What species orientation are you?
#51
(08-04-2013, 12:57 PM)In nomine Patris Wrote: How did this turn into a homosexual discussion, it was not started that way. For being 2-4% of the population they sure make a lot of noise. To damn much in fact.

The entire thread has been about homosexuality. That's why Basilios started it, in reference to another thread in which he says that "homosexual orientations" don't exist.
Reply
#52
(08-04-2013, 09:57 AM)2Vermont Wrote: With all due respect, that's great if you seem to think that the teaching and the Pope's actions are clear and that both are consistent with previous teaching.  I used to blame it on the media and "those other people" also.  I do not anymore.  As do a lot of other people.

I guess that means that you used to be right and you do not have the excuse of ignorance for your behaviour now.
Reply
#53
(08-04-2013, 08:16 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-04-2013, 09:57 AM)2Vermont Wrote: With all due respect, that's great if you seem to think that the teaching and the Pope's actions are clear and that both are consistent with previous teaching.  I used to blame it on the media and "those other people" also.  I do not anymore.  As do a lot of other people.

I guess that means that you used to be right and you do not have the excuse of ignorance for your behaviour now.

So now you're calling me ignorant and judging my behavior?  I'm sorry, I thought you were known for your charity on this forum. 
Reply
#54
(08-04-2013, 09:46 AM)Melkite Wrote: The Church in its catechesis had to respond, not because it was singling it out for special status, but because so many people already have singled it out with special status as a sin above all other sins.

Catholics and others are extremely wrong in not opposing other sins besides homosexuality.  But the ACT of homosexuality IS worse than other forms of lust.  I can quote St. Thomas on this, but it is hard reading and I know you don't care for him too much.  People are RIGHT in reacting in disgust to the ACT of homosexuality.  To me it is easy to understand that they would also react in disgust to the sinner, although that is WRONG. Reacting in disgust to those who have SSA but do not act is even more wrong.  But to me it is still somewhat understandable; reacting charitably is something we have to work on.
Reply
#55
(08-04-2013, 08:58 PM)Doce Me Wrote: Catholics and others are extremely wrong in not opposing other sins besides homosexuality.  But the ACT of homosexuality IS worse than other forms of lust.  I can quote St. Thomas on this, but it is hard reading and I know you don't care for him too much.  People are RIGHT in reacting in disgust to the ACT of homosexuality.  To me it is easy to understand that they would also react in disgust to the sinner, although that is WRONG. Reacting in disgust to those who have SSA but do not act is even more wrong.  But to me it is still somewhat understandable; reacting charitably is something we have to work on.

It really is only worse academically.  Yes, homosexual lust can be said to be worse than heterosexual lust because the former is unnatural and the latter is not.  But this is speaking on purely human terms.  In terms of divine law, both are equally bad, because both seek to objectify another human made in the image of God, purely for satisfying one's carnal, fleeting passion.  Both are equally sinful in that, without repentance, both will send one to hell.  Seeing as Dante is fiction and not actual theology, there is no reason to believe that one will go to a worse hell for their lust than another might.  On the divine level, where it actually counts, both forms of lust are equally sinful, equally repulsive in the eyes of God.
Reply
#56
(08-04-2013, 08:20 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-04-2013, 08:16 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-04-2013, 09:57 AM)2Vermont Wrote: With all due respect, that's great if you seem to think that the teaching and the Pope's actions are clear and that both are consistent with previous teaching.  I used to blame it on the media and "those other people" also.  I do not anymore.  As do a lot of other people.

I guess that means that you used to be right and you do not have the excuse of ignorance for your behaviour now.

So now you're calling me ignorant and judging my behavior?  I'm sorry, I thought you were known for your charity on this forum. 

I just wrote that you do not have the excuse of ignorance.  This implies that you are not ignorant.  So, no, I did not call you ignorant.  And there is no reason that I should not judge your behaviour.  Catholics are supposed to judge the behaviour of others, but not judge their motives or the state of salvation.  It is wrong (and certainly not a tradition of Catholicism) to consistently be critical and negative about the Vicar of Christ. 

I am deeply upset that a recurring theme in online "traditional" Catholic discussion is complaining about the Pope and finding bad interpretations for his words and actions.  This forum is the least bad because the owner discourages that sort of talk, but there is still enough to sicken me.

I am sorry if my tone with you has been too sharp and I will try to be more gentle.  It is not any sort of personal hostility toward you, but an expression of how distressed I am by the state of the Church.
Reply
#57
(08-04-2013, 09:17 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(08-04-2013, 08:58 PM)Doce Me Wrote: Catholics and others are extremely wrong in not opposing other sins besides homosexuality.  But the ACT of homosexuality IS worse than other forms of lust.  I can quote St. Thomas on this, but it is hard reading and I know you don't care for him too much.  People are RIGHT in reacting in disgust to the ACT of homosexuality.  To me it is easy to understand that they would also react in disgust to the sinner, although that is WRONG. Reacting in disgust to those who have SSA but do not act is even more wrong.  But to me it is still somewhat understandable; reacting charitably is something we have to work on.

It really is only worse academically.  Yes, homosexual lust can be said to be worse than heterosexual lust because the former is unnatural and the latter is not.  But this is speaking on purely human terms.  In terms of divine law, both are equally bad, because both seek to objectify another human made in the image of God, purely for satisfying one's carnal, fleeting passion.  Both are equally sinful in that, without repentance, both will send one to hell.  Seeing as Dante is fiction and not actual theology, there is no reason to believe that one will go to a worse hell for their lust than another might.  On the divine level, where it actually counts, both forms of lust are equally sinful, equally repulsive in the eyes of God.

The level of a sin depends on the evil that God sees in the heart of the sinner.  But different sins are OBJECTIVELY more and less evil.  Murder of a single person is objectively a greater sin than burning down his house (all other things being equal).  Do  you really want to say that a Hitler (not hard to imagine that God found little good in his heart) is punished no more in hell than a man who murdered one man in rage?

Divine law is God's eternal law about all things; to disobey natural law is to disobey Divine law because God created nature. Natural law is not "on human terms"; it concerns human nature as God meant it to be. God expects all men to obey natural law. (Human law is created by man and can be disobeyed if it is contrary to natural or Divine law.)

To make an analogy, rape is contrary to nature law, but not unnatural; bestiality is contrary to natural law, but also unnatural.  Bestiality is objectively worse than rape.  The same thing is true when comparing the homosexual act to rape. Homosexuality (the act) is objectively worse than rape.

Something that is unnatural is, all by itself, contrary to nature - there is no time, place, circumstance, moderation, or any other condition that could make it right. Natural sex is right, not in rape, but in some other cases.
Reply
#58
This thread is a cat-astrophe..
Reply
#59
(08-04-2013, 10:08 PM)JayneK Wrote: I just wrote that you do not have the excuse of ignorance.  This implies that you are not ignorant.  So, no, I did not call you ignorant.  And there is no reason that I should not judge your behaviour.  Catholics are supposed to judge the behaviour of others, but not judge their motives or the state of salvation.  It is wrong (and certainly not a tradition of Catholicism) to consistently be critical and negative about the Vicar of Christ. 

I am deeply upset that a recurring theme in online "traditional" Catholic discussion is complaining about the Pope and finding bad interpretations for his words and actions.  This forum is the least bad because the owner discourages that sort of talk, but there is still enough to sicken me.

I am sorry if my tone with you has been too sharp and I will try to be more gentle.  It is not any sort of personal hostility toward you, but an expression of how distressed I am by the state of the Church.

But you did say I used to be right.  Your premise that I can not use the excuse of ignorance is based on your opinion that I used to be right (ie, I used to agree with you) and that obviously I'm wrong now. 

You SHOULD be deeply upset by the criticism of the Pope.  However, you should be upset because those who are criticizing the Pope are faithful Catholics who don't enjoy it and who wish there was nothing to criticize. They are disheartened by the state of the Church.  They have good reasons to be critical.  If there are traditional Catholics who are criticizing the Pope, that IS disturbing.  However, it shows just how bad things are right now.  Instead of wagging fingers at those who bring up concerns or question things that the Pope says, perhaps you could try to see it from their point of view and how, just maybe, this isn't just the media's fault (or anyone else's fault).  Maybe, just maybe, the Church and the Pope are wrong at times.

This is what I meant by I used to be like you.  There was NOTHING a person could say that could be right when they criticized the Pope. I ALWAYS defended the Pope.  The Pope was ALWAYS right.  He could do no wrong.  I now know that just because someone criticizes the Pope and the Church doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong.  It doesn't necessarily mean they are ignorant.  Sometimes it could mean that they are right.  And that it's time for me to stop burying my head in the sand. 

Wrt the gay comments, I can see why you would defend those and say that they were taken out of context, etc.  I think if you were to read my comments on the huge gay thread you would see that I never said that I think he meant something else, etc.  I think if you read my comments you would see that the most critical thing I said about the Pope was that I did not think he was clear.  I think that thread went off course because it went from talking about what the Pope said to the general teaching on homosexuality and the term "orientation". 

In that thread, I think my biggest concern is with reconciling current teaching with pre-Vatican II teaching, not so much with what the Pope said (although it is somewhat linked). It seems to me that prior teaching was more inline with the very strong statements in Scripture.  Now, in 1975 (decades before homosexual issues were even on the front burner), Persona Humana states that we can no longer rely on Scripture on this matter.  I'm sorry, but that doesn't sit well with me.  Catholic teaching shouldn't contradict Scripture and as far as I know it never has before.  More times than not my criticism goes back to pre-Vatican II teaching vs the new approaches/new teachings.  The Popes usually just reflect those teachings in their words and actions.
Reply
#60
(08-05-2013, 08:06 AM)2Vermont Wrote: But you did say I used to be right.  Your premise that I can not use the excuse of ignorance is based on your opinion that I used to be right (ie, I used to agree with you) and that obviously I'm wrong now. 

Yes, I think you are wrong.  You seem to think it was uncharitable for me to say this.

(08-05-2013, 08:06 AM)2Vermont Wrote: You SHOULD be deeply upset by the criticism of the Pope.  However, you should be upset because those who are criticizing the Pope are faithful Catholics who don't enjoy it and who wish there was nothing to criticize. They are disheartened by the state of the Church.  They have good reasons to be critical.  If there are traditional Catholics who are criticizing the Pope, that IS disturbing.  However, it shows just how bad things are right now.  Instead of wagging fingers at those who bring up concerns or question things that the Pope says, perhaps you could try to see it from their point of view and how, just maybe, this isn't just the media's fault (or anyone else's fault).  Maybe, just maybe, the Church and the Pope are wrong at times.

I would not be troubled by an occasional respectful criticism of the Pope.  However, every single thing this pope does and says gets attacked by people who call themselves traditional Catholics.  Everything is given the worse possible interpretation.  This attitude is pervasive in the trad online presence to the point it is practically our identifying characteristic.  That is simply wrong.  There is nothing traditionally Catholic about this sort of  hostility to the Pope. 

(08-05-2013, 08:06 AM)2Vermont Wrote: This is what I meant by I used to be like you.  There was NOTHING a person could say that could be right when they criticized the Pope. I ALWAYS defended the Pope.  The Pope was ALWAYS right.  He could do no wrong.

This may be what you used to think, but it is not my position.  If that is what you thought, you were not like me. 

(08-05-2013, 08:06 AM)2Vermont Wrote: I now know that just because someone criticizes the Pope and the Church doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong.  It doesn't necessarily mean they are ignorant.  Sometimes it could mean that they are right.  And that it's time for me to stop burying my head in the sand. 

I do not automatically assume that people who are criticizing the Pope are wrong.  It is what I regularly observe when I read their posts.  A significant proportion of the criticisms are unjustified, often based on acceptance of media spin rather actual positions of the Pope.  Another thing that is often wrong is the way the criticism is made.  I have seen a lot of disrespect and rudeness expressed toward the Pope.

I am not burying my head in the sand.  I am looking around, seeing what is happening, understanding what I read, and thinking about it.  Often I will back up my claims about what the Pope is actually saying by quoting him, only to be told that I am refusing to see the truth.  These people do not back up their own positions, just dismiss mine as willful blindness. 

I am wondering if I need a break from forums.  I am constantly feeling so much anger and frustration that I am finding it difficult to write kindly.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)