your opinions on gays

[KarenNC]

Karen, these transvestites are notorious in the neighborhood of Most Holy Redeemer Parish, where they committed this sacrilige. In fact, they WERE dressed to MOCK religious sisters and they call themselves the “sisters of perepetual indulgence”.

I think you misunderstand. I was saying that they were not “dressed as nuns” which implies that they looked like ordinary nuns or were not glaringly obviously exactly what they were. That was far from the truth. “Dressed to mock nuns” is an entirely different statement. I felt that the person who originally posted that statement was perhaps under the impression that these guys were " just walking up dressed as nuns to receive communion".

The Pastor and Archbishop certainly knew who they were and so did the parishioners. There was nothing surreptitious because the Parish has been known as a “supporter” of the homosexual lifestyle. There are countless threads on CAF about the scandals this Parish has caused.

Which is why I find the Archbishop’s excuses a bit difficult to swallow. Sounds a lot more like an attempt to cya rather than honesty, yet the majority of the ire on the threads that I have seen is directed toward these men and not the clergy.

I understand that you, as a non-Catholic, don’t realize or understand the sanctity of the Holy Mass. It’s clear that you don’t understand how the congregation is expected to present themselves when they approach the Blessed Sacrament.

No, I understand fully. I was, however, also under the impression that the clergy had some responsibility in this matter as well, that the Catholic Church doesn’t leave it up to whoever feels they are fine to take communion to be able to partake. The Archbishop seems to be attempting to put all the blame on these two guys and take virtually none for himself (other than “not realizing who they were”).

So your indifferent attitude about the way these men comported themselves in the Church is understandable. If their presence did not visilbly disrupt the Holy Mass, it has nothing to do with them and everything to do with the mercy (or apathy) of the congregation. I can assure you that had they the audacity to show up at my Parish (one that is faithful to the Church), they would have never gotten past the ushers.

It is rather wanting to be accurate. There have been folks on these threads who have all sorts of ideas about what these guys did in church, including kissing during the service, acting disruptively, etc. The video simply doesn’t support that. The only person who I saw kissing another man on the lips was the clergyman after the service (looked like the Archbishop, but I’m not sure).

Correct. And several weeks before they pulled this stunt, the Archbishop revoked their lease to host porno-bingo in the Parish Hall. Can you say retaliation?

And yet he claims he didn’t know what they represented.

If I were Catholic I would be a whole lot more concerned about the judgement and honesty of the Archbishop, who leads a large number of churches, than the actions of these two guys.

 

[agangbern]

You really don’t get to pick and choose parts of the CCC to meet your pre-defined biases and judge all of humanity with them.

All humanity? Oh,you are debating with your own ideas.

What you state above is incorrect. You are intentionally using different articles and attempting to deduce your own biased conclusions.

That idea of yours is simply part of your so-called biased conclusions.

What 2351 says is that “Lust is a disordered desire for or an inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure”.

Show the whole 2351 here and you will see what it really means.

2357 states (Emphasis mine) “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or women who experience an exclusive or predominate sexual attraction towards persons of the same sex”.

Attraction for what? Attraction for sex! Desire for sex with the same sex. What else? Is that sexual desire not disordered? It is disordered because it is sought for itself isolated from any procreative purpose.

Now clearly 2357 defines homosexuality as the relations itself in the first part of the sentence and then goes on to define who may perform those relations. They are two definitions.

It goes on to state that “homosexual acts are intristically disordered”

Note the act is disordered.

The sexual desire toward same sex itself is disordered sexual desire. It exists in the heart. There is no need for overt acts to make it disordered. It is itself disordered sexual desire.

 

[rlg94086]

All humanity? Oh,you are debating with your own ideas.

That idea of yours is simply part of your so-called biased conclusions.

Show the whole 2351 here and you will see what it really means.

Attraction for what? Attraction for sex! Desire for sex with the same sex. What else? Is that sexual desire not disordered? It is disordered because it is sought for itself isolated from any procreative purpose.

The sexual desire toward same sex itself is disordered sexual desire. It exists in the heart. There is no need for overt acts to make it disordered. It is itself disordered sexual desire.

Attraction does not equal lust. The Church is very careful in choosing her words when preparing a Catechism. Homosexuality is “attraction” and “inclination.”

IMO, you lost all credibility when you claimed that Jesus was asexual (not homosexual and not heterosexual). The fact that He didn’t lust or fornicate does not mean that Jesus did not have any attraction to the opposite sex. Remember, He was fully human.

 

[agangbern]

Attraction does not equal lust. The Church is very careful in choosing her words when preparing a Catechism. Homosexuality is “attraction” and “inclination.”

IMO, you lost all credibility when you claimed that Jesus was asexual (not homosexual and not heterosexual). The fact that He didn’t lust or fornicate does not mean that Jesus did not have any attraction to the opposite sex. Remember, He was fully human.

Here you go again. Don’t you still understand? Nobody is arguing to the fact that attraction does not equal lust. But you keep on repeating that fact as if someone is arguing against it. That is the danger of not seeing clearly.
Do not worry if I seem to loss credibility here. Human wisdom is different from Divine wisdom, so I am concerned with credibility before the eyes of God. Prove to me that Jesus Christ ever had sexual desire for the opposite sex! Asexual is not the same as not heterosexual, you should know that.

 

[rlg94086]

Here you go again. Don’t you still understand? Nobody is arguing to the fact that attraction does not equal lust. But you keep on repeating that fact as if someone is arguing against it. That is the danger of not seeing clearly.
Do not worry if I seem to loss credibility here. Human wisdom is different from Divine wisdom, so I am concerned with credibility before the eyes of God. Prove to me that Jesus Christ ever had sexual desire for the opposite sex! Asexual is not the same as not heterosexual, you should know that.

I have no need to prove it to you, my friend. I didn’t make the original assertion that Jesus is neither hetero- nor homosexual. I am not familiar with any teaching from the Church regarding this matter. If you know of any, then I will gladly read it.

I have read the Catechism, encyclicals, etc. on Homosexuality, and I believe I have a good understanding of the Church’s teaching. Your arguments are unconvincing, so I guess we will have to just agree to disagree, unless you can find something from the Church backing up your claims (i.e. someone with authority who has the same understanding you do). I gave the article from an Archbishop whom I trust, who explained that **“persistent homosexual tendencies never preclude personal holiness.” **If, as you claim, “persistent homosexual tendencies” are themselves a sin, then they would have to preclude holiness.

 

[Bennie_P]

As long as we say Judeo-Christian ideas touched the known world, I agree. That is far from being the standard of the world. All kinds of ideas touched the known world.

I really don’t see an assault against Judeo-Christian standards. It’s more of an indifference to certain ideas. And, since most of the J-C standards have also been developed by other philosophies, cultures, and religions they are not in danger.

Give me an example of a modern society/country in which the basic morality standards up to WWII, that is the morality concerning marriage, and sexuality didn’t reflect that which is known by us as Judea-Christian sexual mores? Now, I not saying to give a example of which society failed to live up to that standard, for all us are prown to fail(original sin/fallen nature of man), or claim to be a Christian and/or Jewish nation.

As to other philosophies, what is the philosophies and teachings concerning sexuality in Hinduism and Buddhism as it compares to the laws on such matters concerning sexuality and marriage in the countries those philosophies/religions dominate?

 

[agangbern]

I have no need to prove it to you, my friend. I didn’t make the original assertion that Jesus is neither hetero- nor homosexual. I am not familiar with any teaching from the Church regarding this matter. If you know of any, then I will gladly read it.

My assertion that Jesus Christ is not homosexual and not heterosexual is a negative assertion. Negative assertions need not be proved. It is he who asserts affirmatively that has the duty to prove his assertion. You object to my assertion that Jesus Christ is not heterosexual. In effect you are asserting that Jesus Christ is heterosexual. So the duty rests on you to prove that he indeed is heterosexual. If you cannot prove it, then do not assert it.

 

[rlg94086]

My assertion that Jesus Christ is not homosexual and not heterosexual is a negative assertion. Negative assertions need not be proved. It is he who asserts affirmatively that has the duty to prove his assertion. You object to my assertion that Jesus Christ is not heterosexual. In effect you are asserting that Jesus Christ is heterosexual. So the duty rests on you to prove that he indeed is heterosexual. If you cannot prove it, then do not assert it.

Fine. My assertion is retracted and your negative assertion is ignored, unless you can show me someone with Church authority or a Church document which teaches what you believe.

 

[agangbern]

I have read the Catechism, encyclicals, etc. on Homosexuality, and I believe I have a good understanding of the Church’s teaching. Your arguments are unconvincing, so I guess we will have to just agree to disagree, unless you can find something from the Church backing up your claims (i.e. someone with authority who has the same understanding you do). I gave the article from an Archbishop whom I trust, who explained that **“persistent homosexual tendencies never preclude personal holiness.” **If, as you claim, “persistent homosexual tendencies” are themselves a sin, then they would have to preclude holiness.

I am not here to convince anyone. My arguments are not based on personal belief on a good understanding of the Church’s teaching, but are backed up by the Catechism itself. But you chose to twist the catechism to suit your conceived “good understanding”.

“They do not preclude holiness” simply means that homosexuals still have a hope for salvation. How it would be achieved is something a gift from God. Even criminals still have a hope for salvation.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I would be remiss if I did not say that I resent, with my entire being, using Our Lord’s name in this thread on this topic.

He is the Second Person in the Holy Trinity and His name is bandied about on a subject that reeks with perversity. It is blashemous. This thread should be renamed “Da Vinci Anything Goes.”

His Holy Name must never be used in context with a subject as devious as this one.

Unbelievers are not banned on this Forum but they have to comply within the guidelines. This topic has become a topic from Hell.

Catholic people, retake control of YOUR Forum.

 

[rlg94086]

I am not here to convince anyone. My arguments are not based on personal belief on a good understanding of the Church’s teaching, but are backed up by the Catechism itself. But you chose to twist the catechism to suit your conceived “good understanding”.

It is not charitable to accuse others of “twisting” the Catechism, as you have done multiple times. I don’t try to make the Catechism fit my viewpoint, and I don’t believe you are twisting the Catechism. IMO you have a faulty understanding of sexual desire and lust, and it is leading you to an incorrect conclusion.

Sexual desire is a gift from God. God made us female and male. He made us for loving sex, which is unitive and procreative. There is nothing sinful in normal sexual desire. Lust is not desire - it is “disordered desire” (CCC 2351), which occured starting with the fall. My understanding is that Jesus would have the same desires for woman that Adam had for Eve before the fall.

You are teaching something not supported by the Catechism or any Church teaching I have read. Since it is a definition problem, it is ineffective to say the Catechism supports your view. If you can find something else with Church authority which explains your viewpoint, then I will gladly read it (as I have already offered). If there is no interest on your part in providing that material, then I guess our conversation is done.

 

[agangbern]

I would be remiss if I did not say that I resent, with my entire being, using Our Lord’s name in this thread on this topic.

He is the Second Person in the Holy Trinity and His name is bandied about on a subject that reeks with perversity. It is blashemous. This thread should be renamed “Da Vinci Anything Goes.”

His Holy Name must never be used in context with a subject as devious as this one.

Unbelievers are not banned on this Forum but they have to comply within the guidelines. This topic has become a topic from Hell.

Catholic people, retake control of YOUR Forum.

I would like to ask forgiveness for the hurt this thread may have caused upon the sensitivity of others. Jesus’ name is a light wherever there is darkness. And in this thread there is so much darkness.

 

[agangbern]

. Lust is not desire - it is “disordered desire” (CCC 2351), which occured starting with the fall.

To prove your conceived “good understanding”, see how you made contradicting statements above.

 

[rlg94086]

To prove your conceived “good understanding”, see how you made contradicting statements above.

It’s not contradictory…it is pointing out an important adjective. That’s why “disordered” was bolded. Lust is “disordered” desire…not regular desire. It’s a language thing…

 

[agangbern]

It’s not contradictory…it is pointing out an important adjective. That’s why “disordered” was bolded. Lust is “disordered” desire…not regular desire. It’s a language thing…

It is still a desire, although a disordered desire.

 

[rlg94086]

It is still a desire, although a disordered desire.

EXACTLY! Eureka, you have got it! If lust is a disordered desire, there is a regular desire for loving sex. I suggest you read up on some Theology of the Body… Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and Christopher West (a fantastic lay author on the subject) explain it much better than I do…
theologyofthebody.net/

 

[agangbern]

Fine. My assertion is retracted and your negative assertion is ignored, unless you can show me someone with Church authority or a Church document which teaches what you believe.

The Lord Jesus Christ is the same Lord forever. He resurrected. “At the resurrection they will neither marry nor be given in to marriage, but will be as angels of God in heaven.” (Mathew 22:30) Are heavenly beings heterosexuals? As we have read, they are not. Is the Lord Jesus Christ a heavenly being? Yes he is a heavenly being. (1Cor 15:47)

 

[rlg94086]

The Lord Jesus Christ is the same Lord forever. He resurrected. “At the resurrection they will neither marry nor be given in to marriage, but will be as angels of God in heaven.” (Mathew 22:30) Are heavenly beings heterosexuals? As we have read, they are not. Is the Lord Jesus Christ a heavenly being? Yes he is a heavenly being. (1Cor 15:47)

The Lord Jesus Christ was “made man.” When He was here on this earth, He would have had the same desires that other men had. Therefore, my understanding is that He had a heterosexual orientation. To believe otherwise is to deny his human nature.

 

[agangbern]

EXACTLY! Eureka, you have got it! If lust is a disordered desire, there is a regular desire for loving sex. I suggest you read up on some Theology of the Body… Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and Christopher West (a fantastic lay author on the subject) explain it much better than I do…
theologyofthebody.net/

Whew! Who said that there is no regular desire for loving sex? You again want to debate against yourself. The sexual desire of a man for his wife is a normal desire. It has in it a procreative purpose. But the sexual desire of homosexual is disordered sexual desire because it is isolated from any procreative purpose.

 

[agangbern]

The Lord Jesus Christ was “made man.” When He was here on this earth, He would have had the same desires that other men had. Therefore, my understanding is that He had a heterosexual orientation. To believe otherwise is to deny his human nature.

To believe otherwise is to deny his human nature? That would be true if human nature is according to the concept of Sigmund Freud. But human nature is not according to Sigmund Freud’s concept. Think about the true nature of man as revealed by the Lord himself when he became flesh.