|
Published: July 2, 2010
Homosexuality divides Presbyterians
Big fight expected at General Assembly of Presbyterian Church (USA)
A major inter-denominational battle over marriage and sexual morality is expected at the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) when Presbyterians begin a weeklong gathering tomorrow at the Minneapolis Convention Center in Minneapolis, Minn.
 “Presbyterians gathering next week will choose between two divergent paths,” said a June 30 news release from the traditionalist Institute on Religion & Democracy. “The first seeks to change the church’s definition of marriage to a relationship between any ‘two people,’ while the second seeks to preserve the church’s teachings that marriage is between a man and a woman. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) will take up a series of items, among them proposed constitutional amendments to change the definition of marriage in the PCUSA Book of Order. The effect would be to allow churches to host and ministers to officiate at same-sex marriages. Other proposals would interpret the PCUSA constitution as allowing any state-recognized same-sex marriage to be celebrated as a Christian marriage. The Final Report of the Special Committee on Civil Union and Christian Marriage asserts that ‘members of the PC(USA) cannot agree’ on ‘the place of covenanted same-gender partnerships in the Christian community’ and must therefore show ‘mutual forbearance.’ Traditionalists have instead encouraged the adoption of a minority report that upholds ‘the church’s biblical, historic, and confessional position that, among all varieties of sexual relationships, only marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God and blessed by our Lord Jesus Christ.’”
On the other side, a coalition of homosexual-friendly Presbyterian groups said in a press release, “Presbyterian advocates of equality for all members of the church, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people (LGBT), are announcing they are ready to celebrate continuing progress at the upcoming General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), July 3–10, in Minneapolis.”
"We have come so far toward fully including everyone in the denomination, we have reason to celebrate, even as we work for fuller inclusion,” said the Rev. Tricia Dykers Koenig, National Organizer of the Covenant Network of Presbyterians, a member of the coalition. “As we move forward, we will continue to lift up our core belief that we are all created in the image of God. We know that the church is living into a future that allows Presbyterians to follow their God-led consciences as they consider each candidate, rather than requiring exclusion."
In the same convention hall in which the Presbyterians are meeting, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted last year to allow ministers in same-sex relationships to be listed on the official roster and to serve the church.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) currently allows gay and lesbian people to serve in official capacities if they maintain “chastity,” said the coalition’s news release. "An amendment to lift the requirement for ‘fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness’ was passed at the 2008 General Assembly, but after the long process of voting by regionally based presbyteries, the constitutional amendment did not garner the required number of presbytery votes.”
"There is a growing consensus among Presbyterians that we have spent enough time trying to keep people out of church leadership and it is time to celebrate our progress and our common heart for service," said Mieke Vandersall, head of Presbyterian Welcome, also a member of the coalition.
 Presbyterians participating in the General Assembly will take up several items concerning homosexuality requiring a vote. Among them, according to the coalition’s news release: Provision of benefits to same-gender spouses and domestic partners of employees in church positions; Affirmation of the right of clergy to provide pastoral care to their members by performing legal weddings and services, in the growing number of states allowing same-sex marriage or domestic partnerships with all the rights of marriage; Removal of all barriers to ordination for lesbian and gay Presbyterians; Continued review of translations of a creedal statement containing a misleading anti-gay phrase that was not present in the original language.
"Only God knows what decisions will be made at this General Assembly," said Michael Adee, executive director of More Light Presbyterians, another coalition member, "but we do know that the Presbyterian Church (USA) understands now that it baptizes and nurtures the faith of its own gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender daughters and sons.”
Alan Wisdom, vice president for research and programs and director of the Presbyterian Action Committee at the Institute on Religion & Democracy, shows just how deeply the Presbyterians are divided on homosexual-related issues. “The Scriptures and all parts of the PCUSA constitution consistently teach that marriage is instituted by God as a gift to all humankind, and that we are to honor that gift,” Wisdom said in a prepared statement. "If the PCUSA embraces sexual revisionism, it would deliberately sideline itself. It would exalt western liberal notions of individual moral autonomy above shared understandings of the Bible. It would follow the United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church on the road to theological marginalization, internal division, accelerating membership loss, and cultural irrelevance.”
"Shall we assert the right to redefine marriage to suit our own contemporary notions of justice?” asks Wisdom. “Shall we treat marriage as if it were no different from other sexual relationships? Or shall we reaffirm the biblical vision of an exclusive, lifelong, one-flesh union of the two complementary sexes created by God?"
Posted Friday, July 02, 2010 12:07 AM By JLS
The Great Commission in reverse.
|
Posted Friday, July 02, 2010 6:04 AM By St. Christopher
What a complete joke. The "Presbyterian" church is simply heretical. Pray for its members, but pray that they can find the strength to become Catholics, or at the very least to resist the nutty concept of homosexual marriage. Of course, the fact of the enormous pressures on that church regarding this issue makes the outcome reasonably foreseeable.
|
Posted Friday, July 02, 2010 7:29 AM By Sawyer
Perhaps the one good thing to come out of the leftist movement to normalize homosexual relationships is that it shows just how much separated ecclesial communities are in great need of the divinely guided Magisterium and in great need of unity with the See of Peter. Will the godlessness of leftist society spawn a great Christian reunification in the one, true Catholic Church?
|
Posted Friday, July 02, 2010 7:45 AM By OneoftheSheep
My Presbyterian friends, I have a message for you: Come home to Rome.
Sexual revisionism makes a mockery of Scripture.
Read Theology of the Body, a work by the late, great John Paul II and understand the nuptial meaning of the body.
|
Posted Friday, July 02, 2010 7:57 AM By Canisius
THis heretic church is going the way of the sodomites, this is what people like Micah, PA and Aaron demand from the Catholic Church, affirmation of sin. say no to tolerance
|
Posted Friday, July 02, 2010 8:40 AM By Bud
How sad, the formal gay agenda by the Harvard group and Stonewall that created this quagmire to make Christians feel guilty for not declaring or believing that the purpose of gay marriage is to instill a touchy, feely feeling of acceptance with benign "whatever floats your boat lifestyles" is actually God's law and must be accepted as Equality! Who are they fooling?
|
Posted Friday, July 02, 2010 8:49 AM By Fr. J
When I was in the PCUSA they were fighting over this. The homosexuals and their supporters will fight until they figure out how to get their way. Once that happens they will drive out everyone who doesn't agree with them and their agenda. It has happened repeatedly in other denominations. When this pops up the homosexuals should be invited, and if they don't take the hint, expelled from the denomination. They can form their own church or join one they agree with. Don't let them destroy your church and force you to dance to their tune. They do not have the right to impose their will on any church. They should be honest and leave if they don't agree with a church's doctrines. Believe me, homosexuals are the most intolerant beings on the planet.
|
Posted Friday, July 02, 2010 10:36 AM By Abeca Christian
Wow I always thought Presbyterians were conservative and took their bible seriously. I guess I was wrong. I hope that those who oppose their homosexual friendly idea's, I hope that they leave and come to the real faith and fight with us the good fight. These are one of the churches that our own church promoted during their ecumenism week. They encouraged our Catholic faithful to attend one of their services during the week. This ecumenism deal is making me sick! It is wrong for our people, we are giving them the wrong message. We need to stand firm and always be the light that leads people to truth!
|
Posted Friday, July 02, 2010 10:41 AM By VirgoPotens
How ironic. Certain Protestants say "sola scriptura" but then conveniently ignore the sections of "scriptura" that say it's a sin for a man to lie with a man. Sawyer hit the nail on the head: there's a need for a divinely guided Magisterium.
|
Posted Friday, July 02, 2010 10:59 AM By Apostate
For guidance on this issue, I think what is most important is that we look at the words of our blessed Lord with respect to homosexuality, especially in light of the vast number of negative references by rabbis who lived in His time, which are recorded in Jewish literature. Jesus says: " "... that's right . Absolutely nothing whatsoever.
He DOES of course say "Judge not, lest you yourselves be judged."
|
Posted Friday, July 02, 2010 11:34 AM By K
This is one of the many reasons why I left the PC(USA) ten years ago. They have been going back and forth on this for YEARS.
I was at the General Assembly in 1993 and the homosexuals caused trouble the whole time. They hijacked and disrupted our meetings. They protested during one large meeting and would not let the agenda continue, taking over microphones and shouting. The GA lost valuable time addressing other very important issues because of the homosexuals' temper tantrums. They lobbied our Youth Advisory Delegates and exposed those young people to morally depraved speakers and ideas. It was disgusting.
But what frustrated me even more was the continual cowardice of many traditional Presbyterians in leadership positions. Many have been so afraid of 'offending' anyone or 'hurting feelings' that they have hardly taken a stand. The PC(USA)'s failure to take a solid moral position on many issues is suicidal. Their desire to not make waves and to 'get along' has rendered it irrelevant.
When truth and morality are up for popular vote every year.....that's my signal to leave.
|
Posted Friday, July 02, 2010 12:08 PM By Terry McDermott
The real war that needs to be fought:
JULY 4, 2010
RED, WHITE, & BABY BLUE
On July 4, 2010, it will have been 234 years since Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, on July 4, 1776. As the American way of life slowly slips away, I wonder if the reason is tied to our abandonment of this sacred document?
Shortly before America killed the Kennedy’s and Martin Luther King, they drew a line in the sand in 1963. In standing up for civil rights, President Kennedy framed the quest as a moral issue and stated it “…is as old as the Scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution…………The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated.”
In August, 1963, Dr. King stood at the Lincoln Memorial, near the man who had who had said, “To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.”
King implored America to fulfill the promise of its Declaration. Specifically, all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with the right to life. In the face of abortion, the American holocaust and civil rights movement of our generation, King would once again state that the promise seems sadly like a bad check. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given its preborn children a check that has come back marked, “insufficient funds.”
With a sense of dignity and righteous anger, Dr. King would refuse to believe the bank of justice is bankrupt. He would claim Solomon’s words from 3,000 years ago in the Old Testament Book of Ecclesiastes that states there is a time for everything. Now is the time to end our culture of death and to stand up, and speak up, and defend the defenseless and be a voice for the voiceless.
As our streets run red with rivers of blood from the thousands of aborted children killed every day in this country, this July 4th, America truly will be red, white, & baby blue!
|
Posted Friday, July 02, 2010 2:22 PM By NUTUNE
IF-and a big IF-more true Catholics were to uproot the weeds that "someone" has sown in our fields WHILE WE SLEPT, then perhaps other denominations would more easily find the peace and security of joining the True Church. Before the recent reaffiliation by Anglicans, there were the SAME graphic, unmistakeably blatant campaigns of extreme FALSE confidence---which took a CONSCIOUS act of OPPOSITION to RETRIEVE and REVIVE the abandoned and forgotten truths discarded in the "Deformation". Some did not find the forgotten way until they encountered the SOLIDARITY of the Catholic Church. SOLIDARITY BELONGS ONLY TO US-AND WE ARE READY TO SHARE.
|
Posted Friday, July 02, 2010 3:02 PM By Aaron
Casius: I have never said that I want the Catholic church to approve of gay marriage. I am seeking only CIVIL marriage rights for gays so they can have equal rights. CIVIL marriage is quite different from the Sacrament of Marriage between a man and a woman in the Catholic church. Gays and Lesbians only want equal CIVIL rights for all.
|
Posted Friday, July 02, 2010 4:40 PM By Dan
The Catholic Church is not immune from the influence of GLBT theology/practice, otherwise there would be no talk of the "Lavendar Mafia."
|
Posted Friday, July 02, 2010 5:38 PM By Ken
A very prominent talk show host must be squirming while his
church drifts into deep liberal theology. I will pray for his
return to the Church of his youth.
|
Posted Friday, July 02, 2010 9:34 PM By Brad
There is not a snowball's chance in h--- the Presbyterians can resist the tidal wave of the vocal left within their ranks. Those who want change are always the louder party and they always win given enough time. I don't want them to, but they will. It's the nature of the gas pedal vs the brake pedal. Brakes fail before the gas tank runs out or the engine seizes up. The only thing that seems to be keeping our own Church from caving is Christ's founding promise to Peter, something which the prots. don't have. Unhappy them. Regarding our own Church, there are so many gay progressives in the pews and among the clergy (well published clergy) and religious it's not even funny. And they are pushing. And they have legions of unwitting fans among the ranks of straight pew-sitters.
|
Posted Friday, July 02, 2010 9:45 PM By Anne T.
Oh! give us a break, Aaron. Next you will be asking for civil marriages for brothers and sisters as long as they abort all their children, or brothers and brothers, or aunts and nephews. The answer is, "No." There are no such "civil rights". By the way, the state of Wisconsin has just declared unanimously, 7-0, that marriage is between one man and one woman. Hurray for Wisconsin! Way to go!
|
Posted Friday, July 02, 2010 9:57 PM By Abeca Christian
Aaron quit being a harlot! We keep explaining to you why your views are tremendously wrong for society and for children. Your views are only hypocritical.
|
Posted Friday, July 02, 2010 10:17 PM By Anne T.
Apostate (that's the title you gave yourself), the Lord did not have to say anything about homosexual acts. He kept the Commandments perfectly, including the one that says: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind." It is a breakage of the the Commandment against adultery, which also includes fornication, incest and beastiality, and every Jew of Christ's time knew that. It was a given. Christ did not tell the woman caught in adultery to go do it again. He told her not to do it again or something worse would happen to her. Do you think he would tell someone who was caught in a homosexual act to go do it again after he save them the first time? No way! If we keep up our sins without repentance, sooner or later He allows us to suffer the consequences of our actions.
|
Posted Friday, July 02, 2010 10:38 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
FYI, Scott Hahn his wife Kimberly, Steve Wood, and many other former Protestant ministers now Catholic evanglist were Presbyterians. In fact many of them went to the same seminary!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
|
Posted Friday, July 02, 2010 10:50 PM By JLS
Apostate, you need to reread what Jesus says about homosexuality. Remember what the Law and Prophets say about it and then realize that Jesus says that He is the fulfillment of the Law and not a jot or tittle shall be changed. Also realize that there was little if any homosexuality among the Jews He traveled among, because they were always weeded out. So there was no point to say much about it. Shows you that even such a bad bad Jewish rulership that they had not yet fallen as low as homosexuality. Maybe the time was close however, since the Jews were mingling more and more among the gentiles who had countless idols. And one thing Jesus did say in direct reference to homosexuality was about some little towns that had gone up in smoke with Sodom and Gomorrah that they would have repented had He walked among them. So you see the will of God voiced in Jesus ... homosexuality needs to be turned away from.
|
Posted Saturday, July 03, 2010 12:15 AM By perrywRinkle
EVERBODY READ WHAT EVERBODY ELSE IS WRITING IN ABOUT! I can already see (NOT imagine) a common line of thought. EXPERIENCE of others who have fought this strange hypnotic paralysis is our SCIENCE LAB! General ideas sent in by those who have tried to keep pure the law and the love of God surely will benefit! If it works-LET IT!
|
Posted Saturday, July 03, 2010 9:21 AM By Mea Culpa
This is the problem when you break away from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. There is no Holy Spirit working through the Magisterium of the Church to guide us into all Truth in these break-away sects. There are only the whims of men (and women) to guide them, inevitably, into all falsehood. Pray for the good people in this sect, that they might find the fullness of Truth in the Catholic Church.
|
Posted Saturday, July 03, 2010 9:54 AM By MarkF
Aaron, when you claim that you want civil right for ALL, does your definition of ALL include every single consenting adult relationship, or just to your particular one?
|
Posted Saturday, July 03, 2010 12:34 PM By noway jose
America and Europe are in the grip of liberal destruction, the obliteration of morality and decency. Everyone is quaking in their shoes to avoid offending one of the sacred cows as layed out by the nation and moral wrecking spewers of liberal dogma. Homosexuality is an abomination to God and repulsive to any normal human being, the greatest love is to tell a committed homosexual the truth that if they persist in their behaviour hell will be the result. Even acceptance they want so badly will not take away their inner torment because unrepented mortal sin causes pain and emotional distress that will not heal until the actions are stopped. It is a deeply difficult thing to live with and overcome but the Holy Eucharist is the grace needed nobody should tell a wounded homosexual anything different but offer understanding and love, but never acceptance of the condition as normal.
|
Posted Saturday, July 03, 2010 3:37 PM By 1abqdad
This is what happens when MAN is allowed to corrupt God's doctrines with silly "votes" as opposed to intelligent understanding of scripture. The is the ultimate in humanistic corruption! It always leads to blasphemy and heresy. Pretty simple. There is a HUGE difference between accepting a person's "issues" and accepting corruption of a sacrament. To deny gay marriage is NOT to deny gay people anything that was NOT as established by God! God's laws and values are NOT up for question or "vote" by a bunch of arrogant heretics! There are what they are and have never changed in 2,000 years.
|
Posted Saturday, July 03, 2010 3:56 PM By Canisius
MarkF good point. Tell us Aaron do these civil rights include those in other so called relationships, hmmm where do draw the line, should we extend civil rights to every person who claims they are oppressed.
|
Posted Saturday, July 03, 2010 4:35 PM By Anne T.
Mark F, that is an excellent question in your post of July 3 at 9:54 A.M., and Aaron never seems to be able to answer it. Of course, he too realizes that okaying "same-sex" marriage will only lead to chaos, but does he care or is he only concerned about his own desires, wishes and wants for himself? I think it is the latter. I really do not think he cares what it will do to the rest of society, including innocent children.
|
Posted Saturday, July 03, 2010 5:47 PM By WOODY GUIDRY
1ABQDAD-I think your comments are FACTUAL, WELL-SAID, AND AN INDICATION OF HOW THE CHURCH HAS SURVIVED AND GROWN. Logic such as you present is not as easily discerned as lesser words would be-but I would not ask you to change anything! We need to HOLD to it and assure its preservation.
|
Posted Saturday, July 03, 2010 8:38 PM By perrywRinkle
HELP for SSA's is most VALID if it comes from FAMILY EXPERIENCE. Here are some general rules that some of my friends have impressed on me: 1. DON'T LABEL THEM AS HOMOSEXUAL OR LESBIAN 2. PERSONAL ASSESSMENT OF THEIR OWN WORTH IS BASED STRONGLY ON WHAT OTHERS CALL THEM. 3. ONCE LABELED, IT IS DEMEANING TO THEIR VALUE AS A PERSON AND A HUMAN BEING MADE IN GOD'S IMAGE. 4. AFTER BEING LABELED, THEY BECOME COMBATIVE FIGHTING FOR THEIR PERSONHOOD. 5. THE GENESIS OF SSA TENDENCIES IS LARGELY UNEXPLAINED. 6. IF A SSA ACCEPTS THE LABEL AND THE STRUGGLE TO ESCAPE IS STOPPED, THEN CHANGE IS THAT MUCH HARDER. 7. SSA's APPEAR TO BE EXTREMELY SENSITIVE TO FAMILY, ESPECIALLY. 8. THOSE WHO DID ESCAPE THEN LIVED AND HAD CHASTE AND PEACEFUL LIVES. 9. FAMILIES SAY THAT THE CHURCH'S ADMONITION TO RECEIVE THE EUCHARIST FREQUENTLY, CONFESSION, PRAYER AND SUPPORT FROM OTHERS CAN MINIMIZE OR ALLEVIATE ALTOGETHER -BUT NOT NECESSARILY. SOME WILL SIN, BUT NOT HABITUALLY, AND HAVE A GOOD CHANCE TO WIN IN THE END. 10. FAMILY SAYS PARENTS SHOULD CALL NEW YORK "ENCOURAGE" AND TRY TO GET IN A SUPPORT GROUP. THE SSA's SHOULD DO THE SAME WITH THE "COURAGE" UNIT. THE HOPE IS THAT THESE YOUNG FOLK WILL BE ABLE TO SELECT SOMEONE WHO IS NOT SSA FOR THEIR "VERY OWN".
|
Posted Saturday, July 03, 2010 11:12 PM By Maryanne Leonard
Oh my gosh, perrywRinkle, what an incredibly informative and useful post. I read love for the person in this approach to accepting and helping them, and I do think that is the proper Christian attitude. I think a deeply centered person is needed in order to be a Rock of Gibralter for anyone dealing with same sex attraction, which I assume is what SSA stands for. As loving Catholics, who I hope would love and help other Catholics in need of support, we would be well advised to stop labeling, criticizing, and demeaning the gays we come into in our lives and offer the same loving hand we once offered to Jews and others who were being persecuted in order to help them. They may see our wish to help them as a way of demeaning them at first, but if we stand ready to help by first loving them and helping them to stop looking for love in all the wrong places, they may find they can trust us to help them find the greatest love of all. No, it's not learning to love yourself, despite the song, but it is learning to follow Jesus more perfectly every day, even when, or especially when, we are most in need of His help. I don't pretend to know how to help, other than to urge loving acceptance of people where they are, but perrywRinkle, this is specifically helpful information that might actually help a motivated person find his or her own personal salvation through specific and knowledgeable support as appropriate. I honestly believe Jesus would say, "Yes, now you're getting it. Love one another as I have loved you." Let's all try to help anyone who wants help, encourage anyone who doesn't believe he or she could find help, and stop picking on our Catholic colleagues who are troubled by this. Let's keep them as valued members of our faith and treat them with basic human dignity while praying for guidance as to how best to help them see that they will be happier when they live as close as possible to the Bible every day in every way. No, and we don't have to sing Kumbaya,
|
Posted Saturday, July 03, 2010 11:55 PM By Anne T.
PerriRinkle and Maryanne Leonard, this can work well, unless there has been molestation done by a family member to a family member. Then sometimes the ill feelings are just too much for the other family members to deal with such a person. Sad to say this is too often the case.
|
Posted Sunday, July 04, 2010 12:11 AM By Anne T.
Maybe, to be fair, I should have said that this is sometimes the case. It creates terrible wounds in a family where the other family members do not want the perpetrator to be around any of the children or teens. Sometimes the perpetrator is not jailed because other family members do not prosecute for various reasons, or the victim does not and goes away and is never seen again leaving the family wondering what happened to him. I know of just such a case.
|
Posted Sunday, July 04, 2010 2:49 AM By Abeca Christian
Homosexuality divides Presbyterians? Yes that too and Homosexuality divides everyone is more like it. NOT just division amongst the people but it divides man from God. Sin causes division.
|
Posted Sunday, July 04, 2010 5:13 AM By hhaskie
Joshua 24:15..."as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord" Serving the Lord is picking up the cross, setting the plow straight, traveling the narrow way, and going through the narrow gate. The Bible is very clear about marriage as between a man and a woman. Use the Bible for guidance, not man made rules. To the leadership, stand up for the LORD and say "no." Its time to be bold and get back into the scriptures and rebuild a Christian nation.
|
Posted Sunday, July 04, 2010 8:37 AM By RR
Maryanne & perrywRinkle: This approach is best IF the person admits and wants to do the will of God and what is right. This is NOT the intent of the dissenting posters on here. It is their agenda on here to try to deceive lukewarm into thinking their homosexual acts are normal. They have an agenda here. The type of homosexuals you two are talking about will NOT be posting on here. They will be willing to admit there is a problem and be ashamed of their thoughts and lusts. These types of homosexuals are the ones who deserve the respect, love, and help of all of us Catholics and Christians. The homosexuals who deny Christ's Church Teachings, know it mortally sinful, shove their homosexuality in our faces, and try to brainwash our children into thinking their filth is is normal are the type that post here. They don't want our help, just our acceptance of their filthy lusts, BUT THEY WILL NEVER GET IT. God and His Church says NO.
|
Posted Sunday, July 04, 2010 8:39 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
perrywRinkie,
Just exactly what do you propose we call those who choose to offend God by violating his Commandment against un-natural sex?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
|
Posted Sunday, July 04, 2010 8:45 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
MarryAnne Leonard,
No, Jesus would say to about those who refuse to repent exactly what he said to his Apostles, "If they refuse to listen, wipe the feet of their dust from your feet, and go on to others who will listen". You seem to completely ignore the FACT that Jesus oftend taught to shun the un-repentant sinner, both in His Old and in His New Testaments!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
|
Posted Sunday, July 04, 2010 10:38 PM By perrywRinkle
Kenneth, my letter was intended to make public some of the family advice which "family" has found helped family menbers-due, in large part I think, that people who have these impulses seem to RESPOND more quickly to family. What I call those (anybody) who CHOOSES to offend God in ANY WAY, is "SINNER". I pass along information to any who wish to help THIS kind of sinner has been singled out by me because of the havoc being wreaked in society by this sin. I don't know how much of an answer you want, Kenneth, as your question is kind of generic, but I HAVE answered your posted question. Ask me the medical definition I would give and it would not be the same as the definition for religious offenses. Read a little slower, and I think you will see my post reflects my concern for human beings who have this condition. I've done my share of sinning, Kenneth, but this particular sin I have been spared from. If you have a sincere concern for ANY sinner, this SSA (same sex attraction) is one that merits a LOT of concern. Help when you can.
|
Posted Monday, July 05, 2010 10:19 AM By Brad
I wholeheartedly agree with perry. Amazing how labels and self-labeling entrench the persona. As opposed to Christ, who is freedom. The only freedom. I see too many SSA people caught up, in what is in their minds, defending their "clan" on the socio-political world stage instead of simply carrying their personal, not communal, cross in a private relationship with Jesus, the great healer. I also agree with Kenneth that if someone is unrepentant, there is nothing we can do for them; we should move on to hearts less stony, where we may have more luck. The stony hearted ones, we leave to God's merciful justice. The soft-hearted ones, like Magdalen, have ENORMOUS potential: society's worst was first to see the risen Christ. 'Nuff said.
|
Posted Monday, July 05, 2010 1:20 PM By yar2010
Ok, after all these innovations are approved, what decisions will come down concerning bi-sexuals? After all they are sexually attracted to both sexes and why can they not have both a husband and a wife? At least be consident in your evil doings.
|
Posted Monday, July 05, 2010 2:48 PM By Dan
Perrywinkle -- like your posts, but have read enough articles to wonder if your comment "5. THE GENESIS OF SSA TENDENCIES IS LARGELY UNEXPLAINED. " is really true. I am refering, of course, to the bane of gay activists -NARTH- and the numerous studies on gays and lesbians there which would never make the LA Times. I guess the words "largely unexplained" could also mean "explained a little." How much? I largely don't know!
|
Posted Monday, July 05, 2010 3:18 PM By Mark from PA
Brad, "society's worst was first to see the risen Christ." What are you talking about here? I hope that you are not talking about St. Mary Magdalene who was one of Christ's closest disciples. St. Mary Magdalene was NOT a prostitute or a fallen woman. This was a myth that was later promoted by some in the Church. She was linked with another woman in the Bible in order but this has no basis in scripture.
|
Posted Monday, July 05, 2010 4:56 PM By JLS
PA, you continue to ignore the fact that the first to see the Risen Christ had already repented and turned from sin. Scripture, PA, was based on what the Apostles and witnesses passed on. Do you imagine there was a court reporter with machine at every event? Jesus even says He came to save the sinners ... so if she had not been a sinner, then she wouldn't have been there. You're like all the Calvinists and fatalists in that you believe individuals are destined at conception to be a certain way. Jesus refutes this old pagan falsehood.
|
Posted Monday, July 05, 2010 4:56 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Mark from PA, so now you know more about St. Mary Magdalene than do some of the Church's truly great Theologians and Writers!
Most teach that, before she surrendered to Christ, she was a very promiscous woman, promiscuous with the rich and powerful. However; you are right in that they teach that she was not a common prostitute.
She is one of my favorite Saints amongst the women Saints, and many believe she is closest to Our Lady amongst the women Saints, just as she was on earth.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
|
Posted Monday, July 05, 2010 4:56 PM By Anne T.
But it has basis in Holy Tradtion, Mark Pa. Some early Church Fathers mention it.
|
Posted Monday, July 05, 2010 6:02 PM By Brad
Denying Magdalen's history is to deny reason why Christ in his perfect comprehension chose to immortalize her in history: because it illustrates His being and mission. Mark from PA, I utterly deny your wikipedia revisionist history. I prefer Venerable Mary of Agreda and Blessed Anne Emmerich's versions of Magdalen's life to wikipedia.
|
Posted Monday, July 05, 2010 8:36 PM By Mark from PA
Mr. Fisher, I have read several books on St. Mary Magdalene. She is one of my favorite saints also. Yes she was a sinner and of course she was the first to see the risen Christ. But she was not a prostitute or a very promiscuous woman from what I have read.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 06, 2010 6:34 AM By Canisius
PA I am willing to bet my favorite fire arm that whatever you read about the Mary Magdalene was based on Gnostic text which are NOT recognized by the Church as canonical.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 06, 2010 9:07 AM By Brad
Denying Magdalen's life story is an old canard. The love that dare not speak its name uses straight women of ill repute as a proxy for the real issue: theirs. This is hyper common in fiction and media from Victoria to Hollywood. Thus, if Magdalen was innocent, they are too. Thus, Christ had no reason to save her (and greatly favor her, I might add), and thus He has no reason to save anyone who is sexually immoral. Since, after all, sexual immorality is relative and the CCC is wrong/silent about that topic (yeah right). To deny Magdalen's story is to deny Christ. He came for sinners. And she was one.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 06, 2010 12:00 PM By Mea Culpa
I can just imagine who wrote the books PA read about Mary Magdalene - since his choice of people to learn from run toward the likes of disgraced "Father" Martin Kurylowicz - a former priest and now a radical homosexual activist who now posts hate filled screeds directed toward the Catholic Church and especially toward the Holy Father - these screeds are some of PA's favorite reading, although he doesn't agree with "all of what Kurylowicz says." If Mary Magdalene wasn't a fallen woman - why does Luke 8:2 say "Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out." Brad's point, which PA is trying to cloud over, is that sinners don't have to be labelled as sinners forever - there is repentence and forgiveness through Jesus Christ. Homosexuals can be freed of their slavery to sin, just as Mary Magdalene was. She illustrated the point Jesus often makes - the first shall be last, and the last shall be first. PA wants to deny this - he wants us to believe homosexuals will forever be trapped in their sins, there is no way out for them. That is why he wants to negate the powerful example of Mary Magdalene, who, through Jesus Christ, went from sinner to dedicated disciple - indeed, the first to see the risen Christ!
|
Posted Tuesday, July 06, 2010 2:38 PM By Mark from PA
Yes, Mea Culpa, the Gospel of Mark reveals that Mary Magdalene was possessed by seven devils. So it seems that she did suffer from some illnesses. "Modern scholars theorize that she may have suffered from epilepsy." "The scriptures never say that her illness was a result of sexual sins." "The most persistent, yet incorrect, myth about Mary Magdalene revolves around her being a prostitute. Pope Gregory the Great, in 591, delivered his now famous homily in Rome. He wove together the stories of Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany and the sinful woman who anointed Jesus' feet. This composite image suited his purpose, but Mary Magdalene's reputation would bear the shame of the fallen woman redeemed for a very long time." "After unfairly portraying Mary Magdalene for centuries as a harlot, the Roman Catholic Church in 1969 reversed its position. It now calls Mary Magdalene, Apostle to the Apostles."
|
Posted Tuesday, July 06, 2010 8:52 PM By Mea Culpa
PA - you don't note that you're quoting Meera Lester's book The Everything Mary Magdalene Book. She also wrote The Everything Gnostic Gospels Book. She argues on p. 99 that "Feminist theologians assert that apostolic authority, power, and control was something patriarchal fathers did not want to share with women." She is saying that the Church Tradition that Mary Magdalene was a sexual sinner was made up by patriarchal Church fathers as a way to keep women from being ordained. Another nice source you're using, PA. First, a radical homosexual ex-priest, and now a feminist theologian. Where are you getting these books?
|
Posted Tuesday, July 06, 2010 10:35 PM By Rick DeLano
Thank you ever so much for supplying Mark from PA's (again neglected) source citation, Mea Culpa. Nice work. I shall try and contain my shock at learning that once again PA gets his theology from the heretics and dissenters. It seems it has become an acquired taste for this poor fellow.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 06, 2010 10:39 PM By JLS
PA, have you ever heard of the concept "divide and conquer"? Did you read where Jesus prayed that his disciples would not be scattered. Yet you champion some gnostic feminist who writes a book aimed at dividing not only the believers but the person of Mary Magdalene. Is your mind divided into various disparate entities, PA? Is this why you so love chaos, so love preaching your own homespun religion?
|
Posted Tuesday, July 06, 2010 10:41 PM By JLS
PA, the way to prove it one way or the other is to pray to St Mary Magdalene. Are you man enough to do so? Or do you prefer to maintain your murky fantasies of who she is and her role in the Church?
|
Posted Tuesday, July 06, 2010 11:57 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Mea Culpa,
You are right on, we have in the "Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc" one of those persons that many pro-homosexual writers on this blog say does not exist. Through the grace of God obtained from His Blessed Mother, this indivdual is a celibate man, who was at one time a very sexually active homosexual.
Mark from PA, are you insinuating that the Church cannot call a formerly very hard core sinner who has repented an "Apostle to the Apostles". If so, you really need to learn more about Catholic Teachings.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
|
Posted Wednesday, July 07, 2010 4:33 AM By Mark from PA
Mr. Fisher, I am saying that Mary Magdalene was unfairly portrayed as a harlot. Yes, she was surely a sinner but the Bible does not say that she was the sinful woman that anointed the feet of Jesus. Some have said that she was. For various sources I have read that Mary Magdalene was much more important to the early Church than I had previously known. In the film, "Jesus Christ Superstar", Maruy Magdalene was portrayed as a prostitute,. but this was a somewhat fictionalized account.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 07, 2010 7:39 AM By Canisius
TO Rick, Mea, JLS, and Mr Fisher. We all know that PA does not believe homosexuality to be a sin. I was right when I knew he was using Gnostic sources concerning the Magdalene. He is a mere sympton of the cancer that has infected the Church since Vatican II. Like all cancers he needs to be treated, not with radiation but with exposing who he is and what he actually believes. How in the world this guy is teaching impressionable young minds about the Faith is not only a mystery but I say indangering the welfare of the young souls under his care. If anyone can find out where he is teaching he should be reported to the diocese and if they do nothing then the Vatican itself. I have very little faith that any American Bishop would do anything to stop people like PA from teaching the Faith, since they have set the Church in America on auto destruct. However we have a responsiblity as faithful laity to try.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 07, 2010 10:30 AM By Brad
I promise I am not trying to hound down Mark from PA. I just care deeply about "defending Magdalen" -- not in the way revisionists would, by saying she was not a prostitute -- but by saying that she was. Because if she was, she was our Lord's deserving sheep (aside from his mother, with John she is perhaps his favorite sheep!). I don't care about her sins, and neither did our Lord. I only care about her utter triumph! Do deny her sins is to deny our Lord's mission to come for sinners: literally to appear on earth on behalf of sinners. Magdalen's story is the most wonderful thing. Let her have her sinful past. Only in doing so do we let her have her utter triumph. And doing so, we don't doubt our Lord's choice in her, and the Holy Spirit's choice to guide and maintain the common and commonly accepted account of her.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 07, 2010 10:50 AM By Mark from PA
Mea Culpa, you are correct. That is the book. I have a degree in History so a lot of what was in that book was not new to me. Also I have been to many Bible study classes over the years and have learned from these where such things are discussed. Our assistant pastor teaches Bible study and he has an excellent knowledge of the Bible. I realize that the author is writing it from her point of view but I have also read other books and articles about Mary Magdalene. You are correct, Canisius, I do not believe homosexuality to be a sin. A person's orientation is not a sin but something inborn.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 07, 2010 11:16 AM By Rick DeLano
Canisius: Having extended in all charity and sincerity several times a request that Mark from PA consult his bishop and remove himself from any position where his own rejection of Catholic teaching could impact the impressionable minds of the young children who have been placed in his charge, I have to agree with you. I can't overstate how troubled in conscience I have been lately, to see Mark from PA starting to drop the mask and openly post quotes from defrocked priests and dissident Gnostic theologians. I hope we can assist Mark in removing himself from any position where children's impressionable minds would be subject to his dissident and unCatholic views.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 07, 2010 3:34 PM By Abeca Christian
Brad I got news for you buddy but Magdalen is dead, she's been dead now for a while, for you deeply want to defend her. Jesus already did that. LOL Seriously on a serious side (just joking around here, no pun intended) do we know exactly why she was a prostitute? Some women in those days were forced to stoop that low and had no other way out. Our Lord knows deeply what is in ones heart and what got them there, His love and mercy is unending. There are differences from one prostitute to another, one may viciously choose that lifestyle, and one may not know any other way out. She is used as an example of His greatest love and forgiveness and God knew that all she needed was Him to rescue her from that situation. She chose him because He came to bring her His good news to salvation. Only our Lord knows what is deeply rooted in ones heart. Now that is raw and deep stuff!
|
Posted Wednesday, July 07, 2010 5:02 PM By Mea Culpa
To deny Mary Magdalene her sinful past is to deny Jesus' teaching. "'A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he forgave them both. Now which of them will love him more?' Simon answered, 'The one, I suppose, to whom he forgave more.' And he said to him, 'You have judged rightly.'" This is in Luke 7, right after the sinful woman washes his feet and right before Mary Magdalene is identified as having had seven demons expelled from her. It's not in spite of her sinful past that Mary Magdalene loves the Lord so much - IT'S BECAUSE OF IT, AND THE POWERFUL HEALING MIRACLE THAT JESUS HAS DONE IN HER LIFE. Radical homosexuals deny that this healing is possible - that's why they are so desperate to say, in opposition to Church Tradition, that Mary Magdalene was not a sinner - she suffered from epilepsy or something. They can live with Jesus healing epilepsy, but the idea that encountering Jesus can free someone from bondage to sin, especially sexual sin, is too much for them to contemplate. This is the gospel PA is preaching on here.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 07, 2010 6:59 PM By Mark from PA
Abeca Christian, of course Mary Magdalene was a sinner but it does not say in the gospels that she was a prostitute. You ask do we know why she was a prostitute, it doesn't even say in the gospels that she was. The idea that she was a prostitute was rooted in the middle ages. She was a sinner, all the apostles were sinners, but she was also one of Jesus' most important disciples. Until I read more about her I was not aware of how important she was in the early Church.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 07, 2010 8:16 PM By Abeca Christian
Mark from PA the best way you can get your answer whether she was a prostitute or not, is to ask the Church. After all the church holds those answers, the Church that was started by Jesus Christ, His Catholic church. Not everything is written in holy scriptures and that is why we need Mother church to help complete more the mysteries that are before us. Like Mary's parents, we know more of them because of Mother church.
|
Posted Thursday, July 08, 2010 8:29 AM By Ski Ven
If a person sells his soul to the homosexual agenda, I guess you can say that person is a spiritual prostitute.
|
Posted Thursday, July 08, 2010 4:20 PM By Mark from PA
Spiritual prostitutes? Oh my.
|
Posted Thursday, July 08, 2010 4:47 PM By JLS
There is mention of "temple prostitutes" in the Bible. I wonder what that could mean? PA, why don't you research it and report what you find? Look up the phrase, "temple prostitute".
|
Posted Thursday, July 08, 2010 7:30 PM By Anne T.
The best source for finding out about Mary Magdalene is to go to the online Catholic Encyclopedia or to the early Church Fathers. The Gnostic sites try to make her out to be a "goddess", temple protestitute, wife of Jesus Christ -- all pure blaphemous fantasy.
|
Posted Thursday, July 08, 2010 10:16 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
So, Mark from PA, do you teach that homosexual sexual conduct is mortal sin? Please answer yes or no.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
|
Posted Friday, July 09, 2010 12:08 AM By Editor
California Catholic Daily does not provide personal identifying information regarding those who comment on our site in the interest of privacy and to encourage the free exchange of ideas on this forum. - [Editor]
|
Posted Friday, July 09, 2010 4:11 AM By Mark from PA
Mr Fisher, we have been through this before. Yes, some homosexual conduct is a mortal sin. However, I do not believe that homosexuality (the orientation) is a sin as many do. I don't believe that "God hates fags" as the signs of one religious group state. I never thought that Catholics thought like that either but since coming to this site I have been made aware that some Catholic do feel like this.
|
Posted Friday, July 09, 2010 9:37 AM By kaves1
Mark from PA, Do you believe under certain circumstances homosexual acts are something good? If so, under what circumstances?
|
Posted Friday, July 09, 2010 1:40 PM By Brad
I can agree with Mark from PA in that SSA is not a sinful state. Acting on it is. In that regard, it is also sinful for a heterosexual person to fornicate. The sin at the root level is using sexuality outside of, thereby ABusing, the marital act. There are lots of SSA laity and consecrated who are chaste, who are in a fine state of grace. It is simply their particular miserable cross to bear in imitation of Christ, but they succeed in remaining out of mortal sin on a daily basis.
|
Posted Friday, July 09, 2010 2:58 PM By Mark from PA
In regards to what I teach, Mr. Fisher. I teach a confirmation class. So the first part of my school year is taken up with memorizing catechism questions and making sure that the students have a good understanding of the Sacrament of Confirmation. The students also share information about their patron saints. After Confirmation I teach Church history, we also read about many of the saints and their importance to the history of the Church. I also teach them about the Pope, the Church hierarchy, the religious life and such topics. We review the Sacraments and I also add readings from the Bible that fit in with what we are studying in the text. I have a very traditional text that I use. We have two 8th grades, the other teacher doesn't really use the text. He reads and discusses news articles with his class. I don't really discuss homosexuality in my class, I tend to follow the text. The students probably discuss this in their health class in school.
|
Posted Friday, July 09, 2010 3:08 PM By Mark from PA
Mr Fisher, in the previous text that I used, homosexuality was mentioned. The book stated that all people should be treated with respect. It said that people shouldn't make fun of homosexuals or make up jokes about them. We have a diocesan mandated "safe touch" program. In this program I told my students that their bodies were sacred and that nobody has a right to improperly touch them. I also told them that if an adult did things and told them not to tell their parents that this was a clue that it probably was something that they should discuss with their parents. We had a very good lesson to go over with the students and I thought that it was very worthwhile.
|
Posted Friday, July 09, 2010 3:35 PM By Mark from PA
Brad, regarding your comment, "It is simply their particular miserable cross to bear." Human sexuality is a part of all of us. It should not be considered a miserable cross to bear. Trying to live a chaste life should not be viewed as some kind of a curse or a cross.
|
Posted Friday, July 09, 2010 7:17 PM By tedn
AnneT - I went to the early Church fathers. They told me to be assured that Ganymede and Io do in fact revolve around Earth, and not Jupiter. The telescope is pure blasphemous fantasy.
|
Posted Friday, July 09, 2010 8:51 PM By Anne T.
Tedn, the early Church Fathers might be right about Ganymede, Earth and Jupiter, and you might be right about the telescope being pure fantasy.
|
Posted Friday, July 09, 2010 9:34 PM By JLS
Well, PA, there it is, as you posted it, your colleague teaches catechism from news articles ... and now we know for sure what we suspected which is that there is no pastoral oversight, management or direction to your parish instruction.
|
Posted Friday, July 09, 2010 9:43 PM By JLS
The dispute between Anne T., a woman of strong Catholic faith, and tedn is this: Catholicism is an open ended thing; tedn does not see this, and assumes reality to be a closed loop. God is infinite according to many people including the Church; but apparently tedn does not agree. In the universe of tedn, the exact center is the world media headquarters in New York which parcels out the science which dazzles tedn so much that he actually believes the media version of it. Why, I wonder, is it so difficult to see that no one knows if there is a limit to space, an end of it, or where the edge might be. But tedn knows that the only definite thing is that earth is not in the exact center. This is not rocket science, folks, but mere common sense. Yet, if rocket science be invoked here, consider that the theory of relativity lets us assign the center to any location we can dream up. Now once tedn struggles through this, then he can begin wondering what comes after relativity? Skipping a few steps, here is one of the current buzz concepts ... non-local signal generation. Try it on for size, tedn.
|
Posted Friday, July 09, 2010 9:52 PM By JLS
Whoa whoa whoa ... ho ho ho ... has tedn ever put one over here. He says he went to the early Church fathers and they talked about telescopes. tedn, that is a good one, and you should send it in to Hollywood comedy grande central station. Is it any wonder that tedn stumps for the homosexualust cause and then claims to consult the Church Fathers on telescopes? I can see St Augustine looking through his telescope in search of God ... yeah, tedn, you really know your stuff, huh?
|
Posted Monday, July 12, 2010 5:30 AM By kaves1
Mark from PA, you did not answer my question. Do you believe under certain circumstances homosexual acts are something good? If so, under what circumstances?
Also, do you agree fully with what the Catechism says in regards to homosexuality? thankyou,
|
Posted Monday, July 12, 2010 10:43 AM By Mark from PA
Kaves, I do not believe that homosexuals are disordered and inferior human beings. I think that ALL people should be treated with respect and compassion. In regard to believing under certain circumstances are homosexual acts something good. I would defer to Aaron on this question as he would better be able to explain this.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2010 6:16 AM By kaves1
Mark from PA, are you suggesting that the Cateshism is saying homosexuals are inferior? What is your basis for this? The Church teaches that ALL people should be treated with respect and compassion. Are you saying the Catechsim is saying homosexuals are disordered human beings? As you choose to define people by their sexuality, I choose not to. You are a child of God as we all are. The condition of homosexuality is disordered relative to God's created intent. I did not ask Aaron, I asked you. Why do you not choose to answer?
|
Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:07 AM By kaves1
PA, is pedophilia a disorder? Are pedophiles inferior human beings?
|
Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:21 AM By RR
kaves1: Mark from PA like to play a game very similar to dodgeball, only there is no ball but a tough question that he has no sefense for. Instead of answering your question, he refers you to Aaron because he knows that Aaron is an ACTIVE homosexual who thinks ACTIVE homosexual sex acts are wonderful and loving. So, therefore, we all know that Mark from PA thinks that it is a wonderfu and loving thing for homosexuals to commit perverse, disgusting, filthy, sodomous acts on members of the same sex which are against Church teachings and the will of God. Woe, to him!
|
Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:32 AM By RR
Sorry for all of my typos in my post @ 9:21.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:47 AM By Abeca Christian
kaves1 great job at making good points! Keep going. I applaud your efforts, they are excellent!
|
Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:30 PM By Mark from PA
RR, some sex acts are loving and others are not but I really don't want to get into a big discussion about it. To me the love between the two persons is more important than the act itself.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:28 PM By JLS
PA, marriage is not based on the nature of sex acts. Wherever you got your religion, it was not Catholic no matter what you claim.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:31 PM By JLS
Homosexualist advocates are making themselves more and more unworthy of the image and likeness of God ... perhaps some of them have virtually none of these virtues left at all. There is the unforgiveable sin against the Holy Spirit ... Perhaps these are the ones most likely to fit that bill.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:30 PM By Abeca Christian
JLS I agree with your post from July 13, 2010 4:31 PM. It is VERY apparent that homosexual advocates are lacking many virtues. Even after explaining it over and over, church teachings and of natural law they continue to pridefully resist the truth. But I think that they have no more elbow room to defend their stance.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:47 PM By simone_dubois
I think we should not be upset when these things happen. God did not incite the chaos which came about as a result of the reformation. He will however allow it to take its due course. In other words, we should expect these communities to implode because institutionally they left the bride. They criticized and faulted the bride and could not hear Him because they did not hear her. "He who hears you, hears me." When they should have been loyal and prayed for the fallen within the body they ran to form God in their own image. I am not surprised that these "institutions and traditions of men" are all slowly crumbling, preparing to fall to the wayside even though they may not know it. Human institutions don't last very long. I will pray for the souls of those within these groups to repent and believe the Gospel. Please pray for me to persevere.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:13 PM By Mark from PA
Kaves, in regard to the Catechism #2358, the one phrase that I have issue with is, "This inclination, which is objectively disordered." I do not see the homosexual orientation as disordered but just a variation in nature. I would say that the homosexual inclination can be considered a trial for some. I agree that homosexual persons should be treated with respect, compassion and sensitivity and not discriminated against. I pretty much agree with #2359 except I feel that the word "disinterested" in reference to friendship should be left out. A better word would be "supportive." Who would say, for example, "It is good for high school students to have disinterested friends."? See how this is a poor choice of words. The Catechism does not say that homosexuals are inferior but some Church documents do infer this.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:56 PM By JLS
PA, here is the blatant inconsistency in your argument that homsexuals should be treated with respect: If their actions are homosexual, then there is nothing but disrespect due them for their actions. If the actions of a homosexual are not homosexual, then there would be no inclination for anyone to disrespect them. But you claim that homosexuality is innate; therefore, all actions of the homosexual would be homosexual. Thus, just as I've phrased in other ways, the objective of the homosexual is to receive disrespect ... According to you there is nothing a homosexual can do to not be homosexual. The Church teaches that homosexual behavior is a grave disorder; therefore, all behavior according to your view of a homosexual is homosexual. What you are saying in effect is that homosexual behavior cannot be changed and is the identity of the homosexual. So, PA, once again the objective you give is an impossible one. And you admit that you do not believe what the Church teaches about homosexuality ... this goes to what the Church teaches about personhood, or individual identity. The Church calls what you champion a grave moral disorder ... the more clearly you preach it, the closer to overt heresy you come.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:05 PM By Mark from PA
You are calling it inconsistency and heresy in my argument that homosexuals should be treated with respect but I am just quoting what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says here.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:12 PM By Mark from PA
JLS, I read what the Catechism said. It did NOT say that it was a grave moral disorder to be a homosexual.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:42 PM By JLS
Yes, it does, PA. The CCC says same sex attraction is a grave moral disorder. You did not read what I posted, did you? You need to understand what others post before you attempt answering them. If you're going to address my post, then don't be pretending to address it. You need to man up instead of shirking the challenges put to you.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 14, 2010 4:15 AM By Mark from PA
OK, JLS, the Catechism does not say this but from reading some documents from the CCC, it appears that the authors see gay people to be disordered. From reading some of these documents I get that the authors see homosexuals as defective and inferior beings. So I do not agree with some of what had been written in those documents. I was answering Kaves comments in my prior post.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 14, 2010 4:52 AM By Mark from PA
Well, JLS, I am glad that when I was a teen in Catholic school that I wasn't told that I was a pervert and had a grave moral disorder. But in truth, I don't think people in Catholic schools believe this or teach it. Most Catholic schools are tolerant and accepting to the best of my knowledge.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 14, 2010 5:28 AM By kaves1
PA, In regards to 'disinterested' the use of the word ‘disinterested’ is found elsewhere in the Catechism. Note that its meaning in the context used agrees with the alternative meaning I previously mentioned to you, i.e “free from selfish motive or interest”.
2649 Prayer of praise is entirely disinterested and rises to God, lauds him, and gives him glory for his own sake, quite beyond what he has done, but simply because HE IS.
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
Would you construe the meaning of ‘disinterested’ in these examples to have the same sense as you make with homosexuality i.e, ‘not interested’? Or, are these usages more in line with the alternative meaning? If these are more in line with the alternative meaning, why not the same for homosexuality?
Also, as noted previously, this alternate meaning is more in line with the Gospel teaching on love.
Perhaps you need to re-evaluate your application of your meaning to the word ‘disinterested’ in these forums as it pertains to the Catechism and homosexuality.
In regards to 'disordered', the Church is not dirvien by sceintific findings so much as it is by revelation. Homosexuality is disordered relative to God's created intent - one man, one woman. The removal of God's Grace after the Fall allowed all kinds of thing to surface.
Please provide the official Church documents that infer homosexuals are inferior - is that the Church's position or your interpretation.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 14, 2010 5:51 AM By kaves1
PA, In regards to ‘supportive’, this could be interpreted to mean that others should support active homosexuality in the person having the inclination, whether you mean this interpretation or not. This would go against Church teaching – so ‘supportive’ is not a good word.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 14, 2010 6:54 AM By Peter
JLS - Your argument is one of pure convenience. You are basically saying that if homosexuality is innate (which it is), homosexuals have no alternative but to act "homosexually", thereby making homosexuals innately evil because homosexual acts are designated by the church as a grave sin. Not that I agree, but I think PA has a much better understanding of church teachings on this one since he is not motivated prejudice.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:14 AM By Ski Ven
Oh really, Peter. PA just disagreed with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is an official publication of Church teaching. Nice try.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:52 AM By JLS
Peter, read my rather complex post once again; you may be able to see that it is indeed what PA is saying, that homosexuality is innate. This implies that nothing a homosexual can do is other than homosexual behavior. The Church teaches that homosexual behavior is intrinsically disordered. The Church also teaches that man is essentially good. There is only one conclusion for anyone claiming to be a Catholic, which is that homosexuality is not innate. PA disputes this Church doctrine (St Paul says some Catholics were ... past tense ... homosexual: this Peter is Magisterial Doctrine), and this makes him an advocate of heresy, an opponent against St Paul and the Church, whether intentional or ignorant.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 14, 2010 9:00 AM By JLS
Also, Peter, PA is the one who is prejudiced. He admits it; he admits preferring his own errant view over the Church view. Thus his prejudice stems from his defiance of the basis of Church Doctrine which is the deposit of faith given Her by God. In this prejudice in PA, there is no understanding of what the Church teaches; and in his advocacy of his error, he teaches that one of the gravest of all sins, ie one of the four sins which cry out to Heaven for vengeance according to the Church, is not a big deal and should be accepted and even exalted. Remember in this that PA believes that homosexuality is innate ... thus all his advocacy exalts all behavior of homosexuals ... because if it is innate, then there is no other behavior possible than what the Church calls disordered behavior. It is the Church who claims that homosexuality is not innate, because it needs not be acted out. If it were innate, then no act by a homosexual would be other than a disordered act. Ask yourself if every one of your acts is disordered. If not, then obviously your homosexuality is not innate. If it were innate, then there would be no good in you ... but search for some good in yourself, Peter; that is where you will find a steppingstone to salvation. If there were no good in you, then you would not be redeemable ... this unredeemability is Calvinist and Lutheranist ... their spin on fatalism.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 14, 2010 9:50 AM By Peter
JLS - I know that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is innate. And I also know that I am capable of "good" acts. Ergo, and by your logic, it is the church that has to be wrong.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 14, 2010 2:17 PM By Mark from PA
Well Kaves, would you rather have supportive friends or disinterested friends?
|
Posted Wednesday, July 14, 2010 6:33 PM By Mark from PA
JLS, you state that St Paul said that some Catholics were homosexual. That is interesting since the word homosexual was only coined 200 years ago. People in the time of St. Paul had no understanding of sexual orientation just as they had no understanding of the solar system. So it seems that you are putting words in St. Paul's mouth. Yes, modern science has pretty much determined that homosexuality is innate and the Church does not dispute this. The Catechism states that its genesis remains unexplained so it does not go into this much. But in modern times, science has learned more about this.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:04 PM By simone_dubois
MarkPA, the head of the genome project (very modern science), while trying to affirm the claim of a "gay gene" could not find one. Indeed, the SCIENCE reveals that while there MIGHT be a pre-disposition their is no pre-determination of homosexuality, ie., there is no gay gene according to genetic studies. What is your source for such a preposterous claim as "modern science has pretty much determined that homosexuality is innate"? People have made the claim, people have accepted the claim, people do not have any such scientific evidence. It is part of the leftist movement manifesto to say a lie often enough so as to have people believe it. Many may believe it but wishing doesn't make an elephant into a mouse. As you oft demand, cite the source before you make such outlandish claims.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:19 PM By JLS
PA, you keep telling us how educated you are, and you don't even know that St Paul spoke English? It was included in "tongues".
|
Posted Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:23 PM By JLS
PA, I thought you were funnin' with me, but reading the rest of your post I realize that once again you are trying to trick me and others. If homosexuality is innate, then there is no way a homosexual can do anything without sinning. But we all know that homosexuals are capable of good acts; therefore, it is not an innate condition. You spin every single Catechism sentence you find ... and when you can't get away with that, then you simply tell us that you don't believe it's true and that the CCC author's are mistaken since science knows best. But many posts have shown that the science you refer to is nothing more than guesswork. So, you prefer to believe guesswork rather than what the Church, including St Paul teaches?
|
Posted Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:24 PM By JLS
PA, there is a new study out which is finding that homosexuality is a religion.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:30 PM By JLS
Peter, the Church is not wrong. Homosexuality is not good, and what God creates is always good. You need to read St Augustine, who carefully reveals the various theological errors that fill your posts. I've answered all of them, but you never check into it. This is part of the consequence of your homosexuality, the shallowness and lack of maturity to own up to your end of the dispute. All you do is say that such and such is so because you say it is so. If you'll notice, I base what I claim on sources other than my sayso. I somehow have realized that I am not the font of reality and thus have to fall on my knees in supplication of God for his will in my life ... Look how much time and trouble I go to to deliver the truth to you and to explain where you can find the clear explanations to your questions. Remember that this blog cannot go into much depth, but can only refer you or any reader to valid studies which you can access and make use of. I have nothing to gain by becoming homosexual and you have nothing to gain by remaining homosexual. So look into this proposition for motive.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 14, 2010 11:50 PM By Abeca Christian
JLS you are a noble and kind gentleman. Your post to Peter was very charitable. You are so right when you stated that it takes time to show all sources and facts regarding any topic one is in discussion with. JLS you have always taken so much time to quote saints, scripture etc etc to those whom you are in dialogue with. That is why I consider you a gentleman in Christ, not just you but all who take the time to go in detail explaining the faith. I value everything and your time so much that I admire you and many others who are in good will that do the same for our brothers and sisters here who dialogue continually. You are indeed patient because you have not given up, your perseverance has even been misunderstood and as you have seen in the past some even name called your good intentions. What you and others do in the name of truth and perseverance to deliver the truth to these individuals, I consider that true charity. What you post from time to time regarding the faith, they are pearls and I pray that people won't become like swine by continuing to reject those precious pearls of the faith in which you have taken the time to explain and share to the best the Lord has shown you. God bless you my friend.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 14, 2010 11:54 PM By Mea Culpa
PA's claims are ludicrous, as usual. Homosexuality is not innate, it is a learned behavior. A sinful learned behavior. There may be a predisposition to it in some people - like there is a predisposition to alcoholism in some people. Does that mean that everyone with the predisposition to alcoholism is fated to become a falling down drunk? Of course not! Same with homosexuality. People are not animals - we have free will, because God gave it to us. We can choose the good. The idea that people are born homosexual and they will inevitably live as sodomites takes away their free will - it's almost a Calvinistic determinism - some people are fated to go to hell, and there's nothing they can do about it. Where is God's grace in this equation? PA's teachings are nothing more than justification for sin.
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 12:07 AM By Abeca Christian
When is it time to call it quits? When do we discern that we must continue to cast our pearls unto swine? How do we know and understand that a person is finally considered swine? How do we differentiate? Would that make us self-righteous if we remove ourselves too early on when sharing these pearls? Will we be considered to be "holier than thou" or "goody two shoes" for wanting to defend the truth or for simply ending the conversation? Perseverance is key in all good things but what guidelines do we as Catholic Christians, must follow to discern when our pearls are overly cast down on individuals that are not appreciating the pearls of the faith, passed down to us? This is answered in prayer and through the great examples of the saints, but one thing I know is that in cyberspace the rules are different because thoughts are posted and they are words in which can help or injure a person soul searching therefore we must persevere in this instance and continue to rebuttal any thing contrary to truth and church teachings. Behind these words are people posting but these words must be challenged with truth. So those that say shake the dust off your feet and move on, well I don't think it applies here because this is cyber space, we don't have to personally reply to a particular poster but we must at least gently post, when prompted by the Holy Ghost, the truth and then continue on with the NEXT....
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 4:23 AM By Mark from PA
JLS, you say that homosexuality is not good, but that is your opinion because you don't like homosexuals. Gay people are part of God's creation just like everyone else. You say that you have nothing to gain by becoming homosexual, but you are not homosexual. You are who you are. Your parents could have dressed you in dresses as a child but you would have fought against it and you would still be who you are. You have your own nature which is individual to you.
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 4:42 AM By Mark from PA
Mea Culpa, a person does not learn their sexual orientation. They come to an awareness of it. A person's orientation is not a sin. You say, "The idea that people are born homosexual and they will inevitably live as sodomites takes away their free will." You are confusing someone's orientation with certain actions. A lot of heterosexual people engage in acts of sodomy with people of the opposite sex. You seem to be under a mistaken impression that because someone is a homosexual that they are fated to go to hell. Abeca Christian, you state, "How do we know and understand that a person is finally considered swine?" Well, it seems to me that some people do consider gay people to be "swine." God made them just as he made everyone else, they are his children too. But no amount of preaching is going to change a person's inborn sexual orientation.
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 5:31 AM By kaves1
Well PA, the Catechism, if read properly and not by your unsupported, in error, interpretation of 'disinterested' says you do have supportive friends - ie the highest form of support - free from selfish motive or interest. It is only you who purposely misinterpret the Catechism as you do much of Scripture as well - typical pro-homosexual. And all for the greater glory of active homosexuality.
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 6:01 AM By kaves1
PA, I requested you cite the Church documents you say infer homosexuals were inferior. Again, can you provide these so others can make sure you are not misinterpreting these as you do the Catechism? Thankyou,
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 6:01 AM By kaves1
PA, St. Paul does say active homosexuality is immoral. See 1 Cor 6 & 1 Tim 10.
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 6:04 AM By kaves1
Even if homosexuality has a biological component it does not theoligcally force us to conclude God created homosexuals. Rather, like death and disease, is a result of Original Sin and not of God's doing. God allows the natural consequences of our rebellious free will to manifest themselves.
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 6:29 AM By kaves1
PA, the ancients did have an understanding of homosexual orientation. PA: To me your position smacks of temporal arrogance and is ridiculous on its face. Human nature was much more accessble to them than the planet Jupiter.
Examples: In Plato’s play Symposium (well known in the 1st century) the character Aristophanes refers to men who are lovers of males as those ‘who continue with one another throughout life. . . . desiring to join together and to be fused into a single entity with his beloved and to become one person from two’. Pausanias (another character), who was a lover of Agathon similarly emphasizes that lovers who love rightly ‘are prepared to love in the expectation that they will be with them all their life and will share their lives in common,’ ‘as if having been fused into a single entity with’ the soul of the beloved. Pausanias goes on to say: Men who love males ‘are not inclined by nature toward marriage and the procreation of children, yet are compelled to do so by the law or custom with the result that two joined males ‘live their lives out with one another unmarried’
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 6:30 AM By kaves1
PA more:
In Plutarch’s Dialogue on Love (late 1st - early 2nd century BC) Protogenes argues that man-male love is superior, not because it is more hedonistic but because, instead of having ‘as a net result the reaping of the fruits of pleasure, it ‘comes through friendship to the end and goal of virtue’. The character Daphnaeus in this work, defending the superiority of male-female love, concedes that homosexual relationships are not necessarily exploitative, for ‘sexual intercourse that is contrary to nature with males does not do away with, nor damage, a lover’s kindness [or: amorous goodwill]”
The satirist Juvenal (early 2nd c. BC; Satire 2): effeminate men who willingly commit themselves as ‘brides’ to another man. For example, Gracchus, ‘a man renowned for his family background and his wealth,’ became the ‘bride’ to a common cornet-player and signed semi-official documents (Satire 2.119, 125, 129).
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 6:33 AM By kaves1
PA I sent postings supporting the idea that homosexuality was conceived by the ancients complete with sources. I am waiting for your sources indicating the contrary. Please provide. thankyou,
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 7:17 AM By Peter
“I base what I claim on sources other than my say so.” But what of your “sources”, JLS. Those writers are no more versed on the topic than you yourself are. This reduces your “explanations” to mere posturing – based – as it is – on archaic third party sources. Indeed, it is your third party sources that claim “such and such is so only because they say it is so”. One can think about something, and dwell on it intellectually (or spiritually, as the case may be), but in the end it is first hand experience that really matters. I say things are as they are not simply because I “say so” or because I want them to be so, rather I speak from the vantage point of experience. I have lived this from the time I first began to notice boys instead of girls in the third and fourth grade, and then throughout high school and into college when I came out to a very supportive group of friends at age 19. Indeed, regardless of what your “sources” might say, only I (and others like me) can say without a doubt that homosexuality is innate because I have never been anything else; and there is absolutely nothing that can change that attraction. I’ll take your word for it that what God creates is always good. “I have nothing to gain by becoming homosexual and you have nothing to gain by remaining homosexual.” In the face of experience, this sentence means nothing. I have avoided and severed ties with other homosexuals (and heterosexuals) who would have taken advantage of me or immersed me in the destructive sub-cultures of drugs and prostitution; and I have not allowed myself to be victimized by a sub-culture I felt I had no control over. I have never been or wanted to be sexually intimate with my father or any other relatives and I have never desired a minor. I own my sexuality (as everyone should) and have taken on the responsibility to ensure that I act responsibly; it is merely a single facet of who I am and what makes me a complete person and gives me substance. And there are many, many others who have done the same. I know them. I associate with them. “... Look how much time and trouble I go to deliver the truth to you” Really? JLS – You immerse yourself in the
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 10:17 AM By JLS
Peter, Catholicism is based on the Word of God, which is God and which has guaranteed infallibility to the Church which He established. I'm using references from the infallible teachings of the Church. All these references preceded my existence. Your references in contrast have no infallible guarantee, and in fact contradict and defy infallible truth. You have failed to accept the challenge I presented to you on various occasions which is that faith is greater than reason, and includes reason. Your attempts at reason deny faith, and thus are faulty.
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 10:26 AM By JLS
Peter, you bring up the idea of "person": Have you read the several books by the late John Paul II on personhood? His entire academic and spiritual life was devoted to the question of what and or who is "person". What does this word get at? When you say you are a "complete person" you base it on being generated by yourself. Do you realize that there is only one such being, "I am who am" is this one being, aka God. But the way you present yourself in all your posts replaces God with yourself. Maybe you see this, maybe you don't. Not an easy one: John Paul II spent his lifetime trying to make it clear without resorting to the Mosaic means of defining it.
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 10:32 AM By Peter
“... Look how much time and trouble I go to deliver the truth to you” Really? JLS – You immerse yourself in the comfort of stories. Perhaps it is your own immaturity and shallowness which make you so fearful of facing reality head-on. Perhaps it is time to move on to solid foods. Perhaps that is really what God wants.
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 10:38 AM By Mea Culpa
Peter - you try to say that the only truth about homosexuality can come from living the sodomite lifestyle - from firsthand experience. We have something much greater than your firsthand experience - we have the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as passed on to us through His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (what you dismiss as archaic third party sources). God's word was true yesterday, is true today, and will be true tomorrow. Your years of sinful living does not negate or supercede God's word. If you don't harden your heart, it is not too late to repent and believe in the Gospel. I will pray that you can experience true metanoia - yours could be a powerful witness to those trapped in slavery to the sin of sodomy.
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 10:42 AM By Mark from PA
JLS, come on, Peter is certainly not replacing God with himself. That is in your mind. He is trying to explain something to you. He is trying to tell you who he is and hopefully help you to get rid of some stereotypes that you seem to have. I totally get what you are saying, Peter. It is easy to understand.
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 10:42 AM By Abeca Christian
kaves1 your post from July 15, 2010 6:04. Yes it is a result of original sin. Well done and explained. Right on!
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 10:58 AM By Mea Culpa
PA - nothing about what Peter is saying is hard to understand. It is just wrong. He says that someone who tries to live according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ is "immersing himself in the comfort of stories." So, PA, do you agree with Peter that the Gospel is "stories" and that real truth can only be found by living a sinful lifestyle? So, if I want to know the truth about adultery, I have to live as an adulterer: if I want to know the truth about murder, I have to live as a murderer - if I want to know the truth about sodomy, I have to live as a sodomite? Is this what you're teaching in your religious education class - that the Word of God is not reliable, is in fact out-dated and archaic, and that truth can only be found through our own personal experience, and that to know the truth about sin, we have to live as slaves to that sin ourselves? Jesus Christ came to free us from sin - His word is a reliable guide to how to live our lives - repent, turn away from sin, and believe in the Gospel, and be reborn as new creatures in Christ - to dismiss that as "archaic" shows where your priorities really are.
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 12:39 PM By Ski Ven
Hmmmn. They keep saying they only want to change civil marriage and that they will leave Churches alone. But in this thread, they are trying to make themselves the authority on what the Catholic Church teaches.
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:16 PM By Peter
Mea Culpa - You're taking my interaction with JLS out of context. We were discussing the innate nature of sexuality, and how one comes to know that homosexuality is indeed innate. Experience points to the reality that homosexuals have no option but to live as a homosexual due to the innate nature of sexuality in general, which then puts them in the unique position of being the true authorities on the matter in their own defense against false accusations and stereotyping.
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:34 PM By JLS
Peter, you only read the non challenging things I post, because you are afraid of challenge. Jesus informs us that the Holy Spirit comforts us, ie removes us from the slavery to fear.
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:38 PM By JLS
Peter, solid food means renouncing yourself, picking up your cross and following Jesus. What you call my "comfort stories" are, in my view, two categories. One is simply supplying a material level to the intellectual and spiritual aspect of the blog ... and I do this intentionally for a good reason. Second, is to show proof of the results of the faith that is given me and my response to it. Souls tend to desire flying from their earthly responsibilities ... this sort of desire takes one into various and sundry false beliefs.
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:41 PM By JLS
PA, to complete your halftruth that Peter's idol is in my mind, yes, but it is in my mind because of my perception ... God gives us faith vision. With faith one can see these things. Because God gives us the light. Jesus is the Light that shines into the dark. Hopefully, PA, you will one day desire to have the light, and will humble yourself for it.
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:46 PM By JLS
My heart rejoices that there are so many souls who can explain these matters clearly and to the point. This is the sort of thing that made the love of God evident to me when I began to seek truth. I know that I have good insight and I also know that clear expression of the faith is not my strong point. It is a great cause for joy to find others with the gift and talent to say what so clearly needs to be said.
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:55 PM By Rose
JLS, your love for The Truth shines through!
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 2:53 PM By Mark from PA
Yes, JLS, I am glad that Peter can explain these matters clearly and to the point by telling us of his experiences. Note that he said, "I have not allowed myself to be victimized by a sub-culture I felt I had no control over. "I ... have taken on the responsiblity to ensure that I act responsibly." "It is merely a single facet of who I am." So again, please note the Peter does not say that anything goes for gay people. I've never been drunk, I've never used drugs and I have never been promiscuous. I don't feel that I have been living in darkness. I received my First Communion over 40 years ago so Jesus has been a part of my life in this way longer than for you. And I don't feel guilty for being the way God made me.
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 3:42 PM By Mea Culpa
Peter says: "Experience points to the reality that homosexuals have no option but to live as a homosexual due to the innate nature of sexuality in general," God gave us free will. You are denying that free will when you say homosexuals have no option. There is always a choice - Deuteronomy 10:19 tells us "I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live." We always have a choice to choose the good and reject sin. Homosexuals are not exempt from this freedom - despite what the radical homosexual activists would have us believe. They are also free to reject sin and choose life. Which, conversely, means they are also free to reject life and choose sin - that's what free will means.
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 3:45 PM By JLS
PA, don't tell me that you see the Catholic Church as a "subculture"!
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 3:48 PM By JLS
PA, the problem with you and your perfect Catholicism is that you don't know any Catholicism, none whatsoever. You treat it like it is a magic ritual put on you, sort of like in those children's stories by CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien. Jesus lets us know emphatically that it is not a matter of time that determines our standing with God. Why don't you explain why this is wrong, so that we can understand?
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 3:49 PM By Mea Culpa
Peter goes on to say, "which then puts them (homosexuals) in the unique position of being the true authorities on the matter in their own defense against false accusations and stereotyping." No, the true authority is Jesus Christ, the living Word of God. I don't have to commit murder to know that murder is a sin - it is part of the natural law and Holy Scripture. I don't have to be a sodomite to know that sodomy is against the natural law and Holy Scripture. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to lead his Catholic Church into all truth - part of that truth is the Church's teaching on the disordered nature of homosexuality and the mortal sinfulness of homosexual acts. Nothing an individual homosexual can say based on his experience is going to change those eternal truths.
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 6:08 PM By Mark from PA
JLS, Peter was referring to the drug sub-culture. You know of my devotion to Mass and the Holy Eucharist, JLS Are you saying that what I learned from religious sisters in 12 years of Catholic school is just a magic ritual put on me? You are making fun of my beliefs and I find that rather insulting. Just because I don't go to Latin Mass doesn't mean that I am any less Catholic than you.
|
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 7:22 PM By Canisius
JLS it is useless to confront PA directly with questions, progressive cannot answer truthfully, they answer only with more questions
|
Posted Friday, July 16, 2010 5:32 AM By kaves1
PA, I am still waiting for you to cite your sources for prior points you have made. Can you comply with this request? thankyou,
|
Posted Friday, July 16, 2010 5:39 AM By kaves1
PA, I see aboslutely no reason to believe God made you a homosexual.
1) It is explainable as a consequence of original sin.
2) Homosexual acts are no where endorsed in Scripture.
3) Only marriage is endorsed in Scripture.
4) Act homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.
Please provide you reasons for you assertion.
|
Posted Friday, July 16, 2010 6:38 AM By Peter
OK everyone, (in 4 parts): Editor, please grant me this indulgence.
Part1:
Let me try to illustrate my point in a slightly different way. Obviously, I am a person who knows very little about what it means to be “Catholic” and live life as a Catholic. Now, naturally, I’ve “heard things” about what it means, and there are certain assumptions I could make: Catholics are intolerant of diversity; the faith makes them bigots; the entire clergy is made up of pedophiles; and the church only cares about money. But clearly these are unfair stereotypes that could easily be believed by someone who does not understand what the faith teaches. (With me so far?) So for argument sake, let just say that because of my limited and biased exposure to Catholicism, I take these stereotypes at face value as the “truth” about Catholicism and define all Catholics by their faith only, thereby pre-qualifying all Catholics as intolerant, money grubbing, pedophile, bigots, deserving of persecution and ridicule. Each and every one of them.
|
Posted Friday, July 16, 2010 6:39 AM By Peter
Part 2:
Now, being the enlightened person that I am, I realize that this is probably an unfair characterization, so I decide to find out more about those people who are Catholic and what it means to live as a Catholic (which for argument’s sake, let’s avoid semantics and say that faith is an integral part of a person, but not the sole defining factor of his being, rather a contributing factor to the development of a greater whole.) Who should I go to?
|
Posted Friday, July 16, 2010 6:39 AM By Peter
Part 3:
Based on your argument, I should avoid Catholics at all costs because they certainly have an agenda and are not to be trusted “given the nature of Catholics in general”. (Sound familiar?) They will try to convert me and quite possibly challenge my preconceived notions about what it means to be Catholic, and I don’t want to have to change my thinking about it or risk a challenge to my world view. Instead, I decide to consult someone who is not Catholic, has never been a Catholic, has never known a Catholic, but has a claim to divine knowledge on the subject.
|
Posted Friday, July 16, 2010 6:40 AM By Peter
Part 4:
So I consult a Muslim friend of mine. And wouldn’t you know it; he confirms everything I have been taught to believe about Catholics. Whether his “sources” are accurate or not is irrelevant because thankfully, I was able to avoid taking to a Catholic directly, because surely his/her direct experience as a Catholic couldn’t possibly hold water in the face of these second hand “sources”. And guess what? My atheist friend confirmed the same assumptions. And it’s not that I hate Catholics, mind you, just their ways. Some of my best friends are Catholics, and I care about them enough to discourage them from living a lifestyle of intolerance, greed, and bigotry.
|
Posted Friday, July 16, 2010 8:03 AM By JLS
Peter, why are you assigning a new gender to Catholics ... "his/her"? And where do you come up with such phrasings, "... I hate Catholics, mind you...", especially the "mind you"? Sounds like Aunt Bea on Mayberry. The real shocker though, "Some of my best friends are ___ " (fill in the blank).
|
Posted Friday, July 16, 2010 8:06 AM By JLS
Peter, your posts reflect your complete ignoring of almost everything I've replied to you about. But you are making headway, in that you are concerned about what you call the "sole defining factor" of your person. That is your target, Peter. But you don't know what it is.
|
Posted Friday, July 16, 2010 8:10 AM By Rick DeLano
Peter, thank you for your example above. It is certainly useful to talk directly to homosexuals. We do it all the time here on Cal Catholic. It is important to distinguish between the homosexual and the "homosexualist"- by which latter term I mean to signify someone such as yourself, or PA, who explicitly insist that Catholic teaching on the objectively disordered nature of every homosexual act is- take your pick- (a) false (b) bigoted (c) hateful (d) an unwarranted intrusion of religious dogma into the public sphere. Now. It is wonderfully helpful to speak both to homosexuals and to homosexualists. We have homosexuals on this blog who are faithful Catholics and who recognize the truth of Catholic teaching on the intrinsically disordered nature of homosexual acts. Then we have homosexualists like yourself and PA, who are committed to the replacement of Catholic Truth with a homosexualist lie, to the effect that homosexual acts are natural, genetically determined, healthy, and/or no different, morally speaking, than heterosexual acts. There is no misunderstanding on our part of your argument, Peter. We simply recognize it to be false- and more than merely false, we recognize it to represent (in its current political expression as the "gay marriage" movement) an immediate and deadly threat to the survival of civilization itself. Hope this helps.
|
Posted Friday, July 16, 2010 8:25 AM By Mea Culpa
Peter, your analogy shows your misunderstanding of the Catholic teaching on homosexuality. Homosexuality is an inherently disordered condition, and homosexual acts are mortally sinful. Those eternal truths are not going to change. In your analogy, your hatred of Catholics was based on false assumptions and generalizations - and you further assume that if you got to know Catholics and lived as a Catholic, your false assumptions would be shown to be false and you would no longer hate Catholics. You are trying to say that if we got to know homosexuals and lived as homosexuals, we would see that homosexuals are really good people and no longer condemn homosexuality as sinful. Of course you are wrong. Homosexuality is sinful because natural law and Holy Scripture say it is, not because we are making false assumptions about homosexuals. Your analogy is also false because we don't hate homosexuals as you hate Catholics in your analogy - in fact, we love them enough to point out to them that they are putting their immortal souls in peril by their actions. The Catechism is clear that "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." 2358
|
Posted Friday, July 16, 2010 9:38 AM By kaves1
Peter, it is not true to say that Catholicism is intolerant and bigoted. I suspect you choose to define intolerant and bigoted such that those who believe active homosexuality is immoral are intolerant and bigoted. You simply repeat an aspect of Original Sin by defining for yourself what is good and what is evil. It has been revealed to mankind that homosexual acts are always immoral. It is based on God's omniscience- not on limited human knowledge and reason which you seem to base your beliefs in. Active homosexuality is always immoral because God, in His Revealed Word and thru His Church, has said so.
|
Posted Friday, July 16, 2010 12:34 PM By Mark from PA
Kaves, your posts of yesterday were quite interesting. Thank you for the information. So it seems that some cultures did know more about the subject but I don't know how aware they were of the facts of sexual orientation. Thanks to modern science we know more about the biology of this today. We are learning more. 100 years ago most people had the mistaken belief that homosexuality was caused by weak fathers and over-bearing mothers.
|
Posted Friday, July 16, 2010 2:04 PM By JLS
If same sex attraction is indulged in the imagination, then a homosexual sex act has been committed and it is a grave sin. Jesus explained clearly that sin is not limited to an actual physical act but consists of lust in the heart. So, if someone with same sex attraction refuses to entertain such lust, then how can he be called a homosexual?
|
Posted Friday, July 16, 2010 2:25 PM By Mark from PA
Peter I understand what you are saying here and also your analogies. I think the point that it is important to talk to people is well taken. Rick, I think homosexualists is just a made up word used by people that dislike gay people. I don't think this word is in the dictionary. Mea Culpa, don't say how you love homosexuals. That is somewhat insincere. I realize that the you don't hate them but perhaps dislike would be a more honest term here.
|
Posted Friday, July 16, 2010 3:08 PM By Wm. Hamilton
Mark from PA -- maybe the weak father/overbearing mother theory has its flaws, but every homosexual I've ever known had either an absent father, a distant father, or a generally poor relationship with his father. I know that's not "science," but the trend seems unmistakable, though I'll admit there may be some exceptions. As for mothers, most the homosexual men I have known actually were very close to their moms, to the point of living with them as adults. Doesn't sound all that healthy to me...
|
Posted Friday, July 16, 2010 3:52 PM By Mark from PA
Wm Hamilton, I know of gay men who have good relationships with their dads. Many have straight brothers. So the father was a good father to his straight sons but not his gay son? I think some gays had distant dads or poor relationships with them because the fathers did not like the child's personality. They perceived that their child was different (or even gay) and if the father did not like gay people then he distanced himself from his son. I have even heard of cases of abuse due to this dislike.
Yes, it seems that many gay men have close relationships with their moms. A lot of gay men are very fond of women but do not objectify them. In a way that is healthy. I think that gay people that have good relationships with their parents are probably more emotionally healthy than those that don't. I think parental support and acceptance is very important to gay teens and young adults. Young people that get this support are less likely to get involved in self-destructive lifestyles.
|
Posted Friday, July 16, 2010 5:29 PM By simone_dubois
MarkPA, you still haven't cited the source for your claim. Can it be that there is no source for your claim? That your claim is blatantly false? You oft demand people on this weblog cite their sources, you feign outrage at sourceable statements and when those sources are cited, without comment, you sidle away from the blog and show up another day. Never responding when called to cite sources for your claims.
|
Posted Friday, July 16, 2010 7:06 PM By Mark from PA
Kaves and Simone Dubois, I will refer to the document, "Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons." This was a Church document from the CCD in 1992. Quote, "The proper reaction to crimes against homosexual persons whould not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered." If such a claim is made -- the church and society shouldn't be surprised "when other distorted notions and practices gain ground and irrational and violent reactions increase." So it seems that this Church document is cautioning people against speaking out against violence against gay people and also warning gay people that if they actively fight for equality and against discrimination then they should not be surprised if they are the victims of violence. So there seems to be a little bit of a "blame the victim" mentality here.
|
Posted Friday, July 16, 2010 8:53 PM By JLS
Homosexuals are the perpetrators, not the victims.
|
Posted Friday, July 16, 2010 9:28 PM By Mark from PA
More from the same document, "All persons have the right to work, to housing, etc." "These rights are not absolute." "They can be legimately limited. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. The state may restrict the exercise of rights, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good." I find this rather chilling. It seems that this document says that the rights of people deemed "defective" can be limited. This is the way that many Germans felt about Jewish people in the 1930's. They justified discrimination against them. The same document also said that people can be discriminated against due to their orientation when it comes to certain jobs. From reading much of this document it can be seen that the author views homosexuals persons as inferior and that discrimination against them can often be justified.
|
Posted Friday, July 16, 2010 11:09 PM By Rick DeLano
So Mark, why would you want to teach children about a religion which says that homosexual acts are gravely disordered? If I disagreed with the Church's teaching, I would leave the Church. Oh, but wait......if I were not particularly interested in Truth, but rather in simply undermining the teachings of the Church, I might stay....and do as much damage as possible from within. Mark, I wouldn't want to be you and that is no joke at all. And it has nothing to do with your homosexuality, really. It has to do with your obstinate rejection of the teachings of the Catholic Church. I shudder to think of where you are headed Mark, but it is quite clear you are headed there with full knowledge and consent of the will.
|
Posted Saturday, July 17, 2010 5:24 AM By Mark from PA
Well, Rick, when I was in school I learned about Christ. I go to Mass two times or more a week. I have great devotion to the Eucharist. Until I read that document several years ago I had no idea that some in the Church approved of discrimination against certain groups of people. I was aware of how Jewish people were thought of and treated in the past as I have a History degree. But to me that was the past. I have no issue with people thinking that certain sex acts are disordered. I have no issue with people being against immorality. But I don't think that people should be discriminated against. I take issue with the term "unjust dicrimination" because when people discriminate against others they usually justify it. When blacks in the South were discriminated against, didn't the white people justify it? They even passed laws to justify their discrimination. The same with the way the Germans treated the Jews in Nazi Germany. The justified the way they treated them and felt the Jews deserved what they got. And where where the Catholics? Many of them went right along with it. Before Hitler came to power, Catholics were told they could not vote for the Nazis because they were a racists party. After Hitler came to power, the Church mended fences with the Nazis. But this did not last for long as witnessed by the Papal Encyclical of 1937, Mit Brennender Sorge. So you see, I love my Church but I don't think that the Church is always perfect. Injustice has always existed. We are a Church of sinners. But Christ came to heal the sinners.
|
Posted Saturday, July 17, 2010 6:53 AM By Mea Culpa
Catechism of the Catholic Church 2358 "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." - - - Notice that it says "unjust discrimination" is to be avoided. There are many situations when discrimination against sodomites is just. For example, sodomites should not be allowed to donate blood because their perverted and unnatural practices cause them to contract many diseases.
|
Posted Saturday, July 17, 2010 7:32 AM By JLS
Homosexualists are indeed dangers to the morals, faith and well being of others, especially of children.
|
Posted Saturday, July 17, 2010 8:15 AM By Mark from PA
More from the same document, "an individual's sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behavior manifests it." "Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc. does not usually arise." Well, I have had strangers make homophobic comments to me on occasion so these people made assumptions, so I do not agree with what this says here. I don't think it is right to discriminate. The document continues to say here that such laws against discrimination may encourage people with a homosexual orientation to openly declare it. In my mind, there is nothing wrong with that. If people wish to be open and honest about their orientation with others that is their right, they should not have to fear discrimination.
|
Posted Saturday, July 17, 2010 8:25 AM By Mark from PA
As I was writing my last post I was interrupted by Jehovah's witnesses at the door. The man read to me from the book of Daniel. I asked if the man was born a Chrisitan. He said that he was born Catholic. I then read to him from Matthew, where Jesus changed the bread and wine into His body and blood. I tried to explain this to him. I told him what the Catholic Church believed. I told him that I taught religion and asked him if he knew the 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit. He didn't know, so I told him. He told me that according to his faith, that only 144,000 people will go to heaven to be with God. I told him my beliefs on this and how we believe in the immortality of the soul. He was a nice guy and had his young son with him but these people don't get away easy from me because I share my Catholicism with them too. Rick, are you implying that I should leave the Church? I'm not going anywhere. To me saying that you can justify discriminating against certain groups of people is not Church dogma as the document said, we are talking about some considerations.
|
Posted Saturday, July 17, 2010 8:35 AM By Canisius
PA whenever the violation of the natural law is legitimized by the culture you can expect an increase in response to it. Homosexuals are not victims they are agitators.
|
Posted Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:34 AM By Rick DeLano
But Mark. The Catholic Church does not approve of unjust discrimination against people. It is obviously true that, for example, we must discriminate against men who wish to invade women's bathrooms. It is equally obvious that we must discriminate against those who would indoctrinate innocent children into the lie that fathers are not male and mothers are not female. But this is not unjust discrimination, is it Mark?
|
Posted Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:37 AM By Rick DeLano
So Mark, you are all for Catholicism in every single aspect of it that agrees with your personal opinions, and you intend to oppose it in every single aspect that does not agree with your personal; opinions. Hmmm....now what is the word for that? Oh, yes. The word for that is "Protestant". I sincerely hope your bishop and pastor do not know of your Protestant rejection of Catholic doctrine, Mark. If they do, and they allow you to continue in a position where you can subvert the Catholic faith of young children, then woe, woe, woe to them.
|
Posted Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:39 AM By JLS
PA, you could have told him that the 144,000 had already been picked, and he was not one of them.
|
Posted Saturday, July 17, 2010 11:01 AM By Abeca Christian
The gay agenda is as close as a mafia does.
|
Posted Saturday, July 17, 2010 11:49 AM By Abeca Christian
I was told that JW's don't bring up the 144,000 rule anymore because like JLS mentioned they have already been picked.
|
Posted Saturday, July 17, 2010 2:05 PM By Anne T.
JLS, tedn was being sarcastic, and I was being sarcastic back to him. What he does not realize or want to realize is that the Biblical writers and early Church Fathers were just using the language of their day. The Bible was not given to help us with science, but to help us understand how to live good moral lives and get to heaven. You did bring out some good points, though, JLS, especially the one about no one knowing where the universe ends. I often pondered that one as a child and used to ask my grandmother about it. I think everyone has wondered about that.
|
Posted Saturday, July 17, 2010 4:05 PM By JLS
Yes, I know, Anne T. I know my science also, and there is no contradiction between Scripture and science. People have spent fortunes over centuries trying to find a contradiction but cannot.
|
Posted Sunday, July 18, 2010 1:32 PM By Abeca Christian
When homosexuals participate in lifestyles that are against the natural law, they have opened the doors of hell onto their path. Homosexuals turn then away from unnatural relationships, avoid any further mortal sins, then the you will close those doors to hell and will gain you many riches of heaven and of graces. The good Lord loves you and wants to have a relationship with you but when you choose lifestyles that tarnish your relationship with God, then you have marked your soul and thus making your life a slave to sin and the lies of the evil one will only keep gaining strength and power over you. Choose Christ, He loves you! Choose His church, we love you and need your "yes" to living a life of sainthood. Turn away from sin and follow the recommendations of the church on how to maintain a life leading towards sanctifying grace.
|
Posted Monday, July 19, 2010 5:38 AM By kaves1
PA you say “ I don't know how aware they were of the facts of sexual orientation.” Are you saying they were not aware of the concept of sexual orientation? One of the quotes I displayed says “Men who love males ‘are not inclined by nature toward marriage and the procreation of children yet are compelled to do so by the law or custom with the result that two joined males ‘live their lives out with one another unmarried’ ” – this, to me, suggests the notion of sexual orientation. Also, another quote not previously mentioned: “Ptolemy of Alexandria (2nd c. BC) refers to manly women born under a certain constellation who are ‘lustful for sexual relations contrary to nature’ and take the active sexual role with women whom they sometimes call their ‘lawful wives’ (Tetrabiblos 3.14; §171-72). “ Note that the idea of orientation is present but the cause (astrological influences) is wrong.
But like I said earlier, even if there is a biological component I see no reason to say it was God’s doing. If there is a biological component it is theologically explainable as a consequence of Original Sin. Paul says our nature’s are wounded due to Original Sin. Death and disease and other disorders are consequences of original sin also, though they also may have biological influences. God’s revealed Word says active homosexuality is always immoral – regardless of cause. Scientific findings do not change this.
|
Posted Monday, July 19, 2010 6:00 AM By kaves1
PA: Some homosexuals assert that loving, non-exploitive were unknown in ancient times The pro-homosexuals assert that if the Jews and Christians would have understood homosexuality in such ‘modern’ terms they somehow would have allowed it. The assertion that orientation and loving homosexual relationships were unknown to ancients is at best false and at worse a lie. These ancient texts support the idea that non-exploitive, same-sex loving relationships were conceived by the ancients, and undercut the pro-homosexual assertions that exploitive homosexual relationships were the only examples available to the Jews and early Christians. (In addition to ones already cited there are more. Several rabbinic texts forbid marriage of a man to a man; one referring to Egyptian practices even forbids marriage of a woman to a woman (Sifra on Lev 18:3) The Jews/Christians had available examples and ideas describing non-exploitive same sex relationships. Yet active homosexuality was rejected as wrong not because of exploitive relationships but because it goes against God’s created intent for the sexes as revealed in His Word in both the old and new Testaments. Now that you have been made aware of these ancient sources will you be making such claims in the future?
|
Posted Monday, July 19, 2010 7:01 AM By kaves1
PA, I see nothing in CCD 1992 article that says homosexuals are inferior as you said in your original posts, it simply states how others may react. It describes these reactions as irrational (I see no condoning there). It is simply stating the probable consequences and doing so accurately. I see no support for your original assertion that homosexuals are inferior. Nor do I interpret it as cautioning people against speaking out against violence. In fact, the document says:
‘"It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law”. Why did you not mention this portion of document? Maybe because it undercuts your belief that it ‘cautions people against speaking’ out?
|
Posted Monday, July 19, 2010 9:54 AM By Anne T.
I should clarify something, JLS. I should have said "sometimes" the Biblical writers and early Church Fathers were using the language of their day. Sometimes there were "right on" scientifically. When the Bible says that the "sun stood still" for a day and a night for Joshua, I really believe something unusual happened at that time. There are legends all over the world about such a happening. In the Americas they are legends about the time when the moon stood still for a day and a night. The scientist Immauel (his last name started with a "v") had a theory about that. He thought that somehow the earth came into a near collision with something in space that threw its orbit off course, etc. Other scientists made fun of him, but years from now they might find out he was right. I have lived long enought to know that scientists "change their tune" quite often over the years.
|
Posted Monday, July 19, 2010 10:15 AM By JLS
Anne T., the law of nature is subject to God. It is a confined or call it limited or finite system, and thus God makes the rules. He can make size change and he can make time change, or alter distance or any other creature. In modern times many thousands of witnesses claim that the Sun danced at Fatima and only 93 years ago. Did this happen only in the imaginations of the witnesses or objectively in the order of nature? Same with way back when? Many there are who dispute concrete reality and insist that all is illusion. Does this belief in illusion mean that God does not use external and internal aspects of creatures to convey what He conveys? Once again, there is no reason that Golgotha or the Inn of the Nativity is not the center of creation. Possibly Blessed Mary Ever Virgin is the center of creation, no matter where she happens to be. As for the earth revolving around the sun, this depends on the point of reference used, because that is the only thing that science has. Science knows that there is creation and that there is a Creator. Reason, or science informs us that there is only one Creator and only one creation. All other hypotheses end in confusion. Science has to assume that it is physical force such as gravity and other such things that determines what revolves around what, ie where the center is. So science depends on the senses, and the senses extend in only a limited way. Some people believe there are unlimited senses, but these ideas also end in confusion. It has been the work of the millenialists, ie fundamentalist, literalists, who have muddied the waters of Bible understanding in view of science. Get beyond the literalist fundamentalist millenialist protestant stuff and look at Scripture for what it tells you ... then you will more appreciate the brilliance and genius of the writers who put Scripture on paper and the wisdom and charity of those Church Fathers who authenticated what we call the Bible. One key is Apoc. 12.
|
Posted Monday, July 19, 2010 11:04 AM By Anne T.
JLS, the author and book to which I refer are Immanuel Velikovsky and "The Day the Sun Stood Still".
|
Posted Monday, July 19, 2010 11:29 AM By JLS
Anne T., I do not expect there would be any contradiction between Velikovshy's perspectives and mine. People can only see from the same perspective if they are in the same place at the same time. In my view what we do is convey to the best of our limited abilities what it seems like to us. Intrinsic with this is how effective our use of reason and the individual nature of our union with God through Jesus Christ made real by the Holy Eucharist. No matter what someone can "see", it does change divine revelation, nor does it change facts. Everything a Catholic should do, think or say ... one's attitudes and actions ... should be done for the glory of Jesus Christ. But I believe it is a good thing when we try to take part in divine revelation: Jesus is the Truth and the Life, so how could He be different from science? The answer is that what we normally see as science is merely some of the rules of how creation works, and the effect of this knowledge is the application of human endeavor. Only in its complete fulfillment can man reach God by his own efforts; the key here is the word "complete" fulfillment. Jesus is the complete fulfillment and is thus our road and means to unity with God. Why do I regard this stuff as important? continued
|
Posted Monday, July 19, 2010 11:38 AM By JLS
continuing: Why do I consider science and knowledge in its completion to be important? When I was running around like a wild man on campus, a Bible thumper I was aquainted with took me aside as I neared a big event on campus with lots of excitement and people walking around with protest signs one friday night. He told me not to pay attention to the totally hyperkenetic nutbuckets ranting and raving and trying to keep students from going inside to the lecture. This "thumper" served as the pointman to eventually convert me away from sin and into the life of Christ. But that would be a couple years hence. Anyway I saw that some of these rabid students were homosexuals and I immediately knew they were not about the truth. So with the "thumper" I went inside and sat down for the presentation. It was on God creating the universe and there was a rational speaker and an intriguing film. That experience allowed me to intellectually reason that the homosexuals outside who were pumping up the fable of Atlantis were opposed to the free exploration of truth. By my way of thinking and experience, and my personal resources it seems best for me to hammer out the point that God created creation and that there is no scientific error in Holy Scripture. No one to date has ever proven scientifically that there is scientific error in Scripture. This is because man's science is limited, and God's science is not going to refute what the Church Fathers have declared to be true. St Paul tells us that it is not faith that we believe in God but by observation and reason that we know that God exists. I see this as a struggle, a spiritual war, between man's limitation with science and God's non-limited nature.
|
Posted Monday, July 19, 2010 11:57 AM By MarkF
Wm. Hamilton, you are so right with what you said about the origins of homosexuality. I have SSA and I have know hundreds of men with SSA. Every single one who I have known well has had that same basic pattern - lack of a close bond with the parent of the same sex. A lack of a separation between the son and his mother is also apparent a lot. Another factor is the sexual abuse of the child by an adult of the same sex. I've met many who at first boldly claim how wonderful their childhoods were, only to later hear about a parent committing suicide. People cover these things up from themselves. Or people can grow up thinking what they experiences was normal, so they will report a normal childhood. So they'll say that they had a close relationship with their father, when in reality he was absent most of the time. More often than not, you won't get the truth from men who subscribe to the gay philosophy in public. They will lie to cover up what a nightmare they grew up with, just like they lie about the nightmare that is their personal sexual life today. They will lie to protect their own homosexuality and for homosexuality in general. One on one, to another man with SSA, I get a far different story. I don't know one man with SSA where the origins of it are not totally clear. Remember though, you won't here that from them in a forum like this. What you'll get here is the myth of happy gay childhood. Don't let it bother you. You've got the right idea. Stick with it.
|
Posted Monday, July 19, 2010 12:11 PM By Anne T.
JLS, it quite clear that the first chapter of Genesis should not be taken absolutely literally as the sun was created on the third "day". Never-the-less, there are some who would debunk every "miracles" in the Bible such as those who claim Jesus Christ did not really increase the loaves and fishes by a real miracle but just encouraged the people to "share". That is nonsense by what is recorded in the text and offical Church teaching. Those people have gone overboard the other way too much.
|
Posted Monday, July 19, 2010 2:08 PM By Rick DeLano
Anne T: It is not at all clear why you should be in a position to contradict the unanimous interpretation of the fathers. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that God did not create the Sun on the Third Day, since, to the contrary, He explicitly tells us that that is exactly what He did do. It is precisely the same bit of hooey by which the miracles of our Lord are "allegorized"- we surrender the apostolic interpretation of Scripture on the basis that science has somehow "disproven" that interpretation. It is absolutely, on hundred per cent certain that science has done no such thing. What science *has* done, is to convince a great many folks that a metaphysical assumption constitutes a scientific demonstration, just so long as enough academics agree to say so.
|
Posted Monday, July 19, 2010 3:41 PM By JLS
Anne T., the concept of "literal" is one which I challenge. That is why I said that it has been the literalists, fundamentalist millenialists who have messed up our the common understanding of how to read the Bible. And it is why I labored to introduce the idea that you well know of but likely have not applied to this endeavor, which is that writing needs a "who is writing and to whom?". If one is to use our common understanding of day and so forth, then it is also ridiculous to read that the sun was created on the first day, or that the earth was created on some subsequent day -- because when the sun was created there was no day, and when the earth was created there was no day either: So, then what would these Scriptures be saying to us? Jesus spoke in parables even sometimes to his close disciples because the truth is beyond us much of the time. God had Moses shield his eyes because if he saw the truth directly then it would kill him. St Paul tells us (and I have no shame using the KJV translation for this great verse), that "we see through a glass darkly ... " Could the word "day" mean something clear if we only were able to see through the glass a bit less darkly? Human language is not always capable of conveying what God wants conveyed ... St Paul explains this to us and informs us of the "language of angels". But the Bible had to start somewhere, and it started by providing knowledge not conveyable in precise language. Had it not done that, then it would have had to begin at some later stage, and then those opposed to God would have had a better grip on taking command of the gap in human understanding between creation and some later fully expressible point of development. Science cannot correct or improve on what Genesis has to say about how creation began. And it is probably that even the clearest vision of great saints would not come up with the language which could better give us a prezo to how we began. Don't give away one iota to the skeptic
|
Posted Monday, July 19, 2010 7:08 PM By JLS
Oh hey, I guess I'm explaining why mystics do not give us the details of their mystical experiences ... because of the limitations of human language.
|
Posted Monday, July 19, 2010 8:08 PM By Anne T.
Rick DeLano, my position is that God could have created the sun on the third "twenty-four hour" day, or he could have created it on the third "one-million year" day. That is what I am assuming JLS meant when he said not to be a Protestant literalist. I am inclinced, though, to go with the first, a twenty-four hour day. I really have not been convinced that the theory of evolution is correct -- too many missing links are missing. According to Church teaching one does not have to take an exact position on how long those "days" were. One does have to believe, though, that God created Adam and Eve, that the Fall took place and affected mankind, that we all came originally from one set of parents, that the devil the fallen angel was involved, etc.
|
Posted Monday, July 19, 2010 8:12 PM By A
By the way, I commented in my last post before reading JLS's answer to me in his post at 3:41 p.m., July19th.
|
Posted Monday, July 19, 2010 8:51 PM By A
I, of course, would be referring to a theistic type of evolution. To see what I mean and the Catholic Church's stand on the issue, go to the free online Catholic Encyclopedia and put "evolution" in their search bar. The first article under "evolution" explains that about which I am writing. I am sure the other article explain some of it very well also.
|
Posted Monday, July 19, 2010 10:24 PM By Anne T.
Sorry, all the last posts from "A" were from me "Anne T".
|
Posted Monday, July 19, 2010 10:44 PM By JLS
A, what I propose in my post is not theistic evolution. It is simply an analysis keeping in mind that there are limits to human language and human understanding. The objective of what I posted is to motivate readers to look into what comes from optimizing their union with God through the Holy Eucharist; for, the more union one experiences with God, the more we see through the glass darkly. This concludes with the Beattific Vision. My advice is to concentrate on seeking first the kingdom of God and then letting Him show you what piques your curiosity -- consider the rewards symbolized in the Song of Songs. Contrasting the Catholic with the materialist in the field of science, one runs into the conflict between humility and vanity. Humility furthers the love of God in our world, whereas vanity brings destruction.
|
Posted Monday, July 19, 2010 11:37 PM By simone_dubois
MarkPA, your source is a Church document from the CCD in 1992? I fail to see the connection or how this substantiates your claim of 'people are innately homosexual as science proves'. This is NOT a peer reviewed scientific source. This is sophistry or Orwellian double-speak. The scientific method utilizes investigation involving observation and theory to test scientific hypotheses. Your source may tell us how to deal with persons, it does not say anything about people being born homosexual. And MarkPA people can feel authentic love for others who are in the midst of committing sins. It is disingenuous and uncharitable to label people as dislikers and haters just because their eyes are opened and they recognize the promotion of homosexuality as normal for what it is.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:59 AM By Rick DeLano
The catastrophe which has befallen Christendom- the precise disaster itself- is the result of, first, the undermining of Faith in the universal apostolic interpretation of Scripture handed down to us by the Fathers. This was accomplished, pre-eminently, by supposed scientific "disproof" of the Church's ancient teaching. Two key examples are Galileo's supposed "disproof" of the "literal interpretation" (actually the Apostolic and Patristic interpretation) of Genesis 1, and certain Jesuits' "disproof" of the proscriptions against usury which were enforced on pain of excommunication for one thousand years by the Holy Catholic Church. In both of these cases, no actual teaching of the magisterium has reversed these thousand-year and older teachings. Only practice and non-magisterial pronouncements have *effectively* reversed them. This is quite interesting, since we are not promised an infallible prudential enforcement, but we are promised an infallible magisterium. I find it interesting to consider what kind of world we would live in had the Church not surrendered (in practice, not in magisterial pronouncements) to Galileo and the usurers........something to think about as we watch global usury coming apart at the seams. Also, as the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe reports astonishing evidence that the Cosmic Microwave Background itself is oriented with respect to that Earth which the Copernicans have assured us for centuries is an insignificant pebble orbiting an insgnificant sun in an insignificant galaxy..... and now some insist that there are 10 to the 500th powers Universes as well. Why? It takes that many for their "math" to work out it appears. William of Ockham's razor, anyone?
|
Posted Tuesday, July 20, 2010 12:24 PM By Abeca Christian
Rick DeLano you are right it is a catastrophe.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 20, 2010 1:39 PM By JLS
I wish I had time to finish reading and absorb more of the book on the traditional Church explanations of Genesis along with the state of science that connects with it ... I've run the author and title several times, and it works with the elemental core knowledge. Before a Catholic really can deal thoroughly with the issue, this book should be examined. Energy level is down now, as I have not eaten anything yet today other than coffee, honey and an aspirin to decongest from the effects of the application of science and technology.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 20, 2010 5:46 PM By Mark from PA
Kaves, I don't deny that there are some positives in the CCD document from 1992 but it is very contradictory. It almost sounds like it was written by 2 different people with different views on homosexuality. I think calling a group of people "disordered" does set them apart as an inferior group of people. Also it is contradictory when a document says that it is against "unjust" discrimination and then goes on to say that a group of people can be barred from certain occupations. I think whether discrimination is "unjust" or not should be determined by the people being discriminated against not those doing the discriminating.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:55 PM By JLS
PA, are you planning on compiling your edit of the CCC and then publishing it?
|
Posted Tuesday, July 20, 2010 7:40 PM By Rick DeLano
But Mark. We cannot let men who wish to invade women's bathrooms determine whether we are “unjustly discriminating” against them when we refuse to allow them to pursue their disorder, can we? Nor can we allow those who wish to indoctrinate the innocent minds of children with the lie that fathers are not male, and mothers are not female, to determine whether it is “unjust discrimination” to prevent them from carrying out their evil intention to disfigure young minds, can we? Yes, Mark, disordered people do exist, and occasionally these people band together and attempt to force civilization to surrender children for indoctrination into whatever disorder has been advanced as something "not to be discriminated against". It is a wonderful and consoling thing when civilization simply, firmly, and charitably says "No". As we did with Proposition 8.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:21 PM By JLS
"the lie that fathers are not male, and mothers are not female": Rick, you're waxing eloquent here !!! The perverts are attempting to legislate parenthood to a status that has nothing to do with gender ! What an insight!!! Blows me away. But it is what they are doing. Idolaters routinely attempt to disengage some aspect of reality from the rest of reality ... they constantly have to disintegrate all that is good. These people of the gay agenda are insane ... literally and certifiably insane.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 20, 2010 11:14 PM By Mea Culpa
Mark PA - is it "unjust discrimination" for women not to be allowed to be ordained as priests? Should the Church allow individual women to determine the justness or unjustness of not being allowed to be ordained? Going by your comments of 5:46 pm and following your logic, you seem to be in favor of women's ordination if the individual woman feels it is justified. Are you? (I expect that you either won't answer the question at all, or will bring up something irrelevant like Jehovah's Witnesses or Jimmy Swaggart.)
|
Posted Wednesday, July 21, 2010 4:15 AM By Mark from PA
Rick, gay men are still men. Lesbians are still women. I am not saying otherwise. Mea Culpa, you have a point here. Many people believe that women are unworthy of being priests. According to the Old Testament, women are seen as unclean at various times, they were viewed as inferior. Jesus treated women as equals, which is surely amazing considering the times. I think that women should be allowed to be deaconesses as they were in the early Church.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 21, 2010 8:47 AM By JLS
PA, why don't you give forth with a definition of "man".
|
Posted Wednesday, July 21, 2010 8:52 AM By Abeca Christian
Someone here sounds very confused.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 21, 2010 9:01 AM By Abeca Christian
Fellows now that I am watching my older children grow into teenage years. I am seeing what studies have always shown, is that a child needs a mother and a father. Seeing other kids that do not have a stable, balanced home life, my kids and I, have noticed why it is so important to have an intact home life. Some of the children we've observed that didn't, displayed certain unhealthy traits.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 21, 2010 9:16 AM By kaves1
PA, you said “I think calling a group of people "disordered" does set them apart as an inferior group of people”.
However, It does not say that. It says “the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder”. It is you who make the leap that the document is calling a group of people disordered. Also, the disordered condition is such because it is disordered relative to God’s created intent – not because science may show a biological component.
Furthermore, the document seems to consider other sinful inclinations as disordered – not just active homosexuality. So you are not being singled out. The document says "As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. …”
Is pedophile activity disordered? How about bisexual activity? Yes, but these people are also fully children of God and not a sub-group. Their brains (hardware) may be biologically mis-wired but their software (their souls) are not and are capable of making free-will decisions.
Also, the immediate point I was making in my prior post is that violence against homosexuals is condemned in the document itself. You inferred it was not but did not mention the passage pertaining to it that I showed– because it undercuts your (faulty) interpretation that violence against homosexuals is tacitly permitted.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 21, 2010 9:34 AM By Mea Culpa
Mark PA - so you're not in favor of women being ordained as priests? So you are in favor of some discrimination? (I'm not in favor of women's ordination, just trying to see if PA will acknowledge there are forms of just discrimination.) So you admit that there are groups of people that should not be priests?
|
Posted Wednesday, July 21, 2010 3:00 PM By Mark from PA
Mea Culpa, I think that women should be ordained as deaconesses I do not think that women should be ordained as priests. I can't really see myself seeing a woman as Father. I do realize that other denominations have women as ministers. If at some point the Church decided that women could serve as priests I would accept this but I am not really in favor of it and do not see this happening in the near future.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 21, 2010 3:37 PM By Anne T.
Mark PA, the word "unclean" was not necessarily a bad thing in the Old Testament. It did not necesarily mean back then what it means to us today. In fact, Orthodox and other Jewish women, and even many or most Christian women, still keep those laws to a certain extent, and most are happy to do so. The times mentioned in the Old Testament when women were considered "unclean" were times that were set apart for them so that they could rest, take care of themselves or their babies and not be bothered by men. Notice that the unclean times were right after child birth, during menstrual cycles, etc. Good grief! I explained to you before several times that those laws were for the benefit of the women, but you keep insisting that it meant they were bad. You lack a great deal of knowledge of the Old Testament.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 21, 2010 3:47 PM By Anne T.
Also, as one Orthodox Jewish rabbi wrote in his book, "Doesn't Anybody Blush Any More?", the separation keeps the couple from getting sexual jaded.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 21, 2010 3:50 PM By Anne T.
"Jaded" in that sense means tired of each other.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 21, 2010 4:18 PM By JLS
PA, you err because you do not understand the nature of the priesthood.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 21, 2010 5:02 PM By Mark from PA
Anne T, it doesn't necessarilly mean they were bad. Just that they were not seen as equal to men. In the Old Testament women were seen as inferior to men. An unmarried woman was considered as the property of her father and a married woman was seen as the property of her husband.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 21, 2010 5:34 PM By Anne T.
Sorry, Mark PA, but those particular laws were put in to protect women so they could recuperate, rest, etc. You are totally misrepresenting them in this case. All cultures back them considered the father to be the head of the family and the woman more or less property, but the Jewish laws were far more humane toward women than those of many other cultures. You can look up all the reasons for the Levitical laws for women in a free online Jewish Encyclopedia. The Orthodox Jews, and some Conservative Jews, still follow most or all of them.
|
Posted Thursday, July 22, 2010 6:51 AM By Peter
More power to you PA.
|
Posted Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:13 AM By kaves1
PA, the inferior status of women in the old testament is also a consequence of original sin . It was not so in the Beginning. Some people infer that because something is 'in the bible' it represents God's created intent. Not necessarily so. Jesus raises the status of women and moves us closer to God's created intent. The analogy does not hold for homosexuality - because it was not part of God's created order from the Beginning. Accepting active homosexuality does not move us closer to the Beginning, rather it regresses us beyond the distortions (diviorce, concubines, slavery, etc.) from God's original intent permitted in the Old Testament.
|
Posted Friday, July 23, 2010 3:54 PM By Abeca Christian
kaves1 I enjoy reading your posts, you really know the faith and I especially enjoy your knowledge and well nice thoughts through these posts. You explain them well thus far. Christ shines well through your posts, keep on.
|
Posted Friday, July 23, 2010 6:05 PM By simone_dubois
Well, MarkPA, still no scientific source to cite. Just think it is very important to note because mainly you seem to wish to make outrageous claims, but never back them with actual evidence or research. May God Himself open your eyes.
|
Posted Friday, July 23, 2010 6:29 PM By Mark from PA
What outrageous claim am I making, Simone?
|
Posted Friday, July 23, 2010 8:02 PM By JLS
PA, name the scientific evidence that supports your claim. You have never done this, and that is what simone dubois is calling outrageous. So, lay your cards on the table.
|
Posted Friday, July 23, 2010 8:05 PM By JLS
I've always heard or read the foregone conclusion that in the past, women's status was inferior. Maybe their status was not significant compared to the will of God that there be no adultry. When adultry reigns, then human dignity wanes, and they begin to worship themselves. Isn't that what we see on TV these days, programs where men and women are worshiped?
|
Posted Friday, July 23, 2010 8:54 PM By simone_dubois
To quote from your post of July 14, 2010 6:33PM,"Yes, modern science has pretty much determined that homosexuality is innate and the Church does not dispute this." I asked you to cite your source earlier and you gave a pastoral teaching from the CCD, 1992. There is no modern scientific proof that homosexuality is innate. I think it is important to note how you skirt issues, demand sources from the rest of us but never back up your claims yourself. We should all take note. You wish to paint those who accept what God has revealed as He revealed it, as biggotted and haters. It is important to point out the tactics being used against us because we believe what God has said both through the scriptures and the authority of the magisterium. So, what's your source for the outrageous claim above?
|
Posted Saturday, July 24, 2010 9:45 AM By simone_dubois
MarkPA still waiting for a response, know you're out there, you blogged on other articles this morning, so why no response?
|
Posted Saturday, July 24, 2010 10:12 AM By simone_dubois
MarkPA, Santtila et al., 2008, the latest twin study on possible genetic components in same sex attraction (SSA) found that genetics has very minor and possibly no influence on SSA, environment was highly correlative in SSA outcomes. This study mirrored most studies but had a much larger sample size. The results of research are exactly opposite your claim. People should know that.
|
Posted Saturday, July 24, 2010 10:53 AM By Mea Culpa
Modern science has tried mightily to show that homosexuality is innate, but no such proof has been found. If homosexuality were a genetic trait, how would it be passed on? Homosexuality is a learned behavior, and a choice - a sinful choice, against God's plan and the natural law, as is plain for all to see.
|
Posted Saturday, July 24, 2010 12:18 PM By RR
simone_dubois: You won't get a response because he has NO defense in what he says. I have had sooooo many posts where I keep asking for a reply, but one never comes because he does not have an answer. He plays a lot of games on CAL.CATH and he's playing hide-and-NO seek with you.
|
Posted Saturday, July 24, 2010 5:56 PM By simone_dubois
you are right, RR.
|
Posted Saturday, July 24, 2010 6:34 PM By Mark from PA
RR, I am not playing hida and seek. I just got back from church where I was volunteering at our parish festival since 9:30 AM. I just walked back home a few minutes ago and it is was 91 degrees as I walked past a temperature clock so I am low on energy at the moment as I was outside under a tent all day but I have been reading the posts.
|
Posted Saturday, July 24, 2010 7:48 PM By RR
Mark from PA: I stand corrected, now answer your questions from simone_dubois. Get to typin. We wait your responses and answers with bated breath.
|
Posted Saturday, July 24, 2010 8:12 PM By JLS
PA, I and my dog walked for almost two hours in 95* direct sunlight, out in a wildlife reserve. He swam around for a while and retrieved the dummies I tossed to him. I became very calorie starved as I had not eaten much prior to that today. I then wrote it off to fasting for the great feast in the sky. Finally I ate a couple pieces of bread and am working through a bottle of beer and bag of salted almonds. My stomach is not gnawing at me so vigorously now, but is tugging at me to remember to cook up something solid to eat. BTW, if anyone wants to know the secret for losing weight, let me know, and I will reveal it. Maybe I will start up a business: Send ten dollars and I will tell you how to lose weight. Then I tell them to fast all the time and do hard exercise much of the time, and eat no more than one decent meal per day. Oops, I just let the cat out of the bag ... well, maybe people would still all send me money even though they now know how to do it. I wonder if this is like Catholicism in that knowing the directions is easy but following the directions religiously is not.
|
Posted Saturday, July 24, 2010 11:31 PM By JLS
PA, I have resolved to become a kinder gentler conversationalist regarding my responses to and with respect to you. And it would help a lot if you would stop being homosexually inclined.
|
Posted Sunday, July 25, 2010 12:26 AM By Abeca Christian
JLS I agree with you. LOL
|
Posted Sunday, July 25, 2010 8:15 AM By Mea Culpa
The homosexualists want us to believe that they were "born that way" and have no control over their perverted and sinful lusts - as if God had not given them free will and the ability to choose good or evil. They choose evil, but want to whine "but it's not my fault, I couldn't help it." WRONG. The good news is that Jesus Christ came to free all people from sin - and the sin of homosexuality is not immune to HIS healing power. And I'll be happy to cite my source: "Put off your old nature which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceithful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness." Ephesians 4:22-24
|
Posted Sunday, July 25, 2010 11:00 AM By C.B.
PA just loves to antagonize. He must get a high from it, and also a sense of power in order to get everyone going. Does not that seem to border on a little bit of sadism?
|
Posted Sunday, July 25, 2010 11:40 AM By C.B.
PA, I'm trying not to hurt your feelings but I am trying to get you to see that you do not need to identify with the homosexual lifestyle because that is not who you are. It would be like identifying oneself to the lifestyle of a masochist or a voyeur,a transvestite, etc,etc,etc..Do not let this abomination take over who you are. Pray to the Holy Spirit to free you from the bondage of this sin You are in a strong spiritual warfare.
|
Posted Sunday, July 25, 2010 2:29 PM By RR
simone_dubois: I only hear crickets chirping as far as PA. I don't think that I was right, WE ARE right. He doesn't have any proof of his claims.
|
Posted Sunday, July 25, 2010 6:57 PM By Mark from PA
RR, I just got back from church again. I worked at our church festival all day today also, with time out for Mass. Hope that you had a good weekend.
|
Posted Sunday, July 25, 2010 7:04 PM By Mark from PA
JLS, I have to smile at your comment, "It would help a lot if you would stop being homosexuality inclined." JLS, I am not openly gay and I do not label myself as a homosexual. However, this does not change my biology. People can't really change their orientation.
|
Posted Sunday, July 25, 2010 7:13 PM By Mark from PA
C.B., I don't see that I identify with a homosexual lifestyle. Gay people lead many different kinds of lifestyles. Homosexuality is not a sin. My sexual orientation is not an abomination. A lot of straight people are in more bondage to sin than I am.
|
Posted Sunday, July 25, 2010 8:23 PM By simone_dubois
RR, I only meant that you were right about the cat and mouse games, no replies, etc. You are right, it isn't your teaching or mine, it is God's. I am sure MarkPA thinks he is right. His technique is well laid out in a book called, "After the Ball". I will have to pray for him very much. While his temptation is not a temptation I am tested with, I have my own spiritual warfare every day and will till the end. What he doesn't seem to get is that giving into the culture doesn't change what the truth is. Again, I hope God Himself will open his eyes, for his own sake and the sake of all those he influences. Hopefully we will all be able to say, like St. Paul, 'I ran the race and kept the faith.' and hear those beautiful words, 'Well done good and faithful servent, now enter into the place my Father has prepared for you from the beginning.' I am always happy when anyone repents and causes joy in heaven, I don't mind if they are paid the same at the five o'clock hour as those who started at eight in the morning. God Bless you and Mary keep you.
|
Posted Sunday, July 25, 2010 9:38 PM By C.B.
PA, As I said before......you know better....you just love to antagonize.
|
Posted Sunday, July 25, 2010 9:53 PM By JLS
PA, you posted, "more bondage to sin than I am". This is saying that you are in some bondage to sin. How can you go to Holy Communion if you are in bondage to sin?
|
Posted Monday, July 26, 2010 4:47 AM By Mark from PA
Well, JLS, I admit that I am a sinner. Everyone who goes to Communion is probably a sinner. Christ came to heal sinners. When we receive Our Lord in Holy Communion we share in his perfection. But as human beings we are not perfect and all have our faults and failings.
|
Posted Monday, July 26, 2010 4:39 PM By Mark from PA
Simone, I had time to do more research. I don't know if you are aware that last year the American Psychological Association declared that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients that they can become straight through therapy or other treatments. "The association issued its most comprehensive repudiation of reparative therapy." "No solid evidence exists that change is likely says the resolution adopted by a 125-4 vote." Some research shows that reparative therapy can be harmful. This is due to a risk of depression and suicide from such therapies. I have read the statement from the American Psychological Association and some articles about this.
|
Posted Monday, July 26, 2010 6:02 PM By simone_dubois
Again, MarkPA, a concensus of people who make a resolution is not peer reviewed, scientific research. It is professional opinion which may have some authority but it is not research. None the less, you made the claim that SCIENCE has shown homosexuality to be innate though by your own admission you had to go, after the fact to try to find some research to back up your claim, and you still haven't found that research. No one mentioned reparative therapy so I am at a loss as to why you bring that subject into this conversation. It does not apply. However, no solid evidence exists that reparative therapy is harmful, thats just your assertion (again). Suicide due to depression may just have easily been caused by the homosexual lifestyle. As Fr. Pacwa says, "show me the data." Making an assertion doesn't prove anything. A group of socialists in 1930's Germany agreed to promote a final solution. Just because a group agrees on an action doesn't make them scientific or correct.
|
Posted Monday, July 26, 2010 6:21 PM By Mark from PA
Simone, you say that no solid evidence exists that reparative therapy is harmful but you need to look up what the American Psychological Association has to say about it. This was big in the news a year ago. Plus I have heard from people who have been involved in reparative therapy and been told that it was a waste of time and worse.
|
Posted Monday, July 26, 2010 7:01 PM By C.B.
Mark PA, If reparative therapy is a waste of time,then they need an exorcist to be liberated from the evil demon of homosexuality.
|
Posted Monday, July 26, 2010 7:35 PM By simone_dubois
MarkPA, "show me the data." Your claims remain groundless and can be regarded as sophistry. If you had any such evidence you would already have produced it. I have listened to people and their wonderful stories, people who rejected the lifestyle and were restored, after therapy, going on to have happy, fulfilled lives--even after being militantly involved in the lifestyle. I am sure you are as happy for them as I am.
|
Posted Monday, July 26, 2010 8:21 PM By RR
Mark from PA: It doesn't matter if every psychologist in the world believed what you claim. GOD'S LAWS AND TEACHINGS ARE WHAT MATTERS, not man's laws. God said homosexuality is an abomination. What don't you get about that??
|
Posted Monday, July 26, 2010 10:59 PM By JLS
PA, the American Psychological Association is harmful to many people. Have you looked up the statistics of people who have been treated by members of the APA and then committed suicide?
|
Posted Monday, July 26, 2010 11:03 PM By JLS
PA, you said you are in bondage to sin. I am not in bondage to sin. Bondage to sin means that you are not in a state of grace, and thus by going to Holy Communion in your state of bondage to sin, which is a mortal sin, you commit sacrilege against the Body and Blood of Christ. But maybe you are testing the waters for a possible run for some political office.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 3:57 AM By Mark from PA
Well, then I would say that I am not in bondage to sin, JLS. Homosexuals are not evil demons and I don't believe in that exorcist stuff. I remember when the movie, "The Exorcist" was out and lots of people were into that stuff but I never saw the movie. However, referring to people like that stirs up ill will and hatred against them.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:24 AM By C.B.
Mark PA, If you are living a chaste live style and are trying your best to avoid mortal sin, then only God can judge you. We all have our own struggles. Although, justifying the homosexual life style is quite annoying.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:03 AM By JLS
PA, there is a lot of "stuff" that the Church includes in her Magisterium which you do not believe. Remember from your Bible studies where Jesus says, "O ye of little belief"? Jesus referred face to face with the rulers and rich men that they were sons of the devil ... and you think the rich and powerful homosexualist political/religious campaign is not full of demons? Get real.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:10 AM By Mea Culpa
PA - by not believing in "that exorcist stuff" - does this include the exorcisms performed by Jesus? How about the exorcism that is part of Baptism? What you're really saying is you don't believe that the devil exists. This is contrary to Church teaching (big surprise). The Catechism says, "2851 In this petition [the Our Father], evil is not an abstraction, but refers to a person, Satan, the Evil One, the angel who opposes God. The devil (dia-bolos) is the one who "throws himself across" God's plan and his work of salvation accomplished in Christ." In the bad news as preached by Mark PA, there is no devil, there is no sin, there is no need for repentance and conversion - we can continue in our sins, especially the sin of homosexuality, and everything is perfectly fine. In the bad news that you preach, what was the purpose of Jesus' incarnation, death, and resurrection?
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:16 AM By Abeca Christian
C.B. not just quite annoying on PA's part but also it can be a sin because he can easily influence others to follow untruth.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 10:45 AM By RR
Mark from PA: Tell your disbelief in exorcisms to Fr. Malachi Martin. The Church has and continues to have exorcisms. Just because you don't believe in something or don't think something exists doesn't mean that it doesn't. If you don't believe in exorcisms, then you don't believe in the devil. The devil and demons, unfortunately, DO possess people.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 3:42 PM By Mark from PA
Well, Mea Culpa, I am just not interested in the devil and the occult and stuff like that. If that's bad news for you, sorry.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 5:07 PM By JLS
Catholicism is not a passive religion, but an active religion. In the PA context this means that he does not have to seek the devil, but if he advocates or teaches defiance of Church doctrine, then he puts himself into a passive condition which is ripe for the devil.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 6:27 PM By Canisius
PA do you believe in the existence of the devil, it sounds like you dont
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 7:55 PM By Mark from PA
Canisius, when we renew our baptismal promises at Easter, we renounce satan. That is about it for me. It seems that some here have interest in the devil but I am not interested. I don't really think that evil spirits and demons wander around making people do bad things. No JLS, I am not ripe for the devil. I received communion a few hours ago so Jesus takes care of me.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:15 PM By MarkF
"PA just loves to antagonize. He must get a high from it, and also a sense of power in order to get everyone going. Does not that seem to border on a little bit of sadism?" I've been saying that for almost two years now. I've also asked that others on here stop feeding this phenomenon, what ever it is. The response has been underwhelming. I think there is more than a little sickness going on here, and it's not limited to PA. I've fallen into it many times myself, even though I know better. Can we ALL (JLS, RR, Canisius, Mea Culpa, Anne T., Abeca.) ALL of us refrain from all of this? It's not educating anyone. It's not reaching anyone. If you want to make your points, you can but you can do this without getting into a debate with PA. It really is a sick game that we ALL are playing or have played. Let's just end it here and now.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:24 PM By MarkF
I have to say that I have never heard of the Church doing an exorcism on anyone solely for their homosexual inclinations. I sure have heard of Protestants who do that, but they do exorcisms for people who have the demon of not walking little old ladies across the street. I really don't think it's proper or kind to say that people with SSA need an exorcism. That's a tricky slope you're on. Next thing we'll have exorcisms for people who are so proud of how holy they are compared to selective other people. Which isn't such a bad idea now that I think of it. We all need prayer, all of us. Yes I believe in the devil and in demons. But they are not just confined to people with SSA. Honest. They can also influence people to be snide, condescending, preachy, to become holier than thou, and sanctimonious. I wish that all of us on here would take a long look at what is going on here and ask themselves if this is all a healthy or good thing.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:44 PM By MarkF
Mea Cupla said, "Homosexuality is a learned behavior, and a choice - a sinful choice, against God's plan and the natural law, as is plain for all to see." I have to disagree slightly. If by "learned" you mean that it is not innate but is a trait that is acquired through life experiences, I'd say yes. But I don't think it's learned like language is learned or like physics is learned later on. SSA is, from my experience, something that comes from psychological dynamics in early childhood. It comes from conflicts, feelings of separation from others of the same gender, feelings of abandonment and lack of identification with the parent of the same gender. It comes from the drama of life. It is most certainly not a choice. Choice comes later on over what do do with the inclinations. But it is a choice compromised by emotion and sexual attraction, so even that is not exactly a free choice at all times. When you use the language of choice, you're opening yourself up to all sorts of easy criticism, because no one's sexual inclinations are their own choices.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:53 PM By MarkF
But I have a wider question to ask. Is all of this rhetoric going to influence anyone? Is this the best pastoral care that we can give to people? Aren't we more likely to scare people into some "gay church" or into atheism? I'd ask you, how do you think Jesus would deal with people caught up in SSA? We don't see him fulminate on the sexual sins of his people. We see his anger reserved for other sins, for the sins of hypocrisy of religious leaders and for sins of polluting the temple. I myself make a big distinction between individual people caught up with SSA and for those, who may also be caught up with SSA, but who are also out to change the Church. I do think those kind of changes should be fought with everything we have. But what about non-political people with SSA? How would you imagine a ministry be to people with SSA? Would it be all shouting about sin and the devil? Exorcisms, as one on here wanted? How would it be different from a ministry to people who use birth control or who are in a second marriage? What I'm getting at here hinges on what Vatican II was all about. I'm afraid that what I am hearing on here is really just a return back to the pre-Vatican II Church, when sexual sins were all handled with just a shout of "Don't!" I'm not saying that the word "don't" shouldn't be in our vocabulary, but we've also got to have a lot of other words in their too. If we who reject so much of how Vatican II was implemented cannot come up with anything more than a return to the pre-Vatican II pastoral system, then we'll see the Church shrink in influence and at the same time the dissenters will regain their power within her. Believe me, I detest how Vatican II was implemented as much as anyone else. But we have to reclaim the Council for ourselves because the Church really needed it. The big question is how do we bring the gospel to this world, as it is, not how we wish it were.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 10:14 PM By JLS
PA, when are you going to be ready to transition from the Milk of the Word to the Meat of the Word?
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 10:17 PM By JLS
Scripture makes it clear in at least two places in the OT that the conseqence of sin passes down the generations ... and this does not mean that it cannot skip some generations. Again, it is irrelevant whether ssa is genetic ... Jesus gave sight to men born blind ... He changed the genetic defect.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 5:16 AM By RR
MarkF: I agree that gay people probably don 't need an exorcism, BUT I believe the devil is tempting and influencing their choice to live out the ACTIVE homosexual lusts that they are feeling. The devil tempts all of us. I'm sure that the devil has possessed some homosexuals, too. What are we to do, MarkF, when PA and friends come on here and blatantly support, condone, and accept ACTIVE homosexuality? Do we just let him and them get away with it and influence peopel with a lukewarm, at best, faith? No, we are to admonish the sinner. That is what Christ would do. He does play sick games, but I am willing to lay my cards out for the faith, to a certain extent. We may not be educating or reaching PA and friends, but we are keeping PA and friends from further spreading their homosexual agenda lies on people of little faith.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 6:52 AM By Mea Culpa
MarkF is right - there are better things to do than get caught up in repeating the same things over and over to PA.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 7:01 AM By RR
MarkF: I quote you, " We don't see him fulminate on the sexual sins of his people." God destroyed sodom and gomorrah. God will not put up with these sins of homosexuality that cry to heaven for vengeance.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 9:21 AM By Abeca Christian
"Homosexuality is a learned behavior, and a choice - a sinful choice, against God's plan and the natural law, as is plain for all to see." Very well said MarkF. I applaud you for these comments because they are filled with truth and God has blessed you to understand this.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 9:47 AM By Abeca Christian
MarkF sorry for repeating what you posted with that quote. I just thought it was worth repeating. (re posting.)
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 10:00 AM By Mark from PA
Abeca Christian, Mark F disagreed with that. He said, "It is most certainly not a choice." I don't really think it is learned behavior, either. I think that many gay children react to their life experiences in a different way. Many gay men have straight brothers, why aren't the brothers gay? I think it is because gay children react differently to their environments and in a way it reinforces who they are. Children surely do not see their sexual orientations as sinful choices and are probably not even aware of it until they reach a certain age, which is older for some than for others.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 10:11 AM By Mark from PA
Mark F, I have to tell you the truth that I actually do learn from much of what you write here, as I do also from many of the other posters. I agree with much of what you say. From what I read, it seems you have been wounded by some of your life experiences. I also find that I have learned much from listening to and talking to several priests over the years. I am thankful that I have good priests in my parish and also a few men that I consider to be close friends who are priests.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 8:49 PM By MarkF
RR said, "Do we just let him and them get away with it and influence people with a lukewarm, at best, faith? No, we are to admonish the sinner. That is what Christ would do." No, that is not what Jesus would do. He told the apostles to walk away from the town that rejects him and to dust the sand of the town off your sandals. What I'm asking us all to look at is to what extent has this become a sick game? A game that all sides are guilty of to some extent? I believe that if you think about it enough, you'll see that silence, at this point, is the most effective thing we can do. What we're doing by playing his game is to feed it, which does no one any good. How about this? Try the silent treatment for two weeks and see how it goes? See how you feel after two weeks of silence towards PA. We've all been drawn into something that is unhealthy but for some reason we tell ourselves is good for us or for the Church when it's not.
|
Posted Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:17 AM By Mark from PA
When did I reject Jesus, Mark? The last time I missed my Mass obligation was in 1978. I consider myself a faithful Catholic. Is this high school, in which people who are considered "disordered" and inferior are given the silent treatment? When you were in high school did you tell the other kids not to talk to people that you didn't like? You make good points in some of your posts but your antipathy is kind of sad.
|
Posted Saturday, July 31, 2010 12:50 AM By Anne T.
Mark F, that is good advice. The Lord did tell us to avoid those who would not listen to the Church when they were fraternally corrected.
|
Posted Saturday, July 31, 2010 9:26 AM By JLS
"Spare the rod, spoil the child".
|
Posted Monday, August 02, 2010 3:32 PM By Mark from PA
Well, JLS, I spared the rod with my son. He was never spanked or beaten by me. I do not believe in any kind of physical punishment or violence against children. When he was in high school his reports had comments from the teachers on them. One of the most frequent comments was, "A pleasure to have in class."
|
Posted Monday, August 02, 2010 5:17 PM By JLS
PA, I got it with the old wire coat hanger as a rule ... but of course over the clothing. There were never any marks ... it was not brutal or injurious in any physical way. When did Mom give up with it? When she pulled her "punch" one time and I was screaming in agony anyway ... I think she had caught on. Yet, on the first day of 11th grade English Literature while the stuffy teacher was calling roll, I answered with some wise crack. Like lightening, from the instant to the remainder of the semester, I spent it in exile in a special education class ... but the work load was not too bad, and I enjoyed the short story about a Korean War soldier who hopped up a jeep and drove through the artillery barrage so fast they couldn't hit him. All the while my college bound classmates were learning all that stuff I'd druther not've read nohow. That sped spinstress teacher had the oldest car in the staff lot, but she boasted that hers was the only one paid for in full ... guess she should have been promoted to Secretary of the Treasury, huh?
|
© California Catholic Daily 2010. All Rights Reserved.
|