Are Gay Pride festivals immoral?

[una_fides]

Now that we’ve briefly talked about original languages by using the Hebrew “to’ebah”. I would now specific address the dangers of not referencing the original text by looking at your Romans passage. The Greek utilizes the terms “para physin” which is translated as “against nature” or “unnatural”. Romans 11:24 in the Greek also uses “para physin” which in this instance is in reference to the actions of God. You logically cannot damn homosexuals for acting in “para physin” and not also put into question the actions of God. So what does “para physin” actually mean? It is more accurately translated as “out of the ordinary”. One must then apprise “para physin” as a neutral phrase, and as a neutral phrase cannot be used in the absolute.

You are employing smoke in mirrors at best in your defense to try to explain away the clear meaning of Scripture as always understood by the apostles, the fathers, and the Church for 2000 years. Here is the text from Rom 11:24:
For if thou were cut out of the wild olive tree, which is natural to thee; and, contrary to nature, wert grafted into the good olive tree: how much more shall they that are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?
The understanding of “contrary to nature” in this passage is quite clear that it is referring to something that is “contrary to nature.” In this case that doesn’t mean that if something is done contrary to nature it is inherently evil for it is also contrary to nature for bread to change into the Body and Blood of Christ and for Jesus to walk on water. Those things are good and do not deviate from God’s plan but correspond thereto; however, to act sinfully contrary to nature, such as to murder, commit adultery, have sex with animals, or to engage in homosexual actions is to violate God’s natural design. The passage in Romans 1 is not being interpreted as saying that every time anything is “contrary to nature” it is evil. It’s saying that these moral actions are contrary to God’s natural law. God made them male and female.
Let’s look at Rom 1:26-27 again:
For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
The text in Romans 1 is evident on its face. The use of the word for natural here is understood the same way as in chapter 11:24 as referring to something in nature. The difference is that in the text from chapter 1, St. Paul is clearly saying that these people who are described as having a “reprobate sense” are acting contrary to nature and are doing something here described as “filthy” and “error.” The Greek word here ἀσχημοσύνη (aschēmosunē) is quite similar to the Hebrew word translated as abomination. Both passages are referring to homosexuality as a disgusting and unseemly practice.

 

[una_fides]

Beyond the aforementioned passages, l’d like to bring up Leviticus 25:44 in order to see the dangers of blindly accepting Scripture without proper discernment of its historical and literary context:

“As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves.” (Leviticus 25:44)

Shall we then, by the “Word of God” permit slavery purely based on the fact it is said in Leviticus?

This is a red herring and has nothing to do with the truth of the passages already presented. However, I will humor you. I believe that God did at that time permit slavery. God also in the Old Testament permitted divorce, which he also hated, due to the hardness of the people’s hearts. However, Christ fulfilled the Law, completed it, and perfected it, and under the law of Christ, the law of grace, now that we have such an abundance of grace through Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross, divorce is no longer an option. God also permits evil to take place. God is in control of the universe and could end this world at any given time. Yet people still persist in sin. God does not will there sin, but he permits it for a greater good, which is so that we may overcome and be purified and set apart as a holy people. Homosexuality is sin. It is contrary to God’s plan and his natural law. It is contrary to divine revelation. And it is contrary to the manner that Christ has established for us to live as he has revealed to us through his Church for the past 2000 years.

One might say that this is an archaic belief that is refuted by the New Testament, a law overturned by the Christian Scriptures. …
“Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. (1 Peter 2: 18)

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ;” (Ephesians 6:5)

What we have here are two passages, one attributed to the Rock of the Church and the other to the Apostle to the Gentiles. Does the Church, however, accept these wholly in our modern era? No, all Christians now denounce all that slavery is: an oppression of a minority. And is not our denial of gays’ and lesbians’ right to love also an oppression? What is stopping the Church for liberating homosexuals of tyranny except for an *ignorance and fear *of what they are? Or, with this new information, shall we revert back to injustice for the sake of preservation of fundamentalist theology?

The New Testament does not contradict the Old; it fulfills and perfects it. Again, slavery is an entirely different issue, and if you wish to have a full discussion on this topic, I suggest opening another thread. You must understand also that there are different forms of slavery that existed throughout history and that just because St.'s Peter and Paul admonished slaves to be obedient to their masters according to the law of the land at that time that is not tantamount to their full acceptance of all forms of slavery. If you are truly seeking the truth on this matter, here are a couple of articles that may help you to better understand the context of this discussion that I quickly pulled up from a Google search:
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp
catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=1008
cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a003.html

 

[una_fides]

(I wish now briefly to criticize unapologetic apologetics, though there is a great beauty in how a good apologist defends the faith. Apologetics assume that the faith has been the same for all time, however, any good historical theologian will know that the Early Christian Fathers were in constant debate. Some won out – for good or for ill – and that is how we have decided between orthodoxy and heresy. Even today, our faith is evolving. Let us recall Vatican II, a major overturning of Canon and Catechism.)

Your statement, which I underlined above, demonstrates the slant, which you take concerning the teachings of Christ as preserved by the Holy Catholic Church. Your belief was condemned explicitly as heresy by several popes as well as Vatican I and is modernism in its clearest form. You are obviously mixed up with some very liberal priests and so forth. I suggest reading the documents of Vatican II especially where they state that they follow the teachings set out before them. There was no “overturning of canon and catechism” as you put it. Vatican II was a pastoral council that set out to teach the same faith just in a different manner of presentation. Whether it has failed to do so or its effectiveness is open for debate, but all modern popes, as liberal as they may or may not have been, have upheld a hermeneutic of continuity in understanding the sometimes vague nature of the documents of Vatican II. What individual priests believe and teach is irrelevant and does not define the faith of the Church. There are three pillars of the Church as explained in Vatican II: Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. You are denying two of them as well as the nature of infallibility. Truth cannot change. The debates among the fathers were settled by the Magisterium so that we can know definitively the answer. For this reason, Christ gave us his Church as “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). Jesus is the way the TRUTH and the life, and no man comes to the Father except through him. You must accept this Truth, accept Jesus, and the teachings of his Church. If you willfully depart from them, you place yourself outside the Church, and in such a condition you cannot be saved (CCC 846).

 

[una_fides]

On the subject of sodomy, the Catholic Church boasts of itself usage of a treasury of knowledge from the Greek philosophers to art; look at any writing of Aquinas and you’ll know it’s true. So let’s look at the word sodomy itself; it’s a word dated in the 13th Century. It may derive itself from the city of Sodom, but it’s a relatively new term. Obviously this is much after the time of Christ. Indeed, a basic historical review of pre-Christianity would reveal a profound acceptance and tolerance of homosexuality and bisexuality amongst those who considered themselves heterosexuals.

It doesn’t matter who accepted or did not accept his abominable practice. God has said that it is sin, and that those who do such things cannot inherit the kingdom of God. As I posted before: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 “Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers: Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God.”

Now onto the passage quoted, it is not about sleeping with men, but of** desert hospitality** (as I previously stated). The importance of this custom is found in Genesis 18:1-8, Judges 13:15, Exodus 2:20, Job 31:32 and abundantly in more passages. One can imagine how important it is to take in the stranger when a person lives in conditions as harsh as the desert, walking from place to place in lethal weather. It is something lost on those of us who’s travels are so accommodated by motels and diners, trains and cars. My interpretation highlights the importance of historical exegesis.

You are mistaking “historical exegesis” with taking a historical fact and then using it to try to re-explain a passage of Scripture in an entirely different manner than what it was intended to convey. First, you claimed that the sin was that they wanted to have sex with angels and now you are saying it was a lack of hospitality. Obviously in your mind it could not have been because they were trying to have sex with the men, which God stated elsewhere in Scripture was a “disgusting practice” for which men were to be put to death. If you want historical exegesis, look at how homosexuality has always been condemned as evil and as contrary to nature by the Church and by the Jews throughout their history. The Devil himself used and twisted the Scriptures in his temptation of Christ. You do not want to go down that path. Just stick with the Church and her three pillars, one of which is TRADITION.

As a side conversation, it’s astonishing to me that anyone could begin to consider the rape of women a lesser evil than homosexual relations. Here, I’d criticize Lot for giving up his daughters so easily, then begin to question whether or not one can honestly consider women to be of some lesser race than men such that it is a “lesser evil”.** No one should be raped, whether they gay or straight woman, straight man or lesbian.** Indeed, this is a serious crime against faith; to believe that any human person – woman or gay – should be regarded without infinite dignity “rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God” (CCC, 1700) is abhorrent. Excuse me for my bluntness if I believe that is archaic by every and any standard.

You are apt to quote from the Catechism whenever you can to try to support your arguments. What about where the Catechism says the following?: Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2357.htm
Regarding the “lesser evil” language, I did not come up with that on my own but I simply restated exactly what I had read in a Catholic Commentary. Lot tries by every means to divert them from their purpose; being well assured, that they would have nothing to do with his daughters, who were promised to some of the inhabitants. He endeavours to gain time, hoping perhaps that his guests would escape by some back way, while he is talking to the people. (Haydock) —Some allow that, under so great a perturbation of mind, he consented to an action which could never be allowed, though it was a less evil. (Menochius)
No one is saying that the rape of women is not a most grievous evil; however, that homosexuality is a greater evil as it is a distortion of the natural law cannot be questioned as the Catechism clearly explains. Furthermore, Lot also knew, unlike the rest of the men in the wicked town, that these men were angels and were under his roof of protection, so he proposed something he knew they would not accept, which also was a lesser evil, likely in order to buy some more time.

 

[una_fides]

Blatant** discrimination against homosexuals has destroyed the unity of Christendom and even the faith lives of many would-be Christians**.

A blatant acceptance of homosexuality as a viable option in violation of the constant teaching of the Church for 2000 years will do much more harm, specifically it will erode at society’s understanding of the sanctify of marriage and the unity of the family structure. God made them male and female.

Yes, I am a gay man. However, I was also born and raised Catholic. I struggle to find a community in the Church that I love because I am rejected by so many of you. … I did not choose to be gay, however it is a constant choice to remain in my Church.

Whether or not you engaged in an indulgence in lust that manifested itself into SSA or whether you claim you were born that way, you still have the choice whether or not to act out on those desires. You can choose to stay in the Church or leave, just as you can choose to be chaste or to commit mortal sin by acting out on your lustful passions.

I hesitate to ask, must I leave because you hate my life so much? Remember, I am not merely a user-handle on a forum nor an amorphous blog a thousand miles away. I am a human person who bleeds and feels and thinks.

Now, I challenge you. Is it more important to preserve outdated and hateful theology than to love? Beyond Leviticus, beyond the Catechism, beyond the Magisterium, let us look at the Greatest Commandment handed down to us by Christ, Our Lord: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37). Indeed, if we cannot live up to that simple standard, we should no longer count ourselves as Christian.

Chi, please understand this. Love does not mean acceptance of evil. Love means doing what is in one’s best interest. God loves you. He loved you so much that he became man and suffered in agony for hours upon a cross for your sins. It was your sins as well as the rest of humanity’s that put him on that cross and it was because of those sins that he did what he did. He can set you free from these sins if you will surrender to him. You must surrender entirely your pride and lust and humbly beg him for light from heaven. Pray, pray, pray, and make use of the instruments of sanctifying grace he has made available to you through frequent confession and holy Communion, and you can become holy and pure and can overcome these sins. Just please understand that they are truly sins not because I have said so, but because God has said so and has revealed and clarified these truths through his holy Catholic Church. The God of truth has done this who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

 

[una_fides]

Despite what has been said it still baffles me that gay pride festivals themselves are considered immoral. Even under the catechism, the festivals themselves are not the homosexual act. They are not orgies. I will concede that sexual activities go on, but they are far from sanctioned by the coordinators of such civic events. They are simply poor choices that any man or woman regardless of their sexuality could commit. A straight woman or man can commit adultery just as easily as a homosexual man or women.

The festivals themselves are considered immoral because they promote a moral evil. What if there were a parade that promoted bestiality or pedophilia? What if it promoted genocide? The parade would be evil because its purpose is to promote evil. “And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient. … **Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are *worthy of death: and *not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them” **(Rom 1:28,32)

It seems to me that all of the hatred towards homosexuality stems from ignorance and bigotry.

The favorite words employed by those who promote the homosexual agenda: ignorance and bigotry. With what intense pride and attempted condescension do they use such words, as they hold to views that have been explicitly condemned by God and his Church for the past 2000 years. The funny thing is that by definition homosexuals are just as much of bigots as those who oppose their heterodox and unholy opinions. You are certainly just as intolerant of my beliefs that homosexuality is a sin as I am of the view that homosexuality is a practice acceptable by God. Bigotry involves an irrationality to it, but you cannot dare accuse the God of being irrational, He who created you, nor can you view the Church as being irrational for holding to the same views she has always held to as handed down by Christ and the apostles themselves and as preserved through Scripture and Tradition.

If the matter is dependent on procreation, than why can a sterile man and wife be married and have sex?

Because they are still open to procreation, and the act itself is geared toward this end. Homosexual acts are incapable of producing offspring and as such are not geared toward procreation.

If it is a matter of natural law, then why has it occurred in animals and why did God make people homosexual?

There are many documented cases of cannibalism and rape in the animal kingdom, but that does not make it acceptable human behavior. Some animals, such as lions, eat their own young, but I do not see you using this same argument to support cannibalism or infanticide? Furthermore, the documented evidence points to isolated acts and not to homosexuality. Animals are geared toward survival, and homosexuality does not gear itself towards survival but rather toward extinction. Here is an article on this subject: narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

God did not “make you homosexual.” If you argue that you were born gay, then you must conclude that it was a result of the fall of Adam and sin entering the world that you inherited this disposition in your concupiscence, which all men inherit from our first parent’s fall from grace. Nature was dramatically altered at that point, and one could propose that perhaps some people then inherited this fallen form of thinking. More likely, however, is that homosexuality is a result of lust gone out of control. Yes, some men are more feminine than others and some females are more masculine than others, but there are many straight men and women with these characteristics as well. Regardless of what any person with SSA convinces himself, the fact he has these tendencies does not make them moral or viable options to act out upon.

Indeed, deeper than our sexuality, it seems what is most natural to humanity (as being created in the image of God) is love - which is shared between hetero- and homosexuals. Or even if it is about the story of Sodom, a historical-literary criticism reveals more. Moreover, this is how Ezekiel interprets the text:

“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” - Ezekiel 16:49 – they tried to rape them instead, as we see. Rape and grave inhospitality are the sins, not the homosexual act alone.

Tell me why homogenital acts are wrong!

Don’t get me wrong. Even as a gay man myself, i would never condone the wantonness that occurs at gay pride festivals as it occurs without a love graced with God. However, I do support love and respect for one’s self and who one is despite the endangerment that entails.

Charity is one of the three theological virtues and must not be confused with the *feeling* of love or good favor towards another. The definition of a virtue is a “habit or permanent disposition, which inclines a person to do good and avoid evil”. Love is an act of the will, and must not be confused with pure emotion. Just because one feels a certain way does not make his feelings good. One could feel as if he wants to kill someone. Should he act out upon this feeling? No more should one act out upon a "love" that is not geared toward moving one's self or another to the end for which he was made: God. Our Lord has clearly revealed to us that we are to be chaste temples of the Holy Trinity. It seems that things in life that can be the most difficult produce the greatest reward.

 

[johns58w]

Going back to my recent post #7. Just because a civil government gives ok to same-sex marriage and gay pride festivals does not mean morals and Natural Moral Law can be changed.

Natural moral Law has been respected my many societies for the past 3,500 years. Even before that, traditions by word passed down even from further back proves the same. But yet within the past 40 years mankind thinks he knows better (progressivism).

Within the past century our societies have been the most destructive in human history (War, Nazism, Facism, Communism) (Contraception, abortion, birth control, euthanasia). (pornography, prostitution, incest, beastiality, LGBT sexual acts. rape).

Because a majority of people from major cities believe a certain sexual lifestyle is appropriate for their society makes things correct? Look what happened to the old Greek Empire and the old Roman Empire with their base sexual lifestyles. St. Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians (Corinth, Greece) explains the situations clearly.

And certain bishops and priests permitting such base immoral behavior in ther diocese/parishes. Pope Benedict is cracking down big time on this nonsense. This immorality advertising will cease and many Catholics will “jump ship” TOO BAD.

The Church is not a democracy. the Church is Jesus Christ.

Jesus is mercy, love. No question. Love has a very broad meaning too. Jesus said, if you love Me, you will obey my commands. Jesus is God, and put forth the Commandments. Jesus was and is no sissy in a movie or live arts play. Jesus during his ministry was a carpenter, a stone mason. We’re talking hard working tough here. His apostles and other disciples were a rough and tough motley crew. Jesus cracked the whip on the Temple moneychangers. James and John were the “Sons of Thunder” (Boanerges). By the request from James and John God would strike people down who were blatantly disobedient and offensive.

There are issues the Church can not and will not change. Priests are men only. Marriage is one man and one woman united in the Sacrament of Matrimony. Sex is permitted for couples( one man with one woman) who have received the Sacrament of Matrimony…

The Church welcomes all of us, and those in LGBT are accepted also.

To the bishops and priests, God has sent his Commandments, along with His Church. Our Pope benedict XVI has sent the message. He is not playing around, many of you have been playing around for the past 40 years infiltrating dissention and disgrace to the Church. SHAPE UP OR SHIP OUT.

To the bishops and priests who have suffred from this despair, I support you on getting the church “cleaned up”. You need help and John Paull II had many obedient followers to pass down the Truth and “clean house”. there are many of us in the layity who want to help “clean up” also. THIS THREAD NEEDS TO CLOSE. I’M FINISHED WITH THIS THREAD. I WILL NOT RESPOND TO ANY POSTS ON THIS THREAD,

God Bless

 

[gthompson]

I agree with Garyfigurski-
Too many righteous people are making this judgement. We are not the ones to judge.
God is. I know SSA people and have some as friends and some are family. They see some “good Catholic men and women not living as good Catholic people”. They see some of these so called practicing Catholics being mean, stealing and being hypocrites so it is very difficult for them or myself to make any judgements about any person. When we can say we are PERFECT in the eyes of God then we can judge but no human is perfect. Some people I know living in sin as homosexuals are actually better people then some I see at my Catholic church I go to every week.
Please don’t judge. It is not our right.
I wouldn’t go to a gay pride parade or festival but I wouldn’t go to a biker ralley either.

 

[larkin31]

Natural moral Law has been respected my many societies for the past 3,500 years. Even before that, traditions by word passed down even from further back proves the same. But yet within the past 40 years mankind thinks he knows better (progressivism).

But culture and thinking DO advance!

Within the past century our societies have been the most destructive in human history (War, Nazism, Facism, Communism) (Contraception, abortion, birth control, euthanasia). (pornography, prostitution, incest, beastiality, LGBT sexual acts. rape).

Several of these things are also listed in the OT. There is very little new under the sun.

And certain bishops and priests permitting such base immoral behavior in ther diocese/parishes. Pope Benedict is cracking down big time on this nonsense. This immorality advertising will cease and many Catholics will “jump ship” TOO BAD.

I agree. Pruning is good. I think that the Catholic church will divide over female ordination eventually. Just my prediction. …

 

[Ponyguy]

Haven’t we heard more than enough about this Homosexual “lifestyle”? Do we really need to continue the disgusting debate, discussion, or dissection of this sickening social soiree and give it “more ink”?

Frankly, the human body, like everything else, was created to work in a specific way; wrenches were made to turn nuts and bolts. Screwdrivers were made to twist screws. A wrench isn’t meant to twist a screw, and a screwdriver isn’t meant to turn a nut or a bolt; curiously, neither tool can possibly do the job of the other, regardless of the amount of effort expended.

Similarly, men and women are complementary, both physically and mentally/psychologically. Either one will complete the opposite gender. A man cannot complete the marital couple union with another man, and a woman cannot complete that union with another woman.

A man who thinks like a woman is simply an aberration, and likewise a woman who behaves like a man is also a deviate. Something is wrong with participants in either situation, and having something wrong is nothing to be proud of, regardless of what anyone says.

 

[larkin31]

Haven’t we heard more than enough about this Homosexual “lifestyle”? Do we really need to continue the disgusting debate, discussion, or dissection of this sickening social soiree and give it “more ink”?

Well, you just jumped in with your take on it!

Frankly, the human body, like everything else, was created to work in a specific way; wrenches were made to turn nuts and bolts. Screwdrivers were made to twist screws. A wrench isn’t meant to twist a screw, and a screwdriver isn’t meant to turn a nut or a bolt; curiously, neither tool can possibly do the job of the other, regardless of the amount of effort expended.

No prying boards up with screwdrivers! No hitting nails with wrenches! No vicegrips, cuz, well, look at their name!

Similarly, men and women are complementary, both physically and mentally/psychologically. Either one will complete the opposite gender. A man cannot complete the marital couple union with another man, and a woman cannot complete that union with another woman.

Not everyone needs to be united with the opposite gender.

A man who thinks like a woman is simply an aberration

You need to rethink this statement. It is a meaningless remark.

and likewise a woman who behaves like a man is also a deviate

Are you calling female CEO’s “deviant” or female athletes “deviant” or female soldiers “deviant” and that they have something wrong with them that needs to be fixed?

 

[CatholicFireman]

Ok. This is enough. I am going to post a moderator’s quote from another thread as a fair warning:

I just deleted 11 posts and I’m sure that there are more that should be deleted. The conversation is turning into an argument. Debating is healthy, arguing is just another form of violence in order to control another person. Knock it off!

Stick to the subject and be respectful of each other. Everyone has an opinion and everyone deserves to have his opinion acknowledged. This does not mean that you agree. But it costs nothing to politely state why you disagree.

Thomas Casey
Moderator

The thread was soon closed. Is that what you folks want? Then so be it.

Stick with the OP, which personally, I think has been answered already.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I like you.

This statement is inappropriate and uncalled for. It is exclusive towards an entire faction of strong Catholic people and believers. Sodom and Gomorrah was not] about the homosexual act. It was about desert hospitality as well as the possibility of creating demigods by having sex with angels and spiritual beings, violating the First Commandment.

That doesn’t sound quite right.

Are you saying that homosexual acts are NOT an abomination?

And if not, then why not throw everything out the window and have Murderer’s Pride Festivals?

Moral relativism and lack of common sense go hand in hand.