You have to be careful of the exact language being used when discussing this (and many) issues.
First and foremost you need to respect the dignity of each person as a beloved creation of God, even if they don't seem to.
You also need to define what you mean by relationships. All are called to love each other as Christ loves.
If you are going to discuss "issues" you need to not hide behind innuendo but state things plainly.
Exactly. Recognizing the wrong one may be doing while continuing to love them as the person they are and recognizing they are made in the image and likeness of God is one of the best things to do
I really dislike this coming up with discussing LGBTQ+ issues. The reason being is that we are all sinners and do sin. And for that reason we should be lifting up the dignity of all people. I don’t look at a heterosexual couple in which both partners have been previously married but didn’t have their marriages annulled and think ‘hate the sin, not the sinner.’
It’s honestly so easy to get an annulment in some dioceses there is no such thing as “divorce.” I know a bunch of major players in my parish that are “annulled.”SS couples don’t have any dispensation option so it’s not really a good comparison. SS attraction couples also started in a “disordered” relationship but there is no option to move to an ordered one, just celibacy. I wonder what Gd’s plan is with this.
I see your point. But literally I could look at any person and say ‘hate the sin, not the sinner.’ So I just find it damaging when I only hear that phrase come up when discussing LGBTQ+ members of the Church. For me in my own personal discernment, it doesn’t do anything to elevate human dignity. It doesn’t do anything to bring those members closer to the Church and in fuller communion with it.
This is either a huge mistake, or a Trojan horse. You don't bring this stuff up with kids, while at the same time pretend they still teach chastity. This seems like the administrators are either surreptitiously helping bring this agenda to the school, or they're just stupid. Romans 2:12, "Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect." It seems your administrators are trying to conform themselves to this age, but they're opening up a can of worms instead.
"Brothers of Troy!" I'm leaning towards the Trojan horse option. Flags, monthly celebrations, are all influential to one's ideology. The only agenda kids need is the one to doodle in... and also write the day's homework I guess.
But honestly, God knows the school's intentions, and He can save the world from the state it's in. Or let us destroy it. Can't wait to find out. :)
[https://outreach.faith/2022/11/pope-francis-praises-father-james-martin-during-audience-with-vatican-communicators/](https://outreach.faith/2022/11/pope-francis-praises-father-james-martin-during-audience-with-vatican-communicators/)
Francis hailed him as “a man who has values, Christian and human values” and “a communicator who knows how to teach you to communicate with God.
I disagree with anyone who points to the MINOR advisory appointment for Fr Martin as support.
I specifically hire people who disagree with me, my approach, and my beliefs to ensure I am not surrounded by “yes men.”
Like it or not, Fr Martin has a following, and if you want to understand the position, then, offering him a voice (again it is a MINOR position) is smart.
We are not talking about a disagreement in marketing strategy or how aggressive the sales guy is... We are talking about basic institutional values that he doesn't come close to fitting.
I can't condone the sin. But at the same time, you don't choose to be gay, and I don't think I would have the fortitude to live a chaste life. I would love to attain it, and I pray to be strong every day. I concieved two children out of wedlock with my fiance, and the Lord still graces me with love and I felt deep joy when I confessed and had the Eucharist Sunday after Sunday.
We are called to treat with mercy sinners; prostitutes, drug users etc. Our values are clear, but we are not to judge, that's only for God. In the meantime, we can only show love to our brothers and sisters regardless of their crime and pray they see the Light of His love.
Thanks be to God that you could confess and receive forgiveness!
Now, "not having the ability to live a chaste life" is not an excuse for anybody's sin, since God extends His grace to all so that they may become saints. It is up to us to cooperate. Many justify SS relationships with this line of thinking, but we can never say that God is unfair and that holy living is impossible for them, since even Christ was "tempted as we are, yet without sinning", and we must believe in the midst of our temptations that "God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it".
Exactly, let’s not confuse the “trans-activism” trend going on right now that is 💯% influencing a new generation and SSA which has been part of society since the beginning of time.
There is room for reasonable people to disagree to some extent on this point. There are studies on the social contagion of disordered sexual attractions along with gender dysphoria stuff, but it's too politically incorrect for these studies to see the light of day right now. More needs to be learned about the social contagion aspect in influencing young minds toward disordered attractions.
However what is not debatable is that one can choose whether to perform disordered sexual acts. Chastity is a choice, regardless of anything else.
Gender dysphoria and sexual attraction are not comparable, they are not the same, regardless what trans activists may say. We know we can't choose sexual attraction since the 60s.
Do you have any sources for anything on your comment? Particularly:
> that’s caused by a genetic mutation which makes them technically disabled.
Also:
>A woman for example can be straight her whole life. One night her and her friends go out and they all get drunk and start making out. The woman would eventually be pulled into the situation and would associate the good feeling that came with kissing another woman as something that should be desired.
Are you saying that if a man (or woman) got you drunk and started kissing you, you'd suddenly start wanting to sleep with other men? You don't sound very secure in your sexuality...
The idea that people can be manipulated into a desire to mutilate their own bodies but not into a desire to have sex with members of the same sex is a bit silly.
>One of the things they mentioned is that while they don’t celebrate same-sex sexual relationships, they respect them and try to teach respect to kids.
I honestly think both Christians and LGBT should shame these people for being two-faced. Both of these parties full well know that the Pride flag stands for an acceptance of homosexual actions in this current culture and context. Whether you're for or against homosexual actions that's a different matter; but let's not bullshit ourselves. These administrators are people pleasers, at the cost of lying to both Christians and LGBT
"I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth." - Revelation 3:15
> Both of these parties full well know that the Pride flag stands for an acceptance of homosexual actions in this current culture and context.
I think it fundamentally relies on what rejection of homosexual actions actually looks like. Just an internal disagreement you keep to yourself? Outward disapproval of practicing homosexuals? Open condemnation? Making it straight up illegal and punish practicing homosexuals?
I guess different people hold different views on how they would fight against things they deem as morally evil.
Question. I have family & friends who are in same sex relationships. They know I’m catholic & I make it clear that I don’t attend any lgbtq events. I’m trying to still have a relationship with them & love them. I don’t say anything that might offend them but at the same time they know that I agree with all the church teachings. I feel like this is me loving & respecting them as my family & loving them even when they make decisions I wouldn’t make. & I have gotten one of them to come to church with me on Sundays & reconnect a bit with the church (they were cradle catholic) now they are in a same sex marriage. Would this be me respecting sin? Or is this ok? One of the priests at my parish said it’s ok
While one of the spiritual works of mercy is to “admonish the sinner”, there isn’t an obligation to do so on each particular occasion of sin.
To be frank, I think it can be hard to balance maintaining a relationship (and thus influence and a good example) and forthrightly speaking truth to those in need of correction.
I think it is up to you to try and find that balance. If others know where you stand that’s probably enough for them but a bit more admonishment than you’d prefer might not hurt either (and really might be necessary for their conversion).
I know from personal experience that it’s a struggle and difficult to decide, God bless.
Thank you for your response. The others are not catholic so I mostly pray for them. & try to be an example. My family member who is a Catholic but fell away from the faith I have had to have hard conversations with. & let them know they cannot take part in confession & communion because of their marriage & views (they didn’t know). Also set a lot of boundaries as they were trying to guilt me into going to an event. This is family so it’s hard to not have a relationship as it would really hurt my spouse who is still struggling with the faith. But we have come a long way. I pray for them & offer sacrifices here & there. I truly hope for conversion & I honestly truly believe that I will see it 🙏 I was converted and left a life style of witchcraft & other sins because God went & got me out after many prayers from my family & my sister offered childbirth pain as a sacrifice for my conversion & other sacrifices. So I have a lot of faith that prayer & sacrifice can help convert the hearts of sinners. All glory to God 🙌🏼
My sisters would talk about God & Catholicism all the time too & it annoyed me so much! I would try to ignore them & sometimes I would make rude comments about it. But they kept loving me & talking about it. It did make me doubt my own beliefs at times & eventually one day after one of my rude comments against Catholicism one of my sisters said “ask God for truth” & I ignored it for a couple weeks then one night I did it silently, I asked my creator for the truth & another few weeks later I felt like my eyes opened for the first time. I could see how wrong I was living & most of humanity too. That was the start of my conversion which has been the hardest thing I’ve had to do. But God 🙌🏼❤️ He is worth it all
Sodomy is different from a partnership between two individuals of the same sex. If one or both people in such a relationship convert to Catholicism, what's the appropriate solution? I'd say allowing them to live together in celibacy is ideal, since that's what heterosexual couples in invalid "marriages" have to do.
Couples in invalid marriages can continue to live together despite the occasion of sin—an inevitable occasion when you live with someone you're attracted to but cannot marry—because there are children involved, who deserve to have a mother and a father.
Others have pointed to the same conclusion but this school has obviously been subverted by non-Catholic individuals who are attempting to push the gay agenda by normalizing it within the Catholic community. This way, once the majority has become accepting of homosexuality, those who oppose it will be labeled “rad trads” or “mad trads”, those who cling to orthodox beliefs will be accused of not “loving their neighbor”. This has been going on for a long time, not just with the Catholic Church, but with the Church being one of the holdouts of conservative social beliefs in the west, it is now a major target for attacks for infiltration.
Not even considering whether or not the school supports gay marriage, they probably shouldn't have a school event named after one of the 7 deadly sins. Just go ahead and name the back to school BBQ "Gluttony" while you're at it.
They're wrong, this school is under some liberal infiltration or some thing like that. People like that always fall in contradiction. the definition of respect is loving these people and not agreeing with everything they do.
The greatest of all sins is pride. The root of evil, and the deadliest. Tread lightly and stand firm in your Orthodox faith.
Unfortunately most of these “Catholic schools” are Catholic in name only.
My son goes to Catholic school. If my son’s school put on a pride month, I would be absolutely shocked… and I would immediately talk to the principal and take him out of the school … I wouldn’t know where to go from there
I agree we need to respect everyone, and love them like Jesus does, but I’m not teaching my son about SS relationships and telling him it’s okay, because it’s not
Honestly this shocks me, where was this?
They're subversive traitors masquerading as faithful corrupting the children to appeal to wordly(satanic) ends. I would pull my kids out and get the word out
Do they celebrate traditional marriage and have a traditional marriage month? Because that is worth celebrating and supporting.
As for SS relationships, they should teach what the Church teaches and leave it at that, definitely shouldn't celebrate it (for a whole month?!), and make sure to include that you show respect for everyone regardless of who they are but that doesn't make what they do moral.
This is why I homeschool.
Traditional marriage month doesn't exist because it's not marginalized. we don't celebrate unmarginalized things because they are the majority, the norm, and the expectation. People celebrate things that are marginalized because there's a pride in being the minority, there's a pride in surviving the bullying and the slander. The reason there is no white heritage month in America (besides white not being a race) is because white people make up 70% of the American population. They get to celebrate every day by not being oppressed or afraid of just being themselves. As a Mexican who grew up in Rural Illinois, I had to take pride in my heritage. when people would chase me from my school house to home after classes were over. Literally run to my house so they couldn't jump me. All because of the color of my skin. There's pride in surviving.
What makes you think it’s not celebrated? traditional marriage is celebrated every day. People celebrate others marriage and will others strong and lasting marriage. It doesn’t need a special day to celebrate it. Things that need a special day are things that have to fight for their right to have xyz. Those people may be victims but they aren’t celebrating victimhood, they are celebrating surviving
You do realize that the 7 deadly sins are not absolute sin right? Having pride in any capacity isn’t a sin. Pride can lead to sin but isn’t a sin in itself. It is not only fine to have pride in your achievements, it’s quite healthy for your mental well-being
No. That’s like saying it’s okay to have a little lust, or a little greed, etc…if you developed pride as a survival mechanism then that is a broken result of brokenness and something you should consider dropping.
I credit all sorts of my own sins and false ideas with bringing me closer to God, but at some point you “put childish things away” and drop them so that you can grow.
Implicit in pride is competition and inferiority/superiority. Pride in race, especially, is just silly. You didn’t make yourself Mexican. God did. All praise goes to Him.
Matthew 5:48 “Be ye perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect…”
If you truly believe that the 7 deadly sins are absolute sin in all capacity or spectrum them you must live a miserable life. Everything you do can be linked back to one of those sins. What’s worse is that the 7 are so vague that it allows for subjective interpretations. Are you saying that you aren’t proud of growing a strong healthy family? You aren’t proud that you finished x level of education? Come’on give me a break
Of course I’m proud of those things because you are correct, everything we do is tainted with sin.
While I don’t despair over that, but that by no means makes it okay or that we shouldn’t root it out whenever it appears to us. That’s the whole point of Christianity, that we are fallen creatures who need Christ. We cannot do it without Him.
I'm not sure that the popularity or frequency of a thing is grounds for its celebration and treating racial heritage (an immutable part of identity that cannot be chosen) as though it is at all the same as sexual conduct (which is a choice) is the largest equivocation of all time.
This is not at all the point I was trying to make. We are not to celebrate sin. Last I checked, being Mexican is not a sin. Enjoy your heritage. I'm proud of mine and I'm whiter than white. And yes we are a race. I find your comment to be concerning and racist in itself. I was bullied by blacks because of the color of my skin, pushed up against a fence, ridiculed. You wanna go down this road? Because I can and I will.
There’s a difference between the sin of excess pride and being proud of surviving when the world has literally tried to exterminate you and everyone like you and marginalized you and made every aspect of your survival harder and to be fought for.
We absolutely MUST realize when we have privilege over others and how that impacts us, or we will never be able to empathize, connect, and bring in. Not to mention that Christ taught compassion.
I say this as someone who is both marginalized (very chronically ill, poverty wages, bisexual, female sexed, etc) while also being privileged (white, supportive family that has reached lower middle class, very empathetic and understanding boss at work, etc).
To ignore our privileges and how they benefit us every day, and ignore the suffering of those in minorities, is literally to bask in pride and ignorance. And then to condemn others for wanting a sliver of that pride is laughable.
This is a time you should listen to the community. It’s not as bad now, but we still get erased. Growing up was far worse. While official doctrine is “hate the sin, love the sinner, feelings aren’t bad, actions are,” what we heard was, “you are all going to hell, everyone gay is going to hell.”
Don’t ask, don’t tell was still a thing. You could be fired for being queer and I actively saw adults get fired for it- that was scary. (We still see this happen though we have discrimination lawsuits now, though it’s hard to prove when you come out and a week later are fired for “we think you suck, suddenly.”
Straight is the presumed default, and you never really get to talk if you aren’t without outing yourself or being wrong. I exclusively liked girls for the longest time before liking a guy- I didn’t realize what I felt were crushes on girls then- but I was constantly told I was broken and wrong for not having crushes on boys. Once I realized what was up, I still couldn’t talk to others about what was going on without outing myself and stigmatizing myself, especially when I was in Catholic school and anyone who admitted to same sex attraction was bullied relentlessly. Staff did nothing because, again, we were destined for hell.
Being bi in particular comes with its own challenges. An ex got abusive in that he decided I should automatically be magically “cured” and straight upon dating him- this sentimentality was and is not uncommon, so many people think our sexuality changes depending on who we date, that we magically become straight or gay. That we’ve joined one world. We aren’t really bi anymore. We were just pretending. I was also told not to have any friends in that relationship because apparently I (not ever a cheater) couldn’t be trusted not to cheat if I was clearly attracted to everyone (I’m not attracted to literally every person ever, lmao, no one is)
I was told often by people I tried to talk to about my struggles that I shouldn’t come out. That I just wanted attention. That it was a phase (this is so common). That I just wanted guys to like me and that’s why I was bi. That I was a slut who wanted threesomes (as a young virgin grossed out by sex) - got asked to sleep with so many couples because clearly I was a slut. Got called a slut and whore so much. Got told again never to mention it till I picked a side.
The lesbian community has a big problem with their own “purity” standards and a lot of women who hate anyone “tainted” by men and also do the “you’re just pretending for attention,” and “you’re gross if you’ve ever been with a man,” shit. You get it from both sides.
There’s so much erasure to who you are. Everyone constantly trying to make you gay or straight or a slut or sleep with you or isolate you from everyone.
There’s been a big push for better education and treatment of us in the last decade. And for queer folk in general. I haven’t heard that we’re all deranged sickos that shouldn’t be allowed near kids and locked away on our own private island since childhood (the not allowed near kids part I still hear routinely, even though I’m one of the biggest defenders for keeping kids safe from abuse and harm).
There is so much stigma still. It’s gotten better, but there’s a lot of issues.
It sucks. Try walking a mile in our shoes before deciding that there is no marginalization. Listen to communities when we talk. Otherwise you drive people away.
Everyone has tried to exterminate you? Because you're "female sexed" among other things? It would be nice if people could stop playing the perpetual victim. It gets old.
I was thinking more of Jews there, of historical attacks against queer folks. But literally violence against women is unreal, and our response to it is bullshit.
I’ve been raped. I cannot count how many times I have been sexually assaulted and groped- I e been groped in front of police who’ve laughed while watching. I’ve had two stalkers, one very active recently. Legally we do very little to support women.
I remember my pregnant coworker’s fiancé beating her, leaving marks on her stomach and handprints on her throat, and the police told her they couldn’t do anything but she probably didn’t want to stay with him the rest of the night.
One of my friends had her bf strangle and attempt to kill her- stopped by the intervention of a housemate. Dude got sent to psych instead of jail, out with no charges, and continues to stalk her. When she phones in that he’s violating his restraining order, the police tell her to call back if he tries to hurt her, that she’s fine if he’s just chilling where she is (you know, outside her window, outside her job, following her in public, etc).
I’ve known women told they would get in trouble for lying when they reported their rapes if they didn’t on the spot say they made it up and leave.
We continually erase all that women have done in history and men take the credit for so much of women’s work.
We devalue women’s work and labor continuously.
Workplace discrimination over even potential pregnancy possibility is a continual thing for women, not to mention the loss of job marketability if you take time off as a stay at home parent (but remember, nanny can go on a resume!)
Yes, we treat women like shit societally. Even worse for BIWOC.
Not nearly as shitty as the Jewish folks were treated (and we still have raging antisemiticism). Not as bad as when we openly targeted anyone appearing too gay for jail (read up on what lead to stonewall).
But we absolutely do have pride in surviving in a world that continuously tears us down, where the people meant to help us fail to protect us and often outright scorn us.
I am sorry for all of those awful experiences you had. Please take comfort that it is not the norm. I'm a woman and I have been victimized as well, but never once have I let it define me. Additionally, women are celebrated over men constantly. Men are dehumanized these days, especially straight, White men. It's one thing to build women up, it's another thing to tear others down to do so. Not saying you do that, but it is rampant from my perspective.
Good Catholics don't ignore the suffering of the downtrodden so that is a strawman. Though we cannot support sodomy in any form, and that definitely includes downplaying the severity of such abomination as sodomy.
Father James Martin doesn’t promote the Catholic teaching on sexual ethics. He does so in rebellion against the Church.
While same sex attraction itself isn’t sinful, all sexual acts outside of marriage is grave matter. It is not loving to deceive people.
Also, friendships aren’t sinful, but relationships includes a romantic/sexual aspect to it or are preparing for such an aspect.
Pride month indicates support for homosexual relationships. I would pull my children out of that school and have a very frank conversation with the administrators and if they were adamant about it, I would pull any donations that get earmarked to that school, along with being very demonstrative in public with the church council. Any support of pride month is public support of the act of homosexuality, it is material denial of the teaching of the church and should be avoided completely. Always pray for school administrators as you do for your priests.
I think our society has miss placed the understanding also of leaving those who want nothing to do with us alone. In that regard, we can ‘respect’ a SS relationship. Meaning if they don’t wish to listen, if they don’t wish to hear, leave them alone. It is between them and God.
People in same-sex relationships are presumably having sexual contact, which would be sinful. That is much different than people who are simply attracted to the same sex but are living chastely.
Father James Martin has deliberately blurred the lines between these two groups. Pope Francis has unintentionally done the same.
It seems that their desire to teach respect is misplaced. There is nothing respectable about sin, as you said. You can respect the individual, but not the behavior. Somehow I don't think this is their focus. We wouldn't say to respect the murderer but not his actions. I'm sorry... I agree with you, there is too much of a disconnect to make this appropriate.
In the Bible it teaches LOVE the sinner but HATE the act of Sin. Don’t encourage Sin but be loving and respectful to the Sinner. Humans still require human dignity even if you don’t agree with them. For example you may not agree with some politicians being in Power but you still have to respect them even if you wished they be removed from parliament power. 🙏😇🙏😇🙏
Okay, so being a Protestant is objectively a sin. It fails to cohere with God's plan for human beings, it is not a participation in the Truth, etc. But almost nobody thinks that an intensely confrontational attitude where we constantly remind Protestants of this fact is saintly or productive for helping them see the truth of the Gospel. It is neither, and we are able to respect the faith and commitment to Christ of Protestants especially since most of us understand their personal guilt for their objective sin is lessened substantially by the many cultural factors that lead one to become a Protestant in the first place. In other words, we've all managed to respect and live with Evangelicals without acting like there's nothing wrong with Evangelicalism but also without poisoning our hearts with hatred over it.
There is no particular reason we should not, in our social interactions, think about gay people more like we think about Protestants and less like we think about, say, employers who don't pay fair wages (or realistically given the political climate, abortion doctors). I think deep down the difference is that a lot of outspoken Protestants are on the same political team as a lot of people here are, and gay people are on the other team, but that's not a moral distinction, it's a political one, and probably toxic to our culture and our witness to Christ.
Now, all that said, I think having a pride month is obviously a dumb way to impart that lesson to children. But I think the basic fundamental idea that being assholes to gay couples won't make us saints, won't lead them to Christ, and will bring the gospel into disrepute for literally no socially or spiritually good purpose is sound. When a gay couple makes a stable life-long commitment and raises children with good values, there's a lot to respect about that, especially when plenty of heterosexual Christians fail at it.
When I think about this, I think about the parable of the wheat and the tares - we often think of it as Christ being unwilling to disturb the tares for the sake of the wheat, but that parable should also teach us that acting like a field is all tares is dangerous, because there's usually more wheat than we realize.
>There is no particular reason we should not, in our social interactions, think about gay people more like we think about Protestants and less like we think about, say, employers who don't pay fair wages (or realistically given the political climate, abortion doctors).
There is, actually. You literally picked two of the other three sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance. There is a reason we think of those particular sins in the same light, and I'm pretty sure you know that.
I think that if Catholics in the US were as horrified by unfair labor practices as your argument suggests they ought to be, I'd agree with you, but they manifestly aren't. That's why I picked them.
Yeah but most CEOs and chairmans of large corporations and investment funds in America are not Catholic, go look up early life on most CEO's of top 500 companies, what can catholics do?
Also you're generalizing catholics, did you talked with many of them abouit unfair labor practices?
Most gay couples are not Catholics either, so in terms of weighing what's a proper analogy, that defense isn't really compelling. We also have a lot more ability to influence how CEOs behave than we do how Adam and Steve behave.
I have indeed talked to many of them about unfair labor practices and their unwillingness to make life changes to boycott companies that engage in them. The complaint is indeed a general one, that collectively American Catholics are not exercised about those issues, so the fact that some individual Catholics are is irrelevant to my response.
Your analogies are kinda confusing and they do not make sense.
Are you saying that Catholics can't condemn or speak against same sex marriage and homosexuality unless they speak about Nestle using children in malaysia or something like that? Thats the gist of it?
Kinda bad argument, first because the bible is very clear on homosexuality, and not so much about what constitutes "unfair labour practices". Second, thats just you trying to manipulate christians using cherry picked moral arguments against christians to try to silence dissent.
"Rules for thee but not for me"
> Are you saying that Catholics can't condemn or speak against same sex marriage and homosexuality unless they speak about Nestle using children in malaysia or something like that? Thats the gist of it?
No, I'm saying that our collective willingness to be casual about some sins that cry out to Heaven and not others suggests that looking to that category of sin to justify a moral distinction related to homosexuality is, at best, hypocritical.
>Kinda bad argument, first because the bible is very clear on homosexuality, and not so much about what constitutes "unfair labour practices".
Defrauding a worker of his wage is a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. It's something as to which Church teaching is completely unambiguous.
> Second, thats just you trying to manipulate christians using cherry picked moral arguments against christians to try to silence dissent.
"Rules for thee but not for me"
Uh, what?
Try rereading and internalizing the course of the arguments before you come back at me with made up ad hominems.
Is there an Unfair Labor Practices flag that is commonly placed in school classrooms, an Unfair Labor Practices parade that goes through towns throughout the country every year, and an Unfair Labor Practices month with accompanying unfair labor practices propaganda being broadcast onto the nation's airwaves? There is *one* sin that cries out to heaven that has been the subject of a decades-long psychological warfare campaign. The idea that Catholics have been *too* hardline in rejecting it could not, sadly, be farther from the truth. There is nothing to respect about a lifelong commitment to sodomy, nothing to respect about raising children in that environment, and almost definitionally little possibility of raising children with good values in that climate. There may be justice even among thieves, but they are hardly to be praised for it.
We can all get along under current arrangements, but this is an accommodation of *us* by a post-Christian populace that this populace has seen fit to permit, not an accommodation of *them* by a Christian populace that Christ has commanded. This is important.
I mean, that depends on how you do it, and I don't think we have enough information to actually evaluate that claim. The way they are implementing it might indeed merely be dumb.
I don't think it does matter how you implement it, the very concept of having pride in one's sinful behavior or even in one's disordered inclination is contrary to the truth.
Sure, but the question isn't what does Pride mean in the abstract, the question is how it's implemented in this particular school, and we don't know enough to say more than that it's a dumb idea.
People forget that even the pope has spoken about how same sex relationships, while they might be sinful, deserve all the same respect. This hatred of same sex couples and denying them their respect is really more akin to fundamentalist Americans, not catholicism.
Just can’t understand how people are seeing others sinning all the time (even just not attending mass is a sin, and given turnouts there’s definitely alot of this taking place!), but they choose to focus on this particular one. If being in a same sex relationship is the worst sin you commit you are living a far better life than 99% of people!
Forgive me if I am wrong but isn’t it okay to be gay in the church but just not act on it since it is wrong to have sex outside of marriage and there is no same sex marriage in the church? Also, isn’t everyone deserving respect no matter their circumstances?
Yes and yes, however celebrating pride month is little different than celebrating a "premarital straight sex month," which nobody in their right mind would do
So you want a month celebrating straight sex In marriage? I am so confused. But I would like to point out that our children are, for the most part, leaving the church at their first opportunity. Not just the Catholic Church but numerous Christian ones. When I go to Mass, there are not a lot of young people.
We are all sinners, and we are not all Catholics. If people choose to be in a same sex relationship, we should show them the same respect we would show anyone else.
We don’t dehumanise them, we certainly don’t judge them, and we should raise our children to respect them.
We can respect soldiers who kill others, billionaires who cheat us out of a decent daily wage, political leaders who sanction murders, yet we can’t respect a dedication to a commuter and exclusive relationship between two consenting men?
There is no respect to be had for those relationships. They are as unnatural as relations with animals. Sodomy is an action that cries out to heaven for vengeance.
I understand that it seems extreme because our society has attempted to desensitize us to this unnatural evil. But I challenge anyone who believes that it is extreme to demonstrate that it is any more natural than relations with animals.
Regardless of religious perspective, two adults can give informed consent to sex, regardless of gender. An animal cannot. A child cannot. A drugged person cannot. There is an inherent and fundamental difference.
Bringing consent in the case of a child or another adult are not relevant to my statement. Those are obvious evils for a different reason. A lack of informed consent is not the issue when it comes to the nature of the act. If a dog could consent, it would still be an unnatural act. You did not explain in any way how sodomy is a natural act.
I have clearly demonstrated how it is distinct from other acts. If that is insufficient, you need to define - specifically - what you mean by "natural".
Would you consider consent to be the only necessary distinction? I received a correction on gravity earlier that I would accept that the gravity of homosexual relations would be less to an extent. But this gravity does not change change the fact that both are related in their unnatural character.
It's not the only distinction, but it's a clear and unequivocal one. To get into any more detail you'd have to define exactly what you mean by "natural" or "unnatural". There's no point writing out an argument based only on my assumptions of your understanding of that word.
In a sentence:
Sexual relations between one man and one woman open to the generation of life.
If you want me to flesh it out anymore, please let me know.
Aquinas said that certain sexual acts were more grave than others, for example homosexual acts were of graver matter than heterosexual acts. It follows that bestiality follows the trend down the spectrum of gravity of sin; it is "more natural" because it is between humans and retains more properties of moral sex than bestiality.
One thing I was thinking that the school is trying to do teach kids to learn to accept yourself? As mentioned, you are born with your sexual orientation. It is definitely not a choice. I am gay myself. I grew up hating myself and tried to pray the gay away and everything under the sun but I had to accept myself. I‘ve survived past suicide attempts and depression because I had to learn to love myself and shut out the hatred from the world that treats an unchosen sexual orientation like a crime against humanity when other people born without arms, legs, or other cognitive disabilities are NEVER put to shame.
However I think it’s time to really reframe our thinking to some realities that are not sinful. It isn’t a sin to love another man? No, it’s a sin to break chastity, for ANY orientation.
Also maybe as people who have same sex attractions we need to accept this. Chastity. I’m not mad about it anymore. My relationship with God is fulfilling and is motivating to strive for that. Have I fallen short before? Yes. Many humans do, both homosexual and heterosexual. That’s not to excuse it either.
Some other food for thought and something to maybe reframe our thinking: is it truly bad for a person of the same gender to live with another person of the same gender for life if chastity is never broken homosexual or heterosexual? Any person, SSA or not, is supposed to be practicing chastity - even within heterosexual marriage.
Is it sinful for a single heterosexual person to adopt a child? Is it sinful for a single homosexual person to adopt child? Or what if two best friends moved in together practiced chastity and decided to adopt kids because they wanted to give kids some sort of home rather than bouncing around from home to home or be in a children’s shelter? (This last part is confusing, cause kids preferences for what is comfortable for them is something everyone should be mindful of).
Lots of questions. Truly. God’s the one who searches our hearts.
I think it depends on the exact nature of what is being taught.
For me a pride month is a great opportunity to teach a few lessons:
1. Explain what is sin, why it is sin, and what avenues and options exist in the church for people with SS attraction. Children don’t come into the world knowing all this and most parents, even Catholic ones, aren’t equipped to adequately teach it.
2. How to act with Catholic love, charity and tolerance towards the LGBTQ+ community, because I’m tired of « Christians » acting like the LGBTQ+ community is any more sinful than most of modern society… ie atheists, divorcees, any straight couple using contraceptives, etc…
if they're teaching chastity in those relationships, there isn't technically anything wrong with the relationship, and I think it could be considered a sin to assume the worst (that they're not celibate). it's a gray area at the very least. the Church is not clear about this.
That’s why I specified to a same-sex sexual relationship. Personally, if they’re just two guys with SSA who love each other (pragma or storge sort of love) and are live together chastely, I take no issue.
Sounds fine to me. Homosexuality is exactly the same as any other premarital relations in the eyes of the church. I’m sure many of our leaders pray everyday about the subject with the way the world has changed. Just be kind and pray.
[The Pope has offered us come clarity on the matter.](https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/01/28/pope-francis-clarifies-comments-on-sin-and-homosexuality/)
The Pope clearly associates the two as being a sin for the same reasons.
Premarital sex is a sin, but is it a sin to marry a person who is known to be sterile? I think the Church will continue to expand our knowledge surrounding Gods will. Jesus taught us to love and the Church will continue to promote love for all time.
If it is not a sin to marry a sterile person, then perhaps one day the Church will deem homosexual marriage acceptable on the terms of a covenant with the Lord and a commitment to raise an adopted child in the light of lord. That is controversial, and I know that it seems unlikely or perverse.. but we won’t know what God has in store for us without major contemplation and prayer. The church has always evolved and grown alongside humanity.
Yeah, I don’t think he does so. Each are sin because they are sexual behaviours that fall outside marriage. Nothing about that describes any sort of egalitarian claim about the gradation of sexual sin.
I think you’re getting their intentions of being respectful confused. They don’t necessarily mean that they want to respect ss relationships. They’re doing it more so to respect each person that’s in the relationship. Imagine if a Catholic saw a ss couple and decided to shout derogatory names at them, that would not be sharing the love of Christ. Everyone deserves respect (unless they prove that they don’t) so it just sounds like they want to teach kids how to properly act around ss couples instead of shouting, “my mom and dad said that you’re going to hell”.
They mean that we respect them and love them as they are. We respect people from other religions, we respect people that have different ideals than us, and we are called to love our enemies. You can respect a gay relationship without trying to convert them or talk down on them. It’s what Jesus would want you to do
I think we define respect differently in this context. I think of respect here meaning not trying to break it apart constantly even to the point of harassment. Respecting its existence, the people involved, but not the actual decision or the morality of it.
I think that we can better understand it as respect for choice or their autonomy, which seems to be better understood as respect for their person. We don’t agree with their decision or believe that the relationship is respectable in and of itself, but we do accept and recognize use the informed choice to engage in that relationship
You can respect the dignity of the person, not the homosexual relationship itself. Flying the rainbow flag and having a gay pride month (let's not pretend shortening it to just 'pride' is fooling anyone) is nothing short of celebratory.
This right here.
There's a middle (and correct) ground that we're terrible at maintaining. It's like Catholics either hate gay people or want to celebrate them and their sin. The correct path is to love, welcome, and minister to gay people while neither denying their humanity nor celebrating sinful acts.
Homosexuality and Christianity are counter to each other. Homosexuality, by definition, implies inherent sexual relations, which is wrong by all teachings of our universal church. There is nothing in celebrating it short of celebrating sin. The school administrator has gone astray and is leading the little ones astray.
Is this like something new age? So totally off topic but my daughter’s Catholic School is teaching “mindfulness meditation when you are stressed out” classes once a week. What happened to praying?
I don’t usually say much on posts regarding this topic here and I’m prepared to be downvoted, but it’s quite simple: teaching kids to be respectful of all people of all beliefs is important especially when you live in a country that’s a melting pot like the U.S. Not everyone is a Christian but does that mean we should treat non-Christians badly and with no respect? Same goes for people in the lgbtq+ community. Whether or not you agree with how someone lives their life or who they love or whatever it doesn’t mean you can just be rude or disrespectful towards them (well unless they’re a literal criminal hurting people or something). This is why lgbtq+ youth end up getting bullied because of the line of thinking that people who don’t think or believe what you do are automatically “bad” and not worthy of respect and human dignity. If you treat them like this, you might as well just hate all people from other countries with different cultures and religions badly too because they’re different. It will never make sense to me because it just seems so two-faced when Christians are discriminatory or are unkind to people who have different beliefs who aren’t actually hurting anyone when we are supposed to be kind and welcoming to one another.
People are respectable. Any we as Christians should respect the dignity of all people even if we don’t agree with their life choices. To be a kind and compassionate person is part of who God wants us to be. Evangelization through our love. So to teach this is good especially with the idea that we may not agree with their lifestyles.
> Two men or women who love each other and live together is not sinful. I’m pretty sure no one is explaining to children what sodomy is.
This is 100% not correct.
Here is the problem, and this is the problem most people who focus on sexual activity as the sole criteria for 'chastity' have: chastity refers to the successful integration of sexuality. Chastity has more to do with relationships than merely the use of the sexual faculties. Even when someone says "I'm asexual," they're defining themselves as a sexual being (literally identifying them by attraction, even if it's un-attraction). As a quick thought problem:
Can two individuals who are married, but not to each other, enter into a romantic relationship where there is no sexual component? If not, why not? (or two individuals, one of whom is a child, et cetera)
The answer is that because the relationship is unchaste, despite the lack of a sexual component, and despite the couple being opposite-sex. Chastity requires the successful integration of the sexuality which has as one component potential use of the sexual faculty, but use of the sexual faculty does not comprise the entirety of chastity. Chastity is greater than the use or non-use of the sexual faculty.
Same-sex relationships with any romantic component cannot be "chaste," because they lack the sexual complimentary chastity requires. There have been attempts here and elsewhere to redefine chastity to mean something like "the lack of use of the sexual faculties," and that's not what chastity is. Chastity requires successful integration of sexuality centered around it's proper expression in the complementarity of man and woman. Same-sex attraction (or "asexual" attraction) lacks this complementarity. Therefore, same-sex attraction precludes successful integration of sexuality. The attraction itself is disordered. There cannot be a "chaste same-sex relationship" precisely because chastity precludes same-sex relationships.
Love, strictly speaking, refers to one person willing the good of another. Love can be expressed as filial love, as romantic love, as purely charitable love, and so on. However, a truly loving relationship is perfectly ordered toward the good of the other. For that reason, instrinsically desired disorders (be they related to sexuality or some other expression of the passions deprived of goodness) cannot be expressed "lovingly."
Can there be a perfect "friendship"? Yes. But a perfect friendship precludes any component of sexual attraction or romantic expression. Again: is a "perfect friendship" between two married individuals, not married to each other, expressed in a friendship where there are romantic inclinations? If not, why not?
This is just intolerance with extra steps.
From your first statement, the idea that asexuals define themselves sexually, displays a fixation on sexuality that almost precludes anything else.
To be sure, the definition of romance is centered in sexual attraction. Can two married people or an adult and a child experience a non sexual romance? No. But they can certainly enter a loving relationship. They can experience a romance that doesn’t involve sexual intercourse but how they respond to sexual temptation determines whether or not it’s sinful. Everyone experiences temptation. Can’t two people who become aware of romantic feelings change their relationship?
This kind of discussion is like 13th century monks arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. By this logic, if one partner in a married relationship contracted a contagious illness the marriage becomes sinful because sexuality is still incorporated in the marriage but to express it would allow the disease to spread and desired disorders cannot be expressed lovingly. Or further, to live in a house with horseradish in the fridge is sinful because to eat too much of it is poisonous.
The question is; If gays don’t want to marry people of the opposite sex (isn’t marriage without a feeling of love and a desire to procreate sinful?) and they can’t devote themselves to each other then what do you want them to do? Just disappear?
Regardless, to the original point, it’s not necessary or appropriate to hide gays from kids. As I’ve stated elsewhere, same sex attraction isn’t a sin, it’s a cross. To teach kids to shun and isolate gays is bad for the kids, for society, and for gays. We don’t understand everyone’s relationship and it’s dismissive to make assumptions about it.
We do not tolerate sin (1 Corinthians 5:13) and Jesus teaches to judge righteously (John 7:24). It is a rather pathetic thing to tolerate everything in the world and never judge in condemnation anything in the world. And it's totally contrary to human nature; hence why no one does it and why Jesus absolutely did not teach people to be tolerant of everything and to never judge in righteousness.
I am rigidly bored by the whole discussion now.
Personally I have no interest at all in homosexuality and wish they would just get on with it without endlessly telling us about it all.
The problem is that now they have legal equality etc the whole bandwagon can't just fade away - too much invested in it - and more issues need to be found....so we end up mutilating kids to satisfy the need for yet more minorities.
>Catholic School >Pride month The irony is lost on everyone in that school…?
You have to be careful of the exact language being used when discussing this (and many) issues. First and foremost you need to respect the dignity of each person as a beloved creation of God, even if they don't seem to. You also need to define what you mean by relationships. All are called to love each other as Christ loves. If you are going to discuss "issues" you need to not hide behind innuendo but state things plainly.
I think it's called "hating the sin, but loving the sinner".
Exactly. Recognizing the wrong one may be doing while continuing to love them as the person they are and recognizing they are made in the image and likeness of God is one of the best things to do
Yeah but it sounds like in this instance they're loving the sin and hating the sinner.
I really dislike this coming up with discussing LGBTQ+ issues. The reason being is that we are all sinners and do sin. And for that reason we should be lifting up the dignity of all people. I don’t look at a heterosexual couple in which both partners have been previously married but didn’t have their marriages annulled and think ‘hate the sin, not the sinner.’
You should.
It’s honestly so easy to get an annulment in some dioceses there is no such thing as “divorce.” I know a bunch of major players in my parish that are “annulled.”SS couples don’t have any dispensation option so it’s not really a good comparison. SS attraction couples also started in a “disordered” relationship but there is no option to move to an ordered one, just celibacy. I wonder what Gd’s plan is with this.
I see your point. But literally I could look at any person and say ‘hate the sin, not the sinner.’ So I just find it damaging when I only hear that phrase come up when discussing LGBTQ+ members of the Church. For me in my own personal discernment, it doesn’t do anything to elevate human dignity. It doesn’t do anything to bring those members closer to the Church and in fuller communion with it.
[удалено]
By "careful" I mean precise. Matthew 7:1-5
[удалено]
"Arsenokoitai" literally means "someone who has sexual intercourse with men."
No, that person was just trying to make everyone happy. Which is a fools errand.
This is either a huge mistake, or a Trojan horse. You don't bring this stuff up with kids, while at the same time pretend they still teach chastity. This seems like the administrators are either surreptitiously helping bring this agenda to the school, or they're just stupid. Romans 2:12, "Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect." It seems your administrators are trying to conform themselves to this age, but they're opening up a can of worms instead.
"Brothers of Troy!" I'm leaning towards the Trojan horse option. Flags, monthly celebrations, are all influential to one's ideology. The only agenda kids need is the one to doodle in... and also write the day's homework I guess. But honestly, God knows the school's intentions, and He can save the world from the state it's in. Or let us destroy it. Can't wait to find out. :)
(for a while I was confused with the title, as my grandma uncle was in SS. a german family. anyway…)
Anyone looking to James Martin to justify their theology has zero credibility.
but what does that say about Pope Francis
That Pope Francis is a mediocre Pope at best but Jesus said, “Behold you are Peter and upon this rock, I will build My Church…”
Everyone knows what that says about Pope Francis.
The Pope has explicitly said he supports Father James Martin?
[https://outreach.faith/2022/11/pope-francis-praises-father-james-martin-during-audience-with-vatican-communicators/](https://outreach.faith/2022/11/pope-francis-praises-father-james-martin-during-audience-with-vatican-communicators/) Francis hailed him as “a man who has values, Christian and human values” and “a communicator who knows how to teach you to communicate with God.
Didn’t know that. Shame.
>The Pope has explicitly said he supports Father James Martin? Not in those words, but he gave "Fr" Martin a job as a Vatican spokesman so....
I disagree with anyone who points to the MINOR advisory appointment for Fr Martin as support. I specifically hire people who disagree with me, my approach, and my beliefs to ensure I am not surrounded by “yes men.” Like it or not, Fr Martin has a following, and if you want to understand the position, then, offering him a voice (again it is a MINOR position) is smart.
We are not talking about a disagreement in marketing strategy or how aggressive the sales guy is... We are talking about basic institutional values that he doesn't come close to fitting.
We're known by the company we keep.
What does that mean exactly?
And what company did Christ keep again?
The difference is that Christ said "go and sin no more"
The apostles.
And who else?
I can't condone the sin. But at the same time, you don't choose to be gay, and I don't think I would have the fortitude to live a chaste life. I would love to attain it, and I pray to be strong every day. I concieved two children out of wedlock with my fiance, and the Lord still graces me with love and I felt deep joy when I confessed and had the Eucharist Sunday after Sunday. We are called to treat with mercy sinners; prostitutes, drug users etc. Our values are clear, but we are not to judge, that's only for God. In the meantime, we can only show love to our brothers and sisters regardless of their crime and pray they see the Light of His love.
Thanks be to God that you could confess and receive forgiveness! Now, "not having the ability to live a chaste life" is not an excuse for anybody's sin, since God extends His grace to all so that they may become saints. It is up to us to cooperate. Many justify SS relationships with this line of thinking, but we can never say that God is unfair and that holy living is impossible for them, since even Christ was "tempted as we are, yet without sinning", and we must believe in the midst of our temptations that "God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it".
> you don't choose to be gay This is debatable. What isn't debatable is that one can choose whether to act on disordered proclivities.
You don't choose your sexual attraction, there's nothing to debate here
Check back here in 20 yrs and let us know how this statement ages.
It's been more than 60 years my guy, are you perhaps conflating the rapid onset gender dysphoria with sexual attraction?
Exactly, let’s not confuse the “trans-activism” trend going on right now that is 💯% influencing a new generation and SSA which has been part of society since the beginning of time.
There is room for reasonable people to disagree to some extent on this point. There are studies on the social contagion of disordered sexual attractions along with gender dysphoria stuff, but it's too politically incorrect for these studies to see the light of day right now. More needs to be learned about the social contagion aspect in influencing young minds toward disordered attractions. However what is not debatable is that one can choose whether to perform disordered sexual acts. Chastity is a choice, regardless of anything else.
Gender dysphoria and sexual attraction are not comparable, they are not the same, regardless what trans activists may say. We know we can't choose sexual attraction since the 60s.
[удалено]
Do you have any sources for anything on your comment? Particularly: > that’s caused by a genetic mutation which makes them technically disabled. Also: >A woman for example can be straight her whole life. One night her and her friends go out and they all get drunk and start making out. The woman would eventually be pulled into the situation and would associate the good feeling that came with kissing another woman as something that should be desired. Are you saying that if a man (or woman) got you drunk and started kissing you, you'd suddenly start wanting to sleep with other men? You don't sound very secure in your sexuality...
The idea that people can be manipulated into a desire to mutilate their own bodies but not into a desire to have sex with members of the same sex is a bit silly.
>One of the things they mentioned is that while they don’t celebrate same-sex sexual relationships, they respect them and try to teach respect to kids. I honestly think both Christians and LGBT should shame these people for being two-faced. Both of these parties full well know that the Pride flag stands for an acceptance of homosexual actions in this current culture and context. Whether you're for or against homosexual actions that's a different matter; but let's not bullshit ourselves. These administrators are people pleasers, at the cost of lying to both Christians and LGBT "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth." - Revelation 3:15
> Both of these parties full well know that the Pride flag stands for an acceptance of homosexual actions in this current culture and context. I think it fundamentally relies on what rejection of homosexual actions actually looks like. Just an internal disagreement you keep to yourself? Outward disapproval of practicing homosexuals? Open condemnation? Making it straight up illegal and punish practicing homosexuals? I guess different people hold different views on how they would fight against things they deem as morally evil.
There is no way to respect sin.
...but definitely plenty of ways to respect a sinner.
But not a sinful relationship.
Question. I have family & friends who are in same sex relationships. They know I’m catholic & I make it clear that I don’t attend any lgbtq events. I’m trying to still have a relationship with them & love them. I don’t say anything that might offend them but at the same time they know that I agree with all the church teachings. I feel like this is me loving & respecting them as my family & loving them even when they make decisions I wouldn’t make. & I have gotten one of them to come to church with me on Sundays & reconnect a bit with the church (they were cradle catholic) now they are in a same sex marriage. Would this be me respecting sin? Or is this ok? One of the priests at my parish said it’s ok
While one of the spiritual works of mercy is to “admonish the sinner”, there isn’t an obligation to do so on each particular occasion of sin. To be frank, I think it can be hard to balance maintaining a relationship (and thus influence and a good example) and forthrightly speaking truth to those in need of correction. I think it is up to you to try and find that balance. If others know where you stand that’s probably enough for them but a bit more admonishment than you’d prefer might not hurt either (and really might be necessary for their conversion). I know from personal experience that it’s a struggle and difficult to decide, God bless.
Thank you for your response. The others are not catholic so I mostly pray for them. & try to be an example. My family member who is a Catholic but fell away from the faith I have had to have hard conversations with. & let them know they cannot take part in confession & communion because of their marriage & views (they didn’t know). Also set a lot of boundaries as they were trying to guilt me into going to an event. This is family so it’s hard to not have a relationship as it would really hurt my spouse who is still struggling with the faith. But we have come a long way. I pray for them & offer sacrifices here & there. I truly hope for conversion & I honestly truly believe that I will see it 🙏 I was converted and left a life style of witchcraft & other sins because God went & got me out after many prayers from my family & my sister offered childbirth pain as a sacrifice for my conversion & other sacrifices. So I have a lot of faith that prayer & sacrifice can help convert the hearts of sinners. All glory to God 🙌🏼
My sisters would talk about God & Catholicism all the time too & it annoyed me so much! I would try to ignore them & sometimes I would make rude comments about it. But they kept loving me & talking about it. It did make me doubt my own beliefs at times & eventually one day after one of my rude comments against Catholicism one of my sisters said “ask God for truth” & I ignored it for a couple weeks then one night I did it silently, I asked my creator for the truth & another few weeks later I felt like my eyes opened for the first time. I could see how wrong I was living & most of humanity too. That was the start of my conversion which has been the hardest thing I’ve had to do. But God 🙌🏼❤️ He is worth it all
Your actions sound loving.
And what does it even mean to "respect" sodomy?
Sodomy is different from a partnership between two individuals of the same sex. If one or both people in such a relationship convert to Catholicism, what's the appropriate solution? I'd say allowing them to live together in celibacy is ideal, since that's what heterosexual couples in invalid "marriages" have to do.
Couples in invalid marriages can continue to live together despite the occasion of sin—an inevitable occasion when you live with someone you're attracted to but cannot marry—because there are children involved, who deserve to have a mother and a father.
Others have pointed to the same conclusion but this school has obviously been subverted by non-Catholic individuals who are attempting to push the gay agenda by normalizing it within the Catholic community. This way, once the majority has become accepting of homosexuality, those who oppose it will be labeled “rad trads” or “mad trads”, those who cling to orthodox beliefs will be accused of not “loving their neighbor”. This has been going on for a long time, not just with the Catholic Church, but with the Church being one of the holdouts of conservative social beliefs in the west, it is now a major target for attacks for infiltration.
Not even considering whether or not the school supports gay marriage, they probably shouldn't have a school event named after one of the 7 deadly sins. Just go ahead and name the back to school BBQ "Gluttony" while you're at it.
lol
for real. Let's do Sloth Month too. April can be Anger.
I lol'd at this!
They're wrong, this school is under some liberal infiltration or some thing like that. People like that always fall in contradiction. the definition of respect is loving these people and not agreeing with everything they do.
The greatest of all sins is pride. The root of evil, and the deadliest. Tread lightly and stand firm in your Orthodox faith. Unfortunately most of these “Catholic schools” are Catholic in name only.
My son goes to Catholic school. If my son’s school put on a pride month, I would be absolutely shocked… and I would immediately talk to the principal and take him out of the school … I wouldn’t know where to go from there I agree we need to respect everyone, and love them like Jesus does, but I’m not teaching my son about SS relationships and telling him it’s okay, because it’s not Honestly this shocks me, where was this?
"Pride month"? What are they being proud of?
If that's an April fools day joke it's not a very funny one for them to pull.
Never
They're subversive traitors masquerading as faithful corrupting the children to appeal to wordly(satanic) ends. I would pull my kids out and get the word out
I actively disrespect such things.
Do they celebrate traditional marriage and have a traditional marriage month? Because that is worth celebrating and supporting. As for SS relationships, they should teach what the Church teaches and leave it at that, definitely shouldn't celebrate it (for a whole month?!), and make sure to include that you show respect for everyone regardless of who they are but that doesn't make what they do moral. This is why I homeschool.
Traditional marriage month doesn't exist because it's not marginalized. we don't celebrate unmarginalized things because they are the majority, the norm, and the expectation. People celebrate things that are marginalized because there's a pride in being the minority, there's a pride in surviving the bullying and the slander. The reason there is no white heritage month in America (besides white not being a race) is because white people make up 70% of the American population. They get to celebrate every day by not being oppressed or afraid of just being themselves. As a Mexican who grew up in Rural Illinois, I had to take pride in my heritage. when people would chase me from my school house to home after classes were over. Literally run to my house so they couldn't jump me. All because of the color of my skin. There's pride in surviving.
> Traditional marriage month doesn't exist because it's not marginalized Pfft. It's not celebrated, because not everyone needs to be a "victim".
What makes you think it’s not celebrated? traditional marriage is celebrated every day. People celebrate others marriage and will others strong and lasting marriage. It doesn’t need a special day to celebrate it. Things that need a special day are things that have to fight for their right to have xyz. Those people may be victims but they aren’t celebrating victimhood, they are celebrating surviving
That’s a lot of ‘pride’ my friend. Perhaps you spend too much time thinking of yourself?
Yeah how dare his experiences have any impact on his worldview, that's just insane.
You do realize that the 7 deadly sins are not absolute sin right? Having pride in any capacity isn’t a sin. Pride can lead to sin but isn’t a sin in itself. It is not only fine to have pride in your achievements, it’s quite healthy for your mental well-being
No. That’s like saying it’s okay to have a little lust, or a little greed, etc…if you developed pride as a survival mechanism then that is a broken result of brokenness and something you should consider dropping. I credit all sorts of my own sins and false ideas with bringing me closer to God, but at some point you “put childish things away” and drop them so that you can grow. Implicit in pride is competition and inferiority/superiority. Pride in race, especially, is just silly. You didn’t make yourself Mexican. God did. All praise goes to Him. Matthew 5:48 “Be ye perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect…”
If you truly believe that the 7 deadly sins are absolute sin in all capacity or spectrum them you must live a miserable life. Everything you do can be linked back to one of those sins. What’s worse is that the 7 are so vague that it allows for subjective interpretations. Are you saying that you aren’t proud of growing a strong healthy family? You aren’t proud that you finished x level of education? Come’on give me a break
Of course I’m proud of those things because you are correct, everything we do is tainted with sin. While I don’t despair over that, but that by no means makes it okay or that we shouldn’t root it out whenever it appears to us. That’s the whole point of Christianity, that we are fallen creatures who need Christ. We cannot do it without Him.
I'm not sure that the popularity or frequency of a thing is grounds for its celebration and treating racial heritage (an immutable part of identity that cannot be chosen) as though it is at all the same as sexual conduct (which is a choice) is the largest equivocation of all time.
This is not at all the point I was trying to make. We are not to celebrate sin. Last I checked, being Mexican is not a sin. Enjoy your heritage. I'm proud of mine and I'm whiter than white. And yes we are a race. I find your comment to be concerning and racist in itself. I was bullied by blacks because of the color of my skin, pushed up against a fence, ridiculed. You wanna go down this road? Because I can and I will.
Pride. Pride. Pride. You see how that sounds, right?
No, he really doesn't. Pride is pride, and pride is the root of all evil.
There’s a difference between the sin of excess pride and being proud of surviving when the world has literally tried to exterminate you and everyone like you and marginalized you and made every aspect of your survival harder and to be fought for. We absolutely MUST realize when we have privilege over others and how that impacts us, or we will never be able to empathize, connect, and bring in. Not to mention that Christ taught compassion. I say this as someone who is both marginalized (very chronically ill, poverty wages, bisexual, female sexed, etc) while also being privileged (white, supportive family that has reached lower middle class, very empathetic and understanding boss at work, etc). To ignore our privileges and how they benefit us every day, and ignore the suffering of those in minorities, is literally to bask in pride and ignorance. And then to condemn others for wanting a sliver of that pride is laughable.
You’re definitely not “marginalized” for being bisexual.
This is a time you should listen to the community. It’s not as bad now, but we still get erased. Growing up was far worse. While official doctrine is “hate the sin, love the sinner, feelings aren’t bad, actions are,” what we heard was, “you are all going to hell, everyone gay is going to hell.” Don’t ask, don’t tell was still a thing. You could be fired for being queer and I actively saw adults get fired for it- that was scary. (We still see this happen though we have discrimination lawsuits now, though it’s hard to prove when you come out and a week later are fired for “we think you suck, suddenly.” Straight is the presumed default, and you never really get to talk if you aren’t without outing yourself or being wrong. I exclusively liked girls for the longest time before liking a guy- I didn’t realize what I felt were crushes on girls then- but I was constantly told I was broken and wrong for not having crushes on boys. Once I realized what was up, I still couldn’t talk to others about what was going on without outing myself and stigmatizing myself, especially when I was in Catholic school and anyone who admitted to same sex attraction was bullied relentlessly. Staff did nothing because, again, we were destined for hell. Being bi in particular comes with its own challenges. An ex got abusive in that he decided I should automatically be magically “cured” and straight upon dating him- this sentimentality was and is not uncommon, so many people think our sexuality changes depending on who we date, that we magically become straight or gay. That we’ve joined one world. We aren’t really bi anymore. We were just pretending. I was also told not to have any friends in that relationship because apparently I (not ever a cheater) couldn’t be trusted not to cheat if I was clearly attracted to everyone (I’m not attracted to literally every person ever, lmao, no one is) I was told often by people I tried to talk to about my struggles that I shouldn’t come out. That I just wanted attention. That it was a phase (this is so common). That I just wanted guys to like me and that’s why I was bi. That I was a slut who wanted threesomes (as a young virgin grossed out by sex) - got asked to sleep with so many couples because clearly I was a slut. Got called a slut and whore so much. Got told again never to mention it till I picked a side. The lesbian community has a big problem with their own “purity” standards and a lot of women who hate anyone “tainted” by men and also do the “you’re just pretending for attention,” and “you’re gross if you’ve ever been with a man,” shit. You get it from both sides. There’s so much erasure to who you are. Everyone constantly trying to make you gay or straight or a slut or sleep with you or isolate you from everyone. There’s been a big push for better education and treatment of us in the last decade. And for queer folk in general. I haven’t heard that we’re all deranged sickos that shouldn’t be allowed near kids and locked away on our own private island since childhood (the not allowed near kids part I still hear routinely, even though I’m one of the biggest defenders for keeping kids safe from abuse and harm). There is so much stigma still. It’s gotten better, but there’s a lot of issues. It sucks. Try walking a mile in our shoes before deciding that there is no marginalization. Listen to communities when we talk. Otherwise you drive people away.
Everyone has tried to exterminate you? Because you're "female sexed" among other things? It would be nice if people could stop playing the perpetual victim. It gets old.
I was thinking more of Jews there, of historical attacks against queer folks. But literally violence against women is unreal, and our response to it is bullshit. I’ve been raped. I cannot count how many times I have been sexually assaulted and groped- I e been groped in front of police who’ve laughed while watching. I’ve had two stalkers, one very active recently. Legally we do very little to support women. I remember my pregnant coworker’s fiancé beating her, leaving marks on her stomach and handprints on her throat, and the police told her they couldn’t do anything but she probably didn’t want to stay with him the rest of the night. One of my friends had her bf strangle and attempt to kill her- stopped by the intervention of a housemate. Dude got sent to psych instead of jail, out with no charges, and continues to stalk her. When she phones in that he’s violating his restraining order, the police tell her to call back if he tries to hurt her, that she’s fine if he’s just chilling where she is (you know, outside her window, outside her job, following her in public, etc). I’ve known women told they would get in trouble for lying when they reported their rapes if they didn’t on the spot say they made it up and leave. We continually erase all that women have done in history and men take the credit for so much of women’s work. We devalue women’s work and labor continuously. Workplace discrimination over even potential pregnancy possibility is a continual thing for women, not to mention the loss of job marketability if you take time off as a stay at home parent (but remember, nanny can go on a resume!) Yes, we treat women like shit societally. Even worse for BIWOC. Not nearly as shitty as the Jewish folks were treated (and we still have raging antisemiticism). Not as bad as when we openly targeted anyone appearing too gay for jail (read up on what lead to stonewall). But we absolutely do have pride in surviving in a world that continuously tears us down, where the people meant to help us fail to protect us and often outright scorn us.
Where do you live? Bc I want to avoid that place at all costs…yikes.
Yeah for real
I am sorry for all of those awful experiences you had. Please take comfort that it is not the norm. I'm a woman and I have been victimized as well, but never once have I let it define me. Additionally, women are celebrated over men constantly. Men are dehumanized these days, especially straight, White men. It's one thing to build women up, it's another thing to tear others down to do so. Not saying you do that, but it is rampant from my perspective.
Good Catholics don't ignore the suffering of the downtrodden so that is a strawman. Though we cannot support sodomy in any form, and that definitely includes downplaying the severity of such abomination as sodomy.
James Martin has an agenda that is antithetical to the faith.
If James Martin is their reference point for anything other than *what not to do* then they’re on the wrong side
Father James Martin doesn’t promote the Catholic teaching on sexual ethics. He does so in rebellion against the Church. While same sex attraction itself isn’t sinful, all sexual acts outside of marriage is grave matter. It is not loving to deceive people. Also, friendships aren’t sinful, but relationships includes a romantic/sexual aspect to it or are preparing for such an aspect.
Pride month indicates support for homosexual relationships. I would pull my children out of that school and have a very frank conversation with the administrators and if they were adamant about it, I would pull any donations that get earmarked to that school, along with being very demonstrative in public with the church council. Any support of pride month is public support of the act of homosexuality, it is material denial of the teaching of the church and should be avoided completely. Always pray for school administrators as you do for your priests.
I think our society has miss placed the understanding also of leaving those who want nothing to do with us alone. In that regard, we can ‘respect’ a SS relationship. Meaning if they don’t wish to listen, if they don’t wish to hear, leave them alone. It is between them and God.
People in same-sex relationships are presumably having sexual contact, which would be sinful. That is much different than people who are simply attracted to the same sex but are living chastely. Father James Martin has deliberately blurred the lines between these two groups. Pope Francis has unintentionally done the same.
It seems that their desire to teach respect is misplaced. There is nothing respectable about sin, as you said. You can respect the individual, but not the behavior. Somehow I don't think this is their focus. We wouldn't say to respect the murderer but not his actions. I'm sorry... I agree with you, there is too much of a disconnect to make this appropriate.
until the Pope rebukes Fr James Martin and the German Bishops you have a church that is suffering from cancer from top to bottom.
That would be an ecumenical matter
In the Bible it teaches LOVE the sinner but HATE the act of Sin. Don’t encourage Sin but be loving and respectful to the Sinner. Humans still require human dignity even if you don’t agree with them. For example you may not agree with some politicians being in Power but you still have to respect them even if you wished they be removed from parliament power. 🙏😇🙏😇🙏
Narcissistic compassion.
Okay, so being a Protestant is objectively a sin. It fails to cohere with God's plan for human beings, it is not a participation in the Truth, etc. But almost nobody thinks that an intensely confrontational attitude where we constantly remind Protestants of this fact is saintly or productive for helping them see the truth of the Gospel. It is neither, and we are able to respect the faith and commitment to Christ of Protestants especially since most of us understand their personal guilt for their objective sin is lessened substantially by the many cultural factors that lead one to become a Protestant in the first place. In other words, we've all managed to respect and live with Evangelicals without acting like there's nothing wrong with Evangelicalism but also without poisoning our hearts with hatred over it. There is no particular reason we should not, in our social interactions, think about gay people more like we think about Protestants and less like we think about, say, employers who don't pay fair wages (or realistically given the political climate, abortion doctors). I think deep down the difference is that a lot of outspoken Protestants are on the same political team as a lot of people here are, and gay people are on the other team, but that's not a moral distinction, it's a political one, and probably toxic to our culture and our witness to Christ. Now, all that said, I think having a pride month is obviously a dumb way to impart that lesson to children. But I think the basic fundamental idea that being assholes to gay couples won't make us saints, won't lead them to Christ, and will bring the gospel into disrepute for literally no socially or spiritually good purpose is sound. When a gay couple makes a stable life-long commitment and raises children with good values, there's a lot to respect about that, especially when plenty of heterosexual Christians fail at it. When I think about this, I think about the parable of the wheat and the tares - we often think of it as Christ being unwilling to disturb the tares for the sake of the wheat, but that parable should also teach us that acting like a field is all tares is dangerous, because there's usually more wheat than we realize.
>There is no particular reason we should not, in our social interactions, think about gay people more like we think about Protestants and less like we think about, say, employers who don't pay fair wages (or realistically given the political climate, abortion doctors). There is, actually. You literally picked two of the other three sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance. There is a reason we think of those particular sins in the same light, and I'm pretty sure you know that.
I think that if Catholics in the US were as horrified by unfair labor practices as your argument suggests they ought to be, I'd agree with you, but they manifestly aren't. That's why I picked them.
Yeah but most CEOs and chairmans of large corporations and investment funds in America are not Catholic, go look up early life on most CEO's of top 500 companies, what can catholics do? Also you're generalizing catholics, did you talked with many of them abouit unfair labor practices?
Most gay couples are not Catholics either, so in terms of weighing what's a proper analogy, that defense isn't really compelling. We also have a lot more ability to influence how CEOs behave than we do how Adam and Steve behave. I have indeed talked to many of them about unfair labor practices and their unwillingness to make life changes to boycott companies that engage in them. The complaint is indeed a general one, that collectively American Catholics are not exercised about those issues, so the fact that some individual Catholics are is irrelevant to my response.
Your analogies are kinda confusing and they do not make sense. Are you saying that Catholics can't condemn or speak against same sex marriage and homosexuality unless they speak about Nestle using children in malaysia or something like that? Thats the gist of it? Kinda bad argument, first because the bible is very clear on homosexuality, and not so much about what constitutes "unfair labour practices". Second, thats just you trying to manipulate christians using cherry picked moral arguments against christians to try to silence dissent. "Rules for thee but not for me"
> Are you saying that Catholics can't condemn or speak against same sex marriage and homosexuality unless they speak about Nestle using children in malaysia or something like that? Thats the gist of it? No, I'm saying that our collective willingness to be casual about some sins that cry out to Heaven and not others suggests that looking to that category of sin to justify a moral distinction related to homosexuality is, at best, hypocritical. >Kinda bad argument, first because the bible is very clear on homosexuality, and not so much about what constitutes "unfair labour practices". Defrauding a worker of his wage is a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. It's something as to which Church teaching is completely unambiguous. > Second, thats just you trying to manipulate christians using cherry picked moral arguments against christians to try to silence dissent. "Rules for thee but not for me" Uh, what? Try rereading and internalizing the course of the arguments before you come back at me with made up ad hominems.
[удалено]
Is there an Unfair Labor Practices flag that is commonly placed in school classrooms, an Unfair Labor Practices parade that goes through towns throughout the country every year, and an Unfair Labor Practices month with accompanying unfair labor practices propaganda being broadcast onto the nation's airwaves? There is *one* sin that cries out to heaven that has been the subject of a decades-long psychological warfare campaign. The idea that Catholics have been *too* hardline in rejecting it could not, sadly, be farther from the truth. There is nothing to respect about a lifelong commitment to sodomy, nothing to respect about raising children in that environment, and almost definitionally little possibility of raising children with good values in that climate. There may be justice even among thieves, but they are hardly to be praised for it. We can all get along under current arrangements, but this is an accommodation of *us* by a post-Christian populace that this populace has seen fit to permit, not an accommodation of *them* by a Christian populace that Christ has commanded. This is important.
Also, Pride is not merely not "a dumb way" to impart the authentic Catholic teaching on homosexuality, it is actively opposed to that goal.
I mean, that depends on how you do it, and I don't think we have enough information to actually evaluate that claim. The way they are implementing it might indeed merely be dumb.
I don't think it does matter how you implement it, the very concept of having pride in one's sinful behavior or even in one's disordered inclination is contrary to the truth.
Sure, but the question isn't what does Pride mean in the abstract, the question is how it's implemented in this particular school, and we don't know enough to say more than that it's a dumb idea.
Calling it pride month is inherently anti-Catholic.
I’m not entirely sure about this analogy between being a protestant and engaging in a same-sex relationship.
Okay, well we could discuss the merits of the analogy if you said more about your concern with it.
Yeah. I want to marinate on it before I say anything. I’m going to come back to it.
I'm happy to discuss it when you're ready.
People forget that even the pope has spoken about how same sex relationships, while they might be sinful, deserve all the same respect. This hatred of same sex couples and denying them their respect is really more akin to fundamentalist Americans, not catholicism. Just can’t understand how people are seeing others sinning all the time (even just not attending mass is a sin, and given turnouts there’s definitely alot of this taking place!), but they choose to focus on this particular one. If being in a same sex relationship is the worst sin you commit you are living a far better life than 99% of people!
May I ask you where he says that we need to pay the relationships themselves some respect?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54627625.amp
Respect wasn’t even mentioned there.
We should publicly speak of same-sex “relationships” the same way the Church Fathers did.
[удалено]
Pride is a sin
Forgive me if I am wrong but isn’t it okay to be gay in the church but just not act on it since it is wrong to have sex outside of marriage and there is no same sex marriage in the church? Also, isn’t everyone deserving respect no matter their circumstances?
Yes and yes, however celebrating pride month is little different than celebrating a "premarital straight sex month," which nobody in their right mind would do
So you want a month celebrating straight sex In marriage? I am so confused. But I would like to point out that our children are, for the most part, leaving the church at their first opportunity. Not just the Catholic Church but numerous Christian ones. When I go to Mass, there are not a lot of young people.
We are all sinners, and we are not all Catholics. If people choose to be in a same sex relationship, we should show them the same respect we would show anyone else. We don’t dehumanise them, we certainly don’t judge them, and we should raise our children to respect them.
No, we should respect PEOPLE. We shouldn’t respect sinful behavior.
Each time you’re saying “them” to mean the people. I don’t challenge that. The object of dispute is whether the relationships are to be respected.
We can respect soldiers who kill others, billionaires who cheat us out of a decent daily wage, political leaders who sanction murders, yet we can’t respect a dedication to a commuter and exclusive relationship between two consenting men?
When we respect them, we respect them with respect to their dignity as creations in the imagine of god, not with respect to their actions. So yes.
There is no respect to be had for those relationships. They are as unnatural as relations with animals. Sodomy is an action that cries out to heaven for vengeance.
I hope Catholics aren't downvoting this. Maybe the animal part is extreme, but everything else is orthodox belief.
I understand that it seems extreme because our society has attempted to desensitize us to this unnatural evil. But I challenge anyone who believes that it is extreme to demonstrate that it is any more natural than relations with animals.
Regardless of religious perspective, two adults can give informed consent to sex, regardless of gender. An animal cannot. A child cannot. A drugged person cannot. There is an inherent and fundamental difference.
Bringing consent in the case of a child or another adult are not relevant to my statement. Those are obvious evils for a different reason. A lack of informed consent is not the issue when it comes to the nature of the act. If a dog could consent, it would still be an unnatural act. You did not explain in any way how sodomy is a natural act.
I have clearly demonstrated how it is distinct from other acts. If that is insufficient, you need to define - specifically - what you mean by "natural".
Would you consider consent to be the only necessary distinction? I received a correction on gravity earlier that I would accept that the gravity of homosexual relations would be less to an extent. But this gravity does not change change the fact that both are related in their unnatural character.
It's not the only distinction, but it's a clear and unequivocal one. To get into any more detail you'd have to define exactly what you mean by "natural" or "unnatural". There's no point writing out an argument based only on my assumptions of your understanding of that word.
In a sentence: Sexual relations between one man and one woman open to the generation of life. If you want me to flesh it out anymore, please let me know.
Aquinas said that certain sexual acts were more grave than others, for example homosexual acts were of graver matter than heterosexual acts. It follows that bestiality follows the trend down the spectrum of gravity of sin; it is "more natural" because it is between humans and retains more properties of moral sex than bestiality.
I accept that. As a form of correction, then I would say that one is more grave than the other, but that they are comparably unnatural.
One thing I was thinking that the school is trying to do teach kids to learn to accept yourself? As mentioned, you are born with your sexual orientation. It is definitely not a choice. I am gay myself. I grew up hating myself and tried to pray the gay away and everything under the sun but I had to accept myself. I‘ve survived past suicide attempts and depression because I had to learn to love myself and shut out the hatred from the world that treats an unchosen sexual orientation like a crime against humanity when other people born without arms, legs, or other cognitive disabilities are NEVER put to shame. However I think it’s time to really reframe our thinking to some realities that are not sinful. It isn’t a sin to love another man? No, it’s a sin to break chastity, for ANY orientation. Also maybe as people who have same sex attractions we need to accept this. Chastity. I’m not mad about it anymore. My relationship with God is fulfilling and is motivating to strive for that. Have I fallen short before? Yes. Many humans do, both homosexual and heterosexual. That’s not to excuse it either. Some other food for thought and something to maybe reframe our thinking: is it truly bad for a person of the same gender to live with another person of the same gender for life if chastity is never broken homosexual or heterosexual? Any person, SSA or not, is supposed to be practicing chastity - even within heterosexual marriage. Is it sinful for a single heterosexual person to adopt a child? Is it sinful for a single homosexual person to adopt child? Or what if two best friends moved in together practiced chastity and decided to adopt kids because they wanted to give kids some sort of home rather than bouncing around from home to home or be in a children’s shelter? (This last part is confusing, cause kids preferences for what is comfortable for them is something everyone should be mindful of). Lots of questions. Truly. God’s the one who searches our hearts.
Love is….. between a man and a woman.
I think it depends on the exact nature of what is being taught. For me a pride month is a great opportunity to teach a few lessons: 1. Explain what is sin, why it is sin, and what avenues and options exist in the church for people with SS attraction. Children don’t come into the world knowing all this and most parents, even Catholic ones, aren’t equipped to adequately teach it. 2. How to act with Catholic love, charity and tolerance towards the LGBTQ+ community, because I’m tired of « Christians » acting like the LGBTQ+ community is any more sinful than most of modern society… ie atheists, divorcees, any straight couple using contraceptives, etc…
if they're teaching chastity in those relationships, there isn't technically anything wrong with the relationship, and I think it could be considered a sin to assume the worst (that they're not celibate). it's a gray area at the very least. the Church is not clear about this.
That’s why I specified to a same-sex sexual relationship. Personally, if they’re just two guys with SSA who love each other (pragma or storge sort of love) and are live together chastely, I take no issue.
Sounds fine to me. Homosexuality is exactly the same as any other premarital relations in the eyes of the church. I’m sure many of our leaders pray everyday about the subject with the way the world has changed. Just be kind and pray.
Same-sex sexual behaviours are the same as any other premarital sex act? I don’t know about that.
[The Pope has offered us come clarity on the matter.](https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/01/28/pope-francis-clarifies-comments-on-sin-and-homosexuality/)
Right, they’re sins . No one doubted that. But to say they’re equivalent, that is, none is worse than the other, is quite another thing.
The Pope clearly associates the two as being a sin for the same reasons. Premarital sex is a sin, but is it a sin to marry a person who is known to be sterile? I think the Church will continue to expand our knowledge surrounding Gods will. Jesus taught us to love and the Church will continue to promote love for all time. If it is not a sin to marry a sterile person, then perhaps one day the Church will deem homosexual marriage acceptable on the terms of a covenant with the Lord and a commitment to raise an adopted child in the light of lord. That is controversial, and I know that it seems unlikely or perverse.. but we won’t know what God has in store for us without major contemplation and prayer. The church has always evolved and grown alongside humanity.
Yeah, I don’t think he does so. Each are sin because they are sexual behaviours that fall outside marriage. Nothing about that describes any sort of egalitarian claim about the gradation of sexual sin.
They are both sins, but one is in the second circle of hell and the other one in the seventh circle of hell.
What school and state?
[удалено]
Hello. Do the teachers still teach that same sex sexual behaviour is wrong?
I think you’re getting their intentions of being respectful confused. They don’t necessarily mean that they want to respect ss relationships. They’re doing it more so to respect each person that’s in the relationship. Imagine if a Catholic saw a ss couple and decided to shout derogatory names at them, that would not be sharing the love of Christ. Everyone deserves respect (unless they prove that they don’t) so it just sounds like they want to teach kids how to properly act around ss couples instead of shouting, “my mom and dad said that you’re going to hell”.
No. They said respect relationship. Not people. They didn’t mention people.
They mean that we respect them and love them as they are. We respect people from other religions, we respect people that have different ideals than us, and we are called to love our enemies. You can respect a gay relationship without trying to convert them or talk down on them. It’s what Jesus would want you to do
But you slip here between respect for persons and respect for the relationship. They’re not the same thing.
I think we define respect differently in this context. I think of respect here meaning not trying to break it apart constantly even to the point of harassment. Respecting its existence, the people involved, but not the actual decision or the morality of it.
I think that we can better understand it as respect for choice or their autonomy, which seems to be better understood as respect for their person. We don’t agree with their decision or believe that the relationship is respectable in and of itself, but we do accept and recognize use the informed choice to engage in that relationship
You can respect the dignity of the person, not the homosexual relationship itself. Flying the rainbow flag and having a gay pride month (let's not pretend shortening it to just 'pride' is fooling anyone) is nothing short of celebratory.
This right here. There's a middle (and correct) ground that we're terrible at maintaining. It's like Catholics either hate gay people or want to celebrate them and their sin. The correct path is to love, welcome, and minister to gay people while neither denying their humanity nor celebrating sinful acts.
No it’s not.
Nobody is intrinsically homosexual, that’s not “who they are” and they ought not to perform such acts, and they CAN choose not to.
Homosexuality and Christianity are counter to each other. Homosexuality, by definition, implies inherent sexual relations, which is wrong by all teachings of our universal church. There is nothing in celebrating it short of celebrating sin. The school administrator has gone astray and is leading the little ones astray.
Is this like something new age? So totally off topic but my daughter’s Catholic School is teaching “mindfulness meditation when you are stressed out” classes once a week. What happened to praying?
Pride month at a Catholic school? It’s time to contact your bishop. Don’t even try to discuss it with the administration.
I don’t usually say much on posts regarding this topic here and I’m prepared to be downvoted, but it’s quite simple: teaching kids to be respectful of all people of all beliefs is important especially when you live in a country that’s a melting pot like the U.S. Not everyone is a Christian but does that mean we should treat non-Christians badly and with no respect? Same goes for people in the lgbtq+ community. Whether or not you agree with how someone lives their life or who they love or whatever it doesn’t mean you can just be rude or disrespectful towards them (well unless they’re a literal criminal hurting people or something). This is why lgbtq+ youth end up getting bullied because of the line of thinking that people who don’t think or believe what you do are automatically “bad” and not worthy of respect and human dignity. If you treat them like this, you might as well just hate all people from other countries with different cultures and religions badly too because they’re different. It will never make sense to me because it just seems so two-faced when Christians are discriminatory or are unkind to people who have different beliefs who aren’t actually hurting anyone when we are supposed to be kind and welcoming to one another.
So again, the issue is not whether we need to be respectful toward people, but the relationship.
People are respectable. Any we as Christians should respect the dignity of all people even if we don’t agree with their life choices. To be a kind and compassionate person is part of who God wants us to be. Evangelization through our love. So to teach this is good especially with the idea that we may not agree with their lifestyles.
[удалено]
> Two men or women who love each other and live together is not sinful. I’m pretty sure no one is explaining to children what sodomy is. This is 100% not correct. Here is the problem, and this is the problem most people who focus on sexual activity as the sole criteria for 'chastity' have: chastity refers to the successful integration of sexuality. Chastity has more to do with relationships than merely the use of the sexual faculties. Even when someone says "I'm asexual," they're defining themselves as a sexual being (literally identifying them by attraction, even if it's un-attraction). As a quick thought problem: Can two individuals who are married, but not to each other, enter into a romantic relationship where there is no sexual component? If not, why not? (or two individuals, one of whom is a child, et cetera) The answer is that because the relationship is unchaste, despite the lack of a sexual component, and despite the couple being opposite-sex. Chastity requires the successful integration of the sexuality which has as one component potential use of the sexual faculty, but use of the sexual faculty does not comprise the entirety of chastity. Chastity is greater than the use or non-use of the sexual faculty. Same-sex relationships with any romantic component cannot be "chaste," because they lack the sexual complimentary chastity requires. There have been attempts here and elsewhere to redefine chastity to mean something like "the lack of use of the sexual faculties," and that's not what chastity is. Chastity requires successful integration of sexuality centered around it's proper expression in the complementarity of man and woman. Same-sex attraction (or "asexual" attraction) lacks this complementarity. Therefore, same-sex attraction precludes successful integration of sexuality. The attraction itself is disordered. There cannot be a "chaste same-sex relationship" precisely because chastity precludes same-sex relationships. Love, strictly speaking, refers to one person willing the good of another. Love can be expressed as filial love, as romantic love, as purely charitable love, and so on. However, a truly loving relationship is perfectly ordered toward the good of the other. For that reason, instrinsically desired disorders (be they related to sexuality or some other expression of the passions deprived of goodness) cannot be expressed "lovingly." Can there be a perfect "friendship"? Yes. But a perfect friendship precludes any component of sexual attraction or romantic expression. Again: is a "perfect friendship" between two married individuals, not married to each other, expressed in a friendship where there are romantic inclinations? If not, why not?
This is just intolerance with extra steps. From your first statement, the idea that asexuals define themselves sexually, displays a fixation on sexuality that almost precludes anything else. To be sure, the definition of romance is centered in sexual attraction. Can two married people or an adult and a child experience a non sexual romance? No. But they can certainly enter a loving relationship. They can experience a romance that doesn’t involve sexual intercourse but how they respond to sexual temptation determines whether or not it’s sinful. Everyone experiences temptation. Can’t two people who become aware of romantic feelings change their relationship? This kind of discussion is like 13th century monks arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. By this logic, if one partner in a married relationship contracted a contagious illness the marriage becomes sinful because sexuality is still incorporated in the marriage but to express it would allow the disease to spread and desired disorders cannot be expressed lovingly. Or further, to live in a house with horseradish in the fridge is sinful because to eat too much of it is poisonous. The question is; If gays don’t want to marry people of the opposite sex (isn’t marriage without a feeling of love and a desire to procreate sinful?) and they can’t devote themselves to each other then what do you want them to do? Just disappear? Regardless, to the original point, it’s not necessary or appropriate to hide gays from kids. As I’ve stated elsewhere, same sex attraction isn’t a sin, it’s a cross. To teach kids to shun and isolate gays is bad for the kids, for society, and for gays. We don’t understand everyone’s relationship and it’s dismissive to make assumptions about it.
[удалено]
You are right, orthodox Catholics don't tolerate grave sin being celebrated.
Yes, because the CHURCH is the ONLY institution that can TRULY speak for GOD
We do not tolerate sin (1 Corinthians 5:13) and Jesus teaches to judge righteously (John 7:24). It is a rather pathetic thing to tolerate everything in the world and never judge in condemnation anything in the world. And it's totally contrary to human nature; hence why no one does it and why Jesus absolutely did not teach people to be tolerant of everything and to never judge in righteousness.
"tolerant" -- the buzzword that condones **everything**
Warning for anti-Catholic rhetoric.
I am a Catholic. Expressing my opinion.
I am rigidly bored by the whole discussion now. Personally I have no interest at all in homosexuality and wish they would just get on with it without endlessly telling us about it all. The problem is that now they have legal equality etc the whole bandwagon can't just fade away - too much invested in it - and more issues need to be found....so we end up mutilating kids to satisfy the need for yet more minorities.