If Jesus were here now would he care about gays getting married ? or about the homeless....the poor...the sick.....those that suffer? we all know the

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maria_Emme
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
truetofaith said:
Is it known that that homosexuals choose the life or are born that way?

If they are born gay, then why does God say it’s an “abomination.”

Unless, He wants them to remain celibate, and accept the condition as an affliction like blindness or mental illness.
Click to expand...
Church teaching is that we are all born in a state of original sin, that does not excuse committing personal sins because grace is available to overcome the fallen state. Being “born that way” is not an excuse for anyone. It may mitigate culpability but it does not remove responsibility to avail ourselves of superabundant grace from God.

Clearly, if a person wills to simply go along with their condition, whatever that may be, then attempting to persuade them that their actions are ultimately not conducive to their true good may be met with resentment or anger, but simply accepting that whatever a person has a tendency to do is to be excused by “they were born that way” is not a Christian or Catholic notion. We were all “born that way” regarding all kinds of tendencies and part of what needs to be redeemed is precisely “that way” of acting regardless of whether we want to give it up or not.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Church teaching is that we are all born in a state of original sin, that does not excuse committing personal sins because grace is available to overcome the fallen state. Being “born that way” is not an excuse for anyone. It may mitigate culpability but it does not remove responsibility to avail ourselves of superabundant grace from God.

Clearly, if a person wills to simply go along with their condition, whatever that may be, then attempting to persuade them that their actions are ultimately not conducive to their true good may be met with resentment or anger, but simply accepting that whatever a person has a tendency to do is to be excused by “they were born that way” is not a Christian or Catholic notion. We were all “born that way” regarding all kinds of tendencies and part of what needs to be redeemed is precisely “that way” of acting regardless of whether we want to give it up or not.
Click to expand...
So to make sure I understand…whether a straight person decides to swing with the same sex or is born with that attraction …they have the obligation to refrain from that activity and avoid sin. Correct?
 
truetofaith said:
So to make sure I understand…whether a straight person decides to swing with the same sex or is born with that attraction …they have the obligation to refrain from that activity and avoid sin. Correct?
Click to expand...
I am not sure I understand your question, ergo I am not sure I can help you understand what it is that you don’t.

To be clear, I get a sense that you are “framing” the question in such way as to compel an answer that you want to hear. Sorry, nolo contendere.

I am an Aristotelian with regards to attractions. Passions (Aristotelian for “attractions”) are like wild dogs and it is the task of reason to train them before they shred the curtains and eat the babies. So basing a definition of a person on their emotional state just doesn’t meet my definition of legitimate currency.
 
truetofaith said:
So to make sure I understand…whether a straight person decides to swing with the same sex or is born with that attraction …they have the obligation to refrain from that activity and avoid sin. Correct?
Click to expand...
As far as I can glean from your question, yes. The motivations or intentions are irrelevant because the chosen act is evil in and of itself. Sincerity does not make evil acts good.
 
truetofaith said:
I know staying celibate until marriage is for everyone, not only gays, but eventually a straight person will marry or choose to remain celibate as a priest or nun. A gay person has no other option, since gay marriage is not valid, than to enter the religious life, never have sex or commit sin.
Click to expand...
Not every straight person will eventually marry. There are some who in spite of their best efforts remain single. And not all single lay people.who cannot get married become priests or nuns. There are single lay people and unlike.unicorns,.we exist.

Lack of sex.will not kill you.
 
Sarcelle said:
Not every straight person will eventually marry. There are some who in spite of their best efforts remain single. And not all single lay people.who cannot get married become priests or nuns. There are single lay people and unlike.unicorns,.we exist.

Lack of sex.will not kill you.
Click to expand...
I guess you didn’t see my previous post :

"Agreed, …my two aunts never married, never had boyfriends, took care of their parents and were very religious, but didn’t become nuns.
The point is …the homosexuals in this discussion are not of that mindset. "
 
Praedicare said:
What are you suggesting we do? You’re not saying much. We all have different presumptions and assumptions about how the Lord would act in today’s world, or how we think Christians should act. This was the reason the last Synod was such a loud, messy affair: people clashed about what it is to be Christ.

I’ve been homosexually-attracted as long as I’ve been able to understand sexuality… and by far, the most welcoming Christians of all have been Catholics. None of them who have known about me have ever dealt with me in any way other than what I’d call Christ-like. They didn’t need a hierarchical definition of “charity” or an instruction on love. They had their upbringing on the Scriptures and the love of neighbour, presumably from holy families and good parishes. We don’t have to redefine everything at the top just because a few cardinals are having an identity crisis.

I personally object to institutional social justice, as you seem to be advocating in your post, Maria. Just as with conversion of souls to Christ, it’s never effected by cold, theoretical, or political means. We truly convert people to God by loving them, befriending them, and patiently waiting for them & with them. It’s the same with those who are poor or outcasts: we start by showing them the personal, intimate, friendly love that they probably do not know. Throwing money or soup kitchens at them just perpetuates their sense of distance from us.

Naturally, if you’re saying something else, then it would be nice to know what you mean…
Click to expand...
Praedicare, I would love to hear your side on homosexual issues.
 
Peter_Plato said:
An interesting perspective…

edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2014/10/nudge-nudge-wink-wink.html
Click to expand...
Excellent piece! I think this is spot on:

*Liberalism in this broad sense is the dominant way of thinking and feeling in modern times. It is, essentially, the compulsory ethos, indeed the religion, of modern times. It absolutely permeates contemporary political, social, moral, religious, and cultural life. This is why the arguments even of political conservatives and Christians reputed for orthodoxy are constantly couched in the language of freedom, rights, the dignity of the individual, etc. The pressure to conform one’s thinking and sensibility to basic liberal assumptions is nearly overwhelming. *

… But because the resulting presentation of Catholic teaching is so one-sided, and one-sided in the direction of flattering liberalism, there is an appearance of a rupture with the past, an unintended implicature to the effect that liberal criticism of traditional Catholic teaching is correct.

I realized this a few years ago. We speak the language of the liberal ideology, we think within its framework. We are saturated with it. The discourse of liberalism has replaced the authentic Catholic voice and people are not even aware of it. This is the biggest danger.

Making sure priests are educated well and able to communicate the Gospel message using Catholic language, and not using the discourse of the age is crucial.
Higher standards in education would be helpful, so young people learn logic and philosophy and in such way develop their critical thinking and understanding of the dominant ideology of the age. That is the only way for them to be able to stand up to it and offer an alternative, and to live their faith in an authentic way.

This blog is going on my favourites list. 👍 I’m in desperate need of some intelligent analysis of current events that goes beyond the shallow political message everyone seems to be so focused on. The comments are very interesting too, especially the one that discusses how things happened in the Anglican community.
 
Scottgun said:
This is incorrect. There are plenty of lay people that never get married ever AND do not enter religious life. I know several people well out of the typical marriage age who are still single and their prospects diminish of ever being married. Also there are several accounts of people with same-sex attraction who have gotten truly married (i.e., to someone of the opposite sex) and leading happy and procreative lives. This is because living in truth, while sometimes difficult, is not impossible unless one is stubbornly determined to pretend it is.
Click to expand...
Sarcelle said:
Not every straight person will eventually marry. There are some who in spite of their best efforts remain single. And not all single lay people.who cannot get married become priests or nuns. There are single lay people and unlike.unicorns,.we exist.

Lack of sex.will not kill you.
Click to expand...
I don’t know that we really have any good statistics on the number of heterosexual lay Catholics who, at the time of their death, had never married. If you have the numbers, please do share them, but my guess is that while the number of people would certainly not be negligible, it would amount to a rather small percentage. And I think you’re missing a rather key point: as heterosexuals, we always have the choice and option. A woman in my Church married for the first time at the age of 72 because she finally found the right man. Even though sex outside of marriage would be considered sinful, heterosexuals can freely date, be involved romantically, entertain the possibility of marriage, etc. At 21 years old my son was faced with knowing that he would never marry, he could never date or entertain any romantic notions, knowing that he could never consider the possibilities without committing grave sin in the eyes of the Church.

I hear Catholics all the time trying to suggest that we don’t ask anything of gay people that we don’t ask of straight people, and that is simply and clearly and utterly false. Being single, “in spite of your best efforts” is worlds away from being single because “best efforts” are also considered sinful for you.

Let’s at least acknowledge that the Church is demanding from gay and lesbian people something far different than it asks of straight people.
 
Peter_Plato said:
An interesting perspective…

edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2014/10/nudge-nudge-wink-wink.html

Be sure to read the comments!
Click to expand...
Based Feser does it again. How the heck does he find time to write these lucid articles?
Contra_Mundum said:
I realized this a few years ago. We speak the language of the liberal ideology, we think within its framework. We are saturated with it. The discourse of liberalism has replaced the authentic Catholic voice and people are not even aware of it. This is the biggest danger.
Click to expand...
Indeed, this is why this is my favorite quote for the last while now:

“Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it.”
  • Blaise Pascal
I’ve been getting back into Church History instead of philosophy (I’m no good at this anyway) because I need some reassurance that holy mother Church has seen it before and will triumph over this crisis of a silent apostasy.
 
For years my son belonged to an organization called “Courage,” a Catholic apostolate with the goal of supporting Catholics with a “homosexual inclination” or those who “suffer from same sex attraction,” in leading a chaste life according to Catholic teaching. My husband and I belonged to “Encourage” which ministers to Courage members’ families.

While I cannot pretend to regard the organization itself very highly, as it is plagued by fundamental misconceptions at the foundation of its ministry, I must say that it is full of absolutely wonderful, inspirational Catholics with the best of intentions, many with whom we still keep in close contact. We had the privilege of meeting these people and listening to their stories. And one thing that always struck me when listening to their struggles, is that, while they were certainly challenged with sexual temptation, as one would expect, and as we all do, that struggle was almost insignificant in comparison to the main theme of discussion, which always amounted to coping with a profound sense of loneliness. The main struggle was not really about sex, it was about companionship, a sense of belonging to someone. As my son put it, he had a very full and meaningful life, but at the end of the day, he still came home to an empty house.

I often hear my fellow Catholics suggest that the Church doesn’t ask any more of gay people than it does of anyone else, that we are all called to chastity. What is not often acknowledged is that for most of us, abstinence is temporary, and chastity is about honoring our marital vows and resisting sexual temptation outside of marriage. Even if we do not choose marriage, as heterosexuals, we are free to consider every options. We may date, fall in love, have a romantic relationship. And if that doesn’t work out we can try again. But for gay people, chastity requires life long abstinence, the resistance all sexual expression, the avoidance of any type of romantic involvement, but instead distancing yourself from attractions that may be considered temptation. As a gay Catholic you are expected to endure the loneliness of a life that cannot be shared in partnership, but alone; one that is not a calling, but expected; one that is not chosen, but required; one that is hardly ever praised, but always criticized when not strictly adhered to.
 
Sylvia,

you and your family have obviously been through a lot and no doubt you have a much greater insight into the challenges that homosexuals have than most of us. Reading your post I realized that people with same sex attraction who follow the church’s teaching must be very pleasing to God. Their cross is a heavy one, and in their loneliness they must completely rely on God. For those who follow this road there must be a great outpouring of grace, and this cross can surely lead one to holiness. I hope this doesn’t sound silly and sentimental, but I really felt this in your post.
 
Except that as far as homosexuality is concerned, it has been pretty well been defined and no longer a debatable issue. This is why Christ said little about it.

A person who is attracted to the opposite sex would still receive a warm acceptance into the community. The Church assumes that the individual is working on this problem or at least keeps the condition in check, and not resigned to the condition. That same community is obliged to distance themselves from anyone who acts out that attraction, and that too is an accepted norm. He becomes a potential for an occasion either directly of indirectly impacting on the community; similar to the potential for infection. No matter what the person does, he could still influence the very young not only through acts, but by implied acceptance of behaviors.

An example of that I experienced recently in my own family. A 5 year old girl was allowed to play with a biological female child of one of the couples in a same sex household which the parents had not known was a potential threat. She came back describing in a matter of fact way how her friend wanted to always kiss her on the mouth. There was nothing sexual in intent of course, as she was simply playing out her observations. But all the same it caused the parents to allocate time in the disinformation process which would otherwise not have not been necessary if the SS couple had sought a solution within their Faith, rather than relenting to the temptation. Every minute we allocate to an action on earth is God’s time. The devil found a way to take some of that time for himself.
 
Was there only a certain amount of things that Jesus could show concern for?

What verse was that?
 
More here…

frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

At what point will it be admitted that the Church may be correct in advising against promoting what is a failed agenda, ultimately for the good of those taken in by it?
 
SylviaD said:
I don’t know that we really have any good statistics on the number of heterosexual lay Catholics who, at the time of their death, had never married. If you have the numbers, please do share them, but my guess is that while the number of people would certainly not be negligible, it would amount to a rather small percentage. And I think you’re missing a rather key point: as heterosexuals, we always have the choice and option. A woman in my Church married for the first time at the age of 72 because she finally found the right man. Even though sex outside of marriage would be considered sinful, heterosexuals can freely date, be involved romantically, entertain the possibility of marriage, etc. At 21 years old my son was faced with knowing that he would never marry, he could never date or entertain any romantic notions, knowing that he could never consider the possibilities without committing grave sin in the eyes of the Church.

I hear Catholics all the time trying to suggest that we don’t ask anything of gay people that we don’t ask of straight people, and that is simply and clearly and utterly false. Being single, “in spite of your best efforts” is worlds away from being single because “best efforts” are also considered sinful for you.

Let’s at least acknowledge that the Church is demanding from gay and lesbian people something far different than it asks of straight people.
Click to expand...
The Church isn’t demanding anything…God is!
 
Peter_Plato said:
More here…

frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

At what point will it be admitted that the Church may be correct in advising against promoting what is a failed agenda, ultimately for the good of those taken in by it?
Click to expand...
Wow. Interesting data. I have read similar things in the past, it really is an eye opener.

I suspect that no matter how right the church is, there will be people who will never admit it out of principle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top