Catholics are ceding too much ground to the homosexual agenda

[Baelor]

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.

I apologize for a lack of charity.

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:
“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.”

You were right to do so – that statement is false.

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.

Correct.

Homosexual acts are graver and more depraved than fornication.

Correct.

The former intrinsically violates natural law in a manner that the latter does not.

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.”

I do not remember ever saying that. I said that relations must be broader than sexual or even immoral relations.

If we take this new twist you’ve presented us with and apply it to the CCC’s definition, we get this:

I never presented that twist, so this is a straw man.

That this is absurd meaninglessness is manifest.

Indeed, your straw man statement is manifestly meaningless.

…but not limited to, the homosexual act itself.

There is nothing in the CCC that suggests that, which should have been clear by my mention of every other reference of “relations” within the CCC. In no other place does the word have a negative connotation, and every time that it contextually refers to sexual relations it is modified by the appropriate adjective. Furthermore, the Church never condemns homosexuality, but rather homosexual acts.

Thus, although my original statement may not have been the Church’s wording, nothing the Church has taught through the CCC suggests that homosexuality involves anything inherently immoral.

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.

Indeed.

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.

I disagree, because I value succinctness. If you have a single word that you would like to use instead of “homosexual,” I will gladly use it. But I will not say “a celibate who has same sex attraction” every time I want to say “homosexual.” Again, I have no allegiance to the term, but I want a nice alternative if I am going to stop using it.

Furthermore, there is a double-standard here. We have a conception of straight persons but do not differentiate between those who are celibate and those who are sexually active persons, and yet we wish to apply an unnecessary distinction between sexually active homosexuals and inactive homosexuals. If we called all sexually active straight persons “fornicators,” perhaps I could get on board.

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.

I disagree. I know no one who would assume that.

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.

A Catholic may also use it in another sense; Bishop Sheen’s usage is not binding upon the rest of us.

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.

Stop trying to make this a moral issue when it is not.

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.

Nonsense. It is used because the term homosexual is disliked, or that distinction is desired (although unnecessary), etc. There is no ambiguity whatsoever in “homosexual” and “active homosexual,” but those terms are not preferred, which is fine.

 

[Baelor]

Therefore to call a same sex attracted person living in holy Chastity a “homosexual” is not only inaccurate, it is grossly unfair and uncharitable.

Not so, because the Church has not provided a definition of “homosexual” that is binding. I am not obligated to use “SSA” every time I mean the other, so there is neither inaccuracy nor lack of charity.

“Homosexuality” encompasses everything pertaining to the state – the inclination and the act, the intrinsically evil and the morally neutral.

The Church certainly does not state this.

Common noun usage of “homosexual” implicitly encompasses everything that the CCC’s definition of “homosexuality” encompasses.

The Church does not state that homosexuality encompasses evil acts.

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.

Fine. I retract it and adopt the Church’s. Homosexuality is still not sinful according to the CCC.

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.

Not so. I read the Latin. It was not “taken out,” it was removed from the English translation because it should not have been there at all. Thus, using its removal as proof is fallacious in the same way my inclusion was.

CCC:

Virorum et mulierum numerus non exiguus tendentias homosexuales praesentat profunde radicatas. Haec propensio, obiective inordinata, pro maiore eorum parte constituit probationem. Excipiendi sunt observantia, compassione et suavitate.

Nothing was removed from the original, so your point is invalid. The Church never made any statement about the nature of homosexuality besides that its origin is unknown.

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.

Alcoholics never cease to be alcoholics; it refers to a mental condition, not action.

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.

We are all inclined to sin; it is part of our nature. It is a neutral term by my definition, so there is no stigma attached. If someone is attracted to the same sex, they are fundamentally different from someone attracted to the different sex. I fail to see why we need to ignore this difference.

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.”

In general, me too. That does not mean there will never be an instance in which that term would be suitable.

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

I never stated that I consider it static only “in some cases.” I made no statement as to the mutability of orientation at all.

You’ve called Bishop Sheen a “false authority”

On definitional issues only.

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.

It is not a matter of understanding homosexuality; it is a matter of who has authority over definitions. You have yet to provide any reason that we are morally compelled to adopt H.E.'s definition of homosexuality, so his usage is still dangling in the air, unconnected to the rest of your argument.

Then you justify this by disingenuously claiming that this is just an issue of “secular definitions.”

You chastised me for lack of charity on account of my accusation of your lying; check yourself before becoming a hypocrite.

For a Catholic, homosexuality is a moral issue,

I never claimed it was not.

and therefore not a secular one.

As you noted, “homosexual” is nowhere found in the glossary or the CCC. Your own argument is justification of my point, which is that “homosexual” is a secular term. A number of your posts were based on this fact.

 

[Baelor]

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.

It is a secular issue.

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.

It is impossible for what one “should” do to be different from the right thing to do, as I stated. Therefore, although the force/certainty behind the statement may be different, the consequences for us are not.

Thank you for conceding that the CCC does not “clearly state” “morally impermissible” in this instance.

It does clearly state that it is morally impermissible:

Injustice is, by definition, morally impermissible.

Unjust action is consequently morally impermissible.

Are you arguing this?

Nonsense. “Should” is weaker than “must.” “Must” indicates certainty, “should” does not.

Again, although the statement may have a different level of certainty, that does not make the current understanding less binding.

It is incorrect to say that a Catholic “should” believe in Transubstantiation, precisely because a Catholic MUST believe in Transubstantiation.

We must do what we should do.

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

Relevance?

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.

So the definition of homosexual inherently is indeed a secular issue, given its lack of existence in religious documents of concern to us.

“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 does not make it taboo for eternity.

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.

You stated that there is no Catholic definition of homosexual or homophobia.

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.

I am.

Laws and proscriptions against sodomy have existed in nearly every civilized nation on Earth until relatively recently.

Really? Perhaps you should study more on Classics.

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.

Whether such a law is just is a different issue, but yes.

I believe this vividly illustrates the gross error in attempting to establish “homophobia” as an evil of comparable gravity and objective reality as racism.

Not so, because it specifies “unjust discrimination.”

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.

They should not 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.

Its vagueness will always be problematic. Again, I offer to switch my vocabulary. Come up with a word that is no longer than “homophobia” but is unambiguous and I will start using it forthwith.

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

Easily – it is neither extreme nor irrational.

Honestly, my biggest issue here is that convenient and small words are being thrown out with no replacements of comparable length. I will gladly and proudly pioneer a new vocabulary in my environment if a reasonable one is suggested. But there is no way I am going to say “man with same sex attraction” when I can use “homosexual” and mean the same thing.

 

[ManRay]

One of my friends looked over my shoulder and exclaimed this was the gayest debate ever…I thought that was funny. Pepper this sucka with a little brevity!

 

[Bill_7154]

(Contined)

We Catholics should be more keenly aware than anyone that treating a gravely sinful lifestyle with kid gloves and walking on eggshells when broaching the subject does no good service whatsoever to the sinner whose soul is in mortal, eternal jeopardy.]

I understand your point. But I guess what I prioritize is what works. If you come at someone with hardcore lecturing it might make you feel good, and if it has a postive impact on the person, fantastic! But if using that approach makes the person cut off contact with you alltogether, you most certainly miss out on all future opportunities to have a postive impact on their life. So I am in the position of ‘whatever works’. If we don’t know the person, well we hav no idea what will work. But if we do know the person, maybe we have an idea of what might work better than some other approach. I care about results more than anything. Maybe this is wrong. Maybe God wants me to come at all homosexuals with hardcore lecturing, I’m not sure. Maybe he wants me to use a different approach, or a variety of approaches. We are all individuals and all have different gifts, skills, etc.

( If your friend, your brother, your child were asleep at the wheel of a speeding car would you wring your hands and furrow your brow, trying to come up with the right words to alert him to the danger without hurting his feelings by casting dispersions on his driving ability? Or would you immediately rouse him from his stupor, not stopping short of a slap to the face if it means saving his life (and the lives of everyone else in the car)?.]

You make a dramatic argument that is hard to refute given the nature of the way you phrased the argument. But supposing after slapping him in the face, he got so pissed he slammed on the gas, took the car up to 130mph and drove it into a brick wall out of spite? Not a good outcome. I quite firmly believe there is not a one size fit’s all approach to something like homosexuality (or many, maybe even all other sins, as we are dealing with unique individuals who are the sinners, not the sins themselves. If your example was you walked in on your friend who was about to engage in homosexual sex via sodomy and not using a condom then I would be much more inclined to use your approach.

I’m reminded of the words of the late Carroll O’Connor, who went to his grave a broken hearted man over the drug-related death of his son Hugh. He looked back with immense regret at his lack of action, saying “I should have spied on him. I should’ve taken away all his civil rights, spied on him, opened his mail, listened to telephone calls, everything.” Are those the words of a father who hated his son? No, those are words spoken from nothing but deepest love. Isn’t it much more “hateful” to say nothing; to callously allow a soul to go down the road to perdition for fear of causing offense? )?.]

The fathers pain and reflection on what he should have ,and could have done obviously come from love. We do not know the circumstances of the relationship prior to the son’s dealth though. Did the father know what the sone was up to and choose to do nothing? Did he have suspicions and choose to do nothing? Or did he have no clue, an in retrospect is thinking like a father whose son died from an overdose would proably think, even if he had no way of knowing the son was involved with drugs. Those are critical differences and we don’t know based on what you wrote here.

We should be condemning sexual sins – all sexual sins – in the clearest, most unambiguous language possible, giving no heed to offending sensibilities that are of this world (and its prince) in so doing.)]

Isn’t there a difference between condeming sins and condeming the sinner? Priests, in my experience, don’t speak in this fashion to me at confession, and I had more than my share of sexual sins before coming back to the church (many one night stands, sleeping with other mens wives). And i’m glad he didn’t condem me in the moment, he welcomed me back to the church and spoke of hope and the ability to change. This motivated me to do better (even though those sins happened years before the confession) in life, to work to not sin, to pray for help with not sinning, to pray thanking for help in avoiding sinning. And I am much less of a sinner than I was 5 months ago when I went to confession for the first time in 17 years. If I got a stern lecture from the priest I would have been more likely to not continue to come to chuch, to not continue to go to confession and do pennance, been much less likely to pray day to day for the strenght to avoid all sins, and I have had good success with the sins that were the type I was doing around the time of that confession. I have made good progress. And I attribute it to the approach the priest used. He used love and compassion and explained that God forgives and told me I was taking what might be the most important step back to the church (I asked him to help me make a good confession and explained I had been away from the church for about 20 years.

So again, I’m not so sure that a one size fit’s all approach is the best way to deal with individuals, because they are exactly that, individauls. I think it’s different when talking about sins, talking about them maybe to a large audience, or talking to other Catholics who are of like mind in being against sins and recognizing homosexuality as sinful.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Bradski]

Pepper this sucka with a little brevity!

This post is an example of brevity. Perhaps you meant levity.

 

[fix]

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.

That is a matter to be determine in individual cases. What language is used depends on the intent and circumstances. Must one use only one descriptor in every single circumstance? Is that your position?

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?

Nope

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.

It is not logical to claim one must refer to another person in only one way in every single circumstance. This is little more than a rabbit hole you desire to go down.

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.

No, it may apply. Just like many descriptors may apply. That is a matter of personal preference and interpretation. You want it to be only one way becuase it fits your agenda.

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.

Love is not perverted. Acts are perverted. It is ok to aptly describe situations be they good or evil. What is not ok is to play this game where only one term must be used to satisfy your private agenda.

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.

No, that is what you want to impute to me. Your entire argument is that because one commits any act then one must be identified solely by that act. There are plenty of times when one who acts pervertly can be termed a pervert. That does not mean one must always use that descriptor because you so much want to make it fit your liberal, relativistic, narrative.

 

[edwest2]

I understand your point. But I guess what I prioritize is what works. If you come at someone with hardcore lecturing it might make you feel good, and if it has a postive impact on the person, fantastic! But if using that approach makes the person cut off contact with you alltogether, you most certainly miss out on all future opportunities to have a postive impact on their life. So I am in the position of ‘whatever works’. If we don’t know the person, well we hav no idea what will work. But if we do know the person, maybe we have an idea of what might work better than some other approach. I care about results more than anything. Maybe this is wrong. Maybe God wants me to come at all homosexuals with hardcore lecturing, I’m not sure. Maybe he wants me to use a different approach, or a variety of approaches. We are all individuals and all have different gifts, skills, etc.

The fathers pain and reflection on what he should have ,and could have done obviously come from love. We do not know the circumstances of the relationship prior to the son’s dealth though. Did the father know what the sone was up to and choose to do nothing? Did he have suspicions and choose to do nothing? Or did he have no clue, an in retrospect is thinking like a father whose son died from an overdose would proably think, even if he had no way of knowing the son was involved with drugs. Those are critical differences and we don’t know based on what you wrote here.

Isn’t there a difference between condeming sins and condeming the sinner? Priests, in my experience, don’t speak in this fashion to me at confession, and I had more than my share of sexual sins before coming back to the church (many one night stands, sleeping with other mens wives). And i’m glad he didn’t condem me in the moment, he welcomed me back to the church and spoke of hope and the ability to change. This motivated me to do better (even though those sins happened years before the confession) in life, to work to not sin, to pray for help with not sinning, to pray thanking for help in avoiding sinning. And I am much less of a sinner than I was 5 months ago when I went to confession for the first time in 17 years. If I got a stern lecture from the priest I would have been more likely to not continue to come to chuch, to not continue to go to confession and do pennance, been much less likely to pray day to day for the strenght to avoid all sins, and I have had good success with the sins that were the type I was doing around the time of that confession. I have made good progress. And I attribute it to the approach the priest used. He used love and compassion and explained that God forgives and told me I was taking what might be the most important step back to the church (I asked him to help me make a good confession and explained I had been away from the church for about 20 years.

So again, I’m not so sure that a one size fit’s all approach is the best way to deal with individuals, because they are exactly that, individauls. I think it’s different when talking about sins, talking about them maybe to a large audience, or talking to other Catholics who are of like mind in being against sins and recognizing homosexuality as sinful.

God Bless,
Bill

Hi Bill,

First of all, if I was gay and a priest approached me, I would react differently than if a “regular” person approached me.

Your argument revolves around your firm belief there is no size fits all answer in conveying the idea that homosexual behavior is sinful, but you need to look at the possible scenarios in detail before coming to that conclusion.

1. You know someone (relative, guy at work) that you are on good terms with. Do you just blurt out something like, “You know I’m Catholic, and the Church says having a gay relationship/acting out gay behavior is a sin.”? And he says…?

“Get out of my face. I don’t need you to tell me how to live my life.” OR “Hey. You’re not gay so you don’t understand. End of discussion.” OR “I’d appreciate it if you never brought that up again.”

1. Even if you’re doing street witnessing, how do you tell if anybody’s gay? Generally, when I do this, I offer them a booklet that tells them God loves them, or I ask if they’ve been to Church recently. If not, I encourage them to go. Right now, I’m dealing only with homeless people.

I think it would be helpful for you, and us, to make a list of all the scenarios you’re thinking about. That would be helpful regarding the best way to deal with each example. There are no unlimited number of variations. My list:

Gay bars/nightclubs.

Gay events, like outdoor parades or festivals, or rallies. We had one in Detroit last Summer and it’s not hard to find a list on the internet.

Gays you know at work.

Gays in your family, including relatives and in-laws.

I think each of us, regardless of our particular gifts, need to think like being the sower of the seed. Once we say something, even though it may be rejected at the time, our personal witness is powerful since it plants a seed.

I can think of no situation where someone needs to be “hard core” lectured. However, we need to know why the Church teaches what it does. That has to be crystal clear.

Finally, realize that the gay community has many supporters in the media, but that there is another side to the story they are not telling:

pblosser.blogspot.com/2012/07/lesbian-quits-gay-community-after-30.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Bradski]

That is a matter to be determine in individual cases. What language is used depends on the intent and circumstances. Must one use only one descriptor in every single circumstance? Is that your position?

Let me be clear. You don’t want to use the word. But this is nevertheless your position: Homosexuals who live together and have sex commit perverted acts on a regular basis. Let me now paraphrase what I said earlier:

If you accuse someone of lying on a regular basis then you are indeed calling them a liar. If you accuse someone of speeding on a regular basis then you are indeed calling them a law breaker. And if you accuse someone of committing perverted acts on a regular basis, then I’m afraid there is no other conclusion to be reached other than you are calling that person a pervert.

I think that you are afraid that reasonable people would think it would be unacceptable to call someone a pervert. That reasonable people would be angry if the word was used in relation to one of their friends or work mates or relatives. But whether you use it or not, reasonable person have already reached the conclusion that that is what you believe.

That’s why there has been such a swing towards accepting the fact that people have different sexual attractions to the majority. Whether you want to use the word or not doesn’t really matter. Your implications are crystal clear and people are turning away from ugly arguments.

 

[FaithBuild18]

Ceding too much ground on the homosexual agenda!? HA! Homosexual agenda!? More like CEDING TOO MUCH GROUND ON EVERY SINGLE ISSUE OF MORALITY!

I can’t even read a quarter of the posts on this website any more without cringing! Do people have backbones!? Quit being cowards! It’s appalling. Absolutely appalling. And I don’t know what’s more appalling between the vast numbers who are so misled and lost yet refuse to be found, or those who know the truth but refuse to fight for it. I wish I could spit in a spittoon and make that TING sound, because I would do it right now.

Somehow I have better luck talking to Catholics and Christians in real life than I do on the internet. I think God is trying to tell me something. I’ll listen and get the heck off here. Here is my farewell letter:

Dear Cowards,

Your Cowardice offends me.

Yours truly,

Faithbuild



(expecting moderation)

I leave you with a beautifully written excerpt from the 300’s. This is how we are to preach. This is how preaching was preached before the modern era. Contrary to popular opinion, it was effective. Notice how many people are falling away from the Church now that we preach with softness and tolerance and general indifference. When we preached with passion however, people came, people stayed, and people’s* souls were saved*.

“There are those who when they have intercourse deliberately prevent having children. They indulge in pleasure not for the sake of offspring but to satisfy their passion. To such an extent has the devil deceived these wretched people that they betray the work of God by perverting it to their own deceits. Moreover, they are so willing to satisfy their carnal desires as to pollute each other with impure seed, by which offspring is not conceived but by their own will evil desires are satisfied. Moreover, if a man should by mistake deposit some of his emitted seed and his wife becomes pregnant, listen to what further crime they descend. They remove the unformed fetus from the womb anytime they please and actually grind the aborted child (infantem) with mortar and pestle. Then to avoid the nausea they use pepper and other spices or ointments.” -St. Epiphanius

 

[RobbyS]

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?

Perversion is a description. “Pervert "is a slur. So your argument fails.

 

[RobbyS]

Ceding too much ground on the homosexual agenda!? HA! Homosexual agenda!? More like CEDING TOO MUCH GROUND ON EVERY SINGLE ISSUE OF MORALITY!

I can’t even read a quarter of the posts on this website any more without cringing! Do people have backbones!? Quit being cowards! It’s appalling. Absolutely appalling. And I don’t know what’s more appalling between the vast numbers who are so misled and lost yet refuse to be found, or those who know the truth but refuse to fight for it. I wish I could spit in a spittoon and make that TING sound, because I would do it right now.

Somehow I have better luck talking to Catholics and Christians in real life than I do on the internet. I think God is trying to tell me something. I’ll listen and get the heck off here. Here is my farewell letter:

Dear Cowards,

Your Cowardice offends me.

Yours truly,

Faithbuild



(expecting moderation)

I leave you with a beautifully written excerpt from the 300’s. This is how we are to preach. This is how preaching was preached before the modern era. Contrary to popular opinion, it was effective. Notice how many people are falling away from the Church now that we preach with softness and tolerance and general indifference. When we preached with passion however, people came, people stayed, and people’s* souls were saved*.

“There are those who when they have intercourse deliberately prevent having children. They indulge in pleasure not for the sake of offspring but to satisfy their passion. To such an extent has the devil deceived these wretched people that they betray the work of God by perverting it to their own deceits. Moreover, they are so willing to satisfy their carnal desires as to pollute each other with impure seed, by which offspring is not conceived but by their own will evil desires are satisfied. Moreover, if a man should by mistake deposit some of his emitted seed and his wife becomes pregnant, listen to what further crime they descend. They remove the unformed fetus from the womb anytime they please and actually grind the aborted child (infantem) with mortar and pestle. Then to avoid the nausea they use pepper and other spices or ointments.” -St. Epiphanius

And he is describing actual acts. We have to remember that such people were the sort who loudly cheered as men killed other men in their arena.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

And he is describing actual acts. We have to remember that such people were the sort who loudly cheered as men killed other men in their arena.

May I ask who you mean by “Such people”?

 

[Crescentinus]

Question.
Why should Catholics cede and ground at all?

 

[fix]

Let me be clear. You don’t want to use the word. But this is nevertheless your position: Homosexuals who live together and have sex commit perverted acts on a regular basis. Let me now paraphrase what I said earlier:

No, I never said I do not want to use the word. That is your false charge. I said it depends on context. You just do not like that because it does not fit your narrative.

If you accuse someone of lying on a regular basis then you are indeed calling them a liar. If you accuse someone of speeding on a regular basis then you are indeed calling them a law breaker. And if you accuse someone of committing perverted acts on a regular basis, then I’m afraid there is no other conclusion to be reached other than you are calling that person a pervert.

Yes, one may conclude that. Does that mean in every venue and instance one must say Hi Pervert, Hi liar, Hi heretic?

I think that you are afraid that reasonable people would think it would be unacceptable to call someone a pervert.

It is not about fear but propriety and circumstance. You want to make this an issue where one particular term MUST be used at all times. Why? No other circumstance demands that? If one is a generous person must I say Hi Generous person? Hi good hearted lover of all that is right and just?

That reasonable people would be angry if the word was used in relation to one of their friends or work mates or relatives. But whether you use it or not, reasonable person have already reached the conclusion that that is what you believe.

If people reach a correct conclusion that is great. Why would we want them to reach an incorrect conclusion?

That’s why there has been such a swing towards accepting the fact that people have different sexual attractions to the majority. Whether you want to use the word or not doesn’t really matter. Your implications are crystal clear and people are turning away from ugly arguments.

No, people have seared consciences. . People conform their hearts and minds to secular things rather than to God.

 

[Seeker1961]

No, people have seared consciences. . People conform their hearts and minds to secular things rather than to God.

Honestly, I often wonder who some religious people would use to feel superior to if gay people weren’t around. No matter what other sins they commit, the religious can always point to those evil gay people and say “at least I am not like them!”

 

[fix]

Honestly, I often wonder who some religious people would use to feel superior to if gay people weren’t around. No matter what other sins they commit, the religious can always point to those evil gay people and say “at least I am not like them!”

This is typical of the gay agenda. I have been involved in many threads on contraception as one example. People argue against Church teaching. They make all types of excuses. I cannot remember over thousands of posts anyone claiming that standing up for Church teaching means that are superior to others. It seems only when the topic involves homosexual acts do we read the false charges of feeling morally superior.

 

[Seeker1961]

This is typical of the gay agenda. I have been involved in many threads on contraception as one example. People argue against Church teaching. They make all types of excuses. I cannot remember over thousands of posts anyone claiming that standing up for Church teaching means that are superior to others. It seems only when the topic involves homosexual acts do we read the false charges of feeling morally superior.

Could you perhaps send me a copy of this agenda? I keep hearing about it, but it didn’t come with my Birkenstock sandals or collection of Broadway soundtracks. Obviously, you got one since you know what it says.

 

[Publisher]

Could you perhaps send me a copy of this agenda? I keep hearing about it, but it didn’t come with my Birkenstock sandals or collection of Broadway soundtracks. Obviously, you got one since you know what it says.

6:00 am Gym
8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)
9:00 am Hair appointment
10:00 am Shopping
12:00 PM Brunch

2:00 PM 
 1) Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, State and Local 
 Governments as well as all other national governments, 
 2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle, 
 3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages, 
 4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian 
 and Jamaican drug cartels, 
 5) Establish planetary chain of "homo breeding gulags" where over-medicated 
 imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby 
 factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly 
 pederastic gay leadership, 
 6) bulldoze all houses of worship, and 
 7) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the 
 exclusive use of child pornographers. 

2:30 PM   Get forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from 
 stress of world conquest 
4:00 PM  Cocktails 
6:00 PM  Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay) 
8:00 PM  Theater

11:00 PM Bed (du jour)?

 

[asd72]

Honestly, I often wonder who some religious people would use to feel superior to if gay people weren’t around. No matter what other sins they commit, the religious can always point to those evil gay people and say “at least I am not like them!”

Religious people struggle against all kinds of sexual sin, including for some same sex attraction.

The difference is religious people who are properly informed don’t call evil good and good evil. That is what is at stake.