L
livingwordunity
Guest
The left should extend that attitude to their feelings about George Zimmerman.
- Status
G
Glad2behome
Guest
Fair enough, but I must say that I do know persons with SSA that are really faithful to their call to chastity, but then know heterosexuals that fornicate outside of marriage and have no wish in repenting. That is my own personal experience. I know persons with SSA that struggle with lust, and ones that their SSA plays little to no role in their life.
G
Glad2behome
Guest
Ugh, politics again!?
C
catholicmom2010
Guest
It is something that isn’t often talked about but it is a disordered use of the body to attempt to join one person’s reproductive system with the other person’s excretory system. In God’s perfect design, joining reproductive systems conjugally allows the husband and wife’s sperm and ovum to meet without immunological problems (except in rare circumstances). Dr. Janet Smith talks about the physical problems caused by attempting to putting reproductive body fluids in someone else’s excretory system. For whatever reason, this reality is sanitized and wordsmithed in the press, similar to abortion- the press and proponents will never admit to calling it what it is.
G
Glad2behome
Guest
So, you basically saying that God’s gift of Sex is only to be used by husband and wife within Marriage, without the use of contraceptives? Your right, that is what the Catholic church is beliefs, but I know you understand that even heterosexual sex among married couples can be disordered.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
It is also very false that all homosexuals want to do such a thing. Anal sex is probably not even the dominant sex act among male homosexuals, much less the only one. Oral sex to orgasm, which is practiced just as commonly by our friendly non-disordered fornicators, is probably more common among gay men. Lots of SSA men are not at all interested in anal sex.
Sorry for the graphic details, but this is a misconception that bothers me.
E
eamonnroma
Guest
Of course also the vagina and penis are part of the excretory system. So that would make heterosexual sex a disordered use of the body?
It is a simple fact of life that our reproductive organs and excretory organs are the very same organs.
5
57thDimension
Guest
I wasn’t referring to the simple act of labeling oneself as certain things (“American”, “Chinese”, etc), I was referring to extensive use of labeling (especially of others), that is, the lens through which society is seen is one that divides into many small groups, regardless of self-identification of those involved.
By liberal, I meant socially liberal (e.g. adherents of the “new morality”), not necessarily connected to politics (the arrow of causality is open for debate, of course). My point about [social] liberals making more extensive use of labels still stands.
Not to undermine your point, but there are unfortunately a sizable number of Catholics who would oppose that (or at least, would not support it).
Given the hindsight bias present (which surely drives a number of people to certain conclusions), it’s hard to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (to the first part, that is - you’ve made a conjunction between two completely different things). He could have been another bishop-gone-rogue - the concerns of people he encountered were well-founded. It’s no different than today - people with comparable life experiences are not handed comparable positions (in fact, they are even less likely to have that given a larger pool of people to select from for a position). Hindsight bias is also very dangerous when comparing with living people (e.g. canonization takes place after someone is dead).
As for a move to “recant his Sainthood” - no, I wouldn’t support that, even if such a thing were possible.
+Sebastian
K
KnightVigilant
Guest
Compare Francis’ wishy-washy liberal relativist nonsense with the words of a true pope, St. Pius V.
"That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.
Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: “Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature, given that the wrath of God falls over the sons of perfidy, be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery” (chap. 4, X, V, 31).
So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.
Therefore, wishing to pursue with greater rigor than we have exerted since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss."
traditioninaction.org/religious/n009rp_HomosexualPriests.htm
It seems Pope St. Pius V had no qualms about judging sodomites.
"That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.
Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: “Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature, given that the wrath of God falls over the sons of perfidy, be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery” (chap. 4, X, V, 31).
So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.
Therefore, wishing to pursue with greater rigor than we have exerted since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss."
traditioninaction.org/religious/n009rp_HomosexualPriests.htm
It seems Pope St. Pius V had no qualms about judging sodomites.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
There was plenty of labelling due to skin colour in the Southern States of the USA prior to the 1970s. I’m not sure that it was liberals who were responsible for that.
K
KnightVigilant
Guest
Wow, you’re comparing the normal use of the reproductive organs to the unnatural use of an orifice designed for expelling feces. Only coprophiles think it’s a good idea to use the rectum for sexual purposes.
B
Boston_Sem
Guest
Now you stop that right now. It is most unbecoming to speak of the Holy Father in such a manner as uncouth as this.
B
Ben_F
Guest
Best Pope for the times. God bless:thumbsup:
F
fix
Guest
First off I was not referring to the homosexual abuse of teen boys although that is well documented. I was referring to the infiltration by homosexual persons into seminaries and positions of power in dioceses. That too is well documented. They do not have to abuse anyone to promote heterodoxy.
I do not want to keep going down this rabbit hole but your minimizing of this serious disorder does not make it so.
F
fix
Guest
No, the point is to conflate a disorder with a normal inclination does violence to the truth.
No, he made a short remark and we have that remark filtered through bias sources.
For several reasons including the fact that this inclination is not normal. You can read what the last Pope said to help fill you in.
It is a serious deviation not one to be minimized because pop culture tells you that.
Again the problem is:
The liturgical impact of homosexuality in the priesthood
B
Boundless
Guest
The problem is that those of us who have, as you call it, this “serious disorder” resent the implication that we are most of us just itching to promote heterodoxy. I am a married man, but I once wanted to be a priest. I have SSA. I had NO intention of promoting heterodoxy. I have absolutely orthodox views, perhaps even sometimes scrupulous views, going beyond what orthodoxy strictly requires, and had I ever been a bishop or cardinal my “serious disorder” as you call it would not have made me anymore prone than any “straight” clergy to embracing or promoting heterodoxy.
I love orthodoxy. I love the Church. It sickens me when people DO try to change the Church’s timeless doctrine and moral teaching, to the point that I even sometimes (I’m ashamed to admit) lack charity for these people. And yet there are people out there who think that, JUST because I have SSA, that if someone like me were elevated to a position of power in the Church he would be at special risk of promoting heterodoxy? I’m sorry, but that IS insulting, it’s presumptuous, it’s not true.
There is a huge difference between someone who simply HAS same sex attractions and someone who has decided that the Church’s moral teachings are wrong. The current problem with this “homosexual lobby” that many speak of in the Church is not that these men have SSA, it’s that they decided–probably long before becoming clergy–that the Church’s teachings were wrong and that they knew better than the Church. They went in with an agenda. But that agenda is NOT inherently tied to anybody who has SSA. To say so is accusatory, judgmental, and only makes it harder for those of us who bear this cross and would never DREAM of questioning the timeless and unchangeable wisdom of Mother Church.
F
fix
Guest
If you have this condition and you deal with it as you should then there is no reason to be upset by what I wrote. You cannot look at recent history and deny the obvious.How would anyone know you have SSA?The problem is that those of us who have, as you call it, this “serious disorder” resent the implication that we are most of us just itching to promote heterodoxy. I am a married man, but I once wanted to be a priest. I have SSA. I had NO intention of promoting heterodoxy. I have absolutely orthodox views, perhaps even sometimes scrupulous views, going beyond what orthodoxy strictly requires, and had I ever been a bishop or cardinal my “serious disorder” as you call it would not have made me anymore prone than any “straight” clergy to embracing or promoting heterodoxy.
I love orthodoxy. I love the Church. It sickens me when people DO try to change the Church’s timeless doctrine and moral teaching, to the point that I even sometimes (I’m ashamed to admit) lack charity for these people. And yet there are people out there who think that, JUST because I have SSA, that if someone like me were elevated to a position of power in the Church he would be at special risk of promoting heterodoxy? I’m sorry, but that IS insulting, it’s presumptuous, it’s not true.
There is a huge difference between someone who simply HAS same sex attractions and someone who has decided that the Church’s moral teachings are wrong. The current problem with this “homosexual lobby” that many speak of in the Church is not that these men have SSA, it’s that they decided–probably long before becoming clergy–that the Church’s teachings were wrong and that they knew better than the Church. They went in with an agenda. But that agenda is NOT inherently tied to anybody who has SSA. To say so is accusatory, judgmental, and only makes it harder for those of us who bear this cross and would never DREAM of questioning the timeless and unchangeable wisdom of Mother Church.
F
fix
Guest
If you do not believe me would you accept what the Pope says:
B
Boulder257
Guest
Some say his trip last week to Brazil, capped by a Mass for 3 million on Copacabana Beach, and the 80-minute, unfiltered news conference on the plane back to Rome, were the real start of Pope Francis’s pontificate.
news.yahoo.com/analysis-pope-seeks-align-church-hierarchy-pews-075732321.html
news.yahoo.com/analysis-pope-seeks-align-church-hierarchy-pews-075732321.html
B
Boundless
Guest
I do see recent history, and I can see that there are those within the Church’s hierarchy who are obviously trying to promote heterodox ideas, but I do not think that this promotion is part and parcel to their SSA. All throughout history, there have been people who tried to promote heterodoxy. It just so happens that, in our current cultural times, homosexuality and whether or not it should be permitted to act upon it is a hot button issue. Homosexual people who are NOT interested in orthodoxy or chaste lives have the most to gain from breaking sexual mores of the Church; so it makes sense that some dishonest and heterodox homosexuals would be the ones, in our current culture, to try to change the Church from within.
But the point I was making is that these people’s problem, the thing that makes them dangerous as clergy, is NOT that they have SSA, but that they were willing to change the Church’s timeless Truth (if it were possible) to suit their desires and whims. And that’s a risk that is present across the board. In other situations, it could have been greed, or prejudice, etc., whose unorthodox strugglers took advantage of opportunities to try to mold the Church to their whims.
But there is nothing about SSA, in and of itself, that makes those of us who struggle with it more prone to trying to mold the Church along heterodox lines than people with other temptations. That’s the implication that bothers me.
As for how people would know that I have SSA, those who do know are people that I have trusted with this. Do I wish that people could be more open about SSA publicly? Yes, but not so that they could “brag,” or “rub it in people’s faces,” but so that they wouldn’t live with the constant fear that “If friend X or relative Y knew that I struggled with this, they’d hate me.” If you know that you could potentially be public about something without extreme repercussions, then you feel much safer that you won’t be rejected when you open up about it on more intimate or localized settings, even if you never actually take advantage of the fact that you could, if you wanted, be more publicly open. That’s all that most of us want: We don’t want to shout anything from the mountains, we just want to be comfortable that, if our secret DID come out or when we DO trust someone with this, it won’t mean we’ll be ostracized and hated; that, if we DID openly share our struggles in the context of testimony so as to reach out to others hiding with this cross and make them feel less alone, that we wouldn’t be ruining our lives. Is that so much to ask?
I do believe that the Pope likely has good reason for what he says, and I myself felt that the priesthood was probably not the best option for me, partly due to my struggles with SSA (although if I hadn’t been struggling with pornography, etc., I wouldn’t have seen nearly so much of a problem), and so I left Seminary of my own initiative. But I don’t believe that every person with SSA would be as ill-suited to the priesthood as I would be. I can’t judge every person with SSA by my own shortcomings.
The Pope’s words seem to me to have been pastoral and disciplinary, not doctrinal, so I think we are at liberty to believe that even if there is wisdom in his words there can also be exceptions for those men with SSA who are winning the battle against impurity more consistently.
When the Pope says something that is not Ex Cathedra, we are not bound to believe it as though it was doctrine, but we are called to weigh the wisdom of his words and give them proper respect and (as long as it’s Church policy) obedience; and indeed, I do believe that many men with SSA do struggle with a proper sense of paternity, because SSA often makes a man doubt his own masculinity. But I also believe it is fully possible for a man with SSA to conquer these insecurities, so that he can claim his masculinity more perfectly and be just as good a father figure as anyone; after all, many of us with SSA do marry and father children, and a “sense of paternity” is important there too. If a man can be a good father, there’s a good chance he could’ve been a good priest too, at least as far as a proper sense of paternity is concerned. So therefore, although I respect and even grant the wisdom of the Pope’s words, I do not think they are applicable to every man who struggles with SSA, perhaps not even by a long shot. So there can be legitimate (and perfectly orthodox) change to this sort of policy, without denying the general wisdom of the Pope’s concern here.
- Status