The Church needs to change - but not in the way they all say

[Nihil Obstat]

you have proved me correct if that is the only document you can produce, it neither says nore hints that the Magesterium is infallible. 

I am what is called an 'Old Catholic' nihil. And yes i do recieve the teachings of the church with docility. Did you know the reason why the upside down peace sign used to be on the back of the priests? And also do you know why the symbols are now on the front of the priests? We can illuminate one another, i only know a little about a lot and claim neither to be saint nore angel.

I will show you detailed vestments.

Now there are vestments. Vestments that mean something. There is the Catholic faith right in front of you.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I am not pre vatican 2 nihil, i am post vatican 2 and believe all the subjects of faith and morals handed down by the current magesterium.

[Nihil Obstat]

I am not pre vatican 2 nihil, i am post vatican 2 and believe all the subjects of faith and morals handed down by the current magesterium.

Silly me, I thought it was the same Church in the 1200s, 1500s, 1950s, and 2000s.

And, weirdly enough, I did not think they had photography quite like that before the Second Vatican Council. I must have my dates mixed up.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

oh your talking about that other group sspx or whatever there called, also they are not illigitimate. We talked about this years ago, they are like a bastard child but still under the authority of rome as far as i'm aware though not officially allowed to administer the holy sacraments though i guess a communion service they can and do and get there hosts from the tabernacle, and by the way the FSSP is fully legitimate.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Nihil Obstat]

oh your talking about that other group sspx or whatever there called, also they are not illigitimate. We talked about this years ago, they are like a bastard child but still under the authority of rome as far as i'm aware though not officially allowed to administer the holy sacraments though i guess a communion service they can and do and get there hosts from the tabernacle, and by the way the FSSP is fully legitimate.

Nobody mentioned the SSPX. And you do not know what you are talking about.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Nihil Obstat

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

how sure are you that i don't know what i am talking about? Again let me stress self assurance does not make you correct.

[Nihil Obstat]

how sure are you that i don't know what i am talking about? Again let me stress self assurance does not make you correct.

Well your denial of the magisterium's infallibility is a big clue.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

so says you

[Amppax]

https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

You're welcome. 

[Socrates]

I don't have SSA. Saying I have SSA sounds like I have AIDS. Or malaria. Or the plague. I am a homosexual woman. If I asked that you just called me homosexual or gay, would you take issue with that? Knowing that I'm not trying to wave a rainbow flag or assume that my attraction to women defines me above and beyond being a child of God?

Interesting. . . So, should we stop referring to "a man who has cancer," and instead call him "a cancerous man"?

One can also "have" all kinds of things, good as well as bad.  ("He has a high IQ."  "She has musical talent", etc.)

But, anyways, I find the instance that people be identified so strongly with their disordered sexual desires rather problematic.

 

 

No "we" don't. If by "we" you mean you and me. I use gay. Homosexual sounds like J.Edgar Hooverish.

SSA sounds like a wimp-out somehow. Like instead of masturbation people say "self-harm."

Euphemisms are for wimps. I am not a wimp.

Actually, the word "gay" in that usage started out as a slang euphemism.  "Gay" literally means happy or cheerful.  It wasn't commonly used in the homosexual sense until the late 20th century, after homosexual activists made it their preferred pc nomenclature (and, sadly, ruined a perfectly good word).

"Same-sex attraction" is actually a pretty straightforward clinical description (and can help distinguish the attraction itself from actively engaging in homosexual acts).  But, if using a more pc word makes you feel like less of wimp, so be it.  To each his own.  There's really little point in arguing over this stuff. 

[Socrates]

I didn't see anything blatantly heretical or anything in the OP article, though the author is pretty vague about how exactly he thinks "the Church needs to change" (and I suspect he's deliberately vague).  The title about the Church "needing to change" and the fact that this was published in America magazine can certainly raise suspicions.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any huge widespread mistreatment of homosexual persons in the Church.  From what I hear, in most parishes (at least in the US), there's little talk of sexual sin at all from the pulpit, and too many "liberal" parishes accept or even actively condone homosexual behavior.  Most of the public talk is simply the Church reacting to public, political moves such as "gay marriage" and the like.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Socrates

[veritasluxmea]

I basically had dUSt's reaction. It would have been nice to see the better parts of the article (welcoming homosexuals, change in most Catholic's attitude) in a more faithful, vibrant article. Eh, maybe one day I'll write one. 

@franciscanheart: As my sister in Christ, what can I do to help you and others who identifty as homosexual, feel less lonely in the Church? What steps can I take to help support you so that we both have a relationship where we help each other while on our journey of faith? I'm not asking this to be condescending either.  I sincercly want to know, so I can help do my part as your brother in Christ.  I apologize if my ignorace and actions have made you feel alone in your struggles. This was not my intention. Please help me, help you.   

I wish the thread had gone in this direction instead of talking about labeling or sacraments or whatever- not just for FH, but for the Church in general. It sounds like that was what the author had in mind and what FH had in mind when posting. I know phatmass derails and goes all over the place, but I want to see good discussion on the OP's intention anyway. 

Credo, I can't answer for anyone, but I have a lot of first-hand, personal experience in being an "ally" for people with disabilities and mental illnesses such as anxiety, depression, and agoraphobia. While being gay is obviously different from that, whenever people are struggling and suffering internally there are some similarities in what "other people" can do to help. Not everything applies to someone who's gay, but below is just a start in understanding how to think compassionately. 

8. “Saying, ‘I cannot claim to know how you are feeling, but I’d like to try to understand. Would you help me?'” — Christine Piltzecker
10. “Just accept what I say about my brain; your denial of my mental illness only affirms I won’t be accepted.”  — Melanie Segal
13. “You don’t have to ‘get it’ or ‘accept it’ to accept me. Compassionate acceptance is the best gift you can offer.” — Ross Adams
18. “Don’t offer miracle cures.” — Ingrid Senger-Perkins
16. “Listening in a completely non-judgmental manner.” — Christine Dahonick
23. “When life gets hard, just be there. Don’t run in the opposite direction.” — Lexie Nooyen 
24. “Saying, ‘I hear you. I believe you. This is not your fault.'” — Amy Tenberge
27. “Treat me like a human.” — Kate Murphy-Frank

http://themighty.com/2015/07/27-ways-to-be-an-ally-for-someone-who-has-a-mental-illness/

What seems to be at the root of the whole problem/controversy with what to call "someone who is gay" is that saying they ARE gay/homosexual implies it can't be changed, and depending on how someone understands homosexuality that can make them uncomfortable. I don't think "real" homosexuality is "curable." If someone tells me they are really homosexual- I will believe them at face value. I think it's ok to take people at their word and not to presume something unless I have solid reason to do so. So whatever they want to call themselves- what they tell me their experience is- is their prerogative. 

[franciscanheart]

I didn't see anything blatantly heretical or anything in the OP article, though the author is pretty vague about how exactly he thinks "the Church needs to change" (and I suspect he's deliberately vague).  The title about the Church "needing to change" and the fact that this was published in America magazine can certainly raise suspicions.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any huge widespread mistreatment of homosexual persons in the Church.  From what I hear, in most parishes (at least in the US), there's little talk of sexual sin at all from the pulpit, and too many "liberal" parishes accept or even actively condone homosexual behavior.  Most of the public talk is simply the Church reacting to public, political moves such as "gay marriage" and the like.

Clinical is cold. No one needs cold -- especially when "dealing with" stuff like this.

[Nihil Obstat]

 

Clinical is cold. No one needs cold -- especially when "dealing with" stuff like this.

We need precise though, do we not?

[franciscanheart]

We need precise though, do we not?

Remind me again what isn't precise about this:

gay

ɡā/

adjective

 

1. 1.

   (of a person, especially a man) homosexual.

   "that friend of yours, is he gay?"

   synonyms:

   homosexual, lesbian;  informalqwerty "gay men and women"

   •  

      
2. 2.

   lighthearted and carefree.

   "Nan had a gay disposition and a very pretty face"

   •  

      
3.  

    

    

    

noun

 

1. 1.

   a homosexual, especially a man.

    

 

ho·mo·sex·u·al

ˌhōməˈsekSH(əw)əl/

adjective

 

1. 1.

   (of a person) sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.

   •  

      

noun

 

1. 1.

   a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.

   synonyms:

   gay, lesbian; More

 

het·er·o·sex·u·al

ˌhedərəˈsekSH(əw)əl/

adjective

 

1. 1.

   (of a person) sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex.

   synonyms:

   straight; More

   •  

      

noun

 

1. 1.

   a heterosexual person.

 

[Era Might]

Etymologically both heteroxexual and homosexual seem redundant and maybe even meaningless.

late 14c., "males or females collectively," from Latin sexus "a sex, state of being either male or female, gender," of uncertain origin. "Commonly taken with seco as division or 'half' of the race" [Tucker], which would connect it to secare "to divide or cut" (see section (n.)). O

The word sex seems to be based on division. Everyone is sexual, period, because they are on either half of the division. To speak of being homosexual means, presumably, being on the same side of the division, but to be "sexual" in a romantic sense is to have desires related to the seco, the division. How does a man's desire for another man relate to a division of male and female?

[veritasluxmea]

I don't think "real" homosexuality is "curable." 

To elaborate on this- I think homosexual is an accurate term, but not all homosexual attractions are the same- hence the need to be more precise. I tried to put this in my post last night but I couldn't figure out how to format it properly, so I put it under a spoiler. Turn your computer sideways, ha. I think it provides a pretty good generalization of homosexuality. The focus of the book is celibacy- so he's viewing each section in how it relates to living a vow of celibacy. 

 

 

[KnightofChrist]

This thread has many more pages than when I last posted. I don't have time really to reply point for point as I sometimes do to those that reply to me. But I will say yes we all have crosses in this world we bare yet we are not the crosses we bare. I have disabilities, heart conditions but I am more than the disabilities I have so it would be better to define myself as human like everyone else rather than defining myself as disabled. I have disabilities that I can kinda sorta hide from others, it's not clear unless I point it out and I have noticed the big difference in how people treat those that have disabilities when people think of us as being a disabled rather than being a person.

I don't even think people realize sometimes how they treat those that have disabilities when they see the disabilities before seeing the humanity of the person. I have noticed that at times after some people find out I have disabilities they will talk to me slower as if I'm not able to understand them, or I will not get invited to some events because they think I will not be able to handle it. I've noticed this in friends who have disabilities too. I've had friends who've had cancer, who have bipolar disorder, who have any number of disabilities or illnesses. When others define them by their disabilities they are treated differently than others who are 'normal.'

Anyway we are more than our crosses, and the crosses we bare today will be gone one day. We can't deny our crosses but we are so much more, so very much more. My intention was never to insult anyone, it was only to point out there is a better way and that we are more than our burdens and those burdens do not define our beings. 

[Amppax]

We've had this debate about a dozen times now, and the same people say the same things every time. There's actually something to discuss here (veritas and credo's posts are good examples of this) why don't we (for the time being) put aside the terminology debate, which isn't the purpose of this thread anyway? 

[Ice_nine]

We've had this debate about a dozen times now, and the same people say the same things every time. There's actually something to discuss here (veritas and credo's posts are good examples of this) why don't we (for the time being) put aside the terminology debate, which isn't the purpose of this thread anyway? 

huh? I dont . . . what?