Belgian Bishop Accused of Homophobia

[bones_IV]

I view it as some kind of natural population control. Remember in our human history we were once totally wild in nature. This is one more way our species (and other species) are kept within sustainable bounds. Some are ment to mate, some want to mate and are unable to, and some mate but are not destined to have their own offspring. But also having these groups around also leads to having extra people around in case the mother and/or father died in their hunting or other reasons.

How can you call yourself Catholic if you embrace same-sex unions?

 

[Mirdath]

Anyways, I would like to point out that this entire thread is concerning people outside of the church (i.e. Homosexual activists) interfering with the Church. Indeed persecuting this bishop for supporting the Church position. And for upholding morality. I hope that you will agree that having a priest or bishop arrested and/or prosecuted for his freedom of speech - especially when addressing his congregation is a total miscarriage of justice. After all you did say “Let affairs of the Church stay in the churches”.

I quite agree that calling it a ‘hate crime’ is a stretch; still, is it not highly insulting, and possibly inciting or justifying hatred in others?

I have no moral qualms about the Church forbidding homosexuality among its adherents. You sign up, you follow the rules – that’s fine. However, it is thoroughly overreaching when it attempts to enforce its own rules on those of us who haven’t signed up, and if it does so, we have every right to be offended.

 

[bones_IV]

I quite agree that calling it a ‘hate crime’ is a stretch; still, is it not highly insulting, and possibly inciting or justifying hatred in others?

Then you say.

. However, it is thoroughly overreaching when it attempts to enforce its own rules on those of us who haven’t signed up, and if it does so, we have every right to be offended.

Which is it?

 

[Mirdath]

Which is it?

I see no contradiction. Are you of the mind that any insult is an offense deserving of the label ‘hate crime’?

 

[bones_IV]

I see no contradiction. Are you of the mind that any insult is an offense deserving of the label ‘hate crime’?

Would you agree with me in saying that the Ten Commandments is for everyone?

 

[Brendan]

You, in return, will grin and bear it just the same if I ever choose to say that faith is a mental disorder, because I consider it entirely beyond the bounds of properly exercised reason and intellect. Satisfied?

Actually, Mirdath, a “mental disorder” is a scientific diagnosis. You will note that the Catholic Church never describes homosexuality as a “mental disorder”, but as a “moral disorder”

So unless you happen to have a Doctorate in Psychology and membership in the APA, your designation of “Faith” as a mental disorder carries no weight.

In fact, the APA has already evaluated Faith for such criteria and determined that Belief in God and an Absolute Morality does not constitute a mental disorder.

So do you really want to disagree with the scientists on this, you’ll have to excuse us if we don’t agree

 

[bones_IV]

Actually, Mirdath, a “mental disorder” is a scientific diagnosis. You will note that the Catholic Church never describes homosexuality as a “mental disorder”, but as a “moral disorder”

So unless you happen to have a Doctorate in Psychology and membership in the APA, your designation of “Faith” as a mental disorder carries no weight.

In fact, the APA has already evaluated Faith for such criteria and determined that Belief in God and an Absolute Morality does not constitute a mental disorder.

So do you really want to disagree with the scientists on this, you’ll have to excuse us if we don’t agree

:clapping:

Brendan, it’s amazing how people like this can call “intolerant”.

 

[Bennie_P]

I view it as some kind of natural population control. Remember in our human history we were once totally wild in nature. This is one more way our species (and other species) are kept within sustainable bounds. Some are ment to mate, some want to mate and are unable to, and some mate but are not destined to have their own offspring. But also having these groups around also leads to having extra people around in case the mother and/or father died in their hunting or other reasons.

Oh, I get it a natural form of Eugenics

 

[Mirdath]

Would you agree with me in saying that the Ten Commandments is for everyone?

Four through ten, yes; they’re basic rules for keeping a healthy society. I do not accept them because they’re divine fiat, I accept them because they’re common sense. And I do not necessarily accept the extrapolations people love to make from them. The Decalogue says nothing about masturbation or homosexuality.
Bennie P:

Actually, Mirdath, a “mental disorder” is a scientific diagnosis. You will note that the Catholic Church never describes homosexuality as a “mental disorder”, but as a “moral disorder”

I seem to see many, many Catholics referring to it as such. My quibble here is not with the Church’s teaching but with its members.

So unless you happen to have a Doctorate in Psychology and membership in the APA, your designation of “Faith” as a mental disorder carries no weight.

In fact, the APA has already evaluated Faith for such criteria and determined that Belief in God and an Absolute Morality does not constitute a mental disorder.

Homosexuality does not appear in the DSM either; yet every time it is brought up, the Catholic contention is that its removal from the later versions is an accomplishment of the Fabulous Gay Conspiracy and that it does, in truth, belong there! If they can call something that has been found ‘not a mental disorder’ by the APA a mental disorder, why can others not do the same?

 

[Brendan]

I seem to see many, many Catholics referring to it as such. My quibble here is not with the Church’s teaching but with its members.

So correct the members.

Homosexuality does not appear in the DSM either; yet every time it is brought up, the Catholic contention is that its removal from the later versions is an accomplishment of the Fabulous Gay Conspiracy and that it does, in truth, belong there! If they can call something that has been found ‘not a mental disorder’ by the APA a mental disorder, why can others not do the same?

The “Catholic contention”, now Mirdath, that is a false generalization and not really necessary

I don’t think the Church has made any offical statements on the declassification of SSA as a mental disorder.

 

[Bennie_P]

There is not such thing as a “Gay mafia”, that is a unfair term to use. I read the “abnormal” part of the article and I also think it can have a degrading/condescending tone to it unless the later denial was added to it.

I do not believe it is “abnormal” as it is expected that 2-10% of the population of humans (and other species) show that trait/behavior. It is perfectly normal according to Mother Nature.

Sure Mafia is the wrong word “Nazi” is more appropriate for the Gay right movement, it is political and they sure know how to twist the truth,

From the Article

Mr Graindorge warned for the dangers of such stigmatization, which he claims leads to “the fate the Nazis reserved for [homosexuals].” Homosexual activists claim that the Nazis sent homosexuals to extermination camps.

A little History…

The Power Behind the Throne

While Adolf Hitler is today recognized as the central figure of Nazism, he was a less important player when the Nazi machine was first assembled. Its first leader was Ernst Roehm. Homosexual historian Frank Rector writes that “Hitler was, to a substantial extent, Roehm’s protegé” (Rector:80). Roehm had been a captain in the German army. Hitler had been a mere corporal. After World War I, Roehm was highly placed in the underground nationalist movement that plotted to overthrow the Weimar government and worked to subvert it through assassinations and terrorism. In The Order of the Death’s Head, author Heinz Hohne writes that Roehm met Hitler at a meeting of a socialist terrorist group called the Iron Fist and “saw in Hitler the demagogue he required to mobilize mass support for his secret army”

Ernst Roehm** One the first Gay right leaders**

---

If you have SSA I would watch out who you think are your friends and claiming to defend your rights. The road they offer does not lead to freedom but enslavement.

 

[Mirdath]

So correct the members.

What do you think I’m doing?

The “Catholic contention”, now Mirdath, that is a false generalization and not really necessary

It is a generalization that applies to a great many people here, and it is to these people that I am speaking.

I don’t think the Church has made any offical statements on the declassification of SSA as a mental disorder.

To my knowledge also, it has not.

Sure Mafia is the wrong word “Nazi” is more appropriate for the Gay right movement, it is political and they sure know how to twist the truth

Generalizations ahoy! And ad-hominem attacks, and Godwin’s Law. Hat trick!

 

[Bennie_P]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bennie P
Actually, Mirdath, a “mental disorder” is a scientific diagnosis. You will note that the Catholic Church never describes homosexuality as a “mental disorder”, but as a “moral disorder”

I seem to see many, many Catholics referring to it as such. My quibble here is not with the Church’s teaching but with its members.

When and where did I post that?

 

[Mirdath]

When and where did I post that?

Ooooops. Sorry, I got confused – both your username and Brendan’s start with a B

If a mod could correct that, the time lapse for editing has expired? Thanks.

 

[Bennie_P]

Ooooops. Sorry, I got confused – both your username and Brendan’s start with a B

If a mod could correct that, the time lapse for editing has expired? Thanks.

That’s OK, your forgiven.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

How can you call yourself Catholic if you embrace same-sex unions?

Well first of all, this is not a central dogma of the Church. It is not officially infallible (no ex cathedra), so it is open for debate. It also comes from my interpretation the Social Justice teachings.

usccb.org/sdwp/projects/socialteaching/excerpt.shtml

I view this as an issue of human decency. That we are singling out a group unfairly for a part of their being they have no control over. That single thing is not in itself means exclusion from anything. It is my personal solidarity with a group that has been labeled a virtual outcast by others on this one thing.

Somewhere the official stances are stickied, and they do say love the person, but then the rest of the institutional actions tend to run counter to that teaching. Some of it also comes from the timing this “teaching” started to be focused on, soon after the hiding and moving molesters scandal, so I also view this as a unfair type of scapegoating from above, as homosexual and molester are not one synonyms in terminology. (It is possible to have both but it is not a hard and fast rule).

Right now the issue is also only in civil circles, not Church circles, and has no effect on the Sacramental marriages performed by the Church. They are free to do what they want. Families are not broken up solely on what their neighbors do. I believe anyones marriage bond is much stronger than to have something like this break it up, otherwise it was a bad union to begin with for other reasons.

In this and the adoption issue, I look at the entire person. (Of course some same-gender couples are not meant to be together, but for the same reasons different-gender couples are not meant to be together). And sexual preference is not an automatic red flag as it very rarely defines one person’s being.

 

[Bennie_P]

Generalizations ahoy! And ad-hominem attacks, and Godwin’s Law. Hat trick!

The so called “gay rights” movement(among other liberal groups and may I add all the ultra right-wing nuts) I truly believe use the very same tatics to promote thier agenda as groups such as the Nazis and I believe many that have fallen in line with the movement, including many well intentional persons with SSA and other well intention supporters of “tolerance” are being pulled into a false sense of “normalization”,“Love”, and “Peace” (they whole world will just like a 70’s Coke commercial) that will be proven in the future to be seen that they are being dupped and later be enslaved (economically) and/or eliminated from society. I believe the same person is behind these “new” and “enlighten” movements as who tickled Hilter’s ears and his name isn’t Michael. Though Mr Gates may have a pact with him?

It’s my theory - you don’t have to believe it.

Study history of the different political movements and the founders of the different movements. Try not to overlook what the inviduals believed about God, gods etc. Look at thier tatics and what they would not talk about to the public.

Then study what the Church teaches, from CCC, early Church fathers, Vatican documents and of course the Bible.

And you can become nuts, just like me.

 

[bones_IV]

Four through ten, yes; they’re basic rules for keeping a healthy society. I do not accept them because they’re divine fiat, I accept them because they’re common sense. And I do not necessarily accept the extrapolations people love to make from them. The Decalogue says nothing about masturbation or homosexuality.[/qoute]

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 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.

I
Mirdath;2409920:

seem to see many, many Catholics referring to it as such. My quibble here is not with the Church’s teaching but with its members.[/qoute]

Please use the language of the Church.

 

[bones_IV]

Well first of all, this is not a central dogma of the Church. It is not officially infallible (no ex cathedra), so it is open for debate. It also comes from my interpretation the Social Justice teachings.

usccb.org/sdwp/projects/socialteaching/excerpt.shtml

I view this as an issue of human decency. That we are singling out a group unfairly for a part of their being they have no control over. That single thing is not in itself means exclusion from anything. It is my personal solidarity with a group that has been labeled a virtual outcast by others on this one thing.

Somewhere the official stances are stickied, and they do say love the person, but then the rest of the institutional actions tend to run counter to that teaching. Some of it also comes from the timing this “teaching” started to be focused on, soon after the hiding and moving molesters scandal, so I also view this as a unfair type of scapegoating from above, as homosexual and molester are not one synonyms in terminology. (It is possible to have both but it is not a hard and fast rule).

Right now the issue is also only in civil circles, not Church circles, and has no effect on the Sacramental marriages performed by the Church. They are free to do what they want. Families are not broken up solely on what their neighbors do. I believe anyones marriage bond is much stronger than to have something like this break it up, otherwise it was a bad union to begin with for other reasons.

In this and the adoption issue, I look at the entire person. (Of course some same-gender couples are not meant to be together, but for the same reasons different-gender couples are not meant to be together). And sexual preference is not an automatic red flag as it very rarely defines one person’s being.

And you believe this?

Perhaps you’ve never read 1 Tim 1:10 "For fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine, "

 

[Wolseley]

I view it as some kind of natural population control. Remember in our human history we were once totally wild in nature. This is one more way our species (and other species) are kept within sustainable bounds. Some are ment to mate, some want to mate and are unable to, and some mate but are not destined to have their own offspring. But also having these groups around also leads to having extra people around in case the mother and/or father died in their hunting or other reasons.

Too many holes, NewUlm. “Overpopulation”, even if it existed, was not a problem before 1900, and even then, little goodies like war and famine continue to help out. As for children having “someone there” to raise them, for most of human histiry, people lived in tribal structures where there were plenty of people available in the tribe and clan to look after orphans. The deviancy of homosexuality was suppressed because it represented one, among many, threats to the survival of the species; sterile couplings were not encouraged.

Nice try, and if you believe what you write, good for you, but it isn’t going to hold water.