Gay celibacy group prompts University of Toronto parishioners to leave

[timwatt]

As a gay Catholic, it really saddens me that accepting an organization like Courage into the University of Toronto, which promotes chastity for homosexuals, is now regarded as offensive within the Catholic student community that many of the parishioners are leaving.

thestar.com/news/gta/article/1315648–gay-celibacy-group-prompts-u-of-t-parishioners-to-leave

We should all go and post on the article’s comment section, before the gay rights advocates start bashing the Catholic Church.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Wait… the non-gay student parishioners are leaving because a group of gay students decided that they should promote chaste living?

Am I seriously reading that correctly?

Also, are those idiots they quoted serious “Tells them they’re going to Hell?”… It’s like they’ve ignored everything about Catholicism up until now, and when confronted with what Catholics actually believe, decided they didn’t want to both anymore…

 

[YoungCatholic86]

How is that offensive? These brave people are bearing a heavy cross that many are unwilling to try to even lift. The Catholic community should be helping them, not leaving them.

 

[JRKH]

I would suggest that we do not have enough information on why people are leaving and whether these are people that the Church should really wish to retain.

In the article Mr Graham (sp) seems to have issues with the approach used by Courage - but is unclear where he stands on the issue of homosexuals in the Church.

Likewise I note that the Pastor has told the congregation that if they have questions they can come and talk to him…Apparently most are not…I wonder why?

Frankly the article left me with more questions than answers.

Peace
James

 

[Aquila_Lucis]

I’m curious to know a couple of things:

a) Are the people who have quit going to Mass unfamiliar with Church teaching on homosexuality, which says, quite clearly, that no matter what, homosexuals are to be treated compassionately? In fact, are they so unaware of Church teaching that they do not realize that this group is designed to help people follow the Church’s teaching themselves, namely, to remain chaste?

b) Could, perhaps, part ofthe reason people are so bothered by the notion of chastity in the 21st century (and self-imposed, at that!) is that they are in fact, not living chaste lives as they ought to be and that there is something inside them telling them that they are wrong?

 

[anruari]

We should all go and post on the article’s comment section, before the gay rights advocates start bashing the Catholic Church.

I believe that request is against forum rules.

However, as previous posters have stated, unfortunately the general level of Catechisis for Adults in most of our church is so bad, that people like the “Graham” quoted in that article are far too common.
They have no Idea what the key teachings of our Holy Mother Church actually are.

The Idea of having an “Openly Homosexual” person being a duly appointed Lector who read as Mass, etc, shows a massive lack of understanding of the churches teachings on the matter.

The act of sex outside tradition marriage is WRONG.

The act of “identifying as Gay” and being open about this. buying into the culture of sexuality defining our identity and the culture of death is gravely sinfull. it gives scandal it tries to teach others that the churches teachings on morality are not the truth. It promotes moral relativism.

Suffering from same sex attraction is a curse on many people. so is attraction to children and adolecesents. so is attraction to animals and inanimate objects.

To say that homophilia (sexual interest in people of the same gender) is an orientation not a fault is the same as saying that hebephilia (sexual intrest in early & mid adolescents), efehobephilia (sexual interest in late adolescents), and paedophilia (sexual interest in pre-adolescents) are orientations and not a fault with the individual afflicted with these attractions.
of those 3 philias, acting on the resulting desires is illegal in all countries for 2 of the 3, and the 3rd one is illegal in many countries (depending on the local age of consent).

Very few people would consider it “normal” to have a sexual interest in pre-adolescent children. Most people would consider this desire to be “Sick”. (Paedophilia)
A similar number of people would think the same of interest in early adolescents (from onset of puberty to about mid teen years) (i.e. it is a perverted and sick desire). (Hebephilia)

Interest in Late adolescents (from mid teens to adulthood) as a sexual interest is widely accepted as common in men of many ages, but it is normally frowned upon to act on those desires. The age at which acting on those desires becomes illegal varies from country to country.

The topic is made worse by a popular media culture that promotes attraction to teenage people.

 

[Polycarp1]

I would suggest that we do not have enough information on why people are leaving and whether these are people that the Church should really wish to retain.

I agree. The media does like to inflame things and most likely it is not 50 people leaving but just a couple of vocal ones.

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

How is that offensive? These brave people are bearing a heavy cross that many are unwilling to try to even lift. The Catholic community should be helping them, not leaving them.

Agreed.

 

[Dale_M]

Fr. Cauchi was born in Canada, but grew up in Malta, where he attended seminary.

As part of a mandatory internship abroad, he returned to Canada and wound up staying. He was assigned to the Newman Centre in June 2012, after serving the Archdiocese of Toronto in a couple other functions dealing with youth.

Here is the perspective he had when the Newman Centre began the 2012-13 school year:

**Newman Centre’s new pastor not there to reinvent the wheel **

The challenges of [this] job will reflect the challenges of every Catholic, said Cauchi.

“How can we remain rooted in the tradition of the Church? How can we grow personally and communally in our relationship with Christ? How is Christ calling this community to leave behind what’s familiar and go to the unfamiliar territory that Christ may want us to be?

“These are some questions that every believer needs to focus on, that our community is focusing on. And I think the Holy Spirit will continue to guide this community and this process of change.”

catholicregister.org/news/toronto-gta/item/14956-newman-centre%E2%80%99s-new-pastor-not-there-to-reinvent-the-wheel

 

[rossum]

In the article Mr Graham (sp) seems to have issues with the approach used by Courage - but is unclear where he stands on the issue of homosexuals in the Church.

That was what it seemed like to me. Looking at their Twelve Steps, the second step is:

We came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity. (emphasis added)

– Source: The Twelve Steps of Courage

The Church describes homosexuality as “disordered”, it does not describe it as “insane”. I think that many people would be offended at being described as insane, especially when the Church itself does not do so. Love the sinner by calling them insane? Hardly likely to make you very popular in my estimation.

$0.02

rossum

 

[Suudy]

The Church describes homosexuality as “disordered”, it does not describe it as “insane”. I think that many people would be offended at being described as insane, especially when the Church itself does not do so. Love the sinner by calling them insane? Hardly likely to make you very popular in my estimation.

Dr Kreeft in one of his talks describes any sin as a form of insanity, for who in their right mind would refuse God? Perhaps this is the spirit in which it is meant.

Edit: Here is a link. The quote:
We are all insane. That is what original sin means. Sin is insanity. It is preferring finite joy to infinite joy, creatures to the Creator, an unhappy, Godless self to a happy, God-filled self Only God can save us from this disease. That is what the name “Jesus” means: ‘God saves’

 

[rossum]

Dr Kreeft in one of his talks describes any sin as a form of insanity, for who in their right mind would refuse God? Perhaps this is the spirit in which it is meant.

“You don’t have to be insane to worship here, but it helps.”

Then you agree that specifically singling out homosexuals as “insane” is unfair because everyone is insane?

rossum

 

[Suudy]

Then you agree that specifically singling out homosexuals as “insane” is unfair because everyone is insane?

I don’t see your quote as singling any specific group out, but rather a specific thought/inclination/tendency/etc. And that statement is within a specific context, so no, I don’t see it as unfair. That is just one of twelve items. It isn’t a statement meant to stand alone and outside of the context of chastity.

 

[rossum]

I don’t see your quote as singling any specific group out, but rather a specific thought/inclination/tendency/etc. And that statement is within a specific context, so no, I don’t see it as unfair. That is just one of twelve items. It isn’t a statement meant to stand alone and outside of the context of chastity.

If, according to Dr Kreeft, everyone is a sinner/insane, then it is not possible to be sane while still on this earth. Hence point 2 is impossible to follow and thus useless.

Either way point 2 is either offensive or useless/impossible.

rossum

 

[Suudy]

If, according to Dr Kreeft, everyone is a sinner/insane, then it is not possible to be sane while still on this earth. Hence point 2 is impossible to follow and thus useless.

No, I don’t think that is the case. Point 2 is specific to the sin of homosexuality. While everyone is indeed a sinner (and insane), not everyone sins in the same way. I think Point 2 is specific to homosexuality and the insanity associated with thinking/acting contrary to God’s will. It isn’t impossible to follow (there are plenty of chaste people who have same sex attraction, and there are people who claim to have rid themselves of homosexual thoughts/tendencies). Since it is possible to follow, it is not useless.

Either way point 2 is either offensive or useless/impossible

I still fail to see how it is offensive. Is it offensive to call anyone who habitually sins (in a similar way, such as those addicted to porn, gluttons, etc) a sufferer of at least some type of insanity?

 

[rossum]

I still fail to see how it is offensive.

Put up a sign outside your Parish Church: “Join our Church - We think you are insane.” See how many extra people you get on Sunday.

rossum

 

[Suudy]

Put up a sign outside your Parish Church: “Join our Church - We think you are insane.” See how many extra people you get on Sunday.

Then it is offensive only insofar that it isn’t clear, and like most things found offensive, is mostly in the mind of the offended. I would not suggest putting a sign that states non-members are insane, but only because it isn’t possible to make the point clear in a simple 2 or 3 sentence blurb.

And in the case of Courage, I don’t think it is intended to operate as a simple blurb. Rather, the 12 steps are part of a larger discussion that would define what is meant by such insanity. I don’t know the details of how they present and explain #2, but I seriously doubt it is meant in an offensive manner.

 

[rossum]

Then it is offensive only insofar that it isn’t clear, and like most things found offensive, is mostly in the mind of the offended. I would not suggest putting a sign that states non-members are insane, but only because it isn’t possible to make the point clear in a simple 2 or 3 sentence blurb.

Indeed you would not put up such a sign, because according to Dr Kreeft both members and non-members are insane.

It is reasonable that some people take offence at being described as insane.

rossum

 

[Suudy]

Indeed you would not put up such a sign, because according to Dr Kreeft both members and non-members are insane.

But these are two different situations. In the case of Courage, it is speaking only to a specific type of sin/insanity. Within that context it means something very different than a sign in front of a church speaking generally.

It is reasonable that some people take offence at being described as insane.

I would think only when that description is incomplete. I don’t think hearing someone say “We are all insane. That is what original sin means. Sin is insanity.” would offend anyone. Does it offend you?

 

[rossum]

But these are two different situations. In the case of Courage, it is speaking only to a specific type of sin/insanity. Within that context it means something very different than a sign in front of a church speaking generally.

Courage give the twelve points on their website without any further explanation of the term.

I don’t think hearing someone say “We are all insane. That is what original sin means. Sin is insanity.” would offend anyone. Does it offend you?

Yes. Sin is not a Buddhist concept, so using it to label me insane is offensive. How about, “You are insane because of mitizu.”

rossum