Why I believe many Gays turn away from the Church.

[fix]

Unfortunately, it is far more than this. It includes an attempt to elevate homosexual activity to a “sanctified” status parallel to that of heterosexual marriage. (Hence, “marriage” “equality,” juxtaposed.) The tactic is to surround the subject of homosexual behavior with heterosexual terminology (“monogamous,” “committed”) as if those (borrowed) terms radically recategorize the acts as fundamentally not what they are.

While the terminology has been lifted from the secular Gay Agenda, the lifting is being done, encouraged, and supported by heterodox Catholics on and off this discussion forum.

But the illegitimate terminology not only has no bearing on fixed Catholic moral theology, it also merely intensifies the sickness of it. The parallel can be applied to heterosexual cohabitation, wherein couples often claim their coupling is “just the same” as married cohabitation, on the grounds that their relationship is “monogamous and committed.” Except that all they have shown is that they are engaging in the same disordered (non-wedded) sexual behavior repeatedly and exclusively. The repetition of the sin and the exclusiveness of the sin does not reduce the gravity of the sin; the repetition multiplies it and the exclusiveness is irrelevant.

All true. I do find that too many readily accept the terminology that is common today. It really affects how we reason.

 

[Crescentinus]

Unfortunately, it is far more than this. It includes an attempt to elevate homosexual activity to a “sanctified” status parallel to that of heterosexual marriage. (Hence, “marriage” “equality,” juxtaposed.) The tactic is to surround the subject of homosexual behavior with heterosexual terminology (“monogamous,” “committed”) as if those (borrowed) terms radically recategorize the acts as fundamentally not what they are.

While the terminology has been lifted from the secular Gay Agenda, the lifting is being done, encouraged, and supported by heterodox Catholics on and off this discussion forum.

But the illegitimate terminology not only has no bearing on fixed Catholic moral theology, it also merely intensifies the sickness of it. The parallel can be applied to heterosexual cohabitation, wherein couples often claim their coupling is “just the same” as married cohabitation, on the grounds that their relationship is “monogamous and committed.” Except that all they have shown is that they are engaging in the same disordered (non-wedded) sexual behavior repeatedly and exclusively. The repetition of the sin and the exclusiveness of the sin does not reduce the gravity of the sin; the repetition multiplies it and the exclusiveness is irrelevant.

 

[Bill_7154]

It seems you are trying to impute bad motves to Catholics that defend Church teaching by equating them with Fred Phelps tactics. Why?

I don’t know that person and my ‘agenda’ is to LEARN. To learn the truth, I was asking you questions in an effort to get your (name removed by moderator)ut on them. Yet you assume I have some agenda other than that, and then sort of go on the attack (albeit subtly and politely). Why?

Maybe we can give this another try and you can actually respond to my post by answering the questions I asked rather than making assumptions. Shall we try again?

 

[Bill_7154]

Just as an aside, I find it troubling that so many today are so concerned about perceived tone than the truth of the message. Are we adults or little children that run around with our fingers in our ears when they refuse to listen to things that make us unhappy?

This is where I stopped reading. Are we adults, or are we children that go around whining and complaining and changing topics refusing to answer questions posted to us like little children do?

 

[michelleds]

respond to my post by answering the questions I asked rather than making assumptions. Shall we try again?

What are your questions?

 

[Bill_7154]

What are your questions?

Here is my original post to which you responded by saying I was pushing the agenda of some person I have never heard of and I forget what else you implied about me in that very short response.

Maybe you can take the time to review what I have written below, possibly give it a little thought, and then make a thoughful post in response. Then we can take it from there. To remind you of some perspective, you took exception to me writing about people holding God hates fags signs while not recognizing that i also, in that same post, talked about evangelizing or ‘correcting’ (I forget the term) from a place of love. That, to me, is representative of a one sided viewpoint, and what’s more of a concern to me (as I think people can have whatever views they want- is I felt disrespected because you pointed out the former while leaving out the latter… I would have preferred, since you choose to respond to the sign comment if you also responded to the lovingly correcting people part.

So again, the post is below. This is what I would like to hear your thoughts on:

Originally Posted by Bill 7154
Interesting perspective. Do you think there are other topics besides homosexuality that raise similar issues for Catholics? I certainly have no intention of ‘diverting’ anything. I was simply making an observation and I think there is truth to it.

There are plenty of catholics that have ‘a problem’ with homosexuals, and to deny this is to deny relaity IMO.

Who do you think are the main people who hold up signs that say ‘God hates fags’? And you realize that this is a reasonable one side of an extreme to make a point, don’t you? The other side of the point I was making is approaching someone from a loving place where there is no intent in their heart to satisfy their own personal needs with respect to ‘teaching’ homosexuals, and doing it only via the love of God. Yet you left that part of of your reply. I think that leaves you making comments on my post unfair. If you disagree, why so?

 

[fix]

This is where I stopped reading. Are we adults, or are we children that go around whining and complaining and changing topics refusing to answer questions posted to us like little children do?

I answered your questions. That you stopped reading goes to my point.

 

[Bill_7154]

I answered your questions. That you stopped reading goes to my point.

And ignoring mine goes to my point. I’m able to disagree without being disagreeable. Evidently either you are not, or for one reason or another don’t choose to. I prefer polite adult behavior, even when disagreeing with someone.

I also think it’s common to people to use your argument as an excuse to behave in a child like fashion, throwing minor tantrums and the like while whining “geee… aren’t you grown up enough to take it?” What it comes down to is choice. And I choose not to engage in discussions with such people.

 

[michelleds]

Apparently you are only interested in hearing one poster’s opinion and not any one else’s. You might notice the names of the posters to whom you respond. As for your “questions”, they make no sense to me but hopefully they do to the person you are addressing. Good luck.

Just for factual clarity, the signs to which you refer repeatedly are specifically related to ONE tiny church run, owned and populated thru kinship by Fred Phelps. You claimed not to know who that was when he was referenced before.

Who do you think are the main people who hold up signs that say ‘God hates fags’? And you realize that this is a reasonable one side of an extreme to make a point, don’t you?

Here is my original post to which you responded by saying I was pushing the agenda of some person I have never heard of and I forget what else you implied about me in that very short response.

Maybe you can take the time to review what I have written below, possibly give it a little thought, and then make a thoughful post in response. Then we can take it from there. To remind you of some perspective, you took exception to me writing about people holding God hates fags signs while not recognizing that i also, in that same post, talked about evangelizing or ‘correcting’ (I forget the term) from a place of love. That, to me, is representative of a one sided viewpoint, and what’s more of a concern to me (as I think people can have whatever views they want- is I felt disrespected because you pointed out the former while leaving out the latter… I would have preferred, since you choose to respond to the sign comment if you also responded to the lovingly correcting people part.

So again, the post is below. This is what I would like to hear your thoughts on:

Originally Posted by Bill 7154
Interesting perspective. Do you think there are other topics besides homosexuality that raise similar issues for Catholics? I certainly have no intention of ‘diverting’ anything. I was simply making an observation and I think there is truth to it.

There are plenty of catholics that have ‘a problem’ with homosexuals, and to deny this is to deny relaity IMO.

Who do you think are the main people who hold up signs that say ‘God hates fags’? And you realize that this is a reasonable one side of an extreme to make a point, don’t you? The other side of the point I was making is approaching someone from a loving place where there is no intent in their heart to satisfy their own personal needs with respect to ‘teaching’ homosexuals, and doing it only via the love of God. Yet you left that part of of your reply. I think that leaves you making comments on my post unfair. If you disagree, why so?

 

[Bill_7154]

Apparently you are only interested in hearing one poster’s opinion and not any one else’s.

I think that if you research my posts, or better yet, start your own thread on whatever topic that fancies you, and let me know about it, I will be most willing to discuss/debate with you.

But if you decide to cut out massive portions of my posts and choose to only reply to tiny segments (or worse yet, sidestep my entire post and make some comment that is off topic to my post), I will loose interest as this tells me that YOU are only interested in one opinion. But if you are able and willing to reply to most all of the post, even the parts that YOUR not interested in hearing, I think you will find me most reasonable and adult like when engaging in discussion.

I am able to and willing to read, listen to, discuss all sorts of subjects, even if they detest me, without coming across as crass, childlike, overly defensive, etc. And if I did happen to come across as overly defensive, and somone pointed that out to me, I have the ability to reflect upon my own behavior and apologize for my mistakes (as I make them regularly)

So here’s my open invitation, sir. It would help if it were on a topic I had some familiarity with or some interest in, otherwise my side of the conversation will all be asking questions as I will know nothing about said topic.

I presently have 3 posters on ignore because they engaged in behavior such as putting words in my mouth and then not correcting themselves when I pointed it out and asked them to, etc. I got enough of that type of behavior on secular forums. I expected more on a Catholic Forum. I came to find out that my expectations were too high.

So shall we engage in a discussion on a topic of your choice and you can judge for yourself how I handle receiving messages about subjects that may turn me off? The ball is in your court. But this post should prove your quote above to be an incorrect assumption about me.

 

[michelleds]

I think that if you research my posts, or better yet, start your own thread on whatever topic that fancies you, and let me know about it, I will be most willing to discuss/debate with you.

But if you decide to cut out massive portions of my posts and choose to only reply to tiny segments (or worse yet, sidestep my entire post and make some comment that is off topic to my post), I will loose interest as this tells me that YOU are only interested in one opinion. But if you are able and willing to reply to most all of the post, even the parts that YOUR not interested in hearing, I think you will find me most reasonable and adult like when engaging in discussion.

I am able to and willing to read, listen to, discuss all sorts of subjects, even if they detest me, without coming across as crass, childlike, overly defensive, etc. And if I did happen to come across as overly defensive, and somone pointed that out to me, I have the ability to reflect upon my own behavior and apologize for my mistakes (as I make them regularly)

So here’s my open invitation, sir. It would help if it were on a topic I had some familiarity with or some interest in, otherwise my side of the conversation will all be asking questions as I will know nothing about said topic.

I presently have 3 posters on ignore because they engaged in behavior such as putting words in my mouth and then not correcting themselves when I pointed it out and asked them to, etc. I got enough of that type of behavior on secular forums. I expected more on a Catholic Forum. I came to find out that my expectations were too high.

So shall we engage in a discussion on a topic of your choice and you can judge for yourself how I handle receiving messages about subjects that may turn me off? The ball is in your court. But this post should prove your quote above to be an incorrect assumption about me.

Bill, let me introduce myself to you. My name is Michelle (michelleds is my user name). I am female. I am also NOT the person with whom you were disagreeing. That person was ‘fix’. I merely stepped in hoping to re-direct the thread back to your original questions. You re-posted a post which probably made sense in context, but made no sense to me. If you would like to post your questions on homosexuality and the Church, I personally would be happy to try to answer them.

 

[Bill_7154]

Bill, let me introduce myself to you. My name is Michelle (michelleds is my user name). I am female. I am also NOT the person with whom you were disagreeing. That person was ‘fix’. I merely stepped in hoping to re-direct the thread back to your original questions. You re-posted a post which probably made sense in context, but made no sense to me. If you would like to post your questions on homosexuality and the Church, I personally would be happy to try to answer them.

Hi Michelle,

I realize you are not the poster I was having the disagreement with and that you stepped in. I also realize that it was out of context to repost my post, but he asked me ‘what questions didn’t I answer…’ so that was the easiest way to address him on that matter.

I don’t have any questions on homosexuality and the Church.

My only question to you at this point is why do you believe " I’m only interested in hearing one posters opinion and no one else’s’? I cant understand for the life of me how you came to that conclusion about me. Maybe you can explain so I can understand.

And as a reminder, THIS is the title of the thread: “Re: Why I believe many Gays turn away from the Church.”

I have idea’s about why some/many gays may do that. I don’t know if you have any idea’s why some/many gays do that.

I can tell you what I would believe be the ultimate regarding Gays, they behavior, and their association with the Church…but I don’t think that is realistically going to happen.

And I don’t get angry at gay people for being gay. I recognize their behavior as sinful, but also am very aware of my ability to pursuade people (or not be able to/have great difficulty in doing so) as I have 20 years of experience working with people on changing their behavior. So those sorts of judgement calls I can make on the fly without even thinking about it the same way that someone who changes tires for a living and has done so for 20 years can do the tasks involved without thinking about it and recognize potential issues that may come up with certain tires, etc.

I get the feeling that some posters are personally angry that there are gay people in this world. I don’t think this is what God or Jesus Christ wants. I think Christ wants us to love our neighbors as ourselves. He didn’t put stipulations on it “love the good peple who hardly ever sin…” And I get the sense that when I reply to such a person’s post they get worked up emotionally as a result. I have had discussions about fraternally correcting gays and evangelizing to gays and am of the opinion that there are ‘teachable moments’ that occur at different points in people’s lives that make them more open to hearing messages that at other times would go in one ear and out the other. And I have 20 years of experience in forming that view is it comes as part of my work.

It’s my understanding that I am to love my neighbor as myself. I believe this includes gays, Jews, loan sharks, etc. Is this your understanding as well?

So a question I have for you is: Do you believe that some people ‘fraternally correct gays’, or desire to do so, out of their own personal dislike (fill in your own preferred term there) for gays and as such are less likely to come to them from a place with deep and pure love of God and Jesus in their hearts while doing so?

Another question: Do you think that gays might be more receptive to hearing messages from Catholics about gays in general and what God wants for them if the Catholic in question was not at all predjuiced against gay people and able to love them like their neighbor? (while IMO people in the group in the paragraph above are much less capable of doing so)

Is it sinful to have hate, anger, disgust, rage, resentment, distain in one’s heart against a gay person or gay people in general (not their behavior i.e. sexual conduct, but them as God’s children)? If it is not sinful, is it wrong?

What do you think would be the best way or ways to get gay people who have turned away from the Catholic Church to make the decision to refrain from gay sex, go to confession to confess all their sins and repent, and work on refraining from any gay sex and thoughts/fantasies of gay sex? And would Jesus Christ want this or would he only want people to walk through the doors of a Catholic Church if they are gay only if they somehow know with 100% certaintly they will never engage in gay sex again and never have thoughts/fantasies of gay sex ever again?

Do you think that predjuice against gays (as children of God, separate from any gay sex they have) (as in hating them without knowing them) exists? Do you think that predjuice against blacks, or interracial couples (as in hating them without knowing them) exists? Do you think that people who have such additudes are living and thinking about these people as Christ would have them think about these people?

Do you think that any Catholics think about gays (who are children of God) with predjuice (as in hating them without knowing them)? Do you think Jesus supports that?

Do you think that it’s possilble for a Catholic person to be ‘overzealous’ (as in fanatical to the degree that it interferes with their relationship with Christ, other Catholics, or other children of God? (one one issue, more than one issue, periodically on one or more issues)?

Thanks for your reply and for the opportunity to ask you these questions. Please feel free to ask me any questions as well.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[michelleds]

Hi Michelle,

I realize you are not the poster I was having the disagreement with and that you stepped in. I also realize that it was out of context to repost my post, but he asked me ‘what questions didn’t I answer…’ so that was the easiest way to address him on that matter.

I don’t have any questions on homosexuality and the Church.

My only question to you at this point is why do you believe " I’m only interested in hearing one posters opinion and no one else’s’? I cant understand for the life of me how you came to that conclusion about me. Maybe you can explain so I can understand. Nevermind. it was because you just re-posted. forget it.

And as a reminder, THIS is the title of the thread: “Re: Why I believe many Gays turn away from the Church.”

I have idea’s about why some/many gays may do that. I don’t know if you have any idea’s why some/many gays do that. i posted my thoughts in this thread at forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9805065&postcount=26 AND forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9863333&postcount=277

I can tell you what I would believe be the ultimate regarding Gays, they behavior, and their association with the Church…but I don’t think that is realistically going to happen.

And I don’t get angry at gay people for being gay. I recognize their behavior as sinful, but also am very aware of my ability to pursuade people (or not be able to/have great difficulty in doing so) as I have 20 years of experience working with people on changing their behavior. So those sorts of judgement calls I can make on the fly without even thinking about it the same way that someone who changes tires for a living and has done so for 20 years can do the tasks involved without thinking about it and recognize potential issues that may come up with certain tires, etc. Nothing is up to you. It’s about God to whom nothing is impossible. Our task is to be open to the Holy Spirit to work through us.

I get the feeling that some posters are personally angry that there are gay people in this world. I don’t think this is what God or Jesus Christ wants. I think Christ wants us to love our neighbors as ourselves. He didn’t put stipulations on it “love the good peple who hardly ever sin…” And I get the sense that when I reply to such a person’s post they get worked up emotionally as a result. I have had discussions about fraternally correcting gays and evangelizing to gays and am of the opinion that there are ‘teachable moments’ that occur at different points in people’s lives that make them more open to hearing messages that at other times would go in one ear and out the other. And I have 20 years of experience in forming that view is it comes as part of my work. The attitude that you ascribe to other posters would not be in accordance with either of these two documents: “Letter To The Bishops Of The Catholic Church On The Pastoral Care Of Homosexual Persons” vatican.va/roman_curia/co…ersons_en.html specifically paragraph 10 and the Catechism paragraph 2358.

It’s my understanding that I am to love my neighbor as myself. I believe this includes gays, Jews, loan sharks, etc. Is this your understanding as well? yes. see the above referenced documents

So a question I have for you is: Do you believe that some people ‘fraternally correct gays’, or desire to do so, out of their own personal dislike (fill in your own preferred term there) for gays and as such are less likely to come to them from a place with deep and pure love of God and Jesus in their hearts while doing so? it’s not my place to judge and it doesn’t really further the discussion

Another question: Do you think that gays might be more receptive to hearing messages from Catholics about gays in general and what God wants for them if the Catholic in question was not at all predjuiced against gay people and able to love them like their neighbor? (while IMO people in the group in the paragraph above are much less capable of doing so) that question is similar to if I asked you when you stopped beating your wife

post was too long, continued in next

 

[michelleds]

Is it sinful to have hate, anger, disgust, rage, resentment, distain in one’s heart against a gay person or gay people in general (not their behavior i.e. sexual conduct, but them as God’s children)? If it is not sinful, is it wrong?

What do you think would be the best way or ways to get gay people who have turned away from the Catholic Church to make the decision to refrain from gay sex, go to confession to confess all their sins and repent, and work on refraining from any gay sex and thoughts/fantasies of gay sex? And would Jesus Christ want this or would he only want people to walk through the doors of a Catholic Church if they are gay only if they somehow know with 100% certaintly they will never engage in gay sex again and never have thoughts/fantasies of gay sex ever again? again, see above referenced documents on my beliefs

Do you think that predjuice against gays (as children of God, separate from any gay sex they have) (as in hating them without knowing them) exists? Do you think that predjuice against blacks, or interracial couples (as in hating them without knowing them) exists? Do you think that people who have such additudes are living and thinking about these people as Christ would have them think about these people? again, loaded question

Do you think that any Catholics think about gays (who are children of God) with predjuice (as in hating them without knowing them)? Do you think Jesus supports that?

Do you think that it’s possilble for a Catholic person to be ‘overzealous’ (as in fanatical to the degree that it interferes with their relationship with Christ, other Catholics, or other children of God? (one one issue, more than one issue, periodically on one or more issues)? I think that we are all broken creatures in need of the grace of God

Thanks for your reply and for the opportunity to ask you these questions. Please feel free to ask me any questions as well.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Elizabeth502]

Hi Michelle,

So a question I have for you is: Do you believe that some people ‘fraternally correct gays’, or desire to do so, out of their own personal dislike (fill in your own preferred term there) for gays and as such are less likely to come to them from a place with deep and pure love of God and Jesus in their hearts while doing so?

it’s not my place to judge and it doesn’t really further the discussion

Good answer, Michelle. Same answer some of us have tried in vain to communicate to this poster.

 

[fix]

And ignoring mine goes to my point. I’m able to disagree without being disagreeable. Evidently either you are not, or for one reason or another don’t choose to. I prefer polite adult behavior, even when disagreeing with someone.

I answered your points. If you cannot wait to be offended then you are not interested in answers you just want to find a way to be offended.

I also think it’s common to people to use your argument as an excuse to behave in a child like fashion, throwing minor tantrums and the like while whining “geee… aren’t you grown up enough to take it?” What it comes down to is choice. And I choose not to engage in discussions with such people.

Your choice. The point is the issues have been addressed. All the hand wringing is a diversion. The only tantrums are from folks who cannot stand the truth.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

This thread is now closed. Thank you to all who participated.