Catholics are ceding too much ground to the homosexual agenda

[fix]

Racism is still very much alive. Unfortunately, it is used in political propaganda as well, but not to convey real knowledge, but usually to get an emotional reaction out of the reader/listener.

Peace,
Ed

Yes, my point is that the word racism is often used as a cudgel just as homophobia is.

The difference is that racism is a legitimate word that can be misued and often is.

Homophobia is different. That is mostly political word. It is used to further a particular agenda. It may be used at times to describe some partiuclar unjust discrimination but it is popularly used as a tool against another person that opposes the “gay” agenda.

It is used against those who practice just discrimination.

 

[edwest2]

To settle the discussion on the CCC, I have pulled every instance of “homosexual” and “homosexuality.”

Several things may be noted:

1. There is no statement anywhere in the CCC that “homosexuality” is gravely evil or in any way immoral, only “homosexual acts/practices/etc.”. This suggests that homosexuality itself is not itself sinful. The only way this is possible is if “homosexuality” does not involve action. If homosexuality itself were sinful (i.e. involving action), surely the CCC would opt for succinctness and state that homosexuality is sinful.
2. There is an explicit statement that the “homosexual condition” is not a choice. “Homosexual” as an adjective, therefore, cannot involve action, but rather some mental state. It makes far more sense that “homosexual” as a noun is an extension of this definition than to add in a component of action without reason to do so. The CCC does not in any way suggest that it has taken this less likely route.
3. On the topic of relations, one may look to the other parts of the CCC containing that word used in a similar way:

There is a footnote after “recriminations” directing us to Genesis 3:12.

The conclusion follows obviously, but to make it as clear as possible: none of the instances of relations without “sexual” or “intimate” have any connotations of sexual activity whatsoever. Even 400 and 1607 are unquestionably non-sexual, especially given the Genesis reference.

Thus, “relations” is used in the Catechism not to connote sexual activity, but rather it refers to interaction in the broadest possible sense, q.v. 2464, and is not even limited to human-human interaction.

Consequently the “relations” in 2357 cannot possibly be sexual, as all other instances of sexual relations are clearly labeled as such. Nor does the Catechism condemn these relations or homosexuality.

"Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity… (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.(5) This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.

“Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.(7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8) The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered”(9) and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.(10)”

Full document here: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Once again, to others reading this, I have never had a problem working with gay people. At issue here is an agenda that homosexuality is just like heterosexuality and gay marriage should be accepted by all. We are all sinners, and no one should ever be teased, bullied or physically assaulted because they are gay. We can, and do, live with each other now. The current global push for what gay groups are calling gay marriage essentially implies that all gay people should be or are involved in promoting this.

pfox.org/about_us.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Yes, my point is that the word racism is often used as a cudgel just as homophobia is.

The difference is that racism is a legitimate word that can be misued and often is.

Homophobia is different. That is mostly political word. It is used to further a particular agenda. It may be used at times to describe some partiuclar unjust discrimination but it is popularly used as a tool against another person that opposes the “gay” agenda.

It is used against those who practice just discrimination.

Thank you for the clarification.

Ed

 

[Portrait]

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.

Dear BTNYC,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for all of your splendid (name removed by moderator)ut on this thread, which is not only a victory for common sense but, most importantly, accords fully with the teaching of Holy Mother Church. Jolly good argumentation, a real tour de force, as far as I am concerned, dear brother.

Whether it is a so called transgender or transsexual or a homosexual that is in view, as far as orthodox Catholicism is concerned all of these must be viewed as the effects of the Fall and Original Sin. Mankind, dear friend, is deeply flawed by the Fall and sin has corrupted the hearts and desires of us all - “None is righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3: 10). What we must never loose sight of in these sorts of discussions is that the world is not now as it originally came from the good hands of our Creator. Mankind has rebelled and fallen into a deplorable state of sin and degredation. Moroever, he is born into an already imperfect world and brings with him a wounded nature that is continually manifesting itself in various ways, homosexual deviant behaviour being just one of them. Alas, our personalities are complexes of all manner of sinful desires and no aspect of our humanity escapes unscathed and that includes our sexuality. We may inherit various tendencies to revolt against God’s order of things and we may respond in a sinful way to the diverse evil influences to which we are subjected.

We know from Sacred Scripture, dear friend, that sin affects all of human nature, including our sexuality and every area of human experience. Moreover, these effects of sin are physical, psychological and emotional, as well as moral and spiritual. Thus just as the natural creation has been defaced by the Fall and the curse (Gen. 3: 17-19), so also has man’s body been affected; genetic disorders, physical disabilities and hereditary disease all, ultimately, have to be traced back to the disorder in the created realm, which was introduced as a consequence of man’s original disobedience. Therefore, the homosexual condition in terms of attraction, orientation and temptation must be viewed as a unhappy effect of man’s fallen estate. Indeed, homosexual attraction and acts of depravity are a clear evidence that we live in a fallen world where man has gone very far from his original righteousness. This being the case, homosexuality, or any other deviancy for that matter, must be denounced in the strongest terms and those who engage in it should be urged to repent and amend their lives, just as with those guilty of fornication, adultery, or beastality, for example.

Having said this, dear friend, I would not deny for one moment that other issues have to be factored in as regards the development of homosexual attraction (e.g. parent-child relationships, peer interactions, homosexual parent or sexual abuse). Notwithstanding, the fact remains that because homosexual attraction is unnatural and contrary to God’s norm for human sexuality, it cannot but be viewed negatively and again traced back to a consequence of the Fall. This is not to retreat into a simplistic analysis, as some liberal thinkers might argue, but to adhere firmly to the teaching of Sacred Scripture, to which authority the Church herself submits (CCC, para. 86).

If, dear friend, Catholics kept in view the true genesis of the homosexual condition, namely that it is a sad effect of the Fall and Original Sin, then surely they would be less likely to become mislead by homosexual propaganda, including terminology loaded with ideology. Moreover, they would be much less likely to yeild too much to the aggressive homosexual agenda of our age, having a firm grounding in our most holy faith. Good catechesis is the urgent need of the hour, for this is sadly lacking among many contemporary Catholics.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Yes, my point is that the word racism is often used as a cudgel just as homophobia is.

The difference is that racism is a legitimate word that can be misued and often is.

Homophobia is different. That is mostly political word. It is used to further a particular agenda. It may be used at times to describe some partiuclar unjust discrimination but it is popularly used as a tool against another person that opposes the “gay” agenda.

It is used against those who practice just discrimination.

Dear fix,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well. Indeed, very well put.

The homosexual activists, dear friend, are clamouring for a full acceptance of their aberrant lifestyle, including rights and privelleges normally granted to men and women who have entered into holy wedlock. When they are opposed, especially by God-fearing Christians, they do pull this ‘homophobia’ card and accuse those who dare to question their detestable practices of being ‘religious bigots’ or foaming at the mouth ‘fundamentalists’. By doing this they hope to close good men down and silence any objections to their wicked lifestyle.

What is never spoken about much these days, dear friend, is the discrimination by governments, who have caved into the many demands of homosexual lobbyists, against ordinary people, including Christians, who frequently fall foul of so called ‘hate crimes’.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

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

Dear BTNYC,

Hello again. Good point and how important it is to stress that the homosexual condition can be overcome, as can any sinful tendency by God’s good grace.

Sacred Scripture, dear friend, states quite unequivocally that those struggling with a homosexual proclivity can indeed overcome their inclinations. After listing a number of categories that most typically characterize the ungodly, including practicing homosexuals, St. Paul reminded the Corinthians, “And such were some of you” (I Cor. 6: 9-11, added emphasis mine).

Corinth was a notorious centre of all manner of vice in the ancient world and some of the Corinthians had been converted out of such a vicious background. Whilst it is not specifically stated that they were all able to establish normal sexual relationships, it is not unreasonable to assume that some did. Quite likely many of them would have been called to a celibate life, which St. Paul mentions in First Corinthians chapter 7 as an option for some Christians. However, what is certain is that they were granted grace and strength to live a new life in Christ who had redeemed and regenerated them through Holy Baptism.

“And such were some of you”, must, dear friend, rank as some of the most exciting words in the entire bible. Men need to pause for a while and just savour the elation as St. Paul rejoices in the liberating power of God’s grace. We need to make it abundantly clear that change is possible for those afflicted with a homosexual proclivity. Nevertheless, homosexuals are much more likely to change in an atmosphere of loving acceptance than in one which has the flavour of suspicion. We need to strive to be tough on the sin of homosexual deviant acts, for they are violation of the moral law, yet tender in out treatment of the homosexual person, realizing that the path to holiness frequently involves three steps forward and two steps back, so to speak. Homosexuals who have embraced Christ’s religion need supportive understanding and unconditional positive regard, so as to encourage them in their struggle against this wicked vice that is a fruit of man’s fallen estate.

God bless and may you, my dear friend, and all other contributors to this thread have a splendid and relaxing weekend, whatever are your plans. Again thankyou for your articulate posts, which have been bang on target.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

 

[John_of_Woking]

Dear John of Woking,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well. Hear, hear to your remark above, which is bang on target.

To brand a man a ‘homophobe’ because he denounces homosexual aberrant acts on Christian grounds, is not dissimilar to using the term ‘troll’ on the interweb as an ad hominem strategy to discredit an opposing position by attacking the proponent. Both, dear friend, are instances of people flaunting their annoyance at opposing viewpoints (by which they have usually been thrown off balance) and trying to score cheap debaters points at the expense of their antagonist.

Invariably, calling a chap a homophobe is an attempt to halt rational debate of an issue by shifting the focus to either one of the participants. In doing so they dismiss another man’s arguments based upon some real or supposed attribute of the person. In this case the supposed attribute is a fear of homosexuals. It is, as you quite correctly say dear friend, “a stick to beat people with”. In any event, even if a man did entertain an irrational fear of homosexuals that would not ipso facto diminish his cogent arguments against homosexual vice one iota.

However, the charge of homophobia, frequently leveled against God-fearing Christian people nowadays, simply does not stand up to scrutiny. The vast majority of those who feel compelled on Christian grounds to denounce homosexual acts of depravity, are not at all fearful of homosexuals. Moroever, one can profoundly disagree with something without necessarily fearing it, thus the devious ploy to close down legitimate debate falls jolly flat. It is nothing more, dear friend, that an attempt to divert attention from the arguments against one’s position by focusing the spotlight on the one who proposed the arguments, whilst trying to proclaim some moral high ground against him. Surely this says more about the chap using the abusive epithet than against the one whom the abuse is directed.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Hello

Hope you are well dear Brother in Christ. Your post is the unvarnished truth.

 

[edwest2]

Dear Portrait,

If I may add a few observations. We must learn to analyze the emotional words leveled against us and expose them for what they are, once and for all. Thanks to modern media, and the desire of too many to accept short sound bites as “all they need to know,” too many of us learning to be lazy, pure and simple. The TV news has capitulated. Examples:

A gay man is shown yelling: “I was born this way!” at a protestor.

A related example regarding abortion: “Keep your beliefs off my body!”

Both examples lasted about a minute but the psychological purpose was carefully planned. News stories are carefully edited and planned. They are not, in too many cases, not actual truth as in “actual slices of life,” but pure propaganda pieces. Since we are taught to be compassionate to all, we too often question ourselves as to the validity of our beliefs when we hear such things. That we might be wrong. But too many of us do not go through to the next step, namely, getting the right answer. The true answer. This creates confusion and helps the propagandist to persuade others. The clarity you provide to all readers here, and that provided by BTNYC, pushes the propaganda aside, and shows the truth with full clarity.

Catholics must remove the indecision. We must remove the doubts. And most importantly, reject the falsehoods that are preached to the people daily. By definition, the truth is not the goal in the gay agenda. It is a campaign of winning over the majority to their totally distorted way of thinking. And every time careful wordplay appears, the light must dispel the confusion it causes, not just on an intellectual level, but on an emotional level.

To my fellow Catholics, unless you have teased, bullied or threatened or caused actual harm to anyone because they are gay - you are being used and manipulated to believe a lie. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

When I worked at a hospital, at no time was any patient asked to reveal their sexual state of mind, i.e. are you gay? They were there for treatment, even though that treatment could involve a problem related to a gay sex act. We did not judge anyone, even if they came into the ER smelling as if they were drenched in alcohol or suffering from the effects of drug addiction.

I heard a woman speaking on Catholic Radio about a pro-life rally she attended. The media did not cover the thousands of pro-lifers but the small number of pro-abortion protestors. In fact, the pro-life demonstration was not even mentioned in a well-known newspaper.

Until recently, I never heard the word Catechesis. I had Religion Class as I grew up in the 1960s, and our faith was fully explained. And I think too many Catholics today don’t know what the word even means, including non-Catholics. The question becomes: How do we apply our Catholic education to our everyday lives? This is vitally important. In the 1960s, we were embraced by the culture and as a Western society, we had shared values even though we were Catholics or Baptists or Anglicans. The great ship of the Church was gradually turned in the opposite direction by the fully committed radicals, Hippies and anarchists.

How then shall we live? WE NEED to be informed, with practical and unchanging examples, of how to live our day to day lives. I assure you, growing up as a Christian was easy in the West during the 1960s. Why? Because the media and society in general, respected and reflected our values. Today - the EXACT OPPOSITE is true in most cases.

Take male-female relationships. Because of the warm embrace Christianity received in the 1950s and 1960s, we were constantly exposed to good role models in movies, on TV, on the radio, in newspapers, etc., AND in real life. We could start dating and have no fear of going to a movie with our date, or going over to her house and watching TV together or going to a dance or a sporting event.

What used to be dating (without sexual intercourse), going steady, courtship (which included both parents), engagement and marriage, and then, and only then, sexual relations - diminished as the decades passed, reducing it all to “just sex,” just like using a toilet. With no need for any of the other things I mentioned.

And where would I take my date today? What would be the topics of conversation? The culture has turned completely wrong in most cases, and decidedly anti-Christian. So, look at England and teen and young adult behavior - the OK has been given to please ourselves with all the sins of the flesh - and consequences? What’s that? Who cares? Live for the moment because tomorrow you die and are just food for worms.

Clarity and yes, clear instructions on how to live out our lives daily in the anti-life and anti-God world being preached today. Too many are lost on the road of life.

bible.cc/1_corinthians/14-8.htm

youtube.com/watch?v=UVRpEfSKL0Q

God bless,
Ed

 

[asd72]

Your position goes to the basis of the OP’s thread. It is exactly that people want to manipulate language that is the issue. Simple changing the name of something does not change reality. That is why terms like “gay”, “pro choice”, “homophobia”, and much more are so very problematic.

It is difficult, I definitely agree that the term homophobia is inaccurate. A phobia involves anxiety which most people don’t have in relation to homosexuality.

The others, I’m not so sure. The OP may well be right. I definitely agree with the concept of right and wrong rather than relativity, but I’m not so sure with terminology thing. I guess I would have to look into it more.

 

[fix]

It is difficult, I definitely agree that the term homophobia is inaccurate. A phobia involves anxiety which most people don’t have in relation to homosexuality.

The others, I’m not so sure. The OP may well be right. I definitely agree with the concept of right and wrong rather than relativity, but I’m not so sure with terminology thing. I guess I would have to look into it more.

Look at it this way as one example. For decades certain sexual acts were spoken of as perverted or deviant. This was not done to be uncharitable. It was done to describe reality.

Today if those terms are used to describe “gay sex” I promise you people will immediately say uncharitable, or you are driving people away, or some other excuse. The focus has been changed from the inherent wrongness of certain acts to the speaker who must be vilified to maintain that bad is good.

And that is just one example.

 

[Baelor]

Look at it this way as one example. For decades certain sexual acts were spoken of as perverted or deviant. This was not done to be uncharitable. It was done to describe reality.

Today if those terms are used to describe “gay sex” I promise you people will immediately say uncharitable, or you are driving people away, or some other excuse. The focus has been changed from the inherent wrongness of certain acts to the speaker who must be vilified to maintain that bad is good.

And that is just one example.

I agree entirely, and we must resist this every chance we get. It is unacceptable to consider homosexuality anything other than a disordered sexual orientation.

 

[Bradski]

Look at it this way as one example. For decades certain sexual acts were spoken of as perverted or deviant. This was not done to be uncharitable. It was done to describe reality.

Those terms were used because anyone who was gay kept quiet about it. Not surprisingly because people talked about gays being perverted and deviant. So the words were bandied about in polite conversation because nobody thought that anyone was being hurt by them. Or at least, if they were, they weren’t actually there to hear them.

Now the young girl standing opposite you at the party or the man sitting next to you at the dinner table is known to be gay. They have reached a point where they are not ashamed to let you know. Not to buttonhole you and poke you in the chest and declare to the world that they are proud to be gay, but if asked, they will talk about their same-sex partner without embarrassment. Why would they?

Are you still happy to use the words ‘deviant’ and ‘perverted’ to describe them in their company? If you didn’t know they were gay, what would your reaction be if you did use those words and then found out? What would you feel if you’d used some of the arguments used here, that it’s one step from incest, that children should be protected.

I’d like to think that any decent minded person in the group would tell you in no uncertain manner that you should keep your opinions to yourself.

 

[april32010]

Those terms were used because anyone who was gay kept quiet about it. Not surprisingly because people talked about gays being perverted and deviant. So the words were bandied about in polite conversation because nobody thought that anyone was being hurt by them. Or at least, if they were, they weren’t actually there to hear them.

Now the young girl standing opposite you at the party or the man sitting next to you at the dinner table is known to be gay. They have reached a point where they are not ashamed to let you know. Not to buttonhole you and poke you in the chest and declare to the world that they are proud to be gay, but if asked, they will talk about their same-sex partner without embarrassment. Why would they?

Are you still happy to use the words ‘deviant’ and ‘perverted’ to describe them in their company? If you didn’t know they were gay, what would your reaction be if you did use those words and then found out? What would you feel if you’d used some of the arguments used here, that it’s one step from incest, that children should be protected.

I’d like to think that any decent minded person in the group would tell you in no uncertain manner that you should keep your opinions to yourself.

but i won’t

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Those terms were used because anyone who was gay kept quiet about it. Not surprisingly because people talked about gays being perverted and deviant. So the words were bandied about in polite conversation because nobody thought that anyone was being hurt by them. Or at least, if they were, they weren’t actually there to hear them.

Now the young girl standing opposite you at the party or the man sitting next to you at the dinner table is known to be gay. They have reached a point where they are not ashamed to let you know. Not to buttonhole you and poke you in the chest and declare to the world that they are proud to be gay, but if asked, they will talk about their same-sex partner without embarrassment. Why would they?

Are you still happy to use the words ‘deviant’ and ‘perverted’ to describe them in their company? If you didn’t know they were gay, what would your reaction be if you did use those words and then found out? What would you feel if you’d used some of the arguments used here, that it’s one step from incest, that children should be protected.

I’d like to think that any decent minded person in the group would tell you in no uncertain manner that you should keep your opinions to yourself.

Um… Is this a trick question? Their actions are deviant and perverse no matter whether it is their best kept secret or if they go about proclaiming it naked from a parade float.

 

[april32010]

Um… Is this a trick question? Their actions are deviant and perverse no matter whether it is their best kept secret or if they go about proclaiming it naked from a parade float.

and they do.

 

[fix]

Those terms were used because anyone who was gay kept quiet about it. Not surprisingly because people talked about gays being perverted and deviant. So the words were bandied about in polite conversation because nobody thought that anyone was being hurt by them. Or at least, if they were, they weren’t actually there to hear them.

The words were used to describe actions that are evil. Just like calling arson wrong and arsonists felt guilty.

Now the young girl standing opposite you at the party or the man sitting next to you at the dinner table is known to be gay. They have reached a point where they are not ashamed to let you know. Not to buttonhole you and poke you in the chest and declare to the world that they are proud to be gay, but if asked, they will talk about their same-sex partner without embarrassment. Why would they?

Just like a wife swapper is proud of their behavior . Dulled consciences demand all bow to their behavior so any remnant of guilt may be excised.

Are you still happy to use the words ‘deviant’ and ‘perverted’ to describe them in their company? If you didn’t know they were gay, what would your reaction be if you did use those words and then found out? What would you feel if you’d used some of the arguments used here, that it’s one step from incest, that children should be protected.

I’d like to think that any decent minded person in the group would tell you in no uncertain manner that you should keep your opinions to yourself.

It is not an opinion. It is truth. You point out why so many are bullied by the “gay” agenda.
It is not about insulting anyone. Some just cannot stand to hear what is true because they would have to stop acting badly.

 

[Crescentinus]

I’d like to think that any decent minded person in the group would tell you in no uncertain manner that you should keep your opinions to yourself.

I kindly ask you to make me.

 

[John_of_Woking]

I’m so glad there were people to tell me about The alternatives to that lifestyle when I converted in my late teens. Thank them for not keeping their opinion to themselves

 

[Seeker1961]

I’m so glad there were people to tell me about The alternatives to that lifestyle when I converted in my late teens. Thank them for not keeping their opinion to themselves

I am grateful that I had enough good Catholics in my life that understood Who it is that changes lives. I am grateful that they didn’t spend their time :tsktsk: and in “fraternal correction”-but instead told me and showed me God’s unconditional love. It was only when that message came through and I realized the extent of what Jesus had done out of love for me, that my desire to obey His will became enkindled. They led me to Jesus and let Him do the heavy lifting, because no mortal being has that kind of power.

 

[april32010]

I am grateful that I had enough good Catholics in my life that understood Who it is that changes lives. I am grateful that they didn’t spend their time :tsktsk: and in “fraternal correction”-but instead told me and showed me God’s unconditional love. It was only when that message came through and I realized the extent of what Jesus had done out of love for me, that my desire to obey His will became enkindled. They led me to Jesus and let Him do the heavy lifting, because no mortal being has that kind of power.

so,John’s experience is invalid?