Gay rights activists protest N. California mall

[fix]

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.

The irony is just too much.

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.

You are comparing romantic expressions to this example?

Defining people based solely upon their sexual orientation is narrow minded and does not reflect the Church’s position:

Tell that to those who claim they are “gay”.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

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.

On the contrary, the heliocentric theory was already formulated by Copernicus (a scientist) and it was well known by the time Galileo came along. And Galileo had actually proven nothing, even by the standards of the yet unkown “Scientific Method”, Galileo’s theory lacked the empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, because the limited technology of his day did not allow him to measure the parallax shifts in the stars at that time.

And it goes on:

"Many people wrongly believe Galileo proved heliocentricity. He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of these shifts, given the stars’ great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets were.

Thus Galileo did not prove the theory by the Aristotelian standards of science in his day. In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina and other documents, Galileo claimed that the Copernican theory had the “sensible demonstrations” needed according to Aristotelian science, but most knew that such demonstrations were not yet forthcoming. Most astronomers in that day were not convinced of the great distance of the stars that the Copernican theory required to account for the absence of observable parallax shifts. This is one of the main reasons why the respected astronomer Tycho Brahe refused to adopt Copernicus fully.

Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds."

 

[bellasbane]

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”.

I am just stating what I observe - as were you. Are you denying that such people find their way into the Church and create problems for us all? They have been around forever.

Now I’m going to shrug off your personal attack, because it is absurd. I might as well hold up a mirror and say “back atcha”. I mean, who among us is so perfect that we are infallible in our faith & judgements?

Instead, I will simply maintain my position. Which is to say that the term cafeteria catholic is divisive and rude. It is really not your place to make judgments about your fellow Catholics. People are complicated and so is Church doctrine, which is why we have pastors and bishops to deal with such things. As a member of the laity, your job is not to judge, but to welcome your brothers and sisters when they show up to mass.

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?

All I know is that there is nothing in Church doctrine that prohibits it.

In Japan, whole families bath together - which is considered to be perfectly normal. Apparently, in Saudi Arabia, men walk together holding hands (remember George Bush & the Saudi King?). In my family, men greet each other with kisses on the cheek - but I’m Italian so that’s to be expected.

Every culture has its own norms.

I basically agree.

Good.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

WE HAVE A NEW POPE!

 

[bellasbane]

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.

Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, homosexual practices and artificial contraception.

Here’s a whopper! Heterosexual people do all of these things - including engaging in homosexual practices. Do you think all male prostitutes are homosexual?

Furthermore, the purpose of the CCC isn’t to bludgeon other people. It is a guide for examining your own conscience and ordering your own life. You are using it to justify disparaging other people - and for what purpose?

I think Jesus has a few things to say in the Gospel about misuse of the law.

 

[fix]

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?

What I find interesting is the the OP is about “romantic” expressions by same sex persons. It is not about cultural differences or same sex greetings in Europe. Why are we even comparing unlike issues?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, homosexual practices…Heterosexual people do all of these things - including engaging in homosexual practices.

And when they do, they are committing grave sin.

I think Jesus has a few things to say in the Gospel about misuse of the law.

The misuse of the law that he decried was not the use of it which you object to here. What he condemned was the creation of artificial new “laws” which were not essential to the moral code, but which were practices characterized by extreme interpretations of the Mosaic code.

Jesus affirmed the Mosaic code in its original core and original entirety.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I am just stating what I observe - as were you. Are you denying that such people find their way into the Church and create problems for us all? They have been around forever.

Now I’m going to shrug off your personal attack, because it is absurd. I might as well hold up a mirror and say “back atcha”. I mean, who among us is so perfect that we are infallible in our faith & judgements?

Instead, I will simply maintain my position. Which is to say that the term cafeteria catholic is divisive and rude. It is really not your place to make judgments about your fellow Catholics. People are complicated and so is Church doctrine, which is why we have pastors and bishops to deal with such things. As a member of the laity, your job is not to judge, but to welcome your brothers and sisters when they show up to mass.

Here’s the distinction between our views:

Your’s primarily passes judgment on the person’s intentions. In essence, it passes judgment on their soul.

My term, is a designation of the observable and stated beliefs that the Cafeteria “Catholics” have openly expressed.

And it is permissible to have honest disagreements on matters of prudential judgments. However, it is never morally permissible for Catholics to reject non-negotiables like the intrinsic evil of the sexual activity of homosexuality. Not to be confused with the broken dysfunctional state of the homosexual inclination that is not acted upon, which in itself is not necessarily a sin.

All I know is that there is nothing in Church doctrine that prohibits it.

In Japan, whole families bath together - which is considered to be perfectly normal. Apparently, in Saudi Arabia, men walk together holding hands (remember George Bush & the Saudi King?). In my family, men greet each other with kisses on the cheek - but I’m Italian so that’s to be expected.

Every culture has its own norms.

So you’re open to the trans-gender policy of both sexes sharing bathrooms and showers in the public schools?

Because I’m not aware of any specific doctrine against it.

So you’re morally fine with that- right?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

What I find interesting is the the OP is about “romantic” expressions by same sex persons. It is not about cultural differences or same sex greetings in Europe. Why are we even comparing unlike issues?

Very good point, fix.

 

[scipio337]

Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, homosexual practices and artificial contraception.

Here’s a whopper! Heterosexual people do all of these things - including engaging in homosexual practices. Do you think all male prostitutes are homosexual?

Furthermore, the purpose of the CCC isn’t to bludgeon other people. It is a guide for examining your own conscience and ordering your own life. You are using it to justify disparaging other people - and for what purpose?

I think Jesus has a few things to say in the Gospel about misuse of the law.

I agree that we are all sinners, bella, and that we should treat acting on same sex attraction like other sins of the flesh, and be welcoming to those who struggle with it…

However…

The topic of the thread isn’t that activists (or other posters) are saying that any of the above are “not sinful”, or “the Church needs to change its position on premarital sex, and get with the times”, or that the sins you mention above are acceptable in public.

Unfortunately, there has been a push our era to label the sins you mentioned as “normal”, or “natural” (It’s just natural for a young man to do that!), even acceptable, despite the fact that they can be very damaging. I for one don’t want the same thing done with this issue.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, homosexual practices and artificial contraception.

Here’s a whopper! Heterosexual people do all of these things - including engaging in homosexual practices. Do you think all male prostitutes are homosexual?

Furthermore, the purpose of the CCC isn’t to bludgeon other people. It is a guide for examining your own conscience and ordering your own life. You are using it to justify disparaging other people - and for what purpose?

I think Jesus has a few things to say in the Gospel about misuse of the law.

What?

If you think I’m giving sexual depravity of heterosexuals a pass - then you are mistaken.

The depravity of straight people doesn’t erase or offset the intrinsic evil, the grave depravity, the intrinsically disordered, the objectively disordered dysfunction of homosexuality.

This is not a moral sum-zero game here.

As with many things in the wisdom of the Catholic Church, the comparison is an ‘and/also’ comparison.

 

[fix]

I agree that we are all sinners, bella, and that we should treat acting on same sex attraction like other sins of the flesh, and be welcoming to those who struggle with it…

However…

The topic of the thread isn’t that activists (or other posters) are saying that any of the above are “not sinful”, or “the Church needs to change its position on premarital sex, and get with the times”, or that the sins you mention above are acceptable in public.

Unfortunately, there has been a push our era to label the sins you mentioned as “normal”, or “natural” (It’s just natural for a young man to do that!), even acceptable, despite the fact that they can be very damaging. I for one don’t want the same thing done with this issue.

Not just that, but each time homosexual acts are discussed it is as if some mistakenly think the Church demands a type of fairness doctrine where we must mention every possible sexual sin or it seems too one sided. I have never seen this as part of the Church’s moral theology tradition. It seems an attempt to misdirect the debate.

BTW, the CCC states that not all mortal sins are of equal gravity. Even among sexual offenses the tradition has defined differences in gravity.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Unfortunately, there has been a push our era to label the sins you mentioned as “normal”, or “natural” (It’s just natural for a young man to do that!), even acceptable, despite the fact that they can be very damaging. I for one don’t want the same thing done with this issue.

Everything old is “new” again:

"Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made.r As a result, they have no excuse; 21for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.s 22While claiming to be wise,t they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.

24Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts* for the mutual degradation of their bodies.v 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.w 26Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.x 28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper." - Romans 1:20-28

 

[epan]

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.

Happily.

Here is your terrible confusion. You confuse human nature with the understanding of human nature. The two are not the same.

Understand that, and you will understand the difference between 13th century understanding and 21st century understanding.

Fail at that, and you will continue to rail against reason.

Do you grasp the source of your polemic and gnashing of teeth, or does it escape you?

Relax and let history unfold. You will be OK.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Happily.

Here is your terrible confusion. You confuse human nature with the understanding of human nature. The two are not the same.

Understand that, and you will understand the difference between 13th century understanding and 21st century understanding.

Fail at that, and you will continue to rail against reason.

Really?

What new knowledge do you understand about human nature that makes homosexuality conducive to our natural design all of a sudden?

 

[epan]

Really?

What new knowledge do you understand about human nature that makes homosexuality conducive to our natural design all of a sudden?

Whoa! The burden is on you. Tell us how this natural design postulated in the 13th century, as a modification of Plato’s philosophy qualifies as science today. Your first task is to explain the jump from Plato’s mind to God’s mind. Start with that. Please don’t tell me that you don’t understand the origin of “natural law”. It probably preceded Plato, but as far as we know Augustine usurped and modified it. Aquinas then continued on the theme. This leaves you with some centuries to fill in to get to a modern understanding.

Proceed with you lesson, professor. Please include you your lesson how the commentary of Aquinas on Plato’s philosophy are Christian, and how they are relevant as a foundation for modern scientific inquiry, or even upon Christianity, other than as personal reflections and opinion, which are valuable historically, but irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Whoa! The burden is on you. Tell us how this natural design postulated in the 13th century, as a modification of Plato’s philosophy qualifies as science today. Your first task is to explain the jump from Plato’s mind to God’s mind. Start with that.

The Burden is on me?

I’m afraid not.

This new facet of your clarification is your argument based on your theories.

So have at it. Flesh it out. (no pun intended)

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Our new Pontiff’s views on homosexuality:

Pope Francis:

He has affirmed church teaching on homosexuality, though he teaches the importance of respecting individuals who are gay or lesbian. He strongly opposed legislation introduced in 2010 by the Argentine Government to allow same-sex marriage, calling it a “real and dire anthropological throwback”. In a letter to the monasteries of Buenos Aires, he wrote: “Let’s not be naive, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”** He has also insisted that adoption by gay and lesbian people is a form of discrimination against children. **This position received a rebuke from Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who said the church’s tone was reminiscent of “medieval times and the Inquisition”.

Here’s a suggestion for all of you Cafeteria “Catholics” who were hoping the Church would embrace the fallacy of homosexuality as a normal and morally acceptable form of sexual expression:

Please, be true to yourself and to the Church, and either accept the Church’s timeless Truths, or leave with dignity:

“I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of my mouth." - Rev 3:15-16

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Whoa! The burden is on you. Tell us how this natural design postulated in the 13th century, as a modification of Plato’s philosophy qualifies as science today. Your first task is to explain the jump from Plato’s mind to God’s mind. Start with that. Please don’t tell me that you don’t understand the origin of “natural law”. It probably preceded Plato, but as far as we know Augustine usurped and modified it. Aquinas then continued on the theme. This leaves you with some centuries to fill in to get to a modern understanding.

Proceed with you lesson, professor. Please include you your lesson how the commentary of Aquinas on Plato’s philosophy are Christian, and how they are relevant as a foundation for modern scientific inquiry, or even upon Christianity, other than as personal reflections and opinion, which are valuable historically, but irrelevant to this discussion.

So in other words:

“No”, you can’t cite any new knowledge that reveals a new understanding about human nature that makes homosexuality conducive to our natural design.

And instead of simply admitting that, you have decided to obfuscate the glaring deficiency in your argument by shifting the argument to a scrutiny of the philosophical contrasts and comparisons of the historical understanding and definitions of Natural Law.

 

[Lochias]

So in other words:

“No”, you can’t cite any new knowledge that reveals a new understanding about human nature that makes homosexuality conducive to our natural design.

And instead of simply admitting that, you have decided to obfuscate the glaring deficiency in your argument by shifting the argument to a scrutiny of the philosophical contrasts and comparisons of the historical understanding and definitions of Natural Law.