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
(03-10-2013, 08:18 AM)m.PR Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-10-2013, 08:12 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]While Burdensome may deny making assumptions about Courage and its meetings, there have been repeated comments throughout this thread about the meetings being some form of group therapy and that the meetings being an occasion of sin for its participants.  These were assumptions with no apparent factual basis.

Sure. But that's not the core of the argument, which is that the structure of the thing is bad because it helps people with same-sex attraction identify and spend time with and share their struggles with other people with same-sex attraction, of the same sex.

It seems a very strong argument, at least for those of us who believe there are some situations that are intrinsically occasions of sin.

I am not sure it is possible for a situation to be an intrinsic occasion of sin  (this just isn't a category in traditional Catholic moral theology) but I do believe that some situations are common or likely occasions of sin.  It seems extremely unlikely to me that Courage meetings are an occasion of sin.  Have any of you people who think that it is even talked to a person with SSA about what it is like?  Do you know anyone who attends Courage meetings and has been led into sin by it?  This idea seems to have no basis in reality, just something that some people who do not know anything about it are imagining.
(03-10-2013, 08:33 AM)Benno Wrote: [ -> ]I'll stand by what I've said. I don't think I need to be enlightened about it. I know good Catholics suffer about it but it doesn't make it a special thing. It's wrong. We shouldn't lie.

It is wrong and we should say that it wrong.  But everybody's suffering matters.  Consider Galatians 6:1,2:
Quote:[1] Brethren, and if a man be overtaken in any fault, you, who are spiritual, instruct such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. [2] Bear ye one another's burdens; and so you shall fulfill the law of Christ.
(03-10-2013, 09:00 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-10-2013, 08:33 AM)Benno Wrote: [ -> ]I'll stand by what I've said. I don't think I need to be enlightened about it. I know good Catholics suffer about it but it doesn't make it a special thing. It's wrong. We shouldn't lie.

It is wrong and we should say that it wrong.  But everybody's suffering matters.  Consider Galatians 6:1,2:
Quote:[1] Brethren, and if a man be overtaken in any fault, you, who are spiritual, instruct such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. [2] Bear ye one another's burdens; and so you shall fulfill the law of Christ.
Excellent post Jayne.
I agree.
(03-09-2013, 11:44 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]Uh huh.  And how does one prove one isn't gay?  By having sexual congress with a woman.  My idea has merit and it stands.  QED

Congress? Do you still call Bars "taverns?"  :LOL:
(03-10-2013, 01:15 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]It is quite possible that this thread is scandalizing people. It does have the potential to lead people to sin.  I went through a period in my life in which I was a gay rights activist and a major factor leading to me sinning that way was reacting to Catholics who lacked compassion and understanding.  I eventually came to see that this was a problem with Catholics and not Church teaching itself and I repented of my sin.

The way that we present Church teaching matters.  Some in this thread are going beyond actual Church teaching, mixing in their own opinions and creating a mess that has a very good chance of driving people away
from the Church, as similar messes almost did to me.  There is nothing in Church teaching that says it is wrong to attend Courage meetings. There is nothing that says there is a problem with using the term "SSA".  On the contrary using the term is a good way to distinguish between homosexual actions which are sins and homosexual attraction which is disordered but not a sin.  Using language which helps to make Church teaching more clear is a good thing.

As a Catholic, who needs to outline morals for others, I think SSA is a "good" term to differentiate the attraction from the sin. One may be attracted to same sex, but acting on it or accepting that sin as a lifestyle means they are a homosexual. Simple, easy to understand.

And yes of course heterosexuals sin when they engage in sinful acts outside of marriage. So sin is levied equally to both SSA and straight people. Probably WORSE for straights as we (men especially) are bombarded with over sexualized messages and occasion of sin almost every minute of the day.

Now even in the secular media, they muddy the waters as what makes a person homosexual. They don't want take a position that its a learned behavior, genetic, mental illness (it was labeled as such until the 70s) or a choice. Curiously, they do take great lengths to distance themselves from all the sexual based crimes that are committed.
Surfing, I fell on Chris Matthews as he was closing. He had a poll which showed that a majority of US Catholics support Gay marriage. To put the cherry on the top of this vile sundae Andrew Sullivan, quipped perhaps some day the Church will too, seeing how many gays are electing the Pope. That guy can make my blood boil.

tim
A very well reasoned post, Akavit. Yes, it is true that in our times people do label themselves as belonging to a group based upon the particular sin they commit. There are support groups for those who experience attraction to the same sex (Courage), attraction to alcohol or drugs (Alcoholics Anonymous), attraction to gambling (Gamblers Anonymous), attraction to.............well, you get the picture. There are various motives for attending the groups and various outcomes. The attraction may remain but the idea is to control the behavior by not engaging in it.

What seems to be different with an attraction to the same sex is that we are given the message that the attraction is not part of the same addictive-type pathology as the other above mentioned attractions. I think it is part of the same addictive-type pathology. I believe Courage is based on an AA model (though I may be wrong about that).

Instead of viewing it as an addictive-type pathology, we're told that they were born with an attraction to the same sex, which has never been scientifically proven try as they have for at least two decades to do so. For awhile they tried to excuse alcoholics with a gene scenario, too, but that kind of fell by the wayside.

People who struggle with the other attractions usually do not get the compassion from the rest of society that people who struggle with attraction to the same sex get, for some reason. People with the other disordered attractions are basically told to knock it off, get help, and quit doing the bad behavior. In the case of attraction to the same sex, denial seems to rule right now.
(03-10-2013, 11:37 AM)Tim Wrote: [ -> ]Surfing, I fell on Chris Matthews as he was closing. He had a poll which showed that a majority of US Catholics support Gay marriage. To put the cherry on the top of this vile sundae Andrew Sullivan, quipped perhaps some day the Church will too, seeing how many gays are electing the Pope. That guy can make my blood boil.

tim

Which is EXACTLY why the church needs to get its act together and concern itself with its followers by protecting, teaching and speaking out against homosexuality. So now Catholics see a poll like that, think OK so most of us are onboard, why aren't we?

I was reading news stories over the past recent years showing how a bully organization like the ADL comes in and voices "grave" concerns over prayer revisions in the Catholic Church. 1. How dare they? 2. Why does anyone even care to recognize them 3. Why would they cave in to their demands? Why should outside faiths and agendas have influence over our moral laws?

So the homosexual agenda is gaining influence in the church simply by them avoiding talking about it. Then the idea gets out that is uncharitable to even discuss it because its "unpleasant and we're all sinners, who are we to judge?"  And generations of people fall into sin and the rest leave the church because of hypocrisy.
Yeah I thought Akavit's post was very well reasoned too.  Particularly where he says "No, a chaste person is a chaste person and a reformed sinner is a reformed sinner."  That's why I asked "How long are you going to call yourself a person with SSA?  Twenty years?  Thirty years?  Your whole life?"  Past sins are not a badge of honour.

(03-09-2013, 10:25 PM)Akavit Wrote: [ -> ]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.
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