Gay Catholic asks for help.

[Dakota_Roberts]

And part of that lack of drift is built into the coherent integration of the Church’s theology. It is not subject to “but…I don’t believe THAT about THAT; I’ll just choose to believe this other part.” It is a working whole, which makes sense in context, within the terms as they are defined by the Church, not the outside world. Meaning is communicated through language.

And as I have said often on CAF, the real fundamental deficit in modern catechesis is that rarely are modern laypeople exposed to the philosophy which undergirds the theology. It’s very important to understand how both work together. The theology assumes an understanding of the philosophical terms, and argument (apologetics) is a function of the philosophical and theological terms working together, not apart. Those are the minds which are enlightened.

The terms aren’t defined by the Church, but by the democracy of the dead however as the words wont change the Catechism will be understood the same way in a century or ten. #pedant

Indubitably

 

[Baelor]

Never start a sentence with “but”, it is either a preposition or conjunction…

CopticChristian, the English grammar pedant. My, my, I can only think of a certain ancient Greek dramatic device that would apply here…

In this case, ‘but’ is clearly a conjunction. It is also often used as an adverb, so your statement is obviously incorrect.

More importantly, it is not ungrammatical to start sentences with certain conjunctions, and but is no exception, q.v. the Chicago Manual of Style p. 257. There is no ambiguity that arises, so it is certainly permissible on grammatical grounds. Whether you like the style is another issue, and an irrelevant one. Conjunctions begin sentences all the time: “Because I did this, I…,” and of course conjunctive adverbs can as well.

would be better understood and you could use however, although, inspite of, etc…this would help understanding…

Actually, “but” is perfectly fine if that is what the author meant, which (s/)he clearly did. “In spite of” (three words, mind you) would have been the wrong word choice altogether. “However” would have been permissible, but because the clauses are connected merely by their contrast, “but” is a perfectly clear choice. The other would not have “helped understanding” as you claim.

In Charity I offer you another suggestion, do not start a sentence with “if”…it is difficult to assess intent, tone, and now you suggest Slander??

Conditionals in English most often begin with “if.” It is not the job of the poster to provide intent and tone. It is your job to operate off what is posted and inquire if you need further clarification.

 

[josh987654321]

I simply cannot believe that I must sacrifice the one I love for the sake of an interpretation of Scripture. Nor can I believe that God calls us to be celibate when I certainly was not. Vocation is one thing but to extend that to those who were not called to be celibate and I am certain I was not, to be celibate says a lot about our grasp on Divine matters. For me, I am starting to believe that am going to have to live my life and leave it to God to be my judge.

You may not have been called to celibacy, but you are certainly called to chastity with same sex attraction.

I think you are confused with love. When talking about homosexuality we need to talk about love and the word “love” in our english vocabulary is far too vague.

Definitions of Love -

Love of Agape - Agápe means “love,” it often refers to a general affection or deeper sense of “true love” rather than the attraction suggested by “eros.” Agape is used in the biblical passage known as the “love chapter,” 1 Corinthians 13, and is described there and throughout the New Testament as sacrificial love. It can be described as the feeling of being content or holding one in high regard. Agape was used by Christians to express the unconditional love of God.

Love of Eros - is passionate love, with sensual desire and longing.

Love of Philia - means affectionate regard or friendship in both ancient and modern Greek. It is a dispassionate virtuous love, a concept developed by Aristotle. It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality and familiarity.

Love of Storge - means “affection” in ancient and modern Greek. It is natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring. Rarely used in ancient works, and then almost exclusively as a descriptor of relationships within the family. It is also known to express mere acceptance or putting up with situations, as in “loving” the tyrant.

It is the “Love of Agape” that we should all aspire to, the love of agape is the one that bears fruit, not eros.

What you are struggling with is the “Love of Eros” that we all have and every single one of us suffers from immoral sexual desires, some more so than others, but the morality of the desire doesn’t determine the morality of the act. Just because we desire something doesn’t make it right, we must strive for control over such desires so that we may rule our desires instead of our desires ruling us.

You may think that embracing these desires will lead you to freedom, but they wont, they only create the illusion of freedom, instead they are going to imprison you in despair. It’s like drugs, you desire the “high” but you will hit the “low” very hard.

“Love of Eros” is the love that satan has to offer us, it is a love that is filled with lust, it is one that is filled with selfishness and self gratification, it is a love that bears sour fruit in which humans desire to be drunk on, there is nothing selfless about it and it leaves us for despair when it’s misused such as in the sexual acts of homosexuality and many others for heterosexuals aswell.

Im sorry, but acting on the sexual acts of homosexuality is not the answer for you, it will simply lead you down a destructive path in which will ultimately leave you in despair.

It requires strength to control our sexual desires, but you should never give up in trying to control them, nobody is going to throw stones if out of weakness you give into such desires but you must always be striving for better, you should attend confession and strive for better, please do not embrace these desires because they will send you down a destructive path and ultimately leave you in despair.

I hope this helps you.

God Bless.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[StJudeprayforme]

And as I have said often on CAF, the real fundamental deficit in modern catechesis is that rarely are modern laypeople exposed to the philosophy which undergirds the theology. It’s very important to understand how both work together. The theology assumes an understanding of the philosophical terms, and argument (apologetics) is a function of the philosophical and theological terms working together, not apart. Those are the minds which are enlightened.

Yes, but if by the philosophy you mean Thomism, you need to remember that St. Thomas is not the only philosophical tradition that the Church allows. As I already pointed out, John Paul II’s ethics have a strong Kantian influence that in my opinion make them more useful than many of the arguments that I hear from Catholics who are relying solely on Aquinas in their apologetics. Catholics should be exposed to the philosophical tradition of the Church, including Aquinas, but also modern Catholic philosophy as well-- including phenomenology and personalistic ethics.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian, the English grammar pedant. My, my, I can only think of a certain ancient Greek dramatic device that would apply here…

In this case, ‘but’ is clearly a conjunction. It is also often used as an adverb, so your statement is obviously incorrect.

More importantly, it is not ungrammatical to start sentences with certain conjunctions, and but is no exception, q.v. the Chicago Manual of Style p. 257. There is no ambiguity that arises, so it is certainly permissible on grammatical grounds. Whether you like the style is another issue, and an irrelevant one. Conjunctions begin sentences all the time: “Because I did this, I…,” and of course conjunctive adverbs can as well.

Actually, “but” is perfectly fine if that is what the author meant, which (s/)he clearly did. “In spite of” (three words, mind you) would have been the wrong word choice altogether. “However” would have been permissible, but because the clauses are connected merely by their contrast, “but” is a perfectly clear choice. The other would not have “helped understanding” as you claim.

Conditionals in English most often begin with “if.” It is not the job of the poster to provide intent and tone. It is your job to operate off what is posted and inquire if you need further clarification.

So,

is this an opinion based on a double blind study you have access to, empiricism, knowledge, expertise or penchant?

I am pleased you agree.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Yes, but if by the philosophy you mean Thomism, you need to remember that St. Thomas is not the only philosophical tradition that the Church allows. As I already pointed out, John Paul II’s ethics have a strong Kantian influence that in my opinion make them more useful than many of the arguments that I hear from Catholics who are relying solely on Aquinas in their apologetics. Catholics should be exposed to the philosophical tradition of the Church, including Aquinas, but also modern Catholic philosophy as well-- including phenomenology and personalistic ethics.

This is the second time you cite Blessed John Paul II and his personalistic principle related to your insistence with the use of the colloquial word “gay” versus “same sex attracted” in discourse. Upthread you even pointed to “how demeaning the self-appointed language police can be on this issue, both on this forum and in every day conversations, when they think they are conveying Church teaching,” an incorrect characterization and conclusion to reach.

“Gay” has become a colloquial term, one that activists Kirk and Madsen successfully used as a marketing strategy to erase the negative connotation to an open, lived out homosexual lifestyle, an attractive wrapping to it, as part of the homosexual agenda, rephrased as “gay rights.”

As developed, “gay” is being used wrongly as a self-description or to describe people of a homosexual orientation who do not identify with the gay socio-political position at all. Why or how do you think debates on homosexuality get convoluted and heated in every medium, ending with invectives of “bigot” and “homophobe” being thrown at the conservative expressing his/her side? It is charitable not to assume therefore, and to use a more accurate label, the longer three words “same sex attracted” notwithstanding, in the start of a dialogue on the Internet or with someone not trained in theology. If use of terms get clarified at the onset of communication, misunderstandings are at least minimized.

According to AVERT, a UK based international charity group that works to avert HIV and AIDS worldwide, through education, treatment and care, Communication is a complex affair in which not only what words are used matters but also who is saying them, about whom and in what context.

It is true that some men and women generally describe themselves as either ‘gay’ or ‘straight’. Using these words gets away from the negative overtones of terminology like ‘homosexual’ or ‘heterosexual’ which for these people can feel too “medical”. However, words like ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ can have advantages in other contexts.

It is also true, according to AVERT, that in school the term ‘gay’ is used a lot as an insult, and is not a word with positive overtones. A person called ‘gay’ by homophobic bullies in school might find it abusive because of the way it is said but the same person might happily call themselves ‘gay’ when they are with friends.
The term “gay” as self-reference includes not only personal feelings but also behaviors, and also to telegraph a political, cultural, and social identity. By their labels shall you know them?

Yes, the Catholic Church is ever so careful in use of words and has yet to use “same sex attraction” in her official documents; however, it is exactly what she means in speaking about the homosexual inclination (which is not sinful), unless said inclination leads to homosexual genital expression (which is sinful). It would be doubtful that she will ever use “gay”! If you do research on forums of other religious sites, e.g., Adventist, Mormon, Jewish, etc., the term SSA is favored over “gay”. I don’t believe they want to act as language police either; they just wish to be clear and charitable with their message.

Finally, even if “same sex attraction” is not (yet) used in official Church documents, you must know that Courage, an apostolate of the Catholic Church endorsed by Blessed Pope John Paul II himself, favors the use of SSA over “gay” for reasons mentioned above.
,

 

[Elizabeth502]

Great Reply, your post 145, Search, although I’d always rather call you Graced

 

[StJudeprayforme]

This is the second time you cite Blessed John Paul II and his personalistic principle related to your insistence with the use of the colloquial word “gay” versus “same sex attracted” in discourse. Upthread you even pointed to “how demeaning the self-appointed language police can be on this issue, both on this forum and in every day conversations, when they think they are conveying Church teaching,” an incorrect characterization and conclusion to reach.

I was not saying the principle itself supports the usage of the word “gay”. I was simply pointing out that the Church is open to new developments in philosophy, and that the vocabulary hasn’t necessarily stayed the same since the 1200s. This was a part of my agreement with Elizabeth about a need for philosophy education.

My characterization of the language-police on this issue is my perception of them, and if I, as an orthodox Catholic feel this way when I see it, I am pretty sure that people who are not orthodox Catholics are likely to share my feelings.

“Gay” has become a colloquial term, one that activists Kirk and Madsen successfully used as a marketing strategy to erase the negative connotation to an open, lived out homosexual lifestyle, an attractive wrapping to it, as part of the homosexual agenda, rephrased as “gay rights.”

As developed, “gay” is being used wrongly as a self-description or to describe people of a homosexual orientation who do not identify with the gay socio-political position at all. Why or how do you think debates on homosexuality get convoluted and heated in every medium, ending with invectives of “bigot” and “homophobe” being thrown at the conservative expressing his/her side? It is charitable not to assume therefore, and to use a more accurate label, the longer three words “same sex attracted” notwithstanding, in the start of a dialogue on the Internet or with someone not trained in theology. If use of terms get clarified at the onset of communication, misunderstandings are at least minimized.

Living languages don’t work like that. If a colloquialism is used to mean someone who has predominately homosexual attractions, without any political connotations, by a society, that is what it means.

The term “gay” as self-reference includes not only personal feelings but also behaviors, and also to telegraph a political, cultural, and social identity. By their labels shall you know them?

The Janet Smith piece is anecdotal, and doesn’t really provide anything insightful to the conversation and seems to link using the words “gay” and “queer” with a rejection of the theory that homosexuality is caused by emotional wounds, which she finds problematic. I would refer her to the 1986 letter by Card. Ratzinger that points out that we don’t know the cause of homosexuality, so Catholics are in no way required to agree with what she says. The issues she raises are not issues with Church teaching, they are issues with her own philosophical outlook.

Additionally, the idea that the words “gay” or “homosexual” reduce people to their sexual orientation is an often repeated claim, but I have yet to see any proof for it. The people who use it in such a way are often the conservatives who oppose using the terms, and not the people who self-identify in that way.

Yes, the Catholic Church is ever so careful in use of words and has yet to use “same sex attraction” in her official documents; however, it is exactly what she means in speaking about the homosexual inclination (which is not sinful), unless said inclination leads to homosexual genital expression (which is sinful). It would be doubtful that she will ever use “gay”! If you do research on forums of other religious sites, e.g., Adventist, Mormon, Jewish, etc., the term SSA is favored over “gay”. I don’t believe they want to act as language police either; they just wish to be clear and charitable with their message.

Finally, even if “same sex attraction” is not (yet) used in official Church documents, you must know that Courage, an apostolate of the Catholic Church endorsed by Blessed Pope John Paul II himself, favors the use of SSA over “gay” for reasons mentioned above.
,

I find the whole SSA is better than gay thing silly, to be honest. I have heard people correct others not to use “gay” because the Church says it is wrong to use that word to describe someone. The Church says no such thing. It is a prudential matter. I would argue that all the focus on not putting people in a box by using the phrase “SSA” actually draws more attention to it than the words “homosexual” or “gay”, because the other two have become so commonplace.

Yes, the Church does mean “same-sex attraction” when she uses the word “homosexuality.” That is what the word means to anyone regardless of religious affiliation. Why use three words when you can just use one that everyone will understand?

Courage does good work, but just because they do something, does not automatically make it right. I find the arguments for “SSA” to not be that compelling, and I find the arguments against “gay” and “homosexual” even less compelling, because they are based off a reading of a concern expressed by Card. Ratzinger in 1986 that isn’t really consistent with the rest of the letter (he continues to use the phrase “homosexual persons”, even after saying that the Church cannot view someone solely as homosexual or heterosexual. If he had a problem with the word he wouldn’t have kept using it.)

The core issue is whether or not the words “gay” or “homosexual” as used, cause people to be viewed only as their sexual orientation. I argue they don’t, and that they are not used in this way by anyone other than the people who argue against using them.

 

[fix]

This is the second time you cite Blessed John Paul II and his personalistic principle related to your insistence with the use of the colloquial word “gay” versus “same sex attracted” in discourse. Upthread you even pointed to “how demeaning the self-appointed language police can be on this issue, both on this forum and in every day conversations, when they think they are conveying Church teaching,” an incorrect characterization and conclusion to reach.

“Gay” has become a colloquial term, one that activists Kirk and Madsen successfully used as a marketing strategy to erase the negative connotation to an open, lived out homosexual lifestyle, an attractive wrapping to it, as part of the homosexual agenda, rephrased as “gay rights.”

As developed, “gay” is being used wrongly as a self-description or to describe people of a homosexual orientation who do not identify with the gay socio-political position at all. Why or how do you think debates on homosexuality get convoluted and heated in every medium, ending with invectives of “bigot” and “homophobe” being thrown at the conservative expressing his/her side? It is charitable not to assume therefore, and to use a more accurate label, the longer three words “same sex attracted” notwithstanding, in the start of a dialogue on the Internet or with someone not trained in theology. If use of terms get clarified at the onset of communication, misunderstandings are at least minimized.

According to AVERT, a UK based international charity group that works to avert HIV and AIDS worldwide, through education, treatment and care, Communication is a complex affair in which not only what words are used matters but also who is saying them, about whom and in what context.

It is true that some men and women generally describe themselves as either ‘gay’ or ‘straight’. Using these words gets away from the negative overtones of terminology like ‘homosexual’ or ‘heterosexual’ which for these people can feel too “medical”. However, words like ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ can have advantages in other contexts.

It is also true, according to AVERT, that in school the term ‘gay’ is used a lot as an insult, and is not a word with positive overtones. A person called ‘gay’ by homophobic bullies in school might find it abusive because of the way it is said but the same person might happily call themselves ‘gay’ when they are with friends.
The term “gay” as self-reference includes not only personal feelings but also behaviors, and also to telegraph a political, cultural, and social identity. By their labels shall you know them?

Yes, the Catholic Church is ever so careful in use of words and has yet to use “same sex attraction” in her official documents; however, it is exactly what she means in speaking about the homosexual inclination (which is not sinful), unless said inclination leads to homosexual genital expression (which is sinful). It would be doubtful that she will ever use “gay”! If you do research on forums of other religious sites, e.g., Adventist, Mormon, Jewish, etc., the term SSA is favored over “gay”. I don’t believe they want to act as language police either; they just wish to be clear and charitable with their message.

Finally, even if “same sex attraction” is not (yet) used in official Church documents, you must know that Courage, an apostolate of the Catholic Church endorsed by Blessed Pope John Paul II himself, favors the use of SSA over “gay” for reasons mentioned above.
,

Excellent. Control the language and you control the debate.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I agree that there is not 100% agreement - not sure what % it would be. If not innate, what are the other possibilities?

In the last 20 years, the tendency has been to view every human behavior through the “determined” or determinable lens of medicine. Well, if your physiology determines your behavior, then your culpability (for anything) vanishes. Because it’s a slippery slope from saying medicine determines just “some” behavior: Why not all behavior?

Genes, and brain configurations, shape initial tendencies – not just sexually, but in a whole host of potentialities – interests, temperament, every variety of attraction & possibility. However, the infant is still in many respects a “tabula rasa.” Environment is huge in the formation of the individual, and anyone who doesn’t understand that hasn’t read enough (no, not science), but biographies. It’s patently clear, when you do enough wide reading, that there are thousands of people who would have, might have, turned out quite differently, given innate tendencies and even circumstances of their births, had it not been for positive, unusual, countervailing, etc. influences after their births. That includes, btw, many people who were probably bipolar (their biographies exhibit that) before we had a name for it, people who were clinically depressed (to the point where today we would consign them to little expectation of living a productive life, but rather consign to “disability” and 24/7 meds); in fact, many artists, especially the body of classical composers, were then, and are today, subject to depression.

Medicine as determinism is first of all junk science, and second of all, toxic to humanity. But the worst of all is limiting the complex phenomenon of sexuality to the field of medicine. Sexuality is not just, or even primarily, medical; it is relational. As psychologists have always known, and as human experience verifies, sexuality depends on so many factors and influences that it can hardly be confined to genetic determinism. Sexuality develops over time in human development, from infancy to and through adolescence. Tendencies which align themselves to attraction develop over time, depending on how those potential attractions are responded to by others, and how other (contrary) attractions are not responded to, given opportunity to flourish, etc. Sexuality is very fluid in the early stages. And just because we “can’t remember” when we “decided” (or “knew”) we “felt” heterosexual or homosexual, does not mean that therefore that orientation was inborn. Our ultimate sexual path is complex and largely unconscious That does not mean that it is fixed, let alone genetic. A significant factor in how sexuality develops is the factor of attachment, and the process of attachment is most vulnerable from birth to age 5, especially birth to age 3 (before long-term memory is activated).

A subjective statement that a person “has always felt [a certain way]” cannot be verified. (The convenient revisionist testimony.) Except that no one “knows” or “knew” that, because internal and environmental forces combined to begin the shape the individual before that individual (1) had conscious knowledge of what was going on (2) developed enough long-term memory to be able to retrieve reliably the pathways of that shaping.

Infants are essentially asexual or pan-sexual. As they grow out of infancy their sexuality takes form in process – a result of validation, experimentation, and exposure.And tendencies which align themselves to attraction also develop over time, depending on how those potential attractions are responded to by others, and how other (contrary) attractions are not responded to, given opportunity to flourish, etc.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

To follow up on cleaner clearer communication, without forsaking charity in discourse, which is the point of my previous post, let’s take the example of the OP who referred to himself as a gay Catholic even if he says he has not yet crossed that line of having physical homosexual relations with his male friend.

The OP explained his situation enough on the get go, and nobody engaged him on a battle of semantics, on use of the word “gay.” It would not be necessary to maintain he is same sex attracted or feels saddled with same sex attraction.

At around post 107, the discussion among other posters led to the usefulness of terms, specifically, use of gay vs SSA. As Elizabeth said, the disagreement is not about hostility. Not at all. It is about the part of this post that is bolded.
,

 

[StJudeprayforme]

To follow up on cleaner clearer communication, without forsaking charity in discourse, which is the point of my previous post, let’s take the example of the OP who referred to himself as a gay Catholic even if he says he has not yet crossed that line of having physical homosexual relations with his male friend.

The OP explained his situation enough on the get go, and nobody engaged him on a battle of semantics, on use of the word “gay.” It would not be necessary to maintain he is same sex attracted or feels saddled with same sex attraction.

At around post 107, the discussion among other posters led to the usefulness of terms, specifically, use of gay vs SSA. As Elizabeth said, the disagreement is not about hostility. Not at all. It is about the part of this post that is bolded.
,

Yes. Sorry, I started this when I responded to Coptic’s telling someone to stop referring to people as “gay Catholic”, which, as I have explained to the point of beating a dead horse, isn’t required by Church teaching and makes little sense.

 

[Ruthie_again]

A heads-up from the Forum Rules:

DISCUSSION FORUMS

1. Messages posted to threads should be on-topic. If you wish to discuss another topic, start a new thread.

 

[Baelor]

is this an opinion based on a double blind study you have access to, empiricism, knowledge, expertise or penchant?

I will pray for you. I am glad that you have implicitly admitted that I was correct and you erred.

Also, consider learning what a double-blind study is and why it is totally irrelevant to linguistic history. The opinion is based on historical and linguistic fact. I even provided my references, which is more than you have done.

 

[Mark121359]

One of the things I’ve noticed when it comes to this topic, and homosexuality in general, is how more and more I find myself having the ***minority ***view on this subject, even amongst “practicing” Catholics. It used to be that we were asked just to “tolerate” this behavior. But now it’s graduated into a demand of absolute flat-out acceptance! What ever happened to, embrace the sinner but reject the sin? It used to be that not so long ago, The Church was respected for her views on morality and issues such as these. Not so anymore. Now, not only does she not garner any respect, but she receives downright hostility towards her for teachings that she’s held for a couple thousand years! And what’s more alarming, is we Faithful who hold to these Truths, are finding ourselves being more and more criticized for our “flawed” way of thinking. And surprisingly, or should I say disheartening, by more and more fellow Catholics! And I even see this criticism increasingly here at CAF, on forum members, who challenge those who think that the Church is too hard, or unrealistic, or even unsympathetic with her teachings on this issue and others as well. It’s not at all uncommon to see those who speak out about this roundly criticized by other Catholics! They’ll be called overly judgemental, or lacking in compassion, etc.

And I often hear how those who have SSA have much too heavy of a cross to carry, and just how unfair this all seems to be. And unless you experience what it’s like, you just don’t get it! Or, that we lack compassion towards them because the suffering they experience is far greater than anything that you or I have ever suffered . My question is this, is it greater than say, someone who’s paralyzed from the neck down, and confined to a wheelchair for life because of an accident that was no fault of their own? Or how about the person who’s diagnosed with ALS, and slowly declines in health until they can no longer do anything on their own? Or someone with Alzheimer’s Disease, who slowly drifts away towards “The Long Goodbye.” And what of their family members who suffer tremendously as they watch their wife or husband or sister or brother slowly drift away from them…helplessly? As others on here have noted, we all have crosses, some much greater than others. Suffering comes in all shapes and sizes. I get the feeling that for some, that we’re supposed to believe that sexual tension or what have you, is the largest cross of them all. That this cross is somehow the heaviest of them all to carry. But, I’m just not buying it! It would seem to me, that we need to learn more from the Saints, St. Therese of Lisieux comes to mind, and learn from her and others like her, how to embrace suffering and learn how to lean on Our Lord to be granted the Grace to accept it!

But unfortunately, way too many Catholics today, have already taken the stance that the Church’s teachings on homosexuality, are just too hard to take. And somehow for me, and don’t ask me why, it brings to mind The Bread of Life Discourse in John Chaptor 6. When after Jesus is through speaking, some of the disciples say; “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” After this many of his disciples drew back from him and no longer walked with him. And sadly…sadly, I see oh so many Catholics today, appear to be doing this exact same thing…walking away… because some of the Church’s teachings are deemed to be just “too darn hard.” And just as sad to me, is that I don’t see more of us Catholics stand tall like Peter and say; “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words to eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” Look…is anyone on here saying that this is simple, or some sort of cakewalk? Of course not! Just as it isn’t easy for that person in the wheelchair or the one with ALS or Alzheimer’s, or the devestated family members who have to “pick up the pieces.” But to me, it really comes down to this, Ask yourself which side am I going to choose?..the disciples who walked? Or will we choose Peter… It’s a simple question, really. But for many, that answer is all too apparent to me. And all you need to do is take a glance at polls on how Catholics view various social issues, and then see how these views stack up against Church Teachings…and you’ll soon come to the realization as I have, that right now at least, we’re loosing this battle, and many other battles as well. Like abortion, and the assault on marriage, etc. etc. etc. etc…

Peace, Mark

 

[Mark121359]

One of the things I’ve noticed when it comes to this topic, and homosexuality in general, is how more and more I find myself having the ***minority ***view on this subject, even amongst “practicing” Catholics. It used to be that we were asked just to “tolerate” this behavior. But now it’s graduated into a demand of absolute flat-out acceptance! What ever happened to, embrace the sinner but reject the sin? It used to be that not so long ago, The Church was respected for her views on morality and issues such as these. Not so anymore. Now, not only does she not garner any respect, but she receives downright hostility towards her for teachings that she’s held for a couple thousand years! And what’s more alarming, is we Faithful who hold to these Truths, are finding ourselves being more and more criticized for our “flawed” way of thinking. And surprisingly, or should I say disheartening, by more and more fellow Catholics! And I even see this criticism increasingly here at CAF, on forum members, who challenge those who think that the Church is too hard, or unrealistic, or even unsympathetic with her teachings on this issue and others as well. It’s not at all uncommon to see those who speak out about this roundly criticized by other Catholics! They’ll be called overly judgemental, or lacking in compassion, etc.

And I often hear how those who have SSA have much too heavy of a cross to bear, and just how unfair this all seems to be. And unless you experience what it’s like, you just don’t get it! Or, that we lack compassion towards them because the suffering they experience is far greater than anything that you or I have ever suffered . My question is this, is it greater than say, someone who’s paralyzed from the neck down, and confined to a wheelchair for life because of an accident that was no fault of their own? Or how about the person who’s diagnosed with ALS, and slowly declines in health until they can no longer do anything on their own? Or someone with Alzheimer’s Disease, who slowly drifts away towards “The Long Goodbye.” And what of their family members who suffer tremendously as they watch their wife or husband or sister or brother slowly drift away from them…helplessly? As others on here have noted, we all have our crosses to bear, some much greater than others. Suffering comes in all shapes and sizes. But I get this feeling that for some, that we’re supposed to believe that sexual tension or what have you, is the largest cross of them all. That this cross is somehow the heaviest of them all to carry. But, I’m just not buying it! It would seem to me, that we need to learn more from the Saints, St. Therese of Lisieux comes to mind, and learn from her and others like her, how to embrace suffering and learn how to lean on Our Lord to be granted the Grace to accept it!

But unfortunately, way too many Catholics today, have already taken the stance, and hold firmly to it, that the Church’s teachings on homosexuality, are just too hard to take. And somehow for me, and don’t ask me why, it brings to mind The Bread of Life Discourse in John Chaptor 6. When after Jesus is through speaking, some of the disciples say; “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” After this many of his disciples drew back from him and no longer walked with him. And sadly…sadly, I see oh so many Catholics today, appear to be doing this exact same thing…walking away… because some of the Church’s teachings are deemed to be just “too darn hard.” And just as sad to me, is that I don’t see more of us Catholics stand tall like Peter and say; “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” Look…is anyone on here saying that this is simple, or some sort of cakewalk? Of course not! Just as it isn’t easy for that person in the wheelchair or the one with ALS or Alzheimer’s, or the devestated family members who have to “pick up the pieces.” But to me, it really comes down to this, Ask yourself which side am I going to choose?..the disciples who walked? Or will we choose Peter… It’s a simple question, really. But for many, many Catholics today, their answer is all too apparent to me. And all you need to do is take a glance at polls that show how Catholics view various social issues, and then see how these views stack up against Church Teachings…and you’ll soon come to the realization as I have, that yes in fact I am in the minority, and that right now at least, we’re loosing this battle, and many other battles as well. Like abortion, and the assault on marriage, etc. etc. etc. etc…

Peace, Mark