Jerry Lewis Remark about Gays

[Other_Eric]

I don’t think same sex attractions form a “valid component” of a person’s personality, I think they are instrinsically disordered and that acting upon them is sinful, as per the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Secondly, refraining from insulting a person with SSA isn’t “to enable” anybody. Trying to correct someone of error or sin shouldn’t be reduced to name-calling; it should be done in charity. Never in my life have I seen someone call another person by a slur when they were trying to offer constructive criticism. In my experience it was always because they wanted to tear another person down emotionally.

At least we can agree on the nature of same-sex attractions and the vile deformity they represent. Therefore, to use a label that a same-sex attracted individual will find vile is exactly charitable because it provides a momentary window of clarity wherein the individual can see the disorder for the disgusting thing that it is. To soften our language in this regard is to soften the Truth and to deny that individual the full breadth of the Good News.

That people’s feelings may be hurt is entirely irrelevant. It seems to me that those with same-sex attractions puff themselves up so much that any emotional razing they are subjected to can only serve to give them a much needed lesson in humility. Not all constructive criticism needs to be blunted with soothing tones and sugary cadences, particularly when the subject is in the throes of obstinacy. Often, the correct approach will be one that is frank and uses language in such a way as to focus the attention.

 

[CollegeKid]

Let me make one thing clear: I’m not trying to say the Church should mute its message of the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. It should proclaim this teaching regularly. In fact, if Jim is correct and Mother Theresa called homosexuals “friends of Jesus” without any qualifiers to that statement, I think that was probably imprudent. Not necessarily to call into question Mother Theresa’s orthodoxy, but the way she delivered this particular message on tolerance.

However, I don’t think the examples of Christ using harsh words toward those around him forms an apt analogy of how we should deal with people. The simple fact that Jesus did it isn’t enough to show that its something we’re supposed to do. Jesus also went off by Himself to fast in the desert for 40 days but I think most spiritual directors would tell those faithful under their care that this would be way too extreme for their personal penitential practices. Furthermore, there is the simple fact that we instructed to correct in Christian charity but never to judge another person’s heart, as none but God alone, revealed to us in the person of Jesus Christ, can do this.

 

[goofyjim]

Let me make one thing clear: I’m not trying to say the Church should mute its message of the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. It should proclaim this teaching regularly. In fact, if Jim is correct and Mother Theresa called homosexuals “friends of Jesus” without any qualifiers to that statement, I think that was probably imprudent. Not necessarily to call into question Mother Theresa’s orthodoxy, but the way she delivered this particular message on tolerance.

However, I don’t think the examples of Christ using harsh words toward those around him forms an apt analogy of how we should deal with people. The simple fact that Jesus did it isn’t enough to show that its something we’re supposed to do. Jesus also went off by Himself to fast in the desert for 40 days but I think most spiritual directors would tell those faithful under their care that this would be way too extreme for their personal penitential practices. Furthermore, there is the simple fact that we instructed to correct in Christian charity but never to judge another person’s heart, as none but God alone, revealed to us in the person of Jesus Christ, can do this.

I’m sure Mother Teresa was in conformity with the teachings of the Church. She wanted to get lift their burden not by calling them rude names but she did specifically call them friends of Jesus. She was actually making this suggestion to all sinners. Remember in the gospels that Jesus spent more time in the company of sinners than the Pharisees. These very sinners were the ones he called his friends. What does everyone think he means when he says prostitutes and tax collectors are getting into the kingdom. We get in through the merits of Christ not our own. It is okay to accept some deficincies in order to show that Christ is necessary for our salvation. If we made ourselves perfect here we might get proud and forget that.

 

[Other_Eric]

And the same Christ said prostitutes and tax collectors are getting ito the kingdom before the Pharisees. Which only goes to prove my point that his harsher words were directed to those in charge rather than the sinners. We can play the game of quoting scripture back and forth. That is what the devil did with Jesus. It didn’t work. That is why I then turn to the saintly example of Mother Teresa who called these people friends of Jesus, not f*gs.

It is significant, I think, that Mother Teresa called those with same-sex attractions “friends of Jesus” and not “friends to Jesus.” Since Jesus has infinite reserves of love for all the creatures of His creation, one might even call Satan a “friend of Jesus.” So, I can concur that those with same-sex attractions are friends of Jesus in the sense that Jesus holds out friendship to all. The more salient question is whether or not that friendship is returned. For those mired in the corruptions of the flesh, this is decidedly not the case. They are more friends to themselves and their own appetites than to anything or anyone else.

This dismal state of affairs means that Christians ought to be moved to urgency on behalf of those suffering from same-sex attractions. Part of this urgency will necessarily involve the use of language that they may find offensive. It is far better, though, that their pride be wounded temporarily now than that they forever mourn the loss of Christ in the hereafter.

 

[goofyjim]

It is significant, I think, that Mother Teresa called those with same-sex attractions “friends of Jesus” and not “friends to Jesus.” Since Jesus has infinite reserves of love for all the creatures of His creation, one might even call Satan a “friend of Jesus.” So, I can concur that those with same-sex attractions are friends of Jesus in the sense that Jesus holds out friendship to all. The more salient question is whether or not that friendship is returned. For those mired in the corruptions of the flesh, this is decidedly not the case. They are more friends to themselves and their own appetites than to anything or anyone else.

This dismal state of affairs means that Christians ought to be moved to urgency on behalf of those suffering from same-sex attractions. Part of this urgency will necessarily involve the use of language that they may find offensive. It is far better, though, that their pride be wounded temporarily now than that they forever mourn the loss of Christ in the hereafter.

I don’t need my pride wounded by you or anyone else. Eric you have made false accusations against me in the past and I have always overlooked that. I have never done anything malicious against God or anyone. Your representation of Jesus word to the Pharisees could just as easily be directed at yourself. Are you prepared to accept that?

 

[CollegeKid]

Also, if with a straight face you can honestly say that you engage in name-calling as part of your evangelistic outreach and you do it with no malice in your heart, not one hint of a self-assured sense of superiority to another person and with no intent to castigate someone into some second-class group, be it “fags” or “whores” or whatever, then you truly are the first person of this mindset that I have ever met in my life.

I don’t say this to insult you, although as you know I think its wrong, I say it because I (and I think most people) grew up realizing that name calling is simply a way to insult someone. I’ve engaged in it, been on the receiving end, and seen others have to deal with it. I’ve never seen it done because the name-caller wanted to rid someone of their error and help them to see the truth. If it does happen for this reason, frankly I think you’d only end up alienating the person even more because they’d just assume you were trying to hurt them.

It is possible to correct someone firmly without using a slur and yet not turn your correction into some mealy-mouthed, sugar-coated apology. Sure, it might get heated and you might tell someone something along the lines of “Look, you’ve been a real jerk lately,” but as I understand Christian charity, when correcting someone the emphasis is supposed to be on their disordered behavior, not an attack on who they are. What I’m saying is I find it very hard to imagine that a mature Christian would sit down with someone and say “Look, I’m concerned. You see, the problem is you’re a ******.”

 

[Other_Eric]

Also, if with a straight face you can honestly say that you engage in name-calling as part of your evangelistic outreach and you do it with no malice in your heart, not one hint of a self-assured sense of superiority to another person and with no intent to castigate someone into some second-class group, be it “fags” or “whores” or whatever, then you truly are the first person of this mindset that I have ever met in my life.

I don’t say this to insult you, although as you know I think its wrong, I say it because I (and I think most people) grew up realizing that name calling is simply a way to insult someone. I’ve engaged in it, been on the receiving end, and seen others have to deal with it. I’ve never seen it done because the name-caller wanted to rid someone of their error and help them to see the truth. If it does happen for this reason, frankly I think you’d only end up alienating the person even more because they’d just assume you were trying to hurt them.

It is possible to correct someone firmly without using a slur and yet not turn your correction into some mealy-mouthed, sugar-coated apology. Sure, it might get heated and you might tell someone something along the lines of “Look, you’ve been a real jerk lately,” but as I understand Christian charity, when correcting someone the emphasis is supposed to be on their disordered behavior, not an attack on who they are. What I’m saying is I find it very hard to imagine that a mature Christian would sit down with someone and say “Look, I’m concerned. You see, the problem is you’re a ******.”

In the first place, we agreed that the experience of same-sex attractions is not a valid identity. If this is the case, using the word “fag” can never be an attack on who a person is. Secondly, that children will sometimes use epithets in the playground in order to wound or insult does not irrevocably tarnish the legitimate evangelistic applications of the practice. Further, that one is incapable of achieving a level of abject purity of mind in one’s apologetical discourses does not mean that one should refrain entirely from such conversation. We don’t, for instance, apply such a high threshold of virtue to, say, the way we practice any of the Corporal Works of Mercy otherwise the poor box would go empty as no one could be sure that their almsgiving was free from any taint of condescension.

 

[Mirdath]

Therefore, to use a label that a same-sex attracted individual will find vile is exactly charitable because it provides a momentary window of clarity wherein the individual can see the disorder for the disgusting thing that it is. To soften our language in this regard is to soften the Truth and to deny that individual the full breadth of the Good News.

Actually, nah, we’ve pretty much reclaimed all those the same way the n-word has been repurposed. Chances are that if you call a gay person ‘fag’ or ‘******’ he or she will just laugh you off and say ‘yeah, I am… so?’.

Have you met a gay person in the flesh yet, Eric?

 

[st_lucy]

I don’t think he should apologize simple because I question whether he actually meant to say the f word. I watched the video and he simply didn’t say it. I agree with Mirdath and I think that the whole illiterate comment was way more disturbing.

Other Eric, I think that you are twisting the teaching of the CC to fit something that is ugly and very hurtful. There are many who have SSA and have lived very chaste lives, and I am appalled that you would call them diseased. This kind of language can only hurt your evangelization than help it. You need to remember we all children of God and the cross that some might have to carry does not make them diseased. You are called to be a witness and not a judge. God loves us all and we have no room to hate another since we are not perfect.

 

[Mirdath]

Other Eric, I think that you are twisting the teaching of the CC to fit something that is ugly and very hurtful. There are many who have SSA and have lived very chaste lives, and I am appalled that you would call them diseased. This kind of language can only hurt your evangelization than help it. You need to remember we all children of God and the cross that some might have to carry does not make them diseased. You are called to be a witness and not a judge. God loves us all and we have no room to hate another since we are not perfect.

Other Eric claims to be a ‘lapsed Catholic’ yet still is concerned with being ‘more Catholic than thou’; unfortunately, he interprets this mostly as being so concerned with homosexuals that he must needs condemn them at every possible turn. If you look at his posts, he has quite the history of being an anti-homosexual troll.

I asked him once if he’d ever met a homosexual in the wild; he said he hadn’t. Since then, whenever I’ve asked him if he’s actually met any gay person yet, he’s simply stopped posting or ignored me entirely. It’s… quite telling.

 

[CollegeKid]

In the first place, we agreed that the experience of same-sex attractions is not a valid identity. If this is the case, using the word “fag” can never be an attack on who a person is. Secondly, that children will sometimes use epithets in the playground in order to wound or insult does not irrevocably tarnish the legitimate evangelistic applications of the practice. Further, that one is incapable of achieving a level of abject purity of mind in one’s apologetical discourses does not mean that one should refrain entirely from such conversation. We don’t, for instance, apply such a high threshold of virtue to, say, the way we practice any of the Corporal Works of Mercy otherwise the poor box would go empty as no one could be sure that their almsgiving was free from any taint of condescension.

Eric, to be blunt, I think we could talk about this until we’re both blue in the face and we still wouldn’t agree on some fundamental tenets of the proper pastoral approach to those with SSA. I think you’ve made some points worthy of consideration, but I’m pretty sure we’ll continue to disagree, and there’s probably no point in my further participation in the debate.

 

[ncjohn]

Wow!
The level of hatred and Fred Phelps “God hates fags” type of “Christianity” I’m seeing here is simply amazing. And the fact that people continue to try to use the Bible to justify this is positively scary. For instance,

You would do well to read Matthew 23 wherein Jesus, after identifying the teaching authority they hold by virtue of the chair of Moses, proceeds to call the Pharisees hypocrites six times, blind guides twice, blind generally twice, fools, whitewashed tombs, serpents, a brood of vipers and children of Gehenna. (1) He even called St. Peter “Satan.” (2) Calling people names that they would find objectionable was an important part of Christ’s ministry. If you cannot find it in your heart to live by this explicit and loving example Christ provided, then I suggest that it is not people like I who should hesitate to call themselves “Christian.”

I would suggest that one really needs to go read the gospels in full rather than trying to “cherry pick” verses to justify a position. It is very clear throughout the Bible that Jesus came to call sinners. In fact he explicitly stated that he came to heal sinners as the righteous don’t need a physician.

The comments to the Pharisees hold no parallel to this situation. Jesus was rebuking the fact that the Pharisees considered themselves “righteous” and was condemning the impossibly heavy load they were placing on “sinners” to keep the Law perfectly. His “whitewashed tombs” comment, noted above, went specifically to the fact that they put up a front of being righteous while their hearts were corrupted because of that very thought. They strain at gnats in others while swallowing the camel themselves. The find the splinter in other’s eyes while ignoring the beam in their own.

And then we have this statement:

The more salient question is whether or not that friendship is returned. For those mired in the corruptions of the flesh, this is decidedly not the case. They are more friends to themselves and their own appetites than to anything or anyone else.

You are absolutely right. That IS the salient question. And if, by your own definition, the answer is determined by whether we are “more friends to themselves and their own appetites than to anything or anyone else”–which is correct–then every single one of us is deserving of eternal punishment and totally dependent on the mercy of God, which of course is confirmed by both Jesus and Paul.

“The righteous man sins seven times a day”. Every one of us is “mired in the corruptions of the flesh”. It simply becomes a matter of what those corruptions are. And Jesus and Paul also made clear that we don’t get to classify whose sins are worse: that all sin is offensive to God and that anyone who breaks the least of the Law is guilty of breaking ALL of it.

Jesus made clear, over and over, how we are to treat each other. And I guarantee that it did not at any time include casting slurs. In fact the only time he got angry with people was when they pretended to be superior and without sin. “They will know you are my disciples by the way you love one another.”

Here’s a pile of rocks…any of you feel sin-free enough to toss one? Apparently Jerry didn’t, and apologized appropriately for doing so.



Peace,

 

[goofyjim]

Wow!
The level of hatred and Fred Phelps “God hates fags” type of “Christianity” I’m seeing here is simply amazing. And the fact that people continue to try to use the Bible to justify this is positively scary. For instance,

I would suggest that one really needs to go read the gospels in full rather than trying to “cherry pick” verses to justify a position. It is very clear throughout the Bible that Jesus came to call sinners. In fact he explicitly stated that he came to heal sinners as the righteous don’t need a physician.

The comments to the Pharisees hold no parallel to this situation. Jesus was rebuking the fact that the Pharisees considered themselves “righteous” and was condemning the impossibly heavy load they were placing on “sinners” to keep the Law perfectly. His “whitewashed tombs” comment, noted above, went specifically to the fact that they put up a front of being righteous while their hearts were corrupted because of that very thought. They strain at gnats in others while swallowing the camel themselves. The find the splinter in other’s eyes while ignoring the beam in their own.

And then we have this statement:

You are absolutely right. That IS the salient question. And if, by your own definition, the answer is determined by whether we are “more friends to themselves and their own appetites than to anything or anyone else”–which is correct–then every single one of us is deserving of eternal punishment and totally dependent on the mercy of God, which of course is confirmed by both Jesus and Paul.

“The righteous man sins seven times a day”. Every one of us is “mired in the corruptions of the flesh”. It simply becomes a matter of what those corruptions are. And Jesus and Paul also made clear that we don’t get to classify whose sins are worse: that all sin is offensive to God and that anyone who breaks the least of the Law is guilty of breaking ALL of it.

Jesus made clear, over and over, how we are to treat each other. And I guarantee that it did not at any time include casting slurs. In fact the only time he got angry with people was when they pretended to be superior and without sin. “They will know you are my disciples by the way you love one another.”

Here’s a pile of rocks…any of you feel sin-free enough to toss one? Apparently Jerry didn’t, and apologized appropriately for doing so.

http://www.sattlers.org/mickey/trav...n-canaria/eivissa/09/19/images/rocks-pile.jpg

Peace,

Thank you, John. Could you PM me on how to become a secular Franciscan? I have already been invited by another friend and your charity here in this matter makes it very appealing to do just that.

 

[Other_Eric]

Wow!
The level of hatred and Fred Phelps “God hates fags” type of “Christianity” I’m seeing here is simply amazing. And the fact that people continue to try to use the Bible to justify this is positively scary. For instance,

I would suggest that one really needs to go read the gospels in full rather than trying to “cherry pick” verses to justify a position. It is very clear throughout the Bible that Jesus came to call sinners. In fact he explicitly stated that he came to heal sinners as the righteous don’t need a physician.

The comments to the Pharisees hold no parallel to this situation. Jesus was rebuking the fact that the Pharisees considered themselves “righteous” and was condemning the impossibly heavy load they were placing on “sinners” to keep the Law perfectly. His “whitewashed tombs” comment, noted above, went specifically to the fact that they put up a front of being righteous while their hearts were corrupted because of that very thought. They strain at gnats in others while swallowing the camel themselves. The find the splinter in other’s eyes while ignoring the beam in their own.

And then we have this statement:

You are absolutely right. That IS the salient question. And if, by your own definition, the answer is determined by whether we are “more friends to themselves and their own appetites than to anything or anyone else”–which is correct–then every single one of us is deserving of eternal punishment and totally dependent on the mercy of God, which of course is confirmed by both Jesus and Paul.

“The righteous man sins seven times a day”. Every one of us is “mired in the corruptions of the flesh”. It simply becomes a matter of what those corruptions are. And Jesus and Paul also made clear that we don’t get to classify whose sins are worse: that all sin is offensive to God and that anyone who breaks the least of the Law is guilty of breaking ALL of it.

Jesus made clear, over and over, how we are to treat each other. And I guarantee that it did not at any time include casting slurs. In fact the only time he got angry with people was when they pretended to be superior and without sin. “They will know you are my disciples by the way you love one another.”

Here’s a pile of rocks…any of you feel sin-free enough to toss one? Apparently Jerry didn’t, and apologized appropriately for doing so.

Peace,

It seems to me that appeals to “read the whole gospel” and other supposedly holistic treatments of Scripture are designed more to justify the fantasy Jesus of our imaginations who will never scold us. It is instructive that the universally recognized symbol of Christianity it the bloody image of Christ nailed to a cross, not a fuzzy teddy bear under a rainbow. A proper reading of Scripture in its entirety ought move an honest man to abject horror.

In this thread, it was suggested the Jesus would never call people names. I quoted Scripture in order to demonstrate that this is simply not the case. The former is an example of a fantasy Jesus who has no basis in Scripture or the Tradition of the Church. You can try to parse the verses in any way you please, but the fact remains that Jesus called people names as part of His ministry. Calling people by offensive names that accurately reflect the sinful choices people make shocks the wayward from their complacency.

None of this is to deny our utter dependence upon the gratuitous mercy of God nor does it deny the sinful nature inherent to us all. What it is is calling good what is good and calling bad what is bad. Christ never instituted some sort of virtue-based litmus test for His followers to be able to tell the wayward of their sin. Authentic charity moves the Christian to use whatever means necessary to stop those in the midst of grievous error from committing further offenses against God. We’re not throwing stones, we’re desperately telling those individuals to sin no more, exactly as Christ did.

 

[goofyjim]

It seems to me that appeals to “read the whole gospel” and other supposedly holistic treatments of Scripture are designed more to justify the fantasy Jesus of our imaginations who will never scold us. It is instructive that the universally recognized symbol of Christianity it the bloody image of Christ nailed to a cross, not a fuzzy teddy bear under a rainbow. A proper reading of Scripture in its entirety ought move an honest man to abject horror.

In this thread, it was suggested the Jesus would never call people names. I quoted Scripture in order to demonstrate that this is simply not the case. The former is an example of a fantasy Jesus who has no basis in Scripture or the Tradition of the Church. You can try to parse the verses in any way you please, but the fact remains that Jesus called people names as part of His ministry. Calling people by offensive names that accurately reflect the sinful choices people make shocks the wayward from their complacency.

None of this is to deny our utter dependence upon the gratuitous mercy of God nor does it deny the sinful nature inherent to us all. What it is is calling good what is good and calling bad what is bad. Christ never instituted some sort of virtue-based litmus test for His followers to be able to tell the wayward of their sin. Authentic charity moves the Christian to use whatever means necessary to stop those in the midst of grievous error from committing further offenses against God. We’re not throwing stones, we’re desperately telling those individuals to sin no more, exactly as Christ did.

But the Church teaches that the attraction is not sinful. I have other sins but sexual ones are not among them. When they occur I confess them. But I am NOT going to be like the Pharisees who pretend to have no sins or think the others are worse than my own.

 

[st_lucy]

It seems to me that appeals to “read the whole gospel” and other supposedly holistic treatments of Scripture are designed more to justify the fantasy Jesus of our imaginations who will never scold us. It is instructive that the universally recognized symbol of Christianity it the bloody image of Christ nailed to a cross, not a fuzzy teddy bear under a rainbow. A proper reading of Scripture in its entirety ought move an honest man to abject horror.

In this thread, it was suggested the Jesus would never call people names. I quoted Scripture in order to demonstrate that this is simply not the case. The former is an example of a fantasy Jesus who has no basis in Scripture or the Tradition of the Church. You can try to parse the verses in any way you please, but the fact remains that Jesus called people names as part of His ministry. Calling people by offensive names that accurately reflect the sinful choices people make shocks the wayward from their complacency.

None of this is to deny our utter dependence upon the gratuitous mercy of God nor does it deny the sinful nature inherent to us all. What it is is calling good what is good and calling bad what is bad. Christ never instituted some sort of virtue-based litmus test for His followers to be able to tell the wayward of their sin. Authentic charity moves the Christian to use whatever means necessary to stop those in the midst of grievous error from committing further offenses against God. We’re not throwing stones, we’re desperately telling those individuals to sin no more, exactly as Christ did.

You keep saying that Jesus calls people names. Although I don’t agree with you on this, I must say this: Jesus is God, therefor He can do what ever He wants Jesus is perfect, so therefor He can cast the first stone. Other Eric is not God, therefor he cannot do what ever he wants. Other Eric is not perfect, so therefor he cannot cast the first stone.

All I think we are saying is, Other Eric, you can not be the judge of all the sinners because simply put you too are a sinner. We are called to be witnesses and not judges, so lets try to refine from pushing Our Lord off of His throne

 

[Other_Eric]

You keep saying that Jesus calls people names. Although I don’t agree with you on this, I must say this: Jesus is God, therefor He can do what ever He wants Jesus is perfect, so therefor He can cast the first stone. Other Eric is not God, therefor he cannot do what ever he wants. Other Eric is not perfect, so therefor he cannot cast the first stone.

All I think we are saying is, Other Eric, you can not be the judge of all the sinners because simply put you too are a sinner. We are called to be witnesses and not judges, so lets try to refine from pushing Our Lord off of His throne

I wonder if, in your rush to reply to me, you made the time to read the post you were replying to. I directly addressed this flawed notion that I or anyone else who uses such language is hurling stones. What I said was:

We’re not throwing stones, we’re desperately telling those individuals to sin no more, exactly as Christ did.

Further, this is not a matter of my doing whatever it is that I like. It is evangelizing, as we are commanded to do, exactly in the way that Christ did. Yes, Jesus is God, but he is also a man. It’s simply nonsense to imagine that Christ lived His life in a manner He did not expect us to emulate. Were that the case, Christ’s command to “love one another as I have loved you” would cease to make sense.

 

[goofyjim]

I wonder if, in your rush to reply to me, you made the time to read the post you were replying to. I directly addressed this flawed notion that I or anyone else who uses such language is hurling stones. What I said was:

Further, this is not a matter of my doing whatever it is that I like. It is evangelizing, as we are commanded to do, exactly in the way that Christ did. Yes, Jesus is God, but he is also a man. It’s simply nonsense to imagine that Christ lived His life in a manner He did not expect us to emulate. Were that the case, Christ’s command to “love one another as I have loved you” would cease to make sense.

Yes and this Jesus died for us while we were still sinners. He didn’t say I’ll only give my life for you if you are perfect. What do you hate about others who have done you no harm, Eric?

 

[mesquite_magic]

I’m out and have no intention of going back. If you don’t like that, there’s a vacancy in the closet and you can hide from me in there.

:extrahappy: :clapping: Rock on Mirdath!

Kim

 

[historyb]

Here’s a pile of rocks…any of you feel sin-free enough to toss one?

http://www.sattlers.org/mickey/trav...n-canaria/eivissa/09/19/images/rocks-pile.jpg

Yep, biggest one I can find.