Dominican Sister of St. Cecilia under fire by students for talk on homosexuality

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Chasity has everything to do with it, no matter the vocation, single, married, religious, virgin, etc.
In summary, it is using your sexuality in the proper way for your state of life.

It is still a non sequitur.

You can, even via internet, come across in a certain way.

I’m not full of hatred, in the corporal world people think I am very sweet, tender, caring and the copious hours I spend on charity work though honestly I don’t think a couple dozen hours a month is much.

No, thanks. (speaking with someone like this is indicative of the tone I mentioned above)

It’s a license to breed basically, marriage is not about love.

It isn’t logical to go against the natural law (not the same as laws of nature, btw). So, it isn’t logical on any grounds to redefine something because someone else has been messing up.

Do you know what axioms are? Logic following different axioms can come to different conclusions.

If you want to read more about the difference between chastity and celibacy:

I already knew that as a tween.

Can you give a reference for that? A quick search gave me this from The Catechism:

Summa 154.4:

Reply to Objection 3. The common good takes precedence of the private good, if it be of the same genus: but it may be that the private good is better generically. It is thus that the virginity that is consecrated to God is preferable to carnal fruitfulness. Hence Augustine says (De Virgin. ix): “It must be confessed that the fruitfulness of the flesh, even of those women who in these times seek naught else from marriage but children in order to make them servants of Christ, cannot compensate for lost virginity.”

 

[Hopey]

It is still a non sequitur.

Please explain why it is a non sequitur to you, being a Catholic?

It’s a license to breed basically, marriage is not about love.

Define how you understand love.
Love, properly ordered, always has the other person in mind, first. That means they would not put a person, or use a person, in a way that isn’t meant to be used.

Do you know what axioms are? Logic following different axioms can come to different conclusions.

You would have to depart from right reason and exclude what the purpose/function of the reproductive system was first. But, that would put you on a road to a false conclusion which is what secular society has done.

 

[GraceSofia]

Summa 154.4
Reply to Objection 3. The common good takes precedence of the private good, if it be of the same genus: but it may be that the private good is better generically. It is thus that the virginity that is consecrated to God is preferable to carnal fruitfulness. Hence Augustine says (De Virgin. ix): “It must be confessed that the fruitfulness of the flesh, even of those women who in these times seek naught else from marriage but children in order to make them servants of Christ, cannot compensate for lost virginity.”

I think this is saying that a consecrated religious life is preferable, but I don’t think it means that living as a single lay person is better than living as a lay married person. I don’t think the Church praises one more than the other. We are all to live chastely whatever our vocation may be.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Please explain why it is a non sequitur to you, being a Catholic?

Because it tangential at best to “In Catholic theology celibacy is superior to marriage, and so I strive to live a vocation of celibacy. Should I seek help to resolve myself of that ‘issue’?”

Define how you understand love.
Love, properly ordered, always has the other person in mind, first. That means they would not put a person, or use a person, in a way that isn’t meant to be used.

Which “love”?

You would have to depart from right reason and exclude what the purpose/function of the reproductive system was first. But, that would put you on a road to a false conclusion which is what secular society has done.

Secular society doesn’t use natural law, from secular society’s axioms it is entirely logical to permit same sex marriage. In order to stop gay marriage from becoming legal your either have to win using secular logic or convince society to modify the axioms it uses, to do neither and try to stop gay marriage from becoming legal is an exercise in futility.

tl;dr, heterosexuals already fundamentally changed marriage repeatedly, to allow gay marriage at this point does not fundamentally change marriage as it is now.

I think this is saying that a consecrated religious life is preferable, but I don’t think it means that living as a single lay person is better than living as a lay married person. I don’t think the Church praises one more than the other. We are all to live chastely whatever our vocation may be.

See Paul in I Corinthians VII, celibacy is definitely preferable to virginity even before there was such a thing as religious life.

 

[Hopey]

Because it tangential at best to “In Catholic theology celibacy is superior to marriage, and so I strive to live a vocation of celibacy. Should I seek help to resolve myself of that ‘issue’?”

What issue? What is not evident is your having a fuller understanding of chastity and what it is. Celibacy is not superior to marriage. Consecrated life is superior. Celibate lay/married people are viewed the same.

Which “love”?{/QUOTE]
I believe you were talking about marriage not being about love but a license to breed. Love is love or should be - ordered to the good of the other.

Secular society doesn’t use natural law, from secular society’s axioms it is entirely logical to permit same sex marriage. In order to stop gay marriage from becoming legal your either have to win using secular logic or convince society to modify the axioms it uses, to do neither and try to stop gay marriage from becoming legal is an exercise in futility.

tl;dr, heterosexuals already fundamentally changed marriage repeatedly, to allow gay marriage at this point does not fundamentally change marriage as it is now.

Secular society enjoys what they understand now, laws, based on natural law. Whether or not they understand it, or even recognize it doesn’t mean that isn’t the starting point. You would still have a false conclusion because you have to leave out the purpose of the reproductive system.
You could keep coming up conclusions using your way, but they will always be false no matter if everyone is in agreement and not behaving as they should.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

What issue? What is not evident is your having a fuller understanding of chastity and what it is. Celibacy is not superior to marriage. Consecrated life is superior. Celibate lay/married people are viewed the same.

Consecrated virgins predate religious orders and it’s not at all clear that those early consecrated virgins were consecrated by clergy (which is to say it is probable that for some it was personal consecration).

I believe you were talking about marriage not being about love but a license to breed. Love is love or should be - ordered to the good of the other.

In Catholicism there are multiple types of love, I understand the different kinds differently so you’d have to pick a type of love if you want me to explain how I understand it.

Secular society enjoys what they understand now, laws, based on natural law. Whether or not they understand it, or even recognize it doesn’t mean that isn’t the starting point. You would still have a false conclusion because you have to leave out the purpose of the reproductive system.
You could keep coming up conclusions using your way, but they will always be false no matter if everyone is in agreement and not behaving as they should.

:doh2:

 

[Hopey]

In Catholicism there are multiple types of love, I understand the different kinds differently so you’d have to pick a type of love if you want me to explain how I understand it.

Whichever love you were referring to when you said that marriage license was about breeding, not love?

 

[Hopey]

Joie de Vivre,
I doubled checked regarding state requirements, etc, and love (not Church wedding mind you).
Although technically you could get a license while not loving, hating, the other, a dilemma would arise when you got to the vows. The standard, in my state, is as follows:
Will you ________ take ___________ to be your lawful wedded (husband/wife), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to LOVE and to cherish until death do you part?

If someone were to say “I hate her” “I hate him”, it would seem that the minister could refuse to sign it.
It would be interesting to see how each state handles it, vows, esp if they write their own but some may require some basics met - like the above - and you can add to but not subtract.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

He did indeed. But then the Pharisees were considered good, highly moral, educated Jews - they were “in good standing”.

When He spoke to those who sinned sexually, He used no such words. Yes, He did tell them to “sin no more”, but only after telling them “neither will I condemn thee”.

I am however sure there were plenty of Pharisees in that crowd, ready to throw stones. Those were the ones He did not shy away from offending. They also criticized Him for (my paraphrase) “being soft on sinners” - much like many people who call themselves Catholic or Christian still do to this day.

I would be careful to use Christ’s wrath against the Pharisees to justify anything but criticism of religious attitudes that resemble Phariseeism. It generally doesn’t work very well in other cases.

Well, Prodigal Son and I were exchanging arguments on use of words deemed offensive to LGBT ears, in particular “homosexual lifestyle.” He argued for sensitivity in the context of evangelizing to our homosexual brothers and sisters; I argued that the larger picture be considered as the meaning of plain words are being seized and changed by activist gays and lesbians to further normalize homosexual behavior.

What you bring up has been covered many times in this forum. Jesus had less harsh words for sexual sinners and none, as pro-gay argument goes, for homosexuals. The rebuttal to the latter is argumentum e silentio. In addition, in first century Jewish culture, the moral laws were clear on the gravity and immorality of fornication, adultery and homosexuality. It is doubtful that such sexual sins were openly done, especially active homosexuality. There were no male pairs or female pairs living together openly in ancient Jewish society as sexual partners, much less getting “married.” Lastly, it does not mean that Jesus gave a pass to (homo)sexual sinners, the unrepentant ones, that is. [In fact, after His three year ministry, ending with His death on the cross, the apostle Paul in his letters to the Romans and Corinthians, did have strong words admonishing sinners of this kind.]

True, Jesus had harsh words for the hypocrisy and pride of Pharisees. They deserved a jolt because they were teachers, in positions of power and moral authority. Not unlike the Catholic clergy being held to a higher standard by everyone. Are we not constantly reminded these days of transgressions on children by pedophile priests, even where the priest is already in jail and the crime has been long been settled by the Church?

The Pharisees had more going for them; hence, more was expected of them. They were criticized for being more concerned with rites and rituals (appearance of piety, tithing, circumcision, etc.) and being overly self righteous and prideful, for straining the gnat but swallowing a camel. They committed sins others were guilty of, e.g., the Pharisee did not lie, but stretched the truth, did not steal, but just “borrowed,” etc.

The good news of the gospels was and remains to be that each at the end of life, Jew and Gentile, will be judged by God. God will dispense mercy to those who repented and avoided doing wrongs, and favor to those who did the right things while on earth.
,

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What you bring up has been covered many times in this forum. Jesus had less harsh words for sexual sinners and none, as pro-gay argument goes, for homosexuals. The rebuttal to the latter is argumentum e silentio.

I wonder. We were told to be imitators of Christ. That does not surely mean that, because Jesus did not say that cannibalism or bestiality is wrong, we should not say that these things are wrong. However, it does mean that we should imitate Christ’s character – and we must trust God that enough of Christ’s character is in the gospels for us to have a clear guide.

Jesus clearly and publicly taught that sexual sins were serious sins. He does not dismiss the idea of stoning the woman as unjust – rather, He acknowledges its justice, but makes it clear that everyone there deserves to be stoned.

But He does not play the game by the rules or the language of the culture. The Pharisees try to trap him, precisely like the media tried to trap Pope Francis into condemning homosexual priests. Neither Jesus nor Francis spoke in a language the culture understands, however. And that is good – “he who has ears, let him hear.”

In the end, I don’t know what to say. I certainly think that Jesus often comes into an unbeliever’s life with a sword, not with peace. But many believers are all too ready to wield that sword out of anger at the sinner’s stupidity, not out of love for the sinner’s Lord. Peter cuts the ear, and we speak the harsh word.

But does the harsh word plant the seeds of repentance? Sometimes, maybe. Often, no.

 

[retire_early]

Then quote that post.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I wonder. We were told to be imitators of Christ. That does not surely mean that, because Jesus did not say that cannibalism or bestiality is wrong, we should not say that these things are wrong. However, it does mean that we should imitate Christ’s character – and we must trust God that enough of Christ’s character is in the gospels for us to have a clear guide.

Jesus clearly and publicly taught that sexual sins were serious sins. He does not dismiss the idea of stoning the woman as unjust – rather, He acknowledges its justice, but makes it clear that everyone there deserves to be stoned.

But He does not play the game by the rules or the language of the culture. The Pharisees try to trap him, precisely like the media tried to trap Pope Francis into condemning homosexual priests. Neither Jesus nor Francis spoke in a language the culture understands, however. And that is good – “he who has ears, let him hear.”

In the end, I don’t know what to say. I certainly think that Jesus often comes into an unbeliever’s life with a sword, not with peace. But many believers are all too ready to wield that sword out of anger at the sinner’s stupidity, not out of love for the sinner’s Lord. Peter cuts the ear, and we speak the harsh word.

But does the harsh word plant the seeds of repentance? Sometimes, maybe. Often, no.

A thoughtful post ^^^ I must say.

Just thinking, though, the last sentence could be

Does a more neutral word, careful not to hurt, jolt the conscience? Sometimes, maybe. Often, no.

 

[FollowChrist34]

He did indeed. But then the Pharisees were considered good, highly moral, educated Jews - they were “in good standing”.

When He spoke to those who sinned sexually, He used no such words. Yes, He did tell them to “sin no more”, but only after telling them “neither will I condemn thee”.

I am however sure there were plenty of Pharisees in that crowd, ready to throw stones. Those were the ones He did not shy away from offending. They also criticized Him for (my paraphrase) “being soft on sinners” - much like many people who call themselves Catholic or Christian still do to this day.

I would be careful to use Christ’s wrath against the Pharisees to justify anything but criticism of religious attitudes that resemble Phariseeism. It generally doesn’t work very well in other cases.

Minor but important point - let’s face it, on a bad day Jesus could really rip into sinners.

Woe to Unrepentant Cities - MT 11:21-23 – Lk 10:13-15

20 Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21 “Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”

Adultery MT 5:27-30

27 "You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

For me, the purpose (and an effective one at that) of this kind of biblical hyperbole is to drive home the need for repentance and to get you to stop sinning. I think it’s supposed to scare the hell out of us – literally . Of course it also serves to develop your conscience in the ways of Christ and enhance your awareness of the good and evil nature of your choices.

As for the Pharisees, Jesus brutally condemned their hardness of heart and blind commitment to the commandments rather than living in the Spirit of God. They came to a point where they had actually replaced a meaningful life following God in humility and openness by a set of inflexible laws. This is a danger for us all. We choose what we believe Jesus says (usually our favorite part), set it in stone, build our conduct around it and close the door. Then, aglow with true righteousness, we spit nails at our opponents.

(This is not to say I think all views of Jesus are equal. )

 

[Path_Finder]

Minor but important point - let’s face it, on a bad day Jesus could really rip into sinners.

Woe to Unrepentant Cities - MT 11:21-23 – Lk 10:13-15

20 Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21 “Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”

Adultery MT 5:27-30

27 "You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

For me, the purpose (and an effective one at that) of this kind of biblical hyperbole is to drive home the need for repentance and to get you to stop sinning. I think it’s supposed to scare the hell out of us – literally . Of course it also serves to develop your conscience in the ways of Christ and enhance your awareness of the good and evil nature of your choices.

As for the Pharisees, Jesus brutally condemned their hardness of heart and blind commitment to the commandments rather than living in the Spirit of God. They came to a point where they had actually replaced a meaningful life following God in humility and openness by a set of inflexible laws. This is a danger for us all. We choose what we believe Jesus says (usually our favorite part), set it in stone, build our conduct around it and close the door. Then, aglow with true righteousness, we spit nails at our opponents.

(This is not to say I think all views of Jesus are equal. )

Thanks for this post and one of the other posts likewise that inferred to the Gospel of St. Matthew. Got me reading last night, should do this especially during Lent.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

27 "You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Remember, though, that Jesus was talking to people who came specifically to listen to and follow him. The lesson was not to speak this way to every sinner, at all times, which is what using unnecessarily offensive language does.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

A thoughtful post ^^^ I must say.

Just thinking, though, the last sentence could be

Does a more neutral word, careful not to hurt, jolt the conscience? Sometimes, maybe. Often, no.

Well, I don’t think people get converted by strangers, anyway. So if anyone is going to go around using strong words, I think it should be a friend, not a stranger. I say this as someone who has definitely used strong words with my friends before.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

It’s a license to breed basically, marriage is not about love.

…

I realize you said you were forced into the shoes of LGBTs and became sympathetic to their plight as a result. Perhaps that is the etiology of the disdainful theme of your posts. Your antipathy towards marriage and the acerbity by which you put heterosexuals on the defensive for “defiling” marriage are remarkable.

You asked if I have considered that the reason that GLAAD listed the “Offensive Terms To Avoid” reference guide is because the words are offensive. You got my honest answer and it is needless to repeat it.

And then you post the above comment, like it was coming out of the mouth of a rabid gay activist. Are you effectively referring to heterosexuals who aspire to be married and have kids as “breeders,” on the level of cattle and other farm animals? That would be very unkind and smacks of homosexualism.
,

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Whichever love you were referring to when you said that marriage license was about breeding, not love?

All of them.

Joie de Vivre,
I doubled checked regarding state requirements, etc, and love (not Church wedding mind you).
Although technically you could get a license while not loving, hating, the other, a dilemma would arise when you got to the vows. The standard, in my state, is as follows:
Will you ________ take ___________ to be your lawful wedded (husband/wife), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to LOVE and to cherish until death do you part?

If someone were to say “I hate her” “I hate him”, it would seem that the minister could refuse to sign it.
It would be interesting to see how each state handles it, vows, esp if they write their own but some may require some basics met - like the above - and you can add to but not subtract.

I (name) take thee (name) as my wedded wife,
To have and to hold from this day forward,
For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer,
In good times and in bad, in sickness and in health,
Till death separates us, if Holy Church will ordain it:
And thereto I plight thee my troth.

That’s the medieval wedding vow in modern English, notice anything lacking?

The absence of love does not mean hate, if you didn’t consent to marriage you couldn’t be married so that took care of actual hatred.

Well, Prodigal Son and I were exchanging arguments on use of words deemed offensive to LGBT ears, in particular “homosexual lifestyle.” He argued for sensitivity in the context of evangelizing to our homosexual brothers and sisters; I argued that the larger picture be considered as the meaning of plain words are being seized and changed by activist gays and lesbians to further normalize homosexual behavior.

What you bring up has been covered many times in this forum. Jesus had less harsh words for sexual sinners and none, as pro-gay argument goes, for homosexuals. The rebuttal to the latter is argumentum e silentio. In addition, in first century Jewish culture, the moral laws were clear on the gravity and immorality of fornication, adultery and homosexuality. It is doubtful that such sexual sins were openly done, especially active homosexuality. There were no male pairs or female pairs living together openly in ancient Jewish society as sexual partners, much less getting “married.” Lastly, it does not mean that Jesus gave a pass to (homo)sexual sinners, the unrepentant ones, that is. [In fact, after His three year ministry, ending with His death on the cross, **the apostle Paul in his letters to the Romans and Corinthians, did have strong words admonishing sinners of this kind

.]

True, Jesus had harsh words for the hypocrisy and pride of Pharisees. They deserved a jolt because they were teachers, in positions of power and moral authority. Not unlike the Catholic clergy being held to a higher standard by everyone. Are we not constantly reminded these days of transgressions on children by pedophile priests, even where the priest is already in jail and the crime has been long been settled by the Church?

The Pharisees had more going for them; hence, more was expected of them. They were criticized for being more concerned with rites and rituals (appearance of piety, tithing, circumcision, etc.) and being overly self righteous and prideful, for straining the gnat but swallowing a camel. They committed sins others were guilty of, e.g., the Pharisee did not lie, but stretched the truth, did not steal, but just “borrowed,” etc.

The good news of the gospels was and remains to be that each at the end of life, Jew and Gentile, will be judged by God. God will dispense mercy to those who repented and avoided doing wrongs, and favor to those who did the right things while on earth.
,

Recall that Paul was writing to professed Christians not non-Christians.

 

[GraceSofia]

Because it tangential at best to “In Catholic theology celibacy is superior to marriage, and so I strive to live a vocation of celibacy. Should I seek help to resolve myself of that ‘issue’?”
…]
See Paul in I Corinthians VII, celibacy is definitely preferable to virginity even before there was such a thing as religious life.

And see the Catechism quote I gave you before.
The whole passage in Corinthians should be read as a whole, but note that he says, “9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

The idea that a single state is better than a married state is your own opinion. They are both good in the eyes of the Church. Not sure why you feel the need to say otherwise. If you are single, that is good, but not better than married.

 

[GraceSofia]

In Catholic theology celibacy is superior to marriage, and so I strive to live a vocation of celibacy.

Okay, you are right, and I apologise. I’ll argue with you, but I’m not going to argue with John Paul II.

Is Celibacy A Higher Calling than Marriage?