Hate the sin, love the sinner?

[R_C]

That is fine. The only question remains is why so many people remain silent when they see the different kinds of wordings? Indeed they could point out - gently, of course - that one should not use inappropriate language, and the incorrectly chosen words are anything but “loving”.

My observation is that the affected people (homosexuals) do not percieve any kind of “love” from a vast majority of the catholic community. They see denigrating words, rejection, and hostility. As you say that is not what the church teaches, but I do not see a whole lot of condemnation of such improper behavior.

I’ll be very honest. Consider some statistics. From 1965 to 2012, we’ve seen the Catholic population increase from 45.6 million to 66.3 million (or, by surveys, 78 million). However, when we look at vocations, we find that we have roughly 30% less priests, 45% less priestly ordinations, 63% less religious brothers, 70% less religious sisters. We have 20% of our parrishes without a resident priest pastor. And what is worse, Mass attendance has been estimated at 24%, meaning that 76% (approximately) of US Catholics do not attend Mass every week (which could basically mean from every 2 weeks to never).

Having seen these sad figures, we notice two things. First, there’s something unusual about the growth of Catholic faithful and at the same time the decrease of vocations to the consecrated life. Second, can we really expect the vast majority of US Catholics to be so educated on these issues as to be truly able to express the teachings of the Church and to reflect Christ’s unconditional love? I mean, for a “majority”, sadly, the simple (and faulty) equation “homosexual = bad” suffices, while others take the second step downhill and adopt a “not heterosexual = bad” stance (!), thus completely misunderstanding the teachings on this very, very delicate matter.

Now, to truly understand this you must remember that those of us (and unworthily I count myself in) who still have a profound love for Holy Church know and understand what the Church truly is: nothing less than the very mystical Bride of Christ, in fact one with Him in the supernatural order. As such, just as with any human family, it is sorrowful and something we’d rather avoid discussing. Thus the lack of strong condemn for this, and for many other things.

And yet this is an erroneous approach which places passion and feelings over reason: for instead it is our duty to speak up and say this out loud: most Catholics out there are not reflecting the Church as they should, and this creates problems. Because when anyone sees someone who is a Christian in the Catholic Church, they in fact call him “Catholic” and expect him to reflect the fullness of the Magisterium, in fact to be a perfect model of Christ in words, thoughts, and deeds. And if this was extremely hard even for saints who lived extremely ascetic and devout lives, how much more for us poor sinners in this wicked world we live in!

Yes, many don’t profess the charity they should - and how could they? Charity, we know, is a theological virtue, a supernatural gift of grace, and how can we expect this to shine forth if we are unable to let other human virtues shine first? If we succumb to ignorance and lukewarmness, how will we be able to be charitable? Such charity, if expressed, will undoubtly be stained by the suspicion of hypocrisy! And what is worse, such suspicion will be placed on all Catholics, as if all were the same…because in fact we are supposed to be one with the Lord so much that each of us could say: “I am Church”!

Remember the words of Christ, who is the Head of the Church: these words are what the Church teaches, in fact, what gives life to the Church. It does not matter if in a hundred years Mass attendance goes down to 1% and we are left with 10 priests across the whole US: the Catholic faith, doctrine, and tradition are unaffected, and their truthfulness does not spring forth from the trend of the times and from the number of “followers”. And that is truly all that matters: for if 100% of all Catholics would profess what the Church professes, then nobody would ever endure what you have described.

Which is why I truly appreciate your reasonable approach. We need, unfortunately, to be practical: this stuff happens, it’ll only get worse, and it will affect the image of the Church, even of those who truly try their best.

 

[edwest2]

Thank you kindly. That was my point.

I agree, that certain things are not to be on public display. (Of course, this is a relatively new phenomenon, in older times there was no problem with nudity and public sexual practices, especially in the hot climates).

Yes, I read it before, too. Interesting, but it does the same thing you disapprove of concening the “in your face” approach.

It urges you to have “real hatred”, almost a “violent” approach of describing your “hatred” toward certain types of behavior. Sorry, in my world that is not how “love” works. To point out someone’s incorrect behavior is perfectly fine, if done in a friendly and helpful manner - once, but only ONCE!! - but if that advice is not heeded, then the discussion must stop. The bare minimum of respect is to accept that the other party is an adult, who may have made an erroneous decision, but with adulthood comes responsibility. And let me paraphrase the age-old saying: “You are NOT your brother’s keeper”.

When were these older times where there was no problem with nudity or public sexual practices? How about the Folsom Street Fair - is that a good example of a present problem?

I was taught to have a real revulsion toward sinful behavior. I literally ran out of the house of a former friend as his older brother showed him and me certain seeds and encouraged illegal drug use back around 1970. That was it. I didn’t want to associate with anyone or be at a party where I knew illegal drugs were being used, again in the early 1970s. Did that mean I hated those people? Of course not. I went to school with them every day. Finally, I was confronted by one of them after not showing showing up at a number of their parties. Instead of asking me why, I was immediately accused: “Do you think you’re better than us?” What did that tell me? It told me they knew what they were doing was wrong and it made them fell uncomfortable that I was not doing what they were doing. I didn’t know what to say at the time, but I was promised no more invitations and just got a stern look like: “we don’t like being made to feel uncomfortable or wrong.” Like I had hurt them. Hey, an invitation is not an order, like in the military.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Farien]

I’ll be very honest. Consider some statistics. From 1965 to 2012, we’ve seen the Catholic population increase from 45.6 million to 66.3 million (or, by surveys, 78 million). However, when we look at vocations, we find that we have roughly 30% less priests, 45% less priestly ordinations, 63% less religious brothers, 70% less religious sisters. We have 20% of our parrishes without a resident priest pastor. And what is worse, Mass attendance has been estimated at 24%, meaning that 76% (approximately) of US Catholics do not attend Mass every week (which could basically mean from every 2 weeks to never).

Having seen these sad figures, we notice two things. First, there’s something unusual about the growth of Catholic faithful and at the same time the decrease of vocations to the consecrated life. Second, can we really expect the vast majority of US Catholics to be so educated on these issues as to be truly able to express the teachings of the Church and to reflect Christ’s unconditional love? I mean, for a “majority”, sadly, the simple (and faulty) equation “homosexual = bad” suffices, while others take the second step downhill and adopt a “not heterosexual = bad” stance (!), thus completely misunderstanding the teachings on this very, very delicate matter.

Now, to truly understand this you must remember that those of us (and unworthily I count myself in) who still have a profound love for Holy Church know and understand what the Church truly is: nothing less than the very mystical Bride of Christ, in fact one with Him in the supernatural order. As such, just as with any human family, it is sorrowful and something we’d rather avoid discussing. Thus the lack of strong condemn for this, and for many other things.

And yet this is an erroneous approach which places passion and feelings over reason: for instead it is our duty to speak up and say this out loud: most Catholics out there are not reflecting the Church as they should, and this creates problems. Because when anyone sees someone who is a Christian in the Catholic Church, they in fact call him “Catholic” and expect him to reflect the fullness of the Magisterium, in fact to be a perfect model of Christ in words, thoughts, and deeds. And if this was extremely hard even for saints who lived extremely ascetic and devout lives, how much more for us poor sinners in this wicked world we live in!

Yes, many don’t profess the charity they should - and how could they? Charity, we know, is a theological virtue, a supernatural gift of grace, and how can we expect this to shine forth if we are unable to let other human virtues shine first? If we succumb to ignorance and lukewarmness, how will we be able to be charitable? Such charity, if expressed, will undoubtly be stained by the suspicion of hypocrisy! And what is worse, such suspicion will be placed on all Catholics, as if all were the same…because in fact we are supposed to be one with the Lord so much that each of us could say: “I am Church”!

Remember the words of Christ, who is the Head of the Church: these words are what the Church teaches, in fact, what gives life to the Church. It does not matter if in a hundred years Mass attendance goes down to 1% and we are left with 10 priests across the whole US: the Catholic faith, doctrine, and tradition are unaffected, and their truthfulness does not spring forth from the trend of the times and from the number of “followers”. And that is truly all that matters: for if 100% of all Catholics would profess what the Church professes, then nobody would ever endure what you have described.

Which is why I truly appreciate your reasonable approach. We need, unfortunately, to be practical: this stuff happens, it’ll only get worse, and it will affect the image of the Church, even of those who truly try their best.

Thank you very much for your kind words. The statistics you quoted are very interesting. I was under the impression that a sizable portion of the catholics (in the US) is not “really orthodox”, they are more like “cafeteria catholics”, and as such they are more “lenient” in the questions of homosexuality. So it would make sense that they are not the ones who would use derogatory words. One would presume that the more orthodox people who might make that mistake. Would you agree? Though I never saw a statistics along those lines, but it stands to reason.

When I read threads on these boards, the most outspoken (in a negative fashion) were the ones who portrayed themselves as “very orthodox, 100% in line with Rome” types of catholics. That is what made me wonder. Of course I might be mistaken, it was more of a general impression, I did not make a post-by-post statistics.

Anyhow, I appreciate your patience with my questions, and I am grateful that you put up with a “despicable heathen” (just kidding, of course).

 

[Farien]

When were these older times where there was no problem with nudity or public sexual practices? How about the Folsom Street Fair - is that a good example of a present problem?

I never heard of the Folsom Street Fair. Of course I looked it up after your reference, but that is not what I had in mind. I was thinking about those simple tribal societies, which were untouched by western civilizations. Those societies were not large in numbers, but they were composed of human beings, who had no special problems with either nudity or sex. The children were brought up in a tribal environment, where everyone took part in the duties of raising them. The problem is the relatively new and western taboo over nudity. In the medival Japan people had no problems with sex, not even with homosexual relationships. As long as it was consensual, no one raised an eye.

I was taught to have a real revulsion toward sinful behavior. I literally ran out of the house of a former friend as his older brother showed him and me certain seeds and encouraged illegal drug use back around 1970. That was it. I didn’t want to associate with anyone or be at a party where I knew illegal drugs were being used, again in the early 1970s. Did that mean I hated those people? Of course not. I went to school with them every day. Finally, I was confronted by one of them after not showing showing up at a number of their parties. Instead of asking me why, I was immediately accused: “Do you think you’re better than us?” What did that tell me? It told me they knew what they were doing was wrong and it made them fell uncomfortable that I was not doing what they were doing. I didn’t know what to say at the time, but I was promised no more invitations and just got a stern look like: “we don’t like being made to feel uncomfortable or wrong.” Like I had hurt them. Hey, an invitation is not an order, like in the military.

Sorry to hear your negative experiences. Too bad that the contemporary social custom looks at recreational drug use with a “jaundiced” eye, as if there would be any problem with properly controlled usage of certain substances. Remember, that at the end of the 1800’s and at the beginning of the 1900’s there were no drug laws, all those substances were over-the-counter substances (from cocaine to morphine and marijuana and hashish) an there were no drug-problems. But this is the topic of a very different thread. (There is a very interesting book about the subject: “Licit and Illicit Drugs” - a collection of essays, which you might find in the local library. A truly eye-opener look at the so-called “drug-problem”. Just one tidbit of info. In the old Ottoman (Turkish) empire the possession of “coffee” was a criminal offense punishable by death… and in a free association test if you would see the word “Turkish”, you very probably would associate it with “coffee”.)

 

[bzkoss236]

That is fine. The only question remains is why so many people remain silent when they see the different kinds of wordings? Indeed they could point out - gently, of course - that one should not use inappropriate language, and the incorrectly chosen words are anything but “loving”.

My observation is that the affected people (homosexuals) do not percieve any kind of “love” from a vast majority of the catholic community. They see denigrating words, rejection, and hostility. As you say that is not what the church teaches, but I do not see a whole lot of condemnation of such improper behavior.

The view of Catholicism, or Christianity in general, is a picture often painted by the views of the press and media. But the views shown are often the ones that stand out, or are “shocking”, and they do a bad job of painting an accurate picture of the majority. This is why love isn’t getting through, because people don’t often show the compassion we have for other people. The press would rather do a story about what we do wrong or views that oppose the majority. They’d rather do a story about the Westboro Baptist Church than do one about Catholic charities helping victims of poverty, soldiers overseas, and even the number of Catholics and Christians standing up against bullying, including those who bully homosexuals.

The issue goes the other way too. There are many online who bash, criticize, and attack people of faith out of nothing other than boredom, or that they disagree with them, and based on views they’ve perceived by the media. In a society that preaches tolerance, there is a lot of intolerance on both sides. Christians need to be more respectful in their wording, I will agree with that, but the other side also needs to be respectful and not judge us based on what the media chooses to show and actually study what we believe on a particular manner and not bash us for believing in something they think is a fairy-tale.

We are all sinners. We are all called to love each other, despite our flaws. We are all called to love each other as ourselves and be selfless in our actions.

 

[epan]

Thank you very much for your kind words. The statistics you quoted are very interesting. I was under the impression that a sizable portion of the catholics (in the US) is not “really orthodox”, they are more like “cafeteria catholics”, and as such they are more “lenient” in the questions of homosexuality. So it would make sense that they are not the ones who would use derogatory words. One would presume that the more orthodox people who might make that mistake. Would you agree? Though I never saw a statistics along those lines, but it stands to reason.

When I read threads on these boards, the most outspoken (in a negative fashion) were the ones who portrayed themselves as “very orthodox, 100% in line with Rome” types of catholics. That is what made me wonder. Of course I might be mistaken, it was more of a general impression, I did not make a post-by-post statistics.

Anyhow, I appreciate your patience with my questions, and I am grateful that you put up with a “despicable heathen” (just kidding, of course).

Social progress is always too slow for those who are the victims. But if you put it into a historic framework, the language used today is less derogatory than it was a few of decades ago. Even more important, the treatment has improved tremendously. If you go back centuries, then this change is even more pronounced.

A Catholic theologian postulated in the 13th century that sexual relations should be procreative, or “generative” to use a more accurate translation. This was not a new idea, but is when it was specifically codified into Christian orthodoxy.

Attitudes and behavior about non-generative sexual relations have been negative, at least since that time.

 

[edwest2]

The view of Catholicism, or Christianity in general, is a picture often painted by the views of the press and media. But the views shown are often the ones that stand out, or are “shocking”, and they do a bad job of painting an accurate picture of the majority. This is why love isn’t getting through, because people don’t often show the compassion we have for other people. The press would rather do a story about what we do wrong or views that oppose the majority. They’d rather do a story about the Westboro Baptist Church than do one about Catholic charities helping victims of poverty, soldiers overseas, and even the number of Catholics and Christians standing up against bullying, including those who bully homosexuals.

The issue goes the other way too. There are many online who bash, criticize, and attack people of faith out of nothing other than boredom, or that they disagree with them, and based on views they’ve perceived by the media. In a society that preaches tolerance, there is a lot of intolerance on both sides. Christians need to be more respectful in their wording, I will agree with that, but the other side also needs to be respectful and not judge us based on what the media chooses to show and actually study what we believe on a particular manner and not bash us for believing in something they think is a fairy-tale.

We are all sinners. We are all called to love each other, despite our flaws. We are all called to love each other as ourselves and be selfless in our actions.

Very well said. I have taken the time to visit a number of forums for people who don’t believe over a period of time to make sure I was getting the right impression. While there were a few who practiced a moderate approach, more took to name calling, and to varying degrees, called for the end of religion and belief. Their four senses and whatever they could think up was all they needed, and enjoy yourself since ‘there is nobody - up there.’

On the forum where I am a moderator, I saw the following: “We never want to feel guilty or ashamed or sinful ever again.” So what does that leave? The sexually immoral, drug using and hedonistic culture we have now. If you don’t believe you’re sinning in the first place then only a handful of things like rape, murder and stealing might be on your ‘do not do’ list. It has spread to all forms of media.

It is our work to get the Truth out there, and even if only one person listens then we have done well. Force is not our way, but living out our lives based on right reason and a well-formed conscience is.

Sadly, too many internet forums in general are angry places that operate by the type first and think later system. Or don’t think at all. Because, being a moderator on another forum (not here), along with others, we’ve had to ban people based on their behavior. It’s obvious that a few who are angry over something and have no dog to kick, let their frustrations out by going off on people on the internet. That was a bit off topic but we should learn how the system works in order to deal with people more effectively.

Peace,
Ed

 

[R_C]

No, actually an orthodox Catholic - as I tried to explain - would never use such words, because it is not how the Church (and, of course, how Christ) teaches us to behave. I mean, not many of us have seen the poor condition of lepers, who symbolically represented sinners, and in many ways it was most definitely a frightening and could indeed be described uncharitably using those strong words, and Christ not just let them approach Him: in fact, He approached them and even touched them, when He only needed to say a word for them to be healed - He approached them and made physical contact because Christ understands our humanity; by the same reasoning he let the prostitute wash his feet when such contact was considered a disgusting thing for a holy man (as you can see from the reaction of the people present), because He could see her sincere repentance for her sins and He understood that our humanity is intrinsically bound to physical contact…that in us, love is a very spiritual thing that is still very physical…in this we begin to grasp the great significance of Christianity’s greatest mystery: the Incarnation of God, which the great mystic, Doctor of the Church, and above all else poet, s. John of the Cross, beautifully describes in a way we can all relate to:

he would exalt them,
and that he would lift them
up from their lowness
so that no one
could mock it any more;
for he would make himself
wholly like them,
and he would come to them
and dwell with them;
and God would be man
and man would be God,
and he would walk with them
and eat and drink with them;

…]
In perfect love
this law holds:
that the lover become
like the one he loves;
for the greater their likeness
the greater their delight.
Surely your bride’s delight
would greatly increase
were she to see you like her,
in her own flesh".

See, I digress. But I hope my original point was not lost here: a devout Catholic would always try his or her best to refrain from uncharitable words, in fact from any word that would make anyone enter a defensive mindset that would preclude any possibility of understanding an already difficult teaching.

Don’t worry about the way people portray themselves After all, the beauty of a forum is the anonymity it ensures. To find out if a person is very orthodox and 100% in line with Rome, go back to s. James’ golden rule: “by my works I shall show you my faith”. Is what they say in line with how they portray themselves? An Italian proverb says: “l’abito non fa il monaco”, “it is not the habit that makes the monk”

Thank you for bearing patiently with my digressions. I consider that Christianity is a love story, and that we cannot understand love by looking at one aspect of a relationship: we must try to keep our mind always on the whole. Then even the arguments, the errors, the offenses, the separations and reconciliations…everything falls into place, and faith is understood for what it is and not for what it appears to be.

 

[Farien]

Absolutely, I agree. But when you have a legitimate theological conversation about why the act of homosexuality is wrong, we really shouldn’t be using the types of terms you described. I don’t know of anybody who does.

In a legitimate, theological conversation? Definitely not. You are right about that. But I am talking about threads on these forums, where such words are abundantly used.

There are people struggling with their feelings, and I simply try to put myself into their shoes. How would I look at those who preach that “one must the sinner”, while either uttering or silently tolerating such derogatory phrases. I know that such people are a minority, don’t get me wrong. But when the majority does not stand up in righteous indignation, and does not slap down the “loud minority”, how should those “sinners” feel?

 

[Farien]

Social progress is always too slow for those who are the victims. But if you put it into a historic framework, the language used today is less derogatory than it was a few of decades ago. Even more important, the treatment has improved tremendously. If you go back centuries, then this change is even more pronounced.

Very true. There has been a LOT of progress, which is encouraging. Only a minority of people consider homosexuality a mental disorder, or even a crime to be either “cured” or “punished”. And that can be attributed to those who refused to stay in the closet, and showed that they are also good people.

A Catholic theologian postulated in the 13th century that sexual relations should be procreative, or “generative” to use a more accurate translation. This was not a new idea, but is when it was specifically codified into Christian orthodoxy.

Attitudes and behavior about non-generative sexual relations have been negative, at least since that time.

Not everywhere. The world is much larger and much older than that, and in many cultures there was no problem with non-procreative sex. But that would bring us away from the topic of this thread. Thank you very much for your post, especially the first paragraph.

 

[Farien]

On the forum where I am a moderator, I saw the following: “We never want to feel guilty or ashamed or sinful ever again.” So what does that leave? The sexually immoral, drug using and hedonistic culture we have now. If you don’t believe you’re sinning in the first place then only a handful of things like rape, murder and stealing might be on your ‘do not do’ list. It has spread to all forms of media.

This we could explore somewhere else, being another fascinating topic. Just one remark, if you permit: “if everyone would refrain from those ‘handful of things’ you mention, this world would be incomparably better. Wouldn’t you agree?”

 

[Farien]

No, actually an orthodox Catholic - as I tried to explain - would never use such words, because it is not how the Church (and, of course, how Christ) teaches us to behave.

This might also bring us to a different topic: “who is the real orthodox catholic?”, and that should be the topic of a different thread. But, if you follow those many threads dealing with this topic, there are quite a few people, who are the ultra-hardliners, the super-orthodox ones and they definitely said things like “disgusting practices”, and the like.

See, I digress. But I hope my original point was not lost here: a devout Catholic would always try his or her best to refrain from uncharitable words, in fact from any word that would make anyone enter a defensive mindset that would preclude any possibility of understanding an already difficult teaching.

I would not disagree! Don’t worry about a small “detour” here and there. Thank you for your thoughts.

 

[epan]

I never heard of the Folsom Street Fair. Of course I looked it up after your reference, but that is not what I had in mind. I was thinking about those simple tribal societies, which were untouched by western civilizations. Those societies were not large in numbers, but they were composed of human beings, who had no special problems with either nudity or sex. The children were brought up in a tribal environment, where everyone took part in the duties of raising them. The problem is the relatively new and western taboo over nudity. In the medival Japan people had no problems with sex, not even with homosexual relationships. As long as it was consensual, no one raised an eye.

Sorry to hear your negative experiences. Too bad that the contemporary social custom looks at recreational drug use with a “jaundiced” eye, as if there would be any problem with properly controlled usage of certain substances. Remember, that at the end of the 1800’s and at the beginning of the 1900’s there were no drug laws, all those substances were over-the-counter substances (from cocaine to morphine and marijuana and hashish) an there were no drug-problems. But this is the topic of a very different thread. (There is a very interesting book about the subject: “Licit and Illicit Drugs” - a collection of essays, which you might find in the local library. A truly eye-opener look at the so-called “drug-problem”. Just one tidbit of info. In the old Ottoman (Turkish) empire the possession of “coffee” was a criminal offense punishable by death… and in a free association test if you would see the word “Turkish”, you very probably would associate it with “coffee”.)

Interesting that you mention the country of Turkey. I believe that it is the only Muslim country in which homosexuality is not illegal. When I lived there, someone told me since 1850’s. I also heard, since the 1920’s. In any event… there was a famous Turkish singer in the 1950’s who is still an icon, who was a man who dressed in women’s clothing.

Cultural differences are interesting.

 

[Farien]

Interesting that you mention the country of Turkey. I believe that it is the only Muslim country in which homosexuality is not illegal. When I lived there, someone told me since 1850’s. I also heard, since the 1920’s. In any event… there was a famous Turkish singer in the 1950’s who is still an icon, who was a man who dressed in women’s clothing.

Cultural differences are interesting.

I wonder if Turkey is rightly called a Muslim country? Their goverment is as secular as they come.

As you say, cultural differences are interesting. There is a great book: “The Hidden Dimension” by Edward T. Hall about the subject. A real eye-opener.

 

[Elizabeth502]

As a heterosexual, I find my own sins (of all types) hateful, disgusting, and repugnant. There. Happy now?

So did all the saints, by the way. (Not that I consider myself even in the same galaxy as a saint! )

I recognize that I don’t hate myself, and that God doesn’t hate me, and that the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t hate me, and that any priest who hears my confessions, who also hates and is repelled by my sins, also does not hate me.

 

[fix]

As a heterosexual, I find my own sins (of all types) hateful, disgusting, and repugnant. There. Happy now?

So did all the saints, by the way. (Not that I consider myself even in the same galaxy as a saint! )

I recognize that I don’t hate myself, and that God doesn’t hate me, and that the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t hate me, and that any priest who hears my confessions, who also hates and is repelled by my sins, also does not hate me.

You are being too logical. It is all about emotion.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You are being too logical. It is all about emotion.

Oh, I know, fix. The argument and the issue has ALWAYS been about emotion, never logic.

 

[epan]

I wonder if Turkey is rightly called a Muslim country? Their goverment is as secular as they come.

As you say, cultural differences are interesting. There is a great book: “The Hidden Dimension” by Edward T. Hall about the subject. A real eye-opener.

It is a Muslim country. There are very few Christians. The military is tasked in their constitution to keep the government moderate. If it goes too far left, or gets too religious, they are to depose it in a coup d’ètat, and then hold new elections.

 

[R_C]

This might also bring us to a different topic: “who is the real orthodox catholic?”, and that should be the topic of a different thread. But, if you follow those many threads dealing with this topic, there are quite a few people, who are the ultra-hardliners, the super-orthodox ones and they definitely said things like “disgusting practices”, and the like.

Opinions, mere human opinions and nothing more. Only Sacred Tradition matters. That is the mark of the “real” orthodox Catholic: he who carefully discerns and only professes what the Church teaches. The Romans used to say: “verba volant, scripta manent”, and surely you won’t find “stomach-turning” or the like in official Catholic teaching.

What matters, though, is how we refer to the person, not the act. For, as many have mentioned, any act can be seen as disgusting and worse, and some may in fact be. Personally I find any practice that violates chastity a form of desecration, but only because I insist in believing what St. Paul wrote, namely that “our body is not our own …] but the temple where the Holy Spirit dwells”, and because I am aware of what these practices in general do to family and to society on the long run, and of the evils they have caused. Those reasons make me regard some practices as disgusting, more than the acts per se.

 

[RedSparklyShoes]

I know of very few people who have had a change of heart after hearing insults. While I may very well be disgusted with certain sins, that’s not how Jesus would have treated them. So I try my very best to treat others as Jesus would have.