Rally at archdiocese backs ousted Eastside Catholic High School vice principal Mark Zmuda

[Lormar]

Trust me, if I was paid to teach what I actually think or from an unbiased position I wouldn’t be facing half as many problems with their education.

This is why the secular world does not like Catholics And this is coming from one.

Just so I am sure I understand you, are you saying that you teach in a Catholic school and are being paid to teach Catholic doctrine which you, even though you are Catholic, don’t believe in or do not agree with?

 

[JimG]

What is wrong with saying that a strong inclination ordered to an intrinsic natural evil is an objective disorder? It seems rather obvious. And as a result of original sin exacerbated by our own actual sins, most of us have strong inclinations to some intrinsic evils. Those are disorders. And only if we acknowledge that disordered inclinations ought to be resisted can we hope to overcome them.

The Christian motto has always been to hate the sin but love the sinner.
The new motto seems to be: “Love me, love my sin.”

 

[Viewer]

Just so I am sure I understand you, are you saying that you teach in a Catholic school and are being paid to teach Catholic doctrine which you, even though you are Catholic, don’t believe in or do not agree with?

Yes, I am paid to teach in a Catholic school and teach Catholic doctrine.

I don’t have any qualms with Catholic doctrine personally, I’m skeptical of a number of Marian apparitions but that’s not something that has ever come up. I suppose I found a few of Kung’s words on the Pope’s infallibility food for thought but I don’t feel inclined to explore that too deeply. Most of my issues is when I take classes and I’m asked various questions that I cannot (by instruction) talk about.

It’s Infuriating, especially when some of these questions come up in examinations and when they begin further education they are clueless on the topics.

What is wrong with saying that a strong inclination ordered to an intrinsic natural evil is an objective disorder? It seems rather obvious.

Not to non-catholics and to an increasing number of faithful. You do not call anyone disordered (It’s generally used in the same context as being mentally disabled here and can be used interchangeably depending on the condition). So when you call a gay man disordered, it is taken that you’re calling them mentally retarded.

Nobody accepts any other definition, they read it as abuse.

The Christian motto has always been to hate the sin but love the sinner.
The new motto seems to be: “Love me, love my sin.”

I disagree, one girl was forced out from our school a few years ago after it was discovered she had an abortion a few months prior. There was very little love if any held towards her by many of her peers.

Homosexuality is not loved now, it’s expected to be tolerated. This doesn’t mean people are all for necrophiliac rights or that they think it’s cool to have orgies in the changing room.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What is wrong with saying that a strong inclination ordered to an intrinsic natural evil is an objective disorder? It seems rather obvious. And as a result of original sin exacerbated by our own actual sins, most of us have strong inclinations to some intrinsic evils. Those are disorders. And only if we acknowledge that disordered inclinations ought to be resisted can we hope to overcome them.

But the Church does not explicitly describe any of these other things as “objective disorders”. It singles out homosexuality.

Personally, I think that’s a problem that the Church can easily fix without changing doctrine. Just modify the Catechism a little, to mention the other objective disorders.

 

[Viewer]

But the Church does not explicitly describe any of these other things as “objective disorders”. It singles out homosexuality.

Personally, I think that’s a problem that the Church can easily fix without changing doctrine. Just modify the Catechism a little, to mention the other objective disorders.

I think it would be a good start.

 

[Lormar]

And then what shall we modify next?

There will always be something. The world will never be satisfied unless and until it has crushed Catholicism.

 

[Viewer]

And then what shall we modify next?

There will always be something. The world will never be satisfied unless and until it has crushed Catholicism.

If they are already deemed disorders what are we changing exactly?

If anything it’s making the Church’s stance even clearer, I really don’t see the problem.

 

[Havard]

If they are already deemed disorders what are we changing exactly?

If anything it’s making the Church’s stance even clearer, I really don’t see the problem.

To which other disorders are you referring?

 

[JimG]

Yes, I am paid to teach in a Catholic school and teach Catholic doctrine.

I don’t have any qualms with Catholic doctrine personally, I’m skeptical of a number of Marian apparitions but that’s not something that has ever come up. I suppose I found a few of Kung’s words on the Pope’s infallibility food for thought but I don’t feel inclined to explore that too deeply. Most of my issues is when I take classes and I’m asked various questions that I cannot (by instruction) talk about.

It’s Infuriating, especially when some of these questions come up in examinations and when they begin further education they are clueless on the topics.

Not to non-catholics and to an increasing number of faithful. You do not call anyone disordered (It’s generally used in the same context as being mentally disabled here and can be used interchangeably depending on the condition). So when you call a gay man disordered, it is taken that you’re calling them mentally retarded.

Nobody accepts any other definition, they read it as abuse.

I disagree, one girl was forced out from our school a few years ago after it was discovered she had an abortion a few months prior. There was very little love if any held towards her by many of her peers.

Homosexuality is not loved now, it’s expected to be tolerated. This doesn’t mean people are all for necrophiliac rights or that they think it’s cool to have orgies in the changing room.

Any inclination to sin is a disordered inclination. (Note, I do not say that the person with such an inclination is disordered.) It doesn’t sound as though you disagree with the precept to hate the sin but love the sinner, but the failure to practice it.

It may be that no one any longer believes in original sin. Or they believe that if there is such a thing, it has no effect on them personally. Consequently they may believe that there are no disordered inclinations, only different choices. If that’s the case, they seriously misdiagnose the human condition. (“I’m OK, you’re OK.”) Failure to recognize disordered inclinations leads to social chaos. When that reaches an advanced state, civilizations collapse. The Church, as in the past, will have the job of rebuilding.

 

[Brendan]

But the Church does not explicitly describe any of these other things as “objective disorders”. It singles out homosexuality.

Personally, I think that’s a problem that the Church can easily fix without changing doctrine. Just modify the Catechism a little, to mention the other objective disorders.

Which ones can you think of where what the inclinations themselves are ordered towards a false object?

Even in alcoholism, the inclinations are not ordered towards a false moral object, the consumption of alcohol. The alcoholic only sins when then give into the inclinations in excess. While in homosexuality, the object itself is morally wrong.

And, as for abortion, it is an objective evil, but it is not an inclination.

Part of the misunderstanding resides in a lack of understanding by which the Church looks at ‘being ordered’ towards. Very few have the correct Thomistic understanding of the term, and instead see it in the light of how medicine and psychology use the term.

And thus, an objection to the term really IS a catechesis issue.

 

[Sparkleness]

I’m only here because I have to do some research on Catholicisms views on Homosexuality but…Wow, just WOW. You guys don’t just need a reality check, you need some psychiatric help and a lot of it. Were you not hugged enough as children, did the priest hug you too much?

I’m a fag, and I’m in no way disordered. I don’t eye up hot guys because I mistake it for wanting a woman or because I’m some bogeyman and emissary of darkness and sin, I do it because thats just how my brain is programmed to run.

We’re here, we’re queer and it’s about time you all got over it. All it’s going to do is stress you guys out in the long run and as some of you in this thread already admit, it’s a fight you are going to lose. Oh wait, you actually already lost it where I live.

I got nothing against rosary rattling or your masses, go ahead and repent for how awful you are (and some of your comments in this thread have been very rude and awful). Just keep your nose out of our lives and let us get on with them, then we won’t need to protest about you stopping us living ours.

Btw, I’m getting married, thats right married to my boyfreind next week. He has the most adorable daughter from a previous marriage and we’re going to raise her ourselves. <3

Enjoy that image, because there isn’t much time left. Unless you guys back off you won’t be around in fifty years time. You’re just turning your own folks against you now.

 

[Ender]

Ironically it’s not because the Catholic church has taught them it, but because it’s been quoted by various LGBT movements with nothing short of glee in full form along with one particular quote from the now Pope Emeritus, the one describing practicing homosexuals as intrinsically disordered and morally evil.

Here is what was actually said:Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. (Cardinal Ratzinger, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1986)

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
There are several points being made here:

• An inclination to homosexuality is not a sin.
• That inclination is ordered toward an intrinsic evil,
• Therefore the inclination is objectively disordered.

With which of those points do you disagree?

Ender

 

[Ender]

I’m a fag, and I’m in no way disordered

How do you know what is disordered and what is not?

Ender

 

[Sparkleness]

How do you know what is disordered and what is not?

Ender

Basic psychology and genetic research mostly, it’s just something that comes up in all mammals. Scientists have noted creatures with a preference for homosexual acts between 200+ species of mammals, and humans are a mammal as well.

I know there are people who are messed up in the head like pedophiles but we’re not one of those groups. I don’t know why I’m like this but I’ve just never liked girls, I always wanted to find a nice guy and settle down with him for as long as I can remember.

It’s not disordered, it just is regardless as to what church teaching says. The Church has proven it can retract and create new rules when it likes and has messed up in the past; How does the Vatican bank deal with the rules against ursury for example? It was awfully quiet on slavery for the first 1700 years of it’s life as well, and even was in on the trade using them to man the Papal States warships before turning course. I believe it also recently apologized for persecuting Galileo for speaking the truth.

You guys are wrong on this, and the majority of the civilized western world agree with me.

 

[manualman]

Not to non-catholics and to an increasing number of faithful. You do not call anyone disordered (It’s generally used in the same context as being mentally disabled here and can be used interchangeably depending on the condition). So when you call a gay man disordered, it is taken that you’re calling them mentally retarded.

Nobody accepts any other definition, they read it as abuse.

And this is precisely the problem. Everybody is SO deep into the “I’m OK, You’re OK, let’s all hug and be friends” view of the world that nobody is taught about sin and the need for repentance anymore. If you are right that people react that way it’s because the suggestion that ANYBODY has ANY objectively disordered inclinations is offensive. How’s that workin’ out in society? To define as “abusive” the assertion that people are inclined to sin??

Alcoholism runs deep in my family tree. I’m sure glad my folks worked at armoring me against falling into the same patterns of sin and self destruction that are so rampant in our past. I certainly am glad that they haven’t gone for a worldview in which they’d be afraid to warn me against THAT certain inborn inclination that might be inside me with the potential to destroy me. I can’t even comprehend how one would interpret that as “hateful and abusive!” What if they’d been afraid that commenting on the long, sad history of alcoholism in our family would be insulting and abusive to me? It can only be interpreted that way if one sees oneself as “good enough” as-is with no need for repentance or Grace.

The problem isn’t church teaching. It’s that humans are designed to be community creatures and when the community goes off in a sinful direction, most follow. It’s no coincidence that Jesus described people like sheep. We mostly deserve the description.

And by the way, the REASON that there is so much specific discussion in recent years on gay issues is because of the controversy. Nobody is out organizing “wife beater pride” parades. Such sin happens, but nobody seriously asserts that it isn’t sinful. Gay activism gets magisterial attention precisely because there ARE large groups of people taking it seriously. That’s how it always happens: apostolic authority exists to discern truth from error.

 

[Lormar]

Enjoy that image, because there isn’t much time left. Unless you guys back off you won’t be around in fifty years time.

Is this a threat of some kind, Sparkles?

 

[TEPO]

Well, that’s Washington for ya.

 

[Sparkleness]

And this is precisely the problem. Everybody is SO deep into the “I’m OK, You’re OK, let’s all hug and be friends” view of the world that nobody is taught about sin and the need for repentance anymore. If you are right that people react that way it’s because the suggestion that ANYBODY has ANY objectively disordered inclinations is offensive. How’s that workin’ out in society? To define as “abusive” the assertion that people are inclined to sin??

Alcoholism runs deep in my family tree. I’m sure glad my folks worked at armoring me against falling into the same patterns of sin and self destruction that are so rampant in our past. I certainly am glad that they haven’t gone for a worldview in which they’d be afraid to warn me against THAT certain inborn inclination that might be inside me with the potential to destroy me. I can’t even comprehend how one would interpret that as “hateful and abusive!” What if they’d been afraid that commenting on the long, sad history of alcoholism in our family would be insulting and abusive to me? It can only be interpreted that way if one sees oneself as “good enough” as-is with no need for repentance or Grace.

The problem isn’t church teaching. It’s that humans are designed to be community creatures and when the community goes off in a sinful direction, most follow. It’s no coincidence that Jesus described people like sheep. We mostly deserve the description.

And by the way, the REASON that there is so much specific discussion in recent years on gay issues is because of the controversy. Nobody is out organizing “wife beater pride” parades. Such sin happens, but nobody seriously asserts that it isn’t sinful. Gay activism gets magisterial attention precisely because there ARE large groups of people taking it seriously. That’s how it always happens: apostolic authority exists to discern truth from error.

Lets put this argument in reverse. I bet you would be calling for tolerance if it was the gay community going “Nope, sorry lads, no masses for you, why? Because our great queen so! all hail the man in the dress” (and at a pride march that’s a lot of men ).

Alcoholism is not an inclination dude, it’s just a bad habit. You weren’t born craving a bottle of beer the same way I was born wanting another man.

Sin is subjective, and even the oldest Christians can’t agree on it. Just look at the Orthodox guys, they deny purgatory and original sin and they’re just as old as you are!

We only get so much legal attention because the public sees how mean you are and don’t like what you say. If it was the queer state preaching hate against Roman priests you’d be getting all the support.

All I read from this is “Poor me, the State doesn’t only listen to me anymore, PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!!” like an angry older child when another younger one hogs the limelight.

 

[Sparkleness]

Is this a threat of some kind, Sparkles?

No, just a fact. Viewers already told you all that your kids don’t agree with you anymore and the same is true in France.

You keep this up and you’re just going to scare them all away, two or three generations time they’ll have long gone.

 

[TEPO]

Homosexuality is a mental disorder. Like Down syndrome. But worse.