Catholics are ceding too much ground to the homosexual agenda

[fix]

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?

The short answer is that truth is objective not subjective in this matter.

 

[RobbyS]

The short answer is that truth is objective not subjective in this matter.

Many who claim that moral questions are only differences of opinion will turn around condemn others for acting immorally. A classic is this notion that anyone who says that homosexuality is wrong is called a homophobe which is justified on the grounds that it is a retional response to the first opinion. It would seem that if we are to rule out all perjorative terms, that homophobe, bigot, etc would be included in the ban. Ditto anti-Cathoiolic terms as well as anti-semtiic or anti-Muslim. But that it not the way it works. An homosexual, or a non-Jew, or a none-Christian, or a Muslim is allowed to say anything he/she pleases. But the other side must remain silent.

 

[Bradski]

You are confused about several points. No one called any person a pervert. The post said acts were rightly seen as perverted.

So what are you going to call them? If someone comitts an immoral act you don’t seem to have a problem calling them immoral. If they commit an evil act you have no problem calling them evil. So what is the word you use to describe a person who you say commits a perverted act?

Here’s some help from the Oxford Dictionary if you’re not sure:

Definition of pervert, noun: a person whose sexual behaviour is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable.

Fix: Homosexuality is a perversion. Homosexual acts are perverted. You commit perverted acts.
Gay girl: Are you calling me a pervert?
Fix: Why, of course not. Whatever gave you that idea?

 

[Baelor]

Fix: Homosexuality is a perversion. Homosexual acts are perverted. You commit perverted acts.
Gay girl: Are you calling me a pervert?
Fix: Why, of course not. Whatever gave you that idea?

You are correct; Fix is, also correctly, calling men who have voluntary sex with men perverted in a technical sense.

 

[Bradski]

The fact that most Christians don’t actually use the phrase: ‘You are a pervert’ doesn’t cut any ice with me at all. If you accuse someone of racism, you are calling them a racist. If you accuse someone of theft, you are calling them a thief. But if you accuse someone of perversion, then do you seriously want to any sane person to accept that you are not calling them a pervert?

By what tortured linguistic logic is this not the case? I think it’s a phrase that a lot of Christians would love to use but there’s a feeling they may be crossing a boundary into an area that any decent person would deem unacceptable. That if they did, the ‘love the sinner’ line simply wouldn’t work any more.

‘I think that what you do is a sin’ has gradually become ‘I think that you’re a pervert’. And that’s why the debate is being lost by those who use such terms.

 

[BTNYC]

I asked for a lively and passionate discussion and I got it. It has been edifying and stimulating for the most part, but it seems to me that the subject is starting to exhaust itself, or at the very least, that, after this, I will have made whatever point I was trying to make. This will, therefore, serve as my concluding statement on this thread. I will first addressing the points raised by my primary disputer (arranged according to subject) and I will finish with a concluding statement. I will then cede the floor and the final words to the opposition, which is only fair as the opening volley in this thread was mine.

CONCERNING HOMOSEXUAL ACTS AND FORNICATION

So…it is grave and disordered, both of which you explicitly denied.

I concede the point that my wording was poor, insufficient, and potentially misleading (though not intentionally so). I certainly did make it clear from the beginning that fornication is sinful, but, through careless misuse of terms, I failed to make clear the degree of severity.

Please do not lie when there is a complete paper trail.

Lying constitutes intentional distortion of the truth. Don’t claim to know my intentions. You don’t. You cannot read my heart. Your accusation betrays a lack of decorum, assumption of good faith, and basic Christian charity on your part.

By all means, however, you should call me to task to clarify my statements, but I’m afraid you’re not going to disprove my original point, which was to correct this assertion:
Originally Posted by brasta septim
the reason the behavior is wrong is simply because it’s sex outside of marriage, since we know two men or two women cannot get married.

The CCC describes homosexual acts precisely as “intrinsically disordered.” It does not describe fornication precisely as “intrinsically disordered.” This is because, while fornication is contrary to God’s ordering of the sex act within marriage, the disorder is not intrinsic to the sexual act, it is intrinsic to the context of the sexual act (being outside marriage). Simply put: Fornication can produce offspring, homosexual acts, by their very nature, cannot. The former is procreative, but not unitive. The latter is neither. Therefore, to assert that homosexual “behavior is wrong is simply because it’s sex outside of marriage” is incorrect. It falsely implies that homosexual acts are sins of equal moral gravity and depravity.

You yourself, Baelor, called on me to clarify that not all mortal sins are of equal gravity and depravity, and rightly so. Bully for you. Now I ask that you be consistent and recognize its application in this instance. Homosexual acts are graver and more depraved than fornication. The former intrinsically violates natural law in a manner that the latter does not. Sodomy, not fornication, is one of the Four Sins that Cry Out to Heaven for Vengeance. The Angelic Doctor addresses the issue thusly: “For if the sins of the flesh are commonly censurable because they lead man to that which is bestial in him, much more so is the sin against nature, by which man debases himself lower than even his animal nature.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Super Epistulas Sancti Pauli Ad Romanum I, 26, pp. 27f)

It is contrary to natural law because natural law involves sex being ordered to the good of spouses, not just man and woman.

“Spouses” can only consist of a man and woman… Precisely because the ordering of the conjugal act to the good of spouses flows naturally from the physiological and ontological complementarity of men and women, not the other way around. God created man and woman before he established marriage. This, I would imagine, is why the CCC reserves the precise phrase “contrary to natural law” for homosexual acts. Lacking that fundamental complementarity, they are disordered at a more fundamental level than fornication and are therefore more gravely depraved.

Homosexual acts are more gravely and fundamentally contrary to natural law than procreative sex outside marriage. Take that statement to a Catholic theologian. I’m confident he will confirm its accuracy.

 

[BTNYC]

CONCERNING THE DEFINITION OF “HOMOSEXUALITY”

“Relations” in the broadest possible sense, i.e. the sexual attraction between them.

You originally defined homosexuality as “sexual attraction between members of the same sex.” I countered with the CCC’s definition:

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

It seemed to me that the CCC’s definition unambiguously refuted your definition, because, although it contains your definition, it does not only contain your definition. If, as you asserted, “sexual attraction between members of the same sex” is the whole definition of homosexuality, we could rephrase the CCC’s definition thusly:

“Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant homosexuality.”

This plainly illustrates the insufficiency of your definition. Now you are saying that the “relations” in the CCC’s definition refers to “the sexual attraction between them.” If we take this new twist you’ve presented us with and apply it to the CCC’s definition, we get this:

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

Worse yet, if we try to apply both your asserted definitions we get this:

“Homosexuality refers to sexual attraction between members of the same sex between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant homosexuality.”

That this is absurd meaninglessness is manifest. It shows that your initial definition and your attempt at a revision do serious violence to the CCC’s definition of homosexuality and to basic common sense.

It seems to me that the CCC is presenting us with a definition of homosexuality that encompasses all of the things that pertain to homosexuality. The “relations” mentioned as being “between men and between women” must therefore be homosexual relations, including, but not limited to, the homosexual act itself. I would imagine it also includes all of the other “relations” between men and between women which are “homosexual” in nature, but fall short of the act and which may or may not be morally neutral, but incline more or less toward the sinful act itself: romantic feelings, kissing, hand-holding etc.

Note also that the CCC only ever uses the word “homosexual” as an adjective and never as a noun. Use of the word “homosexual” as a noun is extremely common, but informal and not strictly standard. This sub-debate about the definition of “homosexuality” arose when you took issue with my assertion that referring to a celibate person with same sex attraction as a “non-practicing homosexual” was meaningless because a “non-practicing homosexual” is not a homosexual at all. I stand by that statement. If I were to say of someone “Jeffrey is a homosexual,” the person who hears this would not assume this to mean Jeffery is simply a person interiorly disposed to be attracted to members of his own sex, he would take it to mean Jeffrey is known to be attracted to members of his own sex because he is known to engage in homosexual activities. As to how a Catholic may make use of “homosexual” as a noun, Venerable Bishop Sheen made clear, unambiguous use of the word to mean an actively homosexual person. If it’s good enough for a churchman of his sanctity and intellectual standing, I can’t see why it wouldn’t be good enough for any Catholic.

The phrase “same sex attraction” is commonly used in Catholic circles for just this reason: the noun usage of “homosexual” implies an active homosexual, not merely a homosexually inclined one. Therefore to call a same sex attracted person living in holy Chastity a “homosexual” is not only inaccurate, it is grossly unfair and uncharitable.

Homosexual ACTS, not homosexuality – the Church is very clear; I do not understand why you are fighting this or why you think that the Church believes homosexuality involves actions when it obviously does not.

“Homosexuality” encompasses everything pertaining to the state – the inclination and the act, the intrinsically evil and the morally neutral. Common noun usage of “homosexual” implicitly encompasses everything that the CCC’s definition of “homosexuality” encompasses. The CCC very correctly singles out the act itself as the aspect that is intrinsically evil. I accept that unswervingly. The only thing I am “fighting” is your manifestly insufficient definition of homosexuality, as illustrated above.

Furthermore, reference the CCC quotations I posted in my above posts, which state clearly that for most homosexuals, it is not a choice. This very clearly precludes the possibility of homosexuality referring to actions.

The line “They do not choose their homosexual condition” was removed from the CCC (as others have pointed out). The Church went to the trouble of removing that line. Do you see no significance in that? I certainly do. If its presence “very clearly precludes the possibility of homosexuality referring to actions,” then its deliberate removal does the opposite. This makes sense if the term “homosexuality” is all-encompassing, as I am asserting.

The Church does not reject the possibility of disordered sexualities being conditions from birth.

The removal of “They do not choose their homosexual condition” from the CCC may suggest otherwise.

(Continued below)

 

[BTNYC]

CONCERNING THE DEFINITION OF “HOMOSEXUALITY” (continued)

If they conquered their homosexual inclination, they are not homosexuals.

I wholeheartedly agree. And if they are living in a state of Holy Celibacy, they have conquered their homosexual inclination. Conquering a foe does not make the foe disappear, it simply means conquering it; subduing it, permitting it no power over you.

I agree that for some the homosexual inclination itself may never disappear. But if they have, by God’s grace, conquered it and are living a life of Holy Celibacy, I see no reason to refer to the person as a “homosexual” anymore. I think that needlessly places a stigma of past sins (or inclinations to sin) on a person who deserves recognition for sanctity first, foremost and above all else.

In Scripture, and in Catholic tradition, a name means a great deal. It signifies something essential about the person it describes. Consider the Divine “I AM WHO AM;” the renaming of Abraham and Jacob; or of Simon Peter; our choosing of a name for Confirmation, the choosing of a papal name… Consider St Pacian’s words: “Christian is my name, Catholic is my surname.” A Catholic living a holy and chaste life has no reason to continue bearing a name that signifies his past sins or inclinations to potential future sins. I would not call him “homosexual.” I would find it much more charitable and much more accurate to call him “Christian,” or “Catholic,” or even “Saint.”

Nor does it reject the possibility of the condition being static in some cases.

Thank you for clarifying that you only consider it static “in some cases.”

Not on the issue of secular definitions.

You’ve called Bishop Sheen a “false authority” and then presumed to correct his usage of the term “homosexual,” instead of stopping to consider for just a moment that perhaps a Catholic archbishop of such renowned orthodoxy and impeccable scholarly credentials understood this subject better than you do. Then you justify this by disingenuously claiming that this is just an issue of “secular definitions.” For a Catholic, homosexuality is a moral issue, and therefore not a secular one. A giant of the Catholic Church like Venerable Fulton J Sheen, who was perfectly familiar with contemporary common noun usage of the word “homosexual” is therefore a surer authority than any secular source.

 

[BTNYC]

CONCERNING “HOMOPHOBIA”

Are you saying that the Church condones unjust discrimination? There is no need to label this as “morally impermissible” because injustice is already known to be morally impermissible.

There is moral impermissibility and there is moral inadvisability. To put it another way, there is a difference between what we “must” do and what we “should” do. The distinction exists precisely to preclude the possibility of abusive exaggeration of the concept of “unjust discrimination” (i.e. the Black Legend of “homophobia”).

Thank you for conceding that the CCC does not “clearly state” “morally impermissible” in this instance. That’s all I was pointing out, and you needn’t read anything into that apart from an admonishment against representing a paraphrase as an explicit reference. I should know, look at the trouble it’s gotten me into on this thread!

No, it is not. There is never an instance in which the correct action is different from what we “should” do by definition. It is as strong of a statement we all are always called to do what we should do.

Nonsense. “Should” is weaker than “must.” “Must” indicates certainty, “should” does not. It is incorrect to say that a Catholic “should” believe in Transubstantiation, precisely because a Catholic MUST believe in Transubstantiation.

Google ”must vs should.” The first thing that pops up ought to suffice. In fact here it is: grammar-quizzes.com/modal3.html

It can mean that, but it does not need to. “Racism” is also frequently misused; I do not hear anyone clamoring for its removal from the English language. Far better to use the term correctly.

The word “racism” is neither etymologically dubious, nor an invention of an agenda-driven social engineer.

It is in dictionaries now. We are discussing modern language and how it is used.

We are discussing Catholic moral theology and the use of language, by Catholics, pertaining to the Catholic moral issue of homosexuality. I couldn’t care less what “dictionaries” have to say about issues of Catholic morality and neither should any Catholic. The CCC’s glossary includes racism and ignores homophobia, despite having had the option to include it. Silence, in certain contexts, speaks as loudly as words.

This is irrelevant. “Hooligan” has a very questionable origin; no one cares anymore. The word can be appropriated however we wish.

By “questionable” I don’t mean “vague” or “uncertain” and I’m sure you know that.
“Homophobia” has questionable origins – ideologically questionable, philosophically questionable origins, just like the word “transgendered.” It was coined by a homosexual agendist and has ever been used to further that agenda, either to silence debate (which you grudgingly admit) or to elicit undue sympathy for homosexuals (which definition you tacitly endorse).

That is correct, just as we are not required to accept the definitions of any word ever.

If “we” refers to Catholics, then there are volumes of word definitions “we” are required to accept: “Trinity,” “Incarnation,” and “Transubstantiation” are the three biggest examples.
See, that redounds to my original point. Catholics are obligated to accept Catholic definitions for words relating to faith and morals, and apply Catholic criteria to any secular term that comes along claiming to define a concept with moral dimensions. “Homophobia” makes such a claim and thus requires such an application of Catholic criteria, while words like “flammable” and “hooligan” do not.

Because “treat unjustly” is more specific than “homophobia.” There is a very simple answer. The Church would then need to define “homophobia,” which it could have done, but the result would have been the same.

The Church “needs” to do nothing with regard to “homophobia.” It settled for “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” Be satisfied with that.

Consider the definition for racism. It would basically be the same as a Catholic definition of homophobia, i.e. unjust treatment.

Laws and proscriptions against sodomy have existed in nearly every civilized nation on Earth until relatively recently. They have existed for centuries in Catholic countries with the Church’s blessing and cooperation. Therefore, these laws were just according to the consistent tradition of Catholic moral teaching (more on this below). It therefore must follow that treating a homosexual justly can also conceivably include charging and convicting him of violating a just anti-sodomy law and imprisoning him. On the other hand, charging a black man with the “crime” of belonging to a particular race and imprisoning him for that reason would be grossly, objectively unjust because race has no moral dimension to it. I believe this vividly illustrates the gross error in attempting to establish “homophobia” as an evil of comparable gravity and objective reality as racism.

(Continued below)

 

[BTNYC]

CONCERNING “HOMOPHOBIA” (Continued)

I have plenty of evidence for the common occurrence of homophobia as I defined it. Let me get the correct evidence for you. Let me know what would meet your burden of proof. That is, what would it take for you to believe that homophobia is common?

The Church acknowledges the possibility of “unjust discrimination” against homosexuals and so do I. “Homophobia,” as you, and most dictionaries, define it, is “an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.” You weakly acknowledge the abusive use of the term as a cudgel to silence legitimate debate and your proposed solution to that very serious problem amounts to nothing more than telling people they shouldn’t do that. I posit that this pernicious application of the word “homophobia” is not merely an abuse of the term that stands in contrast to your idealized definition, but is rather the direct result of that definition having been applied practically.

The establishment of the standard definition of homophobia in public speech and thought, and the concomitant effort to combat it has been ongoing for between 15 to 20 years. I am old enough to have witnessed it unfold. The watershed moment for this campaign was the murder of Matthew Shepard in 1998. The homosexual agenda did not, to paraphrase Rahm Emanuel, let a good tragedy go to waste. The public was inundated soon thereafter with horror stories of persecuted homosexuals, righteously indignant brow beating and demands for the eradication of deadly “homophobic” attitudes. Those demands were catered to via the following means primarily:

-Hate crime legislation. The state, despite fundamentally lacking the competence and moral authority to do so, begins punishing attitudes, prejudices, thoughts and interior dispositions over and above the actual crime committed.

-“Public awareness” (read: propaganda) campaigns. The public is inundated with advertised sloganeering designed to (ostensibly) eradicate “homophobia,” but with the unavoidable effect of normalizing homosexuality. (We have a particularly vapid one here in New York called the “Love love, Hate hate” campaign.)

• Saturation of the popular culture with pro homosexual images, characters, and themes. “Ellen,” “Will & Grace,” “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,” “The L Word,” “Queer as Folk,” “Modern Family,” “The New Normal,” “Boys Don’t Cry,” “Brokeback Mountain,” “Milk,” “The Kids are All Right,” homosexual characters in “X-Men” comics, homosexual character in “Archie” comics (!), homosexual Green Lantern, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum. Of course, this is all represented as a “natural” reflection of the increasingly mainstream visibility of the “gay community.” Uh-huh.

-Infiltration of public school curricula. This is the most insidious, nefarious tactic by far. High school students are given text books that flat-out declare the “gay rights movement” as an objective good comparable to the civil rights movement. And very young children in elementary school are targeted aggressively with normalizing material like “Heather has Two Mommies,” “My Two Super Dads,” and “My Princess Boy.”

If “homophobia” is a disease, and this is the cure, then the cure is far worse than the disease. Two decades of application of this “cure” has wrought unimaginable damage on the public’s moral compass. In fact, the widespread gross indifference to the evils of homosexuality that this long term logical application of the “standard” definition of “homophobia” has engendered is the sole reason that the term has become such a stigmatizing debate killer. The homosexual agendists have so successfully propagated the illusion of the homosexual-as-victim that many young people really cannot see any reason for any opposition to homosexuality to be entertained at all. For them, it is only logical that “homophobia” should mean “any opposition to homosexuality.” The opposition-silencing definition of “homophobia” is therefore not an abuse of the standard definition, as you would allege, it is the logical outcome of long term application of that very same standard definition.

The Catholic Church is the only institution on earth qualified to identify moral evils with absolute certainty. It has refrained from acknowledging “homophobia” by name or by the dictionary’s definition. It has instructed us that homosexual persons must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity and that we should avoid every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard. With that admonition, and (this is the key part) with twenty centuries of traditional Catholic moral doctrine as the light with which to read that admonition, we are equipped with all we need in order to deal with the subject of homosexuality, with justice for the people burdened with the inclination but do not act on it, those who do, and the members of the society in which this all plays out.

(Continued below)

 

[BTNYC]

CONCERNING “HOMOPHOBIA” (Continued)

But you have no presented any really compelling case as to why we should reject the word “homophobia” altogether instead of attempting to use it in a reasonable way, nor have you suggested an alternative.

It was coined by a homosexual activist. It was introduced to the world in a pornographic publication. It was developed and fostered by homosexual activists in academic circles with a vested interest in its potential to harm society. It falsely equates hatred of practitioners of an intrinsic evil with hatred of people as members of a particular racial group. It falsely presumes homosexual persons are entitled to special rights and privileges that flow naturally not from their being persons, but from their being homosexual. It gives the impression that there is a widespread epidemic of an unquestionably real, demonstrably unambiguous evil where no objective, unbiased evidence for this exists. It demands undue sympathy. It elicits false compassion.

Finally, it requires Catholics to reassess 2,000 years of unchanging Catholic moral teaching regarding justice with respect to homosexuals. The Catholic Church has, since its inception, consistently condemned homosexual acts and fully supported and cooperated with secular laws punishing sodomy. I need cite only one example: On April 1, 1566, Blessed Pope St. Pius V, a true reformer, champion of the Tridentine liturgy, a defender of faith and morals par excellence, and a canonized saint, ordered that sodomites be turned over to secular authorities to face punishment that included, but was not limited to, whipping, imprisonment, and death. In St Pius’ own words:

“Let the judges know that, if even after this, Our Constitution, they are negligent in punishing these crimes, they will be guilty of them at Divine Judgment, and will also incur Our indignation… If someone commits that nefarious crime against nature that caused divine wrath to be unleashed against the children of iniquity, he will be given over to the secular arm for punishment; and if he is a cleric, he will be subject to analogous punishment after having been stripped of all his degrees (of ecclesiastical dignity).” – Pope St. Pius V, Constitution Cum Primum, April 1, 1566.

How does one reconcile that to any possible definition of “homophobia?”

That the Church no longer actively supports legal proscriptions against homosexual acts is merely a concession to the fact that most nations comprising what was once Christendom have repealed (or no longer enforce) anti sodomy laws. To continue to call for said proscriptions when they no longer exist could conceivably cause some to misinterpret it as a call for vigilante type violence against homosexuals which would be anarchic and unjust. In recent years, the Church has, in the spirit of applying “the medicine of mercy” discouraged the employment of capital punishment for any reason, though making clear that Catholics may legitimately support it because it is not intrinsically evil (like abortion) but only situationally evil and potentially just (like war). The medicine of mercy, however, much like St. Francis De Sale’s “spoonful of honey,” does not negate the validity of the “medicine of severity” nor the “barrelful of vinegar” and does not make past use of those means unjust.

But if we as Catholics accept “homophobia” as an objectively real, clearly defined evil, certain very definite demands are made of us. It demands, for one thing, that we dismiss Venerable Bishop Sheen’s admonition against “False compassion for homosexuals,” as he chose to word it, as erroneous, uncharitable and unjust. Worse, it demands we dismiss more vehemently those holy saints who more vehemently castigated sodomites: Blessed Saints like Basil of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, and Catherine of Siena (to name but three) must now be re-evaluated and found to be “homophobes” grossly lacking in Christian charity. But worst of all, great churchmen and popes – especially St Pius V – must be condemned as accessories to mass murder for ordering sodomites to be turned over to the secular arm. In the case of St. Pius V, this would make his definitive papal teachings on this aspect of morality objectively wrong, despite his papal office, and would (to say the very least) call his personal sanctity into serious question, the selfsame personal sanctity upon which the legitimacy of his canonization must necessarily hinge. All this and I haven’t touched on what it would do to the Levitical proscription against homosexual acts as a capital offense.

I believe this is the ultimate cost to a Catholic in accepting the term “homophobia,” even according to its dictionary definition. It is a price I refuse to pay. I judge modern values through the lens of twenty centuries of Catholic teaching, not the other way around.

 

[BTNYC]

IN CONCLUSION

As I’ve said elsewhere, my thesis in this thread could be summarized thusly: The homosexual agenda is manifestly harmful to society and in opposition to the Catholic Church and it follows from that that Catholics are under no obligation to accept any euphemistic nomenclatures, claims of noble victimhood, or demands for validation and special rights and privileges.

A Catholic has no obligation to entertain the concept of “homosexual rights.” Rights are God-given, and a homosexual person has no rights whatsoever peculiar to his being homosexual. A homosexual person’s only rights are those that flow naturally from his being a human being made in the image and likeness of God. Not only is there no “right” to alter the definition of marriage, there is no “right” to commit sodomy. There is no “right” to public display of a disordered sexual inclination (holding hands, kissing) precisely because, by being public, it is a danger to public morals. Moreover, there is no “right” to the inclination itself; it simply exists, is disordered, is a burden the subject is obligated to bear chastely, and the only “rights” that may flow from it peculiarly is the right of society not to have its morals perverted by attempts to normalize what the inclination inclines toward.

We are obligated to treat homosexuals as human beings. That is a given. We are also obligated to treat them justly. Contrary to what many Catholics may wrongly believe, “treating justly” is nowhere near synonymous with “being nice to.” Justice is not societal indulgence or largesse heaped upon the subject with no regard given to the consequences. It means treating the subject as justice, in all its dimensions, demands. Justice has horizontal and vertical dimensions, and treating a subject with justice means respecting justice as it applies to the subject, to society, and to God, all at once. Treating a homosexual justly also means never impinging upon the rights of society and the rights of God. Contrary to what modern values hold, acquiescing to homosexualist demands for peculiar rights is not just. Attempting to redefine marriage is only the most egregiously unjust outcome of the four decade lifespan of the “gay rights” movement. Years of establishing special privileges and protections to homosexuals has led to the situation we now find ourselves in: bold public expressions of homosexual affection are commonplace, homosexuals are portrayed frequently and positively in popular entertainment, and children in public schools are being taught to accept homosexuality as perfectly natural and acceptable. Many laud these developments as “progressive” and a triumph for “personal freedom.” In fact this represent gross injustice toward society, as it normalizes the anti-normal and deadens healthy societal revulsion toward an intrinsic evil. It also represents a gross injustice toward homosexually inclined persons themselves as it encourages them to proudly follow their inclination toward its evil end. And following from these injustices, it is grossly unjust to God. Yet many Catholics fail to see this, because, being informed by modern secular values rather than Catholic moral teaching they adopt a deceptively, falsely innocuous “live and let live” attitude. Rather than being charitable or just, it is little more than moral relativism / indifferentism.

(Continued below)

 

[BTNYC]

IN CONCLUSION (Continued)

All that has preceded has been my attempt to at least identify this problem, and to describe the concessions that I believe have contributed overwhelmingly to it. I make no claim that it is perfect, but it satisfies my own conscience, my understanding of consistent application of Catholic moral teaching, and, I believe, basic common sense. Let the reader read and decide.

“Remember Lot’s wife,” Our Blessed Lord admonishes us. In the Book of Genesis, the magnitude of the sinfulness and depravity of homosexual acts is vividly illustrated in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The wicked men of Sodom arrive at good and righteous Lot’s door to demand that he deliver the “two men” staying with him (in reality, two angels) into their custody that they may “know them.” Lot is so horrified by this that he offers his two daughters to the perverts to sate their lusts on instead (if that doesn’t testify to the graver depravity of sodomy than fornication, I don’t what does). The men refuse, and the angels reveal themselves and warn Lot and his family to flee the wicked city, as God will now bring down his just chastisement by destroying the city and killing the sodomites. Lot and his family obey, and while on route, Lot’s wife famously turns to look back at the city and is turned into a pillar of salt. Not for nothing does our Lord Jesus remind us to remember this woman. There is in this a universally applicable admonition for all people to flee from sin and never look back. And while this certainly holds true for all sins, it very obviously holds special meaning in regard to homosexuality, as it is the city of Sodom itself that the family is fleeing from.

While I understand that there may be certain sentimental and emotional factors that tempt same sex attracted chaste Catholics to hold onto some trappings of their past lives – continuing to identify as “gay,” referring to the “gay community,” taking offense to even justified opprobrium directed toward the homosexual agenda, etc – I think it behooves them, as it does all Catholics, to glory not in what they once were or what, but for the grace of God, they might have been, but to glory in Christ; to run toward him with all due haste, side by side with their brother and sister Catholics, and with the unflagging help and guidance of that “cloud of witnesses” above, and never for even a moment succumbing to the temptation to turn and look back. This is my prayer and my hope for all SSA afflicted souls, along with an encouraging reminder to them: We married Catholics may be living a vocation you are unable to, but if you stay the course in holy chastity, you are living a vocation far higher and holier than ours, and it will redound eternally to your glory.

Pax vobis.

 

[fix]

So what are you going to call them? If someone comitts an immoral act you don’t seem to have a problem calling them immoral. If they commit an evil act you have no problem calling them evil. So what is the word you use to describe a person who you say commits a perverted act?

Do actions completely define you as a person? It is true that after so many bad acts it is hard to justify one is a “good” person. In the same way committing perverted acts can make you a pervert and that may apply under certain conditions but Catholics do not usually define people exclusively by their actions.

Here’s some help from the Oxford Dictionary if you’re not sure:

Definition of pervert, noun: a person whose sexual behaviour is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable.

Sure, and that applies in many cases. Not at every dinner party though.

Fix: Homosexuality is a perversion. Homosexual acts are perverted. You commit perverted acts.
Gay girl: Are you calling me a pervert?
Fix: Why, of course not. Whatever gave you that idea?

You set up a conversation because you want it to play out like that. The truth is language is dictated by intent and circumstance. IOW, all homosexual acts are perverted. Must all people who commit those acts be referred to as perverts all the time and in every situation? No.

 

[fix]

The fact that most Christians don’t actually use the phrase: ‘You are a pervert’ doesn’t cut any ice with me at all. If you accuse someone of racism, you are calling them a racist. If you accuse someone of theft, you are calling them a thief. But if you accuse someone of perversion, then do you seriously want to any sane person to accept that you are not calling them a pervert?

No, they may be a pervert in some sense. They may be a racist in some sense. They may be a thief in some sense. That one commits those acts does not axiomatically mean one must refer to that person as their actions constantly and in each case.

If you commit a lie must we always call you a liar? If you speed at times must we call you a law breaker?

By what tortured linguistic logic is this not the case? I think it’s a phrase that a lot of Christians would love to use but there’s a feeling they may be crossing a boundary into an area that any decent person would deem unacceptable. That if they did, the ‘love the sinner’ line simply wouldn’t work any more.

You think that because you want it to be that way. Your intentions are showing now.

‘I think that what you do is a sin’ has gradually become ‘I think that you’re a pervert’. And that’s why the debate is being lost by those who use such terms.

No, my original point was that perverted acts used to be called perverted acts. Now, do to dulled consciences, moral relativism, and bullying from the homosexual lobby we now may not think that way. Why? Because it is wrong? No, because those that practice such things want all to see the acts as normal.

 

[Bill_7154]

This is my first thread on CAF, so please don’t mind if I just dive right into it:

There is a disturbing trend among Catholics in the west – cleric and layman alike – toward granting certain tenets of the homosexual agenda, even while combatting it… even before the dialogue has commenced.

For one thing, note how lamentably widespread (even among Catholics) use of the term “gay” is… And I don’t mean in the all-purpose adolescent pejorative sense that the homosexual agenda is currently campaigning against. I mean in the sense of phrases like “gay marriage” or “gay rights,” or simply referring to homosexuals en masse as “gays.” This term, which started as a vague if overly charitable euphemism for homosexuality when discussing the subject in polite company, has since been adopted by the homosexual agenda as the standard nomenclature for a lifestyle that is anything but “gay,” in the original sense of the word. And yet I hear Catholics using this term all the time – even good Catholics who oppose homosexuality – largely because the popular culture saturates us with it.

I"m not sure what you mean here. Are you suggesting that Catholics who use the term ‘gay’ rather than ‘homosexual’ are somehow mis stating the true values, beliefs, lifestyle, etc of homeosexuals and/or somewho lessening the seriousness of the issue of homosexuality?

I, personally, believe that different people use the same word, yet have different understandings and/or intent when using that word. Personally, as an audlt who doesn’t use the world ‘gay’ as in ‘that’s gay’ the way kids i.e. 'that’s dumb’r. And I never use the word gay to describe something that is jolly. So whenever I use the word gay, I use it interchangably with the word homosexual male. Others may mean something esle when they use it. So I’m not sure what your saying here as what I find as important is the person who uses any particular word…what THEY mean when they use it. If your suggesting that by using the word gay rather than homosexual that somehow lessens the seriousness of homosexuality in relation to the Catholic Religion, you may have a point, I’m not sure. But I don’t think that it is a ‘given’ that this is true as what I think is important is understanding what the user of a word means. And when I am uncertain of what a person means, be that an individual word, a phrase, or more… I ask for clarification.

So to be clear, whenever I use the term gay, I always mean homosexual man. I, personally, consider themselves interchangable. And if anyone assumes or believes I have some agenda behind using the term gay rather than homosexual, it is simply not true. I also use the word homosexual. And in reflectting upon past posts of mine in threads around homosexuality I think that what I do is typically use the word that the other person is using when discussing the topic. or I use gay because it is shorter than homosexual. So if anyone assumes that I mean something else, or have any agenda in using the word gay rather than homosexual, they are 100% incorrect. In fact I had never even THOUGHT that anyone would use the word gay instead of homosexual as any type of an agenda, until you raised it here.

When someone uses the term pro-choice, or the inventors of the word an advocates of abortion, I completely agree that such a term is an obvious perversion of the truth and is meant to scew people’s views/beliefs around abortion. Either someone supports abortion or they don’t, using the term ‘pro-choice’ is obviously intended to remove the serousness of the nature of abortion from the discussion. So if you were talking about Catholics using the term ‘pro-choice’ I would suggest that this is bad practice.

I
Worse, there’s a creeping tendency for use of the especially loaded acronym “LGBT” (or”LGBTQ”). This term, which is of particularly recent vintage, and has become a corporate logo of sorts for the homosexual agenda, is being used with increasing frequency in Catholic publications, online forums, and academic discourse.

No wonder then, that we even find Catholics making the most fatal concession of all in this most crucial moral debate – tacit (and sometimes explicit) affirmation of the existence of the completely invented “evil” of “homophobia.” This totally fictitious, fallacious, fraudulent term, which first saw print in the pages of the pornographic publication ”Screw Magazine,” is the homosexual agenda’s most potent weapon; an argument-stopping pejorative used to damn well-reasoned intellectual and moral opposition to homosexuality (and even the very natural and wholesome revulsion inherent in most people at the idea of homosexual acts) out of the discussion altogether. It is a Scarlet Letter that marks the opposition as irrationally fearful bigots who do not deserve even to be heard.)

I don’t think that I agree with you here. I’m not clear on how using that acronym somehow lessens the seriousness of someone being lesbian, homosexual, transgendered, or bi-sexual. I don’t see that acronym, in and of itself, having any impact (certainly on me- and I don’t think on other Catholics) on somehow lessening the seriousness of those behaviors, etc. Of course I could be wrong, as I often am, but at this point I don’t see it. I"m not 'for any of those behaviors and hearing that acronym used doesn’t have the effect on ME of lessening the seriousness of those behaviors.

TBC due to length
God Bless,
Bill

 

[Bill_7154]

IHe who controls the language controls the debate.

I think I understand what you are getting at here, but the way I see it, he who controls THE QUESTIONS, OR CONTENT of the discussion controls the debate. Someone can use the word pro choice and if I am debating them I may point out that such a term is a minnomer as it is really a generalized term to describe one’s outlook on any number of issues, and by using the term pro choice in a discussion about abortion is an attempt to lessen the seriousness of abortion. I might ask them if they are pro abortion for themselves, for all women, or for women in certain situations. So I have the ability to control what I say, and I make a habit out of objecting when people put words in my mouth or make assuptions about what my beliefs are. If they persist, or do not detract from doing so I consider the person not willing to engage in serious debate and will end the debate because of that. in fact I have put people on ignore for those behaviors. But if somoene uses terms, I can use my own terms. As long as they do not subscribe beliefs or statements on my part that I have not made, I do not believe my ability to successsfully debate wiht a person is compromized in any way.

Lexical concessions to the homosexualist movement inevitably trickle down into praxis. And in much Catholic pastoral language here in the west, the subject of homosexuality as sin is gingerly danced around for fear of causing insult.)

Not sure what you mean here exactly

Concessions are made left and right to the feelings of homosexuals…)

I"m not sure what you point is here. And with respect to SUCCESSFULLY evangelizing or fraternally correcting (I may not understand the actual meaning of that term) a homosexual, I do not really see how one could be successful in efforts to get them closer to God and Jesus and the Catholic Church without taking their feelings into account when having such conversations with them. IMO if someone feels disrespected or attacked or that another person doesn’t care about their feelings, i think they are less willing to listen to what someone is telling them.

I know for certain this is the case for me. I’m not homosexual, but if someone is discussing my behavior with me and I get the sense they don’t care about my feelings, I’m much liess likely to take their message into my heart. After all, they don’t care about my feelings. Maybe it’s not this way for other people, I’d be curious to know if I"m somehow a rare case in this regard of if others have similar feelings as I do when it comes to others speaking with them about themselves, their behaviors, etc.

In disciplining my child (in order to help form his behavior, additudes, etc) I think an important tool to use is to let my child know that I recognize and understand his feelings. I also think ti’s helpful if my child knows that I respect their feelings as a starting off pont. This way I believe they will be much more likely to listen to what i have to say and take it to heart, to integrate it into their being, to have it become part of their character formation…an alternative…laying down the law, might get my child to do what I want in the moment, or even for the whole time I have control over him while he still lives with me…but I question whether or not that approach is the best approach. Will he be folloing my orders because he has to, because I have power orver him, and then abandon them when I no longer have power over him. or worse, rebel because he feels angry I am ordering him rather than delivering a message with love and understanding. Moreover, I question whether or not future conversations will have the same impact upon him, where he either feels like a soldier in my army where I set all the rules, or he feels like part of the faimily where his feelings matter…even though he may not get what he wants in one case or in many or most.

Again, TBC due to long post,
God Bless,
Bill

 

[Bill_7154]

Now I don’t deny for a minute that a person afflicted with sexual attraction to members of his or her own sex has a cross to bear in living his or her life chastely… I’m simply saying that their cross is not one whit greater or heavier than that of any other faithful Catholic struggling against the evils of this sexually sick age. Homosexuals certainly do have a heavy cross to bear… And so do people addicted to pornography. So do chronic masturbators. So do pedophiles. So do bestialists. So do the many countless other poor souls afflicted with intrinsically disordered inclinations to grave sexual sins. The only difference between these groups and homosexuals? A good PR department. Bestialists, pedophiles, and chronic masturbators don’t have TV shows, films and popular songs and books painting a sympathetic portrait of them as an oft-persecuted, frequently martyred minority on the canvas of the western zeitgeist by a very powerful, very well-funded, very sinister agenda… Not yet, anyway.

I fully agree with everything you say here and recognize that homosexuals do have a strong PR dept and this effects public opinion of them a great deal. Not sure how much of that rubs off on Catholics, but I wouldn’t be the least bit suprized if it was less than zero.

And that gets to the heart of the matter – the most fundamentally wrong concession to make in this debate is to that concept which is the homosexual agenda’s raison d’etre: The notion that a person’s sexual proclivities and inclinations are a defining, ontologically rooted aspect of the person’s very self. This is a most pernicious error that seeks to relativize heterosexuality as just one “sexual orientation,” just one color in the “rainbow” of sexual “orientations,” no better or worse than homosexuality. This is a demonically widespread presumption held by many people consciously or unconsciously. It obfuscates the simple, once universally understood truth that the ONLY sexual “orientation” is procreative heterosexuality. “God created man… He created them male and female; and He blessed them.” That is the only ontological truth with respect to sexuality. All else is sexual DISorientation.)

Again, I agree with everything you say here completely.

And yet when we use terms like “gay” with regard to homosexuals, when we speak of “the LGBT community,” and single homosexuals out as a group deserving of particular compassion over and above sufferers of other intrinsically disordered inclinations, we are tacitly endorsing this very central tenet of the homosexual agenda.
(contined below)

I will have to think on this some more. I tend to think that it is the overall advocacy of homosexuality and lesbianism, transgenderism, and bi-sexualism as being normal and having these things PR’ed in schools, on TV, etc that gives the imact that these are normal and accptable behaviors. I don’t think that the particular usage of on term or another has much to do with that at all, if at all.

But overall I think this was a great post!
God Bless,
Bill

 

[ManRay]

Homosexual agenda…awesome!

 

[Bradski]

No, they may be a pervert in some sense. They may be a racist in some sense. They may be a thief in some sense. That one commits those acts does not axiomatically mean one must refer to that person as their actions constantly and in each case. If you commit a lie must we always call you a liar? If you speed at times must we call you a law breaker?

If you have casual gay sex, then perhaps that is an aberration that you might be able to excuse. If you’re caught out in a one-off lie, you might excuse that person. If you break the speed limit one time, you are not by any reasonable standard a criminal.

But if you lie constantly on a regular basis then you are indeed a liar. If you speed on a daily basis then you are indeed a law breaker. And if you commit perverted acts on a daily basis, then I’m afraid there is no other conclusion to be reached other than that person is a pervert.

No, my original point was that perverted acts used to be called perverted acts. Now, do to dulled consciences, moral relativism, and bullying from the homosexual lobby we now may not think that way. Why? Because it is wrong? No, because those that practice such things want all to see the acts as normal.

Has your conscience been dulled? Are you subject to relative moralism? Have you been bullied by the homosexual lobby? Do you want to see homosexual acts as normal?

No, of course you don’t. You say, quite clearly and in a manner that brooks no argument: These people are daily committing perverted acts! But you baulk at taking that next logical step. Everyone else can see where it leads, but you are literally afraid of taking it. You think it’s too strong a pejorative to be used directly against someone.

It’s OK to imply that the young girl is being sinful. And in the company of like-minded individuals it’s OK to draw comparisons with what she is and violence or comparisons with her sex life and paedophilia. You can even post that her love life is perverted and there will be plenty who will agree.

But you’re frightened of the word ‘pervert’. You’re frightened of it because you know it’s a step too far. That decent people would object. That decent people would consider your attitude ‘un-Christian’. Even, from the evidence of your own posts, that is exactly what you believe.