A mixed message to gays?

Excellent post, Rod.

And I think the fact that you've started at least 4 threads on this comment, most of which have attracted many comments, answers your question earlier about whether the bishops' document matters.>

Actually, Potus, it makes sense. If you believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, you don't want people broadcasting it; that will make it socially acceptable, and pretty soon people are asking to get married.>

I read Terry Mattingly's blog on the culture wars. He said there were two battling groups; the traditionalists and the progressives. He also saw another group that was not part of the fray called secular humanists. Two other authors, Herbert Schlossberg and Huston Smith claim there are three groups; the traditionalists, the modernists, and the postmodernists. The traditionalists believe in their religious tradition; the modernists favor progress (whatever that entails), and the postmodernists want to tear down the prevailing alienating structures. The three tiered approach works for me.>

Mark:

Yes, it is accurate. On page 17:

"For some persons, revealing their homosexual tendencies to certain close friends, family members, a spiritual director, confessor, or members of a Church support group may provide some spiritual and emotional help and aid them in their growth in the Christian life. In the context of parish life, however, general public self-disclosures are not helpful and should not be encouraged."

I think it's intended to ward off Coming Out Day blessings or the like.>

Stay in the closet, CourageMan. (I do notice that you're not using your real name, unless your mother had a very odd sense of humor.)>

Susan:

I do not fear people who love me knowing certain things about me. It's people who hate me (or hate the Church) who motivate the closet.>

tmatt(in his blog)said,
"Many in the orthodox camp disagree on some of the answers, but they are united in their belief that public life must include room for those who insist eternal answers exist. Meanwhile, progressives are finding it harder to tolerate the views of people they consider offensive...."

I hear this over and over, but I'm still not getting it.

What can't you do that you want to do? It seems to me that the only problem is that you can't be intrusive in the public schools and you can't use eternal truths as justification for discrimination.>

It seems to me that the only problem is that you can't be intrusive in the public schools and you can't use eternal truths as justification for discrimination.

There's more than that, but even limiting it to those two things:

(1) Because "progressives" are intrusive in the schools, the media, the culture. and they use these things to impose their values, which they don't even see as disputable because they're so trapped inside them.

(2) Because "discrimination" is becoming an all-purpose and all-consuming weapon for use against the orthodox.>

What do you want to do that you can't do? Please be specific.>

I said it in another thread and I'll say it again here: Liberals and modernists will never, ever get "Love the sinner, hate the sin." It's a concept that they just can't seem to get their heads around.
Rob Grano

It's really easy to understand why Rob, there's this hypocracy thing..........

The Church takes the position that it's okay to be gay, no harm done. That is until you act upon it. Then there's harm.

But Jesus in Matthew talks about lusting in your heart is just as much a sin as performing the act.

Who are we on the outside looking in to believe? Do we look at what Christ allegedly said and thought is sin and see the latest compromise offered by the Church a sin in itself? Or do we ignore what Jesus allegedly said about lust in the heart and believe that only by the homosexual act there is sin?

Somethings about human nature leaves me almost in tears I laugh so hard.

Have you ever heard a woman complain about no one looking her in the eye? And she's showing cleavage almost to her belly.

How about the stud that flaunts his wealth and then cries about only finding gold diggers?

Or the woman who marries the guy that's solid as a rock and dependable and she complains to the sky about him not being spontaneous?

Doh!

It's almost as bad as the criteria for a priest. You want a male, has to be a male, who won't present a threat to the male members of their church as far as their wives and daughters go. You also want him to have the nurturing and comunicating skills usually associated with the female gender.

Then everyone acts surprised when the perfect candidate is gay.

Doh!>

A sinner, by the way, should not be telling everyone about their sin life.

Especially those that it would encourage to embrace sin.

Once forgiven the sin is ka-put!

Study that concept.>

Victor, you oughtta move to New Jersey.

KEARNY - A Kearny High School student has accused a history teacher of crossing the line between teaching and preaching - and he's got the tapes to prove it.

Sixteen-year-old junior Matthew LaClair says he was shocked when history teacher David Paszkiewicz, who is also a Baptist preacher in town, spent the first week lecturing students more about Heaven and Hell than the colonies and Constitution.
...
He said Paszkiewicz told students that if they didn't accept Jesus, "you belong in Hell." He also dismissed as unscientific the theories of evolution and the "Big Bang."

Actually, Tom, your example proves my point (stipulating all the facts).

Preaching the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is an actionable offense, if and when it happens.

Preaching the Gospel according to Betty Friedan, Ralph Nader, Charles Darwin and Madalyn Murray O'Hair is the norm and thus not a news story -- the planes landing on time, etc.>

No, it's not that. It's that I hadn't practiced my faith since I was a child, and coming to faith as an adult, I knew that it was a serious thing, and I couldn't make deals with God about what I would and wouldn't accept. I could as easily have said, "When I became a serious Christian.">

The Church takes the position that it's okay to be gay, no harm done. That is until you act upon it. Then there's harm.

But Jesus in Matthew talks about lusting in your heart is just as much a sin as performing the act.

harvey lacey, you seem to have confused lust (which is sinful) with temptation (which is not).

Temptation comes to a person as a result of his or her genetic makeup, upbringing, past history, etc. Even if the temptation is contrary to the natural order, a person does not sin merely by experiencing temptation. If that were so, there'd be no hope for any of us. He sins when he responds to the temptation by saying in his heart the equivalent of "I want it!"

So lust (which is consent to sexual temptation) is always sinful. To desire a sin in one's thoughts is to "act upon it."
That, as you correctly point out, is the explicit teaching of Jesus Christ, and it's also the teaching of the Catholic Church.>

Victor,

I don't know what public school your child attends, but in my children's public school, there is discipline.

I know because my children have received it. My son(when in 2nd grade) teased a child in the cafeteria and had to apologize and lost recess. My daughter(K)threatened a child with physical harm for making her angry(we never did determine what he said). She was sent to the counselor's office, and I was called.

Every child gets a copy of the rule book and everyone signs off on it.

It's hard to do MLK day without talking about racism. But our school had Constitution Day, Veteran's week, and other programs that instill a sense of pride in our country.

Contemptuous of tradition? Could you be more specific?

They do teach evolutionary theory in science class. My kids haven't had that yet, so I don't blame the school when they behave like apes.

Schools don't teach children that religion is controversial. Parents who get all bent out of shape because the school is acknowledging Hanukkah and other faith traditions during the festive season make kids think it's controversial. Actually, in homes where the parents aren't moaning about Jesus being taken out of the classroom, the kids just think it's all about learning about traditions in a multicultural society. In my children's school, children are free to share their tradition with the other children.

I'm not sure why you think ignoring non-Christians would benefit our society.>

Last post was mine.>

Preaching the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is an actionable offense, if and when it happens.

If you can explain why teaching children (as a captive audience no less)about one's personal religious dogma in history class is ok and not a violation of their rights, go at it, I'm all ears...

Preaching the Gospel according to Betty Friedan, Ralph Nader, Charles Darwin and Madalyn Murray O'Hair is the norm and thus not a news story -- the planes landing on time, etc.

I'm sorry you have some built up angst against valid scientific theories like evolution, but it's hardly gospel, please save me the drama. Furthermore, the other names you mentioned are not taught as gospel either, I'm sorry you're upset about Ms. O'Hair having mandatory forced prayer removed from a young impressionable captive audience (why you'd think thats a good thing is beyond me), but again, the melodramatic rants only confirm the fundie sterotype.>

Protestant pastors in Sweden are facing jail time for preaching the first chapter of Romans.

Scott, citation to some authority on this please?

There's a Catholic printer in British Columbia who got hauled into Human Rights Court because he refused to print invitations to a gay wedding. He pleaded freedom of conscience and he lost. Got nailed for court costs and fined to boot.

Same request.>

aaron:

I'm not a fundamentalist, though the fact you think I am and feel free to say so in ther manner you do means that you wouldn't listen to anything I have to say anyway.>

The US Catholic Bishops' message to gay Catholics is causing confusion and controversy.

Please. It's clearly the same tired rhetoric. Because of our contrived "natural law" doctrine, you can't have sex, but hey you can be CELIBATE. Truly odd.

I said it in another thread and I'll say it again here: Liberals and modernists will never, ever get "Love the sinner, hate the sin." It's a concept that they just can't seem to get their heads around.

Ok. We hate the fact that you hate what it is you hate. (insert thing here ___) Now where did this get us?

Eventually that refusal will be seen as so contrary to public policy that vocal and public adherence to traditional Christian teaching will be roughly as acceptable as membership in the Ku Klux Klan.

Hmmm. Is that a disparagement of the KKK? Certainly they have a right to their religion too, no?>

Rod, you say "The Catholic Church will never teach that homosexuality is morally good or neutral because to do so would be to overturn Catholic teaching from time immemorial."

Now the Church s previous stance on Galileo and current stance on human sexuality is decidedly analogous, both having relied on flawed Aristotelian science. In 1615 the Church s leading theologian, Cardinal Bellarmine, admonished Galileo because a moving Earth went against Scripture. Galileo s empirical data on planetary motion inevitably led to a revolution both in Aristotelian science (an immovable Earth at the centre of the universe) and in interpretation of Scripture: few Catholics would today be inclined to a literal interpretation of, for example, the creation account.

Let us examine the influence of science on sexual moral teaching. The biological understanding of human reproduction in the time of St Augustine and even St Aquinas was Aristotelian. The male was thought to possess the seed, a homunculus or little person perfectly formed. During intercourse, this seed was deposited into the woman, who was merely a receptacle designed to nurture the seed, allowing it to grow and mature. Women were thought not to be the equals of men.

Now if this is our axiom, our first principle, then certain facts are self evident. Any spilling of the seed, be it masturbation or sex between two men or contraceptive sex, is murder or abortion of the homunculus, and is clearly a grave evil. Aquinas argued that masturbation is a greater evil than a man raping a woman or having sex with his mother, since in the latter cases the homunculus could survive and flourish. The only sexual activity permissible in the natural order is that between a man and a woman, and even then only when the homunculus is deposited in the appropriate receptacle.

Scientific advances in the 19th century [this time using the microscope rather than Galileo's telescope!] showed this axiom to be as outrageously false as the planetary axiom. The male sperm and female egg are both required for fertilization. The woman is far from irrelevant to the process of engendering a new life. Masturbation is not abortion. Gay sex does not lead to the murder of a homunculus.

How has the Church dealt with over 1800 years of flawed natural-law teaching on human sexuality? Unlike the Galileo case, I don t believe that it has yet returned to first principles, but has instead tried to cobble together a compromise between traditional teaching and the modern scientific evidence. This has led to some interesting contortions.

A sacramentally married couple may not use artificial contraception to regulate the size of their family since this separates the unitive from the procreative. Yet the Church allows them to practise natural contraception by having sex only during the sterile part of the woman s fertility cycle. Is this not the Church sanctioning the wilful separation of the procreative from the unitive? The Church will provide a full Nuptial Mass for a sterile heterosexual couple (if, for example, the woman has had a hysterectomy to remove cancer). It will even marry a post-menopausal woman. If these people are allowed to enjoy full sex lives even though procreation is impossible, then why can t a gay couple? If gay people are inclined to intrinsically evil acts precisely because their sexual relationships are closed to procreation, then why aren t these sterile heterosexual couples also defined to be inclined to intrinsically evil acts, and called to lives of compulsory celibacy? These questions demand an honest answer, for the Catholic Church cannot permit mendacity.

Devout Catholics must surely reassess the necessity of creating social outcasts. We seem to call our gay brothers and sisters in Christ to live lives of epic heroicism, austere lives of saintly piety, forsaking all hope of relationships that include the ultimate intimacy of total self-giving through the unitive sexual act. And we often ask this without providing any material resources to help them along their way! Why is the bar so much higher for them? This is not about current social fashions, but about discerning the truth and providing an authentic pastoral solution.>

harvey lacey, you seem to have confused lust (which is sinful) with temptation (which is not).

Temptation comes to a person as a result of his or her genetic makeup, upbringing, past history, etc. Even if the temptation is contrary to the natural order, a person does not sin merely by experiencing temptation. If that were so, there'd be no hope for any of us. He sins when he responds to the temptation by saying in his heart the equivalent of "I want it!"

So lust (which is consent to sexual temptation) is always sinful. To desire a sin in one's thoughts is to "act upon it."
That, as you correctly point out, is the explicit teaching of Jesus Christ, and it's also the teaching of the Catholic Church.
simon

Thank you Simon for a great reply. I don't agree with it, but it was a great reply.

The reason I disagree with it is two fold. First of course is we have the "which came first, chicken or egg?" question going. I happen to believe lust comes before temptation.

Without lust there would be no temptation. So I see temptation as evidence of lust instead of a prelude to lust.

BTW I looked up lust in the dictionary. There was nothing about consent. I do find that your definition adds consent which infers concious effort.

I'd appreciate you expounding a little more on how you came to that conclusion. Any kind of supporting information would also be nice for the sake of the discussion.

I'd like you to know that I read your reply last night and loved it. I like the fact that your reply made me think.

For me that's what these comboxes are all about. We get to lay out a concept and then have it tested. That's when it's fun.>

Liberals and modernists will never, ever get "Love the sinner, hate the sin."

I guess what's at issue here is the concept of what we count as sin. The ability for a straight person to express love for an opposite-sex partner is certainly sometimes misused, but I believe that when it's used in a loving, connective way, sexuality is one of the most beautiful gifts of the human race. I cannot accept that God would create some people as homosexual from birth, and then deem that homosexuals could never take part in that gift. Every observation, all my knowledge, tells me that, like hetero sex, gay sexuality is sometimes misused, but it's just as beautiful as straight sex when used in a loving way. And I've often thought that some social support for their relationships could make it possible for more gay people to have lifelong, loving relationships. Why should they be denied one of our greatest gift because of the way they were born - the way God Himself made them?

Yes, I get "love the sinner, hate the sin" (although I'm not sure I really identify myself as 'liberal', and I'm certain no one would ever call me 'modernist'). I get it, really. It's about condemning the actions rather than the person who acts or desires to act thusly. And I think it's generally a good strategy. But when it comes to homosexuality, well, sorry - I'm just not seeing any sin here.>

You're right; the Catholic church will never condone homosexuality.
There is enough clear Scripture against homosexuality...that truly there can be no honest debate on this matter. There is nothing to debate.
In fact, all religions condemn homosexuality.
I
Jerry Wells

That's an inaccurate statement. Some Native American and other aboriginal faiths either accepted it or even embraced it as a blessing.>

Simon says "He sins when he responds to the temptation by saying in his heart the equivalent of "I want it!" "

Is this not splitting hairs? Surely if you didn't desire something you could not be tempted by it?! For then it would not truly be a temptation!

Perhaps what Jesus is saying when he says to look at another with lust in your heart is to have sinned is something more radical ... perhaps he's saying that we all have indeed sinned! That we all have indeed committed adultery! So that we should be a little less ready to condemn another. This fits in precisely with his actions when the woman [and not the man!] caught in adultery was to be stoned. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Jesus seems to want to teach us to stop judging and condemning others! Who are we to judge the loving gay couple who live their life together?! Is not love the perfect fulfilment of the Law?! In which case, how on earth can we dare to condemn that love which occurs in a gay love-relationship?

To "love the sinner but condemn the sin" as applied to homosexuals if awful. The USCBC document recommends this course of action. Welcome gays into parish life ... but if they are guilty of any specific genital acts, well, then they must not dare to recive Holy Communion ... i.e. they have no sacramental right to meet Christ in the Eucharist. And yet I thought God's love for us was unconditional! That Christ died for us because of our sin! And here we are recommending a very conditional love! That is most certainly not Christ's love ... not even a pale shadow of Christ's love.

The Catholic Bishops need to meet with gay Catholics, to enter into GENUINE DIALOGUE with them, to come to understand the way they see themselves and their relationships with Yahweh, to listen to the faith stories of gay Catholics. The Bishops need to listen. And then they need to shepherd ... to heal the sick, bind the wounded, seek the lost, minister to the stray, and take the weak upon their shoulders.

Some long for the day when the unions of loving gay couples may be celebrated with joy by the Christian community. Until then are we going to ostracize gay couples from the Mystical Body of Christ? In St Paul s analogy of the body (1 Cor 12) he says that God has put all the separate parts into the body on purpose. If one part is hurt, all parts are hurt with it. It seems the gay part of the body is hurting badly. This might mean that until there is open dialogue by the hierarchs with gay Catholics, with an honest attempt to understand these brothers and sisters in Christ, the whole body is going to continue to suffer.>

Rod: "Those who expect it [the Catholic Church] to change labor in vain, and are doomed to disappointment."
And why is that?

Because Peter is the Rock on which Christ built his Church, and He promised to be with it and protect it always.>

As one of the friends that Rod mentioned in his writing, I would like to weigh in to clarify things a bit.

First, I don't self-define as gay even though I have lived with a degree of same sex attraction since puberty. I choose not do so because as a label "gay" is woefully limiting and insufficient. In addition, the word carries a presumption that I share a mindset and attitude (approving of homosexual sex, for example) that I sincerely do not. I got tired repeating the mantra "I'm gay but I live chastely."

Second, and it flows from the first and underpins it, same sex attraction is merely something I live with, not WHO I AM. The Church does not teach that people living with same sex attraction are disordered in their selves even though we may live with a intrinsic disorder. '

And this not only in the sexual realm. We all live with varying degrees of disorders when compared to the people God created us to be in the beginning. In addition to having a disorder in my sexual inclination, I also have an abiding disorder of laziness. Due to my family background I have a disorder when it comes to the consumption of alcohol. But even though I live with these disorders, and more, they do not define me in the eyes of the Church or of Christ. Human beings in Christian anthropology are so much more than the sum of our temptations.

Third, the Church has focused on same sex attraction as she has because SSA has an organized lobby, the gay and lesbian movement from which I used to be an activist, which has as its goal perpetuating the fiction that homosexual acts are moral and can be justified. If an organized lobby seeking to widely press the case that adultery or fornication are moral and can be justified arises, I believe the Church will speak up about that as well.

Fourth, I started my adult life as a gay activist and took a long time for me to come to seek to live chastely. I live chastely not simply because the Church says I must or because I have not sex drive or becuase there is no love in my life.

I live chastely because I believe what the Church teaches is true; that my body has meaning, that it's no accident that I am a man with a body which has a form and structure that it does. So few us comprehend what a miracle it is that we can concieve children (although the struggling witness of infertile couples has begun to bring that home). Just because I desire to things with my body or the body of others that they were never created to do, that doesn't make those actions right.

Finally, I came to live chastely after long and prayerful reflection on what it means to really love other people. When I was sexually active it was in a relationship of seven years with a man I claimed to love, but as long as our actions made each other the means to our orgasms, how could we really claim to love each other? God created human beings to be Persons, to be ends unto ourselves, with eternal soul and lives that we will share one day with Him. We cannot morally make other people the means to our ends, whether those ends be sexual, economic, social or whatever.

It's funny, but my former lover and I came to chastity 13 years ago and we never loved each other more than we do now. Why? In our case becuase living chastely has freed us to love the other for WHO he is and not WHAT he is. We love each other not because he is a lover or partner or even friend, but because he is who he is - and that love both grows out of the respect we show each other in living chastely and demands it. Authentic love is not something out of a Hallmark Card or flowers on Valentines Day. Look at the Cross. Authentic love carries a terrible cost. To paraphrase Christ, no greater love has any person than they lay down their life for their friends. If I call myself a Christian and seek to live in Him and through Him, how could I seek to do any differently?>

The power of the Catholic Church has been reduced to denying you a cracker and a shot of juice if you disagree. Galileo must be rolling in his grave.>

"Third, the Church has focused on same sex attraction as she has because SSA has an organized lobby, the gay and lesbian movement from which I used to be an activist, which has as its goal perpetuating the fiction that homosexual acts are moral and can be justified. If an organized lobby seeking to widely press the case that adultery or fornication are moral and can be justified arises, I believe the Church will speak up about that as well."

As my Roman Catholic friends often say, bingo. If the issue was, say, adult men wanting to have sexual relationships with pubescent girls, and there was a big national push to justify and normalize it, the Church would respond similarly, I'm sure.

As for casting the first stone, mentioned above by Vincent, remember that although Christ did not condemn the woman caught in adultery, he also did not hestitate to say to her, "go and sin no more." Condemning someone and judging his/her behavior to be sinful are not the same thing. We're back to "love the sinner, hate the sin" again.

Now someone may not think homosexual behavior is a sin, but the church believes otherwise and thus must speak and act on that belief.>

I'm not a fundamentalist, though the fact you think I am and feel free to say so in ther manner you do means that you wouldn't listen to anything I have to say anyway.

Victor- When you use their talking points and shoddy rhetoric, I can't but help come to that conclusion.>

Oh and yes, I agree about Hanukkah -- it's a relatively minor holiday in Judaism that American Jews have made into a Christmas alternative, for the purposes of being able to participate equally in the liturgical year of American capitalism. Not a few religious Jews have observed this and lamented it also.>

While I fear Mr. Silver's bias peeks out in phrases like to live out their truth of who they really are and [w]e need to accept the fact, that which seems to be normal for some is not necessarily normal for all, I tend to generally agree about the need to be open and honest about one's desires and inner life with at least a circle of friends and/or select family.

Where I want to challenge Mr. Silver a bit is in what appears to be his assumption that a man who acknowledges his temptation to homosexual activity cannot perform well as a husband or father. Over the course of the past few years I have met and come to know married couples where the men have acknowledged living with a degree of homosexual attraction to their wives and who have remained not only married but flourishing in marriage.

I think the drive to hide that one lives with a degree of same sex attraction has a great deal to do with the widespread assumption that if one aknowledges living with a degree of SSA the only course open is to live out an actively homosexual life, an option which many men would not willingly choose.

Trust me, after having been on the receiving end of it for some time, self-righteousness is not only the realm of those who disapprove of active homosexuality. It can also be found alive and well in people who appear to believe that living with same sex attraction and not having sex is to somehow betray oneself, not to mention the broader political agenda of promoting homosexual sex as a social good.>

Suppose you were Catholic and enrolling your son or daughter in a private school and the principal said to you:
"Of course we welcome Catholic students. We welcome them with open arms. But please tell your son/daughter that they are not to tell any of their fellow students or teachers that they are Catholic as it would be disruptive. Oh, and also attendance at the annual Guy Fawkes celebration where we burn the traitorous catholics in effigy is mandatory."

Do you think the school would really be a welcoming place for your son or daughter? I think not.>

A while back Iris wrote:

I cannot accept that God would create some people as homosexual from birth, and then deem that homosexuals could never take part in that gift. Every observation, all my knowledge, tells me that, like hetero sex, gay sexuality is sometimes misused, but it's just as beautiful as straight sex when used in a loving way. And I've often thought that some social support for their relationships could make it possible for more gay people to have lifelong, loving relationships. Why should they be denied one of our greatest gift because of the way they were born - the way God Himself made them?

First, I think it's important to note that Iris' statement here is an article of faith, a element of creed. Just as there can be no scientific proof that God made me, there is no proof that God made me with same sex attraction. In my case I am very confident that He did not since the SSA I experience has its roots in much more sadly natural causes of familial and relational breakdown.

Second, in my opinion, there can be no such thing as loving gay sex. If I accept the belief that God created me with a body and that the body is integral to my creation and that my body has a form and structure which flows from its creation and is in direct relation to it, how could I understand deliberately misusing it or the body of another as a remotely loving thing to do?

The human body itself provides a witness to this. Go and study for a bit about just what a miracle it is that our reproductive systems function as they do, the incredibly complicated dance our cells and molecules do to give us the ability to procreate and then ask yourself if you can believe God created all this for nothing more than the sensation of orgasm. I couldn't. I lack the faith to disbelieve what, unlike God Himself, really is before my eyes.

Third, it is simply incorrect to state that long term relationships have to be sexually active to be truly loving or emotionally satisfying. Rest assured, Iris, my not having sex has not deprived me of love in my life.>

Rob Grano,

"I said it in another thread and I'll say it again here: Liberals and modernists will never, ever get "Love the sinner, hate the sin." It's a concept that they just can't seem to get their heads around."

That's because we've never seen it from you, this "love" of which you speak. Surely calling someone "intrinsically morally EEEVVIIILL" or "inherently disordered" is NOT "loving".

Telling someone to deny themselves, lie about themselves and hide themselves, is NOT "loving".

What dontcha get about that?>

Scott Walker,

"There's a Catholic printer in British Columbia who got hauled into Human Rights Court because he refused to print invitations to a gay wedding. He pleaded freedom of conscience and he lost. Got nailed for court costs and fined to boot."

I think you have 2 cases confused. Wasn't the B.C. case the Knights of Columbus refusing to rent their dance hall/bingo parlour to 2 women for their reception? And the printer case I beleive was in Toronto, where an Archives was denied the print job.

Tell us what other services gays and lesbians should be denied?

Should a restauranteur be allowed to refuse to serve meals to gay people? Should bus drivers or taxi drivers be allowed to refuse rides to gays? Howzabout cuttin' off the cable on the queers? Is THAT okay by you?

C'mon, please give us the complete list and let's have done with it, eh?>

Anonymous, except the Church doesn't say that. If you anology were to track what the Church does say it would have to include that the Church overall is silent about whether anyone tells other people about their same sex attraction and that the most recent document from the bishops encourages men and women living with SSA to tell close friends and family.

I'm sorry David, but that is not accurate. The document says that:

"For some persons, revealing their homosexuality tendencies to certain close friends, family members, a spiritual director, confessor, or members of a Church support group may provide some spiritual and emotional help and aid them in their growth in the Christian life." (Emphases mine.)

I would hardly call this encouraging people to come out to friends and family. If that is encouragement, it is pretty tepid.

The document goes on to say:
"In the context of parish life, however, general public self-dislosures are not helpful and should not be encouraged." (Emphasis mine.)

I stick by my original analogy.

I am gay too, David, and I feel unwelcome. Very unwlecome.>

Talk about truth-telling, where in the Church's teaching is someone, a person, called "intrinsically morally EEEVVIIILL" or "inherently disordered?"

Please get these quotes straight, they're not that hard.

Same sex attraction of homosexality is called an "objective disorder" in the Church's teaching. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2357) The acts themselves are called "intrinsically disordered" as well as acts of "grave depravity." (Same paragaph)

People living with same sex attraction or homosexuality are called, by contrast, to become saints.

"By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection," (Paragraph 2359)

As I noted before, it is a very odd form of "hatred" which wishes the "hated" not hell but heaven.

And where does anyone get off deciding for someone else whether they deny themselves or not? One of the most unfortunate aspects of gay activism is the way its proponents so often claim to speak for everybody living with a degree of same sex attraction.

If a Christian takes Christ's words seriously, a big part of following Him is denying ourselves. If that's not your cup of tea, you don't have to be a Christian, but I would sure hesitate before I decided to tell Christ He is unloving since He often told His followers to deny themselves.>

David said, Second, in my opinion, there can be no such thing as loving gay sex.

I'm not gay, so I can't say. But I know that if a religious body which I put my faith and trust in kept telling me that sex with my husband when we weren't trying to procreate was wrong, then I might feel terrible each and every time that I had sex with my husband. I might even believe that he was just using me.

It sounds to me like you've really worked things out in a way that's best for your spiritual and emotional health. I think that it's good that you've found a mate who either feels the same way, or loves you enough to sacrifice the sexual aspect of life.

In some ways, you remind me of a person who's been sexually and mentally abused. Sometimes it's easier
and better to give up sex than it is to do the psychological work that it would take to make that part of your life right.

It would be really sad if the Church contributed to so much guilt and feelings of poor self-worth and self loathing only to discover in the far beyond that homosexuals who express their love for each other in an intimate way are OK in the eyes of God.

David,
Why do you have to answer so many questions about your intimate life to others? You said that you stopped using the word "gay" because you'd have to explain that you aren't having sex. I've never felt the need to explain anything to anyone about my sex life.>

David Morrison

And where does anyone get off deciding for someone else whether they deny themselves or not?

OMG, is this David, the Catholic inquiring into how someone else can decide something about someone else? The irony is bitter-sweet, eh?

And I'm sure you read my response to your comment about reproduction, but as I expected (since it ALWAYS seems to happen when this is raised) the celibacy question has induced silence.>

Watsy, I live with same sex attraction, outside of the closet and I have never been discrimated against because of my sexual temptations. Gay activists do not speak for me.>

Espiritus,

Sex is a means to an end, the end being love, not pleasure. A big problem with disordered forms of sex (not just homosexual sex, but all forms) is that they all tend to make pleasure, rather than love, the end goal, and also to objectify the other person by making him or her a means to that end.

When someone is celibate (whether it is chosen or imposed by circumstance), he or she gives up the good of sex, but does not give up love. And, in fact, a celibate person is free to love in ways that a married person cannot.>

Espirtus, the Church did not decide anything for me. It proposed things to me to believe, I chose (and choose) to believe.

Nice try. It indeed decides what is true for you, me, and anyone else, whether we agree or not. Kinda like the person decided that you ARE denying yourself. No questions asked.

As for celibacy, there is a world of difference between voluntarily giving up sexual activity (and the family life it is meant to bring) to work for the Kingdom of God and taking one's sexual faculty and deliberately misusing it.

Yes, misuing it by not employing what "it's made for". What happened to this beloved Natural law philosphy? And newsflash buddy, some people ain't workin' toward no such thing. How convenient that Catholics delude themselves into thinking that celibaby is to be framed entirely from their perspetive. What happened to looking at things objectively? Is a celibate atheist working for toward this goal? I think not.

And here we have Karen:

Sex is a means to an end, the end being love, not pleasure.

Yet it is. You seem to be confusing what some people WANT sex to be, rather than what is it. In reality, pleasure can be the end, or reproduction can be the end.>

And I'm not just referring to homosexual sex. Any misuse of sexuality tends to have this problem: the objectification of a human person as a means to obtain pleasure.

Married, noncontraceptive sex isn't necessarily immune to this either. Remember when John Paul II said that a husband could be guilty of lusting after his wife, and everyone hooted at him? That's what he was talking about: using one's spouse as an object for sexual pleasure.>

Well...?

Sorry, I don't get this.

Although actually what I was saying was that that tends to be what happens.

Always. Ignoring all science, some people will insist that a particular end is supposed to be.

Any misuse of sexuality tends to have this problem: the objectification of a human person as a means to obtain pleasure

"Misuse" defined according to what science? What logic? Answer that before I accept this ostensibly arbitrary definition.

using one's spouse as an object for sexual pleasure.

#1. A "spouse" is not required to receive bodily pleasure. The pleasure comes from ones own body. With another person, the experience is simply shared. Something tells me that in any other aspect, we would not hear a whisper about anyone using their body for pleasure, and that's very telling. There certainly doesn't appear to be much said about the inevitable using of someone for reproduction. For some reason, the negative characterization is missing there.

#2 You seem to be conflating a emotive idea of "objectification" with a physical one. But let me tell you, no one (not even the RCC) can tell anyone else whether they feel objectified before,during or after sexual acts. And the physical objectification is precisely what the RCC does by concerning itself exclusively with body parts to try to guage subjective experiences like love, lust or whatever else.>

Espiritus,

By "objectification", I mean using a person as a means to an end. In other words, treating him as an object, a thing to be used.

And, no, I don't think that the phenomenon only -- or evenly primarily -- occurs in the context of sex.>

Pleasure can be the end. Reproduction can be the end. Expressing love can be the end.

The only difference between same sex and oppo sex is that homosexuals can't reproduce. They can still express love. They can still experience pleasure.>

By "objectification", I mean using a person as a means to an end. In other words, treating him as an object, a thing to be used.

Karen, you are saying the same thing as before. Now, at this point, it would be nice if you elaborated.

I was responding to this:

You seem to be conflating a emotive idea of "objectification" with a physical one. But let me tell you, no one (not even the RCC) can tell anyone else whether they feel objectified before,during or after sexual acts. And the physical objectification is precisely what the RCC does by concerning itself exclusively with body parts to try to guage subjective experiences like love, lust or whatever else.

and

Here are a couple of definitions of "objectification" - ones that aren't obsessively focused on its usual application - sex.

1. the act of representing an abstraction as a physical thing

2. a concrete representation of an abstract idea or principle

Now with all of the flowery symbolism that the RCC has going on, tell me that objectification is not the name of the game with them. Frankly, this is the type of inhuman objectification I'm concerned with.

where you seemed to be asking what I meant by the term "objectification". I tried to give the definition that I was using. So I guess I don't understand what you're asking at this point.>

where you seemed to be asking what I meant by the term "objectification"

No. I was stating what I see as another type of objectification on the part of the RCC. That was only a tangential point, however.

So I guess I don't understand what you're asking at this point.

Actually, Karen it was not a question. It was an observation. I was hoping that YOU would expand on YOUR point for saying it.

And I'm guessing that we would all agree that using another person is always wrong.

Well, all sex is wrong then. I don't know what universe you live in, but if one is engaging any any kind of sex acts, someone's body is being used. But what you seem to be harping on is the pleasure (as a problem) for some reason, and since this judgement of "wrong" is contingent upon this idea of "misuing sexuality", I am asking (as before) what science or logic are you employing to define "misuse of sexuality"?

It really seem to me that what you were trying to do is remove the topic of celibacy from the context of "misuse".>

Maybe a real life example would help me to get it.

Let's say that my husband had a really rough day at work and is tense. I know that he probably doesn't want to have sex to express the undying devotion that he feels for me. He wants to acheive orgasm for release so that he can go to sleep. My body could be the next best thing(or better) than a sedative.

What do I do?

1. Because I'm concerned about his state of tension and need for sleep, do I have sex? I'm thinking of him.
2. Does situation #1 take a turn for the terribly worse(or, just a little worse) if I agree to it, but I'm really thinking, "Oh, lucky me. The ole boy is tense, so I get lucky tonight?"
3. Do I say, "First we need to discuss the intent. Why do you want to do the deed tonight?" Once we've both determined(without lying-not sure how that's completely established) that's it's ONLY about the other person, then it's OK. Otherwise, go take a pill?

Is it ever OK for married people to have sex just for kicks?>

Watsy,

#1. You're not responsible for your husband's intent, only yours. Also, there's nothing wrong with your husband coming to you for comfort. That's not the same as using you. If he were to insist on sex and throw a hissy fit if he didn't get it, that might be different.

I really don't mean to sound like I'm overanalyzing things here.>

David Morrison,

"the emptiness I felt after sex - the realization that nothing about this act fundamentally changed my partner and I" [sic]

Why is all sex supposed to fundamentally change the participants???

"the Church did not decide anything for me. It proposed things to me to believe, I chose (and choose) to believe."

Would that YOU were to extend the same courtesy to those who 'choose' to believe things that you don't.>

Karen LH,

"Any misuse of sexuality tends to have this problem: the objectification of a human person as a means to obtain pleasure."

Firstly, I don't believe that pleasure is a "misuse" of sexuality.

Secondly, what if the persons involved in the sex consent to be 'objectified'? Frankly, it's none of your (or the RCCInc's) business.>

Karen LH,

"What needs to be the end is the other person."

Who says so?

"The point that I'm trying to make is that, if sex is only about pleasure, then there will be the tendency to use the other person as a means to that end."

Why is it always "ONLY about..." anything. Sex can be for love, for procreation, for pleasure, or for any possible combination in 2's or all 3.

Similarly, if sex is ONLY about love, then there will be the tendency to use the other person as a means to that end.

And, if sex is ONLY about procreation, then there will be the tendency to use the other person as a means to that end.

See how simplification and reduction of the 'other' works?>

Rob Grano,

"The PERSON is not intrinsically disordered, but the INCLINATION is."

But it is the PERSON who is ultimately bashed - either physically, emotionally, or, in this case, spiritually.

Besides, remember I asked you to consider Who it is that does the 'ordering' in the first place. Our inclinations are inherent or intrinsic in us as people. And I believe that God ordered those inclinations in homosexual people.

Yours (and your church's) are still not LOVING, WELCOMING attitudes to the PEOPLE who have those natural, ordered inclinations, and seeing those inclinations as "disordered" does not help anyone see the homosexual people as just that - people, God's gay and lesbian children. You cannot separate people from their inclinations (or even their actions) unless the actions cause harm.

Try again.>

Way, way upthread I made a couple of references to Christians in Sweden and Canada suffering legal persecution for their faith. Susan asked, reasonably, for documentation, and another poster provided some. Thanks rjak134! I dove into the pile on the coffee table that contains back issues of "Touchstone", "Astronomy", "Mother Earth News" and assorted seed catalogs in a frantic search for the issue wherein I had read of these sad occurences and came up empty. I guess it's look under my side of the bed next. :-) Next time I'll have the citation at hand before I refer to it. Apologies, Susan.>

It is even more humorous watching people who believe that the entire universe happened by chance, and that all of life can be reduced to physics, make an attempt to instruct people of faith on the matter of morality.

The reason people of faith ask for proof is that they are holding materialists to their own standards, not ours. We're not the ones who require empirical and/or logical 'proof' for everything -- you are.>

"And last I checked, the morality of the 'faithful' is contigent upon physics. Theology of the Body, anyone?"

Of course there is a physical component; but it can't be reduced to physics. If materialism is true all that exists is merely bodies in motion. Can morality legitimately be derived from that? Doubt it.>

Rob Grano,

"Well, guess what? You're wrong."

Says YOU. Whoopedeedoo. I (and many others, apparently) disagree.

"God doesn't order disorder."

Well, first of all, here we have the Catholic Church deciding I am disordered, oops, I mean, my human nature is disordered. Then they tell me God - who orders ALL things - didn't order my disorder. It's Lookingglass territory all over again.

Answer the question - WHO DID 'order' homosexuality into the world? It certain abounds in all of nature.

"The homosexual inclination isn't any more 'ordered' than the married man's inclination towards promiscuity"

I know many married men who are not so inclined. Besides, you are comparing nature to the breaking of a covenant when you bring in adultery. Do try to stick to the topic at hand.

"or the pedophile's inclination towards little boys or girls."

Ah yes, never miss an atempt to bring in pedophilia while discussing gay people; it has SOOO much to do with the topic. (Not! Or at least about as much as adultery does.) Ever hear of the concept of CONSENTING ADULT RELATIONSHIPS, Rob? Ever hear of HARM? Cuz adultery and harming children sure as heck have nothing to do with homosexuality, at least not the concept of homosexuality WE are discussing.

I said: "You cannot separate people from their inclinations (or even their actions) unless the actions cause harm."

Your reply: "Uh...and where exactly is this maxim carved in stone?"

In reality, that's where.

"And who's to say harm isn't being caused? You?"

Yes. And since I am discussing consenting, loving, committed adult relationships, it is incumbent on you to prove any harm that you believe I am causing - myself OR society at large.

Feel free to try anytime.>

C & C: as you seem to know pretty much zilch about Christian doctrine and moral theology (you repeatedly misinterpret and/or mischaracterize both), I find it entertaining that you describe me as "losing it." You also continually take my statements out of context, then respond to them with nothing but an ipse dixit. There's no point in continuing this discussion. It's like talking Swahili to an Eskimo.>

You were doing pretty well, curioser, if I say so myself.

though christ never spoke of homosexuality directly

This is where it ends. There is no "but"

Fornication has always referred to the action of person having sex with a married person, while the latter is considered an adulterer. As if any of this matters anyway since "no so-called premarital sex" is the product of mere Churchianity.>