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

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
catholic1seeks said:
God made persons.
Homosexuals are persons.
God made homosexuals.

This does not mean he desires people to engage in homosexual activity. But the fact remains he knew in advance that certain people in His great creation would be predominately attracted to members of the same sex.
Click to expand...
Then God made psychopaths, people with congenital disorders, deformities, people prone to alcoholism and other addictions, people with mental illness, etc.

What you’re doing is just rehashing the old “God makes no mistakes” argument, which is as wrong when you use it as when naive conservatives use it. The Fall is a thing, you know.
 
Saint_Frank said:
Then God made psychopaths, people with congenital disorders, deformities, people prone to alcoholism and other addictions, people with mental illness, etc.

What you’re doing is just rehashing the old “God makes no mistakes” argument, which is as wrong when you use it as when naive conservatives use it. The Fall is a thing, you know.
Click to expand...
He did make those individuals with full and previous knowledge these certain individuals would be biologically inclined to certain actions – more so than others.

Therefore, the notion that commiting an act deemed as grave matter automatically condemns one to hell is a bit legalistic and simplistic. It does not take into account intention, the freedom of the will, etc. I understand Catholic teaching takes into consideration full consent of the will and full knowledge when determining when someone commits a mortal sin. But this is a bit different; I am speaking of calling certain actions as inherently sinful – always and whenever – particularly the cases when homosexual persons express their love in a sexual manner.

Let us say, for sake of argument, that homosexual acts are intrinsically and inherently sinful. Surely, though – due to the fact that homosexual persons have an unchosen, strong, and predominate/exclusive attraction to members of the same sex, and since these persons often will to have sex as an expression of committed love – homosexual sexual acts are hardly committed in a way of fully and consciously REJECTING GOD, as defining a mortal sin. Compare someone stealing food from a grocery out of sheer will with someone stealing food because his family is poor and is so compelled to do so. If we assume homosexual activity is inherently sinful, then often it would parallel the latter case.
 
catholic1seeks said:
He did make those individuals with full and previous knowledge these certain individuals would be biologically inclined to certain actions – more so than others.
Click to expand...
Which means what, to you? Do you think God approves of our actions that are somewhat the result of involuntary biological flaws?
Therefore, the notion that commiting an act deemed as grave matter automatically condemns one to hell is a bit legalistic and simplistic. It does not take into account intention, the freedom of the will, etc. I understand Catholic teaching takes into consideration full consent of the will and full knowledge when determining when someone commits a mortal sin. But this is a bit different; I am speaking of calling certain actions as inherently sinful – always and whenever – particularly the cases when homosexual persons express their love in a sexual manner.

Let us say, for sake of argument, that homosexual acts are intrinsically and inherently sinful. Surely, though – due to the fact that homosexual persons have an unchosen, strong, and predominate/exclusive attraction to members of the same sex, and since these persons often will to have sex as an expression of committed love – homosexual sexual acts are hardly committed in a way of fully and consciously REJECTING GOD, as defining a mortal sin. Compare someone stealing food from a grocery out of sheer will with someone stealing food because his family is poor and is so compelled to do so. If we assume homosexual activity is inherently sinful, then often it would parallel the latter case.
Click to expand...
I personally think that people are judged not only by their actions, but their level of knowledge. The Catholic concept of sin appears to follow this line of reasoning in that someone may be deemed less culpable due to lack of knowledge of its sinfulness or force of habit (the Catechism mentions the latter specifically in reference to masturbation). However, if you commit a serious sin in full knowledge of the sinfulness of it, you have committed a mortal sin. The person’s level of knowledge or intent doesn’t change the fact that something is sinful. It just might change their level of guiltiness over having sinned.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
…What they are teaching is that families come in different configurations. Telling Billy that some of his classmates like Tommy are being raised by Sue and Jenny isn’t telling Billy about sex.
Click to expand...
There appears to be a lack of data upon which to base an opinion. It is to be expected that new norms about how families are formed will come to be taught to young children, and featured in the “readers” used by young children, for that follows inexorably from the States decision to characterise same sex unions as marriage - which itself is about family formation.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
For grades 7-12. But I’m interested in these claims of children in grade-K being taught about sex. These have repeatedly come up in this forum and in the cases I’ve looked into so far it’s about family configurations.

I looked it up. Like before, they are not teaching about sex. What they are teaching is that families come in different configurations. Telling Billy that some of his classmates like Tommy are being raised by Sue and Jenny isn’t telling Billy about sex.
Click to expand...
I don’t even understand the point of teaching kids about that stuff. No wonder why American public schools are in the toilet and non-Western nations do so well. I bet they don’t waste time with that nonsense.
 
Saint_Frank said:
I don’t even understand the point of teaching kids about that stuff.
Click to expand...
Depending on where one lives it may be teaching kids about their environment and trying to prevent ridicule and finger pointing at other classmates. There will be kids in the school that are raised by married parents, unmarried parents, a single parent, a grand parent, some other relative, adopted, blended families, and by same sex couples (did I miss any groups?).

I suppose labelling this as “telling kids about sex” may get the initial emotional response desired. It’s easier to get people on board to “we don’t want our grade-K kids being taught about sex [yet]” than to get as many people on board with “We don’t want our kids being taught that families come in various configurations.” But it also can be damaging to the credibility that one has to present something as it is without exaggeration or embellishment once it’s discovered that sex is not a part of what was being taught.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
I’ve seen this claim before but it’s never been substantiated. The closest thing I’ve found are books in which families of different configurations are shown, including children with same sex couples taking care of them. But there was nothing sexual about the presentation of the material.

Am I midsing something, or is that it?:confused:😞
Click to expand...
abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1230620

See the book King and King, which normalizes gay sexual attraction.

latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-teacher-who-read-gay-fairy-tale-resigns-20150616-story.html

And this:

catholicpulse.com/cp/en/columnists/thorn/070815.html

Ed
 
Kindergarten is too young to learn about ANY kind of sex.

That some people would want this is simply CRAZY.

And it is not pertinent to the issue at hand.
 
catholic1seeks said:
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.
Click to expand...
Catholic Social Justice Issues.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13059678&postcount=1
 
davidv said:
Your claims in this thread say differently.
Click to expand...
I want to make clear that the reason I am participating on these forums and starting such threads is precisely because of my love for God and the Church – however imperfect it may be. I absolutely hate that I am unable to currently find comfort in the Church I so much admire. While some people may claim that I am trying to justify or rationalize sin, that is not the case. I am trying to, so-to-speak, justify my place in the Church. Maybe I will find out that I do not belong in the Roman Catholic communion. If members are supposed to believe that the Church is infallible and if this teaching on homosexuality is defined, unchangeable, and, indeed, considered infallible, then maybe at the end of the day, my faith life is not best lived in the Catholic Church.
 
Frankly?

It’s a whole lot easier to talk about gay marriage than it is to talk about the evils brought on by our economic system and our exploitation of the environment - especially since that if they push too hard, they’ll lose a lot of Catholics. (Since in my experience here and elsewhere, a lot of people act like capitalism was the secret eleventh commandment.)
 
ctb95 said:
It’s worth noting that the Renaissance era popes (who were some of the most immoral popes in history) strongly condemned slavery in the new world hundreds of years before major world powers condemned it.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about Paul III’s Sublimus Dei?

That is indeed a powerful document which ought to be better known.

However, like all such condemnations before the late 19th century, it condemns enslaving people, not slavery per se. A distinction that needs to be made for the sake of honesty and so as not to set yourself up for a “debunking” by anti-Catholic polemicists.

Paul III, by the way, while still a nepotist, was actually the first of the reform Popes. In fact, in the same year in which he issued Sublimus Dei, he received a report on church reform from a group of new cardinals he had appointed for that purpose, including Gasparo Contarini, from whom I take my alias on this forum:p

Edwin
 
Thorolfr said:
I doubt that ELCA Lutherans would think it’s still OK to own slaves under any circumstances or that anyone is called to be a slave. So we Christians have apparently progressed in the last 2000 years and this shows how most Christians no longer believe now what Christians once believed. Old beliefs, even ones in Scripture, are not necessarily better than new beliefs. But it wasn’t that long ago when Christian slave owners in both the United States and in Latin America owned slaves and thought that these Bible passages sill applied. Some of those owners were Catholics:

georgetownvoice.com/2007/02/08/the-jesuits-slaves/
Click to expand...
“Old beliefs, even ones in Scripture, are not necessarily better than new beliefs.”

We really are not talking about beliefs. Slavery was a “way of life” from the dawn of time to today.

When the New Testament was written many Christians were slaves.

Paul told masters to treat their slaves justly and kindly (Eph 6:9; Col 4:1), implying that slaves are not mere property for masters to do with as they please.

Some early Christians liberated their slaves, while some churches redeemed slaves using the congregation’s common means. Other Christians even sacrificially sold themselves into slavery to emancipate others.

Your criticism of the Catholic Church for not condemning slavery is totally unfounded. While the early Christian Empire didn’t immediately outlaw slavery, some Church fathers (such as Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom) strongly denounced it.

But then, the state has often failed to enact a just social order in accordance with Church teachings.
 
xNoOnex said:
Frankly?

It’s a whole lot easier to talk about gay marriage than it is to talk about the evils brought on by our economic system and our exploitation of the environment - especially since that if they push too hard, they’ll lose a lot of Catholics. (Since in my experience here and elsewhere, a lot of people act like capitalism was the secret eleventh commandment.)
Click to expand...
At least have enough respect not to assume you know people’s hearts. There certainly is enough thoughtful commentary on WHY we believe that changing views on marriage and homosexuality are worrisome, to concede that there are SINCERE concerns (even if you’re sure they’re mistaken).

Similarly, people can be sincerely wrong about capitalism and the environment; again, there is enough thoughtful argument about it to make your cynicism seem–well, just plain cynical.
 
catholic1seeks said:
God made persons.
Homosexuals are persons.
God made homosexuals.

This does not mean he desires people to engage in homosexual activity. But the fact remains he knew in advance that certain people in His great creation would be predominately attracted to members of the same sex.
Click to expand...
Yes…we ALL have a cross to bare.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top