Why is the US Catholic church so obsessed with the gay issue?

[edwest2]

What are you talking about?

“Gay marriage advocates” are not “trying to teach kindergartners about sex”.

.

abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1230620

amazon.com/Beyond-Diversity-Day-Curriculum-Sexualities/dp/074252034X

Ed

 

[edwest2]

I don’t think there is an over emphasis. If anything, the need to resist this evil has not been emphasized loudly or often enough. The Church should have been much stronger in her opposition much earlier and maybe we would not be in the situation we are in now.

The Church does not force people. The Church was accused by LGBT activists of spending too much time and money fighting this, but this cannot be mentioned again. It must.

Ed

 

[catholic1seeks]

You’re just judging some of our actions, but not us as people, just like we judge homosexual behaviors, but not homosexual persons

Love the sinner hate the sin.

Chrisit pax,

Lucretius

So are you saying these insensitive posts are sinful? I was not necessarily saying that at all; and of course, I do not adhere to “love the sinner but hate the sin” when it comes to homosexuality because I do not accept that each and every gay sex act is inherently sinful.

 

[edwest2]

No one can deny this?
Really?
I’m a person, and I’m denying it.

They don’t have a hatred for Christians, but of people who treat them and others badly and unfairly.

.

On the contrary, the hatred is quite real for those who represent ‘the tip of the spear’ on this. Among them are those who want to see religious speech about this disappear from public life. I watched a commercial on TV that showed a man with the kind of cloth barrier rope like you see in movie theaters who decided who to let into Church and who could not get in. The message was gay people were excluded. A false, wrong and bad message since it was a lie.

Ed

 

[catholic1seeks]

I heard an interview with Cardinal Dolan a few weeks ago (before the SCOTUS ruling). He was relating how he was giving a talk that had a Q&A afterward. The very first question was “Why is the Catholic Church so obsessed with sexual issues?” He pointed out that there had been absolutely nothing in his talk about sexuality and that it was the questioner who was now forcing him to talk about sex.

These kinds of questions are usually just intended to try to shut up the Church and her faithful by making them self-conscious about speaking the truth.

This is fair, and I would maintain that not everyone in the Church is preoccupied with such issues. But I already pointed out my examples. And compared to other nations, the US church is perhaps more conservative and defensive in its approach. But it is worthwhile pointed out that there are bishops and priests across the church universal, even in America, who take a much more pastoral and understanding approach and do not fully commit themselves to traditional teaching when they deal with their people.

 

[edwest2]

So which gay acts does he condemn and which ones are acceptable?

See 1 Corinthians 6:9.

Ed

 

[catholic1seeks]

On the contrary, the hatred is quite real for those who represent ‘the tip of the spear’ on this. Among them are those who want to see religious speech about this disappear from public life. I watched a commercial on TV that showed a man with the kind of cloth barrier you see in movie theaters who decided who to let into Church and who could not get in. The message was gay people were excluded. A false, wrong and bad message since it was a lie.

Ed

Perhaps these people only ever knew of a Christianity that was unwelcoming to them.

 

[catholic1seeks]

See 1 Corinthians 6:9.

Ed

Good reference.
As the original text does not use “homosexuals” at all – a term not even existing in Paul’s time.

Something I wrote earlier:

Several modern versions of the Bible translate two Greek terms in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10—malakoi and arsenokoitai—in a way that suggests homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. It is important to remember that in Paul’s day, there was no concept of homosexual orientation. There was also no term for homosexual. That was not introduced until the nineteenth century. So any translation that says homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God is not a true translation but a misleading interpretation. What these two terms are actually referring to is not definitively known, and this is reflected by the various translations. The NKJV simply renders the two terms together as “homosexuals” whereas the NAB translates them as “boy prostitutes” and “sodomites,” just to give to examples. Malakoi probably means something like effeminate, which would have described those lacking in self-control, but not necessarily anything homosexual. In fact, many ancient uses of this word are related to men who indulged in women, not men. There are very few instances of arsenokoitai used after Paul, but all the instances seem to relate to economic exploitation through sexual means.

 

[edwest2]

The gay community could have worked to pass laws that would have granted them every right and benefit afforded to straight couples and call the relationship something other than marriage. But no…they had to have it called a marriage.

This is confirmed by a “gay marriage” advocacy site where States who did grant them these ‘rights’ turned them into ‘second-class citizens’ since they could not call their relationship “marriage.”

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Good reference.
As the original text does not use “homosexuals” at all – a term not even existing in Paul’s time.

Something I wrote earlier:

Several modern versions of the Bible translate two Greek terms in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10—malakoi and arsenokoitai—in a way that suggests homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. It is important to remember that in Paul’s day, there was no concept of homosexual orientation. There was also no term for homosexual. That was not introduced until the nineteenth century. So any translation that says homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God is not a true translation but a misleading interpretation. What these two terms are actually referring to is not definitively known, and this is reflected by the various translations. The NKJV simply renders the two terms together as “homosexuals” whereas the NAB translates them as “boy prostitutes” and “sodomites,” just to give to examples. Malakoi probably means something like effeminate, which would have described those lacking in self-control, but not necessarily anything homosexual. In fact, many ancient uses of this word are related to men who indulged in women, not men. There are very few instances of arsenokoitai used after Paul, but all the instances seem to relate to economic exploitation through sexual means.

Another reference:

catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality

Ed

 

[estesbob]

Good reference.
As the original text does not use “homosexuals” at all – a term not even existing in Paul’s time.

Something I wrote earlier:

Several modern versions of the Bible translate two Greek terms in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10—malakoi and arsenokoitai—in a way that suggests homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. It is important to remember that in Paul’s day, there was no concept of homosexual orientation. There was also no term for homosexual. That was not introduced until the nineteenth century. So any translation that says homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God is not a true translation but a misleading interpretation. What these two terms are actually referring to is not definitively known, and this is reflected by the various translations. The NKJV simply renders the two terms together as “homosexuals” whereas the NAB translates them as “boy prostitutes” and “sodomites,” just to give to examples. Malakoi probably means something like effeminate, which would have described those lacking in self-control, but not necessarily anything homosexual. In fact, many ancient uses of this word are related to men who indulged in women, not men. There are very few instances of arsenokoitai used after Paul, but all the instances seem to relate to economic exploitation through sexual means.

There is a fair amount of arrogance for modern scholars to claim that all that went before them were wrong , especially when their new improved interpretations just happens
to bolster the views of the current culture

 

[Corki]

This is fair, and I would maintain that not everyone in the Church is preoccupied with such issues. But I already pointed out my examples. And compared to other nations, the US church is perhaps more conservative and defensive in its approach. But it is worthwhile pointed out that there are bishops and priests across the church universal, even in America, who take a much more pastoral and understanding approach and do not fully commit themselves to traditional teaching when they deal with their people.

And that is the problem. Those priests and bishops are not helping the faithful, they are leading them astray.

We have taken “hate the sin but love the sinner” and turned it upside down.

Hating the sin must be the first thing, clearly and unequivocably. Only then can we have true compassion to love the sinner. If we** start out **by being “understanding,” we get lost. We can’t understand what we don’t clearly see. We have to see the agenda as evil and denounce the actions loudly and publically. Then we can reach out to individuals with understanding and pastoral care.

Would we take this approach with ANY other moral evil? Imagine if our approach to child pornographers was to first be “understanding” and “pastoral” and only later to vaguely mention that their behavior is wrong. What about those who commit genocide or join the KKK? Would you tell our bishops that they should be"pastoral" and not be so “defensive” in denoucing geneocide or racism?

 

[edwest2]

True tolerance.

From the National Catholic Register.

ncregister.com/site/article/spreading-true-tolerance

Ed

 

[Mark121359]

Why is the US Catholic church so obsessed with the gay issue? I suspect that some of it has to do with the fact that they sense that they’re starting to lose this battle from within. Large parts of her flock have been won over to the other side in complete opposition to the RCC’s stance on these issues.

Remember Sr. Jane Dominic Laurel? She’s the Dominican Nun who was run out of town by outraged students, parents and faculty after she spoke about homosexuality at a Catholic high school in Charlotte. Last I heard she’s on a sabbatical, and all her future talks have been cancelled. Here’s Fr. Z’s comments about it at the time. How about Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone? He was lambasted in much the same way by San Francisco Catholics after he asked teachers and staffers at Catholic schools to sign a morality clause that stated that sex outside of marriage and homosexual relations was “gravely evil.” They called on Pope Francis to replace him for creating "an atmosphere of division and intolerance.” And this is just to name two. When so many of your “faithful” are heeding what the culture teaches rather than their Church, it’s not surprising that the Catholic Church is very concerned with this issue.

Peace, Mark

 

[edwest2]

Why is the US Catholic church so obsessed with the gay issue? I suspect that some of it has to do with the fact that they sense that they’re starting to lose this battle from within. Large parts of her flock have been won over to the other side in complete opposition to the RCC’s stance on these issues.

Remember Sr. Jane Dominic Laurel? She’s the Dominican Nun who was run out of town by outraged students, parents and faculty after she spoke about homosexuality at a Catholic high school in Charlotte. Last I heard she’s on a sabbatical, and all her future talks have been cancelled. Here’s Fr. Z’s comments about it at the time. How about Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone? He was lambasted in much the same way by San Francisco Catholics after he asked teachers and staffers at Catholic schools to sign a morality clause that stated that sex outside of marriage and homosexual relations was “gravely evil.” They called on Pope Francis to replace him for creating "an atmosphere of division and intolerance.” And this is just to name two. When so many of your “faithful” are heeding what the culture teaches rather than their Church, it’s not surprising that the Catholic Church is very concerned with this issue.

Peace, Mark

Well said. Thank you.

Ed

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

But it is worthwhile pointed out that there are bishops and priests across the church universal, even in America, who take a much more pastoral and understanding approach and do not fully commit themselves to traditional teaching when they deal with their people.

The ultimate failure in “pastoral care” would be to mislead people by encouraging them to remain in sin or fail to call them to repentance and renewal.

These bishops and priests whom you claim are NOT committed to the traditional teachings of the Church, are not being pastoral… they are being advocates.

 

[edwest2]

We can contact any priest or bishop and outline our position and disagreement with honesty and true charity. This is not only an “upper management” issue. Each one of us is exposed to an unending, daily media assault that promotes gay behavior. I suggest watching a lot less TV as a start, especially shows that present gay, and more recently, bisexual, behavior in a positive or neutral light. Hey. What’s the big deal? Right?

It is a big deal and we should not be indifferent to it. We should trust God more and pray. Error is error.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StevenFrancis]

Several Catholic organizations in the US seem to be uncomfortably and awkwardly preoccupied with gay issues. Catholic Answers Live, a radio show I love, sometimes has specific shows dedicated to same-sex marriage or homosexuality. I just switched on EWTN on my TV and the show was talking about the “militant homosexual agenda.” Catholic bloggers and articles are always dedicating topics on this issue; everytime I go to NewAdvent.org, there is a good chance I’ll see a highlighted article casting the issue in a severe light.

My question is, what is this emphasis on this issue meant to achieve? Is it supposed to help those gay persons who are already struggling to find a place in the Church? Is it supposed to convince the “militant homosexual” activists? Is it supposed to reach out to those in the Church and the world who disagree with church teaching and accept homosexual relationships? Or is it supposed to comfort those who already agree with church teaching?

Maybe I am just sensitive. But I do not see the point with this over-emphasis. I could see how such a preoccupation would turn away those from the Church, as it is making me really disappointed with the USA church’s outreach to those on the fringes.

The Church has a role as the authority, on behalf of Jesus Christ, regarding faith and morals. Rampant ‘gay’ issues in the secular culture has caused the the Church to be vocal regarding the immorality d’jour. So, I guess I would tend to turn this around. Why do you suppose the secular world is so deeply obsessed with gay issues, since it is something that effects, perhaps 6% tops of the human population? Don’t you suspect that a very muscular and loud western political lobby might be involved? (i.e. what you’re quoting as “militant homosexual activists”). That seems to be the case to me. Just sign into Facebook, and see 1/2 the profile pics on the site glossed over with rainbows. And the Church is obsessed?

There hasn’t been a more successful and culturally debilitating political lobby in the history of modern man than those obsessed with forcing the idea of sexual immorality as a civil right. Even a moral GOOD. This should be disturbing to everyone, including those afflicted with same sex attraction, whom the cultural lobbies are doing no favors for in the long run.

May God bless and keep you ,

Steve

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

My feelings about same sex marriage are as strong as many Catholics, but I don’t get this, or the argument that it will destroy our marriages.

Of all the things that keep me up at night, the thought of my marriage having been weakened because homosexuals have been issued marriage licenses is not one of them.

I have heard statements like this from many Catholics.

Gays calling their relationships “marriages” will not destroy traditional marriage…nor will it weaken any real marriage.

What the Supreme Court decision has done has made your marriage “different”. Your marriage will now have to be defined. Since your marriage has either produced children or has the potential to produce children…it differs greatly from a gay marriage. Also your marriage is comprised of a man and a woman. A gay marriage is a same sex affair. Both marriages now have equal legal standing but very different social, cultural and religious issues.

Some obvious changes that we must deal with will be:

Mr & Mr Jones or Mrs & Mrs Smith.
Pat and Bob…a married (gay) couple or Bob and Pat a married (straight) couple.

I also wonder how a faithful Catholic is going to explain to his children that the two guys across the street are married…(well sort of, maybe) when a real marriage is between one man and one woman. When that family discussion gets to school and the openly gay public school teacher hears it…Child Protective Services will be on the way to that home to remove the children and charge the parents with a hate crime.

 

[edwest2]

The Church has a role as the authority, on behalf of Jesus Christ, regarding faith and morals. Rampant ‘gay’ issues in the secular culture has caused the the Church to be vocal regarding the immorality d’jour. So, I guess I would tend to turn this around. Why do you suppose the secular world is so deeply obsessed with gay issues, since it is something that effects, perhaps 6% tops of the human population? Don’t you suspect that a very muscular and loud western political lobby might be involved? (i.e. what you’re quoting as “militant homosexual activists”). That seems to be the case to me. Just sign into Facebook, and see 1/2 the profile pics on the site glossed over with rainbows. And the Church is obsessed?

There hasn’t been a more successful and culturally debilitating political lobby in the history of modern man than those obsessed with forcing the idea of sexual immorality as a civil right. Even a moral GOOD. This should be disturbing to everyone, including those afflicted with same sex attraction, whom the cultural lobbies are doing no favors for in the long run.

May God bless and keep you ,

Steve

Well said, Steve.

Ed