Catholics are ceding too much ground to the homosexual agenda

[Kaninchen]

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.

I thought I’d get away without a eye-wink smiley but, obviously, I didn’t.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

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.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764.html

Your witness is very valuable.

Peace,
Ed

Thank you. You have no idea how good it is to be validated. I’ve been fighting with this in my soul for over a decade. I’ve been having a slow epiphany over the last few years.

From the article you posted, from a writerly perspective, I truly loved “male-baiting neologisms (an example: “mister-ectomy”).”

And I do remember some of the more “orthodox” priests at my seminary talking about the times around V-II when men were getting ordained, thinking that V-II was about to open the door for a married priesthood and more liberal attitudes toward homosexuality, etc. Many priests, at least in America, left the church when that didn’t come to pass. Others just went underground “allegedly.”

 

[Bradski]

A lesbian at work is low 30’s and her girlfriend just turned 19 last year. To me, that’s “legal” pedophilia.

It’s legal paedophilia if the girl is 19? Would it be legal paedophilia if the elder partner was a man? What’s an acceptable age for you for the elder partner if the girl is 19? If one person is 30, what’s the lower limit for the other partner? Would it be legal or illegal if she was 14?

But it is foolish to say in many cases experiences of pedophilia don’t lead to homosexuality or other psychological perversions and disorders.

Paedophilia leads to homosexuality? Well, yes, it would be foolish to say that if it was nothing more than personal opinion. Perhaps you have something on the subject you can share other than personal opinion. If not, I think we can safely ignore that.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

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.

Promiscuous males and females of all sexual orientations should be treated similarly, as sexual deviants. They abuse the gift of sexuality. The only reason you hear more about homosexuality is because the others, as you’ve stated, have sadly become accepted by society. This has not reduced how sinful they are in the least. They are all gravely disordered, and society should not celebrate any of them as it does.

A lesbian at work is low 30’s and her girlfriend just turned 19 last year. To me, that’s “legal” pedophilia.

Technically, this is neither pedophilia or ephebophilia, the person is an adult, fully developed and capable of making rational decisions (not to say they always do). It is still disordered because it is a homosexual relationship, but the age difference, while odd by today’s standards, is not naturally disordered.

 

[Faithdancer]

Thank you. You have no idea how good it is to be validated. I’ve been fighting with this in my soul for over a decade. I’ve been having a slow epiphany over the last few years.

From the article you posted, from a writerly perspective, I truly loved “male-baiting neologisms (an example: “mister-ectomy”).”

And I do remember some of the more “orthodox” priests at my seminary talking about the times around V-II when men were getting ordained, thinking that V-II was about to open the door for a married priesthood and more liberal attitudes toward homosexuality, etc. Many priests, at least in America, left the church when that didn’t come to pass. Others just went underground “allegedly.”

I agree, God bless you Nom the Wise for sharing your experience. It shows your fortitude and overarching faith that you remained a Catholic after such a confusing seminary experience. We are all called to chastity,. Heterosexual Catholics are called to chastity inside and outside of marriage. Catholics with a homosexual orientation are called to chastity, period, since there is no such thing as same sex marriage! That is not homophobia, that is Church teaching!

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

Paedophilia leads to homosexuality? Well, yes, it would be foolish to say that if it was nothing more than personal opinion. Perhaps you have something on the subject you can share other than personal opinion. If not, I think we can safely ignore that.

StPatrick333 said “But **it is foolish to say [that,] **in many cases,] **experiences of pedophilia **[in childhood]**don’t lead to homosexuality **or other psychological perversions and disorders.”

There *is *a connection between sexual abuse in childhood and sexual disorders in adulthood. I agree with you if you’re challenging the idea that “Paedophilia leads to homosexuality” in all cases. He said “in many cases” which isn’t “all cases.” I was a witness of same-sex sexual abuse when I was about 8. This didn’t turn me homosexual, but I’ve had lots of issues to work through in therapy. Also, the friend of mine who I saw abused (he was my age) grew up to patronize female prostitutes on occasion and didn’t turn out to be homosexual. This is only anecdotal evidence, but I offer it.

 

[BTNYC]

It is not an invention, but a cold fact- and an offense against the Catechism’s statement that homosexual persons should be treated with dignity and respect.

It is indeed an invention. It was coined by a homosexualist psychologist named George Weinstein and was first used in print in a pronographic magazine in 1969: psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/Herek_2004_SRSP.pdf The Catechism never uses the term “homophobia.” Homosexuals should indeed be treated with dignity and respect, to no greater or lesser degree than all other human beings.

the reason the behavior is wrong is simply because it’s sex outside of marriage, since we know two men or two women cannot get married.

Not true. That is the reason fornication is wrong. Homosexual acts are intrinsically evil and disordered. Propcreative heterosexual sex outside of marriage is sinful by virtue of its being outside of marriage. It is neither gravely disordered nor intrinsically evil, however.

This might be an opportune time to point out another unfortunate concession in this debate: referring to homosexual acts as “gay sex” or simply “sex.” Homosexuals do not “have sex” or engage in “sexual intercourse” with one another. Only men and women, whose generative members are complimentary, can engage in sexual intercourse. The activity homosexuals engae in is called “sodomy,” and it’s as far from “sex” as a blasphemy is from a blessing.

 

[BTNYC]

Homophobia exists. Teenagers getting killed for being open about their homosexuality is obviously unacceptable, and is not an “invented evil,” it is simply fact. We have the police reports, newspaper articles, and court cases to prove it.

Anyone getting murdered for any reason is unacceptable. I believe murders occur, I don’t need that proven to me. If we’re talking about “hate crime” legislation and convictions, that is probably fodder for another post, though it is related. Suffice it to say that the state has neither the competence nor the right to punish thoughts and interior dispositions. And as to “newspaper articles,” I’d strongly recommend doing a search on news stories related to homosexuality published as recently as the 70’s and 80’s. Compare their general tone and phraseology to homosexuality-related news stories published in the last decade. The decidedly pro-homosexual shift should be easily discernible.

That is absurd and extremely offensive. It is certainly not a charitable mindset to any of the groups mentioned. Pornography and masturbation addicts can conceivably overcome that addiction and get married. A homosexual may never have that possibility, and so the situations are incomparable.

Catholic moral theology is often found to be offensive. And some sensibilities ought to be offended.

I’m hard pressed to find the lack of charity in my assertion that disordered sexual desires are crosses of relatively equal weight… And I’m honestly trying not to see an offensive lack of charity in your blithe dismissal of masturbation and pornography addiction in order to establish same sex attraction as an unconquerable foe.

"And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible. "

We are still Catholics here, no?

 

[liturgyluver]

Not true. That is the reason fornication is wrong. Homosexual acts are intrinsically evil and disordered. Propcreative heterosexual sex outside of marriage is sinful by virtue of its being outside of marriage. It is neither gravely disordered nor intrinsically evil, however.

This might be an opportune time to point out another unfortunate concession in this debate: referring to homosexual acts as “gay sex” or simply “sex.” Homosexuals do not “have sex” or engage in “sexual intercourse” with one another. Only men and women, whose generative members are complimentary, can engage in sexual intercourse. The activity homosexuals engae in is called “sodomy,” and it’s as far from “sex” as a blasphemy is from a blessing.

What about when heterosexuals engage in anal sex? Is that just sinful because they are not homosexual, or intrinsically evil and disordered because it is “sodomy”? Or is that not covered anywhere?

You also forget to mention that many homosexuals do not have sex at all, and do not engage in “sodomy”.

 

[BTNYC]

Homophobia: “an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.”

Do you believe there can exist a moderate and rational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people? If so, where does the line of demarcation between the two lie? Who is competent to define that demarcation?

It is absolutely relevant when one is speaking about “crosses to bear” and one mentions a Biblical reference to marriage as the most natural vocation of humans. Nice try, though.

You misunderstood my use of the verse from Genesis. It was intended to show that there is no multiplicity of sexual orientations. It was intended to show that God created the sexual faculty based on the ontological differences and complimentary aspects of the two sexes. It was intended to refute the homosexualist claim that homosexuality is some kind of indelible, ontological aspect of one’s very self. No reference was made by me to the state of holy celibacy, which is elsewhere in Scripture (and Catholic tradition) described as a *higher and holier *state than marriage.

 

[BTNYC]

Unfortunately you may be correct. We too often lead disintegrated lives. The conflict appears as we conform ourselves more to culture than to our faith.

Perfectly put. That sums it up exactly.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

What about when heterosexuals engage in anal sex? Is that just sinful because they are not homosexual, or intrinsically evil and disordered because it is “sodomy”? Or is that not covered anywhere?

You also forget to mention that many homosexuals do not have sex at all, and do not engage in “sodomy”.

Red herrings. :hypnoI wish there was a “red herring” emoticon. Where can I apply for one to be made? All I have is this one, which demonstrates the effect of the red herring).

Anal sex=sodomy. I also forgot to mention that river trout and tiger fish do not have sex at all and do not engage in sodomy because they shoot their sperm directly on their eggs because that’s what fish do. :hypno: You are now in my power…

 

[BTNYC]

I really really want to contribute to this conversation, but I fear that I’m likely to write waaay too much. I want to re-emphasize to myself that this thread is about “ceding too much ground.” I believe that has indeed happened and I wonder if the cat can ever again be put back into the bag (not my metaphor, but it works).

I’ll start with this: I was an undergraduate diocesan seminarian in the 90’s. Even though I have learned that my experience was not unique, it was not universal. My first day at the seminary I was hit on by a classmate in my own dorm room as I was unpacking. I resisted and when I got angry the classmate not only backed down, but claimed that he was kidding. We left my room together to find another seminarian standing just outside the door waiting for us. This seminarian claimed that he was out there waiting to see if I would have “fallen for it.” What I know now is that I was being informally “vetted” as it were.

That was day one. People have asked me why I didn’t report it. Here’s what I know now. The highest posts in my seminary were held by homosexual priests. I gave those classmates of mine the benefit of the doubt, but I know now that even had I reported it, little would have been done.

I knew when I started this post that too much summary would probably lessen the impact of what I’m trying to say about “ceding too much ground.” I know that in the past (and perhaps now) there was a culture of DADT (don’t ask; don’t tell) in the seminary system. There have been MMPI tests given for years of course, but they are not perfect. I know that my seminary had a “gay” population of at least 30-40%. At least that. There are too many branches that can be developed from this. I used to believe that a man could be a good priest and suffer from what we’re now calling SSA. Not so sure anymore. I believe that there was, in some areas, an attempt by SSA/gay clergy to influence church culture for their benefit, not necessarily the church’s. I believe that happens still to this day and we need to watch for it. This thread is about “ceding too much ground.” I have to say based on my own experiences that I’ve seen at least a few subtle attempts in my time by SSA or gay laity/clergy to “take” ground, specifically by downplaying or outright lying about the nature of homosexuality.

I need to end this post, but I want it to be known that I’m not talking about any kind of vainglorious retributive strike. Homosexuality is a sin, just like masturbation and pornography viewing (I’ve been guilty of this), just like drunkardliness or heterosexual adultery et. al. There has been an overly deep fascination with homosexuality in recent years and sometimes I think we do put too much focus there while forgiving heterosexual vice which seems to us heteros as more sympathetic.

We must behave as Christ in all things, and not like Machiavelli. So much more to say…

Thank you for this first hand account. It provides valuable witness and insight to the extent of this problem within the Church.

 

[andrewstx]

I have posted many times on these pages that homosexual sex acts are gravely sinful.

Same sex attraction is not, but a tempatation, and we all have tempatations.

Such posts are uniformly ignored, never once has one of those posts been replyed too.

And I am a chaste heterosexual.

Seems like homophobia to me, and another indication of the trend to the far right.

Yesterdays Jews are todays homosexuals.

I really fear for the future.

 

[liturgyluver]

Red herrings. :hypnoI wish there was a “red herring” emoticon. Where can I apply for one to be made? All I have is this one, which demonstrates the effect of the red herring).

Anal sex=sodomy. I also forgot to mention that river trout and tiger fish do not have sex at all and do not engage in sodomy because they shoot their sperm directly on their eggs because that’s what fish do. :hypno: You are now in my power…

No, beause you didn’t answer the question…not that I am surprised, by the way!

 

[BTNYC]

In connection with the OP’s excellent posting and the terms used…I’m not so much concerned with the use of “gay” or LGBT and such as I am with the use of terms like homophobic. The reason that homophobic is a problem is simply because it is often times not a statement of fact based on some define criteria. Rather it is used in one of two ways. As an accusation that would require proof, or as a “red herring/straw man” to deflect a discussion.

Thank you for your kind words and insights, James.

A few words to clarify my perhaps less than clear opposition to the terms “gay” and “LGBT.”

It basically boils down to my belief that Catholics should reject appelations and nomenclatures that a very well organized anti-family, anti-Catholic, anti-moral agenda chooses for itself. If “Sodomites” is perhaps too harsh a word for polite company, than the clinical, neutral term “homosexual” should suffice. “Gay” is too euphemistic, and lends an inappropriately “light” and “happy” connotation to what is a decidedly dark and unhappy state of life. The fact that journalistic style manuals now demand “gay” be used in place of the traditionally used “homosexual” is an alarming piece of evidence for the homosexual agenda’s ubiquitous influence.

Also the “T” in “LGBT” refers to “Trangendered,” another completely invented concept that Catholic moral teaching firmly rejects.

 

[edwest2]

What about when heterosexuals engage in anal sex? Is that just sinful because they are not homosexual, or intrinsically evil and disordered because it is “sodomy”? Or is that not covered anywhere?

You also forget to mention that many homosexuals do not have sex at all, and do not engage in “sodomy”.

Regarding your last sentence, how do you know this?

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Definition: “Sodomoy - Sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation.”

During the 1980s, the major hospital I worked at began providing “Sexual Reassignment Surgery.”

Also, this is not just a Christian thing:

torahdec.org/Default.aspx

Also click on their About Us link.

God bless,
Ed

 

[BTNYC]

Raping someone and fornication are both sexual sins, but not to distinguish between them is idiotic.

It is indeed. Did someone fail to distinguish rape and fornication? Did anyone even bring up rape prior to your doing so?

Not all mortal sins are of equal depravity nor do they all cause equal harm. They do, however, all lead souls to hell. And all of the disordered inclinations to sexual sin I mentioned have that in common, and all are, I believe, crosses to bear of comparable weight, relative to other mitigating factors (maturity, personal sanctity, etc).

And they have different effects, as I stated above – the porn addict may marry, the homosexual, not so much. To deny this difference is very problematic.

Homosexuals may marry. They may not marry members of their own sex, because such a concept is meaningless.

That you can repeatedly dismiss the gravity of addiction to pornography so cavalierly is highly disturbing. It absolutely can impede a marital vocation and it has been the downfall of many a marriage, as has homosexuality. The two are indeed similar and comparable in this respect.

And, happily, in this respect also: With God’s Grace they can be overcome.

 

[BTNYC]

I am an adult and still think that heterosexual sex is repellant, so I fail to see why I should accept your claim at a factual level.

A person disgusted by sodomy is disgusted by something intrinsically evil and disordered and contrary to natural law. Your disgust is with the God-ordained means of bringing life into the world. The former reaction is properly ordered. The latter is not. I’m glad for your sake that your own parents (and mine for that matter) did not share your disgust.

Being disgusted at another human being and not his actions is uncharitable and contrary to Christ’s teaching through the Church.

What was your opinion of the discourse on False Compassion by Venerable Servant of God Bishop Fulton J Sheen? He goes considerably further than I did, mentioning homosexuals in the same breath as “muggers,” “throat-slashers” and “prostitutes.”