The "Gay Gene": Does it Matter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joe_5859
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
drpmjhess said:
That’s a silly notion – as if recommending a book could “get a soul to hell”! Catholics no longer have to fear the banning of books. Read widely, discuss and critique books, take the good and discard the dross. When the Church listed books on the Index in the Counter-Reformation, it only served to confer a cachet that made them all the more alluring to read.:eek: I daresay you haven’t even looked at the five books I listed from our seminary library, to consider whether there might be some useful insights in them. That’s like rejecting Huckleberry Finn without reading it.
Click to expand...
We do not start our children on books beyond their maturity. The same goes for Catholics. Unless they are well formed and mature in their faith this kind of reading is extremely dangerous to their soul. If they are well formed in their faith they will start reading it and reject the thesis as not consistent with the truth of our faith. If a Catholic that is not as mature should read these materials they just might get the idea that the Church is open to these ideas. That is very harmful.

The second point I would like to make is - I am not impressed with the fact they are in a seminary library. I would daresay by many of your prior posts you have given them validity, which is contrary to our faith. You also claim to be a Catholic theologian, which others should be warned that your ideas do not have authority.
 
buffalo said:
We do not start our children on books beyond their maturity. The same goes for Catholics. Unless they are well formed and mature in their faith this kind of reading is extremely dangerous to their soul. If they are well formed in their faith they will start reading it and reject the thesis as not consistent with the truth of our faith. If a Catholic that is not as mature should read these materials they just might get the idea that the Church is open to these ideas. That is very harmful.

The second point I would like to make is - I am not impressed with the fact they are in a seminary library. I would daresay by many of your prior posts you have given them validity, which is contrary to our faith. You also claim to be a Catholic theologian, which others should be warned that your ideas do not have authority.
Click to expand...
 
buffalo said:
We do not start our children on books beyond their maturity. The same goes for Catholics. Unless they are well formed and mature in their faith this kind of reading is extremely dangerous to their soul. If they are well formed in their faith they will start reading it and reject the thesis as not consistent with the truth of our faith. If a Catholic that is not as mature should read these materials they just might get the idea that the Church is open to these ideas. That is very harmful.

The second point I would like to make is - I am not impressed with the fact they are in a seminary library. I would daresay by many of your prior posts you have given them validity, which is contrary to our faith. You also claim to be a Catholic theologian, which others should be warned that your ideas do not have authority.
Click to expand...
(1) I’m not recommending these books to children.

(2) As a professor I encourage my students (both lay and clerical) to read widely and think critically, not to lapse into the state of being mindless automata following directives from the top.

(3) “Authority” is not something with which I concern myself – I don’t care one whit whether or not I’m looked upon as an godlike “authority.” The shared inquiry method of study that my university finds most conducive to developing mature minds does not posit “authorities” to which we must bow down.

(4) There is a lot of good that comes from Catholic pens, and a lot of nonsense. We need to sift to find the truth. As an example, there is scientific nonsense in Christoph Cardinal Shoenborn’s Chance or Purpose?, as well as some decent theology (a large gathering at the seminary is engaged in theological assessment of it this week).

Read widely, think critically, and search for truth!👍
 
drpmjhess said:
(1) I’m not recommending these books to children.

(2) As a professor I encourage my students (both lay and clerical) to read widely and think critically, not to lapse into the state of being mindless automata following directives from the top.

(3) “Authority” is not something with which I concern myself – I don’t care one whit whether or not I’m looked upon as an godlike “authority.” The shared inquiry method of study that my university finds most conducive to developing mature minds does not posit “authorities” to which we must bow down.

(4) There is a lot of good that comes from Catholic pens, and a lot of nonsense. We need to sift to find the truth. As an example, there is scientific nonsense in Christoph Cardinal Shoenborn’s Chance or Purpose?, as well as some decent theology (a large gathering at the seminary is engaged in theological assessment of it this week).

Read widely, think critically, and search for truth!👍
Click to expand...
Just how well formed are the college age students that you assign these readings to? Does it increase their faith?

It seems that you have an issue with Apostolic authority. Do you believe you can find the truth in a vacuum?
 
buffalo said:
Just how well formed are the college age students that you assign these readings to? Does it increase their faith?

It seems that you have an issue with Apostolic authority. Do you believe you can find the truth in a vacuum?
Click to expand...
(1) What readings are you talking about? I didn’t post any syllabi.

(2) Truth in a vacuum? Of course not. Truth is found dialogically through a great and ongoing conversation, lasting many centuries, between theologians, bishops, philosophers, popes, scientists, artists, mystics, priests and faithful laity. Truth is an asymptote toward which the Church trends. Geocentrism was condemned as a theological error in the seventeenth century; now it is common knowledge, thanks to this great dialogue.
 
buffalo said:
Just how well formed are the college age students that you assign these readings to? Does it increase their faith?

It seems that you have an issue with Apostolic authority. Do you believe you can find the truth in a vacuum?
Click to expand...
Uhm, I don’t believe he teaches in a Catholic seminary. The assignments aren’t supposed to increase their faith. They are supposed to aid them in seeking the truth, small t.
 
PaulinVA said:
Uhm, I don’t believe he teaches in a Catholic seminary. The assignments aren’t supposed to increase their faith. They are supposed to aid them in seeking the truth, small t.
Click to expand...
Yes – Catholic.
 
drpmjhess said:
(1) What readings are you talking about? I didn’t post any syllabi.

(2) Truth in a vacuum? Of course not. Truth is found dialogically through a great and ongoing conversation, lasting many centuries, between theologians, bishops, philosophers, popes, scientists, artists, mystics, priests and faithful laity. Truth is an asymptote toward which the Church trends. Geocentrism was condemned as a theological error in the seventeenth century; now it is common knowledge, thanks to this great dialogue.
Click to expand...
Someone here is missing the point of this thread. God himself has revealed the Divine truth that homosexual acts are not acceptable…ever! God has revealed His truth to His Church. It is not something evolved. The matter of believing in the geocentric universe was a discuss had by man. It was not based on biblical principles. It was a man-made interpretation by scientists based on their limited knowledge. A Catholic priest was persecuted for explaining to the Church that the earth revolved around the sun! Remember his name, professor? God reveals His truth. It is not evolved. To discuss Church evolution digresses from the point. Our Church is the TRUE Church established by Jesus Christ (GOD Himself) on earth. The infallibility of the Pope ex cathedra is one example of Divine Revelation. The Catholic Church CANNOT ERR is matters of morals or faith. God Himself promised that. He is with His Church until the end of time. All that being said, the argument about “mindless” belief and constantly testing the doctrine is borderline heretical. God says to believe Him. I do without question. The bible is here for discussion and testing, but His truths are not. He says His Church cannot err in matters of faith. I believe without question. I know philosophy very well and have studied in the sciences for many years. My nuclear physics degree has helped to solidify my Catholic position. My question to those who are opposing the Churches teachings and who claim to be Catholic is this: Where is your faith? Who do you say that Jesus Christ is?
Try those questions for meditation.
Take care, Pray hard.
Joe 👍
 
Joe_Williams said:
The matter of believing in the geocentric universe was a discuss had by man. It was not based on biblical principles. It was a man-made interpretation by scientists based on their limited knowledge. A Catholic priest was persecuted for explaining to the Church that the earth revolved around the sun! Remember his name, professor?:
Click to expand...
I don’t know what Catholic priest you are talking about who was persecuted by the Church for explaining heliocentrism. Who was that?

Theologians did object to heliocentrism on the basis of the few biblical passages referring to the mobility of the sun (Joshua 10:12–13, Psalms 19:4–6, Ecclesiastes 1:5) or to the stability of the earth (1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalms 93:1, 2 Samuel 22:16, Psalms 104:5, Job 38:4–6). Galileo countered the theologians by arguing that the biblical authors were writing figuratively, and four hundred years later, the Church now agrees with Galileo, admitting that had been both scientifically and theologically wrong.

So what was “truth” for one generation of churchmen is not always truth for later generations. That doesn’t mean, of course, that the church’s opposition to homosexuality will change; what it does mean is that our perception of reality and what is truth does ihn some instances change over time.
 
drpmjhess said:
So what was “truth” for one generation of churchmen is not always truth for later generations. That doesn’t mean, of course, that the church’s opposition to homosexuality will change; what it does mean is that our perception of reality and what is truth does ihn some instances change over time.
Click to expand...
We are discussing apples and oranges. Scientific “truths” are relativistic. Divine truths are absolute. Here we encounter semantics which can be confusing. Whether it was heliocentrism or geocentrism, the Church Truths about faith and salvation have not changed. Scientific truth is not Divine truth. God knows what He did with the universe. It is up to science to discover it. However, God did reveal His truth about salvation. He did give certain powers and graces to His Church. These truths are immutable and have been. Scientific knowledge has evolved greatly in the past few centuries. However, the absolute truths of His Church have not. Divine Truth is immutable and need not be discovered to be known. It is revealed by God as He sees fit.

The next answer is… Copernicus! Kinda cool, huh!!!
“In 1537 King Sigismund of Poland put his name [Copernicus] on the list of four candidates for the vacant episcopal seat of Ermland, mak[ing] it probable that, at least in later life, he had entered the priesthood.” Interesting stuff. 🙂
Take care, pray hard.
Joe 👍
 
Joe_Williams said:
The next answer is… Copernicus! Kinda cool, huh!!!“In 1537 King Sigismund of Poland put his name [Copernicus] on the list of four candidates for the vacant episcopal seat of Ermland, mak[ing] it probable that, at least in later life, he had entered the priesthood.” Interesting stuff. 🙂 Take care, pray hard.
Joe 👍
Click to expand...
Wrong. Copernicus was a lay canon of Frombork Cathedral, never ordained priest. And contrary to your post, he was not persecuted by the Church for his heliocentric views, but died peacefully in bed. In fact, his De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium was handed to him on his deathbed!👍
 
drpmjhess said:
No, you can’t grade truth.
Click to expand...
So you are stating that if a student reads certain materials and comes away with an idea contrary to the Cathlic faith the professor will not grade him or even correct his error?
 
Joe_Williams said:
The next answer is… Copernicus! Kinda cool, huh!!!
“In 1537 King Sigismund of Poland put his name [Copernicus] on the list of four candidates for the vacant episcopal seat of Ermland, mak[ing] it probable that, at least in later life, he had entered the priesthood.” Interesting stuff. 🙂
Take care, pray hard.
Joe 👍
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, it is misleading to point out he was a priest when he was chastized by the church. He became a priest after he published his works on heliocentrism. Oh yeah, one more thing lest we forget… The clergy of the time preached and taught as if the earth were the center of the universe because of man’s interpretation. Clement VII followed science and considered himself knowledgeable. He was mistaken and God, through Copernicus and others like him, set the record straight. Again, the truths of faith are immutable. The so-called truths of science are at best conjecture. Take care my friend, Pray hard.
Joe 👍
 
drpmjhess said:
Wrong. Copernicus was a lay canon of Frombork Cathedral, never ordained priest. And contrary to your post, he was not persecuted by the Church for his heliocentric views, but died peacefully in bed. In fact, his De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium was handed to him on his deathbed!👍
Click to expand...
Some authors would have you believe this to be true. He died a peaceful death, true, but fought hard against the clergy for his heliocentric writings. It was only after Divine intervention that the minority of the clergy and some of the scientific world began to accept his findings as factual. Be careful, my learned friend. Let those who think themselves wise be humbled… For it will be the meek and lowly that bring down the haughty. Take care. Pray hard.
Joe 👍
 
It wouldn’t have been called the “Copernican Revolution” if it was all that peaceful.
 
Hey, just to be precise, Copernicus first wrote to Pope Paul III. It was Clement VII who reigned later in his career. Here is a nice passage to verify the fact that a great opposition was in fact, in place during his life and on his death bed:

The first copy of the “Six Books on the Revolutions of the Celestial Orbits” was handed to him the very day he died. Fortunately for him, he could not see what Osiander had done. This reformer, knowing the attitude of Luther and Melanchthon against the heliocentric system, introduced the word “Hypothesis” on the title page, and without adding his own name, replaced the preface of Copernicus by another strongly contrasting in spirit with that of Copernicus. The preface of Osiander warns the reader not to expect anything certain from astronomy, nor to accept its hypothesis as true, ne stultior ab hac disciplinâ discedat, quam accesserit. The dedication to Pope Paul III was, however, retained, and the text of the work remained intact, as was ascertained later when access was had to the original manuscript, now in the family library of the Counts Nostitz in Prague.
So you see my professor friend, he may have been handed his own work, but he never read it the day he died. I do believe however, that we have unintentionally difressed considerably from the originators intention for this thread. Perhaps we could continue this discussion in another forum. To those we have offended, please forgive us. Thanks for the discussions.
Keep the faith, pray hard.
Joe 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top