Dilemma of Being ****sexual

[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.