they can call themselves anything they want, it don't make it so... delenda est.
Posted on 04/14/2009 8:51:10 AM PDT by presidio9
In all fairness, what we have in common is far greater than what separates us.
“Proudly gay and proudly Catholic”
How does one go about being proud of their homosexuality? The opposite of not being ashamed is not pride. I am not proud of being heterosexual any more than I am proud of having eyesight. It just is.
When someone is a pervert, he must constantly remind himself that that is a good thing lest he fall into depression upon realizing that simply calling himself "gay" does not make him an un-homosexual.
they can call themselves anything they want, it don't make it so... delenda est.
Ecumenical.
My whole family is Catholic. Of course I know it is just a stereo-type. Everyone knows that not every priest is gay.
Well........
There are four fundamental issues to be dealt with: chastity, sodomy, "disordered thought" and conscience.
Now, we need to bring up the subject of mortal sin. A mortal sin is a deliberate statement of rebellion against God. You can't do a mortal sin by accident. We are commonly taught that there are three conditions for something to be a mortal sin: (1) the act needs to be objectively evil (which fornication, adultery, and sodomy are), (2) the person committing the act needs to know that the act is objectively evil (see above on the teens and 20 somethings), and (3) the act needs to be deliberate (e.g., if you got falling-down, blacked out drunk and committed fornication while blacked out, I don't think that the fornication would be considered a mortal sin -- of course, the drunkenness would be a separate issue). So, as I said above, it is entirely possible that a teen or 20 something genuinely might not realize that sex outside of marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is wrong. It's a shame to say that, but I really think that in some instances, that might actually be the case.
Does the issue of conscience apply to the author of the article? Clearly not. He obviously knows that it is objectively against the teachings of the Church. He just refuses to discipline his thoughts to conform with those teachings. His situation is not that of a kid brought up in modern society with no accurate teaching from home. Part of the "conscience" situation is that you are obliged to form your own conscience according to the teachings of the Church. Unintentional ignorance is invincible; intentional ignorance is just ignorant. Rebellion (like this guy) is sinful, in of itself.
Why the long dissertation?
Because we need to recognize that we shouldn't be so overly judgmental. We assume that being homosexual is sinful and apply a lot of scorn to anybody who we find out is homosexual. Well, being homosexual is not sinful. Committing homosexual acts is. However, the same acts (i.e., sex outside of marriage and/or unnatural sex acts) would be just as sinful if the perpetrators were heterosexual as if they are homosexual.
Do we pour scorn on an alcoholic -- even if he's dry? Do we pour scorn on one who's bipolar or schizophrenic?
I would hope not.
Would we even pour the same amount of scorn on an unmarried heterosexual couple living together -- even though they are committing the exact SAME sins?
Having said the above, though, don't get me wrong. There is a serious spiritual component to this. That's why (IMHO) St. Paul is so serious in his condemnation of practicing homosexuals as he is. Likewise, that's why it is as condemned in the Old Testament as it is. And that's why it's imperative that a homosexual who has EVER done anything never be allowed in the priesthood or permanent diaconate (and why one who has ever even had an inclination in that direction should be accepted only after the most careful investigation and discernment by an orthodox Catholic bishop). That's why we need to distinguish between those who have the wiring problem and those who insist upon acting on it. Those who simply have their wiring messed up can be good, holy, and faithful Catholics...provided that they live in accord with the teachings of the Church (same as the rest of us). However, those who continue to live in a state of sin need to be identified, catechized, and if they refuse to change, go and fellowship with some other group...so that their leaven doesn't spread. And, as anybody on wagglebee's "homosexual agenda" ping list can tell, that's the chief spiritual objective of the spirit behind the homosexual movement: to leaven the "whole loaf" with their poisonous leaven. (Yeah, right, as if that's ever going to happen)
We ought to spend a moment thinking about what it was that darkened the minds, vitiated the natural instincts, stomped down the cultural norms, and made "Sex-is-whatever-I-want-it-to-be" and "Marriage-is-however-I-define-it" seem plausible to millions, gay or straight. It was the sin of contraception.
It was contraceptive couples who made the decisive break away from natural sex and natural marriage, and ruthlessly redefined everything to suit their appetites. As the West Coast gay writer Richard Rodriguez has perceptively remarked, contraceptive couples are heterosexual gays.
The fact that some teaching of the Church is not in the Nicene Creed does not mean it is totally “up for grabs.”
The heart of the matter is that sodomy is grave matter—or, as laymen more commonly say, “a mortal sin.” That is hardly “central” to the Catholic Faith, but it is not in any way doubtful, either.
The fact that some teaching of the Church is not in the Nicene Creed does not mean it is totally “up for grabs.”
The heart of the matter is that sodomy is grave matter—or, as laymen more commonly say, “a mortal sin.” That is hardly “central” to the Catholic Faith, but it is not in any way doubtful, either.
But I think every church musical director is.
This reminds me of those anti-Catholic screeds and tracts (Jack Chick, etc.), that cite some statement by Pius XII on the Eucharist, and say: "The doctrine of Transubstantiation was invented by Pope Pius XII in 1955!!!"
This reminds me of those anti-Catholic screeds and tracts (Jack Chick, etc.), that cite some statement by Pius XII on the Eucharist, and say: "The doctrine of Transubstantiation was invented by Pope Pius XII in 1955!!!"
What you’ve written makes an eminent amount of good sense. Thankyou, Arthur!
I’ve often wondered, when it’s a “hate crime” to “disparage gay people” (and preachers in Canada have already been prosecuted for “anti-gay” speech), will it be permissible for a preacher to say, without ever mentioning any CLASS OR KIND OF PEOPLE, that “sodomy is grave matter.” I mean, will our government hesitate before taking the position that it KNOWS that “sodomy is not grave matter”?
Telling the truth ought never to be a “hate crime”. Were it so, Our Lord would have been in alot of trouble for “disparaging” the Scribes and Pharisees as “hypocrites”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.