Catholics are ceding too much ground to the homosexual agenda

[edwest2]

The reason many of us “declare” is because we are tired of being represented by the guy in spandex with the rainbow boa from the gay pride parade news coverage. When many heterosexuals think of gay people, they think of stereotypical images-and most gay people aren’t like that at all. It’s like saying that all Christians are the angry guy on the street corner with the megaphone screaming at everyone about how they are all going to burn in Hell because they are such evil sinners. Most Christians aren’t like him either.

Since most of us aren’t spandex-guy, and we don’t walk around wearing signs or labels (yet), we answer honestly about who we are so that straight people can see we’re not that different. We work, pay taxes, shop for groceries…all the boring stuff you do.

I am still hopeful that a day will come when nobody will have to “declare” because the stereotyping and irrational fears are gone.

What irrational fears? Based on your statements, and by my reading of the gay press, the gay community has no one to blame but themselves for the image you call false. Go to youtube and watch any gay pride parade.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Very well said, Ed. And in response to a typical complaint that when right thinking Roman Catholics describe homosexual activity as immoral this is somehow unfairly negative and hurtful I respond that this complaint is based on one of two premises: first, that homosexual activity is not immoral or second, that morality is relative or nonexistent. However, Catholic morality is absolute, grounded in divine and natural law. For the Catholic Church and its faithful to condone an act that is highly immoral would itself be immoral, as it would be dishonest. For the Catholic Church and its faithful to keep silent about the immorality of homosexual activity, and in particular the forced establishment of an institution based on this immoral act (same sex “marriage”), would be tantamount to condoning it- a sin of omission. Finally, if one doesn’t want to be told by the Church that an activity is immoral then one can either ignore Church teaching or stop engaging in the immoral activity. Faithful Catholics believe that the latter choice is the only real choice.

For example, I want to be part of the Catholic Church, so I do my best to conform to its teachings. When I fail, which I often do, to live up to the moral perfection towards which all Roman Catholics are required to strive, then I am required to confess my sins, to do penance, and to do my best to amend my life. Whatever one may think of this, it is eminently logical- confession demands accountability, and places the blame for failure strictly on the individual. Confession is a positive Sacrament because it always, ultimately, allows for personal growth- rather than constantly blaming someone else for one’s failings or claiming victim-hood, one can own one’s shortcomings and strive to overcome them. Penance is also progressive and positive, since extenuating circumstances and intention are taken into account in determining the gravity of the sin. Just as in all other aspects of life, in seeking to overcome sin, constant strong and dedicated effort will eventually achieve improvement and at least some degree of success. And when one falls short or backslides, rather than giving up or wallowing in self-pity one is required to get back in the game and keep fighting.

The Church is not going to change- I need to change if I want to conform to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. The notion that any institution can or should adapt to suit the desires, lifestyle or proclivities of every single individual is not only absurd, it is impossible. This impossibility is magnified exponentially when speaking of the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.

Thank you. That’s all that’s going on here: the invention of a group of people who say one thing while working very hard to do another. I worked with gay people. They did all the boring things I did. I didn’t need to know that they were gay but it did come out. No big deal.

Now, today, the gay mantra is - same-sex marriage is the goal. And the reasonable assumption is that all gay people are for this. As Catholics who understand natural biology and Church teaching, there is no such thing.

Pope Benedict has called us to “radical obedience.” That is our goal.

Peace,
Ed

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Earlier sources are irrelevant. The question is what the term means. It is now generally agreed to mean someone who is sexually attracted to the same sex, and therefore it means someone who is sexually attracted to the same sex, as per the Church’s definition.

You are surely misunderstanding the way the church uses the term homosexual.

You misunderstand gravely the nature of prison rape. It does not involve sexual attraction.

Do I? Prison sodomy requires the rapist to be erect to effectively rape a prisoner. That would suggest some level of basic attraction. And its usually the younger or more feminine looking males who are the victims, which suggests a certain level of attraction is taking place.

 

[Baelor]

Actually “my definition” is not mine, its what I’ve learned from members of the Church.

I posted excerpts from the CCC that confirm the Church’s stance that homosexuality does not involve action.

That’s what societys definition is. Merriam Webster isn’t credible and are obviously biased.

The definition is what society says it is.

“Flammable” is not a word. “Inflammable” is a word. Then society got confused about the definition of the latter and adopted the former as a word. Behold the creation of a definition!

Words do not have any intrinsic value; they are simply sequences of sounds. The whole point of language is to communicate thoughts clearly to others (with artistic exceptions, of course).

There is nothing problematic in defining a homosexual as someone who is sexually attracted to the same sex. I fail to see how this is subversive at all. “Same sex attraction” is the literal translation of “homosexual.”

A kleptomaniac is a person who is compelled to steal. If the kleptomaniac does not steal, they are no longer a thief/kleptomaniac, despite the severity of the urge to steal. It is the action that defines.

In the case of the thief, yes. The kleptomaniac is suffering from a mental disorder that is, in a sense, independent of action. A kleptomaniac in an empty room is still a kleptomaniac.

You are surely misunderstanding the way the church uses the term homosexual.

Really? Did you read any of the citations I provided from the CCC?

Do I? Prison sodomy requires the rapist to be erect to effectively rape a prisoner. That would suggest some level of basic attraction.

Erection clearly does not require sexual attraction to a particular person. Furthermore, read anything about prison rape and see the causes.

And its usually the younger or more feminine looking males who are the victims, which suggests a certain level of attraction is taking place.

Over whom is it easiest to exert control?

 

[edwest2]

Dear ed,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well. You dispatch some splendid stuff your self, old chap, the above being no exception.

Homosexual propaganda, which many have been duped by hook, line and sinker, is indeed powerful and the activists have been jolly disingenuous in having any opposition to homosexual vice bracketed along with racialism, when the two are clearly not identical.

Significant shifts have occured in the way society views homosexuality, for example, dear friend, consider the use of the word ‘heterosexual’. If you look in the Oxford Dictionary, Third Edition 1944; Reprinited with corrections 1947, you will find that there are over 70 words beginning with the prefix ‘hetero’, but ‘heterosexual’ is not to be found among them. Why? Because that dictionary clearly represents the thinking of a period in which the compound would have seemed tautologous. For the word ‘sex’ and the word ‘sexual’ are clearly defined in terms of male and female, thus: ‘the distinction between male and female’ and ‘relative to physical intercourse between the sexes’. What else, on this basis, can ‘sexual’ relationships be but relationships between the sexes? Thus whilst that dictionary certainly defines ‘homosexual’ as ‘having a sexual propensity for persons of one’s own sex’, it sees no cause to qualify the word ‘sexual’ for general purposes. Once you make a practice of qualifying the adjective ‘sexual’ by turning it into ‘heterosexual’, you at once imply that heterosexuality is but one variant of sexuality, of which homosexuality is another variant. The standard has gone and the norm has disappeared from view. What was once a deviation from normal and natural sexuality has become a variant as valid as the former norm. Now this sort of stuff, dear friend, gradually changes people’s perceptions in a very subtle way so that they begin to see what is aberrant as normal, even though different.

Since the social upheaval of the Sixties, men have become increasingly reluctant to pass judgment on departures from conventional (and normal) monogamous practices which former generations would have been bluntly hostile to, and quite rightly so. The avant-garde of the Sixties and Seventies revolted against anything which even had the whiff of conventionality or traditional values, they were essentially iconaclasts destroying the old order and putting in its place the ‘new explanation’ or the philosophy of libertinism. In their wicked and childish rejection of what they deemed to be the ‘rigidities of the past’ and ‘societal stereotypes’, they went further and further in the direction of moral anarchy. Many good and God-fearing people. both Catholic and Protestant, did denounce this new godless ideology and warned of its dire consequences, but they were largely dismissed as the old guard refusing to accept the march of social and intellectual progress. Now this godless philosphy has caused immeasurable high moral damage in the West and undeniably has impacted the thinking of Christians, perhaps a great deal more than they are willing to admit. For example, many see nothing wrong with the use of profanity or women being indecently attired in seductive style clothing, such as mini-skirts, which plainly transgress the boundaries of propriety and one could go on. Suffice to say that many have assimilated the spirit of the age and have become desensitized to that which wrong and sinful. It is, as you rightly remark, dear friend, the reason why the dogma of the homosexual agenda has filtered through to the minds of the laity and clergy. We are less likely now to speak of homosexuality as an ‘abomination’ in the sight of God and as a henious sin that calls forth his wrath, as this is seen as disrespectful and even uncharitable, notwithstanding that it is the truth.

It is now becoming, certainly here in the UK, well-nigh impossible to speak out against homosexual vice without being accused of a ‘hate crime’. Quite recently a godly couple who owned a guest house got themselves into jolly deep water because they turned away two homosexual men who had requested a double-room. Christians now feel very muzzled and even among their more worldly brethren, the more earnest men can seem like heartless Puritan priggs or like preachers of the fire and brimstone variety, devoid of any compassion. We are certainly living in very troublous times, but I think that the time will arrive when Christians will have to nail their colours to the mast and stand up and be counted. Perhaps that time is coming very soon.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Dear Portrait,

Thank you for your kind words. Imagine a wall that is many feet thick, a fortification. Like the Church, it has been gradually chipped away. It has taken 40 years to get here, and you’re right - we need to nail our colors to the mast and just say no. And we need to turn the gay agenda around and say: What you want conforms neither to human biology or a way of life that can be called equal to heterosexual marriage. We need to ignore the emotional spewing: you bigot, you hate-filled person, you uncompassionate Christian or non-Christian.

But, like the guard on the tower, we must keep watch and inform each other.

nytimes.com/2012/06/25/us/politics/second-time-around-hope-for-gay-marriage-in-maine.html

The propaganda campaign for a disordered lifestyle has gone door to door. Perhaps it’s time for Catholics to go door to door to remind people that there is a God, we are to please him, and not be persuaded by those who wish to promote any sins of the flesh. And to encourage them in their faith, or encourage them to come back, or to help those interested in joining the Catholic Community.

God bless,
Ed

 

[asd72]

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.

I guess it is most likely a mixed bag, but I wonder with clergy and seminarians like this, do they believe in God but decide He doesn’t really think homosexual relations are gravely sinful? It is like the biggest hypocrisy. I really think the tide is changing though, ironically because it is more accepted to be openly gay now.

Outside the church though it is a little different. We live in a democratic society, we have our vote, we can make our views known, but ultimately what can we do? I guess forgo public education if necessary and be willing to suffer the consequences of refusing to marry same sex couples.

Outside of that we just have be loving and preach the faith. I know very few people that think sex outside of marriage is wrong either, so it’s not like we should be more disapproving of homosexually than that on a personal level. Because they are both perversions of what God intended and I know I approved of both until I committed to Christianity.

 

[Seeker1961]

What irrational fears? Based on your statements, and by my reading of the gay press, the gay community has no one to blame but themselves for the image you call false. Go to youtube and watch any gay pride parade.

Peace,
Ed

In your entertainment/media industry which you constantly refer to in your lectures, I’m sure you have encountered many gay people. Did they look like the people in the Gay Pride Parade? I would assume not, since none of the gay people I have ever worked with in the business and entertainment industry do. However, if you don’t know any gay people, or don’t think you do-the images presented by the news media from those gay pride parades are all you know.

And those images are cheerfully reinforced by people who dislike gay people on principle to show how “evil” and “disordered” they are and convince others to condemn and fear them. It is only by “declaring” ourselves as part of the ordinary working class society that we can counter that demonizing imagery. In reality, many people have lived and worked right next to a gay person for years and never known it.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

. In reality, many people have lived and worked right next to a gay person for years and never known it.

That’s because they are just like everyone else, which I think was the original idea of this thread. Why should we treat them differently and seperately from anyone else who struggles with sins against chastity?

Also, gay is not a culture, which I think you indirectly admit since gays come in many different sizes and shapes.

 

[Seeker1961]

That’s because they are just like everyone else, which I think was the original idea of this thread. Why should we treat them differently and seperately from anyone else who struggles with sins against chastity?

Also, gay is not a culture, which I think you indirectly admit since gays come in many different sizes and shapes.

I don’t recall ever saying that gay was a culture, but ok.

I’m a gay Catholic, which means I do not share my life with a partner and I will never marry. It is the hand I have been dealt. I’m not asking for “special treatment”, but it would be nice not to hear people compare me and my gay brothers and sisters to those who force sex on children or animals-just as an example. I don’t see straight people who struggle with chastity being placed in those categories. I don’t see warnings about keeping straight people who struggle with chastity away from children, or being blamed for the destruction of society-and I have seen those discussions about us.

I would love to see us treated just like every other sinner by my Christian brothers and sisters, and I do believe that I will live to see it.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

I don’t recall ever saying that gay was a culture, but ok.

I’m a gay Catholic, which means I do not share my life with a partner and I will never marry. It is the hand I have been dealt. I’m not asking for “special treatment”, but it would be nice not to hear people compare me and my gay brothers and sisters to those who force sex on children or animals-just as an example. I don’t see straight people who struggle with chastity being placed in those categories. I don’t see warnings about keeping straight people who struggle with chastity away from children, or being blamed for the destruction of society-and I have seen those discussions about us.

I would love to see us treated just like every other sinner by my Christian brothers and sisters, and I do believe that I will live to see it.

I think the Church treats same sex attracted people as any other sinner. Society doesn’t though.

And I never said that you said gay was a culture, you just confirmed without realizing by what you said previously, that gay is not a culture. The media and agenda would like us all to believe otherwise, especially when they label those who do not agree as “bigots” and equivalent to being racists, since we’re unaccepting of an alleged “culture.”

By the way, I’m a single straight man and will likely be for the rest of my life too. Society would have me believe that I am unsuccessful because of this or that I’m only successful in being single so long as I sleep around and “live it up”, another lie.

 

[edwest2]

In your entertainment/media industry which you constantly refer to in your lectures, I’m sure you have encountered many gay people. Did they look like the people in the Gay Pride Parade? I would assume not, since none of the gay people I have ever worked with in the business and entertainment industry do. However, if you don’t know any gay people, or don’t think you do-the images presented by the news media from those gay pride parades are all you know.

And those images are cheerfully reinforced by people who dislike gay people on principle to show how “evil” and “disordered” they are and convince others to condemn and fear them. It is only by “declaring” ourselves as part of the ordinary working class society that we can counter that demonizing imagery. In reality, many people have lived and worked right next to a gay person for years and never known it.

I don’t understand your thinking. The people in the Gay Pride parades are not meant to be noticed? They don’t know or care that others, including non-Catholics, might see those images and think there is a problem with men dressing like women, or mostly nude while wearing women’s high heels? Do these parades occur in order to instigate some sort of condemnation or are the gay people involved simply thumbing their noses at the straights by basically saying: “We don’t care what you think, this is who we are.”? How can you blame the media?

This as opposed to the one bar/nightclub I went to in the late 1970s that was mostly gay. I was there only to see a band and had no idea that the clientele were mostly gay (by the way guys, you look terrible wearing a bra under a sheer blouse). While waiting for the band, I took a seat at the tightly packed bar, sitting next to total strangers. Then someone walked in wearing a short skirt with nice legs. The guy next to me noticed me looking and said [translated from the crude dialect]: “That’s not a girl.”

And what about “gay culture”?

I can see the condemn part but fear? Fear what? A guy dressed like a woman with a feather boa? What’s scary about that?

No, none of the gay people I worked with looked like that. But a close friend who was a manager of a regional hotel chain told me the following: “These guys would come in every week. They were really nicely dressed in suits and carrying briefcases, and would get two rooms in the evening. A few hours later, these same guys would come down dressed as women. I mean, I’m a woman and you could tell. It was always the same guys.”

I think the way to counter what you call demonizing imagery is to stop public events like gay pride parades.

I worked in a hospital for nearly ten years, and in my case, I made numerous trips to the ER to transport patients to the X-Ray department. Let’s just say that a few were there for treatment related to sexual problems related to foreign objects.

I see no way that gay people are going to be recognized as ordinary working class people when they insist on making what should be private sexual matters public. That was the way it was. I’m sure my parents had sex but it was never discussed.

When I was growing up in the 1960s, you couldn’t say the words “sex” or “pregnant” on TV. Sex was purely private. I think, today, life would be a lot - a great deal - better if gays and straights kept their sexual behavior totally private.

On a side note: closing down all porn sites, bookstores and other outlets (oh yes, they’re still there but they’ve changed their names to seem less overtly pornographic), would do much to restore the dignity of the human person.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Seeker1961]

Can you control Fred Phelps and his gang of “Christians”? Can you stop them from going out in public and making Christians look like fools?

Do you think we all have meetings somewhere and discuss these things? “Gee Tom, do you think you can wear less spandex at the parade this year?”

And btw, the guys at the hotel dressed like women were not gay, they were transgendered. I’m surprised someone with your medical experience missed that. There’s a big difference between gay and transgendered people.

When straight people stop talking about their relationships, and stop showing affection for their spouses and significant others in public then maybe gay people won’t feel a need to be a part of that. Do we all really need to hear "my husband sent me flowers, my wife made me my favorite meal, we’re going to Vegas on vacation just me and the wife"and so on? Should we really be seeing all those people kissing each other goodbye at airports and holding hands in public?

Actually - those conversations don’t really bother me at all, and I don’t mind seeing people show affection in public. (Within reason of course). I just think that it’s nice to see happy people and hear about people in relationships who care about each other. My mind doesn’t instantly look to see if the woman is pregnant or if there are kids around to be sure they are fulfilling the true purpose of marriage.

 

[edwest2]

Can you control Fred Phelps and his gang of “Christians”? Can you stop them from going out in public and making Christians look like fools?

Do you think we all have meetings somewhere and discuss these things? “Gee Tom, do you think you can wear less spandex at the parade this year?”

And btw, the guys at the hotel dressed like women were not gay, they were transgendered. I’m surprised someone with your medical experience missed that. There’s a big difference between gay and transgendered people.

When straight people stop talking about their relationships, and stop showing affection for their spouses and significant others in public then maybe gay people won’t feel a need to be a part of that. Do we all really need to hear "my husband sent me flowers, my wife made me my favorite meal, we’re going to Vegas on vacation just me and the wife"and so on? Should we really be seeing all those people kissing each other goodbye at airports and holding hands in public?

Actually - those conversations don’t really bother me at all, and I don’t mind seeing people show affection in public. (Within reason of course). I just think that it’s nice to see happy people and hear about people in relationships who care about each other. My mind doesn’t instantly look to see if the woman is pregnant or if there are kids around to be sure they are fulfilling the true purpose of marriage.

Whenever I read about the movement, it’s LGBT, and I know what the T stands for. I didn’t create the merging of terms.

From the latest issue of the Advocate:

advocate.com/print-issue/current-issue/2012/10/11/out-new-evolution-lgbt-film-fests

Peace,
Ed

 

[Seeker1961]

Whenever I read about the movement, it’s LGBT, and I know what the T stands for. I didn’t create the merging of terms.

From the latest issue of the Advocate:

advocate.com/print-issue/current-issue/2012/10/11/out-new-evolution-lgbt-film-fests

Peace,
Ed

Um…putting the groups together doesn’t mean they’re all the same. All poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles.

 

[TEPO]

Um…putting the groups together doesn’t mean they’re all the same. All poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles.

Poodles are similar to the Bichon Frise, but are not exactly the same.

 

[BTNYC]

Homophobia is not an invented evil because the concept represented by the word homophobia exists.

As I’ve explained, the “concept represented by the word,” has been redefinied repeatedly, and in current political discourse, Merriam-Webster notwithstanding, it now means “any opposition to homosexuality,” including mere defense of traditional marriage. Search for news stories cross refernecing “Chick Fil A” and “homophobia” and see for yourself.

The Catechism does not use the word “racist.” Are you saying that racism does not exist? If not, then the fact that the Catechism does not mention homophobia is irrelevant.

Have you checked the glossary?

RACISM: Unjust discrimination on the basis of a person’s race; a violation of human dignity, and a sin against justice (1935).

Nothing in the glossary about “homophobia,” though.

Heterosexual sex outside of marriage is intrinsically evil AND disordered because it is fundamentally impermissible.

Do your research and stop wasting my time with your worthless garbage.

Stop wasting your own time. Nobody is forcing you to read this thread (which, it may astonish you to learn, was never intended solely for you).

Here’s some research for you:

2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “**homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. **Under no circumstances can they be approved. (2333)

Fornication is a grave sin. I never claimed otherwise. But, as per the CCC, it is not intrinsically disordered, because, while it is contrary to God’s ordering of sexuality for the good of spouses, it is not “contrary to natural law.” In what sense is it not contrary to natural law? As per the CCC, in the sense that it does not (barring use of contraceptives) “close the sexual act to the gift of life,” and because it does “proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complimentarity.” It is not an act of equally grave depravity as homosexuality.

Also, as per the first line of CCC 2357, quoted above, in bold - homosexuality refers **not **to people who experience same sex attraction, but rather to “relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.” Going forward in this discussion, let us, as Catholics, hold consistently to this, the CCC’s definition of homosexuality.

The state has the right to prosecute murderers, and those murderers have the right to identify the reasons for their crimes. Those happened to be homophobic, hence my statement that your post was incorrect.

But, again, the state has neither the competence nor the right to punish thoughts and interior dispositions.

Explain in what way my reasoning is invalid.

The existence of men and women who have overcome their homosexual inclinations, married, and raised children disproves the validity of your reasoning.

You claimed that homophobia is an invented evil. Do you not believe that murdering someone because he is gay is an extreme and irrational aversion to a homosexual person?

This question is framed to lead me to accepting your / Merriam-Webster’s definition of the neologism “homophobia.”

Murdering a human being for any reason is always gravely evil because legitimate justification for taking human life (nearly always limited to self-defense) is absent in the act of murder. As to what forms of murder can be singled out as being especially grave, I’ll defer to the CCC:

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.[68]
Infanticide,[69] fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break.

That is a scientific issue, not a religious one.

No, it’s a matter of Catholic moral theology, natural law and common sense. Heterosexuality is the sole natural orientation of human sexuality. Male and female sexual complimentarity is a biological, ontological and metaphysical fact. The point of my repeatedly saying this is to illustrate the falsehood of the commonly held (thanks to concessions to the homosexualist lexicon ) notion that homosexuality and heterosexuality are merely “orientations” with one having no greater or lesser inherent value than the other.

Your using that quotation in one way does not prohibit me from using it in another.

No, but when you misrepresent my usage of it, I will call you out on it.

 

[BTNYC]

I hardly think the Church would look favorably upon a union in which one person is intrinsically unable to be aroused the other party.

Your opinion of what the Church would hardly think is immaterial. The Church calls homosexuals to chastity. Chastity is lived in two ways: Holy Celibacy and Holy Matrimony. Homosexually inclined persons have both options open to them. The fact that there are formerly homosexual persons who have gone on to the vocation of Sacramental married life is evidence not only of the Church’s approval of such unions, but also of the fact that the homosexual inclination can be conquered just as other inclinations to sexual sin can be conquered.

The Church acknowledges that homosexual tendencies can be “deep-seated,” no doubt to differing degrees according to each particular case, but it does not hold, as the homosexualist lobby does, and, apparently, as you do, that it is a “static” condition.

Irrelevant. I was explicit about my definition of homophobia, which is also the definition found in arguably the most prominent dictionary in America. I fail to see in what way the definition I provided was inappropriate, incorrect, or even against Catholic teaching, nor has anyone even explained in what way it is not.

I am not obliged to accept your definition, nor Merriam Webster’s definition, nor Screw Magazine’s definition (while we’re at it) of a neologism coined, defined, and redefined by an agenda contrary the Catholic faith. I’m not arguing that the dictionary’s definition of this term, such as it is, is contrary to Catholic teaching per se. I’m arguing that, because it is a term of questionable origin (in that it was coined by a homosexual activist) and questionable popular usage in themainstream (as a cudgel against Catholic moral teaching), that it ought not to be taken at face value by Catholics, and that Catholics are under no obligation to grant it the same legitimacy that non and/or anti Catholic institutions (Merriam-Webster, homosexual activists, the mainstream media, etc) are demanding it be granted.

You have also not suggested an alternate word expressing the same concept as homophobia does now, so I have no choice but to continue using the word that I defined.

The CCC acknowledges that homosexuals can conceivably be treated unjustly. It does not, however, see fit to attach a specific name to that scenario, even though “homophobia” existed as an option. It appears neither in the body of the Catechism proper, nor in the glossary (unlike racism). That is telling. I believe it means these potential injustices should be taken on a case-by-case basis, and that there is no clearly defined social evil of epidemic proportions to be identified and named, as there is in the case of racism.

The homosexual lobby itself is suggesting “heterosexism.” Do with that what you will. As for me, I’ll ignore it.

Quote:
The CCC advises us to avoid unjust discrimination with regard to homosexuals.

It clearly states that it is morally impermissible to discriminate unjustly against homosexuals.

If it “clearly stated” that, it would contain the phrase “morally impermissible.”

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

Homosexuals must be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity because all human beings must be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. This imperative flows from the fact that all human beings are made in the image and likeness of God and not from any aspect peculiar to homosexuals.

Note, in the last line of CCC 2358 that the imperative “must” is not repeated, but is dropped in favor of the weaker “should.” That is meaningful. The Church is aware of the potential for exagerration and abuse in this regard and so specifically uses words to indicate the differnece in gravity and urgency between treating homosexual people with the dignity due to all people, and avoiding unjust discrimination toward people who have an objectively disordered inclination toward intrinsically evil actions.

Therefore, my paraphrase “advises us to avoid” is accurate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BTNYC
A Catholic with SSA who lives a holy celibate life is not a homosexual. Full stop.

The Church disagrees, as do most dictionaries:

The Church does not disagree: To hell with “most dictionaries.”

CCC 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.

No, because the entire basis for calling someone a masturbator is that they masturbate. Homosexual describes someone who is attracted to persons of the opposite sex.

CCC 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.

 

[BTNYC]

Appeal to false authority will not work either. “Homosexual” describes a state independent of action; “muggers,” “throat-slashers,” and “prostitutes” all require action in order for that label to be applied properly. Thus, the comparison breaks down.

Venerable Fulton J Sheen, an archbishop of the Catholic Church; a man of universally renowned orthodoxy, personal sanctity and heroic virtue; a scholar, theologian and philosopher of redoubtable magnitude; praised and quoted by popes; and declared to be held by the Catholic faithful as a Venerable Servant of God is anything but a “false authority” in a discussion of Catholic moral teaching. Certainly, he is a damn sight more authoritative in this discussion than the Merriam-Webster publishing company.

As to “homosexual” describing a “state independent of action”:

CCC 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.

 

[BTNYC]

And btw, the guys at the hotel dressed like women were not gay, they were transgendered. I’m surprised someone with your medical experience missed that. There’s a big difference between gay and transgendered people

There is no such thing as a “transgendered” person. That is a recently invented concept in total contradiction to Catholic moral theology with respect to the ontological facts of gender. No Catholic is obligated to accept this concept. We are, in fact, obligated to reject it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

There is no such thing as a “transgendered” person. That is a recently invented concept in total contradiction to Catholic moral theology with respect to the ontological facts of gender. No Catholic is obligated to accept this concept. We are, in fact, obligated to reject it.

Everything except the phenomenon of physically asynchronous people (by virtue of sex organs, sex hormones, etc.) is Junk Science. There is no such thing as someone who is physically one gender but “mentally” another. If it’s “mental,” he or she needs a psychological clinician, not a surgeon or an exceptional identifier.