Pope to meet with gay activist

[meltzerboy]

Nor is the statement that all moral sins are equal. The difference is that there are more learned opinions supporting the notion of degrees of hell than there are that all mortal sins are equal.

I thought that the notion of degrees in hell was one that Dante came up with in his Divine Comedy.

 

[Havard]

It seems that the way the term “homosexual lifestyle” is used by some people applies to those gay people who practice same-sex behavior (not to those who are celibate). I find this somewhat paradoxical in the sense that many of the same people who define it that way also state that sexuality should NOT be the defining characteristic of people’s identity; however, by means of this definition, it is THEY who are making it the defining characteristic.

Totally disagree. I think you are missing the fact that this term only comes up in very particular moral discussions. Nobody talks about the “homosexual lifestyle” with their gay friends, about their gay friends, about their gay enemies, or anyone else in the real world. It’s only used as shorthand for a particular set of actions specific to these moral discussions.

 

[meltzerboy]

Totally disagree. I think you are missing the fact that this term only comes up in very particular moral discussions. Nobody talks about the “homosexual lifestyle” with their gay friends, about their gay friends, about their gay enemies, or anyone else in the real world. It’s only used as shorthand for a particular set of actions specific to these moral discussions.

Then you do not totally disagree if, as you say, it comes up in moral discussions, such as on CAF. Furthermore, the fact that the term does come up in moral discussions makes it even more misleading since the moral opponents of homosexual lifestyle often define gay people strictly in those sexual terms instead of being attuned to their moral behavior in other areas of life. IOW, a discussion of morality should encompass more than sexuality as a definition of one’s life. Even when sexuality is the primary topic of discussion, there ought to be a larger context, just as there usually is when the topic is heterosexual behavior.

 

[Havard]

Then you do not totally disagree if, as you say, it comes up in moral discussions, such as on CAF. Furthermore, the fact that the term does come up in moral discussions makes it even more misleading since the moral opponents of homosexual lifestyle often define gay people strictly in those sexual terms instead of being attuned to their moral behavior in other areas of life. IOW, a discussion of morality should encompass more than sexuality as a definition of one’s life. Even when sexuality is the primary topic of discussion, there ought to be a larger context, just as there usually is when the topic is heterosexual behavior.

Again, I think you are misunderstanding the way they use said expression.

It’s not a shorthand for a person, group of people, or their identity in any way. It’s shorthand for specific actions that are being discussed. The discussion may or may not well include many other things they do or many other aspects of their identity.

 

[CaptFun]

Nazareth News “Jesus meets with Samaritan woman!”

- yeah. For a drink if I remember.

If Francis meets with this fellow THAT way, this could be good.

Jesus gently confronted her about her loose living, cut through her changes of subject and offered her a new way of life. Which she took … it looks like!

Sometimes being active isn’t the best thing for your health … or those of others.

Go for that 100th sheep there like the good shepherd in the parable!

 

[Catholic_farmer]

Our Pope is willing to dialogue with anyone on any issue because I think he sees Jesus in all of us. I find that very inspiring. I hope the meeting goes very well and that an understanding and mutual respect point is reached between them.

However, what is actually said between them is really none of our business, just like the private conversations we have with our own priests are no one else’s business.

 

[Elizium23]

I am taking this week as a special time to focus on the rotten fruits of homosexual activism. One blog series that made me really sit up and take notice is “Of Cardinals, Cathedrals, Condoms and Cretins” from 2009.

This four-part series is really worthwhile if you have the slightest interest in the soft underbelly of modern homosexualism. It was written on the twentieth anniversary of the notorious desecration of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in NYC.

To wit, from part I:

What was the objection, really? Why such venomous hatred directed at the Church? Everyone knew that condoms broke during vaginal sex, more-so during anal sex. This wasn’t a state secret. Having just begun my post-baccalaureate curriculum in science at Columbia University, I found the hatred for the Church on campus palpable. Why?

The answer was: Narcissism. Even in the face of a killer sexually transmitted disease, people wanted their sex. Period. The drive toward self-indulgence was so powerful that it blinded people to the reality that condoms had a pretty significant failure rate, for a variety of reasons: improper and inconsistent use, tearing, slipping.

Then there was the issue of promiscuity in the gay community, the orgies in the bath houses that were eventually closed down as a public health measure. People weren’t interested in changing their behavior. They wanted fornication without consequences and expected, demanded the Church play along. In hindsight, they were looking for political cover.

For those old enough to remember the early years of the AIDS pandemic, it was largely considered a ‘gay’ disease. When it started showing up in the heterosexual community, many gays feared (rightly) a backlash based on that perception of AIDS being a gay disease. What better cover than the Catholic Church? The Bishops weren’t falling for it. They knew better about condoms, and sought to teach the faithful.

In the interim, Cardinal O’Connor quietly set about increasing the number of hospital beds in Catholic hospitals of the Archdiocese dedicated to AIDS patients to well above fifteen percent. He effectively turned Saint Clare’s Hospital on W 52nd Street into an AIDS hospice. Unbeknown to his detractors, the Cardinal went to St. Clare’s once a week in simple clerical garb to wash patients, empty bedpans, and perform priestly pastoral ministry to the dying. On his orders, he was introduced simply as Father John.