We are all catholic. We are all defective

[frobert]

BTW: Is their conclusive scienctific evidence people are born gay?

There is no conclusive evidence that people are born gay but there is less evidence that gays are not born gay.

Science can only say what supporting evidence there is for or is against by providing a level of confidence they have in a particular study. There is much man does not know about genetics and the interaction of genetics and environment.

 

[Nicea325]

There is no conclusive evidence that people are born gay but there is less evidence that gays are not born gay.

Science can only say what supporting evidence there is for or is against by providing a level of confidence they have in a particular study. There is much man does not know about genetics and the interaction of genetics and environment.

I understand,but regardless so many today are trying to justify homosexuality. All the gay pro-advocates want to convey a message that it is “normal” and we should accept. I do not think so!Especially to ordination of openly gay folks. Sorry,but it is an acceptance of relativism.

 

[pablope]

Hey friend!

I must go move snow (everyday thing in ND lol) but I wanted to point out that as an Episcopalian…I am not against Apostolic Succession

but rather authority given to one man.

:

Okay…if it is not the pope…then what alternative do you propose? The Archbishop of Canterury? The Patriach of Constantinople? If none of them…what is the alternative do you propose?

 

[aidanbradypop]

Okay…if it is not the pope…then what alternative do you propose? The Archbishop of Canterury? The Patriach of Constantinople? If none of them…what is the alternative do you propose?

All of them working together for the common good and spreading the Gospel

 

[SteveVH]

There is no conclusive evidence that people are born gay but there is less evidence that gays are not born gay.

Well, if there is no conclusive evidence that people are born gay then how in the world can there be less evidence that people are not born gay? In fact there is evidence that people are not born gay which has been born out in studies of identical twins; exact same DNA, one becomes gay and one does not.

 

[frobert]

Well, if there is no conclusive evidence that people are born gay then how in the world can there be less evidence that people are not born gay? In fact there is evidence that people are not born gay which has been born out in studies of identical twins; exact same DNA, one becomes gay and one does not.

Steve,

there is more evidence for than against because you can’t prove a negative and when studies are undertaken like the twin studies they consistently find that when one twin is gay the other is gay over 50% of the time, which is way way way above the 3-5% average, It is suggestive of a genetic factor even though we don’t know what. There are no twin studies showing that the likelihood is 3-5% as it is in the general population. Is it conclusive NO but it is suggestive. There are 0 studies showing 3-5% rate in any of the sibling studies. Can we conclusively say it is therefore genetic, NO. My educated guess is that predisposition is inherited and is realized when the environment (most likely the fetal environment) is conducive. Will that ever be proved, I don’t imagine that it will in my lifetime and perhaps never.

In my own family I had a great uncle who was gay, an aunt who was lesbian, I have living, a lesbian niece, a gay nephew and a young grandnephew who I think may be gay. Is that conclusive evidence NO, It is a single family so I can’t generalize from it but it certainly makes me wonder.

The exact same DNA in recent twin studies has shown that the DNA is not as exact as previous generations of geneticist though. From Scientific America: Identical Twins’ Genes Are Not Identical Do a search on “how exact is the DNA of identical twin” Will it prove that there is a gay gene, NO but hopefully it will give people here a better understanding of the complexity in genetic research. Nothing is simple in a complex world.

 

[josie_L]

Steve,

there is more evidence for than against because you can’t prove a negative and when studies are undertaken like the twin studies they consistently find that when one twin is gay the other is gay over 50% of the time, which is way way way above the 3-5% average, It is suggestive of a genetic factor even though we don’t know what. There are no twin studies showing that the likelihood is 3-5% as it is in the general population. Is it conclusive NO but it is suggestive. There are 0 studies showing 3-5% rate in any of the sibling studies. Can we conclusively say it is therefore genetic, NO. My educated guess is that predisposition is inherited and is realized when the environment (most likely the fetal environment) is conducive. Will that ever be proved, I don’t imagine that it will in my lifetime and perhaps never.

In my own family I had a great uncle who was gay, an aunt who was lesbian, I have living, a lesbian niece, a gay nephew and a young grandnephew who I think may be gay. Is that conclusive evidence NO, It is a single family so I can’t generalize from it but it certainly makes me wonder.

The exact same DNA in recent twin studies has shown that the DNA is not as exact as previous generations of geneticist though. From Scientific America: Identical Twins’ Genes Are Not Identical Do a search on “how exact is the DNA of identical twin” Will it prove that there is a gay gene, NO but hopefully it will give people here a better understanding of the complexity in genetic research. Nothing is simple in a complex world.

Especially when you see it simply from a genetic point of view, it’s sort of the nature vs. nurture debate, i.e., one should consider the environment, culture . . .etc. when dealing with these issues.

 

[frobert]

Especially when you see it simply from a genetic point of view, it’s sort of the nature vs. nurture debate, i.e., one should consider the environment, culture . . .etc. when dealing with these issues.

Did the reference I linked to clear up the part of identical twin DNA?

 

[SteveVH]

Steve,

there is more evidence for than against because you can’t prove a negative and when studies are undertaken like the twin studies they consistently find that when one twin is gay the other is gay over 50% of the time, which is way way way above the 3-5% average, It is suggestive of a genetic factor even though we don’t know what. There are no twin studies showing that the likelihood is 3-5% as it is in the general population. Is it conclusive NO but it is suggestive. There are 0 studies showing 3-5% rate in any of the sibling studies. Can we conclusively say it is therefore genetic, NO. My educated guess is that predisposition is inherited and is realized when the environment (most likely the fetal environment) is conducive. Will that ever be proved, I don’t imagine that it will in my lifetime and perhaps never.

In my own family I had a great uncle who was gay, an aunt who was lesbian, I have living, a lesbian niece, a gay nephew and a young grandnephew who I think may be gay. Is that conclusive evidence NO, It is a single family so I can’t generalize from it but it certainly makes me wonder.

The exact same DNA in recent twin studies has shown that the DNA is not as exact as previous generations of geneticist though. From Scientific America: Identical Twins’ Genes Are Not Identical Do a search on “how exact is the DNA of identical twin” Will it prove that there is a gay gene, NO but hopefully it will give people here a better understanding of the complexity in genetic research. Nothing is simple in a complex world.

Thanks, frobert. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned it matters not why someone is gay. The Church is silent on that issue, as it should be. Regardless, it recognizes homosexuality as a disordered sexual behavior that violates the natural law. We are taught to love and accept them as we are all people, but we are not called to accept homosexual behavior or relationships as if they were on an equal moral footing with heterosexuality. They are called to chastity as we all are and nothing more is required of a gay person than is required of a single, heterosexual person. They are both to remain abstinent.

 

[josie_L]

Did the reference I linked to clear up the part of identical twin DNA?

When I used the word “you” in my post it wasn’t in the singular or rather directed at you, i.e., I was using it in the plural sense (all those people who believe it is just genetics or mainly genetics). Sorry, for that! I think that the identical twin cases however are still valid in that they share very similar if not identical DNA to bring some insight on the issue of SSA.

p.s. I didn’t realize you had posted a link until you mentioned it. I did read the article. Thanks.

 

[frobert]

When I used the word “you” in my post it wasn’t in the singular or rather directed at you, i.e., I was using it in the plural sense (all those people who believe it is just genetics or mainly genetics). Sorry, for that! I think that the identical twin cases however are still valid in that they share very similar if not identical DNA to bring some insight on the issue of SSA.

p.s. I didn’t realize you had posted a link until you mentioned it. I did read the article. Thanks.

You are very welcome. Since yesterday I thought about two families that I have know for a very long time. In one there are 3 brothers, 2 are gay the other bi. In the other there are 6 brothers, 3 are gay 2 are bi, I don’t about the 6th. I know of several other gay males who told me they have gay brothers.

I still unable to generalize from such a small sample, but it is more to wonder about.

 

[KDamgirl]

We obviously haven’t been led into all truth yet, or development of doctrine would cease.

This is obviously a continuing promise, which will not be consummated until the Second Coming. The Holy Spirit is leading Christians into all truth. Catholics need to do a better job of explaining why formal doctrinal error can’t be part of that journey, just as every other form of error and sin manifestly is.

Edwin

Because the church is Moses. Proclamation of formal doctrines is the role of the prophet because he is the spokesman of the divine. It goes with revelation. Moral perfection does not necessarily accompany the role of the prophet. If the church exists to teach the revelation of God then the church like Moses must be infallible when it does. People must have confidence that Moses is teaching what God said. They don’t need Moses to be a saint. Church can fail in all other ways except the spokesman of the divine.

 

[Contarini]

Okay…if it is not the pope…then what alternative do you propose? The Archbishop of Canterury? The Patriach of Constantinople? If none of them…what is the alternative do you propose?

It’s as if you didn’t actually read what he said. He said that the problem he has is the idea of so much authority in the hands of any one person. Why would you respond by suggesting that he wants to give some other one person this authority? It makes no sense.

I myself don’t think there is an alternative to the papacy. The papacy as instituted by God, the center of communion, is irreplaceable. The papacy as it has developed in the form of an absolute monarchy needs to be taken apart and nothing put in its place.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Says who?

I say so, because it’s obvious. You can of course show historically that a given set of criteria for validity probably have or probably haven’t been met, but you can’t possibly prove by historical means that the criteria are theologically correct in the first place.

Why is it necessary? Why don’t you ask God?

I frequently ask God why other people say silly things. God doesn’t reply. Probably because He wants me to talk to the other people.

So I’m talking to you. Why do you think it’s necessary?

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

Contarini, if it isn’t too personal, have you considered going Eastern Catholic? (Assuming you’re still planning on becoming Catholic of course.) I think there’s a lot you would like about us.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Contarini, if it isn’t too personal, have you considered going Eastern Catholic? (Assuming you’re still planning on becoming Catholic of course.) I think there’s a lot you would like about us.

Do you have something against southern catholic?

 

[Contarini]

Contarini, if it isn’t too personal, have you considered going Eastern Catholic? (Assuming you’re still planning on becoming Catholic of course.) I think there’s a lot you would like about us.

The question presupposes that “Eastern Catholic” is a kind of denomination one can choose within Catholicism. I know that functionally it is, which is to my mind an argument against the unity of the Catholic Church.

One of my most basic ecclesiological convictions is that one should belong to one’s local parish church. Currently I go to an Episcopal parish that is three blocks from my house–both the Catholic parishes in the town, as it happens, are about a block further own (and a couple blocks from each other–also an argument against Catholic unity which I have used in the past).

But yes, I love Eastern Catholicism.

Edwin

 

[phil19034]

The question presupposes that “Eastern Catholic” is a kind of denomination one can choose within Catholicism. I know that functionally it is, which is to my mind an argument against the unity of the Catholic Church.

One of my most basic ecclesiological convictions is that one should belong to one’s local parish church. Currently I go to an Episcopal parish that is three blocks from my house–both the Catholic parishes in the town, as it happens, are about a block further own (and a couple blocks from each other–also an argument against Catholic unity which I have used in the past).

But yes, I love Eastern Catholicism.

Edwin

The different Rites are more like different expressions of the same Faith instead of different beliefs. The beliefs are really fundamentally the same, and expressed differently.

 

[Contarini]

The different Rites are more like different expressions of the same Faith instead of different beliefs. The beliefs are really fundamentally the same, and expressed differently.

Not talking about beliefs (although in fact I could point to many pairs of Protestant denominations that differ theologically a lot less than Roman and Byzantine Catholics do, at least in their typical, traditional expressions). It seems like a basic ecclesiological principle that all baptized Christians living in a particular place ought to gather around the same altar, and that they ought not to segregate themselves based on ethnic or cultural considerations or liturgical preferences, or theological differences either for that matter.

Differing beliefs in one church do not scandalize me. Different churches, existing in competition in one place, professing the same beliefs, do.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Also, there’s a difference between “Rites” and “sui juris churches.” I’m pretty sure that it would be possible to preserve the liturgical integrity of the Eastern Rites without maintaining the ecclesiologically problematic structure of parallel “sui juris churches” in one place.

Ironically, I oppose the “separate but equal” policies currently operative in the Catholic Church with regard to the Eastern Rites precisely because I am, as Peter J surmised, a big fan of Eastern Christianity. Forget worries about “Latinization”–I want the entire Western Church to be Easternized! (Not in the sense of losing our identity altogether, but in the sense of taking on a lot of things that we might think of as “Eastern.” Roman Catholics–in the specific, narrow sense of the word–could start by making Eucharistic Prayer IV the primary one used at Sunday Masses!)