The Bishops oppose Catholic Universities offering extended benefits to same sex spouses of their employees

[Joie_de_Vivre]

To both the last two members I’d like to ask a simple question;

You both make a clear attempt to diminish if not erase Church teaching on homosexual activity. Just exactly why are you so desperate to protect the status and lifestyle of people who call themselves “homosexuals”.

Neither of us is claiming gay sex is not sinful.

Why do you caricature history in order to convince folks on this site that homosexual relations were just fine in previous centuries of Catholic culture?

I have never claimed gay sex has ever been considered morally acceptable according to the Catholic Church.

Which public bathroom should a homosexual use by the way? Just asking. Or should we scrap the whole thing, save on plumbing and just go unisex?

The males would use the men’s restroom and the females would use the women’s restroom, not that hard to figure out.

So, as you make clear; The Catholic Church throughout its entire history accepted homosexuals and homosexuality until by some grand and devious conspiratorial coup d’etat the Southern Baptist’s wrecked the Church’s graceful teaching with a new and novel view of homosexuality which has been adopted by the knuckle-draggers like me who are polluting the Church.

OK.

Got it.

That is hogwash.

I never remotely claimed that.

What a red herring.

Most modern American laws are. America is a predominantly Protestant culture. **Many or even ALL laws passed since the Revolution could thus by your definition be said in argument to be “predominantly Protestant phenomena”. **

And just because a law is passed by a Protestant legislature doesn’t make it bad. Protestants have passed lots of good law in the USA.

An example being sodomy laws.

She is talking about international standards and the impetus behind their adoption. In England for example it was introduced by Henry VII (mostly to steal the Church’s property).

Exactly.

That exact phrase came to my mind as well.

And you are right about the Protestant doctrines on contraception.

Shall we anticipate from j de v “proof” the Church’s modern position on contraception is an anomaly because that doctrine, too came from Protestants? I mean, I bet she can dredge up a few good old Irish limericks that graphically demonstrate it was practiced on the Catholic Emerald Isle long before Cromwell ruined all their fun.

The Church teaching against contraception is ancient.

**
On this whole issue, you really need to provide yourself with a grasp of basic American history and you definitely need to shed your bigotry. A little reflection on Church teaching wouldn’t hurt, either.

You may dupe some into believing the Church was jolly fine with homosexuality until Jerry Falwell made a Baptist out of John Paul II but I really do not think many believe you. Better put, the only ones that do don’t know much.**

Please learn to not write within quotations and instead learn to break a quote into pieces, it isn’t that hard.

In your own words (i.e. not copy and pasted from a dictionary) define what the word “homosexuality” means
.

At the very least here, let’s remember Catholic teaching on the subject of homosexual attraction and acts. And let us remember also that just because some have favorable feelings toward homosexual activity and those who promote it, that doesn’t mean they are right. In fact, the Church calls them out and is quite clear about how they seek to undermine Church teaching by foisting their false teaching on the uninformed.

From: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

Could you please utilize the quote function on the forum?

Who is saying that gay sex is not sinful?

 

[Valdemar]

Neither of us is claiming gay sex is not sinful.

Look;

Well, I feel for you. Alas, your argument is in a deep hole and you are trying to get it out with a shovel.

Let’s sum it up because you are rambling on and on with nonsense derailed from the topic at hand and now are avoiding the topic itself directly.

You have not presented any documentation from Church teaching that supports you. That’s because you can’t.

You make wild claims and cite “history” without providing any supporting documentation from the Magesterium of the Church to support your case. That’s because you can’t.

You attempt to weaken the Church teaching by making totally unfounded insinuations about Church teaching that are without basis in the Magesterium of the Church and your goal is obviously to alter the perception by the unknowing and uninformed of Catholic Church teaching by pointing to past practices that even if they existed have utterly no bearing on the teaching of the Church. Utterly no bearing at all.

So some possibly-professing Catholics in the Middle Ages supported homosexual acts. So what? So some professing Catholics today support the homosexual lifestyle. So what? So certain governments over time have passed sodomy laws. So what?

Indeed, so what if at some time down the road a Bishop orders a whole diocese to adopt “All The Young Dudes” as a required processional anthem during Gay Pride Month.

So what?

NONE of that has or would have any bearing whatsoever on Catholic teaching about homosexual acts and those who engage in them. None at all.

Catholic teaching on the topic is clear, and nowhere can you find the Church supporting homosexuals as a class in need of special protection under the law as homosexuals. Nowhere does the Church accept sodomy and homosexual living arrangements or lifestyles as norms or as socially acceptable ways of living. Nowhere.

It doesn’t matter how many Churches King Henry VIII desecrated, the Church never favored, supported, ignored or allowed homosexual living, acts or lifestyle.

Your entire thought process and argument here is totally, 100% bankrupt and devoid of meaning and value as fact of Church teaching.

No matter how much you pretend to reflect on “history”, you have an empty set to add to the equation.

It really is that simple.

The Church has bumped into your approach in the past and dealt with it quite succinctly. For those just entering the thread at present, I suggest they not take my word for it, but rather read the document in full. My previous emboldened quote describes what you are doing quite clearly.

Again, here it is;

vatican.va/roman_curia/co…ersons_en.html

PS: As a note to historians. Most who have studied English history are aware of the unleashing of chaos that the schism of King Henry VIII brought to England. A man who had previously been awarded the highest honor the Church could grant {Defender of the Faith} founded an ecclesial group on schism, divorce, murder, theft and anarchy. Indeed, many things were unleashed that heretofore had been controlled under the authority and guidance of the Church. Since no one knows, it is legitimate to suggest that sodomy was just such a social blight that may have been aroused by the breakdown in moral teaching and structure. “And each man did according to what was right in his own eyes” comes to mind.

And we cannot merely lay blame at the feet of Henry for cooking up a new form of evil. The concept of anarchy and novel doctrinal thinking arising from a void of moral teaching is sort of a consistent theme in human history. We can look at the French Revolution. Indeed, closer to home and directly related to the topic at hand, all we need to look at is what happened after Vatican 2 with various excesses and then with the rise of the sodomite movement the Church has been forced to address;

WHAT THE CHURCH HAD NO NEED TO ADDRESS BEFORE WAS ADDRESSED AFTER, WHEN THE NEED AROSE.

{Uh…just like Henry needed to do with sodomy laws when English culture spun off the tracks?}

Well, who cares about Henry.

We are speaking about now and we are speaking about the consistent teaching of the Church and we are speaking about how the Church addresses those issues that demand addressing at various times in history. We needed desperately to address teaching about sodomy and homosexual living arrangements and lifestyle after the rise of the movement in the '70’s, and THE CHURCH DID.

Period.

There really isn’t much more to say.

 

[WilT]

…

There really isn’t much more to say.

Thank you Valdemar for your passionate responses and let it end here. Thanks.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Look;

Well, I feel for you. Alas, your argument is in a deep hole and you are trying to get it out with a shovel.

Let’s sum it up because you are rambling on and on with nonsense derailed from the topic at hand and now are avoiding the topic itself directly.

You have not presented any documentation from Church teaching that supports you. That’s because you can’t.

You make wild claims and cite “history” without providing any supporting documentation from the Magesterium of the Church to support your case. That’s because you can’t.

You attempt to weaken the Church teaching by making totally unfounded insinuations about Church teaching that are without basis in the Magesterium of the Church and your goal is obviously to alter the perception by the unknowing and uninformed of Catholic Church teaching by pointing to past practices that even if they existed have utterly no bearing on the teaching of the Church. Utterly no bearing at all.

If you’d be so kind as to cease engaging in character defamation I’d be much obliged.

So some possibly-professing Catholics in the Middle Ages supported homosexual acts. So what? So some professing Catholics today support the homosexual lifestyle. So what? So certain governments over time have passed sodomy laws. So what?

My exact words were “Same sex love minus sex used to be celebrated.” Carefully note the word “minus” which means I have actually said the opposite of what you are claiming I am saying.

Indeed, so what if at some time down the road a Bishop orders a whole diocese to adopt “All The Young Dudes” as a required processional anthem during Gay Pride Month.

So what?

NONE of that has or would have any bearing whatsoever on Catholic teaching about homosexual acts and those who engage in them. None at all.

Those are also a non sequitur to this conversation in addition to being irrelevant to Catholic teaching.

Catholic teaching on the topic is clear, and nowhere can you find the Church supporting homosexuals as a class in need of special protection under the law as homosexuals. Nowhere does the Church accept sodomy and homosexual living arrangements or lifestyles as norms or as socially acceptable ways of living. Nowhere.

Well then it is a good thing I never claimed any of that.

It doesn’t matter how many Churches King Henry VIII desecrated, the Church never favored, supported, ignored or allowed homosexual living, acts or lifestyle.

The sodomy laws instituted by Henry VIII were a thinly veiled mechanism for him to seize Church assets by accusing nuns and monks of sodomy allowing him to seize monasteries.

Your entire thought process and argument here is totally, 100% bankrupt and devoid of meaning and value as fact of Church teaching.

No matter how much you pretend to reflect on “history”, you have an empty set to add to the equation.

It really is that simple.

More libel.

The Church has bumped into your approach in the past and dealt with it quite succinctly. For those just entering the thread at present, I suggest they not take my word for it, but rather read the document in full. My previous emboldened quote describes what you are doing quite clearly.

Again, here it is;

vatican.va/roman_curia/co…ersons_en.html

I neither have contradicted nor disagree with anything in that document.

PS: As a note to historians. Most who have studied English history are aware of the unleashing of chaos that the schism of King Henry VIII brought to England. A man who had previously been awarded the highest honor the Church could grant {Defender of the Faith} founded an ecclesial group on schism, divorce, murder, theft and anarchy. Indeed, many things were unleashed that heretofore had been controlled under the authority and guidance of the Church. Since no one knows, it is legitimate to suggest that sodomy was just such a social blight that may have been aroused by the breakdown in moral teaching and structure. “And each man did according to what was right in his own eyes” comes to mind.

And we cannot merely lay blame at the feet of Henry for cooking up a new form of evil. The concept of anarchy and novel doctrinal thinking arising from a void of moral teaching is sort of a consistent theme in human history. We can look at the French Revolution. Indeed, closer to home and directly related to the topic at hand, all we need to look at is what happened after Vatican 2 with various excesses and then with the rise of the sodomite movement the Church has been forced to address;

One simply needs to observe how Henry VIII used it to see why he made the law; it was an Anglican equivalent of the persecution of the Templars.

The sodomite movement one, just look at Christopher West and what he claims is acceptable in a marriage.

WHAT THE CHURCH HAD NO NEED TO ADDRESS BEFORE WAS ADDRESSED AFTER, WHEN THE NEED AROSE.

{Uh…just like Henry needed to do with sodomy laws when English culture spun off the tracks?}

Well, who cares about Henry.

We are speaking about now and we are speaking about the consistent teaching of the Church and we are speaking about how the Church addresses those issues that demand addressing at various times in history. We needed desperately to address teaching about sodomy and homosexual living arrangements and lifestyle after the rise of the movement in the '70’s, and THE CHURCH DID.

Period.

There really isn’t much more to say.

The stuff put out until recently was useless pastorally.

 

[Valdemar]

The stuff put out until recently was useless pastorally.

Indeed.

If we were at all confused about your feelings toward the Catholic Church in general, and teaching in specific, we aren’t anymore.

You have set forth your beliefs, agenda and intentions quite clearly, and the documents relevant to the discussion and relevant to your position and methods are easily obtained for those who would like to seek more.

At this point I’ll take the advice of the fellow above. I really don’t think I have anymore to add.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Indeed.

If we were at all confused about your feelings toward the Catholic Church in general, and teaching in specific, we aren’t anymore.

You have set forth your beliefs, agenda and intentions quite clearly, and the documents relevant to the discussion and relevant to your position and methods are easily obtained for those who would like to seek more.

At this point I’ll take the advice of the fellow above. I really don’t think I have anymore to add.

That something states the theological position of the Church doesn’t mean it is useful for priests tending to their flock. The document put out in the last decade have been far more useful for that purpose.

 

[AnnArbor]

Indeed.

If we were at all confused about your feelings toward the Catholic Church in general, and teaching in specific, we aren’t anymore.

You have set forth your beliefs, agenda and intentions quite clearly, and the documents relevant to the discussion and relevant to your position and methods are easily obtained for those who would like to seek more.

At this point I’ll take the advice of the fellow above. I really don’t think I have anymore to add.

It’s almost as if you are not responding to the actual posts made by Joie – her beliefs, agenda, intentions have not contradicted Church teaching.

The Church does call us to a pastoral response – not to name-calling or suggesting that civil laws be enacted to penalize homosexuals.

 

[Scottgun]

It’s almost as if you are not responding to the actual posts made by Joie – her beliefs, agenda, intentions have not contradicted Church teaching.

The Church does call us to a pastoral response – not to name-calling or suggesting that civil laws be enacted to penalize homosexuals.

Read the history. Valdemar has been more than patient.