTa-4-uVwM
 
People choose chastity, and others have it thrust upon them for many different reasons (death of a spouse, illness, surgery, single but not by choice). This gives those with same sex attraction a chance to do something heroic in their life for their faith: no wonder it is a target for LBGT activists.
 
Holly3278 said:
I really just don’t understand why these gay rights activists have such a big problem with a faith based organization that aims to help homosexuals live a chaste life.
Click to expand...
Because these gay rights organizations are organized to promote the evils of the gay lifestyle.
 
The Church would find its position more respected if it actually took its own advice, and accepted chaste homosexuals into the priesthood.
 
Hokomai said:
The Church would find its position more respected if it actually took its own advice, and accepted chaste homosexuals into the priesthood.
Click to expand...
I am not talking about you, particularly, but whenever I read a editorial advocating that type of position, I always think about how badly the author must hate homosexual men.
 
Hokomai said:
The Church would find its position more respected if it actually took its own advice, and accepted chaste homosexuals into the priesthood.
Click to expand...
The Church accepts faithful chaste same sex attracted and heterosexual men into the priesthood.

Why do you write that it does not?
 
Hokomai said:
The Church would find its position more respected if it actually took its own advice, and accepted chaste homosexuals into the priesthood.
Click to expand...
Huh? A significant portion of the priesthood is already made up of chaste homosexuals. And while some seminaries have intrepreted the Church’s guidelines as barring the admission of any gay men, in many (probably most) cases the Church is still ordaining chaste gay men as long as their spiritual advisors believe they can continue to live chaste lives and they do not “support the gay culture.”
 
Hokomai said:
The Church would find its position more respected if it actually took its own advice, and accepted chaste homosexuals into the priesthood.
Click to expand...
Priests take a vow of chastity. This vow is not gender dependent, nor is it age dependent.

Yet, abuses occurred, and they are a shame we all bear as Catholics.

But these same critics challenging Church policy in reaction to such abuse have also vehemently argued the other side, that is, the Church should be condemned for admitting such individuals, which created the environment for the well-publicized abuse in the first place.

As the Church Lady would say; “How convenient!”

:confused:
 
The Church, clearly and unequivocally discriminates against chaste homosexuals in relation to those seeking to be priests. This is what makes it difficult to defend the argument that the Church simply requires chastity. I does not. It requires people to be tempted only by “ordered” sins. Incidentally, I cannot find a similar prohibition on those with a desire to have sex with children.
Deep-seated homosexual *tendencies, *which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter[8].
Click to expand...
In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”[10].
Click to expand...
Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.
Click to expand...
Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.
Click to expand...
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html
 
Hokomai said:
The Church, clearly and unequivocally discriminates against chaste homosexuals in relation to those seeking to be priests. This is what makes it difficult to defend the argument that the Church simply requires chastity. I does not. It requires people to be tempted only by “ordered” sins. Incidentally, I cannot find a similar prohibition on those with a desire to have sex with children.
Click to expand...
This is a recent development, and largely in response to homosexual ephebophilia amongst the clergy. The Abuse Crisis is undeniably homosexual, despite the fact that the age of the victims has been seized on to describe the pandemic.

Therefore, this is arguably a recent and administrative rule, for very pragmatic reasons.

Contrary to your suggestion, I don’t think that changing this rule would matter to homosexual activists. I’ve NEVER heard it cited in connection with the Church’s alleged ‘intolerance’ concerning homosexuals, and frankly I don’t think activists and noise-makers in the anti-Church camp know or care.

OTOH, the LGBT reaction to the Courage apostolate and their mission of chastity makes PERFECT sense.

The LGBT community depends on an overt sexual orientation for a group identity. Chastity is the virtue of a disciplined and purified body. Embracing chastity as a personal or cultural value would deprive them of their overt sexuality or shift the focus away from it, and their reason for existence has been removed. And voila–the LGBT voice becomes irrelevant.

Chastity is the only instrument available to silence the LGBT lobby, with charity, and achieve true ‘sexual equality.’
 
LiveCatholic said:
This is a recent development, and largely in response to homosexual ephebophilia amongst the clergy. The Abuse Crisis is undeniably homosexual, despite the fact that the age of the victims has been seized on more.

Therefore, this is arguably a recent and administrative rule, for very pragmatic reasons.

Contrary to your suggestion, I don’t think that changing this rule would matter to homosexual activists. I’ve NEVER heard it cited in connection with the Church’s alleged ‘intolerance’ concerning homosexuals, and frankly I don’t think activists and noise-makers in the anti-Church camp know or care.

OTOH, the LGBT reaction to the Courage apostolate and their mission of chastity makes PERFECT sense.

The LGBT community depends on an overt sexual orientation for a group identity. Chastity is the virtue of a disciplined and purified body. Embracing chastity as a personal or cultural value would deprive them of their overt sexuality or shift the focus away from it, and there reason for existence has been removed. And voila–no more LGBT voice in the intellectual/political forum.

Chastity is the only instrument available to silence the LGBT lobby, with charity, and achieve true ‘sexual equality.’
Click to expand...
I do not accept that there is any moral distinction between having sex with a child before or after puberty. The Church is confused between homosexuality in which one is attracted to other adults of the same sex, and attraction to children. Is there in fact a similar ban on those attracted to children? Or is it just gays?
 
Hokomai said:
The Church, clearly and unequivocally discriminates against chaste homosexuals in relation to those seeking to be priests. This is what makes it difficult to defend the argument that the Church simply requires chastity. I does not. It requires people to be tempted only by “ordered” sins. Incidentally, I cannot find a similar prohibition on those with a desire to have sex with children.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html
Click to expand...
While I agree that the Church discriminates against gay people in myriad ways, banning them from the priesthood is not one of them. Archbishop (soon to be Cardinal) Dolan of New York, the president of the US Council of Catholic Bishops explained unequivocally that men with same-sex inclinations could be ordained as long as they were capable of celibacy and not part of a “gay subculture,” noting that “It’s not a no-gays policy.”

ncronline.org/news/vatican/archbishop-timothy-dolan-headed-new-york
 
It is not illegal to be attracted to children. It is illegal to have sex with them. The reason I am not simply 'slinging mud" in raising the issue is that the Vatican document I cited was part of the church’s response to the abuse crisis. On CAF I have recognised the many good actions the church has taken in this regard. This insistence on not admitting homosexuals is not one of those good things.
 
TMC said:
While I agree that the Church discriminates against gay people in myriad ways, banning them from the priesthood is not one of them. Archbishop (soon to be Cardinal) Dolan of New York, the president of the US Council of Catholic Bishops explained unequivocally that men with same-sex inclinations could be ordained as long as they were capable of celibacy and not part of a “gay subculture,” noting that “It’s not a no-gays policy.”

ncronline.org/news/vatican/archbishop-timothy-dolan-headed-new-york
Click to expand...
Well, that is not what the Vatican document says.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top