E
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
Everyone who speaks the truth is involved, right now, in revamping the morals of society.
God bless,
Ed
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
So it’s laissez faire for you. And you in essence approve of Jennings’ agenda.
I am assuming you are the male parent of your two-year old boy. If I am wrong, my apologies.
I am a mother, so I ask if the mother of your son feels or thinks the same way as what you have expressed in your post.
B
bingbang
Guest
I am the father…and I think the mother feels a similar way though I haven’t actually talked about it directly. I don’t really know what Jennings’ agenda is, though I am sure that your opinion of his agenda is much different than his own.
I think that children should learn about homosexuality early. No reason to hide it from them. They are going to find out about it eventually. I don’t think that children should learn about fisting or explicit sex acts from teachers, but I’m not naive enough to believe that their friends won’t tell them about these things. Unless you totally shelter your kid and not let them leave the house, they are going to see porn, know about depraved sex acts, and possibly even see videos of them. This is the age of the internet and seeing porn is as easy as typing an internet address into the taskbar. I can’t stop it, but I intend to be open about these things so he doesn’t get the wrong idea when he does see these things.
If you don’t mind me asking, how old are you? When I was in middle school the internet was just starting to get big (1998-2000) and my friends and I would see porn on the internet. My dad had it blocked at my house, but not at some of my friends’ houses. And kids that are growing up using the internet from as early as 3 or 4, it will be that much easier for them to see these things. I’m not going to fool myself and think I can shield my son. I just have to instill him with proper morals so that he understands what he is seeing and knows the deal with it.
E
edwest2
Guest
Which is why many parents are home schooling.MarkOMalley, thanks for your thoughtful reply.
That was quite a number of positions fielded in 45 posts following my opening post of seven hours ago when I stepped away from my laptop. I am replying to yours, since it addresses the questions, the concerns I brought up.
It really makes me sad that less and less of the Church’s faithful remain true to her teachings. Men and women, God’s highest creations, made in His image, are occupied with matters of temporal value, not eternal life.
Like you, I am not in favor of the organizations I mentioned in the OP, including Catholics for Equality, because they advocate beliefs and behavior that are sinful.
And this country under the current President is moving decidedly in the direction against the law of God and nature by aligning itself with the homosexual agenda. Obama’s appointment in May 2009 of Kevin Jennings, founder of GLSEN, to the position of Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education, is particularly troubling. He is the “safe schools” czar, a title that could make one have a serious bout of coughing. For those who missed the news about Kevin Jennings around December 2009, see here.
I wonder if the cynics, the cultural Catholics, those who do not find a problem with the homosexual agenda, could think that a person like Kevin Jennings should be in a position of power that our President bestowed on him. As far as I know, he has not been fired.
Another powerful and wealthy homosexual activist is David Bohnett, who has attacked Catholic and Mormon leaders, saying they are among his movement’s greatest adversaries. He and his allies are combating head-on religious organizations opposed to homosexual causes and are taking active measures against them. In addition, mainstream media is very much complicit in the goal by a powerful alliance which will see the day, sooner than later, when homosexuals are able to dictate their wants to have a changed society in accordance with its agenda. Mr. Bohnett praised a New York Times Magazine that ran an article about young people “coming out” as homosexuals in middle school.
I think this militancy is more than evil. Homosexuals are close enough to attaining the license to enter same sex marriage marriage, as one poster mentioned. Whether we like it or not, the ‘non-traditional’ has found its way into civil unions and creation of the family. Must they get in our schools and have control of our young children too?
God help us.
. . . . . .
God bless,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
I did not use the word every.
The New York Times uses the word ‘many’ in reference to gay marriages.
nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html
God bless,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
And you are called to sainthood. Each of us are. Holiness is not optional.
God bless,
Ed
B
bingbang
Guest
People have to let their kids out some time. You can’t shelter kids forever.
B
buffalo
Guest
Is the Catholic Church consistent with natural law?
L
latin_rite
Guest
Being a homosexual is a sin. To lust is just as bad as the actual act.
M
markomalley
Guest
You are wrong. The condition of a person experiencing homosexual tendencies is disordered but is not sinful.
I suggest you prayerfully review the Vatican documents I cited in post #37, above.
CCC 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
CCC 2358
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.
A person who is suffering with constant temptation to perform a sinful act is not acting sinfully by being faced with that temptation. In resisting temptation, he/she is actually acting heroically.
B
bingbang
Guest
Natural law is a garbage moral system.
B
buffalo
Guest
Explain.
B
bingbang
Guest
I just believe that a moral system should be based on how you treat others. Do unto others as you would like them to do to you. That is what moral systems should be based on. Homosexuality doesn’t intrinsically go against that. Morality shouldn’t have anything to do with human nature or nature in general. It should have to do with how you treat others.
B
buffalo
Guest
Are you OK with this?
ARTICLE 1
THE MORAL LAW
1950 The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom. Its biblical meaning can be defined as fatherly instruction, God’s pedagogy. It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from God and his love. It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its promises, worthy of love.
1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. "Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law."2
Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him.3 1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.
1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: "For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified."4
I. THE NATURAL MORAL LAW
1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:
The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.5 1955 The “divine and natural” law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:
Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring.7 The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.8 1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:
For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9 1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.
B
buffalo
Guest
1958 The natural law is *immutable *and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:
Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.11 1959 The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.
1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.
Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.11 1959 The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.
1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.
B
bingbang
Guest
I don’t really agree with that. Not everyone’s conscience is the same. If natural law is written on the hearts of all men, I don’t think that homosexuality can really be part of it. There has been so much variance on what is right and wrong in different societies over the course of history that I don’t think there is any evidence that there is some sort of innate human conscience. I think that the conscience is derived from your upbringing and isn’t something you are born with. And if there IS some sort of universal morality, it stems from empathy…and there is really no empathetical argument against homosexuality.
Either way I still don’t see how homosexuality is against this natural law anyway. I guess the argument is that sex for procreation is good and anything like this act but doesn’t cause procreation is bad.
Apparently natural law is based on logic, but that doesn’t seem that logical to me. What seems logical to me is treating others the way you want to be treated, which is one of the two greatest commandments according to Jesus. That is logical and rational. Dubbing an act good and then saying anything that is “opposed” to this act is bad is not rational at all.
Either way I still don’t see how homosexuality is against this natural law anyway. I guess the argument is that sex for procreation is good and anything like this act but doesn’t cause procreation is bad.
Apparently natural law is based on logic, but that doesn’t seem that logical to me. What seems logical to me is treating others the way you want to be treated, which is one of the two greatest commandments according to Jesus. That is logical and rational. Dubbing an act good and then saying anything that is “opposed” to this act is bad is not rational at all.
B
buffalo
Guest
Two points:
Conscience - If everyone’s conscience is primary then if I in good conscience want to do away with you what is to stop me? I am merely operating on the directives of my own conscience.
We are born with concupiscence and that is why we do not answer the natural law or the complete formation of conscience correctly. But a standard does exist.
True Christian charity demands fraternal correction.
B
bingbang
Guest
I don’t know if a standard exists. It has been fine for thousands of years to treat some people as animals and own them as slaves. If we had an inherent conscience slavery probably wouldn’t have been so widespread.
B
buffalo
Guest
What did slavery look like three thousand years ago? Do you know?
In any case, a human standard is flawed because it is based on power. And what human standard should prevail and why? How does one go about finding the best one? What is it based on? feelings, health, material goods, food?
- Status