Homosexuals And Our Attitude Towards Them

[Socrates]

[quote name='rachael' post='1599510' date='Jul 13 2008, 09:00 PM']I, for one, am not afraid of talking of such things. There is both harm in talking of such things freely and of not talking of them at all. Hiding in the dark isn't good for anyone, Soc.[/quote]
And a public "family-friendly" message board is not the place for it. The phatmass boards are not a confessional.

[rkwright]

If you want to partake in the discussion, then feel free to remove jamie from your ignore list. I don't think its necessary for me to pass on messages from him. I think everyone can read for themselves.

[rachael]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1599519' date='Jul 13 2008, 10:09 PM']So, you don't agree with hot stuff that there are too many threads on PM about homosexuality, then?

[/quote]


[quote name='Socrates' post='1599520' date='Jul 13 2008, 10:09 PM']And a public "family-friendly" message board is not the place for it. The phatmass boards are not a confessional.[/quote]
If these boards are truly intended to be thoroughly family friendly, then we have many other issues to be worrying about. And confessing? I thought we were just discussing.

[rachael]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1599522' date='Jul 13 2008, 10:13 PM']If you want to partake in the discussion, then feel free to remove jamie from your ignore list. I don't think its necessary for me to pass on messages from him. I think everyone can read for themselves.[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1599522' date='Jul 13 2008, 09:13 PM']If you want to partake in the discussion, then feel free to remove jamie from your ignore list. I don't think its necessary for me to pass on messages from him. I think everyone can read for themselves.[/quote]
I've checked his posts here. No refutation found, and none from you either. If you wish to attempt to refute one of my statements here, please do it, rather than discuss who I choose to place on my "ignore" list. Thank you.

[rachael]

Oh Soc, talking to you is like talking to a wall.

Have a good night. I'm out.

[Aloysius]

the essence of hot stuff's argument is that the punishment for mortal sin is eternal separation from God, and therefore it is all equal.

it would be equivalent to say the reward for a good life is the Beatific vision, thus heaven is equal for everyone. Christ himself teaches that there are different levels of heaven, so it is reasonble to say that hell can have varying degrees as well.

anyway, apparently Ott places it on the level of common teaching? that's pretty much what I've said throughout this thread.

no one is required to make public which sins they struggle with in particular, that's why the Church in her wisdom offers the secret of the confessional. it would make sense to have threads on all sorts of controversial sins... homosexuality is probably one of the most controversial which is why it probably gets so many threads... but it doesn't make sense to expect people to go around and talk about all their personal experiences with those sins. you can if you wish, but for some sins (and especially sexual sins) there is a certain pastoral wisdom in only having a select few trusted people that you can talk about frankly about them.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1599525' date='Jul 13 2008, 09:16 PM']I've checked his posts here. No refutation found, and none from you either. If you wish to attempt to refute one of my statements here, please do it, rather than discuss who I choose to place on my "ignore" list. Thank you.[/quote]

You're just not getting it. Considering that there has never been a definitive doctrine on the 'levels of hell' or differing punishment in hell, there is no refutation required. The only definitive doctrine here is that all those who die in mortal sin go to hell.

You can't disprove something the Church hasn't.

I'll repost for you the thread pinned by Lil Red at the top...

[quote]2. The Rule of Publicity: “Think with the mind of the Church.”
This rule is simply a translation of the Latin axiom “Sentire cum Ecclesia.” This means that, when we disagree, the final measure for judging what’s on target and what’s off the mark is what the Church thinks, not, ultimately, what you think or what I think – not private opinion, but what the Church has said to all to know.

This is the reason I call this the “The Rule of Publicity.” The criterion for our deciding our disagreements is not one’s own private opinions, but the mind of the People of God, what the Church thinks.

In order to apply this rule effectively, we need to use a corollary: “Measure everything against the authoritative documents of the Magisterium.”

The logical question to follow any call for us to “think with the mind of the Church” is: How do I know what that is?

The answer is: “Look in the places where the Church has expressed her mind with authority.” Look in the writings of the Councils and the popes, in the Church’s laws, and in the teachings of her Fathers and Doctors. Any survey or poll, no matter how extensive or accurate, if it contradicts the Magisterium, is not the Church’s mind.

3. The Rule of Legitimate Freedom: “What the Church allows is not to be disallowed.”
This rule means that in situations where the Church says that a variety of views or opinions is legitimate, I should not impose my option as a mandate on others. For example: we can receive Holy Communion in the hand or on the tongue. Either one is acceptable.

4. The Rule of Catholic Freedom: “There’s something for everybody, but not everything is for everybody.”
This fourth rule is an extension of the one above. It applies the same sort of respect for diversity to the wider spheres of our common life. This rule is based on the recognition that “It’s a big Church.” God has given gifts of grace in an almost dizzying variety. Some folks are attracted to the Carmelite Third Order, others gather for charismatic prayer. Nobody has to live the Christian life exactly the way I do.

Remember: “Think (and act) with the mind of the Church.” We need to respect every practice or approach that has a legitimate place in the life of the Church, and we cannot make our favorite practice or approach mandatory for others if the Church has not.[/quote]

[ironmonk]

[quote name='socalscout' post='1585025' date='Jun 27 2008, 05:00 PM']Does the Church recognize that homosexuality is not a choice? If so why do I see so many Christians here on this forum and in many Catholic writings and websites really berate homosexuals. I mean I am seeing some very judgmental people really laying into homosexuals as a whole and accusing them of being sinful people.

I am just glazing over pretty much what many Christians say about homosexuals. I saw a guy call it a “defect” on this forum and that comment implies that God makes defects.

It seems to me the majority of Christians assume that the homosexual is performing homosexual acts. Would I assume that since we are heterosexual that every unmarried person on this forum is performing fornication or some sexual act? Am I to assume every teenage heterosexual boy is masturbating and is therefore a sinner? Should we have a debate on whether that boy should have “rights”?

Don’t get me wrong I believe that marriage is reserved for a man and woman and parades, TV shows etc. that glorifies the sins of homosexuality is as much immoral to me as watching roommates having premarital sex on “The Real World” or all of those stupid dating shows or soap operas.

It seems to me to be ok to hate the sin AND the sinner when it comes to speaking about homosexuals. I can see where people might think that someone who comes “out” is glorifying a sin but is that what really is happening? I’m sure there are some that do but it could be a very personal thing that helps them cope with the fact they are expected to be celibate for the rest of their lives. I thought about this and they are the only group of people who have no choice but to be celibate and not experience the love that heterosexuals can experience in the Sacrament of Marriage. The bachelor/ette vocation is a choice for heterosexuals but not homosexuals.

I would think given all that they would get a lot more empathy from us than they do. A lot more encouragement to fight the good fight everyday. A few “atta boys” for trying. But no they mostly get ridicule and scorn. Why is that?[/quote]

Here is a great article by the Catholic Medical Association which studied and compiled the results of many different studies completed on people who have same sex attraction... Please read it and pass it on...
Homosexuality and Hope
[url="http://www.cathmed.org/publications/homosexualityarticle.htm"]http://www.cathmed.org/publications/homosexualityarticle.htm[/url]


Typically, those who "come out" of the closet are not those looking for help in remaining holy but shoving their same sex attraction in our face... and our children's faces. Acting on same sex attraction is a choice... developing a same sex attraction may not be a conscious choice but we can change the way we think. Some people with same sex attraction fail to realize that there is a problem with anyone who has to tell everybody their sexual choices as soon as they meet them.

What I believe that actually angers most people about people with same sex attraction is that they try to tell our children that nothing is wrong with it, when in fact there are many many things wrong with it.

Facts are very clear that homosexual acts can lead someone to hell... for homosexuals and fornicators will not inherit the Kingdom of God (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10).


As for what the Church teaches about people with same sex attraction, read it for yourself...
[quote][i]Chastity and homosexuality[/i]

[b]2357 [/b]
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

[b]2358 [/b]
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

[b]2359 [/b]
Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

[url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.htm"]http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.htm[/url][/quote]

As for someone calling same sex attraction a "defect"... maybe that does not exactly express what it is... same sex attraction is a disorder... God does not create people with same sex attraction... same sex attraction is developed... just as some guy likes blondes, some guys like brunettes, some like darker skin, some like lighter skin... All attraction is developed.

God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited July 14, 2008 by ironmonk

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1599514' date='Jul 13 2008, 09:05 PM'][quote]This teaching is regarded as "Common Teaching" by Ott.

According to the councils of Lyon and Florence formally defined that people in hell are punished by unequal punishments. The conclusion which is drawn from this is that there are levels in hell, which holds the degree of certain of sententia communior. Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma discusses it on p. 482. I hope this helps. God bless.

Fr. Ripperger
----------------------

Anyone disagree? This would be doctrinal and dogmatic proof would it not?[/quote]

"Common Teaching is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally."

So not quiet dogmatic proof, or that which compels any Catholic to believe.
[/quote]

The councils of Lyon and Florence [b]formally defined[/b] that people in hell are punished by unequal punishments.

"Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons."

ECCUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE
Session 6, paragraph 11—6th July 1439

[Aloysius]

:yep: I've been trying to remember that quote to put in here but for the life of me couldn't remember exactly what it said or where it was from, I just knew there was a helpful quote from somewhere that I'd seen before.

[rkwright]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1599554' date='Jul 13 2008, 09:48 PM']"Common Teaching is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally."

So not quiet dogmatic proof, or that which compels any Catholic to believe.
The councils of Lyon and Florence [b]formally defined[/b] that people in hell are punished by unequal punishments.

"Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons."

ECCUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE
Session 6, paragraph 11—6th July 1439[/quote]

Yes... Ott mentions this. Do you have the Ott book your priest was referring to? It surprises me that you look to Ott for your dogma, then when it doesn't come out the way you thought it was you re-interpret the same thing he's looking at.

Anyways, this is where Ott gathers that this teaching is a "Common Teaching" and not a dogma. This council doesn't actually say there are different levels of hell, for the same line could be interpreted to read that those who die in the state of original sin and those who die in a state of mortal sin will experience different punishments.

[Aloysius]

if there are different punishments in hell, then it stands to reason that they flow from justice. justice DEMANDS that different people in hell be punished differently; anyone who says that they are not in my mind is contradicting the doctrine that God is perfectly just, because I say that would be unjust of God.

and the claim that we shouldn't refute it because you don't see the Church's teaching as definitively refuting it is incorrect; we have every right to use our minds to reason things out from what the Church teaches and argue about that. if anyone says that someone who commits genocide and someone who commits murder who are both equally culpable for their particular sin do not suffer different degrees of punishment I will say enthusiastically that they are absolutely wrong and I don't feel I need any Church teaching to back me up except the fact that [b]God is just![/b]

if you're proposing something as novel as the idea that everyone in hell suffers the same level of punishment, the burden of proof rests very heavily upon you. you're not off the hook if we don't provide some definitive dogmatic teaching, you have to provide something really convincing because what you're saying is completely counterintuitive to our understanding of justice.

does anyone out there really think that it is just for someone who committed genocide to be punished equally as someone who committed singular murder if both were equally culpable for their sin? that would really shock me.... honestly, does anyone actually believe this? if not, then you believe in various degrees (or "levels") of punishment in hell.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1599566' date='Jul 13 2008, 10:00 PM']Yes... Ott mentions this. Do you have the Ott book your priest was referring to? It surprises me that you look to Ott for your dogma, then when it doesn't come out the way you thought it was you re-interpret the same thing he's looking at.

Anyways, this is where Ott gathers that this teaching is a "Common Teaching" and not a dogma. This council doesn't actually say there are different levels of hell, for the same line could be interpreted to read that those who die in the state of original sin and those who die in a state of mortal sin will experience different punishments.[/quote]


I do not see how I have re-interpret anything when all I have done is repeat the words of Fr. R.
I have written to him about these concerns.

[CatherineM]

I can't recall ever discussing different levels of punishment in any of my theology classes. It may just have never come up, or it may have been obvious and taken as a given. I remember discussing the Council of Florence in a canon law class, but we discussed the re-unification issues, and not the levels of sin issue. Although looking back, that probably would have been more germane for the class.

I personally believe that I will receive more punishment for more serious sins. I don't have anything specific to base that on except my own personal feeling that I should be punished more severely for more serious sins.

I do remember discussing the 4 sins that cry out, can't remember which class now. I do remember that we discussed the definition of sodomy in that instance. We were taught that sodomy included any sexual act that didn't lead to procreation. So that would obviously include a lot of stuff done by heterosexuals as well. Much different than the definition we got in law school, which basically only called acts sodomy if they were not consensual.