R
Rau
Guest
Clearly!
If a friend remarked on seeing my son engaged in sexual activity, I would not think it meant going on a date with this girlfriend and kissing at the door.
It just seems easy to be clear.
- Status
If a friend remarked on seeing my son engaged in sexual activity, I would not think it meant going on a date with this girlfriend and kissing at the door.
It just seems easy to be clear.
O
One_point
Guest
You are the one making “homosexual activity” and sexual activity equivalent though.Clearly!
If a friend remarked on seeing my son engaged in sexual activity, I would not think it meant going on a date with this girlfriend and kissing at the door.
It just seems easy to be clear.
While it includes sexual activity, there is no reason to say it means only that. To me, as it seems to be the case with most catholics, that activity I described would certainly be “homosexual activity”. If someone said to people who thought I was gay that they saw me engage in heterosexual activity, it would be very accurate if by that they meant I was making out with a member of the opposite sex!!! 
R
Rau
Guest
The text in the CDF letter pointed to “sexual activity” and nothing explicit was written to make it clear that more was intended.You are the one making “homosexual activity” and sexual activity equivalent though.
I don’t argue that is what they intended, just that they’ve left it unclear.This issue can be made clear so easily, and I think it should be.
R
Rin
Guest
Gary, you’re still twisting my words, but I don’t think you’re doing it intentionally. I will however not continue this.
To everyone else - this may not be on topic, but I don’t need the attention given by making a new thread:
CAF has become a near occasion of sin for me recently. The sins of anger and of despair, and of losing hope in God. Being on CAF weakens my faith, and my relationship to God, and the Church. I will therefore now withdraw, at least for now.
The thing with CAF, is that I here encounter a form of Catholicism I didn’t even knew existed. A form of Catholicism where one professes to cookie cutter solutions to difficult problems (a trait I’ve seen among many Evangelicals and Fundamentalist, but not from one single Catholic priest in real life). A form of Catholicism where interpretation of teaching is confused for teaching itself, and where anyone who does not agree to said interpretation is painted as heterodox. A form of Catholicism where even suggesting that the translator of a document may have made a poor choice of words, is seen as scandalous and narcissistic (!), because the original document, in Latin, was prepared by CDF under Cardinal Ratzinger (who still happens to be my hero). I’m sorry, but exposure to this form of Catholicism strains my relationship with real-world Catholicism. And I won’t have that.
Additionally, episodes like the one yesterday are simply not good for my health. This morning, I woke up with post-traumatic flashbacks of being laughed at by the entire class in primary school. And that was exactly what happened here yesterday - people latched on to a small detail of my argument, and used that to ridicule the essence. On top of that, I was barraged with some rather grave accusations about my person and intents, constantly, by people with no interest in actually discussing the essence of my arguments. The behavior I was exposed to by others last night, can only be called harassment and bullying, and I won’t have it. While yesterday was by far the most extreme incident of this sort, it is not the first, and I will not have this place destroy my health. I have said earlier that I pray that people who are thinner skinned than me don’t find CAF - I’m sorry to say my skin isn’t thick enough either. I get mental images of howling wolves and circling vultures just by thinking of this site.
I do however wish to thank those of you who have shown me support during my now around half a year on CAF, to those of you I’ve learned from, to those of you who have seen me as a person. You know who you are, and I’m grateful. Please keep writing - your posts literally save lives, and I will pray that you are given strength to carry on.
I also wish to thank those of you with whom I may disagree most of the time, but who are also respectful and honest, and open to actually consider what other people have to say. Some of you may know who you are, some of you may not. I’ve learned much from many of you, and please know I respect your opinions - as I’ve had to say over and over again, I have nothing against being disagreed with or challenged, my issue is with speaking to walls, or worse, being harassed. I commend you for being honest “opponents”, for keeping your posts civil, and for simply being good people. It is because of people like you, people with whom one can have honest debates (and disagreements, but still go out for drinks after), that I find the social climate in the real-life Church so giving. Please keep writing, too.
Lastly, to those of you who are after nothing but demonstrating your own mistaken sense of orthodoxy, to those of you who use rude language about other people under the cover of being “traditional”, to those of you who stick to pseudoscience as if it were Catholic doctrine, to those of you who I simply wish never meet a gay or transgender person (or worse, get a child in such a situation) in your lives: Shame on you. You are the reason why I sometimes think the Church would be better off without the Internet. Your attitudes are the reason for so much suffering, so many tears, so much death, so many souls who will never even consider the actual message of the Church because of injuries from people like you, that just even thinking of it makes me sick. They are attitudes I almost haven’t seen since I left my childhood, Bible-belt, fundamentalist Protestantism behind, and I am ashamed to have to admit that these attitudes seemingly exist among Catholics too.
I have now unsubscribed from all threads I was subscribed to, and I will not check back, after I’ve posted this. I am however not deleting my account, in case somebody wants to PM me. I could return in the future, I could not. At least this is the last you will see of me in a (preferably long) while.
I wish you all the best of luck in your life, and I will pray for you and for CAF.
To everyone else - this may not be on topic, but I don’t need the attention given by making a new thread:
CAF has become a near occasion of sin for me recently. The sins of anger and of despair, and of losing hope in God. Being on CAF weakens my faith, and my relationship to God, and the Church. I will therefore now withdraw, at least for now.
The thing with CAF, is that I here encounter a form of Catholicism I didn’t even knew existed. A form of Catholicism where one professes to cookie cutter solutions to difficult problems (a trait I’ve seen among many Evangelicals and Fundamentalist, but not from one single Catholic priest in real life). A form of Catholicism where interpretation of teaching is confused for teaching itself, and where anyone who does not agree to said interpretation is painted as heterodox. A form of Catholicism where even suggesting that the translator of a document may have made a poor choice of words, is seen as scandalous and narcissistic (!), because the original document, in Latin, was prepared by CDF under Cardinal Ratzinger (who still happens to be my hero). I’m sorry, but exposure to this form of Catholicism strains my relationship with real-world Catholicism. And I won’t have that.
Additionally, episodes like the one yesterday are simply not good for my health. This morning, I woke up with post-traumatic flashbacks of being laughed at by the entire class in primary school. And that was exactly what happened here yesterday - people latched on to a small detail of my argument, and used that to ridicule the essence. On top of that, I was barraged with some rather grave accusations about my person and intents, constantly, by people with no interest in actually discussing the essence of my arguments. The behavior I was exposed to by others last night, can only be called harassment and bullying, and I won’t have it. While yesterday was by far the most extreme incident of this sort, it is not the first, and I will not have this place destroy my health. I have said earlier that I pray that people who are thinner skinned than me don’t find CAF - I’m sorry to say my skin isn’t thick enough either. I get mental images of howling wolves and circling vultures just by thinking of this site.
I do however wish to thank those of you who have shown me support during my now around half a year on CAF, to those of you I’ve learned from, to those of you who have seen me as a person. You know who you are, and I’m grateful. Please keep writing - your posts literally save lives, and I will pray that you are given strength to carry on.
I also wish to thank those of you with whom I may disagree most of the time, but who are also respectful and honest, and open to actually consider what other people have to say. Some of you may know who you are, some of you may not. I’ve learned much from many of you, and please know I respect your opinions - as I’ve had to say over and over again, I have nothing against being disagreed with or challenged, my issue is with speaking to walls, or worse, being harassed. I commend you for being honest “opponents”, for keeping your posts civil, and for simply being good people. It is because of people like you, people with whom one can have honest debates (and disagreements, but still go out for drinks after), that I find the social climate in the real-life Church so giving. Please keep writing, too.
Lastly, to those of you who are after nothing but demonstrating your own mistaken sense of orthodoxy, to those of you who use rude language about other people under the cover of being “traditional”, to those of you who stick to pseudoscience as if it were Catholic doctrine, to those of you who I simply wish never meet a gay or transgender person (or worse, get a child in such a situation) in your lives: Shame on you. You are the reason why I sometimes think the Church would be better off without the Internet. Your attitudes are the reason for so much suffering, so many tears, so much death, so many souls who will never even consider the actual message of the Church because of injuries from people like you, that just even thinking of it makes me sick. They are attitudes I almost haven’t seen since I left my childhood, Bible-belt, fundamentalist Protestantism behind, and I am ashamed to have to admit that these attitudes seemingly exist among Catholics too.
I have now unsubscribed from all threads I was subscribed to, and I will not check back, after I’ve posted this. I am however not deleting my account, in case somebody wants to PM me. I could return in the future, I could not. At least this is the last you will see of me in a (preferably long) while.
I wish you all the best of luck in your life, and I will pray for you and for CAF.
O
One_point
Guest
If it becomes too big a controversy, the church will step in, I’m sure.The text in the CDF letter pointed to “sexual activity” and nothing explicit was written to make it clear that more was intended.
This issue can be made clear so easily, and I think it should be.
However, that statement does not say that only sexual activity is concerned or even all the activities that would constitute sexual activity. It says that the inclination is objectively disordered. You (& Co) seem to suggest that the inclination boils down to basically an explicit desire for sex. To me, that is not even an inclination which refers to a more or less permanent tendency rather than a clear desire to perform activity X.
So even if we were to accept your narrow interpretation (as opposed to our broader one) of homosexual inclination, I still find it hard to imagine of what it is you speak if not the homosexual attraction itself. No homosexual permanently desires sex, I imagine, as no heterosexual like me, permanently desires sex. But I’m predisposed towards sex with members of the opposite sex in the right circumstances.
This is how I think of inclination. Not as “I want to have heterosexual sex” but as I’m positively inclined to it in the right set of circumstances, my mind and will are predisposed to it. If we narrow the definition to what you seem to suggest “I want to have homosexual sex” it sems we are no longer talking about an inclination at all but about a particular manifestation of it in time, a specific desire.
Perhaps you can explain or attempt to explain this inclination you believe the church means as an inclination if only to clarify. Because I have noticed we are all working under an assumption that if we accept “inclination towards immoral object” to be referring to explicit sexual acts, that we will be talking about an immediate desire for these acts as opposed to an inclination towards them.
R
Rau
Guest
If our conversation were verbal, I’d have lost my voice by now and I don’t mean from shouting, just too much talking! We are repeating ourselves I think and not progressing. So I’ll drop out of this thread now. Thanks for the interesting debate, and one quite a bit deeper than the ordinary fare in this space.If it becomes too big a controversy, the church will step in, I’m sure.
However, that statement does not say that only sexual activity is concerned or even all the activities that would constitute sexual activity. It says that the inclination is objectively disordered. You (& Co) seem to suggest that the inclination boils down to basically an explicit desire for sex. To me, that is not even an inclination which refers to a more or less permanent tendency rather than a clear desire to perform activity X.
So even if we were to accept your narrow interpretation (as opposed to our broader one) of homosexual inclination, I still find it hard to imagine of what it is you speak if not the homosexual attraction itself. No homosexual permanently desires sex, I imagine, as no heterosexual like me, permanently desires sex. But I’m predisposed towards sex with members of the opposite sex in the right circumstances.
This is how I think of inclination. Not as “I want to have heterosexual sex” but as I’m positively inclined to it in the right set of circumstances, my mind and will are predisposed to it. If we narrow the definition to what you seem to suggest “I want to have homosexual sex” it sems we are no longer talking about an inclination at all but about a particular manifestation of it in time, a specific desire.
Perhaps you can explain or attempt to explain this inclination you believe the church means as an inclination if only to clarify. Because I have noticed we are all working under an assumption that if we accept “inclination towards immoral object” to be referring to explicit sexual acts, that we will be talking about an immediate desire for these acts as opposed to an inclination towards them.
Cheers for now.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
S
SMGS127
Guest
The person was promoting gay sex and gay marriage. Do you really expect the Vatican to not oppose that?
.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
They were also promoting domestic partnership which the Church clearly opposes.The person was promoting gay sex and gay marriage. Do you really expect the Vatican to not oppose that?
S
SMGS127
Guest
The Church only opposes domestic partnerships and civil unions insofar as they are replacements for or comparable to marriage, which is exactly what the author was advocating for. The Church has allowed for the possibility of civil unions that made no assumption of sexual activity and that were not given the same status as marriage (and that were open to any two people, regardless of sexual activity, including relatives).
So no, you are comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing the domestic partnership laws from, say, California pre-gay marriage to domestic partnerships that occurred throughout the history of the Church. They are not the same thing.
O
One_point
Guest
the church opposes social recognition of gay unions. That is clear in the document. What is proposed is a gay union without sex.
S
SMGS127
Guest
What is proposed is a friendship between any two people that does not involve sexual activity of any kind, but which involves a commitment to take care of each other, as well as emotional and light physical intimacy between sexually disinterested friends.the church opposes social recognition of gay unions. That is clear in the document. What is proposed is a gay union without sex.
O
One_point
Guest
potayto potahto
Two people sexually attracted to each other basically date and kiss and make out and commit then move in together while avoiding having sex. That is a gay union without sex. You can swing it how you like but it is quite clear. You yourself rejected the idea that romantic friendships were just friendships so no having your cake and eating it too.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Note carefully what the author promotes…
“My own view… is that *same-sex relationships *and activities can be justified according to the same sexual ethic as heterosexual relationships and activities. Therefore, same-sex oriented persons as well as their activities can and should be respected whether or not they have a choice to be otherwise”
As well as her assertion that…" stigmatization of gays and lesbians that is still being reinforced by teachings of ‘unnatural’ sex, disordered desire, and dangerous love."
This refers to the gammat of a relationship in its definition. Not just the sex aspect. Their relationship overall is representing sexual expression but by a disordered inclination.
Read it carefully and then the Churchs clear response. This is not separating sex from the relationship in general.
S
SMGS127
Guest
Let’s take out making out for a minute, since apparently everyone’s obsessed with that idea. Light kissing, sharing a bed, moving in together, committing to each other? Such examples are numerous in Church history, and yet you act like they’re
and 
and :bigyikes:.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Sure we all know personally great lifelong friends. They radiate all the goods of friendship which fundamentally includes freedom from any mutual obligation and commitment to it. They don’t on that count identify as a ‘couple’ stemming from their sexual natures as do dating and married couples.Let’s take out making out for a minute, since apparently everyone’s obsessed with that idea. Light kissing, sharing a bed, moving in together, committing to each other? Such examples are numerous in Church history, and yet you act like they’re
E
estesbob
Guest
Sexually disinterested friends don’t make out and French kiss.
O
One_point
Guest
It is part of the catholic church’s history that two people sexually attracted to each other kissed, shared beds, committed and moved in together??Let’s take out making out for a minute, since apparently everyone’s obsessed with that idea. Light kissing, sharing a bed, moving in together, committing to each other? Such examples are numerous in Church history, and yet you act like they’re
indeed I am shocked. Oh wait! When this happened the church blessed it and called it a marriage 
L
LongingSoul
Guest
**CCC 2337 **Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.Let’s take out making out for a minute, since apparently everyone’s obsessed with that idea. Light kissing, sharing a bed, moving in together, committing to each other? Such examples are numerous in Church history, and yet you act like they’re
Sexuality is not just the act of sex. It is the expression of “man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world”
It does not just become personal and truly human through sex… it "becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman .
The whole nature of the relationship is the expression of mans sexuality. Not just the sex.
S
SMGS127
Guest
The Church blessed relationships between people who had no intentions to ever have sex with each other? I’m pretty sure that’s an impediment to [non-Josephite] marriage, actually!It is part of the catholic church’s history that two people sexually attracted to each other kissed, shared beds, committed and moved in together??
- Status