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
I haven't bothered to read the whole thread, but man, what I have has been a laughingstock!

Do what you will, but something to consider:  I understand that many are uncomfortable with this topic and would prefer to live in a make-believe world where it doesn't exist (hence, DWIP).  However, those of us with SSA need to have someone to talk to about it that we know will be compassionate, because it is precisely when we DWIP that we succumb to sin.  I understand that you are oblivious to that because you don't have SSA youself, so you wouldn't know.  But that's the fact.  For us, silence leads to more sodomy, so take your pick.  Do you want us to shut up about it and do in private that which disgusts you, or would you rather us talk about it, but know that the actual instances of sodomy are fewer?  I think that many of you will probably choose the former exposes the fakeness of your Catholicism, and I don't know whether to laugh or cry that as you gleefully condemn homosexuals to the path to hell, your fake Catholicism has blinded you to the fact you're walking on the same path with us!

So here's what your attitude of DWIP does for me:

If I can't be honest with you about what I struggle with daily, knowing you is worthless to me.  If I have to pretend to be someone I'm not, what is the value in the wasted effort of playing charades with you?  If I can't be me with you, the good with the bad, than any personal interaction with you will be as fake as your Catholicism, so I'm going to stop before I even begin (which is probably what you wanted any way).  So I write you off.

When you gather together in a parish with like-minded fakes, I realize your parish as a whole isn't Catholic, so why should I waste my time worshipping with you?  Your incense is of rotted flesh, so I write your parish off as well.

When I realize this DWIP attitude is endemic in traditional Catholic circles, guess what gets written off next?  Here I expect the calls that I am suffering from a reprobate mind, how else could I possibly question traditional Latin Catholicism? all so you can sleep easily at night and not have to take a long, hard look in the mirror.  At any rate, traditional Catholicism is worthless to me.  I will never step foot in any trad chapel again.

I am currently trying to discern if Catholicism as a whole is worthless to me.  The reason for that is, obviously, modernism is getting it wrong.  They don't preach the Gospel.  Traditionalism is at least logically consistent, but if you guys have gotten it so wrong in your actions, and you have over a thousand years of text to support you, then perhaps it is the Church as a whole that is fake.  Is my parish unique in that it actually lives the Gospel command to love one another?  I certainly hope not, but many of you make it hard to believe anything else.  You have the faith, and you have hope, but you conveniently forget that both are completely worthless without love.

So there you have it.  I, and others like me, are on the precipice of casting off the Church altogether because you fakes within it can't be bothered to show a little charity.  You are the true definition of scandal.  Whoever posted earlier about the millstone was quite correct.  Christ wasn't advocating the millstone for me, he was advocating it for you.

But, of course, I already know you'll laugh this off and refuse any personal change.  Carry on.

Thank you, Vox, for being the often lone voice of reason among the torrents of hellbound snowflakes.
(03-13-2013, 10:01 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't bothered to read the whole thread, but man, what I have has been a laughingstock!

Do what you will, but something to consider:  I understand that many are uncomfortable with this topic and would prefer to live in a make-believe world where it doesn't exist (hence, DWIP).  However, those of us with SSA need to have someone to talk to about it that we know will be compassionate, because it is precisely when we DWIP that we succumb to sin.  I understand that you are oblivious to that because you don't have SSA youself, so you wouldn't know.  But that's the fact.  For us, silence leads to more sodomy, so take your pick.  Do you want us to shut up about it and do in private that which disgusts you, or would you rather us talk about it, but know that the actual instances of sodomy are fewer?  I think that many of you will probably choose the former exposes the fakeness of your Catholicism, and I don't know whether to laugh or cry that as you gleefully condemn homosexuals to the path to hell, your fake Catholicism has blinded you to the fact you're walking on the same path with us!

So here's what your attitude of DWIP does for me:

If I can't be honest with you about what I struggle with daily, knowing you is worthless to me.  If I have to pretend to be someone I'm not, what is the value in the wasted effort of playing charades with you?  If I can't be me with you, the good with the bad, than any personal interaction with you will be as fake as your Catholicism, so I'm going to stop before I even begin (which is probably what you wanted any way).  So I write you off.

When you gather together in a parish with like-minded fakes, I realize your parish as a whole isn't Catholic, so why should I waste my time worshipping with you?  Your incense is of rotted flesh, so I write your parish off as well.

When I realize this DWIP attitude is endemic in traditional Catholic circles, guess what gets written off next?  Here I expect the calls that I am suffering from a reprobate mind, how else could I possibly question traditional Latin Catholicism? all so you can sleep easily at night and not have to take a long, hard look in the mirror.  At any rate, traditional Catholicism is worthless to me.  I will never step foot in any trad chapel again.

I am currently trying to discern if Catholicism as a whole is worthless to me.  The reason for that is, obviously, modernism is getting it wrong.  They don't preach the Gospel.  Traditionalism is at least logically consistent, but if you guys have gotten it so wrong in your actions, and you have over a thousand years of text to support you, then perhaps it is the Church as a whole that is fake.  Is my parish unique in that it actually lives the Gospel command to love one another?  I certainly hope not, but many of you make it hard to believe anything else.  You have the faith, and you have hope, but you conveniently forget that both are completely worthless without love.

So there you have it.  I, and others like me, are on the precipice of casting off the Church altogether because you fakes within it can't be bothered to show a little charity.  You are the true definition of scandal.  Whoever posted earlier about the millstone was quite correct.  Christ wasn't advocating the millstone for me, he was advocating it for you.

But, of course, I already know you'll laugh this off and refuse any personal change.  Carry on.

Thank you, Vox, for being the often lone voice of reason among the torrents of hellbound snowflakes.
Are you considering going Eastern Orthodox?
(03-13-2013, 10:01 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ] Is my parish unique in that it actually lives the Gospel command to love one another?  I certainly hope not, but many of you make it hard to believe anything else.

This is not a parish.  This is an Internet forum, with all that implies.  You are intelligent enough to realize that.  Please don't use this thread to take cheap shots at Latin Catholicism.
(03-13-2013, 10:33 AM)Papist Wrote: [ -> ]Are you considering going Eastern Orthodox?

Not seriously at this point, but it's always in the back of my head.

(03-13-2013, 10:40 AM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote: [ -> ]This is not a parish.  This is an Internet forum, with all that implies.  You are intelligent enough to realize that.  Please don't use this thread to take cheap shots at Latin Catholicism.

Byzcath.org and Orthodoxchristianity.net do a pretty good job of representing parish life on their internet fora, I haven't seen a reason that I should assume differently of trad Latin fora.
(03-13-2013, 10:47 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-13-2013, 10:33 AM)Papist Wrote: [ -> ]Are you considering going Eastern Orthodox?

Not seriously at this point, but it's always in the back of my head.

(03-13-2013, 10:40 AM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote: [ -> ]This is not a parish.  This is an Internet forum, with all that implies.  You are intelligent enough to realize that.  Please don't use this thread to take cheap shots at Latin Catholicism.

Byzcath.org and Orthodoxchristianity.net do a pretty good job of representing parish life on their internet fora, I haven't seen a reason that I should assume differently of trad Latin fora.
I disagree. Over at Bzycath there is at least one EO posters I can think of who is a rather virulent individual.
(03-13-2013, 09:45 AM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote: [ -> ]Mikemac, we need a counterwitness to those who promote active homosexuality  and same sex marriage given the media saturation they enjoy.  Will silence provide that counterwitness?  The time is past for that.  I strongly defend anyone who wishes to keep his struggle with same sex attraction private.  I also think that keeping it private is normally the prudent choice.  Sometimes, however, a witness is appropriate.  It depends on the circumstances.  In any case, it helps men with SSA to know other men with SSA who are striving to be faithful Catholics.  It's also a sign of contradiction to our culture.

This. Exactly. QFT. Just so. Etc.

Homosexuals exist; pretending they don't and expecting them to pretend they aren't who they are to everyone (even themselves, by not even referring to themselves as "someone who has SSA") is -- well, it's weird. It serves no greater purpose whatsoever, but instead serves evil -- causing loneliness, shame, the feeling of being "the only one," and so forth. Such attitudes breed suicide.

While I strongly believe that the sexual revolution is about the worst thing that's ever happened to Western Civilization, I just as strongly loathe puritanical, "unreal" attitudes toward sex and sexuality. Such thinking did women no good when their sexuality was seen as veritably non-existent, wished away and denied by a cruel and ridiculous attitude toward women that rendered them unhuman and ended in "hysteria" "neurasthenia," their going to doctors to achieve the orgasms they should've been getting from their husbands, and women hating themselves for being sexual. And the attitudes a few on this forum towards homosexuality does the same thing to people who struggle with SSA. It's not only weird, it's vicious.

Someone earlier kept posting about pedophiles and, something to the effect of, "should we not judge them even if they don't act on it?!" as if the idea is just shocking on the face of it. Obviously pedophilia is disordered as all Hell -- but even the lowly, universally hated pedophile didn't ask to be attracted to kids (I mean, really, who would ask for a curse like that -- a totally "unmentionable," rightfully taboo thing that makes pretty much everyone hate you? Most likely, the pedophile was abused himself!). I wouldn't leave a pedophile alone with my child, but I could have certainly dinner with him and treat him like a human being. If he were to act on such an impulse, I'd be the first to demand he be thrown in jail, but if he fought against such desires with all his might, then, no, he can't be judged for thoughts and desires he doesn't entertain or will to exist.

It's easy to play the demagoguery card when it comes to such things. I mean, the very thought of sexually acting out with a kid is so loathsome and disgusting that normal people sort of freak out and might even become nauseated. Understandably so. To act on such a thing is a GREAT evil. And the same thing applies to homosexuality for a lot of straight men; the very idea of being touched sexually by another man is just disgusting to them. And that's fine. It's freaking normal, or at least not atypical. But demagoguery doesn't make for good arguments, and that's all there is to it. The fact is that we are called to love homosexuals,  folks with foot fetishes,  people who are turned on by leather -- and even the hated pedophiles. We have to protect our institutions and the family against organized, radical homosexual activists, of COURSE, and we certainly have to protect our kids against pedophiles. But we also have to understand that such desires aren't chosen (which is NOT to say that they are congenital or anything or that, in some cases, at least, they can't be overcome), that we're called to love God and neighbor, and that we're not the judge of anyone's soul. We can't let disgust at the thought of a given sexual act kill off our charity and our very ability to use logic, or allow it to turn us against Catholic teaching.

Hmmm... thinking about this leads to an irony (I'm probably using that word incorrectly):  the same folks who seem to want homosexuals to just will away their orientation are the same folks who are unable to control their disgust long enough to not have issues with Catholic teaching or to be charitable to others. 

Another irony is that this same attitude is what would, if prevalent, cause men to hide in seminaries as "cover." If you want to get rid of the lavender mafia, what you don't want to do is make the world a place in which homosexuals can't exist, can't say who they are without shame for their orientation in itself, and feel the need to "hide" and have "cover" in order to avoid the shame and hate. As said, that attitude leads to suicide -- and it keeps homosexuals in the position of being unable to get help from others, to move forward with support. It also makes for a world where blackmail, gossip, charges of "hypocrisy" if a Catholic homosexual were to slip into sin one night, and other such nonsense would be prevalent. In my kind of world, people would be able to just be who they are, warts and all, and we'd all help each other achieve holiness.

And just to be clear, loving and supporting homosexuals, and not allowing demagoguery and disgust-based rhetoric to influence intellectual attitudes and charity do NOT mean that homosexuals should be allowed into the seminary. They shouldn't be there anymore than I, as a woman, should be there, or that I, as a manic-depressive, should be there, or that someone else who is an alcoholic should be there, or that another person who can't budget money should be there. Either one of those conditions I have makes me unfit for the priesthood -- but neither makes me ashamed, causes me to hate myself (well, the bipolar stuff does sometimes, but you KWIM),  means anyone is better than me (everything being equal), and so forth. We've all got problems, and many things make the priesthood a bad idea for someone, homosexuality being just one of them.
(03-13-2013, 10:49 AM)Papist Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree. Over at Bzycath there is at least one EO posters I can think of who is a rather virulent individual.

Yes, but he's not the majority.
(03-07-2013, 11:40 AM)Burdensome1 Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:We have to treat these people with dignity, because regardless of the sin of which one is guilty, every human person is created in the image and likeness of God. If you do not treat these people with dignity, then you sin against their creator.

I submit that treating people with SSA as a distinct social group with group needs, group opinions, and a group struggle, is precisely NOT treating them with dignity.  They are individual humans with temptations just like the rest of us.  To go ANY farther than that in recognizing these people is to single them out and commit scandal. 

This will be a surprise coming from me..........we usually disagree. However, this post is right on. I am 71 yrs. old, my hair has been completely white since I was 40. I consider it a disservice when people treat me like "another old lady". I am an individual, I get down on my knees & dig in the dirt every spring, planting a huge flower garden. I go to water aerobics & still look pretty fair in a swimming suit. Next to gardening, my favorite thing to do is read & needlework (when I can't get outside). Right now, I' on my way to weight watchers to get rid of a few pounds I gained when I couldn't walk. I'm president of my Garden Club & a very busy, active person. I have a black Labrador/ German Shepherd mix, who wage a war on the moles in our yard. (He got 5 in one week last May & brought them all to my front door so I could see how fearless & strong he is. :)

My good friend does volunteer work at the local hospital & she is thinking of starting an exercise class for "over 70's". She reads to children at the Library while their Mothers look for their books. I could go on & on, but I won't. I have noticed that gays consider themselves to be a "special group". I have no idea why they would want to fit into that mold. It's degrading.
(03-13-2013, 10:51 AM)JoniCath Wrote: [ -> ]My good friend does volunteer work at the local hospital & she is thinking of starting an exercise class for "over 70's". She reads to children at the Library while their Mothers look for their books. I could go on & on, but I won't. I have noticed that gays consider themselves to be a "special group". I have no idea why they would want to fit into that mold. It's degrading.
While I agree that no one group should be treated as a "special group" have you considered that many people who struggle with SSA, and even active homosexuals, want this special protection because they have always been picked on for being "sissies" (in the case of gay men) and "tomboys" (in the case of lesbians) even before they ever came out? If they hadn't been treated this way growing up, perhaps they would not be demanding this protection;
Okay.  I was going to stay out of this thread earlier because for some time, it looked like everyone had calmed down.

25 or so posts later and I actually am angry and that's something that forum threads can almost never accomplished.

This thread was never intended to be about SSA to begin with.  It was started to discuss dealing with the problems involving infiltration of the seminary's by what is known as the "Lavender Mafia".  The thread was purposefully hijacked from the very beginning to force it down a different road.  Even Vox chiming in stating that there was nothing wrong with the original post did nothing to stop the hijack.

Fine.  Not that big a problem.  However, I saw many exhortations to charity yet the most significant opportunity that arose for the exercise of charity was swiftly rejected.  Per_Passionem_Eius pointed out earlier that people need to realize that non-Catholics do not have access to the sacraments.  Traditional Mom was a Lutheran that still retained many sympathies towards Catholicism and the few people that did not resort to personal attacks were having some success in getting her to understand the Catholic teaching regarding temptation, inclination and willful sin.  Small chance anyone has now of encouraging her along the path of conversion.

Does no one understand the meaning of charity?  What conceivable excuse was there to fluster her then send her packing instead of using the opportunity to teach and instruct?  I had started an attempt to explain things to her via PM and was successful in establishing an initial explanation that would permit the start of a proper discussion.  That was cut short though because some people in this thread got things riled up and had her banned.  Now I suppose she will go away in a bad temper.  Without access to the sacraments, how does anyone expect her to exercise perfect virtue when it's obvious that not even those that have the Faith are perfect?

Allow me to post the definition of charity from the Baltimore Catechism:  

124. What is charity?
Charity is the virtue by which we love God above all things for His own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.


From CCC:
"1829 The fruits of charity are joy, peace, and mercy; charity demands beneficence and fraternal correction; it is benevolence; it fosters reciprocity and remains disinterested and generous; it is friendship and communion: Love is itself the fulfillment of all our works. There is the goal; that is why we run: we run toward it, and once we reach it, in it we shall find rest."

A word of advice Melkite - don't expect sympathy on the internet.  For every 10 people that give it there's 1 that will loudly do the opposite.  You'll see and feel the presence of that 1 guy more than anything else (and it looks like you will hand out blanket condemnations of entire swaths of people because of it).  People that need to develop personal relationships simply have to do so with a select handful of close friends.  Anyone that chooses to expose themselves on the internet must develop a very thick skin and learn to shrug off all perceived slights.  No one is perfect and your expectation that the rest of the world have perfect charity is unreal.  Take this advice as you will but in charity, I must tell you the truth on this matter because you will be forced to discover it whether or not I say it.
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