|
Published: December 16, 2009
“We’re out of the closet, now Christians need to go into the closet”
Mayor’s comments on homosexuality lead to turmoil in Vallejo
When Vallejo Mayor Osby Davis told the New York Times in November that homosexuals are “committing sin and that sin will keep them out of heaven,” little did he know his remarks would continue to reverberate in the Bay Area city of about 120,000 and lead for calls that he resign.
The pro-family lobbying group Capitol Resource Institute reported Dec. 10, “Vallejo is the site of an escalating battle involving public statements and private morality.” As a consequence of Davis’ remarks, said CRI, “the community is divided in their reaction to this statement. Some have called for the removal of the mayor, the appointment of an openly gay individual to the Vallejo Human Relations Commission, and official recognition of an LGBT Pride month. Many of these demands are wrapped in the misguided claim that the mayor's statements violate the wall between church and state. And much of the criticism begins with the accusation that the religious community in general is motivated by hate.”
“We are monitoring the situation very closely,” said Kevin Snider, chief counsel to the Pacific Justice Institute. “While it may be unwise for an elected official to discuss his religious beliefs with a New York Times reporter, it certainly is not illegal. It is troubling that so many believe that there is such a restriction on protected speech.”
In a Dec. 10 statement, Pacific Justice Institute, which describes itself as “a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties,” also expressed concern “about the numerous attacks aimed at the Vallejo religious community showing up in letters to newspapers, in emails and during public forums at City Council meetings.”
KTVU-TV, the Bay Area’s Fox affiliate, reported that on Dec. 2, “Hundreds of people descended on Vallejo City Hall Tuesday night as members of the city’s gay and lesbian community gathered for an emotional rally to condemn recent controversial comments made by Mayor Osby Davis.” Of the hundreds, said the KTVU report, “some supported the mayor's right to his personal opinion while others were making a stand against what they called hurtful comments.” One crowd estimate said as many as 500 people participated in the showdown.
The New York Times later released a recording of the full interview with Mayor Davis, a member of the Assemblies of God denomination, after he complained his remarks had been taken out of context. Said Davis in a partial transcript in the Times, " We learned and we believe a sin is a sin. None is greater than any other, and sin will keep you out of heaven. I have friends, very close friends, who are gay. I don’t believe that their lifestyle is correct but that’s a decision that they have to make. I don’t stop loving them because they’re gay. They have to make a decision on their own. If I present something to them and they don’t want to receive it, okay that’s well and good. That’s not going to stop me from loving them.”
Capitol Resource Institute described the unanticipated uproar over the mayor’s comments as “a teachable moment for the Vallejo faith community,” noting that “many pastors are bristling at the suggestion that they should keep their religious and moral beliefs to themselves. They see more than a little hypocrisy in the idea that some can literally talk about what they do in their bedroom while demanding that others not be able to discuss their deeply held religious beliefs.”
Said Pacific Justice Institute’s Snider, “The hypocrisy is pretty thick. Some are asking that Vallejo formally celebrate their views on sexuality while punishing the mayor for stating his views on sexuality. They seem to be saying, ‘we’re out of the closet, now Christians need to go into the closet.’”
Shortly after the New York Times article was published, Davis and homosexual city council member Michael Wilson issued a joint statement, which said, in part, “Michael Wilson, my friend and colleague, and I have issued this statement to put to rest the rumors of hate being circulated based on the New York Times article ‘Tolerance and Faith Collide.’ We are united in our efforts to build consensus in our city and will stand together to confront hatred and division. It should go without saying and is certainly obvious to all who know me that my conduct, actions and decisions have demonstrated my conviction for fairness for all people and my love for this city… Councilmember Wilson and I were elected on a platform of consensus building and over the past two years, we have and will continue to serve the Vallejo community with an open mind and an open heart. Let's not allow divisiveness to get in the way of what we need to do in order to heal and strengthen our community.”
To see a partial transcript of the mayor’s interview and a 15-minute segment of the 27-minute interview, Click Here.
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 3:11 AM By BJ
Thr full transcript shows that what the Mayor actually said was deeply Christian and inspired. Love the sinner not the sin is what the libearl lobby definitely do not want to hear. They deliberatley distort to cause anger and division. They want religions to officially reject religious teachings ( by 'legal' force if necessary) and that will never happen if the religion is true to the Word of God.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 4:38 AM By Grace56
So I guess it has come this this...no one is *allowed* to say anything that might offend a homosexual.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 5:55 AM By ted
As usual, those who demand "tolerance" for themselves refuse it to those with whom they
disagree. The word hypocrisy isn't adequate to describe the evil of the mayor's detractors. Who gives the delusions of authority and righteousness to these thought police, anyway? Like the San Francisco's board of supervisors' condemnation of the Vatican, they should simply be laughed at - or better yet ignored altogether.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 6:22 AM By OneoftheSheep
While I love the Pacific Justice lawyers, I would certainly say their approach is far more timid than the Thomas More lawyers. Let us not apologize for speaking the truth, all aspects of religion are tolerated in this society as long as it is not Judaeo-Christian. This itself is intolerable.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 6:49 AM By JLS
This mayor obviously launched a moral pre-emptive strike against the cryptic marshalling of sodomite politics.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 7:54 AM By Aaron
Another tempest in a teapot. I am openly gay - BUT the Vallejo Mayor is constitutionally guaranteed the right to speak his mind, even if his opinions upset the LGBT community.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 9:09 AM By St. Christopher
The Mayor is a good and moral man. Too bad Catholic bishops in CA cannot stand up to immoral homosexual behavior and call it a sin. This is an act of Christian love, not homophobia (whatever that means). Evil, however, cannot bear to be called its name. Please do not back down Mayor Davis.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 9:12 AM By JLS
What is this "judeo-Christian" concept? I thought the "judeo" part was concluded twothousand years ago. Where is the contemporary voice of authentic Judeo-ism? I have searched for decades and do not find this voice; instead we get the phonies like notable media fools and congress fools such as Soros and Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein, and various other counterfeits. Same for the Church; lots of counterfeit fools deceptively pretending to be Catholics, yet doing all in their power to oppose the will of God.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 9:57 AM By Grisha
The Mayor clearly has a constitutional right to express his opinion on any matter he wishes. If the good citizens of Vallejo don't like it, I'm sure their city charter has a recall provision. However, as Catholics, we should remember that we are also a minority and their are Protestant fundamentalist who believe the WE will be automatically denied heaven just as the gays will. Some of them are probably mayors etc. in various jurisdictions around the country. We're all likely better off if serving public officials leave theology to the various religions and concentrate on civil matters.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 10:30 AM By GregC
Lets face reality there is no such thing as seperation of church and state - they're all part of our culture and to say that a christian cannot comment based on his/her belief is unfair and unconstitutional. When homo's have more rights than the average citizen who are normal, we have a major problem developing in this country and I fear eventually it will boil over and there will be major upheavels in our society and unrest.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 10:51 AM By WOODY GUIDRY
THE VALUE OF THE WORD "HATE" is being run into the ground and it's losing its value because of misuse and repetition. Used as the all-purpose word to describe any disagreement with SSA bullying, it is rapidly becoming the sickening equal to the word "homophobic"-a word coined to combat publicly those in the psychiatric profession who believe that SSA is a treatable aberration of normal.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 10:53 AM By mitch
These are the same peope who are so quiet of muslim countries,killing homosexuals. quess its double speak of orwell with the old saying sticks and stones cannot hurt me but names do hurt(mention the sin right).
|
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 4:01 PM By Tony R
Christians are not going into the closet, we are going into bunkers. We are the Church militant and God is about to cleanse the earth of this sin.
Oh! I'm late for my sensitivity training class!
|
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 6:02 PM By Anne T.
This man has a right to his opinion, and he is right that the Bible and the Church teaches that remaining in sodomous behavior can get one to hell.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 6:18 PM By Anne T.
Editor: would you please leave out my last two posts. I might comment later with a better written post. I do believe God has more compassion on those who were brought up in bad families and do not know what good behavior really is.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 6:58 PM By gravey
News Flash: Hell has frozen over. In an unrelated story: Grisha has actually made a cogent statement.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 7:00 PM By Dan
"We're all likely better off if serving public officials leave theology to the various religions and concentrate on civil matters. " While I sympathize with this sentiment, Grisha, it is the LBGT political activism that invites/requires some kind of response from elected officials. Now this was an interview, not a policy statement. Yet look at the turmoil It seems that clashes are inevitable if elected officials let their faith give any direction to their public policy.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 7:34 PM By J.T.
I respect all individuals. And all individuals must respect each other irregardless of sexual orientation. But, one must be honest about the truth. Sodom and Gomorrah did exist and were definitely destroyed. Even archeological finds are beginning to prove this. So biblically it's quite coherent. Why do they (homosexuals) try to distort the truth when in reality, we all fall short from God's glory because we are all sinners!!! Therefore, we are all called to change and to convert from are old ways.Lord Jesus will forgive us if we dare ask Him. It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with LOVE. Love heals! Hatred destroys! We're not going to accomplish anything if we pursue the wrong course. The pope Benedict reminded us of that two weeks ago from Rome.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 7:55 PM By MarkF
Notice that this mayor is a Protestant, a man of a tradition that emphasizes individual action and personal theology. We as Catholics hopefully can learn to speak the truth with the calm security of a two-thousand year old tradition and not let the messenger become the story instead of the message.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 8:15 PM By Anita
No one has ever been in any closet, nor will anyone do so. Unfortunately, the homoxexual agenda is openly militant against the world and wants everyone to agree with them. We happen to live in a free society in most countries, except of course, dictatorships and we all have a right to our own opinion and freedom of speech to express it. No one should try to dictate what the rest of us think or say, by shoving homosexuality down our throats and telling us we must agree to it. Right on Tony B, I agree.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 9:56 PM By carlos de la mora
gays are wrong with their life style it is an aberration and contrary to the natural order of life. they have the rigth of leaving as they wish, but are wrong in pushing for acceptance ,they must have the courage to reap the results of their aberrated life style .
|
Posted Thursday, December 17, 2009 6:54 AM By Brian McN.--Canada
Love the Sinner--NOT THE SIN
What at great Bumper Sticker and Button that would make!
It would fit for Abortion Clinics, HomoSEXuals, GotAidsYet?, and the TransPHOBIAS, who would surely cringe, and perhaps mend their SINFUL WAYS?
If there was an Email address in these news items, it would be very easy for all readers to write to the Mayor, in support of his statement.
|
Posted Thursday, December 17, 2009 7:46 AM By katie
Your headline gives the wrong impression of the controversy - NO ONE ACTUALLY SAID THIS! This contributes to the controversy rather than just reporting on it - the Mayor's one big mistake was talking to the NY Times about anything - he is clearly a fair-minded, consensus builder and doesn't deserve the Times misuse of his statement.
|
Posted Thursday, December 17, 2009 8:05 AM By John Andersen
Grisha, your comment that elected officials should stick to civics sounds good, but is unfortunately naive. Homosexual activists and apoligists have been shoving their sexual practices and preferences into the "public square" for several decades now. And you are suggesting that those of us who believe differently should just sit back and be quiet?
|
Posted Thursday, December 17, 2009 8:45 AM By John Andersen
Grisha, your comment that elected officials should stick to civics sounds good, but is unfortunately naive. Homosexual activists and apoligists have been shoving their sexual practices and preferences into the "public square" for several decades now. And you are suggesting that those of us who believe differently should just sit back and be quiet?
|
Posted Thursday, December 17, 2009 8:58 AM By JLS
Katie, it was said by Pacific Justice Institute's Kevin Snider, as noted in the article. The mayor's mistake is not having taken the bull by the horns, that is his courage, his spiritual fire, his Godly morality. As I previously pointed out, Mayor Osby Davis has launched a pre-emptive strike against the fools who side with and promote the sin of sodomy. He has drawn the line in the sand. What he deserves is victory, not kid gloves. Why is it that you lilly livered types always focus on feelings and how to avoid the slightest discomfort? Don't you have any feelings that drive you towards placing the will of God into society?
|
Posted Thursday, December 17, 2009 9:02 AM By JLS
J.T., your rant on respect omits the first priority of respect, which is to respect God. God does indeed differentiate people based on their commitment to sin. Sodomites are the least respectable people on the face of the earth, and manifest the consequence of all sin. Your phony morality is like building a campfire and roasting marshmellows just down the street from where the neighborhood is burning down. Once again, respect means God first and then you and your neighbor.
|
Posted Thursday, December 17, 2009 11:06 AM By Grisha
John: Good to hear from you. Even though, as you know, I disagree most of the time with your analysis on these social issues, certainly you and your colleagues ought to voice your opinion in the public square. I do believe , however that in a multi-confessional society, the argument "public policy should be _____ because MY religion believes _____," probably isn't very good argument. Case in point; Catholicism teaches that artificial birth control is a sin. Traditional Anglicans, who are very close to us theologically, generally hold that isn't. Similarly, a Reform Jewish woman I know openly admires much about the Catholic Church. However when it comes to gay marriage her religion teaches differently and the rabbi at her synagogue performs several a year. I hope all is well with you and your family this Christmas season.
|
Posted Thursday, December 17, 2009 2:25 PM By Jim
The mayor was wrong to say that "being gay" is a sin. That is not Church teaching. The Church distinguishes between being and acting.
|
Posted Thursday, December 17, 2009 7:00 PM By MarkF
Grisha my friend, do I have enough credibility with you to recommend a book? If so, I'd like to read "Truth and Tolerance" by Cardinal Ratzinger. He talks about the idea of relativism that you just suggested. You're saying that we would have more peace in the world if people left out their religious truths from the public square. Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out that even relativism and muticulturalism do not lead to peace, but to confusion. And worse, when the truth which is Christ is left out of life, then man becomes not an angelic but demonic. I like your kindness but I'm afraid that your kindness can have unintended consequences. A separate argument can also be made that opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage is not based only on religious revelation but also on natural law and common sense. Also, just because someone disagrees with us does not mean that we cannot legislate.
|
Posted Thursday, December 17, 2009 11:05 PM By 1abqdad
So, if I quote the bible I am now being "hateful"? Does this mean that the liberals now want to claim that the bible is hateful? I knew that eventually the liberals would claim that following Christ was illegal because it would be considered "discrimination" to call a sin what it is... a sin! The PC nonsense has grown to the level of promoting sinful behaviors! No matter what all of the humanists, fanatical gays, and pseudo-Catholic liberals claim, the bible is CLEAR... To engage in a homosexual act is a SIN...PERIOD! (To "be" gay is not a sin, but to act upon it IS a sin.) As the bible also clearly states, to promote homosexual ACTIVITY as "normal" is also a SIN! (To promote sin is a sin.) If the liberals can't handle God's values, their complaint is with God, not me! My responsibility is to follow God's values, not man's.
|
Posted Thursday, December 17, 2009 11:20 PM By 1abqdad
Grisha - As a Catholic, I could care less about the beliefs of heretics. So, the errant beliefs of the Anglicans and reform Jews is totally irrelevant. the last time i checked, the site was "Cal CATHOLIC, NOT CALANGLICAN"! I am particularly concerned about your distortion of the actual "doctrine" wrt artificial birth control. Church doctrine states that ANY method that destroys a "baby" (fetus), is abortion and a grave sin. All of the so-called "artificial" methods are contrary to church "teaching", but NOT doctrine...Yes, there IS a difference! The issues are very complex and are associated with the degradation of society, the marital union, our cultural as well as individual psychological, and spiritual degradation. I refer you to the encyclical, Humanae Vitae (July 25, 1968) by Paul VI. If you were to actually READ it, I believe that ALL of you issues would be resolved. (If NOT, you need prayer...) The biggest problem with the heretic religions is that "man" establishes their beliefs, NOT God; consequently, their beliefs are of NO concern to a Catholic!
|
Posted Friday, December 18, 2009 12:53 AM By Anne T.
I believe the mayor meant practicing homosexuals and most do when they make such a comment.
|
Posted Monday, December 21, 2009 3:32 PM By Abeca Christian
This is a free country! Right? Then why all the fuss. We have the right to object all that is sinful.
|
Posted Monday, December 21, 2009 6:12 PM By JLS
Jim, "being gay" means to practice homosexuality ie sodomy. That is one of the gravest of sins. Having a condition of same sex attraction is not a sin, but it is a sin to believe it is the way God intends. One must always strive for holiness, which means to give up unnatural attractions, disordered attractions and faults.
|
Posted Monday, December 21, 2009 11:48 PM By Jamison
Abeca, in a "free country", people can fuss all they want.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 22, 2009 9:34 AM By JLS
Wrong, Jamison. Freedom is in Jesus Christ, not anywhere else. Freedom has responsibilities, which means obeying the rule of God. Homosexualism is one of the most heinous forms of slavery and bondage. It needs to be outlawed, because it attacks and threatens to destroy society, civilization and individual souls.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 22, 2009 3:34 PM By Jamison
JLS, "wrong" describes your interpretation of my post. As I use it, the word "can" expresses possibility, as in the Church's teaching that "Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself." (CCC#1861) In other words, with freedom, man can sin. Indeed, God permits evil because he respects the freedom of his creatures. (CCC#31) So in a free country, a man CAN fuss all he wants, even if it's sinful or wrong. However, not all fussing is sinful or wrong, otherwise you may be digging a hole for yourself with your every fuss. As to "homosexualism", that's your made up fuss word, some windmill you tilt at.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 22, 2009 5:20 PM By JLS
Jamison, you left your liberal rhetoric open to any number of interpretations. And your reply proves my point. Thanks. God is no respecter of man ... Scripture. The word, "homosexualism" is not my made up word, Jamison, but is common lingo. Odd that you put on that you know everything, but then that is what liberals do. But the real issue in your post, Jamison, is that you toss out a colloquialism and then deny what you meant by it, by the cheap trick of resorting to define it formally.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 22, 2009 5:58 PM By Mark from PA
JLS, I had a good discussion with a priest who has a masters of divinity degree. He told me that most people have a degree of homosexual orientation according to the sexual orientation continuum. He also agreed with me that NARTH is not a reputable organization. You say that being gay means one practices sodomy, but this is not true. One's orientation is a state of being. So you think, homosexuality should be outlawed. How do you propose to do that?
|
Posted Wednesday, December 23, 2009 8:38 AM By Abeca Christian
Jamison growing up, I learned a great deal from my grandmother who in my opinion was filled with God's wisdom and God's knowledge, she once said that a society that is truly free, it is one that is free from sin. Man has free will, when man chooses God's path and obeys His commandments with love and humility, even through hardships and even through overcoming our own sinfulness with God's love and graces through His sacraments, then he is truly free and not a slave to his own sinfulness but when men choose other paths, even though he may think he is free, in reality, depending on the types of sins that drive his freedom to free will, then he is truly not free because in actuality he is a slave to his own sins that may actually cause his own damnation.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 23, 2009 6:31 PM By Jamison
Abeca, thank you for sharing what your grandmother taught you. By defining "free country" as "a society that is truly free... that is free from sin", you affirm what I posted, that "in a 'free country', people can fuss all they want" -- for he who is truly free, free from sin is the most and truly able to fuss (and/or sin) all he wants. As the Church teaches, "The root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord." (CCC#1853) Indeed, the Church teaches that man "freely sinned" and it was through this "abuse of freedom" that "he deceived himself and became a slave to sin". (CCC#1739) Of course, even though, as a result, "Man's freedom is limited and fallible" (CCC#1739), it remains that "“One CAN sin against God's love in various ways.” (CCC#2094) Partial loss of freedom does not mean one can't sin (or "fuss"). So now you can apply your grandmother's wisdom to your own question ("This is a free country! Right? Then why all the fuss.") and realize, as I've said, that with freedom, man can fuss all he wants. Or, if you prefer, to sin.
|
Posted Friday, December 25, 2009 4:15 PM By Abeca Christian
Jamison huh? Okie Dokie. So what you are trying to convey? Are you with or against what Vallejo Mayor Osby Davis commented? Yes the liberals will make a fuss at what he said because they are choosing to quite down freedom of speech especially when one of faith speaks against such sins. That is exactly what I am conveying, why all the fuss on speaking up against such immortal sins. I guess some people choose not to follow the politically correct path and the liberals will punish those who don't go by their rules.
|
Posted Saturday, December 26, 2009 1:51 PM By Jamison
Abeca, you asked if I'm "with or against" what the Vallejo mayor said. What the Vallejo mayor said included his statement that "being gay" is a "sin". Although there are multiple possible interpretations of the phrase "being gay", a sizable number, if not the majority, of everyday people who hear the phrase "being gay" interpret it as pretty much equivalent to the phrase used in the Catechism which reads: "experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex". Interpreted thus, the mayor's statement was not in accord with Church teaching, as the Church has stated that the "inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin". The Church teaches that such persons "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." To the extent that the mayor's choice of words failed in that regard, i.e. that his choice of words were insensitive towards the distinction between inclination and behavior, then the mayor's words were ripe for criticism. In regard to your mention of "immortal sins" (which I suspect you meant to say "mortal sins"?), the Church teaches that "although we can judge that an act [by someone else] is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God." Whatever someone else's grave offense may be, it's not for me to speak/judge them to be mortal sins. And finally, you asked, "why all the fuss on speaking up against such [...] sins"? To that, I ask you, was Jesus "fussing" or letting people sin when he said, "Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own?...You hypocrite! Remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter in your brother's eye."
|
Posted Saturday, December 26, 2009 10:16 PM By Jamison
Abeca, I might also ask you, who is "one of faith" in your post? The mayor? According to the transcript, the mayor apparently claimed to be Christian. He referred to a gay man’s partner as the man's "spouse". He claimed that all sin is alike and that any and every sin keeps you out of heaven. With (dis)respect to gay people, he said "when you look at someone who is gay… you look at them as if they are in fact committing sin and that sin will keep them out of heaven." He said that if he believes anyone else is wrong, then the other person is the one who must change. Indeed, he said he prays that they change. According to the mayor, "they have a problem and not me." Is that what Christ taught? The mayor said, "I really don’t understand why the Christian faith seems to send up an alarm for people to start seeing, for lack of a better term, a bogeyman behind every tree." Is it possible that if he understood the Christian faith as taught by the Catholic Church rather than as the Assemblies of God professes it to be that perhaps he'd see a bogeyman behind his own words? To quote the Church, "The eighth commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in our relations with others" and "Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the duty of reparation". Perhaps the "fuss" is a calling for reparation.
|
Posted Sunday, December 27, 2009 11:13 PM By Abeca Christian
Jamison oh I get you now. Partially actually, what I get at reading your post is that you seem to misinterpret holy scripture and the catechism, usually that is a syndrome that most in bad will or even good people fall into temptation with, usually try to do just to fit in their own ideologies. It is a sin most people get in a jam with. It has nothing to with splinter in your eye theory, no not at all. That is what makes a heretic, a good heretic is usually one that is truly misleading and can actually lead others astray. just be very careful of that. The cure for this syndrome, is a good confession with a good priest and a good dose of humility and conversion.
|
Posted Monday, December 28, 2009 9:12 AM By Mark from PA
You are right, Jamison. Mayor Davis is not Catholic so his statement is not in accord with Church teaching. He believes that being gay is a sin. He probably doesn't like gay people. His statement does not show respect or sensitivity. Mayor Davis probably needs to "remove the wooden beam" from his eye.
|
Posted Monday, December 28, 2009 12:02 PM By JLS
PA, Mayor Davis is talking about the homosexuals who practice and or advocate homosexuality ... and both are abyssmally grave sins of the worst sort. Catholicism teaches that the practice of homosexuality is a grave sin ... which is what Davis is saying.
|
Posted Monday, December 28, 2009 3:19 PM By Jamison
Whether the words "gay" and "straight" refer to attraction, inclination, the practice/advocacy of sinful acts, "lifestyle" or whatever, the fact remains that the Church does not teach that "gay" people and their "lifestyle" are more sinful or in greater need of attention or salvation than other people. Indeed, "gay" people are but a splinter of the population. Refocusing the mayor’s statement with that in mind, he might have instead said: "The vast majority of my friends, very close friends, are NOT gay. I don't believe that their lifestyle is correct but that's a decision that they have to make. I don't stop loving them because they're not gay." Or this: "The sins that keep you out of heaven are not just those sins of being straight, those are sins of lying, murdering, unforgiving, all kinds of sins… So when you look at someone who is straight, like me… you look at them as if they are in fact committing sin and that sin will keep them out of heaven." I'm not saying that's what he should have said. I'm saying it’s no less true/false, offensive, outrageous or ridiculous for the mayor to speak of people who are "gay" in that manner than it is to speak of people who are "straight", Catholic, Jewish, Mexican or city mayors in that way. All mankind is in need of salvation. To focus on the splinter of population called "gays" as if, to use the mayor's words, "they have a problem and not me", is the blindness of the wooden beam. As the Church teaches, "in everyone, the weeds of sin will still be mixed with the good wheat of the Gospel until the end of time." (CCC#827) Thus, everyone, every candidate harbors an “agenda” and a "lifestyle" mixed with sin until the end of time.
|
Posted Monday, December 28, 2009 4:01 PM By MarkF
Jamison, yes, except that all the other sinners you've talked about aren't marching in the streets to have their sins enshrined into law and accepted as holy. Nice try. But sin is still sin, no matter what verbal trickery you attempt.
|
Posted Monday, December 28, 2009 4:10 PM By JLS
Abjectly incorrect you are, Jamison. The Church clearly teaches that the condition of same sex attraction is a grave disorder of nature, and that any practice of homosexuality is a grave sin ... obviously this includes any and all of the "gay agenda" which is the political power front for those who want to defy God by thrusting the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah onto society. Anyone professing homosexuality as normal or "ordered" in nature defies Church doctrine; anyone who professes that practicing homosexuals are not sinful is sinning by bearing false witness against the Church. The Church, Jamison, is commissioned by Jesus to preach the Gospel and disciple the nations ... the latter meaning to instill the discipline of the Gospel in all nations, all peoples. You don't do that by telling them that they can do what they please. The Catholic has the obligation to inform the sinner of their sin, and help correct that sinner.
|
Posted Monday, December 28, 2009 6:01 PM By Abeca Christian
The goal of the homosexual agenda is to redefine values and desensitize sinful behavior. Their goal is slowly implanted and slowly works itself in the subconscious of the modern world, changing the real meaning to fit their way of lifestyles and choices away from God. They continually change meaning of things and twist the truth. It is a trick that only the devil has perfected in others in bad will.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 29, 2009 1:36 PM By Jamison
MarkF, last I checked, fornication, adultery, pornography, masturbation, lust and sexual sins of practically every kind under the sun, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are legal virtually everywhere in the U.S. It can be seen in the streets, the shopping malls, Internet, TV, movies, magazines, public conversations, politics, etc every day of the year. Even prostitutes, as illegal as prostitution still is, parade about day and night. And yes, many prostitutes also in fact claim what they do is holy and should be enshrined into law. Sometimes the most obvious things are the easiest to overlook, especially if one is not willing to open one's eyes.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 29, 2009 3:13 PM By Jamison
JLS, "abjectly incorrect" is your interpretation of my post. The Church teaches that all mankind suffers from disordered appetites/inclinations as a result of original sin, and that the deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason -- heterosexual or homosexual, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose, and thus intrinsically disordered. For example, masturbation is intrinsically and gravely disordered, as is fornication, adultery (and Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire), pornography, prostitution, rape, etc. They are all "grave sins" and intrinsically and gravely disordered. As such, under no circumstances can they be approved. It remains as I have said, that the Church does not teach that "gay" people and their "lifestyle" are more sinful or in greater need of attention or salvation than other people. Every sinner has a sinner's lifestyle. Who is not a sinner? Who is not in constant need of God’s patience, love and forgiveness? Do you profess that you need Christ less than "gay" people need Christ? And as to your claim that "You don't [preach the Gospel and disciple the nations] by telling them that they can do what they please," I share the Church's approved teachings: "One CAN sin against God's love in various ways” (CCC#2094) and "[God] permits it because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it." (CCC#311) And I repeat what I've clearly said: The word "can" expresses possibility, as in the Church's teaching that "Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself." (CCC#1861) And I'll offer another teaching as well: "Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it." (CCC#2478)
|
Posted Wednesday, December 30, 2009 3:25 PM By Cristy
If we believe that homesexuality is a sin, we are free of thinking that. It is our choice to think that. People have to respect our views. If a person believes that homesexuality is not a sin and decides to practice it, it is their choice. But it does not mean that they have to convince us that it is not a sin and force us to practice it. We should not be punished for not believing and for not practicing homesuxuality.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 30, 2009 3:30 PM By paul tony
This is one of the more interesting and enlightening discussions I have seen on this topic. Thank you each for commenting. My thought is that the Mayor's comments were intentionally twisted by the NYT to stir anger in the GLBT community. An honest accounting would have shown him to be the man of honor and integrity he is. I have some people I thoroughly disagree with personally and politically, but I call them friends that I respect because we can have a dialog with each other and not wield opinions and feelings as a sword to injure each other. We don't take sides, there aren't sides as we see it.....why in the world can't the rest of us deal with it in that way. Drop the "anger" already!
|
Posted Wednesday, December 30, 2009 4:41 PM By TK
IM NOT GOING IN MY CLOSET BUT TOO GET MY CLOTHES.ONE THING IS FOR SURE IN THE END WE ARE ALL GOING TOO KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG.if you say their is noGOD and you want too continue in your lifesyle,I will pray for you".GOD doesnt want anyone too perish".GODis the truest form of LOVE their is.This is not about religion it is about where will you spend eternity?FOR EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW AND CONFESS I AM GOD.So we will all be judged no matter if you were in the closet or not.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 30, 2009 11:22 PM By JLS
God sends many souls to Hell; otherwise how would they get there? Many are called; few are chosen. I suggest we all take a review of the proportions revealed by Scripture.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 30, 2009 11:23 PM By JLS
paul tony, the anger against perverts is only going to gain momentum.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 30, 2009 11:25 PM By JLS
Jamison, that is not what the Church teaches. By disorder referring to homosexuality, the Church means disorder. It is not disordered for men to be sexually attracted to women; yet, for men to be sexually attracted to men is a disorder, a perversion of nature.
|
Posted Thursday, December 31, 2009 12:26 AM By MarkF
Jamison, you're so close to the truth that you can probably taste it. What point are you making when you list other sins along side of homosexual acts? To show that we're all human, that we all sin and that we all need the healing grace of God? Or so show that sin is no big deal because we all do it? To cut to the chase, do you think that the Church should teach that homosexual acts are gravely disordered?
|
Posted Thursday, December 31, 2009 12:33 AM By joe
Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right it is A Life Style.
Therefore, it is a Health Issue. The State has no business teaching that "Same sex is Okay". It is leading innocent children into a snake-pit on your tax dollars. To deny that it is a public "Health Problem" is a big "Lie".
|
Posted Thursday, December 31, 2009 4:48 AM By Mark from PA
Note to TK, putting an extra o on the word "to" for emphasis is not correct. Too is an adverb. Are you trying to say in your post that it is a sin to be "in the closet"? What is your point? Cristy, people don't choose to be homosexual, this is just their orientation. You can't force someone to be gay if they are not. I think people should be accepted for who they are, no one is trying to force anyone to practice anything.
|
Posted Thursday, December 31, 2009 11:28 AM By MarkF
Joe, Absolutely right. We've got to frame the debate as a public health issue. There's so much data out there about the physical and mental health problems associated with homosexual behavior. Susan Cochran of UCLA documented that over half of all homosexuals are currently being treated for mental health problems. Another study showed the figure to be 70% over the course of the person's life. Dr. Stephen Goldstone, a physician who operates a predominantly gay practice in New York City says that "depression and mental health are serious issues for the gay and lesbian community." The same study revealed that close to 40% use so-called party drugs, such as cocaine, special K, crystal, ecstasy and GHB at least once a month and that those who participated in the survey were almost 100% out of the closet. These numbers all come from pro-homosexual groups too. The evidence is right in front of us, we just don't want to look at it. The Advocate, a homosexual magazine compiled its list of significant deaths in the homosexual community in the past year, like many groups do. Of the ten active homosexual men on the list, the average age of death was only 53. Two had died under the age of 35. Only two were over 75, all this is a world where the average age of death is well over 75. Two of these deaths were from AIDS. Three out of ten of these deaths were suicides! Compare this to any other group's list of passings in one year. Is this a healthy lifestyle? Why are we so afraid to speak the truth? The task in front of all of us is to learn to speak the truth in way that convinces good people and doesn't put them off.
|
Posted Thursday, December 31, 2009 2:19 PM By Jamison
JLS, if you dispute anything I wrote, you dispute either of two things or both: (1) Church teaching or (2) your own interpretation. The Church teaches that lust and sexual sin -- whether heterosexual or homosexual -- is disordered. As a result of original sin, all mankind is inclined to sin. You're no exception. "Straight" people are not exempt from that nor are "straight" people less inclined to sin than "gay" people nor do they fall less often or less hard. Just because I'm a "straight" person, that doesn't mean I'm less sinful or less disordered or have a better "lifestyle" than a "gay" person. If someone is a non-alcoholic person that does not mean that he is less disordered or has a better "lifestyle" than an alcoholic person. For example, a non-alcoholic person can be a psychopathic serial rapist murderer. The Church does not teach that "gay" people and their "lifestyle" are more sinful or in greater need of attention or salvation than other people.
|
Posted Thursday, December 31, 2009 2:36 PM By Jamison
MarkF, thank you for your question, but I have already clearly answered them. As I have already stated, "The Church teaches that all mankind suffers from disordered appetites/inclinations as a result of original sin, and that the deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason -- heterosexual or homosexual, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose, and thus intrinsically disordered. For example, masturbation is intrinsically and gravely disordered, as is fornication, adultery (and Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire), pornography, prostitution, rape, etc. They are all 'grave sins' and intrinsically and gravely disordered. As such, under no circumstances can they be approved." As to the notion that "sin is no big deal because we all do it", I will remind of what St. Paul said in Romans 2, "[Y]ou, the judge, are doing the very same things... Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?... All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it."
|
Posted Thursday, December 31, 2009 3:17 PM By Jamison
MarkF, in regard to your alleged studies, that there are "mental health problems associated" with being a member of the homosexual community does not establish that the problems are caused by homosexuality per se or by being a member of such a community. Correlation is not causation. There are mental health problems associated with a wide variety of social groups. For example, studies have found that Latino youth experience proportionately more anxiety-related and delinquency problem behaviors, depression, and drug use than do non-Hispanic white youth. At the same time, Latinos had a suicide rate of about 6% compared to 13% for non-Hispanic whites. No such studies establish that the problem is homosexuality or race rather than how such persons are respected in society. Likewise, your analysis of a "list of significant deaths in the homosexual community in the past year" published in a gay activist magazine is not science. The magazine did not choose people to showcase at random from among all "gay" people at large. One might survey the ages of the women showcased in Playgirl magazine and find them to be on the young side too. Or you can survey the ages of soldiers who died in the Iraq war, and they will also be on the young side. Like many things, sex and war and the associated casualties, are generally domains of the young. If older people participated in them as much as younger, the age of casualties would go up. Moreover, that something carries risk, whether it's sex or hang gliding or football, does not establish it to be immoral.
|
Posted Thursday, December 31, 2009 4:37 PM By The Truth Hurts
Jamison, Are you new to this website or are you the multi-moniker poster who discriminates by omitting a crucial part of the Catechism? Not a single poster on this website has ever once stated that homosexual sins are the only sins. Why are you distracting the real issue? Are you the same person who feels that Catholic websites are no place for instructing a dissenter who just happens to also be a homosexual? Jamison, do you believe that God makes people homosexual? If you are not the multi-moniker poster then you should be informed that issue being avoided is the dissenting Catholics who proudly and consistently make up their own teachings regarding the Catholic Faith. There has not been one heterosexual poster who has openly with pride admitted that he or she is a fornicator, an adulterer, a pornographer, a lustful creature and so proud that God made them that way. There have been dissenting homosexuals who do claim to be proud that they dissent. Stop distracting from the core truth of the issue. Mark from PA and Grisha openly and proudly teach error and that is the issue. No one has ever intimated that anyone or any class of people is sinless. You need to remove that beam of distraction from your eyes. You keep steering away from instructing the Catholic dissenters who are proud to cause confusion, lead others in error and then swear that God made them that way and they're so proud of it. Jamison"?" Why did you leave out instructing and advising the sinner when it is is also taught in the Catechism? The Spiritual Works of Mercy are also meant to be used until the end of time. Love all sinners with instruction....Avoid all those who refuse to lead you closer to God by dodging, ducking and weaving away from His Teachings. .In other words "Rope a Dope" distraction from ever giving loving instruction. When Catholic dissenters float like a butterfly without instruction, the devil will sting like a bee!
|
Posted Thursday, December 31, 2009 5:08 PM By Mark from PA
You say 40% use so-called party drugs. How many people are in this sample? Are these people all from New York? This study might only be representative of a small group of people of a certain age group in a limited geographical area. It is sad that drug abuse is a problem with young people. AIDS is a definite problem. It is an increasing problem among minority women. People do need to take care of their health. This is an important issue for everyone. In regards to schools, an increasing number of schools have abstinence programs.
|
Posted Thursday, December 31, 2009 8:05 PM By Abeca Christian
JLS and MarkF great replies to Jamison.
|
Posted Thursday, December 31, 2009 8:21 PM By Jamison
MarkF, Susan Cochran’s study found that lesbian and bisexual women who had not been diagnosed with mental and drug disorders were more likely to seek mental health counseling than heterosexual women. This is consistent with emerging findings from national surveys showing that many individuals who seek counseling do not have a diagnosable disorder but may experience stress or other difficulties in functioning that lead them to seek care. The researchers considered several factors that may explain these findings. Discrimination, violence and other stressful life events may be greater among sexual and gender minorities, they said, and homosexuality and issues associated with it may be construed as mental health problems — particularly among racial and ethnic minorities — which may encourage people to seek treatment. In Susan Cochran’s words, “The pervasive and historically rooted societal pathologizing of homosexuality may contribute to this propensity for treatment by construing homosexuality and issues associated with it as mental health problems.” Further, in gay and lesbian communities, therapeutic services are considered appropriate places for coping with the stresses associated with being a sexual minority. By comparison, non-gay/lesbian minority communities may underutilize services for mental health and substance use problems for a variety of reasons, including a lack of familiarity with the types of services available, prior negative experiences with service providers, or because of greater stigma attached to use of these services by their families and communities. It is this difference in utilization rates between communities that the study measured and which can give the appearance that gay/lesbian communities experience greater mental health problems, when in reality, the fact that they’re more open to seeking counseling may actually reflect better mental health and reduce the likelihood of being diagnosed with a disorder. So said the study.
|
Posted Friday, January 01, 2010 6:53 AM By Mark from PA
That is sobering, Mark, about the list of significant deaths in The Advocate. I've never read this magazine so I'll take your word here. What you said is a challenge to the gay community. AIDS and suicide are problems that must be addressed and dealt with. And everyone, gay and straight needs to try and live a healthy lifestyle. But saying that, I wonder what the average age of death is for celibate gay priests. I think gay or straight; illegal drug use, abuse of alcohol and multiple sex partners takes a terrible toll on a person's life and health. People need to live healthy.
|
Posted Friday, January 01, 2010 8:24 AM By Grisha
Two Comments: TTH My primary disagreement with you and some others in this forum centers on the question "What is the best pastoral approach for a faithful Catholic to adopt in a relationship with someone who is homosexual?" My position my be right or wrong , but I don't believe it's "in error" as defined by the Church. MARK F: A lot of people see mental health professionals for a variety of reasons. Sometimes those reasons are purely recreational. Many are also asked to by their physicians, loved ones etc. to do so and don't. I happen to be one of them. Like a lot of us, I'm under heavy work stress. My primary care physician would like me to see a Social Worker about it. I've declined, for now, on the basis that the only thing that will really help is the situational problems being resolved. However, the last thing we need to do is stigmatize people who "see shrinks."
|
Posted Friday, January 01, 2010 9:45 AM By MarkF
Jamison, you're amazing what hoops you'll jump through in order to defend homosexuality. "If someone is a non-alcoholic person that does not mean that he is less disordered or has a better "lifestyle" than an alcoholic person." Want to tell that to a a recovering alcoholic? Want to tell that to the family of someone who is an alcoholic? What's your advice to them? "You can stop drinking but it doesn't matter because you're still be a sinner." If we all are un-redeemable sinners and if all human behavior is hopelessly disordered, then why did Jesus even bother to tell people not to sin? You're verging on Calvinism here, that man is un-redeemable and is always thoroughly evil. And like other Calvinists, you end up at the same place. You start with the idea that man is always thoroughly evil and end up at the place where there is no sin and everything we do is fine. The Church teaches repentance for sins, conversion of heart and that some behaviors are sins, while others are not. You're teaching both Calvinism and moral relativism here.
|
Posted Friday, January 01, 2010 10:06 AM By MarkF
About Susan Cochran and her study, I am well aware of what she SPECULATED about why so many active homosexuals are in mental health treatment. However, I'm sticking to the FACTS of what she uncovered. If she had dared to speak the truth, that homosexual behavior leads to mental health problems, she would have been the subject to the same Stalinist censorship that anyone who speaks up these days is subject too. A recent British study also found high rates of mental health problems in homosexuals and also SPECULATED that the cause is this evil, Christian society again. On a purely speculative level this could be true. Yet also on a purely speculative level it could also be true that the cause was the behavior itself. But this never happens out of fear from the powerful pro-homosexual, pro-hedonism groups. The English study also showed that the YOUNGEST homosexual men had the most problems, not the oldest ones. They SPECULATED that this was due to the young being more out, and thus more exposed to all that horrible, Christian bigotry. Hmmmm. And I thought that "coming out" was all about releasing oneself from the horrors of the closet? I thought that "coming out" was the answer to all the inner demons due to that horrible Christian culture? Well, now it seems that the homosexual groups need to be on an ENDLESS campaign to chase down the demons that cause all these mental health problems. And if fact they ARE on an ENDLESS campaign. Because the cause of the problem is the behavior itself. An ocean of "tolerance" from society will never erase the damage that this behavior does. What studies are showing is that no matter HOW tolerant society is, the problems don't go away, but instead they get worse. No place on earth, not in the most "tolerant" countries like New Zealand, Holland or America, are active homosexuals living a healthy life.
|
Posted Friday, January 01, 2010 10:15 AM By MarkF
On the list of deaths of prominent homosexuals this past year in the Advocate, well...how much more clear does it have to be for you to take the blinders off? Read any such end of year list by any other group. Read the list of famous Catholics who died this past year, or famous Jews who died this year, or famous Canadians who died this year, or famous Hollywood entertainers. I have read these lists for this past year. The average age of death was NOT 53. Thirty percent did NOT commit suicide. Way more than 20% lived to age 75 years. And Jamison, you said it right, "Or you can survey the ages of soldiers who died in the Iraq war, and they will also be on the young side." Yup, because WAR is bad for your health. And so is homosexual behavior.
|
Posted Friday, January 01, 2010 10:34 AM By MarkF
Grisha, I agree with you that what we need is to find the best pastoral way of dealing with people where they are. We can't just yell at people for being sinners, especially people who sin in sexual ways. Not in this society at least. Not when we have all these Catholics who use birth control and who cohabitate, and who get divorced and remarried. And I do make a firm distinction between what I write on here, which is usually in a general sense to a wide audience, and what I say to my friends who are still trapped in the homosexual ideology and behavior. Where I think you're wrong - very wrong - is that you don't want to admit to how dangerous this behavior is. You seem to treat it as a harmless, safe and minor fault. When you do this, you are trusting not in the timeless faith but in transitory contemporary notions, and in the misguided statements of those who are ensnared in this sin. Sin has its season you know. When you make the comparison to your own need for counseling due to stress, you're getting closer to the truth though. Homosexual behavior is like your job. The problem is not all in your head. It's real and your stress is caused by real problems, real bad things that have happened to you at work. And you're right...the only thing that will help is to resolve the situation. In the case of homosexuality, the cause of the mental health problems is the behavior. The solution in your case is not to pretend that your job is fine when in fact it is destructive. To continue the analogy to homosexuality, some people say that the solution is to reform society, in the same way your problem could be solved by reforming your boss or whatever it is in your job. Well, haven't we tried this for the past thirty years? Where is the progress with homosexuality? Where is it on earth are homosexuals not plagued with health problems? Maybe your job is just toxic and can't be fixed. And maybe homosexuality is the same way.
|
Posted Friday, January 01, 2010 12:13 PM By Grisha
Mark F: One thing I've never been clear on - and in fact I suspect the Church could teach more clearly, is the relative grievance of mortal sins. Compare for example the sexual sins you just mentioned birth control , cohabitation, homosexual acts, masturbation etc. and the individual on a client's board of directors a who is the main stressor for me and others. Like everyone, I've met a lot of bad people in my life but he is one of only three whom I'd term as "evil." Essentially he tries to destroy people financially, emotionally etc. for the fun of it. Are , for example, a married couple who use birth control, or for that matter, a lesbian couple who have sex a few of times a week, committing as grievous a sin as he is? I think this question goes to the heart of the matter of our differences. Happy New Years.
|
Posted Friday, January 01, 2010 1:44 PM By Jamison
MarkF, I'm not going to lie to people in order to puff them up with false hope. What authority do I have to tell people, "You are inferior to me, but if you stop drinking you won't ever sin again and you'll be superior to your brothers and sisters." Instead, as Phillipians 2 says, "Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus, Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross." That's the "lifestyle" -- humility, obedience, servitude, not grasping at superiority, and suffering with Christ as required. As to your claim that I'm teaching Calvinism and relativism, if you do not comprehend what you read, do not make the mistake of projecting your ignorance and falsehoods upon others. Instead, admit your ignorance and ask for help. Your soul will appreciate it.
|
Posted Friday, January 01, 2010 2:06 PM By Jamison
MarkF, contrary to your claim, you did not "stick to the facts" of what Susan Cochran uncovered. For example, you claimed that she "documented that over half of all homosexuals are currently being treated for mental health problems." No she did not She documented that somewhat less than half of a limited set of California lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals reported receiving treatment sometime in the past year. In your subsequent post, you then proceeded to ramble on with more of your speculations, claiming them to be fact. For example, you say, "the cause of the problem is the behavior itself." The Church does not teach that all the sufferings that a homosexual person faces are due to his own homosexual acts. Indeed, many homosexual persons who have never engaged in a homosexual act suffer greatly and from the ignorance and falsehoods spoken by persons such as yourself. The Church teaches that homosexual persons "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." Please abide by the Church's instruction.
|
Posted Friday, January 01, 2010 2:12 PM By Jamison
MarkF, whether it's Holland or the United States or wherever, there is no country or city anywhere in the world where homosexuality and “gay” people are respected or accepted to the same degree as heterosexuality and “straight” people. Despite the hype of “tolerance” surrounding places like Holland, study after study finds that the layer of alleged social acceptance of gay people is exceptionally superficial, fragile and thin. For example, according to a Dutch government study published a few weeks ago, some 70% of gay men and woman have been subjected to verbal or physical attacks because of their sexual orientation, and most of them do not report the incident to the authorities because they do not feel the authorities can or will do anything about it. Some 70% of attacks were verbal while 30% involved threatening behavior or actual violence, the survey showed. Analysis of actual reports made to the police showed that 86% of the perpetrators were native white Dutch people and 14% from the ethnic minorities. Yet another study found that despite changes in the laws, personal attitudes against homosexuality remain strong in the Netherlands. For many people, the much hyped “tolerance” runs about as deep as “as long I don’t have to see it or deal with it”, and particularly so in regard to gay men rather than lesbians. The same cannot be said of the general public’s attitude toward heterosexuality. Discrimination, bullying at school, and sometimes deadly violence against gays are "widespread throughout the EU," the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights reported. Consequently, negative effects on “gay” people are not surprising, no matter the country.
|
Posted Friday, January 01, 2010 2:39 PM By Jamison
MarkF, comparing a list of "famous" Catholics or Jews to a list chosen by Advocate magazine is a ridiculous comparison. Such lists would typically be chosen by very different standards. Neither list demonstrates the effects of homosexual behavior so much as "fame" in the eye of the persons making the lists. I doubt that you, like most people, will appear on either such list. And neither such list will decide how long you will live.
|
Posted Friday, January 01, 2010 3:28 PM By Grisha
Oh, Mark F: The other thing I've never been clear on (Maybe it's in the CCC?) is the extent that sins are attenuated by mental illness. Two examples: The woman who tried to grab the Pope is probably mentally disturbed. She may have just wanted a blessing yet given his age, she could have hurt him. If she was totally out of touch with the reality of the situation did she not commit a sin? Second; the guy I referred to in the post above as being one of the 3 truly evil people I've met is very high functioning, yet has been diagnosed by a psychiatrist in the group as having a "Narcissistic Personality Disorder." is his constant causing needless hurt for others lessened as a sin because of his condition?
|
Posted Friday, January 01, 2010 4:27 PM By Jamison
TTH, you said, "You keep steering away from instructing the Catholic dissenters who are proud to cause confusion, lead others in error..." But I have been sharing the Church's instruction with you. For example, why do you speak of "dissenters" as if you're not among them? As the Church teaches: "in everyone, the weeds of sin will still be mixed with the good wheat of the Gospel until the end of time." (CCC#827) And while you speak of the pride of others, what of your own? The pride by which one thinks "They're the dissenters, they're the proud ones, not me", is that not a very blinding pride? When you claim I "leave out instructing and advising the sinner", do you think you are not a sinner and that I'm not sharing the Church's instruction with you? You along with countless others who may claim to be good Catholics can try "dodging, ducking and weaving away from His Teachings" all you want. But why? As I have posted, as St. Paul said in Romans 2, "[Y]ou, the judge, are doing the very same things... Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?... All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it." As John Dunne wrote in Meditation XVII, "Perchance he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill as that he knows not it tolls for him. And perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me, and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that."
|
Posted Friday, January 01, 2010 6:11 PM By Jamison
MarkF, here is some more of what Susan Cochran's study documented: "The majority of individuals who were classified as a sexual orientation minority reported being in good physical and mental health." Heterosexual persons reported higher unemployment, less insurance, lower income and less education than lesbian/gay/bisexual persons. Homosexually-experienced heterosexual men reported the highest levels of distress -- higher than bisexual men which were in turn higher than gay men. Gay men reported similar levels of psychological distress as exclusively heterosexual women. "Restricting comparisons to men who did not report HIV infection demonstrated no significant differences between gay men and exclusively heterosexual men, [and] had little effect on observed differences between homosexually experienced heterosexual men and exclusively heterosexual men." And to clarify, she stated, "When men who reported prevalent HIV infection were excluded from our analyses, many of the health differences between gay men and exclusively heterosexual men disappeared. Thus, it appears to be HIV infection rather than sexual orientation that increases health risks among gay-identified men." And, "when psychological distress was treated as a confounder of associations between sexual orientation and health, differences associated with sexual orientation among lesbians and bisexual women nearly disappeared. A similar effect was observed among gay men who did not report HIV infection." Moreover, "health complaints were not uniformly distributed among individuals with minority sexual orientations. For example, bisexual men in our study did not differ from exclusively heterosexual men in their reports of physical health or disability." And, "Our findings indicate that minority sexual orientation alone is not associated with poorer physical health."
|
Posted Friday, January 01, 2010 7:33 PM By MarkF
Jamison, no what you do is twist the catechism and the bible around to avoid your own personal repentance. Why bother reading all that? Just admit that you're a homosexual and get on with it. It would make life a lot more simple. And ah yes, the perpetual victimhood status of professional homosexuals. Yup, no doubt about it. The Dutch have brought back the Inquisition. Those Dutch are truly scary intolerant people. When will it end? They've got the rack over there with the ropes and whips. Hmmm...if that were really the case, all the gay guys would be looking for way to get into it. I'm also still waiting for you to explain how a drunk is the moral equivalent of a sober person, and how in saying so, that you're not pushing relativism.
|
Posted Friday, January 01, 2010 7:39 PM By JLS
MarkF, hang tough; Jamison is doing a dance called the "tuna". It's one more rendition of the characters in deep cahwahbungha who focus on every gnat they can find ways to talk about while rolling out the red carpet for the camels caravaning through their front doors.
|
Posted Friday, January 01, 2010 7:59 PM By MarkF
Grisha, back on planet earth here, you ask a good question. I really don't have an entirely certain answer but at first I'd say that you're proposing things that are not real. You propose a case of a happy married couple using birth control as if that's the whole story. The whole story as I see it is a society where sex has become a contact sport. Now of course sex has always bedeviled man. But since birth control and especially the pill, we've seen a breakdown of marriage and promiscuity replacing fidelity. Birth control leads to the idea that sex and child bearing are separate things. It leads to the idea of 'safe sex', which of course is a myth. It has lead to an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases. It has lead to people being sexually involved too soon and too easily, this creating marriages that never should have happened. This has fueled divorce. Contraception has lead to more unwanted pregnancies because people feels safe with it but it fails. Then they have an abortion. Some people think that the solution is MORE contraception. More of the same poison? OK, that's the wide view. How does an individual fit into this? One, I'd say that these things - contraception, homosexuality - are not what they appear on the outside, or as you suppose they are. They are not victimless sins. This is why, as I showed, when the Advocate listed ten gay men who died this past year, 30% were suicides and only two lived to be over 75. Some people can be alcoholics and be relatively unscathed. Other people, a friend I buried this year in fact, won't make it to age 50. What I'm saying to you is that in my experience, and its extensive, is that the reality of the "happy" lesbian couple you bring up is not the full story.
|
Posted Friday, January 01, 2010 8:20 PM By MarkF
Remember where I started at. I started this as a person who believed that homosexuality was great and that all the problems were caused by straight society. Yet I could not keep my eyes shut. What I see now is a straight society this is pretty tolerant. I was out for thirty years and my family and friends never had a problem with it. This is the same experience all my friends have had. Take a lot around you. Do you see a lot of discrimination towards gay people? Be honest. Does anyone harm these lesbians? Do they have jobs? Friends and family? Isn't there a whole TV network called Logo for gay people? TV shows? Movies? Harvey Milk and Sean Penn's Oscar? Brokeback Mountain? Where is the prejudice? We have gay members of congress, mayors and on and on. Yet up close we still see a pathological behavior. All the people I know, and my own experience has been that homosexuality starts off well, but ends badly. I saw this for thirty years, in thousands of guys' lives. I could write thousands of pages of what I saw. I saw how gay people, including myself, would lie to cover up what the reality of it is. To get it back to your psychotic boss, he's hurting you so his sin seems pretty big. And I'm sure they are. You're not being hurt directly by homosexuality. But please, open yourself up to the reality of this. 80% or more of the priestly abuse was on boys, half of gays in mental health treatment, suicide, drugs...some people don't want to look. They want to feel "tolerant" but in the end are more like enablers of alcoholics. At some point faith has to enter into it. Your eyes may see a happy lesbian couple, but the faith tells you that something is terribly wrong there. Someday you may see exactly what that is in that specific couple - domestic abuse, sexual abuse of kids, drugs, etc. Or you may never see it. But it is there.
|
Posted Friday, January 01, 2010 8:37 PM By MarkF
When I was a kid there was this myth that divorce was good for kids. Honest, that's what we were told. We were told that kids are better off with divorced parents. The Church always taught that marriage is forever and was laughed at. How outdated. Times have changed. People have changed. And where are we now? Kids with parents who are themselves perpetual teenagers, into one relationship, out of another. Kids with a series of new step dads, new step brothers and sisters. I've seen families where all of them have a different last name. But the Church is still ridiculed, laughed at and told she's out of touch. Maybe not as out of touch after all. The big problem now is that the bar has been lowered so much that we think that sickness is normal. If people circa 1965 could look to see family life around 2010, they would have been shocked and probably would not have changed the divorce laws. Now I suspect that we've largely lost that sense of right and wrong. OK, so we've normalized divorce and contraception out of misguided charity and we've ended up with broken homes, disease, divorce, promiscuity and abortion. Now we're asked to normalize homosexuality. "They're so funny on TV on Will and Grace." "I don't want to be intolerant." "They seem so nice when I see them at the super market." Many good people don't want to see the truth. It's scary. It makes us take a stand and be unpopular. What I wonder, and what I'm really scared of is, what's next? Ten tears ago would anyone think that we'd be really be debating gay marriage? It wasn't on the radar. Forty years ago, many people couldn't see the disaster that would come from changing the divorce laws? It all sounded so good for the kids, to get them out of that horrible institution of marriage. OK, now we know better. So what comes if homosexuality is normalized? Does it stop there? Has any of this produced anything other than a disaster? I hope that you can see what's really going on.
|
Posted Friday, January 01, 2010 8:48 PM By The Truth Hurts
Jamison, Once again Jamison you are comfortably backseat driving that taxicab in the wrong direction and at the same time trying to turn that steering wheel away from the real issue. You are a real defender of confusion! For the umpteenth time Jamison"?".... I accept and admit I am a sinner. For the umpteenth time, I am not trying to change the Gospel to fit my sins. The homosexual dissenters on this website ARE doing this and you are their defender with your silence. Do you think that when you only take the time to instruct, correct and advise CCD and those who are not homosexual that the glaring spotlight of inconsistency and injustice is not on you? Perchance the prolonged recess bell for liberals, who never want to instruct other liberal dissenters, is tolling for them to end their recess time on the "let's pretend that Church Teaching Allows This Playground." Do you agree with Grisha's comment that there should be women as permanent deacons? Jamison do you attend same sex weddings? Do you think that Catholics should encourage other Catholics to attend same sex weddings? Do you favor or accept homosexual domestic partnerships? Jamison you failed to answer my earlier question. Do you believe that God makes people homosexual? Jamison do you think that women should be priests? Please follow the Catechism's clear teaching about the Spiritual Works of Mercy instead of using John Dunne's Meditation XVII as an uncharitably lame diversion excuse to hide the truth under a rock. Please be balanced and lovingly instruct the openly dissenting posters who want the Catholic Teachings to change to fit their own sins or their own selective whims.
|
Posted Saturday, January 02, 2010 5:45 AM By RR
Jamison: TTH is not saying that they are without sin. Obviously, nobody is without sin. The difference is that we all sin, but their are sinners who just keep committing the same sins and are not repentant. Most of us when we sin go to confession and make a firm purpose of ammendment and try never to commit the sin again. We are only human and sometimes we fail and need to confess a sin again. But we are sorry that we did it. Then there are the sinners that TTH is talking about. They know their sins are sins against God and the Church, they keep defying the Church teachings, and they are trying to get the Church to change and accept their sins so that they can keep committing their sins. When this is the case we are not judging. We are admonishing the sinner as Christ said to do. It sounds to me you are not sharing "Church instruction" but rather trying to make up excuses to allow people to keep sinning and making up excuses to allow sin to happen.
|
Posted Saturday, January 02, 2010 1:41 PM By Jamison
TTH, do you believe your "real issue" is someone else's problem? Do you not believe that Jesus is the liberal giver of salvation? When you refer to "homosexual dissenters", are you referring to MarkF? When you speak of "the glaring spotlight of inconsistency and injustice", are you talking about the glare from your eyes? Do you consider this forum to be your "playground"? In regard to your question whether "there should be women as permanent deacons", I accept the Church's decision. In regard to your question, "do you attend same sex weddings", Pope John Paul II said, "The Gospel of Christ, the message of happiness for every person, whatever his age, class, culture or nation, should be courageously presented in every circumstance, in every context, favourable or not." In regard to "homosexual domestic partnerships", are you talking about a gracious partnership between two persons of the same sex? In regard to "God makes people homosexual", are you asking about the Church teaching that "God is the definitive source of everything that exists"? Are you asking St. Paul’s question, “does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for a noble purpose and another for an ignoble one?” Are you asking whether, under the wisdom of God’s saving plan, that some people may be homosexually inclined may be God’s way of the cross for them? Do you think you are not an "openly dissenting poster"?
|
Posted Saturday, January 02, 2010 1:56 PM By Jamison
RR, you say there "are sinners who just keep committing the same sins and are not repentant". Do you think you are not among them? You speak of others and say "They know their sins are sins against God and the Church", but I don't know what someone else knows, just as I don't know his conscience. Even if he professes to tell me, even if I speak with him at length, I can only guess what he knows. As the Church teaches, "although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God." As to "allow people to keep sinning", the Church indeed teaches that God permits people to sin because he respects their freedom. Nevertheless, I do not recommend you keep sinning or that you deny that you are among those "who just keep committing the same sins and are not repentant".
|
Posted Saturday, January 02, 2010 2:25 PM By Anne T.
Yours is an excellent post, RR, about the difference between an ordinary sinner (all of us) and a dissedent. The dissenter not only breaks the Commandment and/or teaches others to do so, they get RID of the Commandment by claiming it is not a sin.
|
Posted Saturday, January 02, 2010 3:03 PM By Mark from PA
I never heard that divorce was good for kids. I was never told that kids were better off with divorced parents. When I was it kid it was almost like divorce was a dirty word. My parents didn't even use it around me. Almost everyone I knew came from 2 parent families. We felt bad for kids from broken homes but they never really talked about it. It seems to me that the kids are the ones that suffer the most in divorce. I went to Catholic school so I suppose for me it was different. We had a lot of big families back then. A lot of the kids in my school came from families of 5 or more kids. Grisha, I feel bad that you have to work with someone so awful. It must surely be a trial. Jamison, you are really educating some here, I think.
|
Posted Saturday, January 02, 2010 5:42 PM By MarkF
The Truth Hurts and RR, thank you very much. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for what you wrote there. Here's another big idea to try on. The truth is always simple. Dissent is always complicated. Or to cop a great word from that prominent dissenter from MA, it's nuanced. Dissent is nuanced. It take a college education to understand. If you don't understand it, it's because you're just too stoopid. Dissenters sneer at the simple truth. They prefer wordy treatise that make something simple into something tortured. What you two wrote above here is the truth. It's simple. It's easy to understand: No one's perfect. We all sin. Confess your sins. Ask for God's grace. Get on with your life. But no, dissenters can't handle that. It doesn't "empower" them. It doesn't challenge the dominant semiotics of the patriarchal hierarchy. Or something like that. lol. You know what's great? Is that these dissenters KNOW that their day is over. They do know it. Go to any dissenter website...you know, the ones where the little counter proudly shouts out "12 visitors this past year." They're all complaining, no...they're all whining about the "neo-conservative" (God, don't you love it. Overly intellectual to the end) direction of the Church. They're hate Pope Benedict. They hate the new crop of priests. They deny the existence of a new generation of faithful. Keep on pressing them folks, and get them the HECK out of the USCCB.
|
Posted Saturday, January 02, 2010 9:42 PM By Grisha
TTH: So what what do YOU think about my (Well, it's not exactly my) idea of ordaining women to the Diocaonate? Oh an Jamison; when did you stop beating your wife?
|
Posted Sunday, January 03, 2010 12:02 AM By Jamison
TTH, in further regard to your claim that "the homosexual dissenters on this website ARE doing this and you are their defender with your silence," the Church teaches: "First, then, a lesson of silence. May esteem for silence, that admirable and indispensable condition of mind, revive in us." Likewise, in the words of Pope John Paul II, "We need silence if we are to accept in our hearts the full resonance of the voice of the Holy Spirit and to unite our personal prayer more closely to the Word of God and the public voice of the Church." Second, may I remind you that Jesus Christ was and is the "defender" of sinners? John states in his First Letter: "If anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 Jn 2:1). Again, the words of Pope John Paul II, "The advocate (defender) is he who, taking the part of those who are guilty because of sin committed, defends them from the penalty due to their sins, and saves them from the danger of losing eternal life and salvation… Before their accusers, he becomes the invisible [perhaps 'silent' to you?] advocate of the accused, by the fact that he acts as their counselor, defender and supporter."
|
Posted Monday, January 04, 2010 1:30 PM By The Truth Hurts
Bravo Jamison! Thank you for once again demonstrating for the sake of instruction how liberal dissenters work.Your last post on Jan. 03, 2010 could have been easily written by Nancy Pelosi and she would and does also think that she is a faithful Catholic. Your post sounds similar to Nancy's Newsweek article Jamison and that is not a good sign. This is an excellent lesson or expose' on why there is such confusion within the Church. Thank you for instructing faithful Catholics on your liberal technique which has confused many people, and even more sadly, yourself. Liberal dissenters such as yourself, never discuss sin. They never instruct or admonish because it is a conflict of personal interest to instruct others to not commit certain sins when we don't agree or accept Church Teaching on that particular sin. Liberal dissenters do not follow the Spiritual works of Mercy either!..... Jamison"?," Why do you adhere to and only instruct others in the Three Monkeys Philosophy of See No Evil, Hear No Evil and Speak No Evil..........That is...."until faithful Catholics" instruct a dissenting Catholic who happens to be a homosexual or a CCD title for finding a reverent Mass? Then you selectively speak and call the faithful Catholics evil for just wanting the Spiritual Works of Mercy.Then what happens next? One of the three monkeys starts to beat all faithful Catholics who accept and embrace all of the Teachings of the Catholic Church over the head with a selective silence interpretation of that same beautiful Catechism that the accusers themselves refuse to embrace totally. Faithful Catholics should not discriminate in instructing those whose openly dissent on a Catholic Website, whether it be by stubborn pride by ignorance or by selective choice. Remember Jamison what Jesus said that He would do to the lukewarm!
|
Posted Monday, January 04, 2010 3:36 PM By MarkF
If Jamison keeps twisting the truth around, will it eventually do a 360° and come back around to being the truth again? Um, so Mr. J., does this mean that YOU are going to be silent now? Just a thought.
|
Posted Monday, January 04, 2010 6:40 PM By JLS
Looks like Jamison, by the course of his posts, is losing it.
|
Posted Monday, January 04, 2010 7:36 PM By MarkF
I can't resist. TTH, you're wrong when you say, "Liberal dissenters such as yourself, never discuss sin." They discuss sin a lot. The sins of people who disagree with them for one thing. But you're right, the technique here is classic, if clumsy. Bait and switch. More fuzz than on a summer peach. Dress it up with a few quotes from people who they NEVER really agree with like JP II. So sly. As if he really agrees with JP II on anything.
|
Posted Monday, January 04, 2010 7:48 PM By Jamison
MarkF, the Church teaches that "Sunday is a time for reflection, silence, cultivation of the mind, and meditation which furthers the growth of the Christian interior life." Is it still Sunday?
|
Posted Monday, January 04, 2010 9:25 PM By The Truth Hurts
Mark F, You are so right! Be very weary of those dissenters who dodge, duck and weave with their favorite buzz word that is intentionally used and designed to cause mass confusion. You are right again Mark F!That buzz word is *nuance*. Yes, Mark F, quite a bit of false filler baloney is being passed out whenever dissenters resort to this word. A word of warning advice when it comes to the *damage* caused by falling for that buzz word!.... N=never U=*underestimate* A=a N=nominal C=Catholic's E=explanation! Jamison told RR that he should never correct anyone because, "I don't know what someone else knows. just as I don't know his conscience. Even if he professes to tell me, even if I speak with him at great length, I can only guess what he knows"! Jamison only gives himself permission to selectively read the consciences of the editors of CCD or those who challenge open dissenters who happen to be homosexual. How's that for some slippery selective nuance of inconsistency?
|
Posted Tuesday, January 05, 2010 2:50 PM By Jamison
TTH, you said "Jamison only gives himself permission to selectively read the consciences... Jamison told RR that he should never correct anyone because..." Are those not YOUR words, YOUR interpretation, YOUR "nuance"? For example, do you believe your words "Jamison only gives himself permission to selectively read" are necessarily identical in meaning to my words "I do not know... even if I speak with him at great length... I can only guess"? And when you speak of "some slippery selective nuance of inconsistency", are you not speaking of YOUR interpretation? I do not know. Even as I speak with you at great length, I can only guess. As to "dissenters", is not all sin "dissent", and thus all sinners are dissenters, meaning we are all dissenters including those who deny being dissenters? Or do you have a more "nuanced" meaning of "dissent" and you pray like the Pharisee in Luke 18 who said, "O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity--greedy, dishonest, adulterous--or even like this tax collector." The tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, "O God, be merciful to me a sinner." If you want to beat your breast about dissenters, why not as the tax collector and say, "O God, be merciful to me a dissenter"? As such, those who deny being dissenters are "closed" dissenters, and those who admit it are "open" dissenters. "I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted."
|
Posted Tuesday, January 05, 2010 3:40 PM By MarkF
TTH, Yup, I see folks sliding down that slope all the time. All talk about how unknowable the conscience is, while at the same time undermining the objective standards. It is true. No one knows the conscience of someone else. Yet we still know that lying is wrong, that stealing is wrong, adultery is always wrong. They get the conscience and the objective standard tangled up. I wish we could get the government to pay Fr. Corapi to catechize the whole country. I mean really, we have to pay for PBS to indoctrinate us into the religion of secularism. Why not pay for something that actually builds us up instead of tearing us down?
|
Posted Wednesday, January 06, 2010 9:54 AM By The Truth Hurts
Jamison, In response to your Jan. 05, 2010 2:50 post. Why don't you take the same energy that you used to instruct me or challenge me, and as a closed dissenter, learn what the Church really teaches and then teach the open dissenters the full truth. Also, Jamison, you need to be aware of the fact that your Pharisee analogy is quite a favorite and embarrassingly overused diversion technique amongst liberals who resent hearing that they cannot get away with teaching error and confusion. I humbly admit that I am a sinner who accepts all of the teachings of the Catholic Church, I have no desire to exalt myself. I do have a desire to exalt the superiority of wisdom found in "all" the beautiful Teachings of the Catholic Church. I do believe though, that open and closed dissenters who arrogantly exhalt themselves above God to redefine the meaning of sin and other teachings of His Church will be humbled! Jamison, there is a story about a Bishop who finds himself in Purgatory and he is weeping loudly.. Another soul comes to comfort him and tell him that surely many of his brother priests will pray for him. The Bishop weeps even louder. Then the comforting soul tells the Bishop, "Surely then the people who were in your care will pray for you." The Bishop cries out, "No they won't! They won't ever pray for me, you see, I never taught them the True Faith." Then the comforting soul says, "Surely, they know about Purgatory and Hell, don't worry they will pray for your soul." The Bishop cried out and wailed even louder, "No, you don't understand, no one will ever pray for me because I convinced all of them that sin, purgatory and hell don't exist." The moral of the story Jamison is to stop behaving like the silent Bishop who did not teach the truth and start teaching the truth instead of calling those who accept the full truth, Pharisees. Don't you want any authentically instructed Catholics left who will know how to pray for your soul and my soul and the souls of many others?
|
Posted Wednesday, January 06, 2010 1:27 PM By The Truth Hurts
Mark F, Yes, it would be a blessing to have Father Corapi catechize the whole country. Just a few years ago a group of lay people in our Diocese invited Father Corapi to speak at a conference. There was at that time, and still is, a great hunger and need for powerfully courageous, yet humble Catholic leadership. Father Corapi's own humble conversion story has given great hope to many of the faithful who have loved ones who have drifted away from the sacraments for various reasons. Father Corapi inspired and instructed the faithful for an entire weekend. There were over one thousand phone calls within the first few days of reserving seats. Some people had to be turned away because there was no more seating. They showed up anyway, just to get a glimpse and to hear encouraging instruction from Father Corapi. People also traveled great distances to be instructed. One person flew all of the way from Wyoming to California to hear the fullness of truth that is so obviously hungered for. Father Corapi also instructed Catholics at this conference to purchase Catechisms and learn their faith because a time was fast approaching when many people will be drawn to seek out the truths of our Catholic faith. He said that we needed to be prepared to answer the questions that were going to be asked of us. CCD also provides a beautiful forum to instruct *everyone*. Frank Duff who founded the Legion of Mary once said that if in each diocese there were only twelve completely dedicated priests who instructed and inspired the faithful in personal holiness that flowed from the example of the personal holiness of the dedicated priests, that there would be a renewal of the face of the earth. This is why it is so important to instruct everyone without discrimination, due to a lack of faith or personally related fears. I am positive that many holy vocations are being formed at this time to accomplish that very hopeful promise of Our Lady. "In The End My Immaculate Heart Will Triumph! "
|
Posted Wednesday, January 06, 2010 3:52 PM By MarkF
Jamison asked, "As to "dissenters", is not all sin "dissent?" No, it's sin. If I tell a lie, that's a sin. If I preach that it's OK to lie, that's dissent. You're attempting to sow confusion there man. Moral relativism.
|
Posted Wednesday, January 06, 2010 4:01 PM By Jamison
TTH, anyone can claim "I have no desire to exalt myself" or claim to "humbly admit" or claim to "accept all the teachings". Even the Pharisee boasted as much. But the tax collector did not.
|
Posted Wednesday, January 06, 2010 4:09 PM By Abeca Christian
I repeat my post from: Posted Monday, December 28, 2009 6:01 PM By Abeca Christian
The goal of the homosexual agenda is to redefine values and desensitize sinful behavior. Their goal is slowly implanted and slowly works itself in the subconscious of the modern world, changing the real meaning to fit their way of lifestyles and choices away from God. They continually change meaning of things and twist the truth. It is a trick that only the devil has perfected in others in bad will.
|
Posted Wednesday, January 06, 2010 7:06 PM By Jamison
MarkF, the Church teaches that "Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience" and that "It is disobedience" and "contrary to the eternal law." (CCC#1849-1850) and "Such is the profound nature of sin: man rejects the truth...". As such, sin involves "disagreement", "thinking/feeling differently", "withholding assent", "refusing to conform to the authority or doctrine of an established church" and/or "rejection of true Church teaching in matters of faith and morals". These are just some of the many meanings of the word "dissent" in the English language. Thus, if you sin, you dissent by fact of the sin without any additional requirement that you also "preach that it's OK". But perhaps you dissent in regard to the meaning of the word "dissent" and opine that I'm "attempting to sow confusion". If so, the Church teaches, "Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it." (CCC#2478)
|
Posted Wednesday, January 06, 2010 8:38 PM By MarkF
Abeca, you are SO right. At it's best, the movement in religious circles in favor of this could be described at post-Christian. It is emphatically not Christian. One person recently described his pro-homosexual beliefs as being "in the tradition of Jesus." You know, NOT really what Jesus taught. What most of the more timid ones don't know, but some of them do know, is that they are in fact moving out of the Christian tradition. When you have homosexual acts not being always wrong, you've moved past Israel and Jesus. Remember that radical document from the organization of women religious? The one that talked about "sojourning?" When you hear that word from these types, what they mean is a journey away from the Bible, away from the Church and away from Jesus. Besides the damage done to people by homosexual actions, the worst damage comes to the extent that they destroy Christianity. Why is this so? Because in order to absolve homosexual actions, you have to break the connection to the words of Jesus in the Bible, and man without that is not just murderous but is genocidal.
It starts not with faith, but with secular or atheistic sociology, psychology and history. One tactic is to slam the OT, as we've seen on here many times, i.e., the OT was cruel, written by man not God, etc. Then you can throw out all of its morality. Another tactic is to blur everything, "everyone sins, so there really is no sin." "All sin is dissent so there is no dissent and we're all dissenters." And you know that this crap is being taught in Catholic colleges.
|
Posted Wednesday, January 06, 2010 11:15 PM By JLS
Jamison, what are you on? Is it prescription or off a street corner, or did you grow it yourself?
|
Posted Wednesday, January 06, 2010 11:51 PM By Abeca Christian
MarkF You just wrote such a beautiful post! I admire the virtuous you have gained from embracing God and His truths. I thank you my friend for expressing so lovely and eloquently of a post. May God continue to bless you and give you plenty of courage and strength to continue to be of witness to those who need a light to truth and good direction. Christ be with you always.
|
Posted Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:08 AM By Ski Ven
It is amazing how people can come up with so many variations of the theme: "I will not serve!!!"
|
Posted Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:22 AM By Peter
In a sense I agree with you MarkF, but I suggest that it is not so much atheistic as it is "anti-sin". Not anti-sin in the traditional sense, but more so "sin" as a defunct concept.
As more and more people come to realize the truth about “sin”, which, for the sake of argument, let’s simply say means that they change their perception of human nature to not include “sin” – it looses its dogmatic significance and takes on a more practical air, having served only to bind the faithful to the institution of the church as a way to guarantee tithing and a predictable source of revenue. Unless a person buys into the concept of sin as dogma (and allows for human nature (in the secular sense) to be exploited in this way), the Catholic/Christian church and its tenets have no real meaning. (After all, if there is no such thing as sin, what would have been point of the crucifixion?) This is not atheistic in the true sense of the word since other faiths not developed around the concept of human sinfulness could still potentially flourish. Anti-Christian, yes, but not atheistic or purely secular.
|
Posted Thursday, January 07, 2010 11:26 AM By The Truth Hurts
Jamison, In response to your January 06, 2010 4:01 report....Is this your own rebelliously evasive way of also admitting that you would not have ever, even taken the time to evangelize the Pharisee or the tax collector? Have you also fallen into the prideful snare of thinking that God gave you your intellect to scheme against Him? You are encouraging and supporting the sins of the tax collector while in commission as they openly brag about them and even announce that God made them that way. Jamison do you see the Pharisee as a heterosexual and the tax collector as a homosexual? You need to remove that distorted stumbling block that protects sin at all cost. Maybe this is the barrier that you need God's Grace to transcend. Jamison you are selfishly hoarding God's gift of intellect to you. You are at this time unable to reach out to everyone in truth because you have not accepted the need for God's transforming graces. I am sad for you Jamison because you know what the truth is but you are hanging on the protection of some delicious sin that the Church recognizes as a disorder. God's grace can re-order. Why don't you trust in God? The tax collector in the Gospel was humble enough to recognize that he was a sinner and needed God's Mercy. The open dissenters to Church Teaching on CCD, who also just happen to be homosexuals, are not announcing their desire for Mercy because of their sinfulness. They are announcing their rebellion. Jamison, pray for the grace, the strength and trust to understand that there are conversions like Mark F. The overwhelming response to Mark F's conversion on the website has been love, kindness and respect. Ski Ven nailed it when he said, "How many variations of the theme to, I will not serve?" If your master is confusion and mediocrity you are serving it well. If your Master is God, you are very capable of serving Him even better if you choose a new wineskin. With a new wineskin you will have the ability to even reach the Pharisee.
|
Posted Thursday, January 07, 2010 2:49 PM By Jamison
TTH, thank you for sharing your construal, your interpretation, your reflection. Your "distorted stumbling block", "barrier", "confusion", "rebellion", etc., are yours, aspects of your construal, your reflection. As Jesus said, “For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.” If you are in need of a rag to clean your mirror, just ask, as the Church instructs, "Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it." (CCC#2478)
|
Posted Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:50 PM By The Truth Hurts
Jamison, "Every good Christian out to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so let him ask how the other understands it.".....C'mon Jamison, fess up! You certainly didn't follow that Catechism instruction when you judged and condemned CCD's beautiful intentions to help Catholics find a reverent Mass. "In the measure that you unmercifully judged the CCD editor is the measure that will be measured out to you." Jamison, I realize that you do know how to quote the Catechism. Do you know how to walk the walk and obey it? Your obstinate resistance to the truth just goes to show that sometimes in order for us to have a real transformation, the truth does hurt. Heavy crosses are difficult to carry. They become less painful if we totally place our trust in God. Not just in words, but in actions. No man can serve two masters.God knows my prayers and good intentions for you and I hope you understand that.
|
Posted Thursday, January 07, 2010 8:26 PM By JLS
TTH is judging with faith, holy fire, love of God, love of creation ... Jamison is defying these perfects gifts expressed by TTH. Jamison, the homsexual advocate practicioner (they don't get that cynical by not practicing what the preach) is de facto mocking the goodness of the Lord. As I previously posted, "Jamison, what are you on"? Have you made your appointment with a substance abuse counselor yet? Or is yours simply a case of extreme vanity? I've seen too much in the way of souls who want to destroy what Christ builds to have a whole lot of expectations for these extraordinary selfmade gods. I've seen plenty of conversions to Christ ... I don't know of any who had worked out some phony lines, such as Jamison, in such ardor who was swayed by reason or fact. Usually they are people who are under the sway of evil, and who then come to realize that they prefer God, and then they seek Him and find Him in Jesus Christ.
|
Posted Thursday, January 07, 2010 9:41 PM By MarkF
Well, I think we have reached the sandal dusting time here.
|
Posted Thursday, January 07, 2010 10:13 PM By MarkF
Peter, thanks for the compliment. I think you've got it right. If sin is an invalid concept, then Christianity is meaningless. And this is what we're seeing more of, a post-Christian attitude, taking some ideas from Christ but with more reliance on modern psychology and politics. I've talked to several people who are in favor of homosexual acts who created a standard that says that respectful sexual acts between adults are moral. They felt that the key concept was respect. And in the sense that things like consensual incest, consensual prostitution and pornography are not respectful to the person, these would be considered immoral. They claimed that they were working in the tradition of Jesus. I responded that their views were ethical and as such were not bad. But this system of ethics could not be described as Christian. Perhaps some of the emphasis on respect could be derived from Christianity, but not necessarily so. Many of the facets of the new ethics can be derived from philosophy and other religions. And much of it is decidedly un-Christian, as is what I just described above. We see this all around us. The problem is that we see all this coming from what used to be Christian groups. We see it in spades from any group that favor homosexual actions. No matter what they claim, no matter how much the claim to be Christian, there has been a break from the scriptural Jesus and especially from the OT. And that will be fatal, for without Jesus there is no healing of the heart.
|
Posted Friday, January 08, 2010 3:57 AM By Abeca Christian
Jamison what a bunch of crock of misinterpretation you just posted to TTH to suit your own agenda. But here is the truth: Also it is said that we are to judge what has already been judged by our creator, so therefore if homosexual sins have already been judged as immortal then the faithful have to discern to immediately have no part in it and must judge it as harshly as our Lord has, "there is no salvation for those who choose to embrace homosexual lifestyles and choose to never repent, there is no salvation for such persons, PERIOD!"
|
Posted Friday, January 08, 2010 7:37 AM By Ski Ven
Jamison, why are you so quick to have an unfavorable interpretation of TTH's statements? Why are you so quick to judge TTH? Could it be that you are a hypocrite?
|
Posted Friday, January 08, 2010 9:12 AM By Jamison
TTH, you alleged, "you judged and condemned CCD's beautiful intentions to help Catholics find a reverent Mass." But I never said any such thing. Don't try to pass your judgment off as anyone else's.
|
Posted Friday, January 08, 2010 9:23 AM By Jamison
JLS, the "Jamison" you speak of is some fiction you've got going on in your imagination.
|
Posted Friday, January 08, 2010 9:43 AM By Jamison
Abeca, "homosexual sins" can be either venial or mortal. And because the term "homosexual lifestyles" is vague, I do not use it nor am I sure what you're saying when you use it, particularly if you are ignorant of the Church's teachings. The Church does not teach that "homosexual" is equivalent to sin, just as a person does not sin for being a "homosexual person", and thus not a sin for living as a homosexual person or for living with a homosexual person.
|
Posted Friday, January 08, 2010 9:53 AM By Jamison
Ski Ven, if it's your interpretation that I'm "quick to have an unfavorable interpretation of TTH's statements" or your judgment that I'm "quick to judge TTH", that is your judgment, your interpretation, your construal. Why ask me why you interpret and judge as you do? Ask yourself.
|
Posted Friday, January 08, 2010 2:10 PM By MarkF
Folks, come on, haven't we hit the "sandal dusting off" time here? I know it's interesting to see all the twists, turns, feints, pretended ignorance, selecting quotes and feigned ignorance. But what are we accomplishing here. We've tried. That's all we can do. At some point, like now, we reach the sandal dusting point, and choose not to add more energy to the fire. Let's stop the back and forth with this person and let him twist on his own words in our silence.
|
Posted Friday, January 08, 2010 2:41 PM By MarkF
I would like to point out as a separate topic one of the largest mistakes that this crowd makes. They can't - or won't - separate out the objective standard from moral culpability. You'll hear a lot of verbiage about how we don't know the conscience of another, how we can't condemn others, about how all humans sin, but very little about the objective standard. A lot is made about how various factors can lessen one's culpability for homosexual actions. What's missing is what is the person to do who finds himself doing things that are morally wrong, but in ways that lessen his culpability. The other side tells us to do, well, nothing. But only if the act being done is homosexual. It's special. But is this the case? Suppose that a person is deeply involved with a hedonistic lifestyle, or is deeply involved in an adulterous affair or is a chronic alcoholic. Any habitual immoral behavior will suffice here. Force of habit, human weakness, lack of spiritual development will all lesson the culpability. The question really is not how far the culpability is lessened, but what is the person to do? Is the person to conclude that his behavior is, though wrong, just a venial sin due to his weakness? And that he does not need to confess and ask for healing? With no other act other than homosexual actions is this the recommended course of action. All the talk on culpability hides discussion on the objective standard and blocks the possibility of healing. Good advice will be to take what a person says who preaches that homosexual acts are not culpable, and substitute any other morally wrong action in its place. If it doesn't work for any other action, then it can't be true for homosexual actions.
|
Posted Friday, January 08, 2010 5:44 PM By MarkF
Let me elaborate the above example because I do think it bears looking at. Suppose we have a person who is either not a Christian or is a lapsed Christian. And suppose that this person has a habitual habit that is wrong. We don't have to know what this habit is. Let it be alcohol, drugs, overeating, lying, adultery, greed...in fact any immoral behavior will do. And let's also suppose that this person's culpability has been lessened through habit, lack of spiritual development and by plain old human weakness. Let's even suppose that his person's culpability is such that his actions not only are not a venial sin but they are not sins at all. His personal freedom has been so compromised that his actions - drinking, taking drugs, overeating, whatever - are not sinful at all. Now, the question is, what is this man obliged to do if he becomes a Christian? Is he to do nothing because his actions are either only venial sins or even not sins at all? Aren't we only supposed to confess mortal sin? Even a short bit of thought will let us know that this is wrong. Even if he has little or no culpability for his actions, this is a man who needs healing. And this gets me to my main point. That it is much, much more important to realize what is objectively wrong (and damaging) then to parse the state of your conscience and culpability. The solution is confession first and foremost. Confession and communion, NOT just communion with no confession.
|
Posted Friday, January 08, 2010 5:44 PM By Abeca Christian
Jamison I know church teachings very well (I may not always memorize verses and such, but I know it very well enough to hold what is true, I have studied it and even the early church fathers teachings too, which I notice you lack knowledge from because they would all condemn homosexual acts and I haven't heard you quote anything from them! I do not or at least try not to misinterpret truth and I also never forget to include holy scripture teachings with church teachings because they are both important! I noticed that you hardly quote from the bible as well. Have you forgotten that the bible is very important as well. The church and holy scripture, both equal one! I only used homosexual lifestyle because if I don't then you have people like Pa or others who say things like, well if a homosexual is not practicing same sex attractions then he is not sinning! Well then if he is not practicing same sex, then he is not a homosexual! He is someone who is trying to embrace God and walk the walk and carry his cross! Temperance with fortitude! Practice it!
|
Posted Friday, January 08, 2010 5:56 PM By MarkF
Now, back to the man who's ensnared in chronic sin. If he confesses his actions - his drinking drugs, overeating, etc. - is he likely to repeat these actions, given the factors that lessen his culpability? Yep. He's probably going to repeat them. He's in for a process of sin and healing...a period that will have many highs and many lows, many times of holiness and periods of acting the same old way. He may even get tired along the way and need a rest from trying to heal. He may not succeed in controlling his behavior very much. He may die before being fully healed. But God loves a man like this at every step of the way. What is important is two things, to know what actions are wrong and to try as best you can to ask for God's grace to heal. Now, what the pro-homosexual apologists are doing is giving advice that says that that sin is OK as long as your culpability is compromised. They then will frequently claim that the homosexual inclination is such that there is no culpability for acting on it. That is, when they are not denying that the actions are wrong, but that's another topic. My point is that there is nothing special about homosexual actions that is not true for any other grave matter, and that the main thing is for us to confess our behavior that is grave matter and not worry so much about culpability We don't have to be perfect. We do have to know what is right, confess when we do what is wrong and ask God for help. What is worse, much worse than any one sin, is to devise a system that stops the working of God's grace. This is what we are dealing with with the many forms of the homosexual ideology. An immoral action harms the soul, but an ideology that prevents God's healing grace borders on genocidal.
|
Posted Friday, January 08, 2010 6:14 PM By JLS
Jamison, the mark of a hard core homosexual is the imitative kind of contrariness that is found naturally in immature women. I often use exactly the device of referring a blogger back to their own self projections. Perhaps you've read too many of my posts and are trying to use them against me. It doesn't work, Jamison. Your posts are confused, and pretty much of the ilk of Maguire although not at all so erudite. The similarity is that you do not make a decision based on reason. Whereas Maguire puts forth many excellent reasons for one thing or another, yet he never bases a decision on them. Your posts indicate that you have just begun a course called Maguire rhetoric 1A. Keep it up for a few decades and you may learn to excell at it. In the meantime on your latest rant about judging others, know that I have the ability to judge people and I do; my limitation is judging them eternally, or judging them legally. But I certainly can judge anyone morally. My judgment is not necessarily perfect, although it is possible that it can be. Yours is also, however your attempts are in desparate need of some upgrading. Why not think for a while about the possibility that you might be able to "internalize" what you read well enough to actually construct little arguments in your own words? Don't look to your course, Maguire 1A, though; just try it on your own. Don't fret when I rip your effort to smithereens; just try again. Some day I might not tear it apart. Not likely but possible.
|
Posted Friday, January 08, 2010 6:18 PM By JLS
Hold on here, MarkF; I just did (not posted yet, assuming it will make the cut) "separate out the objective standard from moral culpability" (as you phrased it). The way I look at it is style. You've got an inate teaching style, where you lay out the objective nature of the argument or dispute. I don't; rather, I attack what appears to be error; and I attack much of the time with a bias on the accusatory side of the matter. I am not so concerned with the individual I'm arguing against, but in setting the record straight. Can't stand to see error in the air.
|
Posted Friday, January 08, 2010 6:29 PM By JLS
Another slick Jamison reply to a post by Abecca: Notice how he weaves some factual stuff in with some homohype? All homosexual lust is mortal sin if acted on in any way. What Jamison ... while straining at gnats, which I've pointed out specifically as a mainstay of his method, and ignoring the camel poking its nose under the tent ... does not say, but avoids like the plague, is the fact fact fact, which St Paul points out so clearly, that homosexuality is the consequence of sin. Anyone who seriously studies the Bible will find that the consequences of the sins of fathers can stretch down ten or even a hundred generations. Thus we find that are being made in the image and likeness of God is filtered by the consequences of sin, and we come out less than we'd like in many cases. The gay agenda ignores this and tries to run with the same old same old fable that there is a superman and that he is the pinnacle of gayness, sodomy personified. The deluded souls such as Jamison purports to be, indirectly by his own words (ie, he hangs himself but does not realize it), love to wallow in their conditions and mysteriously try to convince others that it makes them feel good. Once they succeed in this, then they attempt to politicize it by making laws not only protecting perverted sexuality but trying to raise it to dominance. Jamison will end up the same as the other gay apologists before him in Catholic cyberland, which is that he will give up and disappear. Why do they give up? Consequence of sin, nature of the homosexual.
|
Posted Friday, January 08, 2010 7:03 PM By Jamison
MarkF, your claim that "All the talk on culpability hides discussion on the objective standard and blocks the possibility of healing" is your opinion, but it is not established fact. After all, it's not just "talk". It's Church teaching. Different people respond in different ways. Some people tell me that such teaching has been a major aspect of the healing in their lives. Others tell me that the methods you seem to be trying to use, e.g. denying that there are questions about the so-called "objective standard" and trying to support religious teachings with biased if not fictional interpretations of science, hides the truth and blocks their healing. There are also those people who simply do not believe that the teaching that all homosexual acts are always morally wrong is true or as black and white as it's popularly claimed to be. For them, "substituting any other morally wrong action in its place" doesn't wash, because they don't accept that it's an apples to apples comparison. Moreover, the Catechsim's use of words like "relations" and the Church's seemingly overbown condemnation of anything "same-sex" even for people who are just trying to get health insurance or non-sexual protections in a society in which they feel very isolated leaves many people with the feeling that the Church isn't quite willing to tell or doesn't know the whole story.
|
Posted Monday, January 11, 2010 3:08 PM By Jamison
JLS & Abeca, the Church teaches that "in a grave matter" (such as a violation of the Sixth Commandment, homosexual or heterosexual), "one commits venial sin" when one "disobeys the moral law... but without full knowledge or without complete consent" (CCC#1862). Both "full knowledge" and "complete consent" involve subjective factors such as the person's immaturity, psychological imbalance, habit, feelings and passions, etc. which can diminish the deliberate character of the act. For example, the Church teaches that "the promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders." (CCC#1860) Thus two different people might each engage in the apparently same objectively grave act, but for one it may be a venial sin while for another it may be a mortal sin. Thus, as Pope John Paul II has said, "The judgment of one's state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one's conscience," and as the Church teaches, "although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God." Neither venial sin nor mortal sin is "approved". All sin is offensive. As to the origin of sin, whether homosexual or heterosexual or whatever, the Church teaches "The root of all sins lies in man's heart" (CCC#1873) and that "as a result of original sin" man suffers from concupiscence, "the tinder for sin", whether he's homosexual or heterosexual or whatever. You may wish to consider MarkF's point "that there is nothing special about homosexual actions that is not true for any other grave matter" more closely.
|
Posted Monday, January 11, 2010 3:51 PM By Jamison
JLS, it's not gay people who made "laws not only protecting perverted sexuality but trying to raise it to dominance." At just a couple percent of the population, gay people can't pass any laws. Laws are passed by the majority, and that's overwhelmingly a straight group of people. Today, fornication, adultery and "perverted sexuality" of nearly every kind are all legally protected because straight people either legislated it so or judicially ruled it so. Straight people decided it was the "right" thing to do.
|
Posted Monday, January 11, 2010 4:41 PM By Jamison
MarkF, in regard to your statement that "We don't have to be perfect," I suspect you're not intending to imply that Jesus did not command: "Be perfect just as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mt 5:48), which is the Church's standard for followers of Jesus Christ, the meaning of this perfection made clearer in the Gospel of Luke: "Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful" (Lk 6:36). As the Church teaches, "All Christians.. are called... to the perfection of charity" and that "Christian perfection has but one limit, that of having none" (CCC#2048). Perhaps you mean that repentance, confession and education of conscience are all parts of obedience to the command/calling to be perfect.
|
Posted Monday, January 11, 2010 5:29 PM By Mark from PA
Jamison, you made excellent points in your post of 3:08 PM.
|
Posted Monday, January 11, 2010 5:47 PM By JLS
Jamison, there is no excuse for homosexual behavior or acts, none whatsoever. It has always been condemned by God. Homosexual activity is the consequence of sin, whether you agree with the Magisterium or not ... Holy Scripture is not errant and is a part of the Magisterium. You, yourself, Jamison, could turn out to be history's greatest apologist for homosexuality, but too soon you will be in the grave and your great arguments will also be in the grave with you. The Magisterium is a different order of thing than either you or your arguments or sexuality ... hopefully before you die you will come to understand that God made you, and you did not make God, and that God has revealed to us all what His will is for us. Homosexuality is not part of it, Jamison. There is the unforgiveable sin; do you know which one it is?
|
Posted Monday, January 11, 2010 10:27 PM By Abeca Christian
Jamison don't forget that you must include scripture teachings with CCC teachings. Don't forget as well the teachings of the great church fathers. Because if you take out a portion of the picture instead of including the whole picture, then you have missing pieces to the puzzle(in this case truth). Your constant twisting things just isn't worth my time. I appreciate though JLS and MarkF because they eloquently have taken the time and have expressed such good facts.
|
Posted Monday, January 11, 2010 10:32 PM By MarkF
I have dusted my sandals off of this town. I wrote something that I am quite proud of and that I'm sure is Catholic teaching. That is, if you've done something wrong, it's better to confess it and ask for healing than to gibber the system so that you can excuse it away. Remember what I said a while back. The truth is simple. Dissent is complicated. That bears repeating. As for me, and I hope for everyone else here, I'm done with this one. Folks, these dissenters only want our attention. They don't want to learn. They don't want to heal. We are limited human beings. At some point we have to commend our problems to God. One of the most powerful spiritual states is to surrender our problems to God and to let him do his work as we move on to other things.
|
Posted Tuesday, January 12, 2010 2:09 PM By The Truth Hurts
Mark F, As you travel to the next town pay heed to the same dark shadows with different names that will follow as you journey to spread the true Teachings of the Catholic Church. Keep exposing the Light.
|
Posted Tuesday, January 12, 2010 6:09 PM By MarkF
Thanks! This is all very humbling for me. Could you please say a prayer for me?
|
Posted Friday, January 15, 2010 7:11 AM By Ski Ven
If this site would allow for the posting of images, I would post an image of a big hairy troll.
|
Posted Friday, January 15, 2010 10:02 AM By Anne T.
God bless you, MarkF. You have done a good job. My prayers go with you.
|
Posted Saturday, January 16, 2010 3:10 PM By Mark from PA
Mark F, I didn't just say a prayer for you, I said a whole decade of the Rosary for you, the first joyful mystery, the Annunciation. I also said the Hail Holy Queen for your intentions. Pray for us oh holy Mother of God, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ. Peace be with you.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2009. All Rights Reserved.
|