"Gay Day" Ruined Our Day at Cedar Point

[BillP]

Is that so, who are these anyone’s Bill? I think you will find it is just you and those who think like you.

Nope. But the difference is I’m not accusing you of “twisting and perverting” anything.

The Church is the infallible interpreter and I agree with her, while you it seems are a man who has a very bad habit of calling good evil and evil good.

I haven’t seen your particular interpretation supported by the Magisterium (or even the magisterium) before so I don’t see a conflict. As for the “bad habit” well, that’s not the worst thing that’s ever been said about me.

 

[ac_claire]

Good for you!

With the sole exception of taking issue with one poster’s characterization of French Kissing, I haven’t made any assumptions or judgements about anybody. I’ve simply asked questions.

Not true. The posts speak for themselves, Bill.

You’ve said quite a bit in this thread about other people being judemental. You’ve characterized, based on your own opinions, that other people have hatred in their hearts multiple times…Just from a quick re-scan of the thread, I found: inflammatory, hateful, dehumanizing, vitriol that “takes your breath away”, more comments about perceived “hatefulness”…and then this very compassionate and charitable comment: “you were deliberately using inflammatory language to dehumanize them, God help the example you set for your kids”. And that’s only up to page 3, I don’t have time to stalk your posts any further than that.

Then in another unrelated thread recently you began to accuse other people of willfully misconstruing Church teaching and having of having an “agenda” when they disagreed with you. Seems you either have some kind of supernatural insight into other people’s hearts and intentions, or you’re a pretty consisentently judgemental person. And I’m calling you judgemental based on your actions on CAF. Is that, in itself, judgemental? Maybe so. That’s why I think the “you’re judging!” accusation has become pretty much meaningless.

 

[pnewton]

Out of idle curiosity what do you all think:

Means?

I already commented on this once. It is a condemnation of hypocrisy. Also, as I pointed out it uses hyperbole. To think it means we are never to exercise any judgement in any thing is to miss the point, and the grammar. I think it has rightfully been pointed out some valid comparisons of sin that we might be tolerant of, like adultery, as opposed to homosexuality. Surely one who is engaged in serious sins of the flesh should first deal with his own sin. Then he can see clearly to remove the speck from someone else’s eye.

We need to remember that Jesus was not preaching in San Francisco, but in Palestine of the Roman occupation. Hypocricy is one of the greatest sins of the time.

 

[pnewton]

Contrast this with times when churches did actually run the show (as I mentioned 500 years ago). The consequences of unpopular opinion were significantly more severe.

The casual value of life 500 years ago was reflected in all areas. Yes, people were also killed for their moral convictions. If you use history, then use all of history.

 

[BillP]

I already commented on this once. It is a condemnation of hypocrisy.

Then how do we explain Jesus admonition to the scribes and pharisees in the case of the women taken in adultery? Is it your position that the sins of each and every one of those accusing her were worse than hers? If one of them had not been worse than an adulterer the woman would have been toast?

I think you’re “half right” in saying that the passage is a warning about hypocrisy, but its also a reminder that each and every one of us is sinful which makes any attempt to judge another hypocrisy.

Otherwise, every single time one chooses to judge someone, one is saying “I can judge you because your sin is worse than mine.”

Remember Jesus said “which of you is without sin” not “which of you has a lessor degree of sin”

Again, to my mind, this is why Jesus specifically charges the disciples NOT the laity! with admonishing “their brothers” and “loosing and binding”.

 

[ContegoFides]

Bill,

Did you not see my post quoting scripture? Scripture, multiple times and in both the old and new testaments, precisely and explicitly addresses the issue of homosexual activity. Any scriptures used in counter argument are broader and more vague regarding the issue of homosexual activity, and generally speaking the specific overrides the general.

Also, the Church rests on the twin pillars of scripture and Tradition. As I’m sure you well know, the Catechism defines homosexual actions as gravely disordered and never allowable. CCC 2357. Regardless of the mercy of God and the ability of sinners to repent, or the unknowability of the state of a particular person’s soul, no matter how you cut it the actions are objectively gravely disordered.

Scripture and the Church are in total agreement (which they always will be). Homosexual activity is contrary to God’s law, and engaging in it has the possibility of leading to eternal Hell.

Nothing is worth that risk. Nothing. Why try to justify it, qualify it, or work around it, or tolerate it in others?

I will always love those people who struggle with same sex attraction, but the Truth is that, in love, they should be warned that it is objectively contrary to God’s law. The other side of the coin is that true peace may only be found in Christ.

 

[BillP]

Bill,

Did you not see my post quoting scripture? Scripture, multiple times and in both the old and new testaments, precisely and explicitly addresses the issue of homosexual activity. Any scriptures used in counter argument are broader and more vague regarding the issue of homosexual activity, and generally speaking the specific overrides the general.

I saw it but basically ignored it as I"m not defending homosexual conduct. You’re got the wrong dude. We’re discussing who has authority to correct the behavior or admonish the sinners.

 

[ContegoFides]

I saw it but basically ignored it as I"m not defending homosexual conduct. You’re got the wrong dude. We’re discussing who has authority to correct the behavior or admonish the sinners.

That seems pretty clear as well. If something is known, without any dispute in this case, to be objectively wrong or evil, then anyone can call it what it is - and also to admonish those who commit the wrong.

Unjustified murder is evil, right? If you had the power, and weren’t in danger yourself, would you not admonish someone about to commit unjustified murder? If someone had committed murder, would you not condemn the murder as being evil and beg that the sinner who committed murder repent? I would certainly hope so.

Would you stay yourself from stating that Hitler committed grave evil for fear of being judgmental? No, we can all say he committed grave evil. We may not say that he is in Hell, for no one but God may judge his soul, but we can say that what he did was objectively wrong - and that we should not tolerate his behavior in others.

Homosexual activity is also evil, perhaps not as much as murder and certainly not as evil as Hitler’s actions, but the principle aplies. Where something is objectively wrong, we all have a duty to stand up and say so, and NOT to tolerate it in others.

All it takes for evil to flourish is for good people to stand by and do nothing. Homosexual actions are objectively evil as they are contrary to God; therefore, we should not stand by and do nothing while homosexual activity becomes accepted as “normal.”

Also, take this bit of scripture on for size: 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15

If anyone does not obey our word as expressed in this letter, take note of this person not to associate with him, that he may be put to shame.
15
Do not regard him as an enemy but admonish him as a brother.

Obviously, the laity are called upon to admonish each other. That means you and me.

I’ll highlight additional scripture, this time from Jesus Himself:

If thy brother shall offend against thee, go and reprove him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother,” (Matt 17:16).

The same concept appears many times in scripture. I can find more, if you want.

It’s pretty clear that we are all called to evaluate objective actions, and admonish one another accordingly, in love and Christian charity.

 

[BillP]

That seems pretty clear as well. If something is known, without any dispute in this case, to be objectively wrong or evil, then anyone can call it what it is - and also to admonish those who commit the wrong.

Unjustified murder is evil, right? If you had the power, and weren’t in danger yourself, would you not admonish someone about to commit unjustified murder? If someone had committed murder, would you not condemn the murder as being evil and beg that the sinner who committed murder repent? I would certainly hope so.

Would you stay yourself from stating that Hitler committed grave evil for fear of being judgmental? No, we can all say he committed grave evil. We may not say that he is in Hell, for no one but God may judge his soul, but we can say that what he did was objectively wrong - and that we should not tolerate his behavior in others.

Homosexual activity is also evil, perhaps not as much as murder and certainly not as evil as Hitler’s actions, but the principle aplies. Where something is objectively wrong, we all have a duty to stand up and say so, and NOT to tolerate it in others.

All it takes for evil to flourish is for good people to stand by and do nothing. Homosexual actions are objectively evil as they are contrary to God; therefore, we should not stand by and do nothing while homosexual activity becomes accepted as “normal.”

Also, take this bit of scripture on for size: 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15

Obviously, the laity are called upon to admonish each other. That means you and me.

I’ll highlight additional scripture, this time from Jesus Himself:

The same concept appears many times in scripture. I can find more, if you want.

It’s pretty clear that we are all called to evaluate objective actions, and admonish one another accordingly, in love and Christian charity.

See post 176 for why this doesn’t apply here. In a nutshell, Jesus was speaking to the clergy (in the form of the apostles) not the laity, unless its your position that each of us is able to “bind and loose”, i.e. validly administer the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Similarly, the epistles that you cite were addressed tho the clergy leading local Churches, not to the laity.

 

[ContegoFides]

See post 176 for why this doesn’t apply here. In a nutshell, Jesus was speaking to the clergy (in the form of the apostles) not the laity, unless its your position that each of us is able to “bind and loose”, i.e. validly administer the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Similarly, the epistles that you cite were addressed tho the clergy leading local Churches, not to the laity.

So, then, your position is that we should not judge Hitler’s actions to be evil, because we should not judge. Likewise, we should allow a political envirement that will produce a second holocaust to happen, because we cannot judge and we cannot declare actions founded on Nazism to be evil and stand against those who promulgate Nazism?

Clearly, that’s not right, so clearly we can admonish when we see objective evil in action.

Also, 2 Thessalonians was clearly written to the entire church in Thessalonica. Paul addresses his “brothers.” That was everyone.

You are also objectively incorrect about the reference to Matthew 18. The context clearly shows that Jesus applied his teaching to everyone to bring it to the apostles.

11 "If your brother 12 sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16
13 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. 14 If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

If he refused to listen, then tell the Church. The church leadership was the apostles, so clearly this teaching was meant to apply to everyone.

Furthermore, the entire context of Matthew 18 shows that Jesus switches back and forth between addressing the apostles and addressing everyone. The fact that the next few versus are addressed to the apostles themselves does not change the fact that the previous versus applied to everyone so that they could bring it to the apostles.

Also, the apostles were always united after the descent of the Holy Spirit, so obviously the only real disputes that would arise would be from everyone else.

Still further, you are very confused about reconciliation, bind and loose, and admonishment. Admonishment is simply to tell somone that what they are doing or saying is objectively wrong and to exhort them to repentance. Reconciliation is the actual forgiveness of sins. Bind and loose is the power to declare absolutely on matters of faith and morals. Clearly, only the magesterium and the Holy Father can do the latter; only a priest can do the second, but the first anyone can do. The proof is shown in the counter-example of tolerating Nazism for the same of remaining non-judgemental.

Still further, “admonishing the sinner” is one of the spiritual works of mercy.

Are only priests allowed to perform the spiritual works of mercy? Obviously no, everyone can engage in the spiritual works of mercy. (They are, by the way:
To admonish the sinner (correct those who need correction)
To instruct the ignorant (teach the ignorant)
To counsel the doubtful (give advice to those who need it)
To comfort the sorrowful (give comfort to those who suffer)
To bear wrongs patiently (be patient with others)
To forgive all injuries (to forgive others who hurt you.)
To pray for the living and the dead (to pray for everyone who needs our prayers) )

 

[Loboto-Me]

From the CCC

[2284](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2284.htm’)** Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense. **
2285** Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."86 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.87 2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.**

The above is what the Gay Movement is doing. Not only by the Gay Movement but by those who are trying to advance its movement into the mainstream. They are trying to normalize a disordered sin.

The duties of citizens [2238](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2238.htm’) Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:43 "Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44 Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.

It seems to me in this thread, some people would criticize those who are exercising their duty to criticize things which seems harmful to the dignity of their children (scandalous behaviours).

[1865](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1865.htm’)** Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root.**

I believe this is what the Gay Movement is trying to do. If the new generation sees same sex couples as a normal occurence, that sin will cloud their conscience and these kids will think that a disordered relationship is fine.

1868** Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them: **
**- by participating directly and voluntarily in them; **
**- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them; **
**- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so; **
- by protecting evil-doers. 1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. “Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a "social sin."144

And finally, this last paragraph calls us to not to cooperate in another’s sins…

 

[gmarie21]

See post 176 for why this doesn’t apply here. In a nutshell, Jesus was speaking to the clergy (in the form of the apostles) not the laity, unless its your position that each of us is able to “bind and loose”, i.e. validly administer the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Similarly, the epistles that you cite were addressed tho the clergy leading local Churches, not to the laity.

And if a parents sees their own child sinning, they are not to correct that behavior because they are “judging”. I know that in modern America it is quite difficult for many to separate a condemnation of one’s actions from one’s dignity (both on the giving and receiving end) but there are many of us who do just that, address the action of the person, not their dignity and, when we’re corrected for our sinful actions see it as that, someone correcting our actions, not saying “you’re dignity is no good.”

 

[desertPavel]

We live in a diverse society, with people of many different lifestyles and values. And none of us is perfect.

The rules of society give equal rights to straights, gays, Catholics, Protestants, blacks and whites. The toleration of differences is essential to a peaceful civil society. The Catholic church does not make the laws for all citizens. Everyone is entitled to the same rights, even gay folks.

Gay people have just as much right to public accommodations as anyone else. If we don’t like gays at Cedar Point, then we would be wise go somewhere else.

I’m not judging your post nor you but you use the word “gay” 3 times in your post. “Gay” means happy and there is nothing happy about sin, especially the “gay” lifestyle. I can tell you from personal experience. I am a repentant homosexual and have been celibate for more than 10 years.

As I said in a previous post, the use of the word “gay” to describe homosexuals is just Newspeak like calling pro-abortionists “pro-choice”.

 

[ac_claire]

Bill,

Did you not see my post quoting scripture? Scripture, multiple times and in both the old and new testaments, precisely and explicitly addresses the issue of homosexual activity. Any scriptures used in counter argument are broader and more vague regarding the issue of homosexual activity, and generally speaking the specific overrides the general.

Also, the Church rests on the twin pillars of scripture and Tradition. As I’m sure you well know, the Catechism defines homosexual actions as gravely disordered and never allowable. CCC 2357. Regardless of the mercy of God and the ability of sinners to repent, or the unknowability of the state of a particular person’s soul, no matter how you cut it the actions are objectively gravely disordered.

Scripture and the Church are in total agreement (which they always will be). Homosexual activity is contrary to God’s law, and engaging in it has the possibility of leading to eternal Hell.

Nothing is worth that risk. Nothing. Why try to justify it, qualify it, or work around it, or tolerate it in others?

I will always love those people who struggle with same sex attraction, but the Truth is that, in love, they should be warned that it is objectively contrary to God’s law. The other side of the coin is that true peace may only be found in Christ.

That seems pretty clear as well. If something is known, without any dispute in this case, to be objectively wrong or evil, then anyone can call it what it is - and also to admonish those who commit the wrong.

Good posts. Very well said.

 

[sharmin]

We should get the Church to build a Catholic theme park with Catholic rides. That would be awesome, I’d go for sure. I don’t have a girlfriend or a family, but if I did…I’d go. They could make it so only Catholics could go, but not gay Catholics who aren’t chaste.

That’d be cool. But what about heteros who live together before marriage? Can we say they can’t go too? Or how about women who have had abortions? Let’s exclude them. And maybe we can keep out those who take the Lord’s name…that’s one of my most detested sins as it shows such blatent disrespect for our God. But then, if we kept out those who sin publicly, who would we let in?

 

[dfp42]

That’d be cool. But what about heteros who live together before marriage? Can we say they can’t go too? Or how about women who have had abortions? Let’s exclude them. And maybe we can keep out those who take the Lord’s name…that’s one of my most detested sins as it shows such blatent disrespect for our God. But then, if we kept out those who sin publicly, who would we let in?

Can you ask God the same thing about those entering heaven? We are not living in heaven now.

 

[Consecrated]

Just wanted to note that I was reminded this morning by Fr. Corapi on the radio that the first Spiritual Work of Mercy is to “Admonish the sinner”. Obviously, this must be done with compassion and charity, but it definitely means that pointing out sinful actions is the right thing to do. The “when” and “how” needs discernment through prayers, but the calling (for ALL: laity and ordained) remains.

 

[pnewton]

Then how do we explain Jesus admonition to the scribes and pharisees in the case of the women taken in adultery? Is it your position that the sins of each and every one of those accusing her were worse than hers? If one of them had not been worse than an adulterer the woman would have been toast?

Perhaps. I Jesus knelt and wrote on the ground. What did he write? The Pharisees had one set of laws for men and another for women. Their traditions completely perveted the law of God.

Again, to my mind, this is why Jesus specifically charges the disciples NOT the laity! with admonishing “their brothers” and “loosing and binding”.

Admonishing the sinner is not the same thing and has nothing to do with binding and loosing. The first is the job of all Catholics, according to the Catechism. The latter is a Sacrament only for the priesthood.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

We live in a diverse society, with people of many different lifestyles and values. And none of us is perfect.

The rules of society give equal rights to straights, gays, Catholics, Protestants, blacks and whites. The toleration of differences is essential to a peaceful civil society. The Catholic church does not make the laws for all citizens. Everyone is entitled to the same rights, even gay folks.

Gay people have just as much right to public accommodations as anyone else. If we don’t like gays at Cedar Point, then we would be wise go somewhere else.

The forest is missing, but the trees are in plain sight.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I was reading an article about the Disney World Gay thing, and found out that Disney doesn’t do anything to promote it and it’s not an “official” Disney thing. It’s just something that the gay activists do, renting tons of park space and doing all their things. But, Disney DOES offer refunds to families that don’t wish to expose their kids to it, which I think is awesome. I would imagine if you got your tickets directly from Disney, they’d warn you of those dates as well…but as most people use 3rd party vendors, you probably never know til you get there.

I remember my first exposure to “Gay Days” at Disneyland. It was October 2001 and I had just purchased my first Disneyland Annual Pass. I saw all these dudes wearing red shirts and my “gaydar” was pinging like the Galactica’s DRADIS display during a major battle with the Cylons. There were some show-off jerks, but for the most part, they kept to themselves.