There will be those who lead a life of prayer and never rid themselves of SSA. They can still be living chaste lives even with this affliction. One need not be 100% heterosexually oriented.
It is if you are a homosexual - or a non-married heterosexual. In those cases it is entirely the same thing.
That’s quite a leap. The Church doesn’t teach that all people are born heterosexual.
I think trying to understand the problems that ordinary people face in their daily lives is all to the credit of the Church and all to the benefit of society.
MikeWM:
the Church gives more than tacit approval of films that show actions and behaviours that do disservice to the dignity of the human person - have a read of this link
www.decentfilms.com/sections/articles/2572
which is a list of 45 films that the Vatican reccomends - films that include scenes of fornication, profanity and violence.
more than tacit approval - positive recommendation. Because stories like these are good for humanity, good for the human soul.
Brokeback Mountain may fit into this category or it may not - point is, the fact that it shows homosexual relationships doesn’t neccessarily rule it out - it may still be “powerful” and valuable.
Only problem with NOR is they criticize just about everybody. I do, however, think they serve a great cause in exposing the homosexual subculture in the church that so many want to pretend either doesn’t exist or isn’t damaging.
Actually, the “faithful” put up with too much. When the souls of families and children are at stake, accepting deceitful teaching is very cruel to these souls.
But it is two men who destory their families becuase of their infidelity is it not? That is my problem with the film-i am supposed to feel sympathy for two guys who hurt their wives and children deeply becuase they couldnt put a teen age affair behind them? If this was about a heterosexual couple cheating on their spouses do you think it would have a bunch of academy award nominations?
nobody’s saying you’re supposed to feel sympathy for them.
I didnt imply antyhing. Neither Piano or Beautiful mind had anything to do with heterosexual adultery . Ill say it again-if this was about a heterosexual couple it would have opened and closed in about two weeks.
To alot of folks, it would be an acquired taste. It is very traditional and Catholic. It doesn’t hold any punches. People who deserve criticism get it…the Bishops for creating the scandal, Republicans for paying lip service to the pro-life cause, and for starting unjust wars (a few examples). They are Catholic first. Catholics with a low tolerance for criticism of Republicans (e.g., neocons) probably wouldn’t like it. And maybe this is overstated, but Liberal Democrats would probably dislike everything about it, except for its criticism of the war…but hey, even they can be right sometimes.
yes they do -they teach we are born in the image and likeness of God and we are all called to be saints. we are born good but have a fallen nature which can lead to homosexuality. if we were born as homosexuals, then we wouldn’t be sinning if we acted on it because we would be acting according to our nature.
I’m not sure we should go down the route of whether homosexuality is ‘natural’ or not and whether that makes it a sin or not. It is a common, and understandable, point of attack by non-Catholics on Catholic teaching on this matter.
He is right though, it is very powerful, wether or not you like it, would we even be talking about it now if it were not so powerful?
Maybe the pope thought of that when he appointed him? Having a raging anti - gay who wouldn’t hear you out isn’t really going to boost the Catholic church’s popularity.
I would think none of these publications are perfect and perhaps have some slight slant in some way. Overall, what I have read from those folks seems good.
\
Once you get past the letters to the editor and the editorial comments its a good magazine. The editors are obsessed with the Iraq war(they oppose it-soldeirs who fight in it are sinners) Ave Marie University(they hate it) and anyone they have crossed swords with in the last 20 years. Last issue they went after Fr Richard Nehaus for comments he madee about them in 1998.
But what to do when a bishop publically endorses a film based on it’s lessons to be learned, while at the same time failing to comment, or offer critque, to the uncontested immoral backdrop in which the primary characters are engaged. The Church does teach that SSA is an intrinsically disordered desire that is a symptom of an underlying psychological disorder. I feel that this is a derelict of duty for a person in his position of influence.
I actually enjoy that part. Typically, they take a position, well thought out IMO, and they don’t back down. Readers attempting to criticize, better use clear logic, or they’ll be shot down…kind of like Simon shooting down singers who can’t sing…brutally honest…but that’s showbiz.