Gay Marriage

[davidv]

By minding our own buisness and setting an example of merciful, compassionate and godly conduct.

How do one spread the Gospel by minding our own business?

Marking out Homosexuals as diabolic pederasts and second class citizens from denial of rights isn’t it.

No where in Church teaching is this true. This is an irrational, invalid, argument, a strawman in other words.

 

[NekoNecro]

How do one spread the Gospel by minding our own business?

How did the Lord? He showed us all through his own example. I don’t remember him going out of his way to ban brothels.

Edit: That in itself is another interesting historical comparison. During the reign of the Popes in the Papal states there were hundreds of brothels in and around the capital, of which the College of Cardinals (the closest the Papal autocracy had to a parliament) never motioned to put down.

Why is prostitution not worthy of public protest today or in the past, but gay marriage is?

No where in Church teaching is this true. This is an irrational, invalid, argument, a strawman in other words.

freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2014/04/24/ugandan-catholic-bishop-calls-for-anti-gay-violence/
patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013/11/catholic-bishop-to-exorcise-gay-demons-in-illinois/
wdtprs.com/blog/2013/12/pope-francis-shocked-by-gay-adoption-urges-bishop-to-speak-against-it-boldly/

Yeah, it kinda is I’m afraid, or are you suggesting the successors of the apostles with their Doctorates in Divinity and Catholic Theology don’t understand Church teaching?

 

[Teufelhunde]

Well Neko, I believe that you and I are at an impasse. I am in my 60s and have done extensive reading of the bible and CCC, both of which I am not afraid to tell you, I don’t fully understand. I do know; however, that the Catholic Church has a Magisterium, who were appointed by God himself to decide what the members of His Church were to believe, when he said “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” or words to that effect. I will never try to second guess them. Also, I suggest you read the entire Romans 1:18-32, in the bible and try to explain to me what you think that means. It is pretty clear but it too has been interpreted for us in the CCC.

 

[shelby_sun]

How are we to carry out these spiritual works of mercy, admonish the sinner, instruct the ignorant, and council the doubt, if we don’t judge (actions and words, not states of souls)?

To me, just my opinion, it is to approach these things with the attitude of learning and evaluating someone’s beliefs and then offering the teachings of the Catholic church but only if they want to her them. That way there is not the attitude of judging which often comes with an air of superiority and turn people away.

 

[shelby_sun]

Well Neko, I believe that you and I are at an impasse. I am in my 60s and have done extensive reading of the bible and CCC, both of which I am not afraid to tell you, I don’t fully understand. I do know; however, that the Catholic Church has a Magisterium, who were appointed by God himself to decide what the members of His Church were to believe, when he said “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” or words to that effect. I will never try to second guess them. Also, I suggest you read the entire Romans 1:18-32, in the bible and try to explain to me what you think that means. It is pretty clear but it too has been interpreted for us in the CCC.

The problem with this is that if people never reevaluated the rules and teachings of the Church we would still be doing things as they were done 2000 years ago. Vatican II is a good example of the Church reevaluating things.

Plus there have has been corruption and lie in the Church from the begin of the Church. You can not blindly lead any religion today.

 

[Teufelhunde]

The job of reevaluating is exactly what the Magisterium does Shelby. This was passed on to them from the bishops and cardinals before them, which originated with the apostles. And morals do not change, what was wrong and hurt Our Lord 2000 years ago, still hurts Our Lord today. Right and wrong are known by each of us, all you need to to is pray and then go somewhere quiet preferably a Catholic Church in front of the Blessed Sacrament and meditate. I assure you, you will hear the Holy Spirit talk to you and give you the explanation you require. Remember and I quote “The Catholic Church is not a museum for saints, but a hospital for sinners”. Many priests and bishops today are leading our Church astray, but always remember what Christ told Peter “Peter, thou art Petro (rock), and upon this rock I will build my Church, and ** the gates of hell will not prevail against It”**. I believe Our Church is hurting right now, but will one day blossom again.

 

[edwest2]

Yup, you are mistaken.

St. Justin Martyr,
St. Theophilus of Antioch
St. Irenaeus of Lyons
St. Clement of Alexandria
Origen
Cyprian of Carthage
Lactantius
Basil of Caesarea
Ambrose of Milan

Most made reference to the “one day is as a thousand years” (1 Peter 3:8) but others like Origen (Homilies on Genesis 1) were very clear that motions of the sun and moon could not be used to demarcate day and night precise because they did not exist until later in the creative sequence. Therefore, it was argued, the meaning of day and night had to be allegorical in nature. Others, like Theophilius (To Autolycus 2:15) were clear that since the length of days were not demarcated until after creation, neither were weeks, months, years nor thousands of years, so the entire question of duration was not to be settled by human reckoning.

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

That’s an answer from Catholic Answers.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Joie - what conclusion is to be taken from that?

It seems to me the key (medical science) issue is not so much “is homosexuality mental illness?”, but rather, to agree that:

1. Homosexuality is an unusual outcome; it denies sexual reproduction to the individual; it is a trial to many who experience it;
2. It is at odds with our bodily design;
3. We should try and study why this happens and is it avoidable or not.

[Comparisons to red hair and left handedness I saw on this thread seem ludicrous.]

Here is a Catholic Answer:

catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

That they got rid of it as a classification because they realized it wasn’t actually a mental illness.

Do you have any scientific evidence for this? There were those who there in 1973 who were ignored so that a political - not scientific - change could occur. The same thing happened with transgendered persons.

"BOSTON — The term “gender identity disorder” has been eliminated from the new edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s official guide to classifying mental illnesses, known as the DSM-5.

“Whereas previously a man who “self-identified” as a woman (or vice versa) could have been classified as mentally ill, now the DSM-5 uses the term “gender dysphoria,” which means it is only a mental illness if you’re troubled by this self-identification. Elated activists in the “LGBT” community had lobbied the APA for the change for years.”

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/psychiatrys-new-normal-transgendered-persons#ixzz30UopmlXv

Should I lobby my mental health clinic to tell them I actually have no problems? That’s absurd.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Very well then! Let us return all the women to their confinement in their homes, let us force them to wear burqas for their modesty. Let’s prevent women serving at the altar and force them to remain silent. Oh, of course, we have to sack all the female teachers as well. After all, by the words of St Paul (where our condemnation of Homosexuality is strongest and still a tedious translation) they too are an abomination before God.

We must also send ships to Africa to subject the heathens to slavery, for by the Papal States holy standard they are nothing more than tools for our personal use on Galleys or servants.

Now, are you that twisted and ancient in your thoughts to think for one single moment any of this is ok? Because lest we forget, these activities are all endorsed, indeed in many cases demanded by sacred tradition and scripture. (After all, the place of women is one of the reasons the SSPX views the Catholic Church as heretical, if anything they’re probably closer to tradition).

God spoke to us 2000 years ago, and the world has changed dramatically since that time. Some parts of the message, such as to love and to serve one another are relevant in every age and time. Others such as to demand the total and absolute subjugation of women have no place in our enlightened age, we have become wiser, indeed more moral since then. Perhaps when the world was ravaged by diseases and high child mortality there was a valid reason to prevent homosexuality, or perhaps if the translation (Effeminate not homosexual which I’m unsure of myself but is irrelevant really) is indeed wrong it was legitimate for that time. But there is no sensible sane reason anymore when we compare to other (arguably more appealing to previous standards) developments over time.

If Gods will hasn’t changed on this matter, but you are not willing to carry out the full demands then you too are a heretic.

We have become wiser - more moral? Have you watched TV or gone to a movie lately? In 1960, there were only a handful of STDs. Today, there are a lot more and the rate has reached epidemic proportions. The internet is exploiting both women and men unlike
anything we have known in history.

judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/02/severe-std-epidemic-costs-u-s-16-billion/

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Here is Church teaching about gay marriage or unions.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[NekoNecro]

Well Neko, I believe that you and I are at an impasse. I am in my 60s and have done extensive reading of the bible and CCC, both of which I am not afraid to tell you, I don’t fully understand. I do know; however, that the Catholic Church has a Magisterium, who were appointed by God himself to decide what the members of His Church were to believe, when he said “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” or words to that effect. I will never try to second guess them. Also, I suggest you read the entire Romans 1:18-32, in the bible and try to explain to me what you think that means. It is pretty clear but it too has been interpreted for us in the CCC.

I agree with you Teufelhunde that the Magisterium holds a place of leadership and authority, considering the role of Peter in Gods plan for salvation I think It would be rather difficult for me to say otherwise.

What I don’t agree with is that teaching authority never errs, as I’ve proven in this thread alone what what ecumenical council forbade (promoting the abolition of slavery) on pain of excommunication, we (since Vatican II) now are told to not oppose slavery is a sin against human dignity.

In the wake of that I really do not know what to make of the power to bind and loose; Vatican II clearly had the power to bind us to new sins and abolish older ones (role of women). Unlike the SSPX or the Sede’s I do not think this is bad, in fact I think the Church wouldn’t be here today as strong as it is if it hadn’t.

This may be the most inflammatory statement I am yet to make, I do not mean to offend but this is honestly from the heart, and not directed at any of you. I have just read that passage of Romans you cited, and I think of it like this.

If God is so concerned with harmless arbitrary actions, such as homosexual marriage which impede or affect no-one else other than the participants, but has absolutely ***nothing
***, not even a “this isn’t nice” on slavery. If God is so hellbent on raining down his wrath upon two men mutually supporting each other and any children they adopt, rather than one of the greatest most heinous and evil institutions the human race ever concocted…I don’t want to worship a being like that. I want to promote what encourages more compassion, freedom and indeed love in the world (I think that is the best way to show love to god, showing it to others), not the horrific conditions of the past many brave men and women fought and died to leave behind. We didn’t have the french revolution just for the fun of it, and the last time I checked the Church at the time thoroughly condemned that!

Thankfully, seeing as Christ never had anything to say on the matter in scripture, I don’t think God is. I think it’s only people who can be that unpleasant and supportive of an oligarchic tyranny to twist a good cause to such ends.

There is a word for those who are obsessed with the law, and forget what affect it has on the people they lay judgement upon, they were called Pharisees by the Lord. I don’t think they’ve quite gone extinct yet.

 

[NekoNecro]

We have become wiser - more moral? Have you watched TV or gone to a movie lately? In 1960, there were only a handful of STDs. Today, there are a lot more and the rate has reached epidemic proportions. The internet is exploiting both women and men unlike
anything we have known in history.

Compared to when we were burning the irreligious in the street? Compared to when women didn’t have the vote? Compared to when people could be hung for stealing a load of bread because their children were starving to death?

Absolutley, we’re practically all saints compared to what those who came before us were doing in the 18th century right the way back to the birth of Christ and beyond.

There has never been a “golden age” in recorded history where Humanity was chaste, pure and good, like this myth of the perfect 50’s American family I keep seeing being promoted by a variety of Christian groups. We’ve got plenty of problems today we need to address, like in Europe for instance many countries pay women 15% less what they would pay an equally qualified and experienced man to do purely because they are female and the law permits it.

There are many cases of immoral practices we need to deal with, but we’ve come a long way in two thousand years. Sure, pornography isn’t exactly good christian reading, but it’s really doesn’t even come close to when we just to burn Protestants during the reformation (Bloody Mary of England anyone?) for their “immorality”.

 

[NekoNecro]

Should I lobby my mental health clinic to tell them I actually have no problems? That’s absurd.

If you know them to be diagnosing you or someone else incorrectly? Absolutely!

Keep in mind for centuries we thought an epileptic fit (or as it was known back then the “sacred disease”) was a divine/demonic possession.

In the 19th century times, women used to be diagnosed with “Hysteria” just because they screamed during an orgasm. Does that require medical treatment? No, and after coming to realize that the medical profession stopped trying to treat it as a disorder.

 

[Rau]

By minding our own buisness and setting an example of merciful, compassionate and godly conduct. Marking out Homosexuals as diabolic pederasts and second class citizens from denial of rights isn’t it.

I agree entirely. The Church supports those positive actions and deplores unjust discrimination.

What right is denied? I guess you mean " marriage"? The gay person’s right is the same as mine ; regrettably, by virtue of his makeup, it’s not the right he values.

What accommodations could or should be made?
1). Should the Church say that sex between 2 men is ok/good?
2). Should the church extend the marriage sacrament to same sex couples?
3). Should the state change it’s view on marriage to cover any 2 people?
4). Should the state introduce a new legal framework, distinct from marriage, but addressing requirements for persons to share assets, live together, care for each other, etc

Which of these would address the denial of rights issue?

 

[shelby_sun]

I agree with you Teufelhunde that the Magisterium holds a place of leadership and authority, considering the role of Peter in Gods plan for salvation I think It would be rather difficult for me to say otherwise.

What I don’t agree with is that teaching authority never errs, as I’ve proven in this thread alone what what ecumenical council forbade (promoting the abolition of slavery) on pain of excommunication, we (since Vatican II) now are told to not oppose slavery is a sin against human dignity.

In the wake of that I really do not know what to make of the power to bind and loose; Vatican II clearly had the power to bind us to new sins and abolish older ones (role of women). Unlike the SSPX or the Sede’s I do not think this is bad, in fact I think the Church wouldn’t be here today as strong as it is if it hadn’t.

This may be the most inflammatory statement I am yet to make, I do not mean to offend but this is honestly from the heart, and not directed at any of you. I have just read that passage of Romans you cited, and I think of it like this.

If God is so concerned with harmless arbitrary actions, such as homosexual marriage which impede or affect no-one else other than the participants, but has absolutely ***nothing
***, not even a “this isn’t nice” on slavery. If God is so hellbent on raining down his wrath upon two men mutually supporting each other and any children they adopt, rather than one of the greatest most heinous and evil institutions the human race ever concocted…I don’t want to worship a being like that. I want to promote what encourages more compassion, freedom and indeed love in the world (I think that is the best way to show love to god, showing it to others), not the horrific conditions of the past many brave men and women fought and died to leave behind. We didn’t have the french revolution just for the fun of it, and the last time I checked the Church at the time thoroughly condemned that!

Thankfully, seeing as Christ never had anything to say on the matter in scripture, I don’t think God is. I think it’s only people who can be that unpleasant and supportive of an oligarchic tyranny to twist a good cause to such ends.

There is a word for those who are obsessed with the law, and forget what affect it has on the people they lay judgement upon, they were called Pharisees by the Lord. I don’t think they’ve quite gone extinct yet.

Thank you for having the energy to keep up the fight. Even though you and I know you won’t get anywhere. This site needs people like us to stop the judging Catholic that think they know what God wants. Good luck to you !!!

 

[edwest2]

Compared to when we were burning the irreligious in the street? Compared to when women didn’t have the vote? Compared to when people could be hung for stealing a load of bread because their children were starving to death?

Absolutley, we’re practically all saints compared to what those who came before us were doing in the 18th century right the way back to the birth of Christ and beyond.

There has never been a “golden age” in recorded history where Humanity was chaste, pure and good, like this myth of the perfect 50’s American family I keep seeing being promoted by a variety of Christian groups. We’ve got plenty of problems today we need to address, like in Europe for instance many countries pay women 15% less what they would pay an equally qualified and experienced man to do purely because they are female and the law permits it.

There are many cases of immoral practices we need to deal with, but we’ve come a long way in two thousand years. Sure, pornography isn’t exactly good christian reading, but it’s really doesn’t even come close to when we just to burn Protestants during the reformation (Bloody Mary of England anyone?) for their “immorality”.

Only a few radical Leftists deny the truth. I was there in the 1950s and with undisguised hatred they tell people it was a myth. In fact, they are afraid people will, and are, living like that again. As the poison began to seep into daily life, faithful Catholics who were there never forgot the way life was lived. They rejected, as I did, the spiritually harmful and physically harmful effects of various movements. No, there is real fear there. As I heard on Catholic Radio: “We’re not quite back to 1957 but we’re getting there.” So this is not just my idea or a myth. It was real. I was there in 1957.

Peace,
Ed

 

[SMGS127]

In the 19th century times, women used to be diagnosed with “Hysteria” just because they screamed during an orgasm. Does that require medical treatment? No, and after coming to realize that the medical profession stopped trying to treat it as a disorder.

Actually “hysteria” was a diagnosis of a woman who was seen as too emotional. The TREATMENT was a doctor-induced orgasm. Vibrators were considered medical devices at the time. But your point stands that, obviously, some diagnoses are so bad that they are bound to be reversed in time. Hysteria was certainly one, homosexuality was certainly another. Neither are medical disorders nor require treatment.

 

[edwest2]

Actually “hysteria” was a diagnosis of a woman who was seen as too emotional. The TREATMENT was a doctor-induced orgasm. Vibrators were considered medical devices at the time. But your point stands that, obviously, some diagnoses are so bad that they are bound to be reversed in time. Hysteria was certainly one, homosexuality was certainly another. Neither are medical disorders nor require treatment.

Sources?

Peace,
Ed

 

[davidv]

Actually “hysteria” was a diagnosis of a woman who was seen as too emotional. The TREATMENT was a doctor-induced orgasm. Vibrators were considered medical devices at the time. But your point stands that, obviously, some diagnoses are so bad that they are bound to be reversed in time. Hysteria was certainly one, homosexuality was certainly another. Neither are medical disorders nor require treatment.

Spiritual disorders exit. One of them is homosexuality. And when one acts on this tendency it also becomes a physical disorder.