E
Exalt
Guest
Dangerous territory? How so? What is dangerous about it?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
Exalt
Guest
I mean, it is the only argument worth giving any attention to.Is the Natural Law argument the ‘real’ argument? And by real, do you mean ‘true’. If not, how can it be real? By calling it a real argument, the rest of what you say seems to contradict.
R
rpp
Guest
I believe the Catholic Church hold all the truth required to get each person to Heaven. You cannot be Catholic otherwise.And you believe the Church holds all objective truth and can teach no wrong?
I also believe rejecting what the Church teaches as truth puts a soul in jepordy. You cannot be Catholic otherwise.
E
Exalt
Guest
Why?I believe the Catholic Church hold all the truth required to get each person to Heaven. I also believe rejecting what the Church teaches as truth puts a soul in jepordy.
R
rpp
Guest
Unlike Dignity, the Church was founded by Jesus Christ, the Second person of the Trinity and if guided, infallibly, by the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity.I’m sure that most people would not accept that as valid reasoning. Homosexuality is wrong because it violates the Church’s infallibility?
Well. How do you know the Church is infallible?
Jesus Christ said that the Church would never perish. But He did not say it would be popular or well liked. In fact, he said that it would be hated.
R
rpp
Guest
Faith, reason and personal experience.Why?
E
Exalt
Guest
Prove it.Unlike Dignity, the Church was founded by Jesus Christ, the Second person of the Trinity and if guided, infallibly, by the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity.
E
Exalt
Guest
The first and third, I can’t argue against, for obvious reasons.Faith, reason and personal experience.
The second, we can discuss. Speaking from the point of reason, why couldn’t someone that “the Catholic Church hold
R
rpp
Guest
I do not see that Dignity even attempts to claim that it was founded by God.Prove it.
So what is there to prove?
But I will will not continue this disussion. I do not believe your are discussing this in good faith. I believe you may even be baiting people.
So long, Exault.
B
bdm3
Guest
Focusing on the statements in bold.#1. Dignity correctly
As far as thier whole stance goes, I definately applaud thier efforts. Whether conservatives like it or not, a large number of educated Christians within the Catholic church find no moral problems with homosexuality in of itself. Families in Churches across the nation are being faced with children “coming out.” It’s no surprise to me that there’s an organization that represents the viewpoint of mainstream psychology and science - there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality in of itself. As Christians become more educated about the Bible and Church history - and see the many inconsistencies therein - they won’t take thier faith for granted. They’ll start questioning. And for many, homosexuality will be at the top of that list. I think in the future we’ll start to see mainstream Christianity start to turn around on the topic of homosexuality. *Dignity *is evidence of that change.
A homosexual inclination is not immoral in and of itself, but the commission of homosexual acts is immoral. If you grant that the acts themselves are immoral, then it would be consistent to say that the inclination that leads to those acts is, to put it as nicely as possible, is itself problematic. By way of analogy, having the inclination to kill (by which i mean a sustained desire) may be morally neutral, but the fact that the inclination exists at all does suggest something is seriously wrong.
I do wonder what precisely you mean when you say that, “As Christians become more educated about the Bible and Church history - and see the many inconsistencies therein - they won’t take thier faith for granted. They’ll start questioning. And for many, homosexuality will be at the top of that list. I think in the future we’ll start to see mainstream Christianity start to turn around on the topic of homosexuality.”
Are you suggesting Christians are uneducated about the Bible and Church history and unquestioning? That seems to me to be an unfounded statement. As for mainstream Christianity, do you mean Christianity as it is in fact practiced by most people, or mainstream as in the orthodox teachings of Christianity? If you mean mainstream in the first instance, then you are probably right, that most people will come to be more approving and accepting of homosexuality and homosexual acts. That is not, however, in line with the genuine teachings of Christ, the Apostles and the Church.
E
Exalt
Guest
Yes. When Catholic Christians become educated on the Bible and Church history, they find that much of what has been said about the Church (Such as that it has never taught wrong) and the Bible (Such as it is the inspired Word of God) aren’t consistant with history and a thorough understanding of scripture. It’s easy to believe what the Church teaches when you’ve never taken a thorough look at it yourself.Are you suggesting Christians are uneducated about the Bible and Church history and unquestioning?
I mean Christianity as it is practiced by most people.That seems to me to be an unfounded statement. As for mainstream Christianity, do you mean Christianity as it is in fact practiced by most people, or mainstream as in the orthodox teachings of Christianity? If you mean mainstream in the first instance, then you are probably right, that most people will come to be more approving and accepting of homosexuality and homosexual acts. That is not, however, in line with the genuine teachings of Christ, the Apostles and the Church.
T
timotheos
Guest
It seems to me the real question is who “gets” to enjoy sexual relations and be in good standing with the Church founded by Jesus Christ. So, which of the following do you think is acceptable by the Church?I think in the future we’ll start to see mainstream Christianity start to turn around on the topic of homosexuality.
- A sexually active non-married heterosexual couple
- A sexually active married heterosexual couple using artificial birth control
- A sexually active married heterosexual couple using NFP, but more interested in using each other for sexual gratification than procreation
- A sexually active married heterosexual couple open to conception, with equal respect for the unitive aspect as well as the potential blessing of a child
- A chaste homosexual individual
- A chaste heterosexual individual
Peace to all, Tim
B
Bennie_P
Guest
Who was the principle author of ?this came from dignityusa.org/local.html under FAQ
…In 1975 the Vatican published a Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics. One of those questions was homosexuality. A principal author of that document was Fr. Jan Visser, C.Ss.R…
SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
***PERSONA HUMANA ***
DECLARATION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS
CONCERNING SEXUAL ETHICS
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html
At the audience granted on November 7, 1975, to the undersigned Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Sovereign Pontiff by Divine Providence Pope Paul VI approved this Declaration “On certain questions concerning sexual ethics,” confirmed it and ordered its publication.
Given in Rome, at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on December 29th, 1975.
Franjo Cardinal Seper
Prefect
**Most Rev. Jerome Hamer, O.P. **
*Titular Archbishop of Lorium *
Secretary
*Titular Archbishop of Lorium *
Secretary
***Funny I don’t see his name on it and it is funny that when a search is done on *Fr. Jan Visser, C.Ss.R, his name only comes up when being quoted by either GLB or, womenpriest groups or European News links that are writing stories opposing the Church stand on sexuality?
***He may have worked on it, but I have doubts about how much of it he is author of, or, if he is a principal writer he is being quoted out of context. ***
*There is a book called *Problems in Conjugal Life, by Fr. J. Visser, C.SS.R. - 1955
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html
My friends I suggest you go read the document, you’ll find what dignityusa is saying and what the document says will be in conflict.
E
Exalt
Guest
Tim, with all due respect, the Church is *much *“tougher” on homosexuals than it is on heterosexuals. It’s really simple. For homosexuals, according to the church, chastity is equivalent to *celibacy. ***Please don’t ever make light of that fact. Homosexual thoughts as well as any romantic contact at all, ever, is completely and totally forbidden. Heterosexual thoughts, however, are not strictly forbidden. It is certianly okay to think about a woman you have romantic feelings for (if you’re a man), for example, so long as it doesn’t turn in to something sexual. For homosexuals, however, not even thoughts are allowed.It seems to me the real question is who “gets” to enjoy sexual relations and be in good standing with the Church founded by Jesus Christ. So, which of the following do you think is acceptable by the Church?
My opinion is that 4 through 6 are accepted by the Church. So I don’t think the Church is tougher on homosexuals than heterosexuals…
- A sexually active non-married heterosexual couple
- A sexually active married heterosexual couple using artificial birth control
- A sexually active married heterosexual couple using NFP, but more interested in using each other for sexual gratification than procreation
- A sexually active married heterosexual couple open to conception, with equal respect for the unitive aspect as well as the potential blessing of a child
- A chaste homosexual individual
- A chaste heterosexual individual
It doesn’t do anyone any good to pretend that the Church treats homosexuals and heterosexuals the same. It demands total celibacy-even reaching down to the very thoughts of the person-in one, but merely chastity for the other.
G
goofyjim
Guest
I don’t worry much about thoughts be they homosexual or heterosexual. I only confess actions.Tim, with all due respect, the Church is *much *“tougher” on homosexuals than it is on heterosexuals. It’s really simple. For homosexuals, according to the church, chastity is equivalent to *celibacy. ***Please don’t ever make light of that fact. Homosexual thoughts as well as any romantic contact at all, ever, is completely and totally forbidden. Heterosexual thoughts, however, are not strictly forbidden. It is certianly okay to think about a woman you have romantic feelings for (if you’re a man), for example, so long as it doesn’t turn in to something sexual. For homosexuals, however, not even thoughts are allowed.
It doesn’t do anyone any good to pretend that the Church treats homosexuals and heterosexuals the same. It demands total celibacy-even reaching down to the very thoughts of the person-in one, but merely chastity for the other.
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
Because I am Catholic. If one does not believe, then they are a hypocrit if they call themselves Catholic.I’m sure that most people would not accept that as valid reasoning. Homosexuality is wrong because it violates the Church’s infallibility?
Well. How do you know the Church is infallible?
Dan
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
I would like to emphasize that for the most part I agree with you and sympathize with the crosses that our homosexual brethren and sisters have to bear. Although I would like to suggest that the Church did not order homosexuals in their manner. This is a cross that was given to them by God. God gives many crosses. Most of us don’t know why we received them from God. I have mine. I sometimes wish that I did not. But when I am at my best, I realize that they are my ticket to heaven. I have to just get on the train willingly and ride.Tim, with all due respect, the Church is *much *“tougher” on homosexuals than it is on heterosexuals. It’s really simple. For homosexuals, according to the church, chastity is equivalent to *celibacy. ***Please don’t ever make light of that fact. Homosexual thoughts as well as any romantic contact at all, ever, is completely and totally forbidden. Heterosexual thoughts, however, are not strictly forbidden. It is certianly okay to think about a woman you have romantic feelings for (if you’re a man), for example, so long as it doesn’t turn in to something sexual. For homosexuals, however, not even thoughts are allowed.
It doesn’t do anyone any good to pretend that the Church treats homosexuals and heterosexuals the same. It demands total celibacy-even reaching down to the very thoughts of the person-in one, but merely chastity for the other.
Dan
T
timotheos
Guest
Heterosexual thoughts, however, are not strictly forbidden. It is certianly okay to think about a woman you have romantic feelings for (if you’re a man), for example, so long as it doesn’t turn in to something sexual. For homosexuals, however, not even thoughts are allowed.
Exalt,It demands total celibacy-even reaching down to the very thoughts of the person-in one, but merely chastity for the other.
I had not heard this before. Matthew 5:28 says “'I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery.” I guess that has been my guideline, regardless of who tries to soften it. Not that I have been good at following this myself; and I have done a lot worse in my life. I can’t judge anyone with difficulty with chastity because I have known my own struggles too well. But I do understand that we are supposed to strive for it, rather than seek to discredit it.
Peace, Tim
R
Riley259
Guest
On issues regarding faith and morals, it is prevented from error.And you believe the Church holds all objective truth and can teach no wrong?
E
Exalt
Guest
Thomas Aquinas taught that no creation can be infallible. I disagree with alot of what he says, but I agree with him there.On issues regarding faith and morals, it is prevented from error.
Infallibility, if it exists, is an attribute of God and God alone. The Church is not God. Therefore, it’s not infallible.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.