Gay pride event in our town

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eric_Hyom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joe1 said:
But what vocations will be acceptable for people who experience this attraction who, often times, have a lot of psychological baggage to deal with?
Click to expand...
Surely we ought to have monasteries and convents open to gay people, for one thing. And I think we should have places in our families for them. The nuclear family is a toxic Western idea that has done far more harm than good. A real traditional family would be a family with uncles and aunts and grandmas and grandpas and such all living under the same room. And friends, perhaps, too. Life as a gay person wouldn’t seem a wasteland with such a crowded and full daily experience to look forward to.

I think of Jane Austen. One might call her a “spinster”, but she lived a rich and full life – just one without marriage. But in our culture, a life without marriage is depressing to people. That is because we’ve idolized sex and marriage, and ignored family and friendship.
 
And, for the record, I see no reason why someone with SSA couldn’t in the future become a priest. The current prohibition is a matter of discipline, not a matter of doctrine.
 
Last edited:
I don’t tremeber there being a prohibition for people SSA when it comes to the religious life.
 
SammyRose said:
Like a situation or a specific religious order?
Click to expand...
A specific religious order. Considering that many will reject people with SSA, I think it makes the process of discernment far too hard for such people. We need religious communities who will make it known if they welcome people who have unchosen attractions to the same sex.
 
Do they really reject people for having SSA? I don’t know religious orders that well though so I am not sure which would be good for them.
 
SammyRose said:
Do they really reject people for having SSA? I don’t know religious orders that well though so I am not sure which would be good for them.
Click to expand...
They do, I’m afraid. Indeed, joining many orders implies becoming a priest, and so orders worry about the document issued by the Vatican on this matter. I’ve seen it make people’s lives very hard.
 
Blessings
There are gay designers named DOLCE & GABBANA came out and said they were against gay marriage& IVF birthing. I think their Italian Catholic upbringing took some roots. LGBT’s are boycotting but, I thought if you knew this it might prove fruitful?
Don’t teach against LGBT but FOR Natural Order. Have Pamphlets (?).
Can pamphlets be displayed showing the churches teaching for heterosexual families?
Be a witness of love?
That’s all I got.
Google Serenity prayer

DOLCHE & GABBANA.

The pair have been particularly outspoken on LGBT issues in the past, and provoked furor in 2015 when they said in an interview: 'We oppose gay adoptions. The only family is the traditional one. ‘No chemical offsprings and rented uterus: life has a natural flow, there are things that should not be changed’

Dolce & Gabbana’s healthy disdain for chemical offspring and the “rented uterus” echoes my podcast describing gay marriage as creating a synthetic civilization. This shows that you don’t have to be an archaic, bigoted, angry, belief-pushing, judgmental, fascist, right-wing, [insert Facebook insult here], conservative to perceive that human sex organs are oriented toward mommy/daddy families where children spring forth.
In Christ’s Love
Tweedlealice
 
Well, aren’t “deep-seated tendencies” when one has acted on homosexual attractions in the past-perhaps many times? I’m sure there are those with SSA who have never acted on attractions and those people would probably be more suitable for the religious life because they have a history of great self restraint and there would be less potential for them to try to change Doctrine.
 
Last edited:
Monica83 said:
Well, aren’t “deep-seated tendencies” when one has acted on homosexual attractions in the past-perhaps many times? I’m sure there are those with SSA who have never acted on attractions and those people would probably be more suitable for the religious life because they have a history of great self restraint and there would be less potential for them to try to change Doctrine.
Click to expand...
I’m married with kids, and I would think I qualify for having deep-seated tendencies. :confused:

You see, I’ve been attracted to men, continually and with some intensity, since age 11. I don’t know how it could get more deep-seated than that. Whether I’ve had sex with men is irrelevant, when it comes to the question of whether the tendency is deep-seated. Indeed, I think many, many men who have sex with men have a less persistent homosexual attraction than I do.

No, I don’t see the document as talking about behavior, but about attraction. 😐

I’d prefer your interpretation, though!
 
Brendan said:
40.png
BlackFriar:
The CCC did not use the phrase “moral offense” re divorce.
Click to expand...
2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.

If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

Is it in regards to civil divorce?
Click to expand...
That seems to be so.
By saying the CCC did not use the phrase “moral offence” I referred to the first two CCC articles which lays down the teaching and then proceeds to qualify.

In fact the Church defines “Divorce” in two ways. One full (attempts to sever the marriage bond in order to be free to remarry), the other partial (often called Separation from board and bed).

Both are contrary to Church teaching on the ideals of marriage.
There are times when seeking a partial Divorce (Separation) is not a moral offence though.

e.g. when a blameless, passive spouse sometimes needs to agree or obtain a civil divorce (which is usually done with the intent of being a full Divorce but in this case is still just Separation) then it will not be a moral offence.

Separation (partial Divorce) is still against Church Faith in so far as marriages are meant to be cohabitative. Yet this evil is tolerable if a greater evil is being resisted (a dangerous husband) and so the passive party is not culpable of the offence. It is then not morally offensive.
 
Last edited:
The Church’s teaching is that homosexuality excludes a man from the priesthood. Many if not most religious community officially exclude homosexual people, though that hasn’t always been practiced. But with the right charism and rule, shouldn’t there be religious communities that are open and encouraged for homosexual people? I think so.
 
I actually hope so. However, there are some theological arguments that a homosexual man shouldn’t represent Christ in that way. However, I don’t personally see the difference between a celibate gay man and a celibate straight man. If the argument is that heterosexual desires are what define a man, I find that more than a little unconvincing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top