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
But remember, it's those horrible Christians who reject the body!
(03-10-2013, 11:39 AM)FaithfulCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]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).

Yes, Courage is based on an AA model.  This information is available on their web site: http://couragerc.net/Twelve_Steps_of_Courage.html
This is their version of the 12 steps:
Quote:We admitted that we were powerless over homosexuality and our lives had become unmanageable. *

We came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

We made a decision to turn our will and our lives to the care of God as we understood Him.

We made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

We admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

We were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of our character.

We humbly asked God to remove our shortcomings.

We made a list of all persons we had harmed and became willing to make direct amends to them all.

We made the direct amends to such people wherever possible except when to do so would injure them or others.

We continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it.

We sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for the knowledge of God's Will for us and the power to carry it out.

Having had a spiritual awakening as a result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to others and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

(03-10-2013, 11:39 AM)FaithfulCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Courage does not promote the idea that people are born with SSA.  Courage takes a Catholic approach rather than promoting the values and myths of secular society.  This is one of the things that makes Courage a good organization.  Yes, there has been a marked trend in the media to create sympathy for active homosexuals and to portray them as victims.  Chaste people with SSA are treated less sympathetically.  They are portrayed are out of touch with their true selves and hypocritical.
(03-10-2013, 03:14 PM)Akavit Wrote: [ -> ]No one in this entire thread has implied that an SSA person cannot be chaste but rather, have stated that if they are chaste (or used to commit sodomy but have reformed), they should not be publicly labeled as SSA, homosexual or gay.  If people would stop assuming that accusations of sin are hidden between lines then we might get somewhere with this conversation.

The term SSA itself is less problematic than homosexual, gay or lesbian because it's not commonly used by groups pushing sodomy as a lifestyle. 

One of the things that I like about the term SSA is that it is not a label to describe what people are but rather a word that describes something that people have.  It is comparable to me saying that I have a problem with lust, rather than saying that I am a luster.  This just seems so much clearer.  And I agree with your observation about why it is less problematic. 
(03-10-2013, 03:18 PM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]You are missing the point Vox.  If a person is chaste then why continue to call them SSA or homosexual or gay or whatever.  Again a chaste person is a chaste person and a reformed sinner is a reformed sinner.

Because a chaste person with SSA faces specific challenges to remaining chaste and sometimes it is useful to be able to discuss these challenges. 

Threads appear on FE on the subject of masturbation on a regular basis.  Why don't we just discuss sin in general in those cases, rather than get specific?  After all, a chaste person is a chaste person.
(03-09-2013, 09:43 PM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote: [ -> ]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.

I would like to go on record expressing my appreciation of your presence here, Impy.
(03-10-2013, 11:01 AM)Ursus Wrote: [ -> ]
(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:

[Image: ducreuxdog_zps3832856f.jpg]

My brilliant idea may be ignored, but it will never be forgotten.  QED
(03-10-2013, 05:05 PM)FaithfulCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]An SSPX priest just wrote an article entitled "God Made Them Male and Female: Or Did He?" in the Feb. 2013 edition at sspx.org exposing this destructive fad. A local diocesan priest recently said he's seeing an "epidemic" of parents coming to him for advice because their child said they are "transgender".

If this horror that's making itself known isn't of the Devil I don't know what is.

(03-10-2013, 05:35 PM)StCeciliasGirl Wrote: [ -> ]Fortunately, my children haven't had any transgenders, though I've warned them about it. Thanks for the pointer to the 2/13 article, http://www.sspx.org/pastors_corner/pasto...and_female

Wow and someone mentioned something about millstones.
(03-10-2013, 03:14 PM)Akavit Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-09-2013, 09:18 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]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'm the one that used the term "gay" and Mac was quoting me.  I used the term because my post was a response to yours which is contained above.  You have used the term "SSA" quite often but you also commonly use "homosexual" as a synonym and seemed to have indicated above that gay is a synonym for homosexual as well.

No one in this entire thread has implied that an SSA person cannot be chaste but rather, have stated that if they are chaste (or used to commit sodomy but have reformed), they should not be publicly labeled as SSA, homosexual or gay.  If people would stop assuming that accusations of sin are hidden between lines then we might get somewhere with this conversation.

The term SSA itself is less problematic than homosexual, gay or lesbian because it's not commonly used by groups pushing sodomy as a lifestyle.  Therefore Catholics have far greater control over public perception of the term than they do with the others.  However, the quote of yours above indicates that you will occasionally use the other terms as synonyms because in theory, they can mean the same thing.  However, as soon as you say that a chaste person who refuses to succumb to temptation is homosexual in a public setting people are likely to form an immediate impression and won't give you time to whip out Father Hardon's book to explain the fine distinctions.  In such a case scandal is given either by giving the false impression that Catholics support homosexual lifestyles or by letting people think that a virtuous person is committing a terrible sin.  I don't recommend any attempt to beat CNN, Hollywood, the New York Times and Obama in a battle over the definition of the word "homosexual".  If you do not use the terms "homosexual" and "gay" when speaking of SSA in public then excellent, but please be careful not to use them as synonyms when debating here otherwise I will mistakenly assume otherwise.

You say the media campaign isn't working with the people in your area but I say you live in Indiana which is a remarkably conservative state and that being a Traditional Catholic, you probably hang out with a disproportionate number of people that share your view on such matters.  Over here by Chicago, things are significantly worse.  Plus, according to the polls (assuming they are accurate) around 50% of the US population supports same-sex "marriage" and that indicates they have swallowed the propaganda.  With schools being the way they are those numbers will only grow worse in the near future.
My remarks about the powers of the media referred to the idea that homsosexuals are "born that way," not to any thoughts about the goodness of gay "marriage," where I think it's clear that the media have been effective in accomplishing their goals.

"Homosexual" means someone whose sexual desires are oriented toward someone of the same sex. That's the definition. It's the same as saying "someone with SSA." I hear you about the issues concerning what terms are used, but me, I don't think it's that big a deal and it's not what I'm arguing about in the past few posts of mine.  What I talked about in my last post is that people in this thread have been arguing against the idea of someone with SSA describing himself as a person with SSA, acting as if that is a problem, especially when that person is chaste. Being chaste doesn't mean that that person's sexual orientation has changed, and if he is, in fact, still suffering from SSA, then he is and there should be no problems with him describing himself as such, IMO.
(03-10-2013, 03:18 PM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]You are missing the point Vox.  If a person is chaste then why continue to call them SSA or homosexual or gay or whatever.  Again a chaste person is a chaste person and a reformed sinner is a reformed sinner.

Same thing for a reformed womanizer or a reformed adulterer.  If a reformed womanizer does not fall into mortal sin with impure thoughts for more than a fleeting second when he looks at a good looking woman then he's not a womanizer any more.  If you still call a reformed womanizer a womanizer, you have succeeded in smearing their reputation regardless of your intention.  Why is it different for any other reformed sinner.

It should be noted that chaste goes beyond just being celibate, it deals with both thought and action.  The words "chaste" and "chastity" stem from the Latin adjective castus meaning "pure".  We all have our own crosses to bare.

You're assuming that every person who is chaste and who has SSA is "a reformed sinner." There are lots of people with SSA who've not committed sexual sins. So that's one point. As to why someone with SSA would describe himself as a "person with SSA," the answer is because that's what they ARE.

"Ceibate", at least classically, refers to the state of not being married, not to being chaste, BTW. It makes no sense, for ex., for Latin priests to go on about being "celibate"; unless they're one of those rare Anglicans that got a dispensation or something, all Latin priests are "celibate." They are also meant to be chaste. The word "celibate" is used to trick people a lot.
(03-10-2013, 05:35 PM)StCeciliasGirl Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-10-2013, 05:05 PM)FaithfulCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]These are truly sad times. We will be seeing more youth claiming that they are "transgender" because they are being indoctrinated into the gender theory ideology that tells them they were born in the wrong bodies and convinces them to take opposite sex hormones and have their body parts cut off. This is an ideology that's gone global. I wish this were just the musings of a conspiracy theorist but it's really happening and kids are the targets of this latest sick scourge. They're being told they were "assigned" a sex at birth but they really aren't that sex at all - God made a mistake don't you know - they're really whatever "gender" they feel like they are.

An SSPX priest just wrote an article entitled "God Made Them Male and Female: Or Did He?" in the Feb. 2013 edition at sspx.org exposing this destructive fad. A local diocesan priest recently said he's seeing an "epidemic" of parents coming to him for advice because their child said they are "transgender".

If this horror that's making itself known isn't of the Devil I don't know what is.

I adore your post ♥ Many people have said I acted "too manly", or joked that my Dad wanted a boy so much that I got boy genes. (I don't look like a boy, at all.) But when I was growing up in the 80s/90s there simply was no such talk of gender reassignment surgeries; we just had drag queens. Surely if sex attractions (or lack thereof) is an issue, what even about chopping off or sewing on body parts, taking hormones, etc lies of the world. I feel these poor souls have been radically misled by the world, as it's perfectly normal to be a tomboy, or to hate your body at some point, and so forth.

Fortunately, my children haven't had any transgenders, though I've warned them about it. Thanks for the pointer to the 2/13 article, http://www.sspx.org/pastors_corner/pasto...and_female


Thanks for the link.
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