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

  • Thread starter Thread starter WilT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The term Sodomite refering to homosexuals is not Biblical. In the Bible Sodomite meant someone who was from the city of Sodom. There is no Biblical term for what we call homosexuality.
This is only vaguely true but mostly wrong. I am correct in referring the sin of homosexuality as “sodomy”, tho the sins of Sodom also included the oppression of the poor {look that up for yourself} which was the reason for which the city was said to have been destroyed. Sodomy as a sexual act destroying in and of itself.

Yes, the term “Sodomite” is rightly asserted to be Biblical because of its reference to Scripture where the act of aggressive homosexual activity was described.

Good grief does one have to make ALL the connections for you? Merely a modicum of exegesis is sufficient to make this clear.

Or when we refer to “homosexuals” should we demand medical and technical language sure to get us banned from this site?

Yes, “sodomite” is a descriptive and Scripturally correct term.

Tho I might add, it is also very accurate as it avoids the implication that such activity is essential to those who practice it.
 
I’ve seen very few people identify as a nonbinary gender and how are people who identify as nonbinary even relevant to this conversation.

**Does anyone here take this statement as an expression of anything other than obfuscation of the known facts? Of course they do. By definition, if a person associates themselves with same sex relations they are asseritna “3rd Gender”. They don’t fit in One. They don’t fit in Two. They must fit in… Good grief this is getting embarrassing. Can you not count to “3”? **

No, we haven’t had 50 years pf their methodology, we’ve had 50 years of conservatives being incompetent about evangelization and only serving to repel people from the truth.

Wrong again. We had hundreds of years of success driving such action away from the common experience of the public by exactly the action I recommend. As soon as public discourse and weak Catholics and liberals started accepting the activity as a “respectful” class all went down fast as we all know.

What does that even mean?

Read it over slow…it’ll all make sense.

What does that even mean?

Ditto.

Do you call heterosexuals who engage in sodomy sodomites? If not you are only calling a small minority of sodomites sodomites.

Well yeah, that is sin, too, and rightly called sodomy. Sure. What should go out should go in.

Why don’t I ever see people talk that way about fornication and divorce given both are far greater threats to marriage and society? Because it is far easier to rant about the mote in another groups eye than take out the beam out of your own eye.
**
Well then you hang around with too many liberals and sodomites. We are speaking about a specific sin. As for my many others, well, start a thread and I’ll be glad to plead mia culpa. But I WON’T try to force you to bless my sin as righteousness.**
 
Now my good fellows and gals.

In all sincerity, what we all are being asked to do is to accept and “respect” a class of people who want desperately to be known by their sin, to be accepted BECAUSE of their sin, to be received as “special” because of their sin.

Why, we should just as much be respectful of pedophiles as a special class and to grant them special legal status, and to offer the same secure place in society for bank robbers.

Such is absurd.

These homosexualists and their tacit allies among us demand that we receive them, as “brothers” BECAUSE of some dreamy, special status as people for whom norms do not apply.

I would no sooner do that than plead for legal protection for baby rapists.

You know…there are those who have such attractions…

Why…let’s sing their praises too and as Catholics demand they, too be granted sacrosanct social status just as the sodomites do.

Well, you can, and from the sound of it many on this site seem inclined there to do, but this Catholic has no intention of doing so, even if I am alone among you.
 
PS: I see a couple typos in my posts. I am a terrible typist. Sorry. If you are confused, just ask.

Carry on.
 
And not only is she well educated, she also is very passionate about it.
…And wrong. So I guess it is about time she got it right.

But I do appreciate your concern, because those {and their willing Catholic ?] accomplices} who seek to shove the homosexualist agenda down our throats are commonly quite tenacious and committed to their cause.

And this of course goes right to the point of my posts here.

Again, tho, thanks for the headsup.
 
Does anyone here take this statement as an expression of anything other than obfuscation of the known facts? Of course they do. **By definition, if a person associates themselves with same sex relations they are asseritna “3rd Gender”. **They don’t fit in One. They don’t fit in Two. They must fit in… Good grief this is getting embarrassing. Can you not count to “3”?
By what definition is that so?
Wrong again. We had hundreds of years of success driving such action away from the common experience of the public by exactly the action I recommend. As soon as public discourse and weak Catholics and liberals started accepting the activity as a “respectful” class all went down fast as we all know.
Did you know that English sodomy laws were put in for political reasons mostly to steal property from the Church by Henry VIII?

Yes, the Middle Ages was highly effective at suppressing homosexuality which is why men openly wrote love letters to each other professing their undying love, slept in the same beds even when they could afford otherwise, etc. during that period.
Read it over slow…it’ll all make sense.
There are multiple ways that can be read and I was asking for clarification.
All that looks like is pseudointellectual drivel
Well yeah, that is sin, too, and rightly called sodomy. Sure. What should go out should go in.
How often do you call heterosexual sodomites sodomites?
Well then you hang around with too many liberals and sodomites. We are speaking about a specific sin. As for my many others, well, start a thread and I’ll be glad to plead mia culpa. But I WON’T try to force you to bless my sin as righteousness.
Given that most sexual active heterosexuals are sodomites it can be rather hard to not hang around sodomites. Plenty of LGBT people point out the grossly disproportionate amount of effort spent on small fish.

It is “mea culpa” to anyone who has bothered to learn basic Latin sayings.

You also cannot force me to recognize a stellar example of the Dunning-Kruger effect as competent in theology.
…And wrong. So I guess it is about time she got it right.

But I do appreciate your concern, because those {and their willing Catholic ?] accomplices} who seek to shove the homosexualist agenda down our throats are commonly quite tenacious and committed to their cause.

And this of course goes right to the point of my posts here.

Again, tho, thanks for the headsup.
My issue isn’t your conservative viewpoints, my issue is with the fact that your “conservative” viewpoints is that they are both modern and not Catholic in origin. My viewpoints are strongly influenced by Medieval Catholic thought, not Puritanical twaddle masquerading as orthodox Catholicism.
 
Did you know that English sodomy laws were put in for political reasons mostly to steal property from the Church by Henry VIII?
Modern American ultraconservatives who call themselves Catholic seem to conveniently forget that sodomy laws were a predominantly Protestant phenomenon.
 
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”.

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?

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?

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.
 
Modern American ultraconservatives who call themselves Catholic seem to conveniently forget that sodomy laws were a predominantly Protestant phenomenon.
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.
 
What a red herring.

Most modern American laws are. America is a predominantly Protestant culture. Many laws passed since the Revolution can be said in argument to be “predominantly Protestant phenomena”.
Indeed. Most Protestants opposed contraception until the 1930’s. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
 
Indeed. Most Protestants opposed contraception until the 1930’s. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
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.
 
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”.

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?

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?

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 have a question to you:

Why can’t you stay away from straw men?

Neither me nor Joie want to “diminish” or “erase” Catholic teaching. As for myself, I want to represent it accurately, without American-Puritan hogwash added to it. Those here who diminish Catholic teaching are the ones who present Fundamentalist teaching as if it were Catholic.

As to your other post, you really see the fact that sodomy laws were largely nonextistent (and generally not enforced if present) in Catholic countries, while existent and fervently enforced in Protestant countries, as a “red herring”? I think that speaks volumes :rolleyes:
 
I have a question to you:

Why can’t you stay away from straw men?

Because you form your whole position around them, so if I am going to address you at all I have no option but to address the straw men you propose. Your arguments are faked histories and misinterpretations of culture and you resort to bigotry because your arguments are weak.

Neither me nor Joie want to “diminish” or “erase” Catholic teaching. As for myself, I want to represent it accurately, without American-Puritan hogwash added to it. Those here who diminish Catholic teaching are the ones who present Fundamentalist teaching as if it were Catholic.

**I didn’t say you “want” to, I say you ARE. There is a difference. What exactly are your motivations I cannot say, and didn’t. You clearly put forth arguments that if accepted solidify the position of those who seek special protected class status as “homosexuals”. Such an end result is neither Catholic nor even remotely Christian. In Christ there is no Jew or Greek, nor protected class status for homosexuals. In fact, their distortions of sex, deep perversion and attacks on civilization and children deserve nothing more than direct and outright resistance, marginalization and rejection. You on the other hand open your arms to them not as men and women whose eternity is threatened by their own sin and seeking to live in sin, but as “homosexuals”. Your argument leads them to a lie, to self aggrandizement and a delusion that they have some value based on their lifestyle, as opposed to their true value as people in need of the salvation that comes by Jesus Christ alone. You lead people astray from the truth.

At this point it is becoming quite obvious that you have nothing more to add. you have your position. Repeating over and over again “I speak the truth about Church teaching” is easily refuted by Church teaching and 2 thousand years of tradition. Anyone who questions this can simply study current Church teaching which follows suit and make up their own mind. You have ZERO Church documents from the Magesterium to support you “belief” that the Church was soft on homosexuals as a group in the Middle Ages or at any other time. Zilch. Notta. Just bigotry against those who expose your lies. **

As to your other post, you really see the fact that sodomy laws were largely nonexistent (and generally not enforced if present) in Catholic countries, while existent and fervently enforced in Protestant countries, as a “red herring”? I think that speaks volumes.

**
What I find interesting is you really think this is a legitimate argument. What possible need for “sodomy laws” is there when Church teaching is as and was as clear as it is/was? Sodomy laws are necessary in a diverse culture, a culture where no clear standard exists. They are thus appropriate, necessary and effective {if prosecuted} in nations like the USA where diversity of belief and practice exists and where threats to such practice also exist. Where monoculture exists, such laws are less necessary. They are less necessary because the goal is effected in other ways than thru the courts. Tradition and social stigma are much more effective in many cultures, Catholic and otherwise. Where no threat exists, no law is necessary.

If you understood American legal history and the culture of politics in the USA this would be plain as the rainbow flag under which you direct others to march.**
**
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.**
 
C’mon Valdemar. Clearly those guys like Justyn Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Novatian, Cyprian of Carthage, Arnobius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, and Augustine were a bunch of American Puritans. 😃
 
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.
:rolleyes:

I know basic American history, thank you very much. I would also happen to know quite a lot about American Puritanism, the history of how Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism evolved (and was later spread to Europe - I grew up in an Evangelical congregation), and it saddens me to see many of those impulses now having infected the conservative part of the Catholic Church in the United States.

As for “bigotry”, I’m afraid most of my friends and acquaintances would label me Americophile. However, the Puritan tendencies are part of what I don’t love about American culture (together with kindergarden politics and the level of ideologization in many areas of life), and I will speak out against it. Harshly.

I absolutely agree a little reflection on “Church teaching” doesn’t hurt, which is why I took a university degree in Catholic theology (together with philosophy). I highly recommend it.
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.
And there we go, yet another strawman.

I’m sorry, this debate is becoming completely uninteresting, as you seemingly don’t even bother reading my posts. You are therefore hereby ignored.
 
You are therefore hereby ignored.
I understand.

No hard feelings.

You suffered an embarrassing defeat in a debate on a thread topic you likely wanted desperately to win, you have nothing more to say because you know you are wrong and your argument is shallow and weak and tho it might have worked sometimes in the past it ain’t gaining traction here, and you really don’t want to get handed your lunch again.

Under those circumstances I’d be very likely to want no more, too. I don’t blame you one bit.
 
C’mon Valdemar. Clearly those guys like Justyn Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Novatian, Cyprian of Carthage, Arnobius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, and Augustine were a bunch of American Puritans. 😃
Indeed and right on.

Let’s face it, the topic is disgusting, utterly revolting and unnatural, evil and no matter how culturally acceptable they become, reprehensible to any who seek to grow in faith.

It is unpleasant and that is the reason why it is so dangerous that we not let the horror of it all be camouflaged by misplaced doctrine, vague innuendo and minced words. Trying to stay respectful of those who seek to foist acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle on the rest of us is really difficult, I do admit.

Probably at least as bad as it is with those who seek to defend the “sanctity” of divorce and remarriage…
 
I understand.

No hard feelings.

You suffered an embarrassing defeat in a debate on a thread topic you likely wanted desperately to win, you have nothing more to say because you know you are wrong and your argument is shallow and weak and tho it might have worked sometimes in the past it ain’t gaining traction here, and you really don’t want to get handed your lunch again.

Under those circumstances I’d be very likely to want no more, too. I don’t blame you one bit.
:rolleyes: You have entertainment value. I’ll give you that.

(And now you are ignored - to avoid peeking nevertheless, I’ll also unsubscribe from this thread. Goodbye.)
 
MODERATOR NOTICE

Please charitably discuss the issues, not each other
 
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

**In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. **

4. An essential dimension of authentic pastoral care is the identification of causes of confusion regarding the Church’s teaching. One is a new exegesis of Sacred Scripture which claims variously that Scripture has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality, or that it somehow tacitly approves of it, or that all of its moral injunctions are so culture-bound that they are no longer applicable to contemporary life. These views are gravely erroneous and call for particular attention here.

**5. It is quite true that the Biblical literature owes to the different epochs in which it was written a good deal of its varied patterns of thought and expression (Dei Verbum 12). The Church today addresses the Gospel to a world which differs in many ways from ancient days. But the world in which the New Testament was written was already quite diverse from the situation in which the Sacred Scriptures of the Hebrew People had been written or compiled, for example.

What should be noticed is that, in the presence of such remarkable diversity, there is nevertheless a clear consistency within the Scriptures themselves on the moral issue of homosexual behaviour. The Church’s doctrine regarding this issue is thus based, not on isolated phrases for facile theological argument, but on the solid foundation of a constant Biblical testimony. The community of faith today, in unbroken continuity with the Jewish and Christian communities within which the ancient Scriptures were written, continues to be nourished by those same Scriptures and by the Spirit of Truth whose Word they are. It is likewise essential to recognize that the Scriptures are not properly understood when they are interpreted in a way which contradicts the Church’s living Tradition. To be correct, the interpretation of Scripture must be in substantial accord with that Tradition.**

7. The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally.

As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.

Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.


**9. The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. **As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.

**There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.

The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment.**

14. With this in mind, this Congregation wishes to ask the Bishops to be especially cautious of any programmes which may seek to pressure the Church to change her teaching, even while claiming not to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top