Gay celibacy group prompts University of Toronto parishioners to leave

[Suudy]

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

Hmm…then I do think you have a point. I don’t think it wise to throw out the word “insane” without some context.

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

I’m not offended. I don’t know what mitizu is. If I don’t know what something is, and it is being used to describe me, it doesn’t make much sense to get offended without understanding.

Is this something real? Or just an example?

But, in general, no, I wouldn’t be offended by anyone calling me insane. I don’t find it offensive. They may think I am insane, but so what? My skin is thick enough. And the only way I might find it offensive is if it was meant to be offensive.

 

[rossum]

Is this something real? Or just an example?

A made up word. (Alternate vowels and consonants to get something pronounceable.)

But, in general, no, I wouldn’t be offended by anyone calling me insane.

Then we differ. And it appears that some of those parishioners in Toronto might agree with me.

rossum

 

[Phemie]

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.

Compare the Twelve Steps of Courage and the Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous.

#2 is identical.

Funny, I’ve never heard anyone scream blue murder that AA tells alcoholics that they are insane.

 

[Suudy]

Compare the Twelve Steps of Courage and the Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous.

#2 is identical.

Funny, I’ve never heard anyone scream blue murder that AA tells alcoholics that they are insane.

This is a good point. Dr Kreeft points out in his talk on homosexuality:
But what I don’t understand is why you’re the only sinners (excuse the insult, I know you don’t accept the label), but you’re the only sinners who identify yourselves with your sin. Alcoholics don’t say “I am an alcoholic” (except when they are at AA meetings where they are repenting of it). Cowards, like myself, do not say “I am a coward”. I am a human being who has cowardly habits, alas.

Somehow, alcoholics are expected to separate their worth from their thoughts and actions, but people with same sex attraction are not?

 

[Phemie]

This is a good point. Dr Kreeft points out in his talk on homosexuality:But what I don’t understand is why you’re the only sinners (excuse the insult, I know you don’t accept the label), but you’re the only sinners who identify yourselves with your sin. Alcoholics don’t say “I am an alcoholic” (except when they are at AA meetings where they are repenting of it). Cowards, like myself, do not say “I am a coward”. I am a human being who has cowardly habits, alas.Somehow, alcoholics are expected to separate their worth from their thoughts and actions, but people with same sex attraction are not?

I’m trying to understand your question but I afraid I don’t follow. Who says they’re not? Is that something society imposes or is it rather something they do to themselves?

I think the doctor’s point is that many of them go out of their way to announce their orientation to anyone who will listen. They don’t consider their behaviour a sin so, why not? I may be wrong, but I don’t think those are the people seeking out Courage.

 

[Suudy]

I’m trying to understand your question but I afraid I don’t follow. Who says they’re not? Is that something society imposes or is it rather something they do to themselves?

rossum pointed out that may people with same sex attraction may find it offensive to hear their inclinations are considered some form of insanity. My point is that they find it offensive because, as Dr Kreeft points out, homosexuals “are the only sinners who identify [themselves] with [their] sin.”

You are correct. Those seeking out Courage would likely not find it offensive. But I think rossum’s point (and I hope he’ll correct me if I’m mistaken) is that those who are not actively seeking Courage may find their presentation of same sex attraction as “insane” as offensive. And going back to the OP, it seems that Mr Graham is indeed part of that group. I was trying to tie in your point about alcoholism being considered an form of insanity, and how there is the same idea with same sex attraction. And you pointed out that nobody thinks it outrageous that AA calls alcoholics insane.

Finally, to my point. The reason nobody finds what AA says offensive is because they are capable of separating their self worth from their actions. They realize they are defined by who they are, not what they are or what they do. But in the homosexual community, it seems their self worth is tied up in their acts. To challenge what they are or what they do is seen as an attack on who they are. The reason the homosexual community finds labeling same sex attraction as insanity offensive is that they are unable to separate this criticism of their actions from themselves.

I think the doctor’s point is that many of them go out of their way to announce their orientation to anyone who will listen. They don’t consider their behaviour a sin so, why not? I may be wrong, but I don’t think those are the people seeking out Courage.

I didn’t mean to portray Dr Kreeft’s point as a statement about Courage. Indeed, the quote directly addressed unapologetic, active homosexuals, so it necessarily excludes those seeking Courage or a part of Courage.

 

[rossum]

You are correct. Those seeking out Courage would likely not find it offensive. But I think rossum’s point (and I hope he’ll correct me if I’m mistaken) is that those who are not actively seeking Courage may find their presentation of same sex attraction as “insane” as offensive.

You are correct, that is indeed my point.

What would heterosexuals think of someone who described all heterosexuals as “insane” because they were heterosexuals?

rossum

 

[Phemie]

You are correct, that is indeed my point.

What would heterosexuals think of someone who described all heterosexuals as “insane” because they were heterosexuals?

rossum

But those who are heterosexual sex addicts have the same Twelve Steps, they just change homosexuality for sex addiction. It describes those who have no control over their urges. The first step describes those who have allowed their life to be out of control as they understand it. It is the lack of control over the same-sex attraction (or alcohol, or food, or sex) that is the insanity. If you can control your urges your life is not insane.

 

[rossum]

But those who are heterosexual sex addicts have the same Twelve Steps, they just change homosexuality for sex addiction. It describes those who have no control over their urges. The first step describes those who have allowed their life to be out of control as they understand it. It is the lack of control over the same-sex attraction (or alcohol, or food, or sex) that is the insanity. If you can control your urges your life is not insane.

And if I said that all heterosexuals were sex addicts who lacked control over their sex lives?

Some homosexuals are sex addicts. Some heterosexuals are sex addicts. It is the addiction that is the problem, not the orientation.

Homosexuals are a minority, but they are not unnatural. Like left handers, who also used to be demonised (literally), they are a naturally occurring minority.

rossum

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Blythe ignorance of theology makes my eyes hurt; my eyes feel like they are going to start bleeding.

 

[Suudy]

What would heterosexuals think of someone who described all heterosexuals as “insane” because they were heterosexuals?

No, because I don’t identify who I am with what I do. But let me clarify. I was a bit tired last night, and I found all my posts (on all threads) were a bit off.

I’m recalling from memory what Dr Kreeft talked about here. Essentially, the issue here is that the homosexual community identifies with what they do, not what they are. Sex used to be what you **are **(male/female), now it is what you do. And whether it is a physical, homosexual act or a inclination/attraction to people of the same sex, these are deeds, not traits. So I think it wrong to call people with same sex attraction “homosexuals” and wrong to call people with opposite sex attraction “heterosexuals” But I understand that their usage is a label to classify a group of people. But that is the key point. They are people.

So, were people with same sex attraction to label me “insane” because of my opposite sex attraction, I would think such a statement inane, wrongheaded, or even stupid, but I don’t think I’d find it offensive. Simple because I don’t derive any of my personal value from my sexual orientation. I am a male, Caucasian person. I’m not a heterosexual.

Dr Kreeft does a much better job explaining this point in his talk, especially around the part I quoted earlier.

 

[Suudy]

Homosexuals are a minority, but they are not unnatural. Like left handers, who also used to be demonised (literally), they are a naturally occurring minority.

Natural, only in the sense that it occurs in nature. Not natural in that it serves the natural end of sex.

This is important, because your example of left handed people, does not have a teleological component. Writing with one’s left hand doesn’t operate contrary to any natural end. Homosexual acts do operate contrary to the natural end of sex.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

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.

Well it definitely depends on things about this “Openly Homosexual” person, if they are chaste there isn’t actually anything wrong with it.

“*dentifying as Gay” per se isn’t sinful assuming this “gay identity” is merely acknowledging an attraction to the opposite sex.

Actually sexual attraction to children, animals and inanimate objects is fairly rare.

Those three sets of attractions are directed towards something mutable, indeed it effectively always mutates as puberty is inherently transitive.

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’
To say that everyone is insane, but only single out a specific group tends to displease/frustrate/anger the members of that group if it is negative, the is why that guy became angry. Additionally Kreeft’s definition of insanity can not fit in the usage copied from AA. Besides being attracted to the same sex does not one is acting on it so it doesn’t make sense because of that.

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.

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?

There is no “sin of homosexuality”, an attraction is incapable of being a sin, the sin would be where would acts by willfully entertaining that thought.

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.

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?**

No because it makes the person look like a fool because insanity is a phrase relative to normal and if everyone does it then it is sane, sanity can be insanity, one can not equal zero.*

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

And if I said that all heterosexuals were sex addicts who lacked control over their sex lives?

Some homosexuals are sex addicts. Some heterosexuals are sex addicts. It is the addiction that is the problem, not the orientation.

Homosexuals are a minority, but they are not unnatural. Like left handers, who also used to be demonised (literally), they are a naturally occurring minority.

rossum

There is just something rather sinister* about left-handedness

*2 attrib. ] archaic & Heraldry of, on, or toward the left-hand side (in a coat of arms, from the bearer’s point of view, i.e., the right as it is depicted). The opposite of dexter .

No, because I don’t identify who I am with what I do. But let me clarify. I was a bit tired last night, and I found all my posts (on all threads) were a bit off.

I’m recalling from memory what Dr Kreeft talked about here. Essentially, the issue here is that the homosexual community identifies with what they do, not what they are. Sex used to be what you **are **(male/female), now it is what you do. And whether it is a physical, homosexual act or a inclination/attraction to people of the same sex, these are deeds, not traits. So I think it wrong to call people with same sex attraction “homosexuals” and wrong to call people with opposite sex attraction “heterosexuals” But I understand that their usage is a label to classify a group of people. But that is the key point. They are people.

So, were people with same sex attraction to label me “insane” because of my opposite sex attraction, I would think such a statement inane, wrongheaded, or even stupid, but I don’t think I’d find it offensive. Simple because I don’t derive any of my personal value from my sexual orientation. I am a male, Caucasian person. I’m not a heterosexual.

Dr Kreeft does a much better job explaining this point in his talk, especially around the part I quoted earlier.

an attraction can not be a deed; concupiscence is not a sin.

 

[Suudy]

an attraction can not be a deed; concupiscence is not a sin.

Right. I should have been more clear.

I’m not talking about concupiscence, but rather lust. All sins are acts, and lust–being a sin–is an act.

 

[Suudy]

To say that everyone is insane, but only single out a specific group tends to displease/frustrate/anger the members of that group if it is negative, the is why that guy became angry. Additionally Kreeft’s definition of insanity can not fit in the usage copied from AA. Besides being attracted to the same sex does not one is acting on it so it doesn’t make sense because of that.

At the time of the posting, it was a speculation. I agree that it likely that Courage didn’t mean it in the same sense as Dr Kreeft. But it spun into a tangential discussion thread unrelated to the OP.

There is no “sin of homosexuality”, an attraction is incapable of being a sin, the sin would be where would acts by willfully entertaining that thought.

I misspoke. I didn’t mean homosexuality in the sense of same sex attraction, but rather in the sense of homosexual acts or, as you say, “willfully entertaining that thought” (i.e. lust). That is what I meant.

No because it makes the person look like a fool because insanity is a phrase relative to normal and if everyone does it then it is sane, sanity can be insanity, one can not equal zero.

I agree that insanity is relative to normal, but I disagree that what is normal is that “everyone does it”. Rather, what is “normal” is the standard dictated by natural law. Normal is what is natural (in the philosophical sense), not what is common.

 

[rossum]

Natural, only in the sense that it occurs in nature. Not natural in that it serves the natural end of sex.

One of the natural ends of sex is pleasure. That end is served. Something can have more than one end.

This is important, because your example of left handed people, does not have a teleological component. Writing with one’s left hand doesn’t operate contrary to any natural end. Homosexual acts do operate contrary to the natural end of sex.

Left handers used to be persecuted on religious grounds because, it was alleged, the Devil was left handed (look at some old pictures).

Sex has more than one end. Pleasure is just as much an end as procreation. Indeed there are far more in the pleasure-only category than there are in the procreation category. Looking at the numbers, pleasure wins out over procreation. A couple with two children can only count two as “procreation”, and all the rest must count as “pleasure”.

rossum

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Right. I should have been more clear.

I’m not talking about concupiscence, but rather lust. All sins are acts, and lust–being a sin–is an act.

lust is not an attraction, lust is acting on the attraction

At the time of the posting, it was a speculation. I agree that it likely that Courage didn’t mean it in the same sense as Dr Kreeft. But it spun into a tangential discussion thread unrelated to the OP.

I misspoke. I didn’t mean homosexuality in the sense of same sex attraction, but rather in the sense of homosexual acts or, as you say, “willfully entertaining that thought” (i.e. lust). That is what I meant.

I agree that insanity is relative to normal, but I disagree that what is normal is that “everyone does it”. Rather, what is “normal” is the standard dictated by natural law. Normal is what is natural (in the philosophical sense), not what is common.

Since so much of what you said is you misspeaking, please state what you were intending to say.

The definition of sanity has it pegs to what is the norm, not what is right.

 

[Suudy]

One of the natural ends of sex is pleasure. That end is served. Something can have more than one end.

Sure, there can be multiple ends. But to frustrate any end is wrong. This is why in Catholic teaching sex that is not genitive in nature is wrong, just as sex that is not unitive in nature is wrong. Both have to be present to be legitimate.

Left handers used to be persecuted on religious grounds because, it was alleged, the Devil was left handed (look at some old pictures).

I don’t doubt they were persecuted. And in those cases it was done so for the wrong reasons. Indeed, I can’t think of any natural law reason to oppose left handed use.

Sex has more than one end. Pleasure is just as much an end as procreation. Indeed there are far more in the pleasure-only category than there are in the procreation category. Looking at the numbers, pleasure wins out over procreation. A couple with two children can only count two as “procreation”, and all the rest must count as “pleasure”.

No. The de facto end is not the same as the intended end. An act that intends to be both unitive and genitive satisfies the natural end of sex, in that it works toward that end. Because the end isn’t achieved doesn’t discount the means.

 

[Suudy]

lust is not an attraction, lust is acting on the attraction

I know. Which is why I said I misspoke. My posts were directed toward lust (which is not an overt act), but an act nonetheless. I should have been more clear.

Since so much of what you said is you misspeaking, please state what you were intending to say.[q/uote]
I’m sure my response will be long-winded. When I get a chunk of time more than the 5 minutes I have right now, I’ll be more clear. But I will qualify it by saying that the discussion of insanity was a tangential discussion from the OP. It was very exploratory, and hastily composed. Let me spend a bit of time gathering my thoughts and I’ll repost.
Dakota Roberts;10279694:

The definition of sanity has it pegs to what is the norm, not what is right.

I don’t understand your point here. That’s exactly what I said. Sanity is relative to normal. Now what do we mean by normal? I don’t think what is “normal” is defined by what is common.