hyperdulia again Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 "Quite a few people with ssa that I know have major personality flaws and I don't think that them not getting a job would have to do with them haveing same sex attraction - yet they would be quick to claim that." I have a friend..lol..nm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathqat Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 (edited) [quote name='hyperdulia again' date='Jan 6 2005, 12:49 AM'] *wonders why on earth the pro-life movement feels secure enough to tell people they can't be anti-abortion* [/quote] Please do NOT attribute the actions of the March for Life permit holder to "the pro-life movement," as if other pro-life groups and individuals support her ideas and actions. She's stepped on the toes of most pro-life groups, or worse, at one time or another. Many people within the pro-life movement think she's a little off her rocker, and many would oppose actions like excluding PLAGAL. (Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, for example, did not want PLAGAL excluded from the March. But groups like his have no say in the matter, only the permit holder does.) Edited January 6, 2005 by cathqat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1337 k4th0l1x0r Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 I got this story in my e-mail inbox also and was shocked at it. However, I'd like to get a more detailed account of what exactly happened before I make any real decisions on this. I'm also curious as to why I haven't heard about this through more than one source. I would think that at least one major news outlet would be keeping up on this story. Also, people tend to state the maximum sentence possible when a trial hasn't even started and the maximum sentence is unlikely. True, they may face decades in prison, but most likely they won't be sentence to prison at all. It looks to be a bit sensationalist at the start and that skews the perception of the rest of the story. If they reported that some people got arrested at a parade and most likely would get 6 months probation even though by law they can be imprisoned for 27 years, then the story wouldn't have quite the impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the following instruction in the early 1990s, and it is pertinent to the present conversation: [quote name='Some Considerations Concerning the Catholic Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons'][b][i]Foreword[/i][/b] Recently, legislation had been proposed in various places which would make discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal. In some cities, municipal authorities have made public housing, otherwise reserved for families, available to homosexual (and unmarried heterosexual) couples. Such initiatives, even where they seem more directed toward support of basic civil rights than condonement of homosexual activity or a homosexual lifestyle, may in fact have a negative impact on the family and society. Such things as the adoption of children, the employment of teachers, the housing needs of genuine families, landlords' legitimate concerns in screening potential tenants, for example, are often implicated. While it would be impossible to anticipate every eventuality in respect to legislative proposals in this area, these observations will try to identify some principles and distinctions of a general nature which should be taken into consideration by the conscientious legislator, voter, or Church authority who is confronted with such issues. The first section will recall relevant passages from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Person" of 1986. The second section will deal with their application. [b][i]I. Relevant Passages from the CDF's "Letter''[/i][/b] 1. The Letter recalls that the CDF's "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" of 1975 "took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions," the latter which are "intrinsically disordered" and "in no case to be approved of'' (no. 3). 2. Since "in the discussion which followed the publication of the (aforementioned) declaration ..., an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good," the letter goes on to clarify: "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not" (no. 3). 3. "As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood" (no. 7). 4. In reference to the homosexual movement, the Letter states: "One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination" (no. 9). 5. "There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved" (no. 9). 6. "She (the Church) is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy" (no. 9). 7. "It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law. But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one as any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase" (no. 10). 8. "What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behavior of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well" (no. 11). 9. "In assessing proposed legislation, the Bishops should keep as their uppermost concern the responsibility to defend and promote family life" (no. 17). [i][b]II. Applications[/b][/i] 10. "Sexual orientation" does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc., in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. "Letter," no. 3) and evokes moral concern. 11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment. 12. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons, including that of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. no. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good. 13. Including "homosexual orientation" among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. no. 10), which therefore should not form the judicial basis for claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights. 14. The "sexual orientation" of a person is not comparable to race, sex, age, etc., also for another reason than that given above which warrants attention. An individual's sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behavior manifests it. As a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc., does not usually arise. Homosexual persons who assert their homosexuality tend to be precisely those who judge homosexual behavior or lifestyle to be "either completely harmless, if not an entirely good thing" (cf. no. 3), and hence worthy of public approval. It is from this quarter that one is more likely to find those who seek to "manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws" (cf. no. 5), those who use the tactic of protesting that "any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people ... are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination" (cf. no. 9). In addition, there is a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law. 15. Since in assessment of proposed legislation uppermost concern should be given to the responsibility to defend and promote family life (cf. no. 17), strict attention should be paid to the single provisions of proposed measures. How would they affect adoption or foster care? Would they protect homosexual acts, public or private? Do they confer equivalent family status on homosexual unions, for example, in respect to public housing or by entitling the homosexual partner to the privileges of employment, which might include "family'' participation in the health benefits given to employees (cf. no. 9)? 16. Finally, where a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for Church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to Church organizations and institutions. The Church has the responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws (cf. no. 17).[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 Very good letter. Very relevant to issues under recent debate here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 [quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 6 2005, 12:30 PM'] Please do NOT attribute the actions of the March for Life permit holder to "the pro-life movement," as if other pro-life groups and individuals support her ideas and actions. She's stepped on the toes of most pro-life groups, or worse, at one time or another. Many people within the pro-life movement think she's a little off her rocker, and many would oppose actions like excluding PLAGAL. (Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, for example, did not want PLAGAL excluded from the March. But groups like his have no say in the matter, only the permit holder does.) [/quote] A group that identifies itself based on a disordered condition of a moral nature has no conceivable right to participate in the March for Life or any other public demonstration, and so it is perfectly just to discriminate against them. Certainly, the members of the group in question should be allowed to participate as individual private citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted January 6, 2005 Author Share Posted January 6, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jan 6 2005, 05:08 PM'] A group that identifies itself based on a disordered condition of a moral nature has no conceivable right to participate in the March for Life or any other public demonstration, and so it is perfectly just to discriminate against them. Certainly, the members of the group in question should be allowed to participate as individual private citizens. [/quote] I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted January 6, 2005 Author Share Posted January 6, 2005 [quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Jan 6 2005, 04:58 PM'] I got this story in my e-mail inbox also and was shocked at it. However, I'd like to get a more detailed account of what exactly happened before I make any real decisions on this. I'm also curious as to why I haven't heard about this through more than one source. I would think that at least one major news outlet would be keeping up on this story. Also, people tend to state the maximum sentence possible when a trial hasn't even started and the maximum sentence is unlikely. True, they may face decades in prison, but most likely they won't be sentence to prison at all. It looks to be a bit sensationalist at the start and that skews the perception of the rest of the story. If they reported that some people got arrested at a parade and most likely would get 6 months probation even though by law they can be imprisoned for 27 years, then the story wouldn't have quite the impact. [/quote] Major news outlets are bias and do not want the truth to be known. Case in point - when the United Nations came out and said that Saddam DID have weapons of mass destruction before, during, and after the war which were moved out of the country - from satellite photos.... not a single major news center covered it. They hate the Church and anything moral... they only scream about rights when they think it benefits them - if it benefits morality and truth - the Church - etc... they ignore it. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathqat Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 I think that the real point of my meaning has been missed, and for being unclear, my apologies. Here is my point: In places like the cities that have been named, [i]someone[/i] (either an individual or group) [i]has to hold a permit[/i] for a big, outdoor, public event (like Outfest, the March for Life, the St. Patrick's Day Festival, the Peanut Parade, a fundraising Walkathon, or whatever). If any person or group (X) goes to the event, and the permit holder does not want X to be there (no matter who they are, no matter whether they support the "cause" of the event or oppose it), [i]the permit holder may have them ejected from the event or even arrested[/i]. It shouldn't surprise anyone that these Christians, who went to protest this event, were arrested. They probably did not have a permit to demonstrate in that place at that time, and they were probably "trespassing" on the permit of the Outfest group. This isn't something that the police have done to Christians that they would not do to homosexual groups, as my example showed. So, questions for anyone who cares to answer... If you think that the Christians should be able to go to Outfest (which they protested), do you believe that PLAGAL should be allowed to go to the March for Life (which they support)? If you believe that the Christians should be allowed but PLAGAL should not, please explain your reasons for the apparent inconsistency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathqat Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Jan 6 2005, 03:22 PM'] Case in point - when the United Nations came out and said that Saddam DID have weapons of mass destruction before, during, and after the war which were moved out of the country - from satellite photos.... not a single major news center covered it. They hate the Church and anything moral... they only scream about rights when they think it benefits them - if it benefits morality and truth - the Church - etc... they ignore it. [/quote] You almost make it sound as if the Church supported the war in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted January 6, 2005 Author Share Posted January 6, 2005 [quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 6 2005, 05:24 PM'] You almost make it sound as if the Church supported the war in Iraq. [/quote] No I didn't. I supported it, do a search for Iraq with my nick in the last 180 days; to see why. According to the Catechism - justifiable means where met. Diplomatic means where exhausted.- I'm not going to debate this here - if you want to please find the thread. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathqat Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Jan 6 2005, 03:27 PM']No I didn't.[/quote] Good grief. I didn't say that you actually said the Church supported the war in Iraq. I said you [i]almost[/i] made it [i]sound[/i] that way (because of the way different ideas were run together in your post). [quote]I'm not going to debate this here[/quote] Good, because I'm not going to either! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 [quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 6 2005, 01:22 PM'] I think that the real point of my meaning has been missed, and for being unclear, my apologies. Here is my point: In places like the cities that have been named, [i]someone[/i] (either an individual or group) [i]has to hold a permit[/i] for a big, outdoor, public event (like Outfest, the March for Life, the St. Patrick's Day Festival, the Peanut Parade, a fundraising Walkathon, or whatever). If any person or group (X) goes to the event, and the permit holder does not want X to be there (no matter who they are, no matter whether they support the "cause" of the event or oppose it), [i]the permit holder may have them ejected from the event or even arrested[/i]. It shouldn't surprise anyone that these Christians, who went to protest this event, were arrested. They probably did not have a permit to demonstrate in that place at that time, and they were probably "trespassing" on the permit of the Outfest group. This isn't something that the police have done to Christians that they would not do to homosexual groups, as my example showed. So, questions for anyone who cares to answer... If you think that the Christians should be able to go to Outfest (which they protested), do you believe that PLAGAL should be allowed to go to the March for Life (which they support)? If you believe that the Christians should be allowed but PLAGAL should not, please explain your reasons for the apparent inconsistency. [/quote] Yes, I understood your point. But let me make myself clear, I don't think that "Outfest" should even be allowed to take place, for as the CDF explained: "There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment." I hold that public demonstrations agitating for "gay rights" should not be allowed because they are contrary to the common good of society. Moreover, as the CDF warned: ". . . when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one as any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.'' The CDF has also told Catholics what their actual response to groups agitating for the acceptance of homosexuality should be, for as the document states: ". . . where a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for Church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to Church organizations and institutions. [i]The Church has the responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws[/i]. God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathqat Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jan 6 2005, 03:37 PM']But let me make myself clear, I don't think that "Outfest" should even be allowed to take place[/quote] That's a great clarification, thank you! Obviously Outfest already has a permit anyway, immoral or not. I can understand why some people, including some Christians, might want to protest that in some way. But a public demonstration usually requires a permit. It seems that the Christians who were arrested were either demonstrating without a permit or they were "trespassing" on someone else's permit. Shouldn't they be willing to accept the consequences of such actions, even if that means jail time? And how is their arrest an example of "anti-Christian bigotry," since we know for a fact that the same laws are applied to other groups in the same way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 [quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 6 2005, 01:50 PM'] That's a great clarification, thank you! Obviously Outfest already has a permit anyway, immoral or not. I can understand why some people, including some Christians, might want to protest that in some way. But a public demonstration usually requires a permit. It seems that the Christians who were arrested were either demonstrating without a permit or they were "trespassing" on someone else's permit. Shouldn't they be willing to accept the consequences of such actions, even if that means jail time? And how is their arrest an example of "anti-Christian bigotry," since we know for a fact that the same laws are applied to other groups in the same way? [/quote] Yes, Outfest does have a "legal" permit to assemble. But what I am saying is that Catholics need to work for a moral reform of American culture, so that such evils can eventually be prevented. The right to assemble peaceably is not absolute, for the State has the duty to protect moral values and defend the common good. It is sad that Christians were arrested for defending moral truth; and although their arrests may have been "legal" under present civil law, their arrests were in fact an abuse, for as the Holy Father indicated in [u]Evangelium Vitae[/u]: [quote name='Evangelium Vitae' date=' no. 72']The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church. This is clear once more from John XXIII's Encyclical: "Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience...; indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse". This is the clear teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who writes that "human law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence". And again: "Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law."[/quote] What transpired at that event was represensible, i.e., the arrest of citizens who were trying, in their own limited way, to defend the objective moral order; America needs a true moral reform, and I pray that Catholics in this country become what they have been called by Christ to be, ". . . a leaven of the Gospel in society." [Pope John Paul II, "Address of the Holy Father to Representatives of the world of Culture and Science," [u]L'Osservatore Romano[/u], 17 November 1999] God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now