LDS Church Under Fire Again by Gay and Lesbian Groups . . .

[zaffiroborant]

Diana, I like the way you put this. Sounds great.

That celibacy is not a calling, that it is a bad choice always???

 

[Pahoran]

That’s a rather cheap shot. Thankfully, this didn’t become another thread on clerical celibacy. It has already meandered enough.

I’m sorry you took it as a cheap shot; it certainly wasn’t meant that way. I was referring to something I have read elsewhere. The writer was a former priest who had left the priesthood and married, but was still a devout Catholic. He lamented that Church authorities seemed more concerned with stopping priests from marrying than they were with doing anything about priests having affairs or otherwise committing sexual transgressions. He thought the Church would be better off making sure priests lived morally upright lives rather than keeping them single. The distinction between priestly celibacy and priestly chastity was his.

And I agree, this is off the track of the thread.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[dianaiad]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Any questions?

One.

How does quoting the Catholic catechism help explain the LDS view of these things?

 

[dianaiad]

That celibacy is not a calling, that it is a bad choice always???

Now, Z, where did I say that it was a 'bad choice always?"

It’s NOT a ‘calling.’ It’s a requirement. The choice is not ‘celibacy’ or 'not celibacy." it’s “Marry or not marry.” Celibacy, if one does not marry, is simply expected.

…and the first and best option is always to marry.

Unless one, for some reason, cannot, and in this case, we believe that it’s something very like the 'baptism of desire." If you would have if you could have, then the blessings that come with it will be yours, eventually, because eventually you WILL have that opportunity.

That is our belief. .

 

[LongJourney]

How does quoting the Catholic catechism help explain the LDS view of these things?

Because for us, as Catholics, Catholicism is better. The LDS faith, because of its teachings, tries force everyone into marriage. “One size fits all.” This does a disservice to many. As a Catholic, I am providing a contrast. I have no problems discussing Catholicism on a Catholic board. Do you?

If you don’t like this, I would suggest you take it to MADB, where I understand they have a very interesting conversation going on. I rarely visit there, because its bigotry tends to set me off on anti-Mormon rants. I do get frequent reports from my other favorite board, where I rarely discuss my Catholicism.

Do you have problems with that?

 

[dianaiad]

Because for us, as Catholics, Catholicism is better. The LDS faith, because of its teachings, tries force everyone into marriage. “One size fits all.” This does a disservice to many. As a Catholic, I am providing a contrast. I have no problems discussing Catholicism on a Catholic board. Do you?

The problem is, LJ, that this is the non-Catholic religions sub-forum, and the thread is specifically to the LDS church, and this very specific sub-topic is what Mormons believe regarding celibacy. So I’ll ask again…how does quoting the Catholic catechism help explain the LDS point of view?

It most certainly helps explain YOUR point of view, and describes the Catholic take on it; not a problem.

But, and I do hate to break this to you…the LDS church doesn’t use the Catholic Catechism to inform its doctrines. Consider: what would your reaction be if I qouted the Doctrine and Covenants in an attempt to explain why Catholics believe this thing, or that thing?

Does “going over like a fart in a space suit” sound appropriate, here?

I understand the Catholic take on this. Not a problem; you believe this, and that’s fine. However, I don’t…and I utterly fail to see why your quoting of the CC is supposed to somehow prove that I don’t actually believe this.

As well, if your goal is to prove me WRONG, then…quoting the CC is about as good an idea as my qouting the…well, I’m sure you get the picture.

If you don’t like this, I would suggest you take it to MADB, where I understand they have a very interesting conversation going on. I rarely visit there, because its bigotry tends to set me off on anti-Mormon rants. I do get frequent reports from my other favorite board, where I rarely discuss my Catholicism.

Do you have problems with that?

I see. Yet another person who thinks that a Mormon doesn’t have the right to discuss Mormonism in a forum dedicated to the discussion of non-Catholic religions, and in a thread that is specifically dedicated to the discussion of the CoJCoLDS.

As someone else very recently put it, discussion of Mormonism (or any other ‘ism’ for that matter) without the presence of people who actually believe in it is not a discussion. It’s gossip.

 

[LongJourney]

As someone else very recently put it, discussion of Mormonism (or any other ‘ism’ for that matter) without the presence of people who actually believe in it is not a discussion. It’s gossip.

That is not the problem, since you are here, and welcome here. And, I, for one, wonder if you fit very well into LDS society, since you have never gossiped.

I did go over there, and noticed that PA PA, and others, are talking about a compassionate attitude towards gays, especially those who do not participate in homosexual behavior, and disagree with Packer’s remarks. I consider that to be a great improvement over what I saw in the past.

As I indicated in my first post, I consider it to be primarily a Mormon problem. I know that there are individual Catholics who are bigoted against all people who are different from themselves. They not understand that bigotry begets radical behavior. Radical homosexuals must come to an understanding that Christians will never accept homosexual marriage, but many accept legal contracts between them as a reasonable compromise. Bigotry against people with SSA cannot be accepted, particularly when they exhibit the same type of sexual self-control that Christianity requires of any single people.

Socially stigmatizing single, sexually continent people is only one aspect of the Mormon problem. Gossip which questions their sexual orientation is only different in severity of effects from cases like Tyler Clementi.

If you have a problem with discussing the similarities and differences between Catholicism and Mormonism on this board, perhaps you should look around at other areas of the internet.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Now, Z, where did I say that it was a 'bad choice always?"

It’s NOT a ‘calling.’ It’s a requirement. The choice is not ‘celibacy’ or 'not celibacy." it’s “Marry or not marry.” Celibacy, if one does not marry, is simply expected.

…and the first and best option is always to marry.

Unless one, for some reason, cannot, and in this case, we believe that it’s something very like the 'baptism of desire." If you would have if you could have, then the blessings that come with it will be yours, eventually, because eventually you WILL have that opportunity.

That is our belief. .

it is expected of all those who are not married, period.

We do not believe that a deliberate choice to eschew marriage in order to live a celebate life is a good one. Ever.

I get the impression that Catholics (and others) consider a life of celibacy to be an honorable thing; above and beyond the call of ordinary living. Someone who chooses to be celibate is considered to have given up something–or made some special sacrifice or effort that makes him or her special in the eyes of God and the church. Celibacy as a calling, as you have put it.

but it’s not a calling, any more than refraining from bashing people over the head on one’s daily walk is a calling. It is an expectation for all of us. We are EXPECTED to be chaste–and that means celibacy outside marriage bonds. It is a basic expectation.

…and it is always a second choice. Marriage is always the first one. There are, however, many reasons that one might not get a chance to marry here–including simply that one doesn’t meet someone who is 'right." Or…one could be homosexual and realize that it would be incredibly unfair to a spouse. (Though very, very, VERY few homosexuals are so far on the homosexual end of the spectrum that they cannot desire/fall in love with someone of the opposite sex.) OR…any number of other reasons. then, of course, one is expected to be celibate.

Not because being celibate is a good first choice.

…but because it is expected of those who cannot marry. Period.

If something is never a good choice then it is always a bad choice.

 

[mark_a]

If the Catholic Church came under fire for the same thing I would care.

IF?

Gimme a break.

Anyways, we’re here for ya.

The Catholic Church teaches that we are to work with folks on common-ground issues. I heard Fr. Pavone say that there is even an atheist Pro-Life group he works with.

 

[zaffiroborant]

The problem is, LJ, that this is the non-Catholic religions sub-forum, and the thread is specifically to the LDS church, and this very specific sub-topic is what Mormons believe regarding celibacy. So I’ll ask again…how does quoting the Catholic catechism help explain the LDS point of view?

Well here’s the opening post, I inserted the title before the one sentence post, nothing in it on celibacy. Nothing in the article he linked to about celibacy either, so it seems that celibacy is nothing more than a turn the thread took. I believe Pahoran has already commented on how the celibacy/chastity turn is a derailment.

LDS Church Under Fire Again by Gay and Lesbian Groups . . .. . . for comments made by Elder Boyd K. Packer at LDS General Conference. Here is the link. What do you think?

 

[LongJourney]

I believe Pahoran has already commented on how the celibacy/chastity turn is a derailment.

I do not consider it to be a derailment, I believe the harsh (electroshock and Evergreen) treatment of gays by the LDS church is a result of the LDS church’s teaching that supports intense pressure to marry. This harsh treatment is the reason for the gay protests against the LDS church. However, my point has been made, and I will not respond to further posts on the subject, unless blatantly baited.

As for Pahoran, well, I will again restrain my fingers.

 

[dianaiad]

That is not the problem, since you are here, and welcome here. And, I, for one, wonder if you fit very well into LDS society, since you have never gossiped.

Oh, you ARE good. Sometimes I simply have to sit in awe of your ability to hand out such wholesale insults under the guise of a compliment. Sort of. :ehh:

I did go over there, and noticed that PA PA, and others, are talking about a compassionate attitude towards gays, especially those who do not participate in homosexual behavior, and disagree with Packer’s remarks. I consider that to be a great improvement over what I saw in the past.

Perhaps you heard something I didn’t…I didn’t see any indication in “Packer’s remarks” that advocated NOT being compassionate to those who struggle with this problem.

As I indicated in my first post, I consider it to be primarily a Mormon problem. I know that there are individual Catholics who are bigoted against all people who are different from themselves. They not understand that bigotry begets radical behavior. Radical homosexuals must come to an understanding that Christians will never accept homosexual marriage, but many accept legal contracts between them as a reasonable compromise. Bigotry against people with SSA cannot be accepted, particularly when they exhibit the same type of sexual self-control that Christianity requires of any single people.

You realize, don’t you, that neither Mormons NOR Catholics had any problems with California’s Civil Union policies, right?

Socially stigmatizing single, sexually continent people is only one aspect of the Mormon problem. Gossip which questions their sexual orientation is only different in severity of effects from cases like Tyler Clementi.

If you have a problem with discussing the similarities and differences between Catholicism and Mormonism on this board, perhaps you should look around at other areas of the internet.

LJ, take a good long look at the number of posts I have written. Does it look like I"m 'uncomfortable?"

The discomfort here seems to be yours; I have not, after all, told YOU to leave.

 

[LongJourney]

Oh, you ARE good. Sometimes I simply have to sit in awe of your ability to hand out such wholesale insults under the guise of a compliment. Sort of.

Thank you. I have honed my satirical wit on the internet. I used to have great difficulty expressing my real feelings. Glad you have similar abilities. We might even get along IRL, having been honest with each other because of internet anonymity.

 

[dianaiad]

If something is never a good choice then it is always a bad choice.

Z, The operative term in that sentence was not 'choosing celibacy." It was to 'eschew marriage in favor of celibacy, as the better option."

Reading things in context is always a good idea.

Let’s try this one more time:

Marriage, when possible, is always the best choice.
Marraiage is not always possible.
When it is not, celibacy is EXPECTED.

Choosing celibacy INSTEAD OF MARRIAGE, when the opportunity to marry the right person is available to you, is always the wrong choice. It’s not a choice between marriage and celibacy. It’s a choice between marriage and–not marriage. Of course the second choice results in a celibate life. There is, in our view, nothing at all special about living a celibate life. To me, when someone who has chosen not to marry stands before the judgment seat and says “I was celibate all my life!” the response is going to be…“yeah, of course…you didn’t get married. Of course you were celibate. Now. WHY didn’t you marry?”

And saying 'I chose to live a celibate life" is going to be like saying “well, I chose not to rob every ATM I saw.” Big whoop.

To us, it’s like saying 'well, I know you commanded me to marry, but I didn’t want to. At least I was celibate!"

yeah, so?

 

[dianaiad]

Well here’s the opening post, I inserted the title before the one sentence post, nothing in it on celibacy. Nothing in the article he linked to about celibacy either, so it seems that celibacy is nothing more than a turn the thread took. I believe Pahoran has already commented on how the celibacy/chastity turn is a derailment.

I know. That’s why I wrote that the thread was specifically about the LDS church, and the ‘sub-topic’; (or ‘derailment’ or whatever you want to call it) was specifically about the LDS view of celibacy.

Drill it down, Z, Drill it down.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I know. That’s why I wrote that the thread was specifically about the LDS church, and the ‘sub-topic’; (or ‘derailment’ or whatever you want to call it) was specifically about the LDS view of celibacy.

Drill it down, Z, Drill it down.

If the thread has wandered off topic you really can’t complain that someone isn’t staying on your favorite derailment.

 

[dianaiad]

I do not consider it to be a derailment, I believe the harsh (electroshock and Evergreen) treatment of gays by the LDS church is a result of the LDS church’s teaching that supports intense pressure to marry. This harsh treatment is the reason for the gay protests against the LDS church. However, my point has been made, and I will not respond to further posts on the subject, unless blatantly baited.

As for Pahoran, well, I will again restrain my fingers.

The gays protest the LDS church for precisely the same reasons they protest the Catholics. We don’t want gay marriage.

Neither one of us does.

If you think that Catholicism is one bit more accepting of gay marriage than Mormonism is, then you need to do some more research.

Now.

I understand that the Catholic church will not allow gays to hold the priesthood…that is, they will not allow gays to graduate Seminary and take the vows. IN fact, a letter written in 2005–a Vatican 'Instruction" approved by Pope Benedict XVI states that “The church, while deeply respecting the people in question, cannot admit to the seminary and the sacred orders those who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support so-called gay culture”

The letter goes on to make it very clear that it is not simply homosexual practices or support for ‘gay culture’ that is the problem; it is the homosexuality itself; the 'deep seated homosexual tendencies" or desires, whether expressed in action or not, that is the problem.

These men are not to be admitted to a Seminary, not be allowed to take orders.

Frankly, that surprised the heck out of me. It seems to me that a deeply faithful Catholic man–who happens to be gay–would be a terrific candidate for the priesthood. After all, celibate is celibate. What earthly difference does it make what one is celibate FROM?

So…LDS men who are celibate may hold the priesthood. If they choose not to marry because they cannot do so and be fair to a wife, they are still quite able to serve the church, the priesthood, and do everything they can.

Shoot, I served my mission with a young man who was an amazing pianist…he actually played the organ in the Salt Lake Tabernacle for awhile, and is now (as am I,) 60 years old.

He knew he was gay from the time he was fifteen. He dealt with it–by acknowledging that because of this,he would probably never marry. So…he didn’t. It was a situation that he dealt with–but it didn’t keep him from holding the priesthood, going to the Temple and serving in the church for the rest of his life.

Now, given this, do you really want to continue talking about how much more compassionate and accepting Catholics are in this matter?

 

[dianaiad]

If the thread has wandered off topic you really can’t complain that someone isn’t staying on your favorite derailment.

Oh, Z…that was not my favorite derailment, by a long shot. My FAVORITE one was a lot funnier than this one.

 

[dianaiad]

Thank you. I have honed my satirical wit on the internet. I used to have great difficulty expressing my real feelings. Glad you have similar abilities. We might even get along IRL, having been honest with each other because of internet anonymity.

Hmmn…

I’m not accomplished at this. Perhaps it is a lack of wit…perhaps it’s just that I missed all the training in the high school cliques. I just never did see the fun in putting tacks in the muffins–or on the desk seats, or sliding verbal knives in velvet compliments. Still, even though I’m not very good at writing/saying this sort of thing, I’m pretty good at recognizing it. So you keep honing your satirical wit, and I will keep raising my virtual eyebrow.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Z, The operative term in that sentence was not 'choosing celibacy." It was to 'eschew marriage in favor of celibacy, as the better option."

Reading things in context is always a good idea.

Let’s try this one more time:

Marriage, when possible, is always the best choice.
Marraiage is not always possible.
When it is not, celibacy is EXPECTED.

Choosing celibacy INSTEAD OF MARRIAGE, when the opportunity to marry the right person is available to you, is always the wrong choice. It’s not a choice between marriage and celibacy. It’s a choice between marriage and–not marriage. Of course the second choice results in a celibate life. There is, in our view, nothing at all special about living a celibate life. To me, when someone who has chosen not to marry stands before the judgment seat and says “I was celibate all my life!” the response is going to be…“yeah, of course…you didn’t get married. Of course you were celibate. Now. WHY didn’t you marry?”

And saying 'I chose to live a celibate life" is going to be like saying “well, I chose not to rob every ATM I saw.” Big whoop.

To us, it’s like saying 'well, I know you commanded me to marry, but I didn’t want to. At least I was celibate!"

yeah, so?

Definition of CELIBACY (from MW on-line)
1: the state of not being married
2a : abstention from sexual intercourse b :* abstention by vow from marriage** *

So when someone chooses celibacy they are choosing the state of not being married, which is the same as eschewing marriage in order to live a celibate (unmarried, chaste is another issue) life.

We do not believe that a deliberate choice to eschew marriage in order to live a celebate life is a good one. Ever.

Choosing celibacy INSTEAD OF MARRIAGE, when the opportunity to marry the right person is available to you, is always the wrong choice

The above quotes say that choosing celibacy (the state of not being married) is never a good one, and is always wrong, or as I asked in my question to GaryTaylor “that it is a bad choice always???” A question addressed to a Catholic who seemed to be favoring LDS teaching over Catholic teaching.