B
boppaid
Guest
I guess my question to you would be: How can you respect somebody if you can’t even tolerate them? And if we don’t tolerate homosexuals in school, how will their children feel? It’s not their fault.
Court: No Opt-out of Homosexual Indoctrination in Class for Massachusetts Parents
- Status
B
boppaid
Guest
You sound like a wonderful parent. You should be proud.
J
JReducation
Guest
I’ve been arguing about the way we teach sexuality since the 1990s when I was Director of Pastoral Care at a Catholic organization. Back in those days the big issue was safe sex. I worked with a group of very dedicated and concerned Christian people who ministered to adolescents. Unfortunately, some were convinced that no matter what we did, teens were going to be sexually active and therefore should be provided with safe sex education. It was my job to enlighten, without attacking or becomong angry.
Today we are facing another good intention based on a wrong premise. The idea of teaching children, adolescents and adults to respect and treat other people fairly is certainly consistent with Christian tradition. To make sure that everyone is loved and included in the life of the family and society is a value to which we must hold on. Anger, rejection and hostility have no place in Christian behaviour. Jesus never told sinners to go away. On the contrary, he invited himself to dinner.
My concern on any thread that deals with human sexuality is really the Catholic lay person who is trying hold on to moral principles. I fully support those moral principles. However, we have to bring additional moral principles to the table. The most important of these is love.
It is disconcerting to see people of faith up in arms over same sex marriage and wistfully spend the night watching Desperate Housewives where adultery and promiscuity is boldly shot into our living rooms. Few people think about changing the channel, because it’s heterosexual sex.
The Church has made it very clear that it refuses to deal with people according to their sexual orientation. Instead it chooses to deal with people as Created Images of God. Every one of these creatures has an inviolable dignity and wealth in the eyes of the Creator and his Church. All practices that diminish the sacredness of the human person, offends the Creative act of God.
We must be careful not to allow a homophobic culture to influence how we approach this subject or we will lose sight of the sacredness of life. Even though they are wrong, those who are promoting this particular sex education program are not necessarily evil people.
They believe that they are doing something good. Our mission is to present the dangers of such a program, not to point the finger and accuse everyone of being evil or a terrible sinner. That’s not the way that the Catholic Church operates.
Look at the abortion issue. The Church has never pointed the finger at the Justices of the Supreme Court who ruled in Roe v. Wade and said, “You’re horrible and sinful people.” The Church presented the evils of abortion, but never accused anyone of being evil. It didn’t do it in the USA or in any other country that has legalized abortion.
The life of faith is a journey toward the Kingdom of God. As society moves forward, new challenges will arise. We can’t stop this process. We have to travel the journey. As questions and issues arise, we have to respond using reason enlightened by faith.
Today we are facing a double edge sword. On the one hand, we have situations like the MA case, which is obviously not the way to go. The Commonwealth needs to reconsider this.
On the other hand, too many Catholics are starting to sound like extreme right-wing Evangelicals, which we’re not. Some Catholics are falling into the temptation of preaching and predicting gloom and doom, forgetting that throughout human history we have faced many trials, many crises of faith in the world and have moved on thanks to the grace of God.
There are three things that we must do:
We can learn a great deal how to respond with truth and charity from people like Mother Teresa or Maximilian Kolbe who gave their lives for people who were not believers, but they loved them because Christ loved them.
Today we are facing another good intention based on a wrong premise. The idea of teaching children, adolescents and adults to respect and treat other people fairly is certainly consistent with Christian tradition. To make sure that everyone is loved and included in the life of the family and society is a value to which we must hold on. Anger, rejection and hostility have no place in Christian behaviour. Jesus never told sinners to go away. On the contrary, he invited himself to dinner.
My concern on any thread that deals with human sexuality is really the Catholic lay person who is trying hold on to moral principles. I fully support those moral principles. However, we have to bring additional moral principles to the table. The most important of these is love.
It is disconcerting to see people of faith up in arms over same sex marriage and wistfully spend the night watching Desperate Housewives where adultery and promiscuity is boldly shot into our living rooms. Few people think about changing the channel, because it’s heterosexual sex.
The Church has made it very clear that it refuses to deal with people according to their sexual orientation. Instead it chooses to deal with people as Created Images of God. Every one of these creatures has an inviolable dignity and wealth in the eyes of the Creator and his Church. All practices that diminish the sacredness of the human person, offends the Creative act of God.
We must be careful not to allow a homophobic culture to influence how we approach this subject or we will lose sight of the sacredness of life. Even though they are wrong, those who are promoting this particular sex education program are not necessarily evil people.
They believe that they are doing something good. Our mission is to present the dangers of such a program, not to point the finger and accuse everyone of being evil or a terrible sinner. That’s not the way that the Catholic Church operates.
Look at the abortion issue. The Church has never pointed the finger at the Justices of the Supreme Court who ruled in Roe v. Wade and said, “You’re horrible and sinful people.” The Church presented the evils of abortion, but never accused anyone of being evil. It didn’t do it in the USA or in any other country that has legalized abortion.
The life of faith is a journey toward the Kingdom of God. As society moves forward, new challenges will arise. We can’t stop this process. We have to travel the journey. As questions and issues arise, we have to respond using reason enlightened by faith.
Today we are facing a double edge sword. On the one hand, we have situations like the MA case, which is obviously not the way to go. The Commonwealth needs to reconsider this.
On the other hand, too many Catholics are starting to sound like extreme right-wing Evangelicals, which we’re not. Some Catholics are falling into the temptation of preaching and predicting gloom and doom, forgetting that throughout human history we have faced many trials, many crises of faith in the world and have moved on thanks to the grace of God.
There are three things that we must do:
- Pray for the gift of faith.
- Pray for the gift of charity
- Pray for the gift of hope
We can learn a great deal how to respond with truth and charity from people like Mother Teresa or Maximilian Kolbe who gave their lives for people who were not believers, but they loved them because Christ loved them.
D
Dee_Dee_King
Guest
this is very effeminate attitude. i’m homophobic and proud to be. those who promote this education program are cooperating with an evil agenda according to the catholic church:
those who assist in abortions or keep silent in matters of grave evil such as in this matter are guilty as pilate was when he handed over Christ to be crucified.
the reason we are in this mess is because men didn’t do their jobs and stand up and protect the family.
J
JReducation
Guest
I suggest you read the
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
- It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.
- From this multi-faceted approach there are numerous advantages to be gained, not the least of which is the realization that a homosexual person, as every human being, deeply needs to be nourished at many different levels simultaneously.
If this is an effeminate attitude, blame the Church. She teaches it.
In addition, "God is the God of love and not of hatred; the God of life and not of death, the God of peace and not of war. “The name of the one God must become increasingly what it is: a name and a summons to peace” said Pope John Paul II " (Novo Millenio ineunte, n. 55).
John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger also wrote the following:
"Human society around the world is getting more and more pluralistic from the cultural and religious points of view. The relative ease of modern means of communication and of travel has been a factor. So is the fact of growing interdependence of peoples in matters economic, cultural, social and educational.
This plurality is a fact. People have to learn to accept it. Positive efforts have to continue to promote better mutual understanding and greater collaboration between people of differing religions or cultural backgrounds. Cultures and religions can collide. But they need not collide. Such a clash can be avoided. Indeed, humanity should go beyond avoiding a clash and promote harmony and collaboration. "
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20020116_arinze-assisi_en.html
They wanted to engage people of all religious and even pagan beliefs in a journey of faith, not a clash. Our job is to promote harmony and cooperation in our search for truth and for what is right.
I repeat what I have said before. We can take lessons on evangelization without clashes or anger from Francis of Assisi, Maximilian Kolbe, Mother Teresa and John Paul II. I concede that we often feel indignation on many fronts. But as Teresa of Avila always said, “True love must detach itself from its preconceptions and open the inner chamber of the soul to the voice of God.” This woman, besides being a Doctor of the Church, dealt with some pretty tough issues in her day. She kept her head clear and her heart detached from the indignation that she often felt. In her biography she admits that it was a struggle, but a necessary one.
We too have to practice such detachment, if we are to hear the voice of the Spirit and act according to the Gospel.
I’ll share something that works for me. Francis of Assisi has been my mirror of perfection since I was a child, long before I became a Christian. In fact, his peace and message of conversion drew me to explore the Catholic faith.
Today, I look at situations such as this and ask myself, “How would the mirror of perfection respond to this situation?”
BTW, the title Mirror of Perfection was given to him by the Church at his canonization, it’s not mine.
I hope this helps.
JR
D
Dee_Dee_King
Guest
did you read the next paragraph? they are talking about violence committed against homosexuals, not just discrimination. you need to read this.
how is this relavent? the meetings at assisi do not touch on the moral teaching on the church. where in the catechism does it say i must accept gravely evil acts? where does it say i must embrace plurality?
anger is good when it gets us motivated to stop evil, like the homosexual indoctrination of our children. my children will learn to hate homosexuality.
J
JReducation
Guest
No one is saying that we have to accept evil in any form. What is being presented here is a proper attitude for building the Kingdom of God. This is why I cited some of the Church’s greatest saints. They accomplished a great deal without the anger of which you speak.
If you look at the saints, their anger took the form of active service and evangelization, not clashes and attacks.
The citation from the convocation to Assisi was meant to show you how John Paul II and then Cardinal Ratzinger dealt with plurality. Neither of them are Hindus or Buddhists and so forth. In fact, in one of John Paul’s books, Crossing The Threshold of Hope he describes Buddhism as an anhialistic belief system. But observe, despite the fact that he believes this and teaches it, also reaches out to them to join him in prayer at one of Christianity’s most holy places, Assisi. As you see, you can have both.
You can have a position that is based on truth and you can also reach out in love to those who are outside the fold.
You asked where in the catechism does it say that you have to accept plurality. I gave you a document written by Ratzinger and approved for circulation by the Pope that says plurality is here and we have to learn to live with it.
Do not confuse that with do nothing. John Paul’s actions were just the opposite. He acknowledge it and he did something about it. He reached out by finding a common ground. In the case of people of other faiths he found that peace was a common desire of all. He reached out to invite them to pray for peace, each in his own manner. This kind of charity is what brings more people home to the faith than hostility.
I also pointed out the actions of some of the greatest evangelists and saints of the Church, but I’m not sure my point was clear enough. I’ll repeat myself again and try to be clearer.
What made people like Teresa of Avila, Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa, John XXIII and John Paul II worthy of imitation is their spiritual heroism. Throughout their lives they remained faithful to the Church. They preached conversion by word and deed. They succeeded in bringing many people to the Church, not by blasting them, but by showing them the truth of the faith.
If we believe what the church proclaims about St. Francis, that he is the perfect immitation of Christ and that to date no one has achieved such a perfect immitation, then let’s begin to look at how he would have dealt with this issue.
In the first place, he would have preached conversion, which was his trademark. He would have preached detachment from the physical and the material by his own life, which he did. The only way to overcome any sin is by becoming detached from the cause of sin. He would have also reached out in love and justice to those who are in a sate of sin, which he also did.
We see the same with Mother Teresa in the 20th century. When she opened her house for AIDS victims in Washington DC the press tried to corner her by asking if there was a problem between the house and the fact that most of the people in the house had become infected through homosexual activity or drugs. She answered, “When I look at them, I only see Jesus.”
This was not an endorsement of sin or evil. This was preaching conversion. Her statement calls the sinner to be more like Jesus and also calls the observer to see Jesus in the sinner.
You said that your children are going to learn to hate homosexuality. I hope that you will teach your children to hate all sin, but to see Jesus in every sinner, just like Mother Teresa, St. Francis, St. Vincent de Paul and countless great men and women who have ministered to sinner through the history of the Church have done.
Just to close, I go back to the Assisi gathering, because it’s very telling about the mind of the man who was Pope and the one who would succeed him. Neither of these men are pagan, much less modernists in the classical sense. But they are realists. The world is made up of many kinds of people and we do have to learn to live with it. What we do not have to do is to immitate its example. To live with it is to find common ground where we can start to discover Christ. We accept the fact that there are differences and we look for something in common to build from. The key is to work toward a unified Kingdom of God, not one that is clashing.
That was another point that I wanted to draw your attention to. John Paul in his convocation to Assisi clearly believes and states that clashes are not necessary. I don’t believe this was a naive man. This was a man who had faced Nazis and Communists and never clashed with any of them. Somehow, he managed to deliver the Gospel message. I believe they respected him, because he never gave them reason to do battle. He knew how to work around them and eventually win them over without clashes or anger.
This is my message regarding this issue and all issues of this magnitude. There is always a peaceful way, even if it’s the long way around.
I hope this makes more sense.
If you look at the saints, their anger took the form of active service and evangelization, not clashes and attacks.
The citation from the convocation to Assisi was meant to show you how John Paul II and then Cardinal Ratzinger dealt with plurality. Neither of them are Hindus or Buddhists and so forth. In fact, in one of John Paul’s books, Crossing The Threshold of Hope he describes Buddhism as an anhialistic belief system. But observe, despite the fact that he believes this and teaches it, also reaches out to them to join him in prayer at one of Christianity’s most holy places, Assisi. As you see, you can have both.
You can have a position that is based on truth and you can also reach out in love to those who are outside the fold.
You asked where in the catechism does it say that you have to accept plurality. I gave you a document written by Ratzinger and approved for circulation by the Pope that says plurality is here and we have to learn to live with it.
Do not confuse that with do nothing. John Paul’s actions were just the opposite. He acknowledge it and he did something about it. He reached out by finding a common ground. In the case of people of other faiths he found that peace was a common desire of all. He reached out to invite them to pray for peace, each in his own manner. This kind of charity is what brings more people home to the faith than hostility.
I also pointed out the actions of some of the greatest evangelists and saints of the Church, but I’m not sure my point was clear enough. I’ll repeat myself again and try to be clearer.
What made people like Teresa of Avila, Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa, John XXIII and John Paul II worthy of imitation is their spiritual heroism. Throughout their lives they remained faithful to the Church. They preached conversion by word and deed. They succeeded in bringing many people to the Church, not by blasting them, but by showing them the truth of the faith.
If we believe what the church proclaims about St. Francis, that he is the perfect immitation of Christ and that to date no one has achieved such a perfect immitation, then let’s begin to look at how he would have dealt with this issue.
In the first place, he would have preached conversion, which was his trademark. He would have preached detachment from the physical and the material by his own life, which he did. The only way to overcome any sin is by becoming detached from the cause of sin. He would have also reached out in love and justice to those who are in a sate of sin, which he also did.
We see the same with Mother Teresa in the 20th century. When she opened her house for AIDS victims in Washington DC the press tried to corner her by asking if there was a problem between the house and the fact that most of the people in the house had become infected through homosexual activity or drugs. She answered, “When I look at them, I only see Jesus.”
This was not an endorsement of sin or evil. This was preaching conversion. Her statement calls the sinner to be more like Jesus and also calls the observer to see Jesus in the sinner.
You said that your children are going to learn to hate homosexuality. I hope that you will teach your children to hate all sin, but to see Jesus in every sinner, just like Mother Teresa, St. Francis, St. Vincent de Paul and countless great men and women who have ministered to sinner through the history of the Church have done.
Just to close, I go back to the Assisi gathering, because it’s very telling about the mind of the man who was Pope and the one who would succeed him. Neither of these men are pagan, much less modernists in the classical sense. But they are realists. The world is made up of many kinds of people and we do have to learn to live with it. What we do not have to do is to immitate its example. To live with it is to find common ground where we can start to discover Christ. We accept the fact that there are differences and we look for something in common to build from. The key is to work toward a unified Kingdom of God, not one that is clashing.
That was another point that I wanted to draw your attention to. John Paul in his convocation to Assisi clearly believes and states that clashes are not necessary. I don’t believe this was a naive man. This was a man who had faced Nazis and Communists and never clashed with any of them. Somehow, he managed to deliver the Gospel message. I believe they respected him, because he never gave them reason to do battle. He knew how to work around them and eventually win them over without clashes or anger.
This is my message regarding this issue and all issues of this magnitude. There is always a peaceful way, even if it’s the long way around.
I hope this makes more sense.
D
DavidinStLouis
Guest
You are correct, Liza!
D
DavidinStLouis
Guest
…It can also be a little un-Catholic? or am I mistaken?
J
JReducation
Guest
Any abuse of human dignity is inmoral, gay or straight. I believe that was the reason that the document of the pastoral care of homosexual persons said that it refused to think of people as heterosexual or homosexual, but only as Created in God’s image and likeness, regardless of orientation.
As to tolerance, maybe the term has to be defined in its evangelical context. When we speak of tolerance, we’re speaking about persons, not actions.
For example, you do not deny someone their right to housing, employment, educatoin, healthcare, participation in family life and so forth, because they are gay anymore than you would someone who is married, divorced and remarried.
I do not have to deny my belief that this is wrong, but the Church also calls me to exercise love and compassion, along with justice.
In its evangelical context, tolerance means charity, compassion and justice. I think this is what some people are saying when they say that they teach their children to treat others with respect.
Unfortunately, the term tolerance has many nuances. For some people it means accepting sin and evil. This is not what the Church means. For the Church, tolerance is what Jesus displayed toward every sinner he met. He forgave, he didn’t reject or send away, he welcomed those who wanted to come closer and take a look at his message.
In other words, he didn’t have a negative attitude toward sinners. Sometimes we can fall into very negative attitudes toward those whom we consider sinners. Unfortunately, our attitudes are not always fair.
For example, I know Catholics who have very negative attitudes toward gay people, but think nothing of those who use artificial birth control or who undego sterilizatioin to avoid having children. There are Catholic families who disown a son who is gay to the point that they will not even allow him to sit at their Thanksgiving meal, but will welcome their daughter and her live-in-boyfriend. This is not the kind of attitude that the Church is promoting. This is an injustice.
While we should make the Church’s teaching clear to our gay son and our daughter who lives withe her boyfriend, we must also remember that they are human beings, they deserve to be treated with respect and they are still our children. We can arrange the logistics of Thanksgiving dinner anyway we want, as long as we do not violate charity, compassion and fidelity to truth.
I hope this makes sense.
D
DavidinStLouis
Guest
This is a very good point. Catholics are called to be be consistent in their devotion to the Faith & it’s protection; and the ‘correction’ of those who are stumbling and in need of attention/love - even if it is tough love… or love (discipline) that’s tough to give.
J
JReducation
Guest
This kind of love is difficult for many people due to the unfortunate fact that the gay issue has been politicized by gay people and conservative politicians. It’s gone from a dialogue to shouting match.
If we look carefully at the Church’s teaching on the matter, it addresses it like any other sin. In fact, in the Catholic Catechism it is addressed in a few paragraphs and the catechism moves on to other areas of morality. We not only have to read what the Church says about certain things, but how it says it.
The time and effort that the Church puts into such issues as abortion is far more extensive and intense than homosexuality, but in cases of abortion people seem more comfortable welcoming a family member who has had an abortion.
I believe that no one is going to say that you should slam the door on a child or family member who has had an abortion or a spouse who is a physician who practices abortion. It is certainly a matter that requires family dialogue and that families have to come to terms with, just as we come to terms with a relative who is living in adultery.
No one is calling for Catholics to promote or endorse any of the above sinful situations. However, we are called to hold on to our principles, especially moral principles. These include love, compassion and respect.
If we look at scripture and at the great saints of the Church, neither Jesus nor the saints turned a cold back on people in sinful situations. The dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman is a wonderful example of how we should go about our dealings with those who are in sin. Jesus spells it out for her when he tells her that she has had many men and the one with whom she now lives is also not her husband. But then he extends his hand to her and offers her a life giving water. He does not send her away.
When he runs into the crowd about to stone the woman caught in adultery he asks her a question, “Where are those who would stone you?” Then he offers her a gift. He offers forgiveness and tells her to sin no more. Again, he does not turn his back or takes a militant approach.
In fact, the only time that we see Jesus really upset with sinners is when he argues with those who are hypocritical. He attacks their hypocrisy, because they say one thing and do another.
Look at someone like Francis of Assisi. He preached penance, repentance, and conversion to a Church that had fallen into ruins. In fact, he receives a revelation to rebuild the Church, because it has fallen into ruins. However, he teaches his Brothers and Sisters to love the Church, despite her sinfulness. Like Francis, many holy men and women have preached conversion, but have also treated those who sin as they would treat Jesus Christ.
The point is to separate sin from sinner. The sinner is still our brother or sister. Let us not forget the Great John Paul II. He forgave the man who would have assassinated him and made an annual visit to the prison to spend time with him. I doubt he converted him, but I can’t be sure of that. Only God knows what happens in the hearts of men.
S
seekerz
Guest
Thanks for your clear and balanced posts on this contentious issue.
I once heard an evangelical preacher say that the devil succeeds where Christians fail. One of the areas where Christians often seem to fail badly is in separating the sin from the sinner. We pay lip service to the concept but often fall way short of the actual example that Jesus set us and too often resemble the stone-throwing mobs of His day instead.
I see this in our attitudes and comments towards those on the opposite sides of issues such as abortion, gay rights etc. It’s great to see the voices of reason like yours in between the judgmental and often outright mean posts. Hopefully those are the voices the world is hearing too.
With regard to the original post, I firmly believe the duty of sex education lies with parents. They may delegate that task to authorities of their choosing, but no one should take that choice out of their hands.
Parents do, however, have a responsibility to impart balanced, sensible, (and in our case, Catholic) views and values. This includes resisting knee-jerk, superficial reactions to difficult moral issues, if for no other reason than that today’s kids simply will not accept or respect such instruction.
J
JimG
Guest
I would only emphasize precisely this point. People are not to be identified by their sexual orientations, but as creatures of God.
But it is precisely for this reason that we ought to object to books which try to indoctrinate children into identifying persons precisely by their sexuality.
People are people. Would we object to a children’s book which portrayed adultery as a normal part of life, identifying persons just by their sexual proclivities, so as to promote tolerance for a variety of lifestyles? Adultery can be a lifestyle, pedophilia can be a lifestyle, polygamy can be a lifestyle. I don’t think that each of these needs to promoted by having its own particular storybook for children.
D
Dee_Dee_King
Guest
sometimes God asks us to lay our life down to defend the innocent. i could find more good things said about soldiers in the bible than bad. Jesus even said that he doesn’t bring peace but a sword. the spiritual battle is often described in terms or warfare, because that’s what it is. the battle of lepanto is an excellent example using violent force to stop evil.
Jesus wasn’t a pacifist. life is a battle. there is no peace until God’s kingdom comes.
i’m sure 60 years ago if some school tried to pull this garbage the fathers of the children would have beat up those responsible.
i remember hearing about a story in poland where a gay pride parade was prevented by an angry mob using physical force. the next year the mayor wouldn’t permit the parade because of the violence. using physical force was morally justifiable. it stopped evil.
J
JimG
Guest
The original post was about parents who were denied the opportunity to opt out of having their children read a book intended to promote tolerance of gay marriage. This was quoted from the court decision:
“It is a fair inference that the reading of King and King was precisely intended to influence the listening children toward tolerance of gay marriage,” the court admits. “That was the point of why that book was chosen and used.”
One could reasonable argue that promotion of gay marriage represents a particular religious view, and as such, ought not to be included in the curriculum of a public school.
And if the religious viewpoint the school is promoting is at odds with the parents’ own values, why should parents not object to that? They are not asking that homosexual persons be condemned by the school; they are simply asking to opt their children out of having gay marriage promoted to them. Seems fair to me.
“It is a fair inference that the reading of King and King was precisely intended to influence the listening children toward tolerance of gay marriage,” the court admits. “That was the point of why that book was chosen and used.”
One could reasonable argue that promotion of gay marriage represents a particular religious view, and as such, ought not to be included in the curriculum of a public school.
And if the religious viewpoint the school is promoting is at odds with the parents’ own values, why should parents not object to that? They are not asking that homosexual persons be condemned by the school; they are simply asking to opt their children out of having gay marriage promoted to them. Seems fair to me.
J
JReducation
Guest
I agree 100% with this position. Not only must we teach Catholic values and faith, but we should not try to hide reality from our kids. Abortion, same-sex unions, divorce & remarriage, bith control, safe-sex (if there is such a thing), and discrimination are as real to our society as are world hunger, war, and indifference to the needs of our brothers and sisters.
There is no such thing as the ideal Catholic bubble. It is a disservice to our children not to teach them that they if they want to hold down a job, live peacefully with their neighbors, cooperate with other people in projects that promote human progress, they will have to live and work alongside people who subscribe to different moral codes or belief systems. They don’t have to subscribe to these, but they have to learn to live in peace with relatives, neighbors and colleagues who do.
The Christian soul must respond to sin accordingly, while keeping in mind the dignity of the sinner.
The transformation of humanity is not a war, but a process.
JR
J
JReducation
Guest
75 years ago we also imprisoned people for teaching evolution, racial integration, women’s rights.
I also remember when Karol Woytila was archbishop in Poland the Communist party tried to stop Catholics from celebrating mass in a public site where they wanted to build a sanctuary. His response was to march ahead to the site and celebrate the mass, without physical confrontation.
There was also a time in a garden when soldiers arrived to arrest a man called Jesus. One of his friends drew a sword and cut off the ear of a servant. This guy called Jesus told his friend, “Put away your sword. He who firghts by the sword, dies by the sword.”
Then there was the time when a woman caught in adultery was going to be stoned and the same man, named Jesus, asked “Let him who has no sin throw the first stone.” There was no physical cnfrontation that day either.
In the 1940s a Jewish woman converted to Catholicism and became a Carmelite nun. The Nazis arrested her at her monastery. They arrived asking for Dr. Edith Stein. She went with them to the concentration camps and died a horrible death. There was no physical confrontation.
When Mother Teresa opened her first home for AIDS victims in Washington DC many Catholics and Protesants were upset because the residents were gay and drug addicts. They questioned her. They doubted her commitment to Catholic teachings on these two evils. She responded, “I only see Jesus who is sick and unloved. What do you see?” Everyone walked away.
Physical confrontation is not part of the Christian response to sin. The only legitimate use of physical confrontation is in defence of one’s life.
"If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66, " CCC No 2264.
"Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68, " CCC No 2267.
The Church does not see any reason for physical violence in a case such as the MA situation. Safety is not being threatened. We do have an obligation to repel evil, but not to do harm, unless one’s own physical life is in danger.
J
JReducation
Guest
I believe that the Church will support your objection to such material in school, because it is a legitimate objection. In addition, you are not on a anti-gay campaign. What you are saying, if I understand you correctly, is that you object to the state exposing your children to something that you would rather do yourself within the context of your moral beliefs.
This is a legitimate request and carries no hatred toward anyone.
I applaud you for your balance.
JR
S
SILVERNAME
Guest
Doing harm in the process of repelling evil is not immoral, the Church allows this, as long as doing harm is not the intent but rather repelling evil, and as long as the means is not inherently evil.
Do not also forget, that Jesus Christs asks us " to have a sword and if you do not have one, to sell your cloak and buy a sword"
This seems like a thinly veiled promotion of pro-homophile anti discrimination legislation, legislation which violates the God-given right to religious freedom, freedom of association and freedom of conscience.
Education is not a right, it is a parental responsibility, and part of parental authority, not a right.
Housing is a right only in the context of property rights, you don’t have to give anyone housing, especially if you believe the presence of such people within your property is an invitation to moral disaster.
No one should be forced to give housing or employment or education or healthcare or participation in family life to anyone who is guilty of grave acts of immorality. If people want to withold such things from immoral people, for the sake of safety and prevention of further evil, then that is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Leave them be.
Let those who want to help , help.
But leave be those who do not. For God loves a cheerful giver.
Fundamental dignity of people is not the issue, the issue is the right to freely associate, which includes the right not to associate with certain people, people have a right to stay away from people who are immoral. And they have a right to teach their children to do the same.
The problem with these situations is not that they have negative attitudes of homophiles.
The problem here is that they are permissive of fornication, co-habitation, contraception, sterilization.
You should have negative attitudes towards homophiles or fornicators or people with a contraceptive mentality, there is nothing wrong with that, as long as you do not commit immorality against such people or have hatred for such people in your heart.
Are you telling me now that these people should be as permissive of homophilia as they are of fornication and sterilization??
I think the right thing here is , their attitude about fornication, cohabitation and sterilization/contraception should be as negative as their attitude towards homophilia.
- Status