Posted on 04/08/2014 6:44:54 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
“What do you say to Homosexuals who would agree that it is about Hospitality AND gang rape BUT NOT consensual sex (especially when both partners love each other)?...”
Think hard about the very act that they undertake if you can bear the disgust. (Saint Paul the apostle says that such things should not even be mentioned. I bet he was talking about Sodomy. )
What they are doing is abominable because it is a lie to our fellow man and at the same time an insult to our Creator, who designed us to operate a certain way.
If an automaker built a car to operate with round tires, would it comfort you as a fellow driver to get behind another driver who found square tires to fit onto the axle of his car? Would it show respect for the automaker?
Without digging into graphic details here, what they are doing is also very unhealthy, filthy, unsanitary, endangering all those who partake.
If one finds that he desires something unnatural he must use his mind and will to discipline himself and seek to follow God’s will. Demons are involved who will influence and foster addictions. That is why intense prayer and fasting must be a part of every leader’s life. That is why people in general need to be used to hardship and selflessness. That is part of true charity, even when one’s emotions must be held at bay until they can catch up to the mind and spirit.
Read and show your friends the document “Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI” (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html).
In it is found the procreative nature of chaste love, and the nature of the sexual act being inseparable from an openness to new life. That quite flies in the face of homosexuality.
Rebellion is in the wind. We must resist and draw near to God.
It’s not MY problem, it’s the problem of many supporters of gay marriage and gay relationships ( yes, it includes those who attend synagogues and churches ).
The want to nuance (or “equalize”) things by insisting that the prohibition against homosexual sex is SIMILAR to the prohibition against heterosexual sex.
And since the instance mentioned in the Genesis passage talks about the men of Sodom wanting to gang rape the strangers, this does not apply to gays today because they don’t want to rape anyone.
Therefore, if you allow gays to marry, the prohibition is gone.
[not my argument, just telling you what I’ve been encountering when I talk to some people ]
What apologetics would those be, specifically?
And the other two towns were Zeboim and Adamah.
One could get rather tired of speaking of the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah and Zeboim and Adamah so it is easier to say simply “the sins of Sodom.”
There was a fifth town but God spared it because Lot went there, but he left not long after.
Heterosexual sex is forbidden only in the case of a woman married to another man or within certain degrees of kinship. There is no such thing as "premarital sex," since sex between two eligible people Halakhically constitutes marriage (making any further sexual acts by the woman with other men acts of adultery, which is also a capital offense).
It's a shame so many people are so ignorant of G-d's Laws.
I do not believe livius mentioned the word “apologetics” in his response.
However, if some gay guy propositioned me - my apologetic would kick in after the guy found himself on the floor and I would have to apologize for my transgression.
AMDG
Catechism of the Catholic Church
|
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. |
Just take a look at the many, many pop-psychology books that came out after Vatican II, which has always accurately been described as a pastoral council and not a doctrinal council — because it was primarily about rejecting the Church’s pastoral teaching on sexual morality. That was why its supporters were so enraged when Paul VI did not support birth control. They thought they had finally swept away all that tedious sexual morality stuff.
All of the other things, such as the destruction of the liturgy and of Catholic practice, were basically aimed at wiping out all knowledge of the past and any trace of Catholic doctrine, which is founded on a combination of revelation, tradition and authority, by severing the connection with tradition.
Was this in the mind of everyone involved? Of course not, and in fact, it was probably only in the mind of a few, who saw their moment in the upheaval of the 1960s and seized it. But there is a saying from one of the Fathers (sorry, don’t remember which one) to the effect that “all heresy begins below the belt.” That is, people want unbridled sexual activity and make it their god - as they did in Sodom - and will come up with any ingenious intellectual argument to do so. And if resisted, they will use force, as did the men of Sodom, the gays of today, etc.
The Church is only just beginning to recover from this. The homosexual and pederasty scandals of the 1970s and 1980s were a direct result of the corrupt doctrines, acceptance of heretical teachings and tolerance of corrupt practice that had invaded the Church after the Council.
So, in other words, there were no Catholic Apologetic after Vatican II that supported sodomy or other sexual sin. Would that be accurate?
Have there been heretical groups, like Dignity? Sure. However, correlation doesn’t equal causation.
Ask yourself daily whether you exercise the virtue of Faith.
As a refresher “ 1814 Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith “man freely commits his entire self to God.”78 For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God’s will. “The righteous shall live by faith.” Living faith “work[s] through charity.”79
Please, I didn’t say it was official Catholic apologetics. I said “gay apologetics.”
That was in the form of distorted teachings from Catholic sources. There actually was virtually no official teaching from the Church after Vatican II, because the imprimatur became unnecessary and every flake in the universe was free to publish his (or her, very often) flaky ruminations as authentic Catholic teaching. Look at the Dominican Matthew Fox and his teachings on “gaia” and homosexuality and a host of other things; look at all the loony nuns and their “teachings,” some of which appear in Catholic textbooks.
Why do you think the Vatican, under the more orthodox leadership of Benedict XVI, had to do all of the investigations and even condemnations that led to such hatred against BXVI that he had to resign?
I’m not saying JPII wasn’t orthodox personally; he simply was pretty neglectful of what was going on and being taught in the rest of the Church. And he picked up from the weak and overwhelmed Paul VI, whose one moment of heroism was Humanae Vitae but who simply couldn’t do anything more after that except weep.
Ask yourself daily whether you read and stay in touch enough and are knowledgeable enough to fight against threats to the Faith.
The reason I made my statement is a reaction to people blaming Vatican II for any number of ills in the world.
There will always be loony tunes out there who were ordained, or professed. However, while anybody can publish anything, it doesn’t mean there isn’t correction. The CDF regularly corrects those under its jurisdiction, and publishes the details.
I have no desire to be the Supreme Pontiff, with all of the global politics, as well as the religious politics. As such, I am very cautious to criticize. Additionally, the Vatican II fathers are a product of a pre-Vatican II world. So how is it possible for them to be less than orthodox?
Let us pray for the Pope and all religious, especially those whose interior motivations are anything other than serving the Lord.
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.