I’m tired of hearing about homosexuals who want the Church and everyone else to conform to their sexual desires and public behavior.
If they get a job with any Catholic organization, they should have to respect and conduct themselves according to the teachings of the Church in all public forums.
The same is true if they get a job in any Jewish, Baptist, Muslim, etc., organizations.
According to the Bill of Rights, Article I - “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
It is our Religious right not to have someone violate our Church teachings by setting an example immoral and sinful behavior for our Private School children.
Marriage is a PUBLIC Act.

I am not a religious person, and I certainly do not agree with your assessment of homosexuality, but I totally agree with the 1st amendment and freedom of (and from) religion.  Every religion should have the right to hire/fire based on there tenets.  I do, however, take exception with (and not addressed in this article) about catholic schools who teach non-catholics and employ divorced individuals.  Why is there not a “carte blanche” prohibition for these people if we are to believe the very credible argument that the teachers’ homosexuality (active) is not compatible with your churchs teaching? No one will ever explain the cherry picking.  Very frustrating.

Your article is right on target.  I praise God daily for all of the wonderful, Protestant brothers and sisters coming into the Church.  You are on fire with love of Jesus, you know scripture, you respect the Church’s Traditions, and you are articulate in espousing all of the above.  You are the new “seed” of the Church.

I find it odd that the pro-homosexual people always say that we are being silly when we say ‘hey, if gay marriage is legal, then religious freedom will be denied those who hold traditional values regarding sexuality.’  But then they go and prove our point by trying to force religious schools to employ open dissenters and close religious institutions for not pretending that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality.

@Kevin: I’m thankful for the chance to clarify what has appeared inconsistent from your perspective, re: divorced individuals. It is *remarriage* that is the irregular situation to examine. Divorce is a legal action. If a civilly divorced person conducts himself or herself chastely, there is not cause for scandal. It is when a person civilly divorces and attempts a civil “remarriage” that is cause for concern. A person who has been abandoned by a spouse or must divorce for safety or other serious reasons can still be in complete union with the Church. I hope that helps clear it up.

You are so right on all of your points…but even the friendly, Catholic news sources will probably find some PC reason to cover this story, and fail to give the full Catholic response. (Even Hannity, and O’Reilly fail to give all of the points in stories like these. By not covering the whole truth, they end up promoting the side telling lies.) Let us see if I am a prophet…or if they cover it at all.
For me…I will stick with Raymond Arroyo. Thank You Mr. Akins

Dennis in San Antonio

The cherry-picking accusation is valid up to a point - there is a huge difference between what is done in public and what is done in private.  We don’t grill other Catholics but hope and pray they come to the full knowledge of the Church’s teaching and then willfully consent to its truths.  Divorce is not always done willingly by both parties and often a spouse is ‘forced’ into a situation they wish wouldn’t happen.  A divorced Catholic may also have gone through all the necessary steps to reconcile themselves.  Contraception is trickier but we don’t seek to embarrass anyone just teach and help them do as Christ asks.  But when any Catholic steps out and attempts to embarrass us by clearly stating and publicly what we teach is wrong (often said to be outdated, too traditional, etc.) the Church has the right to defend itself.  We’ve done as much when a Catholic (politicians especially) publicly state abortion is just find and dandy and contraception is a matter of personal choice.

Kevin, thanks for your reasonable disagreement and comments.

To address your point—yes, cherry-picking IS frustrating, and no, there’s no explaining it away.  But with the specific example of divorcees, there are complications that go beyond simply saying “that guy’s divorced, so he’s not a good Catholic”.  These complications have to do with the Church’s actual teaching on marriage and divorce.

If, for example, a woman seeks to separate from her husband, whether he wishes it or not, then the husband is considered divorced under federal law.  So long as he doesn’t remarry, however, he is not considered “divorced” by the Church.

Also, many cases termed “divorce” by civil authorities are actually what the Church calls annulment, a declaration that a marriage never took place.  Several conditions prior to or at the wedding itself can cause annulment to be declared, and it is not “Catholic divorce”.  A divorce declares you have something and lost it; an annulment declares you never had anything in the first place.

So Mr. Catholic School Teacher could be termed “divorced” according to civil law, but actually have received an annulment from the Church, and thus still be in good standing.

I know this can be complicated, but I think you’ll find that much of what seems to be contradiction within the Church is really a matter of misunderstood teaching.

God bless

Those who break Church rules deliberately evn by announcing that Church is unkind and incorrect clearly indicate their disregard and faithlessness and rebellion against the Church, They are public sinners and should be dealt with accordibgly. Everybody is a sinner but may be sorroeful about it Sex is the gift of God and God had instituted marriage as a sacrament. That is why we read in the scripture that ” God created them male and female. They shall cleave to be one flesh” Those who are against this God ordained system of marriage are not considered as catholics

The standard is upheld at many Catholic Schools, but you don’t hear about it.  When my good friend made a mistake and conceived out of wedlock, her teaching contract wasn’t renewed.  The school did the right thing, as my friend’s state of being was a bad witness to children.

She doesn’t get her own media hit-man to go after the school because she is straight*.  The standard Jimmy explains is frequently upheld.  The media isn’t looking for the truth.

*She didn’t want one and she is now married to the child’s father and in good standing with the Church.

My thoughts are; with all the Catholic child molesting priests, perhaps they should look within and not judge something they know nothing about or care to understand.
So shut up, and keep your filthy hands off our children and get right with God!

“”“So shut up, and keep your filthy hands off our children and get right with God! “”“

<sarcasm>Thanks for adding to the conversation</sarcasm>

Well, I know it won’t help and that it has all been said before, but if Catholics can’t talk about sex because a tiny fraction of priests are sex offenders, then why do we let public school educators talk about it as they are 10 times more likely to be a sex offender?

<sarcasm>If only public school teachers could marry! Then we wouldn’t have such crimes!</sarcasm>

Catholics can’t talk about anything, because 2% of priest prior to 10 years ago were sex offenders, and the percentage is even smaller now. The fact that the bar is massively higher because the expectation is that all that massive training and education, devotion, vocation, and espousal of belief should MEAN something somehow hits the average schmuck right in the gut and the fact that schoolteachers are 10 times more likely, or pastors of other denominations are more likely, or .... whatever…. doesn’t matter… And you know what? I don’t think it does. Even one child is too many. Even one priest is too many. Even one bad pope is too many - and we’ve had a few. Pope Benedict has met wit victims over and over again, all over the world, he has offered words of sorrow and apology over and over again - I have seen his face - I have heard his heart. I have not heard him making excuses, or talking percentages. I have heard him asking for forgiveness and for prayer.

Back to the topic at hand…

The woman knows, if she knows Catholic teaching, that what she is doing is held to be sinful. And she knew enough to not talk about it around the school. She was “outed” by a photo - and “it came to the schools attention” - most likely not by her intent - so she probably thought that her private life was just that - her private life, doing what was now legal, in this misbegotten Commonwealth of ours. The law has done nothing to help such disordered souls. Just because something is legal, doesn’t mean it is good, or healthy, or sane, or safe. Or going to let you keep your job. Just like any other sin - she deliberately made her choice. And when the school came to her and said, “we need to talk” - or whatever - she did the right thing - she left. Whoever went to the newspaper and blabbed - the irate bigmouth with an ax to grind - too bad - probably some lapsed Catholic, product of a 1970’s arts’sy craftsy CCD system who wanted to remarry without an annulment, and never understood why he had to go to confession to begin with….

Debbie, your claim that “It is *remarriage* that is the irregular situation to examine. Divorce is a legal action” does not recognize that even without remarriage, divorce can be an offense.  Remarryiage **ADDS** to the gravity.  As the word “divorce” is used in Church teaching, “divorce” is not merely a “legal action”.

From CCC#2384-2385: “Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It CLAIMS to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, TO LIVE WITH EACH TILL DEATH… Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, ADDS to the gravity of the rupture… Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society.”  Of course, per CCC#2383, “If civil divorce remains the ONLY possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be TOLERATED and does not constitute a moral offense.”

Accordingly, Kevin’s claim that “So long as he doesn’t remarry, however, he is not considered ‘divorced’ by the Church” is not fully respectful of the cited Church teachings.  It is not remarriage which makes a man divorced, but remarriage may make a divorced man an adulterer.  Per CCC#1850, “In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - ‘Whoever divorces his wife AND marries another, commits adultery against her’”.  Thus, the Church can consider a man to be “divorced” even if he doesn’t remarry, for otherwise one could simply omit “and marries another” and say instead “whoever divorces his wife commits adultery against her”.

FWIW, please make that “Andrew’s claim” rather than “Kevin’s claim”.

Cherry Picker, I respectfully submit that you did not take into account the passage in the Catechism directly before the ones you cite, and the one directly after.  First, the prior:

CCC 2383: “The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.

(Here comes the most relevant part)

If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.”

And the passage directly after the ones you cite:

CCC 2386: It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law.  There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.”

The Church understands such things; so should we.

In regard to “many cases termed ‘divorce’ by civil authorities are actually what the Church calls annulment”, so too cases termed “marriage” by civil authorities may not actually be what the Church calls marriage.  It is for that reason that a civil arrangement involving two persons of the same sex—which civil authorities or whomever may refer to as “marriage”, such as the one involving Ms. Judd—is not necessarily “a public statement that one rejects the Church’s teaching—and simple biological reality—regarding marriage”, even if Jimmy Akin or whoever insists it is.

Under Massachusetts law, a civil marriage (whether between persons of the same sex or opposite sex) is not a sex act nor does it require that the persons engage in a sex act or be amenable to a sex act or be sexually attracted to one another or anyone, or “gay” or “straight”, etc.

Indeed, neither Massachusetts nor the partners, by mere virtue of accepting a legal arrangement which has been politically named “marriage”, make “a public statement that one rejects the Church’s teaching—and simple biological reality—regarding marriage.”

Cherry,

The issue is that divorce can be tolerated in some circumstances.  It is not always sinful.  Therefore, you cannot say that someone has sinned, or is not in good standing with the Church, solely because they are divorced.  Some divorce’s are in good standing and some aren’t. 

No active “married” homosexuals are in good standing with the Church.

Cherry Picker,

“”“Under Massachusetts law, a civil marriage (whether between persons of the same sex or opposite sex) is not a sex act nor does it require that the persons engage in a sex act or be amenable to a sex act or be sexually attracted to one another or anyone, or “gay” or “straight”, etc.”“”

All you are saying is that in the state of Massachusetts, the word “marriage” is a uniquely misleading word.  It represents a state of being that has nothing to do with the state of being that the rest of the world means to discuss when they use the term.  It is an abuse of language and a lie. 

You have clearly made the Church’s point that applying a word with a meaning (“A”) to a thing that is incompatible with that meaning (“Not A”) will only result in confusion and opacity.  It is dishonest and it is a violation of the very purpose of language.

Language’s purpose is to convey meaning, not to obfuscate it.

So to translate the public witness of this teacher according to your standards,

“I am entering into a ‘Marriage’ (Not A) in public and direct contradiction to the Church’s teaching on ‘Marriage’ (teachings on both ‘A’ & ‘Not A’ ).”

Wait, what?  See the Church has taught on both ‘A’ and ‘Not A’ so your argument’s don’t hold.  Applying the Term for ‘A’ to anything but ‘A’ is unjust. 

If some state ‘C’ is morally licit, but ‘C’ is not ‘A’, then you are still lying if you say that ‘C’ is ‘A’.

Andrew, my post already quoted verbatim that which you describe as “the most relevant part” (from CCC#2383).  Did you miss it?  And my post does take into account CCC#2386.  A spouse who is “the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law” is indeed divorced (by decree of civil law, and the Church recognizes that fact)—like the innocent victim of abandonment is indeed abandoned—but the divorce, though “divorce is a grave offense against the natural law”, does not impute guilt to the “innocent victim” (if one exists).

My mistake, Cherry.  You did indeed quote the relevant part.  Mea Culpa for my lack of careful reading.

I did not see how your original post accounts for 2386, but your follow-up comments negate any concern on that point.  I won’t pick nits.

Red_Beard, in language, the eight letters “marriage”—like any other English word—means whatever anyone means it to mean.  And people have apparently meant it to mean many different things.  The Church teaches in regard to a meaning of the English word “marriage”, without decreeing that it cannot and does not have others.

In regard to “applying a word with a meaning (‘A’) to a thing that is incompatible with that meaning (‘Not A’)”, people (including even children) tend to use context to assist in selecting the appropriate meaning of a word such as “marriage” which has multiple meanings.  Thus, the issue is not in regard to applying a word per se such as “marriage” but in regard to selecting the particular meaning of that word from among the many meanings associated with that word.

Your claim that “No active ‘married’ homosexuals are in good standing with the Church” can be seen as a string of words that have multiple meanings in the English language.  In context, I might assume you don’t mean a tennis player who is chastely married in the eyes of the Church to someone of the opposite sex but who might for whatever reason innocently experience a predominant attraction toward someone of the same sex.  I might also assume you don’t mean a woman who innocently experiences same-sex attraction toward some but who has signed some civil paperwork with another woman (to whom she’s not sexually attracted) for some actively good reason.  After all, who is to say such people (if one can even say who they are) cannot be in “good standing with the Church”?  Even persons (homosexual or homosexual or whatever) who often engage in sexual immorality can be in “good standing”, can they not?

So to translate, Ms. Judd entered into a barely public, mostly private relationship of some sort with another woman.  For all I know, she and whoever are chaste and receive communion regularly.

Cherry Picker,

If you like, I will concede the point that there is nothing wrong with the scenario described in this blog post just as long as we take it as granted that none of the words mean what a typical person might think that they mean.

Restated more clearly: “As long as the story doesn’t mean what it says, then all is fine.*”

*excepting, of course that the story is a failure as a story - it obfuscates instead of illuminates.

Anyone else seeing how absurd this all is?

“”“Red_Beard, in language, the eight letters “marriage”—like any other English word—means whatever anyone means it to mean.”“”

This is a hollow understanding of language.  That being said, take a look at the CCC’s explaination of what an ordered language is. 

Effectively, language exists to convey meaning from one head to another.  Taking a somewhat ordered language and adding disorder to it, is a perversion of the language.

For instance, “my wife” is a phrase that uniquely identifies the woman I married and encompasses her relationship to me.  There is a meaning behind that phrase.  There is an idea that is accurately expressed from one head to another by the use of that term. 

If the woman in the story used the phrase “my wife”, then she would be referring to an entirely different meaning, a different reality (and an un-reality at that).  The idea that makes it from one head to another is a perversion of the truth of the state of the relationship between these two women.  It is dishonest.

The whole point of “same sex marriage” can be described as the effort to assert that both uses of the phrase, “my wife” are equivalent.  They are not.  Saying that ‘A’ equals ‘Not A’ is a lie. 

That may not be what you are trying to say in your linguistic gymnastics, but it is the meaning that is intended to be conveyed.

Your point keeps coming back to, “Hey, I’m going to use all of your words, but you know what, don’t let that confuse you because I made up new definitions for all of them so my sentences don’t mean what you think they mean.” 

Is this really the way to convey meaning?

Red_Beard, you wrote “this is a hollow understanding of language”, but as “this” may refer to your understanding, your interpretation, the “hollow understanding” you speak of is yours.

You say “‘my wife’ is a phrase that uniquely identifies the woman I married”, but that same phrase is also used by a billion other people (perhaps even by Ms. Judd) to refer to a billion people other than the unique woman you married.  It may have a meaning to you in the context that you use it, but if someone else uses it, the meaning (to them) may be as different as the woman you married is unique to you.  Who understands your “idea” of your wife as you do (if you do) such that the phrase “my wife” conveys your idea of the woman you married?

When you speak of “the whole point of ‘same-sex marriage’”, you speak of your limited opinion.  How “whole” is that?  Who is saying Ms. Judd’s wife is your wife, or that your relationship with the woman you married is the same as the relationship between Ms. Judd and the woman she married?  Is the relationship between “lamb” and my oven the same as the relationship between “lamb” and the Church?  Is “marriage” in a game of pinochle the same as your “marriage” with your wife?  Massachusetts may give your marriage the same legal benefits as Ms. Judd’s marriage, but that does not necessitate that your marriage is the same as hers or that Massachusetts thinks you’re married to Ms. Judd.

You write, “That may not be what you are trying to say in your linguistic gymnastics, but it is the meaning that is intended to be conveyed.”  Intended by whom?  Who are you to say what anyone’s intentions are or if anyone has intentions, including yourself?  Perhaps no one has intentions any more than hot air has an intention.

You wrote, “so my sentences don’t mean what you think they mean.”  Allow me to refer you to what I wrote: words mean whatever anyone means them to mean.  So I don’t say my sentences don’t mean what you mean them to mean, for indeed, words mean (to you) what you mean them to mean.  And to me, they mean what I mean them to mean—if I mean them to mean anything at all, and it might be that I do not intend my words to mean anything at all.

You ask, “Is this really the way to convey meaning?”

What meaning?  Who says meaning needs to be conveyed, or conveyed rather than removed or ignored or whatever?  And if it’s your meaning, who cares about it but you?

“”“You say “‘my wife’ is a phrase that uniquely identifies the woman I
married”, but that same phrase is also used by a billion other people
(perhaps even by Ms. Judd) to refer to a billion people other than the
unique woman you married”“”

You are missing my point.  The idea isn’t the person, it is the relationship or the concept.  You know, that which makes a thing that thing and not another.  In this case, the difference isn’t so much the unique individual, my wife, as it is the state of being in the relationship described by that phrase.  In that sense, the billions of married people have the same meaning in that phrase even though the wives are all unique individuals. 

A homosexual “marriage” does not use the same meaning, though it attempts to piggyback on ideas that are brought to mind by the true meaning.  It is therefore an obfuscation and a perversion of the original idea.

“”“Perhaps no one has intentions any more than hot air has an intention.”“”

I think that this statement is beautiful.  If words don’t represent things in a real way, then there is no possible way to understand someone else’s intentions.  Their ideas are in their heads and by perverting language, they have made it literally impossible to convey that idea into your head.

The language no longer serves a purpose.

“”“And to me, they mean what I mean them to mean—if I mean them to mean anything at all, and it might be that I do not intend my words to mean anything at all”“”

This is a perfect example of what I’m talking about.  Your words may or may not have meaning to you, but without an ordered language, there is no way for you to convey any meaning to me.  This sentence of yours is a beautiful example of the hopelessness of conveying meaning with a disordered language.

“”“What meaning?  Who says meaning needs to be conveyed, or conveyed rather than removed or ignored or whatever?”“”

There is apparently no reason to communicate anymore - as conveying meaning is right out!  Perhaps talking is just to exercise the jaw muscles?  This is akin to Niche’s “Why truth?  Why not un-truth?”  It is so silly on the face of it that it cannot be directly answered.

Perhaps the closest answer is Plato(?)‘s answer to the fool: “If someone asks you for a proof of the law of non-contradiction, all that he has proved is that he is little better than a vegetable.”

<sarcasm>
Oh well, don’t take it too seriously.  I can’t convey meaning to you.  The thoughts in my head must die there alone.  There is no possible way for them to get out.  All these characters on the screen must just be placed by fancy and not by design.  After all, to assemble them into words would be most presumptuous of you.  One might think you where trying to understand my meaning or intentions!
</sarcasm>

Red_Beard, you speak of “the state of being in the relationship described by that phrase” but that phrase apparently describes different things to different people in different contexts.  There are people and contexts in which the phrase “my wife” describes “my girlfriend”, “the woman who puts up with me”, property, someone who takes care of the house, a woman of ill repute, or even a man.  Your expressed opinion that “billions of married people have the same meaning in that phrase” is namely that: your opinion.  What universally accepted objective standard exists for establishing whether anyone at all has “the same meaning” regarding that phrase (or even in regard to the phrase “the same meaning”) as anyone else, much less “billions” of people?

If you believe your notions regarding “perverting language” and purpose of language, whose perversion is that?  Some propose that ideas and desire to convey interrupt the silence of pure language.

You speak of an “ordered language” but ordered to what?  To you, your opinion and biases?

You write, “There is apparently no reason to communicate anymore… Perhaps talking is just to exercise the jaw muscles? ... It is so silly on the face of it that it cannot be directly answered.”  It has been proposed that true communication, also called “direct answer”, is what effortlessly remains when that exercise in vanity by the jaw (or fingers) sometimes called communication ceases.  It has been proposed that it is always here if one listens.

And laughs.

Someone earlier commented on the hiring of divorced people and allowing non-catholics to enter the school as students. I though I would go to the comment about non-catholic children in Catholic schools. Many people would admit that the public school system in many areas is in a deplorable state. Some areas are blessed with an excellant system and wonderful teachers. Others are not. In those areas that are not the shining example of education is often St Somebodies Catholic school.If a non-Catholic wants to enroll their child it is explained to them at the outset that it is a Catholic school and ALL the children will attend ALL the classes. ALL the classes will be taught from a Catholic point of view. There is no provision made for a Baptist or Hindu child to skip Religion class and sit in the library. There would be several reasons for that one of them being safety. The school is responsible for the child. If the child is seperated from the group for long periods of time he or she runs the risk of getting lost and perhaps harmed. I had a friend who is baptist who enrolled her daughter in a Catholic school because of the schools great reputation. In her first week she had to learn the Our Father, The Hail Mary and the Glory Be. I was asked to help. The family lasted until second grade when the Mother pulled her daughter out because of the conflict in church teachings. In short, the children are not excluded and are normally respectful ofthe teachers and students they are with. But they must attend all the classes to inculde religion and sacremental prep. If parents are willing to work with framework life is good all the way around.

Hey, those black people knew that the lunch counter was run by white supremacists. They could have gotten a job at one of the black run lunch counters, but they decided to work elsewhere. It’s the lunchcounter’s right to fire them if they want to. Discrimination is wrong. wrong. wrong. wrong. someday the catholic church is going to need to apologize for the way that they are treating people.

@Jamie Ward

“”“Hey, those black people knew that the lunch counter was run by white supremacists.”“”

How come only your particular brand of intolerance is acceptable?  Freedom of religion is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.  “Sexual Preference” is not.  No one says that you need to like the Catholic faith, but your bigottry towards it is inconsistent. 

Your statement just ends up being: “discrimination is wrong wrong wrong ... unless it’s discriminating against religions that I disagree with.”

“Freedom of religion is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution” and quite a number of self-alleged non-gay Catholics have publicly expressed their religious belief that sexual preference is the religion (or a key aspect thereof) for (some/many/all) gay people.  With regard to “freedom of religion”, some wonder if perhaps everyone has his/her own religion extending to everything about the person.

“”“some wonder if perhaps everyone has his/her own religion extending to everything about the person. “”“

This would be possible if you care to continue attacking reason and language.  You see, “freedom of religion,”  might merely mean “freedom of anything I could possibly want” if you strip all meaning out of the word religion.

Once again, it is really nice when words have meanings.

Red_Beard, you wrote, “Freedom of religion is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution”.

The phrase “freedom of religion” appears nowhere in the Constitution.  Indeed, the only use of the word “freedom” anywhere in the Constitution (including in its Amendments) is in the lone phrase “freedom of speech, or of the press”.  The Constitution does not define (or anywhere use) the phrase “freedom of religion”, nor does the Constitution define the words “freedom” and “religion”.  People apparently disagree on what they mean and struggle to make sense of it.

You wrote, “You see, ‘freedom of religion,’  might merely mean ‘freedom of anything I could possibly want’ if you strip all meaning out of the word religion.”

Words mean whatever one means them to mean.  But some may ask, if one strips all meaning from the word “religion” and thus it does not mean anything, then why should “freedom of religion” mean “freedom of anything”?

You wrote, “This would be possible if you care to continue attacking reason and language”.

Jesus said, “Everything is possible to one who has faith.”  And the LORD said, “Nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.  Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

So now, Cherry picker, you are God at the tower of Babel?  You are doing a marvelous job of preventing understanding.  I commend you!

“We experience that in our inmost depths we are anchored in the same identity, on the basis of which all our outward differences, however great they may be, become secondary. Believers are never totally cut off from one another.  We are in communion because of our deepest identity: Christ within us.”

Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever.

Lefty activists are tiresome in their shallow, sound-bite-friendly argumentation - “the Catholic Church is a meany because she hates homosexuals.”  And they are selective in their outrage.

In reality, this situation is no different than if I, who work in health care, differed from my employer on the subject of smoking, against which it publicly advocates.  If I smoke in private, my boss might even suspect it but he’ll leave me alone.  But if I whip out my cigarettes at a company-sponsored smoking cessation event, light up and say “look at me!”, what then?  I’ll receive “freedom counseling”, quick-like.

But of course Cahir O’Doherty will be there to defend me.  Or maybe not.

What happened to the teaching about the sin of giving scandal?  It is a simple teaching that clears up so much confusion on these kinds of issues.  I read so much fruitless, confusing, acrimonious discussion of these issues that could be eliminated by just explaining that people who openly live the homosexual lifestyle are committing the additional sin of giving scandal whereas those who privately contracept do not.  Why is this so hard?

No one even seems to know what scandal means anymore… People think it means when a celebrity does something embarrassing!  NO!  That is not what scandal means.  Scandal means to behave in such a way that you encourage others to sin.

Could we please reclaim the word scandal and use it to clear up these unproductive disputes?

Margaret, I don’t know or presume that Ms. Judd has ever engaged in or encouraged anyone else to engage in a homosexual act.  A civil “marriage” license is not a sex act, and last I heard, signing some legal paperwork is not “the homosexual lifestyle”.  It could be scandal to claim otherwise.

@Not Scandalized

CCC 2284:

“”“Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.”“”

For a woman to “marry” another woman, whether or not she commits homosexual acts, is a public witness that homosexual relationships are acceptable.  (ie: a woman asking: “She married a woman and is still a good Catholic, so why can’t I?) 

You are right that we don’t know what is going on behind closed doors, but you are kidding yourself in the assertion that legal marriage has no connection to sexual activity.

“”“last I heard, signing some legal paperwork is not “the homosexual lifestyle”.”“”

It is a public declaration that you are entering such a life-style!

Your argument just amounts to: “You are mean if you assume that people are going to do what they publicly declare that they are going to do!”

St. Augustine: “Sins against nature are adominable and deserve punishment whenever and wherever they are committed.”
These devils are out of the closet and look at what is happening.  They should not be treated with respect, but reviled.
Gay pride parades must be banned, as they are in Poland and some Baltic states.
Thomas Jefferson authored a bill (1781) punishing ‘same-sex’ behavior with castration.  Obviously he didn’t think gays were included in “all men are created equal.”  He saw the evil in this and its’ negative
effect on society.

@MM
“”“These devils are out of the closet and look at what is happening.  They should not be treated with respect, but reviled.”“”

These are men and women made in the image and likeness of God.  They should be honored and loved as such.

@Red Beard

Key words in CCC 2284 are “IF” and “DELIBERATELY” (i.e. “Scandal is a grave offense *IF* by deed or omission another is *DELIBERATELY* led into a grave offense”).  Thus, the Church can teach in CCC 589: “Jesus gave scandal above all… He went so far as to hint that by sharing the table of sinners he was admitting them to the messianic banquet.”

You wrote, “you are kidding yourself in the assertion that legal marriage has no connection to sexual activity.”

No, you’re kidding yourself if you don’t recognize that as YOUR assertion.  I didn’t say legal marriage has “no connection” to anything, whether to divorce, spouse abuse, “swinging”, contraception, adultery, murder, grocery shopping, taxes, inheritance, property ownership, hospital visitation, or to whatever.  For all I know, everything in the universe is “connected”, in some way or another, if not to one another, to God.

Under civil law, a “married” couple (whether same sex or opposite sex) can legally engage in a wide variety of sexual (and nonsexual) sins.  So too can anyone with a driver’s license legally engage in a wide variety of sexual and nonsexual sins.  That doesn’t mean that getting a civil “marriage” license or driver’s license is a public declaration that sin is acceptable or intended.  Likewise, the Church’s public teaching that “God permits evil because he respects the freedom of his creatures” is not a public declaration that evil is acceptable.

Signing some some legal paperwork with a person of the same sex is not a public declaration of “entering the homosexual lifestyle” or any particular lifestyle at all.  I think it would be unusual if such a person’s sexual “lifestyle” (whether chaste or not) were significantly different, or more public or private, after signing such legal paperwork than before.  I’ve never heard of ANY person waiting for a civil “marriage” license in order to engage in homosexual acts.  A civil “marriage” license is not a license to engage in sexual acts (homosexual or heterosexual), as no civil “marriage” license is required for a person to engage in sexual acts.  A civil “marriage” license also does not tell me that the person is sexually active, or what his/her sexual interests are, or even if he/she is sexually attracted to anyone.  A civil “marriage” license tells me that the persons are involved in a legal commitment.

@Not

You are one of the extreme minority who would assume that a “marriage” is nothing more than a legal commitment.  What will the 5th grade students think when they hear about this union? 

As for the scandal, the points you make are only in reference to whether or not there is a grave offense, not to whether or not the act is wrong.  It is clear that scandal is given, even if unintended. 

Everyone but you assumes, rightly or not, that these women who are pretending to be married are doing acts that pretend to be the marital act.  That is why the word “marriage” is used and not “legal partnership.”  It is intended to carry connotations that you are unreasonably pretending don’t exist.  The scandal is real, therefore the act is wrong, even if there is no moral culpability.

@Red Beard,

You wrote, “It is clear that scandal is given”.

Yes, “Jesus gave scandal above all” and did the will of God even as he gave scandal.

You wrote, “You… assume that a ‘marriage’ is nothing more than a legal commitment”.

No, I don’t “assume” the significance of a civil “marriage” license.  I look to the facts.  It is an established fact that a civil “marriage” license establishes a legal commitment.  On the other hand, it is someone’s assumption and not an established fact that the persons are sexually active or sexually attracted to one another or engaging in any particular sinful “lifestyle”.

Likewise, what “5th grade students think when they hear about” the legal arrangement is going to depend on their brain chemistry, their DNA, their (mis)education, their biases which prejudice their thinking, perhaps a tendency to assume others are as wicked (or worse) than oneself, etc.  Or as the Bible teaches, “To the pure, all things are pure.”  You see yourself, and as you judge others, you judge yourself.

The fact is that the women are not “pretending to be married” as defined in the law.  They are legally “married” as defined in the law, and the law does not define that as a sex act or any particular sexual “lifestyle”.  You can dream all sorts of ideas “why the word ‘marriage’ is used”, but the Massachusetts legislature and courts and others have used that English word, and we don’t know their reasons any more than we might project our own thinking upon them.

Regardless of whatever meaning the pharisees insist upon, it remains that the word “marriage” has a variety of meanings/connotations in the English language.  In the absence of necessitating facts, I’m not required to choose the meaning/connotation that speaks the worst of Ms. Judd, the legislature, the courts or you.  To the contrary, in the words of St. Thomas, “He who interprets doubtful matters for the best may happen to be deceived more often than not; yet it is better to err frequently through thinking well of a wicked man, than to err less frequently through having an evil opinion of a good man”.

And if I’m “one of the extreme minority”, so be it.  “Above all” is quite extreme, and in the words of Pope John Paul II, may the “dimension of minority” characterize your being and acting.

@Red Beard - please stop feeding the troll.  They disappear when ignored.

As per usual,  our good Christian Catholics consider same sex marriage to be evil (Our loving compassionate friend ‘M&M’ goes so far as to describe them as “devils” who should be “reviled”) and this appears to be based on the fact that the bible is said to describe homosexuality as an ABOMINATION even though the bible never mentions the word homosexual, nor does it mention lesbians in an way shape or form.
 
  Let’s just take a quick look at these biblical ABOMINATIONS on the presumption that ALL of them quoted in the bible MUST be against God’s law.
 
  The first reference to an abomination Genesis 46:34 refers to every shepherd being “an abomination” to the Egyptians. Do we now, in this 21st century, take this literally? Do we still consider ALL shepherds (the tenders of sheep) to be abominations?
 
  In Isaiah 66.3 “abomination” seems to be used to describe sin in general (of which we are all guilty), and Ezekiel refers specifically to adultery.
 
  Proverbs 6 16-18 lists six abominations - “a proud look, a lying tongue, a hand that sheds innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, and feet that are swift in running to mischief, and being a false witness who tells lies.”. Are these loathsome, hateful, wicked and vile “abominations” for which we are condemned to eternal damnation, or are they guidance from our ancestors about they thought we should avoid when trying to lead a good, clean lifestyle.
 
  Yes, the word “abomination” is used in Leviticus to describe men lying with men, but it also says (in Deuteronomy) that it’s an abomination to cheat in the market by using rigged weights, while Proverbs (12:22) refers to dishonesty. Dishonesty?!!! We are all doomed! It’s also an “abomination” to tell lies (Proverbs 12:22), to be proud of heart (Proverbs 16:5) and to cheat in business (Proverbs 20:10 Proverbs 20:23). Cheating in business. Mmm. Now there’s one to ponder!
 
  Leviticus goes on to label all sorts of other activities as “ABOMINATIONS”. These include eating any kind of seafood without fins and scales (Lev 11:10). If we interpret this literally then we would have to prohibit the catching or eating of lobsters or crabs, or any kind of shell fish. Catching lobsters? Can you just imagine denouncing those poor bankrupt fishermen in the Gulf for being loathsome, wicked and vile for their lifestyle in providing lobsters and shell fish to all and sundry.  Does ‘M&M’ denounce these fishermen as “devils”? Sorry, but the bible is quite specific. If we take it literally then an ABOMINATION is an ABOMINATION.
 
  And it doesn’t stop there. The bible says it’s an abomination to eat birds of prey, and to eat insects. There are aboriginals around the globe who survive by eating insects. Are they all devils? Do they have no chance of becoming Christians unless they denounce this loathsome, wicked practice?
 
  Tragically, we still have people around who want us to accept every word in the bible literally or should I say, those particular passages from the bible they choose to quote, while providing us with their interpretation. (The bible says NOTHING about same-sex marriage! ) Is it just possible those scribes of old were simply trying to set down rules to protect their peoples from unclean, or unhealthy practices based on their knowledge at that time. In my humble view they were doing their best, and it was generally good advice. But it is decidedly NOT the inerrant word of a god who is going to condemn to eternal damnation those who commit ANY of these so-called “abominations”. ??

‘Not Scandalized’,  with respect, you are wasting your time.  Once someone has been inculcated as a child with the sort of hatred and loathing so clearly enunciated by the “M&M’s of this world, any appeal to logic, or to the fact that this young lady did not break any law of the land is a waste of time and energy. Far better to concentrate your efforts on ensuring that the law is changed in all U.S. States, as it is now in the UK and much of the rest of Europe.  You may be a minority now but the times they are achanging.  Young people are getting the message and, just as the law was eventually amended to allow inter-racial marriage, despite the protestations of religious bigots, there will come a day when ALL men and women will be treated as equal - unless they break the laws of the land,  and Christine Judd decidedly did NOT!

@67

Paul says that sodomites won’t go to heaven.  Is that too “literal?”

The Church’s teaching is always more complex than a bible quote or two out of context, but the Church and the bible are both clear in stating that homosexual acts are wrong. 

As for the hate, I’m against it no matter who’s spouting it.  All humans sin. All humans are made in the image and likeness of God.  All humans should be loved and respected.

Paul of the Bible never said the words “sodomites won’t go to heaven”.  Paul didn’t speak English, and every translation is someone’s opinion/belief.  Different people have different opinions/beliefs.  Some play the “respect” game where they say to one another “I respect you but I don’t respect your beliefs unless they’re the same as mine.”

<sarcasm>So you shouldn’t read the bible, as if it’s in English it can’t possibly convey the intended meaning of anyone but the translator. </sarcasm>

No, that would be like saying you shouldn’t look into a mirror to get a look at yourself.

Just in case people wanted an actual quote from Paul, 1 Corinthians 6 9-10:

“”“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.”“”

New American Standard version

Go ahead and check any translation you like though. 

The King James version is far more explicit:

“”“...nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,...”“”

Red_Beard,

Please advise exactly where in the bible does Paul say “literally” that sodomites won’t go to heaven. And yes, you’re quite right that the bible is more complex than a few quotes taken out of context.  Please also advise where I went wrong in my specific quotes about “ABOMINATIONS”.  Did I misquote the examples?  Did I miss some abominations?  Did I exaggerate the number or types of ABOMINATIONS listed in the bible?  Does the Catholic Church treat ALL ABOMINATIONS with the same ferocity?  I usually hear gobblygoop about homosexuality being a lifestyle,  but isn’t being a shepherd a lifestyle. Isn’t being a lobster fisherman a lifestyle if we are strictly interpreting the bible?

Vangelina has a good point re different interpretations of a bible that was not, of course written in English, so we have to settle for interpretations or translations,  but on one thing we are sure,  those who denounce homosexuality (the word itself is never used in the bible) as an ABOMINATION are, without exception, using the modern English meaning from our dictionaries along the lines of, “exceptionally loathsome, hateful, wicked or vile”.

I would like to make two points on the issue of “ABOMINATIONS”. The first deals with what most scholars seem to agree was the original term used in the Old Testament, in the language it was written in way before the King James bible was translated into English from about 1604 – 1611 by a group of English scholars – all of whom , I believe happened to be members of the Church of England. The word or words used in the original text were toeba or toba which simply signified something that was forbidden or unclean.  It is very similar in sound and meaning to the Polynesian word “taboo”.

And I have to wonder if those early scribes were trying to set out what they believed, several thousand years ago, were the best practices for leading a good clean, healthy life, I think this view might be supported by a closer examination of other “abominations” in the bible which I quoted in my last post.  By the way Red_Beard the sarcasm was infantile and totally unnecessary. Vangelina was making a valid point.

I do agree with Red_Beard that ALL humans are made in the image and likeness of God, and that ALL humans should be loved and respected.  I have written previous posts elsewhere on this website about the disgraceful way that we treat those who are born either “intersexed” or “chimeric” (the latter condition has resulted in humans born with both male and female sexual organs). 

Quite frankly,  Red_Beard may operate under a thin veil of being against hate, no matter who is spouting it,  but even this Catholic website is replete with hatred and loathing of homosexuals to such a degree that it is downright unChristian.  I cannot recall one post from Red_Beard denouncing anyone who clearly infers that homosexuality is “exceptionally loathsome, hateful, wicked or vile”.  Is there any possibility that we may witness a change of attitude. I think not.

Meanwhile, while the “effeminate”, “fornicators”, “adulterers” and “unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God”, the “prostitutes/harlots are entering the kingdom of God before you”.

“”“I cannot recall one post from Red_Beard denouncing anyone who clearly infers that homosexuality is “exceptionally loathsome, hateful, wicked or vile”. “”“

You have either a very bad memory or very bad reading comprehension skills.  Search this very thread for the timestamp: “Sep 13, 2010 4:14 PM (EST)” and you will see me denouncing someone who called homosexuals “devils.”

I understand that you are particularly angry about this issue, and I understand that there are people who call themselves Christians and yet still hate other human beings.  Obviously, a man who hates another man is not following Christ.  I have consistently and repeatedly denounced hate on both sides of this issue and it is dishonorable of you to attack my reputation in such a fashion, especially when the refutation of your attack is on this very thread.

The dictionary says that “denounce” means to “to condemn or censure openly or publicly”, “to make a formal accusation against”.  Do you think most readers would consider your Sep 13, 2010 4:14 PM post (where you said “men and women… should be honored and loved”) to be an example of “denouncing someone”?  I might wonder how many more readers would say you were “denouncing someone” in your Sep 18, 2010 9:02 PM post where you were alleging that someone has “either a very bad memory or very bad reading comprehension skills”.  Was that an example of how you believe men and women “should be honored”?

@Vangelina

Though I don’t see one, I am open to a third possible explanation.  Feel free to provide one. 

“”“Do you think most readers would consider your ... post to be an example of “denouncing someone”?”“”

Yes, I do.  :o)  I think most people will consider the second post you reference as denouncing as well.  That is certainly what I intended in both posts.  Both were responding to error.

Now I’ll denounce again.  This whole line of argument is a logical fallacy of an ad-hominim attack.  Let me concede at the outset that I am imperfect and do not love nearly as much as God wills me to.  I’m working on it.  But an argument does not depend upon the character of the man making the argument.  It stands (or falls) on its own.

Thank you for your opinion.  While you’re busy “denouncing” or whatever you say you’re doing, are you practicing what you preached, that (all) “men and women should be honored and loved”?  Does your statement about ad hominem attacks and claim that “an argument stands (or falls) on it own” mean Jesus shouldn’t have said, “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye”?  Were the Pharisees not also “responding to error” but not seeing it as their own?  You said, “Both were responding to error”, but to whose error were you responding? If “67” in fact could not recall as he stated, was he not stating fact when he stated he cannot recall?  Is a fact an error?  Were you denouncing fact?  If not, to what/whose “error” were you responding?  Were you denouncing his memory and reading abilities?  If so, how is that different from an ad hominem attack?  Do you wish us to understand your concesion (“Let me concede at the outset that I am imperfect and do not love nearly as much as God wills me to. I’m working on it.”) as saying you’re working on removing a plank from your eye?

@Vangelina,

Your legalistic precision is astonishing when it suites you. 

When 67 publicly attacked me on this forum, he did say “I cannot recall ...”

You have me again so I will willingly concede that, if we take 67 at his word, it is a fact that “he cannot recall…[me doing something good]”  That just means that he fits into the first category of my response and has “a very bad memory.”  Perhaps, more likely, he didn’t bother to read the thread before attacking me.

“”“Do you wish us to understand your concesion (“Let me concede at the outset that I am imperfect and do not love nearly as much as God wills me to. I’m working on it.”) as saying you’re working on removing a plank from your eye? “”“

I certainly am trying.  I’ve still got a lot of work to do.  I do not thereby relinquish the right to call right right and wrong wrong.  Then again, I’m definitely not planning on stoning anyone.  Just out of curiosity, are you perfect?

If you are still confused about the fallacy of an ad hominem attack, check the wikipedia article.  It is actually very good.

You’ve now written that “Perhaps, more likely, he didn’t bother to read the thread before attacking me.”  Perhaps so, or perhaps not.  Perhaps his memory and comprehension skills are no worse than yours.  Perhaps you “didn’t bother to read” what he wrote in the light he wrote it.  Perhaps so, or perhaps not.  How many possibilities are there and how will you know which it is?  Or do you “denounce” before knowing the facts?  Is that how you use “the right to call right right and wrong wrong”?

And if you’re confused to think I’m “confused about the fallacy of an ad hominem attack”, do you think my reading Wikipedia will solve your confusion?

@Vangelina

I think you have crossed the line into silliness.  The man attacked me by misrepresenting my record.  I corrected the record.  It really is that simple.  This isn’t “denouncing without knowing the facts.”  I have know idea what 67 was thinking, but the way he characterized my position was factually incorrect.

“”“And if you’re confused to think I’m “confused about the fallacy of an ad hominem attack”, do you think my reading Wikipedia will solve your confusion?”“”

In dealing with your circuitous prose, I think the Dread Pirate Robert said it best, “Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.”

Your thinking may cross whatever lines you imagine, into whatever silliness you might pretend is not yours, to denounce whatever way you imagine your position to be characterized, a way you might pretend is not yours, though it be your way to reach your interpretation.

I must first of all apologize for not have responded earlier to the posts by Red_Beard and @Vangelina. (I have not had access to my computer for several days.)  However, before losing access I did take the trouble to read some of Red_Beard’s earlier comments and I must apologize for lumping him with most of the others on this website and elsewhere who talk about “love the sinner but hate the sin!”  Contrary to my earlier comment I now believe that Red_Beard does make a genuine effort in his threads to correct those who make hateful comments about homosexuals.  Please accept my unreserved apology in that regard.

I should add that contrary to Red_Beard’s suggestion that I am angry about this issue, nothing could be further from the truth.  I am deeply saddened by it, and by that I mean the constant haranguing and hatred of homosexuality and homosexuals by persons who describe themselves as Christians (and I should also include Muslims). 

The purpose of my post of Sep 17 was to point out that those who revile homosexuality because it is an ‘ABOMINATION” inevitably fail to revile most, if not all, of the other abominations listed in the bible.  Believe it or not, I can NEVER find anyone who can rationally explain why Egyptian shepherds are an “abomination”, nor why it is an abomination to eat lobsters or crabs, or to eat insects!  My point was, and is, that maybe we have wrongly interpreted the original words used in the old testament, as briefly explained in my post of Sep 18.  I also believe that many so-called Christians simply gloss over those portions of the bible that do not fit neatly into their belief system.

Perhaps this can best be illustrated by Red_Beard’s quote on Sep 17 when he states :- “Paul says that sodomites won’t go to heaven.  Is that too ‘literal?’”  His exact words.

At this point I will not delve into the question as to how on earth does Red_Beard arrive at the conclusion that a lesbian is a “sodomite”!!!

According to my King James’ version of the bible, Paul also mentions that adulterers, thieves, and drunkards, will not inherit the kingdom of God (presumably that means they won’t go to heaven).  Now I don’t want to belabor the point, but I have many Catholic friends and I do not know of one who does not drink alcohol, and that includes priests, several of whom do so to excess from time to time.  Does this mean that “Paul says drunkards won’t go to heaven” Is that too literal? And if not why not? Surely what is good for the goose is good for the gander. 

Getting back to the case of Christine Judd, she has not broken any law.  She was apparently a superb teacher and did not at any time, under any circumstances do anything untoward with her students. In fact just the contrary; she appears to have been an exemplary teacher.

Now I have a question to ask.  What if a fellow teacher at her school had committed adultery?  What if a fellow teacher at her school had a drinking problem?  What if a fellow teacher had committed ANY of the abominations listed in the bible, or listed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6.9 or 6.10.?

I seriously doubt that they would have been summarily dismissed as she was unless the action was a criminal offence.  This young lady has clearly been wronged - and that is patently unfair and immoral.

This is a clear case of hating both the sin and the sinner.

Perhaps I can close with an apt quote from Red_Beard:-  “All humans sin. All humans are made in the image and likeness of God.  All humans should be loved and respected.”  We should all love and respect wonderful teachers like Christine Judd.

It is God alone who will decide who will enter the kingdom of heaven.

@67

I heartily accept your apology.  I’ll do my best to live up to this more civil tone you have struck.  I think that you make some good points so I will do my best to answer them. 

You make the argument that perhaps the Catholic interpretation on this issue is incorrect.  This is a valid point if the primary concern is whether or not this teacher is committing an immoral act, but I see that as a secondary issue here. 

The Church has it’s teachings and the parents are paying money to have their children taught according to these teachings.  This is a constitutionally protected right as, to a Catholic parent, raising your children according to Catholic teaching is a moral obligation.  This aspect of education is inextricably tied to the exercise of the Catholic faith.  This teacher is making a public witness in opposition to the Catholic faith.  Whether she is right or wrong, she is effectively undermining the values that the parents are paying to have their children taught.  They are not getting what they paid for.  Therefore, on a purely practical level, she is not a legitimate teacher of the Catholic Faith.

To illustrate this, I would point out that as an avowed Catholic, I am not a legitimate teacher of the Islamic Faith.  The way I live my life would (hopefully) be a witness to the belief that Christ is God.  Muslims believe that Christ is not God, therefore, I would be an unsuitable teacher at a Muslim school.  Muslim parents who pay to have their children taught in accordance to their beliefs have the right to have their children taught according to those beliefs.

On Catholics who drink:  The Catholic position is that there is a difference between drinking and being a drunkard.  I personally drink alcohol about twice a week.  I have never in my life been drunk.  Historically, Jews drank wine.  Christ drank wine as well.  This is a side point so I’d rather drop it than debate too much about just how much alcohol was in ancient wine but I think that the Wedding Feast at Cana pretty much demolishes any argument that Christians should be teetotalers.  All this being said, alcohol can be abused in a sinful way.

“”“What if a fellow teacher at her school had committed adultery?  What if a fellow teacher at her school had a drinking problem?  What if a fellow teacher had committed ANY of the abominations listed in the bible, or listed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6.9 or 6.10.?”“”

I have a friend who fornicated and conceived out of wedlock.  She was a teacher at a Catholic school and they did not renew her contract as she was publicly witnessing against Catholic teaching.  The school did the right thing.  As you are pointing out, to do otherwise would be hypocrisy, or at least scandalous inconsistency.  I’m not saying that every principal always does the right thing, but I am saying that this is an instance of one who is.

The issue for Catholics isn’t just anything called an abomination.  As you’ve pointed out, we have no problem with Egyptian shepherds.  The Catholic Church has very clear teachings for the most part.  To live in obstinate opposition to those teachings makes one unfit to teach Catholic children.  If the opposition comes to the attention of those running the school, they are obligated to address the issue.  They owe it to their students and they owe it to the parents who send them there.

“”“We should all love and respect wonderful teachers like Christine Judd.”“”

This is true, she should be loved and respected.  But I don’t want her to teach my children.  Children need to respect their teachers to learn.  For younger children, this invariably involves the assumption that the teacher is correct.  If the teacher is in conflict with the parent (or the Church) you now have a young child who must resolve this conflict in their own mind, as two mutually exclusive things cannot both be true. It is not a conflict I desire my young children to be exposed to.  This is especially true when I am paying money for the express purpose of ensuring that they are being taught in an environment according to my faith.

It is well to remember that much of what may be claimed to be “the Catholic position” or “Church teaching” on the subject of Christine Judd and her whatever might not be official Church teaching.  Instead, we may be presented with personal opinions, misinformed, willful or obstinately deceitful views masquerading as Church teaching, sometimes even labeled as “official”.  There are even sayings, for example, that hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.  Is it true?

@Jon

“”“Instead, we may be presented with personal opinions, misinformed, willful or obstinately deceitful views masquerading as Church teaching, sometimes even labeled as “official”. “”“

Which claimed teachings did you have in mind?  We can find sources for you.  Most of this is pretty clear with an index search of the CCC.

Mr. Red, thank you for your offer, but if I might point out, you are the one with a question—- and “an index search of the CCC” will not answer it.

@Jon

It’s been a long conversation, I’m not sure what question I may have posed that’s still outstanding. 

As to the phrase about the road to hell being paved with the skulls of bishops, even if every bishop who ever lived went to hell, that must be a very short road.  That being said, it is very likely that there are bishops in hell.  I can think of a few popes that are likely there as well.  That is why the unchanging teaching of the Catholic Church is really a miracle and a clear witness to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  The longest running institution of humans in history had this many rotten leaders and not one have ever defined that God wants the pope to have a harem, or declared some other self-serving proclamation to be the infallible will of God, that can only be explained as a miracle.

Red_Beard,

I appreciate your effort to respond to some, if not all of the points I raised in my previous posts.  I believe that you have concisely explained the rationale of the Catholic Church in dismissing Christine Judd.  I also certainly support the belief that we have to guard our children against negative influences, and I am sure that no-one is presently more aware of this than the Catholic Church.

However, I would like to respectfully disagree with your logic, or should I say the logic of the Church from the point of view of someone who stands outside the Catholic faith looking in and trying to fathom what I see as remarkable inconsistencies in the way that the bible is used, and abused.

I think you might agree that homosexuality is considered to be sinful by the vast majority of Catholics because it is described in the bible as an “abomination”.  That word, “abomination” is ALWAYS quoted as being clear evidence that homosexuality is “loathsome, hateful, wicked and vile“.  As stated earlier, the latter phrase is taken from my modern English dictionary and appears to reflect the opinions of most Catholics and other Christians when asked what they mean by an “abomination”.

It has also been posted on this website that,  “God created man and woman, and that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.  I will not go into detail here, but now, in this 21st century, we know that not everyone is born either a man or a woman.  We now know that some persons are both “intersexed” including some who are “chimeric” and have two sets of DNA, and in some indisputable cases one set being male and one being female.  Tragically, these persons are lumped in together with homosexuals and anyone else who is different from the so-called norm.

Getting back to the issue of “abominations” you have agreed that Catholics do not have any problem with Egyptian shepherds, despite the fact that this is clearly an abomination according to Gen 46:34.  I suspect that if pushed you would also agree that most, if not ALL of the “abominations” listed in the bible such as eating seafood with fins or scales (crabs, lobsters, shrimps etc), eating insects, a heart that devises wicked schemes, and feet that are swift in running to mischief, and the other clearly defined “abominations” listed in my post of Feb 17,  are no longer considered to be “abominations”. Chances are that any priest who tried to persuade us that these are all “loathsome, hateful, wicked and vile“ would be considered to be off his rocker!

The point I am making here is that, in fact, we pick and choose which abominations we now consider to be abominations.  If we can now decide that those other abominations are no longer valid then surely we can reconsider are attitude towards homosexuality between consenting adults.

You yourself quoted Paul from 1 Corinthians 6 9:10 in saying, “Paul says that sodomites won’t go to heaven.  Is that too ‘literal?’”  You are right of course.  It is very literal!  But then Paul also says that other groups, including “swindlers, drunkards, thieves, those who covet etc, will not inherit the kingdom of God.”  So my question remains;  is it just as literal to quote Paul as saying that swindlers, drunkards, thieves etc. won’t go to heaven.  I’ve always understand that we all go to heaven if we ask God for forgiveness for ALL of our sins. But it appears that you are suggesting that there is an exception here.  Homosexuals (sodomites) won’t go to heaven period - and you quote Paul directly to support your position.

You have made what I respectfully consider to be a weak attempt to answer my questions about the Catholic church being fair in its treatment of those who breach some of the rules quoted by Paul in Corinthians. For example, you state that the Catholic position is that there is a difference between drinking and being a drunkard. You also quoted a case where a women “fornicated and conceived out of wedlock”.  Yes, in that case there was clear evidence against her - a baby.

With all due respect, this is not sufficient to persuade me that the Church is being fair and equitable in it’s decision to dismiss Ms. Judd.  Let me provide just a few more examples. What if a teacher in a Catholic school was convicted of drunk driving.  That would surely be a clear case of being a drunkard and even worse, of endangering other people’s lives.  Would that be grounds for instant dismissal?  What if a male teacher’s girlfriend/fiancé became pregnant.  Would he be instantly dismissed? What if a teacher had been convicted of a minor theft, either before of after being hired? Would this be grounds for instant dismissal?  Can you really give an assurance that there is not a Catholic teacher anywhere in the U.S. or for that matter a priest who has not suffered from alcoholism, that is, being a drunkard by any definition of the word.  Can you really give me an assurance that any male teacher in any Catholic school who impregnates a woman would be subject to instant dismissal.  I think not.

Ms. Judd appears to have worked in a Catholic school as a gym teacher.  She was not teaching ethics or religious studies.  I very much doubt that she openly flaunted her sexuality in any way to any of her students.  That has never been alleged as far as I can see. Far from flaunting her sexuality she has chosen to act WITHIN THE LAW in marrying her partner, an act that shows she is committed to loving one other human being for the rest of her life.  She has done no harm to anyone – period.

I believe that it is time for the Church to review its whole attitude towards homosexuality, because, for the reasons stated above, it is a nonsense to base her treatment, and those of others,  on the issue of having committed an “abomination”.  That just does not wash any more.  And if we were to take Paul at his word, The Church would certainly have to root out anyone and everyone who could be considered to be a drunkard.  Tragically, we Christians have been indoctrinated from an early age to view homosexuals as “abominations” on a false premise.  We know that, with a nod and a wink,  we do not condemn most of the “abominations” but it’s okay to bash the gays.

What I do find quite frightening is that even yourself, as a practicing Catholic and Christian, quoted Paul in saying that “sodomites won’t go to heaven.”  I always thought that Jesus came into this world to forgive everyone of all their sins – everyone.  I never realized that there was one exception to the rule.

“”“I’ve always understand that we all go to heaven if
we ask God for forgiveness for ALL of our sins.”“”

If we focus on our agreement here, I think we’ll cut through a lot of the misunderstandings.  The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual actions are sins.  Those actions are standing in the way of salvation, just like any other grave sin.  God will forgive anyone who asks (the normal method being the sacrament of Reconciliation).  No one goes to hell for being tempted to do a bad thing - like an inactive homosexual.  They go to hell for doing bad things and not repenting.  It is the act, not the inclination that makes someone a “sodomite” in Paul’s use.  This is clearly shown when you look at the literal Greek meaning of the term.

A particular failing of our American culture is the idea of identity being made up by what you do.  Because of this, a lot of our terms carry ambiguity.  A homosexual can be a person with same gender attraction or it can mean a person who engages in sexual activity with members of the same gender.  The former is not sinful, the later is.  Similarly, an alcoholic could mean a person with a predisposition to abuse alcohol or it can mean a person who habitually abuses alcohol.  Again, the temptation is not a sin, the actions are.  Most Americans find it difficult to make this distinction.

I think that you have a rather weak biblical argument for the licitness of homosexual actions, but even if your argument where strong, it doesn’t change the fact that Catholics have the right to hold their own beliefs. 

The references you are making appear to be all part of the old covenant.  That covenant has passed away.  As Christians, we are bound by Natural Law - that law that humans know by their nature as it is written on the heart of every man.  We are not bound by the old covenant.  That’s why I can’t get divorced or own slaves but I am free to eat bacon.

The Church believes that homosexuality is wrong because it is contrary to reason and nature, not because of any particular bible verse, though I believe many verses clear up any doubt.  Take a look at the CCC for the rational arguments.  Then google the average life expectancies of active homosexuals compared to heterosexuals.  Take a look at the gay on gay abuse statistics, the gay on gay murder statistics, depression statistics, disease statistics, etc.  The list goes on and on.  It isn’t PC to say that it hurts you to be actively homosexual though the facts bear witness to the truth.

As for hypocrisy in living that which we believe, I don’t doubt that you will find it as all Catholics are human beings and therefore have a predisposition to sin.  I do find it rather vexing that you are sticking with your gut belief of this double standard without any particular evidence that it is true while in the same breath disregarding my particular evidence against it.  At least I am bringing a real event to the table.  That being said, if you find an instance of hypocrisy in such a matter, I will stand with you in denouncing it.  In either event, they should be commended for getting it right this one time and condemned for every time they get it wrong.

“”“I always thought that Jesus came into this world to forgive everyone of all their sins – everyone.”“”

He did.  Then he said, “Go and sin no more.”  Those that keep repenting every time the fail him will keep being forgiven.  This is the only reason a sinner like me can have hope!

Mr. Red, in counting “every bishop who ever lived”, I would be sure to include all those in the future and not merely those of the past.  If you merely consider the past, a mere 2000 years, that is very short.  Far shorter still is the few weeks since the Christine Judd incident arose.  So too, the time since the Massachusetts law of a few years ago is also extremely short.  To the public’s knowledge, no Vatican Council has ever mentioned Christine Judd’s name or convened to definitively and authoritatively speak on the specifics of Christine Judd’s particular incident or the specific new laws of Massachusetts.  Similarly, the CDF also has not made a public declaration on her and her specific situation, and there is no judgment on Christine Judd, her particular Massachusetts legal arrangement or job at the school in the CCC.  If one bishop has said or done something specific to Christine Judd (and in the absence of a published statement by the bishop himself on the subject we can only guess in that regard), the CCC does not teach that it was “infallible” or even particularly guiding.  For all anyone “infallibly” knows, there may be many people in the diocese (and/or on this forum) who are guilty of sin, perhaps even mortal sin, in regard to the situation of Christine Judd’s termination and/or aftermath, but perhaps not Christine Judd herself.

Also, your claim that no Church leader has ever “declared some other self-serving proclamation to be the infallible will of God” is your untestable opinion.  You cannot prove a negative any more than you can tell us everthing that every Church leader may have declared since the beginning but has since been forgotten or hushed up or conveniently/charitably reinterpreted or you just don’t know about it.  I also note that you did not say “infallibly declared”, as many things may be “declared” but that does not mean they were infallibly declared.

If you or whomever pick and choose pieces of Christine Judd’s situation along with pieces of the CCC or whatever and thereby come to a personal interpretation/opinion as to what you think is the will of God, or allege that it is not a personal interpretation, that may be very self-serving and quite fallible.

Finally, as to the question you posed to which I referred, you might check your memory and reading comprehension skills with respect to the question you plainly asked in your Sep 22, 2010 9:13 PM post.

@Jon,

You and I are having a very basic communications breakdown.  You are absolutely right the the CCC will not answer the question of “which possible objections are in Jon’s head.”  That type of a question relies on you to answer it.  If you like though, I will gladly concede that I have difficulty comprehending some of the things that you have written, as evidenced by my stated confusion. ;o)

“”““declared some other self-serving proclamation to be the infallible will of God” is your untestable opinion.”“”

As to infallibly declared, I thought it was clear that to claim something false to be an infallible teaching would in and of itself be a falacy (saying ‘a’ is ‘not a’ cannot be true).  Oh well, we might be getting a little twisted around in language here, which isn’t the real point.

I made a bold claim which I’ll restate for precision: “The Catholic Church has an unchanging (though ever deepening) teaching on matters of faith an morals”  A single counterexample will disprove it.  (As in, at one time they officially said that X was intrinsically sinful but later they officially said X was not)

Find and prove a counterexample to me and I will leave the Catholic Church. 

Good luck with that, you won’t find something that doesn’t exist.

Though the Catholic Church teaches that SOME “homosexual actions” are sins, the Church does not teach that every action which some may label as “homosexual” are sins at all or that all sins of a homosexual nature keep the person out of heaven.

The recommendation to “google the average life expectancies of active homosexuals compared to heterosexuals”, or “gay on gay abuse statistics, the gay on gay murder statistics, depression statistics, disease statistics, etc.” reveals a few sites which point out the fallacy of such comparisons.  Accordingly, few people find those few sites amidst the many sites promoting fallacy.  As it is said, wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.  But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Mr. Red, if the Church infallibly declares that “X” is wrong, that does not mean your opinion on what’s “X” and what’s “not X” is infallible.  You can easily err, and sinfully so, in claiming that something is “X” when in fact it is “not X”.  It is not sufficient to merely go by labels/appearances/words, and Jesus reportedly instructed, “Stop judging by appearances”.  Just because something may be labeled “X” or appears to be “X” does not mean that it is “X”.  Many things may be labeled or appear to be “Catholic teaching” or “not Catholic teaching”, but that does not mean that the labels have been correctly or infallibly applied.

@jon

Do you have a point?  I may have missed it amongst all the generalities.  Everything you say seems to boil down to “we can’t really know anything.”  Or at least, “we can’t really know that a thing is X.”  Am I misunderstanding you again?

A concrete example would go a long way towards me being able to understand you.

Likewise, you find it awfully easy to disregard all the information you are predisposed to disagree with by labeling it a fallacy without ever promoting an argument here about why it is a fallacy. 

<sarcasm>Though the implication that those who don’t think it’s fallacious are going to hell (and that those who recognize the flaw are by that means saved) is a nice touch.</sarcasm>

Mr. Red, I didn’t say I found it “easy” or that I “disregard” information.  Those are your words.  Perhaps you are describing yourself.  Research can be quite difficult, tedious and exhausting.  It can slap one in the face over and over again, particularly as one faces bias, prejudice and presumption, not the least of which are one’s own.  I don’t settle for Google.  I like to consult the actual journal articles, the original researchers and their actual data, their followup research and comments, the views of their peers and foes, Church teaching as whoever may claim to be applicable, and more.  I like to do my research and have it reviewed too.

And I neither said nor “implied” nor do I believe that people “who don’t think it’s fallacious are going to hell and that those who recognize the flaw are by that means saved”.  If you persist in sarcasm and promoting fallacies, I don’t say where you’ll end up.  You’ll find out soon enough though.

And as far as concrete goes, much that is called concrete is full of cracks.

“”“If you persist in sarcasm and promoting fallacies, I don’t say where you’ll end up.  You’ll find out soon enough though.”“”

So, from just about any human being I’ve ever talked to this would be a veiled condemnation to hell tucked into a paragraph saying that you aren’t making statements about who is going to hell.  I’m not saying that this is what you’re saying, just pointing out the difficulty I have in understanding what you are actually saying.

“”“And as far as concrete goes, much that is called concrete is full of cracks.”“”

This is a pearl and I’m sure I’ll use it in the future.  Thank you.  Once again though, you are vaguely disagreeing without providing any actual arguments, data, or evidence.  Heck, you aren’t even really providing a position other than stating that other’s positions may be wrong.

So we have know idea what exactly Jon believes about statistics involving homosexual behavior, but it seems to be eminently clear that he is right in his beliefs and we very well may be wrong.  If we are right, we are right to the extent that we agree with his well-researched and yet carefully unstated - and therefore unexaminable - opinions.

The blood of Jesus is flowing over the obvious dishonesty of so many of these remarks.  A woman takes the step of marrying another woman when she teaches in a Catholic school.  She knows the Church does not recognize the union as a marriage.  She knows it would be grounds for dismissal under her contract. She knows that if she has a physical relationship the Church considers it objectively disordered.  She doesn’t tell anyone about the marriage.  If anyone cares about TRUTH and HONESTY and true LOVE they can not be writing some of the defenses that are here.  Pray to want to know the truth.  Then Jesus can help you.

Though it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments, Christine Judd must always obey the certain judgment of her conscience, for if she were deliberately to act against it, she would condemn herself.

“”“Though it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments”“”

To act against one’s conscience is wrong, but to form one’s conscience badly is also wrong.  I’m in no position to judge Ms Judd, so I can’t speak to this case in particular, but we must be clear on the basics.  Bad things don’t magically become good things just because you don’t know that they are bad or because you have distorted your own conscience to the point where you believe them to be good.

The basic issue in Tondall’s post (which cites Church teaching from the CCC virtually verbatim) is not whether “bad things become good things” but Ms. Judd’s culpability in the specific act of her obeying her conscience. Ms. Judd would condemn herself (i.e. be culpable) if she did not follow the certain judgment of her conscience. It does not mean everything a person does is right in the objective sense simply because the person obeys the certain judgment of his conscience but speaks to the person’s culpability in acting in obedience to it. It can be that the person bears some culpability for how his/her conscience is formed, if, for example, in the formation of her conscience she did not obey the certain judgment of her conscience. But as we are not privy to the certain judgment of her conscience and its formation, we cannot judge her culpability. We cannot judge that she is culpable for her acts or that she has culpably distorted her conscience. The CCC specifically instructs that we are to entrust such judgment to God. It can be that someone obeys the certain judgment of her conscience and does something that is objectively wrong but that person is not subjectively culpable for it, even if she has received 20+ years of instruction including explicit instruction to her to not to do what she did. The Church teaches that formation of conscience is a lifelong task, and it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments all that time, even if people shout at her “Don’t do that!” over and over, even if she herself says, “I know you said not to do that.” To which she may add, “But the certain judgment of my conscience tells me that you are wrong.”  There is no “magic” in this.  It could be due to genetics, biology, the person’s early (or later) instruction in life, parental example, duress, psychological and social factors, etc.

@george

This is why I said I wasn’t in a position to judge her.  No one but she and God know enough to determine culpability. 

What she did is wrong according to the teachings of the Catholic Church.  She may or may not be culpable.  If she thinks it is right, her conscience is distorted and unable to see the truth.  The distortion of her conscience is another issue that we are unable to know if she is culpable for or not. 

My point is that there is no way, no matter how distorted her conscience may be, that an intrinsically wrong act becomes right.

Seems to me that something somebody allegedly did has been alleged to be wrong according to someone’s interpretation of Church teaching.  When is the trial and who is the judge?  I pray that nobody has damned themselves along the way.

@Sarah

“”“Seems to me that something somebody allegedly did has been alleged to be wrong according to someone’s interpretation of Church teaching.”“”

The thing that they “allegedly” did is apparently attested to by a certificate with the state.  Hmmm.. that doesn’t sound to “alleged” to me.  It sounds like they did it.  Then to say that it is “allegedly” wrong is absurd and dishonest. The Church’s teaching on so called “homosexual marriage” is clear.  You don’t have to accept it, but it is dishonest to misrepresent it.

Are you accusing me of dishonesty? Again, when is the trial and who is the judge? If you allege a “homosexual marriage”, when did the Church begin teaching that some marriages are homosexual? If the Church definitively teaches that all marriages are heterosexual, then there is no marriage anywhere which is not heterosexual. Yet I continue to enjoy the marriage of peanut butter and jelly, even though it is not heterosexual, and I happily certify that it is a wonderful marriage.

“”“Are you accusing me of dishonesty?”“”

The Church’s teaching on “same sex marriage” is clear.  Your representation of that teaching is wrong.  Therefore you are either ignorant of the true teaching and are honestly representing error, or you are being dishonest and misleading people.  I don’t know which it is, but those strike me as the only possibilities.

The reference to the marriage of peanut butter and jelly is a red herring.  It doesn’t apply.  The Church has explicitly condemned the notion of “same sex marriage.”  And you are therefore misrepresenting Her, whether knowingly or not.

Show us your alleged “clear” “Church teaching” on “same sex marriage”, and don’t show me anything less than infallible, dogmatic teaching.  And then we can discuss how and to what extent it might apply to Christine Judd and to what extent it might not apply.

And, please, as to your very limited “either… or” and “possibilities”, why did you not also come out and include the possibility that you haven’t considered all the possibilities, to include the possibilitiy that you don’t even know what all the possibilities are, and the possibility that you haven’t fully appreciated Church teaching in its fullness or what I’ve said, and the all other many limitations of your understanding, including the limitations and diversity of the English language?  As the Church teaches, “Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it.”  Did I miss your humble question?  Why not include the possibility that I’m an angel sent by God to help you with your understanding?  Why not include the possibility that you are being arrogant and pompous?  So many possibilities.  How can one list them all?

“”“and don’t show me anything less than infallible, dogmatic teaching”“” 

Let’s make sure we understand how the Catholic Church teaches.  There have been an absurdly small number of things defined infallibly (ie ex-cathedra), but they are still infallible teachings based on the ordinary means of infallibility: the unchanging and universal teachings of the Church.  It is by this means that the Church has declared that abortion, contraception, euthanasia, pornography, [insert almost anything that the Church condemns here] is wrong.  Because this is the ordinary method, you can find a myriad of sources witnessing the unchanging truth.  It is a relatively recent phenomenon that fools have begun to say, “If a pope didn’t say it ex-cathedra, I don’t have to believe it.”  I hope that you aren’t one of those fools.

All homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered: CCC 2357-2359

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life: CCC 2360-2391

(please note, they get #1 out of the way immediately before explaining #2)

If you can’t put those together for yourself, there have been countless bishops speaking in union with the unbroken tradition (again, look up the ordinary means of infallibility), though I fear that you won’t accept anything less than the pope.  Anyways, here’s a link to the USCCB’s position statement:  http://www.usccb.org/laity/marriage/samesexstmt.shtml

To anyone who actually cares what the Church teaches, it abundantly clear.  If you are going to disagree with it, please post your reasoning here rather than just blithely say something like “You don’t know what the Church teaches.”  I always enjoy a display of mental gymnastics.

Thank you.  Let’s look at your statement, “All homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered: CCC 2357-2359”.

CCC#2357 begins by saying, “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.”  You’re off to a bad start with that.  Massachusetts does not require that the civil marriage parties experience any sexual attraction toward anyone, whether exclusively or predominantly or even slightly or in any way whatsoever.  It is thus error to equate civil same-sex Massachusetts marriage with homosexuality.

CCC#2357 goes on to say, “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.  I note that it does not literally say “all” homosexual acts are intrinsically ordered.  You added that word.  Nevertheless, here again is another problem for you.  As defined in Massachusetts law, a Massachusetts civil marriage is not a sex act, and Massachusetts does not require anyone, married or not, in the entire state of Massachusetts to be open to engaging in any sexual act, and does not require people to get a marriage license before engaging in sexual acts.  It is thus error to equate civil marriage as defined in Massachusetts law with a sex act.

CCC#2358 and 2359 continue on to talk about homosexual persons and in a way that is not specific or necessarily relevant to a Massachusetts civil marriage.  For example, CCC#2359 states, “Homosexual persons are called to chastity”, but people in a Massachusetts civil marriage don’t have to be homosexual even if they’re same-sex, and whether they’re same-sex or homosexual, they can be as chaste as those who are not in a civil marriage.  It is thus error to equate Massachusetts civil marriage with a lack of or hindrance to chastity.  Indeed, I propose that a same-sex Massachusetts civil marriage can perhaps even assist the call to chastity.

So, moving on to “Marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life: CCC 2360-2391”.  The words you typed are (1) literally not in the text for CCC 2360-2391, but even if we allow for that, (2) it’s not the definition of civil marriage in Massachusetts law, whether we’re talking about same-sex couples or opposite sex couples.  Thus, you’re talking apples and oranges.  Massachusetts does not claim apples are oranges, and the Church does not claim oranges are apples.

You also referred to a 1996 USCCB position statement which predates the Massachusetts changes.  That’s nice, but neither the USCCB nor its position statements are infallible and dogmatic.  And all of my above comments apply to the USCCB position statement.

You’ve referred to fallible documents (even the CCC is not an infallible teaching document) which presented paragraphs on the Church’s meaning of the word “marriage”, but you’ve presented no infallible, dogmatic teaching (or CCC statements) that states that all other meanings and uses of the English word “marriage” are invalid.  A marriage of wine and cheese, a marriage in a game of pinochle, and a (same-sex or opposite-sex) marriage under Massachusetts civil law —these are all marriages of various kinds, even if they’re different from the “marriage” spoken of in Church teaching.  They can each be valid in different ways without having to be identical to the “marriage” spoken of in Church teaching.

Truly, you are playing mental gymnastics in attempting to use teachings about oranges to say that apples are invalid.

@Sarah,

  Your views on Church teaching sadden me.  I had hoped for more, but I didn’t expect more.  By your arguments, the Church is not really opposed to abortion, euthanasia, unjust wars, etc. as you won’t find an ex-cathedra statement defining any of them.  You are ignoring the primary means of teaching that the Church has always employed.

  So, as I understand it, your argument is that the Church finds homosexual marriage acceptable as long as it is not a marriage (which it can never be by definition), and as long as there is nothing homosexual about it (no physically sinful actions nor placing oneself in the near occasion of sin).  Is this an accurate summary?

No, you’re seeing your own reflection in the mirror and pretending it’s someone else’s.  What you refer to as “your arguments” are YOUR arguments, your interpretation, your conclusions.  I didn’t ask you for ex-cathedra English statements, and I don’t conclude that no ex-cathedra statements against abortion, euthanasia and unjust wars exist simply because you say I won’t find them.

I asked you to show clear, infallible, dogmatic teaching on Massachusetts civil legal arrangements between persons of the same sex which are called “marriage” under Massachusetts law, aka “same-sex marriage”.  What you provided was an interpretation of what might be infallible, dogmatic teaching but it’s not on the requested subject.  In other words, I asked you to show clear, infallible, dogmatic teaching on apples, but you provided talk about oranges.  If you don’t know the difference between apples and oranges, you lack the competence to complete the task requested of you.

Again, it is error to equate Massachusetts civil legal arrangements between persons of the same sex which are called “marriage” under Massachusetts law, aka “same-sex marriage”, with homosexuality or “homosexual marriage”.  If you persist in error, I may hand you over to receive the penalty of your ways.

“”“and I don’t conclude that no ex-cathedra statements against abortion, euthanasia and unjust wars exist simply because you say I won’t find them.”“”

So, what documents exist that would convince you based on your standards what the Church teaches on these topics?

Again, as I understand it, your argument is that the Church finds homosexual marriage acceptable as long as it is not a marriage (which it can never be by definition), and as long as there is nothing homosexual about it (no physically sinful actions nor placing oneself in the near occasion of sin).  Is this an accurate summary?

This whole argument is so far removed from the facts of the case as they have been reported.  We have a woman who was forced out of a job for entering into a “same sex marriage.”  We have an author attacking the Church over this.  He is incensed that she was fired for being gay.  Then we have a Jimmy defending the Church’s position.  Suddenly, out of the blue, we have commenters who’s whole argument revolves around the idea that “homosexual marriage” is legit because it is not homosexual.  This directly contradicts the first source referenced, but hey, don’t let sources get in the way of a bizarre argument.

Oh, and the diocese has determined that she engages in or espouses conduct which contravenes the doctrine and teaching of the Catholic Church.  I don’t know about you, but I’m going to go with the judgment of the only legitimate authority in the case. 

“”“If you persist in error, I may hand you over to receive the penalty of your ways.”“”

Holy cow, Sarah, what’s with the threat?!?  Is that really needed?

Again, it is error to equate Massachusetts civil legal arrangements between persons of the same sex which are called “marriage” under Massachusetts law, aka “same-sex marriage”, with homosexuality or “homosexual marriage”.  Yet you persist in speaking of “homosexual marriage”.  Why should I be speaking of “homosexual marriage”?

“Homosexual marriage” is your fiction, your strawman, your windmill at which you joust.  “The first source referenced” (Cahir O’Doherty’s post) never said “homosexual marriage” or even “gay marriage” or that anyone’s marriage was “homosexual”.  Where did you get that stain?

You allege a diocesan “determination”.  Jimmy’s post alleges the diocese “took action which led to her resignation”.  Was that a “determination”?  Persisting in error is also an “action”.  There is no diocesan “determination” disclosed in Cahir’s or Jimmy’s posts, nor should a diocesan determination be considered clear, infallible, dogmatic teaching on same-sex marriage.  The quote of the diocesan spokesperson in Cahir’s post talks “without being specific to this matter”.  What does that mean?  For all we know, what’s quoted isn’t even directly relevant to “this matter”.

Again, you made claims on this forum.  I asked you to show clear, infallible, dogmatic teaching on Massachusetts civil legal arrangements between persons of the same sex which are called “marriage” under Massachusetts law, aka “same-sex marriage”.  If you aren’t able to do it, why don’t you be humble and admit it?  Is it a sin for you to do that?

And I don’t “threaten” you.  If you persist in error, that is you threatening yourself.

@Sarah

I’m not sure if there is value in continuing this, as we seem to be in completely different worlds.  I will readily concede that there is much I don’t understand, and right now, you are coming in at the top of the list.  The insults are a bit much, though I know I could have had a better tone too. 

It all seems to come back to the fact that in the world I live in, “gay marriage,” “homosexual marriage,” and “same-sex marriage” all mean the same thing. 

This also appears to be the view of the diocese, the original author, the responding author (Jimmy), the gay lobby, the judges who threw out the will of the people in MA, IA, and other states, the people who expressed their will in over 30 states banning “same-sex marriage”, and anyone I have ever spoken to on this issue in any context except two people on this thread.

Your world, my world.  Views, perspectives.  Like them or not, as you see them, they are yours.

I was quite astonished to read Red_Beard’s comment that I had used a weak biblical argument in referring to the “old covenant” which has “passed away” (his words - not mine).  He appears to have completely dismissed the Old Testament, which, when I last checked, was still considered to be an integral part of the Holy Bible.  In truth, there is no logical argument against the fact that the vast majority of those Old Testament “abominations” are now considered to be ludicrous. Can you just imagine someone being accused of being an “abomination” for eating a crab salad sandwich! 

Contrary to Red_Beard’s comments,  I have NEVER heard anyone opposed to homosexuality who does not immediately quote the Old Testament and who does not continually refer to the word “abomination”.  We would likely agree on one point. The vast majority of these folk are actually quite ignorant of the contents of the bible, or of the list of behaviors branded in the Old Testament as “abominations”.  They only ever care to quote the one! 

Red_Beard went on to explain that homosexuality is against “the natural law”.  This is despite the fact that homosexual activity has been observed in literally hundreds of animal species -  from lions to chimpanzees, dozens of herding animals, and even to gut worms.  In fact, I seem to recall that the prevalence of homosexuality in a wide variety of animal species was even cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision to strike down the sodomy laws in 14 States as a result of the Lawrence v Texas case.  Now one might have thought that what goes on “in nature” would be considered to be “the natural law” as espoused by the U.S. Supreme Court, but not apparently with Red_Beard, or with the Catholic Church.  Incidentally, I’m not sure if all these animal species can be perceived to have sinned against the “natural law”!

In one of his responses to “Sarah” Red_Beard states that anyone he has ever spoken to on the issue of “same sex marriage” has expressed their will to ban such marriages, with the exception of two people on this thread.

Perhaps Red_Beard moves only in safe Catholic circles.  I have a fairly wide circle of friends of all persuasions and religions, and many have no problem whatever with “same sex marriages” except that in the case of my close Catholic friends, they agree that the Catholic Church itself should not be required to marry same sex couples.  I fully concur with that point of view, that is, that no religious denomination should be required by law to marry same sex couples.  But I have absolutely no problem with churches that do, nor with civil marriages.  In fact, I think society is better off if gay people commit to one person and one person only, although it might also be reasonable to expect that they will be no more successful in staying married that heterosexuals.  What is our latest state of play,  between 40% and 50% of all marriages in the U.S. end in divorce?

Red_Beard mentions that the “judges threw out the will of the people ... who had expressed their will in over 30 States banning “same sex marriage”.  I wonder how many States were against allowing “inter-racial marriage” (it was finally permitted by the Supreme Court in 1967) and how many were against “equal right for blacks”.

Red_Beard referred to life expectancy of active homosexuals compared with heterosexuals, and also gay on gay abuse statistics, murder statistics etc. I’m not sure where he is getting his statistics from, but I would like to quote from practical life experience having spent over 30 years in law enforcement.  I do not accept these statistics because they simply do not apply in my country.  In fact the contrary is true.  Gays generally tend to lead law abiding lives. We have had just one murder over the past 40 years involving a gay man – and he was the victim, not the culprit.  Yes, there was certainly a time when many gays were promiscuous but now they are seeking or have gained the right to marriage.  Why? Is it possible that many of them wish to be monogamous? 

As for depression, Red_Beard has got to be kidding.  If he was constantly hounded, bullied, hated and accused of being evil;  if he was attacked by a bunch of hoodlums in New York and repeatedly sodomized with a weapon because he was gay,  then it is just possible that he would be depressed.  If any section of our society is depressed as a direct result of the treatment they receive at the hands of others, then it would surely be our gays.  When I use the phrase “our gays” I am referring to our brothers and sisters, children, uncles and aunts, and sometimes our parents.  They ALL belong to us and are a part of our collective family. They ALL deserve respect and dignity.

Giving gay people the right to marry or to join together in civil partnerships is not against the law in many countries and in some U.S. States.  Hopefully,  this will soon be the case throughout the U.S.  And it in no way diminishes or reduces the value of marriage for those of us who are fortunate enough to be happily married and heterosexual.  I wish good luck and much love to Christine Judd and her partner. They will need it.

@ Red_Beard: You are free to practice your religion. However, we are talking about a private school that hires american workers in exchange for money and provides a service in exchange for money. Please stop getting these things confused. Freedom of religion does not mean, freedom to profit from your religion.

@67,

“”“
In one of his responses to “Sarah” Red_Beard states that anyone he has
ever spoken to on the issue of “same sex marriage” has expressed their
will to ban such marriages, with the exception of two people on this thread.”“”

Just one of the many ways you are misrepresenting my stated opinion.

For anyone who cares, I stated that everyone I’ve ever spoken to on this topic excepting 2 people on this thread have held the position that same-sex marriage is synonymous with homosexual marriage. 

You got the “all but 2” part right, but you got the primary point utterly wrong.

@jamie,

You have the strange idea that Catholic schools exist to make money.  I assure you that operating in the black is not the norm.  They exist because it is a foundational responsibility of our faith to raise and educate our children in accordance with our faith. 

What you are really saying is that since money is involved, Catholics do not have a right to educate their children in what they believe to be a safe environment.  They must put their children in a position that they believe is dangerous to their children.  <sarcasm>Yeah, that sounds like freedom of religion to me.</sarcasm>

Please note, we are not arguing about whether or not the danger is real, - there is far too much emotion on this thread on both sides to tackle that issue - we are arguing about whether or not you have the right to protect your children from things your religion considers to be dangerous.

@redbeard: Catholics can run a private school for themselves and do whatever they please. However, a vast majority of Catholic schools offer their services to the general public, including kids that aren’t Catholic.

The recently completed census found that 7% of Americans identify themselves as gay or lesbian. They exist in real life, and there is a substantial chance that your children will need to work with or for a gay or lesbian at some point in their lives. Isolating them from people that are different from themselves deprives them of learning opportunities.

Oh by the way, that means there is a 7% chance that your son or daughter is gay too. Way to set an example for them that they aren’t equal.

@jamie

Once again, your position is just that you don’t think that it is right for Catholics to exercise their religion.  Well, whether correct or not, it is a Constitutionally protected right. 

Personally, I will teach my children how to deal with people.  I’m not going to teach them how to deal with black people or islamic people or gay people or [insert any group you care to here] people.  The fact that a person is a person is enough to know how to deal with them.  You love them.  This is just one more aspect of the Faith that you seem to think I shouldn’t be free to exercise.

I get the distinct impression that Red_Beard is being just a little pedantic.  I certainly agree, “same sex marriage” is the same as “homosexual marriage”  but if the law permits same sex marriage then Catholics should acceot the fact that that is the law of the land, and respect the law of the land, whether it is in the U.S. the U.K. Canada, Portugal or wherever.  The sooner that Catholics and other religious groups accept the fact that gays/homosexuals deserve EQUAL rights under the law, the better off society will be.  It does not diminish the marriage of heterosexuals in any way shape or form.  In fact it benefits society if gays are monogomous

Re the suggestion that I have otherwise misrepresented his stated opinion.  I got the distinct impression that Red_Beard was completely unable to deal with the wider issues of “abominations” and the clear fact that most, if not all of the abominations” listed in the old testament are a nonsense - crab salad sandwiches being but one simple example!  (Another might be the idiocy that an Egyptian shepherd is an
abomination”.) So what does he do?  He dismisses the Old Testament out of hand, presumably ALL of it unless, of course, he’s now going to be selective in every other aspect of the “old covenant”.  And this is despite the fact that every other person I know who is homophobic ALWAYS quotes the Old Testament and ALWAYS refers to homosexuality as an ABOMINATION.  Without exception.

I also note that he has no response to the rebuttal that far from being against the “natural law” as Red_Beard states, homosexuality is prevalent throughout the animal kingdom.  I really do have problems getting my head around the fact that gut worms go against the law of nature, or lions, or chimpanzees, or any of the hundreds of other species that exhibit homosexual behaviour. And apparently, so did the U.S Supreme Court in the Lawrence v Texas case.

As for his “statistics” on the average life expectancies of homosexuals, their depression rates, their crime rates etc.  far from accepting such statistics without question I would point out that it would be surprising if homosexuals did not have more depression that heterosexuals because they are constantly being harangued and bullied.  Perhaps a more telling statistic relates to homophobia.  Just read the personal histories of children and young people who are constantly bullied in schools, including those who take their own lives, and sometimes, the lives of others,  and you will see a clear pattern emerging.  A very significant number will say that they have been called ”sissies”  “poofters” and “queers” and other names synonymous with them being labeled by their bullying peers as homosexuals regardless of whether they are or are not.  There are reports of young children as young as 7 being subjected to homophobic bullying, and in Scotland the Government has issued a booklet specifically designed to help deal with the problem of homophobic bullying in schools, even primary schools.

Now isn’t it strange that these kids might feel somewhat depressed and may even commit suicide!  Is that because they are evil, or is it because bullying is evil but is condoned by our society at large especially when the young person is seen to be different, or artsy, or studious, or heaven forbid - homosexual. 

I feel sure that Red-Beard would not bring up his own family to condone such terrible behaviour as bullying, but I’m reminded of Edmund Burke’s famous quote, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”  The greatest evil we face in this regard is not homosexuality -  it is homophobia.

I would be far more impressed with the Catholic Church if it would actively speak out and condemn homophobia and speak up for the right of homosexuals to equal treatment under the law, and leave it to God to decide who enters the kingdom of heaven.

“”“I got the distinct impression that Red_Beard was completely unable to deal with the wider issues of “abominations” and the clear fact that most, if not all of the abominations” listed in the old testament are a nonsense - crab salad sandwiches being but one simple example!”“”

I thought I’d answered that about a half a dozen times.  I’m not against homosexual acts because the Old Testament condemns them.  I am against them because my reason and the Catholic Church have both come to the conclusion that they are harmful.

You keep coming back to, and adequately defeating, an argument that no one is making.  Rest assured, I will never adequately answer that point, because I don’t care about that point. The Old Testament condemnations are not what convinces me that homosexual actions are harmful for those who participate in them. 

“”“The greatest evil we face in this regard is not homosexuality -  it is homophobia.”“”

Wow, really?  The greatest?  I guess I understand your passion if this is what you truly believe.  However; I can’t possibly fathom the way your mind works to come to such a strange conclusion.

Perhaps Red_Beard does not actually read my comments. The simple point I have been making with regard to so-called “abominations” is that every person I ever speak with who condemns homosexuality immediately refers to the fact that it is listed as an “abomination” in the bible.  Red_Beard has explained his rejection of the Old Testment or “old covenants” but I submit that he is an exception to the rule.

Just recently I was witness to a lively debate between a group of very bright young high school students on the issue of whether or not to amend our Human Rights Legislation to include “sexual orientation” as a ground for discrimination . The students arguing against the motion, including Catholics, without exception, quoted at length from the Old Testament and used the “abomination” argument.  Needless to say they lost the debate.  They had been inculcated with this nonsensical belief from childhood.

Red_Beard also takes issue with my comment that “The greatest evil we face in this regard is not homosexuality - it is homophobia”.  Perhaps again,  he is not actually listening to my point.  I was comparing homosexuality with homophobia, and by my reckoning homophobia wins on the “evil” count – hands down! But why?

Well, first of all, although the Catholic Church and some other religious groups, especially Muslims,  consider homosexuality to be sinful ,  it is actually not an illegal activity in most western democracies.  I believe that might even be the case in the U.S.  I also believe that despite the position of the church,  the consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and health and mental health professions now consider that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation. Since 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder.  Even the Pentagon no longer considers homosexuality to be a mental illness!

And, of course,  “same sex marriage” is legal in an increasing number of countries and U.S. States.  I would actually argue that homosexuality itself is not evil at all. 

Now what about “homophobia” ?  The definitions I see range from antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear,  to critical and hostile behaviour such as discrimination and violence against persons who are perceived to be non-heterosexual”  Yes, I see this as inherently evil, and would quote Coretta Scott King (wife of the late Rev. Martin Luther King) who knew all too well about the evils of discrimination and hatred.  “Homophobia is like racism and anti-semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny them their humanity, their dignity and personhood.”  Yes, I see that as inherently evil.

We see daily reports of hate crimes against persons who are said to be gay or homosexual,  but I hear nothing from the Catholic Church denouncing such actions.  I do realize that the Catholic Church is in a difficult position.  It’s hard to speak out against homophobia when the church is constantly denouncing homosexuality. 

However, attitudes are slowly but surely changing as evidenced by the booklet published by the Education Department in Scotland being used to educate schoolchildren about the evils of homophobia and bullying.  I will not hold my breath waiting for similar action from the hierarchy in Catholic schools in the U.S.

“”“Perhaps Red_Beard does not actually read my comments.”“”

I should probably stop at this point, it is rather frustrating as I keep seeing my points misrepresented.

“”“The simple point I
have been making with regard to so-called “abominations” is that every
person I ever speak with who condemns homosexuality immediately refers to
the fact that it is listed as an “abomination” in the bible. Red_Beard
has explained his rejection of the Old Testment or “old covenants” but I
submit that he is an exception to the rule.”“”

Ok, so your point is that some people who agree with me make bad arguments, though you’ve applied those bad arguments to me.  I hereby apologize for anyone who agrees with me who also makes irrational arguments to you.  Is that enough to make you happy?  You’ve been debating with these irrational people for a while now instead of debating with me.

“”““Homophobia is like racism and anti-semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny them their humanity, their dignity and personhood.””“”

We have an ambiguity of terms, though I bet it’s too subtle for everyone to pick up on.  Anyways, firing an actively homosexual teacher as she is unfit to teach in a Catholic environment is not “homophobia” as you are implicitly defining it.  Perhaps an explicit definition would help.

If I was a teacher in a muslim school and I converted to Christianity and started confusing my muslim students, then I would have become an unfit representative of the muslim faith.  The parents are paying to have their children educated in an environment that they consider safe.  I would be incompatible with that environment.  I would no longer be qualified to teach there.  The free exercise of their religion would necessitate my dismissal, and that would be a just act.  It would not be a case of “Christo-phobia.”

“”“but I hear nothing from the Catholic Church denouncing such actions.”“”

Please read the CCC.  It makes it perfectly clear that we are obligated to love people suffering from the disorder of same sex attraction.  Our stated beliefs as an organization inherently denounce what you describe as “hate crimes.”

CCC Paragraph 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.”

So, “hate crimes” that you describe don’t fit my understanding of accepting someone “with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”  The Church teaching is clear, don’t try to paint them a tacitly approving the particular form of bigotry that most gets under your skin.  They’ve condemned it already.

CCC Paragraph 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.”

I think we can agree that there is a considerable percentage of homosexuals in the world, regardless of which population we look at.  The CCC ( defines this “inclination” to be “objectively disordered” despite the fact that homosexuality is no longer considered to be a mental disorder and the consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and health and mental health professions is that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation. 

You have actually quoted the perfect example of “homophobia” in one of its many forms.  The teacher in question did not threaten the safety of the children she had been teaching for 11 years, nor did she threaten their moral values.  As Coretta Scott King stated, “Homophobia is like racism and anti-semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny them their humanity, their dignity and personhood.”

Discrimination and bigotry and hate crimes against persons perceived as homosexuals go on every single day. What is needed is for more and more people to denounce such discrimination against our fellow human beings.  Sadly, in that regard, the Catholic Church is lacking.

“”“despite the fact that homosexuality is no longer considered to be a mental disorder and the consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and health and mental health professions is that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation.”“”

Most experts believing something doesn’t make it true.  When you use the word “most” you are bowing to the oligarchy of the living, only those alive now get a voice, and the current age (whatever age is current at any point in history) is always susceptible to fads.  This fad is especially suspect when some of the original people who responded to the lobbying to change it were shocked to find that some homosexuals didn’t want to be homosexual.  These people went on to develop effective treatments of this disorder.  Please note, it was lobbied into change instead of using the scientific method to lead to a change. 

Either way, the mere use of the word “normal” indicates subjectivity, so you are in the realm of opinion, not that of science or fact.  In science, normal means according to the norm.  That would indicate the majority or close proximity as in, “It is normal to be right handed.”  It is a word that indicates a numerical advantage, and that’s pretty much all it can indicate in an objective and scientific manner. (unless you are getting into math or physics, but that doesn’t apply here) 

Scientifically, you must say that homosexual orientation is abnormal, just like you cannot say that left-handedness is normal, but again, not being normal doesn’t make either right or wrong, it is merely a numerical statement in this context.  Science cannot say something is morally right or something is morally wrong. 

“”“The teacher in question did not threaten the safety of the children she had been teaching for 11 years, nor did she threaten their moral values.”“”

Again, please define the terms you use before you apply them.  Would the muslims in my example be “christo-phobic”?  I would definitely be a threat to the faith that they desired to instill in their children because I would be a person that they are required to respect and submit to (to some legitimate extent) who believes that their most deep seated beliefs are misguided.  That is a danger. 

Children are impressionable.  Those who we place in a position to impression them (teachers being only second to parents in my mind) should make the impression that we as parents desire, pay for, and have the constitutional right to ensure.  A teacher making a public witness to the contrary is a danger to having your children be formed in the manner that you desire.  The formation of our children is our single most important responsibility as parents.  We better take it seriously!

“”“Sadly, in that regard, the Catholic Church is lacking.”“”

Your personal bigotry shows but perhaps we shouldn’t go there, it is much more fun to attack an international organization that is the largest voice in all of time and all of history for the simple idea that you must love your God above all else and love your neighbor as yourself.  <sarcasm>Yep, they’re the haters, they are!</sarcasm>

The Church has condemned mistreatment of any person.  But they also sinned against the highest idol in our land: they are not politically correct.  They speak for what they believe to be true no matter who they have to speak against.  This is something that our pop-psychologist priests, who praise the god of tolerance,  can not and will not tolerate.

I presume that Red_Beard’s “pop-psychologist priests” include the 19 Catholic priests in Quebec who issued a stinging rebuke of the Vatican position on gays and same-sex marriage.

In an open letter published in La Presse, the largest circulation newspaper in the province, they called on other Catholic clergy to join them in opposing the Vatican ban on gays in seminaries and same-sex marriage. Under the headline “Enough is enough,” the priests charged that by pronouncing homosexuality a “disorder,” the church is fuelling homophobia.

The 980-word letter noted that the church has been wrong before on “the mysteries of political, social, family and sexual life.” The letter also criticized the Canadian bishops’ conference which fought legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in Canada.

The bishops had made a presentation before a Parliamentary committee studying the legislation and told MPs that allowing same-sex marriage weakened families and endangered children.

“Was there any trace of the compassion that marked Jesus’s passage on Earth?” the letter asked. “Not a paragraph, not a sentence in your brief that takes into account the historical discrimination against homosexuals and the tragedy of their social and ecclesial exclusion.”

Mmmm.  The times they are changing – albeit slowly!

Of course the Catholic Church,  as with other religious denominations, including my own Anglican church, has been wrong before, and will no doubt be wrong again.  After all, it took, was it 359 years to finally issue a formal apology to Galileo for his ridiculous (at the time) assertion that the earth actually orbited the sun.  Never let scientific facts get in the way of religious doctrine.  And despite incredible efforts to demonize Charles Darwin, it would appear that even the Vatican now recognizes the “theory of evolution’. If only Mr. Darwin could have known then what we now accept as scientific fact.  Or does the Catholic Church recognize the scientific veracity of Bishop Ussher who announced that the world was created on 23 October 4004 BC. Now there is pure science for you!

I actually love Red_beard’s argument that we can label “homosexuality” as abnormal just as we can say that being left-handed is “abnormal”, and maybe having blue eyes is abnormal,  or red hair, or maybe even, at a stretch, being non Chinese or non-Asian is abnormal because they comprise a good majority of our world’s population!!

Red_Beard can accuse me of personal bigotry as much as he likes.  But we both know that “the largest voice of all time and all of history” has, on more than a few occasions,  made horrendous mistakes and got things completely and absolutely wrong. I believe that the condemnation of homosexuality is just such a mistake.  Call it bigotry if you like, but as a heterosexual, happily married man,  I condemn ALL those persons or groups, religious organizations or whatever,  who refuse to accept that homosexuals should be treated with respect and dignity, and given equal human rights, and that includes not having religious folks condemning them as a danger to our children. 

Our children face many dangers in life,  and I do not have to state that one of the greatest of those dangers has been perpetrated within the Catholic Church, and is only now beginning to be dealt with as it should have been dealt with decades ago.

“”“I presume that Red_Beard’s “pop-psychologist priests” include the 19 Catholic priests in Quebec who issued a stinging rebuke of the Vatican position on gays and same-sex marriage.”“”

It does.  They worship at a different alter.  It doesn’t really sting that much except it’s sad when it comes from people with that much education.

I’ll just stick with papa:

“It is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate. It is the truth revealed through Scripture and Tradition and articulated by the Church’s Magisterium that sets us free.”

-Pope Benedict XVI’s “ad limina apostolorum,” January, 2010 http://catholic-ew.org.uk/content/download/6316/43869/file/Ad_Limina_address_Pope_Benedict_to_Bishops_EW.pdf

“”“After all, it took, was it 359 years to finally issue a formal apology to Galileo for his ridiculous (at the time) assertion that the earth actually orbited the sun.  Never let scientific facts get in the way of religious doctrine.  And despite incredible efforts to demonize Charles Darwin, it would appear that even the Vatican now recognizes the “theory of evolution’. If only Mr. Darwin could have known then what we now accept as scientific fact.  Or does the Catholic Church recognize the scientific veracity of Bishop Ussher who announced that the world was created on 23 October 4004 BC. Now there is pure science for you!”“”

Hmmmm…

“”“Never let scientific facts get in the way of religious doctrine.”“”

And never let historical facts get in the way of a good story and some good mud slinging!

Again, your particular hatred is showing in line with your ignorance of history and the Catholic Church’s positions on the issues you site.

Galileo: http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

Darwin:  http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0309fea3.asp

Ussher - or at least one Catholic’s response: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0307fea2.asp

“”“and that includes not having religious folks condemning them as a danger to our children.”“”

<sarcasm>You know what?  You’ve convinced me that just because I believe something has the potential to cut my children off from God doesn’t mean that I should consider it a danger.  Why stop at spiritual dangers?  I’m going to start encouraging them to talk to strangers.  Equal rights for the creeps hanging around the playground!</sarcasm>

You won’t listen to any evidence that homosexuality is harmful, which is rather convenient when the rejection of that idea is the foundation of all of your arguments.  Any evidence just gets repeatedly rejected without being evaluated.  I think that most of your points are rational if you could only prove that foundational point.  Without that first step, you have no argument.  (If “A” then “B”; You gatta prove “A” before you can assert “B”)  I know, I know, I’m just a hater because I disagree with “B” when the preponderance of the evidence that I’ve seen indicates that “A” is false.

Mmmm. Let me see.  NOW I have a “hatred” (presumably of Catholics) and an “ignorance” of history.  My apologies. I truly thought that Galileo was condemned (but not tortured)  by the Catholic Church because his “scientific” findings were found at that time to be at variance with the Church’s teaching. 

Perhaps the following quote from Pope John Paul II is false and is some kind of self induced hatred against the Catholic Church: “Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture….”
—Pope John Paul II, L’Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - November 4, 1992

On the issue of Charles Darwin,  I think it would be fair to say that most, if not all religious denominations roundly condemned Mr. Darwin for being heretical and wrong.  In fact much of the hatred was focused on Mr. Darwin himself and his alleged false scientific theories. 

My thanks to Red_Beard for the article on the Grand Canyon.  It eloquently makes nonsense of the Young Earth Theory and also makes a nonsense of both the attacks on Darwin and on the “inaccuracy” of Bishop Ussher’s supposed scientific calculations.

And what do these issues have in common?  1. In the case of Galileo, The best scientific mind of the time was rejected because his findings did not fit in with the “literal sense of the Sacred Scripture” as quoted by Pope John Paul 11.  2. In the case of Charles Darwin, I suspect that the Church objected to his “theory” for exactly the same reason, that is,  “our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by a literal sense of the Sacred Scripture””  And 3.  Bishop Ussher’s calculations were a perfect example of making science conform with the “literal sense of the Sacred Scripture”.  What I find amazing is that Bishop Ussher’s pronouncements on the age of the earth were still being published in the margin of bibles until perhaps 20 years ago.  I happened to find them in a copy of the Holy Bible left in my New York hotel room.  No wonder it is almost impossible to change our thinking when such totally wrong “facts” have been ingrained in us from birth.

The common thread through all of these issues is that science clashed with our literal sense of the Sacred Sripture.

It is my view, and by all means accuse me of “hatred” and “bigotry” and any lovingly applied epithets (yes, sarcasim!) , we are in the same situation with the issue of homosexuality.  Most modern scientific opinion is of the view that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation, not a mental disorder,  but, with apologies to Pope John Paul “theologians are still bound by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture.”

One other quick response to a statement from Red-Beard.  “This fad (presumably regarding homosexuality)  is especially suspect when some of the original people who responded to the lobbying to change it were shocked to find that some homosexuals didn’t want to be homosexual.”  Again, he has GOT to be kidding! Why would ANYONE want to be subjected to the taunts, hatred, vitriolic and violent attacks on your person being perpetuated on those who are considered to be gay.  It’s rather like asking black people if they preferred to be white during the days of slavery or rampant segregation!

“”“I truly thought that Galileo was condemned (but not tortured)  by the Catholic Church because his “scientific” findings were found at that time to be at variance with the Church’s teaching.”“”

The quote you have appears over and over but I have not been able to find the whole context to even know if it has completed the sentence.

Though the pope was being overly gracious in his apology. “practically invented the experimental method” ?!??! Come on papa, Galileo was primarily rejected by all of the scientists of the day because he had about 12 points of data that he could explain with his theory and literally millions of points of data that he could not explain until stellar parallax could be measured in 1838.  Let’s see, do you want a theory with 12 things you can’t explain or millions of things you can’t explain? 

He was not the first to propose a helio-centric model, he just had a spectacular talent for insulting and alienating his supports and making enemies.  Scientifically, he didn’t have the experimental support that his theory needed.  Even if he did, his condemnation centered around his concerted efforts to interpret scripture in a manner that had already been condemned.  It wasn’t science that got him into trouble, it was lousy Bible study.  I’m not saying that you should get oppressed for being a lousy Bible scholar, but it is a freedom of religion issue, not a freedom of science issue.  The Catholic Church is one of the largest proponents of freedom of religion in the world today, which is why islamic extremists want to kill the pope.  Oh well, you have to read deeper than Wikipedia to get to the truth so it will just have to remain buried I guess.

“”“This fad (presumably regarding homosexuality)”“”

Wow, there is a staggering breakdown in communications that is occurring over and over.  Apparently, I am incapable of expressing an idea and having you actually understand what I am saying.

The fad is current pop-psychologists so beguiled by homosexuality.  Like the “scientific” fad that black people where lower on the evolutionary ladder than whites (hey, science shows that they are almost, but not quite people!), and that Aborigines weren’t that far advanced, they where actually considered a form of ape.  Or like the “scientific” fad of forced sterilization of “undesirable” people in the beginning of the past century or the fad of drinking radioactive water for your health after WWII.  (There are some terrifying Popular Science adds!  :::shudders:::)  My point is that just because experts agree, doesn’t make something healthy or true.

This is especially true when the healthy we are talking about is moral health which these same experts have proven again and again that they are incompetent at evaluating. (divorce, abortion, infidelity, and all forms of selfishness are often encouraged by our current crop of pop-psychologists.)

Of course same sex attraction is not new.

“”“Why would ANYONE want to be subjected to the taunts, hatred, vitriolic and violent attacks on your person being perpetuated on those who are considered to be gay.”“”

You assume all the difficulty of being homosexual only comes from the mean heterosexuals (ie. no gay-on-gay violence, abuse, taunts, or hatred).  This is not the case based on a google search, though you’ve already rejected any data that disagrees with your position.  Also, it has not been the case in the particular lives of any of the gay friends I’ve had over the years.  The lifestyle brings pain and suffering, and it breaks my heart to see that needless suffering in people that I love.

Oh well, this is enough times around the merry-go-round for me.  I’m sure you and I are the only ones reading this and it sounds like we’ve stopped listening to each other a while ago.  So unless you actually want more information or blatantly misrepresent my statements, you can go ahead and have the last say if you like.

I’m supposed to love everyone, and I’ve found it difficult to love you so I’m sorry for any places where I’ve fallen short of Christ in speaking with you.  I’ll try harder next time. :o)

Now I have to admit that Red_Beard’s attempted assassination of Galileo’s character in order to justify the fact that both the Catholic Church and other scientists of his day rejected his observations is to me, beyond the pale. Rather than entirely accept the word of the Church itself on an issue that has, without doubt, been a cause of great “discomfort” to the Church for centuries I would prefer to seek independent views.

One such as contained in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (last updated in 2009)  which has an excellent article on the subject. Perhaps I can quote from just one section in a separate post. I would also recommend an excellent book by Mike Price which comes highly recommended by the Smithsonian Magazine. Mr. Price offers an interesting new theory as to why Galileo was put on trial   It is, of course, possible that both Stanford and the Smithsonian may somehow be construed as being anti-Catholic.

A common thread when discussing issues such as the Church’s initial stance on Galileo’s observations and Darwin’s theory of evolution, is that they were roundly condemned during their own lifetimes as being either heretical or anti-christian,  or downright dangerous,  or evil, or as Red_Beard puts it, Galileo was actually guilty of being a “lousy Bible scholar”! Now there is a sin if ever there was one!  Yes, it can be argued that Galileo made mistakes and, for example, did not grasp that tides were affected by the gravitational pull of the moon,  or that Darwin’s theory was not absolutely perfect in every respect, even though modern science takes us far beyond even Darwin’s brilliant observations and continues to prove and expand on his basic theory beyond any question of doubt.

I certainly agree with Red_beard that “scientific fads” can come up with the most illogical and twisted beliefs, many of which were in fact supported by the Church (for example the notion that it was moral and ethical to own slaves just as long as you treated them well). 

Where our view clearly differs is that I believe we are finally beginning to realize that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, or some dreaded disease, or an immoral plague. Laws are finally being changed.  Gays are now finally achieving what they should have had many years ago - equal rights under the law.  They should not be subjected to ridicule and hate crimes, both of which are downright unchristian.  I do believe that Red-Beard concurs in that opinion.

Finally, Red_beard could not be more wrong about my personal beliefs when he states that I “assume all the difficulty of being homosexual only comes from the mean heterosexuals (ie no gay-on-gay violence, abuse, taunts, or hatred.”  I assume no such thing. Homosexuals are an integral part of our human society with all the same frailties and weaknesses as everyone else. Yes, I know from personal experience as a long serving former police officer that they commit crime, have domestic disputes,  can be hateful and vindictive, and can have low moral standards.  I also know that having dealt with a wide variety of crimes ranging from murders,  to domestic violence often arising from adulterous relationships,  rape, incest,  pedophilia,  robbery,  drug dealing and drug abuse,  and a host of other crimes,  that to suggest that gays are in any way worse than heterosexuals is a load of codswallop.  It is a much perpetuated myth by those who wish to condemn them on moral grounds, and that is where myself and Red_Beard part company.  What adds to the woes of our gay population is the they are taunted, abused, hated, and reviled, often by people who profess to be Christians.

Contrary to Red_Beard’s assertions I am not anti-Catholic.  I just believe that all people should be treated equally (unless they are breaking the laws of the land) and should be shown equal respect and dignity.  So far, I am not at all persuaded that the Catholic Church is doing what is necessary to ensure that its flock is doing just that – far from it.

I will conclude with a quote from Bishop Spong (not a Catholic bishop I should add) and I would very strongly that anyone interested in a different point of view on the Christian approach to homosexuality and homophobia read the writings of Bishop Spong. Here is just a short extract from one of his essays:-

“Slavery could not be compromised in the 19th century because slavery was finally understood as a moral issue. Homosexuality cannot be compromised in the 21st century because it too is a moral issue. To the threats of parts of the Christian Church to leave if homosexual people are welcomed fully without any distinction, the body of Christ must be prepared to say, “That is your choice but we do not compromise truth to comfort you in your prejudice. The Church’s doors will be open when your consciousness is finally formed and you decide to return, but we will not reject homosexuals now to avoid offending you. If the essence of our Christ is summed up in words that John’s Gospel attributes to him, “I have come that they may have life and have it abundantly,” then the choice is clear. Homophobia diminishes life; it does not make it more abundant. It must be ended; it cannot be tolerated even by making it kinder and gentler.”

I rest my case.

A quote from an interesting article on Galileo taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy first published in 2005. It makes for fascinating reading:-

“No account of Galileo’s importance to philosophy can be complete if it does not discuss Galileo’s condemnation and the Galileo affair (Finocchiaro 1989). The end of the episode is simply stated. In late 1632, after publishing Dialogues on the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was ordered to go to Rome to be examined by the Holy Office of the Inquisition. In January 1633, a very ill Galileo made an arduous journey to Rome. Finally, in April 1633 Galileo was called before the Holy Office. This was tantamount to a charge of heresy, and he was urged to repent (Shea and Artigas, 183f). Specifically, he had been charged with teaching and defending the Copernican doctrine that holds that the Sun is at the center of the universe and that the earth moves. This doctrine had been deemed heretical in 1616, and Copernicus’ book had been placed on the index of prohibited books, pending correction.

Galileo was called four times for a hearing; the last was on June 21, 1633. The next day, 22 June, Galileo was taken to the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, and ordered to kneel while his sentence was read. It was declared that he was “vehemently suspect of heresy”. Galileo was made to recite and sign a formal abjuration:
I have been judged vehemently suspect of heresy, that is, of having held and believed that the sun in the centre of the universe and immoveable, and that the earth is not at the center of same, and that it does move. Wishing however, to remove from the minds of your Eminences and all faithful Christians this vehement suspicion reasonably conceived against me, I abjure with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, I curse and detest the said errors and heresies, and generally all and every error, heresy, and sect contrary to the Holy Catholic Church. (Quoted in Shea and Artigas 194)”

Mmmm.  As Red_Beard so eloquently put it,  this guy was clearly guilty of being a “lousy bible scholar”!!!

How many more homosexuals does god have to make before you people understand he makes no mistakes?

My daughter just graduated from a Catholic high school in Philadelphia last month. At the end of her Junior year one her former teachers was terminated from his position as the school discovered that he was living with his girlfriend and she became pregnant. Catholic teaching is Catholic teaching. It applies to everyone, gay or straight. No one, to my knowledge, was outraged by this teacher’s termination. Some were sad,  but all understood that you have to “walk-the-walk” as well as “talk-the-talk,” especially when you teach in a religious school. Besides, kids aren’t dumb. They know when someone is saying one thing and doing another.

If someone goes to work in a Catholic school and is terminated when the school finds out that their lifestyle is in direct conflict with what their “employer” espouses then no one should be surprised, especially the employee. And I think at this point in time you would have to be from Mars not to know where the Catholic Church stands on the “Marriage issue.”

In no way are the “laws of the land” always correct. Making something legal does not necessarily make it moral. Rosa Parks broke the law when she took a seat on a crowded bus.  Civil rights activists broke the law when they sat at a “Whites Only” lunch counter. Nazis obeyed the law when they herded Jews into concentration camps. Roe v. Wade made abortion legal, even late-term abortion and so-called “partial birth abortion” (how’s that for semantic hocus-pocus), but nothing can pretend to make that moral. Many people seem to think Christianity means taking a position that nothing is wrong except saying that something is wrong. Even Christ drove the money lenders out of the temple.

Our Catholic schools have been a mess for decades.  Just look at Catholic educated kids (adults) who don’t understand or practice the Catholic faith.  Lots of credit goes to the administrators, and teachers who taught them.  Thank God that changes are being made and the schools are firing individuals who have no intention of practicing their faith or teaching Catholic students the Catholic faith.  Parents send their kids to Catholic schools first to be Catholic and then for education. Apparently the only reason these people have remained with Cathoic schools is for economic reasons…what a sin against our Catholic students and church.