Lumiere Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 [quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1309510637' post='2261467'] I really don't mean to sound offensive, but you seem to have a persecution-complex. I can't speak for how people may have treated you in the past but no one here is treating you unkindly. Perhaps if people have wounded you in the past, you might be more sensitive and thus more eager to go into defense-mode when the topic comes up, but please don't just write people off because they disagree with you. Dust was merely asking you to clarify if you agreed with the catechism or not. I do see flaws in your logic, but I see no point in addressing them if it's only gonna put you on the defensive. I don't think you're a lust-crazed monster. Do I think you're disordered? Probably, but have you seen the threads around here? I'd wager that most of us are disordered in some way or another because we're human and it happens. I would be the first to tell you exactly how disordered I am; I'm a little less jacked up than I used to be but there's still quite a mess up there in my old noggin. When other disordered humans try to point you to the right direction one's first reaction might be "Um [i]you're[/i] gonna look at [i]me[/i] and tell me I'm messed up? How about you clean up your own act pal." I understand that but if the person seems to be stumbling along in the right direction it may behoove you to take his/her advice. Maybe another person can see something you can't, and perhaps you can see something the other person can't. It helps to merge perspectives together, while looking in God's direction. I think most of the people on phatmass are stumbling along the straight and narrow. Just try not to write them off so quickly eh? [/quote] I find most of the people on these Gay discussions to be hostile and aggressive under a layer of pretty words. The easy fall back for you guys is Church documents, but you never examine those documents in light of what we know to be true today. You also don't examine those documents in light of what is in the bible. Homosexuals are born that way. If you believe in God, then God made them that way. No, I do not want a whole bunch of links to gay conversion sites in response to this e-mail. I have been through that discussion with you people already and it was very enlightening as to the true nature of most of the posters in these discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 [quote name='Debra Little' timestamp='1309507677' post='2261459'] Excuse me but God made me and He doesn't make mistakes. Furthermore I and other gays are not disordered. We are healthy people. Don't load this kind of croutons on me. This is a total misunderstanding of what it means to be gay. And it is exclusive and unloving. It is unChristian and wrong. They should be ashamed of speaking this way. Look I will tell all of you right off the bat, I am not going to defend myself to you or the Church or anyone else. Seriously what am I even doing here? Why does everything have to lead to procreation? That is nuts. There are hundreds of straight people that can't conceive. This has nothing to do with being gay. And you wonder why I talk about gay bashing. You can believe whatever you want to but I don't have to subject myself to this and I won't. If people can't be kind, then I"m outta here! [/quote] I'm very confused. Is this directed at me? All I did was ask you about the Catechism. Is this in reply to the Catechism? All I wanted to know is if you agree or disagree with it. It sounds like you disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 [quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1309501993' post='2261449'] question. why doesnt the catholic church refuse to do funeral masses for all their members that they know arent following a catholic lifestyle? no drunks allowed, no homosexuals, no people living in sin, no couples using contraception, no soccer moms abusing prescription drugs, no husbands with affairs, no fat people (gluttony can be a lifestyle too), etc? or would that mean that the church would no longer get to do proper funeral masses very often? would taking a stand against sins that are much more common in society cause their church going population to dwindle and die? Im guessing that refusing to give a catholic teenager a proper mass after they die from drunk driving would be a bit of a PR nightmare, even though they obviously died in sin (from drinking to excess), and probably made a habit of it, a lifestyle of sinning you could say. [/quote] There's a difference between people who sin, and acknowledge they are sinning, and repent for it, and people who choose to live a lifestyle in sin, and rebel against the church because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 [quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1309530478' post='2261546']Homosexuals are born that way. [/quote] Okay, let's say for the sake of argument that this is so. So what? People are born with all kinds of crosses to carry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 [quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1309530478' post='2261546'] Homosexuals are born that way. If you believe in God, then God made them that way. [/quote] I was born heterosexual. Our lives don't have to be dominated by our sexual desires. I have a desire to have sex with women. I had a desire to have sex with women before I was married. I have a desire to have sex with women other than my wife. I have a desire to masturbate. [b]God made me that way. [/b] Should I act out on all these desires, or promote them as being acceptable? It's not all about homosexuality. It's about being virtuous in the face of temptation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faithcecelia Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1309532481' post='2261563'] I was born heterosexual. Our lives don't have to be dominated by our sexual desires. I have a desire to have sex with women. I had a desire to have sex with women before I was married. I have a desire to have sex with women other than my wife. I have a desire to masturbate. [b]God made me that way. [/b]Should I act out on all these desires, or promote them as being acceptable? It's not all about homosexuality. It's about being virtuous in the face of temptation. [/quote] I think the difference is that, being heterosexual, you have been blessed to find your wife and have chosen to commit your life to her (and she to you). Yes, of course you have the natural desire to express your sexuality with other people, and yourself, you know these desires are natural and you also know that in the context of your faith and your marriage you cannot do so. What I gather from Debra's comments are that she, as a woman who is attracted to other women, has the same desires as any other person - the desire for partnership, the desire for sexual satisfaction, etc - but knows she does not have a legitimate outlet for any of these desires, whereas you do with your wife. I can appreciate Debra's issues with the language used in the catechism and I, like someone else said, get the impression it is the language that she has the real problem with not the rule behind it. The word disorder, to me at least, suggests something which should be cured. While I know there are groups that will claim to cure you of same sex attraction, I also know that a great number of people have suffered as a result of being 'cured' or of marrying someone who had been 'cured'. The language is as it is, I am certainly not about to say that the catechism is wrong! However I think we need to be careful with some of how we interpret it, and gently help and encourage people in this position to accept and later embrace their necessary celibacy (as Debra seems to have done) without directly or indirectly inplying that their sexuality is in itself a sin. To again refer to your above post - your desire to masturbate is not in itself wrong - it is perfectly natural - but acting on the desire or choosing to conciously ponder and think about your desire would be. Actually, as someone called to celibacy by nature of a religious vocation, I can sympathise with anyone who has no acceptable outlet for sexual desire! Does this make any sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debra Little Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1309531068' post='2261550'] I'm very confused. Is this directed at me? All I did was ask you about the Catechism. Is this in reply to the Catechism? All I wanted to know is if you agree or disagree with it. It sounds like you disagree. [/quote] It was't directed at you but at the spirit which has been in this place while we have been discussing this. But being who I am how can I possibly agree with unkindness and ignorance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1309531378' post='2261552'] There's a difference between people who sin, and acknowledge they are sinning, and repent for it, and people who choose to live a lifestyle in sin, and rebel against the church because of it. [/quote] why is the homosexual the only one of the list i listed that is choosing to rebel against the church? all the other ones are repeated action, habits and lifestyles that are contrary to catholic teaching, some of which are violating the ten commandments or other mortal sins. they may choose to repent their sins often, but they still keep doing them. why cant a gay man be doing the same thing? the Gay guy could easily belong to either one of the groups you listed. It is weird that basically the only way catholics can accept a gay man is if he leads a chaste life, however it seems ok if an adulterer screws around on his wife and fornicates as long as he goes to confession? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 [quote name='faithcecelia' timestamp='1309535185' post='2261583'] What I gather from Debra's comments are that she, as a woman who is attracted to other women, has the same desires as any other person - the desire for partnership, the desire for sexual satisfaction, etc - but knows she does not have a legitimate outlet for any of these desires, whereas you do with your wife.[/quote] Legitimate friendships can occur without involving sex. Not everyone is called to be in a sexual relationship. Also, I think it's erroneous to assume that just because one is married or in a relationship, their desire for sexual satisfaction outside of that relationship diminishes. For me personally, it does not. I still desire to have sex outside of my marriage. I still desire to masturbate, despite being married. These things do not magically change just because one is married or in a sexual relationship. [quote] I can appreciate Debra's issues with the language used in the catechism and I, like someone else said, get the impression it is the language that she has the real problem with not the rule behind it. The word disorder, to me at least, suggests something which should be cured. While I know there are groups that will claim to cure you of same sex attraction, I also know that a great number of people have suffered as a result of being 'cured' or of marrying someone who had been 'cured'.[/quote] I don't think the Catechism is advocating being "cured". I think it is defining a sin, just like it defines other sins, and telling us we should not sin. I think it's safe to assume that 99% of heterosexual males have struggled with masturbation at some point in their lives. Well, looky here, look what the catechism says, [i]"Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that[b] masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely [color="#FF0000"]disordered[/color] action[/b]."[/i] There's that word again! And it's talking about straight people! Am I disordered? No. The act is. Homosexual people reading the catechism should be no more offended than I am. [quote]To again refer to your above post - your desire to masturbate is not in itself wrong - it is perfectly natural - but acting on the desire or choosing to conciously ponder and think about your desire would be. Actually, as someone called to celibacy by nature of a religious vocation, I can sympathise with anyone who has no acceptable outlet for sexual desire![/quote] Again, I want to re-iterate, marriage is not an "outlet for sexual desire". I have just as many sexual desires and temptations as I had before I was married, if not more, that I must deny myself of in order to live a virtuous and chaste life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 [quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1309536473' post='2261594'] why is the homosexual the only one of the list i listed that is choosing to rebel against the church? all the other ones are repeated action, habits and lifestyles that are contrary to catholic teaching, some of which are violating the ten commandments or other mortal sins. they may choose to repent their sins often, but they still keep doing them. why cant a gay man be doing the same thing? the Gay guy could easily belong to either one of the groups you listed. It is weird that basically the only way catholics can accept a gay man is if he leads a chaste life, however it seems ok if an adulterer screws around on his wife and fornicates as long as he goes to confession? [/quote] You're not understanding what I'm saying. If the adulterer says, "there's nothing wrong with adultery, it's how God made me", and then lives a life that promotes that way of thinking, then that person should also be denied a Catholic funeral. The scandal is not that a person is homosexual, but that a person publicly and unapologetically defies church teaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faithcecelia Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 [quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1309536473' post='2261594'] why is the homosexual the only one of the list i listed that is choosing to rebel against the church? all the other ones are repeated action, habits and lifestyles that are contrary to catholic teaching, some of which are violating the ten commandments or other mortal sins. they may choose to repent their sins often, but they still keep doing them. why cant a gay man be doing the same thing? the Gay guy could easily belong to either one of the groups you listed. It is weird that basically the only way catholics can accept a gay man is if he leads a chaste life, however it seems ok if an adulterer screws around on his wife and fornicates as long as he goes to confession? [/quote] I once asked my priest about the confessions side of some of these issues. His answer (in very basic language cos its all I can manage ) is that a priest cannot give absolution if the penitents confession suggests he has no intention of giving up the sin. For example if someone said 'I have been co-habitating with my partner but now know it is wrong and have moved out' he could give absolution but not if the penitent said 'I am co-habitating with my partner' - basically absolution cannot be given if it is clear they are returning straight to the sinful way of life. Of course, there will be people who confess to adultry, or drink driving, or any number of other things, who do repeat the sin - sometimes many, many times. However, God, through the priest, trusts the intention to be right so absolution can be given. Going back to the man in question here, he knew the rules - as a 'devout Catholic' he will have known that his lifestyle was contrary to his professed faith but chose to continue with the relationship. His attraction to men in general or his partner in particular was not the reason for the decision, it was that, knowing the Church's teaching, he still chose to continue with the relationship. This meant he did not allow himself the chance to try and then fail (if necessary) to be chaste, he chose to break the rules continuously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Normile Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Wow, this thread is fast! I have been trying to read it all, but could not keep up after the gay bashing remarks started flying. I seen this at about the third page and looked up his Obituary, it seems Mr Sanfillippo was married for 28 years and had a son named peter, I wonder if he divorced his wife, abandoning her for his "Gay Partner" and if that had anything to do with the decision to deny his funeral? It also sems he has had great success with clubs that cater to the homosexual lifestyle, maybe that played into the decision too. ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumiere Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 The following is one comment on the mistranslation of the bible as far as homosexuality is concerned. Not speaking ancient Greek I am no judge of this particular comment, but there are many parts of the bible which have been mistranslated and not just those refering to homosexuality. Many passages which refer specifically to women are also mistranslated. "[url="http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section07.html"][b]I Cor 6:9 Greek Study:[/b][/url] [b]Historical Background[/b] Paul's 1st letter to the Corinthians has been totally falsely twisted from the Greek to English. It says nothing at all about homosexuality only ancient idolatry. The temple of Aphrodite Pandemos, goddess of sexual fertility, dominated Acrocorinthus and employed 1000 prostitutes who served in sexual rites virtually around the clock. The greek words pornoi, arsenokitai and malikos, were no doubt promiscuously available throughout the city, a city famous for her libertine rites in the worship of idols. Acrocorinthus was the dominant geographic feature enshrouding the Corinthian skyline and rose to a great height of 1750 ft. above the city. Corinth, herself, was a metaphor of fertility and libertine sexuality among the ancient cities of Mediterrania. [b]The range of meanings for the Greeks "malakos" and "arsenokoital"in I Cor[/b] 6:9 is very wide. In the KJV its "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind", other versions translate it as homosexuals, sodomites, or who are guilty of homosexual perversion. However there are many lexical errors in all these translations. [b]"Malakos"[/b] The idea that "malakos" (soft, effeminate) links it to homosexuality ignores the hebrew culture. Gay men were not viewed as effeminate unless they exhibited feminine characteristics in addition to being gay. Many heterosexual males were called effeminate and there is no essential connection between this and sexual preference in any ancient literature. Other greek words were used for homosexuals but never "malakos", and the other words are never used in scripture. Boswell points out that it is frequently used in moral context as licentious. Scroggs points out it also has been used as the effeminate call-boy prostitute in pederasty, but has nothing to do with homosexuality as we know it today. [b]"Arsenkoites"[/b] There is no recorded used of "Arsenkoites" prior to its appearance in 1 Cor 6:9. English translators traditionally have related it to Sodomites. There is a double irony to this since, as it is now generally recognized, Sodomites were not punished for homosexuality. The claim this word means homosexual, defies linguistic evidence and common sense. "Koites" generally denotes licentious sexual activities, and corresponds to the active person in intercourse. The prefix "Arsen", simply means "male". It could mean a male that has sex with lots of women. Paul made up a new word. A biblical scholar when a word is unknown, looks for similar greek words to find a possible meaning. Boswell concludes Paul writing in Koine Greek, took a word from Attic Greek combined with a word from Old Testament Greek to mean the active male prostitute. These were common in the Hellenistic world in the time of Paul. They served as prostitutes for both men and women. BINGO! Remember "porneia" in the same verse that has been mistranslated fornication but was really female temple prostitutes? Guess what? Paul also is condemning the male prostitutes that also were in the temples of the sex gods! Scroggs relates it to pederasty in the context it is used in conjunction with "malakos", the effeminate call-boy prostitute. It follows that "arsenkoites" is used to describe the adult active partner of the effeminate call-boy prostitute. Again this is a specific style of pederasty characterized by a young, passive, for-hire call boy and the adult customer. What is clear it has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality as practiced today. It is a serious thing to take human bias and misrepresentations and then sanctify them by wrapping them in the robes of God's authority. That is clearly Scriptural abuse and God does warn strongly those that try and add to His Word. The Bible is the key instruction manual for Christians, but many fail to realize that the English translations of today, often reflect the bias and history of sexual repression of the Church through the ages and may have nothing to do with what God or writers were really meaning to say. God's real opinion is found by digging beneath the surface, and doing that will lessen the danger of misunderstanding, resulting in confusing our homophobic opinion with God's. God does not call today's homosexuality sin, only you do." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeresaBenedicta Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 [quote name='faithcecelia' timestamp='1309535185' post='2261583'] To again refer to your above post - your desire to masturbate is not in itself wrong - it is perfectly natural - but acting on the desire or choosing to conciously ponder and think about your desire would be. [/quote] I both agree... and disagree... The desire to masturbate is not in itself wrong- true. There is no sin in the desire. BUT, and distinctions are important here, the desire [b]is[/b] disordered. In exactly the same way that SSA is disordered. "Disorder" means 'not ordered to its proper end'. Masturbation is sex with oneself. It is not ordered toward the natural end of sexual activity/desire. SSA is not wrong. There is no sin in being attracted to a person of the same sex. But, the desire itself is not ordered toward the natural end of sexual activity/desire either. Much of what we run into that causes problem is an inexact use of language. English is one of the most difficult languages to be precise in. The Catechism is written in precise language. As are Church documents. Again- the word 'disorder' is not used in the sense of a particular mental disease or illness... it literally means 'not ordered to its natural end'. Natural end is even an exact term, because it comes from natural philosophy and the four causes: final, formal, material, and efficient. The natural end of something corresponds with the final cause. "What's its purpose?" We live in a fallen world. We are born into a fallen world. That means we are born with desires that are disordered... ALL OF US!! Sin, in its most basic definition, is disorder. Precisely because whatever action sin happens to be, it is not ordered toward God. And the desire to sin, which of course is not sin itself and therefore not 'wrong', is also disordered. This afflicts all of us in many, many different ways. Good news, though!! Jesus came to save us from the power of sin!! Grace restores, or to be technical, [b]re-orders[/b] both our disordered actions (so we stop sinning and turn to love God more) and eventually, although likely only in heaven, our disordered desires (no desire for action of any kind that is not directed perfectly toward God as our final end). Interestingly enough, St. Bernard teaches that our freedom from sorrow (his technical term for the re-ordering of our disordered desires) is only accomplished perfectly in Heaven and only few experience it briefly here on Earth. God loves each of us exactly as we are. He made us, He knows us. God could have made us perfect, without faults, without disordered desires, without sin. But He allowed original sin, in His Divine Providence, because He knew He could draw even greater good from it than if there had been no original sin!! God loves us so much, right now, exactly as we are, that His love moves us and covers us with His grace to purify us, to elevate us (remember, grace does not destroy nature, but elevates it), and to bring all of our desires into perfect order, directed perfectly toward Him. [b]Remember... "God works all things together for good for those who love him and are called according to his purpose" Romans 8:28[/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archaeology cat Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1309536687' post='2261597'] Again, I want to re-iterate, marriage is not an "outlet for sexual desire". I have just as many sexual desires and temptations as I had before I was married, if not more, that I must deny myself of in order to live a virtuous and chaste life. [/quote] Agreed! I don't think that's truly what she was meaning necessarily, but it's good to clarify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts