Not The Philosopher Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Fun anecdote: One of my ordained profs recently started helping out in a youth ministry. He described the experience of having to deal with a bunch of teenagers for several hours as a "celibacy booster." Being married with kids ain't exactly a bed of roses either. Anyhow, I think there's a bit of a line between acknowledging and empathizing with peoples' crosses, and going into, "oh, poor you" territory, which can get a bit patronizing, I find. Dealing with same-sex attraction/teh gays/whatever doesn't really put me on par with the Littlest Cancer Survivor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 27, 2015 Author Share Posted January 27, 2015 For anyone who would like me to be highly empathetic and prayerful and charitable and understanding, that sounds great. Please start a thread. I will post in it, and anyone who would like to talk about that should do so. If you want to rake me over the coals, please do. If you would like to call me out for lacking charity and understanding, please do so. I will welcome it and participate to the best of my ability. But this thread was not intended for that. It was not intended to be an investigation of anyone's relationship with the Church. I had hoped to discuss seriously and reasonably the authentic Catholic response to homosexuality and those affected by it. There is a place for such discussions, and I had hoped this thread might be one of those appropriate contexts. Like all subjects, we speak differently when we discuss on a theoretical level than we do on a personal level, and I intended from the start for this thread to address the theoretical. I have tried to do that in my own posts, and I apologize for anything I said that was 'clinical' or 'detached'. But I had intended for a specific subject for this thread which was not meant to be personal or condemnatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 27, 2015 Author Share Posted January 27, 2015 I am not and never have been a particularly emotive person. I will not apologize for that, but I will apologize for any time I have inadvertently been disrespectful or uncharitable. I have nothing but respect for everyone in this thread and have always tried to demonstrate that according to my abilities. That is the last I will say on that topic in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I would disagree with you on a few nuanced points of your post. Though I reject the idea that God purposefully makes people have SSA, I also believe that God gives us the grace and strength to overcome anything and fulfill us despite what we don't have (Note: I don't mean "overcome" as in "overcome your SSA"). If you are to be single the rest of your life, God will give you the grace and fulfillment necessary to do that. God will always give us everything we need to overcome anything that might be detrimental to our spiritual lives, including SSA. SSA isn't its own special entity that not even God can touch. I agree that, as humans, we have a fundamental need for love between us. But I (Like the Church) disagree that our fundamental need for love means romance and eros in particular. In fact, I quite agree with C.S. Lewis that agape is the greatest of the four types of love, and people with SSA have a unique means to develop agape in its purest form. Weves. People sincerely believe in Xenu too. It's valid to believe God gives magic strength to endure pain. I'm not arguing that. But it's disengenous to use that as an argument for others to sit back and endure it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 For anyone who would like me to be highly empathetic and prayerful and charitable and understanding, that sounds great. Please start a thread. I will post in it, and anyone who would like to talk about that should do so. If you want to rake me over the coals, please do. If you would like to call me out for lacking charity and understanding, please do so. I will welcome it and participate to the best of my ability. But this thread was not intended for that. It was not intended to be an investigation of anyone's relationship with the Church. I had hoped to discuss seriously and reasonably the authentic Catholic response to homosexuality and those affected by it. There is a place for such discussions, and I had hoped this thread might be one of those appropriate contexts. Like all subjects, we speak differently when we discuss on a theoretical level than we do on a personal level, and I intended from the start for this thread to address the theoretical. I have tried to do that in my own posts, and I apologize for anything I said that was 'clinical' or 'detached'. But I had intended for a specific subject for this thread which was not meant to be personal or condemnatory.You can't be serious.Haven't you been at phatmass long enough to know that if you're going to post donkey poop, you're going to get called on it? Sorry, but no. Take it like a woman and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Perhaps your position might be taken more seriously if your reasoning went beyond "Ermagerd, I am so enraged that you have the gall to think differently than I do." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 You can't be serious. Haven't you been at phatmass long enough to know that if you're going to post donkey poop, you're going to get called on it? Sorry, but no. Take it like a woman and move on. What about it qualifies as "donkey poop"? You've given no reason as to why it is other than outrage that he disagrees with you. If this were a college paper, you'd be given an F and probably put on academic probation. If you want your position taken seriously, make the first move and take it seriously yourself. "Ermagerd, this is donkey poop" is not a genuine rebuttal to something, and you know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puellapaschalis Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) For anyone who would like me to be highly empathetic and prayerful and charitable and understanding, that sounds great. Please start a thread. I will post in it, and anyone who would like to talk about that should do so. If you want to rake me over the coals, please do. If you would like to call me out for lacking charity and understanding, please do so. I will welcome it and participate to the best of my ability. But this thread was not intended for that. It was not intended to be an investigation of anyone's relationship with the Church. I had hoped to discuss seriously and reasonably the authentic Catholic response to homosexuality and those affected by it. There is a place for such discussions, and I had hoped this thread might be one of those appropriate contexts. Like all subjects, we speak differently when we discuss on a theoretical level than we do on a personal level, and I intended from the start for this thread to address the theoretical. I have tried to do that in my own posts, and I apologize for anything I said that was 'clinical' or 'detached'. But I had intended for a specific subject for this thread which was not meant to be personal or condemnatory. It is precisely because issues like human sexuality and issues like it are so personally experienced by just about everyone that a dispassionate, 'clinical' if you like, discussion must be allowed to take place. Surgeons talking amongst themselves will discuss a condition without wearing their heart on their sleeves, so surely all of us (because as humans we all deal with our sexuality) should be able to do something similar. There is a place for an outwardly emotional empathy in this discussion, but also a need to not be clouded by the same. Past threads have been coloured by that emotional side of things - it's time for one without. Edited January 27, 2015 by puellapaschalis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 27, 2015 Author Share Posted January 27, 2015 Ok, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 It is precisely because issues like human sexuality and issues like it are so personally experienced by just about everyone that a dispassionate, 'clinical' if you like, discussion must be allowed to take place. Surgeons talking amongst themselves will discuss a condition without wearing their heart on their sleeves, so surely all of us (because as humans we all deal with our sexuality) should be able to do something similar. There is a place for an outwardly emotional empathy in this discussion, but also a need to not be clouded by the same. Past threads have been coloured by that emotional side of things - it's time for one without. This should be stapled on the front page of Phatmass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 This should be stapled on the front page of Phatmass. Dude, you should staple it to your Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 What about it qualifies as "donkey poop"? You've given no reason as to why it is other than outrage that he disagrees with you. If this were a college paper, you'd be given an F and probably put on academic probation. If you want your position taken seriously, make the first move and take it seriously yourself. "Ermagerd, this is donkey poop" is not a genuine rebuttal to something, and you know that.I hate to point out the obvious, but...I haven't said anything about his lack of empathy or otherwise. Or yours, for that matter. Or An Historian's. I haven't attacked your person here. In fact, I've hardly engaged this thread at all. If I remember correctly, Hasan was the one who mentioned the lack of empathy. I'm at least fairly certain that observation was shared by several other posters on this thread.I have expressed my opinion not at all, so far, about the presence or lack of empathy.My comment had nothing to do with you, PhuturePriest. My comment was directed at you, Nihil, for wanting to rescue yourself from a corner with a sort of victim-minded post. You are not a victim. You do not need to be rescued. If you want to get this thing on some other track, take it there. But for all your posts on this issue, you never seem to hear what others are saying to you. And maybe, JUST MAYBE, others have a valid point. Maybe others have something worthwhile to contribute. Maybe others are trying very compassionately to help you see something you're missing.Maybe they aren't. But it sure seems they are.When you say, "If anyone thinks I am lacking in compassion, please tell me," you should probably expect for people to say something. To then turn back to them and say, "PIPE DOWN AND MOVE ALONG," is both ridiculous and frustrating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Well this has gone wonderfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IcePrincessKRS Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 It is precisely because issues like human sexuality and issues like it are so personally experienced by just about everyone that a dispassionate, 'clinical' if you like, discussion must be allowed to take place. Surgeons talking amongst themselves will discuss a condition without wearing their heart on their sleeves, so surely all of us (because as humans we all deal with our sexuality) should be able to do something similar. There is a place for an outwardly emotional empathy in this discussion, but also a need to not be clouded by the same. Past threads have been coloured by that emotional side of things - it's time for one without. I think, in theory, this is swell. I also think that trying to discuss something that is deeply personal only in the theoretical is going to fail. (Case in point, this thread has already sunk pretty low.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I had hoped to discuss seriously and reasonably the authentic Catholic response to homosexuality and those affected by it. The authentic Catholic response would be love. 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