My new favorite definition - CHRISTOPHOBIC.

[PRmerger]

Here’s one. At the time homosexual adult male activity was punishable by imprisonment, and there were people in prison for that offence in this jurisdiction. the Bishops were urging no change in the law.

catholic.org.nz/news/fx-view-article.cfm?ctype=BSART&loadref=51&id=95

Huh?

*That *is your evidence for a Church that is discriminatory and punitive?

I can’t find a more loving, tolerant viewpoint, ever, in the dialogue that’s ensued!

In fact, I will use this as a model for further dialogue with anyone who claims that the Church is hateful towards homosexuals.

(Also, of note, the statement does not support imprisonment of homosexuals. Not even close. Imprisonment, or any variation of the word, is not referenced at all)

One has to wonder if you read the article. Or if you know what the word “proscribe” means.

Originally Posted by the Catholic Church in New Zealand:
Recognition of the human and civil rights of homosexual persons means that, like heterosexual persons, *their conduct should not be proscribed by criminal law **except to the extent that it threatens the rights of others.

You do know that this means the exact OPPOSITE of what you claimed, right?

Here the Bishops are saying that homosexual persons should NOT be imprisoned. (Except, of course, if they threaten the rights of others. Just like with heterosexuals.)

*proscribe means to condemn. Thus, homosexuals should NOT be condemned.

Now, unless you’re willing to retract your statement that “every Catholic Bishop’s conference has supported the retention of laws prohibiting homosexual acts, and punishing them with imprisonment” you’re going to have to offer another example.

And, as I just now noticed that you said “every Catholic Bishop’s conference”, you’ll have to offer evidence for this. Every.

I think it might be better if you simply admitted over-reaching and we, Christians all, will not mention it again. Forgiveness is one of our biggies, you know.

 

[JonNC]

Sorry John I did not mean to imply that you did. I had in mind those who advocate the retention of provisions which criminalise homosexuality, but who emphasise that they are rarely enforced. this I think is the category most of the official Church statements come under, with the stress on ‘the law as a teacher’. my views is that yes, it teaches, but it does other things as well.

No problem. I’ll let Catholics respond to this, but from a Lutheran perspective we usually talk of the law as God’s law, of which we see three uses: curb, mirror, guide. The first may include civil law. That civil law may have limits on the moral behavior of people can be a good thing, and I would contend that it may also be valuable that civil law to be a mirror - to make us aware and knowing of our sin.

Jon

 

[Journey322]

I hate this modern use of “phobic”. If you’re phobic you fear something, it has nothing to do with disagreement, dislike, or hate.

I agree. It is insulting the way it is assumed that the only reason someone might have a problem with something like homosexuality is if they are ignorant of the facts and fearful of what they don’t know. The message is that any intelligent, well informed individual will agree with popular beliefs.