Well, allrighty then ...
;o)
Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
Well, allrighty then ...
;o)
Havoc isn't worried about "acting superior" or throwing mud. Havoc is interested in what is right and Just. Havoc knows what chastity and evil mean. Havoc also knows what the phrase "Homosexuality is a sin" means. Havoc is amazed that the RCC can't say that instead of issuing three paragraphs of stuff that does not commit to that position - which is the same as that of scripture (ie Homosexuality is a sin.) Havoc is amazed that the RCC can't commit to calling a sin for what it is 100% and without reservation.
You guys completely deny any spiritual aspect, as eastrider's comment shows - not even discerning or perhaps understanding a spiritual element - who knows. He pokes fun at a spiritual element - which is worst yet. But it tells me more about who you guys are.
The Bigotry of Progressive Thinkers RICHARD BASTIEN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABSTRACT: Contemptuous remarks against the Catholic Church's moral teaching have become almost a trademark of media feature writers. What really seems to make the media angry is the Church's refusal to accommodate the spirit of our time by softening its notion of contraception, fornication, adultery, sodomy, abortion, and divorce as “grave sins.” Progressive-liberal thinkers hold firmly to a metaphysical belief in the pure goodness of man. On the basis of such a belief they have concluded that the source of evil does not reside in a person's free will, as Christians believe, but rather in inappropriate social and economic structures. That is why progressives tend to ignore the importance of character formation in education and why they see government programs rather than the virtuous life as the way of building a better society. It is untrue, as media writers suggest, that Catholic ethics are based on the whims and caprices of “the boys in Rome.” Rather the ethical rules of the Church are based on an ancient and honourable system of Christian metaphysics. It is, therefore, a fundamental disagreement in metaphysical assumptions that is the cause of the antagonism between the Church and the press. Whether written by a Canadian or an American the principles are the same. This is a good article for introducing some of the underlying causes for the tension between the Church and the secular culture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Viereck of Yale once described ant-Catholic bigotry as “the anti-Semitism of liberals.” Arthur M. Schlesinger Sr. regarded it as “the deepest bias in the history of the American people.
It has almost become the trademark of Canadian media feature writers, whose liberal progressive creed calls for regular doses of contemptuous remarks against the Catholic Church's moral teaching and historical record. This creed also has the likes of an addiction: the dosage is growing month by month.
What realty makes the media angry is the Church's refusal to accommodate the spirit of our time by softening its notion of contraception, fornication, adultery, sodomy, abortion and divorce as “grave sins.”
Such a deception, it is usually argued, shows how “far behind the times” the Catholic Church remains and betrays a lack of compassion, understanding and intelligence on the part of the “boys in Rome” who govern it.
There are three points to be made on such commentaries. The first is that they assume the Catholic Church is alone in teaching that adultery, sodomy, abortion, etc., are evil. Yet. while there are many things in Catholicism that at unique to it, those items are clearly not.
The sexual ethics of Catholicism are not very different from those of other religions. Most people brought up in the Judaic, Muslim or Buddhists traditions believe things such as adultery, homosexuality and abortion always have been and will be wrong. Moreover, some Protestants, Anglicans and Presbyterians notably, still believe such things are wrong. Why single out Catholicism?
The second point to be made is that anti-Catholic commentaries assume the leaders of the Church are somehow free to define what is moral and what is not. Their authors usually fail to acknowledge in even the slightest way what every faithful Catholic takes for granted—that the moral teaching of the Church is prescribed not by man but by God.
Occasionally, they will refer to the need for a bona fide religion to remain true to its “founding principles.” But they understand the latter as “directives for daily conduct” such as help to the needy and forgiveness of wrong-doing. Yet, while such prescriptions do correspond to Catholic teaching, the fact they are common to most religions makes it clear they cannot constitute its founding principles.
This brings us to the third and most important point, which is that anti-Catholic commentaries in our media tend to confuse religion with ethics. Certainly, all religions include a system of ethics. But they also embody a metaphysical system in which their ethics are grounded. There cannot be any ethics without some metaphysics. This is as true of the ethics of progressive-liberal thinkers as it is of Catholics.
For example, progressive-liberal thinkers believe any idea, especially one that has to do with sex, to be better just because it's new, (a mirror image of Conservatives, who believe a thing to be better for being old). Yet, acceptance of what the Church teaches has nothing to do with whether it is old or new.
It has to do with the fact that it is eternal. Catholics, as indeed all true Christians, believe that truth and goodness are rooted not in time but in eternity. Progressives and conservatives hold the opposite view, which is why they are more alike than they think. Both believe that good and evil is a function of time and has nothing to do with anything that might stand above individuals. Progressive-liberal thinkers also hold firmly to another fundamental belief that people are pure undivided goodness. This belief is contrary to the entire Judeo-Christian traditions as it constitutes a denial of original sin, for example, the inclination in each of us to act against the laws of human nature.
There are many things that flow from this progressive liberal faith in the pure goodness of man. One of them is that the source of evil does not reside in a person's free will, as Christians believe, but rather in inappropriate social and economic structures. That is why progressives tend to ignore the importance of character formation in education. They see government programs rather than the virtuous life as the way of building a better society.
That is why they tend to blame inanimate objects such as guns (too many) and condoms (too few) rather than people. That is also why they consider Christian detachment and chastity to be absurd remnants of days gone by. No wonder they do so much proselytizing. They have a metaphysical agenda of their own!
It is not the progressive-thinkers dislike of Catholic sexual ethics that makes them bigots. Rather it is their emphatic denial that Catholic ethics can be explained by anything else but the whims and caprices of “the boys in Rome.” If progressives and liberals were content with noting that they cannot accept ethical rules based on Christian metaphysics, nothing could be held against them. But what they do is express contempt for ethical rules that do not accord with their own metaphysical beliefs.
As G. K. Chesterton once said, there is no worse dogmatist than he who is unaware of his own beliefs. He constantly runs the risk of falling into the very intolerance that he claims to abhor.
David seems to be long suffering, but there are signs. :)
BigMack
Where do you come from? You aren't calling people to renounce homosexuality, which would take far fewer words and doesn't require the introduction of words such as "intrinsic disorder". It merely requires a statement alongside scripture that Homosexuality is sin that must be repented from - never again to be returned to.
Yes, we are calling people to renounce their homosexuality. You are just so blinded by your prejudices and utterly, laugably ignorant of language that you look for something to misunderstand and find much to occupy your limited understanding.
What I said "calling people to be chaste, avoid the actual acts, and entertaining thoughts of temptation" IS renouncing their homosexuality. Because the Catechism does not speak in the Dick and Jane words with which you are familiar you are blind to its message. Potato, Potahto.
when the Church says the same thing it is making excuses and putting in shades of grey. What do you make of this? Why do you try to find fault where there is none?
Oh brother. Care to tell me how these are the same:
I just did.
Bible: Homosexuality is a Sin and must be repented of/turned from.
Rcc: to homosexuals "please be chaste".
Wow. Looks a lot alike to me, perhaps if I go snort a line of expensive white stuff it'll seem even more clear?
The solution is not to be found in medication, at least not that available on the street. It lies in understanding what chastity means, and how it is entirely inconsistent with a "homosexual lifestyle," even one without any actual physical sins.
Why don't you, just for laughs, try to understand what chastity really means.
The Church calls homosexuality a grave, intrinsic disorder. It counsels all to avoid sin, and entertaining thoughts of sin. And it calls homosexuals to a life of chastity and avoiding temptation.
Like I said, it would be easier and much more clear to call it SIN and tell them to repent of it. And the reaction of your side at the outset tells us how the church sees this issue. Your side yelled that the Bible does not call it sin when it most certainly does.
It is called an "intrinsically evil act" and a disorder, meaning something that is unnatural. Again, you think of medical or clinical terms, but this is not what is meant by "disorder." Your ignorance is brilliant. Intrinsically evil acts are sins. Duh. Attaching oneself to a "lifestyle" revolving around sin is sinful as well. Chastity is the opposite of this.
I'm sorry the Catechism is too hard for you to understand.
And my side "yelled" that tendencies to sin are not sin, if they are resisted. Which is Biblical. Everything you showed from the Bible was about acts. We are in agreement here completely, you are just too stubborn to admit that maybe we aren't the devil.
What would you do different?
I'd call it what it is rather than making up phrases which diminish it.
They don't diminish it. Calling something a sin is one thing. Saying it is intrinsically evil is Stronger not weaker. To people who care to understand the language instead of searching for misconceptions to use to puff up oneself and tar a fellow Christian.
You don't call the lifestyle sin.
Sure we do. You just don't understand it.
You just say that some things they do is sinful, then you say "be chaste" as if that fixes it.
Firstly, you don't understand the idea of attachent to sin, which is taught to be as damaging as the sin itself. So we do not only condemn the physical acts. But, again, you don't understand the language so you strike out in pain at your own confusion.
Secondly, you don't understand chastity. It is indeed the antidote.
You see, in the wishy-washiness, you lose any authority by confusing the issue.
Only to the ignorant.
Confusing the issue lets the church make an official statement that allows them to seem to support both sides of the issue at any given time.
Only to the ignorant.
They'd have done better to either say what the bible says, or shutup.
They do say what the Bible says. You lack the understanding to see this.
"Avoid all appearance of evil" is not a vague statement from scripture. And thus someone cannot carry on a homosexual lifestyle, stay chaste and yet be in the right. It is sin.
You display your ignorance one more time. You view chastity as the lack of a physical act. It is a lifestyle, one utterly incompatible with the "Gay" one. So you are talking nonsense.
Being effeminate, which is covered in Corinthians, also gives no wiggle room. Nor does the phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind" give any wiggle room - it covers what the word effeminate does not. You can't have it both ways. It's either a sin or it isn't. The scripture says it is a sin. The Catholic church says it's an intrinsic disorder that can lead to sin. The two are not equivalent statements. The latter allows you to have homosexual priests because they have to be chaste to begin with.. wow, how comfortabley that now seems to fit. Saying it's sin does not allow for homosexual priests. And a man who doesn't have his own house in order (this includes himself) has no business in the pulpit to begin with according to scripture. Yes, there's that "s" word again. Amazing how all those scriptures work together.
Don't forget to mention the priests. Good job.
SD
OK. Then define chastity. Then explain how something can be intrinsically evil without it being a sin.
SD
Solomon in the Proverbs said Pride comes before the fall.
You kidding? Havoc should get the longsuffering award. :-)
Sounds like there may be a loose nut behind the keyboard. You better check. ;^)
-ksen
I agree. Whatever he's suffering from, it doesn't seem to ever abate.
SD
You do habitually see things that are not there, and habitually misrepresent what is actually said.
Here is what was "really" said: the point is the "hierarchy" of the papist church has "covered over" it's perversions and atrocities for 1500 years."
Ask the Montanists who were slaughtered because they stood up against a perverted priesthood in the 6th century. Ask the Byzantines who were slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands during the Crusades at the hands of papist armies.
Yes, dave, I know that you prefer to keep your head in the sand, and act like there is no history of atrocities and perversion within the papist church.
Now, read these letters to the editor in USA Today on 2-27-02, which were in reponse to an Editorial, 2-13-02, titled: Our View, Pedophile priests debate: Lax church policies let problem priests prey on kids
Letter 1) Time's overdue for Catholics to face facts
Asking Catholic Church officials to turn over the names of all abusive clergy to police departments, prosecutors and social services is like asking alcoholics how many drinks they had today.
There are always more not accounted for, as Boston's Cardinal Law has proved. At least the court did not protect the church this time by sealing documents about clergy who posed a danger to children.
Courts, laws and worthless policies have enable the RC church to hide perpetrators and brush victims under the rug of denial, silence, sealed documents and private settlements.
It is no surprise that the abuse has grown over the years. It looks more as if victims were being held hostage by church officials in exchange for their freedom. How many have died while being held hostage to this kind of abuse? We may never know as long as the church is allowed to do this!
Mary Grant
Former Roman Catholic
Survivor of clergy sexual abuse
Covina, California
Looks like one who left the RCC knows what I'm talking about, as opposed to the RCs who prefer to keep their head in the sand.
Letter #2 up next
Yeah, but did Solomon write as many books as Chesterton did?
-ksen
II: That may or may not be true but I bet he understands "invincibly ignorant". :-)
Chastity is like when a priest doesn't diddle little boys. So that's one good understanding. Intrinsic evil is like when a priest does diddle little boys. But Chastity doesn't stop the priest being a homosexual. And saying that 'a homo not being chaste is intrinsically evil' is not the same as saying "homosexuality is a sin." I do understand "invincibly ignorant" - it's the level of stupidity at which one accepts two unequal propositions as being equal and then lauds them as being such.
You do habitually see things that are not there, and habitually misrepresent what is actually said.
Do I? What did you actually say?
Here is what was "really" said: the point is the "hierarchy" of the papist church has "covered over" it's perversions and atrocities for 1500 years."
Oh, so they did it (obviously if the "covered it up" it must have spread, no?), but it wasn't "policy?" Excuse my error. Beam me up, Scotty!
SD
"Latin is a dead language; as dead as dead can be. First it killed the Romans, and now it's killing me".Now, there's a blast from the past! : )
What exactly is the point you are trying to make? Someone who was abused and it caused her to lose her faith is a tragedy. And I make no apologies for the criminal who did this and should rot in jail, then hell.
So spare me the other letter, OK? And spare me your attempts to tar the entire organization by the evil acts of a few. It doesn't prove a point any more than OJ Simpson going free proves that Americans are free to murder at will.
Will somebody save me from the non sequitur crowd?
SD
Whew! For a second there Hav I thought you didn't understand me. :-)
Welcome back to the land of the insane. Hows mom and the kid doing? I missed you, these guys here are too stiff, need help in greasing them up. We have been bashing angelo while you were gone, Reggie and Dave are still best buds :) We had a drive by shooting the other day from some guy that said all us NCs are stupid, and we all responded in like, he hasn't been back. JHavard has stoped posting, said something about being free of this addiction. Havoc and some of the catholics are fussing about homos, Steven cheated some of us out of the # 30,000 post the other day, he is still right up there with Paul, you know chief siner and all :) so all in all everthing is just about normal.
BigMack
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.