Posted on 10/27/2005 1:31:05 PM PDT by Coleus
"Maybe because the heterosexuals who practice such perversions aren't marching in the streets or trying to form special clubs at Catholic universities?"
Okay, I understand now. As long as homosexuals don't march in the streets or try to form special clubs, then they are not "sub-human". They can sodomize to their hearts content. Makes sense to me!
Well said.
Though - given what little I know about Duquesne and its willingness to allow a Gay-Straight Alliance to form on campus - I wonder if he would have been sanctioned anyway had he merely repeated what the Catechism says.
Of course you are right...I forgotten that...looks like this Roman Catholic might be another in the line of famous Catholic.. re born 'protest ants'.... :)
Like most Catholic colleges, Duquesne is troubled by dissent. But if a student appeals directly to Catholic teaching, the authorities might find it somewhat embarrassing to have their views put into the spotlight.
For the most part, when people sin in privacy, it's up to God to straighten them out. When they start parading their sins in public, then society and human authorities need to step in.
Homosexuals have called down a fair amount of anger on their heads simply because they have been so public and demanding, and because they insist that we need to let them form clubs, subvert other students, tutor boy scouts, teach our kids that sodomy is OK, and so forth.
In other words, it's possible to disapprove of both groups but to challenge only the one that is out there in public pushing its agenda.
I also happen to think that pornography and sex education need to be controlled better than they are, but that's a whole separate matter.
"But if a student appeals directly to Catholic teaching, the authorities might find it somewhat embarrassing to have their views put into the spotlight."
The Roman Catholic Church does not teach that homosexuals are "sub-human".
Not to put words in the students mouth BUT...
One could legitimately argue that homosexuals who participate in homosexual activity are in essence subhuman. As the Church teaches, what separates humans/humanity from animals is our soul/conscience as such we innately are imprinted with Gods law (natural law)legitimately knowing in general right from wrong and possess uthentically the freedom to choose between that which is right and wrong... The argument that homosexuals can not help but choose to participate in the activity in essence equates to homosexuals stating they do not possess authentically the freedom to choose -e.g. they are not human -subhuman...
They told him to write a 10 page paper on homosexuality in the Catholic Church. He refused. He's not really interested in preventing the gay alliance from forming on campus. Seems he just wants to shoot off his mouth. He'll show up at the appeal and tell them it's a free country and he can say anything he wants. He might even preface his comments with the word, "dude".
-Maybe - LOL
"For the most part, when people sin in privacy, it's up to God to straighten them out. When they start parading their sins in public, then society and human authorities need to step in."
I'm not sure what you mean by "parading their sins in public". There are already laws against public indecency. Any person performing a sex act in public can be arrested. If you are referring to demonstrations or speech, then I think you are treading a very dangerous line. These are the same kind of arguments that are used against anti-abortion protesters.
Sheesh. I already said I disapprove of the word. I also said I have no idea what context he used it in. And yes, I agree, neither the Catechism of the Catholic Church nor the Council of Trent nor any of the Codes of Canon Law with which I am familiar use the word "subhuman."
If a CATHOLIC university goes after a student for making (crudely) the same point as does the teaching church while at the same time NOT affirming the Church's teaching, then it is pandering to a society that rejects virtually all the Church's teaching about sexual morality. The school thus says, See, we are not like THEM! "Them" meaning those unequivocally say that homosexuality is an immoral practice.
"One could legitimately argue that homosexuals who participate in homosexual activity are in essence subhuman. As the Church teaches, what separates humans/humanity from animals is our soul/conscience as such we innately are imprinted with Gods law (natural law)legitimately knowing in general right from wrong and possess uthentically the freedom to choose between that which is right and wrong... "
Then why are heterosexuals who practice the same sex acts also not "sub-human"? You keep ignoring the question, but the Bible does not distinguish between sexual orientations. It condemns anyone who performs such acts. Why are you and this student singling out homosexuals? Defenders of this student are saying that he meant the sexual acts -- not the person. If so, then why are only homosexuals being condemned as "sub-human" when millions of homosexuals perform the same sexual acts.
I do not ignore the question -I ignore the false premises you posit -in this case at least two -one, what constitues legitimate and authentic teaching on the matter -the other, how legitimate my position and others might be...
If you really want to know -your answers:
-some links to documents and some excerpts:
Catholic documents and teaching on subject of homosexuality:
- The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality - Guidelines for Education within the Family
104. A particular problem that can appear during the process of sexual maturation is homosexuality, which is also spreading more and more in urbanized societies. This phenomenon must be presented with balanced judgement, in the light of the documents of the Church. Young people need to be helped to distinguish between the concepts of what is normal and abnormal, between subjective guilt and objective disorder, avoiding what would arouse hostility. On the other hand, the structural and complementary orientation of sexuality must be well clarified in relation to marriage, procreation and Christian chastity. "Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained". A distinction must be made between a tendency that can be innate and acts of homosexuality that "are intrinsically disordered" and contrary to Natural Law.Especially when the practice of homosexual acts has not become a habit, many cases can benefit from appropriate therapy. In any case, persons in this situation must be accepted with respect, dignity and delicacy, and all forms of unjust discrimination must be avoided. If parents notice the appearance of this tendency or of related behaviour in their children, during childhood or adolescence, they should seek help from expert qualified persons in order to obtain all possible assistance.
For most homosexual persons, this condition constitutes a trial. "They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition". "Homosexual persons are called to chastity".
- Persona Humana - Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics
VIII At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.
In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.
In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God. This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.
- Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons
10. 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. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.
11. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.
Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God's liberating grace.
- Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on Non-discrimination of Homosexual Persons
II. Applications10. "Sexual orientation" does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. "Letter," No. 3) and evokes moral concern.
11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.
13. Including "homosexual orientation" among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.
- Third World Meeting of Families: Conclusions of the Pastoral Theological Congress
Mention should also be made of recent attempts to legalize adoptions by homosexual persons, and this must be strongly rejected. It is obvious that this is not the situation for authentic up-bringing and personalizing growth. “The bond between two men or two women cannot constitute a real family, nor much less can the right be attributed to a union of this kind to adopt children without a family”. With regard to foster care and adoption, the great principle to be applied is always the child’s higher interests which much prevail over other considerations.
- Fourth World Meeting of Families: Conclusions of the Pastoral Theological Congress
We reaffirm the rights and dignity of all children. They should never be neglected and abandoned on the streets. They should be protected, especially when threatened by exploitation through prostitution, pornography, child-labor, drug trafficking, homosexual adoption and immoral "sex education". A new threat to children is posed by the misuse of the Internet, when this intrudes into family life and undermines the rights and duties of parents.Children are the "crown of marriage", the real wealth of humanity. The natural place for their education is the family. It is here, in the community of life and love, that they are formed as members of Christ's Church. It is here that, honoring and loving their parents, they can enrich the lives of all members of the wider family.
- Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons
4. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity, does nothing to alter this inadequacy.
Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.
As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
- Religiosorum Institutio
30. Those To Be Excluded; Practical DirectivesAdvantage to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.
Why, yes it is.
But the fact remains that it's not violating the student's Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech--because it's a private organization, and is not a government.
And I know personally of drake ducks, who had free access to hen ducks, that would instead regularly rape hen chickens...then get the crap kicked out of them in the act by the rooster. Sometimes several times a day.
That, of course, is beastiality, rather than homesexuality.
But, you already mentioned dogs. Had one of those gay caballeros.
Or, their activities in the spotlight...
I never said they were.
" That, of course, is beastiality,
LOL! Never thought of it that way.
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.