Catholics are ceding too much ground to the homosexual agenda

[TEPO]

I agree with you that the relatively large number of homosexual serial killers is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

I disagree with your assertion that their homosexuality is only “incidental” to their crimes. Serial killing nearly always has a sexual component to it. Also, a life of habitual mortal sin opens one to demonic influence. Ted Bundy was quoted as saying that he’d never have progressed to serial killing without first being immersed in addiction to pornography. I have no doubt that that is true.

This is what I’ve been saying for years… When sin (disorder) is allowed to pile up and pile up to the point that one becomes numb to remorse, the outcome is always the same – “new” sins (disorders) are invited in, which are always progressively more destructive… If the trend is allowed to continue, the end result becomes complete destruction to the point of insanity…

Bishop Sheen called Satan " The Diabolic" -which means in Greek, to “tear apart”… This is how Satan is described from the Psychiatric point of view according to Bishop Sheen.

youtube.com/watch?v=7z3-F71abro&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Also, need I remind that their are people who identify as homosexual who have actually never had any kind of sex in their life, be it the natural way or the perverse way? There is a difference between practicing and non-practicing homosexual; the teens who come out of the closet being of the latter type, usually.

If you are homosexual with no intentions on acting out on this attraction, there is no need to “come out.” Just as someone who may be tempted to steal but has no intention and did not carry out the act wouldn’t have to come out and announce that they were tempted.

“Coming out” signifies that you are openly gay, which means you also live the “gay lifestyle”, implying you are sexually active.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’ll start with this: I was an undergraduate diocesan seminarian in the 90’s. I know that my seminary had a “gay” population of at least 30-40%. At least that.

Indeed that was true in the 90’s, particularly the early 90’s. It changed the character of many a seminary, and discouraged many heterosexual candidates from joining, not out of fear but out of a rejection of entering a subculture versus entering a religious way of life.

Separately, I congratulate the OP on his thread and agree with him. It’s incredible to me, the number of Catholics (sometimes, yes, including clergy) who seem to be in denial about Catholic moral theology and whose moral compass is aligned more to the secular world and the world of politics than that of the Church.

 

[InJesusItrust]

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.

You’ve probably silenced your own conscience via media and intellectual debate.

Furthermore, it is irrelevant. Thinking that homosexual sex is disgusting is hardly “extreme.” Nor is it an aversion to “homosexual people.” The definition is fine.

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

Homosexual actions are disgusting, and disgust is irrational.

 

[BTNYC]

I’m not avoiding any question.

I’m waiting for the scholarly etymological source that proves homophobia is not a real word.

I’m not sure how scholarly this is, but I grew up in a Greek neighborhood, married a Greek woman, and had to get pretty good with the language pretty quick when we visited her family in Greece for a week.

So I can give you the etymology for the Greek language roots for homophobia: “fear of sameness.”

Doesn’t make much sense,does it? In any case, it was never meant to mean “fear of sameness.” Weinberg and the authors of the illustrious “Screw Magazine” article intended for it to refer to an irrational fear on the part of heterosexual men that others might perceive them to be homosexual.

If this had remained the definition of “homophobia,” then, however etymologically stupid the construction of the term, I would agree that it describes a real phenomenon. I have known men who were needlessly, scrupulously concerned that this or that action on their part would be misconstrued as homosexual. The whole “no homo” idiocy in modern rap music is an example of this. The average homosexualist would doubtlessly interpret this as a symptom of an actual, repressed homosexual tendency on the part of the subject. I would disagree. Prior to World War II expressions of close fraternal affection were not at all uncommon among men in the West, and they were never qualified with a “no homo.” The sudden arrival of homosexuals as a de facto “cultural” grouping in the public square in the evil wake of Kinsey and the sexual revolution is, I think, the logical cause for this condition.

But I digress. The word didn’t retain this meaning for long. It soon came to mean “an irrational fear of homosexuals.” But when the total dearth of evidence of heterosexuals turning tail and fleeing for their lives when wandering into the Castro or Christopher St became too obvious to ignore, the homosexualist magisterium convened once again in the ivory towers of Academia, and the doctrine of homophobia was further refined to mean “irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals.” This time it seemed to stick. But only because they were able to convince many a well meaning (and influential) bleeding heart that the admittedly widespread animus and loathing that most people feel toward homosexuality was, in fact, irrational hatred of homosexuals.

Nobody likes to be called a bigot. The fear of being branded one will silence many a timorous soul, regardless of whether the charge makes sense or not. So we’ve arrived at the lamentable stage we’re at today; where “homophobia” describes any and all opposition to homosexuality. Take a cursory look at pro homosexual “marriage” literature. The allegation that no rational opposition to same sex “marriage” exists is now a well worn talking point for these people.

So is “homophobia” a “real word?” Yes, but only in the sense that Chomsky’s “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously” is a “real sentence.”

But I don’t see why any of this is controversial. Even the homosexual lobby recognizes the glaring flaws in this nebulous, ham-fisted blob of a nelogism. Hence, they are hard at work on its successor: “heterosexism.” Sadly, this new model hasn’t made it past the beta stage. Let’s face it, it just lacks the opposition-silencing “oomph” that made the original the widely beloved debate killer it is today.

You don’t get to avoid the question by asking a different question.

Tell that to the Pharisees who tried to trap Jesus with many a leading question.

 

[BTNYC]

I wonder what is the Catholic equivalent of ‘homosexualist’, as in ‘the Cath…whatever…ualist Agenda’?

The Catholic Church definitely has an agenda. I happen to believe it’s a good one - the best one, in fact.

I’ll briefly offer the modern university system, the modern concept of the hospital, and the art, architecture and music of the Renaissance as only the most superficial evidence of this.

 

[BTNYC]

The spirit of the OP’s thread feels violated. This is like every slapfight debate about homosexuality that I’ve seen on CAF. Nothing is being accomplished, just a lot of clever intellectual fencing.

The red herrings are flying fast and furious in here. And no, I don’t have the time to point them out.

I greatly appreciate this observation and I thank you for it. However, I’ve engaged in enough debates with atheists online that I’m always prepared to be put through the wringer when putting something out there that will rattle cages and ruffle feathers. But I must confess I didn’t expect quite this degree of disingenuous argumentation on this subject from people who profess to be Catholics.

My thesis can be summarized thusly: The homosexual agenda is contrary to the Catholic faith and we as Catholics are under no obligation to take any of their claims of noble victimhood or cultural legitimacy seriously.

What is there in that that any Catholic should take exception to?

 

[TEPO]

I’m not sure how scholarly this is, but I grew up in a Greek neighborhood, married a Greek woman, and had to get pretty good with the language pretty quick when we visited her family in Greece for a week.

So I can give you the etymology for the Greek language roots for homophobia: “fear of sameness.”

Doesn’t make much sense,does it? In any case, it was never meant to mean “fear of sameness.” Weinberg and the authors of the illustrious “Screw Magazine” article intended for it to refer to an irrational fear on the part of heterosexual men that others might perceive them to be homosexual.

If this had remained the definition of “homophobia,” then, however etymologically stupid the construction of the term, I would agree that it describes a real phenomenon. I have known men who were needlessly, scrupulously concerned that this or that action on their part would be misconstrued as homosexual. The whole “no homo” idiocy in modern rap music is an example of this. The average homosexualist would doubtlessly interpret this as a symptom of an actual, repressed homosexual tendency on the part of the subject. I would disagree. Prior to World War II expressions of close fraternal affection were not at all uncommon among men in the West, and they were never qualified with a “no homo.” The sudden arrival of homosexuals as a de facto “cultural” grouping in the public square in the evil wake of Kinsey and the sexual revolution is, I think, the logical cause for this condition.

But I digress. The word didn’t retain this meaning for long. It soon came to mean “an irrational fear of homosexuals.” But when the total dearth of evidence of heterosexuals turning tail and fleeing for their lives when wandering into the Castro or Christopher St became too obvious to ignore, the homosexualist magisterium convened once again in the ivory towers of Academia, and the doctrine of homophobia was further refined to mean “irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals.” This time it seemed to stick. But only because they were able to convince many a well meaning (and influential) bleeding heart that the admittedly widespread animus and loathing that most people feel toward homosexuality was, in fact, irrational hatred of homosexuals.

Nobody likes to be called a bigot. The fear of being branded one will silence many a timorous soul, regardless of whether the charge makes sense or not. So we’ve arrived at the lamentable stage we’re at today; where “homophobia” describes any and all opposition to homosexuality. Take a cursory look at pro homosexual “marriage” literature. The allegation that no rational opposition to same sex “marriage” exists is now a well worn talking point for these people.

So is “homophobia” a “real word?” Yes, but only in the sense that Chomsky’s “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously” is a “real sentence.”

But I don’t see why any of this is controversial. Even the homosexual lobby recognizes the glaring flaws in this nebulous, ham-fisted blob of a nelogism. Hence, they are hard at work on its successor: “heterosexism.” Sadly, this new model hasn’t made it past the beta stage. Let’s face it, it just lacks the opposition-silencing “oomph” that made the original the widely beloved debate killer it is today.

Tell that to the Pharisees who tried to trap Jesus with many a leading question.

Excellent post!!! (I’ve actually learned something today, thanks…)

 

[Kaninchen]

The Catholic Church definitely has an agenda. I happen to believe it’s a good one - the best one, in fact.

I’ll briefly offer the modern university system, the modern concept of the hospital, and the art, architecture and music of the Renaissance as only the most superficial evidence of this.

Hm, that’s not really anything to do with what I was asking.

Some people use the term ‘homosexualist agenda’ rather than ‘homosexual agenda’ when they seem to want to imply that the people involved are just too naughty/silly for words.

I was wondering whether there was a similar term non-Catholics could use when, for example, somebody starts talking about the need for a Catholic theocracy or the Inquisition having been the equivalent of making people sit in comfy chairs all day?

 

[BTNYC]

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.

If I had a nickel for every time I was called “fag” between the ages of 10 and 20, I’d be a wealthy, wealthy man. Adolesence is a wild, confused, cruel time of life. I was never an effeminate kid, but I was also not the most rugged lad in the neighborhood. I was kind of nerdy and bookish. That made me fair game. And to survive in that dog eat dog world, I gave as good as I got. I hurled the word “fag” back as often as it was hurled at me. But none of this was “homophobia.” None of it was even true bigotry. I never once had the impression that the word “fag” was being uttered by anyone as a result of a deeply held irrational hatred of men who are sexually attracted to other men. The connection just was not there. On the less frequent occasions that I heard kids throwing racial epithets around, there was clearly something else at play. There was un an unspoken acknowledgement that something ugly was being uttered, even by the utterer, and that it was intended to be ugly.

This distinction is to be noted, because there is a real, discernible distinction to be made between racial bigotry and supposed hatred of homosexuals, even if you grant that the latter exists. And that is this: Homosexuality, as a practice, really deserves to be hated, as it is an objectively evil action contrary to God’s natural order. There is no such dimension in racial bigotry. There is no moral foundation whatsoever for hating the “sin” of blackness or whiteness or “Asian-ness” or what have you. Racial hatred is, for that reason, always wrong and always irrational. This is why no legitimate equivalency between racial bigotry and “homophobia” can ever be established - and certainly not by Catholics.

Perhaps, instead of granting the concept of “homophobia” a priori, as the homosexual lobby has come to define and hone it, you should take consideration of the fact that we grew up in the wake of the sexual revolution. I firmly believe that the sudden arrival of homosexuals as a well organized, agenda driven political force disturbed the public psyche… And the disturbance was legitimate, because they were being told to accept this de facto “cultural group” as a legitimate one, despite its defining characteristic being the practice of a perverted, objectively evil act.

If you don’t believe me, peruse memoirs and childhood anecdotes published prior to the sexual revolution. You’ll find adolescent boys were ribibng and hazing and bullying each other back then too, but with nary a use of the word “fag.”

 

[BTNYC]

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, your witness is most valuable. And your thoughts are greatly appreciated by me.

Ed, thank you for your words too. I have no problem with long posts… indeed, how could I?

 

[BTNYC]

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!

Amen, frater.

 

[BTNYC]

Dude, are you a bishop or something? You’re just mowing 'em down! BTNYC for President!

Grazzi hafna, habibi.* I’m still a year or two shy of the minimum age, though. I like to remind myself of that fact with each new gray hair I discover.

*(Maltese, “Thanks very much, my friend.”)

 

[BTNYC]

Dear BTNYC,

Cordial greetings and a very warm welcome to the world of CAF. Jolly splendid post that.

Unfortunately, dear friend, we have witnessed changes of enormous proportions and there have been significant shifts in public opinion as regards homosexual vice. How sad that the word ‘gay’ has been hijacked to describe a lifestyle that is anything but gay, which is why it should never be used by those who profess the holy religion of Christ. Moreover, many homosexuals have relished declaring themselves and becoming militant activists. Their agenda has been to promote homosexual deviant acts a normal expression of sexual behaviour, even within our education system, thus indoctrinating our precious children in their formative years. Indeed, the social climate has changed to such an extent that any opposition to homosexual practice is now bracketed with racialism, sexism, ageism and everything else that is considered politically incorrect by our crazy mixed-up and amoral world. There are men in high places - academics, media personalities, civil servants, trendy politicians on both the left and right and even liberal churchmen - who expend much time and energy encouraging the on-going canpaingn for so called homosexual rights. There has also emerged a ‘Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement’ which forcibly asserts that a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual liaison are two valid alternatives, being, in their warped opinion, tender, mature and faithful.

God-fearing Christians are frequently accused of having an attitude of personal hostility towards homosexuals, which is often refered to as ‘homophobia’, simply because they dare to declare that the increasing prevalence of homosexual vice is not only an abomination in the sight of God, but also a dreadful indication of God’s wrath upon a civilization which now glories in its post Christian character. Now, of course, Catholics who uphold the Church’s condemnation of homosexual acts of depravity with great relish and without a glimmer of love are wrong and earn Mark Twain’s caustic description of being "good people in the worst sense of the word’. Certainly our Church’s veto on homosexual behaviour is not an excuse not to express genuine love for homosexual people. Nevertheless, dear friend, we also need to be jolly wary of a spurious charity which refuses to speak plainly and bluntly and call a spade a spade. Thus we must never refrain, from a morbid fear of giving offence, from declaring the Church’s teaching that homosexual genital acts are objectively immoral and are the fruit of our fallen nature, as are other sins of the flesh. We must, dear friend, never give an uncertain sound on the trumpet by mincing our words or soft pedalling the truth to gain the good will of the homosexual community. Now, I am of the opinion that this is a very real danger today, where the primary focus is upon treating homosexuals with respect, compassion and sensitivity. However, respecting the dignity of every man does not mean giving approval to any and all sinful behaviour, contrary to the moral law of God.

God bless and hope that you find your time here informative and spiritually enriching.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

My heartfelt thanks, Portrait, for your warm, wise, welcoming words (pardon the alliteration)!

Though my own cultural background is Irish and Maltese, I am always delighted to meet British Catholics. My love of Chesterton, Belloc and Tolkien likely plays no small part in this.

Again, thank you.

 

[BTNYC]

And don’t forget, we’ll be awarding the prize for the most tortured phraseology later in the thread. And now back to the posts…

Atheists will be handing out awards in an internal Catholic discussion?

Great! Remind me to reciprocate with the Congressional Medal of Ad Hominem Irrelevance.

See you on Reddit r/Atheism.

 

[BTNYC]

IWhile I will not disagree that it is a sin, I will say that Sodomy is an invented term rather like homophobia. I will never deny that homosexual copulation is sinful, Sodomy, while used by the Saints as a term for 20 centuries, is an innacurate term.

Are you getting this, Communion of Saints? Ix-nay on the odomy-Say!

And please print this memo out for those saints without internet access.

 

[BTNYC]

Also, need I remind that their are people who identify as homosexual who have actually never had any kind of sex in their life, be it the natural way or the perverse way? There is a difference between practicing and non-practicing homosexual; the teens who come out of the closet being of the latter type, usually.

This concept of “non-practicing homosexual” makes sense if and only if you grant that homosexuals constitute some kind of unique cultural grouping, This brings us right back to the main point of my original post - I don’t believe that homosexuals constitute a legitimate cultural grouping. As a Catholic I am not obliged to. In fact, I believe I am obliged not to.

A Catholic with SSA who lives a holy celibate life is not a homosexual. Full stop.

After all, we wouldn’t speak of a “non practicing masturbator” would we?

 

[BTNYC]

Hm, that’s not really anything to do with what I was asking.

Some people use the term ‘homosexualist agenda’ rather than ‘homosexual agenda’ when they seem to want to imply that the people involved are just too naughty/silly for words.

I was wondering whether there was a similar term non-Catholics could use when, for example, somebody starts talking about the need for a Catholic theocracy or the Inquisition having been the equivalent of making people sit in comfy chairs all day?

Maybe it’s just the insomnia, but I’m having a hard time understanding the question(s) as you’ve framed it / them.

 

[Kaninchen]

Maybe it’s just the insomnia, but I’m having a hard time understanding the question(s) as you’ve framed it / them.

There’s only really one question - if the equivalent to ‘homosexual agenda’ is ‘Catholic agenda’, what is the equivalent to ‘homosexualist agenda’? Is it, for example, ‘Catholualist agenda’? or ‘Catholist agenda?’

 

[Crescentinus]

There’s only really one question - if the equivalent to ‘homosexual agenda’ is ‘Catholic agenda’, what is the equivalent to ‘homosexualist agenda’? Is it, for example, ‘Catholualist agenda’? or ‘Catholist agenda?’

Let me answer your questions with one of my own.
Your point?