I wish you could know

[Kolbe300]

Hello again! I’m going to do my best here to see if we can clear this up. It seems as if we’re going around in pointless circles for the most part.

Your OP reveals that “attracted to the same sex” is basic to a homosexual.That is why I followed it up with the question of what you mean by “attracted to the same sex”. And you answered. Actually, in the process, you were spelling out your definition of “homosexual”. But now you deny it. OK.

In my OP, as I discussed my trials growing up, I said that I was “attracted to the same sex” from the very beginning. You told me what being attracted to someone means to you, basically “liking” the things about them. You also asked me what I meant by “attracted to the same sex.” (A very reasonable question.) This was my reply exactly:

“I was trying to show a bit of my experience and struggles as a gay person. When I say “attracted to the same sex” in that context, it means that any desire for physical intimacy and any sexual attraction that I have ever had has been for males, never females.”

What I was defining there is exactly what I said I was defining there: what was meant by “attracted to the same sex” in the context of what I struggled with as a young person. I didn’t struggle with liking or loving males, I struggled with the sexual attraction. That was the point, yet, you say I was “spelling out my definition of homosexual” and am now denying that. Nowhere there did I even hint that a desire for physical intimacy is all that defines a homosexual to me.

Didn’t it ever occur to your mind that they might have strong basis for believing that way?

No it hasn’t. Do you know why? Because for someone to have a “strong basis” for believing that love cannot be included in the definition of a homosexual, they must say that I am incapable of love. The day they prove I’m incapable of love is the day I’ll accept their (your?) “strong basis”.

I do not make my own definition. I simply respect the definition given by authorities as in the following:

In an earlier post you said, “When I, a heterosexual, say I am attracted to someone…” Am I to assume that you define your entire self by the dictionary definition of heterosexual? Is that all you are, someone whose sexual desires are for those of the opposite sex? Or is that part of who you are? Do you want me to define myself, a homosexual, entirely by Webster’s dictionary?

I see. But I would say that yours is a very unique definition, not to say out-of-the world . But anyway, are there known written authorities that support your personal definition of homosexual? Compare your definition with that of the dictionary:

What did I define there? This is exactly what I posted: “…my definition of a gay person, a homosexual, an SSA person…” I gave you my definition of a homosexual person. I did not say that is my replacement for the word “homosexual” in the dictionary. Thankfully, I don’t need written authorities to support my definition of a homosexual person.

Does anyone these days simply make his own personal definition setting aside the generally accepted or published ones?

They probably do when responding to someone who asks for just that. Here is exactly what you said:

*“I want a clear definition flowing out right from a homosexual of what really is a homosexual!” *

Is that not exactly what I gave you? I truly pray you don’t see a homosexual person as Webster’s dictionary does. I pray you’re able to see the heart, the soul, and the love that person is capable of. I will never define you as anything other than a child of God. Heterosexual, homosexual, whateversexual, I will always see your dignity. And I will never love you, or anyone else, in spite of anything. I hope this helps and I look forward to future discussions.

Peace and Love

 

[Dale_M]

I don’t live in Utopia, but if I ever find it on the map…

Its in Florida, near Sarasota. Here is the MapQuest link.

I agree with you that some posts, entire threads even, are mean in spirit. I think part of it is the nature of internet communication…its hard to emotionally connect to others when all we have to go one are the letters on a screen. But I also think that some posters have trouble entertaining perspectives different from their own. In both cases, I don’t think the meanness is intentional… but it is present.

Kolbe, this is a good thread. Thank you for speaking up!

 

[agangbern]

Kolbe300;3114362:

In my OP, as I discussed my trials growing up, I said that I was “attracted to the same sex” from the very beginning. You told me what being attracted to someone means to you, basically “liking” the things about them. You also asked me what I meant by “attracted to the same sex.” (A very reasonable question.) This was my reply exactly:

"I was trying to show a bit of my experience and struggles as a gay person. When I say “attracted to the same sex” in that context

, it means that any desire for physical intimacy and any sexual attraction that I have ever had has been for males, never females."

What I was defining there is exactly what I said I was defining there: what was meant by “attracted to the same sex” in the context of what I struggled with as a young person. I didn’t struggle with liking or loving males, I struggled with the sexual attraction. That was the point, yet, you say I was “spelling out my definition of homosexual” and am now denying that. Nowhere there did I even hint that a desire for physical intimacy is all that defines a homosexual to me.
So you were not defining the word “homosexual” but you were defining only a part of the definition of it which is “attracted to the same sex”, did I get you right this time?

Do you know why? Because for someone to have a “strong basis” for believing that love cannot be included in the definition of a homosexual, they must say that I am incapable of love. The day they prove I’m incapable of love is the day I’ll accept their (your?) “strong basis”.

Your definition of homosexual:

*For whatever it’s worth, my “definition” of a gay person, a homosexual, an SSA person, whatever name you want to give it, is someone who desires to share their love, their mind, and their heart; someone who would love to share a deep emotional, spiritual, and physical intimacy with a member of the same gender. *

Now,let us look at the basic element of your definition: Love and physical intimacy with the same gender.

Consider the following teaching of Pope John Paul II:

*4. There is a deep connection between the mystery of creation, as a gift springing from love, and that beatifying “beginning” of the existence of man as male and female, in the whole truth of their body and their sex, which is the pure and simple truth of communion between persons. When the first man exclaimed, at the sight of the woman: “This is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (Gn 2:23), he merely affirmed the human identity of both. Exclaiming in this way, he seems to say: here is a body that expresses the person!

Following a preceding passage of the Yahwist text, it can also be said that this “body” reveals the “living soul,” such as man became when God-Yahweh breathed life into him (cf. Gn 2:7). This resulted in his solitude before all other living beings. By traversing the depth of that original solitude, man now emerged in the dimension of the mutual gift. The expression of that gift—and for that reason the expression of his existence as a person—is the human body in all the original truth of its masculinity and femininity.

The body which expresses femininity manifests the reciprocity and communion of persons. It expresses it by means of the gift as the fundamental characteristic of personal existence. This is the body, a witness to creation as a fundamental gift, and so a witness to Love as the source from which this same giving springs. Masculinity and femininity—namely, sex—is the original sign of a creative donation and an awareness on the part of man, male-female, of a gift lived in an original way. Such is the meaning with which sex enters the theology of the body.
*

What is the meaning with which sex enters the theology of the body? Pope John Paul said, "*Masculinity and femininity—namely, sex—is the original sign of a creative donation and an awareness on the part of man, male-female, of a gift lived in an original way. Such is the meaning with which sex enters the theology of the body.
*
And now here comes you asserting that love and sex is also true with the same gender! Whom should we believe: You or John Paul II?

Do you want me to define myself, a homosexual, entirely by Webster’s dictionary?

The dictionary cannot define your entire self. But it defines what is “homosexual”. Now, do you suppose your personal definition is more worth-believing than that of the dictionary?

 

[Kolbe300]

But I also think that some posters have trouble entertaining perspectives different from their own. In both cases, I don’t think the meanness is intentional… but it is present.

Hi Dale_M! I can’t believe there really is a Utopia, U.S.A… This post is going to be short because I’ve got to pack my bags and head south!

Thank you for your post and I’m glad you’ve enjoyed the thread. I absolutely agree with what you said there. I have no doubt that people often times come across as harsh because they simply don’t understand. I truly think that for the most part any “meanness” is unintentional. My goal is to possibly help someone see things from a different perspective, to maybe have a better understanding which may lead to a greater compassion. What ruffles my feathers in life are the people that not only don’t understand, but have no intention of even trying to. But, what can ya do, right?

Have a great Christmas! Especially all you people who live in Utopia!

Peace and Love

 

[agangbern]

Hi Dale_M! I can’t believe there really is a Utopia, U.S.A… This post is going to be short because I’ve got to pack my bags and head south!

Thank you for your post and I’m glad you’ve enjoyed the thread. I absolutely agree with what you said there. I have no doubt that people often times come across as harsh because they simply don’t understand. I truly think that for the most part any “meanness” is unintentional. My goal is to possibly help someone see things from a different perspective, to maybe have a better understanding which may lead to a greater compassion. What ruffles my feathers in life are the people that not only don’t understand, but have no intention of even trying to. But, what can ya do, right?

Have a great Christmas! Especially all you people who live in Utopia!

Peace and Love

Happy trip, Kolbe! May the Lord God be with you in your journey…

God Bless!

 

[Kolbe300]

Kolbe300;3114362:

So you were not defining the word “homosexual” but you were defining only a part of the definition of it which is "attracted to the same sex

", did I get you right this time??

Hi there agangbern! I saw your post wishing me happy travels to Utopia. Now, if only I was really going there! I read that sentence up there 75 times, just to make sure we are on the same page! But, thankfully, I think we got it! You could say that is part of the (my) definition of a homosexual PERSON. I think that may have been part of our dillema, are we defining the word (if so, you can go with the dictionary version all day), or are we defining a homosexual person, in which case I hope you don’t go with the simple dictionary definition. I’m fairly certain you wouldn’t define yourself, as a person, by the dictionary definition of “heterosexual” even though you happen to be heterosexual.

Now,let us look at the basic element of your definition: Love and physical intimacy with the same gender.

I’d say the above statement is true, however, “love and physical intimacy with the same gender” should be preceded by “a desire for”. Physical intimacy does not have to be present for one to be gay. I’m proof of that. I also believe that one can have very deep love without any physical intimacy. (Love, not attraction) Would you agree?

I have to tell you, while I was rummaging through a different thread on a similar subject, I came across a post of yours. There was one sentence in it that made the gigantic lightbulb over my head light up! I literally said outloud, “Oh, THAT is where the issue lies.” I want to run it by you and see if I interpreted it correctly. You said:

“And the topic in this thread is about “homosexual acts”. If to you desiring is not an act, so be it to you.”

If I’m interpreting that correctly, you believe that desiring physical intimacy IS a homosexual ACT. Is that right? If that is so, I strongly (huge understatement) disagree. If I have interpreted that correctly, can you please show me what Catholic teaching is your basis for such a belief? If I have interpreted it incorrectly I truly apologize.

I have never chosen who I am physically attracted to. I have also never chosen to have sexual desires, yet I have had them. I also do not think there is a human being on the planet who does not or has not had sexual desires, through no fault of their own. Now, can one purposely linger on a sexual desire? Yes. Can that desire become lust, and can a person play that desire out in their mind? Yes. Can one indulge in that desire to the point of ACTING it out physically? Yes. In each of those cases, a person IS choosing to act sinfully. Would you agree with that, or do you believe differently?

And now here comes you asserting that love and sex is also true with the same gender! Whom should we believe: You or John Paul II?

Thank you for the quotes from John Paul II. I have only read the Theology of the Body for beginners (dummies?), but I love it! And, with regards to sex, I say go with John Paul II! You do know that I agree completely with the Church’s teaching on homosexual acts, right? If you do, why would you think that I’m asserting that love **and sex **is also true between those of the same gender? Sex between a loving husband and wife is holy to a point that I don’t think we can even grasp. That holiness could never occur between two men or two women. In fact, it’s just the opposite because it pulls them away from God. I also know, as a gay man, that I am as capable of providing a deep and holy love as anyone else on the planet.

What saddens me is when a gay persons ability to love and the genuiness of their love is attacked and even mocked by Christians because that gay person happens to be in a physical relationship. It happens because the Christian is often incapable of looking at a homosexual without seeing the sex. Hate the sin and not the sinner, it’s what we always hear. The only problem? Too many Christians are blinded by the sin, never even seeing the sinner.

Merry Christmas!!

 

[Dale_M]

… (my) definition of a homosexual PERSON. I think that may have been part of our dillema, are we defining the word (if so, you can go with the dictionary version all day), or are we defining a homosexual person, in which case I hope you don’t go with the simple dictionary definition. I’m fairly certain you wouldn’t define yourself, as a person, by the dictionary definition of “heterosexual” even though you happen to be heterosexual.

Kolbe, you have a knack for cutting through the fog. We (all humans) are created in God’s image. Sexuality is only a small part of who we are. The larger part, the most important part, is love. We need love, are made to love and are commanded to love. It is through love that God draws near to us.

What saddens me is when a gay persons ability to love and the genuiness of their love is attacked and even mocked by Christians because that gay person happens to be in a physical relationship. It happens because the Christian is often incapable of looking at a homosexual without seeing the sex. Hate the sin and not the sinner, it’s what we always hear. The only problem? Too many Christians are blinded by the sin, never even seeing the sinner.

I think this is a good point. People are quick to hate the sin - it is easy and sometimes emotionally satisfying (and an occasion of sin). In contrast, loving the sinner is hard. It takes time and sometimes it requires we step out of our comfort zone to truly encounter the other person as a person.

I know that I am often lazy when I make posts here at CAF. I rationally process the information I read, and I type out a quick reply. I usually don’t bother to try to step inside the shoes of the people to whom I respond. This has the virtue of being efficient, but I lose out on some of the humaneness/love which I probably should be embracing. Hmmm…recognizing this pattern seems important to me; definitely food for thought.

Merry Christmas, and may God’s blessings always be known to you.

 

[ElizabethPH]

referring to preaching this stuff from the pulpit. I must disagree. I understand though. I would love the priest at times to just give us all a big lecture right out of the CCC. But! it depends on what it is, Some of what we are talking about is not appropriate. It needs to by sought after as you have done.

I do have empathy for you as well. As a widow two times; I’m getting too old and face all the rest of my years God willing leading a good life without a partner…it’s not easy but it is something that I can offer up gratefully and for the love of God.

And I’m glad that you can too

Peace

 

[blessedtoo]

Kolbe,
I thought of you today during the homily. Our priest talked about St. Joseph.

Joseph had his life all planned for himself. He was in love with Mary, ready to marry her and be a husband and father to many children. I am certain that included in his plan was the physical intimacy that goes with marriage. I am sure that included in his plan was the hope of many, many children that would be the fruit of his loins. I am certain that he looked forward with excitement and anticipation to the moment that he and his betrothed would be together in marriage.

BUT

God interferred. God had a completely different plan for Joseph, one that did not include the “proper” marital relationship. Not only would Joseph be denied fulfillment of this very human desire, but he would be denied it FOR LIFE. He was denied children of his own as well and then given the task of raising the Son of God. I put myself in Joseph’s shoes today and I thought of you and all my other friends who walk with Christ, often with their shoulders hunched at the thought of living a lifetime without physical intimacy. We are in very good company, apparently, as the greatest and most powerful saint in our Church also walked this path, and did it without bitterness or self-pity.

A great saint to pray with for strength!

 

[agangbern]

I think that may have been part of our dillema, are we defining the word (if so, you can go with the dictionary version all day), or are we defining a homosexual person, in which case I hope you don’t go with the simple dictionary definition.

Ha ha ha! I wonder what made you think that we could define an individual person, especially such as you. Definitions are supposed to be concepts that are applicable to all that fits into it. We don’t have to be defensive about definitions.

Physical intimacy does not have to be present for one to be gay. I’m proof of that. I also believe that one can have very deep love without any physical intimacy. (Love, not attraction) Would you agree?

“Love without physical intimacy!” That’s great! And that is the best ideal. St. Paul said, “I wish that all men were as I am.” Then, I suggest do not call yourself gay. Why do you like to be called gay? I find no sense in calling you gay. You are a man! That is the fitting word for you.

I have to tell you, while I was rummaging through a different thread on a similar subject, I came across a post of yours. There was one sentence in it that made the gigantic lightbulb over my head light up! I literally said outloud, “Oh, THAT is where the issue lies.” I want to run it by you and see if I interpreted it correctly. You said:

“And the topic in this thread is about “homosexual acts”. If to you desiring is not an act, so be it to you.”

If I’m interpreting that correctly, you believe that desiring physical intimacy IS a homosexual ACT. Is that right? If that is so, I strongly (huge understatement) disagree. If I have interpreted that correctly, can you please show me what Catholic teaching is your basis for such a belief? If I have interpreted it incorrectly I truly apologize.

There is a thread here about desires. I reserve the discussion of this for that thread. Please bring the issue into that thread and we shall handle it there.

I have never chosen who I am physically attracted to. I have also never chosen to have sexual desires, yet I have had them.

This is really a heavy cross that you must bear because there is simply no way that this physical attraction and sexual desire for the same gender would find fulfillment with Church consent.

I also do not think there is a human being on the planet who does not or has not had sexual desires, through no fault of their own.

Why add the phrase “through no fault of their own”? Each one of us has sexual desires, be it actual or potential. Such desires are already understood to be no fault of our own. They are natural to human nature.

Now, can one purposely linger on a sexual desire? Yes. Can that desire become lust, and can a person play that desire out in their mind? Yes. Can one indulge in that desire to the point of ACTING it out physically? Yes. In each of those cases, a person IS choosing to act sinfully. Would you agree with that, or do you believe differently?

What do you mean by “play that desire out in their mind”? If it is similar with lusting then the answer to all of them is obvious.There is no need to ask me about that.

You do know that I agree completely with the Church’s teaching on homosexual acts, right? If you do, why would you think that I’m asserting that love **and sex **is also true between those of the same gender?

Because that was what you substantially stated in your definition of homosexual: Love and sex with the same gender. Or, would you like to say now that “love and sex with the same gender” is not true in your definition of homosexual?

I also know, as a gay man, that I am as capable of providing a deep and holy love as anyone else on the planet.

I have not yet read or heard anyone saying that a gay is not capable of loving.

What saddens me is when a gay persons ability to love and the genuiness of their love is attacked and even mocked by Christians because that gay person happens to be in a physical relationship.

Kolbe, please understand. Christians do not attack love. What they attack is the physical relations between the same gender. It is not the person that they attack. What they attack is the physical relations which revolts against God’s natural law.

MERRY CHRISTMAS and HAVE A NICE DAY!

 

[KathleenElsie]

Kolbe300 welcome.

But I must ask. Why did you feel you needed to say you were a gay man in the first few sentences of your post? I guess this is what confuses me about the homosexual population. So many good and wonderful desires and accomplishments and yet this one aspect of life seems to be placed first in conversations and writings.

This NEED to out oneself to others is seen in many threads. It might make for racy reading to some but it tends to turn many people against those that have homosexual feelings.

 

[blessedtoo]

Kolbe300 welcome.

But I must ask. Why did you feel you needed to say you were a gay man in the first few sentences of your post? I guess this is what confuses me about the homosexual population. So many good and wonderful desires and accomplishments and yet this one aspect of life seems to be placed first in conversations and writings.

This NEED to out oneself to others is seen in many threads. It might make for racy reading to some but it tends to turn many people against those that have homosexual feelings.

Yes, and having gotten to know you a bit better and witnessed your inclination to apply “trickery” to make a point, I also wonder why you introduced yourself as a gay man yet waited until the third paragraph to explain that you are celibate.

You stated that you were tempted to throw your computer out the window after reading some of the threads here on CAF. Did you happen to notice, during your investigation, how many threads are started or monopolized by folks who want to provoke controversy or advance some pro-gay position? Many members who have been here a good long time also find themselves frustrated by the near constant justifications given for homosexual behavior (often by Catholics!). So we understand how one could feel compelled to throw the computer out the window.

Stereotypes exist, sometimes for a reason. Practising homosexuals who come to CAF often follow a typical pattern of justification and a method of accusing Catholics and NC-Christians of hateful and bigoted ideology. Therefore, many Christians are left with the impression (coupled with gay activism in the public square) that homosexuals wish to provoke and engage in character assault.

On CAF, posters can often give the impression that they lack compassion or understanding, possibly due to the fact that they believe in the non-negotiable aspect of issues of morality. And we too can often feel persecuted and under attack at times, which may add to the homosexual stereotype of the Christian.

In any event, we would all do well to remember that internet forums can not convey even a fraction of human emotion but they can help us to see how we present ourselves - and that applies to everyone.

 

[Kolbe300]

referring to preaching this stuff from the pulpit. I must disagree. I understand though. I would love the priest at times to just give us all a big lecture right out of the CCC. But! it depends on what it is, Some of what we are talking about is not appropriate. It needs to by sought after as you have done.

I do have empathy for you as well. As a widow two times; I’m getting too old and face all the rest of my years God willing leading a good life without a partner…it’s not easy but it is something that I can offer up gratefully and for the love of God.

And I’m glad that you can too

Peace

Hi ElizabethPH! Thanks for your reply. You make a very good point. Some of the things I’d most love to hear preached with enthusiasm from the pulpit might not be the best things for young ears. I really think the moral of this story is that the lessons can be taught by us, mostly in how we live our lives and partly in what we say. That can be more powerful than the pulpit!

Merry Christmas!

 

[Kolbe300]

Kolbe,
I thought of you today during the homily. Our priest talked about St. Joseph.

Joseph had his life all planned for himself. He was in love with Mary, ready to marry her and be a husband and father to many children. I am certain that included in his plan was the physical intimacy that goes with marriage. I am sure that included in his plan was the hope of many, many children that would be the fruit of his loins. I am certain that he looked forward with excitement and anticipation to the moment that he and his betrothed would be together in marriage.

BUT

God interferred. God had a completely different plan for Joseph, one that did not include the “proper” marital relationship. Not only would Joseph be denied fulfillment of this very human desire, but he would be denied it FOR LIFE. He was denied children of his own as well and then given the task of raising the Son of God. I put myself in Joseph’s shoes today and I thought of you and all my other friends who walk with Christ, often with their shoulders hunched at the thought of living a lifetime without physical intimacy. We are in very good company, apparently, as the greatest and most powerful saint in our Church also walked this path, and did it without bitterness or self-pity.

A great saint to pray with for strength!

God has a beautiful way of interfering. Thank you for taking the time to share that with me! I receive great strength through the intercession of St. Joseph, I have no doubt. We are so lucky in this Church to have the role models we have. I feel bad for those outside the Church who I think may even be afraid to look up to the saints out of fear of even seeming Catholic. I don’t know that to be true, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Anyways, thank you again. You are in my prayers.

 

[whatevergirl]

Welcome kolbe!
Thank you for such a candid opening statement!

I look at it all like this…we are all sinners. And, my sin may be different than yours, and yours different than mine. But, nonetheless, we are both sinners, our sins different. Thankfully, through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, we have the remedy we need to ‘cure’ us.

To the topic of your thread–Perhaps, a wrong assumption that some Christians have, is that all homosexual men and women are ‘actively’ homosexual. But, even so–I know many heterosexual men and women who are living in sin–why do we as Catholics lose our heads when it comes to the topic of homosexuality? It’s an interesting question, and I too, have seen some scathing comments from fellow brothers and sisters, and I don’t fully understand the motivation by such cutting comments.

God loves us, but not our sinful natures. But, the best thing that I can do for another person in Christ, is love him/her. Not judge him/her. I can offer advice…encouragement…some direction, as God leads me. I can witness for Christ–and be open for Him to work through…and hopefully, touch lives as He asks me to. The reality is, we do not need to judge another to help the person. When we give to charities, or to a homeless person on the street-do we first stop to think of why that person could be homeless, and make a judgement then to give him/her money? No, we just help. That is what we are to do. When we judge another, we presume to know why a person is in the state that he/she is in, and somehow that slows us to loving and helping that person. When we leave judgement to God, we are freer to help and love that person–to a better place. Mother Teresa didn’t judge, she just helped everyone around her–to see God and to bring them to Christ. In love, will real unity take place…and real change last.

Jesus won’t ask us who we chastised here on earth when we arrive before Him, but He will ask…who did you love?

I wish you a blessed Christmas, Kolbe.

 

[whatevergirl]

Welcome kolbe!
Thank you for such a candid opening statement!

I look at it all like this…we are all sinners. And, my sin may be different than yours, and yours different than mine. But, nonetheless, we are both sinners, our sins different. Thankfully, through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, we have the remedy we need to ‘cure’ us.

To the topic of your thread–Perhaps, a wrong assumption that some Christians have, is that all homosexual men and women are ‘actively’ homosexual. But, even so–I know many heterosexual men and women who are living in sin–why do we as Catholics lose our heads when it comes to the topic of homosexuality? It’s an interesting question, and I too, have seen some scathing comments from fellow brothers and sisters, and I don’t fully understand the motivation by such cutting comments.

God loves us, but not our sinful natures. But, the best thing that I can do for another person in Christ, is love him/her. Not judge him/her. I can offer advice…encouragement…some direction, as God leads me. I can witness for Christ–and be open for Him to work through…and hopefully, touch lives as He asks me to. The reality is, we do not need to judge another to help the person. When we give to charities, or to a homeless person on the street-do we first stop to think of why that person could be homeless, and make a judgement then to give him/her money? No, we just help. That is what we are called to do. When we judge another, we presume to know why a person is in the state that he/she is in, and somehow that slows us to loving and helping that person. When we leave judgement to God, we are freer to help and love that person–to a better place. Mother Teresa didn’t judge, she just helped everyone around her–to see God and to bring them to Christ. In love, will real unity take place…and real change last.

Jesus won’t ask us who we chastised here on earth when we arrive before Him, but He will ask…who did you love?

I wish you a blessed Christmas, Kolbe.

 

[agangbern]

To the topic of your thread–Perhaps, a wrong assumption that some Christians have, is that all homosexual men and women are ‘actively’ homosexual. But, even so–I know many heterosexual men and women who are living in sin–why do we as Catholics lose our heads when it comes to the topic of homosexuality? It’s an interesting question, and I too, have seen some scathing comments from fellow brothers and sisters, and I don’t fully understand the motivation by such cutting comments.

I wonder how you came to the conclusion that “we catholics lose our heads when it comes to the topic of homosexuality”. Maybe this is based on your personal life? Maybe you have experienced losing your head?

God loves us, but not our sinful natures. But, the best thing that I can do for another person in Christ, is love him/her. Not judge him/her. I can offer advice…encouragement…some direction, as God leads me. I can witness for Christ–and be open for Him to work through…and hopefully, touch lives as He asks me to. The reality is, we do not need to judge another to help the person.

Yes, that’s right, we should not judge another person. But suppose the person himself makes judgment of himself, how are we to object? When a person calls himself “gay”, or “homosexual”
he is actually judging himself. It is not others who judge him but himself.

WISHING YOU A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A MORE BOUNTIFUL YEAR 2008!

 

[Kolbe300]

"Then, I suggest do not call yourself gay. Why do you like to be called gay? I find no sense in calling you gay. You are a man! That is the fitting word for you.

Hello! I hope you are enjoying your Christmas. I’ll address those questions in my next post as a couple people have now asked it. Oh, and I don’t “like” being called gay. That kind of cracked me up. It’s not like I get some big kick out of it or something.

There is a thread here about desires. I reserve the discussion of this for that thread. Please bring the issue into that thread and we shall handle it there.

 

[Kolbe300]

Welcome kolbe!
Thank you for such a candid opening statement!

I look at it all like this…we are all sinners. And, my sin may be different than yours, and yours different than mine. But, nonetheless, we are both sinners, our sins different. Thankfully, through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, we have the remedy we need to ‘cure’ us.

To the topic of your thread–Perhaps, a wrong assumption that some Christians have, is that all homosexual men and women are ‘actively’ homosexual. But, even so–I know many heterosexual men and women who are living in sin–why do we as Catholics lose our heads when it comes to the topic of homosexuality? It’s an interesting question, and I too, have seen some scathing comments from fellow brothers and sisters, and I don’t fully understand the motivation by such cutting comments.

God loves us, but not our sinful natures. But, the best thing that I can do for another person in Christ, is love him/her. Not judge him/her. I can offer advice…encouragement…some direction, as God leads me. I can witness for Christ–and be open for Him to work through…and hopefully, touch lives as He asks me to. The reality is, we do not need to judge another to help the person. When we give to charities, or to a homeless person on the street-do we first stop to think of why that person could be homeless, and make a judgement then to give him/her money? No, we just help. That is what we are to do. When we judge another, we presume to know why a person is in the state that he/she is in, and somehow that slows us to loving and helping that person. When we leave judgement to God, we are freer to help and love that person–to a better place. Mother Teresa didn’t judge, she just helped everyone around her–to see God and to bring them to Christ. In love, will real unity take place…and real change last.

Jesus won’t ask us who we chastised here on earth when we arrive before Him, but He will ask…who did you love?

I wish you a blessed Christmas, Kolbe.

whatevergirl,
Thank you so much for the warm welcome, I truly appreciate it. Your post was a breath of fresh air. I could sit back and say, "Amen to that. Amen to that. Yup, totally agree. Amen to that. Couldn't be more right. Amen to that...." It was a beautiful post and great Christmas present! God bless and Merry Christmas!

 

[whatevergirl]

I wonder how you came to the conclusion that “we catholics lose our heads when it comes to the topic of homosexuality”. Maybe this is based on your personal life? Maybe you have experienced losing your head?

Yes, that’s right, we should not judge another person. But suppose the person himself makes judgment of himself, how are we to object? When a person calls himself “gay”, or “homosexual”
he is actually judging himself. It is not others who judge him but himself.

WISHING YOU A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A MORE BOUNTIFUL YEAR 2008!

No…that is a label…not a judgement. I am heterosexual…it’s who I am, not a judgement. ??

Also…it was a figure of speech when I said…‘we Catholics losing our heads…’ and no it is not my personal opinion, relating to homosexuals. I have never been angry over the topic, honestly. Rather, I have observed some very unkind posts from perhaps well meaning Catholics in my life – on here included. It is rather a play on words…I suppose I could have said…“been rude to a fellow Catholic who is gay,” but I chose the words…‘losing one’s head.’ Hope that explains it a bit better. (And again, by “not judging” it doesn’t mean we ignore someone’s sin. If I were in mortal sin, I would want someone to help me. But, passing a judgement isn’t necessary, in my opinion, to helping someone out of sin, or to a better place. That is all I’m trying to say…from your post, I think we agree on that point, though.)

I hope you have a very merry Christmas too!