Since We've Been Talking About Lgbtq Stuff A Lot Lately...

[Little Flower]

Sodomy/anal sex between married couples also called sodomia imperfecta is a grave offense against the natural law, and yes it is despite what you may hear suggested from others a sin.

 

I don't doubt you, but just curious, do you have a link or something official from the Church backing that up? In other words, something official that I could quote from rather than "I heard from this random guy on the internet..."

[franciscanheart]

I do want to respond but I've found myself in a :wall: (more like: :cry: :ohno: WHY) situation at work which will require the rest of my work day. For now, let me say this:


How many Little Flower screen names can one Catholic phorum handle? :ohno:

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I do want to respond but I've found myself in a :wall: (more like: :cry: :ohno: WHY) situation at work which will require the rest of my work day. For now, let me say this:


How many Little Flower screen names can one Catholic phorum handle? :ohno:

 

JMJ was the OG. Does she ever come around anymore?

[franciscanheart]

JMJ was the OG. Does she ever come around anymore?

:( Not that I've seen, not in some time. :cry:

[LinaSt.Cecilia2772]

For example... Our Lord says that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. (the Church says homosexuals here refers to those who consent to it, since sin is in in the will, not those who don't consent and are chaste, same with adulterers: not those who are tempted to adultery, but those who commit it).

 

I'm going to reiterate once again what I've said fifty bagillion times already, but in a longer form.

 

1) The church was founded by God, but humans are what make up and run the Church. These humans I speak of are people like you, me, everyone else on this phorum, the clergy, and all the Catholics in the world. In human nature, we were not made to be perfect. We, however, are made to strive for greatness even if we screw up from time to time. Greatness doesn't occur overnight, it takes a lot of time and patience.

 

2) Since we are not perfect, how are we suddenly capable to say who will inherit the Kingdom of God or not? God is the only one who knows our hearts better than we know ourselves. It doesn't matter what sin anyone commits whether it's adultery, impurity, or whatever. It is NOT our right to judge others and say things like this about homosexuals. GOD IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN JUDGE US, and God is the only one who can give us the grace, forgiveness, love, and perfection that only He can give through prayer and the Sacraments.

 

Please stop making comments like this one that's so absolute that homosexuals who sin just like any other heterosexual person who sins cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. It's just another insult and setback to lead those who ACTUALLY want to reconcile and be a follower of Christ even further away.

Edited May 23, 2013 by LinaSt.Cecilia2772

[Little Flower]

I do want to respond but I've found myself in a :wall: (more like: :cry: :ohno: WHY) situation at work which will require the rest of my work day.

 

Sorry. Sounds awful :)

 

For now, let me say this:


How many Little Flower screen names can one Catholic phorum handle? :ohno:

 

I think I will go cry in a corner by myself :cry: ...  No jk - I guess she's a popular saint! St. Therese was my confirmation saint, and I really look up to her. Especially since I am discerning a vocation myself. Anyhow I'm the only Little Flower exactly, but I think theres a bunch of other takes on the same idea...

 

[Lil Red]

 I've read Fr. John Harvey before, and his little booklet can address some of the confusion some may have on this topic.  He truly was a priest devoted to the care and love of persons who struggled with same sex attraction...May God rest his soul.

 

In case you missed it the first time:

 

http://www.kofc.org/un/en/resources/cis/cis385.pdf

 

i'd understand if you posted this again a few pages apart - but literally 5 posts apart and you posted it again? 

[jazzytakara]

:huh: I didn't call you stupid.

I think the website you posted is laughable. "Hi, I'm attracted to people of the same sex [otherwise known as homosexual] but I don't want to be called gay [aka homosexual] because I'm attempting to distance myself from popular understanding of people just like me."

Um, sorry: You're gay. AND THAT'S OKAY.

I'm not saying it's wrong for someone to prefer the "SSA" descriptor over gay or queer; I'm just pointing out that they mean the same thing.

 

I think what MarysLittleFlower was trying to say that some people prefer one description over another. Sometimes depending on your culture, friends, etc. different words have different meanings to different people. Even in cases where two names have the same meaning, its more about the stigma or social understanding around the word. In my Communication Theory class semester, my professor showed us a variety of images and then asked each student what they thought the image or word meant. Everyone had a different response. For instance a cross to me was salvation, another said religion, another restriction, etc. An American flag, some said liberty, others freedom, others patriotism, others war. Words don't have meaning on their own, meaning is a social construct, and can mean a different thing to everyone. There may be a shared societal connotation, but also an individual understanding. So when she is saying that some prefer SSA over gay, I interpret it as individuals having a different meaning associated to each descriptor and applying one to themselves that they feel fits them more as a person or has more positive meaning to them. There are people would would prefer gay to SSA as well based on their own interpretations of the words and who they are as a person. I agree 100% that they mean the same things technically, but what the words actually mean to an individual could be something else entirely. 

 

Whatever descriptor, name, label, etc. someone wants to use, it is respectful for everyone to adhere to that desire even if we feel there is no difference. We may have a shared definition, but it is up to each individual and the societal interpretation to give meaning to a word. As long as we aren't using one word over another to be offensive, it is okay to interchange words we feel have similar meaning as long as the person it is applied to hasn't requested otherwise.

This actually reminds me of a thread I came across on Catholic Answers last week. One user who identified themselves as transgender (in this case born male, identified self as female and lived as a female) became offended when another user (who was against the idea of being transgender) referred to the transgender individual as male rather than the female as the user had asked. I found the user disrespectful, as they kept saying 'sir', 'mr.' mister', etc. When the other use repeatedly asked to be called 'miss', they even tried to understand and said that if the user felt uncomfortable using female identifiers to simply call them by their name/username, the offending user continued to address this user as male. In this case, even if you disagree with someones choice to change their gender, it is respectful to address them how they wish to be addressed even if you don't condone their decision, lifestyle, etc. 

 

It is kind of like Catholics identifying themselves as Christian whereas others associate Christian with Protestants...like bookstores that have a Christian section and a Catholic section..or the classic question 'are you Christian or Catholic?' :stubborn: 
This ended up a lot longer  then I had originally intended. I guess I got excited at actually being able to use a theory learnt in university =p 

[cappie]

Been following with interest. I think that the discussion has been good to help clear the air on some misunderstandings. Anything that helps clarify both the understanding of the topic and the teaching of the Church can only be a good thing. We should never be afraid to do this on any topic, that way we come hopefully to an appreciation of each other. This topic is not so heated in Australia, not so bound up with politics. On the topic of "marriage equality" for example both the Prime Minister an atheist and the leader of the opposition a Catholic are against changing the law on marriage. I think it is important to uphold the unchanging teaching of the church whilst not condemning people for an orientation that is, I believe, not their fault. They need to be able to thing of the Church as a safe place, a place where they can feel at home and supported. I have to go to say Mass at the Missionaries of Charity now but if the debate is still firing I will return!!

 

Edited May 23, 2013 by cappie

[Papist]

I do want to respond but I've found myself in a :wall: (more like: :cry: :ohno: WHY) situation at work which will require the rest of my work day. For now, let me say this:


How many Little Flower screen names can one Catholic phorum handle? :ohno:

I find it hard to believe that you cannot understand how one might get the understanding that "being gay" can be contrary to your definition in this culture. Our culture does not portray being gay as you describe. I am not saying you are right or wrong, but your definition is not what I am seeing in our culture. For example, there is not one, not one, gay character on TV that is gay as you describe.

[franciscanheart]

I find it hard to believe that you cannot understand how one might get the understanding that "being gay" can be contrary to your definition in this culture. Our culture does not portray being gay as you describe. I am not saying you are right or wrong, but your definition is not what I am seeing in our culture. For example, there is not one, not one, gay character on TV that is gay as you describe.

I'm asking you to use some common sense, that's all.

If I call you straight, does it mean you're having sex?


(FYI: This is my two second break between finishing (THANK YOU LORD FOR HELPING ME WITH PATIENCE AND CLARITY) a monstrous headache of a job at work and racing off to a pre-wedding dinner / drinks celebration. I'll be back later to add more.)

[4588686]

I find it hard to believe that you cannot understand how one might get the understanding that "being gay" can be contrary to your definition in this culture. Our culture does not portray being gay as you describe. I am not saying you are right or wrong, but your definition is not what I am seeing in our culture. For example, there is not one, not one, gay character on TV that is gay as you describe.

 

 

As somebody currently saturated in the sodomy loving capital of the east coast I can say that I really don't know what you mean.  'Being gay' refers exclusively to sexual orientation.  That's why somebody can be gay and in denial. 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I find it hard to believe that you cannot understand how one might get the understanding that "being gay" can be contrary to your definition in this culture. Our culture does not portray being gay as you describe. I am not saying you are right or wrong, but your definition is not what I am seeing in our culture. For example, there is not one, not one, gay character on TV that is gay as you describe.

 

Lol, because characters on TV are accurate representations of people in real life. There is not one, not one, Italian New Jerseyan on TV that doesn't wear Affliction and fist pump.

[PhuturePriest]

Maybe it's because I spent so much time wishing I was in the '70s and '80s, but I thought people that are like what Papist is describing are known as "flaming". :P

Edited May 23, 2013 by FuturePriest387

[jazzytakara]

I'm asking you to use some common sense, that's all.

If I call you straight, does it mean you're having sex?


(FYI: This is my two second break between finishing (THANK YOU LORD FOR HELPING ME WITH PATIENCE AND CLARITY) a monstrous headache of a job at work and racing off to a pre-wedding dinner / drinks celebration. I'll be back later to add more.)

 

I don't think that being called gay, straight, etc. necessitates physical intimacy in a relationship, just the inclination towards one gender (or both) over another. Its about attraction first and foremost , although most relationships can (and often do) lead to physical intimacy. The Church's teaching believes this intimacy should be reserved only for marriage for purpose of unity with your spouse and openness to procreation. Attraction to a person does not mean you want to have a physically intimate relationship with someone, its an attraction to one person over another. When I was 11 I had a crush on my one teacher, he was attractive and funny, but it was innocent crush of a child.  I never thought of him sexually, so I didn't want a physical relationship with him. In high school I found male classmates attractive, but I never thought of them sexually.

 

This is why this thread has confused me in some places as some users seem to be claiming that attraction always relates to wanting a physical relationship. This clearly isn't the case as I gave two examples of attraction without any sexual context to them. So someone who identifies as 'gay' or 'straight' can be chaste or sexually active. 

Earlier in this thread the notion of 'placing oneself in the occasion of sin' came up. I'd like to add to that. I don't think this term/action can be used as general blanket term for everyone. What may be a temptation to sin for one person may not be to another. Someone who has really good self-control can resist sins of flesh more than someone accustomed to instant gratification, etc. Also it may be easier for two individuals who have never had a sexual relationship to resist acting in lust than individuals who have had a sexual relationship (as they know what physical intimacy is like). In a prior thread, I confessed my struggles with lust and purity, so certain things may be tempting to me that wouldn't be tempting to others. Someone who is prone to violent acts may find situations that relate to violence tempting to commit a violent action over someone who is not prone to act violently. When it comes to placing oneself in an occasion of sin, only the individual and perhaps a priest of spiritual director (and others who may be involved) can really say if its an occasion of sin or not.  In this specific circumstance, we should not apply hypothetical situations or generalize, as each person is different, each situation is different and it is not for us to decide for others about their unique situation. If they asked our opinions, we can give them, but ultimately they are free to accept or reject what we say, but I don't think it is right to force them on people, especially when we do not fully understand every contributing factor to a person(s) situation.

 

Back to the topic now, if someone identifies as gay, straight, etc. it is a general term for who they are attracted to. No different really than someone saying they find blonde hair attractive over brown hair (although this is more specific than gender attraction). Its merely a statement about who one is attracted to, and it has sub-categories, celibate, sexually active, etc. And it is only one of many identifiers a person may have. For instance, I have Irish and British heritage and I am Canadian. I am a straight female, and I am a practicing Catholic. I have some Protestant beliefs from my Protestant upbringing, but not many anymore. I am university student, more specifically, I study Communication and Conflict Studies. I am a daughter, sister, cousin, niece, granddaughter, girlfriend, etc. The list of terms I can use to identify myself are amble, but none of the above terms state the nature of my relationship with my boyfriend. So unless someone identifies them-self as a virgin, celibate, sexually active, etc. we should never assume they are one over another. 

 

Also it makes little sense to say someone who identifies as 'gay' is sexually active, we don't make this assumption if someone says they are straight, why should we assume this for someone who is gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender? Treat people equally, respectfully and never make assumptions, makes a lot more sense to me. Words can mean different things, so often assumptions based on them are rarely correct.