Why can't liberal gay activists see that we would leave them alone if they would stop attacking the Catholic Church?

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Deo,

So after reading what you and Karoleck have written am I correct that…

Karoleck is against Same Sex Marriage as I am

You are for Same Sex Marriage…

Is this correct…?

have mercy

Coptic, karoleck and I aren’t arguing about same-sex marriage. To my mind, we’re not really arguing at all. My understanding of our conversation is this: karoleck posted an interesting article and I found what it was saying (and in some ways how it was saying it) curious and worth critiquing. Karoleck appreciated the critique, but wanted to impress on me what he sees as his duty as a Catholic Christian who is a citizen of democratic state which is making decisions which are contrary to the Catholic faith. I appreciated (and appreciate!) his position, but was (and am!) concerned over what our witness to the world looks like if it is characterized principally by a constant cultural warfare.

As you can see, we’re not arguing about whether or not we agree on same-sex marriage. On that front, karoleck is firmly against it, from what I can gather. But you might say that I’m somewhat more ambivalent in that, to me, the state should get out of the marriage business altogether–a state contract (whatever it might be called) cannot determine the nature of a holy sacrament. But, again, same-sex marriage is not exactly what our conversation has been about.

I hope that helps.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Coptic, karoleck and I aren’t arguing about same-sex marriage. To my mind, we’re not really arguing at all. My understanding of our conversation is this: karoleck posted an interesting article and I found what it was saying (and in some ways how it was saying it) curious and worth critiquing. Karoleck appreciated the critique, but wanted to impress on me what he sees as his duty as a Catholic Christian who is a citizen of democratic state which is making decisions which are contrary to the Catholic faith. I appreciated (and appreciate!) his position, but was (and am!) concerned over what our witness to the world looks like if it is characterized principally by a constant cultural warfare.

As you can see, we’re not arguing about whether or not we agree on same-sex marriage. On that front, karoleck is firmly against it, from what I can gather. But you might say that I’m somewhat more ambivalent in that, to me, the state should get out of the marriage business altogether–a state contract (whatever it might be called) cannot determine the nature of a holy sacrament. But, again, same-sex marriage is not exactly what our conversation has been about.

I hope that helps.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Deo,

You have enlightened me and what I saw was this from Karoleck…

The reason that I engage in this debate and have done on other threads dealing with same sex attraction is ,that I believe that The Holy Father Pope Benedict is correct, that the push for same sex “marriage” MUST be defeated.This is the “wars of ideas” that must be won, if Catholics wish to retain the human right to religious freedom(and freedom of conscience).
(every thing is grace ,sure if understood correctly; but as Catholics(including yourself within the fold of a wonderful liturgical tradition) we must also; not only recieve sacramental grace, but to use these free spiritual gifts to turn evil into good within society.)

I don’t believe that I said you were arguing about anything. I just asked a question.

Karoleck and I are against same sex marriage.

You appear not to be against same sex marriage.

Thank you

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

You appear not to be against same sex marriage

I’m against the state defining or determining what marriage is. It is reasonable that the state define or determine contract law. It is *not *reasonable for the state to define or determine a sacrament.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

I’m against the state defining or determining what marriage is. It is reasonable that the state define or determine contract law. It is *not *reasonable for the state to define or determine a sacrament.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Deo,

I understand every word you wrote.

Are you in favor of same sex marriage? Yes or No.

Karoleck and I are not in favor of Same Sex marriage.

In light of your words the question is do you support or are you against Same Sex Marriage?

Help me understand. Yes or No to the question is all I ask.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

In light of your words the question is do you support or are you against Same Sex Marriage?

Help me understand. Yes or No to the question is all I ask.

We think in very different ways, Coptic, and our thinking about this topic is different.

To me, the question is largely moot–how can one be for or against something that is a sacramental impossibility? It’s like asking someone if they’re for or against the use of corn chips at the Eucharist–it’s a silly question, because corn chips are not proper matter; a corn chip Eucharist is no longer Eucharist, so we’re clearly not talking about the Eucharist anymore if we’re talking about corn chips being involved.

Doubtless you’ll take that response as evasive, but I can’t answer your question in the way that you would like without misrepresenting my beliefs; and if I were to misrepresent my beliefs, then whatever my answer, it would be dishonest and, as such, it would be meaningless.

Under the Mercy
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Elizabeth502]

It is *not *reasonable for the state to define or determine a sacrament.!

The State is not defining or determining a sacrament. Civil marriage is not a sacrament.

The State has a legitimate interest in the social structures of the body politic, without which the State would be endangered in its orderly functioning. The State is concerned with the formation of balanced human beings who know how to relate to each other, who have been formed within a moral foundation, and who will therefore be more likely to participate in the common good of society. Traditional marriage is the foundation of family, which is the elemental community by which people learn how to be responsible to each other and practice ordinary virtue, self-restraint, and learn the consequences of one’s actions. The values learned in the traditional family structure promote a healthy society.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Civil marriage is not a sacrament.

Indeed!

The State has a legitimate interest in the social structures of the body politic, without which the State would be endangered in its orderly functioning. The State is concerned with the formation of balanced human beings who know how to relate to each other, who have been formed within a moral foundation, and who will therefore be more likely to participate in the common good of society.

I agree with this in principle, but we’re very far from this in reality–and I think we need to recognize where we are in order to find a clear way forward to where we would like to be. The assumption here seems to be that the “moral foundation” the state supports is Judeo-Christian in nature, but that is not the case–the modern liberal state finds moral absolutes disturbing and antithetical to an relativist ethic of rootless and mindless tolerance, a morality of “offend none and let everyone do whatever they like as long as no one gets hurt…unless that’s precisely what they want.” Moreover, it’s clear that the state is more interested in good consumers than it is in balanced human beings–a person’s value, in terms of the modern liberal state, is reckoned principally in economic terms. The family as the incubator of moral values has been eclipsed by a notion of the family as an economic unit. The common good is primarily an economic value these days. The ethic of the state is entirely dictated by Mammon.

It’s a sad state of affairs. And this may sound counter-intuitive, but what’s needed is not a series of efforts to ameliorate the symptoms of cultural decay and the rise of the Death Culture, but a fundamental shift in the culture’s values and structure toward Life; toward the Good, the True and the Beautiful; toward Love. Key to this will be our witness as Christians to the Gospel–not a political platform!–which embraces an ethic of martyrdom: self-giving for the sake of and love of the Good. Until then, I’m afraid that statements regarding the state’s interest in the common good perceived as a moral value and balanced human beings perceived as true *moral *agents will be merely aspirational.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

We think in very different ways, Coptic, and our thinking about this topic is different.

To me, the question is largely moot–how can one be for or against something that is a sacramental impossibility? It’s like asking someone if they’re for or against the use of corn chips at the Eucharist–it’s a silly question, because corn chips are not proper matter; a corn chip Eucharist is no longer Eucharist, so we’re clearly not talking about the Eucharist anymore if we’re talking about corn chips being involved.

Doubtless you’ll take that response as evasive, but I can’t answer your question in the way that you would like without misrepresenting my beliefs; and if I were to misrepresent my beliefs, then whatever my answer, it would be dishonest and, as such, it would be meaningless.

Under the Mercy
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Deo,

Does anybody have the exact same thoughts? Of course not.

Humor me. Try not to denigrate the question. While you feel it is moot please answer this. What is sacramentally impossible? Explain in simple terms we can both understand.

What is a sacramental impossibility?

I don’t want evasion. Just help me understand, since we think so differently. Do not misrepresent your beliefs, don’t be dishonest…just tell me what you believe and lets go from there.

Honestly tell me what you believe.

Thank you…

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Indeed!

I agree with this in principle, but we’re very far from this in reality–and I think we need to recognize where we are in order to find a clear way forward to where we would like to be. The assumption here seems to be that the “moral foundation” the state supports is Judeo-Christian in nature, but that is not the case–the modern liberal state finds moral absolutes disturbing and antithetical to an relativist ethic of rootless and mindless tolerance, a morality of “offend none and let everyone do whatever they like as long as no one gets hurt…unless that’s precisely what they want.” Moreover, it’s clear that the state is more interested in good consumers than it is in balanced human beings–a person’s value, in terms of the modern liberal state, is reckoned principally in economic terms. The family as the incubator of moral values has been eclipsed by a notion of the family as an economic unit. The common good is primarily an economic value these days. The ethic of the state is entirely dictated by Mammon.

It’s a sad state of affairs. And this may sound counter-intuitive, but what’s needed is not a series of efforts to ameliorate the symptoms of cultural decay and the rise of the Death Culture, but a fundamental shift in the culture’s values and structure toward Life; toward the Good, the True and the Beautiful; toward Love. Key to this will be our witness as Christians to the Gospel–not a political platform!–which embraces an ethic of martyrdom: self-giving for the sake of and love of the Good. Until then, I’m afraid that statements regarding the state’s interest in the common good perceived as a moral value and balanced human beings perceived as true *moral *agents will be merely aspirational.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

I think I understand. You are homosexual. You believe and propagate that marriage between those that love each other is not sacramental but should happen. You dispute Scripture on Homosexuality and believe that it is cultural and is being accepted. You don’t believe you have to be celibate and can act as you are not Catholic. You support the “gay” agenda although you are covert in that support. I think I understand you from excerpts from your posts.

I did not choose my sexuality. I did not worm my way into being homosexual. I did not have a poor relationship with my father, I am not a victim of some strange psychological happenstance that scarred me for life and defaced my otherwise pristine heterosexual orientation. I refuse, then, to see my sexuality as anything other than given to me by God, not as a trial of chastity, but as a gift. I do not believe God doles out random trials to folks for the fun of it. And while I believe in the value of suffering, I do not believe in a God who sanctions pointless suffering or pain for its own sake. God is no sadist. Which is why I cannot believe that homosexuality is a de facto call to celibacy.

With this shift in the understanding of marriage, other people in loving relationships desired to have their relationships crowned by the sacrament–a desire which would not have occurred to our ancestors–love itself was never the sole reason to get married. Now, more often than not, it is.

Equally ridiculous in this day and age is denying the contractual benefits and liabilities of the state contract to loving couples who want to enter into it–particularly if this denial is on religious grounds!

Because, among other things (and particularly in the area of veneral disease) state recognition of gay partnerships would be an incentive to monogamy.

Regarding the long, expensive treatment for AIDS, someone in a state recognized relationship may have recourse to their partner’s health insurance, thus limiting their dependence on state-based healthcare resources.

This is not to say that sexual desire and/or behavior isn’t fluid in some very fascinating ways. But by and large, sexual orientation is not a choice, nor is it the result of high anxiety.

I’ve heard that “gays” consider the sin of the sodomites to be inhospitality.
For real.
It is not so difficult to believe that a band of men intent on raping their neighbor’s guests is grossly inhospitable. Whether or not the guests were men or women is slightly immaterial–would it have been less sinful of them to rape Lot’s daughters instead, as he had suggested? Would Lot have been partly culpable in this case? And does not Lot’s suggestion of his daughters as replacement objects of desire suggest that the mob outside his door were not exclusively (if at all) homosexual?

Regardless, I find your incredulity on this point extremely disingenuous

Avenara, I remain unconvinced that biological utility represents a theological or moral mandate. Or, to put it another way, that physical unity (in the sense of genitals matching up for procreation) in the sexual act has a greater moral value than something more intangible like emotional unity. The criticism that homosexual sex is not “open to life” suggests that procreation is the moral standard, though it appears to define “life” in purely material/biological terms and rejects as of less value such things as intimacy and self-giving. Heterosexual rape appears, then, to have more moral value than consensual homosexual sex.

To you, my cross is my sexuality, which requires of me celibacy as the only faithful response–anything less, to you, is sin, damnation, rejection of God, of Christ, of his church. To me (and given all I’ve written above), my sexuality is not my particular cross (but is part of my “burden” in this life only insofar as all of our lives represent crosses we must bear) and, moreover, does not require celibacy as the only faithful response. It requires responsibility, but not necessarily celibacy.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Try not to denigrate the question.

I’ve not denigrated the question, nor will I…

While you feel it is moot please answer this. What is sacramentally impossible? Explain in simple terms we can both understand.

A sacrament, to be valid, must meet certain standards of form, matter and intent. For the sacrament of marriage, for instance, to be the sacrament of marriage, a couple comprised of a man and a woman constitutes the proper matter. If the couple is not a man and a woman, there is no marriage. The proper matter for the Eucharist is bread (made of wheat) and wine: corn chips and seltzer do not constitute proper matter. You are simply not confecting the Eucharist if you use corn chips and seltzer. You are simply not confecting a marriage if you have two men or two women or a man and a tree or a woman and a Tiffany lamp.

Therefore, arguing about whether one supports or is against same-sex marriage is analogous to arguing about whether one supports or is against the ethical treatment of two-headed unicorns. Unless you’re living in fantasyland, what’s the point?

Now. Regarding your second post:

CopticChristian:

I think I understand.

I’m not sure that you do (more on that later).

CopticChristian:

You are homosexual.

Yup.

CopticChristian:

You believe and propagate that marriage between those that love each other is not sacramental but should happen.

No. It seems that you consistently run into trouble when you try to summarize or “simplify” what other people are saying.

What I’m saying is this: marriage is between a man and a woman. Any other relationship configuration cannot be called marriage. Insofar as the state calls such alternative configurations “marriage” it errs. The state, however, is within its rights when it defines or determines contract law and may choose to bestow the rights and responsibilities of civil “marriage” on any couple it deems worthy as such rights and responsibilities are related to whatever contract the couple are entering into as that contract is defined by the state. The state should refrain from calling such a contract “marriage” however, because marriage is a sacrament, the nature of which is determined by the church.

CopticChristian:

You dispute Scripture on Homosexuality …]

I have disputed certain interpretations of Scripture, yes, but I do not dispute the truth of Scripture. In the present instance, I would argue that Scripture has very little to say regarding homosexuality understood as same-sex attraction and concerns itself more with homosexual acts–an understanding of this forms the basis of the Roman catechism’s statement that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.

CopticChristian:

…]and believe that it is cultural and is being accepted.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. What is it that I believe is cultural and being accepted?

CopticChristian:

You don’t believe you have to be celibate …]

All are called to chastity, but not all to celibacy. That’s an important, though often elided, distinction. The catechism does not state that same-sex attracted people are called to celibacy (as this would mean that they would not be permitted to marry someone of the opposite sex, for instance).

CopticChristian:

…]and can act as you are not Catholic.

“Can act?” To what are you referring? I certainly don’t believe I can do whatever I like. Not being Roman Catholic, however, I am not bound to affirm exactly the same things that Roman Catholics affirm, nor am I bound to affirm such things in the same ways that Roman Catholics may be expected to affirm them. (I am bound by the teachings and canons of the church of which I am a part, however.)

CopticChristian:

You support the “gay” agenda although you are covert in that support.

I support no such agenda, partly because I have no idea what the specific items on this agenda are, partly because I don’t believe that such an “agenda” (particularly as it is understood on these forums) exists, and partly because I don’t have much use for such things as “gay agendas.”

Re: being covert, I am apparently so covert that I was not aware I was being supportive of an agenda or covert in that support in the least. That’s sarcasm, by the way. I think your accusation of covert support is either a function of paranoia, or stems from a penchant for putting things into tidy ideological boxes…regardless of whether or not they quite fit. I’ve a feeling it’s more the latter.

CopticChristian:

I think I understand you from excerpts from your posts.

To be honest, Coptic, I have no idea what it is you understand. And if you think you can truly understand anyone or anything from excerpts, I think you’ll eventually discover that you’re wrong. Reading a few sentences of a novel from a couple random pages doesn’t qualify as having read the novel, and it certainly doesn’t qualify you to speak with any authority on what the novel is about.

Anyway, it’s clear you’re an intelligent guy and understand something–but I don’t know what that something is. Moreover, I’ve yet to be convinced that you’ve quite understood what I’ve written as I’ve intended it to be understood. I’m also not quite sure that you’re interested in understanding what anyone intends to say as opposed to being interested in fitting what others have to say into the series of ideological boxes with which you’re most comfortable. In short…when you say you understand, I honestly have no idea what that understanding might be…

Regarding my previous posts…could you do me the favor of 1) putting those quotations in their proper contexts; 2) being clear re: what you’re quoting of me and what of those with whom I was chatting; 3) letting us know when they were written? Lots can change over the years, including what one thinks, how one thinks it, and how one expresses it. Case in point: I was pro-choice a number of years ago. My thinking on that matter has since changed, however.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

I’ve not denigrated the question, nor will I…

A sacrament, to be valid, must meet certain standards of form, matter and intent. For the sacrament of marriage, for instance, to be the sacrament of marriage, a couple comprised of a man and a woman constitutes the proper matter. If the couple is not a man and a woman, there is no marriage. The proper matter for the Eucharist is bread (made of wheat) and wine: corn chips and seltzer do not constitute proper matter. You are simply not confecting the Eucharist if you use corn chips and seltzer. You are simply not confecting a marriage if you have two men or two women or a man and a tree or a woman and a Tiffany lamp.

Therefore, arguing about whether one supports or is against same-sex marriage is analogous to arguing about whether one supports or is against the ethical treatment of two-headed unicorns. Unless you’re living in fantasyland, what’s the point?

Now. Regarding your second post:

I’m not sure that you do (more on that later).

Yup.

No. It seems that you consistently run into trouble when you try to summarize or “simplify” what other people are saying.

What I’m saying is this: marriage is between a man and a woman. Any other relationship configuration cannot be called marriage. Insofar as the state calls such alternative configurations “marriage” it errs. The state, however, is within its rights when it defines or determines contract law and may choose to bestow the rights and responsibilities of civil “marriage” on any couple it deems worthy as such rights and responsibilities are related to whatever contract the couple are entering into as that contract is defined by the state. The state should refrain from calling such a contract “marriage” however, because marriage is a sacrament, the nature of which is determined by the church.

I have disputed certain interpretations of Scripture, yes, but I do not dispute the truth of Scripture. In the present instance, I would argue that Scripture has very little to say regarding homosexuality understood as same-sex attraction and concerns itself more with homosexual acts–an understanding of this forms the basis of the Roman catechism’s statement that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. What is it that I believe is cultural and being accepted?

All are called to chastity, but not all to celibacy. That’s an important, though often elided, distinction. The catechism does not state that same-sex attracted people are called to celibacy (as this would mean that they would not be permitted to marry someone of the opposite sex, for instance).

“Can act?” To what are you referring? I certainly don’t believe I can do whatever I like. Not being Roman Catholic, however, I am not bound to affirm exactly the same things that Roman Catholics affirm, nor am I bound to affirm such things in the same ways that Roman Catholics may be expected to affirm them. (I am bound by the teachings and canons of the church of which I am a part, however.)

I support no such agenda, partly because I have no idea what the specific items on this agenda are, partly because I don’t believe that such an “agenda” (particularly as it is understood on these forums) exists, and partly because I don’t have much use for such things as “gay agendas.”

Re: being covert, I am apparently so covert that I was not aware I was being supportive of an agenda or covert in that support in the least. That’s sarcasm, by the way. I think your accusation of covert support is either a function of paranoia, or stems from a penchant for putting things into tidy ideological boxes…regardless of whether or not they quite fit. I’ve a feeling it’s more the latter.

To be honest, Coptic, I have no idea what it is you understand. And if you think you can truly understand anyone or anything from excerpts, I think you’ll eventually discover that you’re wrong. Reading a few sentences of a novel from a couple random pages doesn’t qualify as having read the novel, and it certainly doesn’t qualify you to speak with any authority on what the novel is about.

Anyway, it’s clear you’re an intelligent guy and understand something–but I don’t know what that something is. Moreover, I’ve yet to be convinced that you’ve quite understood what I’ve written as I’ve intended it to be understood. I’m also not quite sure that you’re interested in understanding what anyone intends to say as opposed to being interested in fitting what others have to say into the series of ideological boxes with which you’re most comfortable. In short…when you say you understand, I honestly have no idea what that understanding might be…

Regarding my previous posts…could you do me the favor of 1) putting those quotations in their proper contexts; 2) being clear re: what you’re quoting of me and what of those with whom I was chatting; 3) letting us know when they were written? Lots can change over the years, including what one thinks, how one thinks it, and how one expresses it. Case in point: I was pro-choice a number of years ago. My thinking on that matter has since changed, however.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

As a homosexual that differentiates chastity and celibacy then that is your issue. You posted that you see no reason to be celibate. I understand. The OHCAC states this.

"The Church does not deny that those with homosexual tendencies cannot be chaste. It just makes a clear distinction between chastity and celibacy. Christians are called to live sexually chaste lives regardless of any personal tendency or disorder. Celibacy however requires that men renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God

So, as a homosexual, under your Church requirements would you consider yourself chaste and not celibate?

Would saying you are not celibate include the possibility of marriage for yourself as a sacrament? or

Marriage not as a sacrament with a man?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

As a homosexual that differentiates chastity and celibacy then that is your issue.

What do you mean that that’s my issue?

You posted that you see no reason to be celibate.

That’s not quite what I said, Coptic. I can see plenty of reasons why specific folks might be celibate, but the call to chastity is universal.

I understand.

What???

Oh nevermind.

So, as a homosexual, under your Church requirements would you consider yourself chaste and not celibate?

It concerns me that, after what I’ve written above, the questions I’ve asked you and the things I’ve asked you to clarify…that this is where you choose to go with the conversation. I love you, Coptic, but this is very frustrating and I give up. For the sake of my own sanity (and possibly yours, too, I don’t know), it’s probably best for me to no longer engage you in discussion or respond to your posts. I feel like all you’re trying to do is identify me according to a series of taxonomical categories so you can file me and whatever I may say into some mental box or other.

Brother Coptic, I pray that you may ever continue to grow in the love and knowledge of Christ; that God increase in you faith, hope, love and all virtues; and that God give you grace to receive all the good gifts he wishes to give you. And I humbly ask that you pray for me, a miserable sinner.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[LittleSoldier]

Mark,

As a homosexual that differentiates chastity and celibacy then that is your issue. You posted that you see no reason to be celibate. I understand. The OHCAC states this.

So, as a homosexual, under your Church requirements would you consider yourself chaste and not celibate?

Would saying you are not celibate include the possibility of marriage for yourself as a sacrament? or

Marriage not as a sacrament with a man?

Would you please provide a source for your quote re OHCAC teaching? The quote appears to have part of it missing and I believe that it was stated specifically in terms of homosexual men becoming priests. Thank you.

 

[CopticChristian]

Would you please provide a source for your quote re OHCAC teaching? The quote appears to have part of it missing and I believe that it was stated specifically in terms of homosexual men becoming priests. Thank you.

Little,

You are correct…I will look for it. Does this change the notion of celibacy and chastity?

 

[livingwordunity]

The State is not defining or determining a sacrament. Civil marriage is not a sacrament.

In the eyes of God and the Church a civil marriage can be a sacramental marriage even if the two who get married (husband and wife, of course) don’t realize or recognize it as such if we are talking about two non-Catholics who are both baptized Christians.

 

[Elizabeth502]

In the eyes of God and the Church a civil marriage can be a sacramental marriage even if the two who get married (husband and wife, of course) don’t realize or recognize it as such if we are talking about two non-Catholics who are both baptized Christians.

I know that, LWU. Please don’t take my quote out of context like that. I was responding to Mark, who was limiting the word “marriage” (in his post) to sacrament.

Thank you.

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

What do you mean that that’s my issue?

That’s not quite what I said, Coptic. I can see plenty of reasons why specific folks might be celibate, but the call to chastity is universal.

What???

Oh nevermind.

It concerns me that, after what I’ve written above, the questions I’ve asked you and the things I’ve asked you to clarify…that this is where you choose to go with the conversation. I love you, Coptic, but this is very frustrating and I give up. For the sake of my own sanity (and possibly yours, too, I don’t know), it’s probably best for me to no longer engage you in discussion or respond to your posts. I feel like all you’re trying to do is identify me according to a series of taxonomical categories so you can file me and whatever I may say into some mental box or other.

Brother Coptic, I pray that you may ever continue to grow in the love and knowledge of Christ; that God increase in you faith, hope, love and all virtues; and that God give you grace to receive all the good gifts he wishes to give you. And I humbly ask that you pray for me, a miserable sinner.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

I am a heterosexual Catholic that accepts and agrees with the teachings of the OHCAC as it concerns the 6th commandment.

PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST
SECTION TWO
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

CHAPTER TWO
“YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF”

ARTICLE 6
THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT

You shall not commit adultery.113
You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.” But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.114

• I. “MALE AND FEMALE HE CREATED THEM . . .”

This means to me that marriage is marriage. I understand and accept that sacramental marriage is via baptized persons, men and women. I have read your posts and see you differentiate marriage as a sacrament and marriage by the state.

You point to voting for sacraments and the absurdity as a means to defend the notion of marriage civily. I have a right to object to same sex marriage as I have both feet in the world as a member of the Church.

Gaudium et spes…the Church in the Modern World but not of the World is as I see it and I don’t gather that you see this the way I do.

Your long discussions in my opinion cloud the underpinnings of your belief as you argue to have others accept them. I admit I don’t like that.

I object to that and as you believe you are being categorized then that is because you refuse to answer questions when asked. This is a Catholic site where you have chosen to engage in debate over what we believe to be Christ given, Apostolic translated teachings for the faithful that are not arbitrary and to be argued. You choose to do that.

Your “oh never mind” is not seen in any of the prior postings where you engaged in debate dialogue. I understand that.

I sadly see you as a covert “gay” activist and I somewhat object to your salutations and biddings. But I am supposed to be charitable and I want you to know that God loves you more than I do and if I have anything to offer you then it will be prayer.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Little,

You are correct…I will look for it. Does this change the notion of celibacy and chastity?

Thanks.

It does a bit to clarify the Church’s position, with which I am fully in agreement.

 

[mitex]

The whole “gay rights” movement was and is a reaction to hate and violence. I mean seriously a gay teen could commit suicide, a gay man could get his brains bashed in, I could get spit on, or called names at my religious school (which happens anyway, talk about love!) and not one religious person, priest, minister, bishop, or Pope Benedict won’t do anything. Oh they’ll bash gays as having a pathology and as disordered, but then when it comes to actually helping those who are less fortunate (aren’t you supposed to stick up for those who are less fortunate especially homosexuals?) there’s a wall of silence.

Not one Bishop has spoken up in defense of gay teens (aside from hurried Canadian theological statement that is afraid to even use the word “homosexual” or “gay”).

For example Matt’s Safe School Law. In Michigan. After years of being stalled in the legislature Republicans and Democrats finally agreed on an anti-bullying bill that didn’t even mention sexual orientation.

But because it was named after a kid who happened to be gay, Evangelicals, Catholics had an uproar over “threats to religious liberty” “traditional values.”

I’ve got news for everyone. Telling a gay kid who is in a vulnerable place already that he is “disordered” or “going to hell” is pretty much bullying.

Want to know why gay activists single out the Catholic Church? Because you singled us out first. Every gay teen that you failed to stick up for, every gay bashing victim you turned your head from. Jesus didn’t act that way.

Because it’s hurtful, mean, and unhelpful.

And your blanket statements in the Catechism (something about justice, sensitivity, compassion?) which you cite in response to these arguments never get articulated. They get dusted off and mentioned once every ten years when the Church needs to hit home its point.

Matter of fact read this one:*

neither the Church society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase

So basically it blames gays for violence against themselves. That’s real compassionate there.

No you wonder why gays like me are upset and hurt by the Church. Forget marriage! I don’t support SSM if it helps. But I won’t sit by while a Church calls me a pathology and blames me for torment and bullying that I have to have endured at the hands of Catholics at a Catholic college. Just on the basis of something I couldn’t help.

And of course you’ll all deny it and accuse me of being a radical homosexualist.

 

[CopticChristian]

The whole “gay rights” movement was and is a reaction to hate and violence. I mean seriously a gay teen could commit suicide, a gay man could get his brains bashed in, I could get spit on, or called names at my religious school (which happens anyway, talk about love!) and not one religious person, priest, minister, bishop, or Pope Benedict won’t do anything. Oh they’ll bash gays as having a pathology and as disordered, but then when it comes to actually helping those who are less fortunate (aren’t you supposed to stick up for those who are less fortunate especially homosexuals?) there’s a wall of silence.

Not one Bishop has spoken up in defense of gay teens (aside from hurried Canadian theological statement that is afraid to even use the word “homosexual” or “gay”).

For example Matt’s Safe School Law. In Michigan. After years of being stalled in the legislature Republicans and Democrats finally agreed on an anti-bullying bill that didn’t even mention sexual orientation.

But because it was named after a kid who happened to be gay, Evangelicals, Catholics had an uproar over “threats to religious liberty” “traditional values.”

I’ve got news for everyone. Telling a gay kid who is in a vulnerable place already that he is “disordered” or “going to hell” is pretty much bullying.

Want to know why gay activists single out the Catholic Church? Because you singled us out first. Every gay teen that you failed to stick up for, every gay bashing victim you turned your head from. Jesus didn’t act that way.

Because it’s hurtful, mean, and unhelpful.

And your blanket statements in the Catechism (something about justice, sensitivity, compassion?) which you cite in response to these arguments never get articulated. They get dusted off and mentioned once every ten years when the Church needs to hit home its point.

Matter of fact read this one:**

So basically it blames gays for violence against themselves. That’s real compassionate there.

No you wonder why gays like me are upset and hurt by the Church. Forget marriage! I don’t support SSM if it helps. But I won’t sit by while a Church calls me a pathology and blames me for torment and bullying that I have to have endured at the hands of Catholics at a Catholic college. Just on the basis of something I couldn’t help.

And of course you’ll all deny it and accuse me of being a radical homosexualist.

Mitex,

I am more inclined to say that I see Protestants like you professing Christianity uninclined to turn the other cheek. I know what it is like to be bullied, I know what it is like to be taunted, beaten, ridiculed, made fun of…and I am not homosexual…children can be cruel. Unresolved anger as a professing Christian disinclines me to accept Protestant thought based on how you present your vendeta…this causes me to reflect on other Protestants I have known like you that use the legal system to hurt people. I don’t know how many fundamentalist women have used the courts to destroy families because their husbands would not convert.

I see your rant as the pain that was caused by the Ulster Irish on Catholic Irish that could not find jobs, that were treated worse than slaves, it was said that the irish could build the railroad…slaves cost money…

You speak poorly for Protestant Christianity…that is what I see…