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
(03-07-2013, 07:10 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-07-2013, 07:00 PM)Ursus Wrote: [ -> ]Please correct me, if im wrong but I want to know clearly, in basic terms (because the basics do get muddled) to clarify understanding.

Same sex attraction or SSA is the problem, struggle or sin. Gay, lesbian or homosexual is the self applied label which people allow themselves to be defined BY the sin.

I would say right. But I know several posters on CAF and possibly here that would disagree with the former part saying SSA itself isn't a problem, it doesn't become a problem unless you act on it. I think on the other hand, SSA is THE problem that leads to the latter how else does someone become homosexual without the SSA first.

Exactly.  Impure thoughts lead to impure words and impure deeds.
Ursus, I think you should form a support group and ask the intercession of St. Phil Donahue on the matter, that's the Catholic way.
(03-07-2013, 07:11 PM)Burdensome1 Wrote: [ -> ]Mikemac, we're outvoted by the management.  No sense in continuing.

It doesn't matter if we are outvoted or not Burdensome1.  We are right.  I would sooner get banned from this forum than to back track on this one.  Do we not believe the prayers that we say anymore?  Do we not believe what we say in the Confiteor?
Quote:It doesn't matter if we are outvoted or not Burdensome1.  We are right.  I would sooner get banned from this forum than to back track on this one.  Do we not believe the prayers that we say anymore?  Do we not believe what we say in the Confiteor?

Heh. I like your spirit.  You're not going to last here much longer either. 
(03-07-2013, 07:21 PM)Burdensome1 Wrote: [ -> ]Ursus, I think you should form a support group and ask the intercession of St. Phil Donahue on the matter, that's the Catholic way.

I think Ursus is on our side.  I'm just about to find the appropriate Bible verses for him.
(03-07-2013, 07:21 PM)Burdensome1 Wrote: [ -> ]Ursus, I think you should form a support group and ask the intercession of St. Phil Donahue on the matter, that's the Catholic way.

:LOL: :LOL: :LOL: ok well I think Ursus was being serious. I've seen those memes btw too Ursus especially in the comments section of "things Jesus never said" where immoral "christians" come on and try to post pictures of Jesus saying he never said anything against sodomy. I tell homosexauls and their buddies yeah actaully he did he said, "have ye not read that in the beginning God made them male and female and for this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and they twain shall be one flesh"-he may be talking about divorce and remarriage being sinful but he says flat out God made them male and female to marry and be one flesh. Homosexuals aren't male and female becoming one flesh they are men with men and women with women working perversion with strange flesh. That's what Jesus's idea is of marriage, for a homosexual or homosexuals to think that Jesus didn't say anything against sodomy is ridiculous. I just read something pretty hardcore by Pope St. Pius V:

St. Pius V

That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.

Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: "Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature, given that the wrath of God falls over the sons of perfidy, be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery" (chap. 4, X, V, 31).

So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.

Therefore, wishing to pursue with greater rigor than we have exerted since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss.


(Constitutionn Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568, in Bullarium Romanum,
Rome: Typographia Reverendae Camerae Apostolicae, Mainardi, 1738, chap. 3, p. 33)

That's pretty hardcore...you'll never hear that out of a current Pope's mouth unless he doesn't care about becoming a martyr. (seriously I've been to a gay pride parade trying to talk to homosexuals they will attack you if you say anything about their sin-physically)
(03-07-2013, 01:11 PM)Tim Wrote: [ -> ]The bluesman in me needs to riff on some notes Burdensome has laid down. A way forward is to stop this "support group" mentality for everything. It's Alinsky at his best, and that's commie-socialism. We should not have any of it from the USCCB to the whatever. It by it's very nature promotes "group think". I'm high on fighting this thing because I'm personally being harassed by my health care providers to join some "health club for oldies" or other. The last thing in the world I want is jazzercizing to old bubble gum tunes. I hated them then and with age it's become anger. This is socializing of America from head start to old age. It's wrong !

phooey,

tim

Heeeeee-larious!!!  Great post!
Okay, into the breach.

Quote:I'm not trying to "have it both ways" because I see acting on homosexual impulses as a sin, not something "particularly" nefarious. But even if it were a "particularly" virulent, dangerous, and perverse temptation, it doesn't follow that it's a bad idea to have support groups for people who suffer from those sorts of at attractions.

This is wrong.  It's wrong from Papist's standpoint because he and other posters have been trading saintly quotes about homosexuality being the worst sin.  If you don't agree, you need to take it up with the saints, not me.  The list is a few pages back, go find it.

It's also wrong in that yes, it does follow that it is bad to bring people together who share the same complementary temptation.  Exactly what, I wonder, would St. John "Bad books, bad company" Bosco think about organizing meetings of homosexuals?  You can disagree, but don't act like it's a non sequitur to say that because homosexuals need other homosexuals to act on the their temptations, we shouldn't help them meet up.  

(03-07-2013, 07:32 PM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-07-2013, 07:21 PM)Burdensome1 Wrote: [ -> ]Ursus, I think you should form a support group and ask the intercession of St. Phil Donahue on the matter, that's the Catholic way.

I think Ursus is on our side.  I'm just about to find the appropriate Bible verses for him.

Of course I'm on your side. I feel badly I wasn't clear to some. 
Quote:Support groups aren't, necessarily, "psychological therapy" any more than talking to friends is "psychological therapy." And even if it were psychological therapy, there's nothing "modernist" about it necessarily. Psychology -- the study of the psyche, or soul -- isn't modernism. Psychology can and should be a perfectly Catholic discipline; it doesn't have to be all Freud and Szasz or whoever.

Okay, then let's discuss the Catholic roots of non-directed group psychotherapy or "encounter groups".  I've read Carl Rodgers' books on group encounter therapy and I'll just say right now that it ain't Catholic.  

Quote: Having a group meet in a Church basement isn't "mixing the practice of the Catholic religion with" psychology anyway.

Yes it is.  It is a group support session on Church property conducted with the blessing of the Pastor and (normally) the Bishop.  Parse all you want, it's a Church function.  

Quote: The liturgy is the liturgy, catechism class is catechism class, and the occasional bingo or poker game or group meeting in the church basement is not the Catholic religion. Catholic bereavement groups, for example, aren't typically considered "modernist" or a mixing of "the Catholic religion with some modernist psychology.

Bereaved Catholics are not in danger of committing characteristic sins with other bereaved Catholics.  Bingo players don't tend to need other bingo players to conduct disordered sexual trysts.  Purpose, Vox, purpose.  What is the purpose of these gatherings?  Innocuous socializing or legitimate Catholic social functions.  Bringing all the homosexuals together isn't  a legitimate Catholic function because they are more safe when separated from the primary temptation.  If you put them in a position of temptation, guess what - not a Catholic purpose.  
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