"Pope Wants Church To Study Gay Marriage"

  • Thread starter Thread starter dailey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, it seems to me there are three cases here:

(1) A person is ashamed of sin, and ashamed of temptation. This traps a person in sin, since temptation is not something to properly be ashamed of.
(2) A person is ashamed of sin, but not ashamed of temptation.
(3) A person is not ashamed of sin.

To me, admitting that one is “gay” puts one in category 2 or 3. I agree that 3 is a bad category (and I agree that, given other evidence, Michael Sam is in category 3). But I think that category 2 is much better than category 1.

You don’t have to call yourself “gay” to be in category 2. But calling oneself gay is NOT endorsing homosexual sexual activity. It’s just saying that you’re attracted to people of the same sex.
No need to mince words.

Sam declared he was gay not as a confession. He **willingly **has decided to **mislead **millions of children that look up to him as a public figure and as such has done a great evil. I will pray that God forgives him and the gay lobby that has provoked him.

Finally, just because Sam or anyone is confused about their sexuality has little to do with the fact that God does not create people to have homosexual desires anymore than He creates them to have other disordered desires like pedophilia, etc.
 
Yes, this sounds right to me. Though I do think that we should not assume, simply because two gay men are dating, that they are sexually active.
But even if they aren’t sexually active, same sex dating is not something the Cardinal could endorse or say “Bravo” to.
 
Exactly, if the Pope decides there’s something we need to know or something he needs to clarify, he will instruct the bishops who will write to the priests who will explain it to us.

The media has an anti-Catholic bias and is thus not the best place to learn about Church matters.
I agree with the above. I see much confusion, and it seems to me that Satan is behind confusion. Our Church leaders don’t need to be media celebrities. I’d rather have a smaller, stronger, well-catechised Church than one full of people who don’t have a clue what they are professing…or worse, each professing their own understanding of what they believe, based on CNN’s latest reports.
 
No need to mince words.

Sam declared he was gay not as a confession. He **willingly **has decided to **mislead **millions of children that look up to him as a public figure and as such has done a great evil. I will pray that God forgives him and the gay lobby that has provoked him.

Finally, just because Sam or anyone is confused about their sexuality has little to do with the fact that God does not create people to have homosexual desires anymore than He creates them to have other disordered desires like pedophilia, etc.
Sam came out of the closet in order to advance his own selfish goal of being drafted to the NFL. He knew that this “confession” would make him a cause célèbre and the NFL would not dare pass him over next year because there would be a huge backlash with people crying “homophobia” and “bigotry” and “haters” because they would not draft a homosexual man. So this works out perfectly for him. He gets slaps on the back from the mainstream media, even from Cardinal Dolan, and he gets his NFL draft just as he wants.
 
Sam came out of the closet in order to advance his own selfish goal of being drafted to the NFL. He knew that this “confession” would make him a cause célèbre and the NFL would not dare pass him over next year because there would be a huge backlash with people crying “homophobia” and “bigotry” and “haters” because they would not draft a homosexual man. So this works out perfectly for him. He gets slaps on the back from the mainstream media, even from Cardinal Dolan, and he gets his NFL draft just as he wants.
lol I bet you are one of those who cheer for Tim Tebow as well :rolleyes:
 
Well, it seems to me there are three cases here:

(1) A person is ashamed of sin, and ashamed of temptation. This traps a person in sin, since temptation is not something to properly be ashamed of.
(2) A person is ashamed of sin, but not ashamed of temptation.
(3) A person is not ashamed of sin.

To me, admitting that one is “gay” puts one in category 2 or 3. I agree that 3 is a bad category (and I agree that, given other evidence, Michael Sam is in category 3). But I think that category 2 is much better than category 1.

You don’t have to call yourself “gay” to be in category 2. But calling oneself gay is NOT endorsing homosexual sexual activity. It’s just saying that you’re attracted to people of the same sex.
Yes, this sounds right to me. Though I do think that we should not assume, simply because two gay men are dating, that they are sexually active.
Michale Sam said he is homosexual, and said that he was dating a man.

So, if a grown man said he was sexually attracted to children, and said he was “dating” a child, it would be ok as long as he didn’t specifically mention any sexual activity, right?

I mean, the inclination of pedophilia is not in itself a sin, it is the actions that would be sinful. And we shouldn’t assume that just because a man says he is “dating” a child that anything sexual is happening, so we should all be perfectly fine with this scenario, right?

And if this man came out publically saying he was a pedophile, had “dated” a child, and sold “pedophila pride” merchandise, we should all applaud him, and say “good for him” for his “courage”, right?

Somehow I don’t think people would react the same way to this scenario.
 
Michale Sam said he is homosexual, and said that he was dating a man.
My post did not refer to Michael Sam, except to say that Michael Sam does not seem to be ashamed of his sin. And I *clearly *said that this was a bad thing about Michael Sam. As such, your entire post is extremely uncharitable toward me. I never endorsed him dating a man, and I never said that such behavior was morally OK. I did distinguish “dating” from “having sex”, and I stand by that distinction.
So, if a grown man said he was sexually attracted to children, and said he was “dating” a child, it would be ok as long as he didn’t specifically mention any sexual activity, right?
I never said that it was “okay” for Sam to date a man. However, I think it is clearly different from the situation you describe, because the situation you describe exposes a child to pain, shame, and damaged reputation, which amounts to child abuse.
I mean, the inclination of pedophilia is not in itself a sin, it is the actions that would be sinful.
Of course. Do you mean to deny that? Do you mean to say that being tempted to pedophilia is in itself sinful?
And if this man came out publically saying he was a pedophile, had “dated” a child, and sold “pedophila pride” merchandise, we should all applaud him, and say “good for him” for his “courage”, right?
Once again, this is all strawman arguments taken to the extreme. Please read what I have written, and don’t assume you know what I think.
 
But even if they aren’t sexually active, same sex dating is not something the Cardinal could endorse or say “Bravo” to.
Agreed. But that’s not the question the Cardinal was asked, I believe.
 
My post did not refer to Michael Sam, except to say that Michael Sam does not seem to be ashamed of his sin. And I *clearly *said that this was a bad thing about Michael Sam. As such, your entire post is extremely uncharitable toward me. I never endorsed him dating a man, and I never said that such behavior was morally OK. I did distinguish “dating” from “having sex”, and I stand by that distinction.

I never said that it was “okay” for Sam to date a man. However, I think it is clearly different from the situation you describe, because the situation you describe exposes a child to pain, shame, and damaged reputation, which amounts to child abuse.

Of course. Do you mean to deny that? Do you mean to say that being tempted to pedophilia is in itself sinful?

Once again, this is all strawman arguments taken to the extreme. Please read what I have written, and don’t assume you know what I think.
If I’ve mischaracterized your argument, then I’m sorry, it seemd like you were saying that.

My point is that some people (perhaps not you) seem to be in a rush to say that “coming out” is wonderful and couragous, that we shouldn’t assume Michael Sam is sexually active, that we shouldn’t assume he is promoting homosexuality, etc, because that would be “judging” him.

But really, imagine a baseball player named Sam Michaels says he has a pedophilia inclination, and says nothing about being chaste etc. If you present the exact same scecario, but replace the word “homosexual” with “pedophila”, suddenly the whole situation looks very different, and people’s reactions would be very different.

For instance, in the example I gave, I don’t think anyone would try to make a distinction between “dating” verses “having sex”, or say “good for him”, etc. We would all have no problem just clearly saying that situation is immoral.
 
If I’ve mischaracterized your argument, then I’m sorry, it seemd like you were saying that.

My point is that some people (perhaps not you) seem to be in a rush to say that “coming out” is wonderful and couragous, that we shouldn’t assume Michael Sam is sexually active, that we shouldn’t assume he is promoting homosexuality, etc, because that would be “judging” him.

But if you present the exact same scecario, but replace the word “homosexual” with “pedophila”, suddenly the whole situation looks very different, and people’s reactions would be very different.

For instance, in the example I gave, I don’t think anyone would try to make a distinction between “dating” verses “having sex”, or say “good for him”, etc.
(1) Coming out is very courageous, though less so than it once was.
(2) We shouldn’t assume any person is sexually active.
(3) Michael Sam is clearly promoting homosexual activity, and no Catholic can support that.
(4) Whether people’s reactions would be different in the case of pedophilia is immaterial. People’s reactions have very little to do with morality. If a famous person were to confess to struggling with a temptation toward pedophilia, that person would be crucified. But there would be nothing wrong with their confession, so long as they were clear that they were tempted toward a sin. Such a confession might actually help our society to see pedophiles as sinners in need of mercy instead of as monsters incapable of change.

I think it goes without saying that Jesus sees pedophiles as sinners in need of mercy.
 
I think it goes without saying that Jesus sees pedophiles as sinners in need of mercy.
A pedophile is only a sinner if he acts on his sexual attraction to children. A person who recognizes the temptation and successfully overcomes the temptation to act on it is no more a sinner than a homosexual person who acknowledges his attraction but does not act on it.
 
Agreed. But that’s not the question the Cardinal was asked, I believe.
Yes. I heard the Cardinal’s interview on “Conversations with the Cardinal” on the Catholic Channel. He was ambushed. He stated that he was only vaguely familiar with the Sam case when he was asked about it during the interview where he said “Bravo”. There was really no way he could have answered that question without making the Church look bad.
 
(1) Coming out is very courageous,
There is in fact nothing courageous about claiming a sin is good. Real courage is submitting to God for help and healing. This apparently is something most people with deep seated SSA have difficulty in doing. It should be of no surprise that the Bible then speaks that those with an arrogant heart can be given over to unnatural desires as punishment in order that they desire to do what they do not wish to do. **Worse still is when they embrace it **according to the Bible. Such is the case of people coming out of the “closet”.
 
There is in fact nothing courageous about claiming a sin is good. Real courage is submitting to God for help and healing. This apparently is something most people with deep seated SSA have difficulty in doing. It should be of no surprise that the Bible then speaks that those with an arrogant heart can be given over to unnatural desires as punishment in order that they desire to do what they do not wish to do. **Worse still is when they embrace it **according to the Bible. Such is the case of people coming out of the “closet”.
Right. Coming out would only be couragous if the person was saying they face a sinful temptation and are trying to overcome it. If the person is embracing their sin, it’s not couragous (in any meaningful sense of the word).
 
Right. Coming out would only be couragous if the person was saying they face a sinful temptation and are trying to overcome it. If the person is embracing their sin, it’s not couragous (in any meaningful sense of the word).
Exactly. It certainly takes courage to admit that you have a fallen nature and are subject to a disordered form of sexual temptation. But that’s different than being courageous. For something to **be **courageous it must advance the good. Calling a news conference and announcing one’s homosexuality may take courage but would not be courageous.
 
This is not true of everyone with SSA. I myself never had to lie or deceive to remain private about my attraction to men. Of course, I was helped by the fact that (in modern parlance) I am bisexual.
I was talking about gay (and lesbian) people, bisexuals retain hetero privilege fairly easily and so have it much better than LG people (though tougher than straight people). If a bisexual guy gets asked which girls he thinks are attractive he can answer, but a gay guy has to pretend he is attracted to some women, say nothing (which gets treated with suspicion) or comment he isn’t attracted to women (which is treated as an admission of being gay).

While a bisexual guy might be have it tougher given that he is also attracted to guys, he has it substantialy easier than a gay man because by definition there are some women he is attracted to who he can try to date which removes suspicion, a gay guy on the other hand isn’t attracted to women so either he gets treated with suspicion or he fakes a relationship with a women.
Not true and typical to say the least.

According to statistics, homosexual men are much more promiscuous that heterosexual men, and this is why AIDS has spread so rapidly. In fact it is commonplace for homosexuals to discard the notion of physical fidelity. The fact is there is little love involved in homosexual sexual relationships but only a mutual decision by multiple adults to degrade their bodies and defile their minds.

Furthermore, if the fact that God abhors homosexual desires and sex so much proves there is no love in these relationships because God is the author of all love.
The mean number of male sexual partners MSM reported in the previous year fell significantly from 2.9 to 2.3 between the two surveys (p = 0.035) and was more marked in men under 24 years old (mean 2.9 to 2.1 partners, p = 0.027). The number of partners also fell in men aged 35 to 44 from 3.0 to 2.2, though this was not quite statistically significant (p = 0.07).
The fall in the number of partners was statistically significant in men with incomes under 150% of the US federal poverty level (3.0 to 2.1) and in men living in suburban metropolitan areas (3.2 to 2.1) but not in city-centre areas (2.6 in both surveys). There were declines in partner numbers in white (3.0 to 2.5) and black (2.4 to 1.9) men, though these did not reach statistical significance. In general though, there was a consistent picture of fewer partners among most groups.
(numbers are from the NSFG)
That’s not actually that promiscuous especially when you consider that that number is pushed up by a small minority who have a massive amount of sex. Note that the number of partners has actually dropped a fair bit which happens to come at a time when more states have been legalizing gay marriage (although of course correlation≠causation).

A man engaging in sex with another man is inherently sinful, but a man loving another man is not sinful per se.
No need to mince words.

Sam declared he was gay not as a confession. He **willingly **has decided to **mislead **millions of children that look up to him as a public figure and as such has done a great evil. I will pray that God forgives him and the gay lobby that has provoked him.

Finally, just because Sam or anyone is confused about their sexuality has little to do with the fact that God does not create people to have homosexual desires anymore than He creates them to have other disordered desires like pedophilia, etc.
True, football players are terrible role models.

God doesn’t make people blind, deaf or any other infirmity, he permits it to happen as crosses can make us stronger. Some people are weak and need light crosses, others are very strong and get extremely heavy crosses.
Sam came out of the closet in order to advance his own selfish goal of being drafted to the NFL. He knew that this “confession” would make him a cause célèbre and the NFL would not dare pass him over next year because there would be a huge backlash with people crying “homophobia” and “bigotry” and “haters” because they would not draft a homosexual man. So this works out perfectly for him. He gets slaps on the back from the mainstream media, even from Cardinal Dolan, and he gets his NFL draft just as he wants.
Plenty of people who went undrafted did well later on.
A pedophile is only a sinner if he acts on his sexual attraction to children. A person who recognizes the temptation and successfully overcomes the temptation to act on it is no more a sinner than a homosexual person who acknowledges his attraction but does not act on it.
And no more a sinner than a heterosexual who overcomes his temptation to engage in sex with a woman.
There is in fact nothing courageous about claiming a sin is good. Real courage is submitting to God for help and healing. This apparently is something most people with deep seated SSA have difficulty in doing. It should be of no surprise that the Bible then speaks that those with an arrogant heart can be given over to unnatural desires as punishment in order that they desire to do what they do not wish to do. **Worse still is when they embrace it **according to the Bible. Such is the case of people coming out of the “closet”.
God doesn’t seem that interested in making people’s crosses go away especially considering he tells people to take up their cross and follow him.
 
And no more a sinner than a heterosexual who overcomes his temptation to engage in sex with a woman.
They aren’t the same. A man with a temptation to engage in sex with a woman is not tempted to do something disordered. Sex with a woman may or may not be a sin depending on the circumstances.

A man with a temptation to engage in sex with another man is tempted to do something disordered. There are not circumstances that would make it not sinful.

It’s not a matter of “more” but of different kinds of sin. Pedophilia and homosexuality both involve disordered temptations. That’s a different category than a man who is tempted to have sex with a woman even if that woman is not currently his wife.
 
They aren’t the same. A man with a temptation to engage in sex with a woman is not tempted to do something disordered. Sex with a woman may or may not be a sin depending on the circumstances.

A man with a temptation to engage in sex with another man is tempted to do something disordered. There are not circumstances that would make it not sinful.

It’s not a matter of “more” but of different kinds of sin. Pedophilia and homosexuality both involve disordered temptations. That’s a different category than a man who is tempted to have sex with a woman even if that woman is not currently his wife.
I should have said tempted to fornication with a woman, because Aquinas condemned that as intrinsically disordered.
 
I should have said tempted to fornication with a woman, because Aquinas condemned that as intrinsically disordered.
Fornication is disordered in the same way any mortal sin is disordered. But the temptation to have sex with a member of the opposite sex is not disordered.

Two scenarios:
  1. man states that he sometimes has lustful thoughts about women but resists.
  2. man says he sometimes has lustful thoughts about young boys (or other men or his sibling) but resists.
Very different temptations but both men have virtuously resisted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top