FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Catholics and homosexuality
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
(03-08-2013, 01:52 AM)StCeciliasGirl Wrote: [ -> ]But the seven deadlies are pretty bad, homosexuality merely an obvious part of one. I really got lucky with a  lack of lust (as most women seem to avoid),

Women don't avoid lust any more than men do. They cheat at the same rates as men, for ex.:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/women-cheating-men-study/story?id=13885519
  -- and when they cheat, they cheat with more people:  http://s2smagazine.com/16392/women-cheat...tners-men/

The idea that women are relatively sexless and passionless is Prot-Victorian "stuff." In the Middle Ages, for ex., it was women who were known, as men are today, as the "lusty sex":  http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian...desire.php

Excerpts from that last link:

Contrary to the modern stereotype that views males as more susceptible to sexual desire than females, during the Middle Ages women were often seen as much more lustful than men. General opinion held that men were more rational, active creatures and closer to the spiritual realm, while women were carnal by nature and thus more materialistic. In the Decameron there are many examples of lusty women with insatiable desires. The nuns in III.1 ("whereas a single cock is quite sufficient for ten hens, ten men are hard put to satisfy ten women," 198), Alibech, who develops a taste for "putting the devil back in Hell" in III.10, and the wife of Calandrino ("this woman's going to be the death of me... with her insatiable lust..." 661) in IX.3 are just a few examples.

Isidore of Seville believed that man derived his name (vir in Latin) from his force (vis), just as woman acquired her name (mulier) from her softness (mollities), and he considered women to be "very passionate... more libidinous then men." According to Jerome, "...women's love in general is accused of ever being insatiable; put it out, it bursts into flame; give it plenty, it is again in need; it enervates a man's mind, and engrosses all thought except for the passion which it feeds" (Salisbury, 86).
(03-08-2013, 02:37 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-08-2013, 01:52 AM)StCeciliasGirl Wrote: [ -> ]But the seven deadlies are pretty bad, homosexuality merely an obvious part of one. I really got lucky with a  lack of lust (as most women seem to avoid),

Women don't avoid lust any more than men do. They cheat at the same rates as men, for ex.:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/women-cheating-men-study/story?id=13885519
  -- and when they cheat, they cheat with more people:  http://s2smagazine.com/16392/women-cheat...tners-men/

The idea that women are relatively sexless and passionless is Prot-Victorian "stuff." In the Middle Ages, for ex., it was women who were known, as men are today, as the "lusty sex":  http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian...desire.php

Excerpts from that last link:

Contrary to the modern stereotype that views males as more susceptible to sexual desire than females, during the Middle Ages women were often seen as much more lustful than men. General opinion held that men were more rational, active creatures and closer to the spiritual realm, while women were carnal by nature and thus more materialistic. In the Decameron there are many examples of lusty women with insatiable desires. The nuns in III.1 ("whereas a single cock is quite sufficient for ten hens, ten men are hard put to satisfy ten women," 198), Alibech, who develops a taste for "putting the devil back in Hell" in III.10, and the wife of Calandrino ("this woman's going to be the death of me... with her insatiable lust..." 661) in IX.3 are just a few examples.

Isidore of Seville believed that man derived his name (vir in Latin) from his force (vis), just as woman acquired her name (mulier) from her softness (mollities), and he considered women to be "very passionate... more libidinous then men." According to Jerome, "...women's love in general is accused of ever being insatiable; put it out, it bursts into flame; give it plenty, it is again in need; it enervates a man's mind, and engrosses all thought except for the passion which it feeds" (Salisbury, 86).
looks like St. Cecilia's girl has some "modernist" ideas about women and lust.  :LOL:
(03-08-2013, 11:37 AM)Papist Wrote: [ -> ]I bet if you share this thread with homosexuals they are go running to confession.  :eyeroll:

Well they should.

As we should all, with a contrite heart.

It's not a joking matter.

THE END
(03-08-2013, 02:51 PM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-08-2013, 11:37 AM)Papist Wrote: [ -> ]I bet if you share this thread with homosexuals they are go running to confession.  :eyeroll:

Well they should.

As we should all, with a contrite heart.

It's not a joking matter.

THE END
I agree. They should. We should. But the behavior of the posters on this forum would send them running in the other direction. I remember something about mill-stones some where in the bible.
(03-08-2013, 08:05 AM)Benno Wrote: [ -> ]Moderators, does the OP have any authority to ask that the thread be closed, NOW?!

For the sake of my own touched nerve if nothing else! I'm sick of this nonsense. I had to google what "SSA" stood for. Why should a Catholic have to know what SSA stands for? Aren't there plenty of words/ concepts/ truths within the Catholic Faith that preclude the need for a new thing called "SSA"? Frankly, people with "SSA" can "DWIP" (deal with it privately) and stop ITC (infecting the Church). It's time for it to stop.

A Catholic should know what "SSA" stands for because Catholics shouldn't be ignorant. "SSA" isn't a "new thing." The letters are just an abberviation for "Same Sex Attraction", which is as old as the hills.

We've had threads from folks asking about how to curb the masturbation habit. We've had threads from people suffering from depression and seeking help and advice. We've had threads from people who are having problems with their kids and want opinions on what to do. People who have problems with SSA aren't any different in their need for support and fellowship. If you're the private type and don't like groups or talking about yourself and your problems with others, great. Power to ya. But don't put that stuff onto others and think they have to be just like you are in that way.

As an aside, here's a thought that I sent to someone recently, the words in red added now:  "To the types who can't think with any subtlety, it's allllllllllllllll a simple matter of if X is a homosexual, then he's a "sinner" by definition [which is NOT true] and shouldn't be around men, especially shouldn't be alone with any man, and he should shut up about it all. He just needs to receive the Sacraments and never try to have any fellowship with anyone (I mean, he couldn't have fellowship with men because he's gay, and because he's a man, he can't have fellowship with women either, 'cause on the face of that, it's just "scandalous" ..."  

This thread is pathetically sad. And some of the expressions of ignorance about basic Catholic doctrine, all wrapped up in anger, is even sadder. For ex., once again, it is NOT, NOT, NOT a sin to be a homosexual, period the end. Sin comes from disagreeing with the Church that homosexuality is disordered, giving in to lustful thoughts, putting oneself into near occasions of sin, and sexually acting out on homosexual impulses. It's not a sin to be homosexual, for a homosexual to have homosexual friends, for homosexuals to support each other in their struggles to remain chaste, and so on.

And sin also comes from not treating homosexuals with the charity and respect due to all human beings. Part of charity is knowing the object of your charity, and there's a lot of ignorance and hyperbole about homosexuals in this thread.

I challenge some of the folks who have issues with the ideas I've expressed in this thread to GO ASK THEIR TRADITIONALIST PRIESTS about it all.

And to anyone reading over our shoulders, go to the Catechism and go ask traditionalist priests yourselves to know what the real deal is about the subject of this thread:  Catholics and homosexuality.

(03-08-2013, 08:05 AM)Benno Wrote: [ -> ]Moderators, does the OP have any authority to ask that the thread be closed, NOW?!

For the sake of my own touched nerve if nothing else! I'm sick of this nonsense. I had to google what "SSA" stood for. Why should a Catholic have to know what SSA stands for? Aren't there plenty of words/ concepts/ truths within the Catholic Faith that preclude the need for a new thing called "SSA"? Frankly, people with "SSA" can "DWIP" (deal with it privately) and stop ITC (infecting the Church). It's time for it to stop.

Oh please don't; I think it's a good thread! I didn't know "SSA" either, though I know "same sex attraction". I'm learning a lot! And I believe you've got the Pope Emeritus' support, as well, in writing. (No more avowed homosexuals in the seminaries.) We should NOT have homosexual priests, BIshops, &c. If they were holy, they'd take the Pope's not-so-subtle HINT and quit. They don't belong in the clergy; it is literally the blind leading the blind.

And it's no worse than policemen refusing convicted felons a job; or felons being unable to own a weapon. There are very easy-to-understand guidelines re: what a priest should be, and homo isn't one of them. (Anymore!) (Legally!) (YES!)

So we should be vigilant in turning in the homo (and imo invalid and easily proved!) priests and BIshops we see, to help rid the Church of its "homo lobby".

& Vox :LOL: indeed, when saying "most women," I tried to qualify it with "most women I know" not having a disordered desire for sex (lust). I definitely know some hoes. However, I've seen a report that I can't cite that said even the horniest of women spend about 20-30 yrs of their lives in that state (I suppose ages 15-35 or 15-45?), and then naturally lose interest (or maybe die of syphilis), whereas the male's span of "very sexually active" years was nearly double that. In that sense, the number of years during which one spends lusting for sex, I'd imagine (but don't know) that males have the worst of it.
Well StCeciliasGirl most of us here think that people with SSA should DWIP and stop ITC.  Papist and Vox don't, and Vox owns the forum so I guess this thread is pretty much stifled.  Seeing it seems to be the biggest problem in the Church these days it doesn't make sense to me to stifle it but there you have it.
"SSA should DWIP and stop ITC."


:LOL:

Signature material!
(03-08-2013, 08:05 AM)Benno Wrote: [ -> ]Moderators, does the OP have any authority to ask that the thread be closed, NOW?!

For the sake of my own touched nerve if nothing else! I'm sick of this nonsense. I had to google what "SSA" stood for. Why should a Catholic have to know what SSA stands for? Aren't there plenty of words/ concepts/ truths within the Catholic Faith that preclude the need for a new thing called "SSA"? Frankly, people with "SSA" can "DWIP" (deal with it privately) and stop ITC (infecting the Church). It's time for it to stop.

I think the reason this is a popular thread is because you shared an important story. More people need to know of the problems within the church as well as the homosexual agenda. We cannot be ignorant as our church has been torn apart by these sins.

SSA may seam foreign to some because we hear the secular media labels. What I was trying to clarify was SSA is the struggle, while saying that one is "gay" is acceptance of the life of sin. They don't want people to know that term as it makes people think its a sin.

"Homosexual" is actually "offensive" to those people as the mere mention doesn't "help" their cause. That's why they prefer same sex marriage or gay marriage, more palatable. I did see a story/poll that changing the words DOES in fact shift more favor to them. Amazing.
This thread has really been helpful for me. I'm inclined to agree with MikeMac, Burdensome, et al.  When it comes to serious sin, the way is clearly laid out on how to battle it. Use the Sacraments. Especially confession. Do you want to know why? Because it's not the priest speaking to the penitent. It's Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. What group can come close to giving that kind of help?
  I know that these groups have good intentions, but that is what the road to Hell is paved with.
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37