Senior German Priest Calls Homosexuality a Sickness. A Report

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is settled Church teaching, founded in Divine and natural law, that the only properly ordered sexual activity is between man and woman. This is teaching that must be accepted by Catholics with Catholic and Apostolic faIth.
 
Last edited:
What would be an even interesting article to read, is one by Father Romano Christen, where he is doing more to bring the homosexual community to Church, welcome them, and then also curing them of their "failed psychological development ".

I suspect that is a big fat zero. Because it is far easier to criticize than to actually come up with a workable solution.
Christens circulated a statement on Thursday, saying that he did not mean to unduly criticize members of the gay and lesbian community but was merely reflecting Catholic dogma on the topic
Click to expand...
News Flash, The Entire World, knows the Roman Catholic Church stance and dogma on this topic.
The world no longer needs a reminder on this topic and if you have to go out of your way to say that you didn’t mean to do something, it more than likely reflects that you understand that you did what you did knowing it would cause conflict.

Like saying, No Offense but you are a jerk. Or like saying, Jerks are terrible people because … or / and we believe this because of our dogma, and then saying People with Jerk inclinations deserve respect and must not be degraded. The entire statement that this priest has infected into Catholicism via the seminary wreaks of hypocrisy .

Not to mention the infestation of homosexuals as priests in the Church that has caused generations of harm to the Church doubles down on the hypocrisy. The topic is beyond beating a dead horse . More articles and conversations need to be brought up on either " How to Cure Homosexuality " and be more welcoming and charitable to Homosexuals, that they feel welcomed enough to step into a Church and at the very least be a spectator to see how the Mass is. With out having glares and murmurs from the peanut gallery.

An drum roll.

Let the offended now commence to hitting that flag button and drooling over themselves hoping I pick up a permanent ban.
 
Last edited:
I’m not disputing the “orderedness” of the man-woman thing. We admit that we don’t know why people have homosexual inclinations, but we do know that they’re disordered.
What I want to know is why the man-man thing is somehow among the worst of the worst. And why do we remind ourselves that the sin of homosexual activity cries out to heaven for vengeance, but not that the oppression of the foreigner also cries out to heaven for vengeance?

And yes, I get it that the man-woman thing is “ordered,” and therefore everything else is, by definition, “disordered.”
 
on_the_hill said:
the oppression of the foreigner
Click to expand...
Most people know that’s wrong and it’s not brought up constantly here. There is that worker’s thread so you can mention that there if you want.
 
Last edited:
on_the_hill said:
Let me say this: it’s o.k. for guys to hug upon the death of a loved one (including a comrade-in-arms), and winning or losing a championship game. Fathers and sons are permitted under slightly more expanded circumstances, such as a graduation, etc.
Click to expand...
You’ve got to be kidding.
 
prayerrider said:
Men hugging on such occasions is totally normal. Family members hugging is totally normal. These behaviours among American men have always been acceptable. “Men’s cuddle groups” seem to be a relatively recent ‘development.’
Click to expand...
Well, sure. And I’m pretty sure cuddle groups are as artificial a phenomenon as internet dating. Cuddle groups arise out of the inability for our culture to build contexts and communities. They’re not at all ideal, and they’d probably be pretty weird.

But friends touching each other in reassuring and relatively intimate ways? That’s not strange. Rather, it’s strange and unhealthy that we would even question it.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
You’ve got to be kidding.
Click to expand...
Sort of.
Not entirely. It’s my personal code of conduct. YMMV.
Same as tattoos. The only people who are permitted tattoos are sailors and merchant seamen who have crossed the Equator, and possibly U.S. Marines. Other than that, tattoos should not be worn.
Again, that’s my personal value system.

No one is obligated to live by these, of course, but those who don’t should be prepared for me to judge.
 
OSN said:
and be more welcoming and charitable to Homosexuals, that they feel welcomed enough to step into a Church and at the very least be a spectator to see how the Mass is. With out having glares and murmurs from the peanut gallery.
Click to expand...
I guess Catholic Churches vary from country to country because I never experienced that in my home church. In fact I’ve gotten compassion from the priests at my parish, who help guide me on my walk with Christ while carrying this cross.

You speak of being more welcoming and charitable to homosexuals, what did you have in mind?
OSN said:
that they feel welcomed enough to step into a Church and at the very least be a spectator to see how the Mass is. With out having glares and murmurs from the peanut gallery.
Click to expand...
Also, I don’t think that in this day and age people will be glaring and murmuring at someone who is attracted to the same sex. This of course begs the question, how do they know he/she is attracted to the same sex? Did he/she make an announcement or is he/she in a relationship that the parish community has become aware of?
The truth is there is no reason why people have to make their sexual preferences known to others, unless they are doing so for good reason such as telling someone important in their life, or for evangelizing others about this particular topic (testimonials). There of course could be other reasons, but the bottom line is that it is highly unlikely someone will know you are attracted to the same sex unless you make them aware.
 
OSN said:
more welcoming and charitable to Homosexuals, that they feel welcomed enough to step into a Church and at the very least be a spectator to see how the Mass is. With out having glares and murmurs from the peanut gallery
Click to expand...
I’ve never seen such glares or heard such murmurs. How would any one know someone else at Mass is homosexual unless they’re drawing attention to themselves as such?
 
Last edited:
Just saw this post. I’ll just add, no one needs to know someone else’s sexual attraction. Certainly not a disordered attraction. Unlike James Martin, I definitely don’t want to see a man kissing on his “husband” at Mass.
 
Two men sharing a kiss of peace does not equal a gay man kissing his husband.:roll_eyes:

In many parts of the world, it is not uncommon for men to greet each other with a kiss on the cheek.

This thread is illustrating many issues, first and foremost our unhealthy preoccupation with sex. 😳
 
Last edited:
puppson said:
I’ll just add, no one needs to know someone else’s sexual attraction. Certainly not a disordered attraction.
Click to expand...
Well there are cases where it may be necessary, as I said in my post above. It could be that one may need support in carrying this cross. I know in my experience that by telling some people (not the world) I was able to get more support on some things I was struggling with.
 
He’s refering to something Father Martin said about the kissing.
 
Yes. And I’m guessing he didn’t mean on the cheek.
And he specifically said, “kiss your husband.”
 
Last edited:
I don’t live in many parts of the world. Why would I care what they do? I live in America. Rural America. Gay PDAs aren’t a thing in my parish. Thank God!
 
So, if two men or two woman kissed each other during the sign of peace, you would automatically think they were in a gay relationship?

This is exactly what I mean about an unhealthy obsession with sex/sexuality,especially when it pertains to others’ “sins”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top