My friend wants to "come out"
I don't really have anything to add other than to chip in that Vox's comment about the Victorian era was dead right; Victorian norms were weird and unhealthy, and had very little to do with any kind of genuine "age of faith" that came before it. The Victorian era was only superficially more of an "age of faith" than this one!
(08-07-2014, 10:33 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(08-07-2014, 09:55 AM)winoblue1 Wrote: It is a societal problem that has no solution other than turning a blind eye.

Can you explain what you mean by this?  It is very easy to interpret from this that you believe Christ's redemptive power is limited and has no effect in this life for homosexuals.  Believing that would put you firmly outside of the bounds of the Church, so I just want to make sure if that is indeed what you mean.

Winoblue Response:
What I mean is that this problem will always exist, just as Our Lord said that the poor will always be with us. People will always struggle with sin, some will find salvation and some won't.

Quote:Sex outside of marriage, any kind of sex, cannot be encouraged through public acceptance.

By suggesting homosexuals have people to talk to about their temptations and their weaknesses, it does not follow that they are encouraged to have sex outside of marriage.  It is baffling that you would jump to that conclusion.

Winoblue response:
What I am talking about is specifically public discourse, not necessarily private conversations, which have gone on since forever. I am not against people privately discussing their issues and telling friends and family, but I do not agree with people "coming out" publically because it starts public discussions, educational institutions start to incorporate it into their curricula, etc.

Quote:Indeed I am a bit disappointed at the apparent comfort so many people on this message board have with this sin, do we really believe that it cries to heaven for vengeance?

I am one of many who believe the phrase "sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance" is nothing more than a literary device that is grossly exaggerated by people today as to its importance and uniquely focused onto homosexuality by those same people.

Winoblue response:
You are entitled to your opinion, and so am I. I think the evidence however shows that some sins are particularly offensive to God and He is certainly entitled to maintain His rights and deal with those sinners accordingly.

Quote:I think the essence of the matter is the idea of hypocrisy. Should some people keep certain aspects of their personal life private and thus in certain situations accept hypocrisy.
Ancient societies around the world have and do accept hypocrisy as a normal part of life. North America on the other hand was founded on the desire to live without it. So much mischief has been caused by people wanting to avoid their own mental agonies by thrusting it upon society at large to accept and approve.
Sometimes things are just better left unsaid.

Again, can you clarify?  Christ spoke quite forcefully of his hatred of hypocrisy.  Hypocrites, one can infer from the tone of voice recorded, are reserved the worst places in hell.  So it seems completely irreconcilable with orthodox Christianity to suggest that some should not only not detest hypocrisy, but actually practice it for the sake of people in society who are uncomfortable acknowledging the realities of a fallen world.  If tolerating hypocrisy is an important aspect of the faith of "traditional" Catholicism, (which, ironically on this, ignores and rejects the apostolic tradition which precedes it of denouncing hypocrisy in all its forms) then I find it hard to see "traditional" Catholicism as anything other than Newchurch which you loudly condemn.  In true hypocrite fashion, you would be condemning yourself by condemning others.

Winoblue Response:
What I am talking about can be explained by an example. Let's say that a priest has lost all fervor for the faith. He is having a bad spiritual day and is mentally questioning the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament. He is saying mass, and feels nothing and is convinced of nothing. However he says mass perfectly and follows all the rubrics etc. Is he a hypocrite? Not at all. In fact the Church only expects dispositional belief, meaning that we are obliged to act as if X is the case even if we don't 'believe' X. This has been a fundamental operating maxim in the Church since forever, because feelings can't be trusted. Belief is an act of the will and when we are going through dry spells we are to make an act of faith based on first principles.

I mention this to say that the kind of hypocrisy I am talking about is when a society recognizes Christ the King and creates laws and organizes society in such a way that people are motivated and helped to virtue and discouraged from vice. In the area of homosexuality this may include a certain amount of toleration, and more traditional societies have been able to find that balance. Eg. There may be some gay meeting places, but they are not allowed to advertise in the media. Two men living together are considered 'confirmed bachelors' rather than life partners.
What I am getting at is that sin can't be legislated away, but it certainly can be encouraged by favourable laws. Due to original sin people are captivated and drawn to sin. Sometimes it is better that people know as little about what sins are available as possible. Indeed it is the same with drugs. Sometimes it is better to talk with kids less about drugs because they might thereby not even know what is out there and where to get them. I was talking with a co-worker the other day and I was totally shocked to find out that only two blocks from my work there were street workers there each night on the street. I had driven by often and just saw people. Now after this knowledge, I can clearly see who is a "workin gal" and who isn't. I suppose this is the same sort of issues the abstinence only people encounter when trying to figure out how best to teach about sex, and indeed it is also the approach the government in Canada uses when dealing with smokers. No advertising, no showing them in the store, keeping them below the counter etc etc.

Now please don't take my views to be anything against people that struggle with same-sex attractions. If I shared personal information you, you would know this is certainly not the case. But what worries me is that public discussions always lead to acceptance when we live in a world that wants to allow total sexual license. In an age of faith perhaps we could discuss this topic more openly because there would be mechanisms in place to control for the dominance of original sin. But as it is, our society is bent on destruction through complete moral decadence and this is but one example of how 'openness and tolerance' have been used as a stepping stone to persecution of the truth.
Thank you for clarifying.  I understand better what you mean now, and now that I do I don't think I see any problem with what you are saying.  I agree some things are better not discussed publicly.  I just don't want to see people hindered from even having private discussions if they need them.  I am happy that is not what you meant :)

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)