Big Mac vs The Whopper

[LilyM]

Murder and stealing are sins against charity and justice. They violate the basic rights of other individuals. Any action that violates the rights or dignity of another person is gravely immoral. Comparing such sins to two consenting adults who sincerely love each other is like comparing apples and oranges. It just ain’t the same If we are going to disagree whether gay folks should be chaste or not is fine, but let’s not make false comparisons.

Comparing a gravely sinful act with other gravely sinful acts is NOT comparing apples to oranges. All endanger the salvation of the soul in a perfectly real and perfectly serious way - why should any of them not be vigorously spoken out against?

 

[RyanML]

As a Catholic and from a Catholic and Holy point of view, can you make an argument for homosexuals not to be chaste?

I think there is certainly room for dialogue. I would suggest the following article: homepage.ntlworld.com/pharseas.world/official.html

It is quite lengthy so maybe you’ll just want to skim it, but it presents a point of view much more clearly and logically than i would be able to do in this forum. I don’t necessarily agree with everything the author says, but he makes some good points, imo.

 

[Rawb]

Oh, that article gets off to a great start:

The first thing to be said is that, in the context of Scripture and Tradition the official teaching of the Church is not definitive, given that nothing has been “defined”.

Let me quote the Catechism:

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,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 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.

Emphasis mine. Seems pretty ‘definative’ to me.

Another Gem:

Still, on occasion, it is necessary and indeed a sacred duty to resist Ecclesiastical authority

Against infallible teaching?!

And more!

That a proposition has been taught infallibly does not mean that it is utterly accurate, the last word on the subject or even that it is (in the slightest bit) helpful. It only means that it is not wrong. So infallible teaching to the effect that “There are three persons in the Godhead” does not of itself exclude the possibility that there are in fact seven!

 

[eelpis]

Is that so bad? I know there are the radicals out there who want to thrust it upon everyone, and I disagree with them. But most gay folks just want to be normal, productive members of society without getting grief from others because of who they fall in love with. That’s not to say that everybody has to agree, but I would hope we could agree to disagree and continue on in charity

Homosexual acts are depraved and crying out to heaven for veangence-not something that should go mainstream.There is no charity in confirming people in their sins-it’s disrespect for them and their immortal souls.

 

[BSHoop96]

Is that so bad? I know there are the radicals out there who want to thrust it upon everyone, and I disagree with them. But most gay folks just want to be normal, productive members of society without getting grief from others because of who they fall in love with. That’s not to say that everybody has to agree, but I would hope we could agree to disagree and continue on in charity

I have great compassion for gay people as they have a great cross to bear. Especially those who just want to live their lives and are good people and “yes”, I believe they can be good people. That being said I do not want, for example, homosexuality to be taught in schools as just another perfectly normal lifestyle. Also think civil arrangements are fine legally but that marriage needs to be between a man and a woman. Things like that.

 

[RyanML]

Oh, that article gets off to a great start:

Let me quote the Catechism:

Emphasis mine. Seems pretty ‘definative’ to me.

Another Gem:

Against infallible teaching?!

And more!

I think what the author is intending to say in his bit about infallible teaching and the Trinity is that just because something is defined infallibly does not mean that our understanding of it can not develop and a later definition be more precise. That’s not to say it would change, just that we have a clearer understanding. That, my friend, is perfectly orthodox. I’m thinking of Cardinal Newman and his work on the development of doctrine. And I don’t think the author was seriously suggesting that the Trinity could be made up of seven persons. Keep in mind that the author is also a Platonist and much of the Church’s teaching is defined in Aristotelian terms. So if your talking about the Eucharist, for example, saying that the substance of the bread and wine are changed would be “confusing” to him because the idea of substance is different between the philosophies. But of course he believes that Our Lord is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament, it would just be a different way of terminology, much like the Eastern Churches. They author is certainly not infallible (duh) but I believe he makes some valid points in this article and in others on his website. Don’t mean to ramble. That’s my two cents.

 

[RyanML]

I have great compassion for gay people as they have a great cross to bear. Especially those who just want to live their lives and are good people and “yes”, I believe they can be good people. That being said I do not want, for example, homosexuality to be taught in schools as just another perfectly normal lifestyle. Also think civil arrangements are fine legally but that marriage needs to be between a man and a woman. Things like that.

For private schools, that’s fine. But in public schools, I would think presenting one particular religious point of view would cause problems. I use to strongly support “gay marriage” but more and more I think civil unions will work just fine. It’s one thing to change a social or legal concept, but the Sacraments, which were divinely instituted…not so much. I’m somewhere in the middle and people on both sides disagree with me!

 

[bpbasilphx]

What - like murderers, thieves or any other sinner wants, on the whole, to be normal, productive members of society, without getting grief from others because of their sins?

LilyM, do you want to get grief from others because of your sins–or even what others PERCEIVE to be your sins?

 

[BSHoop96]

For private schools, that’s fine. But in public schools, I would think presenting one particular religious point of view would cause problems. I use to strongly support “gay marriage” but more and more I think civil unions will work just fine. It’s one thing to change a social or legal concept, but the Sacraments, which were divinely instituted…not so much. I’m somewhere in the middle and people on both sides disagree with me!

Just to explain what I meant. I don’t think sexuality being taught in schools is a “particular religious point of view”. If it was religious it **couldn’t **be taught in public schools. I don’t have a problem with the subject of homosexuality being explained in a human sexuality class. My point was that I don’t agree that it should be presented as just another perfectly normal lifestyle as many homosexuals would prefer.

 

[Dauphin]

Murder and stealing are sins against charity and justice. They violate the basic rights of other individuals. Any action that violates the rights or dignity of another person is gravely immoral. Comparing such sins to two consenting adults who sincerely love each other is like comparing apples and oranges. It just ain’t the same If we are going to disagree whether gay folks should be chaste or not is fine, but let’s not make false comparisons.

A society that promotes, accepts, and celebrates grave sin both by a culture of ‘tolerance’ and by legal recognition, is one that endangers the salvation of its people. There’s absolutely no room for a Catholic to be in favour homosexual marriage, gay civil unions, pride parades, gay sex ed, or any other perverted attempts to subvert the natural moral order.

Your agenda is one entirely of the deadly works of the flesh which St. Paul warned against, promoting fornication and uncleaness on a Catholic forum. This thread needs to be taken to some place other than the traditional forum, to a section where such fundamental things are actually up for debate.

 

[RyanML]

A society that promotes, accepts, and celebrates grave sin both by a culture of ‘tolerance’ and by legal recognition, is one that endangers the salvation of its people. There’s absolutely no room for a Catholic to be in favour homosexual marriage, gay civil unions, pride parades, gay sex ed, or any other perverted attempts to subvert the natural moral order.

**Your agenda is one entirely of the deadly works of the flesh which St. Paul warned against, promoting fornication and uncleaness on a Catholic forum. **This thread needs to be taken to some place other than the traditional forum, to a section where such fundamental things are actually up for debate.

I promote no such things. And St. Paul had absolutely nothing to say about homosexuality as orientation. He couldn’t have since ancient people had no notion of in-born or even nurtured sexual orientation.

 

[Dauphin]

I promote no such things. And St. Paul had absolutely nothing to say about homosexuality as orientation. He couldn’t have since ancient people had no notion of in-born or even nurtured sexual orientation.

You acknowledge that a sacramental marriage between two men or two women is impossible, and you instead support civil unions between unmarried people. That’s called fornication; it’s precisely what sacred scripture condemns, and what St. Paul assures us leads to eternal punishment.

 

[Matt33]

He couldn’t have since ancient people had no notion of in-born or even nurtured sexual orientation.

Can you expalin this? How do you know?

 

[RyanML]

Can you expalin this? How do you know?

As far as I know they did not. I have never read anything that would suggest that the people of St. Paul’s time had any understanding of innate sexual orientation. St. Paul uses two terms in both Romans and 1 Corinthians in referring to same sex activity; Arsenokoitai and malakoi. They both seem to refer to male prostitutes (probably temple prostitutes) and/or promiscuous men. However, arsenokoitai’s meaning is difficult to p(name removed by moderator)oint as it appears nowhere else in the Greek literature of the day. St. Paul is also talking about men in this context but the noun is feminine, so some scholars can’t make heads or tails of what St. Paul is trying to say. But in the context of Romans 1, St. Paul is talking about those who have known God but did not render him due praise and thanks and so their hearts became darkened (v. 21). They then turned to idols in the form of men and beasts (v. 23). So because of this God gave them over to various sins (vs. 24-32) Paul seems to be talking about heterosexual men and women who, because of their idolatry, were allowed to fall into a number of sins. Now many sincere, Christian gay men and women do not see themselves in this picture. They adore the one True God and believe on Jesus Christ whom He sent for the salvation of the world. They do not adore idols and God is not giving them over to promiscuity, malice, envy, and murder. For me personally, my journey in seeking God in His Church began when I was ten. My same sex attractions kicked in around 12, so I do not think that the situation in which St. Paul is speaking applies to me or others with similar experiences. I hope some of that made sense

 

[Matt33]

As far as I know they did not. I have never read anything that would suggest that the people of St. Paul’s time had any understanding of innate sexual orientation. St. Paul uses two terms in both Romans and 1 Corinthians in referring to same sex activity; Arsenokoitai and malakoi. They both seem to refer to male prostitutes (probably temple prostitutes) and/or promiscuous men. However, arsenokoitai’s meaning is difficult to p(name removed by moderator)oint as it appears nowhere else in the Greek literature of the day. St. Paul is also talking about men in this context but the noun is feminine, so some scholars can’t make heads or tails of what St. Paul is trying to say. But in the context of Romans 1, St. Paul is talking about those who have known God but did not render him due praise and thanks and so their hearts became darkened (v. 21). They then turned to idols in the form of men and beasts (v. 23). So because of this God gave them over to various sins (vs. 24-32) Paul seems to be talking about heterosexual men and women who, because of their idolatry, were allowed to fall into a number of sins. Now many sincere, Christian gay men and women do not see themselves in this picture. They adore the one True God and believe on Jesus Christ whom He sent for the salvation of the world. They do not adore idols and God is not giving them over to promiscuity, malice, envy, and murder. For me personally, my journey in seeking God in His Church began when I was ten. My same sex attractions kicked in around 12, so I do not think that the situation in which St. Paul is speaking applies to me or others with similar experiences. I hope some of that made sense

It did make better sense. And that is a valid opinion you have but I would caustion you against stating as fact like you did earlier. I think you would be suprised at the level of understanding of human sexuality those people had. Especially the greeks which pual was well aquainted with. Careful not to let the ego centricity of our present time demean those of biblical times. In most cases they were wiser than us.
On a private note, may I ask if you are a practicing homosexual?

 

[RyanML]

It did make better sense. And that is a valid opinion you have but I would caustion you against stating as fact like you did earlier. I think you would be suprised at the level of understanding of human sexuality those people had. Especially the greeks which pual was well aquainted with. **Careful not to let the ego centricity of our present time demean those of biblical times. In most cases they were wiser than us. **
On a private note, may I ask if you are a practicing homosexual?

A good point. I have a partner of 3 years. But for spiritual reasons, i am not sexually active.

 

[Matt33]

A good point. I have a partner of 3 years. But for spiritual reasons, i am not sexually active.

Ok, thanks for responding.