Gay cartoons

[FractalFire]

I do. Clearly, I did not interpret your thoughts correctly.

I still think my points are valid. I believe they are a one reason that rational humans dismiss sexual dictates handed down by celibates.

Was that first line sarcasm? I honestly can’t tell.

Actually, I see no reason to dismiss sexual dictates merely because they are handed down by celibate people (like Jesus and Paul). At best you might have reason to call them into question – however, the logic of a viewpoint is unattached from the celibacy/non-celibacy of the person who argues for it. So no, rational humans do not dismiss sexual dictates merely because some people who argue for them are celibate. That’s blatantly IR-rational, actually!

Further, its not like these arguments aren’t also supported by the Orthodox church (which does allow marriage in the priesthood) and a large number (probably the majority) of Protestant Churches. Not to mention literally every church before about 30 decades ago. So the point is moot anyway. These instructions are handed down from Biblical teaching, not priests. (Even if priests unsurprisingly support Biblical teaching. )

Edit: Whoops. Didn’t see that you changed the phrasing.

 

[Little_Sheep]

Was that first line sarcasm? I honestly can’t tell.

Actually, I see no reason to dismiss sexual dictates merely because they are handed down by celibate people (like Jesus and Paul). At best you might have reason to call them into question – however, the logic of a viewpoint is unattached from the celibacy/non-celibacy of the person who argues for it. So no, rational humans do not dismiss sexual dictates merely because people are celibate. That’s blatantly IR-rational, actually!

Further, its not like these arguments aren’t also supported by the Orthodox church (which does allow marriage in the priesthood) and a large number (probably the majority) of Protestant Churches. Not to mention literally every church before about 30 decades ago. So the point is moot anyway. These instructions are handed down from Biblical teaching, not priests.

Not at all. My first line was sincere. I think we just have a difficult time understanding each other.

I believe that “instructions handed down from Biblical teaching” has changed in every church over the years. I do not expect you to agree with my belief, but History backs me up.

As we learn new truths about our natural world, we are called to a theology that reflects those truths.

Back in the day, my Irish Catholic FIL watched young left-handed Catholic children suffer enormous abuse in a time and place where left-handedness was perceived as against natural order and of the Devil and clearly objective sin. Today, we have a different understanding of left-handedness and the Catholic Church has responded in kind to this new knowledge. Thank God!

 

[FractalFire]

As a side-note, I would like to point out that I support married pastors because it is a tool that does give them extra insight into the life of the married, which is useful, but not necessary, for making correct moral judgements/ giving good advice. That being said, I defend the rights of the celibate to hold and argue for their moral opinions without discrimination. I also would like to point out that I think the average priest is probably more informed about this than the average layman, though, particularly in modern culture.

 

[FractalFire]

Not at all. My first line was sincere. I think we just have a difficult time understanding each other.

Ok. Sorry, I could interpret that sentence either way, so I wanted to double check.

I believe that “instructions handed down from Biblical teaching” has changed in every church over the years. I do not expect you to agree with my belief, but History backs me up.

Throughout history there have also been churches who misinterpreted or changed those clear teachings (usually because of the influence of secular philosophy and reasoning), so history could also be said to support me as well.

As we learn new truths about our natural world, we are called to a theology that reflects those truths.

Back in the day, my Irish Catholic FIL watched young left-handed Catholic children suffer enormous abuse in a time and place where left-handedness was perceived as against natural order and of the Devil and clearly objective sin. Today, we have a different understanding of left-handedness and the Catholic Church has responded in kind to this new knowledge. Thank God!

And here is where the argument shifts, I think. I accept the historical teaching based upon the evidence – you, presumably, do not, and think it ought to be revised. Well, believe what you will, but just don’t ignore some arguments because they happen to come from celibate people.

So I will just say this, in closing:

That analogy is somewhat weak – was the evil of left-handedness every really an official teaching? Sounds more like a common error that got promulgated among the Laity. It certainly wasn’t mentioned in the Bible!

Secondly, there is no understanding of the natural world that is being proposed that would call for an upheaval of Christian teaching on homosexuality. Just as a proposal that the YYX karyotype influences tendency towards crime or that Trisomy-21 makes people more charitable and kind would not make these qualities any more or less moral, the existence of genetic proof that Homosexuality is inherited and latent would not influence the moral rightness or wrongness of homosexuality.

Thanks for discussing with me, by the way!

 

[Little_Sheep]

As a side-note, I would like to point out that I support married pastors because it is a tool that does give them extra insight into the life of the married, which is useful, but not necessary, for making correct moral judgements/ giving good advice. That being said, I defend the rights of the celibate to hold and argue for their moral opinions without discrimination. I also would like to point out that I think the average priest is probably more informed about this than the average layman, though, particularly in modern culture.

FF, I respect your arguments. I truly do. Sometimes I find chatting on the internet less fulfilling than over a cup of tea!

I have enormous respect for the Catholic Church and Her priests. I would not ever wish to come across as not honoring them, even if I have fair questions about the whole setup and even when I disagree with their opinions. I do believe that your average Catholic priest has an amazing view into the human condition. I do not discount that.

I appreciate your thoughts on married priests. I support that too. Very much.

 

[Little_Sheep]

Ok. Sorry, I could interpret that sentence either way, so I wanted to double check.

Throughout history there have also been churches who misinterpreted or changed those clear teachings (usually because of the influence of secular philosophy and reasoning), so history could also be said to support me as well.

And here is where the argument shifts, I think. I accept the historical teaching based upon the evidence – you, presumably, do not, and think it ought to be revised. Well, believe what you will, but just don’t ignore some arguments because they happen to come from celibate people.

So I will just say this, in closing:

That analogy is somewhat weak – was the evil of left-handedness every really an official teaching? Sounds more like a common error that got promulgated among the Laity. It certainly wasn’t mentioned in the Bible!

Secondly, there is no understanding of the natural world that is being proposed that would call for an upheaval of Christian teaching on homosexuality. Just as a proposal that the YYX karyotype influences tendency towards crime or that Trisomy-21 makes people more charitable and kind would not make these qualities any more or less evil, the existence of genetic proof that Homosexuality is inherited and latent would not influence the moral rightness or wrongness of homosexuality.

Thanks for discussing with me, by the way!

Thank you for this response. One the left-handed issue - yes, Bible verses were often used to clobber the point home. I promise. I cannot name them right now - they did not stick with me - but I will check back in with FIL. I think the teaching about left-handedness was official enough to cause very real harm to children. I will not argue Doctrine?Discipline with you on this. Left-handedness was also been shunned by the greater culture of the time as evil/sinful at the time - people considered lefties overly feminine and weak and disgusting. Suffice it to say, some real change occurred to the better of God’s children.

I take no issue with people who accept the sexual morality divined by your magisterium. But I believe it to be meaningfully limited and I believe these limitations do not serve the World. These limitations are rational hobbles to a meaty Catholic history and theology. I am not someone who needs to believe that the Catholic Church is infallible and unchangeable to believe that the Catholic Church rocks socks All of this is only my humble opinion.

Again, not out to change your mind here, only to reveal my (motley) own.

I think History and the Bible can support us both. I love the rich and intricate tapestry of Christianity in this weary world. At the end of the day, we theology wonks like to hammer down, but in the light of the morning, I believe that we all deeply desire to align ourselves with the will of God.

Peace be with you and thank you for this discussion.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Would it kill any of them ducks to put on a pair of pants?

Well, I grew up watching it. That’s not a problem.

What’s more of a problem are some of the cartoons on cable today.