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
(03-09-2013, 03:28 PM)Pheo Wrote: [ -> ]But but...no one suggested a FE alcoholic/self-abuser support group.  Nor that they should meet in a bar or red light district.

I also don't remember anyone saying that a particular sin shouldn't be discussed at all.  The argument seemed to be against using one sin to define your existence.  I wouldn't introduce myself as "Hey Doc, I'm Pheo and I have a brutal time with sloth."  So why the need to disclose that you're attracted to dudes to everyone you meet?  I believe that's the gist of the DWIP component.

They don't use "sin" to define their existence because being a homosexual isn't a sin. They're not going around saying, "Hi, I'm David, and I like to have anal [or oral sex or whatever the case may be] sex with boys." They say they are homosexuals, which, assuming they say that, they are. People also describe themselves as depressives, bipolar, schizophrenic, antique collectors, couch potatoes, and chow-hounds. It's a word used to describe a phenomenon that is about a lot more than what one does with his genitals, and that latter fact is what is being missed when people think "all" they have to do is just stay away from other homosexuals to make it all go away.  One could even argue that their letting people know what their deal is would help others help them avoid near occasions of sin. Imagine, for ex., you're a gorgeous guy who's looking for a dude to go camping and hunting with. Might not be a good idea to ask the homosexual friend of yours who you think might be attracted to you sexually, now that you think about it, thereby inciting him to lust. Or it might make you re-consider how you might talk to him or whether you undress around him, etc., wanting to "help a brother out" and not put him in harm's way.

And I doubt that most of them are going around telling "everyone they meet" that they are homosexuals. It's the kind of thing that comes up. "So, you have a girlfriend?" "No, no I don't." "Really? I know this girl you might really like, and she --- " "Um, I'm gay." But even if they were to announce it often or to "everyone they meet," it's no different in my eyes than other "open book" types talking about their lives.

I'd argue further that the ability to be open and up front about such things would do good in a lot of ways:  for ex., homosexuals who live chaste lives can serve as examples to other homosexuals, who otherwise wouldn't know there is such a creature, or, for ex., it wouldn't push homosexuals into seminaries where they attempt to "hide out", using the priesthood as a "cover" to explain why they're not married, and so forth.

If folks would get straight (no pun intended) about Church teaching on the subject, would truly tolerate and LOVE homosexuals, everyone, including homosexuals, would be better off. But the vitriol I see hurled against them serves no one but Satan. It's ugly and unhelpful. I am very impressed with the few homosexuals here on this forum who have the cojones to come out considering some of what gets said at this place. BRAVO to you for your bravery!

An aside to Tradne, no one who is arguing that support groups are an OK thing for those inclined to be helped by group support is saying that homosexuals (like everyone else) shouldn't avail themselves of the Sacraments. It's not an either/or sort of situation.
Vox,  I want to thank you for your last post in what has become a truly demonic thread.  Remember, folks, that "Satan" means "the accuser."

At the outset, I could see all of this coming and it prompted me to question the very premise of this forum.  What you have just said, though, makes me reconsider my departure.
(03-09-2013, 09:43 PM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote: [ -> ]Vox,  I want to thank you for your last post in what has become a truly demonic thread.  Remember, folks, that "Satan" means "the accuser."

At the outset, I could see all of this coming and it prompted me to question the very premise of this forum.  What you have just said, though, makes me reconsider my departure.



:tiphat:
Thanks, Bombay.  Believe it or not, I had kind of a crush on Juan Epstein.
edit:  This post is a response to Vox's

I'm afraid that doesn't really make any sense.  I don't accept, agree with or condone the view that people should classify themselves according to an inclination towards any particular type of sin.  If a man is constantly tempted to hoard his money it would be wrong to identify him as a "miserly-inclined individual" except perhaps when he's obtaining spiritual counsel.  If a man has to deal with periodic temptations towards an act of sodomy, it would be extremely foolish to give out that information lightly.  Outside of one's spiritual director or inside the confessional it generally isn't advisable to make one's spiritual weaknesses known to others.  They can and will be exploited.  Once a man understands his own faults and weaknesses, it's up to him to conduct his own affairs (or follow his confessor's advice) to avoid near occasions of sin .  It would be foolish to tell people, "I'm gay so I can't go camping with the guys and I don't want a wife."  Simple answers like. "I wouldn't enjoy camping (true because fighting temptations isn't fun) or "I don't have a marriage vocation" accomplish the same without creating scandal.

Furthermore, though I cannot prove or even provide evidence for it, I do suspect that a significant portion of homosexual temptations are direct temptations from demonic sources.  Never forget that while many people fall into serious sin on their own, some people are tempted directly by devils.  Other "homosexuals" are just psychologically damaged people that were purposefully indoctrinated  while they were impressionable children or teenagers.  That's why there's a large push from some very evil people to force all manners of sex "education" upon small children and push the homosexual lifestyle upon young people of all ages.  Those people are trying hard to raise new homosexuals - especially because they cannot procreate but must recruit instead.

Lastly, when you start referring to people who have lived chastely their entire lives as homosexuals, you are handing victory to the sodomy revolution that's currently underway because frankly, they control the public perception of the term.  The media has succeeded in establishing two ideas in the minds of the masses: the first being that homosexuals are born and can do nothing to change it and secondly, that sexual attraction cannot be resisted without psychological damage.  Consequently, if you call chaste people gay, you have succeeded in smearing their reputation regardless of your intention.  Labeling someone as a gay is the same as calling them a sodomite (based upon popular perception) thanks to a highly effective media campaign.  No, a chaste person is a chaste person and a reformed sinner is a reformed sinner.  Don't go digging into the depths of his soul.
(03-09-2013, 02:06 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-09-2013, 01:59 PM)Pheo Wrote: [ -> ]On the cuddlegate thread we had a few Catholics with same sex attractions who didn't seem to be bothered by a lot of what was being said.  One kinda disagreed, but then he didn't run off crying either.  I don't think calling a spade a spade is as detrimental as you might think.

I think saying someone with SSA who doesn't act on it cannot be saved, saying there are sins that cannot be forgiven, questioning a priest's ordination because he's a sinner and calling people in the Church "butt faces" might be detrimental.  But that's just me.   :tiphat:

I said none of that except "butt faces" (and that because I found it fitting in context without being too vulgar, but apparently I was too vulgar, and I apologize). I vehemently deny that I said anything even suggesting that gay people should die or whatnot; I said that clerics of the Church who openly defy the Church and live with lover-boy for all the world to see, or who use their position as Archbishop to get laid by innocents, are anathema. (Paraphrasing.)

Let me make this clear: I LOVE THE GAYS (go shopping with them all the time). I LOVE SINNERS (we're all in that boat). I feel for them/us; I want to help point them (and in turn ask them to help point me) to Our Lord, and I think we should all want that. As Akavit says, we should focus to Christ through Our Lady, and not label ourselves by our sins.

My offensive post was referring ENTIRELY to the clerics who are by canon law latae sententiae excommunicated, which I was told meant "automatically invalid", no paperwork needed, poof, they're gone. (Though I assume the Church will get around to making it official, maybe then trying to repair such a one to the Church.) Indeed, the 1983 amendments for paedo priests loosened the rules for paedos, but didn't change much regarding openly practicing gay clerics or abortionists.

Let me not mince my words so I can be adequately corrected: a priest who helps escort a woman to the abortion clinic is NOT "A-OK cool" because he aided and encouraged said abortion. (1329.2 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4W.HTM) and (1398 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P57.HTM). Priests and even Archbishops who are known non-celibates (either due to their living situation, or their own words) are latae sententiae excommunicated and therefore invalid, as well. (1364: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P52.HTM, and usually 1369 on the same page can easily apply.) Also (1394, 1395.... oh just read that whole page! http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P56.HTM)

(And yes, I did spend hours digging all that up, but no, I didn't interpret those on my own, as they were told to me by an older priest, MY MOM, and actually a canon lawyer who was visiting and we dined with [on a much later occasion].)

Maybe I am too offensive a sort to be here, but may I stress that I honestly believe that true charity is in telling the truth about canon law, as ugly as it may sound, and then, if the one chastised priest/layperson is agreeable, THEN praying for the person's soul would be effective. SURE they can be repaired to the Church! But I can't imagine one invalid being repaired by another invalid; that's ALL I'm saying.
You have a very PECULIAR view of Catholicism.  (That's all) I'm saying!!!
For Heaven's sakes Bombay, she quoted Canon Law.

In this day and age there is no need to explain why someone is not married.  To say that is what is pushing homosexuals into seminaries where they attempt to "hide out" is complete nonsense.  Homosexuals are entering seminaries because it is a deliberate infiltration of the Church.
(03-09-2013, 11:13 PM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]For Heaven's sakes Bombay, she quoted Canon Law.

In this day and age there is no need to explain why someone is not married.  To say that is what is pushing homosexuals into seminaries where they attempt to "hide out" is complete nonsense.  Homosexuals are entering seminaries because it is a deliberate infiltration of the Church.

I have an ideaPerhaps there should be a NEW test (for those wishing to pursue [the priesthood]).  An aspiring seminarian should be REQUIRED to demonstrate he is CAPABLE of copulating with a female, in front of a CAREFULLY SELECTED panel of priests (of course), before being granted admittance to the seminary. This should SOLVE the problem, CONCLUSIVELY!!!!!
You are just being ridiculous now Bombay, as usual.  In 2008 Pope Benedict changed the policy for entering a seminary to not allow anyone that has ever had any inclination towards same sex.
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