L
larkin31
Guest
so, the lack of compassion is spreading here, I see
and you are wrong about teens having nowhere to go because of the 1973 ruling. You don’t know what you are talking about.
- Status
and you are wrong about teens having nowhere to go because of the 1973 ruling. You don’t know what you are talking about.
E
estesbob
Guest
Unfortunately homosexual apologists twist church teaching on compassion to claim that the church teaches affirmation. Thus, as we can see in this thread, any condemnation of homosexual behavior is met with condemnation that we are being uncharitable and uncompassionate. Which is a neat little trick to change the subject away from the sinfulness of deviant sexual behavior to attacking those who really want to help people who engage in this behavior by showing them God’s mercy and love and a way out of their sinful lifestyle.
But I don’t mean to be too harsh-one who does not believe in God has no point of reference other than the current cultures definition of compassion and charity . It is not surprising that they misunderstand church teaching and try to translate their misunderstanding church teaching into lecturing those who do.
T
Tigg
Guest
Do not confuse yourself with the false compassion of modern society. “False compassion shows pity to the murderer, but not to the family of the murdered.” It would ignore honesty and the immorality of acts such as homosexual behavior and deny the sinner the greatest gift of all - the exhortation to stop sinning.
One beloved bishop who said it all:
mikeadkins.com/article/bishop-fulton-sheen-on-false-compassionpart-ii/
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Every age in society brings its peculiar “biases.” I’m not speaking here of social prejudices, but rather of prefered fields of study which assumptively, by their prominence, color all discussions. This has been recognized by historical analysts for eons.
Thus, the Enlightenment period brought a “prejudice” toward Reason, which is not necessarily a bad thing, just an acknowledgement that Reason was the central organizing prinicple. In the 1970’s it was the field of psychology that was elevated to near-sacred status. If you were really “modern” you had at least your own therapist, if not a psychiatrist instead or in addition; and if you were a poster-child for psychology you also attended weekly group therapy. Psychology was so popular that it overran itself, in that psychology programs became overenrolled and produced a glut of psychologists on the market, many of whom found themselves unemployed and eventually changing careers.
In the early 21st century here, it’s medicine. The tendency, therefore, is to view every human behavior through the “determined” or determinable lens of medicine. Well, if your physiology determines your behavior, then your culpability (for anything) vanishes. Because it’s a slippery slope from saying medicine determines just “some” behavior: Why not all behavior? Maybe I have an inborn genetic tendency to lie, or to steal, or to murder. We get the same problem with popularizing medicine that we got with popularizing psychology in the '70’s: sloppy “science.”
Genes, and brain configurations, shape initial tendencies – not just sexually, but in a whole host of potentialities – interests, temperament, every variety of attraction & possibility. However, the infant is still in many respects a “tabula rasa.” Environment is huge in the formation of the individual, and anyone who doesn’t understand that hasn’t read enough (no, not science), but biographies. It’s patently clear, when you do enough wide reading, that there are thousands of people who would have, might have, turned out quite differently, given innate tendencies and even circumstances of their births, had it not been for positive, unusual, countervailing, etc. influences after their births. That includes, btw, many people who were probably bipolar (their biographies exhibit that) before we had a name for it, Borderline Personality Disorder before it was supposedly determined that it was a “hopeless” diagnosis, people who were clinically depressed (to the point where today we would consign them to little expectation of living a productive life, but rather consign to “disability” and 24/7 meds); in fact, many artists, especially the body of classical composers, were then, and are today, subject to depression.
Medicine as determinism is first of all junk science, and second of all, toxic to humanity. But the worst of all is limiting the complex phenomenon of sexuality to the field of medicine. Sexuality is not just, or even primarily, medical. If you don’t know that, you haven’t done much reading. Sexuality depends on so many factors and influences that it can hardly be confined to genetic determinism. That is so obvious merely by looking at varieties of behavior in various societies over time (including today), and by chosen behaviors in subcultures such as prisons.
Thus, the Enlightenment period brought a “prejudice” toward Reason, which is not necessarily a bad thing, just an acknowledgement that Reason was the central organizing prinicple. In the 1970’s it was the field of psychology that was elevated to near-sacred status. If you were really “modern” you had at least your own therapist, if not a psychiatrist instead or in addition; and if you were a poster-child for psychology you also attended weekly group therapy. Psychology was so popular that it overran itself, in that psychology programs became overenrolled and produced a glut of psychologists on the market, many of whom found themselves unemployed and eventually changing careers.
In the early 21st century here, it’s medicine. The tendency, therefore, is to view every human behavior through the “determined” or determinable lens of medicine. Well, if your physiology determines your behavior, then your culpability (for anything) vanishes. Because it’s a slippery slope from saying medicine determines just “some” behavior: Why not all behavior? Maybe I have an inborn genetic tendency to lie, or to steal, or to murder. We get the same problem with popularizing medicine that we got with popularizing psychology in the '70’s: sloppy “science.”
Genes, and brain configurations, shape initial tendencies – not just sexually, but in a whole host of potentialities – interests, temperament, every variety of attraction & possibility. However, the infant is still in many respects a “tabula rasa.” Environment is huge in the formation of the individual, and anyone who doesn’t understand that hasn’t read enough (no, not science), but biographies. It’s patently clear, when you do enough wide reading, that there are thousands of people who would have, might have, turned out quite differently, given innate tendencies and even circumstances of their births, had it not been for positive, unusual, countervailing, etc. influences after their births. That includes, btw, many people who were probably bipolar (their biographies exhibit that) before we had a name for it, Borderline Personality Disorder before it was supposedly determined that it was a “hopeless” diagnosis, people who were clinically depressed (to the point where today we would consign them to little expectation of living a productive life, but rather consign to “disability” and 24/7 meds); in fact, many artists, especially the body of classical composers, were then, and are today, subject to depression.
Medicine as determinism is first of all junk science, and second of all, toxic to humanity. But the worst of all is limiting the complex phenomenon of sexuality to the field of medicine. Sexuality is not just, or even primarily, medical. If you don’t know that, you haven’t done much reading. Sexuality depends on so many factors and influences that it can hardly be confined to genetic determinism. That is so obvious merely by looking at varieties of behavior in various societies over time (including today), and by chosen behaviors in subcultures such as prisons.
L
larkin31
Guest
Who the heck denies compassion to the family of the murdered as a matter of policy? What are you possibly talking about?
So again, my point was that compassion for gays is called for. Does anyone here deny this? Can we stay on this point?
E
estesbob
Guest
We have stayed point point-the point beng that compasion does not equal affirmation.
L
larkin31
Guest
You’re not being “harsh,” you are simply “wrong.” The poster I responded to specifically stated (see above) that “compassion” was not called for in dealing with gays and suicide. This was plainly stated by two posters.
So don’t make this into some other vague smear toward Catholics: it is not. I responded to those two posters directly, and quoted their words. I even offered to quote the letter from the American Bishops in which they specifically call for self-examination of the heart and for compassion toward gays. None of this is about “affirmation” of homosexuality. So, please do not turn it into that. You are not “harsh” in doing so; you are “wrong.”
If, you would also like to claim that compassion toward gay suicide is wrong, then please simply say so: that is what this exchange has been about. Nothing else.
L
larkin31
Guest
NO ONE claimed that it did. It is a strawman.
E
estesbob
Guest
What they said is false compassion facilitated the suicides. You came back lecturing us that the Church calls for resepct and compassion-however the kind of compassion our culture supports does more harm than good.
L
larkin31
Guest
No they did not say that.
Or I would have asked, “What is false compassion?”
And then, How does “false compassion” lead to someone becoming so depressed and desperate as to take one’s own life?
So, you do not deny that the Council of American Bishops calls for compassion? THIS has been my only point.
E
estesbob
Guest
And then, How does “false compassion” lead to someone becoming so depressed and desperate as to take one’s own life?
By telling that they have to accept their condition and nothing can be done for them . That leads to hopelessness and despair.
No. So what do you think compassion means?
C
CradleCath
Guest
Actually, homosexual practices do more than break Catholic law…they are in direct opposition to the Natural Law (sometimes called the Moral Law & the Law that is written on the heart of man).
The Natural Law contains moral truths that can be known by reason alone. These Truths can be known by Protestants, Muslims & people who have never heard of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, the Holy spirit, etc. Those who believe that a Creator exists do not have to be taught or told that sex between two men or two women is wrong. We need only to consider the physical bodies of the two sexes in order to realize that our sexual organs were designed to complete one another & to procreate. Any other use of our sexual organs is an abuse of Natural Law & creates disharmony & disorder within our Creator’s universe.
Homosexual practices are DISordered because they are not **ordered **toward procreation & unity between a man & wife.
T
Tigg
Guest
Well, obviously you didn’t open the link and watch the video, nor bother to listen to the discussion of real compassion vs false compassion or you would understand the point! Compassion is not closing our eyes to what is evil and will bring death, or being tolerant of immorality, but rather, wishing the ultimate good for others.
I suspect your understanding of compassion would differ from mine. Who on this thread has denied the bishops call to treat homosexuals with charity? That is a given. The title of this thread is Catholics supporting homosexual unions which Church teaching forbids us to do.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Took the words right out of my mouth. I was going to mention this. This is the effect of the ‘determinism’ I mentioned in my earlier post. When you’re told that your “condition” (name any condition, attraction, or tendency – sexual or otherwise) is permanent and irretrievable, and worse – ***is the core of your very identity ***-- and that identity is subject for grief among your closer and wider circle, then why shouldn’t you just eliminate yourself, saving your grief and the grief of all those around you?
Again, I don’t limit this to sexuality. This has happened to psychiatric conditions also (such as I named above). A “dysfunction” is not only medically determined, but supposedly is also a permanent disability, both consigning the person to a restricted life and giving him or her permission not to struggle with and overcome his/her limitations.
Fifty years ago and more, people coped with dysfunctional elements to their personalities and behaviors, as long as they had a basically sane orientation to daily life. If they could manage to conform publicly, then they were not institutionalized and allowed to earn a living. If they had shame or embarrassment about their differences from others, they kept that to themselves and sometimes their very close friends or relatives. Often, if they could be successful in a trade or profession, that was the way they compensated, that was what they celebrated, and that tended to become the core of their identity.
L
larkin31
Guest
I mean, WHO HERE ON THIS THREAD HAVING THIS DISCUSSION?
And I AM THE ONE WHO STARTED THIS DISCUSSION ON “COMPASSION” by asking the question. So yes, I have been reading the discussion.
L
larkin31
Guest
It’s what your bishops think of it that matters, right? Shall I quote the letter for you?
S
StTommyMore
Guest
The bishops lead us. We are to submit to their authority, which is just, as they are more learned in theology than the average layman.
L
larkin31
Guest
What are you talking about? Is this a summary, from your point of view, of professional treatment for depression in a homosexual? Can you be more specific please? You are suggesting that someone (unnamed, unidentified here) is responsible for the suicidal despair of a gay person. I would like you to be specific in your terms please.
Would this be any different for a black, despairing of racism, who seeks professional help for depression? For a deaf person? For a savant? For a hypochondriac?
L
larkin31
Guest
I would think so, since for Catholics the hierarchy from the Pope is very important.
R
rlg94086
Guest
- Status