Gods view in homosexuality

[Dakota_Roberts]

There is nothing charitable in using these political terms. They confirm people on this erroneous ideology. It is the opposite of charity.

if someone wears an inverted cross does it means the person wearing it buys into everything it means?

 

[aprilfloyd]

if someone wears an inverted cross does it means the person wearing it buys into everything it means?

Do you really think if Jesus returns - he wants to see a cross?

 

[DexUK]

There is nothing charitable in using these political terms. They confirm people on this erroneous ideology. It is the opposite of charity.

:banghead:

So you don’t want to be understood then?

 

[The_Bucket]

:banghead:

So you don’t want to be understood then?

I think that’s the point. The point is that we’re not to meet people where they are, we’re to first make them meet us where we are and then go from there.

That’s pretty much the complete opposite of what the father of the prodigal son did, but whatever. As long as we’re not lowering ourselves to use a “loaded” word like “gay.” God forbid it.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

There is nothing charitable in using these political terms. They confirm people on this erroneous ideology. It is the opposite of charity.

I find that a very ironic thing to say, fix–because it appears that, for you, charity has some very clear pre-conditions, one of which is that love is not an option (or must be radically re-defined) if it requires bending to take into consideration the weakness of a brother or sister. You’ll have nothing to do with that sort of thing. You have made it clear that your ideological integrity is more important than compassionating another person’s weakness.

Jesus counted his divinity as nothing, emptying himself for the sake of weak humanity. Paul declared that he was willing to be all things to all people that he might save some. If we value our own personal integrity over the needs of others (even if we have “principled” objections to those needs) how are we to empty ourselves as completely as we can in order to love others even half as much as we should? How are we to be all things to all people if all we’re actually willing to be is satisfied with our own uprightness?

Fix, they will know we are Christians by our love–not by how overbearingly correct we can be. If our attachment to being right is getting in the way of our ability to love others and build up the church of God–even at the cost of our own self-desolation–then we’re failing and have fallen into idolatry: our sense of correctness has become our god.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[The_Bucket]

Well said Deo Volente. Jesus dined with prostitutes, tax collectors and other sinners. He refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery. He even went so far as to say that tax collectors and prostitutes were entering Heaven before the Pharisees and scribes!

But when did he say that what the prostitutes and adulterous women were doing was A-OK? He merely told the woman “Neither do I condemn you” and followed it with “Now go and do not sin anymore.”

He’s pretty clear that it’s sin. We’re all clear here that homosexual acts are wrong. Why does the diction matter? If you win but one soul over to Christ, every time you have to use the words “queer,” “gay” and even “LGBT” in order to develop a rapport are absolutely and totally worth it.

 

[DexUK]

Well said Deo Volente. Jesus dined with prostitutes, tax collectors and other sinners. He refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery. He even went so far as to say that tax collectors and prostitutes were entering Heaven before the Pharisees and scribes!

But when did he say that what the prostitutes and adulterous women were doing was A-OK? He merely told the woman “Neither do I condemn you” and followed it with “Now go and do not sin anymore.”

He’s pretty clear that it’s sin. We’re all clear here that homosexual acts are wrong. Why does the diction matter? If you win but one soul over to Christ, every time you have to use the words “queer,” “gay” and even “LGBT” in order to develop a rapport are absolutely and totally worth it.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Well said Deo Volente. Jesus dined with prostitutes, tax collectors and other sinners. He refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery. He even went so far as to say that tax collectors and prostitutes were entering Heaven before the Pharisees and scribes!

But when did he say that what the prostitutes and adulterous women were doing was A-OK? He merely told the woman “Neither do I condemn you” and followed it with “Now go and do not sin anymore.”

He’s pretty clear that it’s sin. We’re all clear here that homosexual acts are wrong. Why does the diction matter? If you win but one soul over to Christ, every time you have to use the words “queer,” “gay” and even “LGBT” in order to develop a rapport are absolutely and totally worth it.

I am not clear. It seems that the catholic church is simply homophobic and is so scared of setting itself a precedent, ie doctrine can be changed, that it does all manner of linguistics gymnastics to get around it to say homosexuality is ok, but homosexual sex is wrong is absurd

 

[Elizabeth502]

I am not clear. It seems that the catholic church is simply homophobic and is so scared of setting itself a precedent, ie doctrine can be changed, that it does all manner of linguistics gymnastics to get around it to say homosexuality is ok, but homosexual sex is wrong is absurd

It does not say the attraction (“homosexuality”) is OK. It says that the person is completely OK.

Lots of attractions we have – some clinical, like OCD, some moral, – are not healthy for us. But the person is not synonymous with the attraction.

 

[fix]

:banghead:

So you don’t want to be understood then?

No you keep making this false choice.

 

[fix]

if someone wears an inverted cross does it means the person wearing it buys into everything it means?

Do you affirm their ignorance?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I am not clear. It seems that the catholic church is simply homophobic and is so scared of setting itself a precedent, ie doctrine can be changed, that it does all manner of linguistics gymnastics to get around it to say homosexuality is ok, but homosexual sex is wrong is absurd

Homosexuality in itself is not sinful because concupiscence is not evil.

 

[fix]

I think that’s the point. The point is that we’re not to meet people where they are, we’re to first make them meet us where we are and then go from there.

That’s pretty much the complete opposite of what the father of the prodigal son did, but whatever. As long as we’re not lowering ourselves to use a “loaded” word like “gay.” God forbid it.

I think the point is to pretend no one can grasp fundamental concepts and then claim that charity demands everyone embrace an erroneous ideology.

 

[fix]

Grace & Peace!

I find that a very ironic thing to say, fix–because it appears that, for you, charity has some very clear pre-conditions, one of which is that love is not an option (or must be radically re-defined) if it requires bending to take into consideration the weakness of a brother or sister. You’ll have nothing to do with that sort of thing. You have made it clear that your ideological integrity is more important than compassionating another person’s weakness.

Jesus counted his divinity as nothing, emptying himself for the sake of weak humanity. Paul declared that he was willing to be all things to all people that he might save some. If we value our own personal integrity over the needs of others (even if we have “principled” objections to those needs) how are we to empty ourselves as completely as we can in order to love others even half as much as we should? How are we to be all things to all people if all we’re actually willing to be is satisfied with our own uprightness?

Fix, they will know we are Christians by our love–not by how overbearingly correct we can be. If our attachment to being right is getting in the way of our ability to love others and build up the church of God–even at the cost of our own self-desolation–then we’re failing and have fallen into idolatry: our sense of correctness has become our god.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

No one has claimed that we must be uncharitable. Those that place conditions on charity are the ones that demand we all embrace this novel ideology called "gay?.

 

[fix]

But the person is not synonymous with the attraction.

Apparently they are synonymous by some who post here.

 

[fix]

Why doesn’t Courage use the terms “gay” and “lesbian”?

A. Courage discourages persons with same-sex attractions from labeling themselves “gay” and “lesbian” for the following reasons:

1. The secular world usually uses those terms to refer to someone who is either actively homosexual or intends to be. When a person decides to “come out” and say “I am gay” or “I am lesbian”, the person usually means “this is who I am - I was born this way and I intend to live this way. I have a right to find a same-sex partner with whom to have a romantic sexual relationship.” To “come out” as being “gay” or “lesbian” doesn’t usually mean “I have homosexual attractions and I have a deep commitment to living a chaste life”.

1. By labeling someone, we discourage those who may wish to try and move beyond homosexual attractions. Some people, especially young people, are able to further their psychosexual development with spiritual and psychological aid. If we labeled them “gay” and “lesbian”, they might think there’s no possibility of moving beyond these attractions.

1. There is more to a person than one’s sexual attractions. Even if one experienced same-sex attractions for most of one’s life, he or she is first and foremost a child of God created in His image. To refer to that person as “gay” or “lesbian” is a reductionist way of speaking about someone. We are even trying now to avoid using the term homosexual as a noun, or as an adjective directly describing the person (i.e. homosexual person). Although it takes more words, we prefer to speak of “persons with same-sex attractions”. Fr. Harvey has said that, if he could, he would rename his first book “The Homosexual Person” to something else like “The Person With Homosexual Attractions”.

There are people within the Catholic Church who might argue that those who label themselves “gay” or “lesbian” aren’t necessarily living unchastely. That’s true, but the implications of the terms in today’s society don’t commonly connote chaste living. Furthermore, they are limiting their own possibilities of growth by such self-labeling, and reducing their whole identity by defining themselves according to their sexual attractions. At Courage, we choose not to label people according to an inclination which, although psychologically understandable, is still objectively disordered.

 

[fix]

I am Not Gay . . .

By defining myself as a “gay” male, I had taken on a false identity. Any label such as “lesbian,” “bisexual,” or even “homosexual” insinuates a type of person equivalent to male or female. This is simply not true. One is not a same-sex attraction, but instead experiences this attraction.

Ignorance of this distinction is dangerous. My false beliefs regarding my identity deterred me from accepting the conviction in my heart from the Holy Spirit. St…

At the beginning of this article, I mentioned the discussion over whether persons are born homosexual or if they choose to be. Neither is true because same-sex attraction is an experience—not a type of person. Accepting homosexuality as an identity, which has largely been affirmed in our culture, brings so much confusion. In order for a Christian to justify homosexual behavior, he or she needs to alter and contort Sacred Scripture…

 

[The_Bucket]

I am not clear. It seems that the catholic church is simply homophobic and is so scared of setting itself a precedent, ie doctrine can be changed, that it does all manner of linguistics gymnastics to get around it to say homosexuality is ok, but homosexual sex is wrong is absurd

Nonsense. The Church teaches that homosexual attraction is “intrinsically disordered.” But that does not mean that someone who deals with such attraction is committing any sin.

An extreme example would be to compare someone with same-sex attraction to someone who is attracted to adolescents. Doubtless there are plenty of people out there who have that attraction who do not act on it and do not wish to have it. But nevertheless they have this disorder. Does having the disorder make them bad people? Does it make them automatically grave sinners? No way! It’s the action that makes it wrong.

In the case of heterosexual attraction, that indeed is properly ordered. Except there are tons of ways to abuse that properly ordered attraction to the point of grave sin. Adultery, fornication, pornography, sexual acts that are not unitive and procreative, contraception, etc.

It’s not splitting hairs at all.

 

[The_Bucket]

fix,

That’s great that Courage decides to use certain diction. It’s also irrelevant. We who live in the world must meet people where they are if we are to draw them to Christ. Refusing to use “loaded” terms like “gay” is just another way we keep ourselves apart from other people.

I’m all for not buying into the ideology but using a term like “gay” does not lend any kind of weight or authority to any political agenda. It’s simply using common parlance in order to remove potential communication barriers.

You’re not doing the Church or active homosexuals any favors by immediately labeling them or specific words in a fashion that in any way intimates that they are a group of “others.” The Church is not in control of the culture; it hasn’t been that way for centuries. Thus we are left with either insisting that we talk on “our terms” or allowing ourselves to talk on terms where everyone knows what everyone else is talking about.

When someone says “I’m gay” does it mean he or she is actively engaged in sexual acts? I doubt it. Prior to my marriage, if I was to say “I’m straight” would that mean I’m sexually active with the opposite sex? Nope. Virgin on my wedding day.

No matter what you or Courage say, the common understanding of the terms “gay/straight/bisexual” refers to attraction not action.

 

[Elizabeth502]

That is quite deliberately missing the point though.

I don’t that’s fair. I don’t think he’s “deliberately” missing [your] point. He has a different point, which opposes yours.

Homosexually inclined people don’t go about their daily business describing themselves, when asked, as “Same Sex Attracted”. The phrase doesn’t get used. They describe themselves as “gay” as part of their general parlance, whether they’re practising or not.

If we talk to individual gay people on a personal basis (I use the term as synonymous with ‘SSA’) it’s fine to use the ‘SSA’ term, since it’s understandable to the individual. But the moment we decry anything ‘gay’ then the individuals who consider themselves gay in simple ‘SSA’ terms hear that they are being condemned for simply being SSA.

How difficult is it to understand?

I don’t think it’s difficult to understand. I just think these four things:

(a) I don’t necessarily agree with promoting a secular understanding of sexuality, once a person —heterosexual or homosexual-- is practicing Catholicism. (Cradle, convert, revert, whatever). The secular world, Dex, thinks it’s “natural” and “normal” for me to indulge my sexuality, too – whenever and with whomever, as long as the partner is not legally bound to someone else. They see it as a form of oppression not to “celebrate” my happily fornicating, free from “judgment” or “condemnation” from anyone else in the universe, including anyone in religious roles. (Be very clear: mere disapproval equals “judgment” and “condemnation.”)

Me cohabiting? Hey, no problem.
Me promiscuous? Hey, no one else’s business.

(b) When a person insists that his or her sexuality (any kind) is integral to his personhood and he cannot conceive of being other than that, then the conversion process is somewhat difficult if the understanding of sexuality means that you are free to act on it, and that wihtout acting on it, it makes no sense to identify with that sexuality. (See aprilfloyd’s recent post.)

(c) In my own communication with the “gay” segment of the population (which I discussed twice earlier, I think), I do not “insist” on certain terms, no. That would be alienating. But I also don’t introduce their terms either, or their understandings of how “inevitable” it is to act on an attraction, and how not acting on an attraction supposedly betrays the self and is some giant lie.

The most important role I play (I believe) in conversations with that population (which I don’t generally interface with as a group, although some of you may; mine is usually with individuals), is just to listen, receive, and accept. Accept nonverbally. I agree with anyone here that that is the most important and persuasive (“converting”) activity. (Or, passivity, is how I prefer to see it and say it.) I don’t patronize with a lot of modern lingo. I don’t pretend to buy into the subculture, or feel that I must do that in order to win their trust. And since I have earned their trust without doing that, I think that possibly proves my point.

(d) When you’re standing next to me at Mass, I really don’t want you to even know that I am a heterosexual. What difference does it make in what kind of Greeting of Peace you give me? In whether you smile at me, in whether you start a conversation with me after Mass, in the hall or outside? My sexuality is irrelevant. I am a sister in Christ, and hopefully I will not be prejudged on whether I quite meet the specifications for someone who thoroughly “understands” (or not) the “gay” viewpoint for the simple reason that I am not gay.

(You see, it works both ways. Labels have many dimensions.)