Elsewhere I have mentioned that Lewis (I think in his intro to The Screwtape Letters, but I may be wrong and it may be in Surprised by Joy) remarks that he refrained from offering moral counsel on homosexuality and gambling, since he never experienced temptation in these areas and resented officers who had never fought in combat telling troops on the front line how to run their lives.
It turns out that, when Sheldon Vanauken asked him about how to respond to homosexuals of his acquaintance in a private letter, Lewis wrote him back. He still is obviously leery of telling homosexuals themselves how to live, but he feels an obligation to give Vanauken something to work with.
The resulting letter is interesting for a number of reasons, but in particular what I like about it is his conviction that behind every disordered appetite is some kind of warped virtue and that the ticket is to search for the virtue and help foster it. He anticipates the entire gay marriage debate and dispatches much of the simplistic rhetoric swiftly while making some interesting points. I also like the judiciousness of his approach. He knows he is flying blind due to his own lack of temptation in the area and so relies, as best he can, on the experience of gays he knows. It's also interesting that, without trying, he makes it clear that his own personal reaction to homosexuals was such that he tended to engender trust from his gay acquaintances rather than the alienating sense that he was outraged or repelled by them (remarkable for his time and class since forced sodomy by upperclassmen on lowerclassmen was a commonplace in the schools he attended as a boy, as he discusses in Surprised by Joy). This fits with the general sense that Lewis was just a big-hearted guy who liked the company of human beings of all shapes and sizes.
Anyway, heres the letter (oh, and gay readers: don't get bent out of shape by his use of "homo." Lewis, as you will note, tends to abbreviate lots of words in his personal correspondence (v.=very; wd.=would, etc.)):
Letter from C. S. Lewis regarding homosexuality, quoted in Sheldon Vanauken's A Severe Mercy, pp. 146-148, in response to a question about a couple of Christian students of Vanauken who were homosexual and had come to him for advice:
I have seen less than you but more than I wanted of this terrible problem. I will discuss your letter with those whom I think wise in Christ. This is only an interim report. First, to map out the boundaries within which all discussion must go on, I take it for certain that the physical satisfaction of homosexual desires is sin. This leaves the homo. no worse off than any normal person who is, for whatever reason, prevented from marrying. Second, our speculations on the cause of the abnormality are not what matters and we must be content with ignorance. The disciples were not told why (in terms of efficient cause) the man was born blind (Jn. IX 1-3): only the final cause, that the works of God shd. be made manifest in him. This suggests that in homosexuality, as in every other tribulation, those works can be made manifest: i.e. that every disability conceals a vocation, if only we can find it, wh. will 'turn the necessity to glorious gain.' Of course, the first step must be to accept any privations wh., if so disabled, we can't lawfully get. The homo. has to accept sexual abstinence just as the poor man has to forego otherwise lawful pleasures because he wd. be unjust to his wife and children if he took them. That is merely a negative condition. What shd. the positive life of the homo. be? I wish I had a letter wh. a pious male homo., now dead, once wrote to me--but of course it was the sort of letter one takes care to destroy. He believed that his necessity could be turned to spiritual gain: that there were certain kinds of sympathy and understanding, a certain social role which mere men and mere women cd. not give. But it is all horribly vague and long ago. Perhaps any homo. who humbly accepts his cross and puts himself under Divine guidance will, however, be shown the way. I am sure that any attempt to evade it (e.g. by mock or quasi-marriage with a member of one's own sex even if this does not lead to any carnal act) is the wrong way. Jealousy (this another homo. admitted to me) is far more rampant and deadly among them than among us. And I don't think little concessions like wearing the clothes of the other sex in private is the right line, either. It is the duties, burdens, the characteristic virtues of the other sex, I suspect, which the patient must try to cultivate. I have mentioned humility because male homos. (I don't know about women) are rather apt, the moment they find you don't treat them with horror and contempt, to rush to the opposite pole and start implying that they are somehow superior to the normal type. I wish I could be more definite. All I have really said is that, like all other tribulations, it must be offered to God and His guidance how to use it must be sought.




View Comments
Comments
Join the Discussion
Pam, AIDs started when I man explored Africa and ate monkey meat. SO if your thinking it started by gay people, think again.
I sure hope if you were a doctor you would help someone who had AIDs and not back away thinking he or she was gay or not.
Pam,
As far as Pope Francis goes, let’s just say I’m more of a Benedict VI guy. But prayer and fasting are always good.
As for our looking callous, it doesn’t matter how we look to Bibi. He isn’t going to be changing anytime soon. He is about as close to a lost soul as you’ll find.
Pam, Vaginal heterosexual intercourse is another way HIV is spread, so don’t think that your heterosexuality will protect you from the virus should, God forbid, it gets inside your body. The virus itself seems to have originated in monkeys, and was spread to humans either through monkey bites or eating monkey flesh and was originally spread throughout human being by HETEROSEXUAL activity.
Bibiboby. Aids came to the united states by an airline steward who was homosexual and evidently quite promiscuous. Anal sex is one of the ways it is spread so please don’t say silly things like that. Everyone knows anal sex increases health risks and one of those risks is contracting aids.
Same with gay couples. They can’t get AID unless they get in contact with blood. Straight couples can get it just as easy as gays can.
I’m not going to get in to detail to explain who they get AIDS>
\\Bibiboby heterosexual couples never get aIDS unless one is a drug user who used a dirty needle or a person who contracted the disease through a blood transfusion. \\
Homosexual couples who are monogamous never get AIDS either if they are not HIV positive to start with.
Bibiboby, If they are working so hard to trample freedom of religion and conscience rights and theedia is so totally biased, we will not have freedom of the press much longer either. Sin begets more sin. This is why people say what we are seeing reminds them of Nazi Germany.
Tony I understand where you are coming from but you risk making us look callous. I have thought about Jesus telling His disciples to buy a sword and have wondered if we are there but Pope Francis has asked for a day of fasting and prayer today. I pray he is not part of the problem but is part of the solution. Hope you join me in that effort. It surely can’t displease God.
Pam,
I appreciate your concern, but my understanding of matters is a bit different than you might imagine. First, I told Bibi the truth: he is far too ignorant (meaning lacking in knowledge) to participate in this conversation. If he didn’t even know what “rude awakening” meant, I can only assume that he’s young, had feckless parents and is a product of the government-school system.
Second, I long ago realized that trying to reason with people like him was fruitless. Unless he opens his heart and mind to truth and develops a teachable spirit, he will continue to wallow in ignorance and darkness, and neither you nor I can change that. This brings me to the fact that not only am I not worried about alienating him, I’m firmly convinced that sharpening the division in this country is a necessity. Why? Well, Jesus said that He came not to unite the world but as a sword, to divide brother against brother. And right now we need that sword because compromising and getting along with the left has brought us nothing but cultural defeat. To put it differently, as G.K. Chesterton said, “War is not the best way of settling differences. It is the only way to prevent their being settled for you.” We must no longer tolerate the left settling things for us.
Bibi is a child of God. And I won’t say he doesn’t deserve love, but some people need to be loved from afar. And as long as he aligns himself with the culture destroyers, he is an enemy combatant, the same as a well-meaning German who fought for Hitler during WWII.
Pam, you are probably a good person by heart and in person.
Pam, I’m glad we all have the freedom of press in the US
Bibiboby to answer your question we would have to believe the lie that males and females are born homosexual. They aren’t. They encounter sinful people and sinful temptations and are groomed to it or made to believe this is who they are. I have seen it many many times. Babies are born with no sexual desire whatsoever. That is something that develops. I am glad you do not suffer this trial but you are way to invested on encouraging sinful behavior.
Pam, I’m not gay. Hope that makes you pleased. You don’t have to be gay in order to be for gay rights. Don’t generalize.
Are there any heterosexuals here who can truly claim that their heterosexual orientation and desire is a spiritual achievement on their part?
To put the question another way, is there anyone here who was one day given a choice of being gay or straight, and chose to be straight? How was this choice presented to you?
My cursor would not move so I just left the last four words of the previous post there. They are not part of the post although I pray for an outpouring of the Holy Spirit on us .
OK Bibiboby you must be gay. There is nothing absolutely normal about the abuses of the body that take place in homosexual relationships that we have talked about earlier. I have seen the grooming. It is very real and you are speaking from ignorance. It is apart from my knowledge of the Bible. It is real life. The Church teaches the faith handed down by Jesus Christ - the one Church whose roots go all the way back directly to Him and the Apostles. We don’t tell other Churches what to do but we are open to all to help them to the Truth handed down from Christ and the Holy Spirit to us. It is insulting to all people of color to compare their struggle for equality with the immoral behavior forbidden by God. Their is no sin in being born of a certain race. Holy Spirit to us.
Gay marriage will some day be legal in all 50 U.S. states and all across the world. In the next 20 to 40 years, we the people, will look back at when gays were not as equal and it will be as if today, we were looking back when women or African-Americans did not have equal rights.
Pam, people are not groomed into being gay. You say this because the Bible says it’s wrong, thus, there must be a reason why people are gay, or have this so called,“tendency or temptation”. You also think they are groomed into it. Which makes no since, whatsoever.
Other christian churches that allow gay marriage are not wrong. It’s there choice. The Catholic Church does not have any say or input on whether they should allow this absolutely normal marriage. You are applying the Catholic Church’s teachings on other churches. This church should only apply their teachings within the ever so mighty conservative Catholic Church.
Bibiboby I have already explained how kids of devout Catholics become gay. Either they are being groomed by people within or without the Church who are pushing the homosexual agenda or ignorantly sterotyping or they have parents who are unaware of the kinds of trauma their kids are being exposed to or they have been lured by wealth or prestige and fallen into the temptation because of their personal flaws. Tony, Bibi is drawing you to sin. Please don’t get sucked into anger. Bibiboby other Churches do a lot of things we know are against Christ’s teaching. We see how it has decimated the protestant churches and DID NOT bring more people to Christ. We are faithful to God’s teaching and on this subject it is clearcut and we disregard it at great peril to our souls. If by some maneuvering the Church ever allowed it, Christ would return and many of those lead to sin would be lost. I will never accept it because I have seen how destructive the sin is. I will try to love peopleto help them out of this sin.
Now I’m ill and miseducated?? So, that fact that I’m liberal means I’m not miseducated.
I didn’t say you were rude, Einstein, but that you were in for a rude awakening. Do you not even know what “rude awakening” means?
You truly are ill-(and mis)educated. You’re really not qualified to participate in the kind of discussion occurring here.
I’m not rude. If the other christian churches did it, we can do it. And it does exist.
Bibi,
If you think that “gay marriage” (which doesn’t actually exist) will one day be held by the Catholic Church, you’re not only a bad Catholic, but a delusional and ignorant one as well. You’re in for a rude awakening, pal.
People can be gay in a very conservative religious catholic family. They raise them to see, what you say is the “truth” and they are gay. Explain how that happens, Pam.
I’m sure you watch the news. And get involved with politics. We all do.
Dear Pam, even in I Cor. 6.9 and I Tim 1.9 St Paul uses the technical term (probably his own neologism) ‘arsenokoitai’ (men who lie [for sexual intercourse] with another man), based directly on the two words behind this in the Greek Septuaginta version of Leviticus 18.22. And of course this was a basic fact in Leviticus, I am not denying that, and I have even drawn attention here to the fact that this precept was not just given for the Israelites, and later for the Church, but for all mankind from the very beginning, as being a Pre-Mosaic, natural law (see above, Aug 15, 2013, 11:49 PM). What is contra naturam now, and in the time of St Paul (Rom.1.26f), and in Plato’s time and in other ancient philosophers and moralists, has always remained so.
That’s your response to my comment? Another reason why you are not a good Catholic. Trying to make it about politics instead of Gods truth and souls. Shame on you.
Pam, do you like the Tea Party?
Jon Value Jenssen, no need to limit. God the Father spoke in Leviticus and He is clear that it is not a good. The New Testament confirms it in Romans and Peter and Jude.
Bibiboby it is statements like that that are the real reason you are a bad Catholic. You think with your passions like God has nothing better for you than to fill your carnal desires. You totally miss His message and what life is really about.
I know that the truth is that God loves every one. One day GAY MARRIAGE WILL BE HELD IN THE MIGHTY AND ALL WONDERFUL CATHOLIC CHURCH. Just like the other churches.
Bibiboby, So you don’t realize you have not been a good Catholic for not following its teaching and knowing it better? That’s. Disappointing.
Bibiboby aired the opposition of many to the Old Testament. But the OT was actually Jesus’s Bible, divinely given. Some of it has served its set purpose, for the people of Israel only, as the temporary sacrifices in the Temple in Jerusalem, superseded by Jesus’ one and perfect, everlasting sacrifice. The sacrificial ritual of the OT was thus superseded, and is far from obligatory for us. So are the strict OT rules about food, as Jesus has declared all food clean (Mk 7:19). Likewise, he has abandoned the death penalty for adultery (John 8), and the same applies obviously – as shown by most Church practice – for the sin of sodomy; and St Paul even shows this already in I Cor. 6.11, as he is talking about the open possibility of those committing grave mortal sins to obtain forgiveness: cleansing, justification, and sanctification.
So, stop using only Leviticus, and yet you have to admit that I Cor. 6.9f, I Tim. 1.9ff, Ep. of Jude, 7, and Rom. 1.26f all condemn sodomy as a grave sin capable of excluding us from the Kingdom of God, if there is no remorse and repentance in the doer, and hence no forgiveness for him.
So this is New Testament teaching, and let’s stick to that fact.
And when I said, “I have not been a good Catholic”, I meant that because I said disrespectful things to Pam and I talked back to others who had followed my comments. For that, I am sorry.
I pray for every one in the world. Regardless of whom you are.
Bibiboby, Close but not quite. There is a phrase for it , something like ” the scandal of favorites”. God does give more grace to some than others and does love some more than others but He truly loves everyone. Some people find that shocking or “scandalous” but it is His right. Jesus seems to love St. John best of all the Apostles. And God was pleased with Abraham and Noah and David and Moses for example. But we all have more than enough love for our salvation.
I see the truth, the real truth of God. We are all his beautiful creations. And we, humankind, are all equal in his eyes.
I will pray for any one in need.
God speed
Bibiboby that must have been hard. Thank you and praise God. He is the hound of heaven chasing after us to save us. God bless. I will join Chris in praying for you and hope you pray for us
Bibiboby,
we are keeping you in our prayers. God bless.
I just told you I was wrong and I now see the truth.
Bibiboby heterosexual couples never get aIDS unless one is a drug user who used a dirty needle or a person who contracted the disease through a blood transfusion. You have said some very incorrect things about the Catholic faith and the faith surpasses any ppolitical party. You have formed strong opinions without any attempt to uunderstand the truth. That is disappointing.
I’m sorry, Pam.
I am a terrible example of the Catholic faith. I was very wrong and unjust to the real truth. Please forgive me for my evil and profane opinions on the Catholic Church. Please respond if you agree.
You’re right. I have not opened my self to the real truth of God. I have sinned my myself. I have no idea what I was thinking with all of these evil liberal thoughts of mine. I will part from the democratic party and join the Tea Party. And I will be a true Catholic.
Pam AIDS can be caused from straight couple too. ITs not just from gay people. Is that what you think?
Bibiboby it is NOT correct that Catholics would not believe homosexuality is a sin if the Bible didn’t say so. We would believe it is a sin anyway because we see the fruit. We see the harm to innocence and purity and friendship and faith and children and marriage and male/female relationships and the rebellion against order and authority. Pray to give your will entirely to God and let Him lead you to the truth. “By their fruit you shall know them.”. The fruit is war throughout the mideast, protests around the world in defense of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, children being stereotyped into a sexual preference, aids, HIV, strained relations between men and women and on and on and on.
And I will not respect your evil thoughts.
Bibi,
The Church compiled the New Testament. Education is your friend.
And, no, I don’t respect evil opinions—such as yours.
Mr. Clifton, you’ve come across your point. The Catholic Church would not have said gay is a sin if the Bible did not say it. Is that correct?
And if in real life, should you come across a liberal catholic; I sure hope you do not call him/her a little girl, drug user or a person whose brain is dysfunctional. That’s not respecting ones opinion. No matter if it’s wrong, or right.
Bibi,
The Bible really is secondary to this discussion, as it is Church teaching that matters. (And the Catholic Church gave us the NT, anyway.) And the Church teaches that homosexual feelings are disordered and the behavior is objectively evil. We can also say the same things about bestiality, fornication and many other things. Out of all the perversions, homosexuality does not get a special dispensation from the laws of God.
And what you say makes no sense. “The older I get, the more and more liberal I will be.” If being more liberal is where the truth lies, why aren’t you “more liberal” today?
Insofar as you understand your defiance of Church doctrine and are not completely ignorant, you’re in a state of mortal sin. Facts are facts.
And you can save the “Boo-hoo, you’re so rude and mean!” routine. You’re like a little girl.
Pam, you misread, overgeneralize, read into to much, and are straight out of the book.
The older I get, the more and more liberal I will be.
God hasn’t changed. He told anyone who would lead a child away from Godliness that it would be better that they have a millstone tied around them and they be thrown in a river. He still hates sin. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. It doesn’t replace it. It is how the promises made there are completed. What the New Testament does is tell us Jesus holy obedience, love, and death for His Father restored us to God’s grace. We can now become holy and close to God through prayer, the sacraments and allowing God to do His will in us. He has never loved sin but He is always merciful to sinners. To Him we are babies. Its hard to hate a baby because it keeps saying ” No “. A parent just keeps loving and teaching til the child learns why its good to say “yes”. God has that kind of patience with us but He sees the bad we do and waits for us to repent. He does not think it doesn’t matter. He knows it does.
But we go by the New Testament, now. The old Testament is when God was harsh and not has loving. I know the 10 commandments are in the part, but it is a good part. Some other parts reflect when he was harsh. Why don’t you understand that?
Just answer that. please.
Sorry my WORD was changed from is th e same to is the sender. Don’t know why.
You are grasping at straws Bibi. God is the same. The ten commandments are the same. The teaching on homosexuality is the sender. Give it up.
Bibiboby it is not OK to hide behind ignorance when it comes to your immortal soul. You are saying things that are so off base. God is always the same. Men used to think of themselves as his slaves now we realize how great His love for us is. He didn’t change. We got to know Him better through Jesus Christ. He stills strikes the wicked if He pleases. He still raises the lowly. He still wants us to be a HOLY people . The history of the Jewish people was passed on every time they spoke. They never told a new story without attaching it to their history from the beginning. Read any Old Testament stories and you will see they repeat theirlists of descendants from Adam. They tell of all the stories of Abraham and Moses and the prophets over and over again! You don’t want the truth yet. You want your own way. It won’t get you to God..
Joanp62, That may be true with most of it. But as I said, Leviticus who wrote, well…we all know what he wrote, was a person, I believe, who wrote in a very different time from today. People thought different then. Some things were added in the Bible. Through the course of 2000 years, things were probably added in. You have to consider the context on when the Bible was written. It was written in a time were people were hung, men had many wives, and so on. Even if they carefully translated it, 2000 years is a long time of translation. Things change through that many translations. Even today, translations can be wrong. It happens.
Bibi, there isn’t anything on the Bible that you can tell us that we either don’t already know, or know better than you. The Bible was written over the course of a few thousand years, the last of it around 1,950 years ago. In spite of the numerous translations, most translations have been done very, very carefully and exceptionally great care has been taken to translate the texts as authentically as possible to the original Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic.
First, I don’t…..
Tony Clifton, No. That’s very rude of you to call some one a drug user.
Pam and the others who are following her,
First don’t disagree with “the” Bible.
You have to realize that the Bible was written over 2000 years ago and it was translated numerous times. Things change when they are translated countless times. Not every thing, but some things. You also have to take in the consideration that the Bible was written in a very different era or time than today. Back 2000 years ago, women were just as low and seen as, I hate to use this word, wenches. Men had numerous wives.
Some “stuff” was added in the Bible through the course of 2000 years.
Before the New Testament, God was harsh and mean. That implies on Leviticus’ writings. As Catholics, we more so follow the New Testament. In the New Testament, He is loving.
Bibiboby,
Your responses are truly bizarre: “You think people who give their opinion are dull??”
Answer: not enough information. All people offers opinions, and millions of them are dull and millions aren’t. As for what you said, I didn’t flip anything around but simply analyzed what you said logically.
Now, your reasoning capabilities are so compromised that I have to ask the following questions, and I do so not to be a wiseguy or to demean you, but in all seriousness. Have you ever done a fair number of hard drugs? And are you currently, or have you ever been, on any kind of psychotropic medication?
You mind just isn’t functioning properly, and there has to be a reason.
Tony, you some how flipped around what I said. I’m not dull. I’m giving my opinion. You think people who give their opinion are dull??
Bibiboby,
It isn’t easy being patient with you, since you’re acting remarkably dull. You actually don’t understand how God could love homosexuals but hate homosexual behavior? Seriously? Do you fail to understand how God loves fornicators but hates fornication, loves adulterers but hates adultery, or loves thieves but hates thievery? Think for a moment: What would happen if God didn’t operate in that manner? Since we’re all sinners, He would either have to hate us all or love sin if He wasn’t willing to hate the sin and love the sinner.
As for why the Church has teachings on sexuality, it’s staggering that you would even ask such a thing. Should the Church let people engage in bestiality or S&M and have nothing to say about it? Christianity has a lot to say about sexuality because, as history teaches, people descend into egregious perversion when left to their own devices.
Moreover, and this is the most important point, what did Jesus say about this? He said (I’m paraphrasing), “Do not fear that which just destroys the body; fear that which destroys the soul.” He makes clear there that physical health is of minor importance relative to spiritual health.
Jesus also said that if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. In saying that He was again transmitting the idea that nothing is more important than avoiding sin. (Of course, I realize that you may now say, “It’s a good thing we aren’t governed in America by Jesus,” being the devoted Catholic you are.) Yet you would reduce priests and other religious to social workers. Well, note that Mother Teresa once said emphatically, “I am NOT a social worker.”
I can’t believe these things have to be explained to you. You should realize that—and this is an indictment of those who were charged with the task of teaching you—you have not been well catechized at all. You need to learn the faith so you can understand what it is you’re supposed to be following. As it stands right now, your knowledge (or lack thereof) would give people the idea you aren’t Catholic at all.
God allows man free will. If he uses his will for violence he will answer to God. There are movements for all kinds of sin- legalizing marijuana or nambla for instance. And sin can eventually kill a soul, sadly. It always harms our relationship with God. Children do best with a loving mom and dad. If someone is asexual , it would depend why. If its an exaggerated self love maybe no. If it is a great love that rises to God,yes they would help a child. Good night.
Bibiboby, fear is not a reason to allow sin. Many people are picked on and harassed and beaten by misguided people. It happens to Christians too. But people become gay for a lot of reasons. If you refuse to believe that many have been groomed you have closed your mind to a truth. Some have had bad experiences with a parent or members of the opposite sex and have reacted by rejecting them consciously or subconsciously. Some have been stereotyped because of a character flaw that they were never helped or encouraged to overcome. That flaw led them to too much self love or self pity or whatever that lead them to being vulnerable to emotional manipulation into the sin by a suitor. Some have been so isolated and unloved that they are vulnerable to what they mistake for love from people who would take advantage of their hurt. If we loved all these vulnerable people better they would not fall into the sin, but stereotyping and letting someone else do the hard work of helping people heal or grow up or feel loved. So the choices are made often times from a hurting place. Perhaps God hates the sin because it is part of the culture of death. It rejects the life giving capability that the human body received from Him. The why is because sin always leads to more sin.and
What if an asexual man raised a child? What that be harmful?
And since you guys think God does not allow violence as he doesn’t homosexuality. Why are their gay rights movements? You never murderer rights movements. Because murderers are sinners, homosexuality does not kill humans in anyway. It does not make a soul vanish.
God doesn’t hate homosexuals, he just does not like the sin they do? Is that correct? But why?? Why would God say that? It just doesn’t make any sense to me, whatsoever.
Just because the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, means that homosexuals have chose to be homosexual?
Shouldn’t the Catholic church try to help others, such as feeding the poor, giving homes, etc. Why do we need to be concerned about one’s sexuality?
Why do you think they chose to be gay? They have not been “groomed into homosexuality”. Give me a reason why people chose to be gay???
They don’t need prayers. Only if they are injured, bullied, hurt, robed, picked-on, killed, etc.
Bibinoby they have given into temptation. Sin has a stronger hold on them now. They need your prayers too.
I only pray for people in need or any other reason. Not for their sexuality, Joanp62, Pam, Tony, and Dixibehr.
You are over simplifying. But, yes, pray alot. Sincerely ask God to show you His Truth, especially in this case, with regard to homosexual sex and homosexuality in general. If you really are open to the Truth that is.
If gay is bad, why doesn’t every gay person try to convert. And the answer your thinking about is wrong. Let us all pray.
Bibiboby you know the answer. God gave us free will. Reread the posts. And pray.
Then, why are gay people? Wouldn’t they have been washed away when the great flood happened?
Bibiboby, Just because someone likes something doesn’t mean ts good for them. One gentleman I met said his health wasn’t good and he would probably die fairly young but he had a lot of wild great times. That was more important to him than eternity with God. I pray he repents before he dies. People who are ruled by their passions don’t usually make the best decisions for their immortal soul. Regarding your earlier post, I don’t need to be heavy to see a mother constantly overfeeding her child is making her fat. Same with this I font need to be gay to see the same patterns turn straight kids gay. I have seen it over and over. And again there is NO comparison between being a woman which is not sinful and being sexualky active with a same sex partner. God forbids it. We are promoting virtue not violence. But violence is sometimes provoked by sin. We have a lot of laws protecting homosexuals from any violence.
Dixiebehr, you’re acting like transgender people are out of the blue. It happens. It does not happen to every baby, but it happens. You too see the world as black and white. If God commands against homosexuality, why are there so many gay, lesbian and bisexual people out there? If it was so bad, you would see every gay person trying to convert.
Dixiebehr, My thoughts are from years of exposure to both faith and homosexuality. I am sorry you do not see the forest for the trees. Bibiboby name calling when you don’t get the answer you want is not helpful. People are born a definite sexwith very rare exceptions some people have smaller organs of one sex and larger organs of the other and a decision is made at birth to choose the sex of the baby. Otherwise there is no confusion. Boys are boys and girls are girls. Then they go home and the world interacts with the child for good or badl
PAM, on your post at “Pope Approved Gay Marriage Or Something…” you said being a woman is not wrong. Well, for centuries women had no rights, whatsoever. And men had control over them. Until, the 20th century they started demanding more right and freedom. Which was great.
Would you want people telling you you can’t be straight, the bible commands against it. You’ll go to hell. You try to start a movement and the police beat you up, as well as all of your friends?
Dixibehr, you’re somewhat right. Pam, says she knows all about gays, but she does not. She’s not gay. How would she know? And how would I know what it’s like to be gay. So, that’s why one should not say being gay is wrong, if the person who is commenting is not.
How can a person help if he was born a woman, but his mind is actuality male? When you’re in the mothers belly, the baby has no concept of religion or anything.
Pam, you’re all black and white.
\\We know some people are born with genitalia of both sexes once in a
great while. Other than that transgender issues are caused by psychological
issues.\\
Intersexuality (formerly called hermaphroditism) and transsexuality/transgenderism are NOT the same things as homosexuality and are not related to this issue. Can we keep them out of the conversation, please?
Just as people who are not Roman Catholics have weird and bizare ideas about what Catholicism is, so people who are not gay, or have not actually listened to gay people, have total misunderstandings about homosexuality, howsoever profound their guesses and theories appear.
Misty Irons, a Reformed Christian, was once in this category. Read her blogs and posts at
musingson.com.
Dixibehr because of other factors in their life, not because they were born homosexual. Many people in certain professions are groomed to homosexuality and acting is one of those professions where child actors are especially vulnerable and there is a higher than average number of people who have SSA. Its never discussed as a sin so the danger of the soul is dismissed or ignored. We know some people are born with genitalia of both sexes once in a great while. Other than that transgender issues are caused by psychological issues. If we truly loved each other to wholeness as Christ tried to teach us, there would be much less of all of this but there are financial agxxendas, political agendas, power plays and all kinds of garbage that put mans spiritual growth and eternal soul at the bottom of the list of social priorities.
I meant, to generalize not say.
Maybe, when you comment to a person, you reply with their name in the front of your comment. No one’s immature here. It’s immature of you guys to say generalize and say liberal people are immature.
\\Dexibehr, what’s your point? Don’t insult me.\\
Bibiboby, I was replying to Pam, not to you. I hope people here are not so immature and insecure that they think that disagreeing with them is the same as insulting them.
I just read your comment all the way thru. So, I get your point.
Dexibehr, what’s your point? Don’t insult me.
\\Bibiboby, I have a feeling I have lived a lot longer than you so let me tell
you from my years of experience that I have never met anyone born
homosexual.\\
I have met SEVERAL people of both sexes who NEVER had emotional or erotic feelings for or attraction to the opposite sex. In other words—they were BORN homosexual.
“Fussiness” or other supposedly effeminate traits in males are NOT signs of homosexuality, though a lot of ignorant people think so.
BTW, I’m 63. I’ve lived a long time, too.
As for being liberal vs.conservative and its compatibility with Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular—we are ALL liberal in some ways and conservative in others. if we’re honest.
What about Neil Patrick Harris? Ellen DeGeneres? Oh, transgender people? Do you think they chose to be born in the wrong body? Come up with an answer to that, Pam.
Bibiboby, I have a feeling I have lived a lot longer than you so let me tell you from my years of experience that I have never met anyone born homosexual. Now there have been kids that were different who were assumed to be and groomed to be and teased into it but NONE of them were born that way. They thought they were because of peoples labels and presumptions their whole life. Fussiness is not SSA but people see fussy boys and put the square peg in the round hole. They make the lie the truth. I have seen it more than I can stand. If you continue to be a liberal in the Catholic church you are at the beginning of a long journey to the real truth. Its a long journey for everyone but God’s grace can change all that in a second.
Let me get this straight, if I continue to be a liberal in the Catholic church, I should not be a catholic?
And Mr. Clifton, that was not nice of you to say that to me. Bin Laden was an evil man. I’m nowhere near him. I suggest you not make such back lashing remarks.
Pam, you don’t know that about Portia. You can be born Gay, you know.
And tell me the people who have changed? Please I want to know.
Bibiboby, He already loves them but they don’t love Him back. He is holy. He cannot be with unholiness unless unholiness is willing to be cleansed by Him. If people refuse He will not force them and they will be separated forever from Him even though He loves them because that is what they are choosing when they choose sin over obedience. He is just. Choose to obey. The other people I know who changed their sexual preference you wouldn’t know. Portia Rossi probably wasn’t gay her whole life either though.
Offense, Mr. Clifton.
Bibiboby,
The fact that you said that it’s a good thing the US isn’t governed by the Church is yet another thing that evidences your lack of catholicity.
You’re about as Catholic as Osama bin Laden.
And he will love everyone.
Bibiboby do you know what rationalizing is.? Ann Heche was a married mother and became a lover to another woman. That us not bisexual. That is someone who was enticed into sin. She didn’t always want to be with either sex. And I already explained that God IS love but He is not a fool. He is our Father and He loves us but if we reject Him as our Father, He will allow us to bear the consequences of our actions. There is a big penalty that comes with grave sins and in Noah’s times they upset God so much He actually regretted making man and then he felt bad for wiping out almost everyone. So the rainbow is His promise He will not do that again.
And if God was love before the flood, why did he flood the Earth?
Name one person who has changed their sexuality? Ann Heche seems to be bisexual. She didn’t change.
Ellen is now married to Portia de Rossi.
When the rainbow appeared, it meant God was loving.
Bibiboby, people don’t know their faith as well and the media and those who are more interested in money than souls are pushing an agenda and people are falling for it. Yes I have seen people change their sexual preference and you have probably heard of Ann Heche, an actress who was married and divorced her husband and then dated and lived with Ellen Degeneres. And there are many examples of people like that but even more who were born heterosexual and groomed into homosexuality. God is ALWAYS love-even before the flood but He is also HOLY and JUST. The people were totally opposing God except for Noah and his family. We still need to listen to God. Dr. Koop was the Surgeon General of the United States. He advised the President and all Americans about health issues.
I guess I’m back. I’m tired of you saying I’m not seeing the truth. The truth is that the Bible was written at least 2000 years ago by 40 different authors.
If God hates gays so much, why do you see more and more people coming out? Have you every seen someone change their sexuality? Have you, Pam?
And who’s Dr. Koop? You can’t say how a person should have sex. That’s their business. Love is love.
Remember Noah’s Ark. When the ARK hits land, a rainbow appears. God is now love and not hate.
Joanp62, However old or young even with the truth staring Bibiboby right in the face he/she has closed off the truth. Just shut it out. Sad.
Guess bibiboby really isn’t more than 15 or 16, or he wouldn’t be grossed out by mere scientific/medical facts. A more mature person can handle it.
Good thing the U.S. is not ruled by the church. For the last time, I have flown away.
Bibiboby you asked and you got your answer. It is the biology and it agrees with Church teaching. See you are young aren’t you?Flee away.
Now, I shall flee/
No, it’s sick the way you describe sex. That was not necessary.
Bibiboby so glad you finally see that it is indeed not right. And that it was clear to you why.
That was truly sick. Just plain sick.
After that disgusting comment of yours, Pam, you’ve made me flee from these utterly pathetic comments.
Bibiboby we have bee over this. Biologysays vaginas and utreri are ddesigned for intercourse with a penis and to hold a placenta and a developing fetus. The penis is designed to excrete urine and sperm. Urine to get rid of the liquid waste in the body and sperm to unite with the egg in the woman’s uterus to create a new life. That is what biology says. Now according to the former surgeon general of the USA, Dr. Koop, we also learn that using the penis to penetrate the anus is damaging and against the biology. Now being homosexual means being SEXUALLY attracted to the same sex. That means they want to use the vagina or penis or anus in a way that goes against its biology. Another word for that is abuse. They want to abuse the proper use of their body parts. That is an indication of a problem and we Catholics know it is a sin of concupiscence (of the desires of the flesh being more important than holiness).
Homosexual activity=anal sex=sodomy. Being homosexual, having those desires is not sinful of itself. Do you really not understand or are you trying to be difficult?
Why do you keep saying sodomy? I was never discussing it.
Science has of late made some very strange claims with regard to homosexuality, doing a complete 180 from what it taught not so long ago. They claim to know more, but when you really think about it, what they say now does not convince some of us. Just knowing how we are made and what certain body parts are for, I can never, in good conscience, think that sodomy is normal and good.
Even though I’m liberal, I think abortion is very wrong. And you said homosexuality is a disorder based on biology? Biology never says that.
You too, Pam. God Bless.
Tony and Joan thank you for your insights. They help my understanding deepen.
When I said don’t believe men I was referring to believing the spin of people who lead people away from the truth of the Gospel. You are seeing sadness but not are digging down to the real source - a break in the persons relationship with Christ.
Bibiboby, I can write a true movie of all the beautiful boys and girls who were born hterosexual who were warped into homosexuality for many different reasons and about some who were constantly harassed because they fought the homosexual agenda. People are created by God for heterosexual relations. As creatures our bodies react to sexual stimulation and our psyche can be manipulated to accept that stimulation and even desire it from a member of the same sex but God warned us NOT to allow this. It is sin. And I am sorry you do not Care about the millions of souls that will be harmed.
Bibiboby, we think you are young based on your posts. They are very immature. Also, the fact that you don’t understand my post about no liberal or conservative Catholic, just faithful, tells me that you must be much younger and inexperienced. A faithful Catholic follows the teachings of Scripture and the Church. Therefore, yes, we would believe that abortion is evil (Obama is the most pro-abort President we’ve had) and homosexuality is a disorder based on biology, Scripture and Church teaching.
Makes sense.
Tony, you could have been writing that to yourself.
Bibiboby,
Pam said that you seem young because you think and respond childishly. Case in point: you said, in typical liberal fashion, that I was infringing upon your rights. Really? By expressing a belief? That’s simply called the exercise of my First Amendment rights. I have no power to infringe upon your rights since I can’t force you to do anything contrary to your twisted will.
So the question is, why did you say something as ridiculous as your rights were being infringed? It’s because you operate emotionally, as liberal pseudo-Catholics do, and my commentary evoked feelings in you that you didn’t like. This is because you sense in your heart that I spoke the truth, truth that bursts your bubble. Regardless, however, know that you have NO RIGHT to not be offended or not have your feelings hurt. In fact, I suspect that you need yours hurt a lot more.
Moreover, you also show your immaturity and liberal stripes (but I repeat myself) when you said to Pam “I don’t feel that,” even AFTER she mentioned how you operate based on feelings. You liberal pseudo-Catholics just can’t help yourselves. You behave as walking, talking caricatures no matter what you do.
And what do you mean, “don’t believe men”? Tu me dit, s’il vous plait.
I am sorry, Pam, but I don’t feel that. Being gay is not a temptation. The mother could have held that a whole lot better than she did.
You really should watch that movie.
Bibiboby I think you are young because you don’t seem to think past your feelings. If it makes you happy its good. If it is hard or takes effort it’s not. God doesn’t think that way and most adults understand that achieving holiness takes sacrifice. Hollywood can come up with a lot of movies to pull at our passions but they are all dramatized, made up. The mother is right that the son sinned but how she handled that could have been better. The son was wrong to commit suicide. That choice is always wrong. If the boy had grown up with a deep prayer life God would have helped him avoid the temptation or be strong enough not to give in. Stop tempting yourself to think that homosexual relations are not sin. They are. Believe God not men.
And why does every one think I’m young? There’s very elderly liberals out there.
As anyone heard of the movie, “Prayers for Bobby”? It’s about a boy whom comes out as gay, back in the 50’s, and his very conservative religious mom turns away from him. And starts to not love him. Later he kills himself because everyone says he is committing an evil act. His mom finally realizes that there was nothing wrong with him.
You guys should watch that movie.
Then if you’re not a conservative Catholic, why do you think homosexuality is a grave disorder? Why are there priests whom think the president is bad? Why do I here people discussing conservative ideas before mass has started?
Bibiboby, for the record, most of what constitutes liberalism, at least in the moral and social context, is at serious odds with Catholicism and Scripture. There really is no such thing as a liberal or conservative Catholic as if these were valid options. One is either faithful to the faith or they are not. One either tries hard to follow Christ and the teachings of His Church, or they consciously dissent from it.
Bibiboby you seem very young. If being liberal means defying Church teaching you can’t be both. You are the creature and God is the Creator. He is not a democracy. You may choose to follow His commands or disobey. If you disobey seriously enough you have cut yourself off from His Church. He has told us what He expects and He gives us all the help we need to achieve it. You need to see beyond the self promotion to what liberals are really promoting. Both parties help the port and the mentally handicapped and women but what else is being promoted that takes us farther from God? A lot.
Why would you compare liberals with communist and Nazis. They are completely different. You don’t think women, African Americans, handicap, mentally challenged have rights? You don’t think the poor should be helped? Or people who are less fortunate have to pay less taxes? I did go a bit off topic, communism is completely different from liberal people.
Tony,
It’s nonsense what you said, not that you’re following the church’s teaching, but that you think that you can’t be liberal and be catholic. That’s infringing on my rights.
Tony Clifton, Nonsense
Bibiboby,
I just read another comment of yours, one that clarifies how lost you are. That homosexual behavior is gravely evil is DEFINITIVE Church teaching, which means that we have an obligation to accept it. If you refuse to—with full knowledge and consent of the will (and you know that you must accept it now because you have been informed)—the Church teaches that you are in a state of mortal sin. Because of this, as the Church also teaches, you should not take Communion and are committing further sin if you do.
“Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself….” (1Co 11:23-29)
You have now been told.
Bibiboby,
If you’re liberal, you’re not Catholic, either. Modern liberalism is an evil force, as malevolent as Nazism or communism ever was. If you don’t like this, argue with Fr. George Rutler, who labeled liberalism, along with Nazism and communism, as one of the 20th century’s great mistakes.
If you disagree with definitive teaching in any way, the Church teaches that you’re in a state of mortal sin and should not be receiving Communion.
Come out of the hands of Satan and walk into the light.
Ronald King,
Nonsense. Being Catholic doesn’t mean being such a sap that you cannot possibly win culture wars. DeVol is intellectually dishonest, a cafeteria “Catholic” who should not even be receiving Communion.
I know what he is. I’ve dealt with these people for years.
Now I have to apologize. I’m sorry if I was rude or mean to you, Pam. I will always disagree with you, but that doesn’t give me an accuse to act mean.
God speed.
Where did you go, Pam? You’re probably writing a billion words.
And so you know, “LOL” mean Laughing out loud. You probably don’t know that. I’m sure you protest to all the electronics too.
How old am I? What is the truth, Pam. You do watch Fox News don’t you? How old are you?
Lol!!!! How old are you? Not ready for the truth yet huh?
And you’re just full of it. So, there.
Well, Pam. I said I’m liberal and there is no doubt that you aren’t a republican. And there was a law saying homosexuality was an illness. I’m sure you’re not aware of it because you don’t every bother watching some descent news. You probably watch that crummy fox news which says a bunch of nonsense. Just like you.
Bibiboby there was no law that said homosexuality was a mental illness that i am aware of. Professional associations of Drs. And psychiatrists were heavily lobbied by powerful and probably gay people to drop it from the list of mental illnesses and did but that is still contested today. The reason whyGod said it is because He loves us and it hurts us in many ways. People aare less trusting of each other and men are harmed by anal inter course and friendship becomes more awkward and children are groomed and we think more about ourselves than God And neighbor. God doesn’t lie to us. If you believe some of what He says but not all, you are still calling Him a liar.
Stephen, it is good that you follow Pope Francis so closely. But I am wondering, did you follow and take to heart the messages of Pope Benedict XVI and John Paul II, as well?
I just don’t understand why the Bible says that. Why couldn’t it have not said that. Just think if it didn’t.
Stephen’s statement that if someone else is the problem nothing can be done about it is just flat out wrong. To start with you can speak up! But yes every Catholic should do an examination of conscience and work to remove their own sins and they can certainly admonish a fellow sinner as Christ asked us to do.
Stephen dogmatic teachings of mercy and forgiveness fit every reality. If they don’t see it that is where they need to grow and work. The answer isn’t to throw out the dogma and Pope Francis isn’t remotely suggesting that. He is talking about our faith and love and relationship with Jesus being afire we have grown to love Him so much! When that fire is lit it will draw the moths to the flame but not to extinguish them but to set them on the road to their own love affair with God! You want the lesser of evils, putting homosexuals in marriages thinking that is some kind of solution and they will be faithful. To Who? Not God. To each other? Not necessarily. You want to accept the sin and the sinner but that will stifle the fire Christ wants to set. Christ cannot be one with sin. CANNOT. But He can burn it away in His love. Not everyone is comfortable and Christlike enough to exude Christ when confronted with serious sin or brokenness. It is a gift and Francis is asking His Bishops to pray for it and look for it in their diocese so we do reach everyone you speak of with God’s love. Programs may be where those lay leaders with hearts aflame are found but if they aren’t then Francis is saying we need to get every lay Catholic on fire so they show the broken world His love wherever they find themselves. He wants a Church of Francises and Clares
Than why did the U.S. Government drop the law that Homosexuality is a mental illness?
continued ...
I have that problem with zealous Catholics who will brook no dissent with their brand of Catholicism. I take comfort in knowing that Jesus hung with “sinners” like me, met people where they are at and loved all unconditionally.
People become frustrated when they feel like they are not being heard and become abusive when they are not getting what they want (a control issue). I have two choices: accept them as they are ... or change my location. Simple solution.
However, if I am irritable and discontent ... it is best that I take my own moral inventory ... if I am not the problem ...there is no solution ...
“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.”
My examination of conscience begins with a few simple questions:
One. Admit that I am powerless over people, places and things
Two. Ask God to restore me to sanity (good judgment)
Three. Ask God to relieve me from the bondage of self-centered thinking ... Thy will be done ... not mine ..
Four. Examine conscience
a. Do I have a resentment, self-pity or self seeking motive?
b. What happened?
c. How does that make me feel (usu. some form of fear - afraid I am not going to get what I want; afraid I am going to lose something I have; afraid I am not good enough; fear of the future; afraid I am going to get caught; etc ... fear is a consequence of self-centered thinking)
d. Now the important question: what is my motive for clinging to an attitude that is separating me from right relationship with God and others (pride, greed, anger, envy, lust, sloth, gluttony)
Five. Tell someone the truth about who I really am (what is in that fourth column) ... most often with my confessor
Six. Ask God to grant me the willingness ( a sick will can not cure a sick will) to quit thinking and behaving like that ... grant me the willingness to practice (the operant word is practice) a countervailing virtue ... this step may take some work ... keep praying for the willingness until I am ready to do the next right thing.
Seven. Humbly ask God to remove this defect of character ... do the next right thing without expectation (quit trying to play God). If someone offended me (anger is a sin ... the countervailing virtue to practice is patience) ... I add a prayer: “God, please help me to understand that other people are sick too ... please help me to treat this person like I would a sick friend ... God save me from being angry.”
Eight. Did I hurt anyone with what I said or did?
Nine. Wherever possible, promptly make an amend ... never take another’s moral inventory in the process ... simply state that: “I am sorry I hurt you ... what can I do to make it right?” Whatever they tell me to do I have to do.
Ten. repeat steps 1-9 until all discontent is resolved
Eleven. Continue to improve my conscience contact with God through discursive and contemplative prayer. I say the Prayer of St. Francis many times each day and spend 20 minutes in silence to recognize God’s presence ... every day like taking medicine.
Twelve. Try to be of service to others ... the cure for self-centered thinking.
It’s really miraculous ... usu. by the time I get to step 9 ... I begin to sense God’s presence ... and am at peace ... in the midst of chaos.
Throughout history, whenever God made an appearance He was always preceded by an angel ... and the first words out of the angel’s mouth were always the same: “Be not afraid!”
I hope in sharing something of myself I have helped you.
Blogging lacks a human dimension ... and these acrimonious debates are viewed by most Catholics with disgust. (See CARA 2012 Social Media study). It is my hope that each and every one of you will attend the CITVN College Forum on marriage and pastoral care ... share something of your own experience with the subject matter ... and listen with respect to the experiences of others ... with the immediacy of face-to-face.
I again apologize for where I have fallen short in listening to you and responding with patience and kindness. God is not done with me yet. I love each and every one of you.
May God’s peace be with you always!
Stephen
Bibiboby, No. This one teaching that in the old and the new testament. In the Old Testament God Himself tells Moses to command the Israelites to regard this as a grave sin. He called it “an abomination” or “hateful” depending on which translation you use. Those are God’s feelings. Paul is very clear about it in His letter to the Romans and Peter and Jude’s epistles also speak forcefully against it.
Continued ...
Faced with this Emmaus situation, what does Francis suggest?
We need a church unafraid of going forth into their night. We need a church capable of meeting them on their way. We need a church capable of entering into their conversation. We need a church able to dialogue with those disciples who, having left Jerusalem behind, are wandering aimlessly, alone, with their own disappointment, disillusioned by a Christianity now considered barren, fruitless soil, incapable of generating meaning. …
Are we still a church capable of warming hearts? A church capable of leading people back to Jerusalem? Of bringing them home? Jerusalem is where our roots are: Scripture, catechesis, sacraments, community, friendship with the Lord, Mary and the apostles. … Are we still able to speak of these roots in a way that will revive a sense of wonder at their beauty?
Francis then presented practical challenges for the Brazilian (and other) bishops that follow from this ecclesiology:
• “Unless we train ministers capable of warming people’s hearts, of walking with them in the night, of dialoguing with their hopes and disappointments, of mending their brokenness, what hope can we have for our present and future journey?”
• “There is need, then, for a greater appreciation of local and regional elements. Central bureaucracy is not sufficient; there is also a need for increased collegiality and solidarity.” What is needed is “not unanimity, but true unity in the richness of diversity.”
• The church’s legacy is transmitted through witness, and “one needs to hand it over personally, to touch the one to whom one wants to give, to relay, this inheritance.”
• “We need a church capable of rediscovering the maternal womb of mercy. Without mercy we have little chance nowadays of becoming part of a world of ‘wounded’ persons in need of understanding, forgiveness, love.”
• “Let us not reduce the involvement of women in the church, but instead promote their active role in the ecclesial community. By losing women, the church risks becoming sterile.”
• Do we give the laity “the freedom to continue discerning, in a way befitting their growth as disciples, the mission which the Lord has entrusted to them? Do we support them and accompany them, overcoming the temptation to manipulate them or infantilize them?”
The center is Jesus Christ. Missionary discipleship does not allow for self-absorption or self-centeredness. “Either it points to Jesus Christ or it points to the people to whom he must be proclaimed,” Francis said. Neither the missionary nor the church is the “center,” he proclaimed. “The center is Jesus Christ, who calls us and sends us forth.” When the church “makes herself the ‘center,’ she becomes merely functional, and slowly but surely turns into a kind of NGO.”
With his usual humility, Pope Francis acknowledged that he and the bishops are lagging in what he calls “pastoral conversion” and could do better. He sets a high standard to which he and other bishops should aspire.
continued ...
I am going to offer a final thought. I am saddened by the childish judgemental interplay ... this is not helping anyone.
I am giving this topic much though and prayer. We provide a Catholic Worker peer-supported house of hospitality for homeless men and women in the early stages of recovery from addictions ... men and women who are desperately seeking right relationship with God and fellow man. Many are Catholic ... and many are not.
Many of the “fallen” do not fit neatly into Catholic norms and feel excluded from communion ... they struggle with Catholic dogmatic notions of mercy and forgiveness ... that do not necessarily fit their reality. There is often a disconnect between Catholic teaching and pastoral care.
I think it is true to say that Catholic pastoral care for Catholics who are struggling with responsible family planning, divorced, homosexuals, single parents, felon-reentry, mentally ill and ecumenical dialog with non-Catholics and lapsed Catholics needs much improvement.
I believe the difficulty in discussing Catholicism with those who ask questions or have doubts lies in seeking a way of thinking outside of strict dualities. Many of the hidden truths of Christianity have been misunderstood or lost and how to read them with the eyes of the mystics rather than interpreting them through rational thought.
Pope Francis confessed that “perhaps we have reduced our way of speaking about mystery to rational explanations, but for ordinary people the mystery enters through the heart.” This leads him to understand the missionary role of the church not as winning an argument but as offering something beautiful. “Only the beauty of God can attract. God’s way is through enticement, allure,” he told the bishops. “He reawakens in us a desire to call our neighbors in order to make known his beauty. Mission is born precisely from this divine allure, by this amazement born of encounter.”
“The results of our pastoral work do not depend on a wealth of resources, but on the creativity of love.” Pope Francis argues that the message should be kept simple. “At times we lose people because they don’t understand what we are saying, because we have forgotten the language of simplicity and import an intellectualism foreign to our people.” This church does not obsess over whether Jesus is “one in being” or “consubstantial” with the Father. Rather, it presents Jesus as the compassion of God.
Using the Gospel story of Emmaus, Francis talked to the bishops about people who have left the church because they “now think that the church—their Jerusalem—can no longer offer them anything meaningful and important.” He does not blame the culture, he does not harangue against relativism, consumerism and other “isms”; rather, he calls for self-examination by the bishops.
Perhaps the church appeared too weak, perhaps too distant from their needs, perhaps too poor to respond to their concerns, perhaps too cold, perhaps too caught up with itself, perhaps a prisoner of its own rigid formulas, perhaps the world seems to have made the church a relic of the past, unfit for new questions; perhaps the church could speak to people in their infancy but not to those come of age.
continued ...
I am close to God. How can disagreeing with one part of the Bible be not close to God? Please answer that, Pam.
Pam,
And isn’t the part in the Bible where it say gay is sin, in the old testament? Don’t we follow the New Testament?
Bibiboby, Would you mind explaining how you are close to God? Like what experiences make you feel that?
is Bibiboby same as peperman and monsieur pepper?
Wow, I know I wouldn’t presume to think that I am as close to God as I should be or could be, because then I might get complacent and not continue to seek to grow.
You claim to believe in every part of the Bible but don’t believe it’s all true, did I understand you correctly? Not sure what you mean. I believe the entire Bible is God’s word, but some parts are to be taken as metaphors or are truths written poetically, like 6 days of creation don’t necessarily mean 6 earth days.
You appeared to be annoyed that I would think you were not close to God-“you don’t even know me in person”, yet you then presume to know what Pam and I are thinking. That’s interesting. What I do think is that scripture is very clear about many things including homosexual sex/sodomy among other sexual sins of heterosexuals or homosexuals, and that it doesn’t matter what the world thinks or what the “experts” say because the world has always been contrary to Jesus Christ. We are called to be in the world but not of it. Meaning we should not go along with the tide of popular thought because in most cases, the popular ideologies are not of God.
Joan62. I am close to God. You don’t even know me in person. How would you know. Same to you. I don’t know you either.
This is such a tough topic. I believe in every part of the Bible and evolution, but I don’t think that very part is true. That’s what’s gets to me. Because saying that God didn’t say gay is a sin is like saying the rest of the Bible is not true. And I kind of think that is what Pam and Joan62 think. Right?
Thanks Joanp62, well said!
Bibiboby, if I may jump in. Pam has been very patient and helpful, perhaps I can also assist. First, the word ‘gay’ no longer means happy to most people. And I think you know that. The word has been co-opted by the LGBT groups to mean something altogether different.
Regarding sexuality, our sexuality is either male or female not counting the rare cases of people born with ambiguous or dual sex organs. In those instances, I would be curious as to what their DNA shows their sex/gender to be. Those who believe they are one sex while their body is another-I don’t know what the cause of that would be. Is it hormonal, genetic or environmental? The fact is, for a Catholic who wants to follow Christ totally, then we need to focus on Him and not so much on our sexual desires. In fact, we shouldn’t be focusing too much on ourselves at all, but on God first and others second. That means we should be seeking God and His Will and the good of others before we think of our own needs and wants. If we do that, which is actually seeking first the Kingdom of God, God will take care of us, because He knows what we need and we are worth much more to Him than “sparrows or the grass of the fields”.
Going to Mass every week is commendable, but we are required to do that. I would suggest that you read the Bible daily and seek to develop a serious prayer life, setting aside time each day to pray/talk and listen to God. Also, regularly taking part in the Sacrament of Confession is also good. I hope and pray that you will grow closer to the Lord and in faith, hope and love.
Gay means happiness. Aren’t we all gay?
Bibiboby, God loves us and let’s us be tempted to see if WE love HIM. What is the highest priority, my obedience and love of God or my personal happiness? You do not see gay people indulge in sexual relations so I think you like the person, not the gayness. But because the person is likeable you think the act is too. If you have a friend who yells a lot do you think yelling is good or do you ask your friend to quiet down and talk to you? Just because a person is nice doesn’t mean everything they do is good
First answer my two questions.
I guess God loves people of all the world, no matter the color of your skin, but not the type of your sexuality.
Who do you think should be imprisoned:
A homosexual man/woman or a evil minded criminal?
Just because we don’t think it’s right the Bible say gay are sinners, some how we have no faith.
Pam, please tell me why I’m not faithful enough?
_____=______=______
| |
Reading over some of these posts, and especially Steven’s Aug.10, 11:30 post which my computer stopped on, I saw Stephen’s emphasis on relationship and His view that this is what matters to Christ. It is admirable that Stephen wants to approach everyone with love and respect and find the Christ in them, but in embracing the sin he misses the relationship Jesus sought. Jesus sought a relationship based on faith. He was thrilled whenever He encountered it-in the woman who wiped His feet with her tears and hair; in the woman who touched the tassel around His waist and was healed of bleeding; in the Roman Centurion. He looks for our FAITH. Stephen has no faith in Christ’s ability to heal. He has a much lesser gift to offer. It isn’t Christ. Like the people of Nazareth, Stephen handcuffs Christ and He can not work a miracle where so little faith exists.
It must have took you a while to write that comment. You don’t have to follow the Act, Gospels or Roman in order to be a good Christian. And I’m sorry, but the Act, Gospel and Roman can say homosexuality is wrong. I don’t agree with it. Half of my family supports gays. And some of them are protestant and they are good people. I’m not a sinner.
Bibiboby, Your baptism initiated you in the faith, as did the sacraments of reconciliation and first Eucharist, but receiving these sacraments is a beginning. Hopefully you had ten or more years of CCD with solid Catechesis and that helps. But that is baby food, a beginning. Hopefully you have listened to the Gospels and reading and thought about what Jesus was really saying or God was really asking. Hopefully you talk to God daily and about all that matters to you. Hopefully you know the greats of the faith and some of their biographies and what their experience of the faith was. Hopefully you have nurtured a deep faith and love for the Trinity and the Blessed Mother and had parents who talked to you about the miracles or special moments when they knew God helped them in life. Hopefully you know the corporal and spiritual works of mercy and try to practice them. Hopefully you are faithful to the magisterium and actually try to find out the Church teaching on an issue and the reasons behind the teaching. Hopefully you have a strong conviction of the harm sin causes. And an equally strong conviction of Christ’s ability to heal and forgive repentant sinners. Hopefully you don’t watch to much tv or form your opinions based on the media spin. And hopefully you pray a rosary at least occasionally. When you do these kinds of things, you are forming or have formed a relationship with the Living God. You are aware of inspirations and aware of His sacrifice and aware of our dependence on Him (so much more than on each other.) A real Catholic does everything for love of God, not to be good or kind or whatever else because a real Catholic understands we are not good. No one is good but God and the only real good we do is the good HE does through us. So without that connection to Him we are what Mother Teresa called “social workers”. It is different. A lot of liberals, perhaps not you, think they know what the problems are and what the solutions are. They are solving things thinking like men think, not like God thinks. Men would never have permitted a great Prophet like Jesus to be crucified, but God knew His Son had to die for our salvation. What looks bad may lead to good. What looks good may lead to evil. Life is a mystery. If we are not communicating with God through prayer and asking His protection, guidance and help, we are doing our own thing, not His. He may use it for His purposes knowing our faults and using them to accomplish His real will. Catholics love Jesus truly present in the Eucharist and love His gift of Himself in the Passion and death on the cross. Catholics love the Blessed Mother as our own mother and believe the Pope is God’s representative among men for the Church on earth. That’s some of what a Catholic is.
So what does make me a Catholic? I don’t agree with this, but the Southern Baptists don’t think any of use are Catholic because you need to be baptized again.
Bibiboboy, No. Is that what your conscience is telling you when you read my post? I don’t know you from a hole in the wall. I have no idea how well you do or do not follow Christ. I am warning you that showing up Sunday morning for an hour does not make you a Catholic.
You’re saying I don’t follow the true meaning of Christ, even though I do go to church?
Church attendance is not enough if that is what you are asking but it is helpful. You must accept as the Truth, the infallible doctrines of the Church and one of those does relate to believing the Books of the Bible are divinely inspired and that same sex unions are sinful. Now you may struggle with aspects of the faith but you cannot outright deny their truth and be in good standing. We can excommunicate ourselves without the Church doing anything as perhaps some politicians have done who claim to be Catholic but publicly defy Church teaching.
In the post right before that should have been ” live” posted as “lice”.
I’m going to church every Sunday or Saturday and some how I am not following God right? Is that right, Pam?
What does, “S/b live” suppose to mean?
S/b live
Bibiboby, There is no compromising God’s Truth. And there are no “liberal” or conservative Catholics. We are on a journey and may be at different stages, but anyone who seeks to rewrite dogma is apostate or learning they are the ones who needs to change. It’s that simple and that hard. If everyone walks away as they did when Christ said we have to eat His body and drink His blood, so be it. They all walked away at the time of Sodom and they all walked away at the time of Noah. It won’t be the first time. You come to His altar on His terms, not yours. You are the creature. He is the Creator. Humility! We suffer a short while and lice with Him in peace and joy for eternity!
Nothing is crying out except spiritual narcissism.
Are responding to me, Dixbehr?
\\Whatever C.S. Lewis’ experience, growing up in increasingly libertine England, the sin of Sodom cries out for vengeance and always will.\\
Read Ezekiel 16:49 to find out what the sin of Sodom was.
To Tony Clifton,
So, I see. Just because someone has a liberal belief and is Catholic, he should change to Unitarian. That’s really is not nice of you. And don’t come up with a reason saying, that’s what the Bible said or Gospel, Roman, Acts, Etc. It’s sad to think some say you’re not Catholic enough or were not baptized because he is liberal.
This is why Sen. Olympia Snowe left office. Both parties never negotiated. They just keep on fighting and bashing each other. I’m saying this NOT just because I’m liberal, but that it is pretty much true.
This is a very good prayer of Chris Awo’s (Aug 26, 2013, 7:12 PM):
.
Lord God, may every sexual desire not according to your Holy Will perish in Jesus’ name.
Dear Mr Hill. There is also the truth that the sin crying to Heaven for vengeance destroys Sanctifying Grace in the Soul and that used to be considered serious harm (It is ineluctable that is THE most serious harm for any individual) but I suppose we will have to wait for the next DSM to weigh-in on that
Faith is an intellectual assent to Divine Revelation and Steven Devol hasn’t got it and he dpesn’t want it and the New Testament warns you to be wary of those bringing another Gospel and to avoid heretics after a few attempts at correction.
His repeatedly played word games are wearisome when they are not noxious and the best thing to do is ignore him.
Whatever C.S. Lewis’ experience, growing up in increasingly libertine England, the sin of Sodom cries out for vengeance and always will. (And for you scientific materialists, it can objectively be said to harm its practitioners, who suffer depression, high incidence of STD, hemorrhoids, throat cancer, decreased life expectancies, and an inability to produce progeny.) By any measure, it is a terrible sin. St. Catherine of Siena said that even the demons turn away in disgust. And the worst part is that, at least today, its practitioners have no shame. This means they will not confess and seek forgiveness. Thus they add the sin of final impenitance (one of the unforgivable sins against the Holy Spirit) to their myriad sins of deed or thought.
Mr. DeVol, without the Magisterium, we are no better than protestants, whose capricious interpretations of Holy Scripture and lack of Sacred Tradition have split them into myriad sects. In fact, if you and Sr. Farley are Catholic, then Luther and Calvin could have claimed to be, too.
If your bishop were to do his duty, he would excommunicate you for spreading heresy and encouraging dissention.
Woe to him who leads even one of these little ones astray.
†
Tony your comment is absolutely disrespectful and not Catholic
Folks, you’re wasting your time with this Stephen DeVol character. He is not Catholic. Oh, sure, he was no doubt baptized, and I’m certain he calls himself Catholic. But he is so in name only.
Mr. DeVol, did you ever consider that the Unitarian Church may be more to your liking?
Transvestism (cross dressing) is NOT the same thing as homosexuality. However, I can’t blame CSL for conflating the two since so many other people do as well.
If anyone encourages homosexuality within the Catholic Church (especially involving priests) it would have been better for him if he had never been born.
But if anyone teaches repentance and penance then such are the people who rejoice in the presence of the God of Jacob.
Ron do you realize in Massachusetts they are trying to outlaw helping people who have sexual issues? All part of the push to say there is nothing wrong when there is.
Pam, Thank you. They taught me how to be a better man and it wasn’t easy I am certain. God Bless You. Ron
Ronald thanking you for showing treatment helps victims of sexual abuse.
Stephen, I just visited your home page at CITVN and I am deeply grateful for and humbled by the works of Love which you and your sisters and brothers provide to those who suffer in the pain of isolation and rejection. It is clearly God’s Grace and Love which sustains your vocation. Up until 2010 I had worked as a psychotherapist for 30 years treating victims of physical, verbal and sexual abuse and I know how difficult it is to feel the burden of their suffering. Without God’s Love and Grace I would have been unable to endure for that long. God Bless You and Everyone you touch. Ron
.
Here is a prayer for all of us struggling with sexual sins and problems:
.
Lord God may every sexual desire not according to your Holy Will perish in Jesus name.
We shall end this dialogue Mr DeVol. You are not interested in real dialogue and conversation, but merely shameless self-promotion.
.
From deceptive plagiarism to now blatant lying, anyone who follows the thread carefully will see through your tactics. You never answered my questions, but merely posted the words of others repeatedly, and as Mark has pointed out, you have misrepresented them in your posts.
.
What you are trying to do is to convince readers by simply reposting the same messages over and over, just like your most recent series of repetitions and shameless promotion of CITVN - a place that I do not trust.
.
Farewell, Mr DeVol.
.
PS. for those watching, sit back and watch DeVol re-post previously stolen material and giving the illusion that they are his own words.
Stephen it is an outright lie that you answered tj’s questions. Who is your father?
tj007 I addressed each and every one of your questions ... you did not get the answers that you want. I sense that you want to continue in protracted debate ... not a discussion. There are many others who can articulate responsible dissent much better than me.
It is my hope that Pope Francis will end prohibition to speak freely imposed upon Bishops, religious, Catholic theologians and employees of the Church. ToB normative definitions of marriage (procreative intent and complementarity) minimize relationality and exclude far too many people from communion. The teachings have not been received by a majority of Catholics.
I prefer the social justice model with norms that are culturally relevant and just.
Gender, Sexuality, and Ethics - Sr. Margaret Farley
http://youtu.be/dVk92tP9eGc
I am old enough to remember when the nightly news picked a story and devoted 20 minutes to balanced coverage in B&W. The problem with the Catholic blogosphere is that it is dominated by affinity groups that tend to tell each other what they want to hear. This distorts reality and a sense of community.
CITVN College Forum will host a webconference in the Fall to discuss Church teachings surrounding Catholic marriage laws and pastoral care. We invite you to participate. If interested, please respond privately.
Our objective is to get people of divergent views to meet face-to-face in moderated round-robin discussion with the immediacy of face-to-face to discuss cultural issues focused through the lens of Catholic Social Teaching. We encourage respectful dialog.
The webcast will begin with keynote lecture, followed by a panel discussion among experts, to include a theologian, church historian, and psychiatrist. representing the social justice model of marriage. I have extended invitation to Bishops and experts who may wish to support current magisterial documents. Then breakout room small group discussions.
Many people’s views are hardened on certain issues of faith and morality. So, we poll positions prior to webcast event and intentionally balance attendee registration … to create a crossing-of-the-bridge experience in 20 breakout rooms. Our format for discussion is Theological Reflection. Discussions will be white boarded and summarized in general assembly. The event will be recorded for worldwide distribution.
The cost to attend is $10 dollars. Webcam and broadband is required. Net operating income supports beds for homeless men and women in recovery from addictions.
CITVN is a global Catholic academic videoconference forum. Catholic university keynote lectures are distributed for free each month to 46,516 Catholic thought leaders located in 115 countries.
CITVN is the national representative for 82,000 Global Ethics Network registered professionals who are engaged in ethical issues research in 121 countries. http://www.globethics.net/
CITVN hosts IN THE ROOMS videoconference meetings for 12-Step and Alanon groups. With over 258,000 members located in 136 countries and growing exponentially, it is the largest and most trafficked collection 12 Step Video Meeting Rooms in the world.
ABOUT US
CITVN is produced by Dayton Catholic Worker - an intentional community of homeless men and women in recovery from addictions. Our community was the outcome of a JustFaith formation process. Co-op members work for room and board – living with less so that others may live. Over 80% of our guests achieve sustainable faith - measured as one year of continuous sobriety. It’s LOVE that cures! CITVN is intentionally not 501(c)3 tax exempt ... because we protest war and all forms of violence and we pray.
CITVN is a member of:
Catholic Press Association
SIGNIS - World Association for Catholic Communication
Intermirfica Network
Aleteia Producer Network
AdEthic Catholic Ad Network
Global Ethics Network
KnowledgeVision Producer Network
Catholic Labor Network
Catholic Peacebuilding Network
National Catholic Association for Addictions
CITVN is an exchange of gifts with homeless citizens ... CITVN is our gift to you!
Stephen DeVol
CITVN Executive Producer
Catholic Worker Movement
Posted by Stephen DeVol - CITVN Executive Producer on Monday, Aug 26, 2013 3:38 PM (EDT):
tj007 I addressed each and every one of your questions ... you did not get the answers that you want. I sense that you want to continue in protracted debate ... not a discussion. There are many others who can articulate responsible dissent much better than me.
It is my hope that Pope Francis will end prohibition to speak freely imposed upon Bishops, religious, Catholic theologians and employees of the Church. ToB normative definitions of marriage (procreative intent and complementarity) minimize relationality and exclude far too many people from communion. The teachings have not been received by a majority of Catholics.
I prefer a social justice model with norms that are culturally relevant and just.
Gender, Sexuality, and Ethics - Sr. Margaret Farley
http://youtu.be/dVk92tP9eGc
I am old enough to remember when the nightly news picked a story and devoted 20 minutes to balanced coverage in B&W. The problem with the Catholic blogosphere is that it is dominated by affinity groups that tend to tell each other what they want to hear. This distorts reality and a sense of community.
CITVN College Forum will host a webconference in the Fall to discuss Church teachings surrounding Catholic marriage laws and pastoral care. We invite you to participate. If interested, please respond privately.
Our objective is to get people of divergent views to meet face-to-face in moderated round-robin discussion with the immediacy of face-to-face to discuss cultural issues focused through the lens of Catholic Social Teaching.
The webcast will begin with keynote lecture, followed by a panel discussion among experts, to include a theologian, church historian, and psychiatrist. representing the social justice model of marriage. I have extended invitation to Bishops and experts who may wish to support current magisterial documents. Then breakout room small group discussions.
Many people’s views are hardened on certain issues of faith and morality. So, we poll positions prior to webcast event and intentionally balance attendee registration … to create a crossing-of-the-bridge experience in 20 breakout rooms. Our format for discussion is Theological Reflection. Discussions will be white boarded and summarized in general assembly. The event will be recorded for worldwide distribution.
The cost to attend is $10 dollars. Webcam and broadband is required. Net operating income supports beds for homeless men and women in recovery from addictions.
CITVN is a global Catholic academic videoconference forum. Catholic university keynote lectures are distributed for free each month to 46,516 Catholic thought leaders located in 115 countries.
CITVN is the national representative for 82,000 Global Ethics Network registered professionals who are engaged in ethical issues research in 121 countries. http://www.globethics.net/
CITVN hosts IN THE ROOMS videoconference meetings for 12-Step and Alanon groups. With over 258,000 members located in 136 countries and growing exponentially, it is the largest and most trafficked collection 12 Step Video Meeting Rooms in the world.
ABOUT US
CITVN is produced by Dayton Catholic Worker - an intentional community of homeless men and women in recovery from addictions. Our community was the outcome of a JustFaith formation process. Co-op members work for room and board – living with less so that others may live. Over 80% of our guests achieve sustainable faith - measured as one year of continuous sobriety. It’s LOVE that cures! CITVN is intentionally not 501(c)3 tax exempt ... because we protest war and all forms of violence and we pray.
CITVN is a member of:
Catholic Press Association
SIGNIS - World Association for Catholic Communication
Intermirfica Network
Aleteia Producer Network
AdEthic Catholic Ad Network
Global Ethics Network
KnowledgeVision Producer Network
Catholic Labor Network
Catholic Peacebuilding Network
National Catholic Association for Addictions
CITVN is an exchange of gifts with homeless citizens ... CITVN is our gift to you!
Stephen DeVol
CITVN Executive Producer
Catholic Worker Movement
tj007 I addressed each and every one of your questions ... you did not get the answers that you want. I sense that you want to continue in protracted debate ... not a discussion. There are many others who can articulate responsible dissent much better than me.
It is my hope that Pope Francis will end prohibition to speak freely imposed upon Bishops, religious, Catholic theologians and employees of the Church. ToB normative definitions of marriage (procreative intent and complementarity) minimize relationality and exclude far too many people from communion. The teachings have not been received by a majority of Catholics.
I prefer a social justice model with norms that are culturally relevant and just.
Gender, Sexuality, and Ethics - Sr. Margaret Farley
http://youtu.be/dVk92tP9eGc
I am old enough to remember when the nightly news picked a story and devoted 20 minutes to balanced coverage in B&W. The problem with the Catholic blogosphere is that it is dominated by affinity groups that tend to tell each other what they want to hear. This distorts reality and a sense of community.
CITVN College Forum will host a webconference in the Fall to discuss Church teachings surrounding Catholic marriage laws and pastoral care. We invite you to participate. If interested, please respond privately.
Our objective is to get people of divergent views to meet face-to-face in moderated round-robin discussion with the immediacy of face-to-face to discuss cultural issues focused through the lens of Catholic Social Teaching.
The webcast will begin with keynote lecture, followed by a panel discussion among experts, to include a theologian, church historian, and psychiatrist. representing the social justice model of marriage. I have extended invitation to Bishops and experts who may wish to support current magisterial documents. Then breakout room small group discussions.
Many people’s views are hardened on certain issues of faith and morality. So, we poll positions prior to webcast event and intentionally balance attendee registration … to create a crossing-of-the-bridge experience in 20 breakout rooms. Our format for discussion is Theological Reflection. Discussions will be white boarded and summarized in general assembly. The event will be recorded for worldwide distribution.
The cost to attend is $10 dollars. Webcam and broadband is required. Net operating income supports beds for homeless men and women in recovery from addictions.
CITVN is a global Catholic academic videoconference forum. Catholic university keynote lectures are distributed for free each month to 46,516 Catholic thought leaders located in 115 countries.
CITVN is the national representative for 82,000 Global Ethics Network registered professionals who are engaged in ethical issues research in 121 countries. http://www.globethics.net/
CITVN hosts IN THE ROOMS videoconference meetings for 12-Step and Alanon groups. With over 258,000 members located in 136 countries and growing exponentially, it is the largest and most trafficked collection 12 Step Video Meeting Rooms in the world.
ABOUT US
CITVN is produced by Dayton Catholic Worker - an intentional community of homeless men and women in recovery from addictions. Our community was the outcome of a JustFaith formation process. Co-op members work for room and board – living with less so that others may live. Over 80% of our guests achieve sustainable faith - measured as one year of continuous sobriety. It’s LOVE that cures! CITVN is intentionally not 501(c)3 tax exempt ... because we protest war and all forms of violence and we pray.
CITVN is a member of:
Catholic Press Association
SIGNIS - World Association for Catholic Communication
Intermirfica Network
Aleteia Producer Network
AdEthic Catholic Ad Network
Global Ethics Network
KnowledgeVision Producer Network
Catholic Labor Network
Catholic Peacebuilding Network
National Catholic Association for Addictions
CITVN is an exchange of gifts with homeless citizens ... CITVN is our gift to you!
Stephen DeVol
CITVN Executive Producer
Catholic Worker Movement
tj007 I addressed each and every one of your questions ... you did not get the answers that you want. I sense that you want to continue in protracted debate ... not a discussion. There are many others who can articulate responsible dissent much better than me.
It is my hope that Pope Francis will end prohibition to speak freely imposed upon Bishops, religious, Catholic theologians and employees of the Church. ToB normative definitions of marriage (procreative intent and complementarity) minimize relationality and exclude far too many people from communion. The teachings have not been received by a majority of Catholics.
I prefer the social justice model with norms that are culturally relevant and just.
Gender, Sexuality, and Ethics - Sr. Margaret Farley
http://youtu.be/dVk92tP9eGc
I am old enough to remember when the nightly news picked a story and devoted 20 minutes to balanced coverage in B&W. The problem with the Catholic blogosphere is that it is dominated by affinity groups that tend to tell each other what they want to hear. This distorts reality and a sense of community.
CITVN College Forum will host a webconference in the Fall to discuss Church teachings surrounding Catholic marriage laws and pastoral care. We invite you to participate. If interested, please respond privately.
Our objective is to get people of divergent views to meet face-to-face in moderated round-robin discussion with the immediacy of face-to-face to discuss cultural issues focused through the lens of Catholic Social Teaching.
The webcast will begin with keynote lecture, followed by a panel discussion among experts, to include a theologian, church historian, and psychiatrist. representing the social justice model of marriage. I have extended invitation to Bishops and experts who may wish to support current magisterial documents. Then breakout room small group discussions.
Many people’s views are hardened on certain issues of faith and morality. So, we poll positions prior to webcast event and intentionally balance attendee registration … to create a crossing-of-the-bridge experience in 20 breakout rooms. Our format for discussion is Theological Reflection. Discussions will be white boarded and summarized in general assembly. The event will be recorded for worldwide distribution.
The cost to attend is $10 dollars. Webcam and broadband is required. Net operating income supports beds for homeless men and women in recovery from addictions.
CITVN is a global Catholic academic videoconference forum. Catholic university keynote lectures are distributed for free each month to 46,516 Catholic thought leaders located in 115 countries.
CITVN is the national representative for 82,000 Global Ethics Network registered professionals who are engaged in ethical issues research in 121 countries. http://www.globethics.net/
CITVN hosts IN THE ROOMS videoconference meetings for 12-Step and Alanon groups. With over 258,000 members located in 136 countries and growing exponentially, it is the largest and most trafficked collection 12 Step Video Meeting Rooms in the world.
ABOUT US
CITVN is produced by Dayton Catholic Worker - an intentional community of homeless men and women in recovery from addictions. Our community was the outcome of a JustFaith formation process. Co-op members work for room and board – living with less so that others may live. Over 80% of our guests achieve sustainable faith - measured as one year of continuous sobriety. It’s LOVE that cures! CITVN is intentionally not 501(c)3 tax exempt ... because we protest war and all forms of violence and we pray.
CITVN is a member of:
Catholic Press Association
SIGNIS - World Association for Catholic Communication
Intermirfica Network
Aleteia Producer Network
AdEthic Catholic Ad Network
Global Ethics Network
KnowledgeVision Producer Network
Catholic Labor Network
Catholic Peacebuilding Network
National Catholic Association for Addictions
CITVN is an exchange of gifts with homeless citizens ... CITVN is our gift to you!
Stephen DeVol
CITVN Executive Producer
Catholic Worker Movement
Mr DeVol,
.
AFAIK, You never *specifically* answered any fo those questions. You merely accused everyone who disagreed with you that they were “normative” and “sentimental”. I have called you out on that already.
.
Who is the one really trying to obfuscate?
Stephen and Ronald, our goal is spiritual growth. When Christ died we died with Him. Sin has consequences. You can’t sin a little and pretend the damage doesn’t increase with each occurrence. It is not held in check. The sister should know that
Every ones disagrees with one and another here. Just because one doesn’t agree with one’s opinion, you don’t have to pray so he/she will stop being liberal or conservative. That’s their belief. Yes, you or whomever might disagree, but that’s their belief. No one’s belief is wrong.
Gosh, so much hate and prejudice on this Christian website.
tj, I find the perfection of Love with Jesus on the Cross. You can say that your understanding of Love does not tolerate lies and that I would agree with. Love reveals Truth and humans cannot tolerate ambiguity.
tj007 ... you’re are still obfuscating ... and trying to cover ground we have already been over ... refer to previous posts to answer all your questions. I do have a teleconference with CDC Media Relations ... will get back with you on their response to your allegations.
In terms of the personal attacks ... well ... all I can say is I will keep your special intentions in my prayers and wish you well.
Mr DeVol,
.
ONe other thing I just noticed you wrote:
“The one thing Jesus’ contemporaries would have known for sure about him was that he was not a priest (couldn’t have been, as a descendent of the Davidic line).”
.
You are wrong and getting into heresy here. King David saw himself as a priest-king, if you read carefully the account of the Ark returning to Jerusalem. Jesus is a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. In fact, it is because of Jesus’ Royal Priesthood that we disciples, are also a “royal priesthood.”
.
I suggest you spend some time reading the relevant passages in Scripture.
.
Blessings.
Mr DeVol,
.
When it comes to finding long quotes on the internet, I have to kowtow to you. You are the best, so no, I wouldn’t dare try to match you in review for review.
.
BTW, where is your empirical evidence that the vast majority of Catholics dissent in good conscience?
.
Or any specific responses to my criticism your representation of Renegade Trad’s view of TOB?
.
Or what you mean by non-normative, perhaps with a specific example?
.
Or any response to Mark who claims to be misrepresented?
.
Or my criticisms of the CDC report?
.
I’ll stop here, even thought there are more that I can bring up. Just please, try to be specific. Thanks!
Ronald,
.
I have already described to you my view of love, which is heavily shaped by the Scripture and the writings of Pope JPII. Yes, it is true that affection is a part of loving, but so is Truth, which Farley seemd to have forgotten.
.
I’m sorry but I am not one who buys into the power differential arguments. Love has no tolerance for Lies.
.
Don’t believe me? Look to Jesus for an example.
.
Shalom.
tj007 ... P.S. ... I can match you review for review ... how about this one from Maureen Dowd at the NYTimes:
It’s hard to say what is weirder:
A Sister of Mercy writing about the Kama Sutra, sexual desire and “our yearnings for pleasure.”
Or the Vatican getting so hot and bothered about the academic treatise on sexuality that the pope censures it, causing it to shoot from obscurity to the top tier of Amazon.com’s best-seller list six years after it was published.
Just the latest chapter in the Vatican’s thuggish crusade to push American nuns — and all Catholic women — back into moldy subservience.
Even for a church that moves glacially, this was classic. “Just Love: a Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics,” by Sister Margaret Farley — a 77-year-old professor emeritus at Yale’s Divinity School, a past president of the Catholic Theological Society of America and an award-winning scholar — came out in 2006.
The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, which seems as hostile to women as the Saudi Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, spent years pondering it, then censured it on March 30 but didn’t publicly release the statement until Monday.
The denunciation of Sister Farley’s book is based on the fact that she deals with the modern world as it is. She refuses to fall in line with a Vatican rigidly clinging to an inbred, illusory world where men rule with no backtalk from women, gays are deviants, the divorced can’t remarry, men and women can’t use contraception, masturbation is a grave disorder and celibacy is enshrined, even as a global pedophilia scandal rages.
In old-fashioned prose steeped in historical and global perspective, Sister Farley’s main argument is that justice needs to govern relationships. In the interest of justice to oneself, she contends that “self-pleasuring” needs “to be moved out of the realm of taboo morality.”
Immanuel Kant, who considered masturbation “below the level of animals,” must give way to Alfred Kinsey. “It is surely the case that many women, following the ‘our bodies our selves’ movement in the fourth quarter of the twentieth century, have found great good in self-pleasuring — perhaps especially in the discovery of their own possibilities for pleasure — something many had not experienced or even known about in their ordinary sexual relations with husbands or lovers,” she writes. “In this way, it could be said that masturbation actually serves relationships rather than hindering them.”
A breath of fresh air in the stultifying church, she makes the case for same-sex relationships and remarriage after divorce. “When it truly becomes impossible to sustain a marriage relationship, the obligation to do so is released,” she writes, adding, “as when in the Middle Ages a broken leg made it impossible to continue on a pilgrimage to which one had committed oneself.”
Taking on the Council of Trent and a church that has taken a stand against pleasure, Sister Farley asserts that procreation is not the only reason couples should have sex. Fruitfulness need not “refer only to the conceiving of children,” she writes. “It can refer to multiple forms of fruitfulness in love of others, care for others, making the world a better place for others” rather than just succumbing to “an égoisme à deux.”
The Vatican showed no mercy to the Sister of Mercy, proclaiming that “the deliberate use of the sexual faculty” outside of marriage or procreation, or on one’s own, is wrong; that homosexual sex acts are “deviant,” and that marriages are by and large indissoluble. Sister Farley issued a statement that she did not intend for the book to be an expression or criticism of current official Catholic teaching, and academics and the head of her order rushed to her defense.
This latest ignoble fight with a noble nun adds to the picture of a Catholic Church in a permanent defensive crouch, steeped in Borgia-like corruption and sexual scandals, lashing out at anyone who notes the obvious: They have lost track of right and wrong.
Cardinal Timothy Dolan of the Archdiocese of New York blasted The New York Times after Laurie Goodstein wrote that, as the archbishop of Milwaukee in 2003, he authorized payments of up to $20,000 to sexually abusive priests “as an incentive for them to agree to dismissal from the priesthood.”
Cardinal Dolan insisted through a spokesman that it was “charity,” not “payoffs.” But if you were the parent of a boy abused by a priest who went away with 20,000 bucks, maybe “charity” is not the word that would come to mind.
Its crisis has made the church cruel. The hierarchy should read Sister Farley’s opprobrium against adults harming vulnerable children and adolescents by sexually exploiting them; respect for the individual and requirement of free consent, she says, mean that rape, violence and pedophilia against unwilling victims are never justified.
“Seduction and manipulation of persons who have limited capacity for choice because of immaturity, special dependency, or loss of ordinary power, are ruled out,” she writes.
If only the church could muster that kind of clarity, rather than Dolan-style “charity.”
tj007 Yes ... Sister Margaret responsibly dissents in good conscience ... as do the vast majority of Catholics.
There is nothing more I can say to address your personal attacks ... other than to pray for your special intentions and wish you well.
I think the Church is suffering greatly from the overly clericalized view of church structure and overly sacralized view of priesthood held by many in the hierarchy and promoted under the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict. I believe that if any perspective verges on heresy, it is one that asserts (functionally if not verbally) that preserving the clericalist hierarchical structure is more important than the Eucharist, effective pastoral care, and genuine community. And it seems to ignore at best and contravene at worst the example and teaching of Jesus in the Gospels.
The one thing Jesus’ contemporaries would have known for sure about him was that he was not a priest (couldn’t have been, as a descendent of the Davidic line). A church whose upper leadership seems in the thrall of fear and an unrecognized addiction to power and position doesn’t have much of a future. But a church genuinely rooted in the Spirit given to each and every one of the baptized, and willing to move forward in trust and welcome the gifts of all—that could change the world.
I think Pope Francis is beginning to move the Church in the right direction. My hope and prayers are with him.
tj, Stop with the sarcasm. It is a sign of hostility and having power of another. Feeling, giving and showing affection are involved in loving others.
MrDeVol,
Sr. Farley is a dissident theologian.
.
The Vatican has condemend her book Just Love.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/us/sister-margaret-farley-denounced-by-vatican.html?_r=0
.
Apparently, she seems in favor of abortion, divorce , same-sex marriage, sterilization, and the “ordination” of women to the priesthood.
.
In her response to the CDF, she wrote:
“I do not dispute the judgment that some of the positions [expressed in Just Love] are not in accord with current official Catholic teaching.” she said. “In the end, I can only clarify that the book was not intended to be an expression of current official Catholic teaching, nor was it aimed specifically against this teaching. It is of a different genre altogether.”
.
Is anyone able to unpack what she meant? “a different genre”?
.
One of the scholars who wrote a review of her book, Fr. Alexander Luce Smith in the the Heythrop Journal, repeated some of his main criticisms (need to read the entire review to get the full arguments) in the Catholic Herald:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2012/06/05/the-vatican-is-completely-correct-to-clarify-that-sister-farleys-book-stands-firmly-outside-the-tradition-of-the-church/
.
Here is another review:
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=0909-gardiner
.
She is heavily influenced by the thoughts of Michel Foucault, who taught that concept of sexuality, and the disease of AIDS, were mere social constructs! He has been called “The French Nietzsche”. Unfortunately, he died of the “social construct” in 1984. I never knew that social constructs can directly kill.
.
In his review of the book, William May, professor emeritus at Catholic University of America and senior fellow at the Culture of Life Foundation, (Winter 2008 volume of the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly) pointed out the Farley’s conceptualization of love departs signficantly from Pope JPII’s. Instead of seeing love as as gift of self, she sess it as affection.
.
Imagine if Jesus’ words were,
“Be sure to feel strong affection for one another, as I have felt strong affections for you.”
.
<i>Shalom.
That “!@#$%” was, in the Jerusalem Bible, b a s t a r d s (= illegitimate sons).
Also to-day’s reading: Hebrews 12.5ff:
Have you forgotten that encouraging text in which you are addressed as sons? My son, do not scorn correction from the Lord, do not resent his training, for the Lord trains those he loves, and chastises every son he accepts. Perseverance is part of your training; God is treating you as his sons. Has there ever been any son whose father did not train him? If you were not getting this training, as all of you are, then you would be not sons but bastards. Besides, we have all had our human fathers who punished us, and we respected them for it; all the more readily ought we to submit to the Father of spirits, and so earn life. Our human fathers were training us for a short life and according to their own lights; but he does it all for our own good, so that we may share his own holiness. Of course, any discipline is at the time a matter for grief, not joy; but later, in those who have undergone it, it bears fruit in peace and uprightness. So steady all weary hands and trembling knees and make your crooked paths straight; then the injured limb will not be maimed, it will get better instead. Seek peace with all people, and the holiness without which no one can ever see the Lord.
Francis - Turning the World on Its Head: Subverting the Honor/Shame System
Presented by
Fr. Richard Rohr. O.F.M.
Author and Founding Director
New Jerusalem Community in Cincinnati
Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque
http://present.knowledgevision.com/account/citvn/link/
CITVN_Forum_2012_Fr_Richard_Rohr
Francis - Turning the World on Its Head: Subverting the Honor/Shame System
Presented by
Fr. Richard Rohr. O.F.M.
Author and Founding Director
New Jerusalem Community in Cincinnati
Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque
Francis - Turning the World on Its Head: Subverting the Honor/Shame System
Presented by
Fr. Richard Rohr. O.F.M.
Author and Founding Director
New Jerusalem Community in Cincinnati
Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque
http://present.knowledgevision.com/account/citvn/link/
CITVN_Forum_2012_Fr_Richard_Rohr
Francis - Turning the World on Its Head: Subverting the Honor/Shame System
Presented by
Fr. Richard Rohr. O.F.M.
Author and Founding Director
New Jerusalem Community in Cincinnati
Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque
http://present.knowledgevision.com/account/citvn/link/CITVN_Forum_2012_Fr_Richard_Rohr
Francis - Turning the World on Its Head: Subverting the Honor/Shame System
Presented by
Fr. Richard Rohr. O.F.M.
Author and Founding Director
New Jerusalem Community in Cincinnati
Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque
http://present.knowledgevision.com/account/citvn/link/CITVN_Forum_2012_Fr_Richard_Rohr
Francis - Turning the World on Its Head: Subverting the Honor/Shame System
Presented by
Fr. Richard Rohr. O.F.M.
Author and Founding Director
New Jerusalem Community in Cincinnati
Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque
http://present.knowledgevision.com/account/citvn/link/11th_Annual_Guest_House_Summer_Leadership_Conference
Today’s reading:
.
2 He(Jesus went on his way through towns and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem. 23 And some one said to him, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” And he said to them, 24 “Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25 When once the householder has risen up and shut the door, you will begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us.’ He will answer you, ‘I do not know where you come from.’
Luke 13 v 22-
Stephen, Thank you for the information about Sr. Farley.
Gender, Sexuality, and Ethics - Sr. Margaret Farley
http://youtu.be/dVk92tP9eGc
This lecture discusses developments in religious and philosophical teachings regarding sexual morality—how these have changed and continue to change, and what this means not only for individuals but society. The focus will be primarily on the Christian tradition, because of its massive influence on sexual ethics in Western culture and society. Analogies may be drawn with other Western and non-Western traditions. Historical perspectives are surveyed; contemporary “cases in point” are described; and a framework is offered for approaching sexual ethics today.
Margaret Farley is Gilbert L. Stark Professor Emerita of Christian Ethics at Yale Divinity School. She is the author or co-editor of seven books, including “Personal Commitments: Beginning, Keeping, Changing”; “Compassionate Respect”; and most recently, “Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics.” She has published more than 100 articles and chapters of books on topics of ethical methodology, medical ethics, sexual ethics, social ethics, historical theological ethics, ethics and spirituality, justice and HIV/AIDS. She is currently also Co-director of the All-Africa Conference: Sister to Sister, an organization that facilitates the work of women in the sub-Sahara responding to the AIDS Pandemic. Professor Farley is the recipient of eleven honorary degrees and a variety of fellowships and awards, including the 2008 Grawemeyer Award in Religion for her book, Just Love. She is past president of both the Society of Christian Ethics and the Catholic Theological Society of America.
Mr.Devol, since you ask me about my motive, let me tell you this:
As follower of our Lord and Savior who redeems us of our sins, there is only one thing I can do, to love (the higher form of love He has exemplified) Him, hence, to obey His 2 most important commands.
Almighty God, our Heavenly Father has miraculously preserved my life umpteen times so that I can witness to others His healing power and most importantly to expose and oppose the teachings of ‘anti-Christ’ so that people will not be led astray and more souls will be saved.
Thanks Jon Valur Jensson, for your comments. The well-known gay-rights advocate, Andrew Sullivan, who has written columns in major newspaper, once openly admitted that the men in this movement are not interested monogamy, but in an “open contract. ” Marriage really means little to these people, other than a means to further their agenda of coercing society to accept and embrace the open homosexual lifestyle. This is certainly not true of all practicing homosexual persons, but is true of those loud voices who are actively promoting full acceptance of the lifestyle. We need to recognize that there are at least two groups of people - those who practice and just want to be left alone, and those who want everybody to accept the lifestyle.
Besides, there are statistics (e.g. from the Netherlands) showing beyond doubt that promiscuity is much more common among MSM than among heterosexual men, and that even those MSM who are in civil unions or marriage are to a large degree prone to have ‘extra-marital affairs’ sooner and on a far more recurring rate than heterosexual men. This means that their assumed closed-in relationships are not to be taken for granted as a secure natural barrier against, e.g., HIV infections either spreading into or out of their union.
Mr. Leng, it’s true, as Christians we need not say more than you did there (Aug 24, 11:46 AM)–––those NT texts all have a direct bearing on the behaviour of those who are now trying to turn Scripture teaching upside down, e.g. in DeVol anti-apostolic, anti-Christian propaganda here.
DeVol Aug 22, at 2:35 PM: “Jesus had nothing to say about homosexual marriage.” – You are wrong. Jesus said it by way of his most positive, explicit teaching (Mt.19.4-6, Mk.10) that marriage is for MAN AND WOMAN (hererosexual union), –––which implies unmistakably: NOT for man and many women (polygamy), and EVEN LESS FOR MAN AND MAN! (homosexual union), which kind of union was, anyway, strictly banned severely in Judaism, and is so even for all mankind, as you can see from God’s displeasure in III Mos. (Leviticus) 18.24-30, following the damnation of sodomy in 18.22.
I disregard your other weak “argumentation” in the same comment. But you ask: “How does a homosexual act, in the context of civil union, cause harm to the individual, others or society?”
It is an act against nature, as even Plato and many other Greek moral philosophers knew. As such it cannot be felicitous, and does of course not have the productive effect as heterosexual intercourse, in the fruits of offspring.
That homosexual act is also an affront against Christian faith, a kind of an over-proud protest against it, and as such a witness against the correctness of following the way of the faith, the cross (hence many self-negations) and the way of the Church, and many have hence turned away from the faith due to this moral disorder.
Besides, as unnatural the homosexual act is dangerous, as the US Surgeon General C. Everett Koop wrote about, as well as the heart surgeon Robert Soule (see my entry above, Aug 16, 2:23 AM). Unmistakably, “backdoor” intercourse (even of a man and woman) is a health hazard, and the multiply higher AIDS and syphilis cases among homosexual men than among heterosexuals bear witness of this.
Being lenient about this, especially if society gets very permissive about it, AIDS and other diseases will spread far wider than under stricter rule. The homosexual movements have also furthered the cause of the BISEXUALS, but precisely that social group is spreading HIV from ‘gay’ men to the opposite sex, and thus endangering sexual health among heterosexuals. This cannot be for the good of society, bearing in mind that (1) in France MSM (men who have sex with men) turned out to be 200 times more likely to have HIV than heterosexual, and (2) in Denmark new cases of HIV infection were in 2005 ca. 315 times more common among MSM than among heterosexual women, and (3) new cases of HIV infection were in 2006 ca. 126 times more likely among Danish MSM than among Danish heterosexual men, and (4) in Arkansas, in 2002, AIDS & HIV infections among MSM were reckoned as 183 more prevalent among MSM than among heterosexual men. So, this is where that health threat is in such almost incomparable comparison, and extremely costly for the health system, but society’s permissiveness may lead to a totally changed situation for the worse in the next quarter of a century, if we are not on our guard.
If, in all our Western societies, 6% of the population had AIDS/HIV by now, this would undoubtedly be considered as THE major plague sweeping through our hemispheres. But this is precisely the percentage estimated among American MSM in 2002! (and in Arkansas this was 6.6%).
This is not at all the future we want for our children! So, the state and society has, as obvious to most of us, no obligation to make way for this to happen easily –– rather the reverse!
May God bless you all with wisdom and understanding.
Thanks Mark for posting. May God bless you and keep you close to Him always.
I would also commend tj007 for pointing out that “therein lies the challenge and impossibility of a dialogue with someone who is posting another person’s ideas. You, the poster, is unable to defend and respond to criticisms because you don’t fully understand the author’s thoughts. That is probably why you feel safer to stay at a distance, preferring vague generalities, rather than discussing the specifics. They are not your ideas and so you don’t know the details.” Reading this thread has been someone painful (but also somewhat hilarious) for me because people have been going back and forth citing me as some sort of authority and imputing things to my intentions when there really seems to be a lot of confusion (in fact, I have been conflated with another blogger; I was “the friend” summarizing at my own blog the work at In Exsilium, but I am not myself the In Exsilium blogger!)
With all this confusion dialogue is really hard. I don’t intend to jump into this conversation substantively, but just to try to put to rest the “back and forth” over my blog and citing my posts.
To clear up one specific point, for example, tj007 was correct: in that post back then when I talked about severing sex from its “natural context,” I was indeed implicitly endorsing the “orthodox” view of sexual morality, and other posts on my blog back then should have made that much more explicit. Even were my beliefs to change, citing my past blog posts as some sort of apologia for revisionist sexual ethics is an exercise in futility, because they were not written with that intent, they were written assuming the orthodox position on this matter. (I think part of the confusion here was because the author of In Exsilium was not, in fact, necessarily so orthodox, and then this thread confused the two of us with each other.)
Hi,
I’m the blogger “A Sinner” formerly from Renegade Trads.
I think I should clarify some things. First, I am not Stephen DeVol, though I have now been alerted to the existence of this thread and how some things I wrote have been brought into it.
Second, I have apparently been confused with the author of the former blog “In Exsilium.” I know him and mentioned his blog on mine sometimes, but we are most definitely NOT the same person.
Third, I’m not exactly sure where the “longer” description of the “renegade trads” category came from. It seems accurate enough, but upon searching it seems to be from some archived wikipedia page deleted from the original wikipedia (probably because the category is not really important enough to deserve it’s own page!)
Fourth, I would express disappointment at the mere name “Renegade Trads” getting the work I did in the past dismissed here by some as if that name is “all you need to know.” As the description given by Stephen does say, the qualification “renegade” was relative to trads, not to mainstream society or the mainstream Church. If there was a rebellious streak implied, it was defiance AGAINST the craziness of rad trads (and actually more in the direction of the mainstream). That is to say: it is the crazy radical traditionalists themselves who would consider “renegade trads” to be renegades, not necessarily anyone else. Mark Shea himself actually once positively promoted the blog on his own: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/06/nice-to-see-6.html
Finally, I would clarify that the blog is defunct, and that I know think it is a mixed bag; I leave it up because a lot of people seem to find it useful, but looking back there are a lot of things I’d no longer necessarily stand by, and some sound downright crazy to me now (though some of that was actually just a form of satire). Myself and “my positions” (inasmuch as I have them) should not at all be assumed to be represented by the writings there anymore as I say in the new sidebar. I am an evolving, growing human being and won’t be essentialized as this or that phase in my own thought-evolution.
Just needed to clarify those things.
-Mark, “A Sinner”
Joan and leng and Pam ... I hope you succeed. Though you have not revealed your motives ... I do not think it is a coincidence that you are so passionate about this issue.
The Works of Mercy are every Catholic’s responsibility. So don’t just preach to me ... talk with trads and other young men and women with homosexual orientation who see themselves as Catholic and are conflicted ... they do not want to spend their lives without hope for intimate relationship with another in the context of marriage ... and they see themselves as Catholic.
Start or participate in a Catholic Worker house or attend Dignity USA meetings long enough to really get to know a few people. Don’t be shy about sharing your theories on pastoral care for people with homosexual orientation ... then get back with me in a year and let me know how that is working for you.
tj007 ... that is a good start at real dialog ... not a debate to win or lose ... I wish I had more time to talk with you ... you are asking good questions .. and much of this is ground we already have covered. Someone pointed out that Trads has started a new blog ...
at http://renegadetrad.blogspot.com/
... and still sees himself as Catholic. I suggest that you ‘talk with him’ ... ‘not at him’ ... get to know him and develop a personal relationship. He’s a smart kid and you are a teacher ... there is a basis for personal relationship. Perhaps you can help him. It is often my experience that when engaging in the Works of Mercy ... the soul I may be saving is my own.
Mark Shea ...
CITVN College Forum will be hosting a webconference in the Fall to discuss Catholic marriage teachings. Our goal is to develop a balanced forum panel discussion. We kindly invite you to present your views. General Assembly will accommodate 1000 people attendees with 20 breakout rooms for face-to-face discussions. Sponsors include: Global Ethics and InTheRooms and many others t.b.a. If you would like to participate, please respond to me privately.
We are glad that Pope Francis is willing to facilitate collegial discussion among bishops of marriage and pastoral care. We believe the Church is suffering greatly from the overly clericalized view of church structure and overly sacralized view of magisterial authority held by many in the hierarchy and promoted under the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict. We believe that if any perspective verges on heresy, it is one that asserts (functionally if not verbally) that preserving the clericalist hierarchical structure is more important than the Eucharist, effective pastoral care, and genuine community. It seems to ignore at best and contravene at worst the example and teaching of Jesus in the Gospels. But a church genuinely rooted in the Spirit given to each and every one of the baptized, and willing to move forward in trust and welcome the gifts of all — that could change the world.
We believe Pope Francis is beginning to move the Church in the right direction. We hope he brings an end to prohibitions imposed upon Catholic theologians and religious to discuss freely Church doctrines. The development of doctrine is based upon an understanding of the Gospels (especially the love that is Jesus Christ) and Traditions based upon reason and evidence. Our hope and prayers are with him.
I offer my prays at Mass today for the special intentions of each and every one of you who have so generously contributed time to talk with me. Let us continue to reason with each other ... but let the be no gossip or criticism of another. Let there be love and understanding.
May God’s peace be with all of you!
Stephen DeVol
CITVN Executive Producer
Catholic Worker Movement
Joan and leng and Pam ... I hope you succeed. Though you have not revealed your motives ... I do not think it is a coincidence that you are so passionate about this issue.
The Works of Mercy are every Catholic’s responsibility. So don’t just preach to me ... talk with trads and other young men and women with homosexual orientation who see themselves as Catholic and are conflicted ... they do not want to spend their lives without hope for intimate relationship with another in the context of marriage ... and they see themselves as Catholic.
Start or participate in a Catholic Worker house or attend Dignity USA meetings long enough to really get to know a few people. Don’t be shy about sharing your theories on pastoral care for people with homosexual orientation ... then get back with me in a year and let me know how that is working for you.
tj007 ... that is a good start at real dialog ... not a debate to win or lose ... I wish I had more time to talk with you ... you are asking good questions .. and much of this is ground we already have covered. Someone pointed out that Trads has started a new blog ...
at http://renegadetrad.blogspot.com/
... and still sees himself as Catholic. I suggest that you ‘talk with him’ ... ‘not at him’ ... get to know him and develop a personal relationship. He’s a smart kid and you are a teacher ... there is a basis for personal relationship. Perhaps you can help him. It is often my experience that when engaging in the Works of Mercy ... the soul I may be saving is my own.
Mark Shea ...
CITVN College Forum will be hosting a webconference in the Fall to discuss Catholic marriage teachings. Our goal is to develop a balanced forum panel discussion. We kindly invite you to present your views. General Assembly will accommodate 1000 people attendees with 20 breakout rooms for face-to-face discussions. Sponsors include: Global Ethics and InTheRooms and many others t.b.a. If you would like to participate, please respond to me privately.
We are glad that Pope Francis is willing to facilitate collegial discussion among bishops of marriage and pastoral care. We believe the Church is suffering greatly from the overly clericalized view of church structure and overly sacralized view of magisterial authority held by many in the hierarchy and promoted under the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict. We believe that if any perspective verges on heresy, it is one that asserts (functionally if not verbally) that preserving the clericalist hierarchical structure is more important than the Eucharist, effective pastoral care, and genuine community. It seems to ignore at best and contravene at worst the example and teaching of Jesus in the Gospels. But a church genuinely rooted in the Spirit given to each and every one of the baptized, and willing to move forward in trust and welcome the gifts of all — that could change the world.
We believe Pope Francis is beginning to move the Church in the right direction. We hope he brings an end to prohibitions imposed upon Catholic theologians and religious to discuss freely Church doctrines. The development of doctrine is based upon an understanding of the Gospels (especially the love that is Jesus Christ) and Traditions based upon reason and evidence. Our hope and prayers are with him.
I offer my prays at Mass today for the special intentions of each and every one of you who have so generously contributed time to talk with me. Let us continue to reason with each other ... but let the be no gossip or criticism of another. Let there be love and understanding.
May God’s peace be with all of you!
Stephen DeVol
CITVN Executive Producer
Catholic Worker Movement
On the signs of the end of the age Jesus, our Lord and Savior has this to say in Matthew 24:4-5 “Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, Claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many.
Again in Jude:1;4 “certain individuals whose condemnation was written about
or individuals who were marked out for condemnation long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality…...”
Need I say more?
Mr DeVol,
you wrote:
“TRAD’s idea of the dehumanizing severing of sex from the dignity of its natural context ... and your idea of procreative intent and complimentarity which are designed to exclude those outside of the dominant norm (and subjects the marginalized to condemnation, coerced celibacy and exclusion from communion) ... are not the same.”
.
The word is spelt “complementary” not “complimentary”. I personally never used these terms in this forum that you seem to attribute to me. Anyway, if you say that they are not the same, then explain why. Again, the basic rule of forming an argument is to support the claim, not simply state that as if it has to be true by default.
.
“I believe TRAD understands and is sympathetic to phenomenology (so am I)at a macro-level ... he does not object to the conclusions ... he questions the premises because they bear no relationship with his reality ..”
That does not answer my criticism that Trad failed to see the realist foundation of Wojtyla’s work. That was precisely his genius - the marriage of the two types of philosophies! What specific premises do you think he objects to and do you agree?
.
Also, therein lies the challenge and impossibility of a dialogue with someone who is posting another person’s ideas. You, the poster, is unable to defend and respond to criticisms because you don’t fully understand the author’s thoughts. That is probably why you feel safer to stay at a distance, preferring vague generalities, rather than discussing the specifics. They are not your ideas and so you don’t know the details.
.
“He rightly identifies that natural law arguments are normative (a justification of dominant sentimentality without objective reasoning) and therefore inadequate to the task ... such arguments become an ideology that objectify the subject.”
.
You used the word normative exactly to mean the opposite of what moral philosophers mean. You do really mean the cultural norms, which can change over time. To say that natural law does not employ objective reasoning is to say that St Thomas Aquinas, St Albert Magnus and even Aristotle were not reasoning objectively. These guys were examplars of objectivity and the use of reason. What does it mean then, to reason objectively, according to your standards? Would you please explain?
.
“define the sin in non-normative terms”
.
You continue to delve in vague terms. What counts as non-normative, in your view? Natural law uses the data from common observations to derive purpose. Why is that any less objective than a scientist who observes a phenomenon?
.
“TRAD sees dignity in affection ... what Pope John Paul II characterized as the unitive value of intimate relationship within the context of marriage (a first in catholic doctrinal development).”
.
Wrong. Read Humanae Vitae. Pope JPII was not the first. And he saw dignity in ALL personal acts.
.
“Underlying Trads worldview is a Catholic theology of marriage that is grounded in consent among two people to share a morally responsible life in Christ ... fidelity, children and social stability are benefits that flow from consent. This was the model of marriage for the first 1600 years of Church history. “
.
Partial truth. The church has ALWAYS viewed consent in the context of a male-female relationship. The latter was a given.
.
Furthermore, as I have already posted earlier, IF consent is the only criterion to unite, and perhaps you may want to throw in love also, then by extension, there is no reason to exclude any man or woman from uniting with a cousin, a sibling, or even a parent. Furthermore, there is no reason to limit the union to only 2. As long as the 5 love each other, they can all be united. IOW, it turns marriage into a community contract involving any number and combination of consenting people.
.
Let’s stay with specific details, not vague generalities like “it’s all your sentiments!”
.
Shalom.
That definition of insanity is what trips up the liberals. There is a cloud of witnesses that show the results are great for those who LISTEN and ACT. We don’t want different results. We are spreading the Good News and we know some will not listen and that’s God’s prerogative, not ours. Liberal admit your problem! The whole world will not agree with you!
Stephen, this is not difficult for me, but you appear to have some difficulty with Catholicism, what it means, what it’s about, etc. God has NOT granted the gift of celibacy to very few. We are all called to Chastity regardless, and with God’s help, we can reach to high levels of holiness, including leading chaste lives.We are all called to holiness and we will not get to heaven if we are not purified of our disordered natures (and we all have them). It is impossible on our own, we must depend on God. Marriage is a noble desire, however, our desire above all else should be Loving God and neighbor and growing in holiness regardless of our state in life.
Your last sentence on your second post just proves that you cannot comprehend or simply ignore what I and others have posted. I think you purposely misrepresent what I have written, such as “They should do what I want or get out is not pastoral care.” so you do not have to address what I actually wrote. I really do not care to continue this any further with you. You post the same stuff over and over, you do not read what others write and/or you misrepresent what is written to suit your own extremely limited view of the world and the Church. You have blinders on, really you do. Since you refuse to give the same consideration that we have given to you, I am through. Unless you have anything different to say, but I doubt it very much.
It is a LIE that God has granted the gift of celibacy to very few. You are so close minded Stephen that NO light can enter in.
And again ... whatever you believe ... whatever you think others should do ... the reality is there is a disconnect between moral theology and the results of practical pastoral care ... for what you want is not being received.
I am not saying that I have all the answers ... but the beginning of recovery is to end denial and simply admit that there is a problem. A definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results.
They should do what I want or get out is not pastoral care.
Joan ... I do not think it is accurate to claim that all people or even most people can live life without hope for intimate relationship in the context of marriage. God has granted the gift of celibacy to very few.
I agree that celibacy is an exchange of gifts with God ... it must be a free exchange ... a desire planted in the heart of a man or woman by God ... a call and a response.
If the choice is imposed externally to accept celibacy or face condemnation and exclusion from communion ... then the choice is not free ... it is coerced. The stigma attached has much broader impact at the societal level.
I recently finished filming a documentary of the Amici CPPS ... a group of over 1500 men who went through the Society of the Precious Blood seminaries ... most were ordained ... and all left the seminary or priesthood to be married. There was much animosity for many years among the active priests and those laicized. So they began to have a semiannual reunion ten years ago to heal. It’s a remarkable story.
I know this is difficult for you. I have a few lay friends who are celibate by natural inclination. And, I have many religious friends who are celibate ... who will agree that celibacy was a gift from God ... not something they could self-will. But most people I know are married or desire to be married. As St. Paul said ... people receive different gifts.
Stephen Devol,Your lack of faith is showing again. Remember Christ’s Words, ” There is no one who gives up mother or father children or spouse for me and the sake of the Kingdom who will not receive a hundred times more mothers and fathers sisters and children in this life!” (Paraphrased but you know the line I am speaking about.) It definitely applies to those who should not marry as well as any disciple. I heard a story today of a little girl who had a four dollar set of “pearls” she loved. One day her dad asked if she loved him and she said ,” Of course”. He said, “Then will you give me your pearls?” And she said she would give him anything else. He asked her every day if she loved him and for the pearls. Finally one day she gave them to him tears streaming down her eyes and he reached in his pocket and pulled out a velvet box with real pearls and gave them to her. You are holding on to the plastic and God has real love for you and those you supposedly “help”.
Stephen, the disconnect, I’m afraid is between what I actually write, and what you think I am saying.
No one is calling for enforced or coerced celibacy for anyone. We are ALL called to chastity. Sexual intercourse should be reserved only for those who are married, one male one female. As a single, divorced woman, I am also to live chastely or celibately if you prefer, although I thought celibate meant not marrying.
What I and the Church for that matter is about is speaking the truth and sharing with others how to follow Christ which includes among other things, denial of self and letting God purify us from our baser desires and behaviors. For the last time though, NO ONE is forcing anything on anyone! We all have free will and God wants us to come to Him, choose Him and love Him freely.
I agree with your last sentence completely. And we need to start with ending society’s denial of the concept of sin, including homosexual sex, fornication, abortion, etc. There is a big problem and until we accept the reality of our fallen human natures, things will get worse.
Joanp62 ... that is the disconnect Joan ... you want to impose coerced celibacy on 10% of the human population.
I do not doubt this young man’s sincere desire to be in right relationship with God ... nor his love of the Catholic faith. But his conscience dictates ... he has no desire to live his life without hope for intimate relationship in the context of marriage ... same as the vast majority of people ... You see him as defective ... he sees himself as being O.K. the way God made him ... in my experience, your method of pastoral care will fail to reach him ... for it does not integrate both his faith and a positive identify and his human need to love and be loved.
You see ... there is a big disconnect between moral theology and pastoral care. I am not saying that I have all the answers ... but the beginning of recovery is to end denial and simply admit that there is a problem.
“there is a big disconnect between moral theology and pastoral care.”
There doesn’t need to be. How I would provide pastoral care to this young man would require a very lengthy post. Briefly, I would find out if he really believes in God and in an afterlife and judgment. I would ask him how he has been praying, like what he says in his prayers. I would definitely give him spiritual books to read, but before that, I would, based on his answers to these and other questions, have him pray specifically by telling God his concerns and his thoughts. I would ask him to sincerely and from the heart pray to God for the Truth and to grant him self-knowledge. That he may see himself truly as he is, as God sees him, and at the same time ask God to not let him be angry or discouraged by what he sees about his own self, but to grant that God may give him the graces to correct his faults and sins with repentance in accordance with God’s Will. I would have him ask God to show him the Truth, God’s Truth and to correct any attitudes, perceptions, opinions, beliefs that are not based on reality or truth.
All the above is what I myself do and ask for in my prayers that I pray with regard to myself. In time, depending on his progress, he may truly begin to desire to lead a chaste life and to truly give his life to God without reserve. Then he might be in a position to go much deeper into the spiritual life. He would need to have a spiritual director, if possible, one who was devout in their own prayer life and faithful and obedient to God and the Church. Of course he would need the sacrament of confession, daily scripture reading and rosary, along with solid spiritual reading and meditation.
Joanp62 ... you miss the point Joan ... in his early posts he was living a chaste life ... by his last post he was confused ... he desires to be married. He becomes more accepting of who he is ... and begins to let Catholicism go ... not without much spiritual anguish. His posts end following a very dramatic and honest and courageous spiritual confession. In the end he realizes he has no desire to live life without hope for marriage.
How would you provide pastoral care to this young man ... not what you want to tell him to believe ... not what you want him to do ... not what you want him to be ... what can you give him that can help him integrate his Catholic faith and his identify as a homosexual male and his human longing to love and be loved.
You see ... there is a big disconnect between moral theology and pastoral care.
tj007 ... to elaborate a little more ... TRAD sees dignity in affection ... what Pope John Paul II characterized as the unitive value of intimate relationship within the context of marriage (a first in catholic doctrinal development). Underlying Trads worldview is a Catholic theology of marriage that is grounded in consent among two people to share a morally responsible life in Christ ... fidelity, children and social stability are benefits that flow from consent. This was the model of marriage for the first 1600 years of Church history. The Council of Trent abrogated conscience in 1563 ... which led to normative definitions of marriage ... but one size does fit all.
Stephen, I read a few of his posts. He is obviously very intelligent and a bit over my head. He did note that he had no intentions of being celibate and in another post mentioned “when he has gone to bed with men”. Very concerning to say the least. He started a new blog site this year.
I would recommend to him and anyone else reading here, if you are truly interested in growing in love of God and others, ie. advancing in purity and holiness, since no one can enter Heaven with being perfectly purified, to read this book:
The Fulfillment of All Desire: A Guidebook for the Journey to God Based on the Wisdom of the Saints by Ralph Martin. I read it about 5 years ago and am re-reading it again.
http://www.amazon.com/Fulfillment-All-Desire-Ralph-Martin/dp/1931018367/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1377284650&sr=1-1&keywords=the+fullfillment+of+all+desire
God Bless
tj007 ... thanks for responding ... that is a good start.
TRAD’s idea of the dehumanizing severing of sex from the dignity of its natural context ... and your idea of procreative intent and complimentarity which are designed to exclude those outside of the dominant norm (and subjects the marginalized to condemnation, coerced celibacy and exclusion from communion) ... are not the same.
I believe TRAD understands and is sympathetic to phenomenology (so am I)at a macro-level ... he does not object to the conclusions ... he questions the premises because they bear no relationship with his reality ... his identity ... the person whom God intended him to be ... and in effect separate him from relationship with others.
He rightly identifies that natural law arguments are normative (a justification of dominant sentimentality without objective reasoning) and therefore inadequate to the task ... such arguments become an ideology that objectify the subject.
Ideology, the pope argues, attempts to interpret the Gospel apart from the church or the Gospel itself. It’s form may contains both Gnostic and Pelagian errors. Francis says you must look at the Gospel with the eyes of a disciple. There is no such thing as “antiseptic” hermeneutics.
Trad is more specific in asking you to define the sin in non-normative terms ... rather, objective reasons associated with acts. That is a fair question and deserves a reasoned and loving response.
TRAD wrote for two years ... then stopped publishing in 2010 at age 20 years. Read the three posts he wrote over the period of publication ... I can not help but empathize with him. He is like every young Catholic with homosexual orientation I have encountered in the course of pastoral care ... articulate and honest and sincere in his attempt to integrate his traditional Catholic faith with his identity as a homosexual male and a child of God. TRAD argues for chastity prior to marriage. Yet, he has no desire to live his life without hope to one day have a loving committed relationship with another human being within the context of marriage. He is torn between a faith that is inadequate to his need and an honest understanding of who he is ... who God intended him to be.
The point in this intellectual exercise is to derive a Catholic morality that is grounded in the love that is Jesus Christ. If the moral construct can not be translated into practical pastoral care with evidence of efficacy ... and is in fact harming or marginalizing or separating people from loving relationship ... then the model may very well be defective.
I am not saying that I have all the answers ... but the beginning of recovery is to end denial and simply admit that there is a problem.
I think the Church is suffering greatly from the overly clericalized view of church structure and overly sacralized view of magisterial authority held by many in the hierarchy and promoted under the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict. I believe that if any perspective verges on heresy, it is one that asserts (functionally if not verbally) that preserving the clericalist hierarchical structure is more important than the Eucharist, effective pastoral care, and genuine community. And it seems to ignore at best and contravene at worst the example and teaching of Jesus in the Gospels.
The one thing Jesus’ contemporaries would have known for sure about him was that he was not a priest (couldn’t have been, as a descendent of the Davidic line). A church whose upper leadership seems in the thrall of fear and an unrecognized addiction to power and position doesn’t have much of a future. But a church genuinely rooted in the Spirit given to each and every one of the baptized, and willing to move forward in trust and welcome the gifts of all — that could change the world.
I think Pope Francis is beginning to move the Church in the right direction. My hope and prayers are with him.
Joanp62 ... that’s all well and good Joan ... but if you do not wish to understand ... simply want to be understood ... then there is no dialog ... but I am talking with you because you want to talk and I love you.
I hope you do take the time to read his thoughts ... and formulate a pastoral response to him with love. He is a remarkable young Catholic ... and we are all in God’s world together.
I will pray for your special intentions this day.
May God’s peace be with you always!
Stephen
Given the Mr DeVol has finally admitted to taking words from others, I will take this opportunity to respond to his comments on TOB.
.
I would first like to say once again, I agree with the blogger that the chruch can do much much better in ministering to those suffering from homosexual desires. I wonder, Mr DeVol if you also agree with the blogger in these words:
.
“I personally have no doubt that society is decadent, probably beyond recovery, and that there are many obvious symptoms including the horrors of abortion, the dehumanizing severing of sex from the dignity of its natural context, and the commoditization of persons as capital. “
.
Notice that he pointed out the severing of sex from its “natural context”, This is very much in line with natural law reasoning which you seemed to dismissed.
.
Back to the TOB critique:
.
The following quote clearly reveals a lack of understanding of TOB:
“I am “pastorally” sympathetic to the language of personalism; I think the language of experience and subjectivity and existential angst and all that is in many ways where we have to start with modern man. But, in itself it does not provide the objective framework into which experience is supposed to be situated and conformed by Reason (and faith). For that sort of objective rational theology, I think Scholasticism is much better.”
.
Anyone who has followed the writing of Karol Wojtyla from the university days on will see that he is fundamentally grounded in realist phenomenology, which represented his genuine attempt to integrate the philosophy of being of Aquinas with the philosophy of consciousness of Descartes. He fully recognized the dangers of subjectivism in the Cartesian view (e.g. see Thomistic Personalism in Person and Community). Consciousness cannot be made absolute, such that there is a person inside the person. That was why he turned to the phenomenology of Husserl, so that one is not lost in the subjectivity of one’s consciousness, but recognizes that the objects of consciousness transcend consciousness itself. Therefore, it is grounded in reality. IOW, grounded in an OBJECTIVE FRAMEWORK. The blogger missed this entirely.
.
I suspect that the author must have learned about TOB from the popular writings of Christopher West which tends to be oversimplified because it was written for the masses. No scholar of Wojtyla’s work will take this critique seriously.
.
Shalom.
Mr DeVol, if you sincerely want to free your wards from this scourge
then get them to say at least once a day the Lord’s Prayer and the Prayer to St. Raphael the Archangel.
.
St. Raphael the Archangel,
Glorious prince of the heavenly court
Illustrious by your gifts of wisdom and grace
Guide of travelers by land, sea and (air)
Consoler of the unfortunate and refuge of sinners
I entreat you to please help me in all needs and in all trials of this life as you once assisted young Tobias in his life journey.
And since you are the physician of God, i humbly pray, please heal my soul of its many infirmities and my body of every ill that afflicts it, if this favor is for my greater good.
I ask especially for angelic purity that i may be made fit to be a living temple of the Holy Spirit.
Amen
.
Believe me it works everytime.
Stephen, with all due respect, from reading your posts, I think it would be wise for me to not take any of your advice. Very knowledgeable and seemingly prayerful, faithful people have given you plenty of good advice and information and you have thrown it back in their faces.
You are to be commended for bringing recovering addicts into your home. My concern is that these people are sincerely seeking a right relationship with God and I believe, based on your own posts, that you are actually hindering them from growing in faith and holiness, which would be the very thing that they need to be truly happy.
I have not read this 20 year old’s posts because I only saw your posts about it this morning. I may or may not check them out. Based on what you quoted of his posts, I can see red flags concerning this young man already. If I have time, I may gladly read his blog and post to him there. I would especially be interested in his what he has been reading and what sort of prayer life he has.
The first is his original introduction to the blog at:
http://inexsilium.blogspot.com/2009/09/welcome-and-introduction.html
The second a piece titled “Homo Perplexus” which has become the subtitle:
http://inexsilium.blogspot.com/2010/05/homo-perplexus.html
And the third, Paralysis, is his most recent post which summarizes the place he finds himself today.
http://inexsilium.blogspot.com/2010/09/paralysis.html
Joanp62 ... Catholic Workers have long practiced the Works of Mercy. The learning captured is that the soul you may be saving is your own.
I made myself vulnerable at the beginning of the thread by sharing my motivation. I invited homeless men and women who are in the early stages of recovery from addictions into my home. They are desperately seeking right relationship with God and others as they begin the 12 Step process of reconciliation ... a conversation with God guided by conscience. I have herd nothing in this thread that would be of practical value.
The best advise I can give you is to attend aa Dignity USA meeting for at least a year ... sufficient time to get to know someone at an intimate and personal level. Don’t be shy about sharing your pastoral care theories. Then get back with me in a year and let me know how that is working for you.
You obviously have not read the spiritual confessions of this remarkable 20 year old man with homosexual orientation ... who sees himself as a traditional Catholic ... advocates chastity ... and is sharing from the heart his struggle with identity ... and his anxiety and doubts about living his life without hope for intimate relationship in the context of marriage ... he is intellectually honest ... and presents cogent arguments which you have yet to respond to with integrity and love. It is difficult to understand your motivation and incoherent beliefs.
I agree with his friend ... “And while defiant heresy is one thing, it is simply indicative of ones own insecurity to demonize sincere doubt. The practice of simply ignoring or dismissing the practical existential realities and difficulties that people face in trying to apply Church teaching to their own lives has been a pastoral disaster ... indicative of an unspeakably sinful lack of empathy ...
My friend is aware of his own contradictions and sincerely angsts over them. He really is trying to figure them out, is truly trying to give God room to work in his life and to be open to constantly re-evaluating these questions, without simply foreclosing. And I find that his experiences and his struggle to be authentic are brutally honest, refreshingly genuine, and incredibly brave. Virtues we see so little of in the world of pretension and demagogic ideologues which is the Catholic blogosphere.
“The practice of simply ignoring or dismissing the practical existential realities and difficulties that people face in trying to apply Church teaching to their own lives has been a pastoral disaster.”
Stephen, I do not agree with the blogger’s above statement. I really doubt that many have even tried to actually practice what the Church teaches, let alone even look deeply into what the Church says. Yes, the Church does hold humanity up to a higher standard because that is the only way to achieve true happiness, to the extent that it is possible in this world.
I do not buy it that it is simply too hard or actually impossible for humanity to control their sexual appetites. I sincerely believe that the actual fact is most do not want to stop what they are doing. How many really and truly have asked God to help them? I know from my own experience as a smoker, I do not really want to stop, I have prayed for God to give me the desire to quit, but to be honest, I make that request very infrequently and not really from the heart because I enjoy it too much. We are told to pray from the heart and to really believe that our prayers will be answered. But I wonder, how many really pray that way when it comes to those behaviors that we really don’t want to stop engaging in?
Lets post again just in case
.
Mt Stephen Devol try once more:
.
what is the kernel of the Good News of the Lord Jesus?
.
What is the essence of the Good News of the Lord Jesus?
.
In the first place, why was Jesus of Nazareth born?
.
Yes, we want to cut to the chase and get to the heart of this matter once and for all.
And Pam ... I agree with his friend ... “And while defiant heresy is one thing, it is simply indicative of ones own insecurity to demonize sincere doubt. The practice of simply ignoring or dismissing the practical existential realities and difficulties that people face in trying to apply Church teaching to their own lives has been a pastoral disaster ... indicative of an unspeakably sinful lack of empathy ...
My friend is aware of his own contradictions and sincerely angsts over them. He really is trying to figure them out, is truly trying to give God room to work in his life and to be open to constantly re-evaluating these questions, without simply foreclosing. And I find that his experiences and his struggle to be authentic are brutally honest, refreshingly genuine, and incredibly brave. Virtues we see so little of in the world of pretension and demagogic ideologues which is the Catholic blogosphere.
Pam ... TRAD is short for traditional Catholic ... you obviously have not read the spiritual confessions of this remarkable 20 year old man with homosexual orientation ... who sees himself as a traditional Catholic ... and is sharing from the heart his struggle with identity ... he is intellectually honest ... and presents cogent arguments which you have yet to respond to with integrity and love. It is difficult to understand your motivation and incoherent beliefs.
The shorthand version is renegade trads are renegades. Self-serving goats who want the flesh and the Spirit too. You have been sold a bill of goods Stephen that do not reflect Christ.
continued ...
Especially: in trying to appeal to experience to prove a morality, it winds up thus also telling people what even their experience of the world “should be”! It’s like starting an argument by saying, “Everyone loves chocolate,” having someone in the audience say, “I don’t,” and then defensively saying, “Well, you should! If you don’t, you must be disordered or a monster” because you have confused your argument with the conclusions (the former being accidental, the latter being essential) it exists to prove in the first place, and thus reversed the causality between them, turning the experiential into the very foundation of the precept just because it’s the foundation of your argument.
Specifically, the format I’ve seen this argument take when discussing with people online essentially boils down to something that ultimately implies “Homosexual acts are wrong because they express having the wrong sort of experience!” rather than the truth, which is that the experiences would be problematic inasmuch, and only inasmuch, as they incline to acts immoral for objective reasons, but then non-problematic inasmuch as they don’t. But, that’s the sort of absurdity you wind up with when, in an attempt to “internalize” morality, you wind up ultimately placing the locus of virtue primarily in the “correct” temperament and disposition rather than the ordering of acts, with the passions judged only relative to those acts.
The irony then becomes that, by conceding the premise of this sort of individualistic romanticism as the essence of sexuality, by appealing to the modern idea that the moral nature of sexuality is one of expressing affection ... you wind up having to “police” not just sex acts, but affection itself, in order to maintain the condemnation of the idea that anything personally meaningful or intimate goes. If you concede affection as the justification, but then don’t want to admit all acts based on just affection, you can only sustain this by creating notions of right and wrong affection.”
continued ...
Anyway, I’ve had various discussions in the past where I’ve critiqued theology of the body because of this. Usually those discussions surround the topic of the construct of sexual orientation. I think this is because TOTB often seems to winds up as something like “apotheosizing the construct of heterosexuality” (by which I mean the orientation, not the acts), and a very “vanilla” heterosexuality at that, given how it seems to attribute some sort of coherent “revelatory” value to the mere sensitive appetite and passions portrayed as “natural” instincts (when, in reality, the sensitive appetite is irrational in itself; at most it indicates “goodness” in only the most general sense). However, basing itself on an appeal to basically subjective emotional experience ultimately leads to a complete steamrolling of all non-conforming experiences and narratives, inasmuch as they threaten the notion of “universal” experiences on which its claims are based.
Whereas an “objective” system (like scholasticism) limits itself to defining and condemning specific acts (and the desires specifically therefore), as a system based on subjective experience, the theology of the body seems much more inclined to turn sexuality into a totalizing narrative and thus to expect everything touched by it (which is, as the catechism says, our entire affective life) to conform to a rigidly consistent “correct” paradigm (even though that’s not how emotions work.) It’s ironic given that one point of the personalist approach is supposed to be to escape the “rigid legalism” of scholastic ways of speaking; and yet it actually winds up much more totalizing, demanding a much more slavish conformity; it doesn’t just tell you what to do and not to do, but why (on the emotional level, the level of personal affective motive) you should or shouldn’t be doing it.
I’ve hinted at some of my misgivings about the language of the theology of the body and the premises and priorities it seems to concede. Specifically, the almost mystical spiritual value it gives to sex, this attitude presented of “learning about God through sex” has always struck me as highly untraditional and problematic. I also think the propensity I describe above to try to explain-away divergences from the “universal” experiences on which it claims to be based (usually by pathologizing) winds up creating whole new categories of sins and expectations that are never before found in tradition.
continued ...
Try responding with intellectual integrity ...
The argument that got me to thinking about all this goes something like this:
“I am not a fan of the so-called “theology of the body.” I think it probably surprises the (neo)conservatives that most Catholics actually are not. It’s not that we disagree with its ultimate conclusions regarding the concrete application of morality, but rather that the premises conceded in trying to arrive at those pre-determined conclusions in the personalist manner seem novel, and like they could (by becoming an orthodoxy themselves) ultimately actually undermine orthodoxy, reducing everything to sentimentality and the level of the experiential (but in a way whose claims don’t necessarily hold up to experience!)
Though, I am “pastorally” sympathetic to the language of personalism; I think the language of experience and subjectivity and existential angst and all that is in many ways where we have to start with modern man. But, in itself it does not provide the objective framework into which experience is supposed to be situated and conformed by Reason (and faith). For that sort of objective rational theology, I think Scholasticism is much better; poetry is great, but it should not replace science. I think there is a lot to be said for deconstructing for people the premises underlying or implied by their own desires and values (in other words interrogating sexual desire, jealousy, romantic love, etc and making people consider “why?”) but this can only be done on an individual basis; I do think everyone is seeking the Good in some confused manner and thus experience can be a starting point, but appealing to “universal” experiences to make “one” definitive argument in this manner seems misleading and dangerous.
continued ...
tj007 ... I agree that I could not construct such a well organized argument as Renagade Trads. I have deliberately not disclosed the identity of the author, because his argument stands on its own merits ... and you seem incapable of responding to any argument in a reasoned manner without attacking the person.
Renegade Trads is a very intelligent and authentic voice of a Catholic with homosexual orientation. I believe this lop-sided discussion thread would not be fair and complete without a representative voice.
Let’s review the blog description:
“Open-minded young traditionalist Catholics who love the beauty of organic liturgy, but are disillusioned with the identity-politics, self-righteous facades, and neuroses of the current trad and neoconservative movements.
Renegade Trads are a subset of traditionalist Catholics notable for an outlook more sympathetic towards liberalism than the various subsets of mainstream traditionalism, which Renegade Trads consider unhealthily distorted by right-wing authoritarianism and intolerance. However, they would generally agree with other traditionalists on the superiority of traditional liturgy, on the existence of a major crisis of identity in the Church stemming at least in part from the Vatican II reforms, and on the perceived intellectual shallowness of neoconservative Catholics especially as regards the concept of tradition in light of the whole long history of the Church.
The relatively recent movement has been described as, “Open-minded young traditionalist Catholics who love the beauty of organic liturgy, but are disillusioned with the neuroses and self-righteous facades of the current trad and neoconservative movements. Committed to the idea that doctrinal orthodoxy and traditional aesthetics can be combined with a tolerant, pragmatic realism, an individualist, free-thinking, psychosexually integrated personality, and a sense of humor, to offer constructive critiques of the status quo.
Many of the characteristics identified are in deliberate contrast with perceived deficiencies and dysfunctionalism in mainline traditionalists. Renegade Trads are, therefore, to be understood as “renegade” in the sense of rejecting many of traits that have come to be associated with traditionalist Catholics, and not in the sense of being particularly extreme compared to mainstream society (traditionalists for whom such extremism is characteristic are commonly known, rather, as “rad trads”).
Renegade Trads may also be distinguished by an emphasis on diversity, individuality, and exploring suppressed or minority voices within the traditionalist movement, in the face of perceived narrowness, enforced homogeneity, conformist pressure, and Eurocentrism on the part of mainstream traditionalists. Being in some ways a reaction to mainstream traditionalism, there is also a reflective theme within the movement of self-conscious critique of traditionalism-as-such. There is likewise a meta-awareness of the traditionalist community as a social phenomenon, a subculture largely enabled by the internet, with corresponding sociological or anthropological analysis thereof on the part of some Renegade Trads.”
A friend writes:
“If you want to get some sense of the journey he is on, the following posts are spread out over about a year now and taken together could roughly form the sort of narrative testimonial I might have preferred:
The first is his original introduction to the blog at:
http://inexsilium.blogspot.com/2009/09/welcome-and-introduction.html
The second a piece titled “Homo Perplexus” which has become the subtitle:
http://inexsilium.blogspot.com/2010/05/homo-perplexus.html
And the third, Paralysis, is his most recent post which summarizes the place he finds himself today.
http://inexsilium.blogspot.com/2010/09/paralysis.html
I think some of his posts on the spiritual danger of lust are remarkably insightful. His posts on the crisis in the liturgy and the problems of secularization in the Church are also wonderful.
Here’s the code to use (leave a comment if you don’t know how to integrate HTML in your blog layout and I’ll do my best to help):
<center>http://i40.tinypic.com/eupjpu.jpg</center>
Too often in the Church these days certain voices are silenced in the name of a facade of Pleasantville unity. And while defiant heresy is one thing, it is simply indicative of ones own insecurity to demonize sincere doubt. The practice of simply ignoring or dismissing the practical existential realities and difficulties that people face in trying to apply Church teaching to their own lives has been a pastoral disaster.
Perhaps it is just the nature of ideologues to react against those areas where they are currently most embattled, but the hierarchy has clearly done a terrible job ministering to homosexuals, especially, and very often it seems that the position of neocons and trads is that homosexuals (celibate or not) should just be silent and invisible so everyone can pretend they don’t exist and that it is the 1950’s forever. Well, that approach has sapped the hierarchy of its credibility with almost anyone except its own die-hard fanboys.
When it comes to homosexuality, the double-standard regarding different types of sinners, the reduction to virtual pariah status, the politicization of even children, the incredibly offensive link some have tried to draw to pedophilia, and the McCarthyite atmosphere implied in the seminaries by the recent (though laughably impractical) “No Gays” policy…are all indicative of an unspeakably sinful lack of empathy (or self-loathing; many of them are closet-cases themselves obviously) on the part of men in an institution that is supposed to concentrate on reaching out to the lost and broken most of all! All in the name of “family values” and right-wing politics.
Now, I personally have no doubt that society is decadent, probably beyond recovery, and that there are many obvious symptoms including the horrors of abortion, the dehumanizing severing of sex from the dignity of its natural context, and the commoditization of persons as capital. The near-sociopathic compartmentalization of our selves (yes, none of us are immune) and the malaise of internal alienation and disintegration are both a cause and effect on the psycho-spiritual level; sin in all its ugliness. But conservative Catholics lately seem to be fighting a mere political battle for the salvation of “civilization” (vanity of vanities), yet I suspect this is unwinnable. This same friend has shown me how the progress history has taken was perhaps implicit in Christianity from the start.
We cannot fight forever for Christendom when really we are supposed to be fighting for the salvation of souls. Come out of her, my people! Early Christian spirituality was apocalyptic; if we want to sincerely cry “Maranatha!” and if we really want Him to come again, we know that must needs mean that antichrist comes first. The Resurrection only follows the Crucifixion, the Mystery of Iniquity must play out. Wishing to maintain political Christendom forever is as much a secular messianism as the progressive narrative: for His kingdom is not of this world.
I’m not saying that the End is nigh, I am convinced these things are cyclical (A Canticle for Leibowitz, anyone?), and we may well end up with a Christian China or even Arab Christian Europe after a new Dark Age if “Western Civilization” has gone through its arc into natural death (it’s the circle of life, people, don’t fight it). I’m also not saying we can’t wish or work for making things better structurally. But I’ve realized more and more the old wisdom (which I once disdained so much) that this would only come about by winning individual hearts…but if you win the individual hearts, what more is there to do? And my faith in Providence compels me to believe that as many hearts are able to be won, as many souls are being saved, in sickly decadent periods as in robust and vital periods (albeit perhaps by different means for different reasons, but all arranged by God’s sovereign plan). Isn’t that all that matters in the end?
Maybe it’s my closet universalist tendencies coming out, but if we have to cause anyone to suffer for the sake of the rest, then the result isn’t worth it; we’re all in this together, we shouldn’t be happy until everyone is. How can my soul be saved unless/until I’ve done everything I can to make sure everyone’s is? For this reason, the unwillingness of the conservatives to meet people where they are, and their eagerness to blithely sacrifice so many people (like homosexuals) at the altar of ideology, to see them simply excised like tumors, merely because their existence is troubling or inconvenient for the Right’s unnuanced ideology…is enough for me to stop listening to the Right. The massive personal dishonesty this encourages is the facade of self-righteousness we are seeing collapsing among the clergy currently, even as they scramble so desperately to erect it again. Tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the Kingdom of Heaven before them!
Anyway, I’m rambling on a tangent now, but I urge you to read his blog. My friend is aware of his own contradictions and sincerely angsts over them. He really is trying to figure them out, is truly trying to give God room to work in his life and to be open to constantly re-evaluating these questions, without simply foreclosing. And I find that his experiences and his struggle to be authentic are brutally honest, refreshingly genuine, and incredibly brave. Virtues we see so little of in the world of pretension and demagogic ideologues which is the Catholic blogosphere.
In fact, he is probably the bravest and most genuinely spiritual person I know, an inspiringly beautiful soul in his passion for Truth. Truth hard-won, as it can only ever be, not the Trooth™ peddled by the fundamentalist Catholics to be swallowed whole as an easy answer (as superficially identical as the two may seem). For me, that is the treasure in the field and the pearl of great price. This is what we’re fighting for. This is the light we stand to lose or to gain. Pray that we gain it, even when some days the whole institution seems bent on snuffing it out.”
tj007 ... there you go again attacking the person to avoid responding to a well constructed argument. In fact, I have presented a number of good arguments ... which you simply ignore. When you have something constructive to say about any argument, I will be pleased to respond. In the interim, I will check in with the CDC and verify the truth of your claim ... you deserve the respect.
Just for the folks who haven’t been following this thread, MrDeVol’s so called claim that he has “had various discussions in the past where I’ve critiqued theology of the body” is FALSE. He has plagiarized the material and pretended as if they were his own words from a blogger that goes by Renegade Trads - see Me DeVol’s post on Thursday, Aug 15, 2013 8:26PM and do the search on some of the sentences. Mr DeVol himself is incapable of writing at that level. Anyway, RenegadeTrad’s criticisms reveal that the blogger himself understands little about the TOB.
.
For those still in support of homosexual acts, I will issue a challenge: Present some specific arguments that show that these acts are morally licit. You can argue either from Scripture or from metaphysics. In my years of debate on this issue, I have yet to see any credible argument presented.
.
Shalom.
I think the Church is suffering greatly from the overly clericalized view of church structure and overly sacralized view of priesthood held by many in the hierarchy and promoted under the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict. I believe that if any perspective verges on heresy, it is one that asserts (functionally if not verbally) that preserving the clericalist hierarchical structure is more important than the Eucharist, effective pastoral care, and genuine community. And it seems to ignore at best and contravene at worst the example and teaching of Jesus in the Gospels.
The one thing Jesus’ contemporaries would have known for sure about him was that he was not a priest (couldn’t have been, as a descendent of the Davidic line). A church whose upper leadership seems in the thrall of fear and an unrecognized addiction to power and position doesn’t have much of a future. But a church genuinely rooted in the Spirit given to each and every one of the baptized, and willing to move forward in trust and welcome the gifts of all—that could change the world.
I think Pope Francis is beginning to move the Church in the right direction. My hope and prayers are with him.
continued ...
Especially: in trying to appeal to experience to prove a morality, it winds up thus also telling people what even their experience of the world “should be”! It’s like starting an argument by saying, “Everyone loves chocolate,” having someone in the audience say, “I don’t,” and then defensively saying, “Well, you should! If you don’t, you must be disordered or a monster” because you have confused your argument with the conclusions (the former being accidental, the latter being essential) it exists to prove in the first place, and thus reversed the causality between them, turning the experiential into the very foundation of the precept just because it’s the foundation of your argument.
Specifically, the format I’ve seen this argument take when discussing with people online essentially boils down to something that ultimately implies “Homosexual acts are wrong because they express having the wrong sort of experience!” rather than the truth, which is that the experiences would be problematic inasmuch, and only inasmuch, as they incline to acts immoral for objective reasons, but then non-problematic inasmuch as they don’t. But, that’s the sort of absurdity you wind up with when, in an attempt to “internalize” morality, you wind up ultimately placing the locus of virtue primarily in the “correct” temperament and disposition rather than the ordering of acts, with the passions judged only relative to those acts.
The irony then becomes that, by conceding the premise of this sort of individualistic romanticism as the essence of sexuality, by appealing to the modern idea that the moral nature of sexuality is one of expressing affection ... you wind up having to “police” not just sex acts, but affection itself, in order to maintain the condemnation of the idea that anything personally meaningful or intimate goes. If you concede affection as the justification, but then don’t want to admit all acts based on just affection, you can only sustain this by creating notions of right and wrong affection.”
continued ...
Anyway, I’ve had various discussions in the past where I’ve critiqued theology of the body because of this. Usually those discussions surround the topic of the construct of sexual orientation. I think this is because TOTB often seems to winds up as something like “apotheosizing the construct of heterosexuality” (by which I mean the orientation, not the acts), and a very “vanilla” heterosexuality at that, given how it seems to attribute some sort of coherent “revelatory” value to the mere sensitive appetite and passions portrayed as “natural” instincts (when, in reality, the sensitive appetite is irrational in itself; at most it indicates “goodness” in only the most general sense). However, basing itself on an appeal to basically subjective emotional experience ultimately leads to a complete steamrolling of all non-conforming experiences and narratives, inasmuch as they threaten the notion of “universal” experiences on which its claims are based.
Whereas an “objective” system (like scholasticism) limits itself to defining and condemning specific acts (and the desires specifically therefore), as a system based on subjective experience, the theology of the body seems much more inclined to turn sexuality into a totalizing narrative and thus to expect everything touched by it (which is, as the catechism says, our entire affective life) to conform to a rigidly consistent “correct” paradigm (even though that’s not how emotions work.) It’s ironic given that one point of the personalist approach is supposed to be to escape the “rigid legalism” of scholastic ways of speaking; and yet it actually winds up much more totalizing, demanding a much more slavish conformity; it doesn’t just tell you what to do and not to do, but why (on the emotional level, the level of personal affective motive) you should or shouldn’t be doing it.
I’ve hinted at some of my misgivings about the language of the theology of the body and the premises and priorities it seems to concede. Specifically, the almost mystical spiritual value it gives to sex, this attitude presented of “learning about God through sex” has always struck me as highly untraditional and problematic. I also think the propensity I describe above to try to explain-away divergences from the “universal” experiences on which it claims to be based (usually by pathologizing) winds up creating whole new categories of sins and expectations that are never before found in tradition.
continued ...
Mark Shea ... Jesus most certainly did not have a legalistic view of Judaic law ... he had two great commandments ... reflecting His priorities.
You are certainly free to interpret scripture as you will. Many biblical scholars have reasoned that your interpretations are out of context. Your sentimentality is not sufficient basis for claim to universal presentiment.
The church faces three temptations, according to Pope Francis: the temptation to turn the Gospel message into an ideology; the temptation to run the church like a business; and the temptation of clericalism.
Ideology, the pope argues, has been present in the church from the beginning. It attempts to interpret the Gospel apart from the church or the Gospel itself. Francis says you must look at the Gospel with the eyes of a disciple. There is no such thing as “antiseptic” hermeneutics.
Other forms of the ideological temptation include sociological reductionism and psychologizing. The first interprets the Gospel message through the lens of social science, whether from a Marxist or libertarian perspective. Here, the Gospel is manipulated for political reasons.
The temptation to psychologize the faith, on the other hand, is individualistic. “Here we have to do with elitist hermeneutics which ultimately reduces the ‘encounter with Jesus Christ’ and its development to a process of growing self-awareness.” This is a self-centered spirituality that “has nothing to do with transcendence and consequently, with missionary spirit.”
Related to this self-centered spirituality is the temptation to the Gnostic solution. “It is ordinarily found in elite groups offering a higher spirituality, generally disembodied,” he says. Gnosticism first appeared among early Christians, and it reappears throughout the church’s history in new and revised versions.
The final ideological temptation is the Pelagian solution. The Pelagians believed sanctity was the result of human effort without God’s aid. This is the temptation of conservative Catholics to “a form of restorationism.” They seek a “purely disciplinary solution” to the church’s problems “through the restoration of outdated manners and forms which, even on the cultural level, are no longer meaningful.” One can see why Francis rejected the grandiose papal apparel.
The second temptation of the church is to functionalism, which Pope Francis believes has the effect of paralyzing the church. “More than being interested in the road itself, it is concerned with fixing holes in the road.”
The last temptation of the church is to clericalism, which, as its name implies, is a particular temptation for bishops and priests, but Francis argues that often, the laity is complicit. “The priest clericalizes the layperson and the layperson kindly asks to be clericalized because deep down it is easier.” He believes that “the phenomenon of clericalism explains, in great part, the lack of maturity and Christian freedom in a good part of the laity.
Michelle and I can not have children. I refuse to entertain magical thinking. We have no intent to procreate. Our marriage is fruitful and valid.
The Council of Trent abrogated conscience in 1542. This has led to imposition of morality that appears based more upon dominant sentimentality than objective reasoning ... and much of this revisionist dogma has not been received by a majority of the faithful ... to the detriment of the Church.
The argument that got me to thinking about all this goes something like this:
“I am not a fan of the so-called “theology of the body.” I think it probably surprises the (neo)conservatives that most Catholics actually are not. It’s not that we disagree with its ultimate conclusions regarding the concrete application of morality, but rather that the premises conceded in trying to arrive at those pre-determined conclusions in the personalist manner seem novel, and like they could (by becoming an orthodoxy themselves) ultimately actually undermine orthodoxy, reducing everything to sentimentality and the level of the experiential (but in a way whose claims don’t necessarily hold up to experience!)
Though, I am “pastorally” sympathetic to the language of personalism; I think the language of experience and subjectivity and existential angst and all that is in many ways where we have to start with modern man. But, in itself it does not provide the objective framework into which experience is supposed to be situated and conformed by Reason (and faith). For that sort of objective rational theology, I think Scholasticism is much better; poetry is great, but it should not replace science. I think there is a lot to be said for deconstructing for people the premises underlying or implied by their own desires and values (in other words interrogating sexual desire, jealousy, romantic love, etc and making people consider “why?”) but this can only be done on an individual basis; I do think everyone is seeking the Good in some confused manner and thus experience can be a starting point, but appealing to “universal” experiences to make “one” definitive argument in this manner seems misleading and dangerous.
continued ...
“Jesus most certainly did object to Jewish laws that did not exhibit love”
False. “Do not think I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have not come to abolish, but fulfil.For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Jesus objected to false interpretations of the law, not the law itself.
When it comes to marriage, we know how Jesus read the Law:
He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5* and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? * 6 So they are no longer two but one. * What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:4-6)
Jesus regards marriage as solely for heterosexual union. Sorry you dislike that and want to impose a fantasy and make “marriage” mean whatever you like, but that’s your problem.
Mark Shea and tj007 ... I am simply stating an objective fact ... you are the one who is attempting to read into scripture what was not explicit to justify your sentimentality.
Jesus most certainly did object to Jewish laws that did not exhibit love ... would you like a few examples?
tj007 ... there you go again making obtuse arguments ... employing reductio ad absurdum fallacies of composition ... let’s stay focused
Now ... you continue to assert that the internal and external validity and reliability of the preponderance of CDC studies are not strong enough to justify conclusions ... and claim CDC conclusions are based on upon only one study ... hmmm ... as a member of the press, I will be in contact with CDC Media Relations to discuss your claims and will let you know what I learn.
Now let’s be clear about one thing ... a single study supports neither the CDC conclusions nor yours in and of itself. Why don’t you try reading the preponderance of studies that the CDC and American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association have developed to arrive at their conclusions ... you are obviously not an expert in this field of study.
And once you have examined all the evidence and derived your conclusions and write a paper and opened your study for peer-review ... then try again ... you are a long way from justifying your sentimentality ...
Health risks are not in and of themselves a valid reason for defining homosexual acts as intrinsically evil, demanding coerced celibacy or exclusion from communion. I smoke .. arguable stupid ... but the Church does not condemn the act, proscribe abstinence or become ineligible to receive communion.
You would deny civil union to 10% of the population ... an institution which encourages fidelity and may reduce risky sexual behaviors.
By your standard ... everyone who has engaged in risky sexual behaviors should be subject to coerced celibacy, ostracized and excluded from civil society and communion ...
There are many reputable studies ... the numbers converge around half the men and more than a quarter of the women in our society have committed adultery. Jesus drew a line in the sand on this question regarding punishment. For heterosexuals ... confession of sin and restitution (fidelity in marriage) is sufficient recompense ... albeit infidelity can be sufficient moral grounds for civil divorce and Catholic annulment.
You will need to explain yourself better than that. Try again:
Define the sin in non-normative terms (other than your sentimentality). How does a homosexual act, in the context of civil union, cause harm to the individual, others or society? Objective reasons. Then describe appropriate pastoral response with evidence of efficacy. Please be precise and provide evidence ... no junk science please.
Right on Mark.
.
Mr DeVol’s rejection of the Magisterium suggests that he may be a Protestant, but I suspect, his thought process is more akin to an atheist, given his positivism and naturalism.
Stephen’s elementary parlor trick regard the “Jesus never mentioned gay marriage” thingie:
It is a game played in order to maintain rejection of Catholic teaching in Protestant circles. It goes like this:
1. If a thing is condemned by the Church, but permitted by the Protestant (say, gay marriage) the demand is for an explicit text forbidding it (“Show me where Jesus said one word about not allowing gay marriage! That’s just the Church imposing its purely human ideas on what Jesus came to say.”).
2. Conversely, if a thing is allowed by the Church but condemned by the Protestant, the demand is for an explicit text commanding it. So, for instance, we get demands like, “Where in the Bible do you find anyone asking us to pray to dead people? That’s just the Church imposing it’s purely human ideas on what Jesus came to say.”
Stephen is attempting Tactic 1 because he is looking for a way to justify something the Church plainly believes to be wrong.
It has also been commonly argued that Jesus made no mention of homosexuality as recorded in the Bible. The conclusion LGB advocates want you to reach is that therrefore he DID NOT condemn the behavior and hence, he must have approved of it.
.
Notice the logical leaps? One cannot argue from a lack of data.
.
In context, John 21:25, “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down,I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
“
Matthew 5:17-19
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. “
.
Jesus would clearly not have contradicted the OT law, which said in
Leviticus “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination.”
.
Here’s a thought experiement:
If homosexual advocates are right about love as the only necessary ingredient for a true loving union, and the sex and procreative aspects are irrelevant, then by extension, there is no reason to exclude any man or woman from uniting with a cousin, a sibling, or even a parent. Furthermore, there is no reason to limit the union to only 2. As long as the 5 love each other, they can all be united. IOW, it turns marriage into a community contract involving any number and combination of consenting people.
.
My point is that the principles of love and consent are insufficient unless one is open to all other kinds of unions.
.
Any thoughts on this?
Having seen these same words posted multiple times, thanks to the gentleman who now appears to show evidence of spelling disability and either reading disability or memory loss, I was finally able to find the 2009 study that the CDC report cited but conveneiently omitted references.
.
“The researchers found that those who experienced stronger rejection were:
•8.4 times more likely to have tried to commit suicide
•5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression
•3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs
•3.4 times more likely to have risky sex”
.
The study was titled Family Rejection as a Predictor of Negative wHealth Outcomes in White and Latino Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Young Adults and the lead author was Caitlin Ryan. It was published In Pediatrics Vol. 123 No. 1 January 1, 2009.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/1/346.full
.
Sampling procedure: Community-based participatory research. Claims to be representative, but admits that the sample was based on convenience. Sample size = 224 which is adequate. Whether the sample is truly representative or not cannot be determined because no data was provided to compare to the population of LGB at large.
.
The measure of rejection used was reported to have high reliability.
.
Logistic regression was employed (because of the either-or coding of health risks), with the dichotomous health variable regressed upon an aggregated rejection score. What was unexpected and unclear was why they divided the sample into 3 sub-groups based on low, moderate, and high rejection scores.
.
The results they wished to emphasized are the ones above. However,take having tried to commit suicide which they reported as 8.4 times more likely. What the report failed to mention is that in the primary study, this was the high rejection subgroup only of size only 74. The moderate rejection subgroup odd-ratio was NOT statistically significant, and the low subgroup results were NOT included in the table.
,
Similarly, for risky sex, the 3.4 times is actually 3.36, for the high subgroup, and only for those who had unprotected sex at the last intercourse. The moderate subgroup was insignificant. But what of the risk of STD diagnosis among those who experienced rejection? Non-significant! The high odd-ratio of risky sex does not translate to STD diagnosis. Hmmm….
.
Overall, logistic regression analysis is a correlational procedure. And given that causation cannot be inferred simply from correlations, all we know is that high family rejection scores are associated in higher risks of certain health issues, like suicide ideation and attempts, depression, and substance use. That can be said of the non-LGB population also, I suspect. It tells us nothing about the causes of the health risks.
.
Folks, like it has been said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Even the CDC is guilty of issuing reports of the same poor incomplete quality and the popular media. Don’t be fooled.
.
Now, sit back and watch Mr DeVol repost some of the same stolen stuff in response to this.
Shalom.
Mt Stephen Devol try again:
what is the kernel of the Good News of the Lord Jesus?
tj007 ... if you want to object to CDC conclusions ... then start by being honest ... they have made conclusions regarding data you site to support your conclusions ... so object to CDC conclusions with integrity ... no junk science please.
Jón Valur Jensson ... sure ... let’s take a deeper look at your biblical citations ... please be specific ... all I see or condemnations without reason (it is safe to assume this is a normative value of the writer) ... biblical scholars have varying opinions on intent and context (many believe the original language referred to promiscuous behavior ... similar to support for slavery and prohibition of usury) ... Jesus had nothing to say about homosexual marriage.
Try again:
Define the sin in non-normative terms (other than your sentimentality). How does a homosexual act, in the context of civil union, cause harm to the individual, others or society? Objective reasons. Please be precise and provide evidence ... no junk science please.
Stephen DeVol,
Are you a Christian?
It is basic knowledge that disobeying God is sin.
Almighty God said it. Are you to question Him and defy Him?
God said it, I believe it and my duty is to obey it. Period.
“Many thanks, tj007, leng and others here, for standing against this flood of pagan misinformation which is only a part of the well-known h o m o s e x u a l i s t a g e n d a.”
.
OR in Mr DeVol’s terminology, “paegan”. :-)
.
You are welcome, Mr. Jensson. I would advise you to ignore Mr DeVol, who has repeatedly disrespected everyone who has dared disagree with him by ignoring almost every single one of their request for support and specific objections. He shows almost no knowledge of scientific verification at all, and prefer to trust the oopinions of politically motivated committees from APA AMA and such because they agree with his view. He dares not discuss the actual scientific detail, but attempts to obfuscate by posting the same plagiarized words over and over again, and at the same time showing little to no understanding of whatever he has posted (e.g. see his latest on CDC stuff and ignoring the specific criticisms that have been made of them). And lol, he keeps calling me a math teacher, just because I taught him a very basic truth that one cannot infer causation from correlation!
.
Now, sit back and watch him copy the same stuff he posted in response to this.
.
Shalom.
Yes, anyone trying to justify homosexual behavior, trying to encourage innocent youths to commit the God-condemned sin is not helping their salvation, is indeed causing the little ones to stumble. The dire consequence to such stumbling block? Well,read Matthew:18:6-7,23:13-33)for yourself!
The anti-Christ’s agenda is very clear, to lead astray more innocent youth to indulge in this dreadful sin, then, they hope ultimately homosexuals will predominate and the ‘abnormal’ becomes the ‘norm’!
All ‘true-Christian’ must stand up and be on the side of God. Be vigilant, expose and oppose. Do not be cowed. If God is with you who can be against you?
Stephen DeVol, I have no real time now, nor have I had for some days, but there is no need here for hair-splitting about definitions of the sin of sodomy. It’s affirmed most clearly in Holy Scripture, see above, and it is a very grave sin, depriving many from becoming heirs of the Kingdom of God, because even in spite of the offer of forgiveness and grace, purification and sanctification, as stated by St Paul (I Cor.6.11), there are deplorably many who do not accept that merciful offer of God’s.
And you are not helping their salvation–––on the contrary! You work for their damnation by all your cunning disinformation plots here. Yet most catholics will see through you, and rather listen to the witnesses of Christian faith here! – Many thanks, tj007, leng and others here, for standing against this flood of pagan misinformation which is only a part of the well-known h o m o s e x u a l i s t a g e n d a.
And I still have to come back replying to many shallow pseudo-counter-arguments.
leng ... show me some evidence ...
You said just treat the disease ... contrary to the judgment of the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association or any credible source in the scientific community who are experts on the subject matter.
(1) Show me some objective evidence that homosexual orientation is a disease.
(2) Show me some objective evidence that it is treatable.
Do you know what you are talking about?
tj007 ... go to American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association bibliographies and research a number of similar studies
... analyze internal and external validity and reliability. Were there control groups and randomization? Were the questions nonbiased? What was the sample size and standard deviation and correlation coefficients? Were the studies replicated? Is there converging evidence? etc, etc. etc ...
Now ... you assert that CDC conclusions have not been proved ... but probabilities and convergence can be measured to derive reasonable conclusions that can be tested. I agree that all studies must be evaluated with prudence and humility. Other studies may come along that put premises or conclusions into question. But professional organizations like the CDC have a fair track record of jurying research in their fields of expertise.
On the other hand ... you are a math teacher ... you have no scientific expertise in this field of study nor experience at the level of pastoral care ... hmmmm ... I believe the burden of proof is on you.
According to the CDC:
Homophobia, stigma, and discrimination persist in the United States and negatively affect the health and well-being of gay, bisexual, other men who have sex with men (MSM), and other members of the LGBT community. Homophobia, stigma, and discrimination are social determinants of health that can affect physical and mental health, whether MSM seek and are able to obtain health services, and the quality of the services they receive. Such barriers to health need to be addressed at different levels of society, such as health care settings, work places, and schools in order to increase opportunities for improving the health of MSM.
Homophobia and stigma persist in the United States even though acceptance of same-sex relationships has been steadily increasing. For example, a Gallup pollExternal Web Site Icon conducted in May 2010 found that more than half (52%) of Americans believed that gay and lesbian relationships were acceptable. Forty-three percent of Americans believed that gay and lesbian relationships are not morally acceptable.
The Effects of Negative Attitudes About Homosexuality
Negative attitudes about homosexuality can lead to rejection by friends and family, discriminatory acts and violence that harm specific individuals, and laws and policies that adversely affect the lives of many people; this can have damaging effects on the health of MSM and other sexual minorities. Homophobia, stigma and discrimination can:
•Limit MSM’s ability to access high quality health care that is responsive to health issues of MSM
•Affect income, employment status, and the ability to get and keep health insurance
•Contribute to poor mental health and unhealthy behaviors, such as substance abuse, risky sexual behaviors, and suicide attempts
•Affect MSM’s ability to establish and maintain long-term same-sex relationships that reduce HIV & STD risk
•Make it difficult for some MSM to be open about same-sex behaviors with others, which can increase stress, limit social support, and negatively affect health
The effects of homophobia, stigma and discrimination can be especially hard on adolescents and young adults. Young MSM and other sexual minorities are at increased risk of being bullied in school. They are also at risk of being rejected by their families and, as a result, are at increased risk of homelessness. A study published in 2009 compared gay, lesbian, and bisexual young adults who experienced strong rejection from their families with their peers who had more supportive families. The researchers found that those who experienced stronger rejection were:
•8.4 times more likely to have tried to commit suicide
•5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression
•3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs
•3.4 times more likely to have risky sex
Determining the validity and reliability of a large body of sc8entific research is only the first step.
Try again:
Define the sin in non-normative terms (other than your sentimentality). How does a homosexual act, in the context of civil union, cause harm to the individual, others or society? Objective reasons. Please be precise and provide evidence ... no junk science please.
Our pastor has prayed for numerous homosexual sinners who came forward (some in private for obvious reasons) to be prayed for and have the demonic bondage broken and the evil spirit cast out. They are now happily integrated into the society and the church and free of any social stigma, discrimination, prejudice, stress,......
By human effort this seems impossible but with God all things are possible.
(Matthew 19: 26)
Once you are no more a homosexual, no one has a reason to be prejudiced or discriminate against you.
I have never seen the label ‘I am/was Homosexual’ on anybody’s forehead,
do you, Mr. Stephen DeVol?
Leng ... come on ... you said just treat the disease ... contrary to the judgment of the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association or any credible source in the scientific community who are experts on the subject matter.
(1) Show me some objective evidence that homosexual orientation is a disease.
(2) Show me some objective evidence that it is treatable.
Do you know what you are talking about?
Ye Olde Statistician ... there you go again ... obfuscating ...
Try again:
Define the sin in non-normative terms (other than your sentimentality). How does a homosexual act, in the context of civil union, cause harm to the individual, others or society? Objective reasons. Please be precise and provide evidence ... no junk science please.
^i^no junk science please
.
That would be the sort of science in which one tries to derive a moral ‘ought’ from metrical descriptions of a physical ‘is’.^/i^
.
OR the type of science where one tries to derive causal direction from correlational data. :-)
no junk science please
.
That would be the sort of science in which one tries to derive a moral ‘ought’ from metrical descriptions of a physical ‘is’.
leng ... I have an open mind ... let’s see how logical you are ... show me some evidence ... no junk science please
Further, why is it that the so-called advocates of homosexuality are so blinded and illogical!
Just treat the disease/sin, get rid of the cause of the disease/sin and all signs and symptoms related to that disease/sin will be non-existent.
It is foolhardy to address the signs and symptoms of a disease/mental disorder and not stop the cause of that disease.
All the discrimination, prejudices ,social stigma, stress etc will simply disappear if the homosexual realizes that he has been led astray, repent of the sin and turn over a new leaf.
With God all things are possible. Just pray to God for wisdom and strength.
LOL!
According to Urban Dict:
Paegan
1. An attractive female.
2. A girl you wouldn’t expect to find in a cheap nightclub.
3. Someone with gonorrhea.
.
For the sake of argument, is anyone aware of a study that DIRECTLY investigated the effects of stereotyping and discrimination on homosexual health risks? If so, let’s post it and we can examine it in detail.
shouting paegan paegan is no way to win souls
.
Or to win a spelling bee.
tj007 ... very clever means to obfuscate.
You have not addressed the conclusions of experts based on converging evidence ... to include the CDC, American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association or any credible source in the scientific community who are experts on the subject matter. You are a math teacher ... you have no scientific expertise in this field of study nor experience at the level of pastoral care ... you spout junk science and look for argumentative means to obfuscate. You ignore the conclusions of credible scientific institutions and claim people are ignorant of scientific method and history and scholarship if they don’t accept your specious unscientific conclusions ... you appear to be an irresponsible math teacher. What hubris!
Try again:
Define the sin in non-normative terms (other than your sentimentality). How does a homosexual act, in the context of civil union, cause harm to the individual, others or society? Objective reasons. Please be precise and provide evidence ... no junk science please.
Mark Shea ... the majority of Catholics in good conscience do not agree with you ... shouting paegan paegan is no way to win souls.
A note about scientific reporting.
.
When scientists examine any report, they are careful to separate the empirical data from the interpretations.
That is why, for example, in the APA format for scientific reporting, there is a section for RESULTS (i.e. data) and another for DISCUSSION (interpretation). The latter is highly susceptible to the authors’ biases, and the former less so. Careful scientists will also look to the RESULTS primarily, and rely less on the DISCUSSION.
.
So, say the CDC report on MSM (males having sex with males). The CONCLUSION is less reliable than the actual reported relative frequencies and odds-ratio. The CONCLUSION of the report is very likely tainted by the authors’ biases.
.
For example, we read that:
.
Young men who have sex with men:
Among adolescent males aged 13–19 years, approximately 91% of all diagnosed
HIV infections are from male-to-male sexual contact.
From 2006 to 2009, YMSM aged 13–24 years had the greatest percentage increase
in diagnosed HIV infections* of all age groups (Figure 1).
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/
.
The responsible scientist, after determining that the sampling procedure is sound (among a few other concerns like base rates), accepts the finding at face value. Where the controversy lies is in the disagreements over the reasons for this data. There are multiple competing hypotheses, and the particular CDC committee generating the report simply describes one of several. AFAIK, these CDC reports have not tested any of these competing hypotheses directly via structural models. That is why I cautioned earlier that one cannot conclude causal directions from correlational data. Just because the temperature in the NOrth Pole may have risen in the last few years does not mean that it is responsible for the rise in HIV infections among young MSMs :-)
.
All we really know with some moderate degree of certainty is that young MSMs are highly at risk for HIV infections compared to nonMSM boys. We can only guess why.
.
Therefore,it is prudent for parents to discourage their young boys to engage in homosexual behaviors.
Shalom.
Stephen’s answers leave only two options available. Either he is a Turing machine that somebody built in a failed attempt to simulate human intelligence and interactions or he is a contemptuous and rude person who simply cuts and pastes the same thing over and over again as he utterly ignores people while babbling about “respecting human dignity”. The charitable assumption is “machine”.
tj007 ... I have no problem with CCC conscience ... I believe in good conscience that your views are not informed by Reason and Faith ... your subjective judgment does not affect my conscience.
Ye Olde Statistician ... there you go again attaching the person. nitpicking historical details and ignoring the argument ... very clever.
Appeal to a magisterial authority that abrogates conscience lacks historical basis as a foundation for Tradition.
Roman Catholic ethics are shaped to some degree by magisterial teachings that often make the claim of inerrancy precisely through another claim: that its utterances are continuously the same and resist change, despite evidence to the contrary. (I have been quite specific). That is a mystical corner you have painted yourself into ... beyond reason and evidence.
Try again:
Define the sin in non-normative terms (other than your sentimentality). How does a homosexual act, in the context of civil union, cause harm to the individual, others or society? Objective reasons. Please be precise and provide evidence ... no junk science please.
Tj007 I pray you are right. When people are vulnerable they often grasp whatever let’s them hold onto a misguided notion. God bless.
For those wondering about the role of conscience, in the context of the Formation of Conscience, and under the section IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT the CCC states:
.
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, ***rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching***, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
.
Also:
1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and ***to reject authoritative teachings. ***
.
IOW, one’s conscience cannot be well-formed if one rejects the authoritative teachings of the Church.
.
Shalom.
Pam, you wrote ” Ronald not listening to your self-serving garbage”. I am just mirroring what you write.
Pam,
I would suggest your stop worrying about Mr Devol leading people astray. Few people, in their right mind, would be persuaded by the numerous disconnected stolen texts he posts, which ends up being one large incoherent mess. Read any one of his lengthy posts, and you will quickly realize that he never fully understood what he pasted.
.
Both the Bible and biology make clear that homosexual acts are sinful and contrary to human nature. The poor gentlemen is unable to grasp these basic truths whether wilfully or out of ignorance or lack of education.
.
His repeated question about defining the sin has already been answered. He offers absolutely no rebuttal other than an outright disqualification of the answer without rationale. No specifics are ever given by him. Reason seems to be beyond his capability. Even the simple concept that I taught him about correlation not being the same as causation fully escaped him. As did the basic Catholic concepts of the proper formation of conscience and the role of the Magisterium - the latter already adequately explained to him.
.
Mr DeVol just don’t get it or don’t want to get it. He is fully committed to his “sentimental” view of homosexuality and will “obfuscate” by throwing out poorly defined labels like “normative value judgment” and pasting huge amount of plagiarized and often loosely relevant text.
Note also that in ignoring the Scripture and the Magisterium, and in only demanding evidence and “objective reasons”, Mr DeVol is properly characterized as holding a naturalistic worldview, which is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
.
BTW, his positivistic view is logically indefensible becasue it is self-refuting:
When he implies that “statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically verified”, that is self-refuting, because the very statement he implies cannot be empirically verified.
Shalom.
Stephen I know the agenda mantra and it is a lie. I have seen the manipulation first hand throughout my life and have been able to help some kids recognize what was being done to them. Lie, lie, lie. Anyone who does morally questionable things would suffer the same consequences. We already had that discussion. Stop teaching people to develop the victim attitude and teach them to take responsibility for their actions. You can site your leftist cites til they come out you nose but we are onto the game. State the lie as a truth until people start believing it. Shout down or silence anyone who gets in the way. But you didn’t count on Christians being lead by the Holy Spirit. We see the lie. Ronald not listening to your self-serving garbage. Enough. God have mercy.
Ye Olde Statistician ... there you go again attaching the person. nitpicking historical details and ignoring the argument ... very clever.
.
For some reason, the term Backpfeifengesicht comes to mind. What some people call ‘nitpicking historical details’ or ‘nitpicking scientific details’ others call ‘getting the facts right.’ You made the original statement; you have yet to back it up. All you have done is constantly cut and paste from cover flap copy on someone else’s book.
+++
Stop obfuscating ... Appeal to a magisterial authority that abrogates conscience lacks historical basis as a foundation for Tradition.
.
Why should I appeal to such an authority on matters of celestial mechanics or historical fact? The Magisterium doesn’t cover that. Instead, I have appealed to secular scholarly books, and blog posts by historians of science. I’m still waiting for you to back up your initial claim.
Pam, you stated “Ronald stop slandering me. You do not know if you really do good or not. God will judge. You should not even judge yourself. I said nothing about anything apart from the words written here by you and Stephen and those words try to minimize the gravity of the sinful nature of same sex relations. I will defend the truth faith and speak against the falsehood.”
It is you who have slandered and implied that I am leading people astray. At least have the decency and humility to admit it. I have shown you in black and white what you have falsely written about me, yet you continue to live in denial and refuse to admit you are wrong.
Ye Olde Statistician ... there you go again attaching the person. nitpicking historical details and ignoring the argument ... very clever.
Stop obfuscating ... Appeal to a magisterial authority that abrogates conscience lacks historical basis as a foundation for Tradition.
Roman Catholic ethics are shaped to some degree by magisterial teachings that often make the claim of inerrancy precisely through another claim: that its utterances are continuously the same and resist change, despite evidence to the contrary. (I have been quite specific). That is a mystical corner you have painted yourself into ... beyond reason and evidence.
Try again:
Define the sin in non-normative terms (other than your sentimentality). How does a homosexual act, in the context of civil union, cause harm to the individual, others or society? Objective reasons. Please be precise and provide evidence ... no junk science please.
Pam ... RE: “Children stereotyped into homosexual identity”
Homosexual orientation s not a choice. See CDC, American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association and USCCB Always Our Brother
According to the CDC:
Homophobia, stigma, and discrimination persist in the United States and negatively affect the health and well-being of gay, bisexual, other men who have sex with men (MSM), and other members of the LGBT community. Homophobia, stigma, and discrimination are social determinants of health that can affect physical and mental health, whether MSM seek and are able to obtain health services, and the quality of the services they receive. Such barriers to health need to be addressed at different levels of society, such as health care settings, work places, and schools in order to increase opportunities for improving the health of MSM.
Homophobia and stigma persist in the United States even though acceptance of same-sex relationships has been steadily increasing. For example, a Gallup pollExternal Web Site Icon conducted in May 2010 found that more than half (52%) of Americans believed that gay and lesbian relationships were acceptable. Forty-three percent of Americans believed that gay and lesbian relationships are not morally acceptable.
The Effects of Negative Attitudes About Homosexuality
Negative attitudes about homosexuality can lead to rejection by friends and family, discriminatory acts and violence that harm specific individuals, and laws and policies that adversely affect the lives of many people; this can have damaging effects on the health of MSM and other sexual minorities. Homophobia, stigma and discrimination can:
•Limit MSM’s ability to access high quality health care that is responsive to health issues of MSM
•Affect income, employment status, and the ability to get and keep health insurance
•Contribute to poor mental health and unhealthy behaviors, such as substance abuse, risky sexual behaviors, and suicide attempts
•Affect MSM’s ability to establish and maintain long-term same-sex relationships that reduce HIV & STD risk
•Make it difficult for some MSM to be open about same-sex behaviors with others, which can increase stress, limit social support, and negatively affect health
The effects of homophobia, stigma and discrimination can be especially hard on adolescents and young adults. Young MSM and other sexual minorities are at increased risk of being bullied in school. They are also at risk of being rejected by their families and, as a result, are at increased risk of homelessness. A study published in 2009 compared gay, lesbian, and bisexual young adults who experienced strong rejection from their families with their peers who had more supportive families. The researchers found that those who experienced stronger rejection were:
•8.4 times more likely to have tried to commit suicide
•5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression
•3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs
•3.4 times more likely to have risky sex
Reducing the Effects of Stigma and Discrimination
MSM and their family and friends can take steps to reduce the effects of homophobia, stigma and discrimination and protect their physical and mental health. One way to cope with the stress from stigma and discrimination is social support. Some studies show that gay men who have good social support—from family, friends, and the wider gay community—have:
•higher self-esteem,
•a more positive group identity, and
•more positive mental health.
Whether you are gay or straight, you can help reduce homophobia, stigma and discrimination in your community and decrease the negative health effects. Even small things can make a difference, such as supporting a family member, friend, co-worker.
Stephen, “By their fruit you shall know them.”. Loss of freedom of speech and religion. Children stereotyped into homosexual identity. Aids. Physical repercussions of anal sex. Attacks of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Loss of faith in Catholic teaching….....
You have a history of accusing your interlocutors of repeating myths and legends.
.
That is a result of various interlocutors repeating myths and legends.
+++
Michael teaches that the Church has never taught error and claims people are ignorant of history and scholarship if they don’t accept his sources
.
Pay attention here, because it may not fit your cut-and-paste. It was yourself who stated that the Church has taught error and that this led to many deaths. I have taught nothing so far. I have only asked for you to provide concrete examples.
+++
He was interrogated with the threat of torture (can you imagine what would have happened to poor Galileo if he refused the order?).
.
Not much. They had him dead to rights on the technical violation of the 1618 injunction; and the rules of evidence of the Roman Inquisition forbade the use of torture on the old and infirm.
.
It is a common tactic for fundamentalists to extract proof-texts as if they demonstrated anything in the absence of context. It would be well to remember that all this happened in late Renaissance Italy, the Italy of Machiavelli, and nothing should be taken on face value; let alone terms of art like formally heretical, which meant ‘heretical in form,’ but not in substance. Allow me to recommend a few texts written by historians. These are written in things called “books” and contain various footnotes.
.
—-De Santillana, Giorgio. The Crime of Galileo. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955.
—-Rowland, Wade. Galileo’s Mistake. New York: Arcade Publishing, 2003.
—-Shea, William R. & Mariano Artigas. Galileo in Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
+++
Also useful are some blog posts by Thony Christie, an atheist English historian of science who teaches in Germany. He explains why heliocentrism appeared falsified to the best scientists of the day, and how Galileo wanted it taken on faith.
—-But it doesn’t move! June 22, 2011.
http://thonyc.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/but-it-doesn’t-move/
—-Extracting the Stopper. June 2, 2010.
http://thonyc.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/extracting-the-stopper/
—-Galileo’s great bluff. Nov. 12, 2010.
http://thonyc.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/galileo’s-great-bluff-and-part-of-the-reason-why-kuhn-is-wrong/
+++
Jim Walker writes:
.
Hoo-ah! A citation of the creator of what atheist history blogger Tim O’Neil called ‘the Stupidest Thing on the Internet Ever!’
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2009/10/gods-philosophers-how-medieval-world.html
+++
How does a homosexual act, in the context of civil union, cause harm to the individual, others or society?
.
Now that’s sentimentality! ‘We aren’t hurtin no one!’ One is compelled to ask by the Precautionary Principle: How do you know? Or is it only harm that is immediate and obvious that is to count.
Ronald stop slandering me. You do not know if you really do good or not. God will judge. You should not even judge yourself. I said nothing about anything apart from the words written here by you and Stephen and those words try to minimize the gravity of the sinful nature of same sex relations. I will defend the truth faith and speak against the falsehood.
DeVol is still repeating previous posts. What is that saying about insanity and repetition?
Pam ... thanks for examining my conscience and my prayer life ... I am glad to know you are a competent authority to judge.
You do not have to keep repeating your sentimentality ... I heard it the first time. Do you have a reasoned argument to share?
Homosexuality is disordered and intrinsically evil because the Church says it’s disordered and intrinsically evil because it’s disordered and intrinsically evil ... and here are a few Gospel condemnations (without reason and out of context) and some discredited pseudo-science I’ve cherry picked to prove it ... that is a tautology ... not a reasoned argument.
Appeal to a magisterial authority that abrogates conscience lacks historical basis as a foundation for Tradition.
Roman Catholic ethics are shaped to some degree by magisterial teachings that often make the claim of inerrancy precisely through another claim: that its utterances are continuously the same and resist change, despite evidence to the contrary. (I have been quite specific). That is a mystical corner you have painted yourself into ... beyond reason and evidence.
Specifically, the format I’ve seen this argument take when discussing with people online essentially boils down to something that ultimately implies “Homosexual acts are wrong because they express having the wrong sort of experience!” rather than the truth, which is that the experiences would be problematic inasmuch, and only inasmuch, as they incline to acts immoral for objective reasons, but then non-problematic inasmuch as they don’t. But, that’s the sort of absurdity you wind up with when, in an attempt to “internalize” morality, you wind up ultimately placing the locus of virtue primarily in the “correct” temperament and disposition rather than the ordering of acts, with the passions judged only relative to those acts.
Define the sin in non-normative terms (other than your sentimentality). How does a homosexual act, in the context of civil union, cause harm to the individual, others or society? Objective reasons. Please be precise and provide evidence ... no junk science please.
The development of doctrine is based on a better understanding of Scripture (particularly the love that is Jesus Christ) and Tradition based on reason and evidence.
Pam, look at how you attempt to defend the lie you wrote about me. You never witnessed how we live our lives in faith to God’s Love. You do not humble yourself when you see in black and white the lie that you have written about me leading souls astray. That is dead wrong and it is violent in nature.
Do not deceive yourself or others that condoning, or worst still, encouraging the innocent that homosexual activity is alright when God in no uncertain terms decrees that such act is abomination to Him, can help that innocent person to salvation.
Titus 3:10-11 states in no uncertain terms that as followers of Christ we are to warn a divisive person once, and then warn them (him) a second time.
After that, have nothing to do with them (him).
You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned.
Leng
Ronald, Are you threatening me? Do you sincerely believe I am not entitled to my opinion? Do you really believe there is only one Ronald King in the world? Do you really believe you can reject the warning of God in Leviticus and denounce it as unreliable and no one can respond that statements like that lead souls astray? We disagree.
Pam, you wrote, “Ronald, after reading Stephen’s post I sincerely believe he is leforceading souls to error, grave error and if you encourage him you are as well. I do not retract what I said.”
You also stated, “Stephen and you are not letting this message get through and souls will be lost.”
Please consider that your belief is a presumption which has no basis in reality and is only based on your interpretation of what you have read. You have not seen him living his life and spreading God’s word of Love. You have also implied that I may be responsible for souls being lost. Look at the truth of your words and take responsibility for the damage that they do on the internet since I have my full name here and it is being disparaged by the lack of truth in your words. That is violent and harmful and therefore sinful.
Mr. DeVol does repeat a lot of the same phrases, such as “That is a mystical corner you have painted yourself into ... beyond reason and evidence.” And when asked to explain what he means by it, he can’t because it is something he read, liked, and uses without really knowing the point.
He sounds like he has been brainwashed and indoctrinated and can only respond with repeated phrases and cut and pasted writings of others.
Imagine if Mr. Devol had spent his time doing spiritual exercises instead of trying to upend the faith. Sigh. Evidently we can not even agree on what constitutes harm - not the defiance to God’s Word? not the scandal caused to ones neighbor?; not the abuse of body parts for pleasure?; not children being raised by adults who could not relate to the opposite sex?; not the lack of humility to say “this really is distinct from a marriage?”, not the rift it places between the church and the sexual partners? not the efforts to destroy marriages and people whose views disagree with theirs? Not the assault on freedom of speech and religion? Not the lie that despite the obvious unnatural attraction there is no disorder? Not the lie that all these reasons bare “sentiment”?
tj007 ... I did not call your CDC fabrication sentimentality ... I said you are fabricating evidence to justify your sentimentality. Your use of CDC data without revealing CDC conclusions is deception.
In fact, you have not addressed the conclusions of the CDC, American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association or any credible source in the scientific community who are experts on the subject matter. You are a math teacher ... you have no scientific expertise in this field of study nor experience at the level of pastoral care ... you spout junk science and look for argumentative means to obfuscate.
You haven’t demonstrated a knowledge of natural law ... you ignore all critical commentary and claim people are ignorant of scientific method and history and scholarship if they don’t accept your sources ... What hubris!
Try again:
Define the sin in non-normative terms (other than your sentimentality). How does a homosexual act, in the context of civil union, cause harm to the individual, others or society? Objective reasons. Please be precise and provide evidence ... no junk science please.
If you wish to demonstrate a knowledge of natural law, then respond to these well constructed arguments:
Natural Law Ethics, Homosexuality and Morality
(Ceteris Paribus: A Defence of Homosexual Sexual Engagement as Moral)
http://www.academia.edu/274577/Natural_Law_Ethics_Homosexuality_and_Morality
Hi Ye Olde Statistician,
.
If you haven’t read the earlier posts, you should know that Mr DeVol has very little familiarity with natural law. He lumped biological determinism and natural law and called them both “20th century arguments”
.
Most of anything he post is plagiarized from other authors, deceptively giving the appearance of being highly informed.
.
I have already described the sin of homosexual acts (natural law argument) in what he calls “non-normative terms” and cited data from the CDC which showed significant health risks to the individuals involved. He responded by calling it “sentimentality.”
He wrote: “Thomas Aquinas condemns homosexual acts without objective reasons ... mere sentimentality reflecting dominant normative values and a lack of evidence to support his conclusions.”
The ignorance and the intellectual laziness is clear. He has not read Aquinas.
Shalom.
Ye Olde Statistician ... I prefer Scholasticism. But natural law theory offers the most common intellectual defense for differential treatment of gays and lesbians, and as such it merits attention.
If you want to start with a critique of natural law arguments in the Nicomachaen Ethics ... try:
Natural Law Ethics, Homosexuality and Morality
(Ceteris Paribus: A Defence of Homosexual Sexual Engagement as Moral)
http://www.academia.edu/274577/Natural_Law_Ethics_Homosexuality_and_Morality
Then try again to produce objective reasons and evidence:
Define the sin in non-normative terms (other than your sentimentality). How does a homosexual act, in the context of civil union, cause harm to the individual, others or society? Objective reasons. Please be precise and provide evidence ... no junk science-fiction please.
Ye Olde Statistician ... I prefer to ask you a straightforward question.
For a science fiction writer and fantasy book critic you are quite creative. You have a history of accusing your interlocutors of repeating myths and legends. Michael teaches that the Church has never taught error and claims people are ignorant of history and scholarship if they don’t accept his sources ... What hubris!
Jim Walker writes:
I usually don’t respond to attacks that include ad hominems, and cheap shots, but he makes some absurd claims and his criticism appears so thorough and condemning that it might seem, to the naive reader, that his assertions are valid. He sure stuck it to me, didn’t he? Well, not quite as we shall soon see.
Flynn writes: “Mr. Walker evidently has no idea of the issues of the trial, the particulars of the charges. . . .Galileo was not convicted of heresy, nor was heliocentrism declared heretical. “
Flynn invents another a straw man. I never said anything about conviction; I wrote “imprisoned.” Galileo officially surrendered to the Holy Office, and Father Firenzuola informed Galileo that for the duration of the proceedings against him he would be imprisoned in the Inquisition building [source]. Some have tried to argue that this was not imprisonment (being held in a prosecutor’s apartment) but anyone who is held against their will is, indeed, imprisoned.
Furthermore, Flynn apparently doesn’t understand that claiming evidence for heliocentrism was considered heretical. And spare us the Flynn lecture on Galileo’s trial. The information is available in libraries and on the internet. Notice that Flynn provides no links or sources. I implore people to read the actual Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo themselves instead of invented history from Flynn. The Condemnation includes:
“The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally HERETICAL, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.” [bold caps, mine]
“The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.”
Galileo was ordered to abandon althogether the said false doctrine. He was interrogated with the threat of torture (can you imagine what would have happened to poor Galileo if he refused the order?). To avoid future consequences, Galileo finely wrote a recantation that includes:
“. . . after an injunction had been judicially intimated to me by this Holy Office, to the effect that I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center of the world, and moves, and that I must not hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture—I wrote and printed a book in which I discuss this new doctrine already condemned, and adduce arguments of great cogency in its favor, without presenting any solution of these, and for this reason I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of HERESY, that is to say, of having held and believed that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and moves:
Therefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of all faithful Christians, this vehement suspicion, justly conceived against me, with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and HERESIES, and generally every other error, HERESY, and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church, and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me; but that should I know any heretic, or person suspected of HERESY, I will denounce him to this Holy Office. . .” [bold caps, mine)
Of course nobody today believes that Galileo denounced heliocentrism in his own mind; we know that he really was a heretic by Papal standards. And even though Galileo fully recanted, he was still committed to house arrest for the rest of his life. And apologists want us to believe this was a time of free inquiry! Fortunately other people knew of Galileo’s work, and once his information hit Great Britain, there was not a damn thing the Church could do to stop its spread. This is an example of what I mean by science advancing in spite of religion.
But is all seems a brilliant ruse to avoid to answering the question. Try again:
Define the sin in non-normative terms (other than your sentimentality). How does a homosexual act, in the context of civil union, cause harm to the individual, others or society? Objective reasons. Please be precise and provide evidence ... no junk science-fiction please.
It seems that DeVol will do anything but answer the simple question already put to him twice: viz., to provide actual historical examples to support the assertion he made.
.
As for the rest, one might suggest starting here:
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html
Once the nature of the good is grasped, we can work up from that.
tj007 ... that’s an odd response ... it’s a straightforward question.
Define the sin in non-normative terms (other than your sentimentality). How does a homosexual act, in the context of civil union, cause harm to the individual, others or society? Objective reasons. Please be precise and provide evidence ... no junk science please.
A word of advice to Ye Olde Statistician:
Ignore the troll.
Seems like Mr DeVol is trying to obfuscate. LOL!
Ye Olde Statistician ... try again
Define the sin in non-normative terms (other than your sentimentality). How does a homosexual act, in the context of civil union, cause harm to the individual, others or society? Objective reasons. Please be precise and provide evidence ... no junk science please.
tj007, You are right. He ignores the lessons of Sodom and Gomorrah and Noah. It isn’t the number of people who think the same way. It’s the number who listen to the Lord and obey and do His will not the will of groups like Stephen’s. It occurred to me that Stephen got off track when he decided that his marriage is valid because it is unitive because he rejects the idea that he and his wife could ever conceive. When he says that alarms should go off. He is saying his god is not God. He is hurting and has lost hope and faith and he is shunning or being disobedient to God and Church teaching.. But sadly you can’t get to the truth in that state of mind. Not without a miraculous intervention or a change of heart.
Homosexuality is disordered and intrinsically evil because the Church says
it’s disordered and intrinsically evil because it’s disordered and
intrinsically evil ... that is a tautology
.
Good thing that’s not the argument, then.
.
I notice that you constantly repeat the same set phrases, often in the same order. Is there a reason for this?
there you go again trying to obfuscate.
.
There are many examples of where Church teaching has been in error and has
caused great harm. It is not true to say that there is no room for doctrinal
development. The abrogation of conscience is a more recent historical
phenomenon ... that has not been received by a majority of Catholics.
.
All I asked for was that you actually specify a couple concrete examples to back up your claim regarding erroneous teachings and their harm.
.
Clericalism is not a teaching, and it was something we were aware of in the 1960s. Don’t know what you mean about abrogation of conscience, unless it is the age-old warning that conscience must be rightly formed before it can be relied upon. The Church is not in the business of holding plebiscites, but in teaching the truth, regardless of how many are ready to hear it.
.
I will continue to await the “many examples of where Church teaching has been in error and has caused great harm.” I am also curious why you keep repeating almost the exact same phrasing.
Folks, haven’t you realized by now that Mr DeVol really have nothing to contribute. He repeats his post without ever specifically addressing the rebuttals, and pasting repeatedly the same plagiarized material, even if they don’t quite fit.
.
On other forums, he would be quickly labeled a troll and totally ignored.
.
Again, he has offered no positive argument to support the view that homosexual acts are not sinful.
He is a Protestant at heart:
“Appeal to a magisterial authority that abrogates conscience lacks historical basis as a foundation for Tradition and is not received by a majority of Catholics.”
.
See. Absolutely no understanding of proper formation of conscience and totally American-centered because he assuems that if more than 50% of American Catholics believe such and such, it must be true of the rest of the Catholics around the world.
Pam ... thanks for examining my conscience and my prayer life ... I am glad to know you are a competent authority to judge the vast majority of Catholics who in good conscience object to discrimination without objective reasons.
You do not have to keep repeating your sentimentality ... I heard it the first time. Do you have a reasoned argument to share?
Homosexuality is disordered and intrinsically evil because the Church says it’s disordered and intrinsically evil because it’s disordered and intrinsically evil ... and here are a few Gospel condemnations (without reason and out of context) and some discredited pseudo-science I’ve cherry picked to prove it ... that is a tautology ... not a reasoned argument.
Appeal to a magisterial authority that abrogates conscience lacks historical basis as a foundation for Tradition and is not received by a majority of Catholics.
Roman Catholic ethics are shaped to some degree by magisterial teachings that often make the claim of inerrancy precisely through another claim: that its utterances are continuously the same and resist change, despite evidence to the contrary. That is a mystical corner you have painted yourself into ... beyond reason and evidence.
Specifically, the format I’ve seen this argument take when discussing with people online essentially boils down to something that ultimately implies “Homosexual acts are wrong because they express having the wrong sort of experience!” rather than the truth, which is that the experiences would be problematic inasmuch, and only inasmuch, as they incline to acts immoral for objective reasons, but then non-problematic inasmuch as they don’t. But, that’s the sort of absurdity you wind up with when, in an attempt to “internalize” morality, you wind up ultimately placing the locus of virtue primarily in the “correct” temperament and disposition rather than the ordering of acts, with the passions judged only relative to those acts.
Define the sin in non-normative terms (other than your sentimentality). How does a homosexual act, in the context of civil union, cause harm to the individual, others or society? Objective reasons. Please be precise and provide evidence ... no junk science please.
The development of doctrine is based on a better understanding of Scripture (particularly the love that is Jesus Christ) and Tradition based on reason and evidence.
S/b leading souls to error
Ronald, after reading Stephen’s post I sincerely believe he is leforceading souls to error, grave error and if you encourage him you are as well. I do not retract what I said. If I didn’t speak up then I would be sinning. Stephen listen to your conscience screaming “Pagan, pagan”. I don’t see those words anywhere but in your posts. You are not respectful. I hope you don’t really think that you are!!!
Ye Olde Statistician ... there you go again trying to obfuscate.
There are many examples of where Church teaching has been in error and has caused great harm. It is not true to say that there is no room for doctrinal development. The abrogation of conscience is a more recent historical phenomenon ... that has not been received by a majority of Catholics.
According to Pope Francis, a temptation of the church is to clericalism, which, as its name implies, is a particular temptation for bishops and priests, but Francis argues that often, the laity is complicit. “The priest clericalizes the layperson and the layperson kindly asks to be clericalized because deep down it is easier.” He believes that “the phenomenon of clericalism explains, in great part, the lack of maturity and Christian freedom in a good part of the laity.
Pam ... thanks for examining my conscience and my prayer life ... I am glad to know you are a competent authority to judge a vast majority of Catholics who in good conscience object to discrimination without objective reasons. I will count your special intentions in my prayers this day.
I will pray Psalm 88 at Mass tomorrow morning
I will respond respectfully to reasoned arguments. There is nothing more I can say to those shouting “paegan paegan” ... other than that is no way to win souls.
you are nitpicking to obfuscate
.
a mind-reader, no less. Historical accuracy is not nitpicking. Legend and myth are always general, but history is local and particular. If you are going to cite historical events, it would be well to get them actually correct.
.
there are many examples of where Church teaching has been in error and has caused great harm.
.
Then it would be no great shakes to actually specify these erroneous teachings and the harm they have done. Galileo is not one of them. Did you read the article linked to previously?
“Teach me, Lord, what you want me to do,
and I will obey you faithfully;
teach me to serve you with complete devotion.”
(cf Psalm 86 v 11)
Pam, Presume “to take as true without examination or proof”.
You wrote, “Stephen and you are not letting this message get through and souls will be lost.”
Are you humble and truthful enough to admit your mistake?
chris awo ... thanks for examining my conscience and my prayer life ... I will count your special intentions in my prayers this day.
I will pray Psalm 86 at Mass tomorrow morning ... seems more relevant to our discussion.
May God’s peace be with you always!
Stephen
tj007 and Ye Olde Statistician ... you are nitpicking to obfuscate ... there are many examples of where Church teaching has been in error and has caused great harm. It is not true to say that there is no room for doctrinal development. The abrogation of conscience is a more recent historical phenomenon ... that has not been received by a majority of Catholics.
According to Pope Francis, a temptation of the church is to clericalism, which, as its name implies, is a particular temptation for bishops and priests, but Francis argues that often, the laity is complicit. “The priest clericalizes the layperson and the layperson kindly asks to be clericalized because deep down it is easier.” He believes that “the phenomenon of clericalism explains, in great part, the lack of maturity and Christian freedom in a good part of the laity.
.
Christianity is not based on intellectual arguments. Otherwise St. Paul would have converted everybody at the Areopagus in Athens (cf Acts 17); and indeed he would have converted Governor Festus and King Herod Agrippa II if eloquence and knowledge was what was require in evangelization (cf Acts 26) . Intellectual elucidations are meant to help us understand our faith better.
Christian doctrine is not based on scientific evidence. Christianity is based on revealed truths which form the foundation, and endo- and exo-skeleton of beliefs and moral doctrine.
.
God called Abraham, and Abraham by faith responded to God’s call. And even though his wife was virtually menopausal Abraham still believed God when he said his descendants by Sarah will be more numerous than he could ever imagine.
All these long scientific and pseudo-scientific articles and extracts won’t get anybody into heaven.
.
“Hear this, everyone!
Listen, all people everywhere,
2 great and small alike,
rich and poor together.
3 My thoughts will be clear;
I will speak words of wisdom.
4 I will turn my attention to proverbs
and explain their meaning as I play the harp.
5 I am not afraid in times of danger
when I am surrounded by enemies,
6 by evil people who trust in their riches
and boast of their great wealth.
7 WE CAN NEVER REDEEM OURSELVES;
WE CANNOT PAY GOD THE PRICE FOR OUR LIVES,
8 BECAUSE THE PAYMENT FOR A HUMAN LIFE IS TOO GREAT.
WHAT WE COULD PAY WOULD NEVER BE ENOUGH
9 TO KEEP US FROM THE GRAVE,
TO LET US LIVE FOREVER.
10 Anyone can see that even the wise die,
as well as the foolish and stupid.
They all leave their riches to their descendants.
11 Their graves are their homes forever;
there they stay for all time,
though they once had lands of their own.
12 Our greatness cannot keep us from death;
we will still die like the animals.
13 SEE WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE WHO TRUST IN THEMSELVES,
THE FATE OF THOSE WHO ARE SATISFIED WITH THEIR WEALTH—
14 THEY ARE DOOMED TO DIE LIKE SHEEP,
AND DEATH WILL BE THEIR SHEPHERD.
The righteous will triumph over them,
as their bodies quickly decay
in the world of the dead far from their homes.[d]
15 But GOD WILL RESCUE ME;
HE WILL SAVE ME FROM THE POWER OF DEATH.
16 Don’t be upset when someone becomes rich,
when his wealth grows even greater;
17 he cannot take it with him when he dies;
his wealth will not go with him to the grave.
18 EVEN IF SOMEONE IS SATISFIED WITH THIS LIFE
AND IS PRAISED BECAUSE HE IS SUCCESSFUL,
19 HE WILL JOIN ALL HIS ANCESTORS IN DEATH,
WHERE THE DARKNESS LASTS FOREVER.
20 OUR GREATNESS CANNOT KEEP US FROM DEATH;
WE WILL STILL DIE LIKE THE ANIMALS.”
(Psalm 49)
.
Mr DeVol says he is a Catholic and a Christian. Fair enough.
.
Here, then, is my advice for him and other advocates of homosexual acts and gay marriage:
Go into a Catholic Church - any parish near you - get on your knees, say the Lord’s Prayer and then read psalm 19(Hebrew numbering) slowly, quietly, and sincerely in front of the Blessed Sacrament hidden in the tabernacle.
And then go home and do what your conscience and the Holy Spirit tell you.
.
P.S. In case you are wondering, i have taken the medicine i am recommending.
(left caret)i(right caret) starts italics.
(left caret)/i(right caret) stops italics.
(left caret)b(right caret) starts boldface.
(left caret)/b(right caret) stops boldface.
the carets are sometimes called ‘less than’ and ‘greater than’ signs.
NOTE: IF YOU FAIL TO STOP THE ITALICS OR BOLD BY USING THE SLASH, ALL COMMENTS THAT FOLLOW WILL CONTINUE TO BE ITALICIZED OR BOLD.
for some reason this site does not provide a button palette.
How do you initialize and bold words in the comment box?
Mark Shea is right to point to history about the Galileo issue. Mr DeVol does not even understand that Galileo’s case for heliocentrism was weak in the context of the science of that time (stellar parallax could not be observed then), and history has shown that Galileo, who adopted the Copernican model, in fact, was wrong. Kepler, who corresponded with Galileo, could not persuade Galileo of elliptical orbits.
Whatever the case, the Church’s condemnation was not strictly about the sicentific models of geo or helio-centrism. Mr DeVol, is so seriously confused. Galileo was condemned by a tribunal, not the Pope who was his long-time friend. If the Church had endorsed Galileo, she would also be wrong, because Galileo was wrong to adopt the Copernican model.
The act of the Holy Office, a tribunal, is not the same as an infallible Magistrial teaching. Again, Mr DeVol is so confused it is almost laughable. It was an issue of faith (taking a position contrary to Scripture), not morals, and not science primarily. The Church later admitted that the tribunal was wrong.
Just an interesting side note: Galileo, while under house arrest, was assigned a servant (as attested by the letter of Nicolini).
DeVol seems incapable of separating evidence from interpetation (CDC health data on MSM), moral principles from scientific debates (Galileo), correlations from causation (CDC), scientific opinions from empirical data (CDC), indenture or penal servitus from chattel servitus (Noonan), arguments based on reason and data from arguments based on affect and preferences (whatever he disagrees with is called sentimental).
During most of the 16th and 17th centuries, fear of heretics spreading teachings and opinions that contradicted the Bible dominated the Catholic Church.
.
Actually, it was the Protestants who feared that the Catholic Church was spreading teachings and opinions that contradicted the Bible. The Catholic position was that the Bible was one part of the Holy Traditions, and that—as Augustine, Thomas, and others had said repeatedly—if any part of it were to contradict knowledge held with certainty, then a literal reading of that passage would have to be abandoned. They were a little gun-shy during the Protestant Revolution and the various Protestant heresies did perhaps weigh heavily on their minds.
+++
They persecuted scientists who formed theories the Church deemed heretical and forbade people from reading any books on those subjects by placing the books on the Index of Prohibited Books.
.
Which scientists were those, and what theories? Which books were people forbade from reading? Or do you mean those uncorrected and still containing unclarities? Keep in mind that every government tried to control the internet, I mean the printing press, and you needed a license from the authorities to print any book whatsoever.
+++
Inquisitorial repression of the sexual offence of sodomy, considered, according to Canon Law, as a crime against nature, merits separate attention.
.
Indeed, a great many cases were brought against priests and monks using young men in this fashion. One almost wishes there had been an active inquisitio in recent years to deal with sodomizing priests.
.
Keep in mind, too, that inquisitio was a legal form that originated in the Late Roman Republic to replace accusatio in criminal cases, a distinction we still make between criminal and civil court. Keep in mind, too, that the vast majority of those accused were either released or acquitted, given minor penances, and so forth. Even in Spain, save during three awful spasms that had to do with the growing spirit of nationalism.
++++
we simply ostracize and disenfranchise and excommunicate ... hmmmm.
.
Where are homosexuals not allowed to vote? And why do you think they are excommunicated?
+++
Threatened with torture, [Galileo ] publicly confessed that he had been wrong to have said that the Earth moves around the Sun. Unlike many less famous prisoners, Galileo was allowed to live under house arrest until his death in 1642.
.
House arrest on the spacious villa he owned and hardly ever left, or house arrest in the palace of Bishop Piccolomini, where he worked on his next book, house arrest in his town house… Oh, his old friend and protector, Urban, had been well and truly alienated by the needless insults, and the court in Rome usually made him wait when he requested a change in venue—but they always granted it. Nor did he have any trouble receiving visitors, just had to get prior permission.
.
Galileo was tried and convicted of violating an injunction he had freely signed some years earlier. He had promised to teach Copernicanism only as a mathematics device to ‘save the appearances’ of the heavenly bodies, but had written a book that quite clearly pushed the theory as a physical fact. Unfortunately, he had no empirical proof—and the Ursine and Tychonic models actually gave better predictions than the Copernican. (Copernicus had too many epicycles because he had insisted on pure Platonic circles.)
.
Galileo had earlier, in the Letter to the Grand Duchess Christiana, even pointed out how scriptures could be interpreted to accomodate the theory. That was a no-no for an amateur layman. Notice that this was carefully omitted from the charges laid against him. Had it been included, he really would have been charged with heresy! But the whole thing was something of a plea-bargain to smack him on the wrist and send him back home for insulting an old friend.
.
He was not “threatened with torture.” The rules for inquisitio forbade torture for the old and sick, period. It was never on the table, and everyone knew it.
.
There is some discussion of the matter here: http://www2.fiu.edu/~blissl/Flynngs.pdf
though the Galileo affair had little to do with forwarding the eventual adoption of the Keplerian model.
++++
Out of curiosity, who were some of these many less famous prisoners?
It is important to note that this is also a controversy over conscience ... as I discussed regarding consent as the basis for marriage for over 1600 years ... utilizing flawed natural law argument.
According to Pope Francis, a temptation of the church is to clericalism, which, as its name implies, is a particular temptation for bishops and priests, but Francis argues that often, the laity is complicit. “The priest clericalizes the layperson and the layperson kindly asks to be clericalized because deep down it is easier.” He believes that “the phenomenon of clericalism explains, in great part, the lack of maturity and Christian freedom in a good part of the laity.
“In these cases, the Church is making (in the form of interpretations of the commandment of love) authentic pronouncements which are promulgated by the magisterium, which are not infallible and are, for their arguments, dependent on justifications and proofs taken from the secular sciences and universal human reason.” ~ Karl Rahner
Why were the teachings on usury and slavery reversed? Because of a new understanding of natural law? Partly, but more so because the culture in which these teachings had once been affirmed had changed so that the teachings were no longer tenable.
The teaching of Humanae Vitae and procreative intent and complimentarity and homosexual disorder have not been received by the faithful.
Richard Gaillardetz reasons:
The proper role and function of the magisterium continue to be a source of controversy in many corners of the Catholic church today. Any fruitful reflection on the magisterium requires that we place the topic in its proper historical context.
Today the term magisterium generally refers to the doctrinal teaching office and authority of the bishops in communion with the bishop of Rome. That more narrow meaning is a fairly recent one. The word magisterium simply means, “the authority of the master or teacher” (magister, magistra) and it was used in a wide range of ecclesial contexts in the early church. Although the term magisterium did not then have the specialized meaning that it carries today, that does not mean that there was no sense of doctrinal authority in the early church.
In the pastoral letters of the New Testament we find officeholders (using the term somewhat loosely) who were recognized for a distinctive teaching responsibility, though the specific character and scope of that authority was not yet established. By the end of the second century, the office of bishop had emerged as an authoritative church office and there was a general conviction that they had in some sense succeeded to the authority of the apostles as guardians of the apostolic faith.
Even as questions of doctrinal authority emerged with considerable vigor in the early church, it would be anachronistic to assume that the church of the first millennium experienced anything like our modern conflicts between the magisterium and theologians. The clear distinction between bishop and theologian that we take for granted today was not nearly as evident in the early church. Most of the church’s great theological thinkers were bishops or abbots and there was as yet no separate education for clerics and the relatively few nonclerical theologians that existed.
The distinctive authority of the bishops to make binding doctrinal judgments was fairly well-established by the third century. However, it was most frequently exercised collegially in regional synods and, eventually, in what would be known as ecumenical councils. By the fifth century another decisive factor in the exercise of doctrinal teaching authority had emerged, namely the distinctive prerogative claimed by the bishop of Rome to authoritatively pronounce on doctrinal disputes.
The exercise of doctrinal authority throughout much of the first millennium presupposed several basic convictions. First, the doctrine that the bishops taught pertained to public revelation. There was no sense that bishops received some secret knowledge available only to them. Indeed such a view, known as Gnosticism, had been roundly condemned. Second, what the bishops taught was not foreign to the faith of the whole church. In apostolic service to their communities, the bishops received, verified and proclaimed the apostolic faith that all the baptized in their churches prayed and enacted. The apostolic faith consciousness of the whole people of God would eventually be referred to as the sensus fidelium.
Early in the second millennium, a series of shifts in the understanding and exercise of church teaching authority began to occur. With the birth of the medieval university in the 11th century, a different class of theological teacher would soon emerge, the university professoriate. These theology professors were most often clerics but their education, office and responsibility differed significantly from those of the bishop. Thus in the 13th century we can find St. Thomas Aquinas writing of both the “magisterium of the pastoral chair” (magisterium cathedrae pastoralis), by which he meant the teaching authority of the bishop, and the “magisterium of the teaching chair” (magisterium cathedrae magistralis), by which he meant the teaching authority of the “doctor” or theologian. Of course, Thomas insisted that these magisteria functioned in different ways; only the bishops could normatively assert Catholic doctrine. As Jesuit Fr. John O’Malley has noted, theologians began to be educated in ways that differed from the formation of bishops, who often were more preoccupied with matters of canon law. The conditions were set for a new bishop-theologian relationship. This relationship would flourish when bishops and theologians acknowledged the interdependence of their respective spheres of expertise and authority; it degenerated when cooperation gave way to competition and struggle.
By the late Middle Ages, many doctrinal questions were being handled not primarily by the pope and bishops but by competent theological faculties, like those at the great universities in Paris and Bologna. The active role of theologians working both independently and in partnership with popes and bishops would continue for centuries. For example, theologians played a constructive role at every stage of the Council of Trent (1545-63). And in the decades after Trent it was they, far more than the bishops, who led the theological defense of the faith against the attacks of reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin. The recognition of complementary spheres of authority would soon be challenged, however, by the threatening winds of modernity.
In the 18th century, Pope Benedict XIV created a new teaching instrument, the “encyclical” and in the 19th century these official papal letters, generally addressed to all the church’s bishops, would become favored instruments in the expansion of papal teaching authority. Theologians continued to play an important role as consultors in the exercise of doctrinal teaching authority, but the circle of trusted theologians was for the most part now reduced to the theological faculties at the various Roman colleges. As the pope’s temporal authority came under attack in the mid-19th century (the Italian nationalist movement demanded that the pope relinquish the Papal States), many compensated by emphasizing the pope’s doctrinal authority. This trend culminated in the formal definition of papal infallibility at Vatican I (1869-70).
In the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, popes would begin to offer, as part of their teaching ministry, extended theological treatments issued in formal magisterial documents on important topics. Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) would publish numerous encyclicals on a wide range of theological topics. Pope Pius X (1903-14) would follow Leo’s precedent with his 1907 encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, condemning the evils of modernism. This sweeping condemnation encouraged a veritable witch-hunt for theologians tainted by the scent of “modernism.” Indeed the first half of the 20th century saw the hierarchy treat a number of influential theologians harshly because of their views (Marie-Joseph Lagrange, Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, Karl Rahner, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin).
Both Pius XI (1922-39) and Pius XII (1939-1958) would issue lengthy encyclicals during their successive pontificates, with the latter sharply circum- scribing the legitimate autonomy of theologians. In his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, Pius XII limited the task of the theologian to that of faithfully explicating that which was proclaimed by the pope and bishops. Theologians were teachers of the faith only by virtue of a delegation of authority from the bishops. They were expected to submit their work to the authoritative scrutiny and potential censorship by the magisterium. “Dissent,” understood as the rejection or even questioning of any authoritative teaching of the magisterium, was viewed with suspicion. The dogmatic manuals acknowledged limited speculative discussion that was critical of certain doctrinal formulations but the assumption was that if theologians discovered a difficulty, they were to bring it to the attention of the hierarchy privately and were to refrain from any public speech or writing that was contrary to received church teaching.
The Second Vatican Council (1962-65) did not reflect on the role of theologians in any depth but at numerous points the council affirmed the role they played in the church (Dei Verbum 23; Lumen Gentium 54; Gaudium et Spes 44, 62). Much as at the Council of Trent, theologians and bishops collaborated at numerous points in the process of moving from preliminary drafts to final promulgation of the council’s 16 documents.
The council did offer a promising new framework for understanding questions of teaching authority. According to Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, the word of God was given to the whole church and not just the bishops. The magisterium was not superior to the word of God but was rather its servant (Dei Verbum 10). Although the bishops would remain the authoritative guardians of that revelation by virtue of their apostolic office, the word of God resided in the whole church as the baptized were given a supernatural instinct for the faith (sensus fidei) that allowed them to recognize God’s word, penetrate its meaning more deeply and apply it more profoundly in their lives (Lumen Gentium 12; Dei Verbum 8).
The first decades immediately after the council held promise for this new framework. Pope Paul VI created the International Theological Commission as a way of formalizing a more constructive relationship between the magisterium and theologians. Unfortunately, the commission came under increasing curial control. Hopes for preserving a more positive relationship between bishops and theologians were dashed by Pope Paul VI’s final encyclical, Humanae Vitae, which elicited widespread criticism by many theologians (and a number of bishops).
The ambitious pontificate of John Paul II stands as an extended ecclesiastical “reception” of the teaching of Vatican II, particularly regarding its ad extra teaching. Yet in matters concerned with the exercise of doctrinal authority, that long pontificate more closely reflected Pius XII’s than the vision of the council. In spite of his moving rhetoric regarding the church as communion, John Paul’s policies recalled Pius XII’s suspicion of the autonomy of the theologian. The early years of the current pontificate have given no sign of a departure from these policies.
All of this brings us to the present moment. There is no real historical precedent for the plethora of ecclesiastical pronouncements emanating from the papacy (papal encyclicals, apostolic exhortations, apostolic letters, papal addresses), the Curia (curial instructions and notifications of various kinds), and episcopal conference doctrinal committees (notifications and disciplinary actions regarding doctrinal irregularities of one kind or another in the work of various theologians).
Some see this magisterial activism as a necessary ecclesial response to our postmodern information age. In this view, the instantaneous dissemination of information across the globe and the spontaneous eruptions of unregulated theological conversation on countless Internet blogs and Listservs demand a rapid-response system from the magisterium if the integrity of the Catholic faith is to be preserved. Others see such a pastoral response as well-meaning but futile. In our contemporary context, they insist, it is simply impossible to “police” theological conversation in the ways in which it was done in the past. Better for the magisterium to adopt a more modest, humbler mien, one focused on preserving the essentials of the faith. Such an approach would require a more carefully modulated claim to authority, a realistic acknowledgement of the contingent dimensions of many of today’s most vexing moral questions (e.g., the changing nature of modern warfare or our evolving understanding of human sexuality), and a greater display of patience in the face of controversial issues that need to be submitted to honest, open debate. The arguments of both sides need to be respectfully considered. We must, however, be clear about one thing: The magisterial activism that we are witnessing today is not traditional; it is quite novel and its merits will need to be assessed in that light.
David DeCosse reasons:
At present, the model of conscience used by some bishops is problematic in two ways. First, it emphasizes obedience, law, and hierarchical authority and thus departs from the Catholic tradition’s close linkage of conscience, practical reason, and freedom. Second, on account of this departure, these bishops needlessly lapse into using a sectarian model of the Catholic conscience ill-suited to the Church’s mission in a democratic pluralist society like the United States.
When some Catholics today defend infallibility in doctrinal development, they are defending the idea that within human beings is an uncompromising witness to the universal, objective, exceptionless moral law. “Law”—moral, natural, and divine law are all different aspects of the same thing—is a crucial category here. The given, ineradicable quality of the moral law derived from reflection on the purposes of human nature is a sign of God’s providential ordering of the world. Some bishops’ close link of moral and divine law informs their conviction—and the conviction of the broader Catholic right in the United States—that these current battles over conscience are part of the larger war that secularism has launched against religion. “Law” is also crucial as a specific ethical category corresponding to what is obligatory in a universal, objective way.
With this emphasis on law, the distinctiveness of some bishops’ model of conscience comes into view. Where a theologian like Thomas Aquinas speaks of conscience combining obedience to moral law and the exercise of practical reason, the bishops heavily favor the former over the latter. On the one hand, this means that conscience is best understood as the way by which we adhere to the moral laws requiring respect always and everywhere—in the bishops’ eyes especially meaning turning from what they call the “intrinsic evils” at stake in the use of the artificial means of birth control and in gay marriage. On the other hand, the bishops’ emphasis on law as the pre-eminent category of conscience means that they leave little room for practical reasoning to help the conscience figure out what to do in the face of complexity. Practical reasoning, in this view, is wishy-washy, feckless, diluting the clear demands of the moral law. Or, as Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Ill., said when explaining why Illinois bishops did not seek an exemption from a state law legalizing civil unions for same-sex couples that could have required Catholic Charities to place foster children with such couples: “It would have been seen as, ‘We’re going to compromise on the principle as long as we get our exception.’ We didn’t want it to be seen as buying our support.”
What has led to the diminished role for practical reason in the way the bishops understand conscience? Two key conceptual matters come to mind, both taken from concerns laid down by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. One is the sharp opposition to the “creative conscience” outlined by John Paul II in the 1993 papal encyclical called “Veritatis Splendor.” In that document, John Paul criticized any number of developments in Catholic moral theology including one that argued that conscience’s use of practical reason in the face of a host of particulars could lay the basis for claiming occasional exceptions to the otherwise universal mandate of the moral law. But the pope said that this view of the “creative” possibilities of conscience had things precisely backwards. It’s not the creative use of practical reason that should determine what is morally required in a particular situation. Rather, it’s the moral law—“requiring meticulous observance,” as John Paul put it—that determines what reason should conclude that a particular situation demands. In “Veritatis Splendor,” John Paul was taking aim at theologians working in the area of interpersonal and, especially, sexual morality. But, I believe, his powerful views have shaped the position of some bishops on the current matters of conscience, which pertain primarily to issues of sexual morality in a political, not interpersonal, context.
Along with the “creative conscience,” John Paul also condemned what he called the belief that complex situations could yield a “double status of moral truth.” In fact, the issue of “double status” is another way of articulating what is at stake with the use of the “creative conscience.” The notion of “double status” holds that while there may be one truth at a doctrinal or abstract level, there may be another truth—even one proclaiming an exception to a doctrinal truth—that emerges in the face of the complexity of concrete conditions. As with the “creative conscience,” John Paul dismissed this notion outright. Moral truth is not divisible and, anyhow, the clarifying truth of the moral law holding always and everywhere tells us pretty much everything we need to know about what any concrete situation requires.
But the issue of the “double status of truth” is not only an intra-Catholic matter of moral theology. Instead it also must be considered in light of the overwhelming emphasis of John Paul and Benedict on the threat to truth spawned by what they regard as the runaway relativism of Western democracies. And this brings us to the second conceptual factor behind the bishops’ reduced emphasis on practical reason in the exercise of conscience: The fear that human reason in a democracy like the United States is so damaged by relativism and sin that it is all but incapable of attaining moral truth on its own via an exercise of practical reason. John Paul argued that this dismal tendency of human reason was at the heart of the contemporary “culture of death” at work in a place like the United States. Benedict has similarly decried what he has called the way that human reason all too often does not accept truth because it does not really want to know it. Faced with such a negative judgment about the capacities of human reason, what is the Catholic conscience to do? Among other things, not assume it has the rightful freedom to exercise too much practical reason in the face of the complex circumstances of democratic life. In the eyes of the Catholic right, this was the downfall of those Catholic Democrats in Congress in 2009 who invoked their own prudential judgment to cast the decisive votes in favor of federal health care reform—and who, in doing so, defied the official opposition of the American Catholic bishops to the bill on the grounds that it would violate the moral law against abortion.
It is important to note that the close link of conscience and the moral law speaks poignantly to the transcendence of the human spirit. The Arab Spring in 2011; Poland in the 1980s; Selma and Birmingham in the American South in the 1950s and ‘60s: The people in the streets in these times and places moved the conscience of the world because they witnessed to a demand for justice that always and everywhere surpasses the claim of oppressive power. By contrast, the problems of conscience now facing some American Catholic bishops have nowhere near such stark dimensions. And this is true no matter how often some bishops and their allies on the religious right liken contemporary gay activists to the Ku Klux Klan (as did Cardinal Francis George of Chicago).
In any case, the Catholic Church in the United States is not without help in having a model of conscience more suited to the complex challenges of living the Gospel in a democratic, pluralist society. The great 13th century Dominican theologian Thomas Aquinas allows for the pre-eminence of the moral law in the act of conscience but, unlike many bishops, he doesn’t collapse the reasoning capacity of conscience into the recognition of the obligation to obey the moral law. Instead, he includes a robust role for practical reason in the process by which conscience judges what is required in a particular situation. Thus Aquinas speaks of conscience in light of practical reason’s use of higher (more speculative) and lower (more factual) knowledge; of wisdom; and of the testimony of the senses. The playwright Robert Bolt beautifully captured this tensive view of conscience caught between the demands of the moral law and the potential of practical reason when, in “A Man for All Seasons,” he has the English Catholic Thomas More say: “God made the angels to show Him splendor, as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But Man He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of his mind. If He suffers us to come to such a case that there is no escaping, then we may stand to our tackle as best we can, and, yes…then we can clamor like champions, if we have the spittle for it. But it’s God part, not our own, to bring ourselves to such a pass. Our natural business lies in escaping.”
For Robert Bolt’s Thomas More, the acceptance of the possibilities of practical reason reflects an acceptance of our status as creatures before God. To dismiss practical reason en route to being a martyr before its time is to commit spiritual pride, getting ahead of what divine love may in fact be asking us to do. And there is a lot of good to be done today in such places as Catholic universities and Catholic hospitals. Take the central case in the current conscience struggles: the regulations requiring contraceptive coverage at Catholic institutions. The cries of protest against this regulation often have an assumed air of violation, as if it’s self-evident that the regulations will be imposing a direct burden on the Catholic conscience. In fact, though, the moral complicity at issue is at a remove: Catholic institutions would be providing payments for choices that female employees of these institutions may or may not make. Even if we’re troubled by the proximity of such payments—aren’t they enabling an evil action?—we should recall how the tradition of Catholic practical reasoning provides ways of dealing with such challenges. For instance, what is called the “principle of cooperation” is used to determine when a Catholic may be involved in a morally acceptable manner in the evil action of another person. The core test of the principle is that one person may not share the intention of the person doing the evil action. Obviously, in the case of the regulations and contraception, this core test is met: The bishops as a matter of conviction do not share the intention of those female employees availing themselves of the health care benefit of birth control.
An openness to practical reason here—and to facts like huge majorities of Catholic and American women rejecting the Church’s doctrine on birth control—might also offer a welcome dose of humility to the Church in its reflections on this matter: Is this a prudent place to make a stand? The principle of cooperation also asks whether there is a “proportionate reason” to justify involvement with the moral evil at hand. Here comparison and scaling of values are unavoidable. What may be a sufficient reason to justify cooperation with artificial birth control may not be a sufficient reason to justify involvement with abortion. Here also attention to the full range of goods at stake in a situation is crucial. So we might ask with an eye toward the fundamental purpose of the institution: “Would the failure to provide insurance coverage for birth control impair the morale of female employees and hence inhibit the good to be accomplished by the institution in question?” And we might also ask, with an eye toward the values of citizenship: “Does the moral ideal of equality before the law mean that if an insurance policy provides coverage to men for a vasectomy the policy ought also to provide prescription coverage to women for nonabortificant birth control?” In any case, it’s neither relativism nor radical secularism that inspires consideration of such matters. Instead, it’s an imperative of the close link of practical reason and conscience long part of the Catholic tradition.
I would like to conclude with one other consequence of some bishops’ constrained view of practical reason: The constriction of the freedom of conscience. This is a paradox. After all, the bishops have raised a hue and cry because they are defending the rights of conscience. But, for them, the conscience should be free to adhere to the truth of the universal moral law articulated by the hierarchical teaching office of the Church. Moreover, for them, there really aren’t many good excuses for not knowing of the need for such adherence. In this, they are following John Paul II, who asserted in “Veritatis Splendor” that the hierarchical magisterium of the Church “in no way undermines the freedom of conscience” of Christians because “the Magisterium does not bring to the Christian conscience truths which are extraneous to it; rather, it brings to light the truths which it ought already to possess, developing them from the starting point of the primordial act of faith.” But what about the freedom of conscience to adhere to a truth not identical with the moral law defined by the hierarchical authority of the Church? And what about the freedom to allow one’s practical reason to consult empirical data and a wide range of values in determining what conscience should do in a complex matter? Especially if that determination differs from one put forward by the bishops? The model of conscience favored by some bishops in the current disputes has little room for such obvious and significant scenarios. By contrast, it’s helpful here to recall another aspect of Thomas Aquinas’ theory of conscience that factors squarely into such concerns for freedom: his claim that it is sinful not to follow the subjectively right but objectively wrong conscience. Or, in other words, a person is obliged to follow one’s conscience if one believes the judgment of one’s conscience is true, even if that judgment is objectively speaking incorrect.
Thomas’ claim has posed a problem for Catholics who insist that an erroneous conscience must be the consequence of a person’s culpability. Given that culpability, this line of thinking goes, a person is obliged precisely not to adhere to an erroneous conscience. Beyond this general wariness of the freedom of the erroneous conscience, conservative Catholics can also point to limits that Thomas himself imposes on the freedom of such a conscience. For instance, Thomas says that no one may rightfully pursue such a freedom while claiming not to know that certain egregious actions are always and everywhere against the moral law. Here we encounter a variation on what I noted earlier: That those who claim freedom of conscience to act contrary to intrinsic evils must not know of the moral laws against such evils because they do not want to know of such laws. Then-theologian Joseph Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) said as much when he dismissed liberal Catholic post-Vatican II appeals to Thomas’ notion of freedom of conscience as being misinformed about Aquinas and regrettably and wholly inspired by modern thought. Here also we can surmise that, for many of the bishops, the crucial moral laws of which every conscience cannot claim ignorance include those proscriptions against the great intrinsic evils at stake in contemporary American democratic culture—artificial birth control, abortion, and gay marriage. These are the moral laws, as John Paul II noted, that the Magisterium has declared and that every Christian conscience “ought already to possess.”
Pope Francis humbly disposes of such absurd logic in a simple sentence: “Who am I to judge.”
So we have a perfect closed circle of conscience. The moral laws against intrinsic evils that every Catholic conscience ought to know are specified by the hierarchical teaching office of the Church. Moreover, the correct application or policies related to these moral laws against intrinsic evils—for instance, legislation or regulations related to abortion or gay marriage—are also specified by the hierarchical teaching office. So the Catholic conscience may neither claim freedom from the hierarchically-identified intrinsic evils nor from the hierarchically-specified policies that best combat such evils. If at some point on this circle you need to break out, you have a free conscience to do so—just not a Catholic, free conscience.
There are decisive times and places when the truth of such a closed circle of conscience is necessary. In the face of Hitler’s murderous leadership, would that the Catholic hierarchy had spoken out unambiguously in defense of the binding nature of the universal moral law on all Catholic consciences. But today this closed circle of conscience founders on its hierarchical hubris, the greatest measure of which is its identification of the Magisterium with the very voice of God. In any case, for purposes of this essay, it is important to note that such a closed circle is only possible by relying on a model of conscience shorn of the capacity of practical reason. And here we can see the enduring relevance of Thomas’ model of conscience and of his claim that the erroneous conscience is free. For Thomas, what is at stake in any morally complex situation is not only made evident by the clarifying truth of the moral law. Instead, practical reason in all its variety—as wisdom, prudence, science, common sense, knowledge gained from the senses, etc.—must also be brought to bear to determine what is morally obliged. Men and women ought to have the freedom to use such practical reason. Moreover, for Thomas, what provides the basis for the freedom of the erroneous conscience is the great value of practical reason—and not only of obedience to law—in the very constitution of our personhood. As one scholar of Aquinas put it: “To act morally is not merely to grasp a material good in order to become morally good. To grasp the good in the first place is also to grasp oneself as a being that determines itself freely through reason in order to become such a [morally good] being.” Or to paraphrase the plain English of one of the Church’s great martyrs of conscience: We are to serve God wittily, in the tangle of our minds.
It’s time for too many Catholic bishops to stop heading for the barricades and start making for the negotiating table to try to figure this thing out. The Catholic conscience demands it.
Mark Shea ... that’s an interesting argument.
During most of the 16th and 17th centuries, fear of heretics spreading teachings and opinions that contradicted the Bible dominated the Catholic Church. They persecuted scientists who formed theories the Church deemed heretical and forbade people from reading any books on those subjects by placing the books on the Index of Prohibited Books. The Spanish Inquisition worked actively to impede the diffusion of heretical ideas and tortured and killed.
Inquisitorial repression of the sexual offence of sodomy, considered, according to Canon Law, as a crime against nature, merits separate attention. This included cases of incidences of heterosexual and homosexual anal sex, rape, and separately bestiality. Civil authorities at times executed those convicted. We have evolved as a society ... we no longer kill homosexuals ... we simply ostracize and disenfranchise and excommunicate ... hmmmm.
Galileo was 68 years old and sick. Threatened with torture, he publicly confessed that he had been wrong to have said that the Earth moves around the Sun. Unlike many less famous prisoners, Galileo was allowed to live under house arrest until his death in 1642. Finally, in 1992, three years after Galileo Galilei’s namesake spacecraft had been launched on its way to Jupiter, the Vatican formally and publicly cleared Galileo of any wrongdoing and apologized.
the geocentrism-heliocentrism controversy cost people their lives
No it didn’t. Learn history, not urban legends.
tj007 ... no sale ... the geocentrism-heliocentrism controversy cost people their lives ... as did the slavery endorsement and usury prohibitions ... and there are many other examples of Church doctrine that developed in time with a better understanding of the Gospel (especially the teaching of Jesus Christ) and Tradition guided by reason and evidence. People have suffered and died as a result of Church teaching errors ... pastoral care for Catholics with homosexual orientation is most certainly a matter of faith and morals ... subject to the rules of reason and evidence. There is room for doctrinal development.
Reputable scientific evidence indicates that homosexual health risks are grounded in negative attitudes about homosexuality that can lead to rejection by friends and family, discriminatory acts and violence that harm specific individuals, and laws and policies that adversely affect the lives of many people; this can have damaging effects on the health of MSM and other sexual minorities. And health risks are not grounds for coerced celibacy or condemnation and exclusion from communion and civil marital benefits. I smoke ... arguable stupid ... but I am not intrinsically evil because I smoke.
The vast majority of modern medical and scientific experts agree that:
•Homosexuality is not a disorder. It is a normal variation of human sexuality. The normalcy of homosexuality has been generally accepted by the greater scientific community for over 30 years - the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973
•Sexual orientation cannot be changed. An attempt to do so may be harmful, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates. American Psychological Association
There is no evidence that celibacy is a practical pastoral solution ... and much evidence that coerced celibacy causes harm. Coerced celibacy contains both Gnostic and Pelagian errors.
The temptation to psychologize the faith, on the other hand, is individualistic. “Here we have to do with elitist hermeneutics which ultimately reduces the ‘encounter with Jesus Christ’ and its development to a process of growing self-awareness.” This is a self-centered spirituality that “has nothing to do with transcendence and consequently, with missionary spirit.”
Related to this self-centered spirituality is the temptation to the Gnostic solution. “It is ordinarily found in elite groups offering a higher spirituality, generally disembodied,” says Pope Francis. Gnosticism first appeared among early Christians, and it reappears throughout the church’s history in new and revised versions.
The Pelagian solution is an ideological temptation. The Pelagians believed sanctity was the result of human effort without God’s aid. This is the temptation of conservative Catholics to “a form of restorationism.” According to Pope Francis, they seek a “purely disciplinary solution” to the church’s problems “through the restoration of outdated manners and forms which, even on the cultural level, are no longer meaningful.” One can see why Francis rejected the grandiose papal apparel
There is much evidence that marriage was consensual throughout most of Church history. Benefits ... fidelity, children and social stability ... flow from consent. Procreative intent and complementarity are relatively recent doctrinal developments that have not been received by a majority of Catholics and lack basis for claim to established Tradition.
Michelle and I can not have children. We do not have procreative intent. Sexual relationship in the context of marriage has unitive value ... affection is a moral value. I refuse to engage in magical thinking. Our marriage is fruitful and valid.
Roman Catholic ethics are shaped to some degree by magisterial teachings that often make the claim of inerrancy precisely through another claim: that its utterances are continuously the same and resist change, despite evidence to the contrary. That is a fact. That is a mystical corner you have painted yourself into ... beyond reason and evidence.
Specifically, the format I’ve seen this argument take when discussing with people online essentially boils down to something that ultimately implies “Homosexual acts are wrong because they express having the wrong sort of experience!” rather than the truth, which is that the experiences would be problematic inasmuch, and only inasmuch, as they incline to acts immoral for objective reasons, but then non-problematic inasmuch as they don’t. But, that’s the sort of absurdity you wind up with when, in an attempt to “internalize” morality, you wind up ultimately placing the locus of virtue primarily in the “correct” temperament and disposition rather than the ordering of acts, with the passions judged only relative to those acts.
Biblical scholars have noted that most biblical citations proscribing homosexual acts reflect normative values held during the period without objective reasons and most likely reflect condemnation of promiscuous behaviors. The very institution that can encourage fidelity, children and social stability ... you would deny to 10% of our brothers and sisters.
I am becoming involved in contemporary gay struggles – both for reasons of ongoing personal integration as well as the cause of social justice and the rights of suffering minorities. The interior pain and societal rejection experienced by gay persons speaks to the contemplative heart since we deeply believed that the suffering required for sanctity in a secular age must originate with the pain of the world. We may counsel creative disobedience at the level of pastoral care. When custom and law systematically conceal rights and truth, then the Holy Spirit inspires men to carry out actions that violate custom and law in order to bear witness to truth.
Ronald there us no presumption when what he has written here shows the problem. Thank you Joan and leng and tj007 for your defense of the true faith!
tj007 ... I have been quite honest that my references are derived. I think in this case it is better to let the arguments stand on their own merits ... you like to attach the person rather than speak to the argument ... finding argumentative means to obfuscate is disingenuous.
I have presented reasonable arguments and much peer-reviewed scientific evidence ... which you chose to disregard. And, my arguments are grounded in pastoral experience (which you seem to lack) and the love that is Jesus Christ. Your responses are grounded in your sentimentality ... which lacks basis for claim to universal presentiment ... and discredited pseudo-science.
I am not being judgmental in characterizing moral pronouncements and biblical interpretations that are not grounded in objective reasons and evidence as sentimentality. I am simply describing what is.
Sentimentality: Sentimentality originally indicated the reliance on feelings as a guide to truth, but current usage defines it as an appeal to shallow, uncomplicated emotions at the expense of reason. Sentimentalism in philosophy is a view in meta-ethics according to which morality is somehow grounded in moral sentiments or emotions.
“The development doctrine is based upon a better understanding of the Gospel (especially the teaching of Jesus Christ) and Tradition guided by reason and evidence.”
Joan62 ... no sale ... Dulles or Noonan? ... I agree that is an opinion. Roman Catholic ethics are shaped to some degree by magisterial teachings that often make the claim of inerrancy precisely through another claim: that its utterances are continuously the same and resist change, despite evidence to the contrary. That is a fact. That is a mystical corner you have painted yourself into ... beyond reason and evidence.
In my haste, I forgot to give credit where credit is due. I have not read Noonan’s book The Church that Can and Cannot Change, but have read the reviews. My comment on slavery is based on reading several Amazon reviews and searching the web for more detailed reviews, including Patrick O’Neil, who brought up the well known point about distinctions in servitus. Anytime someone raises some questions about the Church’s view on slavery, it is almost always the case that they fail to consider those distinctions. There is in fact a 3rd broad category of servitus, “penal”, which even the US adopts.
Whether one agrees with Noonan or not, his analysis on doctrinal development have been called into question, quite legitimately. It does not serve as irrefutable evidence that the Church has reversed its moral principles. Interpretation of history is just that - interpretation.
Shalom.
I am reposting the 2nd part of my above post as I meant to do it in 2 parts:
Also, I have read the article by Noonan, Development in Moral Doctrine here:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDgQFjAB&url=http://www.ts.mu.edu/readers/content/pdf/54/54.4/54.4.3.pdf&ei=Jp4TUqehB4rhygG43oGIAg&usg=AFQjCNEXb6ckpQilhUs0fEecKwUNc5ndEw&sig2=HC4TriGRCn_QdOu_4KXeOw&bvm=bv.50952593,d.aWc
It is a .pdf format
From the Noonan article: “Enough has been said, I trust, to suggest the nature of the problem. Wide shifts in the teaching of moral duties, once presented as part of Christian doctrine by the magisterium, have occurred. In each case one can see the displacement of a principle or principles that had been taken as dispositive—in the case of usury, that a loan confers no right to profit; in the case of marriage, that all marriages are indissoluble; in the case of slavery, that war gives a right to enslave and that ownership of a slave gives title to the slave’s offspring; in the case of religious liberty, that error has no rights and that fidelity to the Christian faith may be physically enforced. These principles were replaced by principles already part of Christian teaching: in the case of usury, that the person of the lender, not the loan, should be the focus of evaluation; in the case of marriage, that preservation of faith is more important than preservation of a human relationship; in the case of slavery, that in Christ there is “neither free nor slave” (Gal 3:28); and in the case of religious liberty, that faith must be free. In the course of this displacement of one set of principles, what was forbidden became lawful (the cases of usury and marriage); what was permissible became unlawful (the case of slavery); and what was required became forbidden (the persecution of heretics).” I italicized an interesting line. I simply do not agree with the conclusions he as drawn, or with your own conclusions that since the teachings on these matters have developed over time,that eventually the Church will change her teachings on artificial birth control or homosexual sex and marriage.
Stephen, obviously I have not read Noonan’s book. I can only go by critiques from sources I trust. Based on what I have read, it appears that you do not have sufficient evidence to claim dogmatically that Church doctrine has changed. Below are excerpts from: http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/FRNOONAN.HTM. You have also seen the link and article from Dulles on the matter.
“On account of the moral assault against the Church which rages today, therefore, Noonan’s piece is both timely and potentially dangerous—dangerous because anything which opens a potential for doubt about the authority and reliability of the Church’s teachings on moral matters will be exploited at once and ruthlessly by those who wish to undermine the Church’s opposition to abortion, artificial birth control, divorce, what are euphemistically called “alternative life styles” (including gay marriage), euthanasia, pre-marital sex and “trial marriage,” artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, etc.”
“Nonetheless, I believe Noonan to be correct in thinking that this topic cannot be avoided within the current intellectual climate, because the enemies of the Church and of its teachings will use any seeming inconsistencies in Catholic moral doctrine to attempt to undermine confidence in the teaching authority of the Church.”
“It should be noted at once that Noonan does not proffer any original solutions to the problem he raises. His title and the comments which accompany his article suggest that he looks to John Henry Newman’s solution to the question of why the Church seems to be proclaiming new doctrines along the centuries of its existence.”
“Newman presented a number of different, but very convincing and cogent answers to the difficulty, but his main thesis was that “new” doctrines were only more elaborate formulations of older truths that brought out features that were implicit but unstated in the earlier expressions of the truth, but that now needed to be clarified explicitly in light of heretical denials.”
“The Bible, for example, specifically condemns a number of forms of sexual impurity, including simple fornication, adultery, male homosexuality, lesbianism, bestiality, <coitus interruptus>, transvestitism, etc., but Holy Writ has not (mercifully) prefigured Kraft-Ebing’s . There are innumerable permutations of lust and perversion to which the explicit proscriptions of Holy Scripture do not extend, but which the moral teachings of the Church could easily recognize as covered by the logical extensions of scriptural principles and natural law. Sado-masochism, for example, is something with which Scripture does not deal directly, but few moral theologians would seriously challenge the idea that biblical moral prohibitions encompass it.”
“Next let us deal with the issue of slavery as it appears in Noonan…...It is important to note that the Catholic Church in past centuries did not intend to endorse authoritatively any specific instances of slavery, but only the principle that slavery could be justified as the lesser of evils in certain circumstances.”
You really would have to read the whole article.
Also, I have read the article by Noonan, Development in Moral Doctrine here:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDgQFjAB&url=http://www.ts.mu.edu/readers/content/pdf/54/54.4/54.4.3.pdf&ei=Jp4TUqehB4rhygG43oGIAg&usg=AFQjCNEXb6ckpQilhUs0fEecKwUNc5ndEw&sig2=HC4TriGRCn_QdOu_4KXeOw&bvm=bv.50952593,d.aWc
It is a .pdf format
From the Noonan article: “Enough has been said, I trust, to suggest the nature of the problem. Wide shifts in the teaching of moral duties, once presented as part of Christian doctrine by the magisterium, have occurred. In each case one can see the displacement of a principle or principles that had been taken as dispositive—in the case of usury, that a loan confers no right to profit; in the case of marriage, that all marriages are indissoluble; in the case of slavery, that war gives a right to enslave and that ownership of a slave gives title to the slave’s offspring; in the case of religious liberty, that error has no rights and that fidelity to the Christian faith may be physically enforced. These principles were replaced by principles already part of Christian teaching: in the case of usury, that the person of the lender, not the loan, should be the focus of evaluation; in the case of marriage, that preservation of faith is more important than preservation of a human relationship; in the case of slavery, that in Christ there is “neither free nor slave” (Gal 3:28); and in the case of religious liberty, that faith must be free. In the course of this displacement of one set of principles, what was forbidden became lawful (the cases of usury and marriage); what was permissible became unlawful (the case of slavery); and what was required became forbidden (the persecution of heretics).” I italicized an interesting line. I simply do not agree with the conclusions he as drawn, or with your own conclusions that since the teachings on these matters have developed over time,that eventually the Church will change her teachings on artificial birth control or homosexual sex and marriage.
Mr DeVol,
Out of respect for you as a person, I will respond to you this time.
I have chosen to stop engaging in the debate with you because you continue to plagiarize the works and ideas of others, even if you often do so incoherently, as if you never fully understood what you copied and pasted. I wish you would just own up and exercise some integrity and admit that most of the words are not your own. Every single one of your points can be easily refuted, even your ample words on Noonan’s work, which was copied from a review by James Keenan of Boston College. Noonan’s background research is very good, but his analysis does not match up. For those impressed with Noonan, just note that he faild to make the distinction between what can be broadly categorized as “indentured” servitus vs. “chattel” servitus.
Again, you seem to fail to understand that just by labeling the arguments of others as sentimental, it does not make it so. It is your way of avoiding having to directly address the arguments.
You have in fact presented no positive argument in support of the notion that homosexual acts are morally licit - all you have done is to label and disqualify the arguments of others. It is as if you believe that if you can ignore or arbitrarily disqualify all opposing arguments and evidence, then your side win by default!
In fact, at heart, your way of thinking about the Magisterium is Protestant, not Catholic. You see the Church’s morals as ruled by the majority opinion, which you present no global evidence to support that.
Your very last sentence reveals much about your way of thinking, “The development doctrine is based upon a better understanding of the Gospel (especially the teaching of Jesus Christ) and Tradition guided by reason and evidence.”
Reason and evidence? What is noticeably missing is FAITH. You seem to have entirely bought into the naturalistic worldview.
Sorry if I sound harsh but I have to point out to others that you continue to spread sorry half-truths.
Hi 123 Sesame St.,
In so far as whatever someone says is in accordance with what Almighty God says, we should listen.
However if anyone, Pope or no-Pope says in contradiction to what Our Lord says, I will expose and oppose whatever is said by checking and testing against what Almighty God actually says on that issue in the Scripture.
The Bible warns us that in the end-time many ‘anti-Christ’ will come to deceive us.(2 John 1:7; 1 John 4:1-3; 1 John 2:18,22; 2 Peter 2:1-6,10,14,18)
Almighty God is perfect whereas human beings are prone to fumble/make mistakes ( for to err is human), therefore I choose to listen to Him than to man.
To be better informed on ‘anti-Christ’ read the few short books at the end of the Bible.
Leng
tj007 ... no sale ... the geocentrism-heliocentrism controversy cost people their lives ... as did the slavery and usury issues ... and others. Human dignity is a matter of faith and morals.
Roman Catholic ethics are shaped to some degree by magisterial teachings that often make the claim of inerrancy precisely through another claim: that its utterances are continuously the same and resist change, despite evidence to the contrary. That is a mystical corner you have painted yourself into ... beyond reason and evidence.
The development doctrine is based upon a better understanding of the Gospel (especially the teaching of Jesus Christ) and Tradition guided by reason and evidence.
Hi Leng,
I mostly agree with your posts, with one exception: As Catholics, what the Pope says is very important to us, because he is the Vicar of Christ. Though he may not necessarily be correct in all his opinions, when he teaches officially in his office as Pope, we believe that he is guided by the Holy Spirit to teach truth in matters of faith and morals.
Note the last few words. For example, one common silly objection to our belief that people raise is the geocentrism-heliocentrism controversy. Yes the Church and the Pope did believe at one point that the earth was the center. As did the overwhelming majority of the scientists of the day. Does that pertain to matters of faith and morals? No. It is a matter of science (knowledge of the physical universe), and the Pope, or even the Church can be wrong on that. This objection was just brought up in a recent post by Mr DeVol, the gentlemen who continues to copy the words of others and posts them as if they were his own, and rather incoherently too. It shows significant ignorance about the distinction between matters of faith and morals, as opposed to matters of science.
Shalom.
Joanp62 .. can you be more specific on how Noonan’s historical analysis is questionable? It is obvious that Church doctrine has changed throughout history. Ignoring historical facts is disingenuous.
Roman Catholic ethics are shaped to some degree by magisterial teachings that often make the claim of inerrancy precisely through another claim: that its utterances are continuously the same and resist change, despite evidence to the contrary. That is a mystical corner you have painted yourself into ... beyond reason and evidence.
The development doctrine is based upon a better understanding of the Gospel (especially the teaching of Jesus Christ) and Tradition guided by reason and evidence.
leng ... I respect your right to have an opinion ... but your presentiment does not have basis to qualify as universal presentiment.
Bishops, most priests and the majority of Catholics are not in communion with the hierarchy on these marriage issues. You are not the only person who is praying.
To restore community ... it would be wise to engage in respectful dialog. Shouting “pagan, pagan” is no way to win souls.
Pam, you stated above, “Stephen and you are not letting this message get through and souls will be lost.” This is presumptuous and a lie coming from you and therefore a sin.
Leng, What the Pope said was all about love. No?
Sesame street- because it is all a part of Catholic faith. It is about Love. But what is love, what does that encompass? It means following Christ. It means, as a Catholic, is this the Church Christ founded? If you believe that, then Love means listening to Christ through His Church and Scripture. Love means dying to self and living for the other, first for God and then our neighbor. Love means embracing the crosses we are given because we follow Christ’s example, Who died on the cross for us ALL. Love means, with the help of God’s grace, recognizing and turning from sin, being free from sins and helping our neighbor to be free from sin. We are all called to holiness/perfection which is Love, but on our own it is impossible to achieve that, so we rely on God and God gave us a visible means of His Grace and Truth in His Church, which is not just a body of believers, but an actual, visible entity- the Light of Christ, His Church-which shines in the darkness to help guide us to real Love.
Leng, why is it not important what the Pope said?
I agree with Pam and Joanp62.
As Christians we take up our own cross and follow Our Lord Jesus.
Stephen, you keep on quoting Pope this, Pope that, etc.
It is unimportant who says what, it is what Almighty God, our Heavenly Father says in the scripture that we have to listen to.
Ignoring what human being, no matter what position, affluent, powerful or influential he may be cost us nothing.
Ignoring what our Heavenly Father says cost us our eternity!
As followers of Lord Jesus we have been warned of ‘anti-Christ’ in the end-time.
My advice to all brothers and sisters in Christ is to be watchful, be wary of deception, because ‘anti-Christ’ comes from within the ‘church’.
Check and test what comes down from the pulpit with God’s word and the truth will be found, the deception will be revealed.
Ultimately God’s Truth will prevail.
Leng
Why can’t we just hear about the religion? Like, instead of hearing about why homosexuality is wrong, just hear about God and Jesus. That’s the true meaning of Catholicism.
An interesting quote from Francis’ Encyclical-Lumen Fidei:
“Faith without truth does not save, it does not provide a sure footing. It remains a beautiful story, the projection of our deep yearning for happiness, something capable of satisfying us to the extent that we are willing to deceive ourselves. Either that, or it is reduced to a lofty sentiment which brings consolation and cheer, yet remains prey to the vagaries of our spirit and the changing seasons, incapable of sustaining a steady journey through life.” Emphasis mine.
Stephen, I will concur with Pam. I do not agree with yours nor Noonan’s assessment of recently discovered sin. The conclusions that he draws from his research are questionable. And that’s the point. You can go back in history, as we must, but then when we draw our own conclusions, A and B happened therefore C, it no longer becomes hard evidence but opinion, and possibly biased at that.
Prayer and an open mind and heart along with humility will help you see the Truth.
Stephen you are the one interpreting Scripture to suit yourself, not me. The Church did not oppose the institution ofslavery because while He walked tthis earth Christ did not. You think like men think. Christ focused on teaching the Jews. He said that was who He was sent to. He knew God’s will for His life. He knew God was in charge and ones station in life was never a deterrant (sp?) to following Him. He spoke clearly about what marriage IS when He said, “From the beginning, God crested th male and female….”. Your denial is unreasonable and shows your hardness of heart. If you hear ” Pagan,pagan” then repent. Your conscience is shouting it. Not me. The truth is shouting it. Not me. There is only a community of Believers. The faith is not ours to manipulate to please the masses. It is no “development” to oppose God’s express condemnation of sexua behaviors He opposed. Jesus and He are one and when Jesus spoke of marriage “from the beginning” being the joining of a man and a woman he affirmed the Father. And when the Father says it is s hateful thing for a man to lay with a man as with a woman Jesus is saying it. And EVERYONE knew and knows EXACTLY what He was speaking about. You deceive only yourself.
Pam ... there you go again interpreting scripture to suit yourself and denigrating all who do not share in your sentimentality.
Jesus may have said that there is no master and slave ... but the Catholic Church did support the institution of slavery for centuries.
Jesus had nothing to say about homosexual marriage. Biblical scholars do not necessarily agree with your interpretation of scriptural references. There is no evidence that biblical prohibitions are anything more than the normative values of the writers ... probably are in reference to promiscuity ... your interpretation my be out of context. I too can cherry pick scripture to justify relationality and marriage. The problem resides in moral pronouncements based upon sentimentality ... lacking in objective reasoning based upon evidence. There is room for doctrinal development.
To restore community ... it would be wise to engage in respectful dialog. Shouting “pagan, pagan” is no way to win souls
I rather be on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube or Tumblr than read all of these comments. They go on forever! No offense to the people commenting.
How do you bold and italicize the words when typing? Because I have no idea, how to do it, whatsoever.
Stephen you compare apples and oranges. Jesus already told His followers that there were no Christian slaves. His followers were members of the body of Christ. Of equal dignity. That is a FAR cry from changing teaching on two men lying as they would with a woman. GOD called it sin and hateful. That us not open to change without calling God wrong and a liar. A slave did nothing immoral. A sodomite did. Big difference. You are really stretching it there.
Joanp62 says: “either believe the Catholic Church is the One founded by Jesus and that the Holy Spirit guides the Magisterium when teaching on matters of faith and morals based on Scripture and Tradition or you do not.”
That is to say your sentimentality is correct and everyone else is “not Catholic” ... hmmmm.
Bishops, most priests and the majority of Catholics are not in communion with the hierarchy on these marriage issues ... but control has been revisionist the last two Popes ... and the Church has suffered devastating loss in community due to clericalism. Pope Francis recognizes the problem for what it is ... and is taking constructive steps to ameliorate.
To restore community ... it would be wise to engage in respectful dialog. Shouting “pagan, pagan” is no way to win souls.
Joanp62 ... weak argument ... does not register with historical experience. Dogmas have changed.
I like Cardinal Avery Dulles ... but it is true to say he was one of the champions of conservative revisionist thought and rejected many of the Vatican II reforms. I personally like First Things ... but balance conservative arguments with progressive arguments and come to mu own conclusions following much prayer.
Roman Catholic ethics are shaped to some degree by magisterial teachings that often make the claim of inerrancy precisely through another claim: that its utterances are continuously the same and resist change, despite evidence to the contrary.
John T. Noonan’s works on usury, contraception, religious freedom, abortion, divorce, and bribery have set the gold standard for research in theological ethics. While sensitive to the hermeneutical context of any particular teaching, he has traced and articulated the evolution of normative teachings across cultures and history.
John T. Noonan’s works address this issue head-on: is there historical change in these teachings, and, if so, is history edifying? Does history build up the church and bring us to wisdom?
Noonan prefaces his treatment of slavery with a theologically troubling concept, an unknown sin. Such a sin is an act that is not recognized for centuries as a sin but at some point becomes regarded with horror as the blackest kind of affront to the human person and among the most serious derelictions of duty to God. Noonan describes a church unable to recognize slavery’s sinfulness and a long-standing theological community at home with the institution, even when it is innovating the moral law.
From Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, and Antoninus of Florence to John Mair and Francisco de Vitoria, the slave receives no recognition. As masters of morality taught, the masters of slaves were moral owners of property. As incipient recognitions of the horror of slavery are reported, popes speak out while theologians and local religious leaders seem remarkably blind.
For instance, in 1839, Pope Gregory XVI decries the inhuman trade of slavery, but the leading prelate in the United States, Bishop John England, asserts the lawful title to slaves, the moral theologian Francis Kenrick defends the practice of slavery, and the Jesuits of the Maryland Province actually own more than two hundred slaves.
Later Pope Leo XIII issues two other denunciations against slavery, and, in a devastating diatribe against theological obtuseness, Noonan notes how Karl Rahner, in editing the teachings of pontiffs and councils for the past twenty centuries, failed to recognize any papal teaching of slavery as worthy of mention. Indeed, the first categorical condemnation by the church of an institution that the church had lived with for over nineteen hundred years is finally made in 1965 in the Second Vatican Council document Gaudium et Spes.
Noonan then turns to changes in the opposite direction, actions that are, in a way of speaking, no longer sinful: usury, religious freedom, and divorce. But like the issue of slavery they witness to how faith leads us, over time, to understand moral matters differently.
Noonan closes his work by offering wisdom on how history teaches us that no one ever has a full purchase on any moral insight, that humility is an effective epistemological virtue, that development should neither be exaggerated nor denied, and, above all, that love should lead us.
But Noonan leaves this moralist a bit unsettled. Declaring moral teachers from previous generations innocent for the positions they held, he explains the acquittal with an overarching assertion: We must be judged by the moral criterion we know. Did no one have a responsibility to learn what he did not yet know? Is there not any culpability for ignorance? Do not the prophets rightly condemn when we do not bother to understand? If we appreciate history, inevitably we are called to understand more than what we presently know.
Pam ... sorry ... no sale. For 1600 years the Church taught that the earth is the center of the universe. The Church has taught that homosexual acts are wrong without reason and evidence. There is room for doctrinal development in the light of faith, reason and new evidence to the contrary.
Stephen, we have told you over and over that you have not demonstrated doctrinal reversals. Here is an article that may shed some light:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/development-or-reversal-37
I’m done for today.
tj007 ... Specifically, Pope Francis says: “I would love a Church that is poor.”
The church faces three temptations, according to Pope Francis: the temptation to turn the Gospel message into an ideology; the temptation to run the church like a business; and the temptation of clericalism.
Ideology, the pope argues, has been present in the church from the beginning. It attempts to interpret the Gospel apart from the church or the Gospel itself. Francis says you must look at the Gospel with the eyes of a disciple. There is no such thing as “antiseptic” hermeneutics.
Other forms of the ideological temptation include sociological reductionism and psychologizing. The first interprets the Gospel message through the lens of social science, whether from a Marxist or libertarian perspective. Here, the Gospel is manipulated for political reasons.
The temptation to psychologize the faith, on the other hand, is individualistic. “Here we have to do with elitist hermeneutics which ultimately reduces the ‘encounter with Jesus Christ’ and its development to a process of growing self-awareness.” This is a self-centered spirituality that “has nothing to do with transcendence and consequently, with missionary spirit.”
Related to this self-centered spirituality is the temptation to the Gnostic solution. “It is ordinarily found in elite groups offering a higher spirituality, generally disembodied,” he says. Gnosticism first appeared among early Christians, and it reappears throughout the church’s history in new and revised versions.
The final ideological temptation is the Pelagian solution. The Pelagians believed sanctity was the result of human effort without God’s aid. This is the temptation of conservative Catholics to “a form of restorationism.” They seek a “purely disciplinary solution” to the church’s problems “through the restoration of outdated manners and forms which, even on the cultural level, are no longer meaningful.” One can see why Francis rejected the grandiose papal apparel.
The second temptation of the church is to functionalism, which Pope Francis believes has the effect of paralyzing the church. “More than being interested in the road itself, it is concerned with fixing holes in the road.”
The last temptation of the church is to clericalism, which, as its name implies, is a particular temptation for bishops and priests, but Francis argues that often, the laity is complicit. “The priest clericalizes the layperson and the layperson kindly asks to be clericalized because deep down it is easier.” He believes that “the phenomenon of clericalism explains, in great part, the lack of maturity and Christian freedom in a good part of the laity.
Freedom of the laity, he argues, “finds expression in communal experiences: Catholic as community.” Greater autonomy, which on the whole he believes is a “healthy thing,” is expressed through popular piety. “The spread of bible study groups, of ecclesial basic communities and of pastoral councils,” he says, is also “helping to overcome clericalism and to increase lay responsibility.” Liberal clericalism can disdain popular piety while conservative clericalism fears giving the laity a greater role in the church.
dp881 This Church you know teaches that homosexual relations is a sin, does not make up the sins. God has said what is sin and He specifically calls this a sin. Are you set on doing what you think is right or on finding out God’s truth and doing what He thinks is right? Sin has consequences. Already this sin has harmed the religious freedom of soldiers and citizens. It has harmed the innocence of children and introduced them to homosexual acts in grade school. It has harmed the ability of businessmen and women to make a living simply by affirming that they believe a marriage is the union of a man and a woman. It has allowed pedophiles like Jerry Sandusky to harm children. It has caused a epidemic called aids. People can ignore sin, but sin has to be atoned for and we will do it one way or another.
Stephen, Catholicism isn’t a political process. The truth is not based on how many believe it. Whether they believe it or not, it is still the truth. People like you lead them astray so that they do not hear the truth because they are mislead by your misrepresentations, half-truths and exaggerations. You seem to be wounded from your inability to conceive. Are you angry at God or the Church because the Church allows annulments on the grounds of infertility?
Ronald, I think I do understand what you are saying. You have seen a lot of suffering and you don’t like to see harshness. No one here has called people involved in homosexual relations any names. They have called the sin a sin. In the prodigal son Jesus is speaking to a room full of rejected Jews and telling them about a son who disrespected his father by demanding his inheritance, wasted the money on dissolute living, and worked in a pig sty. Ouch. Jesus wasn’t afraid to call the sin a sin. He tried to get them to understand that DESPITE the sin, WHEN THEY WERE READY TO COME TO THEIR SENSES AND LEAVE THAT DISSOLUTE LIFE, He would be running toward them with open arms ready to shower them with love and gifts. He does not go to the pigsty. He is holy and He has given them free will. He waits for them to leave it. Stephen and you are not letting this message get through and souls will be lost. It isn’t ok to remain in the sin. Christ has conquered it and will give the soul unfailing strength to bear it or will heal them. That is the GOOD NEWS, but people are being lied to. The good news is not that an uprising will change what is and isn’t sin. The Good News is that Christ has conquered sin and death and has promised to be with us to help us to be with Him forever in eternity. Seeing suffering a lot sometimes weakens faith. I hope that hasn’t happened to you. I hope you have helped those who were suffering to offer that suffering to God for themselves and souls.
Not quite sure what you mean, Ronald, but my post above this may help. And yet you still will not explain your meaning of Christ on the Cross being nice.
And there shouldn’t be. Catholics should be united in belief, we should not be disagreeing with each other. It is ONE faith. There is a split between those who follow Church teaching and those who don’t. It’s not that difficult. You either believe the Catholic Church is the One founded by Jesus and that the Holy Spirit guides the Magisterium when teaching on matters of faith and morals based on Scripture and Tradition or you do not.
But it’s nothing new. The Church has had to deal with various heresies of one sort or another since it’s beginning. And most of what is argued today has already been argued centuries ago, it’s just that many don’t realize it.
Joan, I see from your response that you do not want to reveal the nature of your disposition which influences your discussion with me. I was open and honest with you. Such is the state of our Church. Sad
123 Sesame St. ... yes ... it is an emotional issue for some people. Sometimes the kindest thing I can do is simply let people talk as long as they want, listen and respond with kindness as best I can. I do not agree that there is no value in dialog.
tj007 ... You keep saying: “Pope and Bishops (Magisterium) are also limited in their teaching on faith and morals by the Tradition handed down and by Scripture.” I have demonstrated how weak that argument really is simply by looking to the history of Church doctrinal reversals on usury and slavery ... to name just a few. That is a mystical corner you have painted yourself into ... beyond the reach of reason and evidence.
The development of doctrine is based on a better understanding of Scripture (particularly the love that is Jesus Christ) and Tradition based on reason and evidence.
It’s crazy how there is so much conflict here.
All the comments with there words, added up would probably be longer than this story. Believe it or not.
tj007, you speak the truth. God Bless.
Ronald King, nevermind. I will not play this game with you.
Stephen, no one is “shouting Pagan, pagan”. And the hierarchy is not about control, no matter how many dream it is.
Hi Joanp62
You are absolutely right that the Church is neither left nor right, - because it is NOT a political entity. In some areas the Church agrees with the so-called right (abortion, homosexuality), but in other areas, the Church agrees with the so-called left (capital punishment, environmentalism, poverty issues).
What many don’t realized is that the Church is not a democracy, but a sacred institution of God. She does not operate by majority votes, but is founded on the authority of the Pope and Bishops, successors of Peter and the Apostles.
The Pope and Bishops (Magisterium) are also limited in their teaching on faith and morals by the Tradition handed down and by Scripture. Like you have implied, no Pope nor Bishop can teach anything contrary to Tradition or Scripture. Therefore, this set of teachings will never change, no matter who sits on the See of Peter, no matter what theologians may think, no matter what most Catholics choose to believe or not, and certainly no matter the level of persecution the Chruch experiences. Since the earliest council in Jerusalem, the principle has always been to preserve (not add nor subtract) what has been handed down by the Apostles.
There are those who believe that the possibility of the development of doctrines will allow for reversal of certain teachings in matters of faith or morals (e.g. ordination of female priests, acceptance of abortion and contraception, and homosexual acts), but most certainly, the informed Catholic knows that it cannot be so. Why? Because for any development of doctrine to be authentic, it cannot contradict what has already been established. So reversal is not possible. Development means that which builds upon the prior, not a rejection of the prior.
For those who stubbornly refuse to accept the Church’s teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual acts, nothing, absolutely nothing they can do will change the Church’s position on this moral issue. In the words of an ancient council,
“This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! Thus the Orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!” (The bishops in response to a letter written by Pope St. Leo the Great)
With much appreciation for the good words that you share in this forum,
Shalom.
Joan, you asked if it was beneath me to explain it to you. Geez. What is your disposition which influences you to make that kind of a statement?
Joanp62 ... yes ... Bishops, most priests and the majority of Catholics are not in communion with the hierarchy on these marriage issues ... but control has been revisionist the last two Popes ... and the Church has suffered devastating loss in community due to clericalism. Pope Francis recognizes the problem for what it is ... and is taking constructive steps to ameliorate.
To restore community ... it would be wise to engage in respectful dialog. Shouting “pagan, pagan” is no way to win souls.
Then why haven’t you bothered to enlighten me about what you meant relating the word nice to Christ on the cross? Is it beneath you to explain yourself to one such as me?
Joan, you don’t get it do you? You did not understand the context of my message. that is quite clear to me. once again you are believing your perception to be true instead of being humble and honest By acknowledging that you do not understand my meaning of what I said. And admitting that you understand it from your perspective and not my perspective. That is honesty and humility. You do not understand the context of the word nice as I related it to Christ on the cross. You understand it from your perspective not mine. Not just admit it and let’s stop
Stephen: “But the right wing needs to know that it has controlled the church hierarchy for some three decades now. It is the right wing that must look in the mirror. A stricter form of boundary police will not attract outsiders; it will repel them. Indeed, it has.”
That is blatantly false. The left wing, at least in the U.S. has had a stranglehold on the Church hierarchy, including most bishops, priests, and in the Catholic Universities. We have had to sit through banal liturgies filled with all sorts of abuses, and the watering down of catechesis for decades. Sorry, you are just way off base here.
Upholding the God-given, not man-made teachings of the Church will save souls. Becoming another Episcopalian-type Church and being more worldly is NOT the answer and will not save souls.
The past 2 popes were not right-wing, they were Catholic, and so is Francis. There is no right-wing or left-wing Catholicism, it is simply Catholicism. It just so happens that Catholicism, by it’s very nature, looks more “conservative” than “liberal”.
Ronald: Contrary to how you spin my comments (2 or 3 to you I think) I have not claimed” to know how your thoughts formulate and what creates the meaning of love for you”. I wrote what I wrote based on your own comments, just as you claim “I did imply that you were hard-hearted and that was my projection of my belief about you in response to what you had written…”
Although you admit that, you are still accusing me of doing what you in fact did instead.
What I had written: “Ronald, to reduce Christ on the Cross to being “nice” proves my point. You appear to be equating Love with nice. Love is much more and much greater than that.” Where did I write that you were “un-loving”?
Stephen, I read that article this morning. Love certainly leads us to the mystery of God’s creation in all of its seemingly contradictions.
Ronald King ... yes ... biblical scholars are divided ... many see biblical proscriptions on sodomy tied to promiscuity ... there is no reference to homosexual relationship in the context of marriage ... condemnation of acts are not for objective reasons.
Joanp62 ... nobody is condemning you as a person. I am convinced that you are a good person and fervently believe in your views. But your views are based upon your sentimentality ... which does not qualify as a basis for universal presentiment. I have asked some reasonable questions that you chose to ignore.
Father Charles Reid offers some insight into the implications these questions have for ecumenical outreach:
” Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia put into words the anxiety many right-wing Catholics must be feeling at the extraordinary popularity Pope Francis has been enjoying. In an interview with John L. Allen Jr., Chaput, speaking on behalf of his conservative followers, said that members of the right wing of the Catholic church “generally have not been really happy about his election.” The pope, Chaput stated, will “have to care for them, too.”
What worries Chaput in particular is the sudden interest in the new pope from unfamiliar quarters. Practicing Catholics love the pope, of course, “but they’re not actually the ones who really talk to me about the new pope. The ones who do are nonpracticing Catholics or people who aren’t Catholic or not even Christian.” And why should this be so? Chaput has his suspicions: Yes, these outsiders are thrilled by the new pope’s friendliness and his warmth, but “I think they would prefer a church that wouldn’t have strict norms and ideas about the moral life and about doctrine.
Wow. Where do we start? We could talk about the parable of the prodigal son, since Chaput truly sounds a great deal like the adventuresome young man’s older brother, the one who stayed home and toiled with his father and grew resentful when the old man slew the fatted calf upon his brother’s return. Or we could talk about the shepherd who rejoiced over finding his lost sheep.
But let’s focus instead on what it means to be an evangelical church. For some time now, decades really, the church has been turning in upon itself. This is most especially noticeable in conservative circles. The culture is seen as hostile. The ambient culture is “pagan,” to use Chaput’s description. Indeed, he has even called some Catholics pagan in their approach to the faith.
But shouting “pagan, pagan” is no way to win souls. And this is evidenced by even the briefest consideration of Catholic membership statistics. Catholic membership has grown in Africa, but it has lost members in Latin America to more enthusiastic forms of evangelical Protestantism. And in the United States, Catholic membership would be in decline were it not buoyed by immigration.
The right wing’s favored response to these dismal trends is to blame the left. But the right wing needs to know that it has controlled the church hierarchy for some three decades now. It is the right wing that must look in the mirror. A stricter form of boundary police will not attract outsiders; it will repel them. Indeed, it has.
Francis has gotten the message and the tone just right. Jesus, after all, came not for the saved but for the sinners. He dined with tax collectors. He routinely and frequently forgave prostitutes. He was followed in his evangelizing by women who did not come from respectable homes. He promised the water of eternal life to a woman who was even then living out of wedlock.
The new evangelization about which so many on the Catholic right speak is not about new and better forms of border security. It is about the imitatio Christi—the imitation of Christ. Like Christ, Francis means to be evangelical, and that means finding people where Christ found them—in desperate shape, in need of forgiveness and love—and offering them hope.”
Joan, I am certain I know what I am talking about and certain that you do not know what I am talking about. It would be impossible for you to know how my thoughts formulate and what creates the meaning of love for me. So, what you do is project your beliefs about what I have written as though they were my beliefs. I never called you homophobic, however, I did imply that you were hard-hearted and that was my projection of my belief about you in response to what you had written and that was unloving. That was my sin and I do confess that. Has anyone else sinned on this thread either inwardly or outwardly with what they have written in response to the disposition of their hearts?
Ronald, I’m not so sure you know what you are talking about. But I am sick and tired of being called homophobic or hard-hearted because I do not agree with the world that homosexual acts are normal and that 2 men or 2 women can marry each other. The world is and has always been contrary to Christ. Whatever one’s sexual orientation, it is not the entirety of a person. We are so much more than who we are attracted to sexually, and there is so, so much more to life than sex. Christ died on the cross so that Heaven would be opened to us. He told us that if we wish to be His disciple that we must also deny ourselves and take up our crosses daily. Was Jesus being hard-hearted when He said that? I don’t think so and you know what? I practice what I “preach”.
tj007 ... yes ... Thomas Aquinas condemns homosexual acts without objective reasons ... mere sentimentality reflecting dominant normative values and a lack of evidence to support his conclusions. I can find objective reasons for identifying premarital sex, pornography, and adultery as harmful to the individual, others and social stability.
Condemnation without reason is a mystical corner that you have painted yourself into ... beyond reason and evidence.
The fact that so much of this language did take shape in normative arguments based upon dominant sentimentality has left the concept of sin strangely incoherent. After all, to argue with the king, one has to use the king’s language, whether or not the initial premises make sense.
One has only to look at the history of dogmatic development to see how absurd arguments to authority really are. For example, the Catholic Church supported slavery and had forbid the practice of lending money at interest for centuries. But the usury rules often fell into desuetude, causing the Church hierarchy to authorize preaching campaign, sending mendicant friars to travel from town to town warning usurers that unless they repented and made full restitution of all interest extracted from their victims, they would surely go to HELL.
Those sermons, many of which have survived, are full of horror stories of God’s judgment on unrepentant lenders. The papacy issued instructions to local parishes that all known usurers were to be excommunicated; they were not to be allowed to receive the sacraments, and under no conditions could their bodies be buried on hallowed ground.
Historically, there have been only two effective ways for a lender to try to wiggle out of the opprobrium: either shunt off responsibility onto some third party, or insist that the borrower is even worse. In Europe, for instance, Lords employed Jews as surrogates, then periodically turn on them and took the money for themselves.
I looked up sodomy in Wikipedia and found its history quite interesting.
As I mentioned in my earlier post on Thursday, Aug 15, 2013 5:15 PM (EDT), I will give a BRIEF explanation of the natural law argument against homosexuality. Note that it doesn’t stand alone, but stands with Scripture and Tradition.
Natural Law Argument: Homosexuality is against human nature.
Aquinas in Summa Theologica argued “that every emission of semen, in such a way that generation cannot follow, is contrary to man. And if this be done deliberately, it must be a sin.”
In the natural order, the purpose of copulation (or for Aquinas, the semen) is generation. The homosexual act is fully incapable of generation, and therefore, is inconsistent with human nature. Also, in the specific details of the homosexual act, the parts and organs of the body are used in ways they were not designed to be used, and in fact, causes significant damage, as in the case of sodomy.
In terms of ethics, in matters of action, it is illicit to act against things as determined by nature. Example, the natural function of eating is for nourishment. The pleasure that comes from eating is secondary. To eat entirely for pleasure or satisfaction and yet to prevent the nourishing aspect, say, to artificially expel the food through vomiting, would violate the natural law. We call it an eating disorder.
Therefore, since the homosexual acts transgress that which has been determined by nature, it follows that such acts are against nature.
Note the the Church treats the sexual organs and sexuality as sacred because it involves participation in God’s creation of new life and is intended to be a sign of Christ’ love for His bride, the church (Ephesians 5). Therefore, the sexuality is governed more strictly than other biological functions.
Thus, the Church also condemns acts of masturbation, premarital sex, unchaste behavior, pornography, adultery, and such, because sexual acts are revelatory, beautiful, and powerful, and thus can be easily abused. To use our sex organs merely for pleasure leads a person down the path to hedonism or self-indulgence, which is opposed to sanctification.
Leviticus “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination.”
I too see the need to re-conceptualize the role of the laity ... and look to early Church history and Vatican II for guidance. I like Thomas M. Loarie’s article:
Are We Living In The Age Of The Laity?
http://catholicbusinessjournal.biz/p/22
I think the Church is suffering greatly from the overly clericalized view of church structure and overly sacralized view of priesthood held by many in the hierarchy and promoted under the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict. I believe that if any perspective verges on heresy, it is one that asserts (functionally if not verbally) that preserving the clericalist hierarchical structure is more important than the Eucharist, effective pastoral care, and genuine community. And it seems to ignore at best and contravene at worst the example and teaching of Jesus in the Gospels.
The one thing Jesus’ contemporaries would have known for sure about him was that he was not a priest (couldn’t have been, as a descendent of the Davidic line). A church whose upper leadership seems in the thrall of fear and an unrecognized addiction to power and position doesn’t have much of a future. But a church genuinely rooted in the Spirit given to each and every one of the baptized, and willing to move forward in trust and welcome the gifts of all—that could change the world.
I think Pope Francis is beginning to move the Church in the right direction. My hope and prayers are with him.
Ronald King ... I agree that Pam is citing psydo-science that has largely been discredited. Even James Dobson has retracted and apologized.
Joan, Pam does know what she is talking about, but, she does not know what I am talking about nor do you.
Joan, I see how this works. I write something and then you respond with what you believe it is that I wrote rather than having knowledge or insight of what I wrote. You believe what you want because your belief system is part of your identity and therefore impossible to change. You are prejudicial due to your belief that you know what I am talking about without having awareness of my thoughts experiences and knowledge. You then insert your wrong beliefs about what I have written and think that you understand my words. You are projecting your prejudices on to me. I hope you become aware of this. It is very harmful in relationships.
Stephen, I thought you said you disagreed with the church’s teaching on gay
Ronald, to reduce Christ on the Cross to being “nice” proves my point. You appear to be equating Love with nice. Love is much more and much greater than that.
And Pam does indeed know what she is talking about.
Hi dp881,
The basic rule of bible interpretation is that one canot pick a verse in isolation with the immediate context, and out of the context of the entirety of Scripture.
JOhn 8:15 cannot obviously mean that Jesus intends not to judge at all in general, because just prior to that incident was the incident with the woman caught in adultery (starting at verse 3). What many people don’t notice is the Jesus clearly pronounced judgment on the woman.
“Go and sin no more.” verse 11.
He as Lord, did not condemn her, but He clearly judged her behavior as sin.
John 8:15 is better understood as “You judge by human standards, but I do not.” The Greek ego ou krino is meant to contrast the prior “you”.
In fact, to remain silent and not speak up against sin is the the meanest thing to do. The kind thing is to correct, just as a parent needs to speak up and correct a child’s bad behavior. No one in their right mind would call the parent mean for punishing a child’s misbehavior.
As faithful Catholics, we have to call homosexual acts (not persons) as sins - for that is the kind and loving thing to do. To not do so is to allow the person we are supposed to love to remain estranged from God who created humans male and female, and commanded them to be “fruitful and multiply.”
Shalom.
dp881 ... then apparently you have not followed this thread. There are indeed many unresolved questions. I am grateful that Pope Benedict is expressing a willingness to discuss new evidence. The Catholic faith is based upon truth.
Pam ... I have not read the Mark Regeneres study ... but I have read responsible commentary ... and I quote:
An internal audit by the academic journal that originally published it found the conclusions to be “bullshit” because Regnerus’s criteria was whether a kid’s parent ever had a same-sex relationship, regardless of how long it lasted or what role in played in parenting. In a new interview with Focus on the Family — a group invested in continuing to cite the study to oppose LGBT equality — Regnerus admits that the foundation of his study is too weak to draw the conclusions that many have made:
Regnerus admits that the foundation of his study is too weak to draw the conclusions that many have made:
REGNERUS: I got taken to task for leaning on young adults’ assessments of their parents’ relationships. I didn’t ask them whether they thought their mom was a lesbian or if their dad was gay. Because, in part, self-identity is a different kind of thing than behavior, and lot of people weren’t “out” in that era. I think we can all think of moms and dads when we were growing up that we either knew or suspected were gay or lesbian, but never “came out of the closet,” so to speak. So, I didn’t want to make the assumption that these young adults would identify their parents as gay or lesbian, so I kept the focus on relationship behavior. [...]
And when pushed, a lot of people who were critics of mine will say: “Yeah, we know that, obviously, family structure matters,” and then they’ll complain, “Why didn’t you find many stably coupled lesbians?” Well, they just were not that common in the nationally representative population. There were two cases where they said the mom and her partner lived together for 18 years. There was another several who lived together for 15 or 13 years. So, stability in the sense of long-term was not common. And frankly, it’s not all that common among heterosexual population. I take pains in the study to say this is not about saying gay or lesbian parents are inherently bad. [...]
I’d be more careful about the language I used to describe people whose parents had same-sex relationships. I said “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers,” when in fact, I don’t know about their sexual orientation; I do know about their same-sex relationship behavior. But as far as the findings themselves, I stand behind them.
So, Regnerus’ study was not about parents who openly identify as gay or lesbian. It was not about same-sex couples in long-term relationships raising children together. Regnerus even admits “this is not about saying gay or lesbian parents are inherently bad,” because he knows he has no foundation on which to make such a claim. This was a study about unstable couples, possibly in sham marriages, who may have dabbled in same-sex relationships outside of their original marriage at a time when there was no recognition for same-sex couples anywhere in the country. In others words, the study’s results have zero implication for conversations in 2012 about out, committed same-sex couples who are already raising children.
Focus on the Family may be invested in the fraudulent portrayal of Regnerus’s study, but by conducting this interview to draw more attention to it, the anti-gay organization managed to prove that the research has no applicability to the marriage equality and same-sex adoption debates to which it has been applied.
James Dobson cited the research of Kyle Pruett and Carol Gilligan in a Time Magazine guest article in the service of a claim that two women cannot raise a child; upon finding out that her work had been used in this way, Gilligan wrote a letter to Dobson asking him to apologize and to cease and desist from citing her work, describing herself as “mortified to learn that you had distorted my work ... Not only did you take my research out of context, you did so without my knowledge to support discriminatory goals that I do not agree with ... there is nothing in my research that would lead you to draw the stated conclusions you did in the Time article.”
Pruett wrote a similar letter, in which he said that Dobson “cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes. This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles. There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions”, and asked that FOTF not cite him again without permission.
After Elizabeth Saewyc’s research on teen suicide was used by Focus on the Family to promote conversion therapy, she said that “the research has been hijacked for somebody’s political purposes or ideological purposes and that’s worrisome”, and that research in fact linked the suicide rate among LGBT teens to harassment, discrimination, and closeting. Other scientists who have criticized Focus on the Family’s misrepresentation of their findings include Robert Spitzer,[60] Gary Remafedi[58] and Angela Phillips.
On the surface, the conclusion you are drawing is contrary to credible peer-reviewed scientific studies you will find located on the American Psychiatric Association and American Medical Association websites.
John 8:15
Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
I know the Catholic Church teaches homosexuality is wrong. I am aware of that.
So, there is no reasoning with a person who says every liberal catholic is wrong and needs confession for their belief or what ever you have said.
I stand my ground.
Stephen , If God’s direct prohibition is not enough and the harm described byy the surgeon general is not enough and the Regeneres study finding children raised by same sex couples are more likely to have problems is not enough, and if the division that homosexual relations can cause among family members is not enough and if the loss of faith or the divisions among the faithful are not enough to meet help you see sin is at work, you are right. You might as well move on. There may be a lot that could be said but you can’t hear it.
Pam you do not know what I’m talking about. Good night
Dp881, may I ask your age? What is not nice about telling Chris I agree or saying Stephen doesn’t seem to understand that being Catholic means holding to certain beliefs? Or asking if anyone else’s system keeps changing his name to Devil? Does yours? And Ronald no one is cursing anyone and the ones who have hardened their hearts are the ones who have no fear of commiting grave sin, not the ones warning them of the danger!.
tj007 ... there you go again with that tautology ... people used that same argument for centuries to justify Church teaching on slavery ... and claiming that the Church has empowered you to decide who is Catholic and who is not ... impressive!
Fact is ... the means to justify condemnation without objective reasons are old arguments trying to reassert themselves ... the current teaching has not been received by a majority of the faithful ... for good reasons.
You will also find in the CCC means to question ... the Church does not require blind obedience ... tj007 is apparently not aware of Church teaching on conscience ... he prefers a Gnostic heresy ... that Pope Francis says is an error of conservatives who lack in maturity.
Since the neocon experts have nothing new to say ... other than name calling and repeating sentimental absolutes ... it seems that this thread has come to an end.
May God’s peace be with you always!
Stephen
Joan, I am not mistaking permissiveness, disobedience and personal pride with love. You are mistaken in applying those negative traits to someone you do not know. You have opinions and think that is truth. You mistaken compassion for “being nice”. Christ was “very nice” on the Cross. We all should be so “nice”.
What do you think of the references above rather than telling me about your prejudices? I am finished for this evening. It is God’s day and God is Love.
Good quotes Mr king!
Unfortunately, just as there are mean Catholics, there are also equally mean anti-Catholics who wish to destropy the church.
And also many think that it is mean to speak the truth, and that it is kind to simply tolerate and accept. These are worldly values, not Biblical.
Galatians 6:1 ESV
Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.
2 Timothy 4:2 ESV
Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.
1 Timothy 5:20
As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
The words of Jesus that you quote are not in contradiction to these other passages. Jesus’ words are elaboration on the Golden Rule, not a command to refrain from admonishing others when they are acting immorally.
IOW we are to judge rightly:
John 7:24, Jesus said “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment”
The Bible is to be understand as whole, which means one cannot pick and choose the passages to accpet and the ones to reject/ignore.
Shalom.
Oh, and “being nice” is also being mistaken for love as well.
Ronald, you are mistaking permissiveness, disobedience and personal pride with love. tj007 actually is expressing true Christian charity in his/her responses.
From James 3:9-10, “...we bless God…and curse men, which are made of the likeness of God…Out of the same mouth these things ought not to be.” CCC 2487, “To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words and deeds in a favorable way…”
Matthew 7:2, “For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.”
Hebrews 4:7, “Harden not your hearts.”
It amazes me how mean people can be and call themselves Christians/Catholics. I should not be surprised though since I have been on this planet for 66 years and married 38 of them while working with victims of war, sexual abuse, physical and verbal abuse for 31 years. There is violence on this thread and I must leave it. tj, you wrote that you are a cancer survivor, so am I. Esophageal cancer was diagnose 3/2010 and during the last 3 and one half years I have a profound joy when I am with people. Their smiles are beautiful. Love creates smiles.
I forgot to add this, following my previous post to d881:
CCC 2357: Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.
The Magisterium has taught as such. Let the faithful Catholics give their religious assent (i.e. assent of will and judgment), which is rooted in faith.
Hi dp881,
A faithful Catholic is one who is willing to submit one’s judgment to the authority of the bishops.
CCC892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
and in the Vatican II doc Lumen Gentium:
“In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent of soul. This religious submission of will and of intellect must be shown in a special way to the authoritative magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra” (LG 25)
One often can tell by behavior or words, whether a person is faithful as a Catholic or not. It doesn’t make the judgment definitive,, but it is a useful guide. The evidence do show that there are some posting in this forum who reject the teaching of the Magisterium in matters of faith and morals, and are therefore, unfaithful Catholics.
Shalom.
That’s really not very nice, Pam.
Chris, You were right to ask Mr. Devol that question since he seems to be unable to make the link between suicide and spiritual health. And it is sad that he does not know that there are certain beliefs one must have to be considered Catholic. All he can come up with is the same tired question that has been answered so many times and ways. Am I the only one whose computer changes his name to “Devil” every time I type it in?
Chris, why did you say you hope Stephen DeVol will become a Catholic in the near future? He has the freedom of religion. You don’t make some one christian or catholic.
chris ... that’s an interesting means to obfuscate ... let me get this straight ... are you claiming the Church has granted you authority to decide who is Catholic and who is not? ... hmmm
Why don’t you simply answer the question Chris ...
Define homosexual acts in the context of civil union as immoral for objective reasons ... other than your sentimentality .... which lacks basis to claim universal presentiment. Please cite your sources ... no junk science please.
Everyone can now see that Mr. Stephen DeVol is neither a Catholic nor a Christian. i pray that he becomes one in the near future.
.
Nobody can go near the Lord Jesus unless he has humility. A humility that says maybe, just maybe, my Creator knows better than me and therefore i should approach things revealed by Him to his prophets with more respect.
.
i pray that the Lord Jesus have mercy on the soul of the young man, and do for him what he did for the repentant thief at Golgotha (i.e. pull victory out of the jaws of defeat). Amen.
Chris ... how dare you use the death of a child to insinuate your ideological beliefs ... that is very sick behavior brother ... may God’s peace be with you.
Leng and Chris ... again, thank you for sharing your sentiments ... most Catholics do not agree with you ... I wish you well.
I know I said I would never come back to this website, but I do have say to Stephen, Thanks for saying those kind words to me. You seem to be a kind
man your self.
I am done, now.
Paix
M P
Stephen DeVol,
Who do you think you are to set moral standards?
For all true believers there is only one moral standard, that of our Almighty Creator God, our Heavenly Father.
All mankind fall short of His standard, all have sinned. The wages of sin is death.
Almighty God is Holy and Righteous and there is only one way to be reconciled to Him, by repenting of our sins and accept the salvation gift of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Please do not deprive others of the salvation gift by your twisted argument and attempt to mislead them.
Leng.
Listen to what Almighty God is telling you, repent when it is not too late!
Chris, stop being the spiritual police
lets repeat the post just in case,
.
[ Posted by Stephen DeVol - CITVN Executive Producer on Friday, Aug 16, 2013 2:29 PM (EDT)
We had an 18 year old Catholic homeless guest. His family had rejected him because he fell in love with another young man. He completed his senior year of high school with us, had above average grades and had dreams of attending college. But he could not resolve the self-loathing doubts imposed upon him by Catholic doctrine and resulting family rejection in the short time he stayed with us. Steven died of a heroin overdose in our home.]
.
Mr Stephen DeVol, what spiritual help and spiritual exercises did you conduct with this young man before he died?
.
.
Yes, we intend to put your sincerity to the test.
Monsieur Pepper, The road is wide that leads to destruction. See how Mr. Devol tries to divide Catholics and label them. See how he has been totally unwilling or unable to respond to arguments based on God’s own Word. Your soul will always be safe if you turn to God and read His Word and obey and seek to know and love Him. Mr. Devol disrespects that Word so beware.
Monsieur Pepper ... I too am saddened by the bigotry and judgmental attitudes expressed by a minority of Catholics who do not speak ex-Cathedra for the Church. Your opinion is valid and is shared by a majority of Catholics. The neoconservative arguments present in this thread contain both Gnostic and Pelagian heresies, deception in evidence, defy Church history, are tautological and are largely based upon their sentimentality and the cherry picking of scriptural condemnations (without reason and out of context). They can not or will not identify objective reasons for why homosexual acts in the context of civil union are wrong ... other than manipulating CDC facts beyond the conclusions of the scientific community to manufacture reasons without evidence, then fail to identify why their facts justify coerced celibacy or exclusion from communion. It is an old argument attempting to assert itself as tradition. Most pronounced in their arguments is the lack of love that is Jesus Christ. Dualistic shaming and blaming is the preserve of people who are intellectually incoherent. What is conspicuously missing from this thread are Catholic theologians and bishops who are not in communion. But I doubt that it would matter to the neoconservatives ... they seem quite skilled in the art of rhetorical obfuscation and simply pretend that valid arguments and peer-reviewed scientific evidence to the contrary do not exist. They examine everyone’s conscience (who does not agree with their twisted reasoning) but their own. Keep listening to Pope Francis and pray ... you are a kind young and loving young man.
Michael it still says ” and they committed abominations before Him…” It doesn’t take away from the gravity of the sin. It may have been the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Monsieur Pepper et al, That was dishonest of you to do that, trying to appear to be a group of people of the same mind. You are unfortunately an example of the amorality that comes from following ones own beliefs instead of God’s (not mine or yours or your parents). And it is sad you couldnt raise your concerns posting as a sixteen year old who was looking for answers. I hope you confess your sin to a priest. You have been raised in a climate that is hostile to the true faith but if you are open to God he will lead you to all truth. When you are dishonest and sin you hurt yourself and others. Too bad you couldn’t have an open conversation about this. I pray for your spiritual growth and the souls you have mislead. If you do not see the harm in what you do perhaps it is better you don’t continue to post until you are ready to post as yourself. Angels around you.
Leng wrote “God has shown His wrath by His punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah…”
“Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom thy sister, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of her, and of her daughters: and they did not put forth their hand to the needy, and to the poor. And they were lifted up, and committed abominations before me: and I took them away as thou hast seen.” (Ezekiel 16:49-50) A little more nuanced than you suggest.
I am only 16 year old. I thought It would be fine if I posted my opinion and belief on The National Catholic Register. I thought just because I was Catholic, I should get involve. I did not realize that my posts would be detested so much.
So, I am never coming back to the National Catholic Register website nor I’m I going to get involved with these comments ever again.
I also go by John, Mr. Pepper, PepperMan and EqualRights, too.
So you won’t think I called you tiens, Tiens means, “Well” or “Well then” in French.
I really like the French language.
Tiens,
As I said earlier, Pam, This is what I believe in. I was raised this way. You can’t change around my belief.
I hope you understand, not what I believe in, that this is my belief and It’s is not a dangerous mistake. Once again, it’s my belief.
I respect your belief.
Paix
M Pepper
Monsieur Pepper, Perhaps you are not trying to divide and conquer, but the Pope and I are on the same side. We both believe in being kind to everyone we meet because they are God’s creation and because we know that we never know when we are entertaining angels and because we don’t buy the agenda that says we should somehow know someone is homosexual just by looking at them. (that is really what I think he was trying to say when he said they don’t wear badges or carry cards saying they are homosexual. So his comment that he doesn’t judge is based on the not knowing and their appearance of virtue.) It is frustrating to fight against those who try to make the Truth seem unkind. Actually my experience has been that it has been a tactic of activists to portray Catholics who believe Church teaching that way. Those who are homosexual then feel either threatened or disliked or embarrassed or fearful. So before a conversation has even begun we have been packaged as the enemy when we have learned things about the faith that would be a great help to overcoming their temptations. As to believing homosexuals don’t sin, that means you have willfully disregarded God’s Word in the Bible, but since we both believe in God, I would ask you to keep seeking God’s truth, not yours or the media’s or your parent’s. Also, please think about distinguishing the sin from the person. Many people are so loving and hardworking and kind and funny and intelligent and on and on. Those are such wonderful attributes that should be encouraged, but those attributes do not justify nor negate grave sin. That is where people get confused, I think. They see the good in the person and think the sin must be ok if they can have so many good aspects. That is a dangerous mistake. Applaud the good, love the good and work to heal the sin. We are all on a journey and all fall short. Let’s just not be ok with the falling short and keep working to “be perfect as the Heavenly Father is perfect!” as we were commanded.
tj I am using my phone. Very slow. God Bless You. Ron
I was raised to believe gays are equal. My parents feel the same.
I was not trying to persuade you in any way.
I believe gays don’t sin. To me they are normal. You don’t have to agree with me, Pam or Leng. You are following the Churches teachings.
But at least we both believe in the same thing: God
Salut et paix.
Mr King,
Again, you are correct that “The mystery of God’s Love is not bound by our interpretations but the expression of His love through us could be limited by our beliefs.”
Maybe you knwo more about love than anyone else. In my limited experience, having cared for a dying mom and having suffered through cancer, I have learned that love means to go beyond my own pain and in the midst of that pain, to reach out and continue to serve others.
It means to get up in the middle of the night to hold your crying babcy for two hours in spite of being dead tired, so that your spouse can rest.
It means to continue to forgive and care for someone who has hurt you and violated your trust repeatedly.
It means to stay in a marriage even when your spouse has violated you trust and engaged in another relationship.
It means to forgive the one who has murdered your child.
It is true that I can only see “part of the truth.” But these examples are the parts that I have seen, through personal experiences and learning deeply from blessed Mother Teresa and Blessed Pope JPII, the great.
And so, I stand by my words that God is Truth and Love, and these two cannot ever be separated. They go together. One cannot condone an immoral act in the name of love, because it is opposed to truth. That is the sacrifice we have to make.
So, Mr King, I may not know much about love, but I can see what love is not. I hope you see that love cannot be confused with compassion and tolerance for immoral acts.
Shalom.
I believe this, Leng and Pam.
You can believe this. The church does say this. And so does it’s teachings.
But this is my belief. I think Pope Francis is a good pope. Not just because of he said, but that he seems humble and kind.
Pepper,
Precisely because of commandment 2 the so-called homosexual ‘christian’
needs to be reminded of commandment 1.
Almighty God our Heavenly Father sent His only begotten Son our Savior Lord Jesus to pay for our sins by dying on the cross so that we can be reconciled to Him who is Holy and Righteous.
The gracious gift of salvation is offered to us. It is up to us to repent of our sins and our disobedience and accept it.
The other reason(which is often overlooked)for our Lord Jesus to come down from Heaven is to show us the higher meaning of love, that of selfless,sacrificial love as oppose to secular understanding/version of
love, which is often admixed with lust.
I am sure all True-Christians love their neighbors as themselves and wishes all to go to Heaven, not otherwise.
Leng
Ronald think of the mother in the Old Testament who had to watch all six of her sons die for not rejecting their faith. It would have been very compassionate to say “We will believe inwardly but deny outwardly” so the boys could live but it would have been wrong. We must be faithful when it is most difficult. Bother the sufferer and the helper will be blessed. It IS a sacrifice.
Mosignor Pepper, If you believe someone is harming themselves and society are you loving them by encouraging them? If you are doing something God Himself told Moses He hated, wouldn’t you want your friends to help you stop?
Leng, “2. Love your neighbor as yourself”
You posted this. This is true. We should all love are neighbor.
But we should love everyone expect gays?
Even the Pope has showed some agreement toward gays. I know he thinks they can be healed. But he said if they love God and do no harm, he sees no reason we should judge them.
Here is is actual quote: “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge him?”
Paix
M. Pepper
Homosexuality is abomination to God. Period.
The English word ‘marriage’ is clearly defined as between a man and a woman.
Homosexual union is God-condemned union. Period.
Do not adulterate The English Language by calling homosexual union a form of marriage.
A person who says he is a Christian is not a ‘true Christian’ if he persists to continue with the God-condemned act of homosexual activity.
Our Lord’s 2 most important commandments are very clear, in Matthew 22:37-39
1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and
with all your mind
2. Love your neighbour as yourself
A true Christian will show his love to God by obeying Him. Since God has shown His wrath by His punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah, the two ‘homosexual-cities’ the sins of which are described as great and grievous (Genesis 18:20), are homosexual ‘Christians’ to think that Righteous God will condone their persistent indulgence in sin?
Surely a person who says that he is a Christian and therefore loves God will not continue to anger the One he loves. Therefore he should ask the Holy Spirit to empower him not to fall prey to temptation.
With God all things are possible. Just pray and ask for the Holy Spirit’s empowerment.
Thank you Stephen. I have found peace and it really is not so painful anymore.
[ Posted by Stephen DeVol - CITVN Executive Producer on Friday, Aug 16, 2013 2:29 PM (EDT)
We had an 18 year old Catholic homeless guest. His family had rejected him because he fell in love with another young man. He completed his senior year of high school with us, had above average grades and had dreams of attending college. But he could not resolve the self-loathing doubts imposed upon him by Catholic doctrine and resulting family rejection in the short time he stayed with us. Steven died of a heroin overdose in our home.]
.
Mr Stephen DeVol, what spiritual help and spiritual exercises did you conduct with this young man before he died?
Joanp62 ... thank you for sharing your personal experience. That helps me to understand. I can not fully appreciate what you have experienced ... but I do understand that this is a painful issue for you and hope you find peace.
Hey ... tj007, Joan and Pat ... you three can all pat yourselves on the back ... but none of you have address arguments to the contrary ... from any source ... with evidence ... simply content sharing your sentimentality ... with the exception of tj007 who likes to find argumentative means to obfuscate and tell everyone how smart he is. Yeah ...
tj007 ... yes ... correlation does not infer causation ... CDC experts on the issue (which I assume you are not) reviewed the preponderance of scientific evidence and arrived at conclusions through strong converging evidence. Now you can read the studies and try to dispute their conclusions rationally ... but cherry picking CDC facts without disclosing CDC conclusions is deceptive.
http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/stigma-and-discrimination.htm
In 1973, the weight of empirical data led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Try refuting American Psychiatric Association conclusions at:
http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx
The American Psychological Association (APA) promptly endorsed the psychiatrists’ actions, and has since worked intensively to eradicate the stigma historically associated with a homosexual orientation. Try refuting American Psychological Association conclusions at:
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
Or try refuting the conclusions of the American Medical Association at:
Policy on the Health Care Needs of the Homosexual Population (H-160.991), http://www.amsa.org/programs/barriers/jama96.pdf
Or try refuting IMPROVING THE HEALTH CARE OF LESBIAN,GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER (LGBT) PEOPLE: Understanding and Eliminating Health Disparities by The National LGBT Health Education Center, The Fenway Institute1; Brigham and Women’s Hospital1; and Harvard Medical School at:
http://www.lgbthealtheducation.org/wp-content/uploads/12-054_LGBTHealtharticle_v3_07-09-12.pdf
I can go on .. the aforementioned Associations all have extensive bibliographies ... there really is a large volume of credible scientific evidence on health concerns with reasoned conclusions.
tj007 you claim .... homosexual acts are gravely depraved and intrinsically disordered because the church says they are gravely depraved and intrinsically disordered because they are gravely depraved and intrinsically disordered and here’s some biblical condemnations (without reason and probably out-of-context) to prove it ... that is a tautology ... that’s not a rational argument.
Define homosexual acts in the context of civil union as immoral for objective reasons ... other than your sentimentality .... which lacks basis to claim universal presentiment. tj007 ... please cite your sources ... no junk science please.
Joanp62 ... thank you for sharing your personal experience. That helps me to understand. I can not fully appreciate what you have experienced ... but I do understand that this is a painful issue for you and hope you find peace.
Hey ... tj007, Joan and Pat ... you three can all pat yourselves on the back ... but none of you have address arguments to the contrary from any source with evidence ... just sharing your sentimentality ... with the exception of tj007 who likes to find argumentative means to obfuscate and tell everyone how smart he is. Yeah ...
tj007 ... yes ... correlation does not infer causation ... CDC experts on the issue (which I assume you are not) reviewed the preponderance of scientific evidence and arrived at conclusions through strong converging evidence. Now you can read the studies and try to dispute their conclusions rationally ... but cherry picking CDC facts without disclosing CDC conclusions is deceptive.
http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/stigma-and-discrimination.htm
In 1973, the weight of empirical data led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Try refuting American Psychiatric Association conclusions at:
http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx
The American Psychological Association (APA) promptly endorsed the psychiatrists’ actions, and has since worked intensively to eradicate the stigma historically associated with a homosexual orientation. Try refuting American Psychological Association conclusions at:
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
Or try refuting the conclusions of the American Medical Association at:
Policy on the Health Care Needs of the Homosexual Population (H-160.991), http://www.amsa.org/programs/barriers/jama96.pdf
Or try refuting IMPROVING THE HEALTH CARE OF LESBIAN,GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER (LGBT) PEOPLE: Understanding and Eliminating Health Disparities by The National LGBT Health Education Center, The Fenway Institute1; Brigham and Women’s Hospital1; and Harvard Medical School at:
http://www.lgbthealtheducation.org/wp-content/uploads/12-054_LGBTHealtharticle_v3_07-09-12.pdf
I can go on .. there really is a large volume of credible scientific evidence on health concerns.
tj007 you claim .... homosexual acts are gravely depraved and intrinsically disordered because the church says they are gravely depraved and intrinsically disordered because they are gravely depraved and intrinsically disordered and here’s some biblical condemnations (without reason and probably out-of-context) to prove it ... that is a tautology ... that’s not a rational argument.
Define homosexual acts in the context of civil union as immoral for objective reasons ... other than your sentimentality .... which lacks basis to claim universal presentiment. tj007 ... please cite your sources ... no junk science please.
tj, It appears that your understanding is the same as I heard when I was a child. The mystery of God’s Love is not bound by our interpretations but the expression of His love through us could be limited by our beliefs. Do you know what it means to lay down your life or to have empathy or what the truth of love really is? I think not, just like the rest of us, you see only a part of the truth. If you have been blessed to care for the suffering of others then you might add a different perspective from what you have written. If you haven’t then you would only have an abstract belief about those who suffer and the love which is necessary for their healing. Good night
I shall of course be replying to the over-zealous Stephen DeVol’s pseudo-arguments here, with his sentimental approach, hostile to Biblical Christianity and the catholic faith, but I was held up by other necessary things, yet will visit this web later with entries.
My prayers are with those who are marginalized.
Thank you everyone for talking with me.
May God’s peace be with you always!
Stephen
You are absolutely right about peace from perfect love, Mr King. The only problem is that most people, including many Catholics, misundersatand what that means. Do not confuse love with mere compassion.
Read the words of Jesus - “no greater love than he who lays down his life for his brothers.”
And the words of Paul: “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.”
Notice that God is described in the Scripture as Truth and Love.
IOW, they go together. One cannot condone an immoral act in the name of love, because it is opposed to truth.
Also, note that love simply for other humans cannot be perfected. The love of God must come first. To love God means to accept what he has given us in life. Sometimes it means to make sacrifices out of obedience to Him. Sacrifices such as celibacy in the case of disordered desires. Even some of those with normal desires make the sacrifice of celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom.
In return, the sacrifices we make for God and others will perfect us in our nature. To do the opposite, to indulge in our desires, leads us away from perfection.
Shalom.
Stephen, that’s really sad. I am sorry.
Pam, Stephen meant they can adopt children. And they can. Why can’t they.
I think I have said this before, Now, I am done posting.
Before I do,
Pam and to whom ever it may concern, the Bible does say what it says about gays, I am not going to deny that. I am not trying to change your beliefs but just give my opinion.
So, that’s all.
Love your neighbor as he or she would love you.
God Speed.
Pam, I can only try to help with God’s help. Without God’s Love there is only chaos and violence. Those who are most sensitive will detect the disposition of the messenger and with the instincts which God gave them will either have an aversion or an attraction to the messenger based on love or something other than love. I love that chapter 13 of 1Cor.
tj007, I care more about the message than who takes credit for it. So what if different words are used to express the same idea it is still the same idea. Christ certainly is original, “Love your enemies, feed them and clothe them, etc.” Peace can only come from perfect love.
Stephen, it is an oxymoron to say homosexuals have children naturally. A third party has to become involved in a two person relationship that biologically cannot produce a child. That would mean infidelity, fornication, three-person marriages? Why the NCRegister editors do not confront your error is beyond me, but you are clearly not interested in fidelity to the faith. “Flawed biological conception of complementarity”! There you SAID it. FLAWED. Help is needed!!!!! Thank you. Yes, we stop people from doing things based on flawed conceptions. We prevent incest because of flawed ideas of “love”. We prevent murder because of flawed ideas of “injustice” or “pride” or “ownership” or whatever other flawed motive drives one to commit these acts. We don’t do it because we are unmerciful or selfish or unfeeling or hateful. We do it because we SEE the FLAW and its consequential HARM.
Ronald, two wrongs don’t make a right. That is tragic and a difficult cross and I hope you helped BOTH parties involved.
Yes, Mr King, when one uses words that directly comes from the self, those words are truly one’s own. When one borrows words from others, one would use quotation marks and credit the source, to show that those words were from someone else.
This is a simple trick to fool people into thinking that one is more educated than one really is. It is also intellectually lazy and dishonest.
There are actually relatively good arguments made in favor of homosexuality, but the ones presented so far are very weak.
Shalom.
So, Ronald what are you saying? That we must force ourselves to go against our consciences and our religious faith and embrace homosexual activity? Or are we just supposed to shut up? Well then, people who disapprove of smoking need to shut up too. People need to shut up and stop ridiculing fat people to their faces. Maybe we all just need to keep our opinions on any matter to ourselves for fear that we will upset people.
I’ve been hurt and/or offended by many people in my life. Some were downright mean, others meant well, and others were truly doing me a big favor. I don’t see how telling a loved one that you love them always and are there for them, but just don’t approve of their behavior should be disastrous, if so, then the person has some other serious issues to contend with. Because I believe most people who think they are being compassionate and understanding are making every effort to actually be that and are certainly not filled with hate.
The LGBT crowd does not have a monopoly on suffering or “oppression”.
Does anyone have words which are truly their own? The important issue for me is the disposition of the person expressing her/his belief or information. What comes from one’s mouth shows what is in one’s heart. I have directly faced the pain and suffering of those innocent human beings who have same sex attraction in response to someone who believes her/himself to be compassionate and understanding while disapproving of the behavior. It was disastrous.
Stephen DeVol: “Gay people have stable relationships.” – An absurd generalization. And exempla non probunt – there is no use pointing to examples in the face of the fact that homosexual relationships are proved to be on average of much shorter durability that heterosexual ones. This may also be the reason why so few lesbians or homosexual men (as compared with heterosexuals) seem to avail themselves of having civil unions, or marriages, where the ban of that has been lifted.
I have a lot to reply to. But first to Joanp62: Thank you; but in fact I am not a professor, just a lay, catholic theologian, among other undertakings of mine. :)
Thank you tj007. God Bless.
I have decided not to respond to Mr DeVol anymore, given that he has shown no contrition even after having been caught red-handed for plagiarism, and continues to blatently do so (latest example: his comment on de Chardin is stolen word-for-word from wikepedia).
IOW, almost none of his words are truly his own, yet he continues to flood this forum and appears most willing to use any means to further his agenda (see my earlier comments about the strategies he employs).
My advice to those still active in this forum is to end the dialogue with him. Don’t fall for his tricks.
Every single one of his points can be easily refuted, and I would be glad to address any of those points if anyone else requests it.
For example, to most people his quotes from the CDC would appear to be convincing. But to those of us actively in the sciences, those words are mere speculations, because one cannot infer causal pathways from these correlations. The CDC data were not generated from true experiments. These are epidemiological data, which are correlational. It is one of the fundamental principle in statistics that one cannot infer causation from corrrelation. Mr DeVol claimed to be an economist and one who has studied statistics, but clearly, he thinks just like most people without any specialized training. As such, I am having a hard time believing any claims he makes, but will stop short of calling him a fraud, because he may be truly sincere - even if he is sincerely wrong in so many areas.
With regard to the CDC report, the data stands as is. MSM behavior is associated with higher rates of STDs, HIV/AIDS and several other health issues. The explanations provided are all speculations that have not been validated - what Mr DeVol perhaps would call, sentimentalities, if the same argument was used against him.
To the faithful Catholics, the Magisterium has clearly pronounced homosexual acts as gravely depraved and intrinsically disordered (CCC 2357). The reasons come from Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and natural law (which Mr DeVol knows little about). Yet at the same time, we are to show compassion and understanding and grace to those suffering from these tendencies without approving the behaviors.
Finally, pray for Mr DeVol.
Shalom.
Same-Sex couples can adopt.
Not at all. My ex-husband is self-proclaimed gay and we have one son.
Joanp62 ... it surprises you to learn that many people with homosexual orientation have had heterosexual relationships that resulted in children and custody?
And let’s be clear on definitions ...
Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia
Same sex couples cannot have children naturally. That is absurd. What happens is that a child is taken from one biological parent and given to the other and their same-sex partner. What about that child’s right to be raised by their biological mother or father?
I am going to repeat ...
Pam ... the Center for Disease Control aggregates and evaluates credible scientific studies. The correlation of health problems to homophobia, stigma and discrimination is a statement of objective fact based upon evidence.
A case can be made that homophobia is intrinsically evil ... a mortal sin ... such acts harm the person, others and society.
Pam and Joanp62 ... you confirm that homophobia is rooted in sentimentality.
Pam ... the Center for Disease Control aggregates and evaluates credible scientific studies. The correlation of health problems to homophobia, stigma and discrimination is a statement of object fact based upon evidence.
You claim, “Homosexuals suffer for many reasons - because they really aren’t homosexual at all but their heads have been messed with for a long time, because they are in a state of encouraging temptation and they are suffering some consequences, because they have arrested development in many cases, because Godless men don’t love well, because forty percent of them came to homosexuality because they were raped, because they are encouraged to self pity instead of to growth.”
You will have to show me some evidence to back up your specious claims ... you appear to be making things up to justify your sentimentality.
Gay people have stable relationships. They even have children naturally or by adoption ... without evidence of harmful affect. In fact, marriage benefits include fidelity, children and social stability. The very foundation for spiritual health is what you would deny others who do not have intent to procreate and a flawed biological conception of complementarity.
Specifically, the format I’ve seen this argument take when discussing with people online essentially boils down to something that ultimately implies “Homosexual acts are wrong because they express having the wrong sort of experience!” rather than the truth, which is that the experiences would be problematic inasmuch, and only inasmuch, as they incline to acts immoral for objective reasons, but then non-problematic inasmuch as they don’t. But, that’s the sort of absurdity you wind up with when, in an attempt to “internalize” morality, you wind up ultimately placing the locus of virtue primarily in the “correct” temperament and disposition rather than the ordering of acts, with the passions judged only relative to those acts.
You seem incapable of defining homosexual acts as immoral for objective reasons and have not defined the spiritual dimension of the sin in universal terms other than your sentimentality .... which lacks basis to claim universal presentiment.
Pepperman, they weren’t lying. Ya think maybe this is why it’s so very hard for thinking people to embrace sodomy as normal and good.?
Stephen and Equal rights your self serving diatribes do not bring anyone closer to God. The CDC’s comment is true about ANY behavior that is looked at as negative. Divorce separates families and causes enmity and increases risk of suicide. Alcohol abuse increases risk of violence and family division and suicide. Plug in the negative behavior and it is the same result. Some thing provoke negative consequences. Homosexuals suffer for many reasons- because they really aren’t homosexual at all but their heads have been messed with for a long time, because they are in a state of encouraging temptation and they are suffering some consequences, becuse they have arrested development in many cases, because Godless men don’t love well, because forty percent of them came to homosexuality because they were raped, because they are encouraged to self pity instead of to growth. All the evil that comes from discrimination is already illegal. Bit as the surgeon generals statement shows homosexual relationships harm the individual. And Stephen is just wrong that abusing the body by smoking or alcohol or homosexual sex is not sin. It is a sin to abuse the body because it is a temple of the Holy Spirit. No one argues that every person should be treated as a child of God. Many people disagree that that means condoning sinful and destructive behavior. It is not moral to abuse. It is not moral to lead others astray. All the ills you write about are from sin, lack of faith and lack of love. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Encouraging aberrant sexual behavior because some people lash out is wrong.
EqualRights ... thank you. I too can not accept living without truth and witness.
We had an 18 year old Catholic homeless guest. His family had rejected him because he fell in love with another young man. He completed his senior year of high school with us, had above average grades and had dreams of attending college. But he could not resolve the self-loathing doubts imposed upon him by Catholic doctrine and resulting family rejection in the short time he stayed with us. Steven died of a heroin overdose in our home.
You’re welcome, Stephen.
Stephen, what you said is true. Some students at school, not every body, but a lot of them, are being bullied just because they’re gay. This could lead to suicide, drugs, crime, etc. And I feel so bad for them because they are picked on and bullied. There is other kids who are bullied because they way they look, dress, believe in, etc.
Bullying is actually a crime in some states. I think it is?
It should be.
John ... thanks ... I particularly liked The Phenomenon of Man (Le Phénomène Humain, 1955) - a book written by French philosopher, paleontologist and Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. In this work, Teilhard describes evolution as a process that leads to increasing complexity, culminating in the unification of consciousness.
Some of Teilhard de Chardin’s ideas came into conflict with certain officials in the Roman Curia and in his own Jesuit order. Specifically, Teilhard’s superiors thought that Teilhard’s views on the doctrine of original sin were contrary to Catholic doctrine. As a result, many of Teilhard’s writings were prohibited from being published during his lifetime. However, in recent decades, largely due to the writings and speeches of Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Henri de Lubac, Teilhard’s de Chardin’s ideas have become incorporated as part of mainstream Catholic theology.
Jón Valur Jensson ...
Health risks are not moral justification for mortal sin. I smoke ... arguably stupid ... bit I am not subject to coerced celibacy or condemnation and exclusion from communion ... albeit my wife does make me smoke outside the house.
I have taken a hard look at CDC data ... their conclusions are not yours. I quote:
” Negative attitudes about homosexuality can lead to rejection by friends and family, discriminatory acts and violence that harm specific individuals, and laws and policies that adversely affect the lives of many people; this can have damaging effects on the health of MSM and other sexual minorities. Homophobia, stigma and discrimination can:
•Limit MSM’s ability to access high quality health care that is responsive to health issues of MSM
•Affect income, employment status, and the ability to get and keep health insurance
•Contribute to poor mental health and unhealthy behaviors, such as substance abuse, risky sexual behaviors, and suicide attempts
•Affect MSM’s ability to establish and maintain long-term same-sex relationships that reduce HIV & STD risk
• Make it difficult for some MSM to be open about same-sex behaviors with others, which can increase stress, limit social support, and negatively affect health
The effects of homophobia, stigma and discrimination can be especially hard on adolescents and young adults. Young MSM and other sexual minorities are at increased risk of being bullied in school. They are also at risk of being rejected by their families and, as a result, are at increased risk of homelessness. A study published in 2009 compared gay, lesbian, and bisexual young adults who experienced strong rejection from their families with their peers who had more supportive families. The researchers found that those who experienced stronger rejection were:
•8.4 times more likely to have tried to commit suicide
•5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression
•3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs
•3.4 times more likely to have risky sex “
http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/stigma-and-discrimination.htm
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/interesting-letter-from-c.s.-lewis-on-homosexuality#ixzz2c9chahSb
Joan62, the way U.S. Surgeon General and Dr. Koop were describing sodomy was sick.
PepperMan, he was quoting the former U.S. Surgeon General. And Dr. Koop was only describing a scientific, medical fact.
Jón Valur, they way you describe sodomy is deceiving and disgusting.
Oh whoops, I meant to post my comment on:
If Only Charles Darwin Could See His Descendant Now.
Please I meant no offense to anyone.
@National Catholic Register,
I am Catholic and I believe in evolution. I feel you can believe in the Bible, Gospel, Acts or Romans and still believe in evolution.
There was the 7 days of creation. This indeed did happen. But it could have happened through the course of millions and millions of years.
I just wanted you to know.
Thank you Prof. Jensson and thank you tj007 for revealing the man behind Mr. deVol’s facade.
ARE NOT AT ALL ...
was what I intended to write.
And one word has been automatically changed here into something illegible, but it is: r e c t .. !
Stephen DeVol, you are disregarding Jesus’ expressed view of Sodom. You are not objective, and appear to me as just one more activist for the homosexualist cause; but I have, admittedly, a lot left here to read by you–––if it really is by you!!!
Former US Surgeon General C. Everett Koop wrote (and this is about real sodomy, not Platonic love): “The rectum was not made for intercourse. It’s at the wrong angle, it’s the wrong size, it doesn’t have the same kind of tough lining that the vagina does. It has its blood supply directly under the mucosa. Therefore, you would expect a great many more failures of condoms in rectal intercourse than you would in vaginal intercourse, and it’s important to know that” (An Interview with C. Everett Koop, USA Today, 18 Sept.1987, p. A13).
The heart surgeon Robert Soule says rectal intercourse is “anatomically incorrect, not only because the rectum is too narrow, but also it has a muscular sphincter, is not lubricated, is open to contamination by feces and parasites, and can result in dilation with subsequent leakage (Doctor: sodomy is “anatomically incorrect”, Letter to the editor, Lambda Report, Spring 1996, p. 12).
So much for your denials. And “heightened health risks for homosexuals” due to AIDS and syphilis an NOT AT ALL “strongly correlated with homophobia”. Try to see the truth of the matter, that’s a good beginning.
And in my writings, as well as CS Lewis’s, there was no talk of “coerced” celibacy. People are actually free to say no to God’s call to grace and the way of virtue.
Jón Valur Jensson ... Jesus had nothing to say about homosexual relationships. He had much to say about relationality, love and mercy.
All references you have cited condemn homosexual acts without reason. It is safe to conclude that this is a normative value.
Re: Health observation authorities in 2010, 200 times more likely to contract HIV/AIDS than other people; syphilis is also multiply more widespread among ‘gay’ men on the US West coast than on average in the population.
Health risks do not to justify mortal sin. I smoke. I do think it is very important to site the source for claims of scientific evidence ... for as you have demonstrated with the CDC example ... facts and probabilities can be manipulated to derive false conclusions. The CDC concludes that heightened health risks for homosexuals are strongly correlated with homophobia. It appears that your evidence employs deception.
RE: ... vistas for the homosexuals into their spiritual calling, through virtuous, even heroic celibacy
Coerced celibacy employs both Gnostic and Pelagian heresies ... and lacks in the love and mercy that is Jesus Christ.
You seem incapable of defining homosexual acts as immoral for objective reasons and have not defined the spiritual dimension of the sin in universal terms other than your sentimentality .... which lacks basis to claim universal presentiment.
tj007 ... all our arguments are derived.
I do think it is very important to site the source for claims of scientific evidence ... for as you have demonstrated with the CDC example ... facts and probabilities can be manipulated to derive false conclusions. The CDC concludes that heightened health risks for homosexuals are strongly correlated with homophobia. It appears that your evidence employs deception.
Though I am not opposed if you ask ... some of my sources for logical construction of thought are Saints and Catholic theologians and some are not. The source of argument does not prejudice my judgment in the least. The soundness of arguments are evaluated based upon their merits. There is a principle that is guaranteed to keep a man in everlasting ignorance ... that principle is contempt prior to investigation ... which is a disingenuous means for you to evade response with integrity to logical arguments.
Jón Valur Jensson ... Jesus had nothing to say about homosexual relationships. He had much to say about relationality, love and mercy.
More evidence of plagiarims by Mr Devoi:
He wrote: “The irony then becomes that, by conceding the premise of this sort of individualistic romanticism as the essence of sexuality, by appealing to the modern idea that the moral nature of sexuality is one of expressing affection ... you wind up having to “police” not just sex acts, but affection itself, in order to maintain the condemnation of the idea that anything personally meaningful or intimate goes. If you concede affection as the justification, but then don’t want to admit all acts based on just affection, you can only sustain this by creating notions of right and wrong affection.”
See the exact same paragraph here: http://renegadetrad.blogspot.com/2012/06/critique-of-theology-of-body.html
This was written on a website called Renegade Trads. Need I go any further?
This really explains why so many of your posts, Mr Devoi, seemed so choppy and the level of writing from post to post so highly discrepant.
In Mt.19.5-6, and parall. in Mark 10.7-8, we have also the authentic seal of confirmation for the fact that marriage in Jesus’ teaching was reserved solely and exclusively for man and woman, not for man and many women, nor for man and man, nor for woman and and another woman. In this text He makes it clear that, despite the fact that his gospel is soon to be preached to the pagans, He kept the door closed forever to any sort of a homosexual ‘marriage’ (the thing CS Lewis clearly and dreadfully anticipated, in his words: “quasi-marriage with a member of one’s own sex even if this does not lead to any carnal act”).
Mr Devoi,
Before I respond to any of your multiple replies, oet me just point one important thing:
It is plagiarism to steal another’s writing and use it without giving credit.
You wrote: “According to this thinking, the procreative compatibility of male and female reproductive organs is a type of microcosm ...”
This, and the paragraphs that follow, are taken from a website called Women in Theology, a group that describes itself as “WIT is written from an anti-kyriarchal Christian ecumenical theological perspective by graduate students in theology.”
The word “kyriarchy” comes from the Greek, Kurios, which means Lord.
This group is “anti-Lordship”. They call themselves Christians, but chose this particular term, Kurios, which is used in the Scripture to refer to God. Ironic, don’t you think?
It is sad that you choose to engage in a behavior that would get you kick out of academia in a heartbeat. It is pathetic that you choose to borrow arguments from a group of neophytes (as far as theology is concerned).
The web address is http://womenintheology.org/2011/06/27/is-sexual-complementarity-an-argument-against-same-sex-relationships/
At this point, I will deliberate and pray on whether to continue this dialogue or not, given what I have just discovered about you. Whatever my decision may be, I hope you come clean and I will pray for the Holy Spirit to guide you to His Truth.
Blessings,
PS. The real author is Katie Grimes.
Mr Stephen DeVol, I have just discovered this discussion, and read almost nothing of the entries, incl. yours, but I have an argument with what you maintained Aug 15, 2013, at 7:44 PM: “Numerous condemnations of homosexual acts (predominantly found in the Old Testament) lack objective or spiritual reasoning. Jesus had nothing to say about homosexual relationship.”
I very much disagree with you, as shown here:
1. Your words, “condemnations of homosexual acts [are] predominantly found in the Old Testament,” are perhaps correct in terms of the LENGTH of the explicit texts (such as Gen.19.1-11, and Lev.18, not only the famous verse 22, but also verses 24-30 which show us that the ban against sodomy was not for the Israelites only, not just a Mosaic precept, but imposed [through knowledge of natural law, I assume] on the whole of mankind). Yet the NUMBER of the New Testament texts is perhaps about the same: Rom.1.26f, I Cor.6.9-11, I Tim.1.9f, and Jude 7 – but not only this, for Jesus corroborates the justice of God in Sodom, as we can see here below (No.3). And those NT texts are very explicit in condemning homosexual sex, which is declared “against the wholesome teaching” (and St Paul says this is even part and parcel of the gospel; I Tim.1.10f), and it is counted among very serious sins (ibid., cf. I Cor.6.9f), and those acts are “para physin” (Vg. contra naturam, against nature, Rom.1.26, about lesbians, but obviously referring also to the male homosexuals in next verse; and much more graphic, condemnatory language is used there, too); and this – men having sexual intercourse with men – is explicitly said as grave a sin as to deprive them from becoming inheritors of the kingdom of God (I Cor.6.9f), although, notably, this sin of theirs can be forgiven, washed off, and they be sanctified and justified though Jesus’ name and the Holy Spirit, as apparently evident from I Co.6.11. But this sin had, however, to be atoned for, and the sinner to repent, and to accept Christ’s words in a similar situation: “Go now, and sin no more!” (John 8.11). Yet, on the whole, you are being unreasonably lax and frivolous if you dare insinuate that the Biblical ban on homosexual acts is obsolete or negligible in any sense. The death penalty, allowed to the Israelites in Lev.20.13, is, however, virtually abolished in Jesus’ merciful words in John 8.11, as confirmed by most Church practice ever since then; in the matter under discussion here, this is also obviously implied by St Paul’s words in I Co.6.11; he is not saying that those who committed sodomy shall be punished by death, on the contrary, he openly embraces their approaching Christ and receiving his forgiveness.
2. You say those Biblical condemnations of homosexual acts “lack objective or spiritual reasoning.” How easily do you think you can evade their force?! You are not always meant to get, as yet, the “reasoning” for everything said in the NT and imposed on us as believers in Christ (“oportet discipuli credere!” says even the Philosopher) and in those He sent to proclaim his gospel, incl. his New Law. The disciples were not informed about the efficient cause of the blindness of that young man. But a lot of present-day health reports go very far to substantiate the Bible’s teaching on homosexual acts as detrimental to society, e.g., in France, homosexual men were said, by the health observation authorities in 2010, 200 times more likely to contract HIV/AIDS than other people; syphilis is also multiply more widespread among ‘gay’ men on the US West coast than on average in the population.
3. “Jesus had nothing to say about homosexual relationship,” you say. This is manifestly wrong. Not only did he do so indirectly, through his apostles, incl. St Paul (who was also assisted by the Holy Spirit), but he said explicitly things about Sodoma (Luke 17.29, Mt.11.23) which imply that he assents to the justice of Sodom’s destruction.
Many thanks, Mark Shea, for your information about C.S. Lewis’s letter, and for re-publishing it here. His approach seems, simply, to have been to be helpful and kind, and thus to gain in credibility, even credentity, as so doing, and to open, if possible, some vistas for the homosexuals into their spiritual calling, through virtuous, even heroic celibacy. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( = http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM ) the three paragraphs 2357ff on Chastity and homosexuality end with this one: “Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” This was pretty much what CS Lewis had in mind, I think – a pastoral, caring, counseling, evangelical and healing approach. Yet it was very far from his mind to justify any homosexual carnal acts (sodomy), as evident from his letter.
Not quite Pam ... your subjective and literal and at times out-of-context interpretation of biblical passages you cherry pick are meaningful to you based upon your sentimentality. Your sentimentality ... though meaningful to you ... lacks basis to claim universal presentiment. You will have to be more precise than this.
I do not disagree that that marriage is a means to learn the self-giving love that is Jesus Christ. I am all for marriage. I think reasons for divorce are much more complex than you seem capable of articulating ... though I believe they are adequately addressed in the annulment process. Pastoral care for divorced Catholics needs improvement. But that is a different discussion. Let’s stay focused.
I can not and do condone the exclusionary limitations you are advocating ... the premises are flawed ... and I have been very specific. I share this in in good conscience based upon much prayer and my understanding of the Gospel, pastoral experience in the field, and a rigorous effort to reason ideas through to their logical conclusions ... to include evidence.
I would be pleased to consider your thoughts on the matter. But it is difficult to unpack your reasoning and separate grandiose statements and judgmental pronouncements and condemnations and junk science that on the surface appear to be justifications for your sentimentality.
It’s not like I am not listening to you. The basis for your argument is: it’s a sin because the Church says its a sin because its a sin ... and here are some selective bible passages (that condemn without reason) to prove it ... that is a tautology ... not a reasoned coherent argument.
Gay people have stable relationships. They even have children naturally or by adoption ... without evidence of harmful affect. In fact, marriage benefits include fidelity, children and social stability. The very foundation for spiritual health is what you would deny others who do not have intent to procreate and a flawed biological conception of complementarity.
Specifically, the format I’ve seen this argument take when discussing with people online essentially boils down to something that ultimately implies “Homosexual acts are wrong because they express having the wrong sort of experience!” rather than the truth, which is that the experiences would be problematic inasmuch, and only inasmuch, as they incline to acts immoral for objective reasons, but then non-problematic inasmuch as they don’t. But, that’s the sort of absurdity you wind up with when, in an attempt to “internalize” morality, you wind up ultimately placing the locus of virtue primarily in the “correct” temperament and disposition rather than the ordering of acts, with the passions judged only relative to those acts.
You seem incapable of defining homosexual acts as immoral for objective reasons and have not defined the spiritual dimension of the sin in universal terms other than your sentimentality .... which lacks basis to claim universal presentiment. You want to break the impasse ... answer these questions ... or I can continue to repeat myself.
Steven you repeat the same arguments basically saying if one person’s experience does not match God’s truth, then God’s truth should change. You don’t seem to care that two thousand years of saints have researched and meditated and prayed and been in relationship with God and have affirmed the Truth. You don’t care to entertain the possibility that the person claiming no ill from sinful acts is in denial or blind to the consequences to those around them. You say experience is a generalization and isn’t worth listening to but this is not about loving chocolate. This is about loving ammonia or bleach or poison. It is sin and as such it always causes at the least Spiritual harm. God the Creator has called it an abomination or hateful not because He loves making people miserable but because He is Truth and Love. Something in this hurts us all. Don’t you see the loss of virtue and faith in society caused by the desperate attempts to make homosexual relations accepted? Don’t you see the bills that are criminalizing or court martialing citizens and servicemen for their belief in God’s Word? That alone is a sinful affect of homosexual acts. Don’t you see sex being promoted for the reason for everything we do - from efforts to predetermine a child’s sexuality to trying to gain consensus to label some jobs as male or female, to advertisers putting younger and younger children in sexually provocative clothing, to using comedy to downplay the moral issues with choosing a homosexual lifestyle and on and on. Your efforts would be better spent trying to know your God than fighting Him and those who believe Him. He is the same yesterday, today and forever and He has already spoken on this issue. On the subject of making marriage about “unitive purpose”, your words, not mine, you have been dishonest in your reduction of what I said as usual. That is not what I said. God gives us the gift of sharing in creation through the union of a man and a woman and the two become one flesh. He created Eve as the perfect partner for Adam, not another man. He spoke against the union of two men and Jesus affirmed that the commitment was really a covenant. It was not for those times when one FELT in love. For followers of Christ it is about much more than passions and emotions. There is a third party in every Catholic marriage and with Him in the marriage and with the party’s living their faith, nothing is impossible. For this day, one day at a time each party must choose self-giving love. Without that, of course divorce increases. If it must be happy or feel good, or if someone else makes one happier or feel better, then people split. It is the third party in the marriage Who holds it together and those who might otherwise walk away are bound to grow up a little or love more or make an extra effort or thousands of other good, character-building things that make for strong moral people and a healthy society.
tj007 ... and thank you for clarification on definitions. I agree that the Church makes room for marriage annulment for very specific reasons ... with which I have no problem ... other than dysfunctional tribunal administration ... and I am glad to hear Pope Francis is open to discussing pastoral care for divorced Catholics. I agree with Pope John Paul II that sexual intimacy has unitive purpose. I believe Pam’s argument that acknowledging a unitive value in sexual intimacy will lead to divorce is absurd!
tj007 ... and let’s be clear on definitions. Sentimentality originally indicated the reliance on feelings as a guide to truth, but current usage defines it as an appeal to shallow, uncomplicated emotions at the expense of reason. Sentimentalism in philosophy is a view in meta-ethics according to which morality is somehow grounded in moral sentiments or emotions.
tj007 ... you can continue to ignore the argument .. or you and address the argument with integrity.
I’ve hinted at some of my misgivings about the language of the theology of the body and the premises and priorities it seems to concede. Specifically, the almost mystical spiritual value it gives to sex, this attitude presented of “learning about God through sex” has always struck me as highly untraditional and problematic. I also think the propensity I describe above to try to explain-away divergences from the “universal” experiences on which it claims to be based (usually by pathologizing) winds up creating whole new categories of sins and expectations that are never before found in tradition.
Especially: in trying to appeal to experience to prove a morality, it winds up thus also telling people what even their experience of the world “should be”! It’s like starting an argument by saying, “Everyone loves chocolate,” having someone in the audience say, “I don’t,” and then defensively saying, “Well, you should! If you don’t, you must be disordered or a monster” because you have confused your argument with the conclusions (the former being accidental, the latter being essential) it exists to prove in the first place, and thus reversed the causality between them, turning the experiential into the very foundation of the precept just because it’s the foundation of your argument.
Specifically, the format I’ve seen this argument take when discussing with people online essentially boils down to something that ultimately implies “Homosexual acts are wrong because they express having the wrong sort of experience!” rather than the truth, which is that the experiences would be problematic inasmuch, and only inasmuch, as they incline to acts immoral for objective reasons, but then non-problematic inasmuch as they don’t. But, that’s the sort of absurdity you wind up with when, in an attempt to “internalize” morality, you wind up ultimately placing the locus of virtue primarily in the “correct” temperament and disposition rather than the ordering of acts, with the passions judged only relative to those acts.
The irony then becomes that, by conceding the premise of this sort of individualistic romanticism as the essence of sexuality, by appealing to the modern idea that the moral nature of sexuality is one of expressing affection ... you wind up having to “police” not just sex acts, but affection itself, in order to maintain the condemnation of the idea that anything personally meaningful or intimate goes. If you concede affection as the justification, but then don’t want to admit all acts based on just affection, you can only sustain this by creating notions of right and wrong affection.
tj007 ...
Evidence is evidence. I agree that the growing body of evidence must be evaluated with humility and prudence. I do not agree that the growing body of new evidence is threatening religious liberty. I suspect that coerced celibacy is threatening religious liberty.
Health risks are not moral justification for mortal sin. I smoke ... arguably stupid ... bit I am not subject to coerced celibacy or condemnation and exclusion from communion ... albeit my wife does make me smoke outside the house.
I have taken a hard look at CDC data ... their conclusions are not yours. I quote:
” Negative attitudes about homosexuality can lead to rejection by friends and family, discriminatory acts and violence that harm specific individuals, and laws and policies that adversely affect the lives of many people; this can have damaging effects on the health of MSM and other sexual minorities. Homophobia, stigma and discrimination can:
•Limit MSM’s ability to access high quality health care that is responsive to health issues of MSM
•Affect income, employment status, and the ability to get and keep health insurance
•Contribute to poor mental health and unhealthy behaviors, such as substance abuse, risky sexual behaviors, and suicide attempts
•Affect MSM’s ability to establish and maintain long-term same-sex relationships that reduce HIV & STD risk
• Make it difficult for some MSM to be open about same-sex behaviors with others, which can increase stress, limit social support, and negatively affect health
The effects of homophobia, stigma and discrimination can be especially hard on adolescents and young adults. Young MSM and other sexual minorities are at increased risk of being bullied in school. They are also at risk of being rejected by their families and, as a result, are at increased risk of homelessness. A study published in 2009 compared gay, lesbian, and bisexual young adults who experienced strong rejection from their families with their peers who had more supportive families. The researchers found that those who experienced stronger rejection were:
•8.4 times more likely to have tried to commit suicide
•5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression
•3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs
•3.4 times more likely to have risky sex “
http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/stigma-and-discrimination.htm
Are the Bishops in communion? Though I have great respect for the Magisterium, I do not blindly accept revisionist moral dogma that lacks in sound moral reasoning and evidence and has not been received by a majority of Catholics.
Almost all Bishops and laity who studied contraceptives argued for conscience. Over 60% of pastors surveyed by CARA in 2010 do not support Humanae Vitae.
I also give some measure of credence to the Sensus Fidelium. 82% of Catholics favor the use of nonabortificant contraceptives as a means for responsible family planning. Over 60% of Catholics support civil union among homosexuals. Sources include Gallup, Pew, CARA and Public Religion Research Institute. You will have to cite some evidence to substantiate any claim that your views represent more than a minority of Catholics.
The most alarming reason for concern that Bishops may not be in communion is a gag order imposed upon religious and theologians employed in Catholic institutions by Pope Benedict while President of the Congregation for the Propagation of the faith. I am all for collegiality and open honest dialog.
I agree that your arguments are based upon natural law (Aquinas). This form of argument has been used by the Church historically to marginalize people. The best examples are how the Church used natural law argumentation to support slavery and oppose women’s suffrage.
In addition to being used today as an argument against artificial birth control and women’s ordination, sexual complementarity is also put forth as an argument against the goodness of same-sex relationships.
According to this thinking, the procreative compatibility of male and female reproductive organs is a type of microcosm and symbol of the compatibility between man and woman as a whole. This argument has three general parts: one, it is only because men’s and women’s genitalia and reproductive organs are different that they are able to co-operate in the creation of new human life; two, this anatomical difference serves as symbol and revelation of the sexual differentiation that extends across the depths and breadths of human personhood—men, as people, are different from women in the way that penises are from vaginas (meaning all men are different from all women in the same uniform and sexually distinctive ways), and three, because only sexually different people can procreate and because this sexual difference symbolizes the difference between men and women as people, only sexually different people (that is, only men and women) are capable of the type of compatibility aka complementarity required to be in a relationship of sexual love and fidelity.
In summary, the argument goes, just as it just “doesn’t work” to have two women or two men try to conceive a child, it is similarly impossible for there to be a relationship of sexual love and fidelity between two men or two women. Think here of trying to cut meat with a spoon or eat soup with a fork. A relationship between two men or two women, they argue, is both not really possible and not really able to contribute to the flourishing either of individuals or of society.
If you are thinking that this argument depends on the type of rhetorical sleight-of-hand discussed elsewhere at WIT, you would be right. Similarly, if you are skeptical about the veracity of sexual complementarity in general, in other words, if you don’t really think that that every man is (and should be) masculine and every woman is (and should be) feminine in the way the magisterium says they are and should be, then I also would agree with you.
However, for the purposes of this post, let’s grant the existence of sexual complementarity between men and women and that it is a prerequisite for “the flourishing of family life” [(I guess this would mean that men would have certain personality traits—assertiveness, leadership, ability to acquire a well-paying job, knowledge of sports, affinity for playful rough-housing—and women another set of traits—deference, kindness, patience, generosity, receptivity, a desire to bear children?) and of course let’s not think too deeply about the centuries-old example of single-sex and sexual non-complementary communities of monks, nuns, and priests whose holiness the church holds in unparalleled esteem…].
Even if sexual complementarity were true, it would not be an argument against same-sex relationships.
There are many types of complementarity, which are proper to particular types of relationships. The fact that same-sex couples lack the type of complementarity thought to be proper to heterosexual couples is not an argument against same-sex relationships. For example, no one would begrudge my grandparents for lacking the complementarity present in the relationship between Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen because the type of complementarity needed to flourish as husband and wife is different from the type of complementarity needed to be one of the greatest basketball duos of all time. In fact, if Jordan and Pippen attempted to foster the type of complementarity present in my grandparents’ relationship, this would almost certainly be detrimental to their complementarity as teammates and co-workers.
Pointing out that acts which express same-sex love lack (hetero)sexual complementarity does not in any way prove that “homosexual” acts (and, by extension, same-sex relationships as a whole) lack the type of complementarity that is appropriate to them. Stating that same-sex acts lack (hetero)sexual complementarity is merely stating the obvious: that in at least one way, (namely, that they take place between people of the same sex) same-sex acts and relationships are different from heterosexual acts and relationships. While difference can be evidence of deficiency or immorality, it is not on its own evidence of deficiency or immorality. In other words, referring to the obvious fact that gay and lesbian couples do slightly different things in bed is not the same thing as demonstrating why this difference renders gay and lesbian sexuality unconditionally evil.
Thus, when the magisterium claims that “homosexual acts” lack sexual complementarity, all they are really saying is that they do not take place between a man and a woman, that is, they are not heterosexual and therefore both untrue/impossible and harmful. A perfect example of this comes in JPII’s “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.” JPII points out that same-sex relationships are not procreative, which means they are not “complementary unions,” which in turn means that they “thwart the call to a life of that form of self-giving” mandated by the Gospel. In other words, although gay people can be generous in other areas of their lives, it is impossible for a gay or lesbian person to be generous and self-giving to their romantic partner. Furthermore, because same-sex unions are untrue (that is, they defy what God created us to be, heterosexually spousal), they “prevent one’s own fulfillment and happiness.”
So, to summarize the argument against same-sex relationships: God created people to be married to someone of the opposite sex. To fall in love with someone of the same sex and build a life with them is like trying to get a dog to fly or a dolphin to climb trees: it is both impossible and something harmful and bad. For this reason, we don’t need to actually look at the lives of lesbian and gay people to see if their love is either possible or good because we already know it is not.
However, we know that gay and lesbian couples not only exist, but that they are capable of tremendous flourishing. Just as the vision of a dolphin climbing a tree and living happily among its high branches would cause us to amend our understanding of what a dolphin is and what is good for it, so too does the mere existence of gay and lesbian couples challenge the implied argument that, in lacking (hetero)sexual complementarity, lesbian and gay couples lack the complementarity that is proper to them.
Despite JPII’s claim that we can know via deduction that being gay is bad because it lacks sexual complementarity, all theories of complementarity employ inductive reasoning, including JPII’s theory of gender, even when he claims not to. Thus, just as the characteristics that make for a winning duo are determined inductively, by observing winning duos, it seems that even John Paul’s theory of sexual complementarity was in no small way based upon his experience of gender in the world.
A return to the basketball metaphor will illustrate my point: imagine that in the basketball world, the dominant belief is that a team cannot win a championship without a dominant center. A team can be weak at any position but not at center. Thus, coaches and fans are constantly encouraging their favorite teams to acquire a dominant “big man” saying, “we cannot win without a dominant big man! Only teams with a powerful center win championships! We’ll never win if we don’t trade up!” An observation that no team lacking a dominant big man has ever won the championship quickly becomes a norm, a recipe for success. Then, along comes the duo of Jordan and Pippen, who together win 6 championships, each time without the aid of a dominant “big man.” The church prior to the “irruption into history” of the gay and lesbian person was like the NBA prior to Michael and Scottie: because for most of Western history, it seemed as though all sexual couples had been heterosexual, it was assumed that sexual couples could only be heterosexual, which then was then interpreted to mean that sexual couples must be heterosexual.
In its inability to recognize the existence of a “genuine and affective complementarity” proper to gay and lesbian couples, the church of today is like the general manager or fan, who, after the Bulls’ 2nd or 3rd championship, keeps insisting, “only teams with a dominant big man win championships!”
For those of us willing to actually see the possibilities for goodness embedded in God’s creation, it is undeniable that gays and lesbians can have a “flourishing family life.” We know that lesbian and gay couples can be good and giving to each other, helping each other to grow in virtue and in love of God. We know that gay and lesbian couples can stay together for life and in the face of gruesome and agonizing death. We know that gay and lesbian couples can be good to their larger extended families and to their communities. However, we can see this only if we are willing to look at the world as God truly created it, not as we thought He did.
Pam ... principles ... not personalities.
MarylandBill ... you keep restating your argument ... I do not agree. I will be pleased to repeat the response.
1. Numerous condemnations of homosexual acts (predominantly found in the Old Testament) lack objective or spiritual reasoning. Jesus had nothing to say about homosexual relationship. Therefore, it is safe to assume that we are talking about normative social values of the writer that held during that period of history. I have also cited numerous examples of normative values expressed in biblical literature that no longer apply. According to Pope Francis, there is no such thing as “antiseptic” hermeneutics.
2. None of the pertinent documents that we are discussing have been declared infallible. Procreative intent is an old argument attempting to re-assert itself as a Tradition. Complementarity is a poorly constructed natural law argument rationalized post Vatican II in my lifetime. Both arguments have not been received by a large majority of the faithful. These lines of argument run contrary to 1600 years of Church Tradition that valued consent as the basis of marriage. So claims of established Tradition are specious. In fact, by your argument to authority, the relatively recent redefinition of tradition is invalid. You keep insisting that doctrine can be developed in a way that undoes previous doctrine. Which is an argument that I do not necessarily adhere to.
3. and 4. That is a mystical corner that you have painted yourself into ... beyond reason and evidence.
You seem incapable of defining homosexual acts as immoral for objective reasons and have not defined the spiritual dimension of the sin in universal terms other than your sentimentality .... which lacks basis to claim universal presentiment. You want to break the impasse ... answer these questions.
The development of doctrine is based on a better understanding of Scripture (particularly the love that is Jesus Christ) and Tradition based on reason and evidence.
Ronald my phone changes some of the words I type. I didn’t notice it this time but made an illusion to what my phone was doing with his last name in an earlier post. It was not intentional at all. Stephen I can not respect your methods or your arguments. You have accused Joan of shaming and yet you have shut down every theological argument as sentimental and unworthy. We totally disagree. I have no faith in your mental health. The enduring belief by Christians that the Bible is God’s teaching is evidence. You would like to make the world according to your beliefs. You are not God. You might want to contact Lighthouse Family Ministries for their audio cassette “The History of Salvation.”. It would help you understand the Catholic perspective.
In response to Mr Devoi, who have on a number of posts, asked for people to define/explain why homosexual acts are immoral and harmful,there are a few points to note:
1. The Magisterium has taken a stand. For those who conveniently argue that it is not in infallible teaching, one needs to understand that when there is a universal consensus of Catholic bishops on a teaching relating to Faith and Morals- it is infallible.
The Second Vatican Council teaching states that four conditions must be met for an infallible exercise of the ordinary magisterium of bishops around the world. These are:
1. That the bishops be in communion with one another and with the pope.
2. That they teach authoritatively on a matter of faith or morals.
3. That they agree in one judgment.
4. That they propose this as something to be held definitively by the faithful.
Section 25 of Lumen Gentium extrapolates:
As written in , that is so “when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter’s successor [the pope] the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they [the bishops] are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely.”
2. The explanation for the infallible teaching on the evil of homosexual acts is based on natural law (Aquinas). When I have the time I can explain this, but meanwhile, read up on the Summa.
3. Basic reproductive biology and evolutionary theory supports this natural law teaching that the sexual organs and the act of copulation serves the biological function of reproduction and propagation of genes.
4. Anyone who has taken the time to look the CDC data on MSM knows that significant health risks of homosexual acts among men. The data is quite clear.
5. We are still debating on whether permitting the redefintion of marriage harms society, mostly becuase it is too early to tell. But at the very least, in America, it is starting to show signs that it poses a real threat on religious libery. Note however, that it is a non-sequitur to argue that because there is no clear evidnece that it harms society, therefore it doesn’t - that’s flawed logic.
If Mr Devoi wishes to assert that any of these points are sentimental or “normative value judgments”, it would be up to him to prove it so.
BTW, it also appears that Mr Devoi assumes that any thing labeled sentimental or normative value judgment are automatically invalid. No explanation, AFAIK, has ever been provided by him to support this assumption.
Shalom.
1. Stephen, you can’t keep your Bill’s straight. I have not made any claims of physical illness here.
—
2. No book in the Bible is less than 1900 years old, most quite a bit older. By the standard you laid out for rejecting the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality, you can pretty much reject any other teaching of the Bible as well. That lying thing? Well as long as no one is hurt. Blasphemy? Thats okay because no one gets hurt…. Before long we have rationalized away most sins in favor of a fate that is lukewarm. Further, Saint Paul spoke out about Sodomy no less than three times. So it is not simply an Old Testament issue.
—
3. You claimed earlier to favor Scholasticism, I can assure you Saint Thomas Aquinas and Peter Lombard would accept my view that the interpretation of evidence must conform to Tradition, not Tradition to the evidence. Tradition is nothing less than the oral teachings of Jesus and the Apostles passed down to us through the Church.
—
4. Religion by its very nature is mystical. Of course my approach to it is going to involve mystical elements. The question is, why do you try to push the standards of the world onto the Church?
Mr Devoi,
Another clever strategy you employ is to label opposing arguments as sentimentality or normative value judgments, or label anyone who disagrees with you as sentimental. Again, you need to learn one basic thing about argumentation: A label, just like an isolated claim, does not make it true, even if it gives that impression. Just because you think it doesn’t make it true.
So far, you have been selective in your examination of the Scripture and of the CCC. You have produced no support for your scientific claims, other than the DSM, showing no knowledge of the controversial decision by the committee to “exclude” homosexuality as a disorder since DSMIII-R in 1987.
You also show little familiarity with natural law, as evident in your posts, despite your unsubstantiated claim that you “have a reasonable understanding of philosophical history.” How can one study the history and missed out on natural law?
E.g. Your claim that natural law arguments are 20th century inventions reveals significant lack in familiarity.
You also made the amazing claim that “for some 1,600 years, what made a marriage a true marriage was consent” showing no knowledge of the objective history of marriage globally.
Furthermore, you claim to have read Lombard, but conveniently ignored my point (and my actual quotes) that Lombard was clearly referring to marriage as the union of man and woman, and therfore, the consent is between the man and the woman.
Another claim you have made more than once is that “the majority of the faithful” agrees with you. Would you please provide us with evidence for this claim?
Anyway, all your claims about consent rather than consummation and the sensus fidelium are simply attempts to draw the focus away from the Magisterial authority of the church and the dogma of the grave depravity of homosexual acts. Notice, folks, that those who wish to invoke the sensus fidelium conveniently exclude the Pope and Bishops from the faithful. There is no sensus fidelium if the Pope and bishops are on the opposing side.
BTW, concerning your post in response to Pam, FYI, divorce is NOT permitted by the church. This is an important technical detail and distinction. We cannot be careless and confuse annulments with divorce.
MarylandBill ... I have responded to your arguments ... and agree that we are repeating ourselves and have come to an impasse. Your arguments are not convincing to me nor to a majority of Catholics. I suppose we will have to respectfully agree to disagree.
1. Numerous condemnations of homosexual acts (predominantly found in the Old Testament) lack objective or spiritual reasoning. Jesus had nothing to say about homosexual relationship. Therefore, it is safe to assume that we are talking about normative social values of the writer that held during that period of history. I have also cited numerous examples of normative values expressed in biblical literature that no longer apply. According to Pope Francis, there is no such thing as “antiseptic” hermeneutics.
2. None of the pertinent documents that we are discussing have been declared infallible. Procreative intent is an old argument attempting to re-assert itself as a Tradition. Complementarity is a poorly constructed natural law argument rationalized post Vatican II in my lifetime. Both arguments have not been received by a large majority of the faithful. These lines of argument run contrary to 1600 years of Church Tradition that valued consent as the basis of marriage. So claims of established Tradition are specious. In fact, by your argument to authority, the relatively recent redefinition of tradition is invalid. You keep insisting that doctrine can be developed in a way that undoes previous doctrine. Which is an argument that I do not necessarily adhere to.
3. and 4. That is a mystical corner that you have painted yourself into ... beyond reason and evidence.
You seem incapable of defining homosexual acts as immoral for objective reasons and have not defined the spiritual dimension of the sin in universal terms other than your sentimentality .... which lacks basis to claim universal presentiment.
The development of doctrine is based on a better understanding of Scripture (particularly the love that is Jesus Christ) and Tradition based on reason and evidence.
That starts with a moral theology grounded in reason, evidence, charity and mercy. Coerced celibacy does not fit any definition of the love that is Jesus Christ and is contrary to credible scientific evidence.
Thank you again Bill for discussing respectfully this matter with me. I hope that you are feeling better ... and will again count your intentions among my prayers this day. I will also light a candle and pray five decades of the rosary before Mass tonight. Today is the feast of the Immaculate Conception. May the Holy Spirit guide us and bless each and every one of us.
P.S. Pam ... Pope John Paul II did recognize the unitive value of sexual relationship ... a first in Papal history. Affection does not lead to divorce ... please cite your sources ... you seem to be making things up to fit your worldview.
Nobody is arguing that divorce is a good thing. The church permits divorce based upon very specific criteria ... with which I have no problem ... other than that Church administrative resources are not generally in place to expedite tribunals in a reasonable matter of time ... which makes the Church culpable in mass exodus.
St. Paul argues that marriage is a good thing for those who can not control sexual desire ... which he characterizes a “Gift” from God. St. Augustine wrote extensively about how mutual consent leads to benefits that are not necessarily mutually exclusive: fidelity, children and social stability. The institution of marriage offers a means to avoid promiscuity and is the means by which people learn how to love. I am all for marriage.
Stephen Devol,
I had not replied prior because I am withdrawing from this debate. The major reason is that there seems little chance of convincing you of the error of your ways and having at one point in time believed much as you do now, there is little chance you have of convincing me of your position. There are other reasons however.
—
1. You have yet to answer why the numerous examples in scripture that clearly define marriage as being between a man and a woman, clearly define sexual relations outside of that relationship as sinful and more over clearly define homosexual relations as clearly sinful is not objective evidence.
—
2. You do little more than parrot the same lines about Peter Lombard over and over again. Peter Lombard’s position was never endorsed by a Church Council, nor endorsed ex cathedra by a Pope. Therefore, even if his position does represent the majority opinion of Christianity from the Post Biblical period to the Council of Trent, it is still just a theological opinion. You may call it a tradition if you want, but it is not Tradition. It is not the first nor the last time that the Holy Spirit has guided a Church Council to define something differently than was commonly accepted prior to said Council.
—
3. You now either are incapable of understanding, or are deliberately understanding what I wrote. I never wrote that evidence that does not support Tradition is not evidence. I wrote that all evidence must be interpreted in the light of Tradition. Evidence can always be interpreted in different ways. If there are only two ways of interpreting it, one that contradicts tradition, and one that is neutral or favorable to Tradition, then the latter interpretation is clearly to be preferred.
—
4. You keep insisting that doctrine can be developed in a way that undoes previous doctrine. This is clearly contrary to the Church’s understanding of the various idea of what the development of doctrine is.
Pam, you named him “Stephen Devils” above. You owe him an apology or explanation. That is why I wrote what I wrote. Be aware
Pam ... that is not a reasoned argument based upon evidence ... that is your sentimentality ... which has no basis to claim universal presentiment.
Joanp62 ... yes Joan ... I am repeating a logical argument that you seem incapable of responding to or refuting logically ... damning, blaming and shaming is the preserve of those who are intellectually incoherent ... a controlling behavior.
I am interested in tj007 and MarylandBil’s response to my last comment ... though we may not agree ... they are reasonable and respectful.
Stephen D it is not an either/or thing. God saw that it was not goood for man to be alone so he created woman. He did not create another man. Adam called her a helpmate. God said be fruitful and multiply so it was obviously part of GOD’S plan from the beginning that men and women should get together to procreate and subdue the earth. Now there are still many cultures where parents choose or help choose spouses for their children and the couples go into the marriage in a spirit of trust that each partner will work to make their lives happy and to enjoy their vocations as parents. Surely that does not happen in many instances but the people and nations have upheld their traditions because it happens for the most part. It seems you want to romanticize it but when the romance fails then comes divorce and shattered families and enmity. If one realizes there is no out it is in their best interest to grow in love. Perhaps that is God’s intent as well.
Once again, you are just repeating a previous post SD. Apparently you think this is a game, but I do not.
Ronald King I am sorry if it appears that way to you but my mindset was not on being the one that was right but on protecting others from falsehood in a way that adequately responded to Stephen. So much labelling. Look at things in their best light.
Joanp62 ... damning, blaming and shaming is the preserve of those who are intellectually incoherent ... a controlling behavior.
The church faces three temptations, according to Pope Francis: the temptation to turn the Gospel message into an ideology; the temptation to run the church like a business; and the temptation of clericalism.
Ideology, the pope argues, has been present in the church from the beginning. It attempts to interpret the Gospel apart from the church or the Gospel itself. Francis says you must look at the Gospel with the eyes of a disciple. There is no such thing as “antiseptic” hermeneutics.
Other forms of the ideological temptation include sociological reductionism and psychologizing. The first interprets the Gospel message through the lens of social science, whether from a Marxist or libertarian perspective. Here, the Gospel is manipulated for political reasons.
The temptation to psychologize the faith, on the other hand, is individualistic. “Here we have to do with elitist hermeneutics which ultimately reduces the ‘encounter with Jesus Christ’ and its development to a process of growing self-awareness.” This is a self-centered spirituality that “has nothing to do with transcendence and consequently, with missionary spirit.”
Related to this self-centered spirituality is the temptation to the Gnostic solution. “It is ordinarily found in elite groups offering a higher spirituality, generally disembodied,” he says. Gnosticism first appeared among early Christians, and it reappears throughout the church’s history in new and revised versions.
The final ideological temptation is the Pelagian solution. The Pelagians believed sanctity was the result of human effort without God’s aid. This is the temptation of conservative Catholics to “a form of restorationism.” They seek a “purely disciplinary solution” to the church’s problems “through the restoration of outdated manners and forms which, even on the cultural level, are no longer meaningful.” One can see why Francis rejected the grandiose papal apparel.
The second temptation of the church is to functionalism, which Pope Francis believes has the effect of paralyzing the church. “More than being interested in the road itself, it is concerned with fixing holes in the road.”
The last temptation of the church is to clericalism, which, as its name implies, is a particular temptation for bishops and priests, but Francis argues that often, the laity is complicit. “The priest clericalizes the layperson and the layperson kindly asks to be clericalized because deep down it is easier.” He believes that “the phenomenon of clericalism explains, in great part, the lack of maturity and Christian freedom in a good part of the laity.
Freedom of the laity, he argues, “finds expression in communal experiences: Catholic as community.” Greater autonomy, which on the whole he believes is a “healthy thing,” is expressed through popular piety. “The spread of bible study groups, of ecclesial basic communities and of pastoral councils,” he says, is also “helping to overcome clericalism and to increase lay responsibility.” Liberal clericalism can disdain popular piety while conservative clericalism fears giving the laity a greater role in the church.
Something to ponder in light of our discussion.
“mystical corner you have painted yourself into ... beyond the reach of reason and evidence.” SD just keeps repeating the same accusations without any bother to explain himself.
Stephen, we have made every effort to explain where we are coming from. You otoh, choose to simply repeat ad nauseum the above and other phrases, arrogantly refusing to bother to “enlighten” us “lesser” persons. Absolutely NOT a Christian trait in the least.
tj007 ... You are confusing arguments ... again this seems disingenuous ... let’s examine the logic of this problem one step at a time. Let’s start by getting rid of that mystical corner you have painted yourself into ... beyond the reach of reason and evidence.
I have a reasonable understanding of philosophical history. I have read Peter Lombard’s celebrated work entitled Book of Sentences. Lombard has nothing to say about homosexual relationship. He does establish that procreation is a benefit of marriage ... consent was the Tradition for over 1600 years.
Procreative intent is an old argument attempting to re-assert itself as a Tradition. Complementarity is a poorly constructed natural law argument rationalized post Vatican II in my lifetime. But both arguments have not been received by a large majority of the faithful. So claims of established Tradition are specious.
If procreative intent is not the basis for marriage ... then my marriage is valid though Michelle and I can not have children ... and the marriages of 80% of Catholics who believe that nonabortificant contraceptive means are a gift from God are valid.
Now there is room for reason and evidence with regard to homosexual relationship. I am trained as an economist ... and quite fluent with statistics. So show me some objective evidence that homosexual relationship in the context of civil union causes harm to the individual, others or society. Junk science is not acceptable. As a scientist you should be good at identifying credible peer-reviewed research.
Or, as you seem incapable of defining acts as immoral for objective reasons, define the spiritual dimension of the sin in universal terms other than your sentimentality .... which lacks basis to a universal presentiment.
Here is a wonderful prayer to pray whenever someone sees a person (male or female) that he admires but with whom it is illicit (or a sin) to have sexual relationship with.
.........
May the Lord be happy with what he has made!(psalm 104 v 31)
May He be pleased with the works of His hands!
May He be delighted with what He has created!
May He be blessed in what He has invented!
May sinners* be no more!
May the wicked* be destroyed from the earth! (cf Psalm 104 v 35)
....................
P.S sinners* and the wicked* implies the devil and his cohorts.
And not human beings who we pray will repent sooner or later.
Pam, “Thank you tj007 for shooting down the misinformation in Stephen Devils…” What you just wrote is not indicative of being a “new creation” and is more indicative of spiritual narcissism.
Thank you tj007 for shooting down the misinformation in Stephen Devils own terms since the rest of us have been at a loss to determine what he was looking for. Without defining his terms he felt some control perhaps? Obviously if he wishes to argue devoid of any acceptance of God his conclusion will be wanting but because God exists the consequences of ignoring His prohibition will become and have become evident to many.
Mr Devoi,
You seem to have little knowledge of philosophy. My reference to Aquinas was in connection to natural law, not biological determinism (which also is an ancient idea). I thought that connection was obvious. Sorry that I assume too much about you.
I have not chosen to ignore the facts. I am a scientist, and know how to unpack statistical analyses, and draw my evidence from primary academic sources (i.e. peer-reviewed journals), not some pop media. Your citation from the APA reveals a lack of understanding of the problems associated with the politicization of the DSM. We can discuss the actual methodological issues of any published study you wish to bring to the table, if you feel up to it. We can talk statistical methods, sampling, reliability and such if you like.
Your mention of Lombard in a later post shows an incomplete understanding of the historical context and reveals your so-called “non-normative” treatment of evidence. First, yes, it is true that consent was the key factor in validating a marriage for Lombard, but it was clearly a consent between one man and one woman.
“The consent that forms a marriage is nothing other than that expressed through words, not about the future, but about the present….‘I accept you as my husband, and I accept you as my wife,’ this makes (facit) matrimony.” Lombard, Sent. IV, d. 27, c. 3, 422–23.
““The union of both [the couple and Christ and church] is symbolized in marriage: for the unanimity of the spouses signifies the spiritual union of Christ and the church, which takes place through love; in addition,
their sexual union signifies that which takes place through conformity of nature.” Sent. IV, d. 26, c. 6, 420.
Did you even read the text? I think you appear to be more in line with the cultural norm of the present than anyone else.
BTW, you refuted none of the points I made. Sweeping statements are not arguments, but merely personal claims.
Shalom.
MarylandBill ... that’s an interesting argument ... 1600 years of Church history is not tradition. I beg to differ.
A sharp debate arose in the 12th century among theologians about what constituted true marriage. One group argued that it was at the point of sexual consummation true marriage exists, because consummation embodied the union between Christ and the church. A second group argued that it was consent given in the present to live together as equal partners with mutual affection and respect that embodied the union. By the end of the century the “consentist” position had won the debate, largely because its architect, the prominent Parisian theologian Peter Lombard, had written a textbook that became the theology text for the next 400 years.
You claim that new evidence would have to be interpreted in light of current Tradition ... that unless evidence supports current Tradition it is not evidence ... baloney. Like the world is flat and slavery is O.K. if you treat your slaves well, etc. That is a mystical corner you have painted yourself into ... beyond reason and evidence.
The development of doctrine is based on a better understanding of Scripture (particularly the love that is Jesus Christ) and Tradition based on reason and evidence.
You say: “Of course all sin causes harm, but much of the harm is of a spiritual dimension.” Sure ... I’ll bite ... as you seem incapable of defining acts as immoral for objective reasons Define the spiritual dimension of the sin in non-normative terms.
Specifically, the format I’ve seen this argument take when discussing with people online essentially boils down to something that ultimately implies “Homosexual acts are wrong because they express having the wrong sort of experience!” rather than the truth, which is that the experiences would be problematic inasmuch, and only inasmuch, as they incline to acts immoral for objective reasons, but then non-problematic inasmuch as they don’t. But, that’s the sort of absurdity you wind up with when, in an attempt to “internalize” morality, you wind up ultimately placing the locus of virtue primarily in the “correct” temperament and disposition rather than the ordering of acts, with the passions judged only relative to those acts.
The irony then becomes that, by conceding the premise of this sort of individualistic romanticism as the essence of sexuality, by appealing to the modern idea that the moral nature of sexuality is one of expressing affection ... you wind up having to “police” not just sex acts, but affection itself, in order to maintain the condemnation of the idea that anything personally meaningful or intimate goes. If you concede affection as the justification, but then don’t want to admit all acts based on just affection, you can only sustain this by creating notions of right and wrong affection.
...Continued
That is very prejudice.
I saw someone saying Gays are not a gift from God, Straights are. I paraphrased a little.
England already legalized Gay Marriage. It’s not America’s say nor is it the Catholics Church’s, either. Given that France and England legalized Gay Marriage, I hope America will soon follow. (Its on its way. Legal in 13 states)
“I hope Same-Sex marriage will someday be legal in the Catholic Church,”
Now the truth comes out. For months now we have heard over and over again that if same-sex marriage becomes legal, no one, absolutely no one will expect the Catholic Church to perform gay marriages. We were ridiculed for saying that was coming down the pike. Now we have a same sex couple demanding that the Church of England marry them, and we see that is what is hoped for here as well.
Pam, What is there to change? I am not short-sighted. The Word of God is love and all love.
Pepper Man, a lot of us are a new creation. We see things through new eyes, the eyes of faith. What we have Christ offers to everyone. Ask and it will be given to you. Seek and you will find. Knock and the door will be opened. You are thinking as man thinks. Your arguments are based on living for this earth and pleasing the body . It is short-sighted. You are body and Spirit and you were created for eternal life but you want to discount the Word of God to please the flesh. If you recognize the truth of what Joan says and that you are being illogical, why not change?
Even though I said I retired from this argument I have to say every one is so biblical. You all generalize and you all are very black and white. Also, all of you guys keeps saying I have not opened my self or life to Christ. I really don’t understand any of you guys.
I am, Chris.
Don’t dialogue with the devil on his own terms. That was what Eve did in the Garden of Eden(Genesis 3). And that was what King Saul did at the witch’s grove (1 Samuel 28).
Follow the example of the Lord Jesus and answer with the Sacred Scriptures( Matthew 4).
Answer with the lives of the Saints.
Joanp62, You keep saying to Stephen and I that what we are saying is twisted logic. It is our belief. You also said that “No one here has said ‘Gays are Evil’. Well, if I summarize all of these comments up, it all comes to that.
So, I am going to retire from this lengthy argument and say,
I hope Same-Sex marriage will someday be legal in the Catholic Church, (Might be 60 years or more) Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgenders are also accepted by the Church, Priests who are gay are allowed to be priests and maybe, Women can be priests.
@Stephen DeVol,
—
Marriage did not start 2000 years ago, it started with the beginning of Man when God commanded us to be fruitful and multiply. Further, you are mistaking theological opinion with doctrine. It wasn’t that the Church over turned a position it specifically held prior to the Council of Trent, rather it finally defined (Though against many of the opinions common at the time) what specifically constituted a valid marriage and what did not.
—
Also despite what you seem to think, the ability to engage in sexual relations was, long before Trent, a requirement for marriage and long before Trent, sexual relations were understood to be engaged in morally only when they were for the marital good (generally understood to include procreation). Long before Trent, permanent impotence was grounds for an annulment provided it occurred prior to the consummation of the marriage.
—
You keep accusing me of reducing my argument to mere sentimentality, but how is rooting my argument in Scripture and Tradition sentimentality for a Catholic? You claim to favor Scholasticism, but neither Peter Lombard nor St. Thomas Aquinas (among others) would have dreamed of privileging any evidence above Scripture or Tradition. Rather, the new evidence would have to be interpreted in light of Tradition. You on the other hand seem to want to revise Tradition to reflect the interpretation of the evidence. How do you understand the clear moral teaching of the Bible regarding sodomy and homosexual relations? And if you reject them, how do you justify keeping any other part of the Bible?
—
You clearly don’t understand what sin is if you think it must be reduced to actual tangible harm. Of course all sin causes harm, but much of the harm is of a spiritual dimension that cannot be observed with human senses. When we attempt to redefine marriage for our own purposes, we stop worshipping God and start worshipping ourselves. The marriage no longer reflects the Trinity (Three different, distinct entities in a single union) but instead becomes a mirror where there is no distinction and no God. God stops being the moral standard we use and rather is reduced to merely affirming our decisions.
—
You point out that a theology of marriage must be objectively truthful and must exhibit the love that is Jesus Christ. I of course will agree with that statement but I know that the only truly objective standard is Tradition and Scripture. The results of science are by their nature tentative. A single finding tomorrow could radically reshape how we understand everything. The same is not true of scripture and Tradition.
—
Doctrine cannot develop in reverse. Even the Pope does not have the authority to undo a pronouncement of a Council when it is on a matter of faith or morals.
Stephen distortion is not love. Coerced celibacy is a grave distortion. God’s love calls for a response of love. He does not ask the impossible not he often asks the difficult. He doesn’t force us to do the right thing but has told us what that is. Thomas a Kempis speaks about how temptation is easiest overcome at the beginning. It is our offering of love back to God to live celibate lives if we can not grow in love of the opposite sex.
tj007 ... I have addressed what I believe to be errors head-on. I believe it is disingenuous of you to ignore that fact. I have also discussed the history of marriage within the Catholic Church ... no reference was made to other cultural norms. What is lacking in your argument is reason and evidence. Please do cite specifically what St. Thomas Aquinas had to say about biological determinism and explain how what he has to say supports your argument.
I do agree with you that we, the church, need to be better at our pastoral care of people with homosexual orientation. That starts with a moral theology grounded in reason, evidence, charity and mercy. Coerced celibacy does not fit any definition of the love that is Jesus Christ.
Pam ... it has been a long time since I read City of God and the Confessions ... but to the best of my recollection St Augustine had nothing to say about homosexual relationship ... he had much to say about the purpose of marriage ... his teaching on consent was the norm in the Catholic Church for 1600 years ... he discounted procreative intent ... he believed that children are a benefit of marriage ... but having children or the intention to have children does not necessarily define a marriage. You need to site your sources ... you appear to be making things up to fit your worldview.
thanks, tj007. He also likes to cut and paste alot.
Stephen stop using twisted logic. I wrote “We are all called to Chastity. Our sexuality is given by God, but we must use it wisely. Jesus told us, if we wish to follow Him, we must deny ourselves, and take up our crosses daily. We are to rise above our fallen human nature and let the grace of God perfect it, our human nature that is.”
This command of Our Lord is beautiful. It is about sacrificial love. Something you obviously are blinded to. Chastity is not what you call “forced celibacy”. Do you even know what chastity means? The fact that I am civilly divorced and cannot remarry is not a problem. I am still sacramentally married to my husband,so it would be adultery for me to date, have sex, or marry someone else. I understand and accept that, with the help of God’s grace. Our sexuality is not just about engaging in sex believe it or not. It encompasses how we relate to each other as male and female outside of sexual encounters as well.
Correction:
I previously wrote:
To change this to a denial of homosexual acts as morally licit is NOT a development, but a reversal of doctrine.
It should have read:
To change this to an affirmation of homosexual acts as morally licit is NOT a development, but a reversal of doctrine.
From reading Mr Devoi’s posts, it is clear that he cleverly adopts a number of useful debating strategies.
He quotes data and CCC selectively:
E.g. CC 1849: Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience;
But conveniently ignores CCC 2357: Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.
To change this to a denial of homosexual acts as morally licit is NOT a development, but a reversal of doctrine.
Yet, when others quote the CCC, he called it an appeal to authority, which he himself is equally guilty of.
He cites 1 Corinthians 7:7-9 “if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry,” and emphasized those words,
but
conveniently ignored the earlier text in chapter 6, where Paul already clearly condemned sexual immorality, including homosexuality [arsenokoiati]
When he disagrees with claims of others, he simply labels them “normative value judgments” and dismisses them, and yet at the same time conveniently labels his own claims as “non-normative”.
No criteria is given for distinction (as far as I can see). Also he assumes (incorrectly) that anything labeled “normative” must be wrong. Of course, the word is used quite differently in academic circles, and what he really meant was “cultural norms.” BTW, it is logically flawed to assume that all “cultural norms” are new and lack historical precedence.
He wrote: “Thus, for some 1,600 years, what made a marriage a true marriage was consent.”
Tell that to the millions of people across the world who live in cultures with arranged marriages and have practiced that for centuries.
The most incredible point he made was that “biological determinism - natural law arguments are a twentieth century phenomenon.” No scholar of law, philosophy, and history of science would make such an elementary error. Ever heard of St Thomas Aquinas?
He did write at least one thing that I would agree with: That we, the church, need to be better at our pastoral care of people faced with homosexual desires.
I am sorry if this ends up sounding like a personal attack (which I do not intend), but for the sake of truth, I have to point out the clever strategies used by Mr Devoi.
Shalom.
Stephen you dare to use a doctor of the Church who knew marriage as the union of a man and a woman to try to twist that union to include sodomy? You are in serious denial. Christ spoke of marriage and divorce and condemned divorce even if things weren’t so peachy keen because GOD joined the man and the woman and it was not abound man was free to break or by extension to reinvent or redefine either!!!!
Pepper man Catholic means universal as in including all mankind. It does not mean equal. And Christ is God so he did speak about sodomy when He spoke to Moses face to face. Jesus said the “Father and I are one.” So if the Father says it the son says it. Moses face was irradiated after speaking to God face to face also in all the accounts so yes Moses really spoke to Him and it is a lack of faith not to believe it. I don’t think lgbt are evil but I believe as the Church teaches that they are children of God and have given into temptation. I know they are not born that way with perhaps a rare exception and that they are susceptible to the sin perhaps by their temperament or personality but that good parenting and self awareness can help them see the insecurity or envy or self centered ness or whatever weakness that makes them more vulnerable to grooming. I also know young children are being misled to think if they admire a man they have a hosexual inclination which is a lie.
Joanp62 ... coerced celibacy (to live life without hope for intimate relationship with another in the context of marriage or face condemnation and exclusion from employment, healthcare, pension, estate beneficiary and communion) is not chastity. Nor is celibacy the norm. To assume that celibacy is a matter of self-will embodies both Gnostic and Pelagian errors. 10% of the population is not a statistical aberration to be dismissed as “not Catholic.”
Joanp62 ... coerced celibacy (to live life without hope for intimate relationship with another in the context of marriage) is not chastity. Nor is celibacy the norm. To assume that celibacy is a matter of self-will embodies both Gnostic and Pelagian errors. 10% of the population is not a statistical aberration to be dismissed as “not Catholic.”
Pam ... I do not dismiss the mystic experience of St Catherine lightly ... nor do I give her normative values a place of prominence when there is no reason attached to presentiment. Saints were very human. Where marriage is concerned, I believe St. Augustine has a more coherent and mature understanding.
You cite Church doctrine (that has not been received by a majority of faithful Catholics) and look for biblical reference and the dreams of a Saint to proscribe chastity as a solution for a sin you can not describe ... but what you are really attempting to impose is coerced celibacy ... to live life without hope for intimate relationship with another ... or face exclusion and condemnation.
Augustine’s thinking about sex and marriage has been at the root of the traditions about sex and marriage in the West, because he was the only church father to write extensively about sex and marriage. Christian thinkers and writers for centuries have been deeply beholden to Augustine. With the rise of universities in the late 12th century, for instance, their masters — the early Scholastics — sought to determine how marriage in their secular world fit into their sacramental world. A sharp debate arose among them about what constituted true marriage. One group argued that it was at the point of sexual consummation true marriage exists, because consummation embodied the union between Christ and the church. A second group argued that it was consent given in the present to live together as equal partners with mutual affection and respect that embodied the union. By the end of the century the “consentist” position had won the debate, largely because its architect, the prominent Parisian theologian Peter Lombard, had written a textbook that became the theology text for the next 400 years.
Adopting Genesis and the rest of the Bible as their own, Jews and Christians in antiquity adopted the institution of marriage as defined in its pages. Yet marriage was also an institution of the world in which they lived, a Roman world, where true marriage—matrimony—was a partnership in which a couple consented to live together with mutual affection and respect and to raise a family. For pagans, Jews and Christians, mutual consent was legally and literally the heart of the matter in their Roman world, and from which a series of laws and customs flowed, including their distinctive ways of getting married.
As Christians spread westward, becoming more numerous—by mid-fourth century 30 million of a population of 60 million in the Roman Empire—some early Christian thinkers began to worry about the cloud on the horizon: Heaven was already too full. Indeed, St. Augustine, the celebrated bishop of Hippo in Roman Africa from 395 to 430, thought the cloud had already moved from the horizon to the center of his Mediterranean sky, overshadowing, indeed threatening, his “City of Man.”
Commenting on the Book of Genesis, Augustine reasoned that after the fall from paradise, Adam and his descendants were bound by the precept to increase and multiply until it had been fulfilled by Abraham and his descendants, the patriarchs. Now fulfilled, he concluded, the mandate to increase and multiply had been replaced by a concession: allowing couples to have intercourse without the mandate to procreate. Indeed, St. Paul had proposed a remedy that “it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” (1 Corinthians 7:8-9).
Augustine saw that marriage was here to stay, offering three important social benefits—fidelity, offspring and a sacred union. By fidelity, he meant the commitment to have sex only with one’s spouse; by offspring, having and raising children; and by a sacred union, a bond signifying the indissoluble union between Christ and the church described in the Letter to the Ephesians (5:31-32).
As time passed and the population grew, Augustine’s thinking about marriage gradually changed. Tutored by his Roman world and his pastoral life as a bishop, he came to see what made marriage marriage: mutual consent to a life together characterized by marital affection and respect. The importance of offspring, so prominent a reason for marriage, gradually receded in his mind, for his pastoral life brought him face to face with countless childless marriages he considered true marriages.
Medieval Christian view
Augustine’s thinking about sex and marriage has been at the root of the traditions about sex and marriage in the West, because he was the only church father to write extensively about sex and marriage. Christian thinkers and writers for centuries have been deeply beholden to Augustine. With the rise of universities in the late 12th century, for instance, their masters—the early Scholastics—sought to determine how marriage in their secular world fit into their sacramental world. A sharp debate arose among them about what constituted true marriage. One group argued that it was at the point of sexual consummation true marriage exists, because consummation embodied the union between Christ and the church. A second group argued that it was consent given in the present to live together as equal partners with mutual affection and respect that embodied the union. By the end of the century the “consentist” position had won the debate, largely because its architect, the prominent Parisian theologian Peter Lombard, had written a textbook that became the theology text for the next 400 years.
Thus, for some 1,600 years, what made a marriage a true marriage was consent, from which its three benefits—fidelity, children and sacred union—flowed. Whether a couple could have children was, like sexual attraction, nature’s call—not what makes marriage marriage. Although same-sex couples can have a child by adoption and nurture the child in a home characterized by mutual affection and respect, they cannot beget a child of their own. That same situation often is the case for an opposite-sex married couple who adopt and nurture. Neither couple can be said to contravene the law of nature by marrying.
Given the percentage of people for and against same-sex marriage, more than 60 percent of our citizens, including Catholics, seem to agree with what our Western predecessors concluded about what truly constitutes marriage, whether for an opposite-sex or same-sex couple, namely, consent to a life together of partners infused with affection and respect constitutes true marriage, from which the social benefits flow.
I prefer Pope Francis: “Who am I to judge” ... which reveals great mercy ... and hopefully opens hearts ... and leaves room for doctrinal development.
And, I agree with St. Paul:
Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.
1Corinthians 7:7-9 USCCB
“2 Why do the nations plan rebellion?
Why do people make their useless plots?
2 Their kings revolt,
their rulers plot together against the Lord
and against the king he chose.
3 “Let us free ourselves from their rule,” they say;
“let us throw off their control.”
4 From his throne in heaven the Lord laughs
and mocks their feeble plans.
5 Then he warns them in anger
and terrifies them with his fury.
6 “On Zion, my sacred hill,” he says,
“I have installed my king.”
7 “I will announce,” says the king, “what the Lord has declared.
He said to me: ‘You are my son;
today I have become your father.
8 Ask, and I will give you all the nations;
the whole earth will be yours.
9 You will break them with an iron rod;
you will shatter them in pieces like a clay pot.’”
10 Now listen to this warning, you kings;
learn this lesson, you rulers of the world:
11 Serve the Lord with fear;
tremble 12 and bow down to him;
or else his anger will be quickly aroused,
and you will suddenly die.
Happy are all who go to him for protection.”
( Psalm 2)
......................
the global gay agenda can plot all they want;they will be broken in piecies like a clay pot.
The important thing is that Catholic stay strong and vigilant and not allow any wolves-in-sheep-clothing ( no matter how highly placed) to lead them astray.
Pepper- Catholic means universal. No one here has said “gays are evil”, that’s your own twisted logic. We are all called to Chastity. Our sexuality is given by God, but we must use it wisely. Jesus told us, if we wish to follow Him, we must deny ourselves, and take up our crosses daily. We are to rise above our fallen human nature and let the grace of God perfect it, our human nature that is.
Pam ... you do need to cite your sources ... your claims appear specious and contrary to the preponderance of credible peer-reviewed scientific evidence ... be intellectually honest.
Thank you PepperMan for revealing a truth. Jesus did not comment on homosexuality or gay marriage ... all such posturing is biblical interpretation clothed in sentimentality to disguise truth ... I can also cite biblical references to support my normative values .... see above ... but that is not reason or evidence ... the development of doctrine is based on a better understanding of Scripture (particularly the love that is Jesus Christ) and Tradition based on reason and evidence.
The neoconservative argument boils down to something that ultimately implies “Homosexual acts are wrong because they express having the wrong sort of experience!” rather than the truth, which is that the experiences would be problematic inasmuch, and only inasmuch, as they incline to acts immoral for objective reasons, but then non-problematic inasmuch as they don’t.
Also, I think you are very judgmental on the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender community. Do you think a gay person chooses his or hers sexuality. Did you choose yours. No. Non of us did. Some of us are born with a sexuality others are not.
Thanks. Doesn’t Catholic mean equal? I heard that somewhere.
If you could, Pam. Tell me why you think Gays R evil?
Pepper man August 14 9:42 post be “Stephen” is what I mean about dismissing St. Catherine. Truth is Jesus Christ and His teaching revealed in the Word of God and through the Holy Spirit to the Church and each of us.
Pam, I heavily disagree with you. Stephen, I agree with you. So, tell me, Pam. What is the truth? Also, what do you mean by [“Stephen and Pepper man you dismiss St. Catherine of Sienna very blithely”]
Stephen you can use a search engine if you care. Really can’t stand up to the truth at all can you? But then you don’t want to at this point in your life. Stephen and Pepper man you dismiss St. Catherine of Sienna very blithely. Pepper man what exactly do you agree with since it is hard to see that Stephen has said anything with any real meaning on this issue except he doesn’t agree with Church teaching and thinks it is not really God’s truth yet he is totally incapable of responding thoughtfully to any of it? Stephen your closed minded attitude makes any meaningful discussion impossible. Your writing has such obvious flaws in logic and is so clearly as Chris Awo stated just a compilation of words that sound impressive but say nothing. If it is you that wrote the quote about the angels disgust at the sin you know you need to repent.
Chris, That is indeed written in the Bible. But did God himself say this? This is such a tough argument.
“22 You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.
23 Neither shall you lie with any beast and defile yourself with it; neither shall any woman yield herself to a beast to lie with it; it is confusion, perversion, and degradedly carnal.
24 Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, for in all these things the nations are defiled which I am casting out before you.”
(cf Leviticus 18)
What I just said is probably going to be strongly detested by…just about everyone who follows these comments. (Expect some) But that is absolutely a-okay. I respect anyone else’s opinion.
I agree with Stephen DeVol.
This is a little different topic than the story, but the Catholic Church probably won’t allow Gay Marriage anytime soon. Some day, in less than 60 years, they just might. Jesus never said specifically that Gay Marriage is wrong nor are Gays, or Lesbians. Man has said this and has written this himself. Not God Almighty.
Pam ... stop posturing and playing the victim ... cite your sources.
Stephen, Joan, Pam and Chris ... principles .. not personalities please.
Michael Paterson-Seymour ...
I am not a fan of the so-called “theology of the body.” I think it probably surprises the (neo)conservatives that most Catholics actually are not. It’s not that we disagree with its ultimate conclusions regarding the concrete application of morality, but rather that the premises conceded in trying to arrive at those pre-determined conclusions in the personalist manner seem novel, and like they could (by becoming an orthodoxy themselves) ultimately actually undermine orthodoxy, reducing everything to sentimentality and the level of the experiential (but in a way whose claims don’t necessarily hold up to experience!)
Though, I am “pastorally” sympathetic to the language of personalism; I think the language of experience and subjectivity and existential angst and all that is in many ways where we have to start with modern man. But, in itself it does not provide the objective framework into which experience is supposed to be situated and conformed by Reason (and faith). For that sort of objective rational theology, I think Scholasticism is much better; poetry is great, but it should not replace science. I think there is a lot to be said for deconstructing for people the premises underlying or implied by their own desires and values (in other words interrogating sexual desire, jealousy, romantic love, etc and making people consider “why?”) but this can only be done on an individual basis; I do think everyone is seeking the Good in some confused manner and thus experience can be a starting point, but appealing to “universal” experiences to make “one” definitive argument in this manner seems misleading and dangerous.
Anyway, I’ve had various discussions in the past where I’ve critiqued theology of the body because of this. Usually those discussions surround the topic of the construct of sexual orientation. I think this is because TOTB often seems to winds up as something like “apotheosizing the construct of heterosexuality” (by which I mean the orientation, not the acts), and a very “vanilla” heterosexuality at that, given how it seems to attribute some sort of coherent “revelatory” value to the mere sensitive appetite and passions portrayed as “natural” instincts (when, in reality, the sensitive appetite is irrational in itself; at most it indicates “goodness” in only the most general sense). However, basing itself on an appeal to basically subjective emotional experience ultimately leads to a complete steamrolling of all non-conforming experiences and narratives, inasmuch as they threaten the notion of “universal” experiences on which its claims are based.
Whereas an “objective” system (like scholasticism) limits itself to defining and condemning specific acts (and the desires specifically therefore), as a system based on subjective experience, the theology of the body seems much more inclined to turn sexuality into a totalizing narrative and thus to expect everything touched by it (which is, as the catechism says, our entire affective life) to conform to a rigidly consistent “correct” paradigm (even though that’s not how emotions work.) It’s ironic given that one point of the personalist approach is supposed to be to escape the “rigid legalism” of scholastic ways of speaking; and yet it actually winds up much more totalizing, demanding a much more slavish conformity; it doesn’t just tell you what to do and not to do, but why (on the emotional level, the level of personal affective motive) you should or shouldn’t be doing it.
I’ve hinted at some of my misgivings about the language of the theology of the body and the premises and priorities it seems to concede. Specifically, the almost mystical spiritual value it gives to sex, this attitude presented of “learning about God through sex” has always struck me as highly untraditional and problematic. I also think the propensity I describe above to try to explain-away divergences from the “universal” experiences on which it claims to be based (usually by pathologizing) winds up creating whole new categories of sins and expectations that are never before found in tradition.
Especially: in trying to appeal to experience to prove a morality, it winds up thus also telling people what even their experience of the world “should be”! It’s like starting an argument by saying, “Everyone loves chocolate,” having someone in the audience say, “I don’t,” and then defensively saying, “Well, you should! If you don’t, you must be disordered or a monster” because you have confused your argument with the conclusions (the former being accidental, the latter being essential) it exists to prove in the first place, and thus reversed the causality between them, turning the experiential into the very foundation of the precept just because it’s the foundation of your argument.
Specifically, the format I’ve seen this argument take when discussing with people online essentially boils down to something that ultimately implies “Homosexual acts are wrong because they express having the wrong sort of experience!” rather than the truth, which is that the experiences would be problematic inasmuch, and only inasmuch, as they incline to acts immoral for objective reasons, but then non-problematic inasmuch as they don’t. But, that’s the sort of absurdity you wind up with when, in an attempt to “internalize” morality, you wind up ultimately placing the locus of virtue primarily in the “correct” temperament and disposition rather than the ordering of acts, with the passions judged only relative to those acts.
The irony then becomes that, by conceding the premise of this sort of individualistic romanticism as the essence of sexuality, by appealing to the modern idea that the moral nature of sexuality is one of expressing affection ... you wind up having to “police” not just sex acts, but affection itself, in order to maintain the condemnation of the idea that anything personally meaningful or intimate goes. If you concede affection as the justification, but then don’t want to admit all acts based on just affection, you can only sustain this by creating notions of right and wrong affection.
“He noted that today, any view that considers homosexuality as abnormal is “suppressed by law” as such criticism is viewed as “a form of unjust discrimination.”
“Few are aware,” he added, “that in the 21st century, the age of persecution against the defenders of the Christian and natural order has begun (also) in Europe.”
Roberto de Mattei, Italian Church historian
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/italian-anti-homophobia-debate-heightens-after-teen-suicide
Jesus’ words to St Catherine of Siena on the sin of sodomy: “It is not only that this sin stinks before Me, Who am the Supreme and Eternal Truth, it does indeed displease Me so much and I hold it in such abomination that for it alone I buried five cities by a Divine judgment, My Divine justice being no longer able to endure it. THIS SIN NOT ONLY DISPLEASES ME AS I HAVE SAID, BUT ALSO THE DEVILS WHOME THESE WRETCHES HAVE MADE THEIR MASTERS. Not that the evil displeases them because they like anything good, but because their nature was originally angelic, and THEIR ANGELIC NATURE CAUSES THE DEVILS TO LOATHE THE SIGHT OF THE ACTUAL COMMISSION OF THIS ENORMOUS SIN. They truly enough hurl the arrow poisoned with the VENOM OF CONCUPISCENCE, but when their victim proceeds to the actual commission of the sin, THE DEVILS DEPART for the reason and in the manner that I have said.” (p. 270 “Dialogue”)
i get Stephan’s drift.
Stephen(the gay agenda stephen) DeVol and John and others feel one strategy is to drown faithful catholic in a sea of words that signify nothing. The gay agenda is so puffed up in its pride that they actually think they are smarter than God. They seek to swarm us with a mountain of research articles and pseudo-scientific papers, hoping we will eventually sigh,’ give them what they want’ by the sheer volume of their vituperations couched in nice phrases.
Stephen DeVol, i am sorry to say it but the truth is you are doing the devil’s work with your campaign and promotion of homosexual acts. If you dont desist and repent you will eventually receive the same wages paid to those who rebelled against their Creator long ago.
If we dont say it the Lord Jesus will ask us why we did not warn you. Well you are warned, it is now up to you.
Stephen the tradition is not just “how it was always done.” The tradition is rooted in Christ and His wisdom and the wisdom of thousands of years of inquiry since so stop denigrating it as mindless following.
Stephen, you’re dreaming.
As this blog and these comments clearly illustrate, there sure are large numbers of “catholics” that love to engage in mindless “dialogue” and endless hairsplitting with sodomites about sodomy. Meanwhile, countries continue to fall like dominoes as nation after nation embraces so-called same-sex “marriage.” Apparently these “catholics” are so desperate for human respect that they’re willing to wrap themselves up like pretzels to avoid offending anyone regarding the Church’s teachings on sodomy. It’s not purgatory or hell that frighten these “catholics” but toss a label like “homophobic” in their direction and their spines melt into a pools of jelly.
Stephen, You hear arrogance because of a lack of love in yourself. There was no arrogance in my heart speaking God’s truth, which has only become mine by grace. And it is not vulgar to speak with clarity of a physical reality when one has tried to point out the obvious more charitably and a person seems unable to grasp the truth. Further if you reread my post that I said from “sexual predators of all sorts”. Making physical pleasure our goal hurts children. True love should be the goal and it does not use others or lead them to immoral or questionable activities. It leads them toward God. You love the use of the word sentimentality but it doesn’t even apply except to your own posts which appeal to the passions as opposed to God’s law. We are in relationship but as children of God. Without Him we have no familial bond yet you ignore His Word. John, You rely on God’s love but seem to ignore that it calls for a response. God doesn’t accept everyone, He loves them. There is a difference. He seeks their good and salvation and He showed us what real love looks life through Christ. It dies to oneself and serves others interests, not its own. It suffers persecution in this world because it’s sights are set on things above. It gives, not takes and demands. This movement we witness of the homosexual agenda takes and demands and does not care about the consequences to others. It uses deceit and claims a kinship with the black man’s fight to be treated with dignity when the black man committed no offense spoke against by God but the homosexual relationship does. And the love and dignity we seek to give the person who suffers SSA is rebuffed because they do not want the dignity of a child of God but a recognition that their actions raise man up. We know it does not. It fights against religious speech and family values. So it needs loving correction but is harmful in its present form because it opposes Truth. Also John, although God does indeed love everyone He allows men free will and with that free will many men He loves have condemned themselves to Hell. He expects we will return His love and learn about Him and read the Bible and pray and seek His will.
Claire
I know what it means to be hard, or blue, or round, without being myself hard, or blue, or round; but I do not know what it means to be bored, or perplexed, or elated, without having experienced those sensations.
Stephen DeVol wrote, “I prefer Scholasticism as a method of inquiry.”
As Maurice Blondel noted in his correspondence with Auguste Valensin, “the scholastic ideology, which still exclusively dominates, includes the study neither of religious psychology nor of the subjective facts that convey to the conscience the action of the objective realities whose presence in us Revelation indicates; this ideology only considers as legitimate the examination of what objectively informs us about these realities as designated and defined. Moreover, and especially, everything is instinctively resisted that would limit the authoritarianism born of an exclusive extrinsicism. And, without formulating it, the conception is entertained according to which everything in religious life comes from on high and from without. Only the priesthood is active before a purely passive and receptive flock.” Anything “that would hinder this spirit of domination, everything that would recall the role of this interior hearing (auditus interior) of which St. Thomas did not fear to speak, would be pitilessly blasted (foudroyé).”
It was of Blondel that Cardinal Henri de Lubac said, “He is the one who launched the decisive attack on the dualist theory that was destroying Christian thought. Time after time he demonstrated the deficiencies of the thesis of the “extrinsicist” school, which recognized “no other link between nature and the supernatural than an ideal juxtaposition of elements which…were impenetrable to each other, and which were brought together by our intellectual obedience, so that the supernatural can subsist only if it remains extrinsic to the natural and if it is proposed from without as something important only in so far as it is a supernature..”
I love and respect C.S.Lewis. But…
“he refrained from offering moral counsel
on homosexuality ... since he never experienced
temptation in (this) area.” Do you have to jump
off a 10 story building to know it will hurt when
you land?
MarylandBill
1. Bill ... nobody is arguing that children are not important. But the history of marriage did not start out with a mandate to procreate. For 1,400 years marriage in the Catholic Church was consensual ... children, fidelity and social stability were and are benefits the proceeded from consent to share a life in Christ. The Council of Trent abrogated conscience in 1563. That was a big mistake. All sorts of exclusionary normative judgments have been imposed that do not speak to the reality of many people.
2. For example, as a couple who can not have children, I refuse to espouse procreative intent. Such magical thinking is cruel. Our marriage is loving, fruitful and valid. Procreative intent as the basis of marriage is the absurd result of abrogating conscience and attempting to legislate normative behavior without reason.
3. No argument there ... the 12 Steps are the Catholic process of reconciliation. The Church recognizes that it is an illness and does not sanction or exclude from communion. The appropriate pastoral response is mercy. But it is not a fair comparison with homosexual orientation. The difference lies in the objective harm done to the individual, others and society. You have not demonstrated that such is true in the latter case ... reducing evidence to mere sentimentality or Tradition grounded in sentimentality.
4. Bill ... we have been through this ... the development of doctrine is based on a better understanding of Scripture (particularly the love that is Jesus Christ) and Tradition based on reason and evidence. If Tradition is the standard of truth without reason and evidence, we would still hold that the earth is the center of the universe, slavery is O.K. as long as you treat your slaves well and all sexual activity is a necessary evil. I prefer Scholasticism as a method of inquiry. For a Catholic theology of sexuality to be valid, it must be objectively truthful and exhibit the love that is Jesus Christ.
And we will keep going in circles ... as we are addressing the problem from different frames of reference.
Okay a few points of clarification.
—
1. Marriage predates Christ by thousands of years. It was ordained by God from the beginning when he made Eve for Adam (however you want to interpret that, I am not arguing that the early chapters of Genesis provide a material history of the Earth) and is rooted in his command to be fruitful and multiply. While one can and indeed should argue that there are other important benefits to marry, if one is going to talk about marriage in a Christian context, the role of marriage in bringing children into the world must remain a central cause of marriage.
—
2. I am sorry about you and your wife’s inability to have children. It does not however change the nature of your bond—it is the bond ordained by God to bring children into the world. Nor should it change your openness to procreation; Martha and Sarah are not the only women in history to have had children even when it was thought to be impossible (actually it happened to a relative of mine). Having a life in Christ and leading each other to greater holiness and ultimately to Heaven of course are important and central aspects of a Christian marriage.
—
3. Alcoholics are not the only ones who over indulge in alcohol… nor for that matter do all alcoholics drink to much (If I understand it correctly, one can be an alcoholic even if one drinks as little as one drink a day if one lets that drink otherwise inhibit their life). If I deliberately drink too much it is a mortal sin. If an alcoholic drinks too much, they may be relieved of some of the moral responsibility (reducing it to a venial sin), but it does not change the sinful nature of the act. It is also something that I would suggest be discussed with ones confessor (as any habitual sin should be).
—
You also claimed regarding same sex marriage, “in the light of faith, reason, evidence, charity and mercy. The current teaching fails these tests.” First you miss the most important test which is Truth. Faith, reason, charity and mercy must be rooted in Truth. Further, when you claim that the Church’s teaching fails in the light of evidence, you seem to specifically are privileging scientific evidence over the evidence of Tradition or Scripture (both of which are pretty clear on the issue) which must the the primary evidence in any such test.
—
Finally I want to return to a concept you seem to regard with horror which is enforced celibacy upon homosexuals. You seem to regard this situation as unique; yet others within the Catholic faith also face this same situation. Divorced Catholics are not free remarry; those who are attracted to children are also not free to act on their sexual urges.
LYM ... thanks for the clarification ... discrimination is not condoned only if you accept coerced celibacy ... got it.
I do owe MarylandBill an apology for confusing your remarks with his. Though we may not agree ... I find MarylandBill to be respectful and reasonable.
Right on, Stephen DeVol!
Pam ... there is so much sentimentality in your arrogant pronouncements that is difficult to decide where to unpack.
“Men have more health issues and die younger.” Cite your sources please ... such specious claims are not validated by the preponderance of scientific evidence.
The homosexual relationship is a form of rejection of the opposite sex. Sexual orientation is not a choice. See: Always our Brother and the American Psychiatric Association.
“In the light of reason we see that two penises do not go together, nor do two vaginas.” That is your subjective opinion and is vulgar ... a moral theology of human sexuality is not about genitalia ... there is no reason or love or mercy in that statement.
” ...children are less safe from sexual predators of all sorts in a climate that values sexual license over morality and self control.” The majority of sexual predators are heterosexuals. Please site your sources ... junk science is not acceptable.
Thanks John ... I agree that for a Catholic theology of sexuality to be valid, it must be truthful and exhibit the love that is Jesus Christ.
Just coming back here to unsubscribe comments and saw that you mixed up authors again, confusing me for MarylandBill this time.
“I can provide examples the Church firing people once it was discovered that they are engaged in civil union.”
I said that the Church does not tolerate firing of people just because they have SSA. The Church distinguishes between the people with SSA and the actions those people engage in. It does not tolerate discrimination based on who you are at all, and does not tolerate unjust discrimination based on what you do. Not serving you in my restaurant because you’re a SS couple? Unjust. Not hiring you to teach in Catholic school because you’re openly opposing Church teaching by your lifestyle? Not unjust. I’m getting the feeling that you have not read CCC 2357-2359, where the statement on discrimination is located.
Peace be with you.
To start off, as a liberal Catholic, who practices his religion, goes to church every Sunday and prays, homosexuality as been around as long as heterosexuality as been. In fact it has been around since the first day humans were created. I feel God accepts anyone. And if anyone thinks he doesn’t, read 1 John 4:7-8 in the NEW TESTAMENT.
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
“In the light of faith, reason, evidence, charity, and mercy” - 1. In the light of faith we trust God’s Word. We hear it and try to incorporate it into our lives. He has told us not to give in to same sex attraction. He has told us to flee temptation and turn to Him. In faith we trust our Creator and try to conform our lives to His will. 2. In the light of reason we see that two penises do not go together, nor do two vaginas. We see in the light of reason that deep friendship is imperilled if getting close to a person may mean unwanted sexual advances or temptation to do an act sexually with a person of the same sex. In the light of reason we also see that hiv and aids are a real possibility for men who have handed themselves over to their passions and that children are less safe from sexual predators of all sorts in a climate that values sexual license over morality and self control. We also see where homosexuality is encouraged, interactions between men and women are different and there is more stereotyping and fearmongering.3. In the light of evidence homosexuals tend to have many more sexual partners. Men have more health issues and die younger. In the light of evidence homosexuals feel threatened by faith and family values so society suffers. In the light of charity we desire to overcome these fears anted by the enemy and give hope of healing or the strength to carry the cross of celibacy. We witness to the LIVING Christ who loves us so much that He died to free us from the bonds of this sin and its consuming hold on the person. 4. In the light of mercy we bring people to the sacraments where they will encounter Christ’s forgiveness and grace. His mercy is an outpouring of grace by which all temptation can be overcome.
Stephen you have now mentioned your inability to have children at least twice and seem to use it to justify relationships that are not child-bearing. I am truly sorry you have this cross. And I understand in your response to Bill that you don’t care to hear of Sara and Abraham or others. But Abraham did love Sara best even though she was childless so I hope you don’t feel the Church thinks you less “married.” It seems to make you feel a kinship with homosexual relationships but it is totally different. The homosexual relationship is a form of rejection of the opposite sex. It is a failure of true love and and leaves the person less than what they were created to be for whatever reason. A marriage of aan and a woman is healthy and always potentially life-giving as God has proven even when it seems impossible. But it is never a rejection of the opposite sex God created as our rightful partner.
LYM ... That some entities deny health, employment, pension or estate benefits to those with SSA in civil union is a crime that the Church also decries.
Please site your source. I can provide examples the Church firing people once it was discovered that they are engaged in civil union. And the recent uproar on Catholic neocon blogs with regard to Supreme Court ruling provides some evidence that this is not true. I can find no official Church pronouncement that decries discrimination.
MarylandBill ... thank you for discussing with me. I am sorry to hear that you are experiencing health problems. I hope you get to feeling better. I too will keep your intentions in my prayers this day.
MarylandBill ... I would be pleased to review your scientific evidence with an open mind. Please cite your sources ... junk science is not acceptable.
MarylandBill ... there is no argument as to what is current teaching ... but I do not agree that there is no room for doctrinal development ... in the light of faith, reason, evidence, charity and mercy. The current teaching fails these tests.
I do not agree that the purpose of marriage is to beget children. As I have shared, Michelle and I can not have children. Our marriage is loving, fruitful and valid. We have no pro-creative intent. Please spare me your magical thinking extension. I believe what makes marriage sacred is consent to share a life in Christ (as was practiced during the first 1400 years of Church history) ... fidelity, children and social order flow from consent.
Again, you are confusing alcoholism ... the Church no longer regards the illness as a sin ... for there is a lack of volitional control. Pastoral care is far removed from irrational sanctions or exclusion from communion.
I am not a fan of the so-called “theology of the body.” I think it probably surprises the (neo)conservatives that most Catholics actually are not. It’s not that we disagree with its ultimate conclusions regarding the concrete application of morality, but rather that the premises conceded in trying to arrive at those pre-determined conclusions in the personalist manner seem novel, and like they could (by becoming an orthodoxy themselves) ultimately actually undermine orthodoxy, reducing everything to sentimentality and the level of the experiential (but in a way whose claims don’t necessarily hold up to experience!)
Though, I am “pastorally” sympathetic to the language of personalism; I think the language of experience and subjectivity and existential angst and all that is in many ways where we have to start with modern man. But, in itself it does not provide the objective framework into which experience is supposed to be situated and conformed by Reason (and faith). For that sort of objective rational theology, I think Scholasticism is much better; poetry is great, but it should not replace science. I think there is a lot to be said for deconstructing for people the premises underlying or implied by their own desires and values (in other words interrogating sexual desire, jealousy, romantic love, etc and making people consider “why?”) but this can only be done on an individual basis; I do think everyone is seeking the Good in some confused manner and thus experience can be a starting point, but appealing to “universal” experiences to make “one” definitive argument in this manner seems misleading and dangerous.
Anyway, I’ve had various discussions in the past where I’ve critiqued theology of the body because of this. Usually those discussions surround the topic of the construct of sexual orientation. I think this is because TOTB often seems to winds up as something like “apotheosizing the construct of heterosexuality” (by which I mean the orientation, not the acts), and a very “vanilla” heterosexuality at that, given how it seems to attribute some sort of coherent “revelatory” value to the mere sensitive appetite and passions portrayed as “natural” instincts (when, in reality, the sensitive appetite is irrational in itself; at most it indicates “goodness” in only the most general sense). However, basing itself on an appeal to basically subjective emotional experience ultimately leads to a complete steamrolling of all non-conforming experiences and narratives, inasmuch as they threaten the notion of “universal” experiences on which its claims are based.
Whereas an “objective” system (like scholasticism) limits itself to defining and condemning specific acts (and the desires specifically therefore), as a system based on subjective experience, the theology of the body seems much more inclined to turn sexuality into a totalizing narrative and thus to expect everything touched by it (which is, as the catechism says, our entire affective life) to conform to a rigidly consistent “correct” paradigm (even though that’s not how emotions work.) It’s ironic given that one point of the personalist approach is supposed to be to escape the “rigid legalism” of scholastic ways of speaking; and yet it actually winds up much more totalizing, demanding a much more slavish conformity; it doesn’t just tell you what to do and not to do, but why (on the emotional level, the level of personal affective motive) you should or shouldn’t be doing it.
I’ve hinted at some of my misgivings about the language of the theology of the body and the premises and priorities it seems to concede. Specifically, the almost mystical spiritual value it gives to sex, this attitude presented of “learning about God through sex” has always struck me as highly untraditional and problematic. I also think the propensity I describe above to try to explain-away divergences from the “universal” experiences on which it claims to be based (usually by pathologizing) winds up creating whole new categories of sins and expectations that are never before found in tradition.
Especially: in trying to appeal to experience to prove a morality, it winds up thus also telling people what even their experience of the world “should be”! It’s like starting an argument by saying, “Everyone loves chocolate,” having someone in the audience say, “I don’t,” and then defensively saying, “Well, you should! If you don’t, you must be disordered or a monster” because you have confused your argument with the conclusions (the former being accidental, the latter being essential) it exists to prove in the first place, and thus reversed the causality between them, turning the experiential into the very foundation of the precept just because it’s the foundation of your argument.
Specifically, the format I’ve seen this argument take when discussing with people online essentially boils down to something that ultimately implies “Homosexual acts are wrong because they express having the wrong sort of experience!” rather than the truth, which is that the experiences would be problematic inasmuch, and only inasmuch, as they incline to acts immoral for objective reasons, but then non-problematic inasmuch as they don’t. But, that’s the sort of absurdity you wind up with when, in an attempt to “internalize” morality, you wind up ultimately placing the locus of virtue primarily in the “correct” temperament and disposition rather than the ordering of acts, with the passions judged only relative to those acts.
The irony then becomes that, by conceding the premise of this sort of individualistic romanticism as the essence of sexuality, by appealing to the modern idea that the moral nature of sexuality is one of expressing affection ... you wind up having to “police” not just sex acts, but affection itself, in order to maintain the condemnation of the idea that anything personally meaningful or intimate goes. If you concede affection as the justification, but then don’t want to admit all acts based on just affection, you can only sustain this by creating notions of right and wrong affection.
No, I was smiling at you appealing to authority (the CCC) to complain about me appealing to authority. ;)
“Again, comparing alcoholism to homosexual orientation is a fallacy of composition. Alcoholism does cause hard to the individual, others and society.”
The comparison is in the etiology and objective status as a physical process gone awry, not in every other step down the line. The same exists with many other congenitally acquired disorders that I presented earlier. What they all have in common is the origin - a nutrient-deficient mother leading to a uterine environment that changes the natural, normal development of the fetus.
“Alcoholics are not excluded from communion, employment, marriage, healthcare, and estate claims”
Neither, my dear Stephen, are those with SSA, and we both know it. Someone else has replied to this claim above much better than I feel able to right now. (That some government entities deny health, employment, or estate benefits to those with SSA is a crime that the Church also decries.)
“I would be pleased to consider any evidence you may have that homosexual orientation can be changed or is a physical result of parental ill health.”
As for the former, I have none because I do not believe it is likely to be able to change it after birth in most cases (I can’t deny that some claim to have changed it; only they know the truth of the matter). Regarding what I think you mean, the evidence that it can be *prevented* prior to conception is begun in the article on Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia I gave you before, and followed by following the evidence trails it opens. There is simply no doubt, as shown in the articles I linked to, that mothers with disorders that cause hormonal imbalance (which are a result of modern nutrient-poor status & other modern hormone disrupters) & endocrine-disrupting water pollution can cause a member of one sex to have traits more turned toward the other, either in mild or in severe fashion (as in the case of severe CAH or fish which actually change sex entirely). Sexual orientation is absolutely one of the features that can be masculinized in females or feminized in males. The evidence is in the links, for you to peruse, not for me to cut-and-paste to the boredom of all here. The fact that the LBGT community has members actively opposing the treatment of CAH in the womb is a strong testimony in itself.
“The American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association have a large body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence that concludes that homosexual orientation is a natural variant of human sexuality and attempts to change sexual orientation may cause harm to the individual. The Catholic Church, in “Always Our Brother,” accepts and agrees with the evidence.”
With regard to the latter, I agree, as well. The Church, however, does *not* state that SSA is a “natural variant,” but a disordered affection. The CCC is absolutely clear on that. Most of the secular argument that homosexuality is natural is based on observing transient same-sex-play in animals, not on birth-to-death SS orientation in animals.
I feel that you are really not attempting to entertain the scientific evidence I have presented. You seem unwilling to discuss it, but seem to prefer to find reasons not to look at it, contending instead that my position is based purely on bias. If bias and normative arguments constituted the basis of my position, then my position would be the same as Pam’s.
Unfortunately, while I hoped to avoid getting to this point, this discussion is stressing me, and I cannot handle stress at this point in my life. My health is really hanging by a thread right now, and so I want to let you know that I am glad to have encountered you and will keep you in my prayers, as I hope you will do for me. I will offer my next Rosary for your intentions. May God bless you richly and bring you to peace and happiness in all that you do.
Stephen,
—
I notice you tend to conflict issues you have with the Church’s current position on homosexuals and with how society in general treats homosexuals. I certainly agree that as a group homosexuals have experienced great injustice in a number of areas for simply being gay (particularly in terms of employment and potentially being social outcasts). However, when it comes to the eucharist and the benefits of marriage, I must disagree.
—
In the first place, the simple fact of being gay does not exclude one from communion. On the flip side, being in the state mortal sin does exclude one from communion (Though I will admit it is often enough observed in the breach). This is true regardless of the nature of the sin, whether it is the sin of over indulging in alcohol or it is the sin of extra-marital sexual relations (regardless of who the partner is). This exclusion further more is done out of charity. When we receive the body of Christ unworthily we compound our sin.
—
Further, the Church simply cannot redefine marriage and that is what same sex marriage is, a redefinition of marriage. It takes a relationship that was privileged specifically because of its role in begetting children and extends those benefits to relationships which by their very nature are infertile.
—
Yes, I am sorry, but celibacy is almost certainly the only sinless alternative available to someone is homosexual. Yes, it is hard, but we can’t decide that something is not a sin just because it is hard to resist it. By its very nature sin is hard to resist. And we can’t decide that something is not a sin because we can’t see the harm in it; we are victims of the same fallen nature as well.
Yes, I would suggest you take heed, Stephen.
The church faces three temptations, according to Pope Francis: the temptation to turn the Gospel message into an ideology; the temptation to run the church like a business; and the temptation of clericalism.
Ideology, the pope argues, has been present in the church from the beginning. It attempts to interpret the Gospel apart from the church or the Gospel itself. Francis says you must look at the Gospel with the eyes of a disciple. There is no such thing as “antiseptic” hermeneutics.
Other forms of the ideological temptation include sociological reductionism and psychologizing. The first interprets the Gospel message through the lens of social science, whether from a Marxist or libertarian perspective. Here, the Gospel is manipulated for political reasons.
The temptation to psychologize the faith, on the other hand, is individualistic. “Here we have to do with elitist hermeneutics which ultimately reduces the ‘encounter with Jesus Christ’ and its development to a process of growing self-awareness.” This is a self-centered spirituality that “has nothing to do with transcendence and consequently, with missionary spirit.”
Related to this self-centered spirituality is the temptation to the Gnostic solution. “It is ordinarily found in elite groups offering a higher spirituality, generally disembodied,” he says. Gnosticism first appeared among early Christians, and it reappears throughout the church’s history in new and revised versions.
The final ideological temptation is the Pelagian solution. The Pelagians believed sanctity was the result of human effort without God’s aid. This is the temptation of conservative Catholics to “a form of restorationism.” They seek a “purely disciplinary solution” to the church’s problems “through the restoration of outdated manners and forms which, even on the cultural level, are no longer meaningful.” One can see why Francis rejected the grandiose papal apparel.
The second temptation of the church is to functionalism, which Pope Francis believes has the effect of paralyzing the church. “More than being interested in the road itself, it is concerned with fixing holes in the road.”
The last temptation of the church is to clericalism, which, as its name implies, is a particular temptation for bishops and priests, but Francis argues that often, the laity is complicit. “The priest clericalizes the layperson and the layperson kindly asks to be clericalized because deep down it is easier.” He believes that “the phenomenon of clericalism explains, in great part, the lack of maturity and Christian freedom in a good part of the laity.
Freedom of the laity, he argues, “finds expression in communal experiences: Catholic as community.” Greater autonomy, which on the whole he believes is a “healthy thing,” is expressed through popular piety. “The spread of bible study groups, of ecclesial basic communities and of pastoral councils,” he says, is also “helping to overcome clericalism and to increase lay responsibility.” Liberal clericalism can disdain popular piety while conservative clericalism fears giving the laity a greater role in the church.
Something to ponder in light of our discussion.
Pam, our struggle against the gay agenda is fundamentally a spiritual warfare, every faithful christian should gird up his loins. It is going to be a long slug. The Leonine prayers are a wonderful place to start.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonine_Prayers
http://www.dailycatholic.org/leonine.htm
LYM ... thanks for the clarification.
I am glad you see the irony in your arguments to authority as inconsistent with the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church ... it made me smile too.
I agree the impasse boils down to political bias based upon sentimentality ... not reason, evidence, charity and mercy.
Again, comparing alcoholism to homosexual orientation is a fallacy of composition. Alcoholism does cause hard to the individual, others and society. The orientation of pastoral care is defined by mercy and the 12 Step process of reconciliation, guided by conscience, is proven to work. The 12 Step program refuses to be the arbiter of anyone’s sexual conduct. And participation in 12 Step programs are voluntary. Alcoholics are not excluded from communion, employment, marriage, healthcare, and estate claims ... and are not subject to coerced celibacy.
The same can not be said for civil union among people with homosexual orientation ... which spawns bigotry and exclusion without reason or evidence or charity or mercy.
I would be pleased to consider any evidence you may have that homosexual orientation can be changed or is a physical result of parental ill health. The American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association have a large body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence that concludes that homosexual orientation is a natural variant of human sexuality and attempts to change sexual orientation may cause harm to the individual. The Catholic Church, in “Always Our Brother,” accepts and agrees with the evidence.
Ronald you agree it is not wise to defy God and yet Stephen sees no sin in two men lying with each other as a man would lie with a woman if they are only lying with one man. God said you will not have intercourse with a man as you would with a woman. This is a hateful thing. He is opposing God’s will and leading others astray. So you both are rejecting His teaching - not Paul’s or a followers, but HIS teaching. Stephen when confronted with the Bible or Church doctrine shuts down. He cannot respond. He asks for sources as if the Bible is not a source. There is a brokenness there. Sorry you both do not see the light.
Dear Stephen,
The quote you pasted from me was directed to Pam. That would explain the confusion.
There is certainly a comparison with alcoholism in terms of a disorder (objectively, something that would not have occurred had the parents been healthy) that is created in the womb, not given by God, and mis-orders an otherwise healthy desire, causing a person not to be able to indulge in something that others can.
But no analogy is exact. Drinking alcohol is not itself a sin, but drinking it to excess is. If one has a compulsion that decreases the ability to avoid drinking to excess, one’s culpability is lessened to that same extent. There is, however, still a responsibility to do what one can to avoid trigger the compulsions, if possible.
Again, I go back to the initial question I raised, which is central to everything being discussed here: Why do we consider every other type of epigenetic change caused by parental mal-nutrient status to be a disorder/disease, but not this one? What, if not political bias, could cause science to refuse to consider congenital SSA to be a preventable disorder?
I have to admit, I giggled at the fact that you countered my alleged appeal to authority by appealing to ... authority (the CCC). However, I have chosen not to engage in your discussion with others on why homosexuality is a sin, but choose to focus instead on the question of whether it is a natural variant to be celebrated or a physical result of parental ill health.
Pax vobiscum.
LYM “By your standard, all research must be discarded because it is not done 100% by Catholics, the only Church reliably denouncing homosexual actions left on this earth today.”
I did not say that ... you are making that up. I said ... cite your sources ... junk science is not acceptable.
Comparing alcoholism to homosexual orientation is a fallacy of composition. In fact, alcoholism is considered a disease ... not a sin ... and is treated as such by the Church. An element of sin is volition. See the Pontifical Council for Healthcare Workers’, Church: Drugs and Drug Addiction. Alcoholics are not denied communion, employment, healthcare benefits, estate continuity, etc. ... and are not subject to coerced celibacy.
You continue to parrot: It’s a sin because the Church says it is a sin because it’s a sin. It doesn’t have to cause any measurable harm by human standards.
Hmmmm ... appeals to authority are a “mystical” corner you have painted yourself into ... beyond reason and evidence. That is not consistent with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Pam ... your specious claims for harm done lack credible evidence and are contrary to the preponderance of peer-reviewed scientific studies by credible organizations. Please site your sources. You keep making claims that you have a corner on truth ... so tell the truth ... where are your ideas coming from? Are you are cherry picking? Are you making things up? Even the Church no longer holds that it is a choice. The vast majority of scientific studies do not bear witness to all your specious claims of harm done to the individual or children or society ... so you beg the question ... please cite your sources.
The development of doctrine is based on a better understanding of Scripture (particularly the love that is Jesus Christ) and Tradition based on reason and evidence.
And I agree with Pope Francis ... perhaps it is time for a Kairos moment for mercy.
Monsignor Charles Pope’s Blog:
“Homosexual activists and advocates often state that they merely want recognition and certain legal rights, and that churches and other objectors to their life style remain free to have their opinions and state them in a free culture. And any expressed fears regarding compulsory recognition or punitive measures directed against objectors are dismissed as fear mongering.
……Today there is more confirmation about the price that is paid by those who object to the cultural juggernaut that [gay] activism is becoming. Gospel Artist Donnie McClurkin has had his appearance canceled by the Mayor’s Office here in DC due to his views on homosexuality. Here is the clip from a local Station, Fox 5 News:
Gospel star Donnie McClurkin made headlines several years ago, when he claimed god “delivered” him from homosexuality.
Now, he’s sounding off about a decision by D.C. leaders, to cancel his appearance at a concert over the weekend.
McClurkin was set to perform at a concert on Saturday, celebrating the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington.
In a video, McClurkin says he was on his way to the airport, when Mayor Vincent Gray’s office called him to tell him his appearance was cancelled.
“These are bully tactics simply because of stances that I took, never ever demeaning, never ever derogatory, any lifestyle – this is a civil rights infringement situation,” McClurkin said.
http://blog.adw.org/2013/08/district-of-columbia-cancels-appearance-of-gospel-artist-due-to-views-on-homosexuality-who-will-be-next/
………………………………………………
These people can not be underrated. First the society then the church.
Homosexuality is NOT a gift from God.
.
Heterosexuality is a gift from God. That is why God told King David that if he wanted more wives he should have asked for it. And that is why God told his angel (St. Raphael the Archangel) to lead the young Tobias(male) in his search for his bride(female).
And that is why many saints testified that even the angels despise homosexual acts.
No Catholic should ever utter the phrase - homosexuality is a gift from God - without citing the scriptural basis.
.
Stephen DeVol et al can say that to the pagans not to Catholics. We know better in the Catholic Tradition
Pam, “Ronald. It isn’t loving to lead people astray nor wise to defy God.” That is true which is why I support Stephen.
Stephen is most certainly not as wise as he may think he is.
Ronald. It isn’t loving to lead people astray nor wise to defy God.
Pam, I will continue to encourage Stephen for his loving care of the suffering and for his wisdom which is a gift from God.
But what you say is fallacious. Jumping from genital abnormalities that are treated at birth or are not pronounced enough to treat at birth and then JUMPING to asserting this determines sexual orientation at puberty is no where near proven. It is ignoring so many other factors like sibling envy or personality or environment or parental attitudes or rape and on and on. In my life God has shown me so many aspects of this sin and I can honestly say that although I have known many homosexuals, I have never known one that was born that way. They all became that way. Now maybe there is a soul out there who was, but once he knows Christ it will be a cross he can bear if he has to continue to bear it at all. Time for bed. Goodnight and God bless.
Dear Pam,
At no point have I justified any sin. You have either not read what I said, or are willfully misrepresented my position. I will re-state it here to be clear:
Homosexual orientation CAN be caused by intrauterine conditions. However, acting on those homosexual temptations can never be considered moral. It is sinful and harmful. This is no different from the reality that a predisposition to alcoholism or bipolar disease can be congenital, yet becoming a drunk or abusing one’s family can never be considered moral.
I hope that clears up your misunderstanding.
LYM, Everything is grace. Trying to justify a sin by pseudo science is not helpful.
Stephen DeVol, You say you are Catholic and you can’t respond to God’s Word? The Bible isn’t a good enough source for you? You would rather rely on men’s machinations? Yes, you have made that clear. So some scientist has to say what God meant because His word isn’t good enough? Pointing out the enormity of your errors is not being judgmental. It is merely pointing out the enormity or your errors. You choose to label a post as angry when in fact it is not. Your mindset is looking for anger. It is clear you have admitted that you can not respond to spiritual truth and must hide behind research that can be manipulated by man or unreasonable leaps of so called logic. I will not join you but I will give you more information on the Regeneres report. It was done by a professor in Texas, based on responses received from children whose parents were in same sex relationships and it showed a higher incidence of problems in those children. The report should be exceedingly easy to find on Bing. God revealed Himself to men. We call them the Father’s of the Church and the Saints. If you really want to help yourself, you should read them. There is a whole mystical world you seem to be unaware of. Science is man’s way of trying to make sense of God’s creation. He is the source.
Maryland Bill, EVERY sin causes harm. What harm does blasphemy do? It creates an atmosphere of irreverence toward God. It harms the virtue of the person speaking it and the people hearing it. It undermines faith. Just to mention a few. Lying for a just cause causes harm because it hurts the character of the one who does it and makes it easier to lie a second time and with less just cause. It will destroy trust between the liar and the receiver of the lie if it is ever found out. And both sins and all sins OFFEND GOD and are therefore HARMFUL! I can’t believe that you don’t see that Maryland Bill since you seem to know your faith. If you want to see concrete physical harm because you don’t count any emotional or moral harm, it is still there. Look at the violence and hedonism in society and you will see the physical toll. One thing leads to another.
Dear Pam,
By your standard, all research must be discarded because it is not done 100% by Catholics, the only Church reliably denouncing homosexual actions left on this earth today.
The priest who began the scientific method and gave it to the secular world would not be impressed with this line of logic.
Those with same-sex attraction do not like this research either, typically, because it does show that God did not intend for them to be this way, that nature did not intend for them to be this way, that it is an anomaly. The biggest challenge is to get people to look past their biases and admit what the science says - homosexual orientation is a disorder (and as the Church and the Holy Fathers have said, no orientation is in itself a cause for shame, just as the propensity to alcoholism is not a cause for shame).
I invite you to look more closely at the link I gave for congenital adrenal hyperplasia. It is 100% clear from history and science that excessive androgens in the mother cause baby girls to be born so masculinized that they have male genitalia. It is 100% clear that if we can shut off the disorder of the mother that causes androgens to be released in excessive amounts in the womb, that these baby girls will not be born with male genitalia. It is also quite clear that many girls are born without the extremes of having a physical penis (alongside female genitals, female chromosomes, and female internal reproductive organs), but still have masculinization on a lesser scale. This is really not disputable, and as I mentioned it before, many in the LBGT community do not want this news to get out and do not want this condition to be treated, because they don’t want anyone admitting that their orientation is a disorder.
This information does not mean that no person is ever “groomed” or traumatized into a same-sex orientation. It simply means that many people have a congenital same-sex orientation, not all.
In Christ, I invite you to look inside your heart and ask why you are so resistant to this information. The Church is never opposed to reason or science, never. This information is wholly consistent with all the Church’s teachings. I can tell you that we will never make inroads in the hearts of people who have known of their same-sex attraction since they were small children unless we acknowledge the reality that they experience. Denial will serve us no good. I have presented you with facts and you have presented me with nothing but “sorry you fell for this bias.” How can I change my conclusions without evidence to the contrary?
There is nothing in our Catholic faith to oppose this. Be not afraid of the truth, from whatever source it comes. All Truth ultimately comes from God, so we cannot fear it.
Dominus vobiscum.
Stephen, “The Church says it” is good enough for most of us because every time we have ever tested anything the Church says through deep research, reason, experience, and prayer, it has been validated. We also have the testimony of the continuity of doctrine (the only institution in human history to demonstrate this for anywhere the length of time we have so far - a look at any purely human institution will show just how quickly we fall away from founding teachings. Look at the US Constitution for an example) and the outrageous testimony of the heroic lives of selfless love of the saints. So much testifies to the reality that all the Church teaches is true, and that is only possible through the direct intervention of God the Holy Spirit. We trust the Church because we’ve tried to prove Her wrong and can’t. So please excuse us when at times, yes, we appeal to Her authority as a scientist appeals to Einstein even when he personally has never observed the curvature of space-time or the reality that the moon is not in fact made of cheese. Our faith is reasoned.
@Stephen DeVol,
—
Are you sure about that? I never claimed that sins never cause measurable harm, but many do not. For example, how often is casual blasphemy used in society today? What exact harm does it do? But the Catholic Church and the Bible clearly indicate that it is sinful. Lying for a just cause might even result in a good outcome, but it is often considered sinful. I can of course come up with others. But my point is that demanding some sort of measurement of harm by the standards of men is a fools errand when Tradition and Scripture clearly define something as sinful.
MarylandBil ... now let me get this straight Bill ...
It’s a sin because the Church says it is a sin because it’s a sin. It doesn’t have to cause any measurable harm by human standards.
Hmmmm ... that’s a “mystical” corner you have painted yourself into ... beyond reason and evidence. And is not consistent with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Pam .. I can not respond to such angry judgmental remarks ... other than to say, may God’s peace be with you. And yes ... you do need to cite your sources ... your specious claims are not supported by reputable peer-reviewed scientific institutions ... that are accepted by the Catholic Church.
JMB ... there are no “us” and “them” Catholics ... Catholicism is both/and.
It does seem that this thread has run it’s course ... unless you have a new argument or evidence?
Peace,
Stephen
LYM it is self serving research skewed to come to a conclusion and is definitely biased. I am sorry you fall for it. Stephen DeVol your diatribe is so full of inaccurate assumptions and so devoid of faith it really is not something anyone can take seriously. If the Catholic faith is the true faith and has the right answers it does not follow that it would have to seek political power or force others to subjection. The Church is not a political entity. We are followers of Christ. God who came to man to restore him to God’s grace!!! The common good of all and the individual has always been and will always be “to know, love and serve Him in this world and to be with Him in the next”. The common good is growing closer to Christ. While the Church will always raise its voice when policy issues are arising that will affect the common good and they DO lead toward the “right answer”, the Church is commissioned not to win political battles but to make God known and loved throughout the world. He has taught us about relationships with saints and sinners and how truly we are sojourners here among many who will persecute us as they persecuted Him. He has taught us about the wages of sin. You do not believe the Father’s direct PROHIBITION about people of the same sex lying together as lovers. You have a problem there. He is God and you are not listening. Worse you want to bring others to your humanistic false teaching. Ron you are wrong to encourage him. He keeps asking what sin is in a homosexual marriage and then refuses to respond to the answers. By the way Stephen, how do you define “normative” and “sin” because you have already gotten a slue of answers you haven’t responded to for both.
John:
You can’t be serious.
“oh, and gay readers: don’t get bent out of shape…”
Really feeling the love with those choice of words Mark.
@ Stephen DeVol
—
1. Platitudes like “the essential understanding of the faith is the love that is Jesus Christ.” hardly is illuminating when the love you propose is not rooted in truth but in the relativism of modernism. Supporting relationships that are oriented toward a sinful activity because it is “too hard” for those involved in those relationships to go without those activities is a false love.
—
2. As I pointed out before, sin is not measured by man’s measure, therefore, I am not going to provide a human measure for sin. I, and I am sure all of us, sin dozens, if not hundreds of times every day. The vast majority of these sins have no measurable harm by human standards. This does not reduce their sinfulness, nor does my current inability to avoid those sins justify embracing them as being part of my “true self”.
—
3. I am not Hobbesian. In so far as my own views on philosophy, religion and politics are informed by any one philosopher, I would have to claim to be a Thomist. Any understanding of Church’s teachings on social justice and the “common good” must be rooted in the notion that every individual bears moral responsibility for their choices and actions and that the “common good” must encourage moral choices. Without personal virtue, their can be no justice and no good.
I second Joan’s post. Stephen is going to say, “most of the Vatican II documents weren’t received by the lay people fully” but this will just serve to underscore his most prominent misunderstanding…it is irrelevant to objective moral law what the lay people wish they could make it using the template of their subjective emotions and interpretations of Church documents and teachings they have barely studied. Let the professors at the Pontifical Universities do what they do best and stop trying to confuse your peer laity by acting as though there is even a sliver of chance gay marriage will ever be allowed by the Church. It is appeal to authority because us Catholics believe the authority is being guided by the Holy Spirit, not to mention, the ample theological and philosophical reasoning that is put into these documents and cited accordingly. If you ever read *ANY* of the theologians and philosophers who address your concerns I think you would find ample “reason and evidence” as to why these teachings are the way they are. The Church professors don’t just take these ideas out of the air and put them into Magisterial law. Tons of thought and debate goes into every document…which is why we have councils at the Vatican and not dictators.
.
[Posted by Stephen DeVol - CITVN Executive Producer on Monday, Aug 12, 2013 2:00 PM
I hear you ... you believe in a positivist Hobbesian command and control system. I prefer the primacy of the Common Good established in Catholic Social Teaching and question the insufficiency of morality.
We start to ask ourselves about the meaning of certain fundamental concepts, in order that we not take for granted what these words mean: “morality,” “values,” the “common good.”
This is what political philosophy can accomplish. It can’t tell us what to do; it is up to us to make our own assessment of our situation. But it can show us how to ask questions and how to think things through for ourselves, being open to evidence that might contradict our taken-for-granted beliefs. It gives us the habit of being dissatisfied with explanations that rely on prejudices, on the fact that “everyone knows” that such-and-such is true, with the idea that we should just accept something if it is the conventional wisdom ]
.
“21 In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealed them to babies; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will. 22 All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
23 Then turning to the disciples he said privately, “Blessed are the eyes which see what you see! 24 For I tell you that many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.” (Luke 10 v 21-23)
........
The commands of the Lord are foolishness to the knowledgeables of this world and they are a stumbling block for the learned of this world but for those who sincerely believe in the Lord Jesus Christ the commands are the Power of God and the Wisdom of God.
Also, if Stephen would read Lumen Gentium,(para.25, especially) a document of Vatican II, he would know that when the Pope and the bishops in union with him are teaching on matters of faith and morals, the faithful MUST give their assent to these teachings. “They are speaking in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.” That does not mean that the teaching is not true unless accepted by the faithful, but that the faithful must accept ALL teaching on matters of faith and morals. Period. Stop reading books about what modernist/liberals wanted Vatican II to say, and read what the documents of the Council actually said. You have been gravely mislead.
At least, in all humility, consider it.
LYM: Temptation is the loneliest place. No one can stand with another in that other person’s particular temptation. The Good News is: God consoles! God promised and God does it.
Stephen-I can’t take you seriously when you say things like, “Cardinal Otovianni tried to talk Pope Paul into declaring Humanae Vitae infallible”. You regurgitate gossip like it is empirical evidence. What proof do you have of this? There exists none because when the pope speaks Ex Cathedra(“from the chair”) like in papal encyclicals on matters of faith and morality it IS doctrine as per the Vatican I documents and as per their re-affirmation in Vatican II. They don’t have to draw arrows on the document saying explicitly that “the following is doctrine”. By virtue of this comment alone, my estimation of you has lowered to the point where I feel discussion is no longer useful because your understanding of even the most basic aspects of the Church are fragmented and underdeveloped at best. I would be very interested in knowing what Catholic high school and/or Catholic college you went to? Yet again you avoid defining “mystical” and “reason”. Simply stating something doesn’t make it so. I guess my background in academia makes me especially frustrated with individuals who don’t do their research or cite their sources when they make very bold claims and instead copy & paste articles they’ve read from dissidents. At least link us to your sources that have citations. Finally, if you want the link to the “what is marriage” publication, why don’t you just scroll up to one of the two previous posts in the thread that already provided the link.
Stephen, you promote Dignity and dismiss Courage? Dignity is counter to Catholic teaching, Courage is not and Courage simply tries to help Catholic men and women lead chaste lives and to grow in holiness. I know because I knew a few people who were a part of Courage. As far as I know, Dignity does not encourage chastity.
You smugly refuse to answer my questions (Joanp62 ... that is a “mystical” corner that you have painted yourself into ... beyond reason and evidence.)
I think you need to get over your self-righteousness. Think about this. While you are “in the trenches”, do you try to help lift these persons up out of the trenches, or to paraphrase what Our Lord said about the Pharisees, do you refuse to come out of trenches and prevent others from doing so as well?
Dear Pam,
I did not say the research was done by homosexuals, but that it was written about by science journalists who accept homosexuality as a positive condition. The original research was not done by these journalists. If you dig deeply into the methodology, it is clear that it was done objectively. The study about facial recognition is particularly fascinating, in that the recognition happened even if the photo was shown for merely milliseconds and processed only on a subconscious level; it happened even if the person seeing the photo felt strongly that he could not accurately identify homosexual people as such.
The facial changes caused by epigenetically caused disorders can be hard to discern until you know what to look for. Down’s is easy, but only recently have scientists identified a pattern to children with congenital autism, and once you know what to look for, you realize it is a very reliable way to identify the underlying physical changes that accompany the neurological changes of the disorder. Neurological disorders are very, very often accompanied by more-or-less visible physical markers, as I listed above.
None of them are universal, but they are present in the majority of cases.
It would actually be easier if people weren’t “born that way” and we could just continue to say all they have to do is choose out of it. It’s much more difficult to say “You *were* born that way, but it is still not okay to act on that.” We have a perfect parallel in the predisposition to alcoholism, but too many of the one camp also refuse to acknowledge the solid scientific evidence that this predisposition exists (because it’s easier to judge and condemn), and too many of the other camp have a knee-jerk reaction against any implication that their situation is a disorder (and what a justified knee-jerk reaction it is given the number of followers of Christ who will not treat them with the compassion and dignity with which Christ treats them.
It’s much harder to stand by someone who is trying to resist a tremendous temptation and shoulder a tremendous burden than either to a) Exhort him to greater willpower or b) Happily let him indulge to his own destruction.
MarylandBill ... the essential understanding of the faith is the love that is Jesus Christ.
Stephen, I thank God that you are in the Church and serving those who suffer so much with your sensitivity and wisdom which can only be a gift of the Holy Spirit.
May God continue to bless you and those in your care.
Ron
LYM You admit the research is by homosexuals and therefore it has a great chance of bias. Judging people as homosexual by their appearance may give homosexuals a feeling that they can approach someone based on their looks but it is a lie. I do not have a homosexual bone I’m my body but have been assumed to be homosexual because of my height and interests. It is a form of ignorance. It would make things easier if people could be labelled and if people could say they are born that way. It simply isn’t so.
“human dignity is not measured in terms of biological determinism ... wrong lens. Jesus is all about relationality, love and mercy.”
Dear Stephen,
It seems you are arguing against a straw man if you really intended to direct this comment to me. I specifically pointed out that our dignity has nothing to do with any of the features we have, including sexual orientation. Our dignity is infinite regardless of how virtuous, sinful, healthy, ill, logical, or rash we may be. That is because we are human, and God gave us a sharing in His divinity that no other creatures, including the angels, have. He took on our nature and sanctified it; that is why we have dignity.
“Harm or the ‘sin’ can not [sic] be reasonably demonstrated with regard to homosexual orientation within the context of civil union.”
.
Except when a lesbian millionaire sues to recover a tax levied; the tax revenue shortfall be extracted from someone else’s children.
Dear Pam,
It seems to me imprudent and uncharitable to imagine one could know whether or not Stephen has experienced Christ personally. I experienced Christ personally and powerfully even in the days when I was a Catholic-hating Mary-bashing judgmental Protestant, and it was that experience which gave me the graces that allowed me to draw nigh to the fullness of the Truth.
We were all on different places in the journey, and if Christ were not involved, Stephen would not be here, dialoguing with us and working within the Catholic faith; he would be labeling us ‘haters’ and disregarding us utterly from the start.
LYM and Michael Paterson-Seymour ... human dignity is not measured in terms of biological determinism ... wrong lens. Jesus is all about relationality, love and mercy.
MarylandBill ... I hear you and agree that false premises lead to false conclusions. Explain in non-normative terms how homosexual relationship in the context of committed marriage harms the individual, others, society or separates one from right relationship with God. Please be specific and provide evidence (please site your sources ... junk science is not acceptable).
MarylandBill ... I hear you ... you believe in a positivist Hobbesian command and control system. I prefer the primacy of the Common Good established in Catholic Social Teaching and question the insufficiency of morality.
We start to ask ourselves about the meaning of certain fundamental concepts, in order that we not take for granted what these words mean: “morality,” “values,” the “common good.”
This is what political philosophy can accomplish. It can’t tell us what to do; it is up to us to make our own assessment of our situation. But it can show us how to ask questions and how to think things through for ourselves, being open to evidence that might contradict our taken-for-granted beliefs. It gives us the habit of being dissatisfied with explanations that rely on prejudices, on the fact that “everyone knows” that such-and-such is true, with the idea that we should just accept something if it is the conventional wisdom. So first and foremost political philosophy is this discipline of mind which seeks the truth and not power, at least the kind of power that comes from always conforming to what powerful people think. Only secondarily does political philosophy offer us a doctrine establishing certain principles and conclusions. The doctrines seem like the main thing when you are first learning political philosophy – here’s the different thinkers, and here’s their different theories of government, and you want to know the details of how the different thinkers distribute power in their different theories – but later you can appreciate the essential genius of great philosophers without necessarily accepting much if any of their doctrine. You realize that the doctrines are secondary. The thinkers we are going to cover now, for instance – Thomas Hobbes and David Hume – make serious errors in their thought, yet their contributions to our understanding of the world we live in are massive, and they are essential thinkers for this reason, because they pursue truth and think things through to the end.
Before we get to these thinkers, I want to turn to Catholic Social Teaching for guidance. The concept of the “common good” is a fundamental notion for Catholic Social Teaching, and Catholic Social Teaching has a very rich conception of it that is worth careful consideration. Then I want to turn to Hobbes and Hume for comparison, and to show how a rich understanding of the common good is lacking in their theories, which is problematic because it is replaced with the concepts of sovereignty and morality that serves more to enslave men than to free them to live in truth with each other.
First, Catholic Social Teaching. Catholic Social Teaching is an immensely rich body of work which began with the Encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII in 1891, and consists in numerous church documents that address various pressing questions in modern public and political life. It is a treasure trove of insights into the problems we face in modernity, and the relationship between the Church, the State, and Society. For more reading on Catholic Social Teaching, I would highly recommend the works of Russell Hittinger.
It is clear from the get-go when we look at Catholic Social Teaching that the idea of the “common good” enjoys a centrality when the discussion turns to political questions. The term the “common good” expresses the very meaning and purpose of politics. Pope Leo XIII writes in Rerum Novarum (1891), that “it is the province of the commonwealth to serve the common good” (para. 32). Pope John XXIII writes in Mater et Magistra (1961) that public authority has a “duty of promoting the common good of all” (para. 37) and “the justification of all government action is the common good” (para. 151). In the Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae (1965), politics itself is defined as “prudent concern for the common good” (para. 20).
It is not just those directly involved in politics who are concerned with the common good. As Leo XIII puts it, “all citizens, without exception, can and ought to contribute to [the] common good” (Rerum Novarum, para. 34). Naturally, he says, some do it more directly than others. The leaders who have direct responsibility for the common good deserve our esteem, he writes, but this does not take away from the contributions of others. It’s a simple fact that there has to be a division of labor in society, and inequality is unavoidable. Let’s consider the quote from Rerum Novarum in full:
Some there must be who devote themselves to the work of the commonwealth, who make the laws or administer justice, or whose advice and authority govern the nation in times of peace, and defend it in war. Such men clearly occupy the foremost place in the State, and should be held in highest estimation, for their work concerns most nearly and effectively the general interests of the community. [Quorum virorum priores esse partes, eosque habendos in omni populo primarios, nemo non videt, propterea quod communi bono dant operam proxime atque excellenti ratione.] Those who labor at a trade or calling do not promote the general welfare in such measure as this, but they benefit the nation, if less directly, in a most important manner. (para. 34).
This is a telling formulation we need to unpack. Esteem, the recognition that some people occupy “first place” [primarios], is due those who have greater responsibility for the common good, because this benefits the common good. Everyone sees this, the pope says, it is clear [nemo non videt]. We can grasp easily enough what the pope is saying here: leaders have to have special privileges because their work is so important, and has far-ranging consequences for all of us. The leader deserves deference, because of the common good. The reason for esteeming those directly responsible for the common good is because the common good is at stake. It really does not make much sense, we could say, to talk about esteem, giving priority to people, detached from acting for the common good. If we did, this esteem would be a kind of personal preference; we would no longer be able to rationally discuss esteem, it would rather just be a matter of what we like, and there’s no arguing with taste. Rather, there has to be a recognition first of the common good, and the fact that different people contribute differently to it, in order then for the idea of esteem to make sense. Esteem is grounded in and serves the common good.
So the first point is that the common good is the basis for esteem. Secondly, however, we notice at the end of this passage that those who indirectly promote the general welfare still benefit the nation “in a most important manner.” This means that esteem does not isomorphically overlap the common good, that it cannot be superimposed without remainder over the common good. That is to say, it is not that case that because we hold in high esteem those who act directly for the common good, we should therefore hold in low esteem those who act for it more indirectly. This logic of esteem just does not hold when it comes to the common good. Esteem is to be understood on the basis of the common good, and not the common good on the basis of esteem. The common good is richer, greater, more complex than human esteem can ever reflect. The common good subtends esteem, esteem can never map onto it; the difference between them is like moving from two-dimensional space to three-dimensional space.
It follows then that we can never define the common good according to Catholic Social Teaching. We can never completely capture what the common good is with our formulations. To see this point, imagine for a second that we have captured in a set of definitions or formulations what the common good is – this would mean we would know what is the best thing to do in every circumstance, and it would mean that we should be the ones to rule, because all we would have to do is implement our knowledge for the common good to be actualized. We would have solved the political problem, and anyone who opposed us would just be wrong. We would be standing on the side of truth, and we know ourselves to be completely on the side of truth. We would be justified in fomenting a revolution and overthrowing the current political order and putting ourselves in charge.
Now according to Catholic Social Teaching, the common good cannot be thought of in this ideological way. The common good always exceeds our efforts to capture it in words, and cannot be reduced to concepts we can possess clearly and distinctly. The common good is something we need to be directed towards; it is not something we have in advance, like an answer key to a test, as that would automatically make the contributions of other people irrelevant. The common good has to be discovered with others; it is more like the goal of an adventure than a static set of logical deductions. There is a quasi-definition of the common good given in Catholic Social Teaching, for example in Gaudium et Spes (1965): “[T]he common good embraces the sum of those conditions of the social life whereby men, families and associations more adequately and readily may attain their own perfection” (para. 74), but this merely refers us back to social reality and the process of discovering what those conditions are, with each other, in political life. In the same paragraph Gaudium et Spes emphasizes that when it comes to the common good, political authority must have a “a dynamic concept of that good” (para. 74).
The common good is deeper than a logic based on the principle of identity, which demands that things be put into mutually exclusive categories. The most logical definition of the common good would be of course to contrast it with the merely private good of an individual, and to think of each good as being one or the other. But this logic is explicitly rejected by Dignitatis Humanae (1965), which defines the common good as “the good of all and of each individual” (para. 38, emphasis mine). Such a definition precludes ever thinking of the common good ideologically. The common good can never exclude the good of an individual; rather it must always include the good of every single person. This can only be a task, a charge, a responsibility; it can never be a logical argument, where we take what we know, or think we know, about society and reason back to the conditions of its possibility. Logical arguments presume there is a right answer opposed to a wrong answer; but the nature of the common good is that it unites the good of all with the good of each individual, rather than opposing them.
With this overview of some salient points concerning the common good in Catholic Social Teaching, I wish now to turn to a few modern philosophers whose works explicate very well I think the understanding we have today of the fundamental concepts of our public discourse. The first thinker is Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), the greatest political thinker ever to write in English. He was inspired when he read Euclid’s Elements of Geometry for the first time when he was forty years old. (Euclid was a Greek mathematician from the third century B.C., and his Elements were the standard mathematical textbook until really just recently.) Hobbes wanted to apply this strict method of geometry to the study of politics. We see this in his great work, Leviathan, published in 1651. Hobbes proceeds with a rigorous logic, defining basic axioms about human nature and drawing conclusions from them, forming an impressive, interrelated architectonic structure. It’s really impossible to argue against. I mean that quite literally: Hobbes has thought his positions through and has a coherent answer to nearly every objection.
continued ...
Stephen it is clear that you can not respond to my posts about the ways homosexual unions are sinful and you have never experienced Christ personally because you constantly think in terms of “can’t” and not possible. I have actually helped several people NOT fall prey to the grooming that was surrounding them but they were open to the truth and when I pointed out what I saw they were able to recognize it for what it was. As Maryland Bill says you are set on your course and it is one of destruction. Celibacy is possible for every Catholic but when we don’t know our faith or are undermined we may fall. We repent of our sin when that happens. While the Pope was right that we don’t hold past sins against a person when they repent, we also use prudence in where we put people. Someone wjo has been a priest and broken a solemn vow seriously enough that he has to leave his home country raises ALOT of questions and someone who does not love the Lord’s teaching on sexuality shouldn’t hold the purse strings or have influence on them. The Pope admitted it was a “quick” look at the circumstances and he will answer to God if he did not look after Christ’s Church.
Dear Stephen,
Thank you for the tip!
I think you will find that nothing I submitted to you was junk science. The links I gave regarding the epigenetic (from a disruption in the normal process) source of SSA were almost exclusively from prestigious secular homosexuality-positive science sources that were writing objectively about peer-reviewed journal-published studies.
As far as the harm that comes from homosexual activity (and such harm, being a result of the acts, not the relationship, occurs whether or not the activity is in a “married” relationship), it is difficult to find the records anymore, since nearly everyone has bought into the idea that there are only two possible camps (“Hate the gays” or “Celebrate gay”), and since they rightly determine that the first camp is wrong, they feel that anything which would give fuel to the fire of that camp must be purged. It used to be simple to find records online, but the majority of them have been removed from public access, and I do not have the time to go to the original hard copy sources and quote them for you. However, it is all common sense resulting from a thorough knowledge of biology. The body has evolved with a particular orifice for sexual activity, and that orifice contains all the adaptations necessary to receive it. Others are vastly more susceptible to damage, such as broken vessels leading to scar tissue and introduction of bacteria and viruses into the bloodstream, along with many more fairly obvious complications. One has to deny reality fairly hard to contend that constant participation in physical activity counter to biological designs has no consequences, but given that our world insists that we can do anything we want with no consequences (including poisoning our lawns; fracking; pumping wastewater into rivers, mercury from power plants plants into oceans, and fossil fuel emissions into the air; and recklessly spreading GM seed), sometimes we have to take a step back and remember that we are still just souls in natural animal bodies, and everything contrary to our evolution/design has a consequence.
As far as separating us from God, He has made it clear that violating our bodies’ designs is sin (natural law) b/c it violates our love for ourselves as His creations, and He has made it clear through Sacred Tradition (and one component of it, Sacred Scripture) that homosexual actions are contrary to His plan for us. This has been the universal understanding of the Church, so much so that little is written on it because it was never in question. Here is one example of some of what we have (not all address homosexual acts of all types; some address specifically pederasty, etc.) http://www.catholic.com/tracts/early-teachings-on-homosexuality
The Catholic Church has never changed any teaching, despite at times evil and corrupt Popes, which is a true testimony to how the Holy Spirit has fulfilled the promise of Matthew 16 (the gates of Hell shall never prevail against the Church). The Church has had individuals who did wrong things or wrongly applied the constant teachings to a situation of the time, but never have the teachings themselves changed. No one can provide an example of this. And so we can have full confidence that the Church’s teachings on the immense - nay, infinite - dignity and worth of people with SSA will never change, just as we can have full confidence that the Church’s teachings on the immorality and harmfulness of homosexual *acts* will never change, as it has never changed since the very beginning since God first revealed it.
Go back to the initial question I raised, though, which is central to everything being discussed here: Why do we consider every other type of epigenetic change caused by parental mal-nutrient status to be a disorder/disease, but not this one? What, if not political bias, could cause science to refuse to consider congenital SSA to be a preventable disorder? The article on Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia really sheds light on the issues involved in this question.
Stephen DeVol
I did not say people are malfunctions (I am not even sure what that would mean) I said same-sex attraction is a malfunction, as it inhibits self-perpetuation, in a way that the adaptive processes I listed do not.
@Stephen DeVol,
—
Yes, I am for authority because without the authority of Scripture and Tradition, what basis do we even have for the faith? If I can look at the half dozen passages in the Old and New Testament that clearly indicate sodomy is sinful and claim that we can now disregard them, then why believe the Bible or Tradition when it claims that Christ is risen?
—
I am also for reason, but reason can only produce correct results when you start with the right premises. If reason produces results that are contrary to revealed truths, then clearly the premise the chain of reason was based on is flawed.
—
I am not opposed to development of doctrine, but the development of doctrine can not change an essential understanding of the faith, it can only extend that understanding. The Church has clearly defined what marriage is and no development of doctrine can extend it in the way you suggest.
LYM ... thank you for your considerate response. I agree that bigotry is a source of much harm done to people with homosexual orientation.
The truth is you did avoid the issue. Explain in non-normative terms how homosexual relationship in the context of committed marriage harms the individual, others, society or separates one from right relationship with God. Please be specific and provide evidence (please site your sources ... junk science is not acceptable).
JBM ... I do not consider Courage International to be representative. They have about 1,500 members worldwide ... many of whom are heterosexuals attempting to change people’s orientation. Numerous credible medical institutions have been highly critical of this organization. Look deeper and you will find that Courage International has no published metrics of success. Try attending Dignity USA meeting ... meet Catholics with homosexual orientation.
I will be happy to read the Harvard Law publication and offer a reasoned response ... send me that link.
You are still arguing from authority for documents that have not been received and are not declared infallible. Cardinal Otovianni tried to talk Pope Paul into declaring Humanae Vitae infallible. Level heads prevailed. Closed to discussion is a “mystical” corner you have painted yourself into ... beyond reason and evidence.
LYM ... use the space bar between paragraphs.
Peace,
Stephen
Homosexuality is not a gift from God. Even if the person believes he was born a homosexual, homosexuality is not a gift from God. A child born with anencephaly, the anencephaly is not a gift from God.The child born with thalidomide induced amelia or meromelia, the amelia or meromelia is not a gift from God. The tsunami that killed over two hundred thousand people, the tsunami is not a gift from God. Every gift from God to us is perfect. The defects arise from the consequences of original sin incurred in the garden of Eden. And therefore we now live in a fallen world, ruled by fallen angels, with a fallen human nature. Indeed without God’s grace and the help of the guardian angels we would be living in hell-on-earth.
Homosexuality is a temptation which when acted upon becomes a abomination.
Stephen-First, why don’t you go to some Courage International meetings instead of the dissident DignityUSA meetings?...or is it because DignityUSA is more in-line with your subjective thinking than the actually Church approved Courage International? And how do you define “mystical” and “reason”? These are words you repeatedly use with Joan without expounding further despite her challenge for you to provide Church documentation on so-called “changed” Church doctrine you claim has occurred. I am just trying to figure out what a “mystical corner” is, or is that french for “because some dissident theologian I read said so”.
Secondly, the fact you said, “none of these documents have been declared infallible” shows you have not read much on this issue. This sentence implies your understanding of infallibility is that a document must be explicitly proclaimed to all the world by some “declarer” from the Church that it is in fact infallible. Why don’t you just study the Vatican I Church documents on this and you’ll understand that certain doctrine established in encyclicals don’t need to be immediately followed by the popes saying, “O, you guys, this is Church doctrine by the way”.
Third, the erroneous context in which you used Pope Francis I quote indicates you have not read up much on Cardinal Bergoglio’s history. Fourth, please explain how individuals who use the concept of relativism are intellectually incoherent? I am quite curious. And what is an intellectual to you? Fifth, what book are you talking about? It is a Harvard Law publication whose free link has been provided to you several times. Take the 45 minutes to read and understand it so you understand better the implication of gay marriage on a society. God forbid you read something other than what you agree with. Lastly, there is a difference between questioning Church teaching and actively preaching and practicing that which is opposed to the Holy Spirit guided objective moral law taught to us by the Magisterium. It is not my subjective judgement that “gay marriage” is morally wrong and harmful to a society, but rather the objective judgment of the Church. Hence my appeals to authority. The fact you refuse appeals to Church authority indicates you lack both sincerity and understanding in your beliefs of certain Church doctrines and, hence, as previous post mentioned, it is fallacious and empty for you to proclaim yourself Catholic.
By the way ... how the heck do you make this thing format with a line break between paragraphs as you have? Thx, Stephen!
Dear Stephen,
Thank you for your prayers for peace in my heart. I relish them.
I cannot imagine what you mean by saying that the predisposition towards alcoholism is a gift from God, unless you mean it in the sense that Christ has redeemed suffering and gives us the opportunity to turn our crosses into blessings for others through redemptive suffering. In that sense, every cross, even those caused by the failings of man, can be turned into blessing, but the disorder itself is not given by God.
The flipping of my epigenetic switches which predisposed me towards alcoholism (and the other disordered temptations) occurred because of a flaw in my development that occurred because of my parents’ and grandparents’ nutritional status. It occurred because of man, not God.
Yes, there is harm in homosexual actions, just as there is harm in anything we do that is contrary to our biologically normative natures. I would prefer to refrain from gratuitous detail, but male homosexual sex is much more susceptible to causing physical harm (not even taking into account AIDS) than heterosexual sex. And the number of women I personally know who have chosen to remain chaste rather than continue in the female homosexual lifestyle and culture is non-negligible. The most common phrase I have heard from these women (whom I admire in so many ways for so many reasons not having to do with their choice for celibacy) is “I just couldn’t do it anymore.”
Sadly, a great deal of the harm experienced by those with SSA is due to the persecution and shame brought on them by others. May God rebuke me for any part I have ever played in this, willingly or accidentally. Still, there is non-negligible harm that is inherent that would exist even in a culture that moved 100% to the “Celebrate” side of the fence. This shouldn’t be surprising given that birth-to-death SSA seems, based on the evidence available at this time, to be missing from the human and animal records prior to the modern era (and as I mentioned before, there is no question that it exists today).
I want to be sure I am reading your position correctly. Are you arguing that a chaste homosexual civil union is not sinful, or that even consummated homosexual civil unions are not sinful? I don’t believe that the Catholic Church would argue that the former is sinful, so long as it did not place the participants in a near occasion of sin (which may well be possible for many women and perhaps some men), which would be determined by each situation, not as a blanket determination.
God bless and strengthen you for standing up for the dignity of all persons, regardless of sexual orientation, and may we all pray together for a day when all people are loved and cherished instead of harshly judged by people who have never had to bear those same burdens. I know the cold, jealous heart of the judgers, because before God saw fit to allow me to suffer from the severe harmful temptations I now bear, I was one of them. They, too, are loved by God and deserve our prayers for conversion.
May God’s peace be with you as well, now and forever.
Michael Paterson-Seymour ... people are not malfunctions. Your logic lacks reason, evidence, love and mercy.
Hi LYM ... thank you for sharing from the heart.
Epigenetic simply means that this was a gift from God. My alcoholism was a gift from God. We share the experience of powerlessness and know that redemption is a gift from God ... know that God is real.
I agree that alcoholism harms the individual, others, society and separates one from right relationship with God and others. And know that abstinence if a gift from God.
Harm or the “sin” can not be reasonably demonstrated with regard to homosexual orientation within the context of civil union. But the bigotry both marginalized people experience is the same.
May God’s peace be with you always!
Stephen
MarylandBill ... yes ... we are at an impasse. You are arguing for authority and acceptance of the status quo ... I am arguing for doctrinal development grounded in the gospel of Jesus Christ, reason and evidence.
I do not believe we are going to find resolution on this thread. But it is a good start to engage in dialog.
May God’s peace be with you always!
Stephen
Hi Andy ... I do not mean to diminish this gentleman’s experience in any way. There are many heterosexual people who ask God for the gift of celibacy. And many are denied the gift ... witness the number of religious who leave to marry. Celibates are not the norm. And heterosexuals are not coerced across the board. The vast majority of people desire to be married. Celibacy is a free exchange of gifts with God ... and God’s prerogative ... not a matter of self-will for most people ... as St. Paul recognized.
More than 200 ordained married men in “Celibacy is the Issue” or CITI Ministries perform religious rites for disfranchised Catholics who want the blessing of a priest. Ask them your question.
Pam ... that is presumptuous of you. How many homosexuals have you “cured?” What was your therapeutic methodology. Please provide evidence.
I am interested in evidence ... not empty rhetoric. There is no reference to a Regeneres Report on the net ... please cite your sources. The preponderance of scientific evidence does not support your specious claims.
For all your sentimental posturing and playing the victim ... it is quite apparent that you do not know anything about the pastoral care of Catholics with homosexual orientation. I sincerely hope you attend a Dignity USA meeting and discuss your homophobic theories. Your judgmental posturing lacks reason, evidence, relationality, love and mercy. I have read and reread Fides et Ratio and prayed ... conscience dictates that homophobia can not be God’s will.
The 12 Steps are a Church approved conversation with God guided by conscience ... a process of reconciliation with measurable metrics. Recovery communities also have defined metrics of success. 80% of our guests achieve sustainable faith - measured as one year of abstinence from drugs and alcohol. It’s LOVE that cures.
Joanp62 ... that is a “mystical” corner that you have painted yourself into ... beyond reason and evidence.
Stephen, I think it’s impossible to disagree at this point that homosexual orientation, when it exists from birth, is due to epigenetics. But perhaps where we differ is whether that means it constitutes something that God gave the person, vs a disorder. In all other conditions where a child is conceived normally, but the conditions in the uterine environment distort the child’s development, we consider that disease. This is true of Down’s Syndrome, spina bifida, the propensity to alcoholism (which is firmly established as being epigenetically created in the womb), and so much more. When endocrine-disrupting pollutants in the water induce male fish to feminization or female fish to masculinization, we rightly call it disordered and seek to end the pollution that is causing the epidemic.
Why, in this one case, do we decide to celebrate it instead?
Some articles establishing the epigenetic basis of homosexual orientation (helpful for those who still think it’s just a choice, and for those who still think it’s a perfectly natural, normal, and healthy variant (keep in mind that occasional same-sex sexual play in animals is not the same as birth-to-death same-sex orientation, which I believe is almost unheard of in animals without influence from human feeding or pollution)):
http://nymag.com/news/features/33520/ (Women with SSA tend to have a more male finger length ratio and vice versa. Hair whorls also reflect differences.)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=something-queer-about-that-face (People can identify who is gay based on that person’s face (out of context) alone, even when shown the face for just milliseconds and the person was not posing.) (Many epigenetically acquired diseases are reflected by facial changes, for example, Down’s Syndrome, Cushing’s disease, autism, Marfan syndrome, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, and many more.)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070521-sex-fish.html (Chemicals in the water (such as estrogen excreted en masse from birth control pills) can cause fish to feminize, and in many cases, change sex altogether - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070122-sex-change.html)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11452138 (female fish are masculinized in the presence of androgenic pollutants from kraft paper factories)
http://scitechdaily.com/homosexuality-might-develop-in-the-womb-due-to-epigenetic-changes/ (Homosexuality is not caused by a gene, but by epigenetic changes due to maternal hormonal balance in the womb)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_adrenal_hyperplasia (CAH can cause anything from simple homosexuality to having both full sets of genitalia along with entirely female internal reproductive organs. It’s caused by the mother’s body producing too many androgens - male sex hormones. PCOS can cause similar problems, as the cysts are often pumping out huge amounts of androgens during pregnancy. Read the treatment section, about how it is possible to prevent the effects, but some in the LBGT community are fighting it, b/c they know it would prevent homosexuality in many women.)
(can’t find the link now, but there is a chart showing that male homosexuality varies inversely with female. In countries where gays make up a higher % of the population, lesbians are significantly less prevalent, and vice versa. This makes great sense if environmental estrogens and androgens are causing the increase in birth-to-death SSA. Most places don’t have both an estrogen *and* androgen pollution problem; they have one or the other.)
http://www.westonaprice.org/basics/principles-of-healthy-diets (important documentation of how modern diet has created the epigenetic disease epidemics we see in modern human beings)
I cannot imagine the difficulty of living with a homosexual orientation in this world, which seems to be composed of the two camps of “You’re disgusting and worthless!” and “Celebrate and indulge in what your instincts are telling you to do!” I do not have this particular cross, but I do have the cross of being epigenetically programmed to abuse alcohol, binge eat, and engage in severe mood swings. I do everything I can to avoid triggering those strong urges (I am powerless to them when they are fully engaged, and have found that proper nutrition and heavy supplementation can keep the urges from being triggered most of the time), but they do get triggered now and then (it took years to discover the triggers, and they are triggers which do not bother epigenetically normal people), and I do live in a world which overwhelmingly considers all of these to be character flaws, not medical problems. I know the pain of having a condition shrouded unjustly in shame, not having support in trying to stand against the temptations (b/c the only support modern wisdom offers is “More will power!”), and lying in a pool of regret whenever I fall prey to engaging in the behaviors my disordered body pushes me to. The one aspect of this kind of cross which I do not share with those with same-sex attraction is that the world is not telling me to celebrate my temptations and indulge in them freely (with the exception of the notably loud voice saying “moderation! Don’t abstain from anything!”).
So please know that my voice is not one of condemnation, but one who knows the pain of hiding part of oneself, having no support, and being betrayed by one’s own body (although I recognize that you will disagree that the last trait applies to same-sex attraction).
I think it is beautiful that the Catholic faith is the one faith that, before the information about the causes of SSA was discovered, said, “NEVER mistreat those with these conditions, even while standing alongside them to help them resist the temptations they face.” I find that position to be most consistent with the scientific evidence we have now found, far more consistent than either the “Hate the gays” or the “Celebrate homosexuality” positions. Fortunately for me, it’s the same position I benefit from as a sufferer of disordered temptations to other forms of sinful behavior. Fortunately as well, my Catholic faith informs me that I am not any “better” than those whose temptations are toward SSA instead of binge eating or binge drinking, nor am I any “worse” than those who do not suffer disordered physical temptations at all. I am loved by God wholly, accepted wholly by His Church, and the Church’s positions that succumbing to my disordered temptations is still sinful has helped to save my life, not crush it.
It seems clear to me that this discussion has reached an impasse. The basic problem here is that two sides of the argument are rooted in different premises. Mr. DeVol and a few others basically are choosing to accept the teachings of the modern Academy with its relative truths over the teachings of the Church. Unless Mr. DeVol can accept the following, there literally is no point in continuing the discussion.
—
1. Human nature is fallen. Many good human impulses have disordered by the existence of sin in the world and we all must carefully check our impulses against the revealed Truths that have been given to us by God through Tradition and the Bible.
—
2. Any interpretation of the Bible must start with Tradition. If a particular interpretation clearly contradicts Tradition, then it is clearly wrong.
—
3. The teaching authority of the Church belongs to the bishops of the church and those to whom they see fit to delegate that authority. That being said, even bishops can be wrong and sometimes are. Therefore, all such teachings can and should be held up to the light of scripture and Tradition.
—
—
Science examines the nature of a fallen world with the meta-physical assumption that there is no deeper reality than what we can see. It is therefore essentially incapable of recognizing that fall. Morality begins and ends with the concepts of consent and harm and it cannot recognize that some actions can be right and wrong in and of themselves.
Living systems are by definition chemical data-processing systems that self-perpetuate (those that do not self-perpetuate, cease to exist).
Processes that are “adaptive” are those whose output does not inhibit self-perpetuation; such as territoriality; reproduction; competition; self-amelioration; inter-education; and affiliation into groups.
Accordingly, same-sex attraction is a malfunction.
Stephen, I guess I forgot the important part regarding the story of my friend—he’s also a staff member at a local parish. He has no interest (as far as I know) in changing his sexual orientation, believing, as I do, that that is an established reality in his life. The fact that there are happy, celibate gay men and women out there, though, ought to give you some pause about the ideological nature of your arguments.
Stephen DeVol writes, several times, “Celibacy is a gift from God … not a matter of self-will for most people.”
.
The question then is: why would God give this gift to 2 year-olds, clearly they are not married and appear to be unselfconsciously chaste, and then revoke this gift when they are 16? Is God really so capricious in the “gay” mind?
And I already gave a lengthy answer as to how it is sin.
Stephen, so far you have given me no proof of your claims. Show me in what documents, catechisms from the past 20 centuries where the Church taught that indulgences must be sold and that the sun orbits the earth and is a matter of faith that all the faithful must assent to.
As to the Crusades and the Inquisition, these were events, not teachings, and where not wrong. Both were started for the best intentions- to protect those Christian lands that had been taken over by Muslims, and to protect the faithful from heresy. You need to do a little more reading on these subjects, especially the Inquisition and the part that the governments played as well.
You also posted: ” It’s here in the trenches where the rubber meets the road.
When I hear theological constructs that bear no relationship with reality ... it begs the questions ... yeh? ... how’s that working for you?”
Let me ask you since you are “in the trenches”. Why do so many have no intention of living chaste lives? Have they really spent time talking to God, praying, and asking Him to show them the Truth? Have they really tried to live the gospel which includes following Jesus who said, “If anyone should follow me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily.” Why is it that LGBT consider themselves exempt from this command? From my experience, I see alot of pride and immaturity with some envy thrown in.
You have no idea about our own personal lives,just because we are not LGBT, and how we have made sacrifices and have learned to live joyfully the commands of God. LGBT, alcoholics and drug addicts, do not have a monopoly on suffering.
Steven Devol the Bible is the Word of God the creator of mankind. In that Bible He states to Moses His teaching on homosexual relations. None of that is “sentimentality”. Glad you admit that the real problem for most homosexuals is not that they can not be helped but that they don’t want help. We are well aware of the lobbying efforts and power plays that removed homosexuality from the list of psychiatric disorders and which is trying to remove transexual disorders as well. And that there are many psychiatrists who disagree with the move. We are aware that sexual orientation is being alteres all the time by grooming and rape. Many children born heterisexual have been groomed into homosexuality. So it is a lie that they cannot be helped. We are aware groups think there is no hope for healing and that it is a lie. We are aware that spinning is an art and emotional arguments are the bread and butter of the lobby and that you will fight any effort to overcome homosexual orientation. We are aware that forty percent of homosexuala are victims of rape. The developmental delay aspect of homosexuality is still there. Also the Regeneres report confirms the harm to children. Further we know that we are all given a cross and we are free to reject carrying it and to reject God. Discrimination is already illegal but you will never own men’s souls. There will always be believers who see the harm to children and society and family that you do. Non other group that has a disorder denies it. You reject the intimacy your body was created for with women and say you have no problem. That alone is a sign of a problem. It isn’t an attack on you to recognise that. I am sorry you are unrepentant and have so little faith in God.
Thanks Andy for sharing your indirect understanding of the problem. But the experience of one celibate gay man is hardly evidence at the level of pastoral care. Most LGB persons have no desire to change their
sexual orientation. Those who do are usually reacting to negative societal attitudes toward homosexuality.
Pam ... you do not know what you are talking about ... the damage this attitude has done to real Catholics with homosexual orientation. Most people do not wish to be celibate ... certainly not coerced ... to live life without hope for intimate relationship with another in the context of marriage. As for its sinful nature ... you have yet to demonstrate that this is truth ... comfortable with your magical thinking and sentimentality. As for your parental anxiety ... do you think the problem could be that you are self-centered? What is interesting is that for all such cruel judgmental commentary from people who know nothing of the experience ... organizations like Dignity USA are still with us. They see themselves as Catholic. You should attend.
There is substantial evidence to the contrary.
Celibacy is a gift from God … not a matter of self-will for most people. I too have many religious friends who are celibate ... and a few are gay. They will all confirm that this state in life was not natural and was experienced as an exchange of gifts with God ... not something that they could self-will. In fact, history demonstrates that many religious will not be granted the gift. It is truth to say that the vast majority of people are not called by God to celibacy. One size fits all condemnation grounded in sentimentality and junk science is dehumanizing and not just.
The vast majority of modern medical and scientific experts agree that:
•Homosexuality is not a disorder. It is a normal variation of human sexuality. The normalcy of homosexuality has been generally accepted by the greater scientific community for over 30 years - the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973
•Sexual orientation cannot be changed. An attempt to do so may be harmful, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates. American Psychological Association
• Research has shown that the available data do not support negative stereotypes about same-sex parents. For example, children raised by gay or lesbian parents are not more likely to be gay or lesbian themselves and not more likely to experience problems in development or in relationships with friends/peers compared to those with heterosexual parents. There are many national organizations that support same-sex parenting, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Bar Association, and the American Psychological Association.
Difference does not equal deviance.
LGB persons want the same rights as heterosexual Americans, including the right to live and work in an atmosphere free of discrimination, the right to be protected from violence and harassment, and the right to form life-long, committed partnerships.
Would you like me to present a library of credible scientific studies?
You are constructing arguments based upon sentimentality to fit your worldview. Jesus drew a line in the sand with such arguments. There is no reason or evidence or love or mercy in your arguments. This can not be truth.
Does being “different” sound like a positive or a negative experience to you? For LGB (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual) persons, daily living can be a frustrating and painful experience in our society. Because they are different in their sexual orientation, LGB persons have been oppressed. They suffer social, religious, economic, political and legal discrimination. Much of this discrimination is based on the myths people believe about those who do not identify as heterosexual. For LGB persons to be treated equally in our society, we need to dispel these myths. What is most needed is the elimination of the irrational fear and hatred some people have for intimate, same-sex relationships. This irrational fear and hatred is called homophobia.
A generally accepted statistic is that approximately one in 10 persons is gay or lesbian. Gay men, lesbian women, and bisexuals are found in all walks of life and in all professions. For example, consider the following professional associations: the National Lawyers Guild Gay Caucus, the Association of Gay Psychologists, the Gay Nurses Association, the Association of Gay Seminarians and Clergy, the Gay Airline Pilots Association, and the Gay Prize Fighters of America Association, to name but a few.
CC 1849: Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods (to include ideologies as Pope Francis made clear in recent public pronouncements). It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.
Explain in non-normative terms how homosexual relationship in the context of committed marriage harms the individual, others, society or separates one from right relationship with God. Please be specific and provide evidence (please site your sources ... junk science is not acceptable).
Stephen, I’m late to the conversation here, but something you said just a few posts ago caught my attention: that, “none of you actually operate at a level of practical pastoral care to Catholics with homosexual orientation.” A very good friend of mine is a celibate gay man who loves Jesus and is probably the happiest person I know. He’s unreservedly in line with Church teaching, opposes gay marriage, and says it’s obvious that two penises don’t go together nor two vaginas (complete with finger gestures). I can’t imagine how hard it must be to struggle with gay temptations, knowing that this is a desire you can’t explore or express and still stay in God’s will. But I do know that we do no one any favors by saying that gay sex and gay relationships are a legitimate alternative to God’s will.
Stephen, Practical pastoral care to people with same sex attraction depends on the persons openness to the radical faith Christ asked of His followers. When someone fights the truth as vigorously as you do, they aren’t really seeking healing, are they?
Stephen Devol: It is obvious when faced with the Truth of God’s Word, you want none of it. I quote His principles and unable to respond you bring up a non-issue of personalities? Who brought up any personalities? And citing God’s Word is hardly sentimentality. Sadly the tyranny of the minority is what the homosexual agenda is in our lives today. Jesus drew the line in the sand at stoning the sinner to death, not at recognizing the sin. Like the loving Father in His mercy, He wants us to have time to REPENT - which you seem unable or unwilling to do at this time and which is in fact a grace you must be willing to seek. Jesus actually affirmed that HE was NOT setting aside even the smallest part of the law. So you ask how does homosexual relations in the context of a committed relationship is sin? 1. Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as with a female. Such a thing is an abomination.” That fits in with an offense against truth and a failure in genuine love for God. He has given an explicit command, reiterated by the Apostles and against the truth of the biology of your body’s penis being made to join with a female vagina it is probably an offense against reason as well. The physical urge has dominated over your love of God’s command and the flesh is dominating the Spirit. 2. No one starts out in a committed relationship. Other males are approached and led to unnatural acts or offended to be thought of as willing to commit unnatural acts or at all interested in them. To find the person one has a committed relationship with there are often MANY other people with whom one has sought a relationship but failed. So concerns of sanctity and virtue and safety of those who are vulnerable to emotional turmoil and concerns of grooming and predatory behavior lead us down a path away from the narrow road. The “seeking a partner” phase offends against reason - how does one know another’s sexual orientation unless they tell you? Everything is not as it seems and many who “appear” homosexual are not at all. It is also an offense against truth and right conscience because one is seeking to lead another to a lifestyle specifically prohibited by God. This seeking phase wounds the nature of man and his solidarity, pitting woman against man and creating men who do not love women as they ought and women who do not love men as they ought. It creates tension in parents to protect their children from grooming and unwanted sexual attention. It wounds the nature of man by saying the clear biological makeup of a man is irrelevant, despite God’s intent for man to join with a woman. It wounds the nature of man by putting his desires above God’s plan. It wounds the nature of man by exposing him to health crises. 3. Pairs that chose to raise children need a third party to make this a reality if they don’t adopt. This wounds the nature of man by depriving children of a mother and a father and it wounds the nature of man by being an act of adultery. It is a failure in the genuine love of God because man has put his own desires before God’s commands. It injures human solidarity because it attacks the family unit of husband and wife and children. It polarizes people because of the possible, if not, real threat to the emotional and spiritual well-being to the children involved. 4. It is on it’s face an act contrary to the eternal law. Leviticus, Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude and St. Paul.5. It is an act against right conscience because it encourages disordered sexual behavior. Two penises were not created to unite. Two vaginas were not created to unite. A penis and a vagina are created to unite. The anus was not created for intercourse but for bowel movements. The vagina was not created to be stimulated by mechanical things but by a penis. Body parts are being abused to satisfy sexual desires that were meant to be satisfied by the parts of the opposite sex. 6. The aids epidemic should have stood out as a warning that God does not approve of this sexual behavior. “By their fruits you shall know them.” The fruit of men having sexual relations with men was aids and hiv. This is a warning that God is offended and the actions are contrary to eternal law. 7. Religions that preach the Truth of God’s Word have been under attack by those who do not want to hear God forbids sodomy among His followers and children’s faith in God is being intentionally undermined in the media and by proponents of same sex marriage because His teaching does not condone the behavior. 8. When a man sins, all men are affected. Our actions affect others. Whether two consenting adults desire to ignore God’s truth and live together, their actions have a ripple affect. Sin has consequences and God, being just, will visit those consequences on us. Their cohabitation is scandalous to some and tragic to others and harms social order. If their concern is monetary, as you state, they will affect taxes and civil rights and religious freedom and health and safety as we are already seeing. The nation is already divided by these issues. For these and many more reasons the relationship is sinful.
And what is truly amazing to me is that apparently none of you actually operate at a level of practical pastoral care to Catholics with homosexual orientation. It’s here in the trenches where the rubber meets the road.
When I hear theological constructs that bear no relationship with reality ... it begs the questions ... yeh? ... how’s that working for you?
Pam ... principles ... not personalities ... please.
You and Chris are constructing arguments based upon sentimentality to fit your worldview. Jesus drew a line in the sand with such arguments. As it should be ... otherwise we end up with a tyranny of the minority.
AND Chris ... thanks for being honest! ... sentimentality is the body of argument in this thread. There is no reason or evidence or love or mercy.
CC 1849: Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods (to include ideologies as Pope Francis made clear in recent public pronouncements). It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.
Explain in non-normative terms how homosexual relationship in the context of committed marriage harms the individual, others, society or separates one from right relationship with God. Please be specific and provide evidence (Stephanie ... please site your sources ... junk science is not acceptable).
Joanp62 ... sorry Joan ... no sale ... teachings have changed ... hairsplitting is a “mystical” corner you have painted yourself into ... placing your beliefs beyond reason and evidence.
JBM: You choose to ignore a history leading to a doctrines of papal infallibility. Recent documents have not been received in their entirety by most faithful Catholics. And none of these documents have been declared infallible.
Many of us wish to see collegial development that was promulgated in Vatican II. Pope Francis is offering some hope.
Belief in God makes us bearers of values that often do not coincide with the fashion and opinion of the moment, and calls on us to adopt standards and behaviors that do not belong to the common way of thinking. The Christian should not be afraid to swim against the tide to live his own faith, resisting the tendency to conform ~ Pope Francis
As to your “relativist” labeling and shaming ... which is usually the preserve of people who are intellectually incoherent ... the development of doctrine is based on a better understanding of Scripture (particularly the love that is Jesus Christ) and Tradition based on reason and evidence. Since I see no reason or evidence in your disputations ... simply appeals to authority to maintain the status quo ... I will wait for you to send me your book on marriage before making a reasoned response to reasoned arguments and evidence ... to which I remain open.
Your subjective judgment of Catholics who question Church teaching is denigrating and a gag order for the laity is not consistent with the Catechism of the Catholic Church ... until I have a chance to read your book ... all I can say is that I prefer Pope Francis to your teaching ... “Who am I to judge.”
Mr. Devol
The comment stream chronicles that you have spent several days, multiple posts and 1000’s of words seeking to justify the acceptance of homosexual sexual acts and “gay marriage.” Sadly, I suspect your activity here is only a small part of your efforts on this issue.
The Church definitively condemns homosexual sexual activity as sinful and rejects the notion of “gay marriage.”
Either the Church is wrong about this or you are.
If you are wrong, the consequences for your willful opposition and desire to lead others to opposition are quite severe. You can not claim ignorance, for you obviously have some intellect, some training in argument and have thought deeply about this topic. You’ve simply chosen to seek to redefine a sexual sin to fit your own feelings/logic, which directly contradict the Church’s definitive teaching.
For your sake, and the sake of those who might be swayed by your arguments, repent.
May Christ have mercy on your soul.
Jerry, it is not normal to Catholics for a man to want to sleep with another man. Thus is a Catholic blog. Many gay men suffer serious health consequences such as lowered immune systems and incontinence and many die below the average age for men. I am sorry you think you were born this way. You have more likely been groomed this way. Your body was made to mate with a female hence the term disordered.
[Posted by Joanp62 on Sunday, Aug 11, 2013 4:50 PM (EDT):
Chris, our faith/religion is not built on sentimentality. Love is more than an emotion or feelings. It is action and an act of the will. You diminish God’s love and His plan for Salvation to a mere sentiment.]
.......................
by sentimentality i mean the love of a mother who would rather starve than allow our children to go hungry.
i mean the love of the Lord Jesus who forbade James and John Zebedee from calling down fire and brimstone on the hostile Samaritan town.
Mark Shea, I love it when you spit back what your religion teaches about sexual orientation, homosexuality in particular, calling it “disordered.” You state that you suffer from a disorder by wanting to pig down anything you can when you eat. Now that’s hilarious. You being an oinker is comparable to being born gay rather than straight. Really? Slobbering down tons of food and then wallowing on a sofa can be detrimental to one’s health and well-being (but, so what if it is?). Being gay is not the least bit detrimental to one’s health and well-being. I’m gay, quite healthy, doing well. Virtually all gays I know are likewise. You really need to stop using specious arguments to prove that your religion is “right.” Put that Twinkie down (now that they’re back), Mark, and stop being “disordered.” Deciding to shove food into your mouth is a choice, Mark. Being gay or straight is not. And both gay and straight are normal. Being a slobby cow, as you admitted is true in your case, is not.
JBM, yours is probably the most reasoned comment so far. Thank you.
Stephen, apparently you have painted yourself into a corner since you cannot come up with actual teaching/doctrine that has changed. I addressed the examples you gave and explained how the situations you described were not matters of Church teaching on faith and morals. No matter how hard you try, you cannot make those about Church teaching, because they were not. Give examples of changed Church teaching or stay in your corner.
Chris, our faith/religion is not built on sentimentality. Love is more than an emotion or feelings. It is action and an act of the will. You diminish God’s love and His plan for Salvation to a mere sentiment. If I am misunderstanding you, I apologize.
Stephen Devol, It is offputting that my computer keeps changing your last name to “Devil”. Hmmmmmm. I notice you did not respond to Deuteronomy and God’s characterization of sodomy as ” a hateful thing.” Actually when i went to confirm this i found it is on Leviticus 18:22. “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing us an abomination.”. (“A hateful thing” in another Bible translation). In verse 24 God says other nations have defiled themselves by doing these things. Now before this verse God, speaking to Moses lists many prohibition but this one He adds the explanation that it is a hateful thing or an abomination. In other words HIS followers must NOT! Now God is the same yesterday, today and forever. So this has not changed and cannot change. Further in Jude’s epistle and Peter’s 2nd epistle Sodom and the practice of unnatural vice are condemned. Now we know the word sodomy come from that place of Sodom. You are under attack by an evil spirit or false teaching Steven or you are attacking with them, believing falsehood and trying to justify sinfulness. Every mention of marriage by God is a reference to male -female relationships and it is perverse that you would try to make the covenant between brothers of David and Saul’s son into something sexual!!!! This is the brokenness of a homosexual to see perversion where true friendship and love are. Further your understanding of love of neighbor is wanting. Love of neighbor does not destroy the beauty of friendship and replace it with carnal lust for members of the same sex. Love runs from temptations God has called hateful and helps others run from them as well. It does not leave the broken in a sinful state. It calls upon the sacraments and God’s grace and practices virtue to replace temptation with thoughts of God. Also in true love GOD asked the Hebrews not to pity those He was destroying to give them the Promised Land, nor to intermarry with them because they would be lead astray. Love doesn’t always look pretty. Love is not the sentimental blindness you propose. It is a disciplined, difficult dying to the world and the flesh so that one draws oneself and others closer to God and HOLINESS.
Stephen-It seems you’re very emotionally attached to this issue and seems unlikely, at this time in your life, your mind will change on this matter. I also notice that you are copy and pasting some writings that you clearly hold dear from certain professors. What I also notice, however, is the complete lack of citation in these writings. They do bold historical analysis and Church analysis without any supporting Church documents or even secular publication citations. Such writing leads to revisionist history that suits one’s particular needs. As I mentioned in my one other post, you are reading the authors/professors you want and ignoring the authors/professors who actually address the answers you seek. This is intellectual laziness and the fact you’re on the thread is a subconscious way for you to validate your subjective thinking by testing the waters. Everything that has been spoken about in this thread has been addressed by a Pontifical University theologian at some point over the last 100 years. Regardless of your stance on this gay marriage issue, the reality is papal infallibility as defined at Vatican I and re-affirmed at Vatican II extends to papal encyclicals when the popes are speaking on matters of faith and morality. These documents are open to the public at the very well organized Vatican website(and even wikipedia). How can you in good conscience call yourself Catholic when you go directly against defined, infallible Church doctrine? You’ve made the personal decision to adhere to a subjective, relativistic morality dictated by your personal conscience…Catholics adhere to the conscience of the Church and the objective morality it derives from the guidance of the Holy Spirit which has clearly guided the Church for centuries to be opposed to gay marriage to the extent that it is defined doctrine. If you can’t get on board with this, no problem, but don’t identify as Catholic and confuse those you come across in the mean time.
.
[Posted by Stephen DeVol - CITVN Executive Producer on Sunday, Aug 11, 2013 2:33 PM (EDT)
Actually this is kind of a trick topic. There is no mention of gay marriage in the Bible (except, possibly, the account of the ‘covenant’ of David and Jonathan)]
.........................
Dear Catholics and Christians, the statement above represent precisely where the Global gay agenda is going with its worldwide push for liberalizing homosexuality. The real aim is to destroy Christianity
(particularly Catholicism) as we know it.
Therefore they are striving to undermine the Sacred Scripture, one of the pillars of church doctrine. Can anyone think of a better way to do this than to speculate on the sexuality of David and Jonathan? And then speculate on the sexuality of Moses and Joshua, and then about Eli and Samuel, then Elijah and Elisha, then Jeremiah and Baruch, then the Lord Jesus and Apostle John, then Paul and Barnabas,then Anicetus and Polycarp, etc.
I am sorry to say it, but the blasphemies against the word of God just go on and on, so as to undermine the authority of Sacred Scripture and get all the watered-down doctrines, they desire, approved by the magisterium of the Church.
In short if they can get the Catholic Church to become as toothless as the Episcopal Church then they will have done well in the short term.
This gay lobby is not to be underrated. But they will fail because they have chosen to take on the Lord Jesus on what is an abomination in his presence.
Jim ... I am not going to indulge you in argumentum ad absurdum fallicies of composition. We are discussing the morality of civil union among people with homosexual orientation. Send me that book you wrote on polygamy ... I will be pleased to read, consider and comment upon in another post.
Joan: I have cited numerous examples of Church teaching that have changed throughout the centuries ... you simply don’t want to accept ... and have painted yourself into a corner where there is no room for reason and evidence.
There is a principle that is guaranteed to keep a man or woman in everlasting ignorance ... that principle is contempt prior to investigation. ~ Herbert Spencer
The development of doctrine is based on a better understanding of Scripture (particularly the love that is Jesus Christ) and Tradition based on reason and evidence.
Unless you have a new argument or new scientific evidence ... this discussion appears to have run it’s course.
So again, I wish you well ... may God’s peace be with you always!
Stephen
[Posted by Stephen DeVol - CITVN Executive Producer on Sunday, Aug 11, 2013 2:33 PM (EDT
And Chris ... you can manipulate scripture all you like to create the context you want. But your sentimentality is not an argument.]
…………………………….
This is a fundamental mistake. The religion of the God of Abraham,Isaac and Jacob is built precisely on sentimentality, it is not built on argument. That is why the first commandment is love the Lord your God (“with everything you have got”). If that law is not sentimentality, then what is sentimentality?
God’s promise to Abraham encompasses making his descendants numerous with multitude of nations blessing themselves by Abraham and his descendants. Is that promise sentimentality, or argument, or agreement signed with two public notaries as witnesses, considering that Abraham was a childless old man at the time it was made and repeated?
What is more sentimental than, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”.(John 3 v 16)
I’m pretty sure the topic is marriage “equality”.
So, what is your proposal (pun intended) for marriage “equality” for bisexuals?
Stephen, it is you who have been spouting nonsense and error. But, since you apparently have more time to post here than you claimed, perhaps you can give some examples of Church teaching that has changed. Actual teaching on the faith and morals, please.
And it is not love to leave someone in their sins, but to help them with God’s grace to overcome them to lead a happier life and to follow Christ.
Sorry Jim ... that argument is too confused and laden with your sentimentality ... let’s stay on topic and stick to the facts.
****Jim ... you really need to do some research on the history of polygamy. It is a separate issue ... that apparently you know little about. But I am not going to indulge your argument ad absurdum debate tactics designed to obscure the issue.****
Research? You mean, like the research I *have* done on the history of polygamy? It’s certainly *not* a “separate issue” for Catholics.
Nothin’ like “obscuring” the issue with a little clarity, right? :-)
Bisexual plural marriage is an area you won’t discuss because it’s a lose-lose for you—there is no way for you to continue attempting to “mirror” same-sex marriage with real marriage if you have to include something that’s not monogamous. But you really *can’t* grant “marriage equality” to *bisexuals* without crossing the line into something that is clearly *not* marriage, right?
Joanp62 ... that nonsense is being propagated by conservatives to justify hatred and discrimination. The Church has changed and will change ... what will remain is the love that is Jesus Christ.
Jim ... you really need to do some research on the history of polygamy. It is a separate issue ... that apparently you know little about. But I am not going to indulge your argument ad absurdum debate tactics designed to obscure the issue.
And Chris ... you can manipulate scripture all you like to create the context you want. But your sentimentality is not an argument.
Actually this is kind of a trick topic. There is no mention of gay marriage in the Bible (except, possibly, the account of the ‘covenant’ of David and Jonathan). But neither is there any mention of representative democracy, electricity, the Internet, or polyester clothing. For the vast majority of Christians and Jews (even those that believe in Biblical inerrancy), just because something isn’t mentioned in the Bible doesn’t necessarily mean that it is sinful or forbidden.
The Bible is a smorgasbord for those who need just one out-of-context quote to justify their personal views on marriage. Depending on which pinhole you look through, the Bible can be cited as both approving or forbidding polygamy, monogamy, divorce, and lifelong celibacy. So it is no wonder that there are quotes that can be manipulated in the same way to condemn gay marriage. For instance, the often quoted Genesis 2:23-4:
2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Now before you say, “Aha! so the Bible does forbid gay marriage!”, take another look, This passage does not say “‘Thou shalt not let two men or two women get married, and get the same tax breaks and hospital visitation rights as heterosexuals.” When a commandment or injunction occurs in the Bible it is stated explicitly, as throughout Leviticus.
This passage also has mystical overtones which literalists are apt to completely miss or ignore. It implies that Adam was at one time united with Eve in the same body, and the reason that people seek companionship is because they are searching for their missing half. (This is similar to Plato’s theory of the androgyne). Also, both in the Tanach and the NT, marriage is used as a metaphor for the union of the soul with God, which is obviously binary.
In the Tanach, marriage practises such as bigamy, polygamy, concubinage, arranged and levitrate marriages are described as normal, as in fact they were at the time. All of these types of marriage are today either illegal in most western countries or considered highly unusual, much more so than monogamous same sex unions.
In Genesis 16 Sarah, Abraham’s wife, encourages Abraham to impregnate her handmaid, Hagar, because she is barren (although Sarah miraculously later gives birth to Isaac). Later (Genesis 25) Abraham takes yet another wife, Keturah, who is also described as a concubine.
In Genesis 29 Jacob marries the sisters Rachel and Leah, who are the daughters of Laban, his maternal uncle. In the next chapter, Jacob has two sons by Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaid, two sons by Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid, then two sons by Leah, and finally Rachel bears Joseph.
Six wives of David are named in 2 Sam. 3:2.
Solomon is described as having seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. However, the Talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin) states that a king may have no more than eighteen wives.
Note that out of all of these arrangements, only marrying two sisters is explicitly forbidden in Leviticus 18; however it is permitted to marry a deceased wife’s sister.
So it is absolutely disingenuous to speak of ‘traditional marriage’ (as a codeword for heterosexual monogamy) as biblical. It is even more absurd when this concept is uttered by members of the clergy, who really should know better.
The New Testament
However, in at least one passage in the NT, marriage is defined as monogamous. In Mark 10:2-12), Jesus is quoted as saying:
10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
10:3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
10:4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
10:5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
10:10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
One reader commented that this passage proves that Jesus “hated [gays]”. but I’m not sure how he came away with that conclusion. If you take this at face value, it says that remarriage after divorce is equivalent to adultery. The passage 10:6-9 is just a restatement of the passage from Genesis, leading up to the conclusion ‘let no man put asunder’. In 10:10-12, Jesus explains the concept again, just in case we missed the point the first time around. As usual, the language attributed to Jesus is very specific and transparent.
Also of interest is 1 Timothy 4:1:
4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth
4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
This is a warning against the prohibition of marriage which has been mixed in with a condemnation of vegetarianism. This is probably a reference to some Gnostic group. Some Gnostics and early Christians were opposed to marriage in any form (including monogamous, heterosexual marriage). Marriage was considered a grave sin by some of the early Church fathers, and the only way into the kingdom of heaven to be the lifelong mortification of the flesh. This passage from the Epistles weighs in against this particular concept. On the other hand, some Gnostics and early Christians practiced group marriage, taking ‘holding all things in common’ to the extreme.
The sanctioned form of marriage in Judaism and Christianity has continued to evolve over the centuries. Policies on divorce have varied widely. There was a liturgy for same sex unions in one branch of the Eastern Orthodox church. During the Middle Ages and well into the renaissance, the vast majority of European marriages were ‘common-law,’ and had no religious sanction: church weddings were far too expensive for most people. Mormons originally practised polygamy, although they ceased that as a condition for Utah statehood. Today, same sex unions are consecrated in some liberal Jewish and Christian denominations.
In general, society has changed the definition of marriage widely, and religion has followed by sanctioning it.
Some interpret the passages above to imply condemnation of gay marriage, or to justify their prejudices against LGBT people. The reader is encouraged to look at the entire context, pray and make up their own mind.
22:37 ...Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
And in John 13:34, he is additionally quoted as saying:
13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
Peace,
Stephen
The development of doctrine is based on a better understanding of Scripture (particularly the love that is Jesus Christ) and Tradition based on reason and evidence.
And I agree with Pope Francis ... perhaps it is time for a Kairos moment for mercy.
“Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned. Three times I have been shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been adrift at sea; 26 on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brethren; 27 in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure.” ( 2 Corinthians 11 v 25-27)
.
Does the post-modern man want to tell these men of faith that it was not worth it?
The Sacred Scriptures have come down to us by the revelation of God to his servants, prophets and apostles at great cost to them. Is it for nothing then that these saints suffered to preserve God’s word, such that now the post-modern man prefers the research and wisdom of so-called wise men of science and pseudo-science to the clear road map of the testimony of the Holy Spirit?
.
“And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets— 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, received promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched raging fire, escaped the edge of the sword, won strength out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. 35 Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life. 36 Others suffered mocking and scourging, and even chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword; they went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, ill-treated— 38 of whom the world was not worthy — wandering over deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
39 And all these, though well attested by their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had foreseen something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.” (Hebrews 11 v 32-40)
Stephen, now you are calling it doctrinal development where before you were speaking of changing doctrine. No pope has spoken against the development of doctrine, however, development does not mean changing, it means better understanding and explanation of it.
The Church and society have always believed that marriage is between persons of the opposite sex. Over time, the Church has better explained or developed it’s doctrine on marriage and human sexuality, but it has not changed it.
Stephen—actually, it’s not that we are “not discussing polygamy”. It’s that you are *refusing* to discuss it because it perfectly undermines the credibility of the argument you seek to make regarding same-sex so-called “marriage.”
You are refusing to address the circumstance of the bisexual whose personal sexual fulfillment is denied by monogamous marriage.
So, take a stand on the issue, won’t you? Either you’re *for* the realization of the rights of bisexuals—and therefore are for plural marriage—or you are *not* for the realization of the rights of bisexuals. And if you’re not, you have to explain why you can be for same-sex “marriage” and against plural marriage.
Bill ... we are not discussing polygamy ... argumentium ad absurdio is a fallacy of composition. For a deeper understanding of that issue you will have to research the history of polygamy.
All logical constructions will be as straw if the love that is Jesus Christ can not be found contained therein. Arguments for “disordered” and coerced celibacy and complementarity and procreative intent lack love of neighbor and do not stand up under logical reasoning, scientific evidence or historical practices within the Catholic church.
Rose ... re: procreative intent ... Michelle and I can not have children ... I refuse to engage is such magical thinking ... insistence that we do so is simply cruel. Our marriage is happy and fruitful and valid.
Claims that there is no room for doctrinal development is a corner that recent popes have painted the church into ... a form of Hobbesian pride and prejudice. All marriage was a matter of consent until the Council of Trent abrogated conscience in 1563. Jesus said that that He will always be with us.
What a very fine article and wonderful posts on a critical topic in these times. I am very grateful for the insights of a number of you, particularly Stephanie, Neil, Palladio, Marylandbill and several others. You have shed light into darkness and maintained civility while doing so. There are divisions, largely by generation, in my large family, and these comments will be useful, I hope, in helping each one to find truth and unity. I find the youngest generation simply goes by emotion and an uncritical parroting of whatever they have heard or read on the subject of SSA and SSM. Having little real experience of history, theology, philosophy, or much of anything outside their peer group (whom, of course, they regard as possessing the wisdom of the ages_:-). ) they blindly defend their convictions without the examination and thought I hope they will find should they be willing to read this article and the comments. Thank you all and God be with you.
Chris Awo I wish the number was only one or two percent but now that children are openly sorted and groomed I am afraid the figure is much higher. Many, many souls have been misled.
The secular world has created a religion out of “Gayness”. It is no longer correctly viewed as an disordered inclination but as some strange good.
As always,leave judgment in the hands of God. He alone has all the answers.
enness, in 2011 many Catholics, especially those who are now in their 30’s, 40’s & 50’s, are not well catechized. In the Catholic wedding rite, we are asked to be open to the gift of children, we do not say we will have children ‘when we feel like it’ but we will accept them lovingly as a gift from God. Using artificial birth control closes that off and, even if practiced with mutual consent of husband and wife, contradicts the marriage vows. Who were the married couples who took part in the 1966 commission? If we knew their background we might be able to understand why they would promote that particular position.
Stephen wrote:
***You missed the point Deacon Jim ... I suggest you love others as you love yourself. All logical constructions will be as straw if the love that is Jesus Christ can not be found contained therein.***
Well, I try to love myself by doing God’s will. Which is why I asked about how we should handle bisexual “marriage”—and which is why I hoped you would address that beyond the manner in which you did.
Do you think marriage and same-sex “marriage” are both manifestations of God’s will? If so, why not plural marriage with bisexuals?
Now I really. do. have. to. go. No novella-length posts will be forthcoming from me as a last word. :)
Jerry: my religion does not say *you* are disordered or unequal. I know you will balk at hearing this, but please try to understand what the Catechism does and does not say and not take it so damn personally. Also—psychoanalyze me all you want. I have been stressed and could use a good laugh.
“In 1966 a Papal Commission of 72 experts from five continents, including bishops, clergy, physicians, and married couples, after three years of study advised Pope Paul VI that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves what methods to use. But the head of the commission, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, counseled the pope that a change in this teaching would jeopardize the church’s credibility. In 1968 the pope issued the encyclical Humanae Vitae which reiterated the church’s anti-birth-control position. Immediately the church’s credibility was in jeopardy.”
-
So does the Church lose credibility when it changes, or when it doesn’t change? Which is it?
-
” In 2011 eight out of ten Catholics are certain that artificial birth control is a blessing, not a sin.”
-
It’s not a popularity contest. Is that crystal clear?
Stephen DeVol: Your reading what you wish into the Pope’s comment is understandable, but certainly not taking anything at “face value.”
Please review Matt. ch. 19, Jesus (y’know, the second person of the Holy Trinity, incarnate) speaking. He was not afraid to take an uncommon stand on the value of women, children, and social outcasts, yet he reaffirmed man + woman. To say otherwise would not be a “development,” it would be a complete 180.
-
I have never experienced mutual romance, myself; a number of unrequiteds and a lot of unwanted attention. So, I live in non-voluntary celibacy. Do not consider yourself or your friends so unique. I have made a choice not to wallow in misery and self-pity—a course of action I highly recommend.
-
I am not surprised that the scientists should themselves be infected with the spirit of the age. I count it with such fads as phrenology, alchemy…color me unimpressed. Just watch how quickly the hammer falls on anyone who comes up with a different result and it explains a lot.
-
“C.S. Lewis concluding line is a powerful argument for the primacy of conscience. “All I have really said is that, like all other tribulations, it must be offered to God and His guidance how to use it must be sought.””
-
God doesn’t lie. You I’m not so sure about (final comment? Ha! ...People who are so desperately needed elsewhere don’t usually go on to write an essay like that. Honestly, I stopped counting after 15 paragraphs.)
-
” it has been exceedingly difficult ... if not impossible ... from a pastoral care standpoint ... to tell people their natural desire for intimate relationship is disordered.”
-
It wasn’t exactly a cakewalk to learn the violin to the point where I make a decent living on it…and that is nothing compared to pastoral work. What are you looking for, sympathy? Most things that are worth doing have *some* aspect of challenge.
Stephen Devol, since God is the same yesterday, today, and forever and HE says in Deuteronomy when giving the law to Moses that sodomy is a “hateful thing” and tells them they must not commit it, how can you twist that to say it is a gift?
@Stephen DeVol,
—
With respect, as I pointed out before, trying to measure sin by its direct impact on the world is foolish. We do not define sin, God does. I would point out that Saint Paul at least three times singles out those commit sodomy for condemnation. In addition, there are clear prohibitions on it in the Old Testament as well. Finally, and most importantly, the Church has clearly stated that sex outside the bounds of a proper marriage between a man and a woman is sinful.
—
Becoming our true self does not mean integrating all our parts. We must, with God’s grace, struggle against our sinful natures. We all have them. The essential problem with your position is that you are arguing for embracing a sinful way of life. Yes perhaps someone with same sex attraction will fall sometimes into sexual sin, just like many others have. The key is to confess the sin and try not to stumble again.
—
Final thought, I spent time in graduate school studying medieval religious studies. Always be careful about what they tell you. They have an agenda and interpret what they read through that agenda and that agenda is not necessarily very friendly to the Church.
Stephen, you don’t need to wait for the book- What is Marriage by Robert George et.al. Below is a link to the free download to the .pdf. It’s only about 43 pages.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155
[Posted by Palladio on Saturday, Aug 10, 2013 12:25 PM (EDT
.
I suspect Catholics could dial it back a bit on this one. 1-2 percent of the population has ssa. To exhaust ourselves in endless discussion of this micro-minority seems to me to playing into the hand of the militants in its cause, which is obsessed with getting attention—and is getting it.]
.
Palladio you are so right. The problem is a significant amount of this minority has sneaked into the Holy Catholic Church while men slept. And now they are in high positions and very difficult to dislodge. This minority is putting us all at risk as they look for every opportunity to corrupt the holy catholic priesthood and to liberalize church teachings on homosexuality. Believe me they are not to be underrated.
St. Michael the Archangel pray for us.
Well, I guess I’m a little late here and Stephen may not be back but:
The sale of indulgences was a practice, not a doctrine or dogma. The Galileo affair was about whether the sun orbited the earth, which was the scientific consensus of the time, or the earth orbited the sun. This was NOT a doctrinal teaching on faith from the Church. The problem arose when Galileo, a scientist, tried to imply what his findings would mean theologically, a subject that he had no expertise in.
The Inquisition was also an ongoing event to weed out false converts and heretics for the good of the faith and the monarchies at the time who were tied with the Church. Again not a doctrinal teaching, but an event.
The Crusades were called to defend Christian cities and towns that had or were going to be attacked by Muslims and to protect pilgrims travel to Holy Sites. Not a teaching, but a happening for lack of a better word.
You better come up with some better examples to support your belief that doctrine changes.
God is indeed good to Israel,
to those who have pure hearts.
2 But I had nearly lost confidence;
my faith was almost gone
3 because I was jealous of the proud
when I saw that things go well for the wicked.
................................
Is it for nothing, then, that I have kept myself pure
and have not committed sin?
14 O God, you have made me suffer all day long;
every morning you have punished me.
..............................
I tried to think this problem through,
but it was too difficult for me
17 until I went into your Temple.
Then I understood what will happen to the wicked.
.............................
When my thoughts were bitter
and my feelings were hurt,
22 I was as stupid as an animal;
I did not understand you.
23 Yet I always stay close to you,
and you hold me by the hand.
24 You guide me with your instruction
and at the end you will receive me with honor
...................................
What else do I have in heaven but you?
Since I have you, what else could I want on earth?
26 My mind and my body may grow weak,
but God is my strength;
He is all I ever need.
.................................
But as for me, how wonderful to be near God,
to find protection with the Sovereign Lord
and to proclaim all that he has done!
(cf Psalm 73)
St. Michael the Archangel, Protector of the Church of Jesus Christ, defend us in battle.
You missed the point Deacon Jim ... I suggest you love others as you love yourself. All logical constructions will be as straw if the love that is Jesus Christ can not be found contained therein.
With that, I must disconnect.
Again, thank you for making time to talk with me.
May God’s peace be with you always!
Stephen
Soft- not a good apologetic - CS Lewis is not a saint as such take with a grain of salt.
I suspect Catholics could dial it back a bit on this one. 1-2 percent of the population has ssa. To exhaust ourselves in endless discussion of this micro-minority seems to me to playing into the hand of the militants in its cause, which is obsessed with getting attention—and is getting it. The issue is how politically adept that cause has been in changing laws and public opinion. Catholics have the teaching: it is reasonable, easy to understand, Catholic, natural, old as the hills, and true. Now go act on the teaching to change laws and minds.
I pity those Catholics and Christians who believe in their intellectual somersaults and so called scientific studies that prove nothing, at least nothing important.
Really who is the person that thinks that at the end of his life when Satan and his demons come with their final onslaught, that quotations from research by professors from Harvard and Yale will be of any use?
Really who is the person that thinks that at the end of his life when his guardian angels and other angels come to his aid, theories about the origin of temptations and sin will be of help?
Bottom line - any christian moral action or thought or word must either have been declared a doctrine of faith by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and/or must have precedents in Sacred Scriptures.
Any thing less and a man will be playing games with his eternity. He may so play but that is his choice.
If any Christian says homosexual acts are not sinful let him give us the explicit precedents from the Sacred Scriptures or move away and find another constituency.
Stephen—as best as I can glean from your brief (compared to all else there is in your last comment) address of my question about bisexuals, you seem to think it amounts to an argument from absurdity and claim that no one is arguing for polygamy.
So, here’s the observation, then: Instead of addressing and accommodating the fundamental sexual identity of bisexuals, you would have them treated *not* as bisexuals but as *monosexuals* (to coin a term)in the debate over marriage. You would in effect force them into a marriage framework that does not comport with their sexual identity.
Isn’t doing a denial of their fundamental *right* to experience marriage in accord with their sexual identity? Isn’t doing so the equivalent of doing what you claim heterosexual marriage does to homosexual persons?
And shouldn’t you keep in mind something that many people have yet to grapple with: the fact that the “meaning of marriage” has *always* been under assault—not regarding gender but regarding *number*?
Polygamy worldwide is alive and well, and always has been.
In fact, there is only *one* monotheistic religion—Christianity—that considers *monogamy* to be a matter of Divine Law.
So, why not bisexual plural marriage? If you argue *against* bisexual plural marriage, *I* should be able to argue against same-sex marriage using the same basic arguments…
Hi Deacon Jim ...
I really do not have more time ... others need me. Out of respect for you I will answer your question as best as I can. But please ... there are many others who can articulate responsible dissent on the issue much better than I.
Nobody in this thread is arguing for polygamy ... a social construct that was O.K. for Abraham. Personally, I view argumentum ad absurdio reductionist arguments as simply a means to deflect attention from what is at the heart of the issue: what constitutes a marriage?
I am becoming involved in contemporary gay struggles – both for reasons of ongoing personal integration as well as the cause of social justice and the rights of suffering minorities. The interior pain and societal rejection experienced by gay persons speaks to the contemplative heart since we deeply believed that the suffering required for sanctity in a secular age must originate with the pain of the world. We may counsel creative disobedience at the level of pastoral care. When custom and law systematically conceal rights and truth, then the Holy Spirit inspires men to carry out actions that violate custom and law in order to bear witness to truth.
Michelle is 51 years old, schizophrenic and had a hysterectomy. Hence, we have no children ... which in God’s infinite wisdom is a good thing given Michelle’s capabilities. We do not have procreative intent as some Deacon suggested we must ... for such magical thinking is cruel.
What makes our union sacred is the love and respect that we have for one another. Our union has been fruitful. Over 100 hundred men and women like us have discovered sustainable faith - measured as one year of abstinence from drugs and alcohol - in our Catholic Worker home. We raise alcoholics and drug addicts ... who through the grace of God have died to self and have been born into a new life. Miracles are happening here. For it is love that cures.
The rationalization of heterosexual procreative intent coupled with “complimentarity” is a twentieth century exclusionary “natural law” logical invention that does not conform to the reality of many people.
The heart of Jesus gospel is about loving relationship. Catholic marriage laws are really quite beautiful ... for they speak of self-sacrifice for the sake of the other ... our purpose in being ... to learn how to love. Therein lies the truth in the law.
It is sad that many of the same people who accuse gay culture of being promiscuous also oppose an institution that would enable gay people to enter into committed, stable unions sanctioned by society.
Encouraging gay couples to enter into committed and stable unions will benefit society. It is ironic that the supposed “protection of marriage” seems to focus more on the prevention of new loving unions rather than the nurturing of existing unions.
Some claim that same-sex marriage cannot achieve the same level of complementarity that exists between a man and a woman. This ignores studies that have found same-sex and heterosexual couples to be equivalent to each other on measures of relationship satisfaction and commitment.
Some claim that same-sex marriage will threaten the very fabric of society by changing the notion of what constitutes a family. However, they fail to explain exactly how the inclusion of same-sex marriages will negatively impact society at all. In this day and age there are already many non-traditional families which are nonetheless stable and healthy.
Some claim that same-sex marriage will undermine marriage between a man and a woman. This certainly does not afford gay people the dignity they deserve, and implies that they are second class citizens whose unions are somehow inferior to those of their straight brothers and sisters.
Some claim that same-sex marriages will pose a threat to children who are placed in the care of a gay couple. Many gay people have conceived children. And, it is important to realize that adoption and same-sex marriage are two entirely different issues. With adoption, the primary concern is always determining what is in the best interests of the child. A child should never be placed in the care of any couple (gay or straight) because the couple “deserves it”. Overall, the research indicates that the children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from the children of heterosexual parents in their development, adjustment, or overall well-being
Gay persons’ spiritual journeys are unique, different from those oriented toward the opposite sex. Both the crosses borne and the gifts received and given into the world are different, valuable and necessary for the on-going evolution of humanity. Same-sex oriented souls are unique images of the ever-creating God. Whether by nature or nurture or a combination of the two, a minority of persons have always been created in this way – including some of the world’s greatest leaders and artists. This does not mean, of course, that one’s sexual orientation defines one’s interiority. It is, however, surely one of the most significant determinants of human identity. One cannot enter paths of spiritual growth only by dealing with one’s own sexuality.
It is essential to make clear one often undifferentiated point. Sexuality is not simply genitality. Sexuality is about intimate relationality. It shapes the way every person exists in relationship to the rest of reality. As such, one’s sexual orientation is a significant qualifier of both the kind of inner life and relational life which a person develops. Sexuality is about one’s identity, not one’s lifestyle.
Soul is who one is in the very core of one’s being. The human soul is one’s unique, personal identity. It is the inner reality which joins spirit and body into an integrating embodied spirit. Soul is not a ‘thing’ one ‘has’ – or ’saves.’ One ’saves his/her soul by discovering that the soul is what one is. And who one is a unique image and likeness of God. Spiritual journeys spiral both upwards and downwards into soul and the principal metaphor for spirituality is The Journey.
The real journey in everyone’s life is interior. On that journey same-sex oriented persons need to learn to stop looking primarily outside the self to find one’s identity and truth. No longer should one look principally to others – either heterosexuals or homosexuals – to define one’s identity and to prescribe how one should act. Being and identity are discovered on the journey into one’s interiority.
Thomas Merton taught that “if you really want to know what the Will of God is for you, then simply honestly listen to the deepest yearnings of your own heart, and believe that expresses the Voice of God for you.” Merton wrote that the transformation of human consciousness which “will seek to transform and liberate the truth in each person, with the idea that it will then communicate itself to others.”
The transformation of both persons and society was dear to Thomas Merton’s heart. As a contemplative social critic, his words about discrimination toward Afro-Americans might be used appropriately to decry the rampant contemporary discrimination against gay persons by both society and church. Merton complained that one of the grave problems of religion was “the almost total lack of protest on the part of religious people and clergy, in the face of enormous social evils.” He judged the mentality of the clergy to be “not in touch with reality.” They dealt only with “abstract dilemmas.” He called upon the conscience of the Catholic layman to play a positive and decisive part in moving persons to see and remedy the great social disease of racial discrimination.
Is not the same true today? With regard to gay discrimination in our time, many in ministry seldom grasp the gay situation from within the reality of that experience – - possibly because too many mature and responsible gay persons remain closeted regarding their sexual orientation and perhaps some of these are clergy themselves. Too often, at best, both those in ministry and others try to deal with injustices toward gay persons from partial and inadequate understandings of human nature. This is what is meant by the dominance of heterosexism which does not include and accept same-sex orientation as one of the equal but different ways humans are being created. Stereotypes of gay persons – like stereotypes of “Negroes” in Merton’s times – do not help the gay and straight quest for the True Self.
Why, in this particular crisis is there so much hatred and so dreadful a need for explosive violence? ... as long as white society persists in clinging to its present condition and to its own image of itself as the only acceptable reality, then the problem will remain without reasonable solution.
Honest, non-prejudical dialogue is essential. To achieve this, non-violent protests by gays and heterosexual people in the pews may be required in order to accomplish what Afro-Americans’ “acting up” did in the 1960’s: awaken the conscience of the white man to the awful reality of his injustice and of his sin, rooted in the heart of the white man himself.
A Catholic approach to gay relations would assume that people are essentially equal in dignity and are “correlative,” mutually complementing one another. This would be true for gay and straight people were it not for the sin of homophobic injustice which prevents this complementarity from being appreciated and realized in a society in which heterosexuality alone is considered to be the acceptable sexual orientation and norm.
Today some people are slowly learning to tolerate and even accept same-sex oriented persons as equal human beings. But few seem aware of the gift which those who are same-sex oriented offer to everyone, namely, a gift of a larger imagination about human identity and human relationships.
All spirituality is a search to become a full a human being as possible. Merton wrote: “To be holy is a question of appreciating where one is in life and learning to foster the vital connections that are already operative.”
Thomas Merton was deeply aware that God deals with human beings in and through their vulnerability, their wounds. It is at the point of what may appear to be one’s powerlessness that divine power can act to make one whole. Heterosexist and homophobic assumptions and attitudes have created what has been termed “The Gay Wound” – i.e., internalized homophobia. At this time in history, homophobia is the single most defining element in … gay consciousness. It is not being gay in itself that is a wound but the stigmatization of gayness.
Gays are socialized to imagine, feel, act and be different by straights who, in the past, have set the standards for “normal” sexual orientation and interpersonal relationships. Environments and structures established by society and church have implanted within gay people a sense of being a misfit and an alien. This, in turn, can create a profound self-loathing in the gay soul which very often leads to self-destructive behaviors and the unhealthy stereotypic acts which negatively characterize the gay population among straights. One of the deepest issues plaguing gay men is inner-directed hate. Yet such suffering can become the gateway to deeper truth and healed wholeness.
Gay spiritualties must take into account that, at least until recently, this negativity is the point from which most gay persons have begun their life journeys. Because of this deep wound, same-sex oriented persons often spend a disproportionate time consumed by sexual orientation issues. Others are simply presumed to be oriented toward the opposite sex. No one has to struggle, in this culture, with an orientation toward the opposite sex. The same-sex oriented, on the other hand, must engage this inner reality as something making him different. In the process more focus is often placed on questions of some unique “lifestyle” and special genital behaviors than on a quest for one’s unique human identity. Gay persons too readily come to experience their identity as primarily erotically focused as well as erotically different from others.
A distinction is necessary. How much of this is due to an un-integrated sexual identity in those who are same-sex oriented? And how much is related to the broader narcissistic damage caused by societal homophobia which then leads to sexualization as a compulsive behavior as an attempt to stave off the feelings of emptiness in the core self. The latter influences all persons, regardless of one’s sexual orientation.
As Andrew Harvey, a gay contemplative writer says, “From the deepest wound of my life grew its miraculous possibility… transforming the pain of self-betrayal into self-discovery. Had I not been so wounded, I wouldn’t have constantly hungered and searched, certainly not with the intensity I have.” Such a wound can be a “cut in” that becomes a “breaking out.”
How heal the gay wound? Through personal and communal prayer and through sound spiritual companioning, gay people may be opened to non-judgmental attentiveness to their whole being. In so doing, those who are same-sex oriented can become aware that the wound is in one’s ego personality – or in Merton’s terms the “false self” - rather than in the depth of one’s soul where the True Self resides. This is God within, present as the center still point of the self. I do not regard being gay as a central, defining characteristic. Gay is just an awareness of one’s unique identity.
Perhaps one might say that the core of one’s self -the True Self – needs to be extracted from all of one’s psychic modalities (thinking, willing, feeling, remembering, imagining, including sexual orientation) in order to free it to infuse those various modalities rather than those modalities themselves becoming the ultimate basis of personal identity. All of the above - including being gay – are mere descriptions of the self, not the real self.
To make part of oneself the magnet for the whole of oneself is what Merton calls living out of the false self. This would mean living out of only one’s partial self and partial truth. The truth of who one IS – the “I AM” of us all – is larger than any single modality and description. Indeed, it is more than all of our many modalities combined. In Christian terms, this is the self found in and through Christ. It is the self God is creating us to become from the inside. We simply become who we are.
Merton puts it this way: “At the center of our being is a point of nothingness which is untouched by sin and by illusion, a point of pure truth, a point or spark which belongs entirely to God, which is never at our disposal, from which God disposes of our lives, which is inaccessible to the fantasies of our own mind or the brutalities of our own will.”
In Christian terms the True Self is the self which is found “in Christ” in which Spirit merges and meshes with spirit. It is the person of whom St. Paul speaks when he says: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, woman nor man, slave nor free. All are one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3, 28) One might add to Paul’s parallelisms that there is “neither gay nor straight, married nor single.” In Christ all are whole and all are one.
Such growth from self-hatred toward self-appreciation is what may happen when someone Comes Out from hiding one’s true sexual orientation from self, others and God and begins to Come In to one’s truth. Those who have successfully Come Out and Come IN feel full of something never experienced before: a sense of power. That power is caused, in part, by freeing the energy previously used to deny and disguise oneself.
Entering this journey with intentionality and passion is what it means to become true, whole and holy for all persons in every age. Thomas Merton wrote of this with great clarity and beauty: “For me to become a saint means to be myself. Therefore the problem of sanctity and salvation is in fact the problem of finding out who I am and of discovering my true self. Trees and animals have no problem. God makes them what they are without consulting them, and they are perfectly satisfied. With us it is different. God leaves us free to become whatever we like. We can be ourselves or not, as we please. We are at liberty to be real, or to be unreal. We may be true or false, the choice is ours. We may wear now one mask and now another, and never, if we so desire, appear with our own true face. But we cannot make these choices with impunity. Causes have effects, and if we lie to ourselves and to others, then we cannot expect to find truth and reality whenever we happen to want them. If we have chosen the way of falsity we must not be surprised that truth eludes us when we finally come to need it. We are called to share with God in creating our true identity.” Honesty is the path.
What might this call toward the True Self mean for the unique spiritual journeys of gay persons? Gay spiritualties can open people to understand and experience inner realities and the innate attractions and loves of the soul as a blessing rather than a curse. Many gay persons are forced to live closeted, untrue lives both by the homophobia which permeates our culture and our churches as well as by gay persons’ own internalized homophobia. Such self-hatred poisons the journey toward one’s own unique reflection of the image and likeness of God an may block the inner and outer freedom required to create with God one’s true identity.
This “falseness” is not unique, of course, to those who are same-sex oriented. Merton wrote: “Every one of us is shadowed by an illusory person; a false self.” He believed that we come to realize that true identity is not that which appears on the surface. Who we really are is not the mask we wear or the role imposed by our upbringing and our society. No, we are much more than that. In fact, much of what is on the surface is not truly us at all.
This is sound spiritual insight for gay persons. It encourages leaving the closet of imposed deceptions, roles and masks of the false self created by heterosexist and homophobic definitions and expectations. But regrettably, at least some gay people can then become trapped in another closet created by gay people, namely, the gay sub-culture. This becomes the “second closet.” This “lifestyle” can trap persons in uncommitted and irresponsible promiscuous behaviors and/or materialistic consumerism. Gay spiritual growth involves moving beyond both of these false selves which are simply new forms of imprisonment.
A new ghetto of prescribed places, behaviors, images and stereotypes can replace the original closet for subculture-oriented gay persons. While there is clearly a value in safe places and joyous and comfortable sharing with like-oriented persons, the danger is that this can become a new kind of isolation and separatism. Mature spiritual growth leads rather toward integration of the whole of creation. It is not a closet imposed by heterosexism but rather one freely chosen by same-sex-oriented persons for the sake of security and the avoidance of those engagements with heterosexuals which could stimulate mutual growth of all persons. Gay spiritualties need to be especially attuned to this second false self and its entrapments. Like everyone, gay persons need to transcend the cultural location of the ego personality, false self, and discover it more profoundly in the True Self.
We can encourage those who live largely in the gay sub-culture to let go of models of gay existence and live into the richness of the moment. Sex and social relationship is not enough – eventually you will be driven into spiritual awakening. Awakening is the recognition that there are many planes of consciousness and that you exist on them all. You are limiting yourself incredibly to define yourself only in terms of the physical / psychological planes, as if they were absolutely real. If what people want is food and sex, let them have that, and see if they can get along with that only, and without meaning.
What to do about the falsity and illusions created first of all by heterosexist and homophobic attitudes and values and then by the gay sub-culture? How to avoid or exist from this second closet? Merton’s words seem applicable: “The difficult ascent from falsity toward truth is accomplished not through pleasant advances in wisdom and insight, but through the painful unlayering of levels of falsehood, untruths deeply embedded in our consciousness, lies which cling more tightly than a second skin.” It is like peeling away the layers of an onion – tears and all!
After living or trying to live the lies of the first closet due to experiencing years of homophobic self-hatred, many joyously Come Out into the light of gay identity and self-affirmation with others who share the same sexual orientation.
But there is more to learn and still more falseness to face. Gayness is not a lifestyle but a unique way of a whole variety of persons being in, of and for the world. The illusions of the gay lifestyle must be confronted. Merton, quoting C.G. Jung’s Spiritual Disciplines, wrote: “People will do anything no matter how absurd to avoid facing their own psyches. Somewhere else Jung wrote: “Where lies your fear, there lies your task.”
Merton could be describing persons caught in the limitations of the gay sub-culture when he wrote: “This false, exterior, superficial, social self is made up of prejudices, whimsy, posturing, pharisaic self-concern and pseudo dedication. The false self is a human construct built by selfishness and flights from reality. Because it is not the whole truth of us, it is not of God. And because it is not of God, our false self is substantially empty and incapable of experiencing the love and freedom of God.” The false self is an idol to which the True Self says: “I will have no strange gods before me.” Whether the gay sub-culture thumbs its nose at straight lifestyles through separate constructs of bars and bathhouses, promiscuous pursuits and effeminate posturing or whether gay assimilationists imitate in exaggeration the straight values of materialism and consumerism, neither can be, in the long run, an authentic path toward the True Self. Both prove to be illusory treks, ultimately unsatisfying. These phases need to be both moved through and then beyond.
What can gays – caught in these double closets, the untruths of two cultures – do about the false self? Merton says the false self is annihilated neither by being denied, ignored nor by being uprooted and cast out. We are as sick as our secrets. The true reality must be named for healing and wholeness to happen. Merton says that the power of the false self is diminished in the person first of all by being acknowledged as truly a part of ourselves and accepted. He adds that its power is diminished “as it is integrated into our conscious selves as truly a part of who we are. In this way, over a lifetime, the true self gradually emerges. We are healed of the fracture between the false self and the True Self by discovering the presence of God, the True Self, within our consciousness.”
Merton puts it this way: “The Christian is left alone with God to fight out the question of who he really is, to get rid of the impersonation, if any, that has followed him into the woods.” Yet, Merton contended, “We can’t really find out who we are until we find ourselves in relation to other people.” We are not isolated individuals. We are persons and he held that “a person is defined by a relationship with others.” This is the way “out of the woods.”
Perhaps Merton’s quotation from Gandhi may apply here: “A person who realizes the particular evil of his time and finds that it overwhelms him, dives deep in his own heart for inspiration, and when he gets it he presents it to others.” The realization of one’s true identity “means that we become transformed from within by God’s inner Presence in order to become like God, living in God, seeing as God sees, loving as God loves all creation – with compassion. God does it in us, not we.” At least not the “we” of the false self, the ego self, the socially constructed self.
Here lies the importance of the sharing of gay spiritual journeys with others: family, friends and particularly with other gay people. Particularly after the 1969 Stonewall Rebellion in New York City, those who are same-sex oriented began to form communities to discover the self through a relationship with others of the same orientation. No longer was gayness simply a closeted group of individual sinners with disgusting yet discreet and private behaviors. It was Gay Life “in your face” in open communities of solidarity and compassion, especially in the light of the AIDS epidemic. The gay population began to be less the victims of history and more subjects of that history. Gay persons began more and more to decide together what gay experience means through dialogues, publications, organizations and the arts. But some of those decisions may have lead into the second closet of a segregated and illusionist gay lifestyle rather than the promised land of liberty and connectedness with all people.
Coming In, then, is more about the deeper core. It is about the soul’s essence more than about one’s experience. In this discussion I have raised questions of gay identity and gay purpose. Who is the gay person? What, if anything, is unique about the soul of a same-sex oriented person?
This calls for journeying both through and then beyond the more familiar issues of sexual and genital behaviors, interpersonal relationships and unions, AIDS, human rights, ethics, church teachings and societal attitudes. Coming In means moving into the depth of the soul where sexual orientation is not seen as a curse but a divine blessing.
Reaching out and embracing the True Self cannot be done alone. Spiritual companioning is essential at this stage in the inner and outer liberation of gay people. This is particularly true because of the double closet and trap of gay illusions. Such spiritual sharing is a privileged meeting of hearts. Built on trust in the bond of the Spirit of God, two persons come together in faith to hear the story of the workings of the Spirit in the life of one of them. For the person who shared her or his experience of God, there is always the moment of ’stepping out on the water’ as one begins to speak of what is most sacred in life. The listener, who is companion on the journey, is called to receive that sharing in trust and love, with encouragement and support, and, at times, with the invitation to challenge to further growth, even at the cost of pain and suffering.
In the process of spiritual questing with a companion or companions, gay people discover what Merton understood so well. “The perfect person is not the one who has it all together – the one who has ‘arrived.’ No, perfection is never such a possession of the person. It is not a matter of achieving some impossible and inhuman saint like condition, but of being fulfilled as the person we were created to be. Perfection is rather a pursuit, ever moving forward deeper into the mystery of God… and each fulfillment contains in itself the impulse to further exploration.”
Becoming whole, finding one’s True Self, means, for all persons, discovering “that there is a deep underlying connection of opposites. This is uniquely true for gay people given the difficulties they face in coming into communion with the True Self. It means passing through the bewildering wilderness of the false selves which are both assigned by others and constructed by same-sex oriented people. A gay person on a spiritual journey may well understand from painful yet rich experience one of Merton’s most profound statements: “We must contain all divided worlds within ourselves.”
Merton’s words about the stages of the human spiritual journey have particular applications to the divided worlds which exist both within and around gay persons. He wrote: “In the first part of our life, our psychic energy flows outward in the construction of our social role or persona. The more rigid the society, the stronger the mask – till we get so far out of touch with our true self that a neurosis may develop which stops the outward flow of energy. Our psychic energy then seems to be damned up, it returns to us and often we find a reintegration more in tune with our deepest selves. This permits us to experience and reach an inner unity, which is the noblest effort man can make for his own good and for the good of all men.”
Gayness is a gift. Spiritual journeys are, indeed, for the good of all, not just the one on the quest. And gay journeys today can be a great gift to all of humanity at the close of the twentieth century. Gays have a unique function in registering the cruelty and craziness of patriarchy and working to transcend it. We’ve had a false masculine presented to us, an ideal of control and domination that is really a frozen hysteria, a condensation of fear and panic. It has nothing to do with the real masculine. A Real Man is a whole person!
A sense of the gay mission in culture may sound somewhat rhapsodic but, if there is even some measure of truth to it, it is profoundly challenging.
C.G. Jung suggests, too, a unique quality in the interiority of those who are same-sex oriented which could be a great gift for humanity at the close of this violent, competitive and materialistic century. It is the capacity for the primordial Sacrament of Friendship. Often he is endowed with a wealth of religious feelings which help him bring the ecclesia spiritualis into reality, and a spiritual receptivity which makes him responsive to revelation.” Little wonder that so many in spiritual ministries are same-sex oriented persons!
Gay spiritual journeys, then, begin with a Coming Out which then can open toward a deep Coming In to the identity of a soul whose partial truth is gay. But, in the end, one’s identity and one’s sexual orientation is more than simply for something for oneself. One must Come Out Again for the sake of others, indeed, all creation.
Gay people and homosexuality are essential components of creation – for the religious, part of God’s plan – and concealing these components dishonors the creator and shrouds the fullness of creation itself. By revealing and celebrating even the most minute aspect of creation, we make the Creator evident and the universe even richer. I believe we are here to reveal a further dimension of the diversity of life, and, in so doing, jolt our fellow human beings into celebrating life’s differences.
This awareness that the gay gift is for others is important in order to avoid the pitfall of explicit or implicit narcissism in gay people. There must be a return into the rest of the world for the sake of all humanity, indeed, all creation itself. Gay people may have a unique mission at this time in history to help humanity expand its imagination about what it means to be human and to be in loving relationships. Such broadening and deepening in the human imagination - personally and collectively – can lead all beyond the binary systems and dualisms which so constrict humanity at the end of this millennium.
Merton’s words about the creation of new human values out of love seem to speak of this mission. “The Law of Love is the law that commands us to add new values to the world given us by God, through the creative power that He has placed in us – the power of joy in response, in gratitude, and in the giving of self.”
St. Paul (Galatians 3:28) wrote of the Holy Spirit’s overcoming such dualistic divisions among humanity: master-slave, Jew-Greek, male-female. Overcoming those divisions is a very slow historical process that has been going on over centuries. But today, I believe, the gay spiritual movement has emerged out of the heart of the world to play a decisive role in overcoming this final division. Scripture says that the stone that was rejected will become the cornerstone. The gay spiritual communities are being called by God to play this ‘cornerstone’ role. The only way, however, that gays can play that role is to overcome their fears and have the courage to come out of the closet. Gays must model in a very public way their ability to balance the masculine and feminine dimensions within themselves.
Gay experience can also become redemptive for others as they bring to the fore the importance and the delight of the human body in responsible, reverential and relational ways. Christianity has suffered from a body-negative mentality for too long. A spirituality which ignores or denigrates the body was unacceptable to Thomas Merton since this would block the total response of healthy and fruitful living. “The ’spiritual’ life thus becomes something lived ‘interiorly’ and in ‘the spirit’ or worse still in the ‘mind’ – indeed in the ‘imagination’. The body is left out of it, because the body is “bad” or at best ‘unspiritual.’ But the ‘body’ gets into the act anyway, sometimes in rather disconcerting ways, especially when it has been excluded on general principles.”
Persons gifted with an orientation to their own sex and who join the journey “out and in and out again” will undoubtedly experience the searing flames of life. But this is a necessary and inevitable purgation of the unique “untruths” which have been given to and assumed by gay people. As Merton wrote, surrendering to the fire of the Spirit within – the True Self – is essential for all human growth. Poetically he described all human souls as being like wax, wax waiting for the seal of one’s true identity to be impressed upon them. By themselves souls have no identity, he believed. “Their destiny is to be softened and prepared in this life, by God’s will, to receive, at their death, the seal of their own degree of likeness to God in Christ. And this is what it means, among other things, to be judged by Christ. The wax that has melted in God’s will can easily receive the stamp of its identity, the truth of what it was meant to be. But the wax that is hard and dry and brittle and without love will not take the seal; for the hard seal, descending upon it, grinds it to powder. Therefore if you spend your life trying to escape from the heat of the fire that is meant to soften and prepare you to become your true self, and if you try to keep your substance from melting in the fire, – as if your true identity were to be hard wax - the seal will fall upon you at last and crush you. You will not be able to take your own true name and countenance, and you will be destroyed by the event that was meant to be your fulfillment.”
Persons are not known by intellect alone, not by principles alone, but only by love. It is when we love the other, the enemy, that we obtain from God the key to an understanding of who He is, and who we are. It is only this realization that can open to us the real nature of our duty, and of right action. To shut out the person and to refuse to consider him as a person, as an other self, we resort to the impersonal “law” and to abstract “nature.” That is to say we block off the reality of the other, we cut the intercommunication of our nature and his nature, and we consider only our own nature with its rights, its claims, it demands. And we justify the evil we do to our brother because he is no longer a brother, he is merely an adversary, an accused.
To restore communication, to see our oneness of nature with him, and to respect his personal rights and his integrity, his worthiness of love, we have to see ourselves as similarly accused along with him ... and needing, with him, the ineffable gift of grace and mercy to be saved. Then, instead of pushing him down, trying to climb out by using his head as a stepping-stone for ourselves, we help ourselves to rise by helping him to rise. For when we extend our hand to the enemy who is sinking in the abyss, God reaches out to both of us, for it is He first of all who extends our hand to the enemy. It is He who “saves himself” in the enemy, who makes use of us to recover the lost groat which is His image in our enemy.” ~Thomas Merton to Dorothy Day 1962
Peace,
Stephen
Stephen (and all):
Sorry you have to depart this conversation, as I was about to ask you this question:
Considering the “development of doctrine” unfolding regarding marriage, how many spouses should we permit *bisexuals* to have—one or two? A husband *and* a wife, or just one?
In fact, I was going to suggest that you attempt to use your existing arguments *for* same-sex “marriage” to argue *against* plural marriage for bisexuals, and see how it turns out…
Any thoughts?
That is all I can give to this thread ... others need me.
Thank you for your willingness to engage with me in respectful dialog. I am a lone voice of dissent on this thread. But I am not alone among a majority of faithful Catholics who with informed conscience responsibly dissent. For I too love the Church and each and every one of you.
It is my most fervent prayer that God will grant us kairos moment of mercy.
May God’s peace be with you always!
Stephen
Thanks for sharing your opinion Neil ... the language that St Paul uses is quite specific and I take it at face value. You are attempting to create a context to suit yourself. All your arguments are grounded in sentimentality. We can find numerous examples of normative values expressed in the Bible that no longer apply.
The development of doctrine is based on a better understanding of Scripture (particularly the love that is Jesus Christ) and Tradition based on reason and evidence.
Thanks Kevin for sharing your thoughts ... I have read Pope John Paul’s Theology of the Body ... there’s a lot of good stuff in there. But the biological determinism was a big disappointment. I have to ask myself ... how well is that logic working. I look to the Church of the first fourteen hundred years for guidance.
Now ... to clear up any confusion ... nobody on this thread is advocating the abolition of chastity nor abstinence prior to marriage.
“Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.
1Corinthians 7:7-9 USCCB
St Paul does not say “will not” ... he says “can not” control themselves ... they should marry. From consensual marriage flows the benefits: fidelity, children and sacred union.
Steven,
You’re taking St. Paul’s quote out of context. He’s referring to marriage that is between one man and one woman. Homosexual “marriages” are not marriages. So when you speak of marriage, it refers only to that of a man and a woman.
You’re taking bible verses out of context and you’re confusing doctrine with discipline.
You’re also taking out of context the words of our Holy Father. He says not to judge the homosexual for their inclination, just as Jesus said not to judge people’s intentions. “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge him?” Seeking God with a good will does not mean openly practicing sexually illicit behaviors or glorifying this disordered affection as natural.
The Holy Spirit acting through St. Paul also says:
“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes* nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor. 6:9-10)
“The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickednessp of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” (Rom. 1:18-32)
“We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, the unchaste, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted. (1 Tim. 1:8-11)
Or you can look back at the old testament. The bible strictly condemns homosexual acts. God actually destroyed an entire city for the people that commit them. (Gen. 19)
All of this being said, God knows the struggles that we all go through. He knows the toils we endure and He truly wants to help us. That’s why He sent Himself in the person of Jesus; to bring us out of our fallen state and renew in us eternal life with Him in Heaven. God HUNGERS for every human soul and desires nothing greater. Everyone is hurt, everyone is broken. I beg of you to be humble enough to at least listen to the voice of God, and instead of lobbying for acceptance, spend your time investigating why Jesus Christ teaches that homosexual behavior is sinful. Stop fighting for something based on gut feelings or visceral reactions and look no further than Christ. He tells us not to judge, true, and a lot of us could be better about taking the moat out of our own eye instead of the speck of another, but he also teaches that we must admonish our brethren when they are misled and lead them to the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
I will continue to pray for you, Steven, that you may grow in love of Christ, and through this love of Christ, grow greatly in virtue.
God bless you.
Thanks JBM for sharing your thoughts on marriage ... but they are vague, jumbled and confusing ... send me that book when published ... I will be pleased to read and offer a consider response.
I am familiar with several versions of the history of marriage in the Church. A summary I find most credible goes like this:
For most of us, marriage has been shaped by our culture, largely founded on the Book of Genesis and developed over centuries of tradition. God created humans male and female—Adam and Eve—to be partners who cling to each other to carry out the mandate to increase and multiply. After the fall, the rest of Genesis recounts the results: The descendants increase and evil multiplies. God determines to make a new start: the flood, Noah and the family ark, a covenant that guarantees God’s protection. But the mandate to increase and multiply remains.
And so it goes for the centuries recounted in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, with marriage as a primary institution. To fulfill the mandate, husbands have many wives; family members marry each other; masters impregnate slaves, sometimes founding a new people (Abraham, Hagar and the Ishmaelites); boys marry at 14 and girls at 12—all to ensure the continuity of households. In this long process, the mandate is well on its way to fulfillment, but a cloud hangs just over the horizon: What to do when the mandate is fulfilled?
Early Jews and Christians
Adopting Genesis and the rest of the Bible as their own, Jews and Christians in antiquity adopted the institution of marriage as defined in its pages. Yet marriage was also an institution of the world in which they lived, a Roman world, where true marriage—matrimony—was a partnership in which a couple consented to live together with mutual affection and respect and to raise a family. For pagans, Jews and Christians, mutual consent was legally and literally the heart of the matter in their Roman world, and from which a series of laws and customs flowed, including their distinctive ways of getting married.
As Christians spread westward, becoming more numerous—by mid-fourth century 30 million of a population of 60 million in the Roman Empire—some early Christian thinkers began to worry about the cloud on the horizon: Heaven was already too full. Indeed, St. Augustine, the celebrated bishop of Hippo in Roman Africa from 395 to 430, thought the cloud had already moved from the horizon to the center of his Mediterranean sky, overshadowing, indeed threatening, his “City of Man.”
Commenting on the Book of Genesis, Augustine reasoned that after the fall from paradise, Adam and his descendants were bound by the precept to increase and multiply until it had been fulfilled by Abraham and his descendants, the patriarchs. Now fulfilled, he concluded, the mandate to increase and multiply had been replaced by a concession: allowing couples to have intercourse without the mandate to procreate. Indeed, St. Paul had proposed a remedy that “it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” (1 Corinthians 7:8-9).
Augustine saw that marriage was here to stay, offering three important social benefits—fidelity, offspring and a sacred union. By fidelity, he meant the commitment to have sex only with one’s spouse; by offspring, having and raising children; and by a sacred union, a bond signifying the indissoluble union between Christ and the church described in the Letter to the Ephesians (5:31-32).
As time passed and the population grew, Augustine’s thinking about marriage gradually changed. Tutored by his Roman world and his pastoral life as a bishop, he came to see what made marriage marriage: mutual consent to a life together characterized by marital affection and respect. The importance of offspring, so prominent a reason for marriage, gradually receded in his mind, for his pastoral life brought him face to face with countless childless marriages he considered true marriages.
Medieval Christian view
Augustine’s thinking about sex and marriage has been at the root of the traditions about sex and marriage in the West, because he was the only church father to write extensively about sex and marriage. Christian thinkers and writers for centuries have been deeply beholden to Augustine. With the rise of universities in the late 12th century, for instance, their masters—the early Scholastics—sought to determine how marriage in their secular world fit into their sacramental world. A sharp debate arose among them about what constituted true marriage. One group argued that it was at the point of sexual consummation true marriage exists, because consummation embodied the union between Christ and the church. A second group argued that it was consent given in the present to live together as equal partners with mutual affection and respect that embodied the union. By the end of the century the “consentist” position had won the debate, largely because its architect, the prominent Parisian theologian Peter Lombard, had written a textbook that became the theology text for the next 400 years.
A contemporary view
Thus, for some 1,600 years, what made a marriage a true marriage was consent, from which its three benefits—fidelity, children and sacred union—flowed. Whether a couple could have children was, like sexual attraction, nature’s call—not what makes marriage marriage. Although same-sex couples can have a child by adoption and nurture the child in a home characterized by mutual affection and respect, they cannot beget a child of their own. That same situation often is the case for an opposite-sex married couple who adopt and nurture. Neither couple can be said to contravene the law of nature by marrying.
Given the percentage of people for and against same-sex marriage, more than 60 percent of our citizens, including Catholics, seem to agree with what our Western predecessors concluded about what truly constitutes marriage, whether for an opposite-sex or same-sex couple, namely, consent to a life together of partners infused with affection and respect constitutes true marriage, from which the social benefits flow.
Thomas M. Finn, chancellor professor of religion (emeritus) at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Va., published the article “Sex and Marriage in the Sentences of Peter Lombard” in Theological Studies, March 2011
Thanks for sharing your thoughts MarylandBill ...
Response to first thought ... define the sin in non-normative terms (sentimentality). How does a homosexual act, in the context of civil union, cause harm to the individual, others or society? Please be precise and provide evidence.
Response to second thought; A sin is a sin because it is a sin is circular logic ... please refer to first thought response.
Response to third thought: “Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.
1Corinthians 7:7-9 USCCB
St Paul does not say “will not” ... he says “can not” ... they should marry.
Response to fourth thought: In the first century Peter and Paul fought over the mandatory requirement of circumcision. Since “nobody knows when” until 1966 every Catholic who ate meat on Friday went to hell. We have to have a sense of humor about the human condition. What doesn’t change is the chosen part of fasting: gratitude in place of gratification. It’s not only rules that change, so do rituals. Did you know that the church never reached a consensus on how many sacraments there are until the 13th century? That Mass was said in the vernacular (native languages) until the Council of Trent in 1563 when the church mandated Latin until 1965, and then changed it again to the vernacular? That bishops banned the laity from reading missals for centuries and now are editing the language in the millions of missals they encourage the laity to read? It’s not only rules and rituals that can change, so can teachings. Did you know that the church considered slavery morally acceptable, as long as the masters treated their slaves humanely, from day one until after the Civil War? That Galileo was condemned in 1633 for teaching that the earth revolved around the sun, not the other way round as the church believed, and the poor guy wasn’t let off the hook until 1992? That the church taught sex in marriage to be a necessary evil for the procreation of children until the 20th century?
Consider birth control. In 1966 a Papal Commission of 72 experts from five continents, including bishops, clergy, physicians, and married couples, after three years of study advised Pope Paul VI that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves what methods to use. But the head of the commission, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, counseled the pope that a change in this teaching would jeopardize the church’s credibility. In 1968 the pope issued the encyclical Humanae Vitae which reiterated the church’s anti-birth-control position. Immediately the church’s credibility was in jeopardy. In 2011 eight out of ten Catholics are certain that artificial birth control is a blessing, not a sin. This non-definitive teaching can change. What will not change is the chosen part of sexual intimacy in marriage: love.
We have to be patient with the human condition. What doesn’t change is the chosen part of liturgy: the grace in the silence between the words. We have to forgive the human condition. What doesn’t change is the chosen part of church history: the opportunity to learn and forgive. The church has changed. It is changing. It will change. After the dust settles, the gold will remain.
It seems to me Stephen hasn’t been fairly or sufficiently dealt with in this thread so I am going to interject. I will go point by point based off his last post:
Stephen: First, “conservatives” is a political term. You’re trying to have a theological discussion so I would think using “orthodox” and “heterodox” is more appropriate and less polarizing. Second,“appealing to authority” makes sense if one is Catholic because a core belief is that the Church Magisterium is being guided by the Holy Spirit and, as such, should be given both serious intellectual consideration and obedience. This is why previous posters so often invoke it. Third, I agree, there are studies for both sides of this argument. Fourth, I can’t find in your previous posts where you specify exactly what the “flawed natural law logic” is, however, if you want arguments that come from a more secular humanist approach toward morality, I highly, highly suggest you read the Harvard Journal of Law publication titled “What Is Marriage” by Robert George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan something, his name isn’t coming to me. Quit looking for superficial counterarguments to your thoughts and seek out, via reading, more substantial and complex arguments. I’m not going to type a 40 page post when “What is marriage” beautifully presents all the arguments under a single bow. I don’t think you will be able to argue this publication lacks “intellectual integrity”. They go to great length in explaining how both civil unions and gay marriage serve to undermine a society and explain the reasoning more clearly and more gently than the posters on this thread have attempted to. You are attempting to have very complicated philosophical and theological discussions with a bunch of random posters who I doubt want to put in the time and energy in typing out every single detail as to why you are both operating off of fallacious suppositions and a superficial understanding of Catholic teaching on Theology of the Body that can only be remedied by reading the abundant materials published on the issue. After you have read “what is marriage”, which is free online at various websites, I will gladly engage more full on in this discussion with you. Finally, I highly recommend you read the encyclical deus caritas est as, at the end of the day, the prevalent contemporary misconceptions on the true conceptual meaning of love is what is undermining authentic morality and facilitating relativistic notions of what love is and in what circumstances it is manifested in marriage.
Jerry-What is an atheist doing reading an Orthodox Catholic news source? You clearly are looking for answers and are hearing God’s whisper in your ear. God has a great sense of humor, leading you here.
Stephen DeVol and Jerry, you want the Church to change its tune about acceptance of homosexual acts, and Stephen at least seems to believe it’s in the process of doing so. However, even if you honestly think it can and should do that, how would it not also completely upend the Church’s teaching about the meaning and purpose of sex even for those who don’t experience same-sex attractions?
Many Catholics have in a sense “converted” to an authentically Catholic view of sex over the past few decades, aided in part by Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body (a work which I’ve yet to consume myself), but also by the mere recognition that doing sex any other way tends to lead to disaster. Take abstinence outside of marriage. Not only is it not hard to see the perils of flouting this teaching, but contrary to popular folklore, it is possible to actually live it, as proven by the many who’ve practiced it, including some of us who didn’t get married until we were well into our 30’s. It’s certainly something I plan to teach to and expect of my own children. But if the Church accepts homosexual activity and relationships at some point, I don’t know how it will be able to maintain its teaching on the matter of abstinence. Not only do the most compelling reasons to save sex for marriage not apply to homosexual acts and relationships, making the tenet more arbitrary and less reasonable, but they suggest a purpose of marriage that doesn’t lend much support to the idea of same-sex “marriage” at all, and is indeed viewed as an affront to it among many of its proponents.
In other words, do you see a way for the Catholic Church to accept homosexual acts and relationships and the same-sex “marriage” that naturally follows from those, while actually remaining the Catholic Church?
A couple of thoughts on some of the arguments I have seen made.
—
The first is that whether same sex attraction is natural or not is not in and of itself an argument about whether embracing a homosexual lifestyle is sinful. We all, every one of us, has a flawed nature by virtue of the fall. Thus inclination towards a sin, even an all but uncontrollable inclination towards the sin does not make it less sinful (though it might remove some of the sinner’s responsibility assuming he is trying to resist the sin).
—
The second thought is that sins can not necessarily be measured by visible harm. This is especially true since we view the sins with fallen eyes. Thus the “little white lie” one might tell one’s spouse about how much money they spent on something might not do any harm… in this world, but it might be a mortal sin that ultimately leads to damnation.
—
Claiming that celibacy is a gift I think does disservice to many of those who live celibate lives. Is it easier for some to bear a life of perpetual continence? Of course, but the simple fact of the matter is that unless you are validly married, you are called to live in perpetual continence. To not tell your brothers and sisters that fact, regardless of who they are attracted to, puts their souls and yours in danger.
—
The use of Sensus Fidelium seems to essentially be limited to Western Christians, meaning specifically Western European and American Christians. Further, it seems to be based on those same Christians turning away from teachings they would have agreed with 2 generations ago. Doctrine can develop, but it can never be changed. So please explain how the church can develop away from the doctrine that sex is only morally licit in marriage and that marriage is only possible between a man and a woman?
And when conservatives appeal to authority ... dismiss the majority in diminutive terms ... cite junk science ... utilize flawed natural law logic ... can not define the sin ... advance detailed arguments that they say show Francis doesn’t actually mean what the media and public think he means by “Who am I to judge?” ... and alienate over half the Church ...
This constituency cannot sustain the church in the long term and the church now needs a figure able to bridge the gap between its rightward movement and the reality that Westerners are leaving the church in droves.
Perhaps it is time for a kairos moment for mercy.
Steve:
The Church doesn’t say “homosexuality” is a sin. It’s just a disordered appetite, like my tendency to overeat. Only the choice to engage in homosex is a sin.
I completely agree with you that, despite the obsessions of some Catholics with this one particular form of concupisence, it may well be that for a given person, addressing that particular issue may have to take a back seat to more pressing personal issues. That’s for a wise pastor to sift through.
I have seen less than some but more than I wanted of this terrible problem. I do discuss C.S. Lewis’ letter with those whom I think wise in Christ.
I live and work in a Catholic Worker community of homeless men and women in the early stages of recovery from addictions. About half the population have a lifetime diagnosis of chronic mental illness and the other half are unemployable due to felon re-entry status. All good people. And we have had a good number of men and women with homosexual orientation come to live with us.
To provide support to people who are desparately seeking right relationship with God ... it has been exceedingly difficult ... if not impossible ... from a pastoral care standpoint ... to tell people their natural desire for intimate relationship is disordered. And I refuse to be the arbiter of anyone’s sexual conduct. The 12 Steps are a process of reconciliation guided by conscience ... a conversation with God.
For those who claim that homosexuality is a tribulation or disability or “sin” that can that can be made right if they only accept celibacy ... or face condemnation and exclusion from employment and community ... well ... those who are truly mentally ill in our community have a saying around our house ...
I am O.K. the way God made me ... quit trying to change me.
When reactionary dissenters want to blow off the clear, authoritative and obvious teaching of the Church, they invoke the magic words “prudential judgement” and proceed to do, think, and say whatever the heck they want, magisterial teaching be damned.
When progressive dissenters want to blow off the clear, authoritative and obvious teaching of the Church, they invoke the magic words “primacy of conscience” and proceed to do, think, and say whatever the heck they want, magisterial teaching be damned.
Depend upon it.
A certain sign of struggle is when one stretches an argument. Really, C.S. Lewis has something beneficial to say about gays? From what authority? He can be viewed as nothing more than a weak apologist without a serious grounding. Please give him whatever credit you wish (or none at all) as a novelist, but don’t stretch his credibility to encompass something on which he has no expertise.
Final comment: C.S. Lewis concluding line is a powerful argument for the primacy of conscience.
“All I have really said is that, like all other tribulations, it must be offered to God and His guidance how to use it must be sought.”
The development of doctrine is based on a better understanding of Scripture and Tradition based on reason and evidence.
Please gentleman ... principles ... not personalities.
Tim ... you are misinformed. There is growing and compelling scientific evidence. Researchers at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) were the first group of scientists to discover genetic marks in birth that may explain observed hereditary tendencies.
To be specific, the new theory suggests that homosexuality is caused by epigenetic marks, or “epi-marks,” related to sensitivity to hormones in the womb. These are compounds that sit on DNA and regulate how active, or inactive certain genes are, and also control when during development these genes are most prolific. Gene expression may regulate how a fetus responds to testosterone, the all-important male sex hormone. Normally, these epi-marks are erased after they are activated, but if those marks are passed down to the next generation, the same epi-marks that protected a man in utero may cause oversensitivity to testosterone among his daughters, and the epi-marks that protected a woman in utero may lead to undersensitivity to testosterone among her sons.
Barbara, you only suspected before and didn’t know of all this evidence. Interesting. God bless. I really do hope to see you in heaven.
Jerry there is no evidence for being gay. None. Zero. Belittle away. Doesn’t bother me. Just makes me love you all the more. God bless!
P.S. Stephanie ... coerced celibacy is an appropriate characterization. The difference is free will versus coercion.
Celibacy is a gift from God … not a matter of self-will for most people. I have many religious friends who are celibate. They will all confirm that this state in life was not natural and was experienced as an exchange of gifts with God ... not something that they could self-will. In fact, history demonstrates that many religious will not be granted the gift. It is truth to say that the vast majority of people are not called by God to celibacy. One size fits all condemnation grounded in sentimentality and junk science is dehumanizing and not just.
The vast majority of modern medical and scientific experts agree that:
•Homosexuality is not a disorder. It is a normal variation of human sexuality.
•Sexual orientation cannot be changed. An attempt to do so may be harmful.
The normalcy of homosexuality has been generally accepted by the greater scientific community for over 30 years - the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973.
Would you like me to present a library or credible scientific studies?
Jerry, thanks for confirming what I have always suspected. The bullied person’s true desire is not for the bully’s repentance, but for his utter defeat. You would not see peaceful coexistence with people of differing religious views, or sexual ethics, but their total eradication and marginalization. You don’t want an apology from the bully, you want to bully those who bullied you. It’s not about reparation. It’s about revenge. You must realize you are, objectively speaking, morally equal to those you oppose. You are no better than the Christians you hate so much. And don’t pretend you don’t hate us.
I agree Jerry ... the attitude among a few Catholic conservatives is not just. Pope Francis was right on with his comments on judgment.
Stephanie ... you are cherry picking. Even the Church no longer holds that it is a choice. The vast majority of scientific studies do not bear witness to all your specious claims of harm done to the individual ... so you beg the question ... please cite your sources.
Tim, you need to do some research. It has been confirmed in the animal model. It’s a google away.
You think I chose my sexual orientation in order to be belittled by people like you? Let me ask you, if you think it’s a “choice” - when did you choose to be a heterosexual? What caused you to choose that? Why did you choose that? Did you diddle in others just to make sure?
By the way, I do bellitle people like you who chose to believe in some god and religious system that belittles others. You weren’t born believing in your god and religion - you chose it. I belittle anyone who belittles others because they chose to accept a “system” that promotes hatred, prejudice and bigotry. If your god and religion tells me I’m “disordered” and not deserving of equality, I’ll belittle it. I say it without any pomp and circumstance. Can you do the same?
The “development in the womb” theory does not hold under close examination. Look at the studies with identical twins: they shared the same womb at the same time and have the same DNA, and there are plenty of cases with one gay twin and one straight twin. The gay identity, along with transgendered people, is almost always from early childhood, when the gender identity forms. The exception being the obvious chromosomal abnormalities (e.g. XXY). They did not relate to their own biological sex and started being attracted to being like the other one. Maybe a boy wasn’t good at sports but was more of a quiet person, or maybe he was bullied by older brothers or didn’t relate well to his dad. Maybe a girl didn’t relate to her mother during her early years (maybe she was a tomboy, maybe mom was distant, maybe mom was abused and her idea of a woman was someone who got hit so she wanted to distance herself from the female gender, etc). This is from talking to people who work with those with unwanted same-sex attraction. Every case is different, but there is definitely a strong environmental component. And the factors are from age 2-4. They can have good relationships later on, but once the gender identity is set, that is when LGBT desires form, if left unaided (parents helping them, counseling… the sooner they get help the less likely they are to embrace the LBGT lifestyle as teens and adults).
Even if it were proven that they were born that way, that still would not excuse the behavior. There is a gene that makes one prone to alcoholism, and yet no one is arguing that it is morally good because they were “born that way.” It is our job to recognize our weaknesses and to rise above them, holding ourselves to a higher standard, not to just say this is how I was born and give up.
Homosexual behavior is linked to very high rates of STDs, depression, suicide, certain kinds of cancer, etc. The average life expectancy for a practicing homosexual is about 15-20 years shorter than the average person. Gay relationships tend to bring others into the bedroom, while lesbian relationships usually do not last more than 5-10 years and have high rates of domestic abuse and depression. LGBT teens become sexually active earlier and have more partners than their heterosexual counterparts, which puts them at risk for disease and depression/suicide. Even if one does not believe in God, these alone are good reasons to discourage homosexual behavior: homosexual activity is bad for public health. Not to mention, depression an suicide rates among youth are actually higher in countries that are more accepting of LBGT behavior!
From a theological perspective, homosexual behavior is not self-giving nor is not open to life. It is mutual self-abuse and not ordered toward the good of the persons (the original, theological definition of “natural” not the modern “what one observes in nature” definition). Not the same thing as heterosexuality at all. Biological complementarity is only among male/female couples.
Gay couples also want to adopt or use donors, which deliberately deprives the child of a mother or a father. And studies consistently show that children do best when raised by both biological parents, and when that is not possible, an adoptive mother and father that models the home they would have been born into (infertile or post-menopausal couples can help play this role if they feel called to do so). Mothers and fathers play different roles in their children’s lives depending on their personalities, and both parents teach their children the important thing of relating to both genders in a nonsexual way, which is essential for their future forming of adult relationships.
As for the “forced celibacy” and “unhappiness” arguments, they are baloney. Many people live happy, fulfilled lives while remaining celibate. They can be great assets to the community, helping the homeless, the hungry, and can even be available to help others in late-night emergencies. There are many reasons to be celibate, whether one cannot marry (homosexual orientation, lack of suitable marriage partners) or chooses to remain single to serve God or the community.
Another myth is that sexuality is set. It is very fluid and people can experience different desires at different times. The teen years are especially confusing, when straight kids can develop “girl crushes” or “guy crushes” but are still attracted to the opposite gender. In fact, very few people are exclusively homosexual: they may be *mostly* attracted to their own gender, but there are at least a handful of people of the opposite sex that they are attracted to.
Jerry, has this “in the womb” process been confirmed in an animal model since the proteins and pathways are highly conserved? If it was confirmed I am sure the study would have been reported endlessly.
A very interesting letter written by Lewis I must say as a gay man who was born that way (it happened during my development in the womb, just as straights’ orientation were developed in the womb).
Of course, he said some things that I, today, would find offensive and wrong (as would most people). However, as a historian, I know not to “read back” into history and look at the context and intellectual/educational/scientific developments of that time. And the one thing about his script during that time is that he admits that gays cannot “help” being the way they are. They don’t choose it. It cannot be “fixed.” Even the Catholic religion today admits that. It still retains a backwards view that anything but heterosexuality is “disordered,” even if it’s engrained and not chosen. Well, everyone has the right to their opinion. As an Atheist, I find believing in gods and afterlifes and all that jazz disordered. I even consider it a form of psychological/emotional aberration. How can anyone, who has the least bit of education, believe in such stuff? The answer is: they are lacking something psychologically or emotionally normal in their lives. And believing in gods and religions IS a choice, not something innate. No one is born believing in gods. So that’s my opinion regarding the abnormality and disorder of religious belief. And, yes, I have cured people of it.
But back to Lewis. Even in the context of his time, he wrote something far advanced. Despite his religiosity, he was a brilliant thinker.
I agree Dcn Brandlin ... it is the misuse of the gift of sexuality that constitutes a separation from right relationship with God and others. But you have not defined what constitutes misuse ... you are asking me to blindly accept that homosexual orientation in the context of civil union is a sin.
Biblical references without explanation I can safely assume reflect normative values prevailing at the time of writing. Recent natural law arguments lack intellectual integrity.
From a normative perspective, I side with the greater portion of the Church, which since the times of the early Church has viewed the sacredness of marriage as rooted in consent.
What is the sin? Please be precise. Can you explain in non-normative terms how the homosexual act harms the individual, others or society?
You cite Church doctrine (that has not been received by a majority of faithful Catholics) to proscribe chastity as a solution for a sin you can not describe ... but what you are really attempting to impose is coerced celibacy ... to live life without hope for intimate relationship with another ... or face exclusion and condemnation.
I prefer Pope Francis: “Who am I to judge” ... which reveals great mercy ... and hopefully opens hearts ... and leaves room for doctrinal development.
And, I agree with St. Paul:
Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.
1Corinthians 7:7-9 USCCB
Stephen DeVol ,
When folks reference overused anti-Catholic stereotypes:The Spanish Inquisition, sale of indulgences, etc, it kind of casts a sectarian pall on their comments as a whole.
I live in the South & have heard it all.I think we can do better if trying to engage in authentic conversation.
Thanks!
Stephen,
What evidence do you seek? What is non-normative value?
Deacon Brandlin,
I tend to agree with Mr. Shea here. You have to understand that homosexual attractions, are disordered.
CCC 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.
It’s not simply the act which is disordered. The inclination itself is disordered. I agree that you should be weary to call it a gift unless you’re stating that the gift is a life of chastity, which in several ways could be a true blessing.
Is it possible for us to be respectful? Starting a posting with, “Baloney…,” is not helpful.
Mr. Shea, Oh, I see what happened. “Pay” copied and pasted my response including the attribution under the attribution for his message. I apologize that I thought it was you.
Further to your caution to be careful speaking of homosexuality as a gift: Whatever a person’s gift of sexuality:heterosexuality, homosexuality, or whatever - it is a gift from God given to us at conception. The problems start when we misuse the gift of sexualtiy. Again, I refer you to the documents of the church written specifically on what the documents describe as the homosexual condition. A condition is our state, not a transient situation such as an illness. For example, Downs Syndrome is a condition and a gift of God to everyone who has the privilege to be associated with Downs Syndrome people. I know this because I worked with Downs Syndrome children and young adults for 18 years.
The condition is the gift that God asks us to use to build His kingdom.
Baloney ...
Your definition utilizes circular logic based upon normative values and appeals to authority that lack coherence or intellectual integrity.
What is the sin? Please be precise.
Can you explain in non-normative terms how the homosexual act harms the individual, others or society?
Stephen DeVol said:
Again ... thanks for sharing your normative value judgments.
Actually ... the consummation argument didn’t hold water the first 1400 years of the Church. And biological determinism - natural law arguments are a twentieth century phenomenon. The fact is, such arguments have not been received by the majority of Catholics. I imply no value judgment here ... I simply state what is.
It is not truth to imply that doctrine can not be developed. And thank God ... otherwise we would be locked into mentalities that justified the Crusades and condemnations of Galileo and the sale of indulgences and and the Spanish Inquisitions, etc.
Csn you explain in non-normative terms how the homosexual act harms the individual, others or society?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The lay Catholics today do not override the millions of those from other ages. They are simply a tiny minority with seared consciences or with desires they want to fulfill. That is not objective truth, but relative desire. IOW, what they want does not make it correct or good.
To bring up the usual anti Catholic canards about crusades, etc. is to erect a straw man. Those topics are not evidence the Church ever taught error.
Homosexuals acts are vice. This is known from right reason, Scripture, Tradition, biology and common experience. What evidence do you seek to prove they are evil?
“every disability conceals a vocation” seems to mean that collectively humans must cultivate all virtues, although individually we will cultivate some more than others, and particularly we have a vocation or life’s work to cultivate the virtue that enables us to avoid mortal sin. Thus homosexuals have a particular vocation to cultivate chastity.
Again ... thanks for sharing your normative value judgments.
Actually ... the consummation argument didn’t hold water the first 1400 years of the Church. And biological determinism - natural law arguments are a twentieth century phenomenon. The fact is, such arguments have not been received by the majority of Catholics. I imply no value judgment here ... I simply state what is.
It is not truth to imply that doctrine can not be developed. And thank God ... otherwise we would be locked into mentalities that justified the Crusades and condemnations of Galileo and the sale of indulgences and and the Spanish Inquisitions, etc.
Csn you explain in non-normative terms how the homosexual act harms the individual, others or society?
In truth, the “sensus fidelium” does not actually exist *without* the Pope and bishops…which is why it can’t be played against the Magisterium itself…
As luck would have it, about a month ago I heard an Italian priest make the same point, that within every vice is concealed a virtue that we must cultivate. The example he used was that of a pyromaniac, who actually has a vocation to set hearts on fire with the love of God.
Stephen: The sensus fidelium is not merely “what’s trending on Twitter in America and Western Europe”.
Yes, the Catholic Church has always made room for the development of doctrine, and yes, it has often been preceded by the Sensus Fidelium… but that does not mean established doctrines can be changed. The development of doctrine is based on a better understanding of Scripture and Tradition based on reason and evidence. Thus after 1800 years, the Pope could declare the Immaculate Conception a Dogma, but that, rather than change, was a refinement of what Catholics had always believed (That Mary was pure of all sins). But what has been defined in doctrine can never be undefined.
BTW, the National Catholic Reporter’s argument is at best suspect. Suggesting that consent was the sole criteria of a valid marriage plainly ignores long standing church teaching (i.e., that to be married, a couple must able to consummate their marriage).
Posted by Stephen DeVol - CITVN Executive Producer on Friday, Aug 9, 2013 12:35 PM (EDT):
Thanks fellas for sharing your opinions and sentiments.
Personally, I strongly object to the language. If you want to nurture something you call it a flower. If you want to kill something you call it a weed.
I prefer to take the Holy Father’s recent comments at face value and be open to what transpires. Pope Francis’s brief comment on judgment reveals great mercy.
The Catholic Church has always made room for doctrinal development. Major changes in Church doctrine were usually precipitated by major changes in the Sensus Fidelium. And, the Church catechism makes room for responsible dissent. What is required is an informed conscience.
May God’s peace be with you!
Stephen
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So much is wrong with the above comment you need an entire new thread to address. The sense of the faithful cannot contradict the magisterium. That would not be the authentic sense of the faithful at all. It would be some people at one point in history demanding their unfulfilled desires get fulfilled.
The Pope’s remarks about judging were in context of a person sinning, repenting and seeking to amend his life. He was not saying sin, do not call it sin, and celebrate sin. I mean really, are you serious?
Deacon Brandlin:
I didn’t write that. Pay did.
That said, I would be cautious in speaking of homosexuality as a “gift”. Sexuality is a gift, as all appetites and good thing are. But homosexuality, like gluttony, is not a gift but a good thing (sexuality/appetite) that is disordered. I agree completely that it is the act, not the disordered appetite, that is the sin. Disordered appetites are just concupiscence and not sinful till acted upon.
Mr. Shea, where on earth do you get the idea that I said homosexual desires are hatural or healthy?
Posted by Dn. T.E. Brandlin on Friday, Aug 9, 2013 1:29 PM (EDT):
Dear Mr. Shea,
Do you understand the difference between the gift of sexuality, whatever form that gift takes, and the expression of homosexuality? A person does not choose his or her gift of sexuality. A person chooses what he or she does with that gift. Read the documents: “homosexual ACTS are intrinsically evil.” It does not say the sexuality is evil. (Or, do you know more than 2,000 years of development of Catholic moral theology?)
On another point, when I clicked on the link in the email with your follow-up comment, nothing happened. I had to go back to the original email from the NC Register website and click on the article. You might want to pass this information on to the webmaster.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The homosexual inclination is disordered as the Church clearly teaches. That can evoke moral concern. It is not ordered toward the good. That the desire is not a sin does not mean it is natural or healthy.
We live in a fallen world and our “natural” heterosexual inclination may be broken. That does not make brokenness a gift. We can offer our suffering up to our Lord which is good, but that does not make disordered desires a gift.
See http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/07/10636/
“As the American Psychiatric Association’s latest statement on the issue summarizes: ‘Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.’” No evidence, despite the fac tthat every neo-pagain, pseudo-atheist “scientist” in the modern world would give his left pinky toe to be the one to get the Nobel proze for discovering a “gay gene.” No evidence will be found, because there is none.
“Homosexuality” is a choice (even if those who identify themselves by this degenerate propensity are not conscious of this, or do not admit being conscious of it, despite the many people whose “orientation” changes over time), and a bad one, increasing chances for STD and decreasing happiness (and eliminating progeny).
Hi, Stephen—you wrote:
“And, the Church catechism makes room for responsible dissent. What is required is an informed conscience.”
Not exactly: CCC 2039: “Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the magisterium of the Church.”
Dear Mr. Shea,
Do you understand the difference between the gift of sexuality, whatever form that gift takes, and the expression of homosexuality? A person does not choose his or her gift of sexuality. A person chooses what he or she does with that gift. Read the documents: “homosexual ACTS are intrinsically evil.” It does not say the sexuality is evil. (Or, do you know more than 2,000 years of development of Catholic moral theology?)
On another point, when I clicked on the link in the email with your follow-up comment, nothing happened. I had to go back to the original email from the NC Register website and click on the article. You might want to pass this information on to the webmaster.
Well ... that’s all well said if your presumption is that homosexual orientation is not a gift from God and your sentimentality is one of repugnance and disrespect.
For a brief lesson on the history of marriage, see:
http://ncronline.org/news/spirituality/look-marriage-equality-historical-perspective
Posted by Mark Shea on Friday, Aug 9, 2013 12:37 PM (EDT):
Homosexual desires are not a gift.
True. And nobody, least of all Lewis, is saying otherwise.
_______________________________________________
I was referring to the post right above mine. It says:
Posted by Dn. T.E. Brandlin on Friday, Aug 9, 2013 12:07 PM (EDT):
C.S. Lewis’ point to offer tribulations up to God and to seek God’s guidance on how to use it is the best of the gifts his letter to Sheldon Vanauken brings to us; more than 60 years after it was written. Whatever our trials and tribulations, they are part and parcel of our vocation given to us by God. If our gift of sexuality is homosexual, after offering the gift to up to God, it seems to me that our next question is to ask how I can use this gift and the trials, temptations, and tribulations that come with it to build the Kingdom of God. Both Lewis and Vanauken do a great service to society by asking the question and answering it so humbly.
R
Pope Francis’ remarks were standard Catholic teaching. I foresee no doctrinal developments here. Sex is intended for monogamous, lifelong, heterosexual marriage. Period. That ain’t gonna change in the Church’s teaching.
Great post, Mr. O’Connell. Mr. Shea: “gay” is as “gay” does, no matter what sins crying out for vengeance were committed by schismatic English boys 100 years ago.
Mr. DeVol, I hope CITVN is an orthodox organization. Not 100% sure what you meant above. Epigenetics, i.e., the fact that genes are active or dormant depending on environmental stimuli, essentially means that our environment — much of which we, as beings with free will, create for ourselves — influences what we come to be over time. “We must be content with ignorance”? No. All depraved inclinations are the result of three things: (1) origninal sin, (2) environment, and (3) the free-will acts and thoughts of the individual, who can augment a temptation by allowing it to fill the space in his or her heart that should be filled wit hthe things of God. (Lead me NOT into temptation!) Baptism addresses #1. Each of us must answer for #2 for ourselves. And of #3, Jesus said that anyone who leads a little one astray was going to regret it.
†
Homosexual desires are not a gift.
True. And nobody, least of all Lewis, is saying otherwise.
Thanks fellas for sharing your opinions and sentiments.
Personally, I strongly object to the language. If you want to nurture something you call it a flower. If you want to kill something you call it a weed.
I prefer to take the Holy Father’s recent comments at face value and be open to what transpires. Pope Francis’s brief comment on judgment reveals great mercy.
The Catholic Church has always made room for doctrinal development. Major changes in Church doctrine were usually precipitated by major changes in the Sensus Fidelium. And, the Church catechism makes room for responsible dissent. What is required is an informed conscience.
May God’s peace be with you!
Stephen
To Stephen DeVol:
Lewis probably wasn’t able to “...create a catholic apologetic…” because he was not a catholic, but a member of the Anglican Church. That is, unless you mean the generic term catholic, meaning universal or comprehensive.
As am sure you know, in Mere Christianity, he tended to take a fundamental view of Christianity and reduced the Faith to it’s simplest, non-dogmental Biblical components sans all the trappings of formal “church”.
Homosexual desires are not a gift. They are not part of God’s ordaining will. Do we talk about the gift of lustful desires or the gift of desire to commit pedophilia? Why this need to re-describe things?
C.S. Lewis’ point to offer tribulations up to God and to seek God’s guidance on how to use it is the best of the gifts his letter to Sheldon Vanauken brings to us; more than 60 years after it was written. Whatever our trials and tribulations, they are part and parcel of our vocation given to us by God. If our gift of sexuality is homosexual, after offering the gift to up to God, it seems to me that our next question is to ask how I can use this gift and the trials, temptations, and tribulations that come with it to build the Kingdom of God. Both Lewis and Vanauken do a great service to society by asking the question and answering it so humbly.
It is unfortunate that C.S. Lewis had no access to epigenetic evidence. So in struggling to create a catholic apologetic he reduces the desire to a matter of normative sentimentality.
I agree with your initial observation:
Lewis generally refrained from offering moral counsel on homosexuality and gambling, since he never experienced temptation in these areas and resented officers who had never fought in combat telling troops on the front line how to run their lives.
***“The resulting letter is interesting for a number of reasons, but in particular what I like about it is his conviction that behind every disordered appetite is some kind of warped virtue and that the ticket is to search for the virtue and help foster it.”***
Glad to see this letter shared at the Register. It is insightful, as is what I cite above from the original post.
For any who venture into the “Theology of the Body” corpus of JPII, this same idea emerges pretty clearly. Concupiscence “twists” and warps the human appetites that should lead us to truth, goodness, and beauty. Grace can “un-warp” what concupiscence warps, particularly in the realm of purity, with resulting growth in virtue, a development JPII refers to as a “mature purity.”
Good stuff!
Correct. As I said, it’s from A Severe Mercy.
I’m pretty sure this letter was not from the introduction of The Screwtape Letters.
It is one thing to address such behavior when it is in the minority, when it is commonly understood that it is to be discouraged. It is another thing when such behavior is to be held as normative, when the most man occupying the most powerful office in the world declares that opposition to it is “immoral”. The Founder of Judicial Watch and the newspaper which revealed the sins against marriage of a former presidential contender, while the latter’s wife was dying of breast cancer, have both stated that the person likely next to occupy the most powerful office in the world has practiced homosexual behavior. The only matter to be settled is the means by which the elite rulers will break the news to the subject populations of flyover country and induce them to accept it.
Another famous thinker’s troubles, which led to his execution, are involved in the treatment of this curious vice. “Socrates abhorred vice, not only in himself, but in everyone besides. To prove which, I need only relate his conduct toward Critias, a man extremely addicted to debauchery. Socrates perceiving that this man had an unnatural passion for Euthydemus, and that the violence of it would precipitate him so far a length as to make him transgress the bounds of nature, shocked at his behaviour, he exerted his utmost strength of reason and argument to dissuade him from so wild a desire. And while the impetuosity of Critias’ passion seemed to scorn all check or control, and the modest rebuke of Socrates had been disregarded, the philosopher, out of an ardent zeal for virtue, broke out in such language, as at once declared his own strong inward sense of decency and order, and the monstrous shamefulness of Critias’ passion. Which severe but just reprimand of Socrates, it is thought, was the foundation of that grudge which he ever after bore him; for during the tyranny of the Thirty, of which Critias was one, when, together with Charicles, he had the care of the civil government of the city, he failed not to remember this affront, and, in revenge of it, made a law to forbid teaching the art of reasoning in Athens: and having nothing to reproach Socrates with in particular, he laboured to render him odious by aspersing him with the usual calumnies that are thrown on all philosophers: for I have never heard Socrates say that he taught this art, nor seen any man who ever heard him say so; but Critias had taken offence, and gave sufficient proofs of it: for after the Thirty had caused to be put to death a great number of the citizens, and even of the most eminent, and had let loose the reins to all sorts of violence and rapine, Socrates said in a certain place that he wondered very much that a man who keeps a herd of cattle, and by his ill conduct loses every day some of them, and suffers the others to fall away, would not own himself to be a very ill keeper of his herd; and that he should wonder yet more if a Minister of State, who lessens every day the number of his citizens, and makes the others more dissolute, was not ashamed of his ministry, and would not own himself to be an ill magistrate. This was reported to Critias and Charicles, who forthwith sent for Socrates, and showing him the law they had made, forbid him to discourse with the young men.…” - Xenophon (2012-05-16). The Memorable Thoughts of Socrates (p. 7). Kindle Edition.
Join the Discussion
We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines. Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words. Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.
Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.