New Book On Homosexual Behaviour

[Perigrina]

I admit, I had to look up "supercilious".   :)

 

Did you notice the etymology when you looked it up?  It is derived from the Latin word for eyebrow.  So one is literally saying a person is full of eyebrows if one calls him supercilious.  I think this is a great word.

[CrossCuT]

I think one big thing we need to clarify is which marriage we are referring to. Sacramental marriage? In which case I think the church definitely has the right to say "Hey bro, only one man and one female can participate in the sacrament."

 

But if we are talking about secular marriage (marriage is used for both "types" if you will; the secular and sacramental) then I say no...Catholics do not have the right to impose on a secular government their religious views because we live in a country where you can practice any religion you want. 

 

And if this is such a huge deal, why do bakers sell cakes to people getting married outside the church? or other such silly things examples involving weddings.

[Perigrina]

 

And if this is such a huge deal, why do bakers sell cakes to people getting married outside the church? or other such silly things examples involving weddings.

 

If a baker wanted to refuse service to people getting married outside the Church, the baker would face no legal penalties.  It would be considered a legitimate exercise of freedom of conscience. (and a bad business model) 

[CrossCuT]

If a baker wanted to refuse service to people getting married outside the Church, the baker would face no legal penalties.  It would be considered a legitimate exercise of freedom of conscience. (and a bad business model) 

 

I personally dont believe that selling someone a delicious cake is in any way participating in their sin or condoning it. You are providing a service, its not up to you what tainted people purchase the goods you are selling. I think that opening the door for any sort of discrimination will allow in many many other forms.

[Kateri89]

A dude in an armchair? That is no dude, that is Andy Warhol!

 

He looks like a serial killer.

[Perigrina]

I personally dont believe that selling someone a delicious cake is in any way participating in their sin or condoning it. You are providing a service, its not up to you what tainted people purchase the goods you are selling. I think that opening the door for any sort of discrimination will allow in many many other forms.

 

Here is an article that gives a good outline of Catholic teaching on the morality of cooperation with evil.  http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/COOPRTN.htm  It begins:

 

The social nature of man entails a broad network of interpersonal relationships which diversely reveal each person's need of the help of other persons for his own betterment and the frequent need of cooperation among many different persons for the attainment of common goals. In most cases the activities of any individual presuppose and depend upon the activities of other persons.(1)

 

As a result, each person is morally responsible for his own actions not only in themselves but also inasmuch as they have an influence on the good or evil actions of others. The first principle of the natural moral law requires doing good and avoiding evil. One of its consequences is that each individual not only has to do good himself but also has to avoid his good actions' being an occasion or providing a means for others to do evil. In fact, he ought to strive as far as possible to insure that others do good.

 

The obligation to cooperate in good should lead Christians to make every effort to secure that the life-giving principles of Christ's message inform every area of their activity, including their professional work.(2) They cannot be satisfied with avoiding any personal evil actions, but must also take into account the influence that their own deeds may and should have in promoting the upright activity of others.

 

It is quite possible that a Catholic applying these principles might come to the conclusion that he ought not to provide services in support of a same-sex wedding.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Perigrina

[Perigrina]

He looks like a serial killer.

 

Especially in this picture:

 

[CrossCuT]

Here is an article that gives a good outline of Catholic teaching on the morality of cooperation with evil.  http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/COOPRTN.htm  It begins:

 

The social nature of man entails a broad network of interpersonal relationships which diversely reveal each person's need of the help of other persons for his own betterment and the frequent need of cooperation among many different persons for the attainment of common goals. In most cases the activities of any individual presuppose and depend upon the activities of other persons.(1)

 

As a result, each person is morally responsible for his own actions not only in themselves but also inasmuch as they have an influence on the good or evil actions of others. The first principle of the natural moral law requires doing good and avoiding evil. One of its consequences is that each individual not only has to do good himself but also has to avoid his good actions' being an occasion or providing a means for others to do evil. In fact, he ought to strive as far as possible to insure that others do good.

 

The obligation to cooperate in good should lead Christians to make every effort to secure that the life-giving principles of Christ's message inform every area of their activity, including their professional work.(2) They cannot be satisfied with avoiding any personal evil actions, but must also take into account the influence that their own deeds may and should have in promoting the upright activity of others.

 

It is quite possible that a Catholic applying these principles might come to the conclusion that he ought not to provide services in support of a same-sex wedding.

I personally think they should anyway. Extend a hand of love to even those you disagree with. I dont think selling someone a cake will send you to hell. But thats just my opinion. 

[Perigrina]

I personally think they should anyway. Extend a hand of love to even those you disagree with. I dont think selling someone a cake will send you to hell. But thats just my opinion. 

 

Catholics may reach different conclusions when they apply moral principles to the question.  However, those who conclude that it is wrong to sell a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding will be punished by law for acting on their convictions.

[CrossCuT]

Catholics may reach different conclusions when they apply moral principles to the question.  However, those who conclude that it is wrong to sell a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding will be punished by law for acting on their convictions.

 

Oh well. I dont feel bad because there is a law that states its legal to discriminate in other states sooo...Those people can just move there I guess.

[Lilllabettt]

once I refused to carry a pot of meatballs to a planned parenthood party.
that decision cost me $75,000.

MONEY WELL SPENT.
 
for the record, I refuse to bake cakes for/carry meatballs to:
gay weddings

stip clubs 
planned parenthood fundraisers
black panther celebrations

rallies of the communist party

I also refuse to write "Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler" on anybody's birthday cake. Sorry, Nazis. 

..............

I like lists, if anyone here is picking that up.

[Perigrina]

once I refused to carry a pot of meatballs to a planned parenthood party.
that decision cost me $75,000.

MONEY WELL SPENT.
 
for the record, I refuse to bake cakes for/carry meatballs to:
gay weddings

stip clubs 
planned parenthood fundraisers
black panther celebrations

rallies of the communist party

I also refuse to write "Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler" on anybody's birthday cake. Sorry, Nazis. 

..............

I like lists, if anyone here is picking that up.

 

It seems to me that Catholics are the ones being discriminated against since we are not free to practice our religion.  

[Socrates]

Saying something long enough doesn't make it fair or accurate. Similarly, just because a certain person, or a number of people agree with something, doesn't make it true. I would guess that the teachings on homosexuality will be downplayed, modified or respun by the church in line with contemporary scholarship and science at some point. It just isn't in a position where it can do so at the moment and hold the unity of the worldwide church together.  Unity comes at a cost, but it, at least, prevents a bigger drift towards an even worse fundamentalism.  I suspect the church will be watching how things play out elsewhere, giving a big amount of time for global development, and then they'll nudge along once God has done some upturning work in the world.  It's sad they can't openly lead on issues by acknowledging the academic scholarship or the scientific case, but that's as it is.

 

Quite frankly, what you personally would guess or suspect about the future carries no weight for me.  It remains nothing but idle speculation.

 

The bottom line is that you don't believe that Christ has actually given His Church real infallible teaching authority on matters of morality.

If that is the case, the Church is making a false claim in that regard, and is a sham and a fraud, and Jesus Christ was just fooling around about the whole Keys of the Kingdom thing.

 

But it's interesting that you do mention God.  If you do believe that God in fact does guide the Church's moral teachings, but think these teachings are wrong, it means that either God is a dunce and got it all wrong for 2000 years, and still needs to learn from modern popular opinion, or else that He has knowingly mislead his Church all this time.  In either case, He wouldn't be much of a God.

 

Your point about "unity" being the only reason for the Church not changing her moral teachings regarding homosexuality is nonsense.  The Church's teachings on the immorality of contraception, fornication, masturbation, porn, and divorce and remarriage are even less popular than those on homosexuality, with the majority of self-declared Catholics disregarding or rejecting them.  Many also disagree on abortion.  Changing Her teachings on those things would probably increase the Church's popularity and esteem in the secular world.

The fact that the Church continues to constantly keep these teachings despite their unpopularity and pressure to change is one of the things that actually confirms my belief in the Catholic Church.

 

If the Church was merely a purely human institution with no divine authority, then your speculations would probably be correct.  The Church would simply be like another political party, changing its platform to meet the whims and demands of its constituents.  

A Church whose moral teachings simply bless whatever opinions are pc and popular in secular society of the time wouldn't be much of a Church, or have any real moral authority at all.

 

But if the Church did officially change or modify any of its unpopular moral teachings (or more popular ones, for that matter), I would immediately stop being Catholic and leave the Church.  Not because I'm a hateful bigot, but because if the Church simply changed Her moral teachings with the shifting winds of political correctness and popular opinion, that would mean She never had any actual teaching authority to begin with.

I have no interest in belonging to a sham Church.

 

If you want a Church who simply changes unpopular teachings to conform to current political correctness, the Episcopalians would be happy to take you in.

 

 

I wasn't making any association towards the political right, I mentioned secular organisations of a similar thinking to the OP post source. Given the similarity of views expressed between them that wasn't a dishonest diversion at all. They are of the same ilk, and there has been a cross over between a few of them in the past.  The OP source writer wasn't saying much of anything relevant. He has spent most of his career writing such pieces for these organisations, probably because he can't find an outlet or support for such views anywhere else.

 

 

I personally had no problem with the quote in the OP, and thought the author made some very valid points, and I pointed out that what he was saying was actually not that different from points made by a former pope in a CDF document.

 

Obviously, you disagree and don't like what he had to say, but rather than refute it, you simply dismissed it by comparing it to positions of some conservative evangelical Christian organizations you presumably don't like.

What you say on here isn't really different than what you can hear from any number of dissenting left-leaning progressive "Catholic" groups, for that matter. 

[CrossCuT]

It seems to me that Catholics are the ones being discriminated against since we are not free to practice our religion.  

lol

 

Here you might like this guy. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/09/tony-perkins-gay-boxcars-_n_5473738.html

Edited June 18, 2014 by CrossCuT

[CrossCuT]

once I refused to carry a pot of meatballs to a planned parenthood party.
that decision cost me $75,000.

MONEY WELL SPENT.
 
for the record, I refuse to bake cakes for/carry meatballs to:
gay weddings

stip clubs 
planned parenthood fundraisers
black panther celebrations

rallies of the communist party

I also refuse to write "Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler" on anybody's birthday cake. Sorry, Nazis. 

..............

I like lists, if anyone here is picking that up.

 

Well Id like to point out that there is a difference between carrying cakes or meat balls and owning a store where you sell them to the public. 

 

I also hope that you wouldnt carry cakes to any of the events you listed because Im not sure why youd be there in the first place.