L
lizaanne
Guest
Well, you would never know it based on what you hear in the media, but the Church does have something to say about it!
youtube.com/watch?v=qh2oyS4jBbY
~Liza
youtube.com/watch?v=qh2oyS4jBbY
~Liza
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Did you know that the Church DOES have a position on Don't Ask Don't Tell?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
W
wardrandolph
Guest
Thank God for Pope Benedict xvi.And thank you for sharing,Rocky.
B
Barbkw
Guest
“…mealy mouthed responses by some bishops…results in the deadening of conscience…which leads to the acceptance of sin.”
T
Transformer
Guest
Except that’s not what the document actually says, even judging from nothing but the paragraphs Voris himself quotes.
dignitycanada.org/rights.html
It says that it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account in military recruitment, and that it is inappropriate for Church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation.
What it does not say is “no one who experiences same-sex attractions should be allowed in the military.” What it certainly does not say is “Gays should be allowed to serve in the military as long as they aren’t allowed to admit they’re gay while doing it, and the American policy known as ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is a good thing and Catholics are required to oppose its repeal.” Those are positions that Catholics are free to hold or not based on their own judgments informed by what the Church actually does teach. A Catholic’s position on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” involves personal judgment, not a straightforward application of Church teaching, whether Voris wants to admit it or not.
To take a look at the rest of that CDF statement, it mainly says that homosexuality is not like race or ethnicity because it’s a disorder, and so not all discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unjust discrimination. It particularly warns against encouraging homosexuality as one of a criteria used in matters of affirmative action, preferential treatment, and entitlements.
The document comes closest to commenting on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in a part Voris didn’t even quote:
Voris is wrong to suggest that Catholics who take a certain position on a particular piece of American legislation are dissenters. There is way more room for Catholics to differ on important issues than Voris likes to admit.
dignitycanada.org/rights.html
It says that it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account in military recruitment, and that it is inappropriate for Church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation.
What it does not say is “no one who experiences same-sex attractions should be allowed in the military.” What it certainly does not say is “Gays should be allowed to serve in the military as long as they aren’t allowed to admit they’re gay while doing it, and the American policy known as ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is a good thing and Catholics are required to oppose its repeal.” Those are positions that Catholics are free to hold or not based on their own judgments informed by what the Church actually does teach. A Catholic’s position on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” involves personal judgment, not a straightforward application of Church teaching, whether Voris wants to admit it or not.
To take a look at the rest of that CDF statement, it mainly says that homosexuality is not like race or ethnicity because it’s a disorder, and so not all discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unjust discrimination. It particularly warns against encouraging homosexuality as one of a criteria used in matters of affirmative action, preferential treatment, and entitlements.
The document comes closest to commenting on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in a part Voris didn’t even quote:
- The “sexual orientation” of a person is not comparable to race, sex, age, etc. also for another reason than that given above which warrants attention. An individual’s sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behavior manifests it. As a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc., does not usually arise.
Which is still not at all the same thing as, “so Catholics are required to oppose legislation allowing homosexuals to both serve in certain jobs and also admit they’re gay.”Homosexual persons who assert their homosexuality tend to be precisely those who judge homosexual behavior or lifestyle to be “either completely harmless, if not an entirely good thing” (cf. No. 3), and hence worthy of public approval.
Voris is wrong to suggest that Catholics who take a certain position on a particular piece of American legislation are dissenters. There is way more room for Catholics to differ on important issues than Voris likes to admit.
J
joandarc2008
Guest
While I agree that if you read the entire document Michael Voris does not have it completely right- it is strictly saying that discrimination can be used and understood in certain instances such as military recruitment.
Also for the above poster - dignity is not an organization representative of the Catholic Church teachings - you should find examples from Courage. Dignity encourages homosexuals to go against the Magisterium while continuing to receive Sacraments.
Also for the above poster - dignity is not an organization representative of the Catholic Church teachings - you should find examples from Courage. Dignity encourages homosexuals to go against the Magisterium while continuing to receive Sacraments.
K
kbwall
Guest
I honestly don’t get it though. What’s wrong with homosexuals in the military?
I understand some of the other stances the Church has against the homosexual movement. I understand the opposition to gay marriage, not letting gays adopts, etc. The former is a perversion of marriage and the latter involves corrupting children. What’s wrong with letting homosexuals fight for the country? We could use all the help we can get in a war, and it’s like the homosexuality would be getting in the way of his job as a soldier.
I understand some of the other stances the Church has against the homosexual movement. I understand the opposition to gay marriage, not letting gays adopts, etc. The former is a perversion of marriage and the latter involves corrupting children. What’s wrong with letting homosexuals fight for the country? We could use all the help we can get in a war, and it’s like the homosexuality would be getting in the way of his job as a soldier.
J
joandarc2008
Guest
There are issues that need to be worked out morale wise when it comes to things such as open showers, time in the field, etc. One statement was written in 1992 - the Cardinal’s statement was recent. The point is the Vatican said that there could be discrimination that would not be discrimination in the following scenarios. Not that it should or that it should be a complete prohibition.I honestly don’t get it though. What’s wrong with homosexuals in the military?
I understand some of the other stances the Church has against the homosexual movement. I understand the opposition to gay marriage, not letting gays adopts, etc. The former is a perversion of marriage and the latter involves corrupting children. What’s wrong with letting homosexuals fight for the country? We could use all the help we can get in a war, and it’s like the homosexuality would be getting in the way of his job as a soldier.
K
kentuckyliz
Guest
If DADT were repealed, would all members of the military be required to disclose their sexual identity, orientation and/or behavior?
I’d oppose that on the grounds of bad manners.
Why is the military making it their business? I remember when everyone thought Clinton was so forward-thinking and progressive when he instituted DADT. Now it’s the height of oppression.
If DADT meant the askers who were being nosy about other people’s identity, orientation, and/or behavior were to be disciplined, then it might have been successful.
I have never flaunted my private life at work even during residential jobs.
DADT = MYOB - the height of good manners.
I’d oppose that on the grounds of bad manners.
Why is the military making it their business? I remember when everyone thought Clinton was so forward-thinking and progressive when he instituted DADT. Now it’s the height of oppression.
If DADT meant the askers who were being nosy about other people’s identity, orientation, and/or behavior were to be disciplined, then it might have been successful.
I have never flaunted my private life at work even during residential jobs.
DADT = MYOB - the height of good manners.
B
Barbkw
Guest
The US Military didn’t make it their business, SSA persons were allowed in the military.If DADT were repealed, would all members of the military be required to disclose their sexual identity, orientation and/or behavior? I’d oppose that on the grounds of bad manners.
Why is the military making it their business?
An outside and “out” noncelibate homosexual group( Log Cabin Republicans and others) lobbied the then far left leaning Obama Congress and they pushed the issue through.
google.com/search?q=log+cabin+republicans+dadt&rlz=1I7ADBR_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7
- Status
- Not open for further replies.