|
Post by cato on Aug 9, 2018 9:46:42 GMT
Fr Mark Morris was foolish ( or heroic?) to take on a favourite Papal cause. This papacy is the most gay friendly ever. Even the various bad popes of beloved memory kept their misbehaviour to themselves. They made no effort to alter church teaching. They didn't attempt to turn their sin into an alternative lifestyle.
Ironically the US church and specifically several Francis appointed gay friendly cardinals are now in trouble because of their attempts to ignore or cover up Cardinal Mc Carrick's abuse of young men.Their own sexuality is also being questioned. The child abuse crisis is being replaced with a gay abuse crisis.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Aug 9, 2018 11:29:10 GMT
Fr Mark Morris was foolish ( or heroic?) to take on a favourite Papal cause. This papacy is the most gay friendly ever. Even the various bad popes of beloved memory kept their misbehaviour to themselves. They made no effort to alter church teaching. They didn't attempt to turn their sin into an alternative lifestyle. Ironically the US church and specifically several Francis appointed gay friendly cardinals are now in trouble because of their attempts to ignore or cover up Cardinal Mc Carrick's abuse of young men.Their own sexuality is also being questioned. The child abuse crisis is being replaced with a gay abuse crisis. McCarrick would have been a John Paul II candidate though. I daresay Francis does generally expect cardinals to be celibate and his supposed thrust to give red hats on merit rather than solely based on the tradition of a particular see may have prevented a few anomalies if followed through, not that anyone's judgement will be perfect all the time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2018 15:47:37 GMT
How do you think society should deal with the question of homosexuality? I'd imagined most if not all on this forum are opposed to same-sex marriage, but what about homosexuality more generally-- in an ideal society, what do you think attitudes on homosexuality should be? I have a good friend who is a homosexual. He tells me that he was born that way and, if he could take an injection to become heterosexual, he would. It's a difficult question to answer but I do tend to think most homosexuals are innately gay and can't change. (Whether they were born that way is another question.) I think, in the past, homosexuality was considered a deliberate perversion, whereas now most people seem to accept that gay people can't help being attracted to the same sex. I believe society should be heteronormative and I have no problem with Vladimir Putin's laws against gay propaganda. However, one is left with the question, what level of tolerance should there be for homosexuality? Most conservatives seem to wish for a pre-sixties dispensation on social issues, but I imagine few of them actually wish homosexuality to be re-criminalized. We tend to fudge the issue a little bit. For instance, Catholics in the public sphere tend to speak as though we are fine with homosexuality but simply opposed to same-sex marriage, or eager to preserve religious freedoms to stick to the traditional Christian view of sexuality. However, Catholicism considers homosexuality to be objectively disordered-- there's no getting away from that, though we tend to downplay it. (Please note I am posting this in the "speakeasy" section, not the religion section. So while you are perfectly free to appeal to the Bible or Catholic teaching, bear in mind that the public and secular realm is unlikely to accept those arguments in themselves.) This may seem like a cop-out, but I would put a moratorium on Christians offering advice to the World on this subject, until the Church repents from its moral laxity and muddled teachings on it and cleans house. As a practical matter The World will NEVER again accept any guidance from the Church that the World hasn't already dictated to the Church to say. This will not change until the end of the age. What will change is the day when the World will not even allow the Church to agree with it, preferring to destroy it instead. Given the current climate, that time could come far sooner than we imagine possible. The Church's time is far better spent making the Bride of Christ ready, rather than wasting the time "ministering" to a World that despises it. It bears repeating that this is one of the misguided emphases of Vatican II based on a false premise that the modern world has fundamentally changed into something resembling the age of Aquarius and that it is the Church's duty to align with the New Age.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Aug 9, 2018 18:36:39 GMT
How do you think society should deal with the question of homosexuality? I'd imagined most if not all on this forum are opposed to same-sex marriage, but what about homosexuality more generally-- in an ideal society, what do you think attitudes on homosexuality should be? I have a good friend who is a homosexual. He tells me that he was born that way and, if he could take an injection to become heterosexual, he would. It's a difficult question to answer but I do tend to think most homosexuals are innately gay and can't change. (Whether they were born that way is another question.) I think, in the past, homosexuality was considered a deliberate perversion, whereas now most people seem to accept that gay people can't help being attracted to the same sex. I believe society should be heteronormative and I have no problem with Vladimir Putin's laws against gay propaganda. However, one is left with the question, what level of tolerance should there be for homosexuality? Most conservatives seem to wish for a pre-sixties dispensation on social issues, but I imagine few of them actually wish homosexuality to be re-criminalized. We tend to fudge the issue a little bit. For instance, Catholics in the public sphere tend to speak as though we are fine with homosexuality but simply opposed to same-sex marriage, or eager to preserve religious freedoms to stick to the traditional Christian view of sexuality. However, Catholicism considers homosexuality to be objectively disordered-- there's no getting away from that, though we tend to downplay it. (Please note I am posting this in the "speakeasy" section, not the religion section. So while you are perfectly free to appeal to the Bible or Catholic teaching, bear in mind that the public and secular realm is unlikely to accept those arguments in themselves.) This may seem like a cop-out, but I would put a moratorium on Christians offering advice to the World on this subject, until the Church repents from its moral laxity and muddled teachings on it and cleans house. As a practical matter The World will NEVER again accept any guidance from the Church that the World hasn't already dictated to the Church to say. This will not change until the end of the age. What will change is the day when the World will not even allow the Church to agree with it, preferring to destroy it instead. Given the current climate, that time could come far sooner than we imagine possible. The Church's time is far better spent making the Bride of Christ ready, rather than wasting the time "ministering" to a World that despises it. It bears repeating that this is one of the misguided emphases of Vatican II based on a false premise that the modern world has fundamentally changed into something resembling the age of Aquarius and that it is the Church's duty to align with the New Age. Exactly. Spot on.
|
|
|
Post by optatuscleary on Sept 5, 2018 19:44:32 GMT
A few random thoughts. The whole lgbti label seems to assume that all these various labels are part of a community. Really? All they seem to have in common is that they are not heterosexual. Indeed a group claiming to represent asexuals wants to become part of the above alphabet too. Why would anyone wish to be identified by an sexual urge or desire they don't have? The sexual revolution has caused the almost universal practice of disordered sex . The use of contraception has rendered most sex sterile and disordered. Adultery ,premarital fornication and masturbation are sexually disordered too in that they can't fulfill the 2 traditional ends of the marital sexual act. There would also appear to be a major homosexual crisis within the catholic clergy not excluding the Vatican at present though the mainstream media has to date avoided giving this much publicity prefering to highlight the criminal abuse of minors First of all, I’m back after a bit of a hiatus here. I have read that the “LGBT community” concept is really rooted in the American Navy’s practice of expelling homosexuals. They would be kicked off ships in major port cities, thus leading to large populations of them in San Francisco, New York, Boston, and other large coastal cities. Then, of course, homosexuals and other people with divergent sexuality migrated to these cities to be part of a scene/culture. This may be why the United States has been such an epicenter of the gay rights movement: homosexuals seem like a group of people here in America, roughly analogous to an ethnicity. If, in some countries, they don’t congregate in particular places, they would seem more individual and less like a population or community. Disordered sex had always been around. I think the real social problem is reliable contraception. I’m sure people have attempted to avoid pregnancy various ways throughout history, but it was never reliable enough to allow the openness of the sexual revolution.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Sept 6, 2018 5:32:54 GMT
A few random thoughts. The whole lgbti label seems to assume that all these various labels are part of a community. Really? All they seem to have in common is that they are not heterosexual. Indeed a group claiming to represent asexuals wants to become part of the above alphabet too. Why would anyone wish to be identified by an sexual urge or desire they don't have? The sexual revolution has caused the almost universal practice of disordered sex . The use of contraception has rendered most sex sterile and disordered. Adultery ,premarital fornication and masturbation are sexually disordered too in that they can't fulfill the 2 traditional ends of the marital sexual act. There would also appear to be a major homosexual crisis within the catholic clergy not excluding the Vatican at present though the mainstream media has to date avoided giving this much publicity prefering to highlight the criminal abuse of minors First of all, I’m back after a bit of a hiatus here. I have read that the “LGBT community” concept is really rooted in the American Navy’s practice of expelling homosexuals. They would be kicked off ships in major port cities, thus leading to large populations of them in San Francisco, New York, Boston, and other large coastal cities. Then, of course, homosexuals and other people with divergent sexuality migrated to these cities to be part of a scene/culture. This may be why the United States has been such an epicenter of the gay rights movement: homosexuals seem like a group of people here in America, roughly analogous to an ethnicity. If, in some countries, they don’t congregate in particular places, they would seem more individual and less like a population or community. Disordered sex had always been around. I think the real social problem is reliable contraception. I’m sure people have attempted to avoid pregnancy various ways throughout history, but it was never reliable enough to allow the openness of the sexual revolution. Welcome back, Optatus! I can feel a certain sympathy with how the "LGBT community" gives gays a sense of belonging, of history, and of identity. Of course, the reason I think people NEED these things is because our society is so alienated now-- through the decay of church, patriotism and family. If we celebrated traditional festivals properly, people wouldn't feel a need for something like Pride Week. Everybody wants to belong to something.
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Apr 29, 2020 20:14:16 GMT
Scrolled around earlier threads and found this one, akin to a certain surprise on relapse into Fbook the other day (I´ve decided to stay away and spend most online time elsewhere in less streamlined surroundings). What happened there was that an Fbook acquaintance, one former protestant turned atheist that also writes one of the finest blogs I´ve found on literature, posted a photo of himself and another guy "celebrating xx years together". The statement was just made, no provocative slogans and no offense apart from the fact if that be recognised as offensive in itself. It came as a total surprise shock that it was a gay guy in the neighbourhood. So what can one do? Nothing. After soon three decades of massive monotonous attempts to "normalise" gay lgbtq etc my initial disgust has more or less given way to a much more mainstream (always a bad sign) position more like unwilling indifference. I never question it publicly, just laying low and lets the world mind its own business. Yet trying to ignore the whole thing does not make one feel truly fair either. Even if one is not compelled to question anything or anyone, to just look the other way and be all silent makes wrong as well. I wonder if there are any difference in public and private demands for questioning. Choice of words might be some key or solution, but that simply fails me as the only words that comes to mind would only upset others and point myself out as extremist. Maybe the only good thing one actually can do is to say prayers and keep silent despite will.
Another thing I wonder about is why so many of the leading 20th century English poets were gays. The proportion is undeniable, and comes half a century before the 60s seachange. What is the most broadbrush explanation for that phenomenon?
|
|