Why are there "Gay Pride Parades" ?

[Charlemagne_III]

A lot of Christians are fed up with being told we’re not following Christ unless we twitch the curtains worrying about what the neighbors are doing in private. The NT hardly mentions sex, yet that’s all we keep hearing, as if Christ is some medieval puritan.

Were Christ and St. Paul “twitching the curtains”? Just not your day, is it?

“Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words–go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. I tell you the truth, the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah will be better off than such a town on the judgment day.” Matthew 10:14

“The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” Romans 1:18-32:

I Corinthians 6:9-10 “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Jude: 5-7
“I wish to remind you, although you know all things, that [the] Lord who once saved a people from the land of Egypt later destroyed those who did not believe. The angels too, who did not keep to their own domain but deserted their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains, in gloom, for the judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If you want to argue that it is impossible to have different moral values, then you’ll need to use something less black and white to see if it holds. For example, eating meat or hunting or sex education or gun control etc. if you can show me that all Catholics do or should hold to one particular moral stance on these and other similar matters, then you’ll have a valid point.

You never get all Catholics or all atheists to hold to the same moral stance. That is not the point. The point is that one true moral stance must exist, and that the Church through Christ holds that true moral stance available to the whole world if they are willing to follow it. Obviously, the whole world will never follow it. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t one true moral stance.

 

[Winterwolf00]

You never get all Catholics or all atheists to hold to the same moral stance. That is not the point. The point is that one true moral stance must exist, and that the Church through Christ holds that true moral stance available to the whole world if they are willing to follow it. Obviously, the whole world will never follow it. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t one true moral stance.

The current and last Pope hold different moral stances.
So how exactly do you determine the Church’s moral stance?

 

[unstoppable_II]

The current and last Pope hold different moral stances.
…

Defend that statement.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Defend that statement.

Pope Benedict XVI was a rather fundamentalist and conservative Pope while Pope Francis is far more liberal and open-minded then his predecessor.

 

[unstoppable_II]

Pope Benedict XVI was a rather fundamentalist and conservative Pope while Pope Francis is far more liberal and open-minded then his predecessor.

That’s only your opinion.

 

[Winterwolf00]

That’s only your opinion.

If you want to pretend that then it’s your right.

 

[Bradski]

You never get all Catholics or all atheists to hold to the same moral stance. That is not the point. The point is that one true moral stance must exist, and that the Church through Christ holds that true moral stance available to the whole world if they are willing to follow it. Obviously, the whole world will never follow it. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t one true moral stance.

Then if what you are saying is correct, then there is a correct moral stance that the Church though Christ makes available to the whole world in regard to hunting or factory farming or fishing or gun control or watching sport on a Sunday or increasing social security spending or sending work offshore or immigration or…well, you get the idea.

Where do I get guidance on all of these?

You see, the rape cases are easy to deal with. Just pay her old man some silver and we’re sweet (Deuteronomy 22:29). But where is the information about me buying an M16 or eating foie gras?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Pope Benedict XVI was a rather fundamentalist and conservative Pope while Pope Francis is far more liberal and open-minded then his predecessor.

The way they speak to the media does not define their moral stance. Both of them follow all the precepts of the Church.

“He is seen as someone who personally straddles the divide between the liberals and conservatives in the Catholic Church.Francis has supported the social justice ethos of Latin American Catholicism, including a robust defense of the poor.At the same time, he has generally tended to accent growth in personal holiness over efforts for structural reform.He is seen as “unwaveringly orthodox” on matters of sexual morality, staunchly opposing abortion, same-sex marriage, and contraception.” ** Wikipedia**

 

[PRmerger]

The current and last Pope hold different moral stances.
So how exactly do you determine the Church’s moral stance?

It would be helpful if you offered a moral stance from Pope B16, and something that is contrary to that moral stance from Pope Francis.

 

[unstoppable_II]

If you want to pretend that then it’s your right.

If you want to pretend that it’s not, then it’s your right.

 

[ricmat]

People vacillate between calling me an anarchist, a statist, a communist, a fascist, a monarchist, liberal, conservative, reactionary, vanguard.

Am I for burning heretics? No, I merely believe the state has moral recourse to execution when all else fails though I’m perfectly happy if the state bans the death penalty period.

Am I against the nuclear family? The proper family (and the one that reigned supreme prior to the 20th century) is the extended family that is not just the parents, their one boy and one girl, but rather the parents, their children, grandparents are living with their family instead of sent to the concentration camps called retirement homes. Friendships become deep again (modern friendships in Western men tend to be very shallow with the exception of the bonds forged by war). Yes, I am against the degrade form of family life called the “nuclear family”

“Nuclear family” does not preclude what you mention above. The bare minimum nuclear family is a married man and woman. I’ve never heard that it excluded grandparents, etc.

Do I think marriage is overvalued? Yes, I think the belief that everyone should marry is absolutely absurd, it degrades the celibate life which according to the Bible, Church Fathers and Church teaching (including council pronouncements) is at least as good as marriage, if not higher for the married person keeps their thoughts on their family whereas the celibate person can more fully devote themself to God. This overvaluing of marriage has contributed to the priest shortage and in some ways has damaged marriage as once people are married they gradually become dissatisfied for they find the fantastic life they imaged is fantasy not reality.

Yes.

I don’t know where you are from. But in the US, the big problem is undervaluing marriage. Almost no one gets married anymore, and when they do, it’s way too late (perhaps so the kids can participate in the wedding).

The shortage of priests is not due to an overvaluing of marriage (since so few get married), but rather an undervaluing of the priesthood.

And of course, the Church values celibacy. As can be seen in the link in one of my prior posts.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12498499&postcount=196

As for people becoming dissatisfied in marriage…marriage involves making a commitment “till death do us part” and there is always an element of risk. No one knows exactly what the future holds, but we make the marriage commitment anyway. Suggesting that people hold marriage in lower regard so that they aren’t disappointed later on seems to me to be the wrong answer. Yes, there may be periods where the reality doesn’t quite meet the expectation, but I can say at least that my wife and I love each other much more than we did when we married 36 years ago. And our current reality is that it’s much more than I ever expected, and much more than I deserve.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Where do I get guidance on all of these?

The Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

But don’t look for moral guidance on hunting and fishing and football. There are some things we ought to be able to figure out on our own, like which shoe goes on which foot, or which food is better for us than other foods.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yes, there are moral issues that conflict with traditional values. Obviously, admonishing people does not work. The challenge is how do we effectively share our message.

Obviously, admonishing people sometimes does work, just as effectively sharing our message sometimes does not work.

The death of moral outrage often enough signals the birth of general moral turpitude.

It was because the Germans were not outraged with Hitler that he led them into hell for twelve years.

It was because the world was outraged with Hitler that his hell finally consumed him.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Obviously, admonishing people sometimes does work, just as effectively sharing our message sometimes does not work.

The death of moral outrage often enough signals the birth of general moral turpitude.

It was because the Germans were not outraged with Hitler that he led them into hell for twelve years.

It was because the world was outraged with Hitler that his hell finally consumed him.

Except that there is moral outrage in our society, it’s just that nowadays it’s on behalf of liberalism and secularism.

 

[PRmerger]

Then if what you are saying is correct, then there is a correct moral stance that the Church though Christ makes available to the whole world in regard to hunting or factory farming or fishing or gun control or watching sport on a Sunday or increasing social security spending or sending work offshore or immigration or…well, you get the idea.

Where do I get guidance on all of these?

You see, the rape cases are easy to deal with. Just pay her old man some silver and we’re sweet (Deuteronomy 22:29). But where is the information about me buying an M16 or eating foie gras?

Catholics do not get their guidance on morality from the Bible.

Our guidance comes from the Church, which received the faith, once and for all, from the Apostles.

And the magisterium gives us principles to guide us, but does not govern the minutiae of our moral lives.

 

[PRmerger]

That is a very weak argument for saying that there is only one moral value in all circumstances. Which is the point Zee was arguing against.

Could you cite the post where Hee argued against “only one moral value in all circumstances”?

'Cause if that what Hee was arguing against, we’d be on the same side. I don’t believe there is “only one moral value in all circumstances”.

What I thought I was responding to was this comment made by Hee:

This is where the problem starts to emerge. What you consider morally repugnant may or may NOT coincide what other people consider as such. Nevertheless, I consider it fine to voice your reservations and your wish to help someone whom you “believe” is in error. However, as soon as you get a rejection, you should stop.

It appeared to me that Hee was saying that there are no moral absolutes. He may consider something morally repugnant (let’s say…raping someone), but if the actor doesn’t view it as morally repugnant, what is Hee to do?

What say you, Hee?

 

[Bradski]

The Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

But don’t look for moral guidance on hunting and fishing and football. There are some things we ought to be able to figure out on our own, like which shoe goes on which foot, or which food is better for us than other foods.

But whether we should kill animals for sport or food or in what conditions we should keep them if we do decide to kill them are moral questions. It’s pretty obvious which boot goes on which foot but it’s not obvious to me if we should eat veal. Do you eat veal? Don’t you think that whether we should kill calves to obtain tender meat is a moral question? Whether we should farm any animal is a moral question. What sort of animals we could eat is another.

And is any particular answer to any of those moral questions (and a gazillion more not covered by the Catechism or mentioned at all in scripture or debated by theologians or discussed in church) the only correct answer? This is what you have specifically said, that…

…one true moral stance must exist, and that the Church through Christ holds that true moral stance available to the whole world if they are willing to follow it.

That is patently not true. Especially in light of your statement that ‘there are some things we ought to be able to figure out on our own’. Which seems to be an incredibly difficult point for me to get across, although you do seem to have grasped it.

Let me be quite clear. There are things that you and I and every other reasonable person on God’s little blue planet agree are wrong. Murder, rape, beating puppies, whatever. We know they are wrong because we have an innate sense of empathy so we can feel the pain that others are feeling and sympathise. And if we are anything other than borderline psychopathic we, at the very least, try not to do anything that causes the pain that would be experienced in those examples.

Now correct me if I’m wrong, but beating puppies is not covered by the Catechism. But we still know it’s wrong. You came to that decision by yourself. You didn’t need any help. You didn’t need any guidance. ‘It’s obvious’, you say. And I’m sure you can come up with plenty of reasons why it is. You ought, as you say, to be able to figure that out on your own. It surely cannot come as a surprise that this is what everyone does, including other Catholics.

Now if it says in the Catechism that homosexuality is wrong, then you have to figure out, on your own, whether you think that what they are saying is the truth (or maybe you just follow what it says blindly, but I don’t think, from what I’ve been told, that that’s being a good Catholic). So if you agree with what the Catholic Church says (and I hope to heaven you’ve put some thought into it), then you are a Catholic. If you don’t then you are not. Pretty simple, eh?

Having said that, if you disagree with anything the Church says, it does not mean that you are right and they are wrong. It’s just that all things considered, you have come to a different conclusion. If you decide that there is nothing wrong with contraception for example, that doesn’t mean that the church is wrong. It just means that you are not a Catholic.

And here’s the really, really important bit that you are missing. For everyone else, the Church is not automatically right just because it proclaims on some matter or another. If we have gone through the same process as I hope you did, taking everything into consideration and coming to an honest answer, honestly arrived at, and we find we disagree, then we can say it’s wrong. Not without fear of contradiction, because we expect to be contradicted. But we, certainly me, expect more of an argument than ‘ the church says so’. Or ‘it says in scripture’. If that’s the only reason you agree with the Catholic Church then you don’t have an argument at all because you have put no thought into it whatsoever.

And in regard to homosexuality, it is plain for almost everyone to see that you don’t have any argument other than ‘the Church says so’ or ‘it says in scripture’. Notwithstanding the paucity of any secular argument you are trying on (anal tears?) the large chunk of scripture a few posts back is an example of that.

It would be a lot quicker and less time consuming if you either admitted that you personally find homosexuality disgusting and we can all then put it down to a personal aversion or simply said: It’s wrong because God says so’.

He may consider something morally repugnant (let’s say…raping someone), but if the actor doesn’t view it as morally repugnant, what is Hee to do?

Classify the person as a psychopath.

 

[PRmerger]

Classify the person as a psychopath.

Indeed. A person devoid of moral values.

This is decidedly in opposition to what Hee professed: “What you consider morally repugnant may or may NOT coincide what other people consider as such.”

Hee would not be able to classify any person as a psychopath. Only as a person who views things differently than he does. Kind of like, “I like turnips. He likes mushrooms. Who am I to say that turnips are better than mushrooms!”

Hee can only do this, when someone says, “What you consider morally repugnant (rape) happens to not coincide with what I consider morally repugnant”

 

[edwest2]

Obviously, admonishing people sometimes does work, just as effectively sharing our message sometimes does not work.

The death of moral outrage often enough signals the birth of general moral turpitude.

It was because the Germans were not outraged with Hitler that he led them into hell for twelve years.

It was because the world was outraged with Hitler that his hell finally consumed him.

If I may, the Hitler reference as regards the German people is not historically accurate. The world, meaning those in the intelligence community, knew exactly what Hitler was up to, as did certain people in positions of power. The German propaganda apparatus was quite effective.

Please continue.

Ed