Posted on 12/18/2013 4:06:41 PM PST by rhema
Is A & E now a Fag Network?
If so, that will make it real easy to boycott that channel.
Or the spokesperson for GLADD saying that his comments ‘fly in the face of the beliefs of TRUE Christians’
Phil needs to invite Putin to go duck hunting :-)
No, it’s spot on scripture.
I can’t believe the sons will want to do the show without their Dad.
Yup, the anus does not equal the vulva.
Sodomites working overtime to bash and redefine Christianity.
I guess it was pretty predictable that this would happen.
There’s a lot more than 10 bucks riding on Duck Dynasty.
There’s about 10 other networks that would pick them up in a second.
Not without sponsors they won’t.
Headline should read A&E attacks Christians.
I sure am tired of being called a Homophobe because I do not believe that carpet Munching and bungholing is the proper thing to do.
Those who do it should have stayed in the closet, where they belong.
A&E has shown themselves to be very intolerant
Yep..
The homo deviate lobby is huge, all supported by evil corrupt controlling government at all levels.
The only way they don't cancel, is if they can get this guy to publicly beg for forgiveness and apologize to the sodomites, many of whom are now entrenched in government at every levels
But they also get the duck blowback merchandise flowing from supporters just at the perfect time for December 25..... he is actually a good businessman, right?
TV is just a show..
We’re not in America anymore, Toto. The First Amendment has already been trashed. The Nazis are working on the Second Amendment now.
What the Church Teaches About Homosexuality
by Richard Sparks, C.S.P.
Homosexuality is surely one of the “hot-button” or “red-flag” issues in Church and society today. Gay-rights advocates and activists are pushing a strong political agenda from the left—job benefits for domestic partners, civil recognition for gay marriages, the right to bear one—s own children via reproductive technologies, equal access to adoption, anti-discrimination statutes, etc.
The religious right not only tends to oppose most of these political inroads, it also seems to lend some measure of credibility to gay-bashing hate groups, like those who, in October 1998, “lynched” 21-year-old Matthew Shepard, beating him and leaving him tied to a fence in rural Wyoming.
Most of the rest of us, including Catholic Church leaders, feel caught in the middle, between either polar extreme. Pressured by some to accept too much, too easily and embarrassed by others for their intolerance and hostility toward gay and lesbian persons, the Catholic Church in recent decades has striven to chart a mid-course. That course is moral yet pastoral, true to our sexual moral tradition yet not inflexible or intolerant.
Starting in the mid-1960—s, with the publication of a groundbreaking, pastorally sensitive article on homosexuality by Fr. John Harvey in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the Catholic Church has embraced the core moral distinction between being homosexual in orientation and the choice of doing (or not doing) homosexual sexual acts. The Catholic bishops in the United States noted in their 1990 document Human Sexuality: “The distinction between being homosexual, and doing homosexual genital actions, while not always clear and convincing, is a helpful and important one when dealing with the complex issue of homosexuality, particularly in the educational and pastoral arena” (Human Sexuality, #56).
In brief, evidence indicates that being homosexual—that is, “experienc(ing) an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”—is most often an experience that is discovered, not freely chosen (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2357-8). With the onset of puberty, and its associated hormonal changes, every adolescent boy and girl begins to discover sexual attractions, desires, fantasies and feelings.
For the majority of people, this attraction is primarily focused toward members of the opposite sex. Thus, their orientation is termed “heterosexual.” But for a relatively small but significant percentage of the population, homosexual persons, this attraction or orientation is primarily toward their own gender. Bisexual persons seem to be somewhat equally drawn to members of both sexes. While having a homosexual (or even a bisexual) orientation is not typical, it is not in itself morally wrong or sinful.
Since in most cases it is discerned or discovered, not freely chosen, it is not automatically blameworthy (Human Sexuality, #55; Catechism, #2358).Thus the Church has taken a fairly benign or accepting stance toward homosexual persons—who discover their desires and inclinations (i.e., orientation) toward same-sex sexual activity. Yet the Church has consistently taught that to act on these inclinations, particularly to engage in homosexual genital acts, is always objectively morally wrong. Why so? Here the Church attempts to be true to the core premises of our Catholic sexual-ethics tradition, while at the same time fostering basic human respect, justice and pastoral care toward gay and lesbian persons.
Accept the orientation, not the actions
As the Catholic bishops state it: “(W)e believe that it is only within a heterosexual marital relationship that genital sexual activity is morally acceptable. Only within marriage does sexual intercourse fully symbolize the Creator—s dual design, as an act of covenant love, with the potential of co-creating new human life. Therefore, homosexual genital activity is considered immoral” (Human Sexuality, #55). In somewhat less pastoral, more philosophical terms, Vatican documents use the phrase “intrinsically disordered” when referring to homosexual genital acts.
Whatever the term chosen, the implication would be the same: that sexual intercourse is designed by God both 1) as an act of lovemaking, of two-in-one-flesh union, and also 2) as the means to procreate new life, to co-create—as a couple and with God—s grace—new members of the human species. If these are the indelible meanings of sexual intimacy, written, as it were, into human nature and the nature of these intimate acts, then homosexual sex seems to be essentially deficient or incomplete.
Biologically speaking, homosexual sex acts are wholly non-procreative, since either the sperm or ovum element would be absent. While many homosexual couples embrace one another sexually and intimately as an expression of their love, it can be argued that such intimate genital embraces are fundamentally created to be heterosexual acts, reserved to those couples pledged to each other for life in the bond of marriage.
Therefore, the Church calls all homosexual persons, like their single heterosexual counterparts, to be chaste, that is, sexually appropriate for their uncommitted, unmarried state in life. Various Church documents acknowledge that this may be a difficult challenge, even a lifelong cross to carry. This is particularly true since heterosexual couples may anticipate marriage-to-come, while for gay or lesbian couples such a future sacramental union is not available.
The Vatican as well as Catholic bishops in this country promise that the Church—s ministers will not be lacking in compassion. They counsel a measure of prudence in the confessional setting as well as a special degree of pastoral care (Catechism, #2358-2359; Human Sexuality, #55-56; Declaration on Sexual Ethics, #8; To Live in Christ Jesus, #52).
What about the rest of us?
Interestingly, just as all Church documents on homosexuality acknowledge this orientation/action distinction when speaking to homosexual persons, the same documents always aim the moral lens squarely at the heterosexual majority as well. The same moral principles apply to homosexual and heterosexual persons.
Church teaching shows a special concern regarding prejudice shown to homosexual persons. “Mindful of the inherent and abiding dignity of every human person” the Catholic bishops reaffirm that “homosexual persons, like everyone else, should not suffer from prejudice against their basic human rights. They have a right to respect, friendship and justice. They should have an active role in the Christian community” (Human Sexuality, #55; To Live in Christ Jesus, #52).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church goes on to state: “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” (#2358). And in an even more sharply worded statement from the Vatican—s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith we read: “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech, or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church—s pastors wherever it occurs” (Letter to the Bishops of the World on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, #10).
Thus, the Church challenges homosexual persons concerning their discovered orientation and its implication in terms of sexual action choices. At the same time, the Church—s leaders challenge the so-called “straight” or heterosexual majority to take its own moral pulse, to remove the plank of prejudice and/or self-righteousness from our own eyes. In an eloquent summary of the latter notion, the Catholic bishops in the United States offer a challenge:
“We call on all Christians and citizens of good will to confront their own fears about homosexuality and to curb the humor and discrimination that offend homosexual persons. We understand that having a homosexual orientation brings with it enough anxiety, pain and issues related to self-acceptance without society adding additional prejudicial treatment” (Human Sexuality, #55).
—Always our children—
In October 1997, the U.S. bishops— Committee on Marriage and Family published Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers. Many who emphasize the Church—s official teaching against homosexual sex feared that the document was too lenient, too pastoral, not clear enough about the Catholic prohibition of homosexual genital sex. Others, conversely, were concerned that the document didn—t go far enough or that its focus on parents and family might leave homosexual persons themselves feeling left out or talked about, but not dealt with directly.
In July of 1998 a revised version of Always Our Children was reissued, now with Vatican support. The changes and refinements, while relatively minor, did serve to better nuance and clarify those points considered too vague or unclear. The stated purpose of the document is “to reach out to parents who are trying to cope with the discovery of homosexuality in a child who is an adolescent or an adult.” It encourages families to draw on their untapped reserves of faith, hope and love, as they together face “uncharted futures.” Drawing on all the same Catholic sources cited in this Update, the bishops of the Marriage and Family Life Committee want to encourage parents and families to accept, love and walk together with their gay son or lesbian daughter.
Their pastoral concern is prompted, in part, by the growing sociological literature linking many male teen suicides to the discovery that the boy has a homosexual orientation, with a subsequent presumption that his family would shun or disown him. Often the teen feels that his parents would rather discover that he is dead than have to cope with the fact that his orientation is homosexual.
So also, far too many young gay men and lesbian women attempt heterosexual marriage, in an effort to “turn themselves around” or to “hide” their orientation within a socially accepted marriage covenant. If not dealt with up front, during puberty and adolescence, such repressed orientation issues often lie dormant for years, but not for a lifetime. Discovering—at age 30, 40 or 50—that one—s spouse, the father or mother of one—s children, is primarily homosexual and wants out of the marriage is a devastating blow. Was the whole marriage a lie? Should we stick with it for the sake of the children? If teens are allowed to deal more openly with their sexual feelings, fantasies and orientation at an appropriate age and in responsible counseling and educational settings, such later tragedies may be avoided.
—Coming out——It—s hard on everyone
For these reasons, and in an effort to help parents and families cope wisely and well with the news that a loved one thinks she or he is or might be homosexual, Always Our Children was issued and given wide media coverage.
The “coming-out” process, sometimes called “coming out of the closet,” is not an easy transition for the gay or lesbian person or for one—s family and loved ones. Frequently, this discovery is accompanied by a variety of mixed feelings, including anger, sometimes relief, mourning for what can never be, fear, guilt, shame, loneliness or depression, and even a desire to protect or repress, “to put the genie back into the bottle” or closet. All of these feelings are real. They—re understandable. They—re normal. It takes time, support, patience and often professional help for a gay or lesbian person to accept one—s orientation and to sort out the moral do—s and don—ts of sexual activity.
So too, once a homosexual son or daughter “comes out” to parents, family or friends, it is not uncommon for recipients of this news to “go into the closet” of their own denial or fears. Like their gay or lesbian relative, other family members may need some time to do their own “coming-out” process about a homosexual son, daughter or loved one. Granting to all involved the time, space, patience and love needed for this acceptance process is a key focus of Always Our Children.
I once heard a mother phrase it this way, “I love my daughter, who happens to be lesbian” (as opposed to saying, “I love my lesbian daughter”). The daughter—s lesbian sexual orientation, while real and important, was not the defining trait that encompassed their relationship. Mother-daughter is more core, more binding, more love-infusing than discovery of a loved one—s sexual orientation or desires. Bravo for this mom!
Richard Sparks, C.S.P., a Paulist priest and widely published free-lance author, holds a Ph.D. in ethics from Catholic University of America. He is a popular lecturer on ethics, serves as ethical consultant to hospitals, and is associate pastor at Old St. Mary—s Church in Chicago. His most recent book is Contemporary Christian Morality: Real Questions, Candid Responses (Crossroad).
Next: How Catholics Share Faith—New Catechetical Guidelines
(by Daniel S. Mulhall)
The Sacredness of Marriage
“However, we also want to express clearly the Church—s teaching that —homosexual— (genital) activity, as distinguished from homosexual orientation, is morally wrong” [Live in Christ Jesus, #52]. Such an orientation in itself, because not freely chosen, is not sinful.
“As we have stated several times in this document, we believe that it is only within a heterosexual marital relationship that genital sexual activity is morally acceptable. Only within marriage does sexual intercourse fully symbolize the Creator—s dual design, as an act of covenant love, with the potential of co-creating new life.
“Therefore, homosexual genital activity is considered immoral. Like heterosexual persons, homosexual men and women are called to give witness to chastity, avoiding, with God—s grace, behavior that is wrong for them, just as nonmarital sexual relations are wrong for heterosexual men and women.”
—U.S. bishops, Human Sexuality, #55
Maybe the execs at A&E think the anus is more desirable than the vagina. Maybe they’re misogynists.
You need to rethink your position on the censoring of Phil Robertson. You may call it putting him on hiatus but it is censorship plain and simple. Pandering to a small vocal segment of the population will not improve your ratings or your bottom line.
I will be contacting the sponsors of the show and tell them that if the make the mistake of supporting your decision I will not be purchasing any of their products.
This is a family friendly show with family values, it is a shame that you are not supporting those values.
This is beyond hyper PC.
It’s bullying pure and simple.
It’s what the left does and for years it has worked.
Phil was talking about SIN. And he was clear that it includes not sleeping around with women either.
Do gays think they are the ONLY people on the planet who don't SIN?
Yeesh, I think that makes me more upset than anything.
We're ALL sinners.
If I thought that I was NOT, that would make me the biggest SINNER of all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.