Homosexuality...but they love each other!

[Dakota_Roberts]

The fact that you are actually insinuating that the above encyclical in any way promotes the idea that all human erotic relationships, no matter with whom, are potentially in the category of purified love or altruistic love, or equivalent to disinterested non-sexual love, is unbelievably offensive to knowledgeable Roman Catholics everywhere. (Knowledgeable, as opposed to brainwashed by the lamestream media.)

While caritas can have a fleshly, sensual, felt dimension, that does not mean that all erotic relationships emanate from the caritas of God, are related to it and are blessed by it. That is not the meaning of that encyclical. And no pope writes an encyclical which contradicts doctrine, and the world view which is fundamental to that doctrine – a world view which entails an Ordered universe, including but not limited to what is sexually ordered.

This is just more of the same from Mark: word manipulations and concept manipulations to create a “universe” with different moral realities than the fundamentally ordered one created by God.

Have you read that entire encyclical?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

The fact that you are actually insinuating that the above encyclical in any way promotes the idea that all human erotic relationships, no matter with whom, are potentially in the category of purified love or altruistic love, or equivalent to disinterested non-sexual love, is unbelievably offensive to knowledgeable Roman Catholics everywhere. (Knowledgeable, as opposed to brainwashed by the lamestream media.)

Elizabeth, that is in fact not what I am saying or insinuating. You are way way way off base here. Ridiculously off base. Not that you’d believe me when I say it. You’ve judged and condemned me–nothing I can write can be anything but twisted.

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.

Your passionately dim view of me has clearly clouded your right judgment. I seriously suggest you think about that before you comment further on my posts.

In the meantime. READ THE ENCYCLICAL.

This is just more of the same from Mark: word manipulations and concept manipulations to create a “universe” with different moral realities than the fundamentally ordered one created by God.

Elizabeth, you are bewilderingly wrong. End of story.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Peace! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Those missing threads were seen by others. The fact that those threads now cannot be seen does not alter the fact that you were writing stuff that was incredably anti-catholic and you were challenged for it

I know that’s your perception and the perception of others, John. I can only say that in fact those perceptions were mis-perceptions. You won’t believe me. At this point, though, I’m resigned to that.

To actually say someone feels an erotic attraction for God is ludicrous

That is, apparently, what you understood me to say, not what I said. 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.

Are you now saying the gay lobby doesn’t speak for all homosexuals?

Are you seriously telling me that you believe it does?

You yourself have written on this forum of the so called benefits of this homosexuality.

John, that’s a long-abiding misunderstanding of something I wrote encouraging someone to try to find some good in his situation–I was not inviting him to consider the benefits of buggery. Again, I don’t expect you to believe me. And that’s fine.

I will also, as others have done, not stand by and allow you to proseltyze unchallenged either.

Thanks for this, John. That you believe I’m proselytizing explains a lot.

By the way, for you, I recommend The Mayor of Casterbridge by Hardy.

I appreciate the recommendation very much!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Deo

Elizabeth, you are bewilderingly wrong. End of story.

It would be interesting to hear your explanation of why all the Catholics here persistently misread your messages … according to you anyway.

 

[michelleds]

Deo

Elizabeth, you are bewilderingly wrong. End of story.

It would be interesting to hear your explanation of why all the Catholics here persistently misread your messages … according to you anyway.

Perhaps a simple question could get Mark off on the right foot with everyone.

1. Are all sex acts between two members of the same sex immoral?

 

[andrewstx]

Perhaps a simple question could get Mark off on the right foot with everyone.

1. Are all sex acts between two members of the same sex immoral?

I’m not Mark, but my answer is yes.

Being a chaste former religous I have noticed how intensely sexualized our society has become. It is assumed that nearly everyone is sexually active…homo or hetero does not matter.

If a man is not having relations with a woman it is just assumed that he is automatically assumed that he is a homosexual. Of course it does not help that some clergy and religious are not macho.

When I was a brother I noticed on several occasions that parents were hesitant to have their children around me. I think becuase of the over-sexaulized nature of society. I think that’s terrible to assume that anyone who is not having sexual relations with a woman must be a peadophile.

Another thing I saw in the monastery is particular freindships which goes to prove that non-erotic friendship between two men or women is indeed possible.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Another thing I saw in the monastery is particular freindships which goes to prove that non-erotic friendship between two men or women is indeed possible. **

Not only possible, but sooner or later inevitable!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

michelleds

**1. Are all sex acts between two members of the same sex immoral? **

Right. The answer is yes or no. How can yes or no be misinterpreted?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

It would be interesting to hear your explanation of why all the Catholics here persistently misread your messages … according to you anyway.

Not all the Catholics do, Charlemagne, I assure you. But regarding those who do, I wrote this earlier in this thread to John:
One of the things I’ve learned, and been happy to learn, through these various posts and conversations is that there is a definite way in which Roman Catholics discuss certain things and issues–terminologies are very particular. There is not only a right way and a wrong way to believe, there is apparently a right way and wrong way to talk about it: a very particular vocabulary must be used in a particular way if you want to stay on the “right” side of an issue. That’s been my experience, at any rate. An observation which would be innocuous or obvious to many outside these fora can easily become a major offense in them–all because of a contextually infelicitous use of a term or phrase. I’ve certainly blundered along in this way in many posts, oblivious to my offence until it gradually occurred to me (and only recently), that it wasn’t so much that what I was saying was wrong, but that how I was saying it couldn’t be seen or heard as right.

I’ve also learned …] that despite attempts at correcting the record, previous mis-steps will never be seen as such: their offence will be ever-green.
I hope that helps. I doubt it will.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
John, that’s a long-abiding misunderstanding of something I wrote encouraging someone to try to find some good in his situation–I was not inviting him to consider the benefits of buggery. Again, I don’t expect you to believe me. And that’s fine.

The problem, Mark, is that you had a myriad of politely worded posts saying to the effect that based on your reading of Scripture and Church documents a) a homosexual relationship could bear good fruit, it leads to human flourishing, etc. b) actualized homosexual relations could be chaste.

If the above does not reflect what you said, what other message(s) could readers take away from your postings?
,

 

[beebudd]

we are going to base our answers to this matter according to what the Word Of God says,and not our oppinions.Remember that the answers you chose re:same sex marrage had better line up with Gods Word and not what we want it to be.The issue of homosexuality is addressed in the Bible and does not condone its practice under any circumstances.I had transgender surgery and I am living as a male.I am Biblically a eunuch,but legally female,yet I live as a male still.Never was I gay.The church told me it was wrong,and upon further investigation I have seen what the Bible states about it.Remember your soul hangs in the balance on your actions,so be sure they line up with the Word of God,which is the Bible.Sincerly,Bee

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Perhaps a simple question could get Mark off on the right foot with everyone.

1. Are all sex acts between two members of the same sex immoral?

I doubt that any response I can give would put me back in everyone’s good graces. And I’m not sure that being in someone’s good graces should be a prerequisite for a rational conversation.

At any rate, I wrote the following to Elizabeth in an email, and I wrote it, too, on one of those threads which recently vanished:
…I’m not actually talking about recognizing or discovering that gay sex is good. I don’t know that discussing such a thing is worth the time or energy. And 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.
In that previous thread, I stated that I still considered myself so bound. In this thread, I affirm that I am so bound.

If a trial of one’s orthodoxy is necessary in order for people to actually engage in and with these fora, I would suggest that the moderators construct an oath (like the one against modernism) to which forum members should subscribe.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Deo

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.

We may then infer that you are opposed to same-sex marriage? Yes or no?

The question does not require that you dance around it as you are so often inclined to do.

 

[michelleds]

If a trial of one’s orthodoxy is necessary in order for people to actually engage in and with these fora

It’s just that you talk so purty all the time, DV…wrapping us all up in your voluminous words…how is anyone supposed to understand what you’re saying with a simple glance?

for instance, my question was very straightforward, requiring only a yes or a no. but you took 30words to give an answer that appears, to me, to say that you are only agreeing that position for the purposes of discussion on CAF.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth, that is in fact not what I am saying or insinuating.

Then why do you say this?

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.

Why (she asked rhetorically)? Because 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.

In the meantime. READ THE ENCYCLICAL

…as it was meant to be understood. Until then,

{you) are bewilderingly wrong. End of story.

Because the bottom line is this: If you aren’t trying once again to create a false equivalency betweeen homosexual eroticism and divine caritas (which you have historically done on CAF), then why would you want to debate this subject --with John, with me, with Michelle, with anyone here-- on a thread entitled “Homosexuality…but they love each other!”

 

[Elizabeth502]

Have you read that entire encyclical?

Yes. And there is nothing in it that applies to this thread, or to homosexual “love,” or to any other disordered erotic behavior.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Yes. And there is nothing in it that applies to this thread, or to homosexual “love,” or to any other disordered erotic behavior.

Obviously disordered sexual drives are not positive

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

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

If by “human experience of Eros” you mean “Sex,” then I have asserted no such thing.

If you aren’t trying once again to create a false equivalency betweeen homosexual eroticism and divine caritas (which you have historically done on CAF), then why would you want to debate this subject --with John, with me, with Michelle, with anyone here-- on a thread entitled “Homosexuality…but they love each other!”

Check out my posts in this thread, Elizabeth. My first post advocated discussing marriage in terms of the sacrament. My second post involved a defence of the idea that eros need not involve sex (and by sex, In understand any sexual act). Through a number of people mysteriously disagreeing with that second notion, we have arrived here.

So. If by “homosexual eroticism” you mean “gay sex,” then no: I have not striven to create any equivalency between gay sex and divine caritas.

Regardless. I forgive you for your consistent efforts at libel, Elizabeth.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Dakota

I am citing the Bible available at the USCCB website here. usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/

I would think you would cite the Bishops’ preferred Bible. But I can see why you don’t. The Bishops’ Bible is more graphic.

"Bring them out to us that we may have sexual relations with them.’ Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him, he said, ‘I beg you, my brothers, do not do this wicked thing!’”

The DRB version is no longer on the list of approved translations. Too archaic, I suppose.

I don’t know how up to speed you are on Middle Eastern cultures, but rape, especially of a man, is the ultimate way to humiliate someone; forcibly sodomizing someone is more inhospitable than killing them. This also wasn’t the reason why God obliterated Sodom, it was the final straw that proved that iniquity thoroughly permeated the city.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

for instance, my question was very straightforward, requiring only a yes or a no. but you took 30words to give an answer that appears, to me, to say that you are only agreeing that position for the purposes of discussion on CAF.

Michelle, I wasn’t aware that, in order to be heard by you, I first had to subscribe to your beliefs to the letter. I’m being honest with you–I don’t know what more you want from me.

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?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!