"Who am I to judge?" redux
#21
(03-15-2014, 06:31 PM)Jacafamala Wrote: Mea culpa, I am so cynical when it comes to this sort of thing. Would that it weren't so....

Ohh, I get it, J. Those are typically my first thoughts, too. I have to fight myself sometimes. Sigh.

Reply
#22
(03-15-2014, 12:19 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-15-2014, 11:48 AM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: Who proudly declares their disorders in public, to the world, with the expectation of praise?

You're assuming they're "expecting praise." I think it has to do with just being up-front. I "came out" as bipolar on this forum and didn't expect praise; it was relevant to a topic I was posting about, and people were very kind.

I don't think I'm assuming a thing.  Every single celebrity that "comes out" garners praise, just as this one did.

Being bi-polar isn't something someone can help.  Homosexual behavior is.  As I already stated (and which you don't appear to be contesting), the common definition of "coming out" means embracing the homosexual lifestyle.  That's what it means to virtually *everyone* - certainly the lion's share of Cardinal Dolan's audience.

EDIT: Yes, of course you are contesting this.  I just hadn't gotten that far yet.


Quote:
Quote: I have all kinds of weaknesses and disorders I do not expect praise for.

Exceptions prove the rule, it is said.  Exceptions are not relevant to the de-facto reality of what "coming out" means to the world.

It is said, but logically, a counter example proves that the statement "X always means Y" is wrong when there is an example of X meaning Z.

I think you're really missing the point there.  My statement already acknowledged that, of course, there may be and are some people who may interpret "coming out" as merely declaring SSA (again, if that's it, what's really the point?), but it is simply a practical fact that to most of the world it means "being gay" which means having a boyfriend, having gay sex, etc.

This is simply implicit in virtually everything one reads in the media about "coming out" and the definition of the words "homosexual" and "gay".  To the world, a chaste person with SSA is a freak.


Quote:
Quote: At the very least - as we see so often - the complete failure to even make any attempt to give such comments the very careful qualification they call for is a cause for scandal.

I think Dolan put in some qualification by saying that the same Bible that speaks of chastity speaks of not judging others' souls. IOW, he valued chastity even as he valued someone's being honest about his disorders.

I think what he did was implicitly "juxtaposed the Catholic teaching with novelties", as Kasper recently commented regarding the very documents of Vatican II. 

He offered two alternative viewpoints, more or less, implying some sort of tension between them.

At the very least, he did *not* clarify his meaning nor would the vast majority of people not versed in Catholic teaching even begin to discern his meaning.

(Should a Cardinal speak to non-Catholics?  Of course!  When he's speaking to the world he is speaking to the people of the world and it is his duty to state Catholic teaching clearly and ambiguously.  When speaking about the general area of homosexual behavior, the single most important thing to get across is that all such behavior is gravely immoral.  Is it plain to everyone in the world that this is the Catholic teaching?  Then why is The Advocate gushing over the new pope?)


Quote:
Quote: Do you honestly believe that in that interview Cardinal Dolan was more interested in preaching truth than in the good reputation of himself and the Church in today's world?

I am assuming the best and take his words for what they are, same as with Pope Francis's "Who am I to judge?" statement. I know that I am a Catholic -- a trad one at that -- and have bringing folks to the Church as my mission, know that acting on homosexual desires is wrong and say so, etc., and I am fine with people coming out, and I'd guess I'm not the only Catholic in the world who doesn't see any conflict with being interested in preaching the Truth and being fine with someone's coming out.

Assuming good intentions and failing to realistically examine actual statements aren't the same thing.  This is pollyannaism, to be frank. 

As I previously noted, IF the pope or Cardinal Dolan were unhappy about the way their ambiguous statements were being interpreted, the clarifications would be shouted from the rooftops.  Instead we get, at best, meek, confused, clarifications from certain very tired Vatican spokesmen.

In the spirit espoused here the only way a statement from any churchmen could garner criticism would be directly contradicting Catholic dogma in the most plain terms.  But modernism doesn't operate that way.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm
Reply
#23
(03-16-2014, 03:56 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(03-15-2014, 12:19 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: You're assuming they're "expecting praise." I think it has to do with just being up-front. I "came out" as bipolar on this forum and didn't expect praise; it was relevant to a topic I was posting about, and people were very kind.

I don't think I'm assuming a thing.  Every single celebrity that "comes out" garners praise, just as this one did.

That celebrites get praise doesn't mean they expect it or come out in order to get it. But I'm not concerned about celebrities. I'm concerned about homosexuals, most of whom aren't celebrities, and whom I don't want to suffer alone, in silence.

(03-16-2014, 03:56 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: Being bi-polar isn't something someone can help.  Homosexual behavior is.  As I already stated (and which you don't appear to be contesting), the common definition of "coming out" means embracing the homosexual lifestyle.  That's what it means to virtually *everyone* - certainly the lion's share of Cardinal Dolan's audience.

EDIT: Yes, of course you are contesting this.  I just hadn't gotten that far yet.

Being bipolar isn't something I can help -- and being homosexual isn't something homosexuals can help. Homosexual behavior is something that can be helped, as you say. But coming out has nothing in se to do with homosexual sex; it is what it is:  not hiding that you're homosexual.


(03-16-2014, 03:56 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: I think you're really missing the point there.  My statement already acknowledged that, of course, there may be and are some people who may interpret "coming out" as merely declaring SSA (again, if that's it, what's really the point?), but it is simply a practical fact that to most of the world it means "being gay" which means having a boyfriend, having gay sex, etc.

I don't think it means anything like that to most of the world. I'd guess that most of the world would assume that most homosexuals are sexually active (in the same way most heterosexuals, married or not, are), but I don't think anything would define "coming out" as "telling the world you have sex." Most would define it as letting the world know you're homosexual, which is what it is.

If all this is a matter of semantics -- "coming out" is bad, but "letting the world know you're homosexual" is OK -- then we'd have a different argument. But I don't think "letting the world know you're homosexual" is a bad thing, and I think that thinking otherwise has the effect of making homosexuals feel SHAME just for who they are. What else could be the result of that sort of thinking? It's akin to saying BEING homosexual is bad, sinful, something to be ashamed out IN ITSELF, and that's simply not true according to Catholic teaching.

(03-16-2014, 03:56 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: This is simply implicit in virtually everything one reads in the media about "coming out" and the definition of the words "homosexual" and "gay".  To the world, a chaste person with SSA is a freak.

All the more reason for homosexuals to come out, IMO. Of course, we all want them to be Catholic and chaste (like we want everyone to be Catholic and chaste). But I don't want homosexuals -- chaste and Catholic or otherwise -- suffering alone or feeling shame just because of their disorder.

(03-16-2014, 03:56 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote:
Vox Wrote:I think Dolan put in some qualification by saying that the same Bible that speaks of chastity speaks of not judging others' souls. IOW, he valued chastity even as he valued someone's being honest about his disorders.

I think what he did was implicitly "juxtaposed the Catholic teaching with novelties", as Kasper recently commented regarding the very documents of Vatican II. 

He offered two alternative viewpoints, more or less, implying some sort of tension between them.

At the very least, he did *not* clarify his meaning nor would the vast majority of people not versed in Catholic teaching even begin to discern his meaning.

(Should a Cardinal speak to non-Catholics?  Of course!  When he's speaking to the world he is speaking to the people of the world and it is his duty to state Catholic teaching clearly and ambiguously.  When speaking about the general area of homosexual behavior, the single most important thing to get across is that all such behavior is gravely immoral.  Is it plain to everyone in the world that this is the Catholic teaching?  Then why is The Advocate gushing over the new pope?)

Because as I've said elsewhere, people see what they want to see. And also because his simple statement about judging others' souls is a leap forward for homosexuals in that lots of folks judge homosexuals and typically assume the worst about them.

(03-16-2014, 03:56 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: Assuming good intentions and failing to realistically examine actual statements aren't the same thing.  This is pollyannaism, to be frank. 

As I previously noted, IF the pope or Cardinal Dolan were unhappy about the way their ambiguous statements were being interpreted, the clarifications would be shouted from the rooftops.  Instead we get, at best, meek, confused, clarifications from certain very tired Vatican spokesmen.

In the spirit espoused here the only way a statement from any churchmen could garner criticism would be directly contradicting Catholic dogma in the most plain terms.  But modernism doesn't operate that way.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

That encyclical is hosted at a MUCH better site :P : http://www.fisheaters.com/pascendidominicigregis.html

Like I said in whatever thread, he could've made his point a lot better, and I think it'd be great if he were to go on and clarify that he did, indeed, mean that being homosexual is not a sin and nothing for people to be ashamed out, that people should be able to let the world know they're homosexual without being unjustly treated and discriminated against -- AND that acting on homosexual desires is a sin.  But I think he most definitely let it be known that he valued chastity because he spoke of it in the same sentence (or couple of sentences, whatever it was).
Reply
#24
Vox, again, I simply disagree with your practical take on this matter, starting with what "coming out" and other homosexual-related terminology means to the world.  I'd be doing little more than repeating myself at this stage so I will let the discussion end here.
Reply
#25
(03-17-2014, 06:44 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: Vox, again, I simply disagree with your practical take on this matter, starting with what "coming out" and other homosexual-related terminology means to the world.  I'd be doing little more than repeating myself at this stage so I will let the discussion end here.

If you want to end the discussion, that's fine (I totally understand.. It does get tiring!). But if you want to approach it from a different angle, here are some questions:

1. Do you think homosexuals should not let anyone else know they're homosexual?

2. If you think that it's OK for homosexuals to let some folks know, but it's not OK to "come out" and just be matter-of-fact about it no matter who brings it all up, who are the people it's OK to tell?

3.  If, per #2, you think it's OK for homosexuals to tell at least some people about their struggles, what's to prevent folks who are told from telling others? What should homosexuals do in order to combat whispering campaigns which, for those who won't admit the truth about themselves, sort of presume that the folks who won't tell the truth are ashamed-- i.e., filled with shame?

4. If a homosexual is asked if he is a homosexual, should he lie?  If you say he shouldn't lie, but should say nothing or say something like "That's none of your business," isn't that tantamount - not logically, but de facto -- to admitting to being a homosexual (e.g., do you know of a straight man who'd say "It's none of your business" if asked if he's homosexual?)

5.  If a magic wand could be waved such that you'd know, for a fact, that most homosexuals who come out are, in fact, chaste, would that change your opinion about homosexuals letting others know they're homosexual? In other words, is your problem with folks "coming out" based on the likely fact that most folks who do "come out" don't have chastity as a goal any more than most heterosexuals have chastity as a goal? If so, how does the likelihood of most people's coming out not being a prelude to chastity make coming out in itself a bad thing? And how can that likely fact ever become a very questionable idea by encouraging more Catholic homosexuals to come out, live chaste lives, and encourage others to live chaste lives? If you don't like the idea of people coming out because most folks who do come out are likely not planning on being chaste and because some even get lauded when they come out even if they say nothing about chastity, then how is the logic of that any different from saying, for ex., "I am against wedding cake because most people who cut it at wedding receptions don't take marriage seriously, aren't Catholic, are relatively likely to divorce, and everyone lauds them and gives them presents in spite of all that"?

6. Is being a homosexual in itself --  NOT acting on homosexual desires, but having SSA -- something to be ashamed of?  If not, why should a homosexual feel pressured to act as if it is by never letting others know, struggling totally alone, etc.?

7. Is there any other psychological disorder you think folks should never talk about, should struggle alone with, should just keep between themselves and their confessors?

8. What do you think of groups like Courage -- a Catholic support group for homosexuals that encourages Catholic homosexuals to follow Church teaching? If you are for such groups, how are homosexuals supposed to join them if they're supposed to shut up and stay "in the closet," etc.? Should they have to fear the possibility of others finding out they attend Courage meetings? 

9. Whom does it hurt when a homosexual lets others know he's homosexual? In what way does harm come to those who are hurt?

10. How are young homosexuals supposed to be inspired to live chaste lives if there are no "out-of-the-closet" Catholic homosexuals for them to emulate, learn from, get support from, etc.?

 
Reply
#26
I'm only going to answer question #1 - which, actually, I already have. 

I don't bucket people as "homosexuals" and neither do the good Catholics who struggle with SSA that I've talked to.  Rather, they are people saddled with SSA. 
Reply
#27
That "tradfather" video, the music, the mockery it makes of the football player's statement are shocking and disgusting. You know, it's actually quite a good thing that some of you might, if you have the strength of your crazed convictions, end up in prison for going a step too far in the things you say and do. The real tragedy is that you're so far down the garden path you can't even recognise blatant cruelty. Enjoy the company of your angel of light.
Reply
#28
The video "translates" "I'm gay" to:  "I'm sexually attracted to other males. I'm prone to acts of grave depravity; intrinsically disordered acts that are contrary to the natural law, are intrinsically evil, and cry out to heaven for vengeance"  (if I got that right)

What part of this would you not want a gay person to realize? Perhaps you object to the word "prone".  Would it be better if it were "attracted to", or tempted to" or "inclined to" or "more likely than the general population to be attracted to"?  The fact that homosexuals don't have to sin and shouldn't be judged as necessarily sinners doesn't mean that there is no general attraction to an act that is gravely depraved.  SSA like attraction between man and woman includes at least a general inclination to perform the sexual act (not necessarily, but the attraction has to do with sex, which has to do with the sexual act).

I'm not saying that "you have an inclination to grave depravity" is something you tell a person as a weapon against him.  I'm saying that he ought to know it, eg from his confessor - or more loudly from the Church.  And being SSA is something that should not be dismissed or celebrated, or understood as "just another kind of sexual attraction" that "just happens to always require chastity".

That  being said, "who am I to judge" whether the video was imprudent.
Reply
#29
(03-19-2014, 01:47 AM)Doce Me Wrote: The video "translates" "I'm gay" to:  "I'm sexually attracted to other males. I'm prone to acts of grave depravity; intrinsically disordered acts that are contrary to the natural law, are intrinsically evil, and cry out to heaven for vengeance"  (if I got that right)

What part of this would you not want a gay person to realize? Perhaps you object to the word "prone".  Would it be better if it were "attracted to", or tempted to" or "inclined to" or "more likely than the general population to be attracted to"?  The fact that homosexuals don't have to sin and shouldn't be judged as necessarily sinners doesn't mean that there is no general attraction to an act that is gravely depraved.  SSA like attraction between man and woman includes at least a general inclination to perform the sexual act (not necessarily, but the attraction has to do with sex, which has to do with the sexual act).

The "depravity" referres is anal sex, and it's the straight world's hyper-focus on anal sex (only when homosexuals do it, that is) that is disgusting, wrong, and rather obtuse. It's also rather telling given the results of this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014  The problem is some folks thinking of "homosexuality" and just about always and everywhere leaping to the idea of anal sex. These tend to be the same people who talk angrily or sadly about the hyperfocus on sex elsewhere in our culture, but they do the same thing to homosexuals.

As I've said, Catholics know that sex is about a LOT more than the genitals. So is homosexual sex (and, yes, of course, there are things like the "club scenes" -- which not every homosexual is into --- just as there are swingers and prostitutes and promiscuity in the straight world -- which not every straight person is into). What the attitude expressed in the video does is precisely what so many trads get all huffy about and accuse homosexuals of doing to themselves when they refer to themselves as homosexuals:  it reduces homosexuals into nothing but "people who do anal sex" -- which many, many homosexuals don't even do in the first place. It's a disgusting and cruel thing and it not based in reality.

The same people who talk about the two ends of sex -- procreation and unity -- forget the unitive aspects of it and what it means for a homosexual. They reduce the entire experience of being homosexual and homosexuals' sexuality -- all of it -- to a strange, almost sick focus on anuses, and it is vile and unfair. And like Loggats said, it's cruel.
Reply
#30
Truth in journalism, Vox. Very good post. Wow. Such true! Much fact. :) It's good.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)