Catholics in US overwhelmingly support homosexual unions [CWN]

[Elizabeth502]

I am simply questioning the direct claims, under the guise of being Catholic, that “compassion” is not called for.

No one has claimed any such thing. What is claimed is, accurately, that society’s, and your, definition of compassion is not necessarily the Church’s definition, and the Church gets its definition from Jesus, not from society.

 

[StTommyMore]

No one has claimed any such thing. What is claimed is, accurately, that society’s, and your, definition of compassion is not necessarily the Church’s definition, and the Church gets its definition from Jesus, not from society.

Exactly. Admonishing sinners is a work of mercy

 

[Elizabeth502]

Notice that even the word “accepted” is used.

Accept the person, not the act. Jesus accepted the woman in adultery, and did not accept her behavior. (“Neither will I condemn you. Go then, and sin no more.”)

This again opposes the fundamental malady of modern society, which confuses behavior with personal identity. That is actually a great cause of universal depression, which could lead to suicide, because in that case, we’re all condemned if we’re all fundamentally equivalent to our behavior, or even our inclinations & attractions. (God help us.)

 

[rlg94086]

Notice that even the word “accepted” is used.

Indeed. It is the opposite of “rejected.” We accept people with disordered desires into the Church and support them in their struggle to remain chaste. What we don’t do is “accept” their disordered desires as something to be condoned or encouraged.

 

[Timothy17]

And given your attitude toward women, no, I don’t think I want to hear what you think about Barbara Boxer, Hilary Clinton, or Nancy Pelosi, three women I admire for their courage and tenacity in a male-dominated political world.

StAnastasia

Aren’t at least two of those three women you admire pro-abortion ? Their courage to kill and their tenacity to lie is quite impressive I assume, but, then again, considering who they work for…

Pax,
Tim

 

[estesbob]

rlg,

Here is what prompted me to ask all the questions about “compassion.” I fully know what the thread title is.

“Compassion” is a frequent Christian topic. I remember it spoken of in homilies many many times. seems relevant when talking about the suicides of ANY person, no? And perhaps especially of the young?

Despie only two Catholics here stating that they have compassion toward gay suicides, my sense is that many many other Catholics across the country would much more easily state this compassion, and indeed–according to the thread topic survey–also have much greater support of homosexual unions than is expressed here. The first is about charity of spirit; the latter is about politics and law. I understand being opposed to the latter; I DO NOT understand lacking the former.

it is interesting I have not seen you express compassion for non-homosexuals commiting suicide. Of course for me to lecture you for not doing so would be specious as that was not the topic of the thread ,just as your lecturing people for not expressing compassion in the way you would want them to is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.

At with most threads on homosexuality it quickly deteriorate into pious lectures by homosexual apologists on the lack of charity and compassion on the part of those those who affirm the teachings of the church.

Could you tell us what your definition of showing compassion to those who engage in homosexual behavior is?

 

[larkin31]

it is interesting I have not seen you express compassion for non-homosexuals commiting suicide. Of course for me to lecture you for not doing so would be specious as that was not the topic of the thread ,just as your lecturing people for not expressing compassion in the way you would want them to is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.

At with most threads on homosexuality it quickly deteriorate into pious lectures by homosexual apologists on the lack of charity and compassion on the part of those those who affirm the teachings of the church.

Could you tell us what your definition of showing compassion to those who engage in homosexual behavior is?

Hey, I did not make that dude write that “compassion” was not called for, for gay suicides.

And yes, I have compassion for all suicides, indeed for all deaths from whatever cause that happens to any person on the planet.

So, do you have compassion for gays, as your Bishops ask of you?

 

[larkin31]

Exactly. Admonishing sinners is a work of mercy

You certainly seem to enjoy practicing admonition, also. Even here on an internet thread. Did Jesus encourage us to admonish each other, too? Was that in the Sermon on the Mount, or somewhere else? Where he said, basically, “Go, and admonish thy brethren?”

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Aren’t at least two of those three women you admire pro-abortion ? Their courage to kill and their tenacity to lie is quite impressive I assume, but, then again, considering who they work for…

I’m confused. Whom do you think they work for?

To the best of my knowledge, Secretary Clinton works for the President, Senator Boxer and Speaker Pelosi are elected officials, and so work for the people who elected them.

 

[larkin31]

No one has claimed any such thing. What is claimed is, accurately, that society’s, and your, definition of compassion is not necessarily the Church’s definition, and the Church gets its definition from Jesus, not from society.

What “definition” are you ascribing to me? Chances are that you are wrong in what you take me to mean. Besides, I am quoting Catholic church documents. It is clear what THEY mean, no?

Oh yeah, btw, Catholics overwhelmingly support gay civil unions. So the survey says. (just to get the original topic back in here).

 

[larkin31]

I’m confused. Whom do you think they work for?

To the best of my knowledge, Secretary Clinton works for the President, Senator Boxer and Speaker Pelosi are elected officials, and so work for the people who elected them.

It’s a vast Muslim conspiracy, dontcha know?

 

[TEPO]

It entirely does matter what you feel–and your church frequently discusses sins of the heart and asks you to examine it and work on cleansing it. I am agnostic, but I fully believe that even inside ourselves we can have bad thoughts and feelings, and that some of these are harmful and should be addressed and reduced. And your church specifically asks you to work on your heart in regards to gays. I can quote the letter from the Bishops of America on this matter if you would like. True, they can’t MAKE you feel a certain way. But the Bishop’s letter CLEARLY asks you to approach and treat gays with a certain feeling and love, and I would say that having “compassion” for them is clearly part of their request. If you wish to state that you think it acceptable to ignore that request, then I simply would like to see if you would write that here.

I disagree, the Church does not ask its faithful Community to feel any certain way regarding gays… It does however explain to us that it is Godly to accept gays “with respect, compassion, and sensitivity”… We should act this way toward any of our fellow sinners.

But the Church does not drill us with the imposition of adopting any certain feelings or thoughts towards homosexuals or homosexual unions. In fact it is our society and President Obama, and the media who attempt to impose onto us an actual acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual unions… This is morally wrong, especially when it becomes law.

My problem is that society has become too eager to offer each other “tools” if you will -tools that are meant to help others to become socially advanced. Once we start actually imposing these tools onto one another we have not only overstepped ouir moral boundaries, but we have also begun dividing the peoples… It’s gotten so bad that we now have what we call “liberal” and “traditional” catholics… The cause of the problem is a hyper-opinionated news media that takes freedom of speech beyond its limits… I’ll have to start another thread on this… Sorry.

 

[rlg94086]

You certainly seem to enjoy practicing admonition, also. Even here on an internet thread. Did Jesus encourage us to admonish each other, too? Was that in the Sermon on the Mount, or somewhere else? Where he said, basically, “Go, and admonish thy brethren?”

Excuse me? What about your admonishing? You seem to enjoy practicing it just as much as others.

 

[StTommyMore]

You certainly seem to enjoy practicing admonition, also. Even here on an internet thread. Did Jesus encourage us to admonish each other, too? Was that in the Sermon on the Mount, or somewhere else? Where he said, basically, “Go, and admonish thy brethren?”

Matthew 18:15

 

[Elizabeth502]

Oh yeah, btw, Catholics overwhelmingly support gay civil unions. So the survey says. (just to get the original topic back in here).

…That would be Catholic laity, both those who are observant and those non-observant, as well as those both informed about their faith (and scripture) and not informed about their faith (nor scripture).

The body of Catholic moral teachings, past and present, is not decided on the basis of lay majority “support” (or lack thereof). That’s one way Catholicism differs from our Protestant brethren: someone has to actually be in charge.

And just a little reality check here: The Jews of Jesus’ time – and he was one – forbade the practice of homosexuality. Apparently he, and they, understood that it was possible to be compassionate yet not approve of forbidden behavior.

Compassion: from the Latin, meaning to suffer with. Doesn’t mean to approve of, to lighten up on, to give someone a pass on immoral behavior as a supposed hedge against theoretical eventual suicide, or because unless we approve, the person will feel bad, and thus we must prevent social rejection at all costs to the truth.

Newsflash: The Catholic Church is not responsbile for even most of the suicides in the world, including most of the gay suicides. Frankly, while I know of suicides that were indirectly or directly a result of *sexual abuse *-- more often from family members than clergy – I can’t recall hearing a news story about a specific gay suicide wherein the victim left a note to indicate that the reason for the suicide was Catholic Church disapproval of his or her sexuality. I’ve heard of notes being left about family disapproval, but more often than not those families are not Catholic, but Evangelical or Fundamentalist Protestant; there is additionally another segment of U.S. suicide cases that hail from cultures which are far more punitive & repressive than ours on homosexuality – such as some cultures in the Middle East, etc.

The bortom line, larkin, is that we all know here that this subject is neverending with you, for one simple reason: you have stated that you do not buy the concept of objective truth and objective morality. But that is the starting point for any Catholic discussing morality. And the point, relative to this thread, is that homosexual civil unions do have moral impact on society, most particularly, children. In the moral framework of the RCC, those with greater power (in this case, decision-making, voting adults) are charged with greater moral responsibility to protect those with no power (i.e., children). And even if gays were currently content with civil unions (they aren’t), it would be a matter of extremely short time before they would denounce having to settle for a title that is not equivalent to the marriage title provided to heterosexuals.

 

[CMatt25]

And just a little reality check here: The Jews of Jesus’ time – and he was one – forbade the practice of homosexuality.

The Jews did a lot of things Catholics and Christians don’t follow. And there are a lot of things in Scripture Catholics and other Christians don’t subscribe to literally.

Catholics may feast upon a succulent dining of broiled scallops and lobster on days they are to abstain and fast.

A survey shows Catholics support gay unions? The world was created in literally 6, 24 hr days with the evening and morning being a day is something I don’t find a lot of Catholics taking literally either.

If a woman is found not to be a virgin on her wedding night, she is not now stoned to death. We don’t cut off our hands when they cause us to sin. Virgins who are raped are not forced to marry their rapists after the rapist pays her father 50 shekels. A man and a woman who is engaged to someone else sleep together but are not stoned to death now. Clothing material is mixed nowadays. 2 kinds of seeds are planted in the same field. Intercourse during a woman’s period no longer sin.

We don’t practice slavery. Catholic women don’t keep quiet in church. A custom of the times? As much as views on homosexuality could have been a custom of the times. And so on and so on.

But God bless you all on your lifelong faith journeys and peace.

 

[StTommyMore]

The Jews did a lot of things Catholics and Christians don’t follow. And there are a lot of things in Scripture Catholics and other Christians don’t subscribe to literally.

Catholics may feast upon a succulent dining of broiled scallops and lobster on days they are to abstain and fast.

A survey shows Catholics support gay unions? The world was created in literally 6, 24 hr days with the evening and morning being a day is something I don’t find a lot of Catholics taking literally either.

If a woman is found not to be a virgin on her wedding night, she is not now stoned to death. We don’t cut off our hands when they cause us to sin. Virgins who are raped are not forced to marry their rapists after the rapist pays her father 50 shekels. A man and a woman who is engaged to someone else sleep together but are not stoned to death now. Clothing material is mixed nowadays. 2 kinds of seeds are planted in the same field. Intercourse during a woman’s period no longer sin.

We don’t practice slavery. Catholic women don’t keep quiet in church. A custom of the times? As much as views on homosexuality could have been a custom of the times. And so on and so on.

But God bless you all on your lifelong faith journeys and peace.

One of the reasons the abstinence laws were changed is because people were following the letter, and not the spirit of the law.
U
Your examples of biblical literalism are actually condemned by the Church.
Homosexuality is different, It is a violation of the natural law. Nature itself hows that this is disordered, and can never be approved, no matter what the views of society may be.

 

[jackangelo1]

…That would be Catholic laity, both those who are observant and those non-observant, as well as those both informed about their faith (and scripture) and not informed about their faith (nor scripture).

The body of Catholic moral teachings, past and present, is not decided on the basis of lay majority “support” (or lack thereof). That’s one way Catholicism differs from our Protestant brethren: someone has to actually be in charge.

And just a little reality check here: The Jews of Jesus’ time – and he was one – forbade the practice of homosexuality. Apparently he, and they, understood that it was possible to be compassionate yet not approve of forbidden behavior.

Compassion: from the Latin, meaning to suffer with. Doesn’t mean to approve of, to lighten up on, to give someone a pass on immoral behavior as a supposed hedge against theoretical eventual suicide, or because unless we approve, the person will feel bad, and thus we must prevent social rejection at all costs to the truth.

Newsflash: The Catholic Church is not responsbile for even most of the suicides in the world, including most of the gay suicides. Frankly, while I know of suicides that were indirectly or directly a result of *sexual abuse *-- more often from family members than clergy – I can’t recall hearing a news story about a specific gay suicide wherein the victim left a note to indicate that the reason for the suicide was Catholic Church disapproval of his or her sexuality. I’ve heard of notes being left about family disapproval, but more often than not those families are not Catholic, but Evangelical or Fundamentalist Protestant; there is additionally another segment of U.S. suicide cases that hail from cultures which are far more punitive & repressive than ours on homosexuality – such as some cultures in the Middle East, etc.

The bortom line, larkin, is that we all know here that this subject is neverending with you, for one simple reason: you have stated that you do not buy the concept of objective truth and objective morality. But that is the starting point for any Catholic discussing morality. And the point, relative to this thread, is that homosexual civil unions do have moral impact on society, most particularly, children. In the moral framework of the RCC, those with greater power (in this case, decision-making, voting adults) are charged with greater moral responsibility to protect those with no power (i.e., children). And even if gays were currently content with civil unions (they aren’t), it would be a matter of extremely short time before they would denounce having to settle for a title that is not equivalent to the marriage title provided to heterosexuals.

The Rash of homosexual teenagers comitting Suicide can be put directly on the heads of the homosexual community. They are the ones who pressured the Psychiatric Assocation to take homosexuality off their books as beinga Mental disorder,in 1973, thus the troubled teenage had no where to go for treatment if they were depressed or suicidal" thats just too bad,your on your own"
I do not believe homoseuals comitt suicide because they are bullied,that is if they are bullied in the first place,by the way, these bullying encountes ar overblown. Anyone who comitts suicide is a very sick person,and because they are homosexual…

 

[Tigg]

So, do you have compassion for gays, as your Bishops ask of you?

And you were directly asked what you mean by compassion, but I can’t find your answer. Are you speaking purely of an emotion? A kumbaya sort of moment which would disregard the consequences of an immoral act under the guise of tolerance and love?

Notice that even the word “accepted” is used.

Misleading unless you quote the entire sentence. In keeping with this conviction, the Church teaches that persons with a homosexual inclination “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”

Prejudice, oppression, violence or any form of injustice would be sinful for Christians to engage in. We are to be cognizant (and charitable) of the trial they suffer (for whatever reason.) But the Pope still denounced homosexual relations.

 

[Tigg]

…That would be Catholic laity, both those who are observant and those non-observant, as well as those both informed about their faith (and scripture) and not informed about their faith (nor scripture).

The body of Catholic moral teachings, past and present, is not decided on the basis of lay majority “support” (or lack thereof). That’s one way Catholicism differs from our Protestant brethren: **someone has to actually be in charge. **

And just a little reality check here: The Jews of Jesus’ time – and he was one – forbade the practice of homosexuality. Apparently he, and they, understood that it was possible to be compassionate yet not approve of forbidden behavior.

Compassion: from the Latin, meaning to suffer with. Doesn’t mean to approve of, to lighten up on, to give someone a pass on immoral behavior as a supposed hedge against theoretical eventual suicide, or because unless we approve, the person will feel bad, and thus we must prevent social rejection at all costs to the truth.

The bortom line, larkin, is that we all know here that this subject is neverending with you, for one simple reason: you have stated that you do not buy the concept of objective truth and objective morality. But that is the starting point for any Catholic discussing morality. And the point, relative to this thread, is that homosexual civil unions do have moral impact on society, most particularly, children. In the moral framework of the RCC, those with greater power (in this case, decision-making, voting adults) are charged with greater moral responsibility to protect those with no power (i.e., children). And even if gays were currently content with civil unions (they aren’t), it would be a matter of extremely short time before they would denounce having to settle for a title that is not equivalent to the marriage title provided to heterosexuals.

I’m always so glad to see you weigh in on a discussion. :tiphat: