O
- Status
Stephen168
New member
After being 'firm on our moral values," in December 1989, approximately 4,500 protestors mobilized by ACT-UP gathered outside a mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York. A few dozen activists entered the cathedral, interrupted Mass, chanted slogans, or lay down in the aisles. One protestor broke a communion wafer and threw it to the floor.
There is also the protests of the Rainbow Sash Movement interrupting Mass
Is this why you didn’t include actually teaching our moral values in the ‘five?’
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
They will know we are Christians by our love…not by how long we can hold a grudge.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
Stephen168
New member
And you miss the point completely
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
Because that’s a given.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
Perhaps you could point out where I missed your point?
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
Sorry, Stephen. I understood SMGS to be saying: If we actually live the lives of faith, hope and love to which we have been called, then our moral values will be unmissable. I understood you to disagree with that because you seemed to suggest, given what SMGS wrote and how I understood it, that living a life of Christian witness was separate from actually bearing witness to Christian life. And that made no sense to me.
Perhaps you could point out where I missed your point?
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
Stephen168
New member
Upon closer examination, I see you did.
But I think my point still holds. It isn’t how the Church believes that upsets them; it is what the Church believes.
S
SMGS127
Guest
Not necessarily. While most of the gay community certainly are not pleased that orthodox Catholics (and some conservative Protestant denominations and Muslims and orthodox Jews) oppose gay “marriage” and think same-sex physical behavior is sinful, very few of them would actively oppose a gay or lesbian person becoming celibate for religious reasons, as long as the person didn’t try to pretend that the gay community somehow lured them in under false pretenses or other BS (and as long as the person was happy serving Christ that way). Being a strong witness to the gay community does yield results with some people, and I think that is important to do, rather than write the whole community off as if it were some permanently-fallen group of people. Too many people insult gays and lesbians, or perpetuate false stereotypes about them, or what have you, that simply make otherwise-receptive LGB Christians completely ignore Catholicism in favor of more permissive (or affirmative) Protestant religions.
Almost a negligible amount would ever do something as disruptive as interrupting Mass or disrespecting Christ. Religious people are not defined by a few dozen people in the Westboro Baptist Church, so I don’t understand why the actions of a few dozen gay people apply across the board to the gay community. In fact, we have much more to fear from atheist groups (whether straight or gay) than the gay community, as militant atheist groups find it necessary to attempt to destroy us, whereas the gay community merely wants us to let them live in peace.
Also, thank you for correcting yourself. While my post was more aimed at how an orthodox Catholic should evangelize, and thus had moral values as a given (as Joie said), I also wanted to be clear somewhere in the post that moral values came first, in case a non-Catholic person or LGB person was reading my post.
Stephen168
New member
It is this displeasure over the teachings of the Catholic Church which cause the outbreak in vandalism to Catholic Churches.
In the 1980’s, I heard the ‘we just want to live in peace’ mantra, but it became clear after Catholic masses were interrupted, and Churches vandalized because of Catholic teaching alone, that I knew it wasn’t true. They don’t seem to just want to let the Catholic Church live in peace. I do have to agree with you in that the most vile anti-catholic statements, I’ve read were from atheists in support of homosexual causes.
You seem to reject the phrase “gay lifestyle” while I find the phrase “gay community” odd. You suggest we should get to know the “gay community,” but where is it. I’ve met a few homosexuals along the way and except for two, who are relatives, none of them knew each other and had almost nothing in common with each other. So you seem to be doing what you don’t what others to do, lump all homosexuals into a monolithic group; which we should get to know. I’d prefer to continue to take them as individuals one at a time, and try to a be good representative of the “Catholic community” or the “military community” or the “older guy community” or the “left handed community.”
Back to thread….I’m against anti-sodomy laws. They are unenforceable, and unenforceable laws are not just.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Every civil law is government legislating and imposing its morality on everyone. And breaking any law always results in some form of punishment. In some places there are laws which punish homosexuality while in other places there are laws which punish people for not agreeing with homosexual behavior. The Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox church bishops (since they have valid apostolic succession, too) have authority from God to make decisions on moral issues regarding all those who are under their pastoral care. The Church’s position on homosexuality is “love the sinner, but hate the sin”. And the bishops can have some degree of difference in how they interpret and go about this in pastoral practice.
O
One_point
Guest
What is offensive about the phrase “the gay lifestyle”? Someone who is actively engaged in the practice of same-sex activity is definitely leading a gay lifestyle, I don’t know how that could be considered offensive by Catholics?
It is false that the church opposes criminalizing sodomy. The church opposes in this day and circumstances, the death penalty, whether the person be a person convicted of sodomy or a terrorist or murderer. The church opposes “unjust discrimination” of gay persons. Where does she teach that outlawing sodomy is “unjust discrimination”? Sorry, but you can’t force words into the mouth of the church. The church has always drawn a clear distinction between the inclination of homosexuality and the “action”.
Speaking from the continent in question, I believe I can help in providing a bit more light to help people understand the mind-set of the people here and why these laws that many here are shocked by. The person who spoke about cultural imperialism has it exactly right. Please understand, this is something the vast majority of Africans have never even discussed! Those who know about it have only seen it on television from the West, and this in recent years. Even then, it has just been something to marvel at, “how strange!”, but nobody thought of it as something to seriously discuss, or imagined that the West would be attempting to shove it down their throats
I daresay, that this bullish “foreign policy” regarding a culturally abhorrent phenomenon that is LARGELY seen as foreign, is exactly the reason for these new harsh laws. These laws are an over-reaction to the perceived imposition of an unwanted western cultural phenomenon using political muscle. The West is making things worse for gay Africans, they really should just stay away.
Almost all African laws have had anti-sodomy laws from the British common law system they inherited, but the truth is, in PRACTICE, until very recently, these laws were simply NOT enforced. Nobody cared, first it was very little, not widespread. Like I said, most Africans have never seen a gay person, apart from depictions on T.V which is mostly western. It is therefore firmly associated with the West in many African minds. In the cities, where attitudes are more open and western enculturation through TV and music is a lot, IF a person was thought to do that most that would usually happen is gossip. But with these perceived cultural imposition, imperialism, you now have harsher and harsher reactions and over-reactions. President Obama who all Africans are proud of because of his association with Kenya, has lost a LOT of respect among many,because people say he wants the men to sleep with men instead of African women. I guarantee you, this is deeply cultural, not simply a government phenomenon. The govts probably couldn’t care less and would prefer not to have to squabble with their donors over this, but no African govt will at this time in history, try to push this issue among its people, or try to override the actions of Parliaments.
The West should allow this issue to percolate organically as the societies modernize, afterall, Hollywood is a seriously powerful propaganda tool that is very effective in the long run. But to come with muscle before the people can even see this issue as debatable is to provoke these types of reactions and over-reactions.
It is false that the church opposes criminalizing sodomy. The church opposes in this day and circumstances, the death penalty, whether the person be a person convicted of sodomy or a terrorist or murderer. The church opposes “unjust discrimination” of gay persons. Where does she teach that outlawing sodomy is “unjust discrimination”? Sorry, but you can’t force words into the mouth of the church. The church has always drawn a clear distinction between the inclination of homosexuality and the “action”.
Speaking from the continent in question, I believe I can help in providing a bit more light to help people understand the mind-set of the people here and why these laws that many here are shocked by. The person who spoke about cultural imperialism has it exactly right. Please understand, this is something the vast majority of Africans have never even discussed! Those who know about it have only seen it on television from the West, and this in recent years. Even then, it has just been something to marvel at, “how strange!”, but nobody thought of it as something to seriously discuss, or imagined that the West would be attempting to shove it down their throats
I daresay, that this bullish “foreign policy” regarding a culturally abhorrent phenomenon that is LARGELY seen as foreign, is exactly the reason for these new harsh laws. These laws are an over-reaction to the perceived imposition of an unwanted western cultural phenomenon using political muscle. The West is making things worse for gay Africans, they really should just stay away.
Almost all African laws have had anti-sodomy laws from the British common law system they inherited, but the truth is, in PRACTICE, until very recently, these laws were simply NOT enforced. Nobody cared, first it was very little, not widespread. Like I said, most Africans have never seen a gay person, apart from depictions on T.V which is mostly western. It is therefore firmly associated with the West in many African minds. In the cities, where attitudes are more open and western enculturation through TV and music is a lot, IF a person was thought to do that most that would usually happen is gossip. But with these perceived cultural imposition, imperialism, you now have harsher and harsher reactions and over-reactions. President Obama who all Africans are proud of because of his association with Kenya, has lost a LOT of respect among many,because people say he wants the men to sleep with men instead of African women. I guarantee you, this is deeply cultural, not simply a government phenomenon. The govts probably couldn’t care less and would prefer not to have to squabble with their donors over this, but no African govt will at this time in history, try to push this issue among its people, or try to override the actions of Parliaments.
The West should allow this issue to percolate organically as the societies modernize, afterall, Hollywood is a seriously powerful propaganda tool that is very effective in the long run. But to come with muscle before the people can even see this issue as debatable is to provoke these types of reactions and over-reactions.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
The gay lifestyle is stupid because it implies a lot of similarities between people painted with that brush, see the surfer lifestyle. It’s kind of like saying the “pork eating lifestyle”, there just isn’t enough to connect the members.
Sodomy laws in Catholic countries started being repealed in the 19th century, in England the bishops called for them being ended in the 1950s (sodomy laws in England were also an Anglican thing, not a Catholic thing).
O
One_point
Guest
The gay lifestyle implies actively engaging in homosexual activities. Whatever else it involves is not presumed. What I do know is that when someone says “gay lifestyle”, I know whoever they are talking about is practicing homosexuality, that is, something beyond the inclination. I see nothing offensive in this.
The date catholic countries dropped sodomy laws is irrelevant to the current state of affairs in the countries being discussed, most of which are not catholic countries. The church has nowhere stated that these laws are bad. We have heard the church condemn corruption, murder, abortion, condoms, and all sorts of things, but not anti-sodomy laws, and yet they have always been there in the laws of the vast majority of African countries. Muslim countries prescribe the death penalty. For most sub-Saharan countries, death is reserved for murder and treason and violent robbery.
The date catholic countries dropped sodomy laws is irrelevant to the current state of affairs in the countries being discussed, most of which are not catholic countries. The church has nowhere stated that these laws are bad. We have heard the church condemn corruption, murder, abortion, condoms, and all sorts of things, but not anti-sodomy laws, and yet they have always been there in the laws of the vast majority of African countries. Muslim countries prescribe the death penalty. For most sub-Saharan countries, death is reserved for murder and treason and violent robbery.
M
Midwest88
Guest
Law is morality one way or another, so the whole “gov’t should legislate morality” is rather meaningless.
C
Corki
Guest
We have so many laws that legislate morality. This objection always makes me chuckle.
Almost all of the laws we have regarding personal property are based on morality.
The laws we have regarding the minimum age for various activities - sex, drinking, marriage, etc. are legislating morality.
The laws we have regarding drugs are legislating morality.
The laws we have regarding education are legislating morality.
The laws we have against animal cruelty are legislating morality.
The laws we have about taxes are legislating morality.
But the two big progressive no-nos, it seems are to try to legislate homosexual acts and killing unborn babies.
E
exnihilo
Guest
First let me attempt to make my position clear. I hold to orthodox morality and I generally believe in very limited government and am very libertarian. I think all laws are based on a moral belief and that therefore all laws are legislating morality. I find it laughable when people say you can’t make something illegal because it violates our privacy when every aspect of our life in modern states is in fact regulated and made a public matter through various laws. What I mean is if that principle is true then almost all of the government we currently have would have to go away. I find gross inconsistencies in people who say you can’t make homosexuality illegal but you can force people to pay their employees a certain wage. I do have sympathy for the idea that society can make illegal things like homosexual acts yet I find it hard to reconcile my libertarian thoughts and impulse.
But getting to my main point, what is government other than violence? All laws are enforced by violence. The policemen only have power through the use or threat of force. Jail is violence. Arrest is violence. Fines are violence because ultimately they are enforced by the violence of the state. So how is it consistent to say that we should have a law against something and yet claim we should not advocate violence over that issue? If by advocating private violence I can see your point. But whenever we have laws they are enforced by violence. There is no escaping that. It seems to me very few people advocate for no violence. We just disagree about what matters rise to the level of requiring violence.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Your use of the word “violence” is way off the mark. The word is related to the verb, to violate, which means to break or fail to comply with a rule or a formal agreement. In case of enforcing laws enacted by the state, you cannot call that violence unless you assume a priori that such laws do break some higher law. That you have not shown. If a law is grossly unjust and is in conflict with a common understanding of morality, enforcing such a law could be called violence. But for laws where people simply have a difference of opinion about it, enforcing such a law could not be considered violence. The use of force in the enforcement of a law is not automatically an act of violence unless you can show that said law is clearly unjust on some higher ground.
E
exnihilo
Guest
I’m not sure about your claim concerning the origin of the word violence and its meaning. In my quick research it appears to come from the Latin word violentia which means violence or aggressiveness. But the origin is really of no matter. What I meant by violence is the use of force. You can replace in what I wrote violence with force.
I certainly can call that violence in so far as the law is enforced by physical force. You seem to be arguing for some subtlety in the meaning of the word that only clouds the issue. We don’t have to invoke morality to understand that laws are maintained by force. We can simply observe what the police do. The tactics done by anyone else would be called force or violence.
Yes it is an act of violence if violence means force and it can and that is how I use it here. We can replace it with force if that helps. But the point remains laws, all laws, are enforced by physical force. Whether the force is justified is a separate matter.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
That’s the thing, lifestyle encompasses far more than you are using it to describe; it is misleading.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If you mean “by force” then why not say so? Whether you agree with the source of the word violence or not, it is clear that the word has a negative moral tone where the word “force” has less a negative tone. I never heard a news report say “The bank robber was finally stopped by police violence.”
- Status