Changed my views on Homosexuality

[joeybaggz]

And, again, that’s ok. That’s probably the most important thing for zealots to realize.

Interesting post, devotion is unfortunate - your words. Imagine you are devoted to nothing then, except your “hatred” of the RCC. Oh and by the way, Merriam Webster defines hate as “an intense hostility or aversion usually deriving from anger, fear, or sense of injury”. Your positions certainly strike of “hatred” as it is properly defined.
A lie is a lie… Interesting that you do not find that statement factual. It is, regardless of whether or not you believe it. Truth is something that liberals cannot stand the thought of. Relativism is all the rage among those who think the RCC is out of step. The “if it feels good, do it” mentality of 1967 Haight Ashbury is alive and well among a vast swath of society. It appears in the “rationale” of those who hate the thought of objective truth. Or that something they love to indulge in, violates the sacred nature of man as seen by His Creator.
Most of your conclusions and statements are not even worth a reply. You might want to properly understand the concept of infallibility as it applied to Catholic teaching and thought before you start throwing such conclusions regarding your “statistics” around. Catholics who don’t totally agree with the teachings of the church, like myself in some matters, are employing the gift of their own individual consciences, not necessarily turning their back on the Church as your words imply.
The RCC has never been wrong in its history, though there are numerous instances where it has not been absolutely right. That is the working definition of infallibility, although I am sure you will understand that as the blind obedience to ideology of a “zealot.” Ad hominin attack, the last resort of someone whose “hates” others and their beliefs. And is too lazy to attempt to understand the basis of another’s POV, but simply label them as “inferior” and proceed from there.
And by the way, most ideology is based in a rational perception and understanding of life, events, and history. The beliefs, teaching, and guidance of the RCC isn’t something simply picked out of thin air. The ideology of the RCC is based on the words and teachings of Christ as we best understand them, and are subject to modification and revision as man’s understanding of his environment evolves.
But then again, it is easier to attack another by labeling them an ideologue, irrational, and a zealot, isn’t it?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

And, again, that’s ok. That’s probably the most important thing for zealots to realize.

Interesting post, devotion is unfortunate - your words.

Where? Exactly?

Devotion is wonderful. But devotees should know where the “walls” are.

 

[deMontfort]

And fake Catholics should know where the door is…

 

[Vonsalza]

And fake Catholics should know where the door is…

With respect, I think an analysis of mass attendance in the last few decades would show that it must be fairly easy to find.

From an anthropological perspective, religions have to balance the tight-rope between connecting to a seemingly static past while connecting to a dynamic present. So every religion has to bend a little in order to survive - the Catholic one included.

The ones that don’t are the dead religions you read about in your college history classes.

 

[joeybaggz]

But how can there be walls, when the subject matter is not subject to empirical or scientific examination and “proof”? Who sets the boundaries? And are those doing so, perfect in their judgment?

 

[Vonsalza]

But how can there be walls, when the subject matter is not subject to empirical or scientific examination and “proof”? Who sets the boundaries? And are those doing so, perfect in their judgment?

Looks like you found them!

Er one, at least. The empirical.

 

[deMontfort]

deMontfort:

And fake Catholics should know where the door is…

With respect, I think an analysis of mass attendance in the last few decades would show that it must be fairly easy to find.

From an anthropological perspective, religions have to balance the tight-rope between connecting to a seemingly static past while connecting to a dynamic present. So every religion has to bend a little in order to survive - the Catholic one included.

The ones that don’t are the dead religions your read about in your college history classes.

^^^^^ And there you have it, Folks! Bow down to secular atheism or die. There is no God the Church exists to serve, rather the Church is a man-made social club that must conform to the atheist culture that surrounds it.

 

[joeybaggz]

joeybaggz:

But how can there be walls, when the subject matter is not subject to empirical or scientific examination and “proof”? Who sets the boundaries? And are those doing so, perfect in their judgment?

Looks like you found them!

And that “Proves” my point. My “walls” are not someone else’s. My sense of devotion is different from that of others. The danger in that though is the acceptance of relativism as the norm. According to those who stand in lock step with your contentions, everyone should do what they want and accept what they want to believe. By that logic, a race car driver who is the best in the world, should be able to do 185mph in a school district and those who disagree are “dinosaurs” bound by an incorrect interpretation of one’s freedom of expression. Slight facetious example, but hopefully you get my point. Law without mercy is a prison, mercy without law (and/or structure) is chaos.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

deMontfort:

And fake Catholics should know where the door is…

With respect, I think an analysis of mass attendance in the last few decades would show that it must be fairly easy to find.

From an anthropological perspective, religions have to balance the tight-rope between connecting to a seemingly static past while connecting to a dynamic present. So every religion has to bend a little in order to survive - the Catholic one included.

The ones that don’t are the dead religions your read about in your college history classes.

^^^^^ And there you have it, Folks! Bow down to secular atheism or die. There is no God the Church exists to serve, rather the Church is a man-made social club that must conform to the atheist culture that surrounds it.

That, my friends, is an epic false equivalence.

And while the Church does exist to serve, one of those functions IS to serve as a social club for like-minded believers in the metaphysically necessary God.

If you want to maintain your tone of outrage, I suggest you drop the incorrect “secular atheist” label and swap it out for cultural relativism or cultural subjectivism. You’d be more “right” and still get to rail against a popular boogey-man for conservatives/absolutists.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

joeybaggz:

But how can there be walls, when the subject matter is not subject to empirical or scientific examination and “proof”? Who sets the boundaries? And are those doing so, perfect in their judgment?

Looks like you found them!

And that “Proves” my point. My “walls” are not someone else’s. My sense of devotion is different from that of others. The danger in that though is the acceptance of relativism as the norm.

Dude… you just cited (a form of) relativism.

At any rate, devotion must yield to empiricism in empirical subjects. That reality is much much less subject to the relativism you seem to simultaneously need/disdain.

According to those who stand in lock step with your contentions, everyone should do what they want and accept what they want to believe.

Cultural relativism isn’t nearly so individually arbitrary. Thus your claim here is inaccurate, if not outright incorrect.

By that logic,

As you have a chiefly emotional problem with the premise, I think the rationalists can pass on what it is you deign to call “logic”. Thank you though.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Apparently the 1963 Pontifical Commission on Birth Control was was wrong.

From Catholic Answers:

At one time the Pontifical Biblical Commission was essentially a low-ranking Congregation.Its decisions, though, were not considered to be dogmatic or doctrinal. Its directives were neither infallible nor unchangeable. Its decisions could be officially challenged by theologians and clergy through proper channels.

"At that time (early conclusions from the commission) , the weight of its documents would have been the equivalent of the “official opinion of the Church.” Given that these official opinions were policy and not doctrine, newer statements by the Commission or Magisterium superseded any previous statements by the Commission.

Paul VI (reigned in the year 1963-1978), however, changed the Commission from a low-ranking Congregation to a simple commission of scholars who issue statements on the latest in scriptural studies. Today it carries only the weight of the respect of the opinion of its members."

So to say the Church as a whole was wrong on faith and morals because of a document from a Pontifical Commission in 1963 doesn’t mean it isn’t infallible, since The Pope made it into a simple commission who just issues statements on scriptural study. No where in time was that commission used for creating infallible doctrines. The Church has made mistakes, but on doctrines and dogmas, I have yet to see that

 

[QwertyGirl]

condoms have a failure rate and don’t protect against all STDs.

They fail when they break or are broken. That is why I said “proper”.

 

[joeybaggz]

joeybaggz:

Vonsalza:

joeybaggz:

But how can there be walls, when the subject matter is not subject to empirical or scientific examination and “proof”? Who sets the boundaries? And are those doing so, perfect in their judgment?

Looks like you found them!

And that “Proves” my point. My “walls” are not someone else’s. My sense of devotion is different from that of others. The danger in that though is the acceptance of relativism as the norm.

Dude… you just cited (a form of) relativism.

At any rate, devotion must yield to empiricism in empirical subjects. That reality is much much less subject to the relativism you seem to simultaneously need/disdain.

According to those who stand in lock step with your contentions, everyone should do what they want and accept what they want to believe.

Cultural relativism isn’t nearly so individually arbitrary. Thus your claim here is inaccurate, if not outright incorrect.

By that logic,

As you have a chiefly emotional problem with the premise, I think the rationalists can pass on what it is you deign to call “logic”. Thank you though.

Dude … everyone’s individual understanding of a subject is relative. Individual relativism and societal relativism, though they might spring from the same source, are vastly different.

Finally, something we agree upon. “Cultural relativism isn’t nearly so individually arbitrary”. It isn’t. The relativism of today’s culture is a monolithic embraced by those disaffected by, or who “hate” the RCC and its teachings.

An emotional problem with the premise. No. "There is no emotion in my understanding that "a lie is a lie… a truth is a truth. That to disagree with a particular church teaching is not the same as turning one’s back on the church as an 80-90% statistic claims. That, though one may not indulge in an activity automatically disqualifies one from the ability to render a cogent observation upon it. And other points that you glibly call “ideology” or “zealotry.”

And I might agree with your last statement about rationalists and my “logic”. The rationalist of the culture that “hates” the church are certainly going to pass on my logic. Faith in the Church is the kryptonite of the vast number of secular humanists and hedonists that hate the RCC/

 

[QwertyGirl]

Truth is something that liberals cannot stand the thought of.

I am a liberal and I am always searching for the truth. Most liberals I know are doing the same thing. They don’t rely on a single organization to tell them what truth is.

I am a big proponent of the truth. If you feel you have found truth in your faith or your church, that is excellent. Consider yourself fortunate. For those of us who haven’t yet found it, know that we work hard searching for it.

 

[joeybaggz]

Thank you for your gracious reply. And I agree with your contention. Please do understand though that many of us who believe in and defend the church are often subjected to ridicule and scorn from a vast number of those "liberals (many of whom are apostate Catholics) and our use of the term liberal is most often directed to that crowd. Personally, I don’t often get a measured and balanced reply such as yours.

 

[2towers]

How does the Church know that God didn’t create sexual activity for pure pleasure in addition to the other reasons the Church gives. Without itemizing body parts involved, etc.,… They are all designed so they can be used in exclusive ways, without incorporation of all of the ways. How wonderful, to my way of thinking as an agnostic, that the body was created in such versatile fashion. It meets the needs of everyone, regardless of where they are in life. The Church claims this view of human sexuality isn’t in accordance with Natural Law. How can it not be?

Hi QG,

I was “sexualized” at a young age, and pursed that life for decades afterwards. I have had a lot of time to reflect on those years, why me, why it was so hard to break, and the path it led me to, and finally the spiritual implications. A very complex study.

You already know and have heard Catholic reason and debate about this, so I am going to partially set that aside to address your post.

We were given sexuality as a way to ensure our survival as a species, everyone agrees with this, just as we were given hunger pangs in order to survive. We were given all sorts of other tools, to ensure our survival, like cunning to hunt and keep ourselves safe from animal and human predators and later invaders and so on.

Any of these natural inclinations can be taken beyond it’s proper function and become unhealthy and dangerous. We can start to obsess over food, flesh, security and so on, at the expense and determent to us, as well as others around us. For reasons beyond our understanding, some people can enjoy wine responsibly, while others begin to crave it, and beyond their control become alcoholics. Same with food, sex, security, on and on.

see next post

 

[2towers]

At this point we have to recognize this as being disordered, or dangerous, and we have to resist it from then on. If we don’t, terrible things can start to happen. Left unchecked a food disorder can lead to death, so can substance abuse. The desire for sex is no different, but the evolution of that particular disorder is especially insidious. Like an alcoholic who will break the law by being drunk to go to the liquor store, sexual depravity can drive people to extremes as well. Spending money on porn, spending all night looking for the right image or the right person. It can be like heroin. The death threshold of heroin never changes, but the body craves more.

But this is only half the answer isn’t it? Not the central part of your argument, but still it cannot be factored out, as it is still there and cannot be negated, as it is a real hazard. Beyond that is where it gets more complicated,which is why I have to bring in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. This is a model that everyone agrees on atheists and the religious. At the top of that pyramid is morality.

Almost all cultures have some form of union between men and woman that even predate Christ and the Jews. Individuals are not the only ones that are subject to Mazlov, societies and civilizations are as well. Once we have security, food and shelter, we turn to language, the arts, thinking and learning. These are needs too, and they beg at long last, why are we here. I promised to make this a secular argument, so I won’t go any further than that, but morality cannot be taken out,

Rome the greatest civilization ever known, Found and then lost morality. A civilization as well as an individual can and sometimes will slide from the top of Mazolov’s pyramid and go down. Look what happened to Rome, and look what is happening to us. The penalties for giving ones self over to base pleasures are the same, at least while still on earth, for individuals and societies.

As individuals, most of us are given time to mature and climb that pyramid. Often, and as in my case, the penalties for the pursuit of pleasure for pleasure’s sake became too heavy, and I am glad they did, giving me a chance to climb up. Pleasure for the sake of pleasure keeps us, or drops us, to a very low level on the pyramid. And here finally comes the coup de grâce. The sexual union, when kept in it’s proper context, is superior in fulfillment as an expression of love, than the very poor reflection outside of it. It is possible to still keep our innocence, and the artistic expression, that comes with it, the rich flavor and sweetness. Outside the marital union, we end up with nothing but crumbs in comparison.

Pax
2T

 

[joeybaggz]

joeybaggz:

Truth is something that liberals cannot stand the thought of.

I am a liberal and I am always searching for the truth. Most liberals I know are doing the same thing. They don’t rely on a single organization to tell them what truth is.

I am a big proponent of the truth. If you feel you have found truth in your faith or your church, that is excellent. Consider yourself fortunate. For those of us who haven’t yet found it, know that we work hard searching for it.

Again, I thank you as I stated in a previous post. Meant to hit the reply button, and didn’t
As to the statement of mine you cited. My singular use of the word liberal is *(in this instance and by my own admission) unfortunate. I should have written “those liberals who constantly and with an attitude of venom or hatred of the Church.” I just used the one word, liberal, and from your post, I see it conveyed an erroneous impression. It is something I have done before in other posts; not fully explaining my understanding of the word I have chosen.
Again, thank you for you gracious reply.

 

[2towers]

PS: Sorry I was so long winded. I strayed from the central topic of homosexuality didn’t I? Sorry about that, but the message is still the same. I know of one Catholic male couple who were converts. Once they became Catholic, they abstained completely from sex and became abstinent. They have been together for almost 20 years and now live as brothers, both with personal fulfillment they say, they never had when they were sexually active.

 

[QwertyGirl]

You know, I always say agnostics get the worst of it, because most of us are good people who work hard at seeking the truths in life. We aren’t handed a recipe for how to search, or a bunch of church documents we can study. We can look at the things that bring others to what they believe is the truth, but if we don’t believe, then we don’t believe. We get a bum rap sometimes… I have been told I am lazy because I don’t subscribe to a particular set of religious beliefs. Can you imagine that, and how it makes me feel towards the people who say that? Ultimately, I remind myself we are all human and no one is perfect, especially me. Then I am able to move on and keep seeking. I would just encourage all of us to step into each other’s shoes sometimes. I am sure being Catholic isn’t easy at times, either. We all struggle.