T
Thorolfr
Guest
Some people in this forum have no problem calling LGB people “sodomites” even after it has been pointed out to them that most LGB people would find this term offensive.
- Status
M
Mark86
Guest
Thank God too. It’s wonderful what they’re doing and I pray for the bishops and our Holy Father, because they stand to reverse so much 20th century Catechetical error and outright undoctrinal bigotry in the years to come, it’s not even funny. They won’t have to “change” a lick of Doctrine in order to do it, because that’s the thing… the Doctrine never called for the complete abandonment of homosexuals that many within the Church still popularize and proliferate, even on this board. In fact, many Cold-War-era individuals within the Church may get a chance to read Doctrine for the first time in their lives through the Church’s new evangelistic tools… and all that homophobia that was instilled into them as a part of the fear-mongering nuclear-era culture will be abandoned and finally the eternal message of Christ will be available once again. Many gays who left the Church because of its hypocrisy and abuse will return after hearing a positive message from the Church for a change… and thus a reason why it’s called the “GOOD News”…
“Gay persons! Don’t believe what you’ve heard! Christ loves you. Christ has always loved you. Believe that! And come to his table of plenty!” … We won’t lynch you anymore like they did in the past, nor will we look at you with suspicion and condescension like in times of old… we won’t condemn you or hit you like they used to do… They were wrong, but Christ was right! You are loved! Why not come and sing with us? We need your voice! We need your love for God and neighbor! Come and see!"
The Gospel for the Homosexuals in the 21st century Church…
otherwise known as “we won’t hurt you anymore.”
R
Rau
Guest
Can you say what specific catechetical error do you refer to? Is this a reference to something formal / written?
What is the nature of the homophobia to which you refer? Instilled by whom? I’m in my 50s and never encountered anything vaguely like this. In my experience, some with the strongest negative reaction to gay people have formed their position entirely on their own. They weren’t taught to be homophobic, they failed sufficiently to learn love and tolerance.
Do you have an inkling of the nature of that message?
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I’d agree. There are many words that have become tainted by past usages of dehumanizing one group or another. While it’s possible to use these words with benign intent there may be too much baggage associated with the words for some one in the affected group to be able to receive them from anyone outside their group without questioning whether or not they were motivated by malice.
P
PRmerger
Guest
How about these?
“What’s a 5 letter word for someone who sticks his tongue in an electrical outlet?”
M-O-R-O-N?
“What do you call someone who’s over the 85 percentile on his Body Mass Index?”
T-U-B- O’-L-A-R-D?
Ummm…there’s lots of pejoratives we can use to describe folks who fail to be who we were made to be.
If anyone uses them here I report him.
What’s your point?
P
PRmerger
Guest
You do realize that the Church speaks of **all of us **as having desires which are DISORDERED, yes?
The term is not reserved for only homosexuals.
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=disorder&xsubmit=Search&s=SS
P
PRmerger
Guest
I doubt you could offer even 5 Catholic posters here who haven’t been banned who have called homosexuals perverts.
Show me.
R
Rau
Guest
It is not so much that the word is tainted. The theological concept and the medical concept are both “proper”. That the same word can refer to either, according to context, is just a source of confusion that is unhelpful, particularly when the unintended meaning may cause offence.
It is straightforward to write the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, and say the exact same thing, without using the word(s) in question.
R
Rau
Guest
Certainly nothing I know of would impede the Church from such a stance.
They are somewhat mixed, in that 2 baptised persons marrying before a State representative enjoy a sacramental marriage! [Technically, if a Catholic is involved, the Bishop’s permission is required to marry other than before a Priest.] The sacrament is administered by the couple to each other. As for the dual role the catholic priest takes - it is simply efficient for the State and for the couple if the Church minister does so.
I think you are overreaching on the extent to which they are actually unique, noting the Church’s recognition of marriages unconnected with the Church. If the trend you suggest caught on, then should the marriage of all religions be seen as “set apart” from the world? To what end? The debate on this thread is not that Catholic marriages are unique and special, but rather it is about the nature of marriage.
So would it not be better to have a purpose-built legal framework for those not eligible to marry? Or alternatively, the State could abandon the notion of Marriage (after all, it is the one that wishes a change), and issue civil union certificates to all!
As far as I am aware, the State-witnessed Marriage of 2 atheists is a real Marriage as far as the Church is concerned. The State-witnessed marriage of baptised persons is sacramental.
A lot of change would be necessary to bring about what you suggest.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
‘Not eligible’ according to you, or according to the State?
Since the word “marriage” comes from the State, not the Catholic Church, why should the State be the one to abandon the word “marriage” rather than Catholics? Especially as (conservative) Catholics are the ones unwilling to share the term?
R
Rau
Guest
The word - the concept- has been shared for a very long time. The partnership is now being abandoned by the State.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Yes, I do realize that. But I am speaking on why someone else might find the use of the term disagreeable. Because of the history of abusive usage of the word “disorder” my suggestion is to invoke the concept using some other phrase.
There are many other words that while not reserved for a specific negative use are probably best avoided in some context or situations.
For example, I’ve seen the word “boy” both used to refer to a male younger than the speaker and as a term of disrespect. A well meaning person may lower the chances of being unintentionally offensive using another term like “make” or “young[er] man.”
D
DrTaffy
Guest
That ‘partnership’ was imposed by force, under threat of death, by the Christian Roman Emperors. That changes neither the fact that you did not originate the term, but appropriated it from the State, nor the fact that you are the ones unwilling to share it.
So why should the State, not you, change the word it uses if you are unwilling to share the word coined by the State?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yoooooo Hooooooo…Dr. Taffy???I think my record speaks for itself.
No infractions. Never been banned. Never been suspended.
27,000 posts.
Pretty good record I’d say.
What about you?
Helloooooooooooooo???
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed.
“Disordered” is not one of them, IMHO. Especially since it applies to every single human person in the history of creation (save for 2
)A judicious use of one’s words is always warranted, however.
M
Mark86
Guest
If it’s not a process that needs to happen, it may be “efficient” but this process is causing a lot of confusion (especially among seculars) about where the boundaries of Sacramental and legal marriage are, especially during this time where “gay marriage” is becoming legalized more and more. I think it would be prudent that the Church do something to delineate the kind of “marriage” that it performs (which is true marriage) from whatever the (current) state has decided to do in the name of “marriage” by recognizing whatever they currently want to call it. The current way of doing things may be easier, but is it prudent for the Church in this day in age of confusion?
I still have a tendency to think that Catholic marriages are truly unique things very different from civil marriage as carried out in our day in age among purely seculars, especially in these times where marriage is being “redefined” whether we like it or not (in the eyes of the state). I honestly think it’s time to delineate more what WE mean by marriage vs. what the world now means by it… and not just delineate, but actually separate. The civil partnership “marriage” the state gives out can be whatever it wants to be, but let’s keep the Sacrament undefiled and separate from that stuff going forward… baptized persons in general are obviously married in the eyes of God, but as for seculars… until they are baptized (and assuming their civil marriages are in conformity to the natural law, if not then no), I’d be skeptical about whether or not they are really married in the eyes of God. If they want to be sure of such a distinction, they should get baptized.
In any case, that’s just my opinion. I think the Church has to do something in the years ahead because times are changing all around us. The Church has had deal with many eventualities that have come down to it from the culture around it, and this would be no different.
Quite frankly I have much more confidence in the Church to separate itself from secular “marriage” than in the state to separate itself from the word “marriage” and pursue pure legalities. I don’t think gays are going to suddenly stop using the word “marriage” to describe their partnerships. I think we have to be the change we want to see in the world.
Yes, it would be, but I think it’s necessary and prudent change that has to happen, considering the times we are living in. If we truly want to stand by our convictions about what marriage really means in these times where we are losing the “culture war” on this issue as the years go by, we may have to engage in some tough love and be more skeptical about whether anyone (who is not baptized) is actually “married” in the eyes of God, in these times, since among those who are now also “civilly married” are homosexual unions and who knows what else is on the way (polygamy…etc.). The minimum requirement for sacramental marriage in these times ought to be Baptism and conformity to the natural law. If those two things aren’t present, I would say they aren’t validly married.
But I am not the Church, that’s just my opinion.
B
Bradski
Guest
And opinion well articulated if I may say so. Lots of sensible comments there.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed.
And it’s up to us to point out to these gays who want to use the term “marriage” to describe their relationship that they have no business using it to describe their situation, while denying, say, best friends, 2 sisters, 2 nuns, a father and son, from describing their relationship as “marriage” as well.
It’s up to us to point out the irrationality of their putative marriages.
F
frobert
Guest
Who is it that you want to convince that same sex marriage is irrational? The definition of marriage is inclusive, any school kid who looks it up in any dictionary will agree. The legal definition of marriage in 35 US states and a growing number of jurisdictions throughout the world is inclusive. The Catholic definition of marriage is the Catholic definition which most people are aware of which is fine.
P
PRmerger
Guest
What is marriage again, in your opinion? What is it for? Why do we have it in your opinion?
Make sure your definition is able to explain why it would logically exclude all sorts of other relationshipa.
- Status