W
WillieWonka
Guest
I doubt anybody reads the links you post bacause 1) you don’t provide a reason why we should read them, and 2) they often don’t back up what you have been saying.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
S
StillWondering
Guest
Your examples show you are missing the point. A narcoleptic has a forced vocation of either taking medication or not driving. He is forced to do this if he wishes to stay a good Christian. These two actions are neither moral in of itself, it is when he combines them with the possibility of driving. This has nothing to do with him not being allowed to sleep. He can sleep behind the wheel if his engine is off. He simply cannot drive and be asleep.
A sex addict is still sinning if he or she sleeps around. She or he is called to either chastaty or relations with one person, her marriage partner. Any thing else, and she will sin by Christ’s teachings. Unless I am taught incorrectly, I do not see any other way.
There is a very huge difference between righteous anger and anger problems. Very huge. Righteous anger still seeks for the best for the other parties involved. Anger problem people lose the capacity to determine right and wrong in anger. Even if 100 times, this person happens to be angry correctly and no unnecessary harm comes out of it, that is great but still can have 1 harmful effect that is not necessary. When you do not use your reason, inveriably something wrong will come about.
You do not understand the teachings of the Church on love then if your statement is to refute mine. You are all called to love. This does not mean homosexual acts, such as going to guy strip clubs and getting lap dances from guys if you are a guy. In fact this is wrong for both genders when there is lust involved, and a serious occasion for sinful thoughts even in an investigative format. Another example is having relations with another man if you are a man. Unless the Church never taught this is wrong and I was taught badly, this is as far as I know a serious sin. If the Church teaches this through the Magisterium, there is not contest as any Catholic. This is the same for those who use contraceptives or have abortions.
On the other hand, if you mean live in love as a SSA person by being active at church, caring for the elderly, doing everyone a person heterosexual or homosexual can do outside of an intimate sexual relationship, then yes of course. This goes without saying. The Church loves us all and all Catholics are called to love each other. Any Catholics that shun SSA people without just case ("because they are gay are NOT just cause) then are committing a sin. Just cause can be sinful acts. If I were to sleep with my sister and no one even tells me I am wrong, they are not being charitable to me.
If what you are saying is that you are doing nothing sinful, living a pious life, then that is great. If you are saying this but doing something that the Church explicitly teaches is wrong and you know the Church teach this, then that is not great. Get thee to a priest. I am only saying this because we all should go to heaven and there are ways. It does not matter what I say, only what each one of us does. I cannot say anyone will go to hell, I simply cannot. I can say that a person is committing a mortal sin if they tell me they know the Church teaches one thing and they are will full intent doing something else.
S
StillWondering
Guest
No you do not understand. Annulments can only be granted when there is a clear case the two people getting marriage do not understand nor intend to live by the vows and promises they made to each other and what the Church teaches.
The reason secularism is rising annulments is because more people are coming into marriage without knowing the true meaning of vows. So they are not validly marriage in the first place. The Church teaches us to love and respect one another so that we should give couples the benefit of the doubt that they have full intention of a valid marriage. However, the Church requires Catholics to take marriage prep to weed out these invalid marriages early as well as to strengthen marriage that are meant to be valid but lack the proper formation of conscience.
If you imply any other relation, you are flipping the order of the cart and the horse. The Church is not raising the number of annulments; instead, the number of invalid marriages are rising due to secular thoughts encroaching on the minds of the people looking toward marriages.
If what you say is correct, explain to those that were denied annulments. My uncle, at least from when we last spoke, seems to be in this boat. He marriage validly and is stuck. So now he is having a serious problem because he is having a relationship outside of marriage even though he has a civil divorce. I hope his situation will resolve, but right now he seems to have fallen away from the faith. If the Church just wants to please people, he would get his way and they will still have him in the pews. But that is not the goal of the Bride of Christ. The Church is here for people, and it must stay firm what it is taught from Christ and teach it to it’s children. If the Church changes its teachings, what rock does the people it is serving have to cling on to when times are tough.
S
StillWondering
Guest
catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_on_Homosexuality.asp
This is an example of links form the Early Church. This one in particular is about relationships between man and man and relationships between women and women. Note there are references in parenthesis. This is where you can go look up these things. That is “backed up” information. Go research it yourself if you do not believe the link. If you can not be bothered to research it then you can not be bothered. The ball is in your court on accepting there are teachings or not. And the accountability will be yours as well.
W
WillieWonka
Guest
Fine with me. Annulment splits spouses and lets them remarry. Call it what you want, for whatever reasons you want. Justify it as you choose. The bottom line is it accomplishes the same thing as divorce.
The people spoke, and the leadership followed. That’s how it works in organizations. Birth control will probably follow the same path as interest/debt and divorce/annulment. Things change.
W
WillieWonka
Guest
I haven’t said anything about the Eary Church. I don’t care. Why on earth are you giving me this?
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
No it has not been “very clearly stated” by the RCC. I have not read anything from the Church that states that homosexuality “should be enshrined in civil law.” As to gay marriage, my basis for argument against civil laws institutionalizing gay marriage has never been “The Church says it’s wrong.” You either are confusing me with someone else or not reading carefully.
The scientific evidence is plentiful regarding the complex and multiphasic development of sexuality in the process of human formation. It’s in the sociological and psychological studies not as an impetus from any religion. Nor do such studies make any judgments as to the morality of any sexual dispositions. They are studies without agendas. It’s in all the classic literature as well as modern literature about child, adolescent sexual development and its relationship to eventual sexual identity in the adult. I don’t have to “provide the evidence” (in the form of named sources) because it’s not my issue. You’re the one arguing that people are supposedly “born gay.” No credible academic or scientist would assert that, since all the studies point to such an indeterminant nature of sexuality at birth, experimentation in the early years, and multiple contributing factors. So no, it’s not “my opinion.” It’s the opinion of those who study sexuality as a profession.
If I had such strong feelings that the Church were wrong on this issue, it would cause me to doubt that they were “the one true Church and only way to salvation.” So yes, I, in the shoes of someone such as I described, would make that choice.
M
mkingdomlvr
Guest
If it’s so plentiful, then why can’t you provide proof? The only articles I was able to locate indicating that homosexuality is NOT biologically based were from places like the Family Research Council and from organizations that claim they can “fix” the homosexual to make them “normal”. The most favorable articles I could find that came close to supporting your idea of “choice” were those that were unwilling to make a definitive statement one way or the other, and even those state that there is mounting evidence that there is a strong biological component, such as the study about twins I’ve included below. I tried to stay away from religious quotes, but I did think the quote from the Rabbi was interesting. Other than that-I stuck with scientific info.
W
WillieWonka
Guest
“The scientific evidence is plentiful regarding the complex and multiphasic development of sexuality in the process of human formation.”
There certainly is evidence dvelopment is a complex and multiphasic process. And there is lots of it. So what?
What does it tell us about heterosexuality or homosexuality?
There certainly is evidence dvelopment is a complex and multiphasic process. And there is lots of it. So what?
What does it tell us about heterosexuality or homosexuality?
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
Basil’s quotation is interesting because of his fundamental assumption that young men will sexually desire each other–but the context of the work (that it is about monastic life) bears out the goodness of his advice, i.e., there is no way that Basil could recommend to a monk that he indulge or encourage any form of sexual desire that could lead to the breaking of a monk’s vows. His advice is imminently practical.
Chrysostom, who is perhaps the most virulent critic of homosexuality qua homosexuality nonetheless couches his language in terms of a madness of lust–his final quotation there has echoes of the same sort of uncomfortability surrounding gender confusion that other fathers mention, which brings it all back to the question of social power once more. It is clear to me that he is, in part, using religious imagery to make a more impressive cultural argument. Not everything a saint has written or done is a fit foundation for doctrine or a fit pattern of behavior. We should not forget Chrysostom’s statement that “the synagogue is worse than a brothel,” nor should we forget St. Louis’ burning of the Talmud. To me, a goodly portion of Chrysostom’s diatribe against homosexuals is similarly corrupt.
In the end, however, nowhere do any of the Fathers discuss truly loving homosexual relationships. Perhaps they did not believe (based on their associations of homosexuality with idolatry, pederasty and the general madness of the passions) that such a relationship was possible–they did not even seem to consider the possibility. Such a belief or lack of consideration, however, does not mean that such relationships are, indeed, impossible. Much in gay culture militates against such relationships, granted. But their existence at this time is, in my experience, beyond doubt. The Fathers simply do not address them.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias!
They did not. It’s a fact. What about this statement makes it so disagreeable? If anything, it should be seen as an exciting challenge: how can we best see and understand the world through their eyes in order to better understand their writings so that we may live them and apply them most appropriately? What’s so wrong or exasperating about wanting as much as possible to understand something on its own terms?
Indeed. Did you? From the beginning, the context is clear by the repeated mention of the “mother of the gods” and deities such as Iupiter. These are idolatrous practices. Some quotations mention frenzy, madness or insanity (perhaps in some quotations, the original word was mania which would have a definite mystery religion / orgiastic connotation) which clearly places these behaviors within a context of irresponsibility, being given up to the passions, etc. Other quotations mention mutilation, bringing up what I’ve brought up before regarding an assumption of masculine power and feminine submission. Other quotations assume many or all of the above associations.
Basil’s quotation is interesting because of his fundamental assumption that young men will sexually desire each other–but the context of the work (that it is about monastic life) bears out the goodness of his advice, i.e., there is no way that Basil could recommend to a monk that he indulge or encourage any form of sexual desire that could lead to the breaking of a monk’s vows. His advice is imminently practical.
Chrysostom, who is perhaps the most virulent critic of homosexuality qua homosexuality nonetheless couches his language in terms of a madness of lust–his final quotation there has echoes of the same sort of uncomfortability surrounding gender confusion that other fathers mention, which brings it all back to the question of social power once more. It is clear to me that he is, in part, using religious imagery to make a more impressive cultural argument. Not everything a saint has written or done is a fit foundation for doctrine or a fit pattern of behavior. We should not forget Chrysostom’s statement that “the synagogue is worse than a brothel,” nor should we forget St. Louis’ burning of the Talmud. To me, a goodly portion of Chrysostom’s diatribe against homosexuals is similarly corrupt.
In the end, however, nowhere do any of the Fathers discuss truly loving homosexual relationships. Perhaps they did not believe (based on their associations of homosexuality with idolatry, pederasty and the general madness of the passions) that such a relationship was possible–they did not even seem to consider the possibility. Such a belief or lack of consideration, however, does not mean that such relationships are, indeed, impossible. Much in gay culture militates against such relationships, granted. But their existence at this time is, in my experience, beyond doubt. The Fathers simply do not address them.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias!
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
It tells us that there is no single causative element for either hetero- or homo-sexuality. It confirms that a multiplicity of factors are involved (psychological, biological, environmental), and that the dynamic of sexual formation includes varieties of consciousness. There is zero credible scientific information which limits eventual sexual orientation to “orientation” at birth (there is no defined, restricted orientation at birth, per se, as we are open to influences at birth & after, regardless of where each of us falls on a spectrum of inclinations & attractions). It may feel comfortable, and it certainly adds in manipulating the polemics around gay “marriage,” to assign sexuality to genetics, but to do so is non-scientific, non-biological.
W
WillieWonka
Guest
You mean they are trying hard to figure it out, but don’t know?
Lacking scientific evidence it is indeed irresponsible to assign homosexuality to genetics. It is equally irresponsible to assign it to anything without solid scientific evidence.
There may be indications that point in different directions, but that’s all they are. It’s simple, We don’t know.
G
gearhead
Guest
Even though the identification that homosexuality has a genetic component is done in the same way that we’ve identified that everything from hair colour to certain types of cancer also have a genetic component? Is it still “non-scientific, non-biological” when it deals with something that isn’t a subject of your religious beliefs?
M
mkingdomlvr
Guest
And since “we don’t know”, how can it be so emphatically declared that homosexuals “choose” their orientation and that homosexuals can be “fixed”?
A good friend of mine is a sociologist and has a lot to say about gender and the variations that exist between male and female. I also have known more than a few bi-sexuals in my life, and I can see how they could choose to only get involved with the opposite gender and be viewed as “normal” by society. God knows it must be easier.
and then there are folks like me who have never had a single day where they have not known in their heart that they were gay. From those earliest feelings of “I’m different” to the final acknowledgment that these are the cards I’ve been dealt, that’s the way it’s been. Years of therapy and discussions with Confessors have changed nothing accept my own ability to make that final acceptance.
Like you, I believe that there will come a day when those who demeaned homosexuals in the name of God will be looked upon in the same way that those who demeaned left handed children in the name of God are today.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
Genetic or not, it doesn’t matter. There is nothing demeaning about salvation. Nothing.
I cannot repeat that often enough.
Homosexuality is a grave disorder and its acts are gravely sinful. There is no way that ‘accepting’ (and even celebrating) acts that could very well lead to eternal damnation, can ever be called good, sane, or charitable.
The truth is the truth no matter how many people dispute it.
I cannot repeat that often enough.
Homosexuality is a grave disorder and its acts are gravely sinful. There is no way that ‘accepting’ (and even celebrating) acts that could very well lead to eternal damnation, can ever be called good, sane, or charitable.
The truth is the truth no matter how many people dispute it.
M
mkingdomlvr
Guest
Does it make you feel better about yourself to call homosexuals “disordered”?
G
gearhead
Guest
OTOH, there can be quite a bit that’s demeaning about insulting or shaming people if it doesn’t result in their salvation.
Of course there is.
Even if you consider homosexuality to be the worst sin in existence, if a person’s attitude and behaviour toward homosexuality causes no greater sin than would have occurred otherwise, then it can certainly be called good, sane or charitable.
If granting marriage to same-sex couples makes no more people gay than were already so and provides some measure of comfort to those couples and protection to the children they raise, then why is this necessarily a bad thing?
Also, you could simply be wrong. Maybe you, as a flawed, imperfect human being, have come to the wrong conclusion about homosexuality.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
A (singular) component (singular) is not the same thing as assigning causation, let alone sole causation.
This has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. It has to do with my keeping abreast of the science of genetics and its limitations, juxtaposed with the evidence in the literature of the fluidity of sexuality and sexual identity.
W
WillieWonka
Guest
That term probably had widespread acceptance thirty years ago. However, I’d suggest the balance has now shifted, and such terms are rejected by the majority. So, I’d encourage such usage since it solidifies support for gays and opposition to their opponents.
The best part of this is the “disordered” term applies in general, not just to gay marriage. So, the casual listener sees this as a condemnation of gays. The speaker can make fine distinctions between disordered individuals and disordered behavior, but nobody cares.
Use of “disordered” to describe homosexuality has come to mark the speaker as a bigot.
- Status