goldenchild17 Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 [quote name='Varg' post='1910400' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:20 AM']Doesn't men he/she (the Catholic) approves, it just mens he/she doesn't want to get involved in [i]someone else's[/i] business, which is completely understandable.[/quote] I think I would agree with him that a Catholic sitting in the presence of a homosexual friend who is making out with his partner would certainly constitute scandal and an added near occasion of sin. Though I think no Catholic should be sitting in the near presence of any couple (straight, homosexual, married or otherwise) passionately kissing. Not to mention just plain awkward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 [quote name='OraProMe' post='1910408' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:37 AM']It's just fraternal implies equality, respect and charity. I'm not trying to be offensive at all but from what I have seen your attempts at "fraternal correction" usually come off as a little condecending and "holier-than-thou". Again, no offence intended. Just an observation.[/quote] I think the ways one goes about "fraternal correction" vary from person to person. Some respond better to respectful reminders or whatever, kind dialogue type things. Others might find this to be sneaky and would appreciate a more direct "this is how it is" approach. I think it depends on the temperaments of the two friends involved. In the example rex used I think it would be a cause for scandal for the Catholic to sit there and do nothing, but I don't think it necessarily effective for him to try to do anything about it right then and there. Best thing would be to just walk away for the time being and approach the subject with his gay friend later in whatever way his friend is most responsive to. But I don't think he should just sit there. Plus, and maybe this is just my prudish side showing, but I can't really imagine why anyone would want to sit there in that situation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OraProMe Posted July 4, 2009 Author Share Posted July 4, 2009 .....or why a couple would just start making out with their friends present. Pretty inconsiderate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varg Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 [quote name='OraProMe' post='1910413' date='Jul 4 2009, 05:52 AM'].....or why a couple would just start making out with their friends present. Pretty inconsiderate.[/quote]Maybe they're drunk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 (edited) [quote name='goldenchild17' post='1910407' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:36 AM']But unless you have a moral theology reference for an added sacrilege for homosexual kissing I don't think I can agree because there isn't necessarily anyone else involved like there is in the case of the priest (the Church whom he is married to) and the married man (the wife he is married to).[/quote] "The malice of sodomy consists in the perverted affection towards the wrong sex [. . .]" (Fr. Heribert Jone, [i]Moral Theology[/i], p. 151) Though sodomy, strictly defined, is indeed a specific sexual act, the author in another place says, "To look at the semi-private parts of persons of the same sex is not wrong, unless it is done with sodomitical intentions." (Ibid., p. 156) This implies that immodest looks and touches can be sodomitical too. [quote name='goldenchild17' post='1910411' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:44 AM']Best thing would be to just walk away for the time being and approach the subject with his gay friend later in whatever way his friend is most responsive to. But I don't think he should just sit there.[/quote] I definitely agree with this, but I think there may be some situations in which it is appropriate to remain if disapproval is clearly being shown. Edited July 4, 2009 by Resurrexi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 [quote name='goldenchild17' post='1910409' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:39 AM']I think I would agree with him that a Catholic sitting in the presence of a homosexual friend who is making out with his partner would certainly constitute scandal and an added near occasion of sin. Though I think no Catholic should be sitting in the near presence of any couple (straight, homosexual, married or otherwise) passionately kissing. Not to mention just plain awkward [/quote] This is somewhat off topic, but do you consider it appropriate for married couples to passionately kiss in public? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 [quote name='OraProMe' post='1910413' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:52 AM'].....or why a couple would just start making out with their friends present. Pretty inconsiderate.[/quote] true, but whatever the case, the Catholic friend is best to just step out for a minute I think, and that goes not just for his gay friends, but any friend in any type of relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 [quote name='Varg' post='1910416' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:54 AM']Maybe they're drunk[/quote] yeah, and sometimes the moment just hits... Yes, the couple (of any status and orientation) has a responsibility not to display this level of intimacy in public, but that doesn't excuse the Catholic from his duty to escape the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1910417' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:58 AM']"The malice of sodomy consists in the perverted affection towards the wrong sex [. . .]" (Fr. Heribert Jone, [i]Moral Theology[/i], p. 151) Though sodomy, strictly defined, is indeed a specific sexual act, the author in another place says, "To look at the semi-private parts of persons of the same sex is not wrong, unless it is done with sodomitical intentions." (Ibid., p. 156)[/quote] thanks, I need to look at my copy (I've got the same book), but I'm still not seeing him placing sinful intimacy of a homosexual couple at a higher level than that of sinful intimacy among a hetero couple. Sure he uses the word malice, but for what purpose in this context? Anyways, I'm probably just reading it wrong. peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1910417' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:58 AM']but I think there may be some situations in which it is appropriate to remain if disapproval is clearly being shown.[/quote] possibly. Though I think we need to consider the Catholic's own soul, and not just the possibility of him causing scandal to others. Plus, how does one sit there and show clear disapproval? Perhaps holding a neon sign above the couple's head calling it what it is?!? haha, its late... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1910418' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:59 AM']This is somewhat off topic, but do you consider it appropriate for married couples to passionately kiss in public?[/quote] Personally, because I haven't looked up a good reference for it, yes I do believe it would be a sin. Showing love and affectionate is perfectly acceptable but it should be done in a way that does not introduce lust among themselves or causes of lust among anyone that might happen to see them. Fr. Jone (you have the book) says that a pretty girl with a moderate amount of make-up can bring about scandal in a man. So I think passionate kissing in public would do even more harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 (edited) [quote name='goldenchild17' post='1910425' date='Jul 4 2009, 05:06 AM']thanks, I need to look at my copy (I've got the same book), but I'm still not seeing him placing sinful intimacy of a homosexual couple at a higher level than that of sinful intimacy among a hetero couple. Sure he uses the word malice, but for what purpose in this context? Anyways, I'm probably just reading it wrong. peace[/quote] Here is another instance of the word [i]malice[/i] in regards to the sixth commandment: "Fornication is voluntary sexual intercourse between unmarried persons, who are not bound by Holy Orders or vow and who are not related to one another by blood. This mortal sins differs from other natural sins against chastity [he later mentions that adultery, rape, and incest are other natural sins against chastity] in this that aside from the sin of impurity it contains no other specific malice." (Ibid, p. 147) He later states the added malice of adultery and rape is injustice, and that the added malice of incest is impiety. If you are wondering how some sins against the sixth commandment are called "natural," it is to distinguish them from those considered "unnatural" (i.e. masturbation, sodomy, and bestiality). (This is more for others reading than you since you said that you have the book ) Edited July 4, 2009 by Resurrexi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeniteAdoremus Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Hm... In the past, as in, back when I had one, I would kiss my boyfriend on the cheek in greeting, even when we are in public. Passers-by would often think we are a gay couple and comment on this fact. If scandal is in the eye of the beholder, were we causing scandal? Oh, and regarding the topic: yes, you can and should be friends with sinners. Otherwise you'd have no friends. Doesn't mean you automatically approve of everything they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 I thought that everyone in Europe greeted another by kissing him or her on the cheek? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1910430' date='Jul 4 2009, 05:17 AM']Here is another instance of the word [i]malice[/i] in regards to the sixth commandment: "Fornication is voluntary sexual intercourse between unmarried persons, who are not bound by Holy Orders or vow and who are not related to one another by blood. This mortal sins differs from other natural sins against chastity [he later mentions that adultery, rape, and incest are other natural sins against chastity] in this that aside from the sin of impurity it contains no other specific malice." (Ibid, p. 147) He later states the added malice of adultery and rape is injustice, and that the added malice of incest is impiety. If you are wondering how some sins against the sixth commandment are called "natural," it is to distinguish them from those considered "unnatural" (i.e. masturbation, sodomy, and bestiality). (This is more for others reading than you since you said that you have the book )[/quote] cool thanks for clarifying. That makes more sense, and I'll read the parts in question tomorrow. I think I can agree with this now. 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