McQuaid Juniors Allowed to Go To Ball Together

  • Thread starter Thread starter Traci
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dakota_Roberts said:
Perhaps the boys asked because they weren’t sure?

two people dancing in a non-sexual way is not sinful.

Dancing in a non-erotic way is not a topic of Catholic moral teaching.

True, I suppose sexually acting on it would have been a better phrasing.
Click to expand...
Dancing at a prom is heterosexual activity. It may not be hyper sexualized but it is heterosexual behavior and consistent with dating. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous. To pretend it is consistent with Catholic understanding of morality is disingenuous.
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
Perhaps the boys asked because they weren’t sure?
Click to expand...
Well, I think Fix has pointed you in the right direction: no matter how you slice it, the high school’s statement cannot mesh with Catholic morality. I’m curious why you seem to be doing a lot of handstands to support their dissent.

But I’ll pick up the point quoted here: If a dance really had nothing to do with male/female relationships, as you claim, then if the boys had asked the administration, they could have been told that it’s a dance and there is absolutely no link to sexuality.
However, the school didn’t say that. They said that it’s A-OK to include them, and a same-sex attraction should not hold a couple back.
So again, does the dance have anything to do with sexuality or not? You claim that it doesn’t, yet the administrators whom you support say that it does. See the contradiction?
 
surritter said:
So again, does the dance have anything to do with sexuality or not? You claim that it doesn’t, yet the administrators whom you support say that it does. See the contradiction?
Click to expand...
This whole thing is bizarre to me. Adolescent sexuality is a conflicting time for teenagers with emotions they don’t yet understand and questions about themselves and their natural development. They need guidance at this time more than ever in order to properly form a healthy attitude toward sex. To even suggest that a dance, in close proximity to a partner by physical contact (whether same sex or not,) cannot be the beginning of forming a sexual attraction is beyond the pale.
 
fix said:
Dancing at a prom is heterosexual activity. It may not be hyper sexualized but it is heterosexual behavior and consistent with dating. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous. To pretend it is consistent with Catholic understanding of morality is disingenuous.
Click to expand...
Where is the sin?
 
This is a terrible tragedy because the souls of these two young men are at risk and it seems that no one is helping them.
 
fix said:
Scandal and encouraging two males to think it is acceptable to attend a dance as a “date”.
Click to expand...
That’s just the possibility of scandal and not actually the sin of scandal.

Let me reiterate: Where is the sin?
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
Let me reiterate: Where is the sin?
Click to expand...
Enter the New Normal. Many things the world considers innocent, can in fact be **sins **including impure touching, looks, kisses, dancing, reading, etc. Sin is not just in the physical act, but in the consent of the will to derive illicit pleasure through temptation. (I suspect I’ll never convince you of this - so you may want to try the catechism.)

I try not to be naive…but two kids suffering from the possibility of SS attraction, being together in a social setting…with the high rate of teen sex…well…let’s hope they can withstand the temptation this school is allowing.
 
fix said:
I sure have. It is a sin to cause scandal. Leading others to think attending a dance as a same sex couple is moral is a scandal. There is more wrong than that but that one SIN is enough to note.
Click to expand...
While this may be scandal according to common vernacular English usage of the word scandal it is not in fact scandal in the ecclesiastical fashion as it is neither scandalum datum or scandalum acceptum
Tigg said:
Enter the New Normal. Many things the world considers innocent, can in fact be **sins **including impure touching, looks, kisses, dancing, reading, etc. Sin is not just in the physical act, but in the consent of the will to derive illicit pleasure through temptation. (I suspect I’ll never convince you of this - so you may want to try the catechism.)

I try not to be naive…but two kids suffering from the possibility of SS attraction, being together in a social setting…with the high rate of teen sex…well…let’s hope they can withstand the temptation this school is allowing.
Click to expand...
If it is not a grave matter it is not a mortal sin.
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
While this may be scandal according to common vernacular English usage of the word scandal it is not in fact scandal in the ecclesiastical fashion as it is neither scandalum datum or scandalum acceptum

If it is not a grave matter it is not a mortal sin.
Click to expand...
I was using the Church’s Definition. It is a scandal. It is manifest, public, and morally wrong. It tells others homosexual “dating” is morally licit.
 
fix said:
I was using the Church’s Definition. It is a scandal. It is manifest, public, and morally wrong. It tells others homosexual “dating” is morally licit.
Click to expand...
That is like saying people jaywalking is scandal because it teaches other people that breaking the law is morally licit.

PS I hate these stupid modernist concepts like dating.
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
I hate these stupid modernist concepts like dating.
Click to expand...
Uh, yeah, dating is a “modernist” concept :rolleyes:

So is that “modernist” thing where two people decide after dating to pledge their lives together and create new life within a family.
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
That is like saying people jaywalking is scandal because it teaches other people that breaking the law is morally licit.

PS I hate these stupid modernist concepts like dating.
Click to expand...
Jaywalking is not usually a serious moral issue. Encouraging violations of the sixth command involves souls.

Dating is a cultural issue which leads to marriage. Two men acting like male and female leads to nothing good.
 
surritter said:
Uh, yeah, dating is a “modernist” concept :rolleyes:

So is that “modernist” thing where two people decide after dating to pledge their lives together and create new life within a family.
Click to expand...
The concept of love being important in marriage is 250 years old, the actual practice of dating is only a hundred years or so old. Even then it was a gradual transition from courtship to dating.
fix said:
Jaywalking is not usually a serious moral issue. Encouraging violations of the sixth command involves souls.

Dating is a cultural issue which leads to marriage. Two men acting like male and female leads to nothing good.
Click to expand...
Proms these days basically encourage violations of chastity.

This whole concept of a dance as acting as exclusively male and female is a modern social construct.
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
The concept of love being important in marriage is 250 years old, the actual practice of dating is only a hundred years or so old. Even then it was a gradual transition from courtship to dating.
Click to expand...
Well, I can’t figure out what you believe. On the one hand, you seem to support the school’s administration for endorsing a same-sex couple’s attendance at a dance – quite a “progressive” view – and on the other hand you believe that dating is “modernist,” implying that we should go back to the days of arranged marriages.
🤷

Methinks you’re here just to stir the pot…
 
surritter said:
Well, I can’t figure out what you believe. On the one hand, you seem to support the school’s administration for endorsing a same-sex couple’s attendance at a dance – quite a “progressive” view – and on the other hand you believe that dating is “modernist,” implying that we should go back to the days of arranged marriages.
🤷

Methinks you’re here just to stir the pot…
Click to expand...
There is a difference between supporting something and defending it from theologically incorrect criticism. Personally I’d ban proms and have single sex education (meaning there would be separate schools for boys and girls) so nonsense like this would never happen again.

I’m not advocating for a return to arranged marriages per se merely that we should have proper courtship not dating if we are to continue with the absurd modernist idea that has been show to be catastrophically wrong of marrying for love. There is a reason there are growing numbers of young people who are having their parents setting up meetings with people.
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
If it is not a grave matter it is not a mortal sin.
Click to expand...
Sexual sins are grave matter and since we are told that homosexual behavior (acts) which are against both divine and natural law, will deprive us of heaven, how can that not be mortal?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top