College Course Lumps Homosexuality, Rape, Murder

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elizium23
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
FaustinaJulia said:
Honestly, you should know from reading these boards long enough now that homosexuality is considered the acting upon same sex attraction in the Catholic viewpoint. .
Click to expand...
Napoleon is actually correct on this one. The Catholic Church distinquishes the inclination from the action.

A person who has an attraction to those of the same sex is afflicted with homosexuality. That is distinct from acting on it.

A person can be homosexual and chaste, in fact, that is what the Church calls for in those who are afflicted with homosexuality. It is their particualr cross to bear in life and the means by which they obey the commands of Christ and His Church is via chastity,
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
I’m aware of what members post on this board. Whether it is factual is another matter entirely.
Click to expand...
This is a Catholic board, so yes, if it is in accord with the Magisterium, then it is factual according to Catholics or should be. You need to allow Catholic institutions teach according to Catholic standards and beliefs otherwise you are inhibiting religious freedom for everyone. Hopefully, you will comprehend how that is to your benefit also.
 
FaustinaJulia said:
This is a Catholic board, so yes, if it is in accord with the Magisterium, then it is factual according to Catholics or should be. You need to allow Catholic institutions teach according to Catholic standards and beliefs otherwise you are inhibiting religious freedom for everyone. Hopefully, you will comprehend how that is to your benefit also.
Click to expand...
Except that the Catechism makes a clear distinction between homosexuality (not a sin) and sexual behavior (all sinful outside the confines of marriage). I’m certainly not inhibiting religious freedom by pointing out that lumping homosexuality in with murder, rape, and robbery is neither helpful nor in the spirit of treating homosexuals with respect, compassion, and dignity as the Catechism requires. It is inappropriate at best.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
How can sexual orientation be, in any way, equated with violent crime? Doesn’t seem to jive with the spirit of CCC 2358. Based on the description alone (in its entirety) it seems that the entire course is complete bunk. How “structural conditions in society” foster, for example, mental illness? :ehh:
Click to expand...
Who do you think equated sexual orientation to violent crime? Nobody did this.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
How can sexual orientation be, in any way, equated with violent crime? Doesn’t seem to jive with the spirit of CCC 2358. Based on the description alone (in its entirety) it seems that the entire course is complete bunk. How “structural conditions in society” foster, for example, mental illness? :ehh:
Click to expand...
It is a course on deviant behavior, not criminal behavior. All of those behaviors in the course are considered abnormal, at least that is the premise of the course.
 
It is a disorder but it shouldn’t be lumped with murder and the like.
 
Farsight001 said:
Aren’t they deviant behavior?
Click to expand...
They’re examples of criminal activity that are strangely included alongside mental illness and homosexuality. Mental illness and homosexuality aren’t behaviors at all.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
They’re examples of criminal activity that are strangely included alongside mental illness and homosexuality. Mental illness and homosexuality aren’t behaviors at all.
Click to expand...
Not what I asked. Are they, or are they not, deviant behavior?
 
Farsight001 said:
Not what I asked. Are they, or are they not, deviant behavior?
Click to expand...
Thats not the issue. The issue is why non-behaviors are included in a course about “deviant behavior” and the implication is that an attempt will be made to draw some connection between homosexuality and murder, rape, and robbery. Otherwise, why include something that isn’t behavior?
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Except that the Catechism makes a clear distinction between homosexuality (not a sin) and sexual behavior (all sinful outside the confines of marriage). I’m certainly not inhibiting religious freedom by pointing out that lumping homosexuality in with murder, rape, and robbery is neither helpful nor in the spirit of treating homosexuals with respect, compassion, and dignity as the Catechism requires. It is inappropriate at best.
Click to expand...
This is correct.

I think they were referring to behavior and not simply orientation when they used the term “homosexuality”. Probably a poor choice of wording. I really think that we Catholics would be better served by using precise terminology when talking about this issue.
 
The Franciscan University of Steubenville, a Catholic university in Ohio, has been under fierce attacks after a gay person noticed in an online list of courses there that a course on deviant behavior included homosexuality. The heading of this news article (which also is the title of this thread) reflects the negative tone of these attacks, and now the accrediting agency for the department offering this course has begun threatening this Catholic university over this matter. The university is saying that all they are doing is following Catholic teaching on homosexuality
see www.npr.org/2012/10/160763549/college-course-lumps-homosexuailty-rape-murder
 
Bill_Martin said:
This is correct. I think they were referring to behavior and not simply orientation when they used the term “homosexuality”. Probably a poor choice of wording.
Click to expand...
Possibly. I often wonder why same-sex intercourse is singled out though. Its not considered worse than any other intercourse outside of marriage from a doctrinal standpoint. I would think it would be a more comprehensive approach since it all falls under the same umbrella. 🤷
Bill_Martin said:
I really think that we Catholics would be better served by using precise terminology when talking about this issue.
Click to expand...
I definitely agree with that statement. Unfortunately, I find myself viewing the Catechism like the tax code. Few people understand it or the terminology used in its entirety and the theology behind it is difficult for a lot of people to understand. Catholicism is certainly not a religion for the weak minded.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Possibly. I often wonder why same-sex intercourse is singled out though. Its not considered worse than any other intercourse outside of marriage from a doctrinal standpoint. I would think it would be a more comprehensive approach since it all falls under the same umbrella. 🤷

I definitely agree with that statement. Unfortunately, I find myself viewing the Catechism like the tax code. Few people understand it or the terminology used in its entirety and the theology behind it is difficult for a lot of people to understand. Catholicism is certainly not a religion for the weak minded.
Click to expand...
I have wondered the same thing. I don’t know either. My theory is that it’s because homosexual sex is something that “other” people do. It’s easier to condemn it as being more sinful than heterosexual sex outside of marriage because it is more foreign to the majority of people and therefore seems more “wrong”, so to speak. People tend to be quick to attack things unfamiliar to them and quick to defend things that aren’t. Not that either action is okay; it’s just that one is not singled out by the Church as more sinful than the other, yet is often treated that way.

The two most irritating things to me about how Catholics treat the homosexuality debate are the way it is seen as more sinful than heterosexual sex outside of marriage when the Catechism does not say so, and how the term “homosexuality” is used to denote either orientation or behavior, even though one is not a sin and the other is.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Thats not the issue. The issue is why non-behaviors are included in a course about “deviant behavior” and the implication is that an attempt will be made to draw some connection between homosexuality and murder, rape, and robbery. Otherwise, why include something that isn’t behavior?
Click to expand...
It’s the issue to me. You asked why murder, rape, and robbery were included if it’s not about crimes. I am merely responded to what you were saying.
 
mdgspencer said:
The Franciscan University of Steubenville, a Catholic university in Ohio, has been under fierce attacks after a gay person noticed in an online list of courses there that a course on deviant behavior included homosexuality. The heading of this news article (which also is the title of this thread) reflects the negative tone of these attacks, and now the accrediting agency for the department offering this course has begun threatening this Catholic university over this matter. The university is saying that all they are doing is following Catholic teaching on homosexuality
see www.npr.org/2012/10/160763549/college-course-lumps-homosexuailty-rape-murder
Click to expand...
In terms of sinfulness it should be lumped in with fornication and gay marriage should be compared divorced people remarrying. Lumping it in with rape and murder is incredibly uncouth and tasteless.
 
SusansChoice said:
It is a course on deviant behavior, not criminal behavior. All of those behaviors in the course are considered abnormal, at least that is the premise of the course.
Click to expand...
Yes, and if “deviant” = “different from the norm” as the university says, perhaps the whole kerfuffle could have been avoided if the course description didn’t lump together several different crimes, mental illness (a huge topic in itself) and homosexuality. If “different from the norm” is the topic of the course, why not toss in some neutral behaviors like bird watching or historical re-enactors?

However, if “deviant” = “undesirable behavior” then I can understand why an orthodox Catholic university might lump together the groups that it did. But I would have to wonder whether such a judgmental approach is appropriate for a graduate level course in social work. Heck, should such a normative term as “deviant” even be used?
 
Perhaps…

However methinks we need to recognzie the Political Benefits of such an asault via the Gay Community. It is classic tactics of the Gay Lobby to demonize as oppossed to rectify.

Let us not be naieve here…:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top