Gay Marriage Debate

[Rau]

Why would the term “strict Catholic” NOT refer to one who strictly follows various visible conventions? The new Pope is a visible convention. Would you care to define what you mean by “visible convention”?

As you noted, my earlier statement was: "I find it odd that the expression “strict Catholic” is nowadays used to refer to one who strictly follows various visible conventions, but pays no heed to whether they actually try to live the lessons their faith teaches. "

It’s a bit like the old adage “can’t judge a book by its cover”. Eg. A very thick, heavy text book can’t be said to be authoritative because it has those outwardly visible characteristics. Of course, it may be, but not for those reasons.

By visible conventions I refer to things such as various rules and regulations one will find in the Canon Law. Say: “fast for 1 hour before communion”; “Attend Mass every Sunday”; These are rules and regulations that evolve with time, they can change materially with time, suiting cultural and such norms. They are not the faith and moral teachings of the Church however. Adherence to them is good, but not necessarily revealing as to the commitment to live life as Christ (and his Church) would have us do.

The context in which Shelby used the expression was: “The **very strict **Catholics next door didn’t even acknowledge they [a gay couple] existed and they stopped speaking to us because we associated with these men.” emphasis mine] In this context, one would think that the “strictness” is being contrasted with the bad behaviour - as though “strictness” should suggest they would be close adherents to moral teaching, that would weigh against such bad behaviour. But no, she is mistaking outward signs for something else, for the folks concerned clearly are not loving of their neighbours.

 

[Rau]

Where in the New Testament does Jesus threaten little children with an eternity in the fires of Hell, the concept of which is totally beyond the understanding of any 5- or 10- or 15-year old? Where in Jesus’ teachings did men of God find permission to rape young boys and then enjoy the protection of His disciples? These things WERE NOT brought to me by Jesus, you are absolutely correct. They were, however, brought to me by the Catholic Church, in the authoritative vestments and the rituals and the men who purport to speak for Jesus and, indeed, for God Himself.

I hope that answers your question.

If you are saying that you are a victim or know a victim of such behaviour, then I am truly sorry to hear that. But those crimes are not taught as right by anyone. Men have done evil things, both the primary offenders and those who protected them.

 

[Prodigirl]

If you are saying that you are a victim or know a victim of such behaviour, then I am truly sorry to hear that. But those crimes are not taught as right by anyone. Men have done evil things, both the primary offenders and those who protected them.

Yes they have done evil things, and they have done them with impunity and with the tacit support of their dioceses and anyone who should have had them excommunicated.

I will not say I’m a victim, nor will I concede that I am a survivor. I’m somewhere in between, and still now, 55 years later, I am resentful of the manipulations perpetrated by people who solicited my trust, and won it precisely because they wore robes or vestments or habits.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

They don’t work well because **both **sides use them to bolster their side!!!

I don’t think so…

We weren’t debating whether homosexual acts are wrong, just whether we need to use the words “natural” and “normal” to argue the case. [Here is how “normal” is used by the “other side”. *John is heterosexual. It is normal for him, from time to time, to desire sex, but he controls his temptations. Frank experiences SSA. For him, it is normal to desire same sex relations, but he controls his temptations

.]

I applaud Frank for controlling his temptations, but his desire is nowhere near normal.
“Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained”. If you want to give him the benefit of the doubt fine. But I need some proof as to the normalcy of Frank’s desire.

Good grief Zoltan - are you saying the Church reversed a teaching? Nonsense. The Church simply realised it has no business pontificating on the **cause **- of which it has no knowledge. A bit like the Galileo saga. The church realised it had no teaching authority on astronomical matters. Not on medical or psychological matters either. The Church also says of the homosexual inclination: “Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained”. The inclination is not sinful - if it were chosen, it would be. The acts are chosen. They are sinful.

No, I am saying the Church cleared up a statement in the Catechism.

If the words “They do not choose their homosexual condition.” still remained, I (as a Catholic) would have to agree that Frank’s desire was normal.

I feel sorry for those who read the “old” Catechism and use that phrase as proof of the claim “they are born that way”.

 

[shelby_sun]

I don’t think so…

I applaud Frank for controlling his temptations, but his desire is nowhere near normal.
“Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained”. If you want to give him the benefit of the doubt fine. But I need some proof as to the normalcy of Frank’s desire.

No, I am saying the Church cleared up a statement in the Catechism.

If the words “They do not choose their homosexual condition.” still remained, I (as a Catholic) would have to agree that Frank’s desire was normal.

I feel sorry for those who read the “old” Catechism and use that phrase as proof of the claim “they are born that way”.

Again where is your proof they are not? You are the one that has a problem with them so why shouldn’t you come up with proof instead of continually throwing that back to someone else?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Again where is your proof they are not? You are the one that has a problem with them so why shouldn’t you come up with proof instead of continually throwing that back to someone else?

Hi Shelby…you are back?

Remember YOU are the ones attempting to change things. The burden of proof is yours.

 

[shelby_sun]

Hi Shelby…you are back?

Remember YOU are the ones attempting to change things. The burden of proof is yours.

Actually I am not trying to change anything. I do not believe the Catholic church should change it teachings, nor go I believe gay unions should take place in church. I am not the one all worked up about legal gay unions, you are and you think as a Catholic I should be. In time, I believe it will be proven that gays are born the way they are, when I have no idea. I have much bigger concerns about what is going on in this world than to dwell on this subject.

The gay couples I know are great human beings that go on about their lives, working hard, treating people right, and doing huge amount to help others. I do not question what goes on behind closed doors.

 

[Rau]

No, I am saying the Church cleared up a statement in the Catechism.

If the words “They do not choose their homosexual condition.” still remained, I (as a Catholic) would have to agree that Frank’s desire was normal.

I feel sorry for those who read the “old” Catechism and use that phrase as proof of the claim “they are born that way”.

I suspect neither of us were “there” to know the actual reason and thinking, though it may be discoverable. My opinion is that they realised it was a nonsensical statement - being without a sufficient scientific foundation and outside of Church competence. Perhaps it was unnecessarily confrontational (as you demonstrate by your response)? They did not remove it to suggest the converse - that is the key point. If the inclination “were chosen”, much of the rest of the section in the catechism would not make a lot of sense. An objective reader, reading that the inclination “is a trial for most…” Is going to infer, quite reasonably, that their circumstances are not by choice! Arguably, the removed sentence is redundant, because the rest of the text implies it (for most, if not for all).

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I suspect neither of us were “there” to know the actual reason and thinking, though it may be discoverable. My opinion is that they realised it was a nonsensical statement - being without a sufficient scientific foundation and outside of Church competence. Perhaps it was unnecessarily confrontational (as you demonstrate by your response)? They did not remove it to suggest the converse - that is the key point. If the inclination “were chosen”, much of the rest of the section in the catechism would not make a lot of sense. An objective reader, reading that the inclination “is a trial for most…” Is going to infer, quite reasonably, that their circumstances are not by choice! Arguably, the removed sentence is redundant, because the rest of the text implies it (for most, if not for all).

Sounds reasonable. I know that I was not consulted about the change…

My unofficial Vatican source says that there were quite a few errors in the Latin translation of the 1994 First Edition of the Catechism. The Second Edition in 1997 was necessary to correct these “errors”. My other Vatican source (more unofficial than the first) says that the phrase “They do not choose their homosexual condition” was never in the original Latin edition and he suspects that it was “inserted” into the First Edition rather than translated, Hmmm. The plot thickens. All we need now is another novel by Dan Brown. This one alluding to the Vatican’s “gay lobby”.

You make compelling points Rau…but I am standing by my position until we see some unshakable scientific proof…