Homosexuals And Our Attitude Towards Them

[Jaime]

[quote name='XIX' post='1599469' date='Jul 13 2008, 09:13 PM']I love you too.

I'm not saying you are a heretic, but your Freudian slip was technically against Church teaching and if you can't take a step back and acknowledge that, people aren't going to pay attention to you. To say that you can't get into Purgatory after committing a mortal sin, is false. I knew what you meant, but technically (and I stress technically, as I know what you meant was different from what you said) you did [i]accidentally[/i] infer that mortal sin can never be forgiven. Which is a heretical comment.


And I still agree there is an undue focus on the homosexual brand of sexual sin.[/quote]


fair enough

[XIX]

[quote]One should also not that traditional Catholic teaching lists sodomy, or unnatural vice, among the four Sins that Cry out to Heaven for Vengeance: Murder, Sodomy, Oppressing Widows and Orphans, and Defrauding Workers of their Wages.

It should be noted that sodomy is the only sexual sin on the list.[/quote]

I think that's still valid.

Another edit: Is this really justification for focusing on the homosexual brand of unchastity, while ignoring such things as fornication and masturbation? why is this topic not considered a breach of modesty if Alycin's thread was considered by some to be immodest?

Edited July 14, 2008 by XIX

[Socrates]

[quote name='XIX' post='1599487' date='Jul 13 2008, 08:33 PM']I think that's still valid. Aside from the customary ad hominems.[/quote]
No ad hominems there.

[XIX]

Ouch. You're right.


Sorry Soc.

[Socrates]

[quote name='XIX' post='1599487' date='Jul 13 2008, 08:33 PM']I think that's still valid. Aside from the customary ad hominems that I left out of this quote.

Another edit: Is this really justification for focusing on the homosexual brand of unchastity, while ignoring such things as fornication and masturbation? why is this topic not considered a breach of modesty if Alycin's thread was considered by some to be immodest?[/quote]
I don't think anyone's saying that the Church's teachings on sins of fornication and masturbation should be ignored.

The modesty problem with the masturbation thread wasn't that the Church's teaching on this topic was being discussed, but rather the nature of that particular thread.

If a similar poll/thread on sodomy was set up, asking how often people of each sex engaged in sodomy, with people sharing their struggles with the sin and discussing, I would consider that at least as much a breach of modesty!

[rkwright]

Sorry Soc, everything you've brought up has been covered by jamie, but you wouldn't know that...

[rachael]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1599499' date='Jul 13 2008, 09:47 PM']If a similar poll/thread on sodomy was set up, asking how often people of each sex engaged in sodomy, with people sharing their struggles with the sin and discussing, I would consider that at least as much a breach of modesty![/quote]
I, for one, am not afraid of talking of such things. There is both harm in talking of such things freely and of not talking of them at all. Hiding in the dark isn't good for anyone, Soc.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1597420' date='Jul 10 2008, 11:17 PM']hot stuff is on "ignore," as he has been for some time. I'm not afraid of him; I simply do not wish to waste time with his personal attacks.[/quote]

[rkwright]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1598884' date='Jul 12 2008, 07:00 PM'][i]According to the councils of Lyon and Florence formally defined that people in hell are punished by unequal punishments. The conclusion which is drawn from this is that there are levels in hell, which holds the degree of certain of sententia communior. Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma discusses it on p. 482. I hope this helps. God bless.

[url="http://www.sensustraditionis.org/"]Fr. Ripperger[/url][/i]
----------------------

Anyone disagree? This would be doctrinal and dogmatic proof would it not?[/quote]

This teaching is regarded as "Common Teaching" by Ott.

"Common Teaching is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally."

So not quiet dogmatic proof, or that which compels any Catholic to believe.

[Socrates]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1599509' date='Jul 13 2008, 08:56 PM']Sorry Soc, everything you've brought up has been covered by jamie, but you wouldn't know that...[/quote]
So do you disagree with me that the Church has always taught that mortal sins vary in gravity, and that there are corresponding degrees of punishment in hell?
If there's been any refutation of this, feel free to post it.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='rachael' post='1599510' date='Jul 13 2008, 09:00 PM']I, for one, am not afraid of talking of such things. There is both harm in talking of such things freely and of not talking of them at all. Hiding in the dark isn't good for anyone...[/quote]


So, you don't agree with hot stuff that there are too many threads on PM about homosexuality, then?

[Socrates]

[quote name='rachael' post='1599510' date='Jul 13 2008, 09:00 PM']I, for one, am not afraid of talking of such things. There is both harm in talking of such things freely and of not talking of them at all. Hiding in the dark isn't good for anyone, Soc.[/quote]
And a public "family-friendly" message board is not the place for it. The phatmass boards are not a confessional.

[rkwright]

If you want to partake in the discussion, then feel free to remove jamie from your ignore list. I don't think its necessary for me to pass on messages from him. I think everyone can read for themselves.

[rachael]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1599519' date='Jul 13 2008, 10:09 PM']So, you don't agree with hot stuff that there are too many threads on PM about homosexuality, then?

[/quote]


[quote name='Socrates' post='1599520' date='Jul 13 2008, 10:09 PM']And a public "family-friendly" message board is not the place for it. The phatmass boards are not a confessional.[/quote]
If these boards are truly intended to be thoroughly family friendly, then we have many other issues to be worrying about. And confessing? I thought we were just discussing.

[rachael]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1599522' date='Jul 13 2008, 10:13 PM']If you want to partake in the discussion, then feel free to remove jamie from your ignore list. I don't think its necessary for me to pass on messages from him. I think everyone can read for themselves.[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1599522' date='Jul 13 2008, 09:13 PM']If you want to partake in the discussion, then feel free to remove jamie from your ignore list. I don't think its necessary for me to pass on messages from him. I think everyone can read for themselves.[/quote]
I've checked his posts here. No refutation found, and none from you either. If you wish to attempt to refute one of my statements here, please do it, rather than discuss who I choose to place on my "ignore" list. Thank you.

[rachael]

Oh Soc, talking to you is like talking to a wall.

Have a good night. I'm out.

[Aloysius]

the essence of hot stuff's argument is that the punishment for mortal sin is eternal separation from God, and therefore it is all equal.

it would be equivalent to say the reward for a good life is the Beatific vision, thus heaven is equal for everyone. Christ himself teaches that there are different levels of heaven, so it is reasonble to say that hell can have varying degrees as well.

anyway, apparently Ott places it on the level of common teaching? that's pretty much what I've said throughout this thread.

no one is required to make public which sins they struggle with in particular, that's why the Church in her wisdom offers the secret of the confessional. it would make sense to have threads on all sorts of controversial sins... homosexuality is probably one of the most controversial which is why it probably gets so many threads... but it doesn't make sense to expect people to go around and talk about all their personal experiences with those sins. you can if you wish, but for some sins (and especially sexual sins) there is a certain pastoral wisdom in only having a select few trusted people that you can talk about frankly about them.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1599525' date='Jul 13 2008, 09:16 PM']I've checked his posts here. No refutation found, and none from you either. If you wish to attempt to refute one of my statements here, please do it, rather than discuss who I choose to place on my "ignore" list. Thank you.[/quote]

You're just not getting it. Considering that there has never been a definitive doctrine on the 'levels of hell' or differing punishment in hell, there is no refutation required. The only definitive doctrine here is that all those who die in mortal sin go to hell.

You can't disprove something the Church hasn't.

I'll repost for you the thread pinned by Lil Red at the top...

[quote]2. The Rule of Publicity: “Think with the mind of the Church.”
This rule is simply a translation of the Latin axiom “Sentire cum Ecclesia.” This means that, when we disagree, the final measure for judging what’s on target and what’s off the mark is what the Church thinks, not, ultimately, what you think or what I think – not private opinion, but what the Church has said to all to know.

This is the reason I call this the “The Rule of Publicity.” The criterion for our deciding our disagreements is not one’s own private opinions, but the mind of the People of God, what the Church thinks.

In order to apply this rule effectively, we need to use a corollary: “Measure everything against the authoritative documents of the Magisterium.”

The logical question to follow any call for us to “think with the mind of the Church” is: How do I know what that is?

The answer is: “Look in the places where the Church has expressed her mind with authority.” Look in the writings of the Councils and the popes, in the Church’s laws, and in the teachings of her Fathers and Doctors. Any survey or poll, no matter how extensive or accurate, if it contradicts the Magisterium, is not the Church’s mind.

3. The Rule of Legitimate Freedom: “What the Church allows is not to be disallowed.”
This rule means that in situations where the Church says that a variety of views or opinions is legitimate, I should not impose my option as a mandate on others. For example: we can receive Holy Communion in the hand or on the tongue. Either one is acceptable.

4. The Rule of Catholic Freedom: “There’s something for everybody, but not everything is for everybody.”
This fourth rule is an extension of the one above. It applies the same sort of respect for diversity to the wider spheres of our common life. This rule is based on the recognition that “It’s a big Church.” God has given gifts of grace in an almost dizzying variety. Some folks are attracted to the Carmelite Third Order, others gather for charismatic prayer. Nobody has to live the Christian life exactly the way I do.

Remember: “Think (and act) with the mind of the Church.” We need to respect every practice or approach that has a legitimate place in the life of the Church, and we cannot make our favorite practice or approach mandatory for others if the Church has not.[/quote]

[ironmonk]

[quote name='socalscout' post='1585025' date='Jun 27 2008, 05:00 PM']Does the Church recognize that homosexuality is not a choice? If so why do I see so many Christians here on this forum and in many Catholic writings and websites really berate homosexuals. I mean I am seeing some very judgmental people really laying into homosexuals as a whole and accusing them of being sinful people.

I am just glazing over pretty much what many Christians say about homosexuals. I saw a guy call it a “defect” on this forum and that comment implies that God makes defects.

It seems to me the majority of Christians assume that the homosexual is performing homosexual acts. Would I assume that since we are heterosexual that every unmarried person on this forum is performing fornication or some sexual act? Am I to assume every teenage heterosexual boy is masturbating and is therefore a sinner? Should we have a debate on whether that boy should have “rights”?

Don’t get me wrong I believe that marriage is reserved for a man and woman and parades, TV shows etc. that glorifies the sins of homosexuality is as much immoral to me as watching roommates having premarital sex on “The Real World” or all of those stupid dating shows or soap operas.

It seems to me to be ok to hate the sin AND the sinner when it comes to speaking about homosexuals. I can see where people might think that someone who comes “out” is glorifying a sin but is that what really is happening? I’m sure there are some that do but it could be a very personal thing that helps them cope with the fact they are expected to be celibate for the rest of their lives. I thought about this and they are the only group of people who have no choice but to be celibate and not experience the love that heterosexuals can experience in the Sacrament of Marriage. The bachelor/ette vocation is a choice for heterosexuals but not homosexuals.

I would think given all that they would get a lot more empathy from us than they do. A lot more encouragement to fight the good fight everyday. A few “atta boys” for trying. But no they mostly get ridicule and scorn. Why is that?[/quote]

Here is a great article by the Catholic Medical Association which studied and compiled the results of many different studies completed on people who have same sex attraction... Please read it and pass it on...
Homosexuality and Hope
[url="http://www.cathmed.org/publications/homosexualityarticle.htm"]http://www.cathmed.org/publications/homosexualityarticle.htm[/url]


Typically, those who "come out" of the closet are not those looking for help in remaining holy but shoving their same sex attraction in our face... and our children's faces. Acting on same sex attraction is a choice... developing a same sex attraction may not be a conscious choice but we can change the way we think. Some people with same sex attraction fail to realize that there is a problem with anyone who has to tell everybody their sexual choices as soon as they meet them.

What I believe that actually angers most people about people with same sex attraction is that they try to tell our children that nothing is wrong with it, when in fact there are many many things wrong with it.

Facts are very clear that homosexual acts can lead someone to hell... for homosexuals and fornicators will not inherit the Kingdom of God (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10).


As for what the Church teaches about people with same sex attraction, read it for yourself...
[quote][i]Chastity and homosexuality[/i]

[b]2357 [/b]
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

[b]2358 [/b]
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

[b]2359 [/b]
Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

[url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.htm"]http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.htm[/url][/quote]

As for someone calling same sex attraction a "defect"... maybe that does not exactly express what it is... same sex attraction is a disorder... God does not create people with same sex attraction... same sex attraction is developed... just as some guy likes blondes, some guys like brunettes, some like darker skin, some like lighter skin... All attraction is developed.

God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited July 14, 2008 by ironmonk

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1599514' date='Jul 13 2008, 09:05 PM'][quote]This teaching is regarded as "Common Teaching" by Ott.

According to the councils of Lyon and Florence formally defined that people in hell are punished by unequal punishments. The conclusion which is drawn from this is that there are levels in hell, which holds the degree of certain of sententia communior. Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma discusses it on p. 482. I hope this helps. God bless.

Fr. Ripperger
----------------------

Anyone disagree? This would be doctrinal and dogmatic proof would it not?[/quote]

"Common Teaching is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally."

So not quiet dogmatic proof, or that which compels any Catholic to believe.
[/quote]

The councils of Lyon and Florence [b]formally defined[/b] that people in hell are punished by unequal punishments.

"Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons."

ECCUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE
Session 6, paragraph 11—6th July 1439