F
fix
Guest
What a biased and reductionist understanding of those events.
Here is a more balanced view:
The Galileo Affair
- Status
Here is a more balanced view:
The Galileo Affair
E
epan
Guest
So, you would claim that the Earth revolves around the Sun?
L
Lochias
Guest
Not playing games with you today, epan.
Again: Science has no moral authority to tell people how to live their lives, and it has no moral authority over the Church. It can’t, by its very nature.
L
Lochias
Guest
Read the article. Historians and investigators of the time agreed largely with the Church.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
Talk about lunacy.
I never implied that science came to a screeching halt. I’m simply stating that human design and human nature have not changed.
However YOU are clearly implying that science has suddenly discovered a new human paradigm where the anomaly of homosexuality is all of a sudden conducive to our human nature and human design.
So tell us, what has science discovered that makes homosexuality anything more than an anomaly to our observable design?
Please, do share this newly discovered lunacy with the world.
F
fix
Guest
Which part of the article do you reject?
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
Apparently you’re ignorant of history as well as science. Because those same Jews still recognize the intrinsically disordered nature of homosexuality as well Catholics.
See what I did there? I actually made your disconnected and irrelevant analogy suddenly relevant to the topic at hand.
You’re welcome. :tiphat:
And apparently you didn’t read the link that explains Galileo’s conflict with the church. Here’s a hint: Galileo was not disciplined because of a heliocentric theory per se. But rather, he was disciplined because he quickly insisted on turning the theory into a theological precept before the theory could be supported by scientific observations. BTW, the theory was not originally his either. It had already been hypothesized:
But hey, why let those pesky facts get in your way now?
You’re too busy inventing new pseudo-scientific psychobabble to somehow prove that the intrinsic dysfunction of homosexuality is suddenly a functional part of the human design.
Apparently something NEW has been discovered about our biological design, according to your new religion.
So feel free to share your new scientific discovery with the world professor. Tell us how the hen and rooster are now suddenly interchangeable!
S
scipio337
Guest
Nice. Throw a fire bomb, then run.
“All I have to say is your mom kicks puppies, and is mean to homeless people. Oh, and by the way, I’m not posting anymore, Peace Out!”
A pity. All I was trying to point out the difference between action and dogma. There have been bad Catholics. I get that. But still, it’s not dogma.
Its like an LDS making the claim “When is the Catholic Church going to recognize celestial progression? They’re always changing with the times, they’ll change on this”.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
Uhm… you’ve been dodging my questions since last night.
So tell us professor, what new scientific discovery has suddenly made the anomaly of homosexuality conducive to our human design?
Oh and, has human design and human nature suddenly changed since the 12th and 13th centuries?
Because I seemed to have missed that breakthrough.
OR, does popular fad = scientific “fact” in your laboratory of the mind?
Riddle us that, professor.
B
bellasbane
Guest
I agree with you there are many threats from within the Church. As a progressive, liberal-minded Roman Catholic, I see them all the time in the intolerance, narrow-mindedness, bigotry, and insufferable puffed up piety of those who listen to the Gospel and participate in the Eucharist each week and still fail to internalize the message that God doesn’t love us because we are good.
Calling people cafeteria catholics is offensive and undermines the mission of those of us who seek to draw all of God’s children into the Body of Christ. Unless this is your intent, it’s best not to use the term.
Craving intimacy with other human beings is certainly part of our natural design. It was created by God and is good. We all like to kiss, hug and snuggle up with other people - especially during times of great joy or tremendous grief. It doesn’t matter if the person is male or female, married or single, young or old - physical intimacy is essential to a healthy emotional bond with other people.
I think the problem is that many people have a difficult time separating the natural drive for intimacy with the sex act. This is certainly true in our culture in comparison to Latin and Semitic cultures. You just don’t see many men kissing each other in the United States like you do in other parts of the world. For example, Jesus wasn’t offended when Judas kissed him. He was hurt. Judas did a terrible thing not only in betraying Jesus, but by turning a common sign of love into a signal of betrayal.
Sex without intimacy is certainly disordered, but intimacy should be understood as something that exists in its own right rather than simply as a precursor to sex. If we could get this message across, then I think many people who find themselves attracted to a person of the same sex for a variety of reasons would not necessarily self-identify as homosexual. Right now, our society doesn’t give people this kind of freedom. The only message we hear is that if you are attracted to a person of the same sex - then you are gay or lesbian. That fact that these terms are no longer used in a derogatory fashion doesn’t mean they do not impose artificial constraints on people.
There is no doubt that some people with same sex attractions will still sin and seek sexual pleasure for purely selfish reasons, but that is true for heterosexuals as well. There is no reason to single out homosexuals as particularly bad. The Church’s teachings on marriage and sex apply to us all. Furthermore, lets not forget that these teachings didn’t develop in response to the damage homosexual sex was doing to society - they were developed in response to the damage heterosexual sex (which does produce children) was doing to society.
Defining people based solely upon their sexual orientation is narrow minded and does not reflect the Church’s position:
"The Church’s position is not based on an animus against people with a homosexual orientation. Each and every member of the Church is called to holiness regardless of their sexual orientation. The Church has often warned against defining people by their sexual orientation in a way that diminishes their humanity. Each person is a mystery, an irreplaceable treasure, precious in God’s eye. We are God’s creatures and in baptism we are His sons and daughters, brothers and sisters to one another.
The extreme individualism of our age is undermining the common good and fractionalizing the community. The Church wishes to call people to unity based on mutual respect and a commitment to the common good. We do not want Catholics who have a homosexual orientation to feel unwelcomed in the Catholic Church. We remind them that they are bound to us by their baptism and are called to live a life of holiness. Many homosexual persons in our Church lead holy lives and make an outstanding contribution to the life of the Church by their service, generosity and the sharing of their spiritual gifts."
- Cardinal Seán, Archbishop of Boston, cardinalseansblog.org/2011/06/17/
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
Actually calling people intolerant, narrow-minded, bigoted, and insufferably puffed up with piety (like you just did) is far more insulting and indicative of the self-righteous interpretation of your own personal brokenness, as opposed to the apt title given to the observable theological selectivity of Cafeteria “Catholics”.
Do you thinks it’s normal and morally acceptable for adult brothers to kiss and snuggle?
How about all adult siblings?
How about adults and unrelated teens and children?
I basically agree.
L
livnlern
Guest
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
Not quite:
The sexual expression of homosexuality is always wrong. The act itself is always an intrinsic evil. It is always disordered.
However, heterosexual sex is morally good and encouraged within the sacred and fulfilling bonds of the Holy Sacrament of Marriage.
That is a clear and significant distinction.
L
livnlern
Guest
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
Well now, on THAT we can agree.
And if you look around, it is the Same-Sex advocates (who are most vociferous on your Liberal Progressive side of the political aisle) who are insisting that homosexual orientation be used as a defining trait of personal and political recognition, advocation, and privilege.
Look no further than the Left’s broken and misleading analogy of Same-Sex “marriage” to the Civil Rights Movement.
L
livnlern
Guest
B
bellasbane
Guest
Actually, that’s not quite accurate either, since the scientific method as we know it today was still in the process of being formulated and Galileo’s critics were hardly what we would call “scientists” - they were philosophers and theologians.
Because the university system at that time was ordered hierarchically (as was everything else back them) these men ranked “higher” than Galileo. So Galileo was viewed as an arrogant in-your-face upstart who had the gall to criticize his “betters”. Furthermore, they studied the “truths” of God and nature, while Galileo simply studied the “accidents” of nature.
In this system, the standard for what constitutes evidence was the reverse of what it is today, so it didn’t matter how many “scientific observations” Galileo put forward, his theory still conflicted with accepted doctrine and was therefore rejected for that reason.
L
Lochias
Guest
No, sorry. Read the article as presented earlier in the link, and educate yourself on the matter. The Church actually had no problems with the man until he started trying to push an unproven theory down the throats of everyone around him.
Although, he WAS noted to be brash and arrogant, and enjoyed making fools out of the people around him, so that assuredly didn’t help his case any.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
bellasbane,
Truth often hurts. When individuals in my life point out how I have offended them, it hurts, but my hurt and my initial denial of it (i.e., wounded pride) does not make their words untrue. Words do hurt, especially when they are true and we don’t want to face that truth.
Catholicism encompasses Truth. Now, the Church is what the Democratic Party used to be and now is no longer: a big tent. That is, the Church does not ratify opposing positions on doctrine, within the Church, and actions which eviscerate that doctrine, but the Church recognizes different gifts, different minds, different styles. The way that is seen, legitimately, is in the emphases lay, priests, and religious bring to the faith: Some spend more time doing X, Y, or Z; others less time: they don’t have those same gifts or interests.
Doctrine, however, is a different matter, because it proceeds from a single, unified authority, unlike political parties and other secular organizations. Truth cannot be divided. Something which is just an idea, and does not, or does not yet, come under the category of doctrine, is another matter. The Church welcomes ideas, as long as those ideas do not oppose doctrine.
I was a cafeteria Catholic for awhile. It never felt right and I never wanted to admit that that’s what I was doing. Rather, I repeated the refrain of most dissenting Catholics: *“I just don’t agree with the Church’s stand on X.” * What I was doing was setting myself on an equal plane with the Magisterium, by framing my position in that way. Within the absolutist religious context which is The Roman Catholic Church, that’s called dissent. It’s not called “[an allowable] progressive viewpoint.”
Many cafeteria Catholics call themselves that, so it can’t be universally offensive. Or, they describe it that way without using that word. They’ll say, “I like to follow some portions of the Church’s statements, but I don’t like the other parts, so I pick and choose.” At least they’re being honest. Maria Shriver has been even more embracing of the idea, calling herself proudly a cafeteria Catholic.
Within the Democratic Party, you can have a contrary opinion to the majority, and to what’s stated in the Platform, and still be considered as legitimately Democratic as any lock-step MSNBC commentator. You can even agitate for change in the Democratic Party without compromisng that identity. Very different in the Church.
Truth often hurts. When individuals in my life point out how I have offended them, it hurts, but my hurt and my initial denial of it (i.e., wounded pride) does not make their words untrue. Words do hurt, especially when they are true and we don’t want to face that truth.
Catholicism encompasses Truth. Now, the Church is what the Democratic Party used to be and now is no longer: a big tent. That is, the Church does not ratify opposing positions on doctrine, within the Church, and actions which eviscerate that doctrine, but the Church recognizes different gifts, different minds, different styles. The way that is seen, legitimately, is in the emphases lay, priests, and religious bring to the faith: Some spend more time doing X, Y, or Z; others less time: they don’t have those same gifts or interests.
Doctrine, however, is a different matter, because it proceeds from a single, unified authority, unlike political parties and other secular organizations. Truth cannot be divided. Something which is just an idea, and does not, or does not yet, come under the category of doctrine, is another matter. The Church welcomes ideas, as long as those ideas do not oppose doctrine.
I was a cafeteria Catholic for awhile. It never felt right and I never wanted to admit that that’s what I was doing. Rather, I repeated the refrain of most dissenting Catholics: *“I just don’t agree with the Church’s stand on X.” * What I was doing was setting myself on an equal plane with the Magisterium, by framing my position in that way. Within the absolutist religious context which is The Roman Catholic Church, that’s called dissent. It’s not called “[an allowable] progressive viewpoint.”
Many cafeteria Catholics call themselves that, so it can’t be universally offensive. Or, they describe it that way without using that word. They’ll say, “I like to follow some portions of the Church’s statements, but I don’t like the other parts, so I pick and choose.” At least they’re being honest. Maria Shriver has been even more embracing of the idea, calling herself proudly a cafeteria Catholic.
Within the Democratic Party, you can have a contrary opinion to the majority, and to what’s stated in the Platform, and still be considered as legitimately Democratic as any lock-step MSNBC commentator.
You can even agitate for change in the Democratic Party without compromisng that identity. Very different in the Church.- Status