"Who am I to judge?" redux
#51
(03-23-2014, 11:23 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-22-2014, 10:51 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: The charge is so nonsensical that it doesn't do anything but reflect poorly on the accuser.  It belies an emotional rather than objective response.
As to ephebophilia, I was a 16 year old girl once. I got hit on ALL THE TIME by older men. I don't think homosexuals have that market cornered. There might be something to the rates of pedophilia, as your studies show, if some people become homosexual because of their own childhood abuse (not the majority of the cases at all).

What you are missing is that there's no data there.  You cannot extrapolate from your experience any relationship between the frequency of heterosexual relations with minors vs. homosexual.

Of course there are many lecherous men out there.  And if we were to compare the rates of sexual relationships with minors of lecherous heterosexual men with that of actively homosexual men I think we'd find comparable numbers.  That is because the homosexual lifestyle, as has been documented thoroughly in countless contexts, is an "over-sexed" one of, for lack of a better way to put it, complete debauchery.  This is why "gay pride" parades all over the world typically feature men nude, fondling each other, and even engaging in sex acts in public (all protected by the law, of course).  That is why the average active homosexual in America has something like 10-20x the number of lifetime sex partners as the average heterosexual.  It's a lifestyle of deviancy that begets other, related forms of deviancy.

Again, these things are pretty much factual and beyond debate, except where leftist political correctness reigns.  These things really shouldn't even need debate on a Catholic forum yet somehow I feel like I'm in for another raking over the coals.

But, I am tired enough of this, and feel it pointless enough, that I may just quit at any time.
Reply
#52
(03-15-2014, 11:57 AM)Heorot Wrote: Just FYI, I intend to "come out" in my parish starting a chapter of "Courage" - i.e. a group for SSA-afflicted people who wish to be faithful to the tradition, magisterium, scriptures, and faith of the whole Church. I expect maybe 2 or 3 people at most, either because most SSA people don't care what the Church teaches, or they get the wrong impression. This comes from words like "Who am I to judge?" and such ambiguous statements.

What Dolan and others are doing here is applauding the SECULAR man's coming-out (which is currently intrinsically tied to acceptance of the act of gay sex), not the CATHOLIC man's coming-out. Essential, essential, essential distinctions.

I've just read through most of this thread.  Perhaps amusingly, I'd forgotten it was one I'd started.

I just wanted to comment that I agree completely with the attitude expressed here, on all counts.  Yes, this is a sort of "coming-out" (what you describe) not in conflict with Catholic teaching.  God bless you.
Reply
#53
(03-18-2014, 09:04 PM)loggats Wrote: 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.

I missed this one.  You are saying that you hope people that don't praise "coming out" as in the gay lifestyle - which, again, is exactly what this topic is about - end up in prison?  Would you be even happier if they were martyred?  Yes, we're seeing people being put in prison for defending Christian teaching all over the world, and many see it likely we'll see martyrdom again before this age is over as well.

Even if you were correct that the hate you place in the minds of those you disagree with exists, it seems pretty clear you are harboring just as much of your own.

I will make it a point to pray for you. 
Reply
#54
(03-23-2014, 05:26 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: What you are missing is that there's no data there.  You cannot prove extrapolate from your experience any relationship between the frequency of heterosexual relations with minors vs. homosexual.

Of course one can't prove anything by anecdote, but the experiences of all the formerly teenaged-girls I know and used to hang out with as teenagers bears this out. There likely are studies out there about this, though. It's just a matter of finding them.  But no matter how the studies go, it's a fact that a lot of older people are turned on by people in their late teens and 20s (if you don't believe me, consider who makes it into Playboy and who doesn't).  All the "barely legal girls" porn for straight men says something, right?

Quote: Of course there are many lecherous men out there.  And if we were to compare the rates of sexual relationships with minors of lecherous heterosexual men with that of actively homosexual men I think we'd find comparable numbers.  That is because the homosexual lifestyle, as has been documented thoroughly in countless contexts, is an "over-sexed" one of, for lack of a better way to put it, complete debauchery.  This is why "gay pride" parades all over the world typically feature men nude, fondling each other, and even engaging in sex acts in public (all protected by the law, of course).  That is why the average active homosexual in America has something like 10-20x the number of lifetime sex partners as the average heterosexual.  It's a lifestyle of deviancy that begets other, related forms of deviancy.

Again, though, the public face of homosexuality, the activist types with their parades, etc., simply don't represent many homosexuals. I've read many essays from homosexuals who are embarrassed by the debauchery displayed at Pride parades, I've read articles from them that come out against gay ":marriage" (I just posted two in the Secular News sub-forum).

And as I've said before, aside from the political activists, there is the "club scene" -- which many homosexuals want NOTHING to do with and are also ashamed of.

The point:  homosexuality can't be equated with Pride parades and the "homosexual club scene." They're an aspect of the "homosexual sub-culture" in the same way that swinging clubs and the penchant for "threesomes" is in the straight world -- i.e., not everyone gets into that sort of ugliness. Those nasty things get all the attention for obvious reasons (they're salacious, and people like reading about that stuff). But the fact remains that there are tons of homosexuals out there who have nothing whatsoever to do with any of that. And many of them also strive for chastity and are maybe Catholic.  Their needs need to be met and they shouldn't be shoved into closets and, in essence, made to feel and act ashamed for having a disorder.

Quote: Again, these things are pretty much factual and beyond debate, except where leftist political correctness reigns.  These things really shouldn't even need debate on a Catholic forum yet somehow I feel like I'm in for another raking over the coals.

But, I am tired enough of this, and feel it pointless enough, that I may just quit at any time.

I don't thnk I've "raked you over the coals"; I think I've been having a discussion with you.

There's simply nothing "leftist" about the Catechism's teachings about homosexuals:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. [Vox: And in order to avoid unjust discrimination, etc., we'd obviously have to know who they are] These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

______________

There's nothing in there about homosexuals needing to shut up and hide away in closets, about how it'd be a good thing for Catholics to treat those with disorders as having something to be ashamed about, etc.


Reply
#55
(03-23-2014, 07:23 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. [Vox: And in order to avoid unjust discrimination, etc., we'd obviously have to know who they are]

Um, wouldn't it be a heck of a lot easier to avoid unjust discrimination if we didn't know who they were?  Color-blind, as it were, and all that?
Reply
#56
(03-23-2014, 09:29 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote:
(03-23-2014, 07:23 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. [Vox: And in order to avoid unjust discrimination, etc., we'd obviously have to know who they are]

Um, wouldn't it be a heck of a lot easier to avoid unjust discrimination if we didn't know who they were?  Color-blind, as it were, and all that?

Actually, I'm not so sure. I can imagine being homosexual and hanging with a bunch of folks making jokes, not knowing I'm gay. Whether that counts as "discrimination" can be argued, I guess, but it wouldn't be pleasant. 

But the Catechism presumes knowing who they are, doesn't it? There's nothing in there admonishing homosexuals to not let others know they exist, telling them to shut up and go away; the onus is on non-homosexuals to treat them -- as they should treat everyone -- with respect, dignity, and charity.

And one could say the same thing about Black people. Maybe if they all wore white-face or just stayed at home, they wouldn't suffer discrimination either (though nowadays, the discrimination tends to go the other way, the point remains).

But the biggest point is this: why should people be made to feel ashamed for a disorder they did not choose, have little control over, is NOT a sin in itself to have, etc.? There is no good reason for it. And as I've said numerous times, telling homosexuals to act ashamed and hide is to practically beg them to hide out in seminaries and marriages with women the majority of whom would not be happy, which I imagine most folks debating this with me wouldn't want.

Reply
#57
(03-23-2014, 07:23 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-23-2014, 05:26 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: What you are missing is that there's no data there.  You cannot prove extrapolate from your experience any relationship between the frequency of heterosexual relations with minors vs. homosexual.

Of course one can't prove anything by anecdote, but the experiences of all the formerly teenaged-girls I know and used to hang out with as teenagers bears this out. There likely are studies out there about this, though. It's just a matter of finding them.  But no matter how the studies go, it's a fact that a lot of older people are turned on by people in their late teens and 20s (if you don't believe me, consider who makes it into Playboy and who doesn't).  All the "barely legal girls" porn for straight men says something, right?

Turned-on to some extent (probably only very rarely if at all in most cases) and easily avoiding such temptations are a much different thing that *acting* on them.  Which is what we were discussing.

I've posted valid data and numbers do not lie.  I won't repeat myself.


Quote:
Quote: Of course there are many lecherous men out there.  And if we were to compare the rates of sexual relationships with minors of lecherous heterosexual men with that of actively homosexual men I think we'd find comparable numbers.  That is because the homosexual lifestyle, as has been documented thoroughly in countless contexts, is an "over-sexed" one of, for lack of a better way to put it, complete debauchery.  This is why "gay pride" parades all over the world typically feature men nude, fondling each other, and even engaging in sex acts in public (all protected by the law, of course).  That is why the average active homosexual in America has something like 10-20x the number of lifetime sex partners as the average heterosexual.  It's a lifestyle of deviancy that begets other, related forms of deviancy.

Again, though, the public face of homosexuality, the activist types with their parades, etc., simply don't represent many homosexuals. I've read many essays from homosexuals who are embarrassed by the debauchery displayed at Pride parades, I've read articles from them that come out against gay ":marriage" (I just posted two in the Secular News sub-forum).

First of all, I have to point out this (relatively constant) barrier to dialog: your referral to PEOPLE as "homosexuals" (something the Catechism you quote does NOT do).  Again, it seems to me you consider "homosexual" an immutable property of a person - it is or might as well be genetic - and this is indeed the modern secularist view.  I believe this is at the root of the disconnect here.

I believe that (even if there may be some genetic or epigenetic component) homosexual tendencies are largely due to psychological factors and that they *can* be reduced or even eliminated.  It is a bare fact that the therapy produces positive results (and a single instance would be enough to proof this).

This by no means trivializes the magnitude of the cross I believe SSA to be; psychological issues can be so ingrained they might as well be genetic as they'll seem so to the soul suffering.

But, reinforcement - through behavior, belief there is no hope for change because society says so, belief there is no difference between urge and act because society says so, etc. - makes them even more ingrained.

Back to the quote here.  Of course the "Pride" parades don't represent a lot of people with SSA - but they represent enough that such ARE the characteristics of these displays of satanic debauchery, year after year, in dozens or perhaps hundreds of cities across the globe, in virtually every case with the enthusiastic support of the local government.  Where are the "homosexuals" who decry this?  I am sure every chaste person who suffers from SSA does decry it, but it seems such good souls are not thick on the ground, thanks to society, the devil, and the Cardinal Dolans of the world for that matter.

Parting thought: If I suffered from SSA (as Mr. Loggats apparently believes I do), I would loathe being referred to as "a homosexual": I promise you that.  I would loathe it with every ounce of my being.


Quote:And as I've said before, aside from the political activists, there is the "club scene" -- which many homosexuals want NOTHING to do with and are also ashamed of.

The point:  homosexuality can't be equated with Pride parades and the "homosexual club scene." They're an aspect of the "homosexual sub-culture" in the same way that swinging clubs and the penchant for "threesomes" is in the straight world -- i.e., not everyone gets into that sort of ugliness. Those nasty things get all the attention for obvious reasons (they're salacious, and people like reading about that stuff). But the fact remains that there are tons of homosexuals out there who have nothing whatsoever to do with any of that. And many of them also strive for chastity and are maybe Catholic.  Their needs need to be met and they shouldn't be shoved into closets and, in essence, made to feel and act ashamed for having a disorder.

I'm sorry, but you are simply completely missing some very critical aspects of natural law here.  Heterosexual relations are inherently good, but can be perverted by the types of things you speak of.  Homosexual relations, on the other hand, are as qualitatively different as can be: they are intrinsically evil.  I don't mean to imply you don't know these things, but I do mean to imply that what you're stating isn't really consistent with them.

That is why, as I previously pointed out, we see homosexual behavior *tightly-correlated* with more intrinsically evil behavior such as pederasty and pedophilia, which is NOT THE CASE concerning heterosexual behavior, in general.

Not the case, Vox. 


Quote:
Quote: Again, these things are pretty much factual and beyond debate, except where leftist political correctness reigns.  These things really shouldn't even need debate on a Catholic forum yet somehow I feel like I'm in for another raking over the coals.

But, I am tired enough of this, and feel it pointless enough, that I may just quit at any time.

I don't thnk I've "raked you over the coals"; I think I've been having a discussion with you.

Actually, I was referring - mainly at least - to the gent who'd like to see Louie Verrecchio in prison for unambiguously expressing Catholic doctrine and practice.

I'm doing my best to figure you out on this issue, and giving, I think, the benefit of every doubt.  As I'm sure you are aware, you have been and are being denounced across the Internet for the views you express on this topic.  You are losing Fishies and will continue to lose them, as seen in this very thread.  I do not mean to suggest in any way that you should pander to the Feeneyist, holocaust-denying population of a certain other forum (that's a generalization; it obviously doesn't apply to that entire population) but, despite what you've indicated, I think this something that should indeed concern you, because many of these people are good, orthodox traditional Catholics.

(I'll take this opportunity to remind the audience that I have a close relative who's in the homosexual lifestyle - for over 20 years now.  I have some practical understanding of these things.  Here's one detail: despite being in a "long-term relationship" for more than a decade now, he does or at least used to still engage in sex acts with virtual strangers.  Such IS the homosexual lifestyle, folks: understand this)


Quote:There's simply nothing "leftist" about the Catechism's teachings about homosexuals:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. [Vox: And in order to avoid unjust discrimination, etc., we'd obviously have to know who they are] These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

______________

There's nothing in there about homosexuals needing to shut up and hide away in closets, about how it'd be a good thing for Catholics to treat those with disorders as having something to be ashamed about, etc.

Again, take note that the catechism says NOTHING about "homosexuals", which is your terminology.
Reply
#58
(03-23-2014, 06:04 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: [quote='loggats' pid='1237542' dateline='1395191091']
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.

I missed this one.  You are saying that you hope people that don't praise "coming out" as in the gay lifestyle - which, again, is exactly what this topic is about - end up in prison?  Would you be even happier if they were martyred?  Yes, we're seeing people being put in prison for defending Christian teaching all over the world, and many see it likely we'll see martyrdom again before this age is over as well.

Even if you were correct that the hate you place in the minds of those you disagree with exists, it seems pretty clear you are harboring just as much of your own.

I will make it a point to pray for you. 
[/quote

I am certainly angry at the mischaracterization of Catholic teaching that runs rampant whenever SSA is discussed. And anybody actively seeking martyrdom is mentally unstable.

Your prayers are appreciated.
Reply
#59
(03-25-2014, 09:11 PM)loggats Wrote:
(03-23-2014, 06:04 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: [quote='loggats' pid='1237542' dateline='1395191091']
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.

I missed this one.  You are saying that you hope people that don't praise "coming out" as in the gay lifestyle - which, again, is exactly what this topic is about - end up in prison?  Would you be even happier if they were martyred?  Yes, we're seeing people being put in prison for defending Christian teaching all over the world, and many see it likely we'll see martyrdom again before this age is over as well.

Even if you were correct that the hate you place in the minds of those you disagree with exists, it seems pretty clear you are harboring just as much of your own.

I will make it a point to pray for you. 
[/quote

I am certainly angry at the mischaracterization of Catholic teaching that runs rampant whenever SSA is discussed. And anybody actively seeking martyrdom is mentally unstable.

Your prayers are appreciated.

You've gotta balance out those quote tags. ;)  I know, it's really a pain.

Please read the post again as I don't think I indicated anybody was actively seeking martyrdom.  (I'm sure not - though if I didn't have a family to care for, I might note that it's an easy road to paradise, which may have something to do with the fact that saints have sought it.)

I haven't prayed for you yet.  I should do that.  I could also use prayers.
Reply
#60
(03-25-2014, 08:53 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: Turned-on to some extent (probably only very rarely if at all in most cases) and easily avoiding such temptations are a much different thing that *acting* on them.  Which is what we were discussing.

I've posted valid data and numbers do not lie.  I won't repeat myself.

OK, numbers:

Study Wrote:http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/factsheet/pdf/CSA-FS20.pdf

Finally, a meta-analysis of 22 American-based studies, those done with national samples as well as local or regional representative samples, suggested that 30-40% of girls and 13% of boys experience sexual abuse during childhood. An international meta-analysis of 169 studies found that lifetime prevalence rates of sexual abuse for females is 25% and for males is 8%. This same study found that rates for North America range from 15-22%...

...It is well known that many more girls than boys are the victims of sexual abuse. This statistic is confirmed regardless of the inform ation that is used. Across different types of research—all reliable studies conclude that girls experience more sexual abuse than do boys. Studies have found that the percent of victims who are female range from 78% to 89% 

Study Wrote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/666571
Arch Sex Behav. 1978 May;7(3):175-81.
Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons.
Groth AN, Birnbaum HJ.
Abstract


A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male.

In other words, male pedophiles who victimize boys are very typically NOT turned on by adult men. That is to say, they're not "homosexual" in the sense of being men attracted to men.

Quote:First of all, I have to point out this (relatively constant) barrier to dialog: your referral to PEOPLE as "homosexuals" (something the Catechism you quote does NOT do).  Again, it seems to me you consider "homosexual" an immutable property of a person - it is or might as well be genetic - and this is indeed the modern secularist view.  I believe this is at the root of the disconnect here.

The definition of "homosexual" is someone who is attracted to someone of his own sex. People who are attracted primarily or only to members of their own sex exist. In order to speak of such people, words are necessary. The word used to describe such people is, per the dictionary, "homosexual." And the index of the Catechism on the Vatican's own website DOES use the word:

Vatican Website Index to the Catechism Wrote:http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/ar...ndex/d.htm
Index to the Catechism on the Vatican's website


unjust discrimination against homosexuals, 2358


http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/ar...ndex/a.htm
Index to the Catechism on the Vatican's website


Acceptance/accepting
Christian initiation and acceptance of the Gospel, 1229, 1247
of foreigners, 2241
of forgiveness, 1989
of God's grace, 2001
of God's love, 2712, 2792
of God's mercy, 1847, 1991
of grace, 678, 682
of homosexuals, 2358

The word is used elsewhere on the Vatican's website, too. A few examples:

Vatican Website Wrote:http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...na_en.html

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH


A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.


http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedi...ch_en.html

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO Fr PETER-HANS KOLVENBACH
ON THE OCCASION OF THE 35th GENERAL CONGREGATION
OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS


And precisely in order to offer the entire Society of Jesus clear guidelines to support its generous and faithful apostolic dedication, it might prove particularly useful for the Congregation to reassert, in the spirit of St Ignatius, its own total adherence to Catholic doctrine, especially to its key points, under severe attack today by the secular culture, such as, for example, the relationship between Christ and religions, certain aspects of liberation theology and the various points of sexual morals, especially those concerning the indissolubility of marriage and the pastoral care of homosexuals.


http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_p...na_en.html

ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE PRELATE AUDITORS, OFFICIALS AND ADVOCATES
OF THE TRIBUNAL OF THE ROMAN ROTA

Thursday, 1 February 2001


This opposition between culture and nature deprives culture of any objective foundation, leaving it at the mercy of will and power. This can be seen very clearly in the current attempts to present de facto unions, including those of homosexuals, as comparable to marriage, whose natural character is precisely denied.

There are lots more, but, really, this weird hang-up about using the word "homosexual" (especially when it comes from people who have no problem calling homosexuals "sodomites" (whether they engage in sodomy or not), sods, fags, queers, it -- well, it's weird. It's senseless. It's a distraction, a time-suck to have to go over and over it. If a person can be "Italian" or "blonde" or "schizophrenic," then why not "homosexual" if he --- IS a homoseuxal?

Quote: I believe that (even if there may be some genetic or epigenetic component) homosexual tendencies are largely due to psychological factors and that they *can* be reduced or even eliminated.  It is a bare fact that the therapy produces positive results (and a single instance would be enough to proof this).

So do I. But I'm not sure what your point is in saying this. If a homosexual is cured of homosexual attractions, then he'd no longer be a homosexual, just as the blonde who dyes her hair red becomes "a redhead."

Quote: This by no means trivializes the magnitude of the cross I believe SSA to be; psychological issues can be so ingrained they might as well be genetic as they'll seem so to the soul suffering.

But, reinforcement - through behavior, belief there is no hope for change because society says so, belief there is no difference between urge and act because society says so, etc. - makes them even more ingrained.

Sure, and you're not seeing me arguing against hope for change. So I'm again not sure of what you're trying to say to me.

Quote: Back to the quote here.  Of course the "Pride" parades don't represent a lot of people with SSA - but they represent enough that such ARE the characteristics of these displays of satanic debauchery, year after year, in dozens or perhaps hundreds of cities across the globe, in virtually every case with the enthusiastic support of the local government.  Where are the "homosexuals" who decry this?  I am sure every chaste person who suffers from SSA does decry it, but it seems such good souls are not thick on the ground, thanks to society, the devil, and the Cardinal Dolans of the world for that matter.

The homosexuals who decry this don't get the funding or media attention, same as us trads who have to fight uphill for any sort of attention unless it's negative. You know how this stuff works. The people who run the media don't want homosexuals talking about Jesus and chastity. So unless you go looking for them, you won't see them.

Quote: Parting thought: If I suffered from SSA (as Mr. Loggats apparently believes I do), I would loathe being referred to as "a homosexual": I promise you that.  I would loathe it with every ounce of my being.

That's you, and that's fine. But if I were homosexual, I'd want to be up front and not be called names, have assumptions made about me, etc.

Quote:
Quote:And as I've said before, aside from the political activists, there is the "club scene" -- which many homosexuals want NOTHING to do with and are also ashamed of.

The point:  homosexuality can't be equated with Pride parades and the "homosexual club scene." They're an aspect of the "homosexual sub-culture" in the same way that swinging clubs and the penchant for "threesomes" is in the straight world -- i.e., not everyone gets into that sort of ugliness. Those nasty things get all the attention for obvious reasons (they're salacious, and people like reading about that stuff). But the fact remains that there are tons of homosexuals out there who have nothing whatsoever to do with any of that. And many of them also strive for chastity and are maybe Catholic.  Their needs need to be met and they shouldn't be shoved into closets and, in essence, made to feel and act ashamed for having a disorder.

I'm sorry, but you are simply completely missing some very critical aspects of natural law here.  Heterosexual relations are inherently good, but can be perverted by the types of things you speak of.  Homosexual relations, on the other hand, are as qualitatively different as can be: they are intrinsically evil.  I don't mean to imply you don't know these things, but I do mean to imply that what you're stating isn't really consistent with them.

That is why, as I previously pointed out, we see homosexual behavior *tightly-correlated* with more intrinsically evil behavior such as pederasty and pedophilia, which is NOT THE CASE concerning heterosexual behavior, in general.

Not the case, Vox.  

But you're incorrect about that. Pedophilia and homosexuality are NOT "tightly correlated." And most victims of childhood sexual molestation are female -- the overwhelming majority of them are.


A Catholic Thinker Wrote:(snip)

I'm doing my best to figure you out on this issue, and giving, I think, the benefit of every doubt.  As I'm sure you are aware, you have been and are being denounced across the Internet for the views you express on this topic.  You are losing Fishies and will continue to lose them, as seen in this very thread.  I do not mean to suggest in any way that you should pander to the Feeneyist, holocaust-denying population of a certain other forum (that's a generalization; it obviously doesn't apply to that entire population) but, despite what you've indicated, I think this something that should indeed concern you, because many of these people are good, orthodox traditional Catholics.

There's nothing to figure out. This is what I think:

What Vox Thinks Wrote:Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Having "Respect, compassion, and sensitivity" for people, to me, includes -- and quite obviously so -- not telling people to shut up and hide in closets, not telling them they don't exist, not assuming they engage in this sin or that sin, not calling them names, not shunning them, not acting as if I've been given the authority to judge their souls, engaging in any necessary fraternal correction in the right way, not scapegoating them, etc. And it a person in question has a disorder, either being quiet about it if you know nothing about it, or, better, learning about it so you can speak to them with understanding and give good advice if asked for it.

If the above "confuses" people somehow, if it makes some people flee this forum in outrage, it says much, much more about the ones running off in a huff than it does me. I believe what the Church teaches, but if someone mistakes Church teaching as requiring foaming at the mouth about "sods" and leaping to conclusions about every homosexual he encounters, then he's simply wrong in his understanding of Church teaching -- as in, he's missing the Gospel message itself.

In any case, I'm not going to jump on the Fred Phelps bandwagon so the toxic types will subscribe and donate to the place. I have to face Lord Christ one day. If I am being denounced for believing what the Catechism of Christ's Church teaches and loving homosexuals instead of treating them like the source and summit of all evil, then I will just have to be denounced and forsaken and have a forum of 100 instead of 13,000. I mean, really, I can do no other. I'd likely go hungry, but at least I could sleep at night.

Quote: (I'll take this opportunity to remind the audience that I have a close relative who's in the homosexual lifestyle - for over 20 years now.  I have some practical understanding of these things.  Here's one detail: despite being in a "long-term relationship" for more than a decade now, he does or at least used to still engage in sex acts with virtual strangers.  Such IS the homosexual lifestyle, folks: understand this)

There are lots of homosexual couples in that sort of open relationship. It's very sad.

And there are lots of homosexuals who aren't in "the homosexual lifestyle."

And there are lots of homosexuals who are completely chaste, too.

And there are lots of homosexuals who try to be chaste, but stumble once in a while.

God bless us, everyone, and may He lead us to all Truth.

A Catholic Thinker Wrote:
Vox Wrote:There's simply nothing "leftist" about the Catechism's teachings about homosexuals:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. [Vox: And in order to avoid unjust discrimination, etc., we'd obviously have to know who they are] These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

______________

There's nothing in there about homosexuals needing to shut up and hide away in closets, about how it'd be a good thing for Catholics to treat those with disorders as having something to be ashamed about, etc.

Again, take note that the catechism says NOTHING about "homosexuals", which is your terminology.

Its index does at the Vatican website. And the word is used elsewhere in official documents put out by the Curia and in Papal letters, etc. But even if the word weren't used, "homosexual" is the word used to describe someone who's attracted to his own sex, and it's no more indicative of "describing all that a person is" than the word "lawyer" describes all an attorney is. It doesn't say that a homosexual must forever and always remain a homosexual with no hope of never being homosexual any more than the word "lawyer" means an attorney can't get disbarred or decide to take up poker playing as a profession. Me, I'm an Italian, Catholic, brunette, animal-loving cigarette smoker, but I'm more than any of those or all of those put together. I really think that the silliness about whether to use the word "homosexual" to describe homosexuals is --- silliness.
 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)