Homosexuality...but they love each other!

[Charlemagne_II]

Deo

At any rate, perhaps you and any others who may wish to play Inquisitor would like to move this interrogation to another thread devoted to it?

You invited the questions. We have no plans to burn you at the stake no matter how you answer them.

 

[BillP]

Bill
**
The short version? As it is interpreted by the Church it is binding for Catholics, but not the basis for legislation in a democratic society.**

Yes, I see where you are coming from. You are afraid Catholic want to turn America in a theocracy.

Not exactly. I’m trying to enforce the First Amendment and stop ANYONE from turning America into a theocracy.

That argument won’t wash.

Sodomy was a crime from the start of this country. It was not made a crime by Catholics, but by people who understand that it is a crime against nature. No civilization before ours has dared to celebrate sodomy as our does. This shows how far public morality has sunk.

So what? Slavery and not permitting women to vote or own property were “laws from the beginning” as well. Are we allowed to change those?

Catholics have every right to speak against the crime, and to actively promote a society in which, if the crime must be tolerated, at least it doesn’t have to be celebrated and protected under the law.

But you are o.k. with celebrating and protecting sodomy as a civil right? You are o.k.with sodomites adopting heterosexual children? You are ok. with education programs by which heterosexual young children (many of them Christian) will be instructed to view sodomy as just another sexual lifestyle? You probably wouldn’t recognize that as an infringement of the rights of Catholics to teach children their morality, as opposed to the morality of sodomites.

Here is the crux of our problem. I make a distinction between “celebrating” (whatever that means) and protecting sodomy as a civil right. I’m not in favor of “celebrating” sodomy any more than I am in “celebrating” any other sin, such as blasphemy, fornication, skipping Mass or eating meat on Lenten Fridays. On the other hand, I am violently opposed to trying to LEGALLY prohibit these sorts of activities. SO yes, I am in favor of protecting the sexual proclivities of individuals as civil rights.

Would you also say that Catholic employers **have to pay for abortion insurance **for their employees?

Keep wallowing!

I think the actual institution of the Catholic Church is exempt from the legislation, which strikes me as right and proper.

On the other hand institutions and individuals that merely identify themselves as Catholic should be subject to the current mandate because it allows them to opt out by paying the fine which their employees (who might not be Catholic) and may use to purchase this legal but deplorable coverage.

 

[BillP]

Bill

Stealing, Murder and Rape are all pretty good examples of this I know of no society that has ever not condemned these crimes.

You also don’t know of any society before ours that tolerated men marrying men. So that alone alone is a telling sign of the moral lunacy we are up against.

Well, until relatively recently marriage was much more concerned with protecting rights of property and heredity (marriages for poor commoners weren’t generally even recorded officially until the Church came along!!), so I’m not sure there is an equivalency. On the other hand homosexual behavior was commonly tolerated throughout the ancient world.

Bill, you have made a lot to-do about Catholics telling other people how to think.

You misunderstand me. I have no problem with Catholics telling other people how they should behave. I do object to Catholics trying to use the US Government to force those people to behave in ways consistent with Catholic morality.

When the ancient civilizations of of Greece and Rome were at their decadent worst, there was no Catholic Church to influence them. So why do you suppose these civilization, sexually debauched as they were, never entertained the idea of men marrying men?

Again, because marriage was primarily about wealth sequestration and inheritance. Homosexual couples, having no off-spring were not concerned with such issues.

Don’t you think the natural law was transparent to them? They didn’t need the Catholic Church because common sense was sufficient to steer them away from that path to moral lunacy. The Catholic Church today is simply on the side of common sense, an ally of our human nature, encouraging men to behave with honor and dignity.

Homosexual conduct was not universally reviled in ancient times, but rather well tolerated (in the legal sense). This argues that the it the case for sodomy per se being covered by Natural Law is at least up for debate.

Do you think the Catholic Church should just shut up and retire from the battlefield of public morality?

Not at all, but I do think they should get out of the business of attempting to enforce specifically Catholic morality legislatively. Preach, pray, argue, cajole, but when you try to use force of law, you lose me.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Mark, you misquoted me in post 155, which violates forum rules.

Elizabeth502;8975310:

you have asserted that the human experience of Eros (no matter with a different sex or the same sex) is, subjectively perceived, sanctifiable.

You conveniently omitted the key phrase from my post, which I will underline here:

you don’t have the same mindset, in discussing Eros and Caritas, that the Holy Father has. Because elsewhere, on previous threads, earlier threads, archived threads, closed threads, you have asserted that the human experience of Eros (no matter with a different sex or the same sex) is, subjectively perceived, sanctifiable. That is very different from what he is saying.

If you are not trying to establish a relationship between Divine caritas and homoeroticism, how is the discussion of the encyclical relevant to a thread about Homosexual “love”? The first time you brought up the encyclical, you implied that the Pope agrees with your worldview about sexuality. And since your worldview includes the supposed wonderfulness of homosexual relationships, by implication you are connecting our Pontiff , and his encyclical, to your own views about sexuality.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Mark, you misquoted me in post 155, which violates forum rules.

My apologies–I certainly didn’t intend to misquote you. I responded to the complete phrase which I felt was relevant to this particular thread. I suppose that, if you like, we can discuss the contents of previous threads in this one, too.

You conveniently omitted the key phrase from my post, which I will underline here:

I understand your contention regarding those previous posts, Elizabeth. I have addressed it in other threads as well as in this one.

If you are not trying to establish a relationship between Divine caritas and homoeroticism, how is the discussion of the encyclical relevant to a thread about Homosexual “love”?

Here’s what I wrote to you previously:

But for what it’s worth, here’s what I was saying in my dialogue with John: our love for God is erotic. Why? Eros is upward moving–the love of the lower for the higher (as the Holy Father mentions). In this way, human eros may be used in poetry (such as that of St. John of the Cross or the Song of Songs) as a way of describing our love for God. If you wish to take that to mean that I am saying that eroticism and all erotic relationships are pure or altruistic, or that I am saying that all eroticism reflects our love for God, then you will be perversely wrong in your assertion, as you are now.

Here is a simplified version of the above that I wrote to John:

We do not sexually lust after God, and I never said that we did. I said our love for God is erotic. I used the term “erotic” because it is the adjectival form of “eros” and I understand eros to be the love of the lower for the higher. This is also the Holy Father’s understanding in the encyclical. It is not controversial.

If you wish to read something prurient into what I’ve written, I clearly cannot stop you. You will do what you will do.

The first time you brought up the encyclical, you implied that the Pope agrees with your worldview about sexuality. And since your worldview includes the supposed wonderfulness of homosexual relationships, by implication you are connecting our Pontiff , and his encyclical, to your own views about sexuality.

If by “homosexual relationships” you understand “homosexual sexual activity,” as if to imply that I believe that homosexual sexual activity is naturally a wonderful expression of divine caritas, you would be mistaken. My continued participation in this thread after my first post was (as I mentioned to you already) in defense of the idea that eros need not involve sex–and you will note that I defined eros as the love of the lower for the higher.

I did not quote the Holy Father because I thought, “Oh look! He agrees with me!” I quoted him because I thought, “Oh look! I agree with him!”

You have allowed your reason to become so clouded by your dim view of me that it is impossible for you to engage in dialogue with me without exaggerating my posts or reading things into them that are not there, subsequently reporting on your misreadings as if they were my own thoughts and intentions in an effort to discredit or defame me. You have entirely abandoned your capacity to engage me in dialogue with charity.

It is therefore pointless to continue this, Elizabeth. You have judged me and condemned me. There is nothing I can do. I can even concur with you (as I did in post 105), and you’ll still think me insidious. You give me far too much credit for being sly and crafty while giving your own imagination far too little credit for the same.

But I accept your judgment of me–I don’t agree with it, mind you, I think it wrong, but I have no choice but to accept it.

Be well, Elizabeth.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[ricofall]

I think I finally caught up on this thread. Here is something for thought.

1. When it comes to morals, I feel that as a whole, humanity is going down hill. Life is not respected. The wheels in motions are set and same sex marriage is only a few court cases away for all of us.
2. It is my understanding that the Church, really does not care if the states consider redefining marriage to include same sex. I know they are a few Bishops that are voicing their concern, but the battle was also lost to most of European countries already.
3. The reason the Church does not really care is because the Church will not marry SS people. Marriage was define by Jesus and that is it. The Church is not allowed to change that teaching. As Pope Paul VI said 'We cannot make lawful, what is unlawful."( Humanae vitae). The Church knows that divine law supersedes man’s law.
4. With the natural progression of society, trying to make everyone equal, it seems that we will have to deal with legal gay marriage in every state. I will agree that all people need equal rights, gay or strait. With that said, I also know that natural law discriminates SS couples. So SS couples use laws or science to try to make them feel like a hetro couple that can have kids.
5. Lets remember that we need not to tell people that they are sinners because they are gay. After all, we are all sinners. Instead we need to teach them and let them grow in the faith so that they can come to an understanding. I think it is wrong to point to a gay couple and tell them ‘you are wrong’, or ‘your going to hell’ or whatever else. We need to invite them in the Church and teach them. Condemning people never really wins them over.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I did not quote the Holy Father because I thought, “Oh look! He agrees with me!” I quoted him because I thought, “Oh look! I agree with him!”

Not possible. And possibly disingenuous of you to state so. That’s because he, like popes preceding him and popes who will follow, assert & reassert the fundamental and intrinsic immorality of physical homosexual relationships, a position you have told CAF readers time and again that you cannot accept, due (you tell us) to your subjective experience of homosexual relationships. Are you prepared suddenly to tell us that you have now changed your moral viewpoint of homosexuality (that you “agree with him”?) Because if so, an entirely new dialogue can ensue. The fact that you might agree intellectually on one or two philosophical points that BXVI espouses in Deus Caritas Est --points which might apply to others, not to you, is neither here nor there on a thread whose subject is Homosexuality.

You have allowed your reason to become so clouded by your dim view of me (blah/blah)…

No, Mark. I have a dim view of your opinions about Roman Catholic Church doctrine. I don’t know you personally well enough to “have a dim view of you.” I’m entitled to have a dim view of your opinions about the Roman Catholic Church and its moral authority and insight into God’s Ordered Universe. That’s what a discussion forum is all about. Agreement and disagreement, both (and mutually).

You have judged me and condemned me. There is nothing I can do.

Save the drama, Mark. Way over the top. I have done no such thing. I’m engaging in legitimate judgment of your words, and nothing else. So if you now agree with Pope Benedict XVI and the Magisterium regarding homosexuality, do share.

 

[John21652]

Well, until relatively recently marriage was much more concerned with protecting rights of property and heredity (marriages for poor commoners weren’t generally even recorded officially until the Church came along!!), so I’m not sure there is an equivalency.

Myth. People were the same as they are today. They married for love as well as for money. It was some of the upper classes that arranged marriages for monetary/property reasons and the younger generations didn’t always cooperate either!

On the other hand homosexual behavior was commonly tolerated throughout the ancient world.

It was commonly made illegal too.

You misunderstand me. I have no problem with Catholics telling other people how they should behave. I do object to Catholics trying to use the US Government to force those people to behave in ways consistent with Catholic morality.

That’s your big mistake. The “Catholic morality” you refer to was once a universal morality. Morality has shrunk so much that the Church which still champions it, along with a whole lot of non-Catholics, you think owns it! The morality of western societies has moved away from Natural Law morality and that predates Catholicism.

Again, because marriage was primarily about wealth sequestration and inheritance.

Nonsense

.Homosexual couples, having no off-spring were not concerned with such issues.

Oh, I wonder why? Oh yeah, sticking penises into anuses doesn’t beget any children.!

Homosexual conduct was not universally reviled in ancient times, but rather well tolerated (in the legal sense).

Then why did Plato, amonngst others, think it should have been a criminal offence? And why did the Romans actually make it a criminal offence?

This argues that the it the case for sodomy per se being covered by Natural Law is at least up for debate.

Natural Law, by its very definition cannot ever accomodate homosexuality. To suggest it can is total nonsense.

Not at all, but I do think they should get out of the business of attempting to enforce specifically Catholic morality legislatively. Preach, pray, argue, cajole, but when you try to use force of law, you lose me.

Wrong again. What you are calling ‘Catholic’ morality was once a universal morality that predates even Christ. Entire nations who abandoned it have perished. There is an old saying - the natural Law has a habit of burying its undertakers.

If you are really a Catholic, as your ID states, you wouldn’t be peddling this anti-Catholic nonsense anyway.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bill

You misunderstand me. I have no problem with Catholics telling other people how they should behave. I do object to Catholics trying to use the US Government to force those people to behave in ways consistent with Catholic morality.

Please specify where this has happened.

It seems to me that recently the U.S. government has been seeking to force the Catholic Church to behave in a way consistent with the moral vision of those in the government.

As you ought to know, that is a 1st Amendment violation of religious freedom.

The Catholic Church, like any other group of human beings, has used its influence to sway public opinion toward doing the right thing, but the Catholic Church has no way to “force” anybody to do anything.

Why do you use the word “force” when you know the word does not apply in any real sense of the word?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Not possible.

This is what it comes down to, Elizabeth: you deem it impossible, therefore it must be impossible. Again, you have judged and condemned me. What more can I say?

That’s because he, like popes preceding him and popes who will follow, assert & reassert the fundamental and intrinsic immorality of physical homosexual relationships, a position you have told CAF readers time and again that you cannot accept, due (you tell us) to your subjective experience of homosexual relationships.

Elizabeth, I have not concerned myself with arguing against the immorality of physical homosexual relationships. When I have spoken of homosexual relationships as being conducive to virtue in the past, I have not been discussing homosexual sexual acts, nor have I advocated for them.

To be clear, my questions have been: what are the practical consequences of a language of disorder regarding homosexuality–how is the teaching practically received and lived? And is it possible for two chaste homosexual people to fall in love, give and receive that love, not engage in homosexual acts, and grow in virtue in relationship together? Despite re-statement after re-statement of these themes and questions in one form or another, you persist in believing that I am advocating for gay sex. I am not.

I am trying to understand what it is the RC church is teaching by attempting to examine how such teachings may be lived. In particular, I wonder if the only way in which they may be lived is according to the dictates of such groups as Courage with their insistence on a special vocabulary of particular affliction (SSA) and what appears to be the necessity of buying into a view of a homosexual’s sexuality which sees it as little more than a disease, the progress of which must be controlled. Because despite the fact that such a way of living the RC teachings is perhaps the most popular and most advocated on these fora, it does not strike me as, of necessity, the only way of living them out–if indeed it is possible for two homosexual people who are in love with each other to be in a non-sexual relationship that fosters in them that growth from eros to agape of which the Holy Father writes, even acknowledging that such growth is necessarily more clearly and definitively discerned in a sacramental marriage between a man and a woman.

Nonetheless, you seem to think that I’m advocating for gay sex.

No, Mark. I have a dim view of your opinions about Roman Catholic Church doctrine.

I don’t know that you know my opinions of Roman Catholic doctrine well enough, Elizabeth. But you are quite comfortable being enough of an authority on my “worldview” to pontificate on it to me and to others.

Let me say it again: I have been clear in multiple posts in multiple threads that I was not engaging in a discussion of homosexual sexual acts–you have apparently taken this to mean that I was naturally engaging in a discussion of homosexual acts.

I have explained to you where I have questions or difficulties with RC teaching on the matter of homosexuality (see above for a brief summary)–none of which have involved me advocating for the goodness of homosexual sexual acts. I have explained to you, personally, via email, and to you and others via these threads, that regardless of what I may or may not believe regarding such acts, I did not think that discussing them in these fora would be particularly useful (or necessary) given the RC beliefs regarding them. I’ve explained to you and others that I’m fine with that. As I wrote in one of the vanished threads: that dog just won’t hunt. Nor should it. But you have taken this to mean that I have a secret agenda to advocate for the goodness of homosexual sexual acts.

Save the drama, Mark. Way over the top. I have done no such thing.

If you have done no such thing, why continue your attempt to pass off your misunderstandings of my posts as if they were legitimately my own? Why speak in definitive terms about your understanding of my “worldview”? You have judged and condemned me. I have resigned myself to it. Why should you be so shy to admit it?

So if you now agree with Pope Benedict XVI and the Magisterium regarding homosexuality, do share.

My opinion, one way or another, is of little value in this regard. As I have stated before: “…at least for the purposes of our discussion, I’m more than willing to agree to be bound by the following: all sexual acts that occur outside of marriage and which are not, moreover, open to procreation are sin.” My opinion doesn’t have anything to do with it–it’s not at all germane to the discussion. I have taken as a given that all sexual acts that occur outside of marriage and which are not, moreover, open to procreation are sin. What does my opinion have to do with that? Even RC’s who may disagree with a particular teaching are bound, nonetheless, to live according to it: why should my situation demand anything more or different? Why do I need to agree with you in order to be heard by you?

Why? Because you have already judged me and condemned me.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[John21652]

Bill

You misunderstand me. I have no problem with Catholics telling other people how they should behave. I do object to Catholics trying to use the US Government to force those people to behave in ways consistent with Catholic morality.

Please specify where this has happened.

It seems to me that recently the U.S. government has been seeking to force the Catholic Church to behave in a way consistent with the moral vision of those in the government.

As you ought to know, that is a 1st Amendment violation of religious freedom.

The Catholic Church, like any other group of human beings, has used its influence to sway public opinion toward doing the right thing, but the Catholic Church has no way to “force” anybody to do anything.

Why do you use the word “force” when you know the word does not apply in any real sense of the word?

Charlemagne II, I am somewhat perplexed and I need your calm and precise philosophical assistance.

You have copied in bold a quote from BillP. he objects to Catholics using the government to force people to behave in ways consistent with Catholic morality. In other words, any laws which represent Catholic morality are a no-no. Am I reading that correctly?

OK, well, the Laws which used to make Adultery a crime are long gone and so that’s a law gone which used to represent Catholic morality. The Laws which used to make homosexual activity illegal, you know, sodomy and buggery, are gone and that’s another set of Laws which used to represent Catholic morality done away with. Blasphemy is another one that is allowed; no-one seems to give a hoot anymore. Lieing is another one that seems to have been given short shrift; even civic leaders do it with impunity. However, there a few more left. Not being able to kill anyone represents Catholic morality. So too is not being able to steal another person’s stuff. And not being able to slander someone is still on the staute books. Gee, some people make squillions out of being slandered.

So, this magical first amendment thingy, will it be used to keep on removing those laws which represent Catholic morality? It’s a shame, because as each one of the laws which represent catholic morality is repealed, society seems to be a lot poorer because of it.

Another thing fascinates me. Those laws which represent Catholic morality were also on the staute books in ancient Rome and they weren’t even Catholic. There is a very old example of social morality from nearly two thousand years before the catholic Church came into existence. It is called The Code of Hammurabi. Hammurabi was a ruler of ancient Babylon and he certainly wasn’t a Catholic. His code also said no adultery allowed; no stealing neither and if you wrongly slandered someone, they’d chop your head off. So it seems that these laws which reflect Catholic morality are not strictly Catholic laws anyway!!

So why the beef about ‘Catholic’ Laws that people entertain?

 

[mitex]

Charlemagne II, I am somewhat perplexed and I need your calm and precise philosophical assistance.

You have copied in bold a quote from BillP. he objects to Catholics using the government to force people to behave in ways consistent with Catholic morality. In other words, any laws which represent Catholic morality are a no-no. Am I reading that correctly?

OK, well, the Laws which used to make Adultery a crime are long gone and so that’s a law gone which used to represent Catholic morality. The Laws which used to make homosexual activity illegal, you know, sodomy and buggery, are gone and that’s another set of Laws which used to represent Catholic morality done away with. Blasphemy is another one that is allowed; no-one seems to give a hoot anymore. Lieing is another one that seems to have been given short shrift; even civic leaders do it with impunity. However, there a few more left. Not being able to kill anyone represents Catholic morality. So too is not being able to steal another person’s stuff. And not being able to slander someone is still on the staute books. Gee, some people make squillions out of being slandered.

So, this magical first amendment thingy, will it be used to keep on removing those laws which represent Catholic morality? It’s a shame, because as each one of the laws which represent catholic morality is repealed, society seems to be a lot poorer because of it.

Another thing fascinates me. Those laws which represent Catholic morality were also on the staute books in ancient Rome and they weren’t even Catholic. There is a very old example of social morality from nearly two thousand years before the catholic Church came into existence. It is called The Code of Hammurabi. Hammurabi was a ruler of ancient Babylon and he certainly wasn’t a Catholic. His code also said no adultery allowed; no stealing neither and if you wrongly slandered someone, they’d chop your head off. So it seems that these laws which reflect Catholic morality are not strictly Catholic laws anyway!!

So why the beef about ‘Catholic’ Laws that people entertain?

Do you really want to hall Adam and Steve the two people who love each other into court and publicly convict them for their private goings on?

I mean I think all homosexual acts are sinful. But I leave that up to God to dish out punishment. Is it really fair to violate someone’s privacy and then publicly shame them with a trial and jail sentence when all they did was have consensual sex?

I mean we wouldn’t arrest a husband and wife for sodomy.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Again, you have judged and condemned me. What more can I say?

Here, fellow participants, is one of dozens of posts by this poster, in which he challenges the fundamental philosophical and moral view of the Roman Church:

If we insist, therefore, on using such language as objectively disordered to describe desire, we must be surprised to discover when such desire produces, by grace, the good fruit of the Spirit in a person in whom that desire is present.

In short, to say that a homosexual’s desire is objectively disordered is to say that they simply cannot will properly. Which is to say (with OtherEric on this thread, I believe) that any desire a homosexual has is improper. If the Roman Church can agree with this sentiment, then she is being consistent. If not, then she has a problem she must solve.

We can desire wrongly, yes, but our faculty of desire cannot be objectively disordered (see Ryan’s post above)–otherwise, we could not desire rightly. Homosexuality is disordered only insofar as one believes that sexuality is heterosexual by default–in which case conversion therapy should produce demonstrably consistent, frequent, abundant and permanent transformations. It does not. Homosexuality is not a defective heterosexuality. Heterosexuals and homosexuals must both learn to desire responsibly.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=362078

See Mark’s theories also on these threads, challenging Catholic views on sexual complementariness, challenging Catholic views on marriage, etc:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=379129

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=434483

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=445105

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=445447

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=462003

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=557483

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=566326

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=583163

There are more. Eight or nine is a good start.

 

[michelleds]

I have not concerned myself with arguing against the immorality of physical homosexual relationships. When I have spoken of homosexual relationships as being conducive to virtue in the past, I have not been discussing homosexual sexual acts, nor have I advocated for them.

To be clear, my questions have been: what are the practical consequences of a language of disorder regarding homosexuality–how is the teaching practically received and lived? And is it possible for two chaste homosexual people to fall in love, give and receive that love, not engage in homosexual acts, and grow in virtue in relationship together? Despite re-statement after re-statement of these themes and questions in one form or another, you persist in believing that I am advocating for gay sex. I am not.

I am trying to understand what it is the RC church is teaching by attempting to examine how such teachings may be lived. In particular, I wonder if the only way in which they may be lived is according to the dictates of such groups as Courage with their insistence on a special vocabulary of particular affliction (SSA) and what appears to be the necessity of buying into a view of a homosexual’s sexuality which sees it as little more than a disease, the progress of which must be controlled. Because despite the fact that such a way of living the RC teachings is perhaps the most popular and most advocated on these fora, it does not strike me as, of necessity, the only way of living them out–if indeed it is possible for two homosexual people who are in love with each other to be in a non-sexual relationship that fosters in them that growth from eros to agape of which the Holy Father writes, even acknowledging that such growth is necessarily more clearly and definitively discerned in a sacramental marriage between a man and a woman.

I want to talk about this part of Mark’s post. It has been discussed before in a thread regarding the use of the label “gay”. I cannot recall if Mark was a part of that thread, but I don’t think he was.

First, let’s set one ground rule assumption for the conversation: we are talking about identity and labels and relationships as lived by Christians who are accepting and fully compliant with the Church teachings re homosexual sex acts, i.e, chastity.

ISSUE ONE: there seems to be two schools of thought regarding the use of the label “gay”.

some think it’s fine, more than fine. that it identifies themselves in a particular way, an important way, that does not indicate anything about their sexual activities.

others (full disclosure, this is me) reject that label and others like them. I believe that it identifies a person with a sin, much as saying “i’m a thief” or “i’m an adulterer” does. I believe that to the vast majority of people, they hear someone identify themselves in this way and they believe that the person is sexually active. much like if someone said, “I’m going to hook up” or “i’m going to get lucky tonight” would imply to the listener that the speaker intends to have sex. If I have to, such as on these fora, I will identify myself as previously gay or previously lesbian.

I was raised Protestant and the word “disordered” was very hurtful to me in the past, when I was 17 or 18 and “coming out”. Even more awful to me was the idea that I was going to hell because I was gay. So I rejected everything about God. But now that I’ve lived another 25 years, I can say that I now accept that word “disordered” as I’ve come to understand it from a Catholic theological point of view. My desires and predilections are dis-ordered, mis-ordered, mis-fired if you will. Accepting that, while difficult and painful, was freedom. perhaps in the same way that finally accepting that one is an alcoholic is difficult, painful, and freeing.

ISSUE TWO:
Relationships. This one is complicated by many people, but in my opinion, I think it comes down to a pretty foundational level. first, if the relationship is not a near occasion of sin for either of the parties, and second, the parties are not presenting themselves to the public in way to cause scandal, then I think that the relationship is on safe ground. I would call this a friendship, a close friendship. I would add that I personally think that the parties should be in communication with their priest or SD about said relationship, to avoid any issues.

I have seen the phrase “covenantal friendship” to mean when two people, who have discerned that they are not going to be married, form a friendship of mutual support and committment. this is a friendship formed between spiritually and emotionally mature persons who have fully discerned that God is not calling them to marriage. the two people agree to be there for one another in the way that a sibling would. think of the situation where you are having minor surgery and someone has to drive you to and from the appt and agree to stay with you for 24 hours post-op.

But I worry on a theological level about Mark’s phraseology of “in love”. I think that we who have this homosexual tendency should strive to love ALL others as Christ loved us, and not to be “in love” with one particular person. I think we are human, and can’t achieve perfections, but I think that in love presents problems that loving someone doesn’t.

Thoughts?

 

[John21652]

Do you really want to hall Adam and Steve the two people who love each other into court and publicly convict them for their private goings on?

I dunno. What are their “private goings on”?

I mean I think all homosexual acts are sinful. But I leave that up to God to dish out punishment. Is it really fair to violate someone’s privacy and then publicly shame them with a trial and jail sentence when all they did was have consensual sex?

What?! You mean these two dudes you know had sex? How can they do that? I mean, it doesn’t seem normal.

I mean we wouldn’t arrest a husband and wife for sodomy.

Are you saying sodomy is OK, or are you saying sodomy is OK between same sex people? No-one knows what married people get up to, but it’s fairly safe to assume that they have normal heterosexual sex, because that’s what they are designed for. You know, this goes with that. However, if two blokes pretend to be ‘married’, well, it’s rather obvious that wont go with this.

Anyway, first up, it’s rather obvious you aren’t Charlemagne II. You see, I asked him for his *calm and precise philosophical assistance. *Obviously you aren’t up to the task.

I have no idea who Adam and Steve are, but from what you wrote they seem to be doing something strange. Never mind, because, really, you missed totally the point I was raising in my post to Charlegmagne II. That point was succinctly stated in the very last question I asked, which was *“So why the beef about ‘Catholic’ Laws that people entertain?” *As I explained and demonstrated, the laws which represent the morality BillP (who says he’s Catholic) wants removed from the statute books are not exlusively Catholic anyway. You seemed to have missed that bit. If BillP and others are targeting laws because they think those laws represent Catholic morality, then that reeks to high heaven of discrimination against the Catholic Church.

Missed that point too, didn’t you?

 

[mitex]

I dunno. What are their “private goings on”?

What?! You mean these two dudes you know had sex? How can they do that? I mean, it doesn’t seem normal.

Are you saying sodomy is OK, or are you saying sodomy is OK between same sex people? No-one knows what married people get up to, but it’s fairly safe to assume that they have normal heterosexual sex, because that’s what they are designed for. You know, this goes with that. However, if two blokes pretend to be ‘married’, well, it’s rather obvious that wont go with this.

Anyway, first up, it’s rather obvious you aren’t Charlemagne II. You see, I asked him for his *calm and precise philosophical assistance. *Obviously you aren’t up to the task.

I have no idea who Adam and Steve are, but from what you wrote they seem to be doing something strange. Never mind, because, really, you missed totally the point I was raising in my post to Charlegmagne II. That point was succinctly stated in the very last question I asked, which was *“So why the beef about ‘Catholic’ Laws that people entertain?” *As I explained and demonstrated, the laws which represent the morality BillP (who says he’s Catholic) wants removed from the statute books are not exlusively Catholic anyway. You seemed to have missed that bit. If BillP and others are targeting laws because they think those laws represent Catholic morality, then that reeks to high heaven of discrimination against the Catholic Church.

Missed that point too, didn’t you?

Yeah I guess I did lol

 

[John21652]

Here, fellow participants, is one of dozens of posts by this poster, in which he challenges the fundamental philosophical and moral view of the Roman Church:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=362078

See Mark’s theories also on these threads, challenging Catholic views on sexual complementariness, challenging Catholic views on marriage, etc:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=379129

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=434483

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=445105

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=445447

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=462003

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=557483

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=566326

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=583163

There are more. Eight or nine is a good start.

 

[sw85]

“But they love each other!”

This has become the most common retort from the pro-homosexual /homosexual marriage agenda. We as Catholics who have young children, grandchildren and nieces/nephews growing up today have heard the question: “why can’t they get married, they love each other. Everyone who loves each other should get married!”

How do we answer this simply and succinctly? I know it is an emotional response and we can’t base this on emotion but how can we answer this in a world that is pushing this agenda faster than anything in the past?

God bless you all.

I love my mother. I don’t get to marry her. Discrimination?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Here, fellow participants, is one of dozens of posts by this poster, in which he challenges the fundamental philosophical and moral view of the Roman Church:

If it please the court, I would like to make a few observations:

1–The quotation represents an admittedly poor distillation of a central critique of the language of disorder written by Fr. James Alison, a Jesuit-trained Dominican priest whose work integrating the observations of Rene Girard into a more explicitly theological context is, frankly, ground-breaking and worth a read. My apologies to Fr. Alison for any mangling.

2–The quotation was written a few years ago. In that time, I have developed a better understanding of the RC church’s language of disorder, though I continue to have misgivings about it (as I’ve mentioned earlier in this thread). Is the prosecution suggesting that an appeal to a post in another section of these fora from a number of years ago is immediately germane to the present thread? Is the prosecution suggesting that someone cannot either alter their perspective or moderate their arguments over a period of time?

3–It will be noted that no defense of homosexual sexual activity was made.

In a previous post in this thread, I suggested that a change of venue for this Inquisition may be in order, seeing as the continuation of these proceedings is not on topic in this thread. However, the prosecution’s persistent obsession with continuing these proceedings seems to provide ample evidence for an observation made earlier in the present thread, viz, “You have entirely abandoned your capacity to engage me in dialogue with charity,” made in reference to the prosecution’s apparent inability to engage in conversation in the present without an inordinate amount of bias bred of misunderstanding and what appears to be a growing animosity which is beginning to be more clearly expressed as a personal vendetta, however cleverly disguised.

So I would like to ask of the prosecution: what exactly is your point? And how is it immediately germane to the present thread?

See Mark’s theories also on these threads, challenging Catholic views on sexual complementariness, challenging Catholic views on marriage, etc:

I further note, ladies and gentlemen of the court, that none of the linked threads are the current thread. I would also like to ask the prosecution what it means by the word “challenging,”–if the prosecution means “articulating the difficulties Mark has with certain understandings” then I have no problem with the word. But if the prosecution means, either directly or by inference, “in open defiance of RC teaching for the express purpose of sowing discord and proselytizing on behalf of an international gay cabal,” then I strenuously object to the use of the term.

I would ask the prosecution again: what exactly is your point? And how is it immediately germane to the present thread?

I would also point out to the court that the sustained campaign of indictment which the prosecution has mounted against me (under the guise of a campaign against my “theories”) is, to my experience, unprecedented in these fora, and is the more shameful for being so. It is also that much more evidence of the observation that the prosecution has entirely abandoned the capacity to engage me in dialogue with charity.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Elizabeth502]

But I worry on a theological level about Mark’s phraseology of “in love”. I think that we who have this homosexual tendency should strive to love ALL others as Christ loved us, and not to be “in love” with one particular person. I think we are human, and can’t achieve perfections, but I think that in love presents problems that loving someone doesn’t.

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that attachments to forbidden relationships of any kind bear evil fruit, for ourselves and for those (often) to whom we are attached. Thus, if I persist in describing myself as “in love” with a married man, or in love with a priest, I am pursuing a disordered path that injures me morally, blinds me morally, and has that quadruple effect that all sin has: personal, community, ecclesial, and cosmic.

Sin, in relationships of any kind, is not (of course) limited to sexual acts; it includes the lust of obsessive attachments, the conscious pursuit of perverse or selfish bonds, etc. When we bind ourselves to such attachments, we remain un-free to receive God’s grace to experience the expansive love to which I believe Michelle refers.