Bisexuality / Homosexuality and Radical Feminism - Connection ?

[meltzerboy]

I do research and read gay suicide accounts, including the issue of bullying in schools, plus different sides / reasons why homosexuals tend to be depressed and have suicide ideation more than heterosexuals. Social issues greatly interest me and the subject herein is something I closely follow, having a close family member who is a homosexual with depression problems. When he was growing up, he had his share of teasing in school, but he was not tortured or abused in the level that some have been. He received and continues to receive no less love and support from his family, but not in any way to include approval of homosexual behavior. You also have a close family member who is a homosexual, which you disclosed in this forum in earlier threads. The similarity stops there, however, because you promote and actively push in this forum for the whole list of gay causes, including legalization of same-sex ‘marriage’, gay adoption, etc. I don’t.

All suicides, including gay suicides, are tragic. What society is unmoved or uncaring about news of people, young or old, who end their lives out of despair or due to depression? It would be error to think or believe that the reason(s) why gays commit suicide is primarily or limited to perceived social rejection or claim of ‘homophobia.’ This is the basis of my query in my posts # 383 and #415.

The reported bullying in schools and the rash of teen suicides is a sad phenomenon, as society goes through contraction and expansion of values and attitudes, with various family and social dynamics at play and with collaborative media and culture playing up all forms of sexuality and sexual messages at every opportunity. You may take issue with the conservative view that gay activists are quick to use the gay suicide card, demanding radical programs and policies in schools under the umbrella of “safe schools.” Without saying more as it would be OT, it is something that has not escaped notice by citizens who do not share your views solidly aligned with gay causes.

To underscore the importance of an impartial and objective approach, not an emotional and political one, consider these questions (rhetorical) that do not have easy answers:

What is the root cause of the despair in gays who wish to commit suicide? Is it just environmental, e.g., ‘homophobia,’ social rejection, bullying? Is the answer to be a full embrace of homosexuality by the community, including gender switching by anyone who claims he/she is trapped in the wrong body? Are young people receiving balanced information in schools and necessary guidance at home? Is sexual expression of any impulse the right thing to do? Is it prudent to push young people to come out if they have sexual identity issues or to validate any and all homosexual stirrings?

Cathoichelp, I don’t mind sparring with you in this forum. However, you simply throw a lot on the wall, hoping some would stick. For instance, upthread, you posted in reply to mine claims that the Dutch studies I cited were done by NARTH. I asked you to provide proof of it here in post #396. You have not gotten back to me. Is it because there is no evidence supporting your claim?
,

Grace, even if a discriminatory or hostile environment is not the only cause of depression and suicide among gay teens (as well as gay adults, who, however, often have better coping strategies), can we at least agree that living in such an environment is not very helpful or healthful to gay teens? And, to be clear, is it your view that the main reason why gays are prone to mental disorder and suicide is their realization that they are committing a sin by contradicting the natural order, so that you believe social rejection plays a secondary role? (I think Elizabeth said something to that effect, although I’m not quite sure anymore who said what.) One other question you brought up involves transgender people. Since you work in this field, I’m sure you realize that homosexuals are rarely transgender; that is, they basically have a sexual orientation issue, not a gender identity issue. To answer that question, I would say that sex reassignment surgery should be performed if the individual truly has that condition. Of course, it must be ascertained first that the problem is not some other sexual or emotional condition. I would certainly not favor sex reassignment surgery on demand!

 

[Elizabeth502]

I imagine that Pope Benedict’s attempt to eliminate the culture of homosexuality in the priesthood will be ineffective. What can he do?

You imagine wrong. He can do what he has done, and so far a signficant change has occurred. Seminaries are being revamped in their formation programs. Candidates are being vetted, and watched, for precisely the areas that were mentioned in the post I quoted and which you do not acknowledge. It has nothing to do with the assumptions of the outside world. The inside world of priestly formation does not operate “as a political institution” in the same way as secular political institutions do. They may have their own internal “politics” (and they do), but it is not imported from what is occurring outside their walls.

And since the new policies Benedict has directed and the seminaries are implementing, a lot of the homosexual candidates who imagined that the seminary, and after that the priesthood, would simply be dating opportunites for them, combined with some neat privileges, have left. Also, I will not name one of the major seminaries I’m thinking of, but it has completely cleaned up. It is 180 degrees different from the sex-club atmosphere it was 20 years ago.

People who are called will become priests. Homosexuals are attracted to the priesthood for a variety of reasons.

If they have SSA, but are able to assimilate and subjugate their sexual desires in the exact same way that is demanded of heterosexual priests, they are indeed being allowed in and will be allowed in. But those with deep-seated tendencies such as described in that post, are unsuitable, and will be denied – initially or eventually.

 

[cathoichelp]

You have not made the connection of the Netherlands Ministry of Public Health with Dr. Nicolosi or the group that you habitually disparage for not falling in line with the APA, notwithstanding its own following even after mainstream professionals continously discredit it.

Just provide a cite of a credible link or source instead of making a representation please and we can put your claim to bed with my thanks.
,

actually NARTH doesn’t fall in line with anyone it’s not just the APA -
The British Medical ***. is another that speaks out against this group

I am not sure what a credible link is to show you the connection - go to the NARTH website and you you should be able to see their affiliates -
I did look but there is too much in Dutch and i am way too tired right now to try and find what you think is credible …
ie - not from a secular site or a site that supports gay marriage…
and not in Dutch -

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Insearchoflight -
it stands to reason that a homosexual catholic would be more prone to depression -
People naturally crave partnership - gay catholics are told their cross to bear is celibacy …
If I presented you w an infertile Catholic woman who was depressed would her depression shock you? Would it seem unnatural to you to be depressed as a women if your cross to bear was not having children …
There are medical options but that is immoral so her longing is never fulfilled.

First of all, I seek not to flee but grace.

The assumption you make is homosexual Catholics cannot endure life without sex. Partnership is possible, even close ones without necessarily involving copulation reserved for a man/woman union for pro-creative purposes. This endless exchange of the same arguments has gotten old. You will not convince me with the justifications you repeat across threads and I don’t believe I can convince you by offering reasons why homosexual acts serve only prurient interests.

If you are looking to affirmation of homosexual unions and unnatural homosexual acts, you might have better luck in a non-Catholic forum. That is because you will continually hear arguments from this side about Scripture, natural and divine law supporting the teaching, and not without the part that says homosexuals are deserving of love and respect.

Yes, I would understand the longing of an infertile woman to have a child and her consequent depression. My husband and I waited four years before we had our son and the next one three years later. If I had infertility problems, and medical methods that preserve the unitive aspect of marriage like ovulation stimulation fail, my husband and I would have likely opted for adoption. But I don’t see this has any connection with the depression in Catholic homosexuals which we are discussing, unless you are trying to insert here the ‘right’ of homosexual couples of adopting and/or resorting to womb rental / parental surrogacy in order to have children. By now, you have heard the arguments on this related gay cause as it has been hashed and rehashed many times over elsewhere in the forum where you participated.

It also stands to reason that any child who is not accepted teased or bullied or made to feel like something is “wrong” with them or completely undesirable - not only by their community family or peers but by God himself would be more prone to depression and suicide.

We have middle school children committing suicide. That is insane. Many of these kids were not “gay” - yet they were teased for being such … that does not make it true-
So is the problem w. that child? Is the problem w a boy who was not great at sports and labeled as gay at 11… or with the children who are treating their peers this way.
Where does that kind of intolerance and gender bias come from?

Why bring this up as if I said the opposite in my post, or that bullying of vulnerable children in school is okay? I am for a solution or a program in schools addressing this, ideally using an objective and non-sensical approach, respectful of traditional values, and one that is not political, as GLSEN is instituting.

I’m not sure I understand your last statement, but if it is in line with one of meltzerboy’s questions directed to me, I will address it in my reply post to him so I don’t have to answer in two places.
,

 

[elvisman]

I apologize, Elvis. I often log on here rapidly, and I respond rapidly because I am very busy with other things.

So, your claim is that every sin is a violation of a commandment, yet some are venial and some are mortal. Let’s put aside the fact that I have killed people for a moment. That is complicated to consider, in light of self defense, government, just war… the topics are weighty.

Would you please tell me what your understanding is of when it is a lesser evil to lie, or when it is not permissible to lie? Hmmm… even that question smacks of a trap. Sorry. Would you please tell me how you interpret lying, and I mean, when is lying a venial sin, and when is it a mortal sin? How do you decide the difference, if it is not moral relativism? Where is the absolute standard which you apply to such a decision?

Peepers -
If you want to start a thread on moral relativism or venial vs. mortal sin - then do so. You have derailed this thread long enough.

**This thread is about the effects of radical feminism on homosexuality. I have provided MUCH information that points to the fact that radical feminism does, indeed have an influence on a child in his or her formative years. You have only presented your disdain for this type of research - which is fine because, as a professed homosexual, you may not want to believe this.

**I provided you with what the catechism has to say about mortal and venial sin, yet you persist in asking what the difference is, regardless of that fact. Given the guidelines laid out in the catechism, it is not difficult to discern what constitutes grave matter and what does not. I suggest you read it if you really want to learn about the Catholic Church as your signature line suggests.

Here - AGAIN - is a short definition from the Catechism:**
**1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture, became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience. **

**1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. **

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

PS - Give me ONE example of a sin that is not a direct or indirect violation of one of the Commandments, as you seem to be having a problem with this.

 

[Peepers]

You imagine wrong. He can do what he has done, and so far a signficant change has occurred. Seminaries are being revamped in their formation programs. Candidates are being vetted, and watched, for precisely the areas that were mentioned in the post I quoted and which you do not acknowledge. It has nothing to do with the assumptions of the outside world. The inside world of priestly formation does not operate “as a political institution” in the same way as secular political institutions do. They may have their own internal “politics” (and they do), but it is not imported from what is occurring outside their walls.

And since the new policies Benedict has directed and the seminaries are implementing, a lot of the homosexual candidates who imagined that the seminary, and after that the priesthood, would simply be dating opportunites for them, combined with some neat privileges, have left. Also, I will not name one of the major seminaries I’m thinking of, but it has completely cleaned up. It is 180 degrees different from the sex-club atmosphere it was 20 years ago.

If they have SSA, but are able to assimilate and subjugate their sexual desires in the exact same way that is demanded of heterosexual priests, they are indeed being allowed in and will be allowed in. But those with deep-seated tendencies such as described in that post, are unsuitable, and will be denied – initially or eventually.

All I can say is good luck with that one. Many gay folks are not going to go where they are not welcome. Nobody has ever succeeded in keeping us out of where we decide to go, because it is not a condition like skin color. Seminarians are celibate. The only way that you can detect if one is gay, is if he decides to tell you that he is.

 

[Peepers]

Peepers -
If you want to start a thread on moral relativism or venial vs. mortal sin - then do so. You have derailed this thread long enough.

This thread is about the effects of radical feminism on homosexuality. I have provided MUCH information that points to the fact that radical feminism does, indeed have an influence on a child in his or her formative years. You have only presented your disdain for this type of research - which is fine because, as a professed homosexual, you may not *want *to believe this.

I provided you with what the catechism has to say about mortal and venial sin, yet you persist in asking what the difference is, regardless of that fact. Given the guidelines laid out in the catechism, it is not difficult to discern what constitutes grave matter and what does not. I suggest you read it if you *really *want to learn about the Catholic Church as your signature line suggests.

Here - AGAIN** - is a short definition from the Catechism:
1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture, became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

PS - Give me ONE example of a sin that is not a direct or indirect violation of one of the Commandments, as you seem to be having a problem with this.

Elvis - if we were in a court room, I would ask the judge to tell you to respond to the question. The question is: We agree that lying is a sin prohibited by the commandments. How do YOU decide when a lie is a venial sin, and how do YOU decide when a lie is a mortal sin?

Please stop throwing dirt in the air, and answer a direct question for once. Your opinion of me is of little interest to anyone but you. It certainly doesn’t interest me, and I doubt that it interests anyone else here.

Tell me how YOU make this decision. I believe that you engage in moral relativism. If that is not that case, then I would like to understand why you think as you do.

 

[Peepers]

You imagine wrong. He can do what he has done, and so far a signficant change has occurred. Seminaries are being revamped in their formation programs. Candidates are being vetted, and watched, for precisely the areas that were mentioned in the post I quoted and which you do not acknowledge. It has nothing to do with the assumptions of the outside world. The inside world of priestly formation does not operate “as a political institution” in the same way as secular political institutions do. They may have their own internal “politics” (and they do), but it is not imported from what is occurring outside their walls.

And since the new policies Benedict has directed and the seminaries are implementing, a lot of the homosexual candidates who imagined that the seminary, and after that the priesthood, would simply be dating opportunites for them, combined with some neat privileges, have left. Also, I will not name one of the major seminaries I’m thinking of, but it has completely cleaned up. It is 180 degrees different from the sex-club atmosphere it was 20 years ago.

If they have SSA, but are able to assimilate and subjugate their sexual desires in the exact same way that is demanded of heterosexual priests, they are indeed being allowed in and will be allowed in. But those with deep-seated tendencies such as described in that post, are unsuitable, and will be denied – initially or eventually.

I was just wondering… what sort of reception Michelangelo would have gotten today by the Church. While the Pope supported him, well actually demanded that he paint the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel, the Pope’ s secretary was a bigot. Michelangelo returned the compliment by painting his likeness on the ceiling in a very uncomplimentary fashion. When the secretary complained, nothing was done about it. I wonder if Michelangelo’s contributions would have been accepted in today’s climate in the Church?

 

[elvisman]

Elvis - if we were in a court room, I would ask the judge to tell you to respond to the question. The question is: We agree that lying is a sin prohibited by the commandments. How do YOU decide when a lie is a venial sin, and how do YOU decide when a lie is a mortal sin?

Please stop throwing dirt in the air, and answer a direct question for once. Your opinion of me is of little interest to anyone but you. It certainly doesn’t interest me, and I doubt that it interests anyone else here.

Tell me how YOU make this decision. I believe that you engage in moral relativism. If that is not that case, then I would like to understand why you think as you do.

I decide by what the Church – the Pillar and Foundation of Truth teaches (1 Tim. 3:15).
**I have stated this over and over and over again to you yet you refuse to listen. **

** I don’t know how else to convey to you that I only parrot the Church’s position – I don’t give my own opinions because I don’t have the Authority from Christ to do so. ONLY the Church has this authority (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18, John 16:12-25, 20:21-23). If you don’t like this fact – that is your problem to contend with. I acquiesce ALL authority given to the Church and defer to the Catechism when I have a question – as ALL Catholics should.**

**Bottom line – and keeping in line with the OP – ALL homosexual acts are grave sin. **

 

[elvisman]

I was just wondering… what sort of reception Michelangelo would have gotten today by the Church. While the Pope supported him, well actually demanded that he paint the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel, the Pope’ s secretary was a bigot. Michelangelo returned the compliment by painting his likeness on the ceiling in a very uncomplimentary fashion. When the secretary complained, nothing was done about it. I wonder if Michelangelo’s contributions would have been accepted in today’s climate in the Church?

**If you’re referring to the claim that Michaelangelo was a homosexual - the onus is on YOU to prove it because no historian ever has. **

**These recent rumors only came about as a result of some old records of his expenses that showed he supported another male artist living in Florence. **This is yet another attempt to “normalize” homosexuality because of today’s societal norms that are feverishly trying to blur the lines of normal male/female behavior.

That being said - Michaelangelo had deeper reasons for depicting the bishops and other clergy as demons on the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel that had nothing to do with his alleged homosexuality.
Gimme a break . . .

 

[Peepers]

I decide by what the Church – the Pillar and Foundation of Truth teaches (1 Tim. 3:15).
I have stated this over and over and over again to you yet you refuse to listen.

** I don’t know how else to convey to you that I only parrot the Church’s position – I don’t give my own** opinions because I don’t have the Authority from Christ to do so. ONLY the Church has this authority (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18, John 16:12-25, 20:21-23). If you don’t like this fact – that is your problem to contend with. I acquiesce ALL authority given to the Church and defer to the Catechism when I have a question – as ALL Catholics should.

Bottom line – and keeping in line with the OP – ALL homosexual acts are grave sin.

Will you please just answer my question, instead of all the histrionics. Which lies are venial sins, and which ones are mortal sins? Just answer the question directly. Sheesh Elvis, what are you so afraid of?

 

[Peepers]

If you’re referring to the claim that Michaelangelo was a homosexual - the onus is on YOU to prove it because no historian ever has.

**These recent rumors only **came about as a result of some old records of his expenses that showed he supported another male artist living in Florence. This is yet another attempt to "normalize" homosexuality because of today’s societal norms that are feverishly trying to blur the lines of normal male/female behavior.

That being said - Michaelangelo had deeper reasons for depicting the bishops and other clergy as demons on the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel that had nothing to do with his alleged homosexuality.
Gimme a break . . .

A saying that I like is: “If it is hysterical, then it is probably historical.” You might want to try to get a handle on why you over-react so on this topic.

 

[elvisman]

Will you please just answer my question, instead of all the histrionics. Which lies are venial sins, and which ones are mortal sins? Just answer the question directly. Sheesh Elvis, what are you so afraid of?

Not afraid of anything,

**I ALREADY gave you examples on previous threads – several times. **
**I gave you the comparison of robbing a bank vs printing out a letter on company paper. **
I gave you the comparison of telling your wife she looks okay in a dress to spare her feelings or lying to her about something more serious.

What part of these comparisons are you having trouble understanding?

 

[elvisman]

A saying that I like is: “If it is hysterical, then it is probably historical.” You might want to try to get a handle on why you over-react so on this topic.

I didn’t over-react.**
I simply have no time and little patience for those who bear false witness to the truth and use spurious information, innuendo and flat-out lies to try to “prove” their point.

Here’s a little hint about debating:
Don’t use words like, "probably" and phrases like, "I think".
Just present the facts and leave the rumors and falsehoods at home . . .**

 

[Peepers]

Not afraid of anything,

I ALREADY gave you examples on previous threads – several times.
**I gave you the comparison of robbing a bank vs printing out a letter on company paper. **
I gave you the comparison of telling your wife she looks okay in a dress to spare her feelings or lying to her about something more serious.

What part of these comparisons are you having trouble understanding?

The part that I am having a hard time understanding is WHY is it only a venial sin to tell you wife a lie about how she looks in a dress, when it is a mortal sin to tell a different lie. How do you decide which lie is venial, and which lie is mortal? That is all that I want to know. It doesn’t seem like it should be so complicated that we seem to have a disconnect here in communication. I don’t want examples, I want to know, when I decide to lie, how I should know whether it is a venial sin or a mortal sin? Do you have a way of knowing that? An acceptable answer would also be that you are not sure. I just want to know how you decide this.

 

[Peepers]

I didn’t** over-react.
I simply have no time and little patience for those who bear false witness to the truth and use spurious information, innuendo and flat-out lies to try to “prove” their point.

Here’s a little hint about debating:
Don’t use words like, "probably" and phrases like, "I think".
Just present the* facts* and leave the rumors and falsehoods at home . . .

Nice. You prove my point by over reacting with your rhetoric. Thank you.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Grace, even if a discriminatory or hostile environment is not the only cause of depression and suicide among gay teens (as well as gay adults, who, however, often have better coping strategies), can we at least agree that living in such an environment is not very helpful or healthful to gay teens? …

Absolutely. I agree with you that living in a hostile environment is neither helpful nor healthful for gay teens. You are right in that their coping mechanisms, which are just getting tested in the school environment, may not be strong or effective enough, in comparison to more developed coping mechanisms by adult gays. The young could indeed be more vulnerable to self-harm or suicide ideation. Your delineation in this regard is appreciated.

I need to add personality type which plays a part on how individuals across age and stations in life cope. The tragic suicide by Tyler Clementi is an example. He was a tender hearted 18 y.o. violinist with a fragile personality. He may have escaped an early test in life if those two other kids did not do the wicked video stream of a few seconds of embarrassing personal activity in the dorm, precipitating extreme distress and shame in Tyler. A question to a psychologist and others would be, how would he fare with societal rejection of other forms or a personal rejection or abandonment by a lover later in life? The latter scenario is quite a common experience among homosexuals – the same thing happens to heterosexuals, all the time, you could say. Would Tyler jump over a bridge in another very stressful or hurtful experience? This is obviously another question with no predictive answer in the scheme of how and where society is, as different factors affect homosexuals which make them more susceptible to self harm.

[con’t]
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

… to be clear, is it your view that the main reason why gays are prone to mental disorder and suicide is their realization that they are committing a sin by contradicting the natural order, so that you believe social rejection plays a secondary role? (I think Elizabeth said something to that effect, although I’m not quite sure anymore who said what.)

Elizabeth did say something separately to the effect about societal rejection being secondary to an internal influence or sense of boundaries at work. Anyway, I am basically saying the same thing after I came upon the Dutch and Norwegian studies in researching depression and suicide ideation in homosexuals. There is a natural law in place, a law written in the hearts of men guiding them towards a certain order in sexual union with another. What I submit is that if violated repeatedly or habitually, it corrupts something inside which leads to significant depression. The Church is right in regarding homosexual behavior as intrinsically disordered. I do not think that non-Catholics and people without faith who are practicing homosexuals are exempted from this law written in their hearts. It is not forgotten or disregarded without causing a psychological disorder. That is what the the Norwegian study suggested, which I cited in a previous post.

In both Dutch and Norwegian societies with a history of (more) tolerance for homosexual behavior, basing on the legalization of SSM a good ten years ahead of the U.S. and counting, suicidality is associated more with homosexuals than heterosexuals. Chrysostim asked just how tolerant these societies really are. I think there is no study that can be conducted with a parameter of zero intolerance. Is there such a society? While public institutions and customs like marriage can be legislated and controlled, personal and family moral standards at play in social relations outside the home can’t.

One other question you brought up involves transgender people. Since you work in this field, I’m sure you realize that homosexuals are rarely transgender; that is, they basically have a sexual orientation issue, not a gender identity issue. To answer that question, I would say that sex reassignment surgery should be performed if the individual truly has that condition. Of course, it must be ascertained first that the problem is not some other sexual or emotional condition. I would certainly not favor sex reassignment surgery on demand!

I don’t do research for a living, at least not anymore, if that’s what you mean with me working in the field. However, when I was working until family duty called, I analyzed medical malpractice suits prior to disposition via settlement or trial over a period of 14 years. Hence, among other things, I honed and retained the faculty of checking medical/scientific information and issues.

Anyway, I’m almost sorry that I brought up in my post the matter about transgenders because I was not looking to invite a side discussion on it in this thread. It is a whole other sub-group, but still under the LGBT umbrella. Yes, I know that transgenders are a different category from homosexuals, with gender identity issues not the same as sexual orientation of homosexuals. LGBT groups have successfully pushed for accommodation of demands in the work place (i.e., coverage under public and employer health plans), and now in other areas as well. As a psychologist and a non-Catholic, you may hold a view in disagreement with the position of National Catholic Bioethics Center, that sex reassignment surgery is unethical, and that the medical profession should not ‘collaborate in the madness,’ offering SRS for a clearly psychological problem.

Actually, there are accounts of some parents who are going along with the wishes of their young children who want to be the opposite gender in their outward / physical appearance, even asking other children to address these kids with the gender of their choice, not the physical gender they were born with. Just where will the accommodation stop? If this is not insanity, I don’t know what is. Although transgenders comprise a small percentage among LGBTs, the effect on practical realities in society, not just the cost of medical services, is not insignificant. The fields in law and medicine are continually expanding to address the demands of a particular segment of the population. The pendulum has indeed swung too far to one side, with LGBT organizations flexing their power. This is why I brought it up, as part of the whole set of questions I posted upthread.
,

 

[elvisman]

Nice. You prove my point by over reacting with your rhetoric. Thank you.

You have hijacked this thread with your preposterous rants about venial sin vs. mortal sin - which is a debate for another thread. This is against the forum rules for which you can be suspended or banned.

Suffice it to say you are homosexual by your own admission and appear to be looking for a way out of being accused of mortal sin if and when you engage in homosexual acts.

I have given you the Church’s position on the matter - ad nauseam - and at this point, I will only discuss homosexuality and feminism, which is the topic of this thread.

 

[elvisman]

The part that I am having a hard time understanding is WHY is it only a venial sin to tell you wife a lie about how she looks in a dress, when it is a mortal sin to tell a different lie. How do you decide which lie is venial, and which lie is mortal? That is all that I want to know. It doesn’t seem like it should be so complicated that we seem to have a disconnect here in communication. I don’t want examples, I want to know, when I decide to lie, how I should know whether it is a venial sin or a mortal sin? Do you have a way of knowing that? An acceptable answer would also be that you are not sure. I just want to know how you decide this.

**Again - I have laid out the Church’s position about the difference between venial and mortal sin, which is the model that I follow. **

I presented you with quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

I have given you several examples of what those differences are, yet you respond as if nobody has explained anything to you.

I have done ALL of this to accommodate you - even though this is NOT the topic of the thread.

If you want to continue to hijack this thread, I will leave it up to the moderators because what you are doing is against forum rules as I have already pointed out.