C
CrimsonThorn
Guest
Never said that. He has given them a cross though and has called them to live a chaste and celibate life
- Status
C
CrimsonThorn
Guest
It’s called the Objective Truth.
E
edwest2
Guest
Dear BTNYC,
I love a good discussion too, however, when it turns to providing Catholics with good, solid answers to their questions, solid research is in order. After all, whatever I write here will not just be read by you.
There were always those inside the Church and outside the Church that didn’t like it at all or certain parts of its teachings. Some because they didn’t believe in any god, others, because they were of other faiths, and then there were the neutrals - people who held to some beliefs that they cobbled together. So to get from 1951 to today means showing credible sources and outlining the key events, and people, who gradually, very gradually, deceived, undermined, and caused confusion, first rather quietly and as the years passed, more loudly. I will give a summary of the key events that led to the attack on the foundational aspects of the Church under which Catholics are currently suffering, both the laity and those in leadership roles, from priests on up. Yes, we struggle not with flesh and blood, but flesh and blood becomes the tool satan uses.
1960 The FDA approves the birth control pill. This didn’t mean much to the average Catholic at the time who knew artificial contraception was not approved by the Church. And you must remember that during that time frame (1951-1960 or so), Christianity, in general, was respected by Federal, State and local governments. The media also respected it. This at a time when listening to the radio or watching TV were inoffensive experiences.
No, life was not perfect but I was surrounded by people and a community that lived out shared values daily. We could not predict what was coming. Also keep in mind that most people lived on farms and rural areas, and there were only 3 or 4 channels on TV.
In the background, there were those who were definitely not encouraged to live out their disordered sexual desires openly. Think of any disordered form of sexual behavior, but it was never mentioned publicly. Why? I think most of these people knew they were doing wrong, and even among Catholics, we were taught to not cause scandal to ourselves, our family and our Catholic community. We knew about these things, but they were not valid forms of sexual activity.
As kids, we knew there were bad kids - kids who openly let it be known that they stole things. And we were never told to bother them, just to say hello and that was it. We were just told not to imitate their behavior.
You should view what follows from a Catholic and non-Catholic perspective.
1967 The Pill is gaining in use. And, like any product, it had to be marketed. And, like any product, it had to offer a benefit. Time magazine ran a cover story in 1967:
time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,843551,00.html
Read the top line: “Contraception: Freedom from Fear.” Fear of what? Babies. Please note that “freedom” is and will be, the primary marketing word for defying Church teaching, now and in the future, both inside and outside the Church
Next, is the Land O’Lakes Statement that separated some Catholic Universities from Church authority. And think of Catholic Universities today.
catholichistory.net/Events/LandOLakesStatement.htm
Yes, once you get a number of professors gradually feeding the wrong things to their students, who were taught to respect such people, the flock becomes confused and begins to scatter. And some of those students became professors and continued the problem well into the future.
But Pope Paul VI knew what was happening. He had some advisors that recommended loosening some of the restrictions on artificial birth control. He disagreed and reaffirmed constant Church teaching in Humanae Vitae, published in 1968.
continued…
I love a good discussion too, however, when it turns to providing Catholics with good, solid answers to their questions, solid research is in order. After all, whatever I write here will not just be read by you.
There were always those inside the Church and outside the Church that didn’t like it at all or certain parts of its teachings. Some because they didn’t believe in any god, others, because they were of other faiths, and then there were the neutrals - people who held to some beliefs that they cobbled together. So to get from 1951 to today means showing credible sources and outlining the key events, and people, who gradually, very gradually, deceived, undermined, and caused confusion, first rather quietly and as the years passed, more loudly. I will give a summary of the key events that led to the attack on the foundational aspects of the Church under which Catholics are currently suffering, both the laity and those in leadership roles, from priests on up. Yes, we struggle not with flesh and blood, but flesh and blood becomes the tool satan uses.
1960 The FDA approves the birth control pill. This didn’t mean much to the average Catholic at the time who knew artificial contraception was not approved by the Church. And you must remember that during that time frame (1951-1960 or so), Christianity, in general, was respected by Federal, State and local governments. The media also respected it. This at a time when listening to the radio or watching TV were inoffensive experiences.
No, life was not perfect but I was surrounded by people and a community that lived out shared values daily. We could not predict what was coming. Also keep in mind that most people lived on farms and rural areas, and there were only 3 or 4 channels on TV.
In the background, there were those who were definitely not encouraged to live out their disordered sexual desires openly. Think of any disordered form of sexual behavior, but it was never mentioned publicly. Why? I think most of these people knew they were doing wrong, and even among Catholics, we were taught to not cause scandal to ourselves, our family and our Catholic community. We knew about these things, but they were not valid forms of sexual activity.
As kids, we knew there were bad kids - kids who openly let it be known that they stole things. And we were never told to bother them, just to say hello and that was it. We were just told not to imitate their behavior.
You should view what follows from a Catholic and non-Catholic perspective.
1967 The Pill is gaining in use. And, like any product, it had to be marketed. And, like any product, it had to offer a benefit. Time magazine ran a cover story in 1967:
time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,843551,00.html
Read the top line: “Contraception: Freedom from Fear.” Fear of what? Babies. Please note that “freedom” is and will be, the primary marketing word for defying Church teaching, now and in the future, both inside and outside the Church
Next, is the Land O’Lakes Statement that separated some Catholic Universities from Church authority. And think of Catholic Universities today.
catholichistory.net/Events/LandOLakesStatement.htm
Yes, once you get a number of professors gradually feeding the wrong things to their students, who were taught to respect such people, the flock becomes confused and begins to scatter. And some of those students became professors and continued the problem well into the future.
But Pope Paul VI knew what was happening. He had some advisors that recommended loosening some of the restrictions on artificial birth control. He disagreed and reaffirmed constant Church teaching in Humanae Vitae, published in 1968.
continued…
B
bri89
Guest
I don’t think homosexuals have a monopoly on that age difference occurence. I’m 23 and I’ve been approached by men in their 50s and 60s, one notable occurence was when I was 16 and the man was 45+. It is a very common experience for young women. Just about every teen girl and young woman has dealt with the advances or at least lascivious gazes of significantly older men, our mothers’ warnings are regarding older straight males who prey on young girls. She never thought it necessary to warn me about homosexuals. Older men, most especially when they come into money, often seek significantly younger women. I really can’t see a greater frequency with homosexuals. Their relationship age-differences seem as varied as heterosexuals.
N
Nom_the_Wise
Guest
I stand corrected. My apologies.Never said that. He has given them a cross though and has called them to live a chaste and celibate life
E
edwest2
Guest
The reaction?
“Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.”
“an event unprecedented in Church history” 1968 was the pivotal moment and the key time-frame that laid the groundwork was a five year plan - 1968 to 1973. It was all there.
The Sex without Love Revolution demanded “freedom” to have sex with anybody. And the means to do that meant subtle attacks at all levels of society, the media and inside the Church. The makers of The Pill had to move product and could not have the Catholic Church stand in their way. The same with those who would bring out the message that all forms of sex were and are OK. They couldn’t afford to have Catholic men and women listening to the Pope
The tactic? Renounce all authority: mom, dad, priests, nuns and the Church in general, and they began to live out their bad example in our neighborhoods, insisting that they be left alone. I was there. “We’re grown adults! We’ll live how we want!!” So gradually, alternatives to our way of living were presented to us. It was confusing, at first. But we quickly learned that it was all about living openly in immoral sexual lifestyles and using illegal drugs. Pleasure became God.
1969 The ultimate form of contraception had to be marketed. We were lied to but didn’t know it at the time. Obstacle number one? The Catholic Church.
catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/
As the 1970s began, I was shocked to see my first Adult Bookstore openly selling images of graphic sex acts, and topless bars and strip clubs. Christians protested but their high priced lawyers told us they had the First Amendment right to do this.
It hurt me spiritually and intellectually. First, how could the government were trusted and respected allow this open scandal and gross offense to the dignity of the human person and the right use of human sexuality? n a practical level, I wondered: Who paid for all the printing, the prostitutes, photographers and filmmakers, other employees, the buildings and the distribution?
You may have heard that “Religion is the opiate of the people.” By the 1970s, sex and illegal drugs became the new opiate of the people, and for some of us, the thought was: “It’s legal so it must be OK.” A very poor justification. But the owners of all these establishments knew and planned for the addiction that followed. To give us the means to harm our sensitivity to sin.
continued…
“Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.”
“an event unprecedented in Church history” 1968 was the pivotal moment and the key time-frame that laid the groundwork was a five year plan - 1968 to 1973. It was all there.
The Sex without Love Revolution demanded “freedom” to have sex with anybody. And the means to do that meant subtle attacks at all levels of society, the media and inside the Church. The makers of The Pill had to move product and could not have the Catholic Church stand in their way. The same with those who would bring out the message that all forms of sex were and are OK. They couldn’t afford to have Catholic men and women listening to the Pope
The tactic? Renounce all authority: mom, dad, priests, nuns and the Church in general, and they began to live out their bad example in our neighborhoods, insisting that they be left alone. I was there. “We’re grown adults! We’ll live how we want!!” So gradually, alternatives to our way of living were presented to us. It was confusing, at first. But we quickly learned that it was all about living openly in immoral sexual lifestyles and using illegal drugs. Pleasure became God.
1969 The ultimate form of contraception had to be marketed. We were lied to but didn’t know it at the time. Obstacle number one? The Catholic Church.
catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/
As the 1970s began, I was shocked to see my first Adult Bookstore openly selling images of graphic sex acts, and topless bars and strip clubs. Christians protested but their high priced lawyers told us they had the First Amendment right to do this.
It hurt me spiritually and intellectually. First, how could the government were trusted and respected allow this open scandal and gross offense to the dignity of the human person and the right use of human sexuality? n a practical level, I wondered: Who paid for all the printing, the prostitutes, photographers and filmmakers, other employees, the buildings and the distribution?
You may have heard that “Religion is the opiate of the people.” By the 1970s, sex and illegal drugs became the new opiate of the people, and for some of us, the thought was: “It’s legal so it must be OK.” A very poor justification. But the owners of all these establishments knew and planned for the addiction that followed. To give us the means to harm our sensitivity to sin.
continued…
B
brasta_septim
Guest
Excellent point there. Age-differing relationships exist in those with same-sex attraction or just the usual couples.
And to answer other questions- no, there is no such thing as heterophobia- you never find a homosexual suggesting that heterosexuals be rounded up behind electric fences, as certain “enlightened” Protestants have suggested. Whereas homophobia, whether you agree it is a word or not, affects even those who do not have same-sex attraction. For example, when I was younger and in the Boy Scouts, I was wrongly accused of being homosexual for years and routinely shunned because I did not seem as sterotypically masculine as the other boys. I hated, and still hate, sports and rough activities, and love reading and quiet- and for that, I was always labeled as a “fag” and permanently excluded. Homophobia, under the definition of an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals, effects both those with same-sex attraction and those who are heterosexual; especially here in the Deep South, it’s unfortunately as part of the culture as any other kind of bigotry.
E
edwest2
Guest
1973 Abortion is legalized, not by the people, but the Supreme Court. The killings began. I was stunned. I just couldn’t believe it. The Court cited “penumbras” and “emanations” from the Constitution and a vague right to privacy. And Christians are protesting to this day.
Also, homosexuality was listed as a disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual used by the American Psychiatric Association. But pressure from gay activists inside and outside the APA led to a vote to make a disorder not a disorder.
conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/homosexual-activists-intimidate-american-psychiatric-association-into-removing-homosexuality-from-list-of-disorders/
Note: I never had a problem with the gay people I worked with, including one bisexual young lady.
Peace,
Ed
Also, homosexuality was listed as a disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual used by the American Psychiatric Association. But pressure from gay activists inside and outside the APA led to a vote to make a disorder not a disorder.
conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/homosexual-activists-intimidate-american-psychiatric-association-into-removing-homosexuality-from-list-of-disorders/
Note: I never had a problem with the gay people I worked with, including one bisexual young lady.
Peace,
Ed
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
It’s too bad your experience in scouting was so negative. There was one kid on our troop who must of us figured was gay, but he was also everyone’s friend. I guess it varies from region to region…
C
CrimsonThorn
Guest
brasta,
There is no such thing as Heterophobia for several political reasons, but those who persecute, mock, and attack those for their anti gay lifestyle beliefs are arguably “Heterophobic.”. And judging by what acquaintances have said in my presence, they would like to eradicate people with anti gay lifestyle views (not bigoted or hateful views just people who do not agree with them).
So while there is no real word for Heterophobia, it is real concept. And for homophobia, the opposite is true. Real word, false concept.
There is no such thing as Heterophobia for several political reasons, but those who persecute, mock, and attack those for their anti gay lifestyle beliefs are arguably “Heterophobic.”. And judging by what acquaintances have said in my presence, they would like to eradicate people with anti gay lifestyle views (not bigoted or hateful views just people who do not agree with them).
So while there is no real word for Heterophobia, it is real concept. And for homophobia, the opposite is true. Real word, false concept.
N
Nom_the_Wise
Guest
This was part of what I was trying to get at in my earlier post (which was ignored in favor of arguing about the term homophobia
). This happened, essentially, at my seminary. One time, some of my classmates and I, were having an informal discussion with “a priest in authority” in one of our dorm rooms, and the subject of celibacy came up. For some reason, this priest suddenly said “As diocesan priests, you will not be held by a vow of chastity.” We were confused about where he was going with that, and he continued “When you stand before the bishop for ordination, you will be making a *promise *of celibacy. It’s not a vow.” This only made us more confused.Essentially, what he had done so effortlessly, was sew the seeds of confusion in us for a while. Nobody challenged him angrily as it’s true that religious take a “vow of chastity” and diocesan priests make a “promise of celibacy.” There came to be a kind of counter culture in our seminary (or at least, we were being “indoctrinated” into the counter culture) that sometimes “things happen” and “we’re all human” and “God forgives” and somehow the difference between a promise and a vow made all of this possible. I wonder can anyone see what I’m getting at? It was so tiny, the crack that he made in the foundation of our faith, a crack the size of a hair. It lead some of my classmates to the error “Well a promise isn’t as big of a deal as a vow.” This ties in with the OP in that this priest was later known to me as an active homosexual (not just SSA). This was a widespread fallacy in the culture of the seminary, and it was begun (and maintained) by the gay community in my seminary.
I’ve spent over a decade being medicated for depression (which I never had before the seminary) and I’m coming to the belief that “ceding too much ground to the homosexual aganda” is just what we’re doing. I watched the Fulton Sheen video the OP posted and realized that “false compassion” is exactly what has allowed gay marriage to occur in our country. I’m not normally a conspiracy theorist, but I’ve realized that my experience at the seminary was poisoned because so many of the homosexuals there were more concerned about “changing the atmosphere” at the seminary in their favor than they were concerned about preaching Christ. And in the secular world, they have created this beast of homophobia (and blaming the Catholic Church of it and bigotry) just so they can “play house” at the expense the authority of the Church and thus hurting our ability to preach the true Word of God.
Why am I even bothering to type this out? Apparently I’ve misunderstood where this thread was going.
B
bri89
Guest
I’m sorry you were subjected to that. Good point about how this fear or prejudice negatively affects those who are not even homosexual. It’s pretty ignorant and philistine how people come to conclusive judgments about a man’s sexuality based on the fact that he may be literary, non-physical, contemplative.
R
Richard320
Guest
I agree.
More than a few Dioceses have a Gay and Lesbian Ministry. Why?
Are there special ministries for men who want to wear a diaper or get spanked by a woman in a leather catsuit? Why not? It’s just another perversion.
No one has to know what anyone’s particular sexual deviance is. By catering to the homosexuals and adopting their language, the Church legitimizes their activities.
Too many bleeding-heart types drag out “hate the sin, love the sinner,” but why? They proudly call themselves “gay,” which tells me they are reveling in their sin, not trying to overcome it. Their whole identity is wrapped up in their disorder. There is no contrition, no shame. Would we be so quick to love someone who promotes dogfighting? We’d hate the sin but not the sinner there? I think not.
More than a few Dioceses have a Gay and Lesbian Ministry. Why?
Are there special ministries for men who want to wear a diaper or get spanked by a woman in a leather catsuit? Why not? It’s just another perversion.
No one has to know what anyone’s particular sexual deviance is. By catering to the homosexuals and adopting their language, the Church legitimizes their activities.
Too many bleeding-heart types drag out “hate the sin, love the sinner,” but why? They proudly call themselves “gay,” which tells me they are reveling in their sin, not trying to overcome it. Their whole identity is wrapped up in their disorder. There is no contrition, no shame. Would we be so quick to love someone who promotes dogfighting? We’d hate the sin but not the sinner there? I think not.
F
fix
Guest
I am not sure of your point here? The term homophobia has multiple definitions and uses depending on the user’s intention. In common usage it refers to discriminaton against homosexual persons. I say that it is a political tool. It is a contrived term like “gay” and “pro choice”.
So, depending on how you use the term would make your assertions true or false.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
Those groups in the church are for those people who are trying to overcome / suppress their desires and live a life of chastity in line with the Church’s teachings. For the other groups you mentioned, there is sexaholics anonymous, or any other of a number of support groups for people struggling will all manners of addiction, sexual or otherwise.
These groups aren’t for the types of people you mentioned, so your entire statement is based on a faulty premise.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Relatively-speaking, of course, and hardly an answer to the question.
C
choir_mistress
Guest
while i have a few gay friends i respect themm as people just as i with ohter friends its their life style i dont agree with so I am called homophobic!!!
I am entiitled to my opion just as they are. but say any thing against them and ow!!! your a monster!!! God made the family man woman to begin as where ther family sorry cant get to grips of gay mariages and maybe its time politicans stood for what they believe and not counting votes!!!
I am entiitled to my opion just as they are. but say any thing against them and ow!!! your a monster!!! God made the family man woman to begin as where ther family sorry cant get to grips of gay mariages and maybe its time politicans stood for what they believe and not counting votes!!!
E
edwest2
Guest
You did the right thing by writing this. It is a documented fact that the 1960s and 1970s were the prime time of the Catholic dissent movement in the Church.This was part of what I was trying to get at in my earlier post (which was ignored in favor of arguing about the term homophobia
Essentially, what he had done so effortlessly, was sew the seeds of confusion in us for a while. Nobody challenged him angrily as it’s true that religious take a “vow of chastity” and diocesan priests make a “promise of celibacy.” There came to be a kind of counter culture in our seminary (or at least, we were being “indoctrinated” into the counter culture) that sometimes “things happen” and “we’re all human” and “God forgives” and somehow the difference between a promise and a vow made all of this possible. I wonder can anyone see what I’m getting at? It was so tiny, the crack that he made in the foundation of our faith, a crack the size of a hair. It lead some of my classmates to the error “Well a promise isn’t as big of a deal as a vow.” This ties in with the OP in that this priest was later known to me as an active homosexual (not just SSA). This was a widespread fallacy in the culture of the seminary, and it was begun (and maintained) by the gay community in my seminary.
I’ve spent over a decade being medicated for depression (which I never had before the seminary) and I’m coming to the belief that “ceding too much ground to the homosexual aganda” is just what we’re doing. I watched the Fulton Sheen video the OP posted and realized that “false compassion” is exactly what has allowed gay marriage to occur in our country. I’m not normally a conspiracy theorist, but I’ve realized that my experience at the seminary was poisoned because so many of the homosexuals there were more concerned about “changing the atmosphere” at the seminary in their favor than they were concerned about preaching Christ. And in the secular world, they have created this beast of homophobia (and blaming the Catholic Church of it and bigotry) just so they can “play house” at the expense the authority of the Church and thus hurting our ability to preach the true Word of God.
Why am I even bothering to type this out? Apparently I’ve misunderstood where this thread was going.
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764.html
Your witness is very valuable.
Peace,
Ed
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
That’s the thing. There is no “Relatively speaking” about Objective Truth. It simply IS, and neither your nor my opinions and beliefs have any affect on it.
B
bri89
Guest
Their whole identity is wrapped up in their disorder? It does seem that a good deal of homosexuals are over-fixated on their sexuality. They over analyze and theorize. This is probably due to the fact that they have been shunned and shamed for their sexuality, for manifesting any bit of sexual desire for their own sex. Extremely lustful straight males are not especially shamed for being promiscuous or unfaithful, to some extent it is seen as a mark of manliness. Homosexuality is perceived as something especially abhorrent and damned and spoken of with more disgust than the other sexual sins. If it was treated as casually and normally as the sins(I don’t think of it as sin) of lust, adultery, and divorce seem to be, then perhaps homosexuals wouldn’t be over-fixated. Treating it with special disgust and disdain drives and sustains this obsession and over-identification.
- Status