F
fix
Guest
Apparently, to some.so,John’s experience is invalid?
- Status
C
crenfro
Guest
Indeed.
I’m going to ask Father Vincent Serpa about this one. I don’t have the apologetics gene. Doesn’t sound right to me though. I strongly suspect that fornication IS against the natural law, but this is a question I need to give to an expert.
Also, the phrase "which is naturally ordered," is contained right in the CCC’s definition of fornication.
Sounds sort of like the question “in what sense is red not a color,” but as I said up there in that sentence, I’m going to ask Father Serpa.
J
John_of_Woking
Guest
I should have said I am glad i people taught me the true vision of sexuality and not left me to continue in sexual sin. I am glad people taught me about the healing power of confession. People do need to speak out in charity and in a really loving way. I was taught to believe waiting for marriage or embracing celibacy was weird. I am so glad people risked appearing judgmental to help me become catholic and avail myself of the Sacraments. I had a friend plonk a Catechism in my hands. Who knows where I’d be if he hadn’t?
B
BroomWagon
Guest
A-1 posts, many of us, I don’t know, struggle with different adversities…some of those adversities too can come in a bottle or in the form of a drug. And the same thinking applies. I hope we all can pray and overcome.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
I second your appraisal of the posts of portrait, Brother John, and also find it very well reasoned, as are all of his, and yours for that matter. I think what many are picking up on here is that “homophobic!” is often used as a perjorative ad hominem, in an aggressive attempt to shift away from reasonable discussion of the legitimacy of a homosexual “lifestyle.” The goal is to get the other party on the defensive, backpedaling while protesting that he or she is not in fact “homophobic.” It is encouraging to see so many disciplined thinkers on this thread who are certainly not likely to fall into that particular sophist trap.Hello
Hope you are well dear Brother in Christ. Your post is the unvarnished truth.
Any well-informed heterosexual is no doubt aware that homosexuals are not out to “convert” as many heterosexuals as possible. Since unwanted sexual advances from a homosexual person would be a likely basis for “fear” of homosexuals and since we know that there is nothing to “fear” in this regard, why do they persist in using this “homophobic!” accusation? Perhaps the next time a homosexual accuses one of “homophobia” a good response would be, “Well why would you say that? I have nothing to fear from you…do I?”
S
Seeker1961
Guest
How does sharing my experience invalidate his?? I thought I was ADDING to his comment, but people seem to read what they want to see.so,John’s experience is invalid?
B
Bradski
Guest
Of course not. Just because a young girl is called perverted and deviant shouldn’t mean she should feel insulted. I know you have her best wishes at heart. To assume she might parade herself naked on a float to show pride in her abhorrent behaviour is perfectly acceptable.
To suggest to her that because she loves another female, society is in danger of accepting incest as a normal variant is something to which I’m sure all decent people should agree. To compare her love life as a step towards bestiality is something she should accept with good grace.
If she is told that she is evil and immoral I can’t understand why everyone else wouldn’t agree. The fact that she sleeps in the arms of another woman sickens and disgusts you should show her that you are truly concerned for her well being.
She must understand, for her own good, that homosexual behaviour could lead to abuse of young children. Surely she knows there is a connection. Surely she understands that there is a gay agenda driving us towards us all accepting this perversity. Surely she has to be told that she is endangering the very foundations of society itself.
But what you don’t perhaps realise is that these beliefs, that this young girl is a pervert, is a view held by what is now a vocal minority. Even the majority of Catholics don’t support these views. Yes, I know that homosexual behaviour is immoral as taught by the church itself. But we don’t live in a society that is governed by any particular church’s teaching. So, in effect, it doesn’t actually matter to the population at large what the Vatian teaches.
What does matter is the attitude that you display to people who we all now realise are the guys next door, the woman in the office, the young girl on the reception desk, the cop, the fireman, the bus driver. The attitude you display is driving a wedge between people who gladly admit to suggesting to the girl on reception that she is a deviant and the majority of people who think that that attitude itself is immoral.
There are those in the middle ground who aren’t sure what their attitude should be. But as sure as God made little green apples, you are driving them to accepting what the majority already knows.And as the minority gets smaller, as it is, year after year, the arguments become more desperate and the rhetoric ever more intense. And that rhetoric - your rhetoric, the arguments used in this very thread, are the best possible ammunition for those who want greater acceptance for people who are our workmates, friends and family members.
Every time there is a discussion regarding gay rights on the radio or there is a debate on TV or there are letters sent to the paper, the majority of people are in support of it. If the programme or the editor or the talk show host is in agreement with the majority, and they generally are, you can bet all the money in you rocket right now that the opposing viewpoint will be selected from comments such as we have had here in this thread. The people who will be selected to put the opposing view will be those who hold views such as have been posted here.
And do you know why? It’s because they know it will result in more people demanding greater acceptance.
N
Nom_the_Wise
Guest
Good use of irony there, Jonathan Swift.
Of course, it matters *to us *what the Vatican teaches. Obviously we must use more charitable language than “pervert” and “deviant.” This thread has gone into some uncharitable territory since I left it. It’s important to realize that we are called to love even when confronting sin, “do unto others…”
I’m a sinner and I wouldn’t want someone standing up at a table while at a dinner party “You masturbator! You perverted deviant,” even if it were true. Justice without mercy is cruelty. False compassion is one thing, but pretending like one mortal sin is worse than another (just because you’re doing it) falls under “he who is without sin may cast the first stone.”
B
Bradski
Guest
Some wise words amongst a plethora of bile.
E
edwest2
Guest
Provoke much? Why were the majority of people voting against same-sex marriage? Forget the religious thing for a moment. Men and women have sex organs designed for each other.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
F
Faithdancer
Guest
The straw man argument…again. The Catholic says, “Although homosexual activity is gravely disordered and sinful, God loves those with same sex attraction, and they are welcome in the Church. They, like all Catholics, are required to strive for saintliness, and are called to chastity.” The opponent comes back with, “You say homosexuals are disordered and sinful! You say homosexuals are disordered and sinful!” (repeat…) It is a straw man, because while the Catholic says love the sinner and hate the sin (of homosexual activity), the opponent conveniently and falsely abbreviates this to “Catholics hate homosexuals,” period. This is of course a gross distortion, and there is need to even respond to it.
A
april32010
Guest
what bile?
R
RobbyS
Guest
What I hate is the exaggeration, the equating it to the rank discrimination against blacks, sixty or seventy years ago. The assertion without conclusive proof that homosexuality is a natural expression of sexuality. Well, rape is also a natural expression of sexuality, and the violence of rape is not the only thing that is abhorent. Human beings are supposed to be treated with respect, and homosexual acts are not respectful either, with or without violence.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Yes, that is one of the key underlying points of the Church’s doctrine on sexuality in general. Even without violence, it is a violation. Those who have followed a moral code historically, a code derived from natural law, have understood this instinctively.
C
Crescentinus
Guest
B
BTNYC
Guest
Hold off on that if possible. I admit my wording was quite inadequate and flawed, but I stand by the larger point. My revised statement of that point is forthcoming.
T
TrueLight
Guest
F
fix
Guest
You are confused about several points. No one called any person a pervert. The post said acts were rightly seen as perverted.
You set up a straw man by claiming people stand up at some party and call some person a deviant. That is not the use. The point is that we can no longer use apt terms to describe seriously evil behavior because bullies on the left attempt to control the debate.
The only bile I have seen here is the moral relativism dressed up as compassion which is really evil.
S
Slavonic
Guest
There are too many examples to quote, so I will pose this general question. Why should one accept heterosexist and heteronormative definitions of Queer individuals over the definitions that Queer individuals have presented about themselves? In other words, why is a straight person’s understanding of homosexuality somehow more credible and valid than that of a Queer person and the LGBT community at large?
B
Baelor
Guest
That is predicated on the assumption that there are the differences in question to the extent you imply.
Let us assume that there is a group that feel their bodies are being manipulated by an invisible, inscrutable puppeteer; they call themselves Puppets. Many say they are wrong.
Your questions apply here as well. Why should one accept puppeterist and puppeteernormative definitions of Puppet individuals over the definitions that Puppets have presented about themselves? In other words, why is a non-Puppet’s understanding of Puppets somehow more credible and valid than that of a Puppet and the Puppet community at large?
The answer, of course, is that scientific validity is independent of its determiner.
- Status