|
Published: May 13, 2009
“Nudity laws still apply”
Police warn of coming crackdown on lewd behavior at San Francisco street fair
(EDITOR’S CAUTION: This story contains explicit details of activities now under police scrutiny that some of our readers may find deeply offensive. California Catholic Daily is providing the information only in the interest of complete reporting about public events occurring on the streets of San Francisco. Readers who may be offended by explicit descriptions of such activities are advised not to read this article.)
The San Francisco Police Department says it will no longer tolerate lewd behavior – including public sex acts and nudity – at a July street fair sponsored by Folsom Street Events, the same group that puts on the annual Folsom Street Fair, a public celebration of sado-masochism.
The event in question, the Up Your Alley Fair, is scheduled for Sunday, July 26, in San Francisco's South of Market District on Dore Alley between Folsom and Howard streets. Last year’s event resulted in multiple complaints to the Office of Citizen Complaints against patrol officers assigned to cover the event. Citizens complained that the officers ignored blatant public indecency during the fair.
An anonymous photographer provided police with “photos of men performing oral sex, urinating in public, and masturbating from second floor windows overlooking the fair,” reported the Bay Area Reporter, a San Francisco-based weekly that serves “the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender communities.” The photos were also posted on a web site, www.zombietime.com. (Because of the explicit nature of the images depicted on the web site, California Catholic Daily will not post a link to the site. Readers who are considering checking out the web site for themselves are advised that the images are obscene and disturbing.)
"The fair promoters are the ones who have to take charge; this is their event,” San Francisco Police Lt. Nicole M. Greely told the Reporter. “If they don't run it properly, they will not be having it again. If this event doesn't go well, we can't continue to approve their permit unless it is safe for everyone involved."
Just because a street fair occurs in an enclosed area does not mean that the law does not apply, Lt. Greely told the newspaper. “There is no public sex allowed, that is illegal,” she said. “Nudity laws still apply and laws against urinating in public still apply. Sometimes things gradually get out of hand and that is what happened here. Last year it got out of control."
Greely warned that, if event organizers are unable to control attendees, police officials will seek to have permits for future events rejected by the city, according to the Reporter. "We always require security for these events,” she told the newspaper. “This time we are asking them to address these problems. Hopefully they will be able to control it if they want to have the event next year."
The Reporter said news of the police crackdown caught Folsom Street Events executive director Demetri Moshoyannis “off guard,” and that he complained the first he heard of the complaints occurred during a meeting with city officials in late April. Lt. Greely, who was at the meeting, said the "public sex last year was very blatant" and that the photos received by police “were very demented," according to the newspaper.
“The hearing grew testy when Moshoyannis said he had not been apprised of the problems and Greely jokingly asked how he could not know of the sex occurring, eliciting laughter from those present,” said the Reporter’s story. Moshoyannis, said the newspaper, was “visibly annoyed” by Lt. Greely’s observation.
“The Up Your Alley Fair is the more local, smaller cousin to the Folsom Street Fair held in September,” said the Reporter. The Folsom Street Fair, an annual public celebration of sado-masochism, has also long been a source of controversy. Last year’s Folsom Street Fair drew protests from pro-family groups across the country, who called it “a public street orgy which includes sado-masochism, full nudity and homosexuality.” According to critics, children were seen in attendance at the 2007 Folsom Street Fair, “where they could witness, for example, bare-bottomed men being whipped.”
Another controversy arising from the 2007 Folsom Street Fair was a poster used to advertise the event. The poster featured a re-creation of Leonardo da Vinci's painting of the Last Supper, where “Christ” and his “disciples” were shown at a table strewn with sex toys. Photos of the event published on the Internet showed public nudity and sex acts.
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 4:43 AM By Mark from PA
What does this have to do with Catholic news?
|
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 5:13 AM By St. Christopher
Perhaps a good sign. These depraved people have no "rights" to do anything sexual in public. It would be good if SF shut down this crazy circus of immorality. I guess this would put them on a par with people who smoke a cigarette in public. The real answer is to make life unpleasant for homosexual groups, and those who try to instill such filth into the daily workings of the City, including education of public school kids. Time to call out Sodom and Gomorrah.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 5:42 AM By MarkF
What is the source of all this? Do all homosexual people do such things? When a person's life is centered around anything but God, sin abounds. When a person's life is ruled by money and success we can expect greed to take over. When a person's life is ruled by devotion to themselves, we can expect egotism and selfishness to rule. But when a person's life is devoted to something that is against God, then we can expect to find violence, decay, degeneracy and death. This is what we see in the homosexual culture. Not all homosexuals do what is described in the article. But all are adversely affected by the sin, and the more personally devoted a person is to this false god, the more perverse they become. But no one is beyond the reach of God and his Church. All are welcomed back and we should all pray for those people who are trapped by all the sins of this world, homosexual and otherwise, that they may be freed from the power of satan. And also add in a prayer for ourselves too that we may be true Christians towards them in this difficult time.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:35 AM By JLS
Must be the mayor saying, "Ok, I'll zip it if you elect me gov next time".
|
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:44 AM By SF
Hallelujua! It's about time the police held these organizers accountable for their blatant disregard for San Francisco law (and basic human decency).
|
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:54 AM By Maryanne Leonard
With disgusting public displays that reflect disturbed mental processes, the homosexual community has a history of speaking, acting, sounding and appearing ridiculous, shameful, outrageous, and/or disgusting, and worse yet, being proud of it. These people want acceptance? What they need is to be helped, and to be saved. We should not cave in to the demands of these disturbed people to further ruin our society; we should pray for them, treat them with the respect and dignity they refuse themselves and others, and help them come to a spiritually uplifting understanding of the Lord. They are literally looking for love in all the wrong places and in all the wrong manners, and their behavior is screaming for attention, acceptance and help. If we can try to communicate that the love they are missing is theirs for turning to God and serving Him, they can be saved, just as with any other of us sinners.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 7:31 AM By DarkKnight
Sure. I believe them. This garbage has been going on for years. If nudity laws still apply, then why does the city allow need participants in the Bay to Breakers race?
|
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 9:32 AM By Ron
If the nudity laws apply, why are they not being enforced? I documented the event last year for “Americans for Truth” and complained to police patrolling the event. The police used the lame excuse that the event was enclosed yet you could clearly see from across the street nudity and public masturbation with the police standing by doing nothing.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 10:02 AM By Anne T.
Who are they kidding? It was worse in years before. Then these obscene things were done right out in the open for everyone to see on the main avenue and streets. It is still terrible when it is enclosed because there are extreme health hazards, and some even took children there. Probably children mostly adopted by "same-sex" couples.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 1:34 PM By Tom Byrne
The next time the gays say "we're no different than you straights", ask: "Where in the US do heterosexuals behave like this en masse?"
|
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 1:48 PM By Fr. M.P.
Sad how the editor must post such warnings for what unnatural practitioners do and claim - falsely - as a right. Mark from PA, should this "fair" be held? And we see how in the past, the law was not upheld, thus providing implicit support for such behavior. Perhaps they will make it a so-called "hate-crime" to complain about such visible uncleanness? The bottom line is rejecting God leads many to amazingly depraved and abominable behavior.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:01 PM By Tom P
Mayor Gavin Newsome ORDERED the clampdown this year in order to appear normal in his run for governor. After the election, look for a return to Sodom and Gomorrah, in other words, business as usual.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:12 PM By Pax Christi
This news comes on the heels of a report by World Net Daily about the American Psychological Association revising a brochure to reflect its retreat from its former position regarding the so-called "gay gene," saying no evidence proves it exists. Oh, well, there goes another excuse for the gays to practice their demented behavior.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:42 PM By Mark from PA
Tom Byrne, what upsets me even more is the exploitation of young women by some in our contry. Some young women are forced to be sex workers and are held in virtual servitude. Some women are brought here from foreign countries, held against their will and forced into this horror. This is more than a case of men behaving badly in a street fair. This is men abusing and exploiting women, some of them underage. Those heterosexuals behave very badly. It is a horrific crime and as bad as slavery. But those heterosexuals are no more representative of all heterosexuals any more than men who have sex in public are representative of all gay men.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 5:11 PM By ELIZABETH
IT'S WAY OVER TIME!!!!!!
AS A FOURTH GENERATION SAN FRANCISCAN, I PRAY THAT THE CITY OF ST. FRANCIS AND MY FAMILY WILL ONE DAY RETURN TO THE BEAUTIFUL CITY THAT IT HAS BEEN IN THE PAST!
|
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:35 PM By gravey
So Mark from PA, are you actually saying people do horrible things? Wow! I mean you really nailed that one! Thanks for enlightening all of us! One problem with your moral equivalency: all gay behavior is behaving badly (sinful) according to the Catholic Church; and that, to answer your first question, is what this article has to do with Catholic news.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:48 PM By MarkF
Mark from PA, do you accept what the Church teaches, that all homosexual acts are inherently sinful?
|
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:55 PM By MarkF
This is true, not all gay men are into S&M. Some are into teenage boys, some are into pornography, some are into cruising public restrooms, some are into dressing as women, some are into drugs, and some - the most normal acting ones - are just extremely lonely. What is also true is that our society is so confused right now, that homosexual behavior does not seem that aberrant anymore. As one young person told me recently, "Everyone's screwed up nowadays." It is this situation that allows for homosexuality to flourish.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 7:49 PM By Martin
Fortunately, these "less than tasteful" celebrations do not represent most gays and lesbians anymore than Mardi Gras represents most heterosexuals.
As we all know, there is plenty of nudity, sex, drugs and more than a few disgusting drunks at New Orleans Mardi Gras. One can see puking, urinating, masturbating and witness various types of heterosexual sex in the alleys there.
Guess what?.... Many parents DO bring their children to see Mardi Gras.
As a gay parent, I would not take my children to any of these types of "festivals".
|
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 8:36 PM By Laurette Elsberry
JLS (6:35 am), you beat me to it. My first thought was that Newsom is smart enough to know that permitting continuing public sex and all that is involved does not look good for a potential governor - even in the California State of Perversion.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 9:26 PM By Brian
See what happens when people stop being lazy, and pick up their pen and write a letter of complaint to the police!
Letters can also be sent to the Local Newspaper Letters to the Editor with their complaint.
Stop leaving it up to the next person. Pick up your pen and paper and write, or email. Dozens of letters will bring action on complaints.
When you see something that is wrong... Complain!
Clean up America, and Canada too!
Down with immorality... everywhere!
|
Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 12:15 AM By Talith Kumi
Mark PA -- public sexual activity in front of children is disgusting and illegal -- period. This IS Cathioic concern, and this Up Your Alley (oh! how clever ) parade is is both unneccessay and crude to say the least. It isn't an issue of the parade fellas 'representing'. This is about immoral and illegal and oh yeah, SINFUL behaviour.
|
Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:19 AM By Peter
Tom Byrne - Ever been to New Orleans during Mardi Gras? Heterosexuals on parade!
|
Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 8:50 AM By Canisius
Mark from PA, public display of gay perversions are part and parcel of homosexual lifestyle in general, and they are"in your face about it" . Your typical liberal moral equivalence leaves a lot to be desired
|
Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 11:18 AM By tedn
Tom Byrne - Where do you find heterosexuals behaving "like this"...? Go to Spring Break (Florida, California, Texas, etc.).
|
Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 1:15 PM By Anne T.
You won't find me and the other orthodox Catholics at a Madre Gras parade, Peter and Mark from PA. We will be the ones complaining and sending the faxes and e-mails to get the decadence stopped. And you can bet there are plenty of homosexuals and lesbians in those parades too.
|
Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 2:10 PM By Anne T.
I am glad to hear you would not take children to such an affair, Martin.
|
Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 2:36 PM By Heidi
To all of those attempting to defend this behavior by claiming that heteros do the same at spring break please tell me where I can find the pics of men on spring break ejaculating into the crowd and urinating on each other as a sign of "affection"
|
Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 2:40 PM By Mark from PA
Father MP, I think the law should be enforced here. People need to show respect for one another. I don't think it is a "hate crime" to complain about openly lewd behavior. But I don't agree with the people here that think that all gays are bad, evil people.
|
Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 4:41 PM By The other Mike
The mayor has been a clever politician so far. I'm sure he knows that intoxicated and sexually aroused homosexuals are not going to take an agressive police presence lightly. Something tells me the mayor's plan is not to stop illegal activity at all, but to ignite the rabid lavender mob. The media tsunami that he creates will carries him to Sacramento. Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe the Holy Spirit finally got though to him. We'll see...
|
Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 5:52 PM By Richard Flores
As a former professional musician, I encountered plenty of gays... many of whom are still great friends. (I am 100% straight, orthodox Catholic.) It is extremely unfortunate that anyone would assume that this type of behavior is typical of "gays", as it is certainly NOT! "The City" as always been a city of extremes. Have you ever been to North Beach? Sadly, Satan took over much of the city long ago. Sin has been the norm since I went to grad school at Stanford in the 70's! (Remember the first "hookers ball"?) The real issue is the public acceptance of sinful behavior, be it gay or straight. As I have traveled all over this country as a research scientist, I have seen displays of sinful behavior everywhere at various "festivals", parades, and conferences.
We must focus on the real issue, sin, and not digress into inaccurate descriptions of people that are NOT well understood by 99% of the straight community. Contrary to public belief, most gays are born that way and would give anything NOT to be gay. They just are! To characterize ALL of them by a few, perverted weirdos is just plain wrong!
|
Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:20 PM By Mark from PA
Good post, Richard Flores. Heidi, I am sure that there have being cases of heterosexual men urinating in public during spring break.
|
Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:54 PM By JLS
Richard F, have you read lately that the American Psychological Assoc has removed its claim that there is a gay gene?
|
Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 7:18 PM By MarkF
Richard Flores, you're so right that the real issue is sin, and sin is when someone rejects God. I do think that too often the orthodox Catholic focus on homosexual sin and neglect somewhat the bigger picture which is sin in the mainstream heterosexual community. Having said that though, homosexuality as a lifestyle is a lifestyle that revolves around sin. They will be affected more or less by it, but none escapes without being adversely affected. And yes, the reason why the atheistic heterosexual society is accepting of homosexuality is that they know that their own license to do what they want is tied up with the homosexual's desire to reject God's laws too. The problem starts with the heterosexual world.
|
Posted Friday, May 15, 2009 12:00 AM By tedn
Whoa -- hold on there. In no way was I defending the actions of fair participants. In fact, I don't approve of it at all. I was only answering the question, "Where in the US do heterosexuals behave like this en masse?" As far as pictures, there are ads for "Girls Gone Wild" on "regular" tv all the time. And no, I don't approve of those either.
|
Posted Friday, May 15, 2009 6:14 AM By Dai Yoshida
I hear a lot about heterosexual sins from people who defends the gay lifestyle. But here's the difference. There are no community of fornicators and to this date I've yet to see a fornicator parade. Heterosexual sinners in varying degrees knows that what they do is wrong. They don't demand the Church acceptance of their lifestyle.
|
Posted Friday, May 15, 2009 6:29 AM By Peter
JLS - Correction: The APA confirmed that they are to date unable to conclusively identify a "gay gene"; reconfirming their original stance that homosexuality is only explained as the interaction of biological and environmental influences. The study likened the search for a "gay gene" as similar in nature to a "black gene", "asian gene", "left-handed gene", "red-head gene", etc. - unidentifiable, but "influential" none-the-less.
|
Posted Friday, May 15, 2009 1:23 PM By Fr. M.P.
Mark from PA, are those who commit mortal sin evil in your belief system? And didn't you already say to me some months back that homosexual behavior is alright? *** Everytime people bring up the sins of heterosexuals as justifications for homosexual sins they are really saying "see, they sin in their way, so why can't I sin in my way?" It's an "I'm OK, you're OK" type of sin excuse, which doesn't wash with Jesus, Who is the Truth, the Way, and the Life.
|
Posted Friday, May 15, 2009 5:57 PM By JLS
Peter, thanks for spelling out the details.
|
Posted Friday, May 15, 2009 7:07 PM By Anne T.
Fr. M.P., your are right. Although many (not all) people who practice homosexual and lesbians behavior come from highly disfunctional (or immoral) homes, God makes EACH person responsible for his or her own sin. That is exactly what the story of the Garden of Eden relates. No one can "pass the buck" when they truly know better, but each suffers for his or her sin.
|
Posted Friday, May 15, 2009 8:02 PM By gravey
Peter, In other words, the APA doesn't know. It's hard to trust the APA as they are a very politically/agenda driven organization. Their decision in the 70's to remove homosexuality from the DSM was a political one. Prior to that time, the APA agreed with the Church that homosexuality is a mental disorder.
|
Posted Saturday, May 16, 2009 1:49 AM By Ellen
Gravey, the Church does not teach that homosexuality is a "mental disorder" in the sense that APA uses the term. Rather, the Church teaches that homosexuality is a moral dsorder, as is lust and fornication. The APA's definition of "mental disorder" is clinical in nature and not satisfied merely because something is sinful or violates religious beliefs. You can lust and fornicate and engage in homosexual acts, but that's not enough to qualify as a mental disorder under the APA definition. Under the APA definition, the APA does not classify "sinning" as a mental disorder, and the Church does not teach that mental disorders are sin.
|
Posted Saturday, May 16, 2009 7:14 AM By MarkF
Gravey, the Church does not say that homosexuality is a mental disorder. The most recent teachings of the Church, which are not infallible (though I believe them to be correct) is that the homosexual inclination is disordered, i.e., since it is an inclination to do something that is a sin, it is therefor an inclination that is not ordered to do something good. But this wording is not infallible. You don't have to believe that the inclination is disordered to get to heaven, and you won't go to hell for not believing it. The infallible teaching of the Church is that homosexual acts are grave matter, as much as any other mortal sin. As a matter of faith and morals however, one could go to hell for ignoring the infallible teaching that homosexual acts constitute a grave threat to the soul. The Church is not in the business of mental health so she doesn't use terms like mental disorder. The term disorder when referring to the homosexual inclination refers to it being spiritual disordered, a tendency to sin.
|
Posted Saturday, May 16, 2009 7:17 AM By MarkF
As to your point about the APA, you are right that it was politics that highjacked science. I believe that they started out by saying that since they had no solid treatment for homosexuality, that their therapists should stop trying to force people to change. This got turned into saying that there is no solid treatment for it, to saying that it is not a mental illness, and from there it changed into saying that it is something wonderful. Take a look over at NewAdvent for a story from homosexual groups in Canada who detail the amount of mental health problems like suicide, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc. that are associated with homosexuality. I've been saying the same thing here for months, only to be criticized by well intentioned people who find this to be too upsetting to believe. The story at NewAdvent comes from homosexual groups themselves. When away from the public spotlight, most homosexuals will talk openly about the massive mental health problems in the community. My guess is that psychologists are similar in that many of them see that homosexuality is caused in childhood by a lack of connection to the parent of the same sex or by sexual abuse, but they are afraid to speak out.
|
Posted Saturday, May 16, 2009 10:08 AM By Grisha
A lot of jurisdictions in the US have a tolerant attitude towards public nudity at certain locations or events. What makes the Folsom Street Fair "over the top" even for San Francisco is the public sex and other gross activities. Does that kind of thing happen in a heterosexual context? Google "Power Exchange" and you'll find out. If the Folsom Street Fair organizers want to promote that kind of thing they can hire an indoor location and exercise their constitutional right to have a big ol' sex party. However, the City is absolutely correct to insist that things like that not happen on a public street.
|
Posted Saturday, May 16, 2009 11:18 AM By Mark from PA
I don't think that most people are evil, Father MP, but most people are sinners. But many who exploit and abuse people are evil. You say, "Why can't I sin in my way?" I don't recall saying that I should be allowed to commit certain sins.
|
Posted Saturday, May 16, 2009 10:31 PM By JLS
Ellen, lust is not a disorder, but part of human nature. Homosexuality is a disorder.
|
Posted Sunday, May 17, 2009 10:32 AM By gravey
MarkF, When using the word "disordered" to describe homosexuality, the Church is not speaking soley to the spiritual but includes the psychological as well. Fr. Fessio addressed this very issue: "...it should be clear to people that the Catholic Church has taught from the beginning that homosexual acts are intrinsically immoral, against God's plan, against the natural law and are serious sins, and that, therefore, a tendency to indulge in those acts, or desire for them, is an objective psychological disorder."
|
Posted Sunday, May 17, 2009 1:08 PM By Emory
JLS, the Church teaches that lust is disordered. "Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes." (CCC#2351) Lust is disordered, and it is sin, and sin is a disorder of the will and thus disordered, and no more or less a part of human nature than homosexuality or any other sin or disorder. Indeed, in the words of Pope John Paul II, “because of sin, human nature has become disordered.”
|
Posted Sunday, May 17, 2009 1:18 PM By Paul
Gravey, the Church does not teach that it's psychological in the sense that the APA uses the word. The APA has distinct clinical criteria for identifying something as a mental (psychological) disorder, and "intrinsically immoral, against God's plan" is not part of the APA criteria. Thus the Church is saying one thing and the APA is saying another. Even if both the Church and APA were to say it's a "mental disorder", they would not not actually be in agreement because the words mean different things to each.
|
Posted Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:34 PM By MarkF
Gravey, I don't know who this Fr. Fessio is and he certainly cannot speak for the whole Church. The current pastoral, though not infallible teaching of the Holy Father, is that it is disordered. One priest or a group of priests cannot be said to constitute Church teaching as a whole. The Church is speaking in terms of morality, not psychology. On the other hand, the Church is not teaching the the homosexual inclination is NOT a psychological disorder either. We have to be careful when we speak for the Church as a whole, and the Church has not entered into the field of psychology, even if some members of her have. I believe that the urge for same-sex activity is a psychological problem, but I'd be more concerned with the APA accepting that then with the Church accepting that.
|
Posted Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:43 PM By MarkF
Mark from PA, please, how can you say that? You may not have said that YOU should be allowed to commit certain sins, but you have repeatedly said that homosexual acts, if not promiscuous (whatever that means) are not sinful. You've said that on here, you've said that to me personally. You've also said that if someone belongs to a different religious group that does not believe that homosexual acts are a sin, that no sin has taken place. You gave the example of the United Church of Christ. Please, for the sake of civil debate, can you be forthright with what you believe? I have to say that talking to you can be very trying when you seem to deliberately distort what others say, twist what you say around to make it appear that you didn't say what you said, and all of this in service to supporting a lifestyle that is far worse than you are willing to believe, and all of this in direct contradiction to what God wants for us. Please, can you be direct, forthcoming, and yes, honest with us here?
|
Posted Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:43 PM By JLS
Emory, your quote is beneficial, but your interpretation does not quite match it. Everyone experiences lust, but only a few experience same sex attraction. It is on that basis which I'm using the words "lust" and "disorder". "Lust" also has more to its definition than the one quote you provide. People normally lust; people do not normally lust after the same sex. These are two different orders of disorder. For example, a man lusting after a woman is not the same order as a man lusting after a man. Man lusting after a woman is a sin, but not a disordered sin in the way that homosexuality is a disordered condition. Homosexuals may or may not lust after someone of the same sex; but the condition nevertheless is disordered.
|
Posted Sunday, May 17, 2009 5:29 PM By Fr. M.P.
Mark from PA, you ducked the question. Let me ask again in a different way. Is a mortal sin an evil? Yes or no? Are homosexual acts a mortal sin? *** JLS, lust is one of many disorders as a result of original sin, and the consequential concupiscence. I presume that is what you mean by "part of human nature."
|
Posted Sunday, May 17, 2009 8:46 PM By Mark from PA
"Supporting a lifestyle that is far worse than you are willing to believe." Mark, there is no one "gay lifestyle" anymore than there is a "straight lifestyle." If someone is gay and is living a celibate life, that is their lifestyle. If someone is gay and is chase, that is their lifestyle. If someone is gay and in a committed relationship, that is their lifestyle. If someone is gay and has multiple partners, that is there lifestyle. A lot of gay people are good, Christian people.
|
Posted Sunday, May 17, 2009 9:56 PM By RR
AMEN, MarkF!! Sometimes I wonder of Mark from PA is for real or if he is on here to frustrate the posters.
|
Posted Sunday, May 17, 2009 10:09 PM By JLS
Fr. M.P., yes. I understand lust to be part of our universal fallen nature, but same sex attraction is not universal; therefore, the two things are in different categories.
|
Posted Sunday, May 17, 2009 11:43 PM By Emory
JLS, "normal" has multiple meanings. You are using "normal" in the statistical sense whereby what's "normal" is simply whatever is found to commonly occur among a group of people. That is why you say "people normally lust; people do not normally lust after the same sex." Indeed, as only a small percentage of people are homosexually inclined, it is not "normal" in the statistical sense. Neither would many good behaviors be considered "normal" in the statistical sense. Meanwhile, I'm using the word "normal" in the moral sense as referring to compliance with the moral standard for behavior as taught by the Church for people to follow. As I'm using the word, behavior that does not comply with the Church's moral standard for people to follow is not normal behavior but abnormal. By that moral standard, that norm for moral behavior, all sexual sins including lust are abnormal. As to your claim that "a man lusting after a woman is not the same order as...", it is not order at all. It is disordered. The order I speak of is God's order, as God orders people to behave. So unless God is ordering you to lust, then it is not an order, period. That is, unless you are taking your orders from the devil.
|
Posted Monday, May 18, 2009 5:10 AM By Mark from PA
Yes, RR, I am for real. And I am a real Catholic too. Since my First Holy Communion, over 40 years ago, I have been a faithful Catholic. Mass and the Eucharist are central to my faith. Just because someone doesn't look like you, or sound like you or think like you, doesn't make them any less "real."
|
Posted Monday, May 18, 2009 5:29 AM By Mark from PA
Father MP, mortal sin is evil. Many homosexual acts are mortal sins. Many sex acts period are mortal sins. We are all called to goodness.
|
Posted Monday, May 18, 2009 6:52 AM By Peter
On the contrary RR, while I do not agree with his beliefs, Mark from PA is one of the few posters to this site who seems to have any sense of intergity!
|
Posted Monday, May 18, 2009 7:46 AM By MarkF
Which gay lifestyle? The one you've been supporting on here for months... the one where people are not "promiscuous", whatever that means... the one that one other poster called "monogamously in sin." That's the one. As to whether there are such a thing as good gay Christian people, well I can't judge the heart of another person. Who knows, there many be parts of my life that, unknown to me, are not in keeping with the faith. But I know that I made a decision to consciously accept all that the Church teaches is right and wrong. I don't hide anything when I go to confession. I don't set myself up as the person who decides what is a sin and what isn't. I don't say that something is not a sin just because I like to do it. I try, and I try hard to live the whole faith, not just the parts that don't affect me. The "gay Christians" I've met are people who have coldly and deliberately turned their hearts away from what the Church teaches is right and wrong. They know what the Church teaches, but place themselves and what they want over what is right. This is a form of pagan idolatry...to place something unclean over the love of God. Whether a person is promiscuous, whatever that means, has nothing to do with it. Being loyal to one prostitute does not make it any less of a sin, neither does only having incest with one of your sisters make it right. And what makes the homosexual lifestyle worse than an individual act of sin is the so-called gay agenda, where the person believes that what they've done is not a sin and refuses to confess it. Still worse is when these same people try to trick others with phony arguments to make it seem like right is wrong, and wrong is right.
|
Posted Monday, May 18, 2009 12:20 PM By Fr. M.P.
Mark from PA "Many homosexual acts are mortal sins." So in your belief system, which ones are acceptable that are not sinful? Contrast that with the Catechism which says such acts are *never* acceptable. Yes, we are called to goodness, so why don't you accept all the teachings of the Church? That's isn't good, is it?
|
Posted Monday, May 18, 2009 3:02 PM By Paul
Fr. M.P., "never acceptable" and being a "mortal sin" are not the same thing. Violating the Ten Commandments is "never acceptable" and always "grave matter" but not always a "mortal sin". Being "never acceptable" (i.e. grave matter) is only the first of three conditions for mortal sin. If either of the other two conditions are not met, then it is still "never acceptable" but not a mortal sin. As the Church teaches in CCC#1857, "For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent." As the Church also teaches, "one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability." When such factors are present, the sin might be only venial. So when someone says "many homosexual acts are mortal sins," that is a true statement as not all homosexual acts are necessarily mortal sins. Those done without either full knowledge or deliberate consent, where such other "factors" are present which "diminish or even nullify" (CCC#1735) imputability and responsibility are not mortal sins. There also may be some lack of clarity over exactly what constitutes a "homosexual act", as the CCC's definition of "homosexuality" is not all that specific and is more limited than what public vernacuilar refers to. As you say, we need to "accept ALL the teachings of the Church," including those that teach that not all homosexual acts are mortal sins.
|
Posted Monday, May 18, 2009 3:54 PM By MarkF
Paul, you're only giving half of the story and what you say pertains to ALL sin, not just to homosexual acts. What you're stating here, though true, is an incomplete picture. What this leads to is, as I've been told many times by poorly catechized Catholics, that nothing is a sin unless you believe it to be a sin. I read about these excommunicated women who faked an ordination who said that they were only excommunicated if they thought they were. HUH????? You left out two other criteria for when something is a sin...one is that the moral law is written in the human heart. We all know at some level that homosexual acts are wrong, just as we know that lying is wrong. All cultures throughout history have started out being afraid of homosexual conduct. I can hear the howls of disagreement already...what about the out gay people who say that they feel fine with their homosexual actions? That leads to the next criteria in the Catechism, and that is coldness of heart. People who like myself of old support the gay agenda have turned their hearts to stone. This is what we see with the gay agenda, with legalized abortion, with blindness to the homeless who are all around us. Coldness of heart makes the sin much, much worse. I've heard some pro-gay dissenters say that men with same-sex attraction are not culpable because of their own psychological pressures. This reduces men with SSA to level of the schizophrenic, the manic depressive and the person with a brain tumor. What exactly makes SSA so irresistible that the person is not culpable that does not pertain to all sexual desires? Again, all of this pertains to all sin. Were the southerners of old not culpable for the sin of slavery because their Churches told them it was not a sin? This was coldness of heart, and this is what we see in those who wish to excuse the pro-gay agenda.
|
Posted Monday, May 18, 2009 6:59 PM By gravey
Paul, Enough of the sophistry. Next you will be arguing what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
|
Posted Monday, May 18, 2009 10:15 PM By JLS
Paul, you're wrong about a mortal sin sometimes not being a mortal sin. It may not impute to the one committing it, but it's mortality affects someone; otherwise it would not be a sin.
|
Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:54 AM By Paul
MarkF, first, let me begin by addressing some things regarding excommunication of which you may not be aware, namely, that ignorance of the penalty of excommunication can in fact be an excusing factor from the penalty of excommunication. To save space, I'll refer you to the Catholic Encyclopedia on excommunication, where it explains that the general principle is, that “whosoever is ignorant of the law is not responsible for transgressing it; and WHOSOEVER IS IGNORANT OF THE PENALTY DOES NOT INCUR IT.” It goes on at length of how the application of this principle is often complicated and delicate, but suffice it say that it's entirely possible for someone to do something for which the penalty would otherwise be excommunication had they known of the penalty but the person is not in fact excommunicated because she was sufficiently ignorant of the penalty when she did whatever she did.
|
Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2009 2:15 AM By Paul
MarkF, second, you say, I “left out two other criteria for when something is a sin.” My post was about the conditions for MORTAL sin and your “two other criteria” are considerations regarding the already mentioned conditions of full knowledge and deliberate consent. For example, you say, “the moral law is written in the human heart We all know at some level that homosexual acts are wrong.” Even venial sin is wrong, but knowledge “at some level” that something is wrong is not equivalent to the full knowledge required for mortal sin. If something is written on the heart, then perhaps there may be at least some level of knowledge present but not necessarily the full knowledge required for mortal sin, which is why the Church teaches that full knowledge is a conditional item and not an automatic when one commits a grave act. For your second criteria, you mention “coldness of heart”, and yes, the Church teaches that “feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.” You then seek to link this with the vague "gay agenda", but I do not subscribe to false generalizations which insist that every aspect of the vague “gay agenda” requires feigning ignorance and hardness of heart, and I don’t subscribe to the belief that the “gay agenda” is only about promoting sinful acts, and as such, I don’t subscribe to pejorative use of the term “gay agenda”. You can say it's your experience, and I respect that, but my experience is the equal of yours, and I will say otherwise.
|
Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2009 2:24 AM By Paul
MarkF, third, you say you “heard some pro-gay dissenters say that men with same-sex attraction are [possibly?] not culpable because of their own psychological pressures.” Indeed, the Church expressly teaches that "one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability." I and you should not take this to mean that EVERY homosexual person automatically has ZERO culpability because of that one issue SSA. You ask, “What exactly makes SSA so irresistible that the person is not culpable that does not pertain to all sexual desires?” Here again you make the mistake of interpreting “psychological pressures” to mean that SSA is by itself the sole excusing factor and sole psychological condition, but as you should well know, SSA can work in combination with other psychological conditions of the person, and in combination with all the other factors that the Church lists, such that it’s the totality of the person’s psychological state along with all the other factors the Church lists that may “diminish or even nullify” imputability and responsibility, even if SSA alone does not. For example, if child abuse is causative or exacerbating of the person’s SSA, there may well be other psychological conditions involved other than just SSA, with such other factors alone or in totality may excuse the person from mortal sin. It is not “coldness of heart” to express these truths of Church teaching mercifully. Everyone and their circumstances is different, and the level of culpability can vary from person to person, even day to day. Some may be excused and some may not be.
|
Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2009 2:26 AM By Paul
MarkF, fourth and finally, you say, “What this leads to is, as I've been told many times by poorly catechized Catholics…” Jesus said there are those who “look but do not see and hear but do not listen or understand.” You say, “What you're stating here, though true, is an incomplete picture.” My dear friend, the universe was created "in a state of journeying" toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. That is what it leads to. Meanwhile, I fit my posts into the box.
|
Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2009 4:31 AM By Mark from PA
Excellent post, Paul. I have read that in the Catechism but you are better at expressing it than I am.
|
Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:52 PM By Anne T.
MarkF, I know you tell the truth because a female nurse told me what was going on in those bathhouses in San Francisco in the 1970's and after during the AIDS epedemic. Many of the men were stoned on drugs and doing unbelievably harmful things to their bodies. She said when they tried to tell them how disease ridden their activities were, they would go after the medical workers jobs and try to get them fired. No wonder there was an AIDS epedemic. Thank the Good Lord above that you got out of the lifestyle before it hit you. I am not saying that we should never help those with AIDS, but unless people, and some have, change their lifestyle no amount of medicine will cure them. AIDS was not the only disease that were passed around, and I am sure you know that. There were others just as horrible. It does not matter, Paul, if ones believes he is committing mortal sin or not, one stills suffers the consequences of such actions.
|
Posted Saturday, May 23, 2009 8:29 AM By MarkF
Paul, I think you're still twisting words around in an attempt to excuse sin. I agree that circumstances and the level of the person's conscience can change a person's culpability, but that does not mean that makes the person a saint. Rather it makes them even more of a poor wretch who needs help. Think about it. If a kid is raised to be a thief and killer by parents who are in the Mafia, maybe that kid would meet all the criteria and his acts perhaps would not be mortal sins. Who could blame someone who was raised in such an environment? What chance would that person have to learn right from wrong? A conscience like that might not fully know right from wrong. Does that mean though that the person is a saint? Would you hire a person like that for a job. I'm afraid that all that you're doing is coming up with an academic formula to excuse homosexuality and to try to make it an exalted thing. This will never work. No one knows the state of another person's soul. No one, not me, not you. But what you're doing here is giving people false hope to continue to live in darkness. You're advocating a hands off approach to sin. I've thought about this a lot. The solution is to FORGET about questioning yourself whether some act is a mortal sin or not, and to stop trying to find some excuse that it's not. Confess it all. Pray for healing for it all. And when dealing with others, advise them to do the same. Let God figure it all out, but if we're to make an error, let it be on the side of telling people the importance of repentance for sins. Jesus told us to preach the gospel and to call people to repentance, not to assume the best and help them go on sinning.
|
Posted Saturday, May 23, 2009 8:38 AM By MarkF
Anne T., that is exactly what I was trying to say, that we still suffer the affects of sin, whether we admit or know that what we've done is a sin. The conscience is the same way. There is no way that being in darkness is illuminated by more darkness. God is compassionate and he'll make allowance for how we're raised and what we've experienced through no fault of our own. Somehow I don't think this gets us to the place where a life devoted to sin is excused? Think about it... if emotional pressures can excuse sin, then how can getting angry ever be a sin? Who gives "full consent" when they just snap out of anger? Human sexuality is a strong pressure. So how can any sexual act be a sin if we are so tempted? No, I find all of what Paul says to be an excuse to water down the gospel. I've heard it all before and I ain't buying it. It is similar to those who call for "tolerance" for homosexuality but really are masking a desire to promote it. We have to chose sides. Sin is destructive whether we like it or not. I can't sit there and come up with excuses that make a sewer into a rose and then wash my hands of it all.
|
Posted Saturday, May 23, 2009 11:35 AM By JLS
Culpability for sin according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin." In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
|
Posted Saturday, May 23, 2009 2:06 PM By Paul
MarkF, whether you like it or not, the Church's teachings on mercy, culpability, etc. are very much part of the Gospel message. If you're not sharing them, it's you who are "watering down the Gospel" and not "confessing it all". In the words of the Pope, "mercy is the central nucleus of the Gospel message; it is the very name of God, the Face with which he revealed himself in the Old Covenant and fully in Jesus Christ." It's a combox and only so much fits into a response.
|
Posted Saturday, May 23, 2009 2:22 PM By Paul
JLS, your post exemplifies itself. If one were to accept your small post as the whole story on "culpability for sin according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church," one would indeed be taking "little trouble to find out what is true and good." Perhaps your post, like many others, my own not excluded, might be described as "snippets about culpability from the Catechism". Nothing wrong with sharing snippets. They fit into a combox.
|
Posted Saturday, May 23, 2009 9:23 PM By MarkF
Paul, we're talking around each other. Let me be direct and just ask you, what are you really trying to say? What advice would you give to the poor people in the article who are caught up, as I used to be, in the sin of homosexuality?
|
Posted Saturday, May 23, 2009 9:46 PM By JLS
Paul, no matter how many words or how enormous a diatribe, it would be worthless if it failed to include the CCC instruction on culpability. The purpose of the Church is not to help you find a way to escape the will of God, but the grace to accomplish it. It is not about you, Paul, but about Christ.
|
Posted Sunday, May 24, 2009 6:14 PM By Paul
JLS, no matter how much you post, CCC#1791 remains but a snippet of the Church’s teaching on culpability. Other snippets of the Church’s teaching on culpability have been posted throughout this thread. I have no interest whatsoever to “find a way to escape the will of God.” I accept it totally.
|
Posted Sunday, May 24, 2009 6:16 PM By Paul
MarkF, for “males who want to do shameful things with males,” I may do as God in Romans 1, where the people “received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. Since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.” And likewise, when the son asked his father, “Father, give me the share of your estate that should come to me,” his father did so and the son went off and squandered his inheritance on a life of dissipation. And on the son’s way back home, “while he was still a long way off, his father caught sight of him, and was filled with compassion. He ran to his son, embraced him and kissed him.” So that is what I may do. With those who “do not see fit to acknowledge God,” I may “hand them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper,” to “receive in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.” And for those on their way back, even though they may still have a long way to go, I’m “filled with compassion, run to them, embrace them and kiss them.” Either way, it is love.
|
Posted Monday, May 25, 2009 9:43 AM By MarkF
Paul, I really would like to hear more from you. I really can't tell where you're coming from. In one way I agree with you that no one can tell the conscience of another person. In fact I'd argue that in many cases we can't tell the state of our own conscience. If I've got a habit of a bad temper, how much slack am I given by God for when I snap? Or am I judged by the fact that God blames me for developing the bad habit in the first place? My answer for myself and for others is to confess it all, ask for healing for it all. In this I think we agree. But too often I've seen the catechism used as an attempt to justify one's own sin and that I am totally opposed to.
|
Posted Monday, May 25, 2009 12:48 PM By MarkF
Paul, very cool. I'm with you all the way. The problem I'm facing is how do I help others on their way to God? I mean, this internet thing has its place but it's not the same thing as face to face human contact. I have one friend in particular who is still active in his homosexuality. He has a lot of God in him, but I've never talked to him about what the Church teaches. I suspect that the closer we are to people the harder it can be to talk to them. He knows that I'm back in the Church but I have not told him what I feel about all this now. I've prayed for him a lot. I owe him a lot because it was in some way through him that I came back to the Church, even though he's not Catholic. I also totally agree that the best way to handle those who are running back to God is to be embracing and to look at the progress they've made, not at where they still are. A good example is how the Pope has treated the French leader Sarkozy. Though he's been through several marriages, Sarkozy talks more about the value of the Catholic faith more than any other European leader in a generation. Another example is New Mexico governor Richardson. Though he's still a supporter of abortion, he's come around to being opposed to the death penalty, and for this he's been welcomed by Church leaders. I think I see where you're coming from Paul and I thank you for your posts. Sorry if I suspected your motives.
|
Posted Monday, May 25, 2009 3:11 PM By Paul
MarkF, as to what my neighbor might do and what he might or might not confess, the Church teaches that “charity always proceeds by way of respect for one's neighbor and his conscience”, even if his conscience may be malformed. The Church teaches that man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience, nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters. If that stirs my neighbor to ask me for advice, I share with him what the Church teaches, to include (but not limited to) what I’ve shared with you here in this post and elsewhere. Notably, I ask him if he knows himself, answering that he question his conscience, if his conscience calls him to do so. I answer that he turn inward and return home, if his conscience calls him to do so, and if not, that he be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience. I answer that education of conscience is lifelong, and that a prudent education teaches virtue AND prevents or cures fear, selfishness, (false) pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. I advise that a right education of conscience engenders peace of heart and guarantees freedom. To those who struggle with this task, I advise, whole heartedly, that this lifelong educational task of “know yourself” is divinely simple and effortless as “Be still and know (that I am God).” To those who struggle, I advise as Jesus taught, “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.” But I don't always express it in the same words, for not all will accept these words as I understand them. Rather, for some, silence as abiding, patient love expresses it best.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 12:07 AM By Bro Duke
What really irks me is that all religions practice the "Homo/Abortion Two-Step." If it's gay, it's bad. If it's abortion of any kind, it's bad. Nothing else matters.
In the meantime, an average of two people a day are murdered in the Oakland (ca) area, kids as young as 8 years old are learning the joys of murder and violence via Gangsta Rap, and you guys could care less because it doesn't involve sex.
How about opening up that bible of your and reading the whole thing?
|
© California Catholic Daily 2009. All Rights Reserved.
|