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

[franciscanheart]

I haven't been following the thread thoroughly, but I don't believe anyone equated gays with child rapists.

I see Lina already pointed it out, but it's happened several times.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

 Page 2, post # 24.

 

Yes, it happened.

Let's be fair, it was only an example. I don't think she honestly meant to connect the two. EVEN if she did, it's not that crazy of a comparison. Pedophiles  are social outcasts as well. We often wrongly assume that every pedophile is a child molester.  I understand that gays  and pedophiles are markedly different. But, from the way society rejects and judges both of them, I would argue these two groups might have more in common than we might think. 

[Winchester]

I think we should give people the benefit of the doubt of their intelligence.

[LinaSt.Cecilia2772]

Let's be fair, it was only an example. I don't think she honestly meant to connect the two. EVEN if she did, it's not that crazy of a comparison. Pedophiles  are social outcasts as well. We often wrongly assume that every pedophile is a child molester.  I understand that gays  and pedophiles are markedly different. But, from the way society rejects and judges both of them, I would argue these two groups might have more in common than we might think. 

 

I know it was only an example, but it implied several things that I thought was insulting.

 

I'm not denying that they're both social outcasts. But we can agree to disagree that the comparison was extreme, especially since the original topic of this thread was about the how label of gay on people in society can affect a person's self esteem and sense of worth in the world.

Edited May 24, 2013 by LinaSt.Cecilia2772

[franciscanheart]

Let's be fair, it was only an example. I don't think she honestly meant to connect the two. EVEN if she did, it's not that crazy of a comparison. Pedophiles  are social outcasts as well. We often wrongly assume that every pedophile is a child molester.  I understand that gays  and pedophiles are markedly different. But, from the way society rejects and judges both of them, I would argue these two groups might have more in common than we might think.

Srsly? :wall:

It was said at least twice, so it was probably a pretty intentional connection. :rolleyes:

[KnightofChrist]

I know it was only an example, but it implied several things that I thought was insulting.

 

I'm not denying that they're both social outcasts. But we can agree to disagree that the comparison was extreme, especially since the original topic of this thread was about the how label of gay on people in society can affect a person's worth.

 

We see these comparisons because the sins, that is the sinful actions of both groups that give in to their temptations are both very grave and wicked. Oppression of the weak, and sodomy are grave sins that cry out to heaven. That said any sinner of any kind deserves to be shown dignity because they are made in the image of God.
 

[LinaSt.Cecilia2772]

That said any sinner of any kind deserves to be shown dignity because they are made in the image of God.

 

 

I wasn't disagreeing with that at all. All I was saying was that the comparison was a little extreme in the context of the topic being discussed from the original post.

 

 

[franciscanheart]

Something I've seen repeated over and over again in this thread is the idea that we who ask for people not to relate homosexual persons to child rapists or who acknowledge people as being homosexual / gay / SSA are somehow asking for people who are homosexual / gay / SSA to recognize that part of their person as being somehow defining of their entire self or as a base upon which every other characteristic is placed. I don't know if you have simply failed to read or if you cannot comprehend what we have said in response, but this is absolutely contrary to any point I attempted to make in the preceeding 10ish pages of this thread.

I am not suggesting a person's entire self or self-image needs to be based on or stem from their sexuality. I just don't think it's healthy to deny that someone is homosexual / gay / SSA. It seems ignorant and sick to think that if we deny that a person is anything other than what they are, that they suddenly won't be or that it will just go away. It won't.

What you're asking people to do is detrimental to their entire being. What I'm asking we all acknowledge is not. If I refuse to acknowledge something, I've no place to begin in healing or dealing. I can, however, acknowledge a part of my person, recognize it for what it is, and be an excellent human being all the while.

I won't try to understand why some here are so hateful, willfully ignorant, and conceited. I hope that whatever pains you -- whatever it is you are trying to make right with your attitudes -- heals fully and completely by the grace of God who created you. I pray one day your hearts and minds will be open in such a manner that you can love as Christ loves; that you will know and believe and act in a manner according to such knowledge and belief that people who are homosexual / gay / SSA do not choose to be, cannot escape it, and need not deny it. I pray that you will have a softening of heart, that you will understand what pain and hate you spread when you choose willful ignorance over imperfect understanding.

By the grace of God I hope none of you has to experience anything close to being homosexual. But if, by chance you do, I hope you receive love and compassion you refuse to give. Maybe then you will understand that although it not be defining in the way of good vs evil, holy vs unholy, faithful vs not, it is a unique, nuanced burden that no one inexperienced in it can understand. I hope that the experience will open your eyes to your bigotry and hate, and that you will choose Love instead.

[LinaSt.Cecilia2772]

I don't think anything else needs to be said.

[KnightofChrist]

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..."

The act is against nature, against the Natural Law, there's no need for official statements directly condemning the practice. The anus is not the natural vas for the male sexual organ, nor was it created for intercourse with the male organ, it was made for removing waste or defecating. A man and wife cannot break the unitive significance nor the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act. The act of sodomy would be either a break in the unitive significance or the procreative significance of the marriage act.

As for official and authoritative statements...
 

St. Alphonsus Liguori's Theologia Moralis (Book IV, Tract IV, Section 466, no. 3), where he affirmed the traditional position of the Church on the subject, i.e., that anal penetration between a man and a woman, which is called "sodomia imperfecta," involves the misuse of the male's generative organ. Thus, the act in question is contrary to nature, and if seminal fluid should also happen to be released during this sinful action it has the added gravity of pollution. (Thanks to Apo for this source)

 
This is the source for all quotes below: http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marital-foreplay.htm
 

The answer of St. Augustine:

Saint Augustine of Hippo, in his moral treatise 'On the Good of Marriage,' writes on the subject of sexual intercourse within marriage:
"…nor be changed into that use which is against nature, on which the Apostle could not be silent, when speaking of the excessive corruptions of unclean and impious men…. by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife." (Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, section 11).
The expression 'that use which is against nature' refers to unnatural sexual acts, such as oral sex, anal sex, or manual sex. Saint Augustine condemns such acts unequivocally. He even states that such unnatural sexual acts are even more damnable (i.e. even more serious mortal sins) when these take place within marriage. For God is even more offended by a sexual mortal sin that takes place within the Sacrament of Marriage, since this offense is not only against nature, but also against a Holy Sacrament. "So then, of all to whom much has been given, much will be required. And of those to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be asked." (Lk 12:48).
"For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting, is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of an harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of an harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife…. But, when the man shall wish to use the member of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman." (Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, section 12).
In this passage, Saint Augustine first compares natural sexual relations within marriage, done out of impure desires, to the same natural sexual acts outside of marriage. He teaches that having natural sexual relations within marriage, when done to satisfy a somewhat impure desire, is pardonable, i.e. a venial sin, but that natural sexual relations outside of marriage is damnable, i.e. a mortal sin. Then Saint Augustine goes on to consider 'that which is against nature,' i.e. unnatural sexual acts. He condemns such unnatural sexual acts as 'execrable' (utterly detestable, abominable, abhorrent). Therefore these acts are among the worst of the sexual mortal sins. He also teaches that unnatural sexual acts within marriage, far from being permitted because they take place within marriage, are even worse, calling them 'even more execrable,' than the same unnatural sexual acts outside of marriage. Again, this is because the sin is not only against nature, but against a Holy Sacrament instituted by Christ himself for the sake of our salvation.


...


"Lastly comes the sin of not observing the right manner of copulation, which is more grievous if the abuse regards the 'vas' than if it affects the manner of copulation in respect of other circumstances." (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, article 12).

...

Next, let's consider what the Magisterium teaches about the morality of sexual acts within marriage.

The answer of the Magisterium:

In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI explicitly considers the idea that a set of sexual acts within marriage would be justifiable as long as some of the acts are procreative:
"Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act?" (Humanae Vitae, n 3).
This principle of totality is, in essence, what is being proposed by some commentators today, who claim that only one sexual act out of many in the marital bedroom needs to be natural marital relations open to life. They suggest an approach that would justify any arbitrary number and kind of non-procreative and non-unitive sexual acts, as long as these occur as part of a set, or within the same arbitrary time frame, as an act of natural intercourse.

Pope Paul VI rejects this approach:
"The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act." (Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12).
The unitive significance and the procreative significance are inherent to the very nature of the marital sexual act. Therefore, the unitive and procreative meanings are moral objects, essential to make sexual acts within marriage good by their nature. And their absence makes the moral object evil, by the deprivation of a good required by the will of God for marriage, and the act intrinsically evil, by its very nature. Unnatural sexual acts are non-unitive and non-procreative, therefore these acts are intrinsically evil.

Neither can a set of sexual acts be justified if only one or a few of the acts is unitive and procreative. For the Church teaches by its constant doctrine that "each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life." Furthermore, any doctrine of the Church that is constantly taught and often expounded by the Magisterium is infallible under the ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

...

"Each and every sexual act in a marriage needs to be open to the possibility of conceiving a child." (USCCB Catechism, p. 409)

...


"But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who, in exercising it, deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose, sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious." (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, n. 54)

...

"Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin." (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, n. 55)
This teaching of the Church, that "any use whatsoever of matrimony in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature," must be understood to condemn not only contracepted sexual acts, but also any and all non-procreative sexual acts, even within marriage, including unnatural sexual acts. For all sexual acts are a deliberate use of the sexual faculty, and all unnatural sexual acts are a deliberate choice of act that are inherently non-procreative. If the Pope had wished to narrow his statements to only contraception, he would not have said "any use whatsoever," or if he had wished to allow unnatural sexual acts within marriage, he would not have said "any use whatsoever of matrimony." Instead, he unequivocally proclaimed the Magisterium's definitive teaching, which is also found in natural law, that each and every marital sexual act must include both the unitive and procreative meanings.

...

[Hebrews]
{13:4} May marriage be honorable in every way, and may the marriage bed be immaculate. For God will judge fornicators and adulterers.

[Ephesians]
{5:12} For the things that are done by them in secret are shameful, even to mention.

[Romans]
{1:26} Because of this, God handed them over to shameful passions. For example, their females have exchanged the natural use of the body for a use which is against nature.

[Titus]
{3:10} Avoid a man who is a heretic, after the first and second correction,
{3:11} knowing that one who is like this has been subverted, and that he offends; for he has been condemned by his own judgment.

[Aloysius]

I saw the four sins referenced earlier... personally, I consider the sodomy that is one of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance to be forceful sodomy (and, by extension, any kind of rape) (such as that practiced in Sodom, which is the story which establishes Sodomy as a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance).  Homosexual sex in and of itself is sinful, but it's loony to suggest that it cries out for vengeance when both people engaging in it are doing so willingly; while the unnatural act is a sin against each other and themselves, they are not particularly wronging someone in a way that would call for vengeance.  

 

The four sins list is based on exegesis of the scriptural stories, and it's not a doctrinal list as far as I'm aware, so I think that interpretation makes perfect sense.  God responded to the cries that went out to Him about Sodom and Gomorrah, the cries of the people who had been wronged by them, the cries of Lot and his family, etc.  Consensual sodomy is certainly sinful, but it doesn't cry to Heaven for vengeance... believing that it does has caused a few protestant ministers to say some crazy things that just serve to completely discredit the Christian sexual ethic that we wish to foster in society.

[cappie]

 That said any sinner of any kind deserves to be shown dignity because they are made in the image of God.
 

 

Yep

 

"What reasons do Christians give for human dignity? 

 

Every person, from the first moment of his life in the womb, has an inviolable dignity, because from all eternity God willed, loved, created, and redeemed that person and destined him for eternal happiness.

If human dignity were based solely on the successes and accomplishments of individuals, then those who are weak, sick, or helpless would have no dignity. Christians believe that human dignity is, in the first place, the result of God’s respect for us. He looks at every person and loves him as though he were the only creature in the world. Because God has looked upon even the least significant child of Adam, that person possesses an infinite worth, which must not be destroyed by men. "

 

 

 

 

[KnightofChrist]

I saw the four sins referenced earlier... personally, I consider the sodomy that is one of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance to be forceful sodomy (and, by extension, any kind of rape) (such as that practiced in Sodom, which is the story which establishes Sodomy as a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance).  Homosexual sex in and of itself is sinful, but it's loony to suggest that it cries out for vengeance when both people engaging in it are doing so willingly; while the unnatural act is a sin against each other and themselves, they are not particularly wronging someone in a way that would call for vengeance.  
 
The four sins list is based on exegesis of the scriptural stories, and it's not a doctrinal list as far as I'm aware, so I think that interpretation makes perfect sense.  God responded to the cries that went out to Him about Sodom and Gomorrah, the cries of the people who had been wronged by them, the cries of Lot and his family, etc.  Consensual sodomy is certainly sinful, but it doesn't cry to Heaven for vengeance... believing that it does has caused a few protestant ministers to say some crazy things that just serve to completely discredit the Christian sexual ethic that we wish to foster in society.

I must respectfully disagree with two things one the use of term "loony" that was disrespectful. Secondly I disagree, that it would not be a sin that would cry out to heaven even if between two consenting adults. Sodomy is a carnal sin against nature, perhaps it is nature that calls out to God, or in someway the souls of the individuals, similar to how Abel's blood cried out to God from the ground. If someone were to willingly laid down their life to a murderer because they may be a pacifist or for whatever reason, even a assisted suicide, that would still be an act that would cry out to heaven.

[Aloysius]

they are sins which cry to heaven for vengeance.  suicide is a sin, but it doesn't cry to heaven for vengeance; and nor does consensual homosexuality.  it'd be loony to suggest that it does because then you have to identify what that vengeance is directed at and you get loony tunes out there suggesting that hurricane Katrina was punishment for homosexuality and all sorts of nutty things that deserve no respect.  I'm not calling you loony, but I do think that it's loony to talk about consensual homosexuality as crying to heaven for vengeance the same way defrauding the poor, murdering, or withholding wages from laborers does.  those things really call to heaven for vengeance on earth, as rape does, but there's no comparison with consensual homosexuality which does not cry to heaven for vengeance on earth.  it's more sensible to look at the story of Sodom and understand it was destroyed not just for homosexuality, that there was clearly forceful rape going on and that this is much better understood as the thing that could bring down God's vengeance on earth.  IMO, anyway.

[Apotheoun]

The Church's Tradition describes sodomitic acts, whether perfect or imperfect, as sins that cry to heaven for vengeance, because such acts are a direct attack upon God, the author of creation. Moreover, the Biblical and Apostolical Tradition does not say that sodomitic acts are less graves when a person consents to them. Consenting to sin does not excuse the behavior; instead, it increases the culpability for the sin committed.