Homosexuals Hijack Christian Fish Symbol

[pablo_rafael]

Sheesh! No wonder your moral theology is screwed up if you follow the lead of the likes of these. Why don’t you listen to Dr. D. James Kennedy if you want a ‘real’ Presbyterian (Reformed theological) position. Bishop Spong is so far left, you couldn’t see him from where John Kerry is standing. Mel White is a homosexual, and Lars Claussen’s explicit mission is to claim that Christianity is wrong regarding the moral illicitness of the gay and lesbian lifestyle. Of course you prop them up as supporting your position. Hardly a lineup for orthodoxy though.

irenaeus,

I expected disagreement when I posted on this thread. I have been generally encouraged by the civility and respectful tone of everyone who has disagreed with me. I have appreciated that.

Your posts are the exception. Saying that my moral theology is “screwed up” shows a great deal of disrespect.

I have tried to emphasize that my beliefs are my own personal opinion, and I have no delusions that I know everything; I am constantly searching and learning. I think it is important to listen respectfully to others even to those with whom we disagree. The sources I mentioned are all fine people who happen to disagree with your position. Neither they nor I deserve the comment that we are “screwed up” in our theology.

Pablo

 

[wildjmp]

Yeah, I think that’s going a bit far. There can only be Catholic L & G groups if they’re people that have those feelings but are trying to work them out, not like we’re Catholic and we sleep around with the same sex. This seems like another church abuse going on, why I’m likely to start attending traditional masses/parishes.

 

[Dale_M]

Yeah, I think that’s going a bit far. There can only be Catholic L & G groups if they’re people that have those feelings but are trying to work them out, not like we’re Catholic and we sleep around with the same sex. This seems like another church abuse going on, why I’m likely to start attending traditional masses/parishes.

Wildjmp, please forgive me, but I am going to talk about custom/rule here at CAF. Digging up old threads and adding a comment is frowned upon because often the people who have made earlier comments have moved on and either are no longer visiting CAF or they are no longer monitoring the thread. Generally, it is advisable to start a new thread if you want to discuss an older topic. I don’t mean to cause you grief, I realize that you are relatively new here and may not be aware of the standards.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Can’t you have a ‘homosexual activist’ who is simply ‘active’ about encouraging others with SSA to stay faithful to Church teaching?

And equally (as someone posted), a ‘homosexual activist’ who is ‘active’ about something other than homosexuality?

I have yet to see either of those. Yes, it would be theoretically possible, but I have never seen the term used in either way. In 100% of my experience, in several parishes, ‘gay ministry,’ for example, is about ministering to gays about being gay and having sexually active relationships with other gays (and how cool and supposedly holy that is.) Such ‘ministries’ even assert that there is such thing as a “gay spirituality” (cough, cough). Then sometimes a priest in the parish declares himself gay and joins the ministry, Swell, as Dirty Harry would say. Dear Father, your ‘sexual orientation’ is supposed to be irrelevant to your position because you’re supposed to be witnessing celibacy and **ministering **to chastity among marrieds & singles.

An activist on another issues, who happens to be gay, is not identified as a ‘homosexual activist,’ any more than I would be identified as a “female activist.” If the cause were feminism of some sort, there might be an assumption that the activists were female (and probably most of them would be).

So whether the homosexual is acting within or without the church, he is identified by the cause, not by his personal identification as an individual.

In no Catholic Church environment have I seen ‘gay activism’ or a ‘gay ministry’ started with the purpose of encouraging fidelity to the principles of chastity. It would be considered absurd if there should open a ‘fornication ministry’ for straights, but if ‘gay ministries’ are allowed, I don’t see why the other is not allowed, too. Obviously, neither has any place in a parish.

Could there, should there, be social groups for gays to gather in a parish? Why not? I see nothing wrong with that. Fellowship, mutual support for chastity, for prayer groups, etc. But that is not what I’ve ever seen in any parish. It’s always for “inclusion” so that they can practice as active homosexuals while straights have to abide by the rules.

As to the title and subject of the thread, I am way more concerned about the hijacking of a major social institution, which is marriage – previously perceived as a straight-only arrangement even by secularists and atheists in this country.