The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 238 guests, and 46 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 7 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
I think distinctions have to be made between individual homosexuals and those involved in the "Gay Pride" movement.

Do I believe that homosexual activity is the worst sin a person can commit? Absolutely not. To me, it is a sin of passion that springs from a disordered sense of attraction to the same sex. As with others who struggle with certain sins of the flesh, those who suffer with this temptation are in need of our compassion, honesty and friendship, not resounding condemnation. "God will condemn the sins of Wall Street long before he condemns the sins of prostitutes and murderers.", so said the Servant of God, Catherine Dougherty. Sins of the passions are in a different category than sins that involve the premeditated exploitation of the innocent. (I will address the "Gay Pride" movement below. It is of a different category altogether.)

I also think that labeling these individuals "sodomites" is not particularly helpful - in fact I think it is in its own way depersonalizing and in no way endears anyone (whether homosexual or not) to a particular point of view. I would rather win the hearts and minds of those who struggle with this issue, than to throw out labels. (If you were ministering to those who struggled with alcoholism, would you see it as pastorally wise to refer to them all as "drunks"?) I do not believe I am too far off in saying that there are some on this forum - lurkers or posters - who may struggle with this issue, even though they may not agree that it is either a sin or an "issue" at all. I would rather treat them with the same respect I would hope to receive were I struggling with some difficulty, addiction or sin in my own life. And homosexuality is a huge struggle for many people.

You can disagree with people and still treat them with respect. For instance, I have worked with and for individuals who are homosexual, and realized through those experiences that I could maintain friendships and healthy, respectful and professional relationships with people with whom I disagreed, even on such a fundamental moral issue as homosexuality. (One of my mentors in my field of leadership development is a lesbian. I asked her to be one of my mentors because she has tremendous expertise in this field and we have a good working relationship.)

With that said, the "Gay Movement" to me is another issue altogether. This movement essentially seeks to enact a social shift in values, morals and structures by openly challenging or flagrantly mocking the sensibilities and traditions of those who hold to a Judeo-Christian perspective on human sexuality. Additionally, this movement also seeks to harness the influence of the media and the powers of the courts (primarily) and public education to impose the desires of a minority on the whole of society ("gay marriage" is a great example). The "Gay Movement" has an agenda to actively recruit others, including children, into the fold. This to me should be actively and vigorously opposed.

With that said, it is important to point out that not every person who is homosexual is part of this movement - although many are.

My two or three cents -

Gordo

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 92
new
Offline
new
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 92
I agree that a distinction has to be made with those struggling with homosexual tendencies and the hard core who embrace them, and demand that society do the same under force of law. It is the latter group that gets my attention because I've witnessed their success first hand in getting the former to believe the heinous lie that there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts.

We, as Catholics, are in the business of uncompromsingly getting souls to leave, not live, homosexual lifestyles. And the Catholic Church has never taught that error is accorded equal rights with the truth. It has taught that the state has a right to suppress error because the state receives all of its authority from God, and as such, should be a part of His redemptive plan to get souls to Heaven instead of hell by promoting the common good with the natural leading ultimately to the supernatural.

"To render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" does not mean that Caesar deserves a "free pass" from Catholics when it comes to promoting error contrary to the common good. Even the pagan Aristotle understood this as promoting the common good was his primary criteria for the definition of a good regime. If Catholics aren't going to tell this Truth, who is?

We do a disservice to all when we do not tell it like it is. There is nothing "gay" about being inclined to homosexual acts. To describe same as "gay" is a bastardization of a formerly very happy adjective. There is nothing happy about being inclined to aberrant behavior that has been proven to be physically, psychologically, socially, and especially, spiritually ruinous.

As Catholics we are not called to be "nice" to the devil, which is the trap that many fall into when they shy from speaking the Truth Who is a Someone, not a something. Jesus Christ was not shy about such things. He talked more about the consequences of grave sin than any other New Testament Figure, in particular, the fires of hell! The approved apparition of Our Lady of Fatima to the three visionaries showed hell and all of its torments - this to the youngest of children. God would not have allowed this if He did not want to make a point about the consequences of grave sin. And we are talking grave sin here, per Sacred Scripture, a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance.

We must remember that Locke�s vagueness about "Common Good" has consequences. This has always been a Catholic concern, e.g., Leo XIII's encyclical on Americanism

Let us examine the problem.


The Enlightenment view of the person and of the state differed radically from what had gone before in the Christian tradition and the common law. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau postulated a mythical state of nature in which autonomous, isolated individuals were milling around and, for various reasons, agreed to form the state. Hobbes thought people were hostile and needed the state, or Leviathan, to keep them from killing each other. The individual surrendered total power to the state, reserving only his right to life and his right not to incriminate himself. Locke�s state of nature was more pleasant, but men needed a common judge to settle disputes. And so they formed the state to protect their rights, but in that state the majority would rule. Rousseau, on the other hand, thought men formed the state to carry out the general will which is the unlimited will, not of the majority, but of the man in charge, the sovereign. [See Rice, The Winning Side, Questions On Living The Culture Of Life.] We will focus on Locke�s moderation of Hobbes�s view of man and society.



In the traditional Christian view, the state derives its authority from God (although the people may from time to time decide who exercises that authority) and the state is subject to the law of God including the natural law. In the Enlightenment view, the state derives its authority horizontally, from the people. It is the people, rather than the law of God, which defines in what way, if any, the power of the state will be limited. And, if the people give rights, the people can take them away. Per Rice, 19th century utilitarianism added to this mix the idea, as seen in Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill and others, that the purpose of the law and society is to achieve the greatest good of the greatest number. This good is the Hobbesian maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain. There is not knowable objective morality and no common good beyond the sum of individual goods. The family is an aggregation of individuals rather than a society in itself. The person comes to be regarded as merely "economic man." The Enlightenment philosophy has dominated the 20th century in different forms. It devalues the role of mediating institutions, such as the family and social groups, between the individual and the state. It tends to deteriorate into either and individualist capitalism or a totalitarian collectivism, which, of late, has become synonymous with radical liberalism. Enlightenment law is wholly an exercise of will, while Aquinas affirmed that the essence of law is reason. Enlightenment jurisprudence will be utilitarian and positivist, with no inherent limits on what the state can do. The Enlightenment project, which dominates American culture, has three decisive characteristics, secularism, relativism, and individualism.



Whereas Aristotle, Aquinas, and others affirmed that man is social by nature, Enlightenment thinkers postulated a mythical "state of nature" populated by autonomous individuals who were not social but "sociable." Those individuals formed the state according to the social contract. The purpose, according to Hobbes, was to achieve security; according to Locke, it was for the protection of rights; for Rousseau, it was to implement the "general will." The origin of the state was therefore not in nature and the divine plan but in the social contract, with rights coming not from God but from man and ultimately the state. "The Declaration of the Rights of Man at the end of the 18th century," wrote Hannah Arendt, "was a turning point in history. It meant nothing more nor less than that from then on Man, and not God�s command or the customs of history, should be the source of Law." [See Rice, 50 Questions On The Natural Law, What It Is And Why We Need It.]



Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, responds. "The theories of the social contract . . . were elaborated at the end of the 17th century (cf. Hobbes); that which would bring harmony among men was a law recognized by reason and commanding respect by an enlightened prince who incarnates the general will. Here, too, when the common reference to values and ultimately to God is lost, society will then appear merely as an ensemble of individuals placed side by side, and the contract which ties them together will necessarily be perceived as an accord among those who have the power to impose their will on others . . . By a dialectic within modernity, one passes from the affirmation of the rights of freedom, detached from any objective reference to a common truth, to the destruction of the very foundations of this freedom. The �enlightened despot� of the social contract theorists became the tyrannical state, in fact totalitarian, which disposes of the life of its weakest members, from an unborn baby to an elderly person, in the name of a public usefulness which is really only the interest of a few." [See Ratzinger, "The Problem of Threats to Human Life," 36 The Pope Speaks, 334-35 (1991).]



According to Hobbes, men are naturally free, and all seek exclusively their own interests. Hence, men lived at first in a state of perpetual war. Then, as a practical expedient, they compacted to form society, to which, as represented by its rulers, unlimited power over the individual members was confided. This sovereign body Hobbes called the Leviathan, the monster of limitless strength and power. As a logical inference from his rejection of divine authority in the constitution and government of states, Hobbes rejected the distinction between the temporal and spiritual power and denied the independent rights of the Church; for "a man cannot obey two masters, and a house divided against itself cannot stand." Thus, whatever worship or religion exists in a State must be completely subject to the civil power and no dogma can be appealed to against a law of the state.



In Locke�s theory the liberty which men had before the supposed original social contract remains with them and is inalienable, "for no one can ever by subjected to authority without his own consent." But as this "universal" consent can scarcely ever be had, the only remedy against anarchy is that the majority must include the rest. The result is that it is a law both of nature and of reason that the act of the majority is the act of the whole.



The principles of Hobbes and Locke were more fully elaborated by the 18th century founders of the French liberal school and those of the German Aufklarung. Of the latter, Emmanuel Kant has had the widest influence. In Kant�s view, man, as a moral being, is "a law to himself and an end to himself, a cause but not an effect." Hence, the civil union whose object is to secure liberty for all must presuppose an implied contract as a necessary foundation of its authority. [See Cahil, The Framework Of A Christian State.]



Let�s look at a more detailed comparison of the philosophies of Hobbes and Locke as described by John Hittinger in "Three Philosophies of Human Rights,"

In Search Of A National Morality, edited by William Bentley Ball. Per Hittinger, human freedom became the fundamental moral fact, not virtue or divine command. The development of this notion wound its way through late medieval nominalism and became a major theme in the work of Hobbes, especially his Leviathan, which is usually marked as the turning point from the ancient natural right or natural law to the modern account of natural rights.



Hobbes challenged the fundamental presuppositions of the Thomistic synthesis of biblical theology and Aristotelian philosophy � such as the sociability of man and the possibility of a common good, the existence of a highest good (summum bonum) in virtue and contemplation, and the natural law derived from such human teleology. (Telos, as such, didn�t exist for the modern philosophers.) Beginning with a state of nature as a state of war, Hobbes saw the futility of seeing a good higher than self-preservation. His philosophy is based upon a view of human nature as selfish and contentious; he denied that there exists any higher good other than survival. Consequently, he derived the natural law from a more fundamental right of self-preservation.



Hobbes defined the "right of nature" as "the liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature" [Leviathan]. He clearly distinguished right from law. "Right consisteth in liberty to do, or forbeare; whereas Law, determineth, and bindeth to one of them; so the Law, and Right, differ as much, as Obligation, and Liberty." For Hobbes, right, i.e., liberty, clearly takes precedent over law, i.e., obligation. The fundamental right or liberty of the self is unbounded or unlimited by anything; by the fundamental right of preservation, each man has a right to everything, and anything done in the pursuit of preservation is without blame. The intolerable conflicts between individuals, however, amount to a state of war. It is reasonable, therefore, to limit one�s claim to things for the sake of self-protection. Morality exists by way of the social contract, and is a rational deduction of moral rules from the right of self-preservation [Leviathan].

Hobbes�s defense of individual rights required the existence of an absolute power in society to keep all potential wrongdoers in such a state of awe that they would obey the law. Hobbes�s account was shocking in many ways, not the least of which was its implicit anti-theistic philosophy, that it was frequently decried and banned. The direct contrast between Hobbes and the biblical and philosophical accounts of moral and political order would be the easiest approach to take to the philosophical questions about rights.



Locke transformed the Hobbesian philosophy into a more acceptable and balanced philosophy of natural rights. It is in this form that many Americans came to know about rights. But Locke�s philosophy contains a fundamental ambiguity, i.e., the tension over the autonomy of the person and the workmanship of God. Homeschoolers see this constantly in the state telling them what "rights" they have in the education of their children to the total ignorance of the fact that these "rights" don�t come from the state, but rather from God as was pointed out in Pontifical Council for the Family�s document entitled "The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality."



Locke wanted to find a solution to the problem of politics that would restore peace to a country divided by religious wars. The tolerance of religious belief required, in his mind, the lowering of the goal and mission of the temporal order, away from the inculcation of virtue, and the defense of the faith to the protection of the temporal welfare of its citizens � rights to life, liberty, and property. [See Locke, Letter Concerning Toleration.] By removing the matter of religious contention from civil concerns Locke hoped to quell the disturbances inflicted upon Europe because of intolerance. Hobbes, by contrast, removed contentious matters by making the sovereign absolute over the determination of the beliefs of citizens. It was Locke who overcame the inconsistencies in this account and sought to place structural and formal limits upon the sovereign political power and to bind the sovereign to the respect of rights to life, liberty, and property. The division of powers, taxation with representation, and limited prerogatives of the state power balanced by a "right to revolution" are all part of Locke�s system. For Hobbes, rights are fundamental moral claims against others; Locke adds to this the claim of the individual against the state, at least when a "long train of abuses" is perceived by a majority and rouses it to act. Per Hittinger, Locke�s more moderate and reasonable account of human rights has appealed to generations of political statesmen and thinkers. However, the seed of radical autonomy as the basis for human rights blooms fully in subsequent philosophers in the natural rights tradition. In the late 20th century the fruits of this radical autonomy is seen in the insanity of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey where the autonomous unencumbered rights of the individual are elevated to a supernatural plane governed by the "god in the mirror" as each man can define his own universe with its own unique laws and rights to the total exclusion of his fellow men. This begs the obvious question, just what do you do when these myriad universes collide as they invariably will? The obvious answer of "anarchy prevailing" evidently didn�t occur to the majority of our illustrious Supreme Court justices.



Like Hobbes, Locke derived the principles of limited government from a hypothetical state of nature [Locke, Two Treatises Of Government]. This original state of nature is said to be a state of "perfect freedom." By freedom Locke meant no more than an absence of restraint. Locke mentioned the bounds of a natural law in the same passage with perfect freedom. This is to distinguish "liberty" from "license." The natural law initially guides men in the state of nature to refrain from harm: "The State of Nature has a Law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one; and Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions." The restraint demanded by natural law derives from an additional characteristic of the state of nature: in the state of nature men are equal, in addition to being free [Ibid]. Locke made clear that equality means equal jurisdiction, or the absence of subordination and subjection. The basis for this mutual respect and recognition is the fundamental problem, since it is the basis for natural law.



Per Hittinger, the key difficulty in interpreting the philosophy of Locke pertains to the foundation of natural rights and the rationale for mutual restraint. Locke gives a twofold rationale and foundation. On the one hand, he spoke of man as God�s workmanship and from this axiom derived the right to life, liberty, and property as essential to the divine moral order; on other occasions he simply appeals to the primacy of self-preservation and unfolds from radical autonomy the list of rights and the self-interested basis for mutual respect ala Hobbes.



In the first model, the basis for equal respect is divine workmanship and the order of creation. Locke argued that all creatures are equal under God and occupy the same rank or status as "creature" [Ibid]. Thus, no one can assume to take the position of God and rule over others. This argument from the order of creation reflects a pre-modern understanding of equality. Men are neither beasts nor gods but occupy equally a ground midway between. [See Jaffa, "Equality as a Conservative Principle," How to Think about the American Revolution.] It is neither appropriate to act as a god nor to treat others as beasts or inferior creatures. Locke explicitly used this pre-modern image. In light of this order of creation, man can make no claim to absolute dominion over his fellow creatures. Mutual respect depends upon the recognition of one�s status as a creature, along with others, before the Creator, i.e., a human being cannot claim the type of superiority that would authorize the destruction or arbitrary use of another human being, and rights protect this status.



The problem is that Locke said that the grasp of "natural law� didn�t depend on divine revelation, nor did it depend on knowledge of God�s promulgated law and sanctions. This content can be appreciated independently of the workmanship model, per Hittinger. For to deny the mutuality of equal right is to propel oneself into a state of war with others. And by such a declaration one has "exposed his Life to the others Power to be taken away by him." To put oneself in such an insecure state is most unreasonable and dangerous. One is open to being treated like a noxious beast [Locke, Two Treatises]. It is more safe, more reasonable, to acknowledge the equality of rights. Thus, mere self-interest would counsel mutuality and restraint. Locke referred to the law of nature as simply the law of reason and common equity: the law of nature is the reasonable restraint of common equity that will establish mutual security. It is discovered through the person�s own desire for safety and security. The basis for restraint is fear of harm and self-interest. According to this model of rights, selfish interest, or comfortable preservation, is the basis for one�s claims. Enlightened self-interest leads one to recognize the equal right of others to their life, liberty, and property [Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding].



Hittinger describes the legacy of Locke as "ambivalent." The advocate of limited government and an apparent friend of the theistic tradition, Locke nevertheless underwrote a model of radical human autonomy in which freedom dominates the moral order. Today, this radical freedom is confused with license on a daily basis with the most dreadful of consequences where hedonism rules all aspects of society having only the Church as the last bastion of truth in a world gone mad. Locke�s philosophy of human rights was derived from a subjectivist account of the good; it lowers the goal of the state to a supposedly neutral position; it imposes a minimal obligation of nonharm; and ultimately it does encourage self-interest in the best tradition of Hobbes. This lowest common denominator minimalist obligations approach embodied in civil law becomes the extent of morality; the wide sphere of private life must come to occupy the bulk of human energies. With Locke, such freedom was aimed at unlimited acquisition of property and the self found its affirmation in labor and the "work ethic." But such terms as equal freedom and mutual respect came to be transformed under the inspiration of Rousseau and Kant to mean much more than civic liberty and protection of private property. In contemporary American jurisprudence they have come to promote the existence of what has been referred to as the "erotic self" [Bradley, "The Constitution and the Erotic Self," First Things, 16 (Oct. 1991): 28-32].



Hittinger points out that David A.J. Richards, Professor of Law at New York State University and Director of N.Y.U.�s Program for the Study of Law, Philosophy, and Social Theory, in one of his publications entitled Sex, Drugs, Death and the Law, follows the logic of the right to privacy to the point of decriminalizing all consensual sex acts, including prostitution, as well as drug use and euthanasia. Richards stressed the radical departure in ethics and politics characteristic of the modern theory of rights elaborated by Locke. He sought to purge American thought and culture of its religious influence; this included what Richards called its Calvinistic public morality and also natural law principles derived from Catholic morality and tradition. The Bible or Thomistic natural law must be considered degrading because they attempt to guide or otherwise restrict the creative freedom of individual persons, presumably even the freedom to not only destroy themselves, but society in general.



The right of conscience, uninformed conscience to be sure, is the primary right and the paradigm for all others. Expanded to include any conscientious belief or actions derived therefrom, no matter how radical, no matter what the consequences, so too other rights are similarly expanded and developed in the light of the principle of autonomy and respect for persons. "I�m OK, you�re OK, even though you�re killing yourself physically and spiritually and, by your example, invite as many as possible to follow you to perdition. Pornography is extolled as the higher option against the repressed Catholic and puritan public morality. Sexuality is the core value for Richards because through it, "we express and realize a wholeness of emotion, intellect and self image guided by the just play of the self-determining powers of a free person. As a good liberal he wished to demonstrate the constitutional legitimacy of the right to privacy, its rightful application in such cases involving contraceptive use in marriage, nonmarital contraceptive use, pornography in the home, and abortion services. In addition he criticized the Supreme Court for its failures to apply privacy rights to consensual homosexual acts. The tired old refrain that homosexuals ought to be afforded the same rights to privacy, family, adoption and so on as heterosexuals in order to forward the "great work of collective democratic decency that is the Constitution of the United States" surfaced. No matter that the Constitution allows for no rights to aberrant self-destructive behavior, much less demands that society accept same.



In the work of the lunatics like David Richards, the seed of radical autonomy planted by Hobbes and Locke for the sake of acquisition of property and comfortable self-preservation matured to become the fruit of a full moral subjectivism and the clear abandonment of and attack upon any shred of classical natural law and virtue.



Hittinger�s conclusion to this challenge of the correct use of rights discourse is rooted in its necessity for the very protection of the claims of religion and religious activity in a secular state. Rights language helps to explain the advocacy for the vulnerable members of society that Christian conscience demands. Thus, to influence public policy in a salutary way, rights discourse is inevitable. But the basis for and purpose of human rights discourse must be clearly understood if we are to avoid the confusion and equivocations of the present day. We must engage in a serious reading of modern philosophers such as Hobbes and Locke; in addition the contemporary developments of Rawls, Dworkin and Richards must be squarely faced; finally, Christian thinkers like Maritain and John Paul II have opened up horizons for a sound philosophy of human rights. [See Schall, The Church, The State And Society In The Thoughts Of John Paul II.]



Hittinger tells us that the use of rights discourse is fraught with difficulties, not the least of which is sheer equivocation when engaged in discourse with the dominant liberal culture. The philosophy of human rights underlying such accounts � the radical autonomy of the human person � must be challenged and redefined. A sound philosophy of rights must make it clear that freedom is not an absolute, that rights are imbedded in an objective moral order that is accessible by reason (the natural law of Aquinas, not that of Hobbes or Locke), and revelation (divine law), and finally that rights are correlated with duties to the community, to others, for the common good, and ultimately to God.



Political power in Locke�s commonwealth clearly resides in the will of the majority. Locke believes that reason will persuade most men to pursue a course of enlightened self-interest. They will be motivated by "the common good," a conception that remains extremely vague in Locke�s Treatises. The possibility that the majority might turn tyrannous is gingerly avoided. But of course no one has an answer for those cases where a whole people seem to have gone collectively insane such as typified by the United States of America since Roe v. Wade and, in particular, under the President and her husband where the principle of "common good" is nonexistent. This comes as no surprise given Locke�s radical move to redefine virtue as nothing more than irrational fashions, not attuned to the customs of the times, the mere opinions of what man has about what is acceptable or not in society. Ethics is not ordered by duty or perfection but by self-advantage and self-interest, a breeding ground for moral relativism. The greatest praise in Locke�s increasingly materialistic world goes to the inventor, not those doing spiritual and corporal works of mercy. Human power is elevated with God put in the background. No need to worry about the supernatural since technology will save man from the grave. Faith is superfluous leaving only a purely secular ethic with faith only retained to appeal to a broader audience.



One might ask a simple question. If avoidance of death is our highest end, the summum bonum of materialism, of secular humanism, why should anyone sacrifice; why be a soldier or policeman? Locke tries to answer this difficult question by wrapping his social contract in faith, but his arguments, as discussed in this paper, are shallow for Locke�s faith, as for so many of the modern philosophers, is a function of a "god made in their image" not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and certainly not the God who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 92
new
Offline
new
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 92
The obsession with rights talk forgets that rights without duties are no rights at all


The Declaration of Independence begins with the following creedal statement in regard to the concept of rights:



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.



Who could argue with the pronouncement of such a seminal truth on the individual rights possessed by man, in particular, the recognition that these rights come from the Almighty and, accordingly, are politically sacrosanct. Certainly a country founded upon such a self-evident axiomatic principle has laid the foundation for the securing of these rights within the political sphere. Which begs the question, �What happened to induce a foreigner, a man who experienced first hand the suppression of such rights in the concentration camps of his native country, a man who should have admired the �American Dream� secured by these rights, to issue a warning in the form of advice that the West is too concerned with �rights� and should be more concerned with �duties�? The man referred to here is Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn who suffered political persecution in the Soviet gulags. What prompted Solzhenitsyn to issue that warning will be subsequently addressed.



The world today seems obsessed with �rights talk.� Certainly, that is the case in the United States of America at the dawn of the new millennium where the �right to take one�s own life�, the �right to kill the unborn�, and the �right to be subsidized for living promiscuous lifestyles to include performing unnatural sex acts�, are all forced under the umbrella of �life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness� with no one bothering to notice that the umbrella has been blown inside out by a tornadic wind of a natural fallacy regarding these claims. Simply put, with the concept of rights comes a concomitant concept of duty if the common good of society is to be the goal of a political regime that is respected instead of despised. You do not have rights to enjoy without a duty to those whom you have a responsibility toward in insuring that the common good is never lost sight of as a final political goal.



The most important virtue for the ancients was justice, which is the proper ordering of the self and the community in an objective sense to the common good. It is objective insofar as it is a matter of the rational determination of the equality or adjustment made between two people or groups. The term �right� did not designate a subjective claim to something for them as it does for the moderns, but rather an objective relationship between people. For Aquinas right is said to be the �object� of justice. [See ST II-II, Q. 57, a. 1.] Justice seeks to attain what is right. For Aristotle, Justice is the political good as we see in the Politics Book III, Chapter XII.



In all arts and sciences the end in view is some good. In the most sovereign of all the arts and sciences � and this is the art and science of politics � the end in view is the greatest good and the good which is most pursued. The good in the sphere of politics is justice; and justice consists in what tends to promote the common interest.



Justice is one of the four cardinal virtues. Thus, its importance is undeniable. Sacred Scripture records, in particular, that certain sins against justice cry out to Heaven for vengeance. These include willful murder, the sin of Sodom, oppression of the poor, and defrauding laborers of their just wages. Because of their malice in that they are all sins against society, they seem to call for punishment by a special act of Divine Justice. [See Gen. 4:10, Gen. 19:13, Ex. 22:22-23, and Deut. 24:15.] It is interesting to note how moderns look at each of these �sins�. The latter contain far more weight for them than the former. We rightfully see them making constant calls for concern in regard to oppression of the poor, and for just wages. But somehow the former are totally ignored in that these same �compassionate� moderns have no trouble whatsoever with killing innocents in their mothers� wombs, and promoting any and all forms of sexual hedonism to include the most unnatural of acts as alternative lifestyles in an affirmative action civil rights sense to the total disregard of any �common good� concepts. The irony that without people there are no peace and social justice issues escapes them. Unfortunately, it also escapes conferences of Catholic bishops who do exactly the same thing by subtly telling the faithful in documents purporting to give a �consistent moral ethic� that killing babies is on the same level as peace and social justice issues. This is done using buzz phrases like �seamless garment� and �common ground� � the net effect of which is to make Catholics comfortable with voting for pro-abort politicians. What a scandal this is to any definition of justice understood in the Christian sense!



Aquinas defines justice as �the perpetual and constant will to render to each one his right.� [See ST II-II, Q. 58, a. 1.] Justice is always toward another. So we start to see why a Solzhenitsyn would criticize modern man for always taking his own rights as his primary consideration and neglecting to speak about his duty in regard to the effect of his rights claims toward his fellow man. The modern first considers his own subjective claim or want, thereby neglecting what he owes to the community or another, which is his duty.



The moral and political landscape of America today is dominated by the discourse of rights. What started as a careful delineation of political prerogatives and protections as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution has devolved into the chaos of a free-for-all of personal and collective claims and counter-claims. Serious concerns regarding life and death issues have been grouped with frivolous matters involving the legitimization of any felt need, regardless of how insane, with no concern whatsoever for societal common good. Frivolous rights claims are frequently used to justify any course of action that an individual has chosen; at least if accompanied with the proviso that it does not harm anyone. What we see is a completely subjectivist situation ethic that has enveloped rights discourse causing confusion and disorder. It�s Kantian �I�m OK, you�re OK� with the moderns being able to define their own rights universes as they see fit with no concern to the inevitable collision with their neighbors� in the absence of universal, absolute, moral norms that are immutable. One can legitimately ask, at this point, �Am I really OK with societal acceptance of your vices?� Or more to the point, �Are you really OK?� Is killing babies in their mothers� wombs, promoting the filth of homosexual behavior, and allowing people to kill themselves at their whim when they get tired of living, really conducive to a healthy, well-ordered society? Is this type of activity tending toward societal common good? The answer should be easy to anyone still capable of rational thought? The fact that it isn�t in America speaks volumes to the extent that this country has been morally dumbed-down to such a level that wrong is indistinguishable from right. When the president of a major university has difficulty defining �what wrong is� in relation to his university�s promotion of aberrant sexual behavior at taxpayer expense, as was the case with the President of Penn State during a recent House hearing in Harrisburg when he was asked if it was wrong for his university to sanction the most unimaginable sexual pornographic filth, then you know that you have major problems. THE problem, of course, is the absence of �duty� in relation to �rights� claims.



It is to be recognized that there is a distinct difference between genuine rights claims rooted in a natural rights or natural law foundation, and those that aren�t. The former is needed, for example, to protect the claims of religion from unwarranted state intrusion, to protect vulnerable members of society, and to influence public policy for the common good. The latter is a function of rights discourse based on assumptions about human nature and the moral order that run contrary to the very things that are to be protected � assumptions involving unbounded freedom, unlimited free speech, or an individualist conception of the political order where each man possesses a universe of rights unto himself, defined solely for his convenience with no thought to the consequences for his neighbor or society as a whole. This is the caution that Solzhenitsyn was alerting Americans to � specifically, the confusion of authentic freedom, doing what you ought with a duty to your fellow man, with license, doing what you want selfishly and to heck with your fellow man. Solzhenitsyn was onto something. He saw that America was constructing its own politically correct gulags that allowed for no opposition. He saw that America was making itself slaves to its own appetites in the skewed name of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with no thought at all to violations of nature�s law and an obedience owed to its Author for the sake of the common good. He saw no difference with his gulags and those of a modern hypocritical America that had forgotten the real meaning of its founding documents, or what at least, should have been their real meaning, not in a Lockean sense where Locke tried to make Hobbes�s Leviathan palatable, but rather in a sense of a pressing need for a sound philosophy of human rights rooted in nature and nature�s Author.



Such a sound philosophy of human rights has as its core the realization that rights possess a strict correlative duty, and are not dominions over things to use as one pleases. It rejects completely any premise that human freedom is the fundamental moral fact, not virtue, or divine command. It does not lower the goal and mission of the temporal order away from the inculcation of virtue and the defense of the faith to the sole protection of the temporal welfare of its citizens. It does not put a premium on natural self-preservation at the expense of the supernatural. It allows for no confusion in this regard. It is not ambivalent in that it gives the appearances of a theistic tradition while underwriting a model of radical human autonomy in which unlimited freedom dominates the moral order. It does not lower the goal of the state to a merely neutral position, imposing a minimal obligation of non-harm, thereby ultimately encouraging self-interest � the legacy of Locke. In short, per Jacques Maritain, it is theocentric as opposed to anthropocentric where rights are rooted in the natural law and its Author instead of man�s will and freedom � the latter allowing for escaping every objective measure, and denying every limitation imposed upon the claims of the ego, a concern of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 207
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 207
Quote
Originally posted by incognitus:
[QB] "Father thought of everything...mass kit, monstrance, prayer books for adoration, bullhorn, crucifix, incense, Holy water, everything."

Can I be the only person who is startled by the presence of a bullhorn on that list?
He brought the bullhorn to lead the faithful in the Rosary during the march on Sunday, knowing that it would be a noisy event and that the 35 people with him would not be able to hear him otherwise.

It was not used for anything but the public recitation of the prayers during the pro-abortion march and at the abortion clinics.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 92
new
Offline
new
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 92
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13evl.htm

ON THE EVILS OF SOCIETY
INSCRUTABILI DEI CONSILIO

Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII promulgated on April 21, 1878.


6. Furthermore, that kind of civilization which conflicts with the doctrines and laws of holy Church is nothing but a worthless imitation and meaningless name. Of this those peoples on whom the Gospel light has never shown afford ample proof, since in their mode of life a shadowy semblance only of civilization is discoverable, while its true and solid blessings have never been possessed. Undoubtedly, that cannot by any means be accounted the perfection of civilized life which sets all legitimate authority boldly at defiance; nor can that be regarded as liberty which, shamefully and by the vilest means, spreading false principles, and freely indulging the sensual gratification of lustful desires, claims impunity for all crime and misdemeanor, and thwarts the goodly influence of the worthiest citizens of whatsoever class. Delusive, perverse, and misleading as are these principles, they cannot possibly have any inherent power to perfect the human race and fill it with blessing, for "sin maketh nations miserable."[3] Such principles, as a matter of course, must hurry nations, corrupted in mind and heart, into every kind of infamy, weaken all right order, and thus, sooner or later, bring the standing and peace of the State to the very brink of ruin.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 92
new
Offline
new
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 92
I recently attended the first meeting of a Byzantine Catholic Mission to be established in State College, PA. Please pray for the intercession of Saint Basil, for whom it will be named, for its success! Thank you, and God bless!

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 92
new
Offline
new
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 92
In regard to the PC evolution of sexual perversion to sexual deviance to sexual preference to sexual orientation by militant homosexual activists, it must be remembered that the truth is that we're talking about perverse sexual acts. Anything else is a concession using the language of the father-of-lies, which is why when addressing the militant homosexual movement the word sodomite is in order. We cannot shirk here because we're dealing with individuals who demand to be made comfortable with their vices under force of law. We're not talking about just leave us alone anymore. Rather, we're talking about you better accept our aberrant behavior or else! That is not the kind of world that I want to leave to my children and grandchildren.

Father Harvey, the director for COURAGE, said that one of the biggest mistakes that he ever made was to title one of his books, The Homosexual Person, which does not exist. It could not because that would mean that inclinations to unnatural acts define who you are as a person, which is a lie.

The Church has an obligation to speak out on these matters, telling it like it is. It does not matter if the Church receives exemptions from the state as to toeing the line in regard to the militant sodomite agenda. The Church is called to witness to the world for salvation's sake.

Please see the following from then Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect for the CDF.

-----------------------

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 1992

Some Considerations Concerning the Catholic Response

to Legislative Proposals on the

Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons

3. "As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one�s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood" (no. 7).

4. In reference to the homosexual movement, the Letter states: "One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination" (no. 9).

5. "There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups� concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved" (no. 9).

6. "She (the Church) is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society�s understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy" (no. 9).

7. ... when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one as any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase" (no. 10).

10. "Sexual orientation" does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non- discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. "Letter," no. 3).

11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the consignment of children to adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or coaches, and in military recruitment.

13. Including "homosexual orientation" among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so- called affirmative action, the filling of quotas in hiring practices. This is all the more mistaken since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. no. 10) which therefore should not form the judicial basis for claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection of homosexuality. A person�s homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.

15. Since in assessing proposed legislation uppermost concern should be given to the responsibility to defend and promote family life (cf. no. 17), most careful attention should be paid to the single provisions of proposed measures. How would they effect [sic] adoption or foster care? Would they protect homosexual acts, public or private? Do they confer equivalent family status on homosexual unions, for example, in respect to public housing or by entitling the homosexual partner to the privileges of employment which might include "family" participation in the health benefits given to employees (cf. no. 9)?

16. Finally, since a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for Church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to Church organizations and institutions. The Church has the responsibility to promote the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws (cf. no. 17).

--------------

It has been widely touted by homosexual advocates that the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations no longer include homosexuality on their disorder lists. The former group no longer includes pedophilia, sadism and masochism as disorders, depending upon which tortured version of the Diagnostic and Statistics manual is currently being referenced, and is now constructing the profile of the "psychologically normal" pedophile, sadist, and masochist in the same manner as they did for the homosexual. In the context of a school setting, is the American Psychiatric Association telling parents that there is no problem with their children being exposed to publicly avowed pedophiliacs, sadists, and masochists? After all, these "former disorders" come under the heading of sexual orientation.

Evidently, the answer is yes since these "orientations" are no longer considered "disorders" by the APA. Similarly, parents are expected to accept, with no questions asked, heterosexuals with homosexual tendencies who are proud of it via public pronouncements, moreover who believe it to be a cause for celebration or pride by the districts de facto legitimization of it as a cause for nondiscrimination. This is nonsense! Parents have a right as do school districts to be discriminating in who they allow their children to be exposed to for one basic reason, the school acts in place of the parent by law with the understanding that the parents are the PRIMARY educators of their children. The school supports parents in this regard. If parents cease to be discriminating and, by default, school districts which are subordinate to the parents role, they act irresponsibly. This becomes a more egregious offense when the state deems activities acceptable that have been traditionally regarded as "intrinsically disordered" as held by many faiths binding to believers. There is much talk about "separation of Church and State" when it comes to those who would erase any references to God in the founding documents of this country. But the silence is deafening when the state takes it upon themselves to ram an "amoral belief system" down the throats of a tax-paying public to the total exclusion of any considerations whatsoever of those who, for reasons of conscience, cannot abide by same. What about their rights?

"Sexual orientation" the term most commonly used to denote someone�s patterns of attraction suggests a more or less permanent condition, present from birth, something that directs a person�s thoughts and actions. This term is problematic in the extreme given the fact that there has been absolutely no conclusive evidence to date that anything resembling a gay-gene exists. Even if it did, would that detract from the fact that the action performed is abnormal? Similar arguments have been applied to alcoholics and serial killers.

The confusion, says clinical psychologist Joseph Nicolosi, arises because much of the discussion is driven by social activism rather than hard science. Nicolosi is co-founder of the 1000 member National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). "Developmental disorder" was the term most commonly applied to the homosexual condition until 1973. An increasing number of mental-health professionals including NARTH favor recovery of this understanding of homosexuality as an illness.

Making sexual orientation a cause for nondiscrimination says that orientation to objectively disordered behavior is acceptable. Nicolosi says "homosexuality is not a natural alternative lifestyle; rather 1) it is a developmental disorder, 2) its causes and predictors are very well documented, 3) it is treatable in adulthood, 4) it is highly associated with self-defeating and self destructive behaviors, pathology, and maladaptation, and 5) the four previous points have been politically buried or denied."

Nicolosi points out that all the major studies reported in the early 1990s were conducted by gay researchers or by activists who promoted the gay agenda. "It�s amazing that the same people who accept these studies will dismiss organizations like NARTH for supposed bias," he said.

Thus the scientific bases for what some researchers call "constitutional homosexuality" was weakened. The most widely accepted research still points toward environmental factors such as the role of parents, an early seduction or peer rejection.

In 1973 the board of trustees of the American Psychiatric Association closely followed by the American Psychological Association voted no longer to classify homosexuality as a disorder, but as a normal variant of sexual expression.

The decision was confirmed, by a 6-to-4 margin, in a vote of APA membership, hardly a ringing endorsement. Four years later, a survey found that 69 percent of APA members still considered homosexuality "pathological." Nicolosi says, however, that this is a diagnosis that dares not speak its name.

"Though many mental-health professionals see homosexuality as a disorder," he said, "few are willing to say so publicly. It�s not politically correct, and they would be harassed, called bigoted and homophobic, and charged with inciting hatred." But, said Nicolosi, the popular impressions remain, and they have repercussions. "The most important concept promoted by gay activists is the idea that there are certain people for whom homosexuality is normal and natural," Nicolosi said, "and that these are homosexual persons."

The human person can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her so-called sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. The American Psychiatric Association ignores a basic incontrovertible fact of natural law - the primary tenet being that one tends toward what is good and avoids what is bad. Almost everyone would agree that the meaning of life has something to do with the pursuit of happiness regardless whether that be imperfect happiness in an Aristotelian sense restricted to the here and now or a more permanent supernatural happiness held by believers. How can something be normal and natural if it is self-destructive as is the case for homosexual lifestyles? Reference the inordinate number of deaths and disease in the homosexual community relative to the total population per statistics from the Center for Disease control.

We live in a world of intimidation, demagoguery, and spin-doctors where irrationalism insures that education is replaced with indoctrination. We see proponents of homosexual lifestyles demonizing all who dare get in the way of enforced acceptance of sexual perversion as a civil right. They scream that it�s not fair when our legislators go against their agenda confident in the fact that our representatives serve solely at their pleasure. They accuse the very people who care about them the most by telling them the truth of being insensitive overlooking the fact that there is something called a "common good" for society which carries precedence over "individual good." They confuse freedom, doing what you ought, with license, doing what you want.

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 207
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 207
Quote
I also think that labeling these individuals "sodomites" is not particularly helpful - in fact I think it is in its own way depersonalizing and in no way endears anyone (whether homosexual or not) to a particular point of view. I would rather win the hearts and minds of those who struggle with this issue, than to throw out labels. (If you were ministering to those who struggled with alcoholism, would you see it as pastorally wise to refer to them all as "drunks"?) I do not believe I am too far off in saying that there are some on this forum - lurkers or posters - who may struggle with this issue, even though they may not agree that it is either a sin or an "issue" at all. I would rather treat them with the same respect I would hope to receive were I struggling with some difficulty, addiction or sin in my own life. And homosexuality is a huge struggle for many people.
From "Recovering the Art of Christian Polemics"

http://www.tesm.edu/pubs/writings/articlee4ad
Quote
This is all, to a traditional Christian mind, obvious. But as soon as you try it, you will find yourself criticized, even in conservative Christian circles. You will find yourself called unkind, arrogant, and uncharitable; or divisive, troublemaking, and an impediment to mission; or harsh and strident; or simple-minded. You will be accused of sins against the person (the first set of charges), sins against the community (the second), sins against manners (the third), and sins against reason (the fourth).

You will hear this not only from the sentimental and the wooly-minded, who dislike polemics on principle, but from people who agree that Christians must write against error though they themselves shrink from the actual battle. This type will tell you that while Wilson is indeed an enemy of the Faith, you should have waited before writing against him (waited for what is almost never made clear), or treated his errors in a less combative way, or stressed the good work he is doing rather than the bad, or tried harder to find some common ground.

You may be told that you attract more flies with honey than vinegar. I have been told this more than once, by men who thought they were being profound or wise, or something. They did not make the distinction, basic and essential to pastoral judgment, between someone who must be corrected and someone who must be rebuked.

They assume that all such discourse must be aimed at the conversion of the heretic, and that the only way to convert him is to speak nicely to him. They have no good reason, in Scripture or in the example of the Fathers, for this idea.

Your critic may well be right in this or that case, but I have noticed that despite his theoretical approval for polemics you never find him writing polemically, except against the easiest of targets.

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 207
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 207
Quote
With that said, the "Gay Movement" to me is another issue altogether. This movement essentially seeks to enact a social shift in values, morals and structures by openly challenging or flagrantly mocking the sensibilities and traditions of those who hold to a Judeo-Christian perspective on human sexuality. Additionally, this movement also seeks to harness the influence of the media and the powers of the courts (primarily) and public education to impose the desires of a minority on the whole of society ("gay marriage" is a great example). The "Gay Movement" has an agenda to actively recruit others, including children, into the fold. This to me should be actively and vigorously opposed.

With that said, it is important to point out that not every person who is homosexual is part of this movement - although many are.

My two or three cents -

Gordo [/QB]
This is an important distinction, Gordo. Thank you for pointing it out.

We as Christians need to be very careful how we employ terminology.

The best terminology we can use for those afflicted with "same sex attraction" is the scientifically, psychologically, and theologically correct term "Same Sex Attraction Disorder." (SSAD) And there are many individuals who, though afflicted with SSAD, live a life of chastity and virtue.

This term recognizes that same sex attraction is indeed intrinsically disordered. It refuses to accept the false notion that a same sex attraction disorder defines the personhood of the individual. For this reason, calling someone afflicted with SSAD a "homosexual" is an insult to their intrinsic value as a human being made in the image and likeness of God. It is a lie. No man is defined by a character defect or psychological disorder.

Someone who labels themself a "gay" has not only accepted the mis-appelation of the term "homosexual" but has made a public statement that they are not only afflicted with SSAD but are also self-identifying as a "homosexual" -- and furthermore as a "homosexual" who is sexually active with those of the same sex. It is universally accepted now that someone who refers to themself as "gay" is not living a chaste life fighting their SSAD but is living an actively homosexual sex life.

Since there is nothing "gay" about being involved in sodomy, and the mortal sin and physical degradations that always accompany it, Christians must REFUSE to use the term "gay."

For those afflicted with SSAD and who insist on telling the world about it by the self-appelation of the term "gay," the proper terminology for them is a "sodomite."

They are militant in their SSAD, they are militant in the fact they engage in sodomy, they desire to destroy any public criticism of their behavior, and they desire to make illegal and culturally unacceptable any Christian witness against the depravity of their agenda and lifestyle.

Therefore, using the terms related to sodomy regarding these militants is not only appropriate but necessary.

Otherwise, we must not use the word "prostitute," and instead call them "sex industry workers."

We must not use the term "incest" but instead employ some other politically correct euphemism like "interfamilial love relationships."

We must not call it "pederasty" or "pedophilia" but instead call it "intergenerational love relationships."

We must not call it bestiality but "interspecies love."

Where will it end?

I reject the notion that employing the term "sodomite" in its proper context is in any way wrong or uncharitable. It does the sinner no good to employ their preferred euphemisms so that you are in effect confirming them in their self deception and self destruction. By using THEIR preferred terms, you fail in speaking the Truth in season and out of season.

Quote
If you were ministering to those who struggled with alcoholism, would you see it as pastorally wise to refer to them all as "drunks"?
No, but even the alcoholic must admit to himself that he is an alcoholic before he is able to change.

Calling them a sodomite is no different than calling an alcoholic an alcoholic.

Calling a sodomite "gay" is no better than calling an alcoholic a "drunk."

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Euphemisms that deny reality are lies.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
Dear Doc Brian - thanks for the link to the David Mills piece; I enjoyed reading it and it would repay a serious analysis - which is not to say I agree with every word, but it's well-thought-out and well worth reading.

Incognitus

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,231
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,231
Quote
Originally posted by djs:
Quote
Gay pride parades are licentious
It is fair to say that at the St. Patrick's day parade in Boston, when I lived in the area, there was considerable licentiousness - mainly in public drunkeness and disorderliness. It was, in fact, a disgrace to many, many people in Irish community. It would be a stretch, however, to say that that parade or any parade "is" licentious. But, as incognitus already mentioned, there are remedies that already exist against unlawful behavior.

Quote
No Catholic who understands the Faith can in good conscience "support" a gay pride parade.
I am not sure about your words, exactly. Especially when the key word in in quotes. I support the right of all people in this country to assemble to speak, and to parade. I do this independent of agenda, and with no implication of support for any unlawful behavior.

And what of the Mardi Gras/Carnivale parades of New Orleans and many other cities (who are jumping on board with them)? There's drunkeness, licentiousness, nudity, lewdity, and most of it is by those who are of OSAO (Opposite Sex Attraction Ordered). And they're much better attended than gay pride parades could ever hope to be. When the start of Lent comes, are these people in church?

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186
I've never gone to Mardi Gras and don't ever intend to do so. It is perverse as well. That ought to be stopped. Licentiousness is evil wherever it is found.

Dan L

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
D
djs Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
I found the Mills article interesting too.

ISTM that the trick is to know what you are doing, which is not so easy.

In some situations it may be best to pray alone, in others to exhort the individual in private, in others to speak out forcefully in public. Sometimes like the father praying patiently for his prodigal son; sometimes like Christ who first dismissed the mob in shame and secured the safety of the adulteress, before privately calling her to repentence; and sometimes like Christ with the Pharisees. Sometimes the good shepherd, but dusting off sandals at others.

Correctly sizing up the situation is not easy for mere mortals; it should be approached with appropriate humility. If - hypothetically - you are applying the Pharisee treatment to the adultress of scripture, then, from the very example of Christ, you are objectively getting it wrong, and these words of Wells apply:

Quote
The early Christians did not seem to have a place for what we would call "honest mistakes" or "legitimate differences of opinion" ... They saw that those in error were really in danger ... They would not try to jolly them along ... No, they were rebuked ...
And if in that case:

Quote
You will find yourself called unkind, arrogant, and uncharitable; or divisive, troublemaking, and an impediment to mission; or harsh and strident; or simple-minded. ... accused of sins against the person ...
then such words to you are good Christian polemics. It would be base euphemism to say otherwise.

What is the right approach? It is hard to predict. But after the fact, one could do some assement. How many people have been brought to Christ, versus turned away, by a Christian publically calling them a abomination or sodomite?

A final point. Mills writes about the Pharisee-treatment for ostensible Christians who are getting wrong, and moreover preaching it wrong. He is not writing about evangelizing non-Christians. That might give a hint about the right approach.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
So now Mardi Gras is on the Index of Prohibited Parades? I've never gone to New Orleans for Mardi Gras and probably never will, but Mardi Gras has been around a lot longer than gay pride parades and the city fathers of New Orleans are unlikely to appreciate efforts by Mrs Grundy and the Bluestockings to abolish it. Come to think of it, the Puritans tried to abolish Christmas.

Me, I think pecan pralines (made in New Orleans for Mardi Gras) are delicious and I shall think of you fondly (but not THAT fondly) the next time I eat some.

What's your stand on popcorn? Agin that too?

Incognitus

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 207
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 207
Quote
How many people have been brought to Christ, versus turned away, by a Christian publically calling them a ... sodomite?
I don't personally use the word, "abomination." So that is a moot point.

To call them "gay" is to buy into their lie that there is anything whatsoever "gay" about physically dangerous and gravely immoral sexual behavior. So a Christian, in good conscience, must not use that term.

To call them "homosexual" is a violation of their worth as an individual made in the image and likeness of God who cannot, by nature, be indentifird by a moral and psychological disorder. So a Christian, in good conscience, must not use that term.


All that is left is to refer to individuals as "afflicted with Same Sex Attraction Disorder."

But this makes no distinction between the individual afflicted with Same Sex Attraction Disorder who is living a chaste life and fighting that disorder, and the individual afflicted with Same Sex Attraction Disorder who is living the self-destructive and mortally sinful lie of the sodomite lyfestyle.

So given the terminology available, the only two options available are "SSAD" and "sodomite."

I won't apologize for that, and neither will I stand by as (hopefully) misguided folks try to claim that the term "sodomite" is unnaceptable or an epithet.

Page 7 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Moderated by  Irish Melkite, theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5