Comments about Homosexual Acts cause National Catholic Reporter to Shut Down All Comments

National Catholic Reporter ^ | 1/6/2004 | MIkeyB806

[MikeyB806]

Left-leaning NCR (National Catholic Reporter, not to be confused with the conservative National Catholic Register) decided to shut down comments on its site this morning due to a deluge of comments on posts about homosexuality that it deemed to be "malicious" and "abusive."

Catholicism teaches that homosexuality is not a sin, but that homosexual acts are. Nonetheless, homosexual activists attack the Church in the media and elsewhere as being anti-homosexual. The objectional comments that caused NCR to shut down commenting called attention to that very distinction. Post topics particularly at issue were about the Boy Scouts' policy on homosexuality, an LGBT minor offered at a Catholic university, and the death of a priest who promoted homosexual marriage.

Perhaps it was the recent Duck Dynasty story that gave voice to the previously silent posters, calling attention to the acts of sodomy that homosexuals adopt as their identity and which attention homosexuals would rather not be mentioned. Whatever the case, the comments weren't so much derogatory as they were sexually graphic in nature, and that is what, ironically, the editorial staff apparently found disgusting and vile.

[FourtySeven]

That’s true but temptation is not the same as sin. If one is tempted, for whatever reasons, to entertain homosexual thoughts (much less actually do them) it’s not a sin unless one actually does “entertain” such thoughts. Note the word “entertain” there. If one continues to think about a sin, enjoying the thought of it, much less acting on it, then this is a sin as you described (that is the intent of Jesus’ words there)

It’s important to realize, or else there’s a danger of scrupulosity here, that tempting thoughts come from the Devil. It’s when we cooperate with such thoughts, by entertaining them and making them our own that’s when we sin. It’s not healthy to believe every time one has a tempting thought one has sinned.

Now I suppose one could get into legalism here and ask, “well how long is it until a temptation becomes a thought of your own?”

That’s ultimately between a person and God but suffice it to say, the moment a tempting thought enters the mind is not sin. If that were so, there would never be any such thing as “repentance”, because we would always be in a state of sin no matter how many times we said “sorry”. We would never actually be turning away from sin, which is what “repentance” means.

As long as one immediately dismisses a tempting thought, or fights it with prayer, then it’s not a sin, as long as one doesn’t start to make plans to act upon it.

[RitaOK]

Semantics run amuck.

Temptation is one thing. Homosexuality is clearly something different. We all react to the word “homosexuality”, as engaging-in-the-act, because that is exactly what it means.

When Catholics say, “Homosexuality is not a sin”, everybody’s head explodes, naturally.

What they should say is that people with same sex attraction are not homosexual, until they act on it.

Many never act on it, but acting on it is actively being promoted today.

Effeminate men and masculine women are a fact of life. The proclivity for same sex attraction seems to be a genetic
abberition. Acting on a such a disorder must be a difficult proclivity to live with, but those who do not engage in abomination, especially for the love of God, are worthy of admiration.

[867V309]

Legalistic sophistry

!00% wrong. Ask an alcoholic who doesn't drink.

[SumProVita]

The National “Catholic” Reporter...

....better known as fishwrap.

[MikeyB806]

I think the confusing semantics are intentional, especially terms like “gay” and now “LGBT” which are designed specifically to avoid connection with the acts that define those identities.

It almost sounds silly to claim that a person who has same-sex attraction is not homosexual/gay unless you explain that those terms are identities adopted by those with same-sex attraction.

[livius]

No, not at all. The urge to murder, for example, is not a sin...but it is if you act on it, or even if you think about it in a way to encourage the eventual act.

“Homosexuality” as such is the inclination of a particular person to a particular sin. I don’t think they’re born that way...and even if they were, it wouldn’t matter...but that homosexual inclinations are probably in most cases the result of upbringing (absent father, sexual molestation by an adult, etc.) and in that sense, the person isn’t responsible for them.

It’s the decision to act and the action that is sinful.

[MayflowerMadam]

“Legalistic sophistry”

Not really. Pedophiles are wired to want to have sex with kids. Murderers are wired to want to kill people. “Wanting to” is one thing, and not a sin; actually doing the act is a sin, illegal, etc.

Saying that it’s OK for people to have homosexual sex because they’re “born that way” is wrong. Would someone tell a pedophile, “Since you were born with the urge to rape children, go ahead and do it”? Self control and free will (should) work together to make all of us stop when we consider doing wrong things.

[RitaOK]

Yes, you have a point.

This is where I believe we compare the attractions for the oposite sex. Men and women every day overcome attractions to their opposite sex, and remain either celibate, or loyal to their spouse.

For example, the priesthood bears ordinary men in an extraordinary way. Whether these men suffer attractions to other men, or to women, or not, they are willing to be celibate and remain celibate. They have temptation in common.

All of us have said, “yes” or “no”, to temptation. Saying “no” is a good thing, no matter the semantics. :)

[fwdude]

“Who are we to judge?”

[Mrs. Don-o]

It's not legalistic sophistry. Holy Scripture makes a big distinction between temptation and sin. Jesus Cahrist was tempted in every way that we are, but He did not sin.

A person who is tempted by same-sex attraction is called a homosexual. That is not a sin, but it is a temptation and a danger, just like to an alcoholic, alcohol is a temptation and an danger. He has to flee this temptation, and deny the demands of his desires. Just like we all do.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thre's a difference between temptation and inward lust.

DesertRhino, maybe we canthink of it this way:

A temptation is unwilled and unwelcome. You expel it, resist it, run around the block a couple time, go mop the floor, take a cold shower. You don't nuture it, explore it mentally or put it on a continuous loop!

If you dally with it, it becomes an "interior act" --- that's what Jesus was talking about. A sinful thought that you permitted to run its video in your head.

Somebody said, "A bird may come and perch on your head, but you flick it away. You don't let it build a nest there."

[cloudmountain]

You can't talk about the Church's view on homosexuality without addressing homosexual acts, which, yes, are considered disgusting by many. So in typical fashion, when leftists don't like what is being said, they try to shut down their adversaries rather than address them head on.

The lefties FEAR the Catholic Church because it's even bigger than they are, than the U.S....the largest, continuous institution on the planet.

The lefties fear the Church because she teaches a morality straight from Jesus Christ...and it's anathema to the lefties who abhor the words: sin, wrong, evil, right, purity, salvation...you know, the words of FAITH.

[cloudmountain]

Sinners hate being called sinners, especially if they are haters of God. So they lash out on the righteous. They did this in the time of Noah, the time of Abraham, the time of Jacob, the time of Moses, the time of David, the time of the Prophets and the time of Jesus. Jesus said this would happen and it is happening.
“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

This was worth a second posting.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It gets confusing because the overlapping vocabulary keeps on shifting.

Melinda Selmys is a Canadian Catholic convert and married mother of six who is an ex-lesbian, ostensibly accepts all that the Church teaches about the orientation being an "objective disorder" and and the acts being acts of "grave depravity," and does a lot of writing and speaking about her conversion story. But Selmys flatly states, to my astonishment, and as if everybody knew this, that "gay" does not mean a person who is engaged in, or wants to engage in, same-sex sexual or romantic relationships and acts.

She says it just means --- well, I don't know what she means. It had something to do with a sensibility, and aesthetic, a temperament, a culture, a community, a giftedness --- sheesh.

I try, but I don't quite grasp what she's talking about.

The American Psychiatric Association used to count homosexuality as a disorder until-- was it 1973? At that time, homosexuality meant an orientation, and it was a clinical diagnostic term.

The Catholic Catechism uses the word "homosexuality" in this sense, as a diagnostic term for an orientation --- while rejecting any suggestion that homosexual conduct --- in thought, word, or deed! --- could under any circumstances be approved.

I see that "gay" spokes-entities now officially disapprove of the word "homosexual" because it sounds clinical --- "Like there's something wrong with it!

The healthcare people are now using MSM ("Men who have Sex with Men") because many men who have sex with men do not identify with the words "gay" OR "homosexual."

You'll notice you see less and less now of "Gay" and more of "LGBT." Even the Gay Pride parades aren't Gay Pride parades anymore, they're just "PRIDE PARADES."

And it's terribly bigoted and homophobic to say "queer," unless you're majoring in "Queer Studies."

I think the aim is to make it impossible for anyone to think or talk about it coherently.

[cloudmountain]

If every straight person refused to be intimidated by the gaystapo, we’d drive these perverts and accidents of nature back into the closet where they belong.

Homosexuality is a choice, as is bisexuality or asexuality. What a horrible and sad decision to have made. The majority of homosexuals are male and most made the choice in their early to mid teens.
WHAT a dreadful choice those boys made...without ANY knowledge of the lifetime repercussions and consequences of their choice. I have tremendous pity for them.

[RitaOK]

I see what you mean. Thx for the insight from the convert.

The culture loves this stuff. Scripture revealed the game before there was a game. Words have come to mean anything you want them to mean.

“Abomination” is one word that ends the argument, no matter the incoherency of the two sides and the fence sitting in-betweeners, pretzel twisting the nuances. :)

[Epsdude]

“Catholicism teaches that homosexuality is not a sin, but that homosexual acts are. “

Matthew 5:27-28
King James Version (KJV)
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

[Bill Russell]

Not really “legalistic sophistry,” but a statement of fact in the Church’s teaching on sin. Re-word it to read “Catholicism teaches that ‘temptation’ (any carnal or worldly desire) is not a sin, but acting (or excessively fantasizing)on temptation is” and it becomes much clearer. After all, even Jesus was tempted.

[afsnco]

God calls homosexual acts “abomination” in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, the Hebrew “to ebah to ebah,” and it literally means “disgusting/abhorrent.” So that’s God’s opinion on the subject, and His opinion is the only one that ultimately matters.

Essentially, they’re choosing a few years of depravity here on earth, and as a result they’ll have an eternity of absolutely merciless torture in hell and the lake of fire. There’ll never come a time when God thinks they’ve been tortured enough (2 Th. 1:5-9) Like Phil Robertson said, that ain’t logical.

That attitude doesn’t make a lick of sense to Christians, but to the damned, Christianity is foolishness:

1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

They’re the walking spiritually dead. Spiritual zombies, in other words. God was speaking specifically of homosexuals in Romans 1 when He said He turns them over to a reprobate mind, which is a nonfunctioning mind. Makes sense.

[Morpheus2009]

I would also add that having autism makes me easily feel irritated at the most random of times, but it does not mean that I should let those bouts of urge to feel angry or anxious get the better of me. This is also talking about a condition or predisposition that is manifest from early childhood, at least.

Pedophilia is considered a developed condition, at least now it is, although it’s often not equally applied.