Tired of the gay topics

[Bennie_P]

Actually, I’m lucky to have access to three Courage groups and can tell you that they’re not exactly advertised by the parishes where the meetings take place. If a person wants to know about a Courage chapter, they would have to go tot he Courage website and use the contact list on the website. When Courage has advertised, they give the website, not a phone number or parish contact.

That is probably to give those that seek help a sense of anomynity and safety from non-understanding individuals and groups, such as anti-gay and/or gay rights groups that have twisted ideas about persons seeking Christian support and help with their struggle to live chaste lives. Extremist either want to comdemn people for just having certain struggles or, for accepting the Churches teaching on morality. Sort of damned if you do or, damned if you don’t.

Personally I would like to see a combination of support and recovery groups for people with many different types of struggles at the Parish level. Groups such has Courage that give support to those with SSA, and recovery groups that help people deal with other problems and issues, i.e. other sexual issues, drugs, abuse, alcoholism, etc.etc. Groups that have different focus and missions, that come together on a regular bases to share a common bond of support for eachother, to build community and educate the rest of the Church on all variety of issues of hurt and brokeness as they give mutual support while growing holy together. :grouphug: Just a thought.

 

[rlg94086]

That is probably to give those that seek help a sense of anomynity and safety from non-understanding individuals and groups, such as anti-gay and/or gay rights groups that have twisted ideas about persons seeking Christian support and help with their struggle to live chaste lives. Extremist either want to comdemn people for just having certain struggles or, for accepting the Churches teaching on morality. Sort of damned if you do or, damned if you don’t.

Personally I would like to see a combination of support and recovery groups for people with many different types of struggles at the Parish level. Groups such has Courage that give support to those with SSA, and recovery groups that help people deal with other problems and issues, i.e. other sexual issues, drugs, abuse, alcoholism, etc.etc. Groups that have different focus and missions, that come together on a regular bases to share a common bond of support for eachother, to build community and educate the rest of the Church on all variety of issues of hurt and brokeness as they give mutual support while growing holy together. :grouphug: Just a thought.

I agree Bennie P! I think the problem is that these sorts of struggles are generally things that the individual does not want other people to know about because there is shame involved. I’m not against shame - it is a sign of the acknowledgment of a sinful act. However, it is a challenge to ministry. The best you can do is set up groups like Courage and inform the priests and parish offices of the local contact. That way, the priest can give the person confessing a resource to help them.

 

[goofyjim]

I agree Bennie P! I think the problem is that these sorts of struggles are generally things that the individual does not want other people to know about because there is shame involved. I’m not against shame - it is a sign of the acknowledgment of a sinful act. However, it is a challenge to ministry. The best you can do is set up groups like Courage and inform the priests and parish offices of the local contact. That way, the priest can give the person confessing a resource to help them.

There shouldn’t be any shame in same sex attraction. At least that is what every priest I have spoken to has told me.

 

[rlg94086]

There shouldn’t be any shame in same sex attraction. At least that is what every priest I have spoken to has told me.

I didn’t say there should be. The shame is in the sin that comes from it. Are you saying you don’t feel any shame when you sin?

 

[Bennie_P]

There shouldn’t be any shame in same sex attraction. At least that is what every priest I have spoken to has told me.

That’s the idea of support groups is to get over the shame of past actions (sinful beahvior or addictive behavoir) with support from other people. That goes for feeling shame or guilt for just being tempted. The idea is not to continue in the feelings of shame, For shame and guilt for many are triggers to justify acting out on certain feelings or attractions as a form of self-medication (a false way of making oneself feel better for a short time) which would or could result in the feeling of more shame or guilt. The idea is to learn not to feel shame or guilt just because one is tempted. Just saying there shouldn’t be any shame, doesn’t make it so, as if snapping your fingers.:getholy:

 

[Newbie2]

I wonder if the OP is glad they started this thread.

 

[goofyjim]

I didn’t say there should be. The shame is in the sin that comes from it. Are you saying you don’t feel any shame when you sin?

No more than anyone else who sins. We shouldn’t throw an extra guilt trip on anyone beyond that equal to humanity.

 

[goofyjim]

That’s the idea of support groups is to get over the shame of past actions (sinful beahvior or addictive behavoir) with support from other people. That goes for feeling shame or guilt for just being tempted. The idea is not to continue in the feelings of shame, For shame and guilt for many are triggers to justify acting out on certain feelings or attractions as a form of self-medication (a false way of making oneself feel better for a short time) which would or could result in the feeling of more shame or guilt. The idea is to learn not to feel shame or guilt just because one is tempted. Just saying there shouldn’t be any shame, doesn’t make it so, as if snapping your fingers.:getholy:

If you remember, I have not committed the sin. I have only the attraction in which there is no sin. Therefore I have nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Homosexuality has been a “major church issue” since the beginning. It is mentioned by the Apostles in the New Testament.

Not to turn this into something it’s not, but this is one of the reasons why these threads persist–refusal to distinguish between orientation and act.

Homosexuality has not been a major church issue since the beginning, and the Apostles never mentioned such a thing. Our understanding of human sexuality is predicated on 19th century models. The early church had no access to these models. To speak of the early church as having dealt with homosexuality is like saying that Cervantes was a Freudian. Or that Queen Elizabeth was acquainted with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It’s entirely anachronistic.

Homosexual acts are dealt with. And the context in which those acts are mentioned and what exactly is meant when they are mentioned is where there is and has been debate. But homosexuality is not dealt with at all.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[rlg94086]

No more than anyone else who sins. We shouldn’t throw an extra guilt trip on anyone beyond that equal to humanity.

I wasn’t throwing an extra guilt trip on. You just read it that way. I think you are a little hypersensitive in this department. When I said “these sorts of struggles” I was resonding to Bennie P who mentioned “those with SSA, and recovery groups that help people deal with other problems and issues, i.e. other sexual issues, drugs, abuse, alcoholism, etc.etc.”

There aren’t too many people who would want their fellow parishioners knowing that they have a drinking problem, pornography problem, drug abuse problem, etc. I for one was ashamed of my inclination toward sin, and I didn’t share it with the world. I struggled with it in confession and was guided to help by my pastor.

 

[rlg94086]

Grace & Peace!

Not to turn this into something it’s not, but this is one of the reasons why these threads persist–refusal to distinguish between orientation and act.

Homosexuality has not been a major church issue since the beginning, and the Apostles never mentioned such a thing. Our understanding of human sexuality is predicated on 19th century models. The early church had no access to these models. To speak of the early church as having dealt with homosexuality is like saying that Cervantes was a Freudian. Or that Queen Elizabeth was acquainted with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It’s entirely anachronistic.

Homosexual acts are dealt with. And the context in which those acts are mentioned and what exactly is meant when they are mentioned is where there is and has been debate. But homosexuality is not dealt with at all.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

That is utterly ridiculous. Number one, I always distinguish between orientation and act…obviously you haven’t read my posts. Number two, homosexuals were just considered an abomination in the early Church. They didn’t deal with them as we do today, but homosexuality was indeed dealt with. Pre-Christ that dealing would have been stoning. Post-Christ the acts would have been a sin you would need to turn away from, just as other sins. Someone who openly persisted in those sins would not have been accepted as part of the community.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

That is utterly ridiculous. Number one, I always distinguish between orientation and act…obviously you haven’t read my posts.

Okay.

I quoted you in my last post stating that homosexuality (which refers to the orientation) was a major issue. You didn’t write that homosexual acts were a major issue. I denied the first and indicated I would contest the second (“major?”), but you claim that homosexuality in itself was a major issue. And among the Apostles, no less. To my mind, Paul discusses homosexual acts, but makes no specific pastoral provision for dealing with homosexual Christian seekers.

Perhaps by the word “homosexuality” we’re meaning slightly different things. I understand that term to refer to orientation exclusively. By it, do you comprehend acts as well? And if you do, do you see how your use of the word could be confusing given the specificity of the catechism? Or by the term, do you somehow understand homosexual acts exclusively? Or does the word mean what you wish it to mean depending on who you’re talking to?

Number two, homosexuals were just considered an abomination in the early Church. They didn’t deal with them as we do today, but homosexuality was indeed dealt with. Pre-Christ that dealing would have been stoning. Post-Christ the acts would have been a sin you would need to turn away from, just as other sins. Someone who openly persisted in those sins would not have been accepted as part of the community.

Ah, the good old days!

But sarcasm aside, do you see the distinction you’re failing to make (which makes dialogue difficult) and which the catechism emphasizes? You write that homosexuals (making no distinction between homosexuals who are celibate and those who commit homosexual acts) were just considered abominations and were stoned or were asked to turn from their sin. Were all the homosexuals stoned? Or were those who enaged in homosexual acts stoned? Were celibate homosexuals required to repent of a sin they never committed, or were those who engaged in homosexual acts required to repent? Were homosexuality and homosexual acts both sinful in the Old Testament, but not in the New? What shift in the understanding of human sexuality precipitated this change, but more importantly, how could the change have been possible in the first place if the moral law was retained in its enitrety as has often been claimed? You write that “homosexuality was indeed dealt with.” Was homosexuality dealt with, or were homosexual acts dealt with?

I argue that acts were dealt with. You seem to argue that both were dealt with (perhaps this has to do with imprecision re: the term “homosexuality”). This is my argument. And it’s my argument that your imprecision exacerbates threads on homosexuality. You seem to say, “I make a distinction between homosexuality and homosexual acts! Of course I do! Homosexuals are abominations and homosexual acts are bad! What’s the problem?” Do you see where the problem is?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[rlg94086]

Grace & Peace!

Okay.

I quoted you in my last post stating that homosexuality (which refers to the orientation) was a major issue. You didn’t write that homosexual acts were a major issue. I denied the first and indicated I would contest the second (“major?”), but you claim that homosexuality in itself was a major issue. And among the Apostles, no less. To my mind, Paul discusses homosexual acts, but makes no specific pastoral provision for dealing with homosexual Christian seekers.

Perhaps by the word “homosexuality” we’re meaning slightly different things. I understand that term to refer to orientation exclusively. By it, do you comprehend acts as well? And if you do, do you see how your use of the word could be confusing given the specificity of the catechism? Or by the term, do you somehow understand homosexual acts exclusively? Or does the word mean what you wish it to mean depending on who you’re talking to?

Ah, the good old days!

But sarcasm aside, do you see the distinction you’re failing to make (which makes dialogue difficult) and which the catechism emphasizes? You write that homosexuals (making no distinction between homosexuals who are celibate and those who commit homosexual acts) were just considered abominations and were stoned or were asked to turn from their sin. Were all the homosexuals stoned? Or were those who enaged in homosexual acts stoned? Were celibate homosexuals required to repent of a sin they never committed, or were those who engaged in homosexual acts required to repent? Were homosexuality and homosexual acts both sinful in the Old Testament, but not in the New? What shift in the understanding of human sexuality precipitated this change, but more importantly, how could the change have been possible in the first place if the moral law was retained in its enitrety as has often been claimed? You write that “homosexuality was indeed dealt with.” Was homosexuality dealt with, or were homosexual acts dealt with?

I argue that acts were dealt with. You seem to argue that both were dealt with (perhaps this has to do with imprecision re: the term “homosexuality”). This is my argument. And it’s my argument that your imprecision exacerbates threads on homosexuality. You seem to say, “I make a distinction between homosexuality and homosexual acts! Of course I do! Homosexuals are abominations and homosexual acts are bad! What’s the problem?” Do you see where the problem is?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Yes, I see the problem with semantics, and I accept your argument…but it is a boring argument. Indeed, the Early Church doesn’t mention anything about chaste homosexuals; however, it required everyone to be chaste, and there were people with homosexual tendencies who existed. The desire would have been considered wrong, and they would have had to remain celibate. The only difference between then and now, is that the nature of the desire would not have been understood in the same way. As you say, they didn’t have the same understanding of the nature of the problem. However, your argument that homosexuality wasn’t dealt with in the early Church is, as I said, utterly ridiculous.

Someone who was a practicing homosexual would have been treated, as I said, as an abomination. This is evidenced by the writings of early Church Fathers…

catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_on_Homosexuality.asp

 

[Bennie_P]

If you remember, I have not committed the sin. I have only the attraction in which there is no sin. Therefore I have nothing to be ashamed of.

Jim, though I was replying to your post I wasn’t using **you **for an example. but making a general statement which perhaps others could relate too. You are not the only person in the world.

 

[goofyjim]

If everyone were really tired of the gay topics why are so many brought up and why do so many participate when they are? Let’s leave the next one at the original post and ignore it completely. That will show how tired we are of these threads.

 

[Riley259]

Anyone else tired of this subject?

It’s being drilled to us to the teeth in the media, and all this stuff gets endlessly presented here. I’m tired of it. I don’t think many people at this point are likely to be changing their minds anytime soon. . . in fact, the opposite, a backlash, is likely.

I’m feeling “homosexual agenda fatigue”. Anyone else?

I’m afraid it’s a topic that just isn’t going away and the reason for that is because gay activists have a relentless agenda to normalize homosexuality. There’s nothing more that they would want than having faithful Christians finally throw up their hands and say they’re tired of fighting it…they want us to become apathetic about this subject. We live in a culture where the frog is slowly boiling to death in the water and doesn’t know it. If we stop talking about it and fighting the homosexual agenda, then the consequences will be dire. Bottom line: we need to continue to speak the truth no matter what it takes and the Catholic church’s position on this issue is the truth!

 

[goofyjim]

I’m afraid it’s a topic that just isn’t going away and the reason for that is because gay activists have a relentless agenda to normalize homosexuality. There’s nothing more that they would want than having faithful Christians finally throw up their hands and say they’re tired of fighting it…they want us to become apathetic about this subject. We live in a culture where the frog is slowly boiling to death in the water and doesn’t know it. If we stop talking about it and fighting the homosexual agenda, then the consequences will be dire. Bottom line: we need to continue to speak the truth no matter what it takes and the Catholic church’s position on this issue is the truth!

Let’s not forget the extremists on the right who want to do away with anyone who experiences same sex attraction. Just do a little searching on these forums and you will find them. You don’t think they have some strange agenda of their own?

 

[Trader]

We need to keep homosexuality within the greater context of marriage and family. When Paul condemns homosexual acts in First Corinthians, he also condemns adultery and fornication in the very same sentence. Paul deals with all sex acts outside of marriage the same way. He does not teach that homosexual acts are worse than heterosexual acts outside marriage. Be very wary of anyone who says “your sins are worse than my sins.”

Catholic Marriage 101: A valid contract of Christian Marriage requires three elements:

Fidelity
Permanence
Openess to new life.

Both artificial birth control and same sex unions fail to recognize #3. That probably bothers a few people, but they are part of the same violation of natural law.

No temptation is a sin. Only acting on that temptation can be sinful. Sexual attraction is normal to everyone, married or single, even for consecrated religious. How we choose to behave in the presence of temptation is what we will judged on.

 

[Bennie_P]

Let’s not forget the extremists on the right who want to do away with anyone who experiences same sex attraction. Just do a little searching on these forums and you will find them. You don’t think they have some strange agenda of their own?

That is a very extreme observation.
So can you show us a post that advocates “doing away with” anyone who experiences SSA?

What do you mean by the term “do away with.”?

 

[Trader]

Let’s not forget the extremists on the right who want to do away with anyone who experiences same sex attraction. Just do a little searching on these forums and you will find them. You don’t think they have some strange agenda of their own?

Also don’t forget extremists who sought to prosecute a Canadian bishop who spoke against same sex marriage for hate speech, a crime in Canada.

Tolerance is one thing. Demanding that we agree with their position is another.