franciscanheart Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I never replied to this comment. I got distracted by all the new posts!I agree, the comparison is rough. I dont believe that a homosexual relationships is anything similar to an adulterous one. The only common thread would be that the church views both as morally wrong while on the other hand, the rest of society does not. An adulterous relationship is one of broken trust vs a monogamous homosexual relationship (while also susceptible to the same problems of heterosexual relationships) is simply two people loving each other.Yeah, it's a hard one to compare -- with anything. I think we're better off leaving that alone.But I think this is a hard point to make when someone views homosexuality through a Catholic teaching lens. Usually those logistical things are lost and the point being made is that it is morally wrong so its ok to compare it to other morally wrong behaviors...which I disagree with vehemently.I don't actually agree that it's okay to compare it to other morally wrong things because I too view it as something different. I don't think comparing two evils does righteous behavior any good. That said, it is difficult to explain why the example of a holy life would be desirable and even, in some cases, necessary in such a position. But then, I often think that if someone wanted to teach in a religious, conservative school, they would likely already be adherent to the faith. Just me?I can't imagine a books and tests person would want to learn and teach Montessori any more than a Montessori teacher would necessarily want, in their perfect world, to teach at a books and tests and structured instruction kind of school.The contradiction of a person in a homosexual relationship teaching religion in a Catholic school is something I can understand...but maybe not so much if the individual is teaching a different subject. I feel like if it is not this individuals responsibility to comment on religious aspects of the faith (since they are a math, lit, science, or whatever teacher) then it would be wrongful to terminate them on the basis of their active homosexual lifestyle.He or she may not be called upon to teach the Church's stance on any one thing specifically, but I see no harm in expecting that their teachers uphold at least the major belief systems of the Church. This is where I want to dive into comparisons again to make the point and I can't. Frustrating.I also don't necessarily start this line of thinking in the termination side of things. I imagine this is something that would come up before hiring. And I imagine that person would have signed some kind of document stating that if they were found to be violating the Church's teachings on certain things and living contrary to God's Law, that their employment COULD be terminated. I imagine terminations happen on a case-by-case basis.I have more thoughts on this but they're all fuzzy right now. I am still trying to get past the inability to compare it to anything or making up a silly story to make a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Very moving, very powerful, and full of hope. Thank for sharing this and please pray for me FH. :heart: Please also pray for me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 I also don't necessarily start this line of thinking in the termination side of things. I imagine this is something that would come up before hiring. And I imagine that person would have signed some kind of document stating that if they were found to be violating the Church's teachings on certain things and living contrary to God's Law, that their employment COULD be terminated. I imagine terminations happen on a case-by-case basis. I have more thoughts on this but they're all fuzzy right now. I am still trying to get past the inability to compare it to anything or making up a silly story to make a point. In the same vein, couldnt we argue the point that if any teaching in a Catholic school sinned, they would be going against church teaching? If they say, had to go to confession for any reason? If you have to confess a sin that means you broke a commandment; you are living in sin. Another thing I struggle with in the church congregations response to homosexuality (as a whole) is that since homosexuality is more or less a visible aspect of someones life (some more than others) that we are ok with judgment, force, and other means to exclude those individuals from inner circles, active participation in actives, or other opportunities. Yes all the while every single person has sins we cannot see. Someone might be an adulterer or a murderer, or whatever else...but those sins are invisible and thus they are never discriminated against. If homosexuality was a more "invisible" sin, I feel like a lot of our problems would not be problems. And all of this...every aspect of the collective mass of thought and action about homosexuality as we know it today stems from what? 3 bible citations? Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10. Is it wrong to question those? To wonder what the context was? Or what the author was thinking in relation to society as they saw it? They looked at it all much differently than we would now and it was interpreted accordingly. yes yes, you all believe its inspired and all, but really. I just cant accept that this is the end all be all for defining homosexuality for the rest of eternity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 I think maybe we are getting away, now, from what we were discussing initially. I'm happy to continue down this road but wonder if maybe we require another thread? Maybe not. Either way, I've not sufficient time at present to respond. More soon.Thanks for the dialogue, CrossCut. It's been so beneficial for me in ways I could not have predicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) It has been quite beneficial for me as well. Its helping me organize the general Catholic mindset in reference to this big issue. I still think its carp, but I least I can come to a debate better equipped to understand. And yeah maybe another thread but I wouldnt know what to call it. I feel like for me at least, I gained from this thread what it was set out to accomplish. Now its just more layers,,,which are still good conversation! But maybe not as related to the OP as other parts of the convo. Edited February 3, 2015 by CrossCuT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 You're right. I will continue our discussion here. It seems a natural progression. Again, more soon. xo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oremus Pro Invicem Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 In the same vein, couldnt we argue the point that if any teaching in a Catholic school sinned, they would be going against church teaching? If they say, had to go to confession for any reason? If you have to confess a sin that means you broke a commandment; you are living in sin. Sin is opposed to the Church, however the Church is not opposed to sinners who are struggling to conquer sin and live a life of virtue. If a Catholic school had a homosexual employee who was taking steps to live a chaste life and remove any obstacles to this then that person should be allowed to continue teaching in the school. However a homosexual teacher who obstinately lives in sin and is not taking steps to live a chaste life, but rather is taking steps which put them further from a life of virtue, should not be allowed to continue teaching in a Catholic school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) To add to our discussion, here's a video of Eve Tushnet, I think it'll help further discussion, as it is, I think, a good example of the "new homophile" position. A lot of this is probably covered in the audio interview (which I still haven't had a chance to listen to) but minus mouth-breathing hosts! [media]http://vimeo.com/118383370[/media] Meh, okay, at least that'll work as a link. Edited February 4, 2015 by Amppax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 ... but minus mouth-breathing hosts!Praise the Lord. :blowkiss: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Sin is opposed to the Church, however the Church is not opposed to sinners who are struggling to conquer sin and live a life of virtue. If a Catholic school had a homosexual employee who was taking steps to live a chaste life and remove any obstacles to this then that person should be allowed to continue teaching in the school. However a homosexual teacher who obstinately lives in sin and is not taking steps to live a chaste life, but rather is taking steps which put them further from a life of virtue, should not be allowed to continue teaching in a Catholic school. Alright, I can get behind that. (I personally dont agree but I understand it from a Catholic perspective so i accept it under those circumstances) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veritasluxmea Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Interesting passage. What book and author? First thoughts: Unlike language or eating, sex is not a tool. sex brings- and bonds- two people together physically, emotionally, and mentally in a way that literally nothing else does. (I'm sure everyone got the run-down during sex ed so I won't go to into that. 1) (also, since we have free will and some control over ourselves, with a lot of practice you can limit that and just make it physical (to a certain extent)- but it's not very healthy or overall successful.) Finally, and here is where we get into the Catholic side of things, sex is a crude mirror God in the Trinity, God and the universe, God and His church, God and individual people. Someone gives, someone receives, (while both give and receive at the same time-relationships are like that), life is created, in all those examples. That's why, for earthly marriage, there are high standards for faithfulness and love, why it's "like a chalice." It's precious and not to be taken lightly or seen as just physical. Our relationships with God, the Church, and each other shouldn't be taken that way either. However, we're not talking about one-night stands, we're talking about two people of the same sex who want to live together in a sexual relationship for life. I agree that same-sex relationships can be, and for many are, faithful and loving. (I experienced that in my own friendships. That's how our relationships with each good friends should be anyways, but not in a marriage.) The only problem is... Gay couples can't physically have sex. They can do sexual things- and use tools- and kind of mimic it- with similar results, but the people involved just don't fit together. I'm going to repeat that because it's important: they don't fit together. By the way their bodies are evolved they can't have sex with each other. So... their "sex" just isn't the real thing. it can be similar and maybe even more fulfilling and bonding for the partners than a hereto couple having actual sex, but it still isn't sex. And marriage was set up for sex, not sexual acts. The author assumes two women (or men) can unite their bodies, but they physically can't. idk, just a couple things right off my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) Interesting passage. What book and author? First thoughts: Unlike language or eating, sex is not a tool. sex brings- and bonds- two people together physically, emotionally, and mentally in a way that literally nothing else does. (I'm sure everyone got the run-down during sex ed so I won't go to into that. 1) (also, since we have free will and some control over ourselves, with a lot of practice you can limit that and just make it physical (to a certain extent)- but it's not very healthy or overall successful.) Finally, and here is where we get into the Catholic side of things, sex is a crude mirror God in the Trinity, God and the universe, God and His church, God and individual people. Someone gives, someone receives, (while both give and receive at the same time-relationships are like that), life is created, in all those examples. That's why, for earthly marriage, there are high standards for faithfulness and love, why it's "like a chalice." It's precious and not to be taken lightly or seen as just physical. Our relationships with God, the Church, and each other shouldn't be taken that way either. However, we're not talking about one-night stands, we're talking about two people of the same sex who want to live together in a sexual relationship for life. I agree that same-sex relationships can be, and for many are, faithful and loving. (I experienced that in my own friendships. That's how our relationships with each good friends should be anyways, but not in a marriage.) The only problem is... Gay couples can't physically have sex. They can do sexual things- and use tools- and kind of mimic it- with similar results, but the people involved just don't fit together. I'm going to repeat that because it's important: they don't fit together. By the way their bodies are evolved they can't have sex with each other. So... their "sex" just isn't the real thing. it can be similar and maybe even more fulfilling and bonding for the partners than a hereto couple having actual sex, but it still isn't sex. And marriage was set up for sex, not sexual acts. The author assumes two women (or men) can unite their bodies, but they physically can't. idk, just a couple things right off my head. This is a passage from Gay and Catholic by Eve Tushnet. Tushnet is a single, celibate, lesbian, Catholic woman. She is simply explaining her initial reaction to the arguments given her by her straight Catholic friends. I nodded emphatically at the part before that about people not pushing on her their ideas about what her spiritual life needed in those moments. Well-meaning straight people, by their actions, did not assume they knew better about homosexuality than a homosexual. That was key for me. She goes on to describe other explanations she was given and how she ultimately decided early on (before her conversion to Catholicism) that she could accept that the Church had the authority to teach about sexual morality. She had to come to the conclusion on her own that, although she didn't understand it, she could obey the teaching of the Church and remain celibate. Edited April 23, 2015 by franciscanheart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 This is a passage from Gay and Catholic by Eve Tushnet. Tushnet is a single, celibate, lesbian, Catholic woman. She is simply explaining her initial reaction to the arguments given her by her straight Catholic friends. I nodded emphatically at the part before that about people not pushing on her their ideas about what her spiritual life needed in those moments. Well-meaning straight people, by their actions, did not assume they knew better about homosexuality than a homosexual. That was key for me. She goes on to describe other explanations she was given and how she ultimately decided early on (before her conversion to Catholicism) that she could accept that the Church had the authority to teach about sexual morality. She had to come to the conclusion on her own that, although she didn't understand it, she could obey the teaching of the Church and remain celibate. You totally should have put up the next page. My jaw dropped through my floor when I read the next analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 You totally should have put up the next page. My jaw dropped through my floor when I read the next analogy. Hold, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now