Dilemma of Being ****sexual

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

As far as I recall, medical organizations haven't advanced in finding the root cause of ****sexuality... specifically identifying it with genetics.

We talked about that above: "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. The main reasons cited include genetic and environmental factors, likely in combination."

It has always been considered a disorder up until 1973, and then it was removed not because of medical research, but by political pressure--don't you love the free love uninhibited sexual revolution of the 60s?

What evidence do you have that politics and "the free love uninhibited sexual revolution of the 60s" are to blame for the removal of ****sexuality as a mental disorder from DSM-II?

The only people who say it is potentially harmful are themselves that condone such practices.

Where "it" in this sentence, based on the previous post, is "treating ****sexuality as a mental illness".

Sorry, this view is not compatible with modern science or the experience of the gay and lesbian people I know.

I do not see this applied to the alcoholic or the gambler, simply because the effects of their addiction are more severe to those around them.

Indeed - because ****sexuality is not an addiction. It's an inclination.

[Columcille]

look under "mental" in the ****sexual wikipedia entry. It discusses it being removed in 1973 because political activism. This you will read in the DSM link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnos...al_orientation

PS, if modern science has located a gene identifying ****sexuals, let me know... otherwise, it means absolutely nothing to call it modern.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

look under "mental" in the ****sexual wikipedia entry. It discusses it being removed in 1973 because political activism. This you will read in the DSM link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnos...al_orientation

Thanks for the link. That apparently means something different to you than it does to me. I see protests "as well as the emergence of new data from researchers" - not, as you said, "it was removed not because of medical research, but by political pressure".

PS, if modern science has located a gene identifying ****sexuals, let me know... otherwise, it means absolutely nothing to call it modern.

Likewise, let me know when science finds the gene that identifies heterosexuals. Or the gene that identifies vegetarians. Or the gene that identifies Republicans. Or the gene that identifies Catholics.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by asdf

Likewise, let me know when science finds the gene that identifies heterosexuals. Or the gene that identifies vegetarians. Or the gene that identifies Republicans. Or the gene that identifies Catholics.

Scientists know nothing about the genes that make a small minority of the population left-handed. Rather, people self-report that they do not choose to be left-handed or right-handed.

I am an heterosexual left-handed.

Trinity

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Trinity

Scientists know nothing about the genes that make a small minority of the population left-handed. Rather, people self-report that they do not choose to be left-handed or right-handed.

I am an heterosexual left-handed.

Trinity

That's another great example. Thanks, Trinity!

I'm in the majority on both counts: I'm a heterosexual righty.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by asdf

That's another great example. Thanks, Trinity!

I'm in the majority on both counts: I'm a heterosexual righty.

The brain is a very mysterious organ, and this organ has not revealed his secrets yet. We know practically nothing on how the brain is working.

Trinity

[Columcille]

Precisely Trinity. Now, let us see you come out as a Catholic endorsing ****sexual acts as a viable Catholic lifestyle.

Apparently, asdf seems to be getting different vib from you than from me in regards to ****sexuality as a healthy lifestyle to be approved by the Christian community. However, I know when I was becoming Catholic that yourself along with many other Catholic posters here have a distain for "Cafeteria Catholicism." Picking and choosing what is politically expediant rather than relying on the authority of Scipture and Tradition. Right now, although you claim to be Catholic and speak it truthfully, I question your priorities. It is alright by me that you may view global warming as the biggest moral problem in our day and age, but I would not be rubbing elbows with the ****sexual community or those that are supportive of its lifestyle to be thrust into Church politics.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Precisely Trinity. Now, let us see you come out as a Catholic endorsing ****sexual acts as a viable Catholic lifestyle.

Apparently, asdf seems to be getting different vib from you than from me in regards to ****sexuality as a healthy lifestyle to be approved by the Christian community. However, I know when I was becoming Catholic that yourself along with many other Catholic posters here have a distain for "Cafeteria Catholicism." Picking and choosing what is politically expediant rather than relying on the authority of Scipture and Tradition. Right now, although you claim to be Catholic and speak it truthfully, I question your priorities. It is alright by me that you may view global warming as the biggest moral problem in our day and age, but I would not be rubbing elbows with the ****sexual community or those that are supportive of its lifestyle to be thrust into Church politics.

I do not applaud those people who are ****sexuals, however I do not reject those who are eating pork.

I think we should look at this condition without prejudice because this condition has been always present inside our own Church (and any other churches, even with the Mormons) from all centuries.

"Benedict of Nursia, who died in 547, first gained fame as a hermit, then founded a number of monasteries at Monte C***ino and its environs. He was the man who provided the written bylaws for monks, setting the behavioral standards for monastic living. The Rules of Benedict gave him a place in history. (1.) These rules made it clear that sexual behavior, and more specifically ****sexual behavior, was a large problem in monastic life. Benedict addressed the problem head-on. A separate bed was mandated for each monk. Further, all monks were required to sleep together in one room, fully clothed and girdled, without weapons; and a light must be kept burning all night. The beds of the older members must be interspersed with those of the younger. For those monks who did experience ****sexual urges, such rules must have felt something like Chinese water torture."

(1.) The Holy Rule of St. Benedict, trans. Boniface Verbeyen (Atcheson, KS: St. Benedict’s Abbey, 1949), pp. 480–543.

Trinity

[Columcille]

Trinity, you are stating what is obvious to me. However, the goals and sentiment of Asdf are not the same as you and me on this subject... at least in regards to what Catholicism teaches on the subject. This you have to get clear in your mind.

Chapter 22:
How the Monks are to sleep

All the monks shall sleep in separate beds. All shall receive bedding, allotted by the abbot, appropriate to their environment. If possible they should all sleep in one room. However, if there are too many for this, they will be grouped in tens or twenties, a senior in charge of each group. Let a candle burn throughout the night. They will sleep in their robes, belted but with no knives, thus preventing injury inslumber. The monks then will always be prepared to rise at the signal and hurry to the Divine Office. But they must make haste with gravity and modesty. the younger brothers should not be next to each other. Rather their beds should be interspersed with those of their elders. When they arise for the Divine Office, they ought to encourage each other, for the sleepy make many excuses.
(The Rule of Saint Benedict. Trans. Anthony C. Meisel and M.L. del Mastro. New York: Doubleday. 1975. p70).

I do not have a copy of the book you mention since it was written in 1949. However, I find it very strange that a translation of the text is embedded in an introduction rather than seperate from the introduction. To me this ruins the flavor of the rule rather than complimenting it. Besides, the introduction that I read in front of mine shows that Benedict was not well liked and an attempted poisoning was thwarted. Regardless of one's own feelings, the rule as laid out by him was for the purpose of holiness. The requirements of the monastic life are never easy regardless if an individual has ****sexual attractions or otherwise. The following chapter (23) discusses "excommunication for faults." Very appropriate. Asdf would very much like to advocate ****sexuality, the Church does not. therefore, you should be against his position.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Trinity, you are stating what is obvious to me. However, the goals and sentiment of Asdf are not the same as you and me on this subject... at least in regards to what Catholicism teaches on the subject. This you have to get clear in your mind

Like Catholics we obey to the teaching of the Church, but this is not an obligation for the non-catholics.

Trinity

[Columcille]

Then stop playing puss-yfoot with asdf.

OED definition of puss-yfoot:
1. intr. To tread softly or lightly to avoid being noticed; to proceed warily; to conceal one's opinions or plans; to behave evasively or timidly.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Then stop playing puss-yfoot with asdf.

OED definition of puss-yfoot:
1. intr. To tread softly or lightly to avoid being noticed; to proceed warily; to conceal one's opinions or plans; to behave evasively or timidly.

An extreme position is not always the voice of wisdom.

Vatican bishop defends abortion for nine-year-old

Monday March 16 2009

A SENIOR Archbishop has insisted that Brazilian doctors do not deserve excommunication for aborting the twin foetuses of a nine-year-old child who was allegedly raped by her stepfather because the doctors were saving her life.

The statement by Archbishop Rino Fisichella in the Vatican newspaper yesterday was highly unusual because church law mandates automatic excommunication for abortion.

Archbishop Fisichella, who heads the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life, also upheld the Church's ban on abortion and any implications of his criticism of excommunicating the doctors and the girl's mother weren't clear.

Archbishop Fisichella argued for a sense of "mercy" in such cases and respect for the Catholic doctors' wrenching decision, and strongly criticised fellow churchmen who singled out the doctors and mother for public condemnation.

"Before thinking about excommunication, it was necessary and urgent to save her innocent life and bring her back to a level of humanity of which we men of the church should be expert and masters in proclaiming," he wrote.

The doctors, he noted, had said the child's life was in danger if the pregnancy continued.
http://www.independent.ie/world-news...d-1674138.html

The stepfather, 23, confessed to the rape and was arrested. He was not excommunicated and received no blame. The child was sexually ***aulted over a number of years by her stepfather, since she was six.

Trinity

[Columcille]

Trinity, apparently you don't seem to understand the struggle here. The Church is merciful, but its position unmovable. Asdf is not your buddy in doctrinal arms. What he advocates is that Church changes its doctrinal stance. The following is his words, mark them well, for it seems your playing doesn't understand the undermining of the truth of the Christian faith, most especially for us the truth of the Catholic faith:

It is my opinion that one's propensity/orientation/iden***y toward one gender over another should not be considered a sin.

Furthermore, I believe that committed, monogamous, [in principle] lifelong same-sex relationships can be consistent with Christian morality.

In short, no - I do not believe that ****sexuality is a sin.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Trinity, apparently you don't seem to understand the struggle here. The Church is merciful, but its position unmovable. Asdf is not your buddy in doctrinal arms. What he advocates is that Church changes its doctrinal stance. The following is his words, mark them well, for it seems your playing doesn't understand the undermining of the truth of the Christian faith, most especially for us the truth of the Catholic faith:

I disagree with her [his] words according to my present religious basis. However, at this time, the science is not supporting one of the two positions with a perfect cer***ude. We were enough ridiculous with the case of Galileo Galilei. I keep a crack in the door.

Trinity

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Trinity

I disagree with her words according to my present religious basis. However, at this time, the science is not supporting one of the two positions with a perfect cer***ude. We were enough ridiculous with the case of Galileo Galilei. I keep a crack in the door.

Trinity

So you would choose politicized science over Scriptural and Traditional principles that ****sexuality is sinful? As far as Galileo Galilei is concerned, what moral practice was it supposedly supporting? Do you think in your "present religious basis" that a new ecumenical council or papal decree or some "ex cathedra" statement is going to trump the longstanding Law of God that ****sexuality is sinful? Is Catholicism's doctrine and moral basis going to contradict itself? I would call that a lack of faith; a lack of trust in God's word both in season and out of season, as it is maintained in Tradition and found in Scripture.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Columcille

So you would choose politicized science over Scriptural and Traditional principles that ****sexuality is sinful? As far as Galileo Galilei is concerned, what moral practice was it supposedly supporting? Do you think in your "present religious basis" that a new ecumenical council or papal decree or some "ex cathedra" statement is going to trump the longstanding Law of God that ****sexuality is sinful? Is Catholicism's doctrine and moral basis going to contradict itself? I would call that a lack of faith.

No.

Like many Catholics I do not force my belief with an at***ude of intransigency. I propose my faith, I do not dictate it.

Trinity

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Trinity

No.

Like many Catholics I do not force my belief with an at***ude of intransigency. I propose my faith, I do not dictate it.

Trinity

You know, every prophet in the O.T. and even the Apostles in the N.T. never was scared to speak the naked truth concerning what was sinful. The watchtower p***age of Ezekiel 33 clearly lays down God's teaching to a sinful nation and the duty from which we must clearly stand against. Faith is trust in God, doing as God asks of us. You can propose your faith, you can even lay out the boundaries that God has spoken and set. Asdf thinks you can be a good Christian practicing ****sexuality unashamed. And by Christian, that extends to Catholics and Protestant alike. If he held this position as a Catholic, he would be branded a Cafeteria Catholic. Of course he is not Catholic, but claims to be a Christian. We call many Protestants our seperate brothers and sisters, yet with such a moral decay, I would hardly be welcoming them in a state of unabashed sinfulness.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Apparently, asdf seems to be getting different vib from you than from me in regards to ****sexuality as a healthy lifestyle to be approved by the Christian community.

For what it's worth, the reason I get a different vibe from Trinity than I do from you, Columcille, has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Trinity agrees with me about the compatibility of (faithful, committed, monogamous, lifelong) same-sex relationships and a faithful Christian ethos.

It has everything to do with Trinity's manner of expressing herself/himself (sorry, I don't think I know your which pronoun to use, Trin ) without hostility, without antagonism to modern psychological, medical, and scientific advances.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

For what it's worth, the reason I get a different vibe from Trinity than I do from you, Columcille, has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Trinity agrees with me about the compatibility of (faithful, committed, monogamous, lifelong) same-sex relationships and a faithful Christian ethos.

It has everything to do with Trinity's manner of expressing herself/himself (sorry, I don't think I know your which pronoun to use, Trin ) without hostility, without antagonism to modern psychological, medical, and scientific advances.

Your words express an undermining of the Catholic moral stance. I am fighting against such sinful reinterpretation. I am all for extending comp***ion to ****sexuals, but not at the expense of cheaping the Gospel's message that includes repentence. Trinity cannot have it both ways, either God is against ****sexuality or he is not. Either the Catholic's moral stance is truth or your position is truth. Comp***ion can be extended either way, just as Christ tells us to love our enemies and loving our friends and neighbors comes naturally. The issue is not prejudice or comp***ion, it is a matter of what is Truth. Trinity has so far only played lip-service to the Catholic moral teaching on ****sexuality. So now is the time to draw the line in the sand.............................................. ...............................
Trinity, either tell asdf that his position that ****sexuality is in God's eyes sinful or stay silent. Any other action will demonstrate clearly that you are a Cafeteria Catholic. As Dr. Martin has stated in many instances the proverb... better a fool stay silent then to speak and dispell all doubt.
It is a cop-out to say "Like Catholics we obey to the teaching of the Church, but this is not an obligation for the non-catholics." God's moral instruction when it is fully revealed in the Catholic faith means regardless of the positions held by others that it is completely true. Of course it is not an obligation to them, they can continue in sin all they want. Let your yes be yes and your no no. State in clear terms whether ****sexuality is sinful or is not sinful.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Your words express an undermining of the Catholic moral stance. I am fighting against such sinful reinterpretation. I am all for extending comp***ion to ****sexuals, but not at the expense of cheaping the Gospel's message that includes repentence. Trinity cannot have it both ways, either God is against ****sexuality or he is not. Either the Catholic's moral stance is truth or your position is truth. Comp***ion can be extended either way, just as Christ tells us to love our enemies and loving our friends and neighbors comes naturally. The issue is not prejudice or comp***ion, it is a matter of what is Truth. Trinity has so far only played lip-service to the Catholic moral teaching on ****sexuality. So now is the time to draw the line in the sand.............................................. ...............................
Trinity, either tell asdf that his position that ****sexuality is in God's eyes sinful or stay silent. Any other action will demonstrate clearly that you are a Cafeteria Catholic. As Dr. Martin has stated in many instances the proverb... better a fool stay silent then to speak and dispell all doubt.
It is a cop-out to say "Like Catholics we obey to the teaching of the Church, but this is not an obligation for the non-catholics." God's moral instruction when it is fully revealed in the Catholic faith means regardless of the positions held by others that it is completely true. Of course it is not an obligation to them, they can continue in sin all they want. Let your yes be yes and your no no. State in clear terms whether ****sexuality is sinful or is not sinful.

There is things that should not be repeated.

“Historian John Boswell argued that ****erotic relationships existed, and even were ceremonialized, for long periods in Christian monasticism. And when the eleventh century theologian Peter Damien coined the term “sodomy,” he was referring especially to his fellow clerics, among whom in his view this sin was prevalent and virtually intractable.

Only in the latter half of the twelfth century did the Christian church systematically begin to persecute sodomites. Whether carried out under the auspices of the Crusades or (more frequently) those of the Inquisition, persecution was a collaboration of religious and secular authorities. The Papal Inquisition enlisted the secular arm to suspend the ordinary rights of citizens and to carry out its most terrible punishments, such as execution by burning. The Spanish Inquisition continued the persecution of sodomites as heretics, and extended this persecution to sodomy among indigenous peoples in the New World. The thirteenth century Crusade against the Cathars involved the accusation, if not the reality, of ****eroticism. The Cathars were a sect dating back to the Manichaean Gnostics, which had survived in Eastern Christianity, especially Bulgaria, and then found its way into Italy and Southern France. Because they rejected the body and the natural world, the Cathars encouraged nonprocreative sex among ordinary believers, and among the elite, celibacy. Hence the term “bugger” (a vulgarized form of Boulger) came to refer at once to heresy and sodomy. This view of sodomites is well illustrated in the case of the Order of the Knights Templar. In 1307 the Inquisition accused the Knights of sodomy, heresy, and witchcraft, consequently inflicting upon them torture and execution by burning.“ [p.10-11]

****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

Dr. Jeffrey S. Siker
Ph.D. Princeton Theological Seminary (New Testament Studies, 1989)
M.Div. Yale University Divinity School (1981)
M.A. Indiana University (Religious Studies, 1978)
B.A. Indiana University (double major: Music & Religious Studies, 1976)

Trinity

[Columcille]

Again Trinity, you are branding me as without comp***ion. I am not condoning a witchhunt against ****sexuals. You HAVE to state that ****sexuality is sinful or not. Not doing so is only encouraging asdf that holding such position is alright by God. Giving this type of message clearly places you at fault in Ezekiel 33. 8 "If I say to the wicked, "O wicked ones, you shall surely die," and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from their ways, the wicked shall die in their iniquity, but their blood I will require at your hand."

If you do not correct asdf on this issue, and he maintains such a position, you will be an accomplice to it. If you do correct him, and he still maintains such a position, you will not be an accomplice to his sinfulness.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by asdf

That's another great example. Thanks, Trinity!

I'm in the majority on both counts: I'm a heterosexual righty.

There is the religious truth and there is the historical truth. To defend the first truth by hiding the second this is to be untruthful.

Trinity

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Trinity

There is the religious truth and there is the historical truth. To defend the first truth by hiding the second this is to be untruthful.

Trinity

Trinity, you sound more like a Protestant. How many times do you hear "historical truth" by a Protestant when they attribute falsehoods about the Catholic Church? I am not telling you to deny the history of the Church as it relates to bad policies or even of bad Catholics... I am say that doctrinal and moral truth needs to be told. You haven't done so thus far. Your are right now condoning asdf's position and if you do not heed my advice regarding Ezekiel 33.8, there will come a time when you will be held accountable. I've told you, so at present, I do not have to worry about the consequences for not telling you.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Trinity, you sound more like a Protestant. How many times do you hear "historical truth" by a Protestant when they attribute falsehoods about the Catholic Church? I am not telling you to deny the history of the Church as it relates to bad policies or even of bad Catholics... I am say that doctrinal and moral truth needs to be told. You haven't done so thus far. Your are right now condoning asdf's position and if you do not heed my advice regarding Ezekiel 33.8, there will come a time when you will be held accountable. I've told you, so at present, I do not have to worry about the consequences for not telling you.

Anyone who is not endorsing you in this forum is under an anathema. asdf is an adult and he [she] knows where I stand.

By the way, I am against the historical forgery, the exagerations, but not against the facts

Trinity

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Trinity

Anyone who is not endorsing you in this forum is under an anathema. asdf is an adult and he [she] knows where I stand.

Trinity

Its your own. I am only stating the consequences of condoning the sinful position.


Asdf has stated the following:

It has everything to do with Trinity's manner of expressing herself/himself ... without hostility, without antagonism to modern psychological, medical, and scientific advances.

Now, tell me honestly Trinity, were the prophet's in the O.T. liked by those whose position disagreed with God?
Was the Apostles, who were martyred and persecuted, loved by those whose lifestyle were in opposition to the Gospel message?

I am not running a popularity contest like you are. I am here to tell you that you need to clean up your positional stance to where God's is.