L
ladybri77
Guest
Homosexuality is a perversion - unnatural…
Why don’t people believe God’s Word which is the New Testament - Romans - Galations??
Maybe because they don’t want to see the Truth?
- Status
Why don’t people believe God’s Word which is the New Testament - Romans - Galations??
Maybe because they don’t want to see the Truth?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Well, lots of things are “unnatural”: dentistry, flying in airplanes, open heart surgery, artificial contraception, playing the trumpet, chemotherapy, internal combustion engines, caesarean sections, cooked food, newspapers, the Internet, space travel, transubstantiation, eye glasses, the printing press…
S
StAnastasia
Guest
OK Ladybri77, I found something for you that’s not unnatural and therefore not a “perversion”: “Man has twenty-one children with eleven women”:
cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/05/29/pn.man.fathers.21.kids.cnn
This guy’s procreating up a storm! All natural, and not an ounce of evil, perverted contraception! He’s got the unitive dimension, and not even any NFP to frustrate the procreative dimension! And it’s heterosexual love, not the perverted homosexual kind of love!
StAnastasia
A
Alisa
Guest
Thank you so much, San5210. I’ve begun to wonder if some of these participants have even ever known gay people, and if they have, whether or not they began spouting their venom and hatred under the guise of “helping them inherit eternal life”.
Also, the Bible was written 2000 years or so ago when life and customs were so different from now, in the 21st century. I think the message of Jesus remains strong and true, but it has to be applied to our current times. I’m sure this is being worked on within the Church.
Actually, in the case of my niece, my sister and her husband, plus all of her siblings and cousins (my children), are supportive of their little family too. It’s wonderful for all concerned. Actually, my niece and her partner are trying to find a church which would accept them and their little boy (they would prefer Catholic) – but I’m not sure they’ve found a place in which they’ve felt comfortable – yet.
Aren’t you the contributor who is a mental health provider?
Thanks again –
Alisa
A
Alisa
Guest
G
GW
Guest
I think the problem may lie with using the same contract law for two totally different sets of circumstances. MarriageNewsNow ran a blog posting about the best arguments in favor of traditional state laws with regard to marriage, which seems to get at this distinction - tinyurl.com/laqcsj
S
San5210
Guest
Alisa,
Yes, I’m a mental health provider. I’m also proud to say that your niece and her family would be welcomed with open arms in my Catholic parish. I hope she is able to find a parish that is supportive. Dignity USA can be a helpful resource dignityusa.org/.
Yes, I’m a mental health provider. I’m also proud to say that your niece and her family would be welcomed with open arms in my Catholic parish. I hope she is able to find a parish that is supportive. Dignity USA can be a helpful resource dignityusa.org/.
A
Alisa
Guest
I’ll pass this website along to them. They are coming from Seattle to visit us here on the Oregon coast in about a month, too, so we’ll probably talk about this.
I hope your day goes well –
Alisa
L
Leetoy
Guest
We Catholics are taught not to hate persons, but we should hate the wrongdoing/acts. We don’t hate homosexuals but we should hate/oppose their perverted sexual acts,and their promotion and support in legalizing same sex marriage. No one has a right to dishonour or perverse his own body as 1 Corinthians 3:17 - “But if any man violate the temple of God, him shall God destroy. For the temple of God is holy, which you are.” We don’t hate women who abort their fetus but we should and must hate/oppose that evil act of abortion and the promotion and support in legalizing abortion. No one has rights to kill anyone who has life. Only God has the power over us and our body and he is holy, just and chaste. Romans 9:21 - “Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?” But God is holy, just and chaste. Only human has dishonour his body and did many perverse and immoral acts.
D
DeoSalvatoreMeo
Guest
In response to the OP, why does it need to be called marriage? They have all of the same rights and privileges of married people available to them through other avenues. It is my belief, that homosexual activists are pushing for gay “marriage” in order to eventually force all religious institutions to eventually perform gay “marriages”, using the argument that it is discriminatory not to. The goal is legitimize homosexual activity. The Catholic Church will never accept that something so clearly against the Natural Law is anything but unnatural.
L
Leetoy
Guest
Who is higher God or the state/Government? It depends on your love and faith in God. Long time ago many were persecuted by their own state and governement and race because they defended their faith in God. They defended their faith even unto death and became martyrs and saints. They honor and exalted God. We are better off now but abusive. At present time we should be the hands and feet of God and defend what is right and good and oppose what is wrong and evil. We should oppose abortion and same sex marriage because it is an abomination to the Lord. And by doing so we will honor and exalt God. Amen.
D
DeoSalvatoreMeo
Guest
I would suggest going with something that is not against the teachings of the Catholic Church. People with same sex attraction are called to live a life of celibacy. Courage is an apostolate to help people struggling with SSA in a way that is in complete accordance with Catholic moral teaching and the Natural Law:
couragerc.net/
The organization the other person linked to, discusses “Womenpriests”. The impossibility of women every becoming priests has already been definitively taught by the Church. Look up Pope John Paul II’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Women will never be priests. The rest of the site, pushing a belief that active homosexuality will be integrated into Catholic moral theology as acceptable… Not gonna happen. Ever.
P
PrincessKatrina
Guest
Romans 2:1
Where do you get off judging whether or not I am a christian? You pray that I receive Jesus into my heart? Well, you’re a bit late. I received Jesus into my Heart as my Lord and Savior 18 years ago when I was 7.
The percentage of homosexuals who feel that religious institutions should be forced to perform gay marriages is extremely small. The vast majority of us have no intention of forcing any religious organization to perform gay marriages. The vast majority of us will be very happy to have our weddings performed by JoPs or those few religious institutions who willingly choose to allow our ceremonies. Those religious institutions who decline us are doing so based on their legal right to decline anyone, heterosexual or homosexual.
That’s purely a matter of religious CEREMONY, though, thus not under the purview of the Government. All we want is the secular rights in the same sort of nice, concise package that heterosexual couples get. Yes, “Civil Union” would be acceptable. That’s all a marriage contract is to begin with. We only desire the term “marriage” because using separate terms implies a dichotomy that should not be there and that would not be there if we were allowed the same RIGHTS.
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
Here is an article from this very website on this matter:
catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp
I am not “judging” homosexuals. I never said anyone was condemned or going to hell, only that their lifestyle was ill-suited for a family arrangement- no different from any other inherently sinful lifestyle.
Homosexuality, by design, is sex outside of marriage. You may have overlooked this other part of the Catechism:
2336:…The tradition of the Church has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices…
When the Church uses the word gravely, read “mortal.”
Also among the Fathers:
A. St. Augustine: “Those foul offences that are against nature should be everywhere and at all times detested and punished, such as were those of the people of Sodom, which should all nations commit, they should all stand guilty of the same crime, by the law of God, which hath not so made men that they should so abuse one another. For even that very intercourse which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature, of which He is the Author, is polluted by the perversity of lust”. (Confessions; III.8)
B St. John Chrysostomus: “The worst of it is that such an abomination is committed boldly and that the monstrosity becomes the law. Nobody nowadays fears, nobody blushes. They boast and they laugh at these actions. The people who abstain appear stupid and they who condemn are regarded as fools. If they appear to be the weaker ones they are crushed with blows. If they are stronger, people laugh, people mock them and make many jokes about them. They have no redress in tribunals or in law.” (…) “I have heard also many men who are surprised that up to the present a new shower of fire has not fallen on us and that the chastisement of Sodom has not fallen again on our town which is even more deserving of punishment since it did not learn from the evils of the Sodomites. Although after two thousand years this place accursed and overwhelmed which was Sodom cries to the whole world by its appearance more eloquently than any one voice could, not to dare to commit such heinous offences, our fellow citizens have committed these offences not with less effrontery but quite on the contrary they show themselves more daring and unashamed as if they were determined to do battle with God and that they wish to prove that they wish to add to their crimes, in proportion as the threats become more terrible. How is it that according as the crimes of Sodom renew themselves the chastisement of Sodom is not also renewed? Ah, the reason is that a more terrible fire waits them and that a chastisement is reserved for them which will have no end.” (Against the opponents of Monastic Life, III.8)
I already addressed procreation in an earlier post as the primary end of marriage. See Casti Conubii of Pope Pius XI and Arcanum of Pope Leo XIII, as well as others. Love is not the primary end of marriage.
Again, where did the “Church” teach against interracial marriage? If none of its members said it, who is left?
P
PrincessKatrina
Guest
I just love how the Roman Catholic Church completely disregards the actual definitions of words. sigh
American Heritage Dictionary:
Adultery
-Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse.
While a homosexual act can be adultery (i.e., a married man having sex with a man he is not married to or a married woman having sex with a woman she is not married to), there is no way whatsoever in which one can accurately define all homosexual acts as adultery.
I’m sorry, but even the Church is restricted in its use of words to the actual definitions of those words. This isn’t the Dark Ages. We’re literate these days.
The crime of sodom was indiscriminate lust and sex, not homosexuality. In fact, actual homosexuality is not explicitly stated in regards to sodom at all. This very site has declared Angels have no gender, so raping an angel would not be a homosexual act, regardless of if the rape was performed by a man or a woman.
Y’know, I decided to go looking to see if I could find any examples of this and I found something else relevant to this thread.
On this website: religioustolerance.org/hom_mar3.htm
Roman Catholic Church: A recent book by Yale Historian John Boswell demonstrates that Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches both sanctioned and sanctified unions between partners of the same sex, until modern times. The churches used ceremonies which were very similar to conventional heterosexual ceremonies.
And to answer the question of catholicism and interracial marriage debates, this is the only relevant link I could find.
gainesville.com/article/20090525/ARTICLES/905259976/1008/WEATHER?Title=Looking-back-at-a-time-when-interracial-marriage-was-illegal
Catholicism apparently did support interracial marriage at that time, though I don’t know how far back such support went.
There was also a Judge in Virginia who ruled against an interracial couple on the grounds that God placed people of differing color on different continents and that that indicated God didn’t want them to intermingle, but I don’t know what denomination that Judge was. However, his claim was still that interracial marriage was inherently unnatural. Sounds familiar…
S
sedonaman
Guest
Right.
D
DeoSalvatoreMeo
Guest
The original language of the Bible and of the Church was not English. So, providing the definition for the English word in this case is only moderately useful. That English versions of words have a narrower or broader meaning than was intended in Church teaching is a common stumbling block… for amateurs.
All Catholics are called to celibacy outside marriage. Marriage is a Sacrament between a man and woman. So, all intercourse outside of marriage is immoral. Only sexual intercourse between a married man and woman can ever be moral.
You make the assumption that being literate means being learned. Reading US Weekly doesn’t make you a scholar.
You have no authority to interpret the Bible to suit your opinion. The authority to interpret the Bible belongs to the Church that was given the authority to set the Canon, the Catholic Church.
traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_002br_SameSex.htm
I am not aware of any racial prohibitions on marriage within the Catholic Church. Just look at Latin America and the intermarriage of the native people and the Spaniards. Then compare with Protestant marriage. It seems to me that racial prohibitions on marriage is a uniquely Protestant idea. I’m not familiar enough with this topic to say definitively, but I’m pretty sure this was never an issue within the Catholic Church.
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
Good post, but a couple of points…
While a laudable publication, the American Heritage Dictionary or any other English dictionary will not assist in this matter. English words tend to have narrower expression than foreign tongues, and it would help to examine the Church’s own language, Latin. English would have played no role in Catholic doctrinal formulation.
- We must look at the word for adultry in Latin, adultero, adulaterium, which not only means adultry in the narrow sense, but also to corrupt or defile, which fits the Council of Trent’s view of the 6th Commandment:
To begin with the prohibitory part (of the Commandment), adultery is the defilement of the marriage bed, whether it be one’s own or another’s."
The context, along with further parts of the text, can be found here:
catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/TenCommandments-sixth.shtml
St. Thomas Aquinas views it this way:
“Moreover, it must be known that the Commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” not only forbids adultery but also every form of immodesty and impurity.[14] There are some who say that intercourse between married persons is not devoid of sin. But this is heretical, for the Apostle says: “Let marriage be honorable in all and the bed undefiled.”[15] Not only is it devoid of sin, but for those in the state of grace it is meritorious for eternal life. Sometimes, however, it may be a venial sin, sometimes a mortal sin. When it is had with the intention of bringing forth offspring, it is an act of virtue. When it is had with the intent of rendering mutual comfort, it is an act of justice. When it is a cause of exciting lust, although within the limits of marriage, it is a venial sin; and when it goes beyond these limits, so as to intend intercourse with another if possible, it would be a mortal sin.”
In the Middle Ages, the Age of Faith, scholarship was indeed a habit of the literate, and the widespread literacy of that time as left us a wealth of writings from which we can draw upon for study today. Monasteries and convents played no small part in this development.
In the case of Sodom, the men in question were indeed angels in fact, however, this was unknown to the men of Sodom. For their part, they believed these angels were men, and their lust against them was for homosexual reasons, not because they were angelophiles! This is why they called “where are the men which came into thee this night.” (Genesis, 19:5) What matters is they thought they were men, not whether they actually were.
The practice of adelphopoiia, common in the East during the decline of Rome, is the practice Boswell speaks of. The practice of committed brotherhood, referred to by Romans as “blood brotherhood” or “brotherhood in arms,” was sanctified by the Church for purposes of a committed blood bond in Christ. This practice bore no relation to marriage, and had no sexual overtones. The error of Boswell I believe is, that, among the Romans, if the adelphopoiia occured between and minor and his older mentor, homosexual sex with the minor was considered a sign of his submissive role and was perfectly acceptable (though never between equals in rank). Boswell it appears thought this practice passed on to the adelphopoiia practice in Christianity, although he has no grounds or evidence to believe this. The most noted example of blood brothers in adelphopoiia in the West is SS. Sergius & Bacchus. See “The Origin of the Cult of SS. Sergius and Bacchus” by David Woods.
I cannot speak for the judge in Virginia, although I can be confident he was not a Catholic and his view would not readily relate to perspective we are trying to discuss here, which is the Catholic one. From a protestant view, however, this may be interesting…
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
Okay, I just read DeoSalvatoreMeo’s post before mine and it sounds like I totally repeated some of what he said. This was not intentional! Sorry.
S
SHW
Guest
Some things are not “funny.” They are irreverent and not fitting for a true Catholic to joke about.
St. Stephen was stoned to death for his Godly witness to the Pharisees.
“You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. 52 Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers, 53 who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept it.” (Acts 7:51-53)
Pharisees are those who do not keep/obey God’s commandments.
- Status