Gay engagement party

[PatriceA]

.

Some of you are throwing out blanket assertions using scripture and the catechism for justification.

But you asked for the scripture and the teachings in the Catechism. How can the teachings that have been quoted in this thread be “blanket assertions”? Its the teachings of our faith. YOU may not be agree with the teachings, but they are not just assertions anybody in this thread has used to justify their own opinions on this subject. If anything you have become fixated on just one sentence, that a Catholic “must or must not attend”, forsaking any other part of what has been quoted. You yourself have used one sentence to justify your choice in the matter.

 

[Corki]

Some of you are throwing out blanket assertions using scripture and the catechism for justification. The moral dilemma some of you may face is as follows:

In a Catholic forum, what else would you propose we use to support Catholic teaching other than the Catechism and Scripture?

Intentionally misprepresentiing Catholic Church teaching is a grave sin against Truth, morally unacceptable in itself, and also leading others astray of the truth…scandal.

Who here has misrepresented Church teaching?

Judging a particualr action outside the context of truth is to judge before you “arrive”, to pre- judge. We commonly call this prejudice. Prejudice can be an assault on the dignity of the human person.

This is not Church teaching. There are many actions that are objectively wrong and it is appropriate to judge them as wrong. Prejudice as an assault on human dignity does not apply to actions. Once an action has occurred, it can be judged as good, bad or neutral. We cannot, of course, judge the intent of the person unless they share their intent with us nor can we ever judge the ultimate disposition of their soul but we certainly can judge their actions.

Making unfounded blanket assertions judging anothers behavior implies an ignorance of one’s own human fallibility, we call that hypocrisy.

That is not what hypocrisy is, either. Hypocrisy occurs when ones beliefs and ones actions are incongruent.

If your prejudice and hypocrisy prevent you from being charitable to and present for people when it is proper, you may be sowing the seeds of bitterness, resentment and hatred, a grave sin against Charity.

Once again, no one on this thread has suggested that the OP be uncharitable to his homosexual friend, that he cease to be there for him, or that he cut him out of his life.

What really **would be **hypocricy would be to go and “celebrate” something that you know is wrong. The actions would not match the beliefs.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Dakota

Whether sodomy being wrong is in the Old Testament or even New Testament is fairly irrelevant as the prohibition against inherently sterile acts is rooted in natural law. That said Paul ranted against homosexual acts specifying both the person “on top” (sodomite) and “on bottom” (catamite).

This, of course, is just what the Protestants want to hear from a so-called Catholic, that the Bible is fairly irrelevant to what we believe.

The Bible affirming natural law is unnecessary. The Bible should be respected as the New Testament is completely truth and the Old Testament contains many points of truth and points of faith, however unlike certain Protestant groups we as Catholics do not worship the Bible.

heaintheavy

**From what I understand, Jesus is not recorded as saying anything specific in the bible about homosexuality at all.
Can you give us the direct quotes? **

Well, obviously he doesn’t use the word “homosexuality” because that is a 20th century word. But at the heart of homosexuality is sex between men, and that is designated by the ancient term “sodomy” (oral or anal). Paul used the term as we use it today. Jesus would certainly have known the same use of it in reference to Sodom and Gomorrah.

“Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words–go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. I tell you the truth, the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah will be better off than such a town on the judgment day.” Matthew 10:14

Jesus is looking for a horrible sin which is less horrible, but nearly as horrible, as the sin of refusing to hear the gospel. He found it in a comparison with the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, well known to be the sin of sodomy.

Paul advances the sin of sodomy as a great sin as well. Do you think Paul was not in tune with the teachings of Christ? Do you think he would even think of contradicting the teachings of Christ?

You do realize the term sodomy is from the Middle Ages right?

Paul bashed both people engaging in homosexual acts.

So…that is all Jesus said? Those two vague sentences? There must be more, non?
And what about women together? That is not sodomy…so…?

All sexual acts between them are inherently sterile therefore sodomia perfecta. This is why I keep bringing up natural law.

… Which actually serves more to diminish the point you are trying to make than support it. Because either way - sex or no sex , the question then becomes : How can homosexuals or lesbians consummate their -]marriage/-] ? … They can’t ; sex or no sex.

It takes a man and a woman to administer the sacrament of holy matrimony to each other … and the marriage has to be consummated.

Can. 1061 §1

*A valid marriage between baptised persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh. *
So the union that two homosexuals or two lesbians enter into isn’t marriage and never will be marriage. So what is the *real *reason they are so adamant about calling it marriage - (as if we didn’t know)

They want the social recognition tied with marriage, but considering how much the institution of marriage has been so deeply sodomized by those perfidious heterosexuals this was inevitable. Between contraception and abortion marriage has been divorced from procreation and with no fault divorces until death do us part means little. Those terrible iniquitous and perfidious heterosexuals should have seen the fact that homosexuals would eventually want the recognition of an institution that doesn’t require commitment or procreation.

So to summarize, the Church teaches that homosexuality is a sin.
Cooperating in and promoting homosexuality is a sin.
The Church proposes no position specifically on the question of attending celebrations of the kind in question. It could be, it could not be. It is not the same as abortion for ex…, which is an instrinsically evil action in every circumstance and always.
Ex…participation in the heterosexual sex act is not an instrinsically evil act, but it can be an occasion for evil.

Some of you are throwing out blanket assertions using scripture and the catechism for justification. The moral dilemma some of you may face is as follows:

Intentionally misprepresentiing Catholic Church teaching is a grave sin against Truth, morally unacceptable in itself, and also leading others astray of the truth…scandal.

Judging a particualr action outside the context of truth is to judge before you “arrive”, to pre- judge. We commonly call this prejudice. Prejudice can be an assault on the dignity of the human person.

Making unfounded blanket assertions judging anothers behavior implies an ignorance of one’s own human fallibility, we call that hypocrisy.

If your prejudice and hypocrisy prevent you from being charitable to and present for people when it is proper, you may be sowing the seeds of bitterness, resentment and hatred, a grave sin against Charity.

Have a great day.

Homosexuality is not a sin, homosexual acts are sin
Cooperating in and promoting homosexual acts is a sin
The reason the Church doesn’t say things on everything is because the answer in cases like these should be readily knowable to those with a properly formed conscience. To go to this gives rise to scandal that it may teach others that homosexual “marriages” are fine. Furthermore In this instance one is in fact promoting an illicit marriage which since illicit marriages are a grave matter is in fact a sin

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Let me just say that on this issue, the people on this board need to review the nuance of this moral dilemma of our time. Let’s begin by a review of the facts:

1. There is no, I repeat no, logical reason/natural law reason to disapprove of monogamous gay relationships except on the grounds that love has only one purpose and that is to make babies. I don’t see anyone out there protesting to prevent older people unable to have children from getting married. There are some statistics out there that used out of context could be construed as arguments against gay marriage. However, there are many statistics that could be used to argue that marriage in general is bad for people. Both of these conclusions would be a misinterpretation of the data.
2. We as Catholics are called to disapprove of gay relationships. This is based on faith, Biblical quotes, and some natural law (cannot have babies). It is not based on data or practicality. This should not bother anyone who is Catholic because this is the basis for our belief (faith).

After understanding that these are the facts that we are dealing with you should now be able to understand why this is a moral dilemma. If we respect facts at all we would see that the best case scenario for gay people in terms of their health is full equality. But our faith does not permit us to support what is best for them healthwise. We must rely on assumptions that a gay person is, by acknowledging themselves and engaging in healhy behavior, condemned by our loving God. Anyone who comes to this discussion throwing out thumbs up signs and being spiteful toward those that disagree with them is just not understanding the nuance of this moral dilemma. And you are not being compassionate toward your fellow man. Anyone who understands the facts of this situation can only be saddened by it. In order to deliver God’s message, we as Christians are forced to increase suffering in the world. That is not something to be celebrated.

Proposition one is invalid as love does not only have only one purpose, love has many purposes. There are also several types of love. You, my friend, have been indoctrinated with the great Modernist heresy which has in its reckless hedonistic pursuit of pleasure has devalued and then abandoned the types of love which do not result in physical gratification. The four classical types of love are: storge, natural affection such as by the parent towards offspring; Philia, love between friends that runs quite deep, indeed Lewis (d. 1963) lamented that he couldn’t recall any contemporary poem celebrating true friendship like David and Jonathan, Pylades and Orestes, Roland and Oliver, [Amis and Amile](www.yorku.ca/(name removed by moderator)ar/amis_rickert.pdf); Eros, love of desire, this can be sexual as society often defines or nonsexual as St. John of the Cross defined man’s (homo) love for God as eros; agap, the Christian love, agape is an unconditional love of another.

On the other hand sex has one primary purpose which is procreation, it also has the secondary effect of bringing the couple closer.
Where procreation is in principle impossible marriage is irrelevant and therefore not needed. In Principle means relating to the definition of. A man who is infertile still retains his man-ness as fertility is not part of the definition of being a man, mutatis mutandis a woman. Conjugal sex (i.e. between a man and a woman) in principle can result in offspring and so as conjugal sex between an “infertile” man and/or an “infertile” woman still in principle can result in offspring marriage is in principle still relevant.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dakota
**
You do realize the term sodomy is from the Middle Ages right?**

No, it is from the name of the city in the Old Testament: Sodom.

Jude: 5-7
“I wish to remind you, although you know all things, that [the] Lord who once saved a people from the land of Egypt later destroyed those who did not believe. The angels too, who did not keep to their own domain but deserted their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains, in gloom, for the judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Dakota
**
You do realize the term sodomy is from the Middle Ages right?**

No, it is from the name of the city in the Old Testament: Sodom.

Jude: 5-7
“I wish to remind you, although you know all things, that [the] Lord who once saved a people from the land of Egypt later destroyed those who did not believe. The angels too, who did not keep to their own domain but deserted their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains, in gloom, for the judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

Do you have any surviving references from before the Middle Ages? I can cite Peter Damian, a doctor and saint of the Church using it in Liber Gomorrhianus which he published around 1051 (well the Latin form anyway).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dakota

**Do you have any surviving references from before the Middle Ages? **

Corinthians 6:9-10 “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators … nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Dakota

**Do you have any surviving references from before the Middle Ages? **

Corinthians 6:9-10 “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators … nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

That’s a translation

 

[april32010]

thanks everyone,this is the most mature and charitable discussion on the subject that i’ve read on this forum.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dakota

That’s a translation

Yes, from the Bible approved by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

See it here. Scroll down.

usccb.org/bible/jude/1

Is this an erroneous translation?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Dakota

That’s a translation

Yes, from the Bible approved by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

See it here. Scroll down.

usccb.org/bible/jude/1

Is this an erroneous translation?

Ah, but you said term, originally sodomy meant any inherently sterile acts which includes some sexual acts between heterosexuals. There are heterosexual who do anal sex and the amount who do oral sex is substantially higher (I think the last poll I read for the US showed 90% of couples engaged in oral sex). If you want to bash sodomites be my guest, but bash the heterosexual ones too.

Is the computer you are using to post on a person who does mathematical computations? No? That’s what the term computer means. Do names of things always match perfectly with what they are? Was the USSR a union of Republic lead by Soviets (councils) with a socialist economy? (No the USSR was not, the economic system of the USSR was state capitalism and none of the the supreme councils were not apportioned by the people meaning they weren’t republics).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dakota

You are trying to change the subject. Answer the question.

Is the bishops’ translation erroneous? If so, how do you know?

Thanks.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Dakota

You are trying to change the subject. Answer the question.

Is the bishops’ translation erroneous? If so, how do you know?

Thanks.

The original version was extremely bad, the current version is acceptable, but obviously the Vulgate is the best.

No, the current version is not erroneous as far as I know. I was trying to change the question back to the original one as we drifted off of our point.

“But at the heart of homosexuality is sex between men, and that is designated by the ancient term “sodomy” (oral or anal).”
I will refrain from describing* to you all the forms of sex between men which is neither oral or anal as they’d probably retch ([sarcasm]thank you secular culture for teaching me all this, [/sarcasm]), but they do indeed exist. Your sentence also gives the reader the impression that sodomy is only oral or anal sex between men which it is in fact not Sodomia perfecta is inherently sterile acts between two members of the same sex (which is all of them obviously), Sodomia imperfecta is inherently sterile acts between members of the same sex; since English does not contain separate phrases for both of them the word sodomy inherits both meanings which can be seen in usage (for example many states’ sodomy laws).

*unless you really wanted me to graphically describe it which is best reserved for private messages (so as to protect the innocence of everyone here)

 

[Elizabeth502]

clem

You made a blanket statement that was intended to wound everyone in this thread who is defending Catholic theology against the seductive logic of Satan … which says that we should dance with the devil and his sinners as an act of charity …

:sad_yes:

And the blanket statement has been made twice now.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dakota

No, the current version is not erroneous as far as I know.



The term “sodomy” by whatever definition has to be viewed as ancient, not medieval. St. Paul uses it in reference to the sin we are talking about. In his epistle to the Romans he notes that sex between women as well as between men was the unnatural lust of the pagans.

Jesus himself, searching for a vice that was only slightly less horrible than rejecting the Good News, referred to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, which was unnatural sex.

"He (Lot) prepared a banquet for them, baking unleavened bread, and they dined. Before they went to bed, the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old—all the people to the last man—surrounded the house. They called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sexual relations with them.’ Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him, he said, ‘I beg you, my brothers, do not do this wicked thing!’” (Genesis 19)

So the Sodomites were inviting the angels to a party, and Lot discouraged them. The Lord punished them for their unnatural vice. This should have been a lesson to future generations: if you are going to celebrate your favorite vice, don’t invite god-fearing people like Lot and his guests to your party!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Elizabeth

There are some Catholics today willing to cooperate with the spirit of evil. St. Paul confronted this problem in Corinth, in the case of Christians wiling to accept and condone immorality, even that which was not accepted by the pagans (who did not accept same-sex marriage either).

(1 Corinthians 5:1,4-5).

“It is widely reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of a kind not found even among pagans—a man living with his father’s wife. And you are inflated with pride. Should you not rather have been sorrowful? The one who did this deed should be expelled from your midst.”

 

[fix]

So to summarize, the Church teaches that homosexuality is a sin.
Cooperating in and promoting homosexuality is a sin.
**The Church proposes no position specifically **on the question of attending celebrations of the kind in question. It could be, it could not be. It is not the same as abortion for ex…, which is an instrinsically evil action in every circumstance and always.
Ex…participation in the heterosexual sex act is not an instrinsically evil act, but it can be an occasion for evil.

Some of you are throwing out blanket assertions using scripture and the catechism for justification. The moral dilemma some of you may face is as follows:

Intentionally misprepresentiing Catholic Church teaching is a grave sin against Truth, morally unacceptable in itself, and also leading others astray of the truth…scandal.

Judging a particualr action outside the context of truth is to judge before you “arrive”, to pre- judge. We commonly call this prejudice. Prejudice can be an assault on the dignity of the human person.

Making unfounded blanket assertions judging anothers behavior implies an ignorance of one’s own human fallibility, we call that hypocrisy.

If your prejudice and hypocrisy prevent you from being charitable to and present for people when it is proper, you may be sowing the seeds of bitterness, resentment and hatred, a grave sin against Charity.

Have a great day.

I am curious. Can you give an example that would show how one could attend such an event without appearing as giving approval? Do you say congratulations? Well no because that is approving. Do you say thanks for inviting me because I hope you have a happy “marriage”? What exactly would one say that would be supportive of the homosexual persons without showing approval of these actions?

 

[fix]

Let me just say that on this issue, the people on this board need to review the nuance of this moral dilemma of our time. Let’s begin by a review of the facts:

1. There is no, I repeat no, logical reason/natural law reason to disapprove of monogamous gay relationships except on the grounds that love has only one purpose and that is to make babies. I don’t see anyone out there protesting to prevent older people unable to have children from getting married. There are some statistics out there that used out of context could be construed as arguments against gay marriage. However, there are many statistics that could be used to argue that marriage in general is bad for people. Both of these conclusions would be a misinterpretation of the data.
2. We as Catholics are called to disapprove of gay relationships. This is based on faith, Biblical quotes, and some natural law (cannot have babies). It is not based on data or practicality. This should not bother anyone who is Catholic because this is the basis for our belief (faith).

After understanding that these are the facts that we are dealing with you should now be able to understand why this is a moral dilemma. If we respect facts at all we would see that the best case scenario for gay people in terms of their health is full equality. But our faith does not permit us to support what is best for them healthwise. We must rely on assumptions that a gay person is, by acknowledging themselves and engaging in healhy behavior, condemned by our loving God. Anyone who comes to this discussion throwing out thumbs up signs and being spiteful toward those that disagree with them is just not understanding the nuance of this moral dilemma. And you are not being compassionate toward your fellow man. Anyone who understands the facts of this situation can only be saddened by it. In order to deliver God’s message, we as Christians are forced to increase suffering in the world. That is not something to be celebrated.

You start from a false premise and then move to false conclusions.

 

[clem456]

I am curious. Can you give an example that would show how one could attend such an event without appearing as giving approval? Do you say congratulations? Well no because that is approving. Do you say thanks for inviting me because I hope you have a happy “marriage”? What exactly would one say that would be supportive of the homosexual persons without showing approval of these actions?

Yes Mr Catholic Answers Forum Master I can. Thanks for the insightful questions. You actually show your approval at these ceremonies with a secret handshake. (No just kidding.)

My sister who is 55 now was raised in a very devout Catholic family with myself and two other siblings. She has been a faithful Cathoic at times, others times not so much. Same with our relationship, sometimes close, sometimes not so close. She knows what the teaching of the Catholic Church is, she doesn’t agree with it, but she knows exactly what it is, and she knows where I stand as a practicing faithful Catholic. She is severely mentally ill, paranoid schizophrenic diagnosed at age 20, in and out of hospitals, suicidal. She has lots of difficulty maintaining relationships with family or anyone for that matter. People come in and out of her life. In her 40’s she had a civil union with a woman who had come in to her life and actually added stability. ( I can hear the howls of outrage now…I am not touting the benefits of gayness).

We attended. It was a rare opportunity for our family to be together, when my sister was reasonably happy, and not hooked up to life support tubes in a suicide unit. Her name is Laureen, given at baptism at St Paul the Apostle Roman Catholic Church Norwalk Ohio. Was it a celebration? Not really. There was no dancing or high fiving or gay oath or cakes or whatever people imagine goes on. Were there feelings of joy? Given the circumstances, yes there was. My mother sobbed uncontrollably for joy that we were together under those circumstances, rather than seeing her daughter through a psych unit window. My father didn’t want to go and actually visited the priest to find a way out. He didn’t get his excuse, and attended. He is repulsed by homosexuality as I am frankly, but thats alright, she’s flesh of my flesh, blood of my blood.

We have scratched tooth and nail to maintain contact with her over the last years. The relationship with her partner faded, just like all of her relationships do. Our relationship has lasted however. Last month we traded books. I gave her a JP2 and she gave me a Henri Nouwen. I will be present for my sister, period. I do not fear her being gay, and I will not leave her out to hang like they left Jesus. .

So that’s the flesh and blood situation that I have. Probably shockingly different from the OP’s, no problem, we’re human beings, each unique. If some of you would like to throw your comfortable blanket over that, go right ahead. But don’t pretend that you are able to cast judgement on each of these situations, because you’re but a banging gong, a crashing cymbal, and you do so at your peril. The rest of us will love as Jesus taught us through the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[mitex]

I sincerely wish the moderators would post one big permanent page that settles the homosexual question from the Catholic perspective. A big FAQ that gives the traditional Church teachings to homosexuality and any future posts and questions are redirected to this hypothetical page.

Because quite frankly I think everyone has been repeating themselves over countless posts and topics. I would much rather spend my time on here agreeing with people than debating them and resorting to scare tactics and meanness (Yes I am guilty of this as well) on who’s right and who’s wrong on the issue .

Other than that I have nothing further to contribute to any more discussions on homosexuality. Good day.