Serious doubts about Church teaching on homosexuality

[Rin]

A return? If you went any further off track we would have to catch a jet to return.

Only if the track started in the 18th-19th century. Not to worry, many Americans think so.

I’m sorry, but I’m pulling out now - being accused of advocating hedonism (which just confirms that you haven’t even attempted to read what I say) kind of marks the low point of this thread.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Well, seems the Church was wrong for 1900 years then.

Rin,

It’s not helpful to portray the situation as if the Church had been promoting same-sex kissing for 1900 years. That’s just false. The truth is much more complicated, as usual.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Only if the track started in the 18th-19th century. Not to worry, many Americans think so.

I’m sorry, but I’m pulling out now - being accused of advocating hedonism (which just confirms that you haven’t even attempted to read what I say) kind of marks the low point of this thread.

No the low point is the tongue down the throat and considered a higher standard. But hey opinions are like pennies right? But I still like you. Maybe a hug?

 

[Rin]

You are promoting falsehood as Church teaching and think you should be protected from challenge.

Threads like these anger me, not because people disagree with me (I’m used to that, from “both sides”)

No, I don’t think I should be protected from challenge.

Again, no, I don’t think I should be protected from challenge.

But I do however think I deserve that people read what I actually say, respond to what I actually say, and don’t accuse me of doing and saying things that I did not do or say.

The problem is that I have not yet been presented with a challenge.

You are, by the way, now on my ignore list - I have no need for communication with people who use blatant accusations against my personality, against my truthfulness and against my person.

 

[Rau]

I don’t believe you are genuine. Sorry.

I believe you are. We disagree on the meaning of a couple of sentences. You cease to debate the substance and announce your interlocutor is not genuine.

 

[Rin]

Rin,

It’s not helpful to portray the situation as if the Church had been promoting same-sex kissing for 1900 years. That’s just false. The truth is much more complicated, as usual.

My point is that I’m not speaking about same-sex kissing. I’m speaking about romantic friendship, which has had different expressions. Over the long span of 1900 years.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

My point is that I’m not speaking about same-sex kissing. I’m speaking about romantic friendship, which has had different expressions. Over the long span of 1900 years.

But “romantic” friendship doesn’t have that history, either. Intense and committed friendship, yes. But romantic friendship? I don’t think so.

 

[GaryTaylor]

No, I don’t think I should be protected from challenge.

Again, no, I don’t think I should be protected from challenge.

But I do however think I deserve that people read what I actually say, respond to what I actually say, and don’t accuse me of doing and saying things that I did not do or say.

The problem is that I have not yet been presented with a challenge.

You are, by the way, now on my ignore list - I have no need for communication with people who use blatant accusations against my personality, against my truthfulness and against my person.

You may be ignoring everyone you should be listening to. Thats how we are, just cut off all positive ties to ensure the demise.

 

[Rin]

But “romantic” friendship doesn’t have that history, either. Intense and committed friendship, yes. But romantic friendship? I don’t think so.

From what I find in historic sources, it has existed all along - in different rites, different places, at different times, yes, but it has always been there.

 

[Rin]

You may be ignoring everyone you should be listening to. Thats how we are, just cut off all positive ties to ensure the demise.

Demise into what exactly? I’m not in such a relationship, and I have no plans of entering into one anytime soon.

You’re making assumptions.

 

[GaryTaylor]

From what I find in historic sources, it has existed all along - in different rites, different places, at different times, yes, but it has always been there.

Erasmus comes to mind.I think there has been much speculation in regards to his private life though. He’s buried next to a life long friend of his. I don’t disagree like relationships have always existed this is different than a fine point definition of their activities.

If what you are saying is true than we would have plenty of examples today since the thinking would be consistent. We would see Priests and Bishops holding hands and french kissing. And truly this would be the example of the higher standard set.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You’re making assumptions.

You are too.

 

[LongingSoul]

I believe you are. We disagree on the meaning of a couple of sentences. You cease to debate the substance and announce your interlocutor is not genuine.

Attitudes like the one that prefers to believe that the CDF, Card.Ratzinger and the official Papal office make grammatical errors and mistranslate documents, when you can’t fit them to your opinion… leave me suspicious and curiously alert to what motivates that.

 

[Rau]

You may be ignoring everyone you should be listening to. Thats how we are, just cut off all positive ties to ensure the demise.

I didn’t know there was an ignore list! Hopefully it is never needed. Not to deal with people who disagree, or honestly express differing opinions, but people who attack you personally, belittle, hassle, spam, are disingenuous, crude, etc. things which are contrary to a respectful debate. I’d rather not use it all, because even folks who succumb to those errors have worthy things to say much of the time.

 

[Rin]

Erasmus comes to mind.I think there has been much speculation in regards to his private life though. He’s buried next to a life long friend of his. I don’t disagree like relationships have always existed this is different than a fine point definition of their activities.

Okay, this is more like it.

The term “romantic friendship” describes a kind of life-long love of philia and agape between two people (regardless of sex, but it was most commonly between two men or two women), and the expression has changed over time. The specific activities of specific couples are not interesting to me - but kissing was definitely part of many of them. However, the emotional bond, together with the existence of “activities” not generally extended to acquaintances or what we today call “friends”, was more or less constant.

If what you are saying is true than we would have plenty of examples today since the thinking would be consistent. We would see Priests and Bishops holding hands and french kissing.

You will still sometimes see two male close friends showing public display of affection that would make an American shiver in some Catholic countries and areas. You will even still see friends being bonded for life in what could only be described as romance.

However, your assumption that “priests and bishops would still be holding hands” if my claim was true, is false. Cultural influences, good as well as bad, influence Catholic societies. Puritanism, together with Jansenism, did a great job at eradicating many good things from many good cultures. Now the Church did condemn Jansenism (and Puritanism was Protestant anyways), but that doesn’t mean they lost their grasp. Since these things disappeared in the wake of those heresies, not because of action taken by the Church, I can only conclude that its disappearance was not willed by the Church.

 

[Rin]

You are too.

Of course I am, we all are.

However, I do my best to not make gross assumptions about people’s state of life, their intentions or other deeply personal issues. I also do my best to understand the other’s post before I reply, so as to not accuse them of things like promoting hedonism. I am sure I fail regularly, and I’m sure I will fail later, but some of the things I’ve seen written by people in this thread to characterize those of us who defend romantic friendship, are, to be honest, despicable. The fact that “I do too” doesn’t excuse that.

 

[LongingSoul]

Okay, this is more like it.

The term “romantic friendship” describes a kind of life-long love of philia and agape between two people (regardless of sex, but it was most commonly between two men or two women), and the expression has changed over time. The specific activities of specific couples are not interesting to me - but kissing was definitely part of many of them. However, the emotional bond, together with the existence of “activities” not generally extended to acquaintances or what we today call “friends”, was more or less constant.

You will still sometimes see two male close friends showing public display of affection that would make an American shiver in some Catholic countries and areas. You will even still see friends being bonded for life in what could only be described as romance.

However, your assumption that “priests and bishops would still be holding hands” if my claim was true, is false. Cultural influences, good as well as bad, influence Catholic societies. Puritanism, together with Jansenism, did a great job at eradicating many good things from many good cultures. Now the Church did condemn Jansenism (and Puritanism was Protestant anyways), but that doesn’t mean they lost their grasp. Since these things disappeared in the wake of those heresies, not because of action taken by the Church, I can only conclude that its disappearance was not willed by the Church.

The Church does not endorse or promote covenants of the nature of marriage and family in regards to commitment and obligation and exclusivity outside of the strictly natural marriage between a man and a woman. For the unmarried who are not in marriageble relationships, the Church endorses the virtues of disinterested friendship, purity and modesty of the body and a commitment to prayer and fasting in facing the trials of life.

There is no other licit expressions of love than these.

And because I’m on Rins ignore list I can be a silly banana and do some whacky dances … :whacky::extrahappy::dancing::hypno::curtsey:

 

[GaryTaylor]

but kissing was definitely part of many of them. However, the emotional bond, together with the existence of “activities” not generally extended to acquaintances or what we today call “friends”, was more or less constant

.

OK but how do you claim definitely and many with no examples to show definite? You don’t see that as an assumption?

You will still sometimes see two male close friends showing public display of affection that would make an American shiver in some Catholic countries and areas. You will even still see friends being bonded for life in what could only be described as romance.

For example who?

However, your assumption that “priests and bishops would still be holding hands” if my claim was true, is false. Cultural influences, good as well as bad, influence Catholic societies. Puritanism, together with Jansenism, did a great job at eradicating many good things from many good cultures. Now the Church did condemn Jansenism (and Puritanism was Protestant anyways), but that doesn’t mean they lost their grasp. Since these things disappeared in the wake of those heresies, not because of action taken by the Church, I can only conclude that its disappearance was not willed by the Church.

Still if this is the higher standard suggested than why is the standard not observable and abundant. The best teacher is a good example. I don’t see the example, I hear an excuse of why there isn’t an example. Assumption?

 

[Rin]

.

OK but how do you claim definitely and many with no examples to show definite? You don’t see that as an assumption?

SMGS has provided examples when it comes to the practice of kissing.

For example who?

I’ve observed such public display of affection in several countries in Southern Europe.

As to friends being bonded for life in a romance-like way, I wouldn’t really have to go much farther than my hometown. I’m afraid no study was done on them, so I don’t have a link.

Still if this is the higher standard suggested than why is the standard not observable and abundant. The best teacher is a good example. I don’t see the example, I hear an excuse of why there isn’t an example. Assumption?

Fraternal love has always been seen as a higher standard than erotic love in Catholic theology, and celibacy has always (though less so recently) been seen as a higher calling than marriage in Catholic theology. These are not merely assumptions, but rather commonly accepted observations.

Still though, if my statements above were assumptions (which I’ve now pointed out they aren’t), how did they compare to assuming that I’m on the edge of some demise, assuming that I’m advocating hedonism, or in the case of Longing, assuming that I’m (I suspect she meant me and not Rau) not genuine, or don’t want to be challenged (which is absurd - I would not pick out CAF as the place to not be challenged on this…), or untruthful?

What you’re attempting now is called the tu quoque fallacy - and it is always tempting, since it’s always true. But it’s really just a way to divert attention.

 

[LongingSoul]

or in the case of Longing, assuming that I’m (I suspect she meant me and not Rau) not genuine,

I did mean Rau.