New Book On Homosexual Behaviour

[Perigrina]

As I understand it the Catholic church is against gay weddings.

Are you also telling me that the Catholic church is against gay people having a parade?

 

If the parade were in honour of chastity for people with same sex atraction, the Church would be in favour of it.  A parade that promotes the values of "gay pride" is something the Church is against, regardless of the orientation of the people in the parade.  In fact, many of the people who march are heterosexual.  I've marched in them myself.

 

Your questions seem to indicate that you did not understand the article on cooperation with evil, but I am not really sure what else to say to explain it. Perhaps Credo's explanation will help.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Perigrina

[Benedictus]

Thank you Benedictus for being a Catholic witness to charity.

 

Keep praying that in one hundred years time, or less, a lot of the nonsense people spurt now will be as alien to that generation as the views Catholics, and others, held as spanking sticks against people in the past. They faded away. In the meantime a critical mass of the laity will, no doubt, carry on pretty much as we are. If pew reports and research are accurate then we're not alone in thinking this way regarding acting in charity, not acting in discriminatory ways and being open to listen to those that many in the church have ignored or scolded for years.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Benedictus

[CrossCuT]

Keep praying that in one hundred years time, or less, a lot of the nonsense people spurt now will be as alien to that generation as the views Catholics, and others, have held as a spanking stick against others in past times have faded away. In the meantime a critical mass of the laity will, no doubt, carry on pretty mcuh as we are. If pew reports and research are accurate then we're not alone in thinking this way regarding acting in charity, not acting in discriminatory ways and being open to listen to those that many in the church have ignored or scolded for years. I guess different groups develop at different rates. At least, unlike some other churches, our fallouts aren't still at the level of saying the Genesis story is literal history, rather than myth. All those small blessings add up :pray:

 

Hehe! Im sure Ill be chided for say so, but I think at this point in the conversation people are getting hung up on such tiny details. We are digging so deep into the subject that everything we perceive is going to seem sinful, evil, and the stuff of Satan. I can understand how people in this thread are going from A to Q, but my perspective is that we should just stick with Charity. I think the point you made about these sorts of thought pools helping to nurture the idea that religion helps fuel evil actions is pretty accurate.

 

The normal response is "Do what is right in the face of evil!" Which I agree, with...but there is a point where youre going out of your way to find the evil in someone. I dunno...Im a hippie, homo lover so I dunno if my opinions count on PM. hhaha

[Perigrina]

There are examples of racial and religious discrimination, even in the Bible. It's not just a culture issue. But there also isn't some scale of holy cows. If discrimination occurs, then it simply is. The reality of whether a religion may, or not, mandate something is irrelevant. Just because some things are overlooked now, or not followed, doesn't mean it was once not a major issue enforced by religious leaders. Denominations, such as the SBC, in the 1940's and 50's were their own authority on religion. They were Christanity as much as any one elses view. They, like most groups, don't answer to anyone else. They did a bit more than simply 'not live up' to their Christian ideals.  Everyone else wasn't doing it so good, and across the world the churches still aren't. Same issues, different prejudices. And so the stones keep rolling!

In that example of the mixed race couple, they are being discrimnated against. The cake is the means through which that is expressed. It's not just a 'practice'. I don't really like playing semantic games to aviod the obvious.

 

The issue of whether or not a religion teaches something is a crucial distinction.  People who are following the teachings of their religion can claim protection under freedom of religion.  People who are acting on prejudices can not.  By conflating the two and calling it all prejudice, your are justifying denying religious freedom.  

 

It is a denial of freedom of religion to force people to participate in or support activities that are against their religion.  Should Quakers be forced to fight in wars?  Should observant Jews be forced to attend pig roasts?  

 

 

 

 

 

You have used examples of clothes and customs of operations to defend, on equal par, with ideas to justify discrimination against fixed traits instrinsic to persons. I don't roll with that. I also don't think religion, in and of itself, has any elevated status to confer any special claim or rights to allow anyone to discriminate. The fact they do it, regardless of reasons is all that matters from a secular perspective. Religious people don't get jail free cards for their actions. They also can't use circular reasoning and false claims to authority and then expect people to accept it.  Using religion as a cheap means to abidcate our personal, legal and communal responsibility to other people shouldn't be seen as ideal. If anything it supports the claim organised religions fuels evil actions, and strips people of taking personal and rational responsibility for themselves. 

How did I say a cake shop owner has to accept a same sex wedding? They aren't having one, attending one or leading one. I also said, a few times, that they should operate their business in a way to comply with law. But this doesn't mean they are needing to deal with the clients or personally sell any cakes. They could also operate in a way to restrict operations, such as only supplying certain venues. What you're saying is you want them to have their cake and eat it, hoping to control what can or can't be done. That, regardless of anyone's view, isn't t what most people deem as reasonable behaviour. It sure isn't being proactive or realistic.

I don't think the law is being unreasonable or inconsistent. If anything I am confused what your actual position is regarding businesses having the right to refuse whoever they like. At one point you seemed to say they shouldn't exclude a homosexual couple buying general items from the store, simply only if they wanted a wedding cake. Then you seemed to say the owners should have the right to refuse service if they fel a conflict or if their servcies are supporting sin. So providing bread to a same sex couple to eat over breakfast. Should the baker kick them out ot not? Should a taxi driver refuse to drive a couple he assumes are in a relationship? Does it matter if there's only one homosexual in the car?
The church wonders why it gets people who are angry and fed up with it's attitude, or simply walk away from it.  With some of the sentiments expressed here I'm not surprised. The Jesus I know and love isn't part of any of this 'cake war'.

 

The decision to have a same-sex wedding is not a fixed trait that is intrinsic to people.  It is a conscious choice, a choice that I do not wish to support by providing goods and services.  This is a reasonable application of Catholic moral principles.  You apparently do not understand the principles, which is fine, but, perhaps because you do not understand, you think that I should be forced by law to go against my beliefs, which is not.   Eating breakfast is not a sin.  Travelling in a taxi is not a sin.  There is no reason for me to refuse to cooperate with people who are doing these things.  

 

I am fine with laws that prevent actual discrimination based on fixed traits. More importantly, the Church teaches that unjust discrimination is wrong. But claims of discrimination are being misused.  Is it discrimination against men if Catholic store owners refuse to sell condoms?  Is it discrimination against women, if Catholic medical personnel refuse to perform abortions?  How far are you going to go in describing Catholics simply practicing their religion as discrimination?

[Perigrina]

Hehe! Im sure Ill be chided for say so, but I think at this point in the conversation people are getting hung up on such tiny details. We are digging so deep into the subject that everything we perceive is going to seem sinful, evil, and the stuff of Satan. I can understand how people in this thread are going from A to Q, but my perspective is that we should just stick with Charity. I think the point you made about these sorts of thought pools helping to nurture the idea that religion helps fuel evil actions is pretty accurate.

 

The normal response is "Do what is right in the face of evil!" Which I agree, with...but there is a point where youre going out of your way to find the evil in someone. I dunno...Im a hippie, homo lover so I dunno if my opinions count on PM. hhaha

 

 

I suspect that I have better "hippie, homo lover" cred than you do.  I was a gay rights activist - joined organizations, wrote letters, marched in parades, etc. I stood as a witness for a same-sex wedding when Ontario was one of the first places to perform them and couples came from all over to have one.  

 

I know all about "just sticking with Charity".  Another name for it is false compassion.  We simply follow our feelings and lose sight of what is right and wrong.  Following Church teaching is the only way to have real charity.  We are never asked to choose between what is right and what is charitable.

[CrossCuT]

The issue of whether or not a religion teaches something is a crucial distinction.  People who are following the teachings of their religion can claim protection under freedom of religion.  People who are acting on prejudices can not.  By conflating the two and calling it all prejudice, your are justifying denying religious freedom.  

 

It is a denial of freedom of religion to force people to participate in or support activities that are against their religion.  Should Quakers be forced to fight in wars?  Should observant Jews be forced to attend pig roasts?  

I think your argument has a better foothold when talking about paying for things like contraception, but not when selling cakes. No one is forcing you to sell cakes if youre in the cake business. 

 

I suspect that I have better "hippie, homo lover" cred than you do.  I was a gay rights activist - joined organizations, wrote letters, marched in parades, etc. I stood as a witness for a same-sex wedding when Ontario was one of the first places to perform them and couples came from all over to have one.  

 

I know all about "just sticking with Charity".  Another name for it is false compassion.  We simply follow our feelings and lose sight of what is right and wrong.  Following Church teaching is the only way to have real charity.  We are never asked to choose between what is right and what is charitable.

 

I dont think that discriminating against homosexuals is a way to follow church teaching in "true" charity. And I think its really sad when people try to rip down someones compassion and turn it into something empty just to prove a point about who is better at being charitable. wt.f

 

I am sure you believe very strongly in your stance on this subject, but I believe very strongly in mine as well. You are also in no position to judge my expression of charity as false compassion. Your response is probably at the core of what I find irritating in the church right now. Its not necessarily the views to support or not support homosexuals in whatever manner, it is the flagrant judgment and the blatant disregard for anything else than a very convoluted view of this whole subject. 

Edited June 23, 2014 by CrossCuT

[Perigrina]

I dont think that discriminating against homosexuals is a way to follow church teaching in "true" charity. And I think its really sad when people try to rip down someones compassion and turn it into something empty just to prove a point about who is better at being charitable. wt.f

 

I am sure you believe very strongly in your stance on this subject, but I believe very strongly in mine as well. You are also in no position to judge my expression of charity as false compassion. Your response is probably at the core of what I find irritating in the church right now. Its not necessarily the views to support or not support homosexuals in whatever manner, it is the flagrant judgment and the blatant disregard for anything else than a very convoluted view of this whole subject. 

 

No matter how many times you call it "discriminating against homosexuals" that is not what I am arguing for.  You are using language to put down choices you disagree with.  

 

I know that any compassion that involves going against Church teaching is false compassion.  That is pretty much its definition and I do not need to know anything about what is in your hear to evaluate how your position matches with Church teaching.

 

Rash judgment is bad. This is what is meant by "being judgmental".  But making judgments about right and wrong is good.  We need to recognize what is right in order to be able to do it.  It is wrong for me to judge a person's heart or the state of his soul.  But it is right to judge words and actions on how they match up to Church teaching.  

 

Homosexual activity is wrong.  Catholics rejecting Church teaching are wrong.  I am not a horrible hateful person for saying these things.  I am making moral judgments just the way I ought to be.

[Benedictus]

The issue of whether or not a religion teaches something is a crucial distinction.  People who are following the teachings of their religion can claim protection under freedom of religion.  People who are acting on prejudices can not.  By conflating the two and calling it all prejudice, your are justifying denying religious freedom.  

 

It is a denial of freedom of religion to force people to participate in or support activities that are against their religion.  Should Quakers be forced to fight in wars?  Should observant Jews be forced to attend pig roasts?  

By that estimation any of  us can create a 'religion' and use that to justify our prejudices. Somehow it's more justified by that reasoning to discriminate when religion is the excuse and means to do it. Plus, yes, I do think some people who have prejudices use whatever means they can from their religion to advance and justify these views. It applies to same sex relationships, women, etc etc. As I said before religion isn't a jail free card- not all views and beliefs are reasonable or protected just because they are deemed religious. The examples you give are about what a person particpates in eg going to war or attending a party. In the same way noone has to run a cake shop, noone has to have a same sex marriage, noone has to lead or attend one either. That's not the same as choosing to do something buut then only on your terms and boundaries for other people when you do it. A business operates according to law or they find another means to make money. They can be as difficult or disagreeable as they like. They don't have to work there or in that field. They don't have to sell to the wider public either. They can go figure!

 

The decision to have a same-sex wedding is not a fixed trait that is intrinsic to people.  It is a conscious choice, a choice that I do not wish to support by providing goods and services.  This is a reasonable application of Catholic moral principles.  You apparently do not understand the principles, which is fine, but, perhaps because you do not understand, you think that I should be forced by law to go against my beliefs, which is not.   Eating breakfast is not a sin.  Travelling in a taxi is not a sin.  There is no reason for me to refuse to cooperate with people who are doing these things.  
 

 

The first bit is a bit condescending. Forced to go against your beliefs, ha! I won't repeat what I've already said more than once. A ride in a taxi is a service -  if a driver with his beliefs wants to exlcude a couple who he perceives, or knows, are a same sex couple then that's not far different to you being left holding your cake. Maybe the driver is driving them to their honeymoon hotel -  maybe the thought of him driving them to the hotel at speed causes him moral grief. Would you force him to drive them against his beliefs? I'm sure you are aware these things have and do happen in real life. Lets not split hairs on any moral layers you see applying to the cake owner versus the taxi driver

 

I am fine with laws that prevent actual discrimination based on fixed traits. More importantly, the Church teaches that unjust discrimination is wrong. But claims of discrimination are being misused.  Is it discrimination against men if Catholic store owners refuse to sell condoms?  Is it discrimination against women, if Catholic medical personnel refuse to perform abortions?  How far are you going to go in describing Catholics simply practicing their religion as discrimination?

 

Well at least that's something, but it doesn't go as far as the law deems reasonable. From the examples you give, and the inconsistency I can even see, I'm not surprised lawyers and courts don't tend to hold that view either. Condoms - no because in your example they're not offering them to anyone. It would be different if they had them on sale, but only sold them to black men or white men with black wives. In terms of abortions, medics can choose not to work in those areas. But if they only decided to offer abortions to certain women (colour, religion, as examples) then I would see an issue. The options I see are: 1. They generally sell to everyone,  2. They sell to nobody. 3. They limit the scope of their business to areas that legally don't cause them to have moral conflictions.

 

I suspect that I have better "hippie, homo lover" cred than you do.  I was a gay rights activist - joined organizations, wrote letters, marched in parades, etc. I stood as a witness for a same-sex wedding when Ontario was one of the first places to perform them and couples came from all over to have one.  

 

Then shouldn't you know better at this point?  You didn't see God with you in and through those people and experiences? That makes me feels a bit sad on this side of history.

 

 

 

I know all about "just sticking with Charity".  Another name for it is false compassion.  We simply follow our feelings and lose sight of what is right and wrong.  Following Church teaching is the only way to have real charity.  We are never asked to choose between what is right and what is charitable.

If you say so, but it seems a bit self righteous to me. It may speak for you, but I don't think it's universal. It doesn't speak to my experience or knowledge of God anyway. I'd hope God continues to lead me and that I don't become so insecure, fearful, or troubled that I deny grace, my experiences, the blessing of others, and or regress in my relationships with God and others. Gods grace and love is far more open reaching than many seem to want it to be. Nobody can keep God hostage and limit him to their mindset or box of tricks, semantic or otherwise.

[fides' Jack]

Homosexual activity is wrong.  Catholics rejecting Church teaching are wrong.  I am not a horrible hateful person for saying these things.  I am making moral judgments just the way I ought to be.

 

Not that you need clarification...

 

Anyone rejecting Church teaching are wrong.  Catholics rejecting Church teaching are heretics.  That's just the definition.  I'm not going to accuse anyone of that right now, because I haven't read most of the comments here.

 

But you are absolutely correct in your arguments, Perigrina.  Everything I've read from you in this thread should be supported by all Catholics.

[Perigrina]

By that estimation any of  us can create a 'religion' and use that to justify our prejudices. Somehow it's more justified by that reasoning to discriminate when religion is the excuse and means to do it. Plus, yes, I do think some people who have prejudices use whatever means they can from their religion to advance and justify these views. It applies to same sex relationships, women, etc etc. As I said before religion isn't a jail free card- not all views and beliefs are reasonable or protected just because they are deemed religious. The examples you give are about what a person particpates in eg going to war or attending a party. In the same way noone has to run a cake shop, noone has to have a same sex marriage, noone has to lead or attend one either. That's not the same as choosing to do something buut then only on your terms and boundaries for other people when you do it. A business operates according to law or they find another means to make money. They can be as difficult or disagreeable as they like. They don't have to work there or in that field. They don't have to sell to the wider public either. They can go figure!

 

 

The first bit is a bit condescending. Forced to go against your beliefs, ha! I won't repeat what I've already said more than once. A ride in a taxi is a service -  if a driver with his beliefs wants to exlcude a couple who he perceives, or knows, are a same sex couple then that's not far different to you being left holding your cake. Maybe the driver is driving them to their honeymoon hotel -  maybe the thought of him driving them to the hotel at speed causes him moral grief. Would you force him to drive them against his beliefs? I'm sure you are aware these things have and do happen in real life. Lets not split hairs on any moral layers you see applying to the cake owner versus the taxi driver.

 

We are discussing what the law ought to be so saying that businesses must follow the law is missing the point.  There should not be laws that say people must provide goods and services for events that go against their religion's teachings.  Such laws are a violation of religious freedom. This principle has been recognized. There is precedent for religious exemptions to various laws.  

 

I would not force a driver to drive people to do something he believes is immoral.  Because that is not an example of prejudice.  "I won't take you in my taxi because you are gay" is prejudice.  "I will not help you to do something immoral" is not prejudice.  I do not understand why you cannot see this as an important distinction.  It is not splitting hairs.

[Benedictus]

Perigrina -  I'll read over your posts when I'm in a better mood :deadhorse: :angry: That's all I can really say

[Credo in Deum]

I dont think that discriminating against homosexuals is a way to follow church teaching in "true" charity. And I think its really sad when people try to rip down someones compassion and turn it into something empty just to prove a point about who is better at being charitable. wt.f

I am sure you believe very strongly in your stance on this subject, but I believe very strongly in mine as well. You are also in no position to judge my expression of charity as false compassion. Your response is probably at the core of what I find irritating in the church right now. Its not necessarily the views to support or not support homosexuals in whatever manner, it is the flagrant judgment and the blatant disregard for anything else than a very convoluted view of this whole subject.

I think you're confused. The discrimination is against the falsity called "gay marriage". She is not saying Catholics should refuse services just because someone is a homosexual, but because of what that cake will be used to support, which is the lie that homosexuals can be married or that marriage is between persons of the same sex.

For example I will discriminate against the idea that 2+2=5. Yet my discrimination of such a false equation is not a discrimination towards mathematicians. If anything it's an act of charity. Edited June 23, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[Perigrina]

Then shouldn't you know better at this point?  You didn't see God with you in and through those people and experiences? That makes me feels a bit sad on this side of history.

 

 

If you say so, but it seems a bit self righteous to me. It may speak for you, but I don't think it's universal. It doesn't speak to my experience or knowledge of God anyway. I'd hope God continues to lead me and that I don't become so insecure, fearful, or troubled that I deny grace, my experiences, the blessing of others, and or regress in my relationships with God and others. Gods grace and love is far more open reaching than many seem to want it to be. Nobody can keep God hostage and limit him to their mindset or box of tricks, semantic or otherwise.

 

I learned from my mistakes.  I learned that it is very wrong to get so caught up in "compassion" that I think I know better than the Church.  I still care about the suffering and trials that face homosexual people. I still oppose genuine discrimination against them.  But just as many horrible things can be done in the name of compassion as the name of religion.  Compassion needs the limits set by Church teaching or it just becomes an idol.

 

I have the impression these general comments are directed at me.  Have you decided that I am so insecure, fearful, and troubled that I deny grace and regress in my relationships with God and others?  If so, this would be an example of the bad kind of judgment that we ought to avoid.  Rather than being a judgment about the morality of my words and actions, it would be making up things about my motives and relationship with God that you could not possibly know.  

 

So we have example for both kinds of judgment.

 

'Your position contradicts Church teaching and is therefore wrong"  = right judgment

"You are acting from from insecurity and fear and have regressed in your relationship with God"  = rash judgment

 

I hope this makes the difference clear. 

[Benedictus]

I learned from my mistakes.  I learned that it is very wrong to get so caught up in "compassion" that I think I know better than the Church.  I still care about the suffering and trials that face homosexual people. I still oppose genuine discrimination against them.  But just as many horrible things can be done in the name of compassion as the name of religion.  Compassion needs the limits set by Church teaching or it just becomes an idol.

 

I have the impression these general comments are directed at me.  Have you decided that I am so insecure, fearful, and troubled that I deny grace and regress in my relationships with God and others?  If so, this would be an example of the bad kind of judgment that we ought to avoid.  Rather than being a judgment about the morality of my words and actions, it would be making up things about my motives and relationship with God that you could not possibly know.  

 

So we have example for both kinds of judgment.

 

'Your position contradicts Church teaching and is therefore wrong"  = right judgment

"You are acting from from insecurity and fear and have regressed in your relationship with God"  = rash judgment

 

I hope this makes the difference clear. 

 

Actually I was saying what I'd not want to become. If I was thinking about you I'd have said so. It was actually a generic analysis. I think you know I don't share youe views on this topic. That's about it. But I think, in your latest reply to me, you could take some of your own advice regarding making statements about the views of others. Anyone who bands around words like 'immoral', 'wrong', 'wrongness', 'should', and 'right' when discussiing something among people who disgaree, as a means to claim authority in the debate, is generating more heat than necessary.  It goes beyond stating your own position. You may think it's a justisfied and charitable tactic, I suggest otherwise.
 

[Perigrina]

Actually I was saying what I'd not want to become. If I was thinking about you I'd have said so. It was actually a generic analysis. I think you know I don't share youe views on this topic. That's about it. But I think, in your latest reply to me, you could take some of your own advice regarding making statements about the views of others. Anyone who bands around words like 'immoral', 'wrong', 'wrongness', 'should', and 'right' when discussiing something among people who disgaree, as a means to claim authority in the debate, is generating more heat than necessary.  It goes beyond stating your own position. You may think it's a justisfied and charitable tactic, I suggest otherwise.
 

 

This is not people arguing about their opinion of which is the best flavour of ice cream.  We are arguing about moral questions on which the Church has given clear teaching.  The Church does have the authority to do this.

 

I am not "stating my own position".  I am saying what the Church teaches.  People who disagree with the Church are wrong. This has been a basic belief of the Church since she began.  We have always thought that it is justified and charitable to say that those who disagree with Church teaching are wrong.