Dilemma of Being ****sexual

[Columcille]

I am at times hostile to "modern" advances, because in most cases such advances are politicized. A "consensus" that ****sexuality is not sinful by psychologists is not viable when the Church has taught its sinfulness through the Scriptures and Tradition. "Modern" medicine has been a common catchphrase, but in terms of identifying a ****sexual gene has ended up at a dead end with a politicized consensus. Scientific advances are great, new technologies for examining things is all well and good, for the purpose of science is to observe, not to religiously or philosophically advance a hypothesis into a fact.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I am at times hostile to "modern" advances, because in most cases such advances are politicized. A "consensus" that ****sexuality is not sinful by psychologists is not viable when the Church has taught its sinfulness through the Scriptures and Tradition. "Modern" medicine has been a common catchphrase, but in terms of identifying a ****sexual gene has ended up at a dead end with a politicized consensus. Scientific advances are great, new technologies for examining things is all well and good, for the purpose of science is to observe, not to religiously or philosophically advance a hypothesis into a fact.

For us this is a sin, but for others it is an open question. And we should respect that. The whole world knows where we stand on this issue. We are not requested to decide for them.

Trinity

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Trinity

For us this is a sin, but for others it is an open question. And we should respect that. The whole world knows where we stand on this issue. We are not requested to decide for them.

Trinity

The nation of Israel when it was in a state of sin thought their own rationale to be an open question. They knew where the Prophets of God stood, except there were some bad prophets prophesying peace and hope when God was not with them. We are not deciding for them, the parameters of holiness have been set by God. ****sexuality is not acceptable practice for any Christian, despite asdf's open questioning that they are compatible. I wonder why you are not defending the Godly position that ****sexuality and Christianity are incompatible. The whole point of the forum is to defend our faith where it stands consistent in doctrine and morals. Yet you haven't done this defending. You have taken a personal vendetta against me because our priorities are vastly different, yet our Church's doctrine and moral stance is the same. Funny, how you choose your bedfellows when it comes time to actually defending what the Church actually teaches that ****sexual acts are incompatible with living a genuine Christian lifestyle.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I wonder why you are not defending the Godly position that ****sexuality and Christianity are incompatible.

Because that is untrue. There are to much priests who are ****sexuals. However, a minority are active.

Trinity

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Trinity

Because that is untrue. There are to much priests who are ****sexuals. However, a minority are active.

Trinity

You just stated that ****sexuality and Christianity are compatible in the Catholic Church.

What part of this do you not seem to understand?

2357 ****sexuality 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 ****sexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "****sexual acts are intrinsically disordered." 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.

[IncitingRiots]

Why can't you just get over yourself? The fact is gay people aren't going to stop being gay because some imaginary character thinks it is "wrong".

I will bring this point up once again, as it was ignored: If God made everyone in his image that means he made gay people in his image therefore God is gay.(that's right, I said it, God is gay) If he is the creator then it was a flaw in the design on his part that created gay people so to take it out THEM for HIS mistake is pretty stupid. If your God is all powerful and hates ****sexuality; then why did he create it to begin with? I am really curious to see how your mental gymnastics can rationalize that.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Columcille

You just stated that ****sexuality and Christianity are compatible in the Catholic Church.

What part of this do you not seem to understand?

2357 ****sexuality 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 ****sexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "****sexual acts are intrinsically disordered." 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.

There is a rule and there is a reality.

There is hundreds of priests in USA that have died of AIDS, and this is not unique to the Catholic Church. There is ****sexuals in all churches, even with the fundamentalist protestants.

"In the Roman Catholic tradition, since all priests take a vow of celibacy upon ordination, the question about ****sexuality has in some sense been a non-issue. Whether a priest had a heterosexual or a ****sexual orientation made no substantive difference if in all cases the priest took a vow of celibacy. The issue in the Roman Catholic Church was not so much about ordination as it was about nonclergy ****sexual Catholics in terms of procreation and sex outside of marriage.

In 2005, however, the nature of the discussion changed somewhat with the publication of the “Instruction on the Criteria of Vocational Discernment Regarding Persons with ****sexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Priesthood and to Sacred Orders,” by the Vatican’s Congregation for Catholic Education. This document made it clear that men who have deep-seated ****sexual tendencies, or who even support the so-called “gay culture,” do not have the requisite affective maturity to be admitted to seminary for preparation for ordination to the priesthood. If a man experiences transitory ****sexual tendencies as part of the process of maturation, such an individual may be admitted to a seminary to prepare for ordination as long as these tendencies have been overcome for at least three years prior to ordination to the deaconate. The Vatican also made it clear that it was not seeking to retroactively invalidate the ordinations of any gay man previously ordained to the priesthood. It appears that the primary reason for the development of this “Instruction” was the clergy scandal in the United States revolving around clergy sexual abuse, especially those cases dealing with same-sex relations and pedophilia. The timing of the release of the document was criticized for scapegoating the gay Catholic community and blaming them for the sinful actions of a small group of priests." [p.92]

****sexuality and Religion: An Encyclopedia
by Jeffrey S. Siker (Editor)
Greenwood Press
2007, 272 pages.
http://www.shop.com/+-a-****sexualit...1-k24-st.shtml

Before 2005, there was a rule (Catechism) but no checking point.

Trinity

[Columcille]

Trinity, nowhere have I denounced the statements in regards to the reality that there are sinful priests, or that there are people who struggle with temptation more than others. I just don't make the ***umption that modern science's consensus is accurate when they themselves state what is unknown or state as possibility rather than stating it absolutely. Asdf and others who believe like him probably have no problem teaching theory as fact, or infiltrating churches and voting a change in doctrine or a change in morals. You see the danger in the Episcopal Church USA and many of the Protestant churches... Do you want to have the same schism to happen in the Catholic Church? Would you want to see a Gay Bishop come out in public that is currently having sexual relations with a life-partner with full support of the Papacy? Because this is exactly what Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury is doing with Bishop Gene Robinson.

The priests are to be examples to the laity. If priests are to remain celebate as a requirement of their office, what is the laity suppose to do?
Is it alright for professing Catholic, that go to M*** often and partake without confession of their ****sexual acts, living with their life-partner, to be an example of an authentic viable Catholic in good standing with our Lord?

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Trinity, nowhere have I denounced the statements in regards to the reality that there are sinful priests, or that there are people who struggle with temptation more than others. I just don't make the ***umption that modern science's consensus is accurate when they themselves state what is unknown or state as possibility rather than stating it absolutely. Asdf and others who believe like him probably have no problem teaching theory as fact, or infiltrating churches and voting a change in doctrine or a change in morals. You see the danger in the Episcopal Church USA and many of the Protestant churches... Do you want to have the same schism to happen in the Catholic Church? Would you want to see a Gay Bishop come out in public that is currently having sexual relations with a life-partner with full support of the Papacy? Because this is exactly what Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury is doing with Bishop Gene Robinson.

The priests are to be examples to the laity. If priests are to remain celebate as a requirement of their office, what is the laity suppose to do?
Is it alright for professing Catholic, that go to M*** often and partake without confession of their ****sexual acts, living with their life-partner, to be an example of an authentic viable Catholic in good standing with our Lord?

I think that the ****sexuals already involved in the priesthood should stay chaste (according to the experts, that could represent between 15% to 33% of the priests). ! also agree with the measures taken by my Church to limit the amount of scandals at his minimum. It is also true that I do not approve all the Gay parades (Gay pride) all over the world. I find this kind of carnival, absurd. I never saw heterosexuals exposing their sexuality in a parade anywhere on this planet. There is perhaps the Carnival of Rio but we know that this carnival has no political connotation.

However, I do not not want to ignore any ****phobic act in our society. I do not want to see the history repeated. Like Adolph Hitler when he had imprisoned numerous ****sexuals in the Nazi concentration camps.

"Growing awareness of the history of the gay community has influenced the Jewish community’s relation to gays and lesbians. In the 1990s, both the gay community and the Jewish community learned about the suffering of ****sexuals under the Nazi regime in Germany, as evidenced by the internment of thousands of ****sexuals in concentration camps together with Jews. As information on that aspect of Nazi-era history became more available, it has become part of the gay and Jewish collective memory. The Nazi persecution of ****sexuals has therefore given ****sexual people the status as fellow-sufferers with Jews." [p.144]

****sexuality and Religion: An Encyclopedia
by Jeffrey S. Siker (Editor)
Greenwood Press
2007, 272 pages.
http://www.shop.com/+-a-****sexualit...1-k24-st.shtml

We are living in a pluralist society with numerous religions and ethnicities, and as citizens, we cannot impose our values to all. As a Catholic, I can not endorse that an active ****sexual priest could becomes also active in my Church. Though, I can accept an ****sexual priest who wants to stay chaste for his entire life. If ****sexuality is totally behavioral, any ****sexual act can be seen as a real sin.

I hope my position is more clear and without ambiguity.

Trinity

[Columcille]

Yes, it is much more clear. However, I do think the idea of imposing our values to all is not my representation. If you agree as a Catholic that there are genuine Christians in the Protestant sects that truly love the Lord, then there must be boundaries set in which such an understanding of "seperated brothers and sisters" is defined. I do not believe Asdf's position on ****sexuality being completely compatible with Christianity places him within the confines of being our "seperate brother," but more as an apostized "brother" to be not only seperate ecclesiastically, but in actuality. Such a position is no different than the Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses,whom we would not accept their baptism due to doctrinal position on the nature of God and Christ... and such a moral position as Asdf holds is itself just as bad... since this also changes the nature of Christ in regards to the teachings p***ed on by his Church and by the prophets of old. Asdf will probably not change his position, and both you and I are not holding a gun to his head or sword or any manner of torture to convert him. I would love more than anything to sit down with him and buy him a cup of coffee and be civily disagreeable... but I am not going to encourage his ideology as authentically Christian.

[GraftedIn73]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Yes, it is much more clear. However, I do think the idea of imposing our values to all is not my representation. If you agree as a Catholic that there are genuine Christians in the Protestant sects that truly love the Lord, then there must be boundaries set in which such an understanding of "seperated brothers and sisters" is defined. I do not believe Asdf's position on ****sexuality being completely compatible with Christianity places him within the confines of being our "seperate brother," but more as an apostized "brother" to be not only seperate ecclesiastically, but in actuality. Such a position is no different than the Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses,whom we would not accept their baptism due to doctrinal position on the nature of God and Christ... and such a moral position as Asdf holds is itself just as bad... since this also changes the nature of Christ in regards to the teachings p***ed on by his Church and by the prophets of old. Asdf will probably not change his position, and both you and I are not holding a gun to his head or sword or any manner of torture to convert him. I would love more than anything to sit down with him and buy him a cup of coffee and be civily disagreeable... but I am not going to encourage his ideology as authentically Christian.

I am in complete accord with you Collumcille.

God has revealed His existence in nature and His character in scripture. THAT He IS, can be known naturally. WHO He is can only be known through His self-revelation. We cannot know everything about God, because He is infinite and we are finite. What can be known about God, is that select amount of information He has chosen to reveal about Himself. In this self-revelation, He has chosen to declare that He considers certain actions/at***udes/behaviors/beliefs as bad/sinful, and others as good/righteous. Among those behaviors He has called sinful are acts of ****sexuality. The same God who has declared acts of ****sexuality as wrong has declared that hate is sinful and wrong. God has commanded us to love our enemies. This love includes both confronting and rejecting their sin, while at the same time, doing every good thing for them that we are able. We are never given license to hate someone and seek to condemn or destroy them. Unfortunately, in this age of 'tolerance' that we live in, those that are demanding tolerance are usually demanding unqualified acceptance. Many become intolerant, hateful, and judgemental, claiming that their opponents are ****phobic. Extreme examples are those who are demanding acceptance and tolerance while they parade through churches as rainbow haired, bearded nuns in drag demanding access to the Eucharist. These are blinded by their sin and are self condemned.

I believe that Jesus would have set down with a gay man or woman and spoken kindly, and lovingly to them, as He did with other sinners. This would not be an approval of their sinful behavor any more than feasting with publicans and tax collectors implied an acceptance of their sinful behavior. I am certain that He would have called them to repentance just as He did with all the other sinners He encountered.

God is God and He is our creator. He knows DNA. He knows nature. He knows nurture. In His infinite wisdom, He has chosen to reject as sinful, ****sexual acts. Those who choose to be identified with Him should reject these actions as well.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I am at times hostile to "modern" advances, because in most cases such advances are politicized. A "consensus" that ****sexuality is not sinful by psychologists is not viable...

Of course this is rubbish. Psychology has nothing whatsoever to say about "sin"; it has made no pronouncement on the "sinfulness" or otherwise of ****sexuality. Modern science has determined that ****sexuality is not a mental illness - that is all, and your refusal to see that based on hiding behind the Christian tradition of what is "sin" is the reason I'm not resonating with your words.