The Liturgical Chronicle
Athanasius
The Liturgical Chronicle
July 24th, 1999
Vol. 2, no. 15
No special feast (Novus Ordo)
Feast of St. Christina, virgin and martyr (Tridentine)
The Catholic Liturgical Library
http://www.catholicliturgy.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS:
1. What's new at The Catholic Liturgical Library
2. New Book: Lodging in Italy's Monasteries
3. Trivia
4. Homiletic & Pastoral Review (advertisement)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. WHAT'S NEW
Help spread orthodox liturgical teaching by forwarding this newsletter
to
priests, friends and liturgy committees.
We have updated the Calendar section of the site in order to provide
a greater variety of information including books and external links.
http://www.catholicliturgy.com/seasons/liturgicalyear.shtml
Two new articles have been added:
Neglected Patrimony,from Sursum Corda!, is a look back at traditional
holy cards.
http://www.catholicliturgy.com/article/scholycard.shtml
A Report from the 12th Century, from Catholic Dossier, is excerpts from
a book by Abbot Suger about his plans for the first true Gothic church:
the Abbey of St. Denis, France.
http://www.catholicliturgy.com/article/dosreport12thcent.shtml
The complete Latin/English text of the Tridentine Marriage rite and
the rest of the text for the Tridentine Mass has been added.
Marriage rite
http://www.catholicliturgy.com/the_mass/trimarriage.shtml
Mass
http://www.catholicliturgy.com/the_mass/tridentine1.shtml
New links have been added to:
Catholic Family Radio
http://www.catholicfamilyradio.com
A brand new source of Catholic inspiration on the air and
online.
Abbey of St. Peter of Solesmes
http://www.solesmes.com/anglais/ang_solesmes.html
The birthplace of the Gregorian chant renewal.
Gregorian Chant
http://siul.rc.ipt.br/cantgreg/index_eng.htm
Chant samples from the Benedictine Abbey of Sao Paulo, Brazil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. NEW BOOK: Lodging in Italy's Monasteries
Lodging in Italy's Monasteries is a complete source of information
for this money-saving idea for Italian travel. Contains prices,
addresses, histories and pictures.
Read more about this book online:
http://www.catholicliturgy.com/bookstore
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. TRIVIA
The Kyrie was not part of the Roman rite Mass until the fifth century.
It appears to have been adopted from the Oriental liturgies which
had already been using it for at least one hundred years.
Learn more about the history of the Kyrie:
http://www.catholicliturgy.com/history/kyrie.shtml
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. HOMILETIC & PASTORAL REVIEW (advertisement)
Is Catholic Doctrine Pastoral?
Yes, according to America's leading pastoral magazine.
Homiletic & Pastoral Review (HPR) refuses to act like Catholic
doctrine and sound pastoral practice are enemies. With John Paul II,
we believe that "what is doctrinal is not opposed to what is pastoral."
Doctrine is, after all, about the truth. And the truth, as Jesus taught,
sets us free. Pastoral ministry that isn't based on the truth won't free
people. And yet doctrine that isn't applied - that's not practiced as
well as preached - won't either. That's why each issue of HPR
gives readers both sound teaching and genuine pastoral application.
HPR provides:
* First-rate articles by great Catholic writers on doctrine and
authentic pastoral practice.
* Answers to your questions by one of today's top moral
theologians.
* Outstanding homilies for Sundays and holy days of obligation.
* Reviews of the latest and best Catholic books.
Homiletic & Pastoral Review is essential reading for anyone
concerned with the Church's pastoral ministry.
$26/1 year (11 issues)
$48/2 years (22 issues)
Homiletic & Pastoral Review
P.O. Box 591810
San Francisco, CA
94159-1810
1-800-651-1531
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the library at:
http://www.catholicliturgy.com
Shop the bookstore at:
http://www.catholicliturgy.com/bookstore/
Want more detail about new items in the library?
http://www.catholicliturgy.com/whats_new.shtml
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the card catalog:
http://www.catholicliturgy.com/card_catalog.shtml
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Whitman
athanasius
>
Why spam? People post new links, site updates, and recommended books on
these ngs all the time. This is a Catholic topic, posted only to
Catholic ngs and I don't even make any money off of it.
RobinOak
Oscar Whitman wrote:
OSCAR!!!!!!!! <biiiig hug! TellyTubby Style!> ;-)
How are you???
Oscar Whitman
> OSCAR!!!!!!!! <biiiig hug! TellyTubby Style!> ;-)
>
> How are you???
<fixing his mussed purple triangle hair after all that hugging>
Ornery as ever!
And hotter'n Georgia asphalt in July. And you?
Oscar
RobinOak
>
> RobinOak wrote:
>
> > OSCAR!!!!!!!! <biiiig hug! TellyTubby Style!> ;-)
> >
> > How are you???
>
> <fixing his mussed purple triangle hair after all that hugging>
Here, dear, let me pick up your purple handbag for you, too.... there.
Triangle nicely back in place? Good!
(When that all happened, I went on a private "SAVE THE TINKSTER!"
campaign. Poor little Tink. The next thing you know, they'll be
Barney-Bashing, too....)
> Ornery as ever!
Me too!
Back in the arms of Motha Church, I just heard myself suggesting (in
order to solve the pesky 'common ground' issue of liturgical dress) that
priests go skyclad whilst serving.
(You have to admit, it would solve the problem.... little drafty, tho.
Oh well. Back to the drawing board!)
> And hotter'n Georgia asphalt in July. And you?
I'm good, good. Hey, if you're in town tomorrow night, stop in. We're
having our annual mass specially dedicated to the gay & lesbian
community in our church.
Be there or be square. Bring the Tinkster, too. <g>
Oscar Whitman
> Oscar Whitman wrote:
> >
> > RobinOak wrote:
> >
> > > OSCAR!!!!!!!! <biiiig hug! TellyTubby Style!> ;-)
> > >
> > > How are you???
> >
> > <fixing his mussed purple triangle hair after all that hugging>
>
> Here, dear, let me pick up your purple handbag for you, too.... there.
> Triangle nicely back in place? Good!
Thanks!
> (When that all happened, I went on a private "SAVE THE TINKSTER!"
> campaign. Poor little Tink. The next thing you know, they'll be
> Barney-Bashing, too....)
He appeared at gay pride parades everywhere this summer. I guess that thing
with Falwell spurred him into action. And we *still* don't know if he's
really gay!
> > Ornery as ever!
>
> Me too!
>
> Back in the arms of Motha Church, I just heard myself suggesting (in
> order to solve the pesky 'common ground' issue of liturgical dress) that
> priests go skyclad whilst serving.
Skyclad? Hmmm...now *that* could bring me back to Church on Sunday,
depending on...oh well, forget it.
> (You have to admit, it would solve the problem.... little drafty, tho.
Especially in winter.
> Oh well. Back to the drawing board!)
(I'll bet that's one entertaining drawing board)
> > And hotter'n Georgia asphalt in July. And you?
>
> I'm good, good. Hey, if you're in town tomorrow night, stop in. We're
> having our annual mass specially dedicated to the gay & lesbian
> community in our church.
I'll bet the church will look...FABULOUS! Now that's one thing you don't see
around here. I thank you and your loving community for your support.
> Be there or be square. Bring the Tinkster, too. <g>
We'll be there in spirit..
Oscar
Stephanie Rendino
Oscar Whitman wrote:
> RobinOak wrote:
>
> > (When that all happened, I went on a private "SAVE THE TINKSTER!"
> > campaign. Poor little Tink. The next thing you know, they'll be
> > Barney-Bashing, too....)
>
> He appeared at gay pride parades everywhere this summer. I guess that thing
> with Falwell spurred him into action. And we *still* don't know if he's
> really gay!
TW made the cover of one of the free weekly papers here, special for Pride Day.
Me, I think that TW is too young to have a sexual orientation. They're supposed
to be small childlike creatures after all.
Besides, what self-respecting gay man would wear royal blue with a vinyl red
purse. Ick!
Oscar Whitman
> Oscar Whitman wrote:
>
> > RobinOak wrote:
> >
> > > (When that all happened, I went on a private "SAVE THE TINKSTER!"
> > > campaign. Poor little Tink. The next thing you know, they'll be
> > > Barney-Bashing, too....)
> >
> > He appeared at gay pride parades everywhere this summer. I guess that thing
> > with Falwell spurred him into action. And we *still* don't know if he's
> > really gay!
>
> TW made the cover of one of the free weekly papers here, special for Pride Day.
>
> Me, I think that TW is too young to have a sexual orientation. They're supposed
> to be small childlike creatures after all.
Which made Falwell seem even more ridiculous. Still, I hope TW grows up to be gay.
> Besides, what self-respecting gay man would wear royal blue with a vinyl red
> purse. Ick!
He'll learn in time -- give him some room, Steph! Anyway, aren't the Tubbies
British? (nothing against the tastes of the Brits, whom I love in general).
Oscar
Stephanie Rendino
Oscar Whitman wrote:
> Stephanie Rendino wrote:
>
> > TW made the cover of one of the free weekly papers here, special for Pride Day.
> >
> > Me, I think that TW is too young to have a sexual orientation. They're supposed
> > to be small childlike creatures after all.
>
> Which made Falwell seem even more ridiculous. Still, I hope TW grows up to be gay.
Falwell never claimed it, although his paper did. He denied strenuously that TW was
gay after watching an episode or two, saying that he would never say something about
such a large gentle creature. Now, for the nice people, saying someone is gay is not
an insult. But at least he acknowledged the sweetness that is Tinky-Winky.
>
>
> > Besides, what self-respecting gay man would wear royal blue with a vinyl red
> > purse. Ick!
>
> He'll learn in time -- give him some room, Steph! Anyway, aren't the Tubbies
> British? (nothing against the tastes of the Brits, whom I love in general).
Yup. It's a "dubbed into the American" version that airs on PBS.
Oscar Whitman
I have to confess that I've sat at my breakfast nook chomping on Cap'n Crunch watching
the Tubbies show, and no matter what else is happening in the world, I can't bring myself
to change the channel until they've all said "Bye".
Oscar the Grouch
Stephanie Rendino
Oscar Whitman wrote:
> I have to confess that I've sat at my breakfast nook chomping on Cap'n Crunch watching
> the Tubbies show, and no matter what else is happening in the world, I can't bring myself
> to change the channel until they've all said "Bye".
I start my day with coffee and Teletubbies!
Anybody who wants a picture of the Montreal Ici (weekly newspaper) cover, e-mail me and I'll
forward it to them.
RobinOak
> RobinOak wrote:
[]
> > (When that all happened, I went on a private "SAVE THE TINKSTER!"
> > campaign. Poor little Tink. The next thing you know, they'll be
> > Barney-Bashing, too....)
>
> He appeared at gay pride parades everywhere this summer. I guess that thing
> with Falwell spurred him into action. And we *still* don't know if he's
> really gay!
>
Actually Barney's sex life doesn't concern me. Barney is cool. :) He's
a nice little purple dinosaur....
> > > Ornery as ever!
> >
> > Me too!
> >
> > Back in the arms of Motha Church, I just heard myself suggesting (in
> > order to solve the pesky 'common ground' issue of liturgical dress) that
> > priests go skyclad whilst serving.
>
> Skyclad? Hmmm...now *that* could bring me back to Church on Sunday,
> depending on...oh well, forget it.
<grin.....smacking Oscar's wrist...>
Celibacy is celibacy, my dear. As was said in the sermon last night
"Chastity is the great leveller" <ie, applies to straights & gays
equally>
> > (You have to admit, it would solve the problem.... little drafty, tho.
>
> Especially in winter.
>
> > Oh well. Back to the drawing board!)
>
> (I'll bet that's one entertaining drawing board)
<I honestly can HEAR JC saying, "if xyz offends you, pluck it
out/off"....>
> > > And hotter'n Georgia asphalt in July. And you?
> >
> > I'm good, good. Hey, if you're in town tomorrow night, stop in. We're
> > having our annual mass specially dedicated to the gay & lesbian
> > community in our church.
>
> I'll bet the church will look...FABULOUS!
As in "Fabulous are they...?" <g>
No it was more than fabulous. It was GREAT! The MUSIC, oh MY, every
song they picked was GORGEOUS. <sniffle> A lot of D. Haas & M. Haugen.
And a cantor that was from heaven. And, we had FOURTEEN CELEBRANTS,
Oscar, FOURTEEN!! <I counted> Two from Lutheran churches, one from I
think maybe Episcopalian or maybe Methodist <maybe>, the rest RCC
priests. The sermon and the reflections given afterwards were just
wonderful.
Also wonderful was seeing gay people in church together with their
parents. That was more than fabulous.
The service sheet was done in lavender. All the decorations at the
reception afterwards, were also in purple & lavender. <I ran out to an
El Cheapo store just before, and found a purple caftan to wear. I was
determined to find something in purple to show up in....>
> Now that's one thing you don't see
> around here.
Well, how far are you from me? C'mon down, as they say! Next year. Be
there or be square. <If you wanna know where I live, email me and I
will Reveal All>
> I thank you and your loving community for your support.
>
> > Be there or be square. Bring the Tinkster, too. <g>
>
Oops, I said that already....
> We'll be there in spirit..
>
> Oscar
The opening song was "All are Welcome".... :)
Stephanie Rendino
RobinOak wrote:
> Oscar Whitman wrote:
>
> > RobinOak wrote:
> []
>
> > > (When that all happened, I went on a private "SAVE THE TINKSTER!"
> > > campaign. Poor little Tink. The next thing you know, they'll be
> > > Barney-Bashing, too....)
> >
> > He appeared at gay pride parades everywhere this summer. I guess that thing
> > with Falwell spurred him into action. And we *still* don't know if he's
> > really gay!
> >
>
> Actually Barney's sex life doesn't concern me. Barney is cool. :) He's
> a nice little purple dinosaur....
Aaieee! How can you SAY that? Barney is the one childrens' show I cannot
support at all. Most of the others foster imagination and individualism, but
Barney is all about being a member of a group, and following a leader. The one
episode that tore it for me was Barney and his friends talking about things to
do. Each kid would suggest an activity, then Barney would choose HOW they would
do it. If a kid wanted to sing a song, Barney said what song they'd sing. If
one of them wanted to play dress-up, Barney said what clothes. Finally, they all
did a puzzle and Barney was in the centre of the puzzle. Creeped me out to no
end. At least when the voice trumpets give the Teletubbies orders, they run
away!
RobinOak
Stephanie Rendino wrote:
[]
> >
> > Actually Barney's sex life doesn't concern me. Barney is cool. :) He's
> > a nice little purple dinosaur....
>
> Aaieee! How can you SAY that?
Uh.... <gulp> Because I don't watch Barney, and never have??
I just know the kids like him. <and I don't think B. *has* a sex life,
despite what Mr Falwell might like to think....>
Barney is the one childrens' show I cannot
> support at all. Most of the others foster imagination and individualism, but
> Barney is all about being a member of a group, and following a leader.
Eeeeyooou. Sounds like a group of Hitler Jugend, he's raising....
Oscar Whitman
[]
> Also wonderful was seeing gay people in church together with their
> parents. That was more than fabulous.
I agree. That kind of church community is what will eventually turn the tide away
from ostracizing gays. I'm sure my own family would join such a celebration,
with a little encouragement, perhaps. Once they saw all the other families in
the pews, they wouldn't feel so hesitant about it. The PFLAG (Parents and Friends
of Lesbians and Gays) contingent in our local Pride parade always gets the
strongest support and gratitude from the crowds. It's a real lift for everyone
involved.
Thanks, RO.
Oscar
Alan Craft
>
>Stephanie Rendino wrote:
>[]
>
>> >
>> > Actually Barney's sex life doesn't concern me. Barney is cool. :) He's
>> > a nice little purple dinosaur....
>>
>> Aaieee! How can you SAY that?
>
>
>Uh.... <gulp> Because I don't watch Barney, and never have??
DIE, BARNEY, DIE!!! :)
RobinOak
And it's a far cry from what I recall from 20 years ago, when I was in
high school... had a bunch of gay friends, and one damn near killed
himself rather than have his dad find out...... But with the bishops
supporting acceptance of people ("Always Our Children"), and with 14
celebrants there on the altar....
My Southern Baptist neighbor, when he found out where I was going last
night <dressed in a purple mu-mu no less>, thought the world had ended
and I'd finally gone off the deep end, when I told him where I was
going, why, and so forth. The eyes BOGGLED right out of the head. <I
think he may have had more tolerance for the fullmoon drumming circles
in the backyard, than for *this*>. I left him in a swirl of purple
batik, while throwing over my shoulder some attempted witticism about
'oh well you know we *Crazy Catholics*.... always rubbing oil on people
and throwing salt around.... and drinking wine....> <g>
His church wouldn't do this kind of thing. Not *hardly*. I heard the
same person once describe a public figure, who's suspected of being gay,
this way: "He probably isn't. He's a *good Christian*, and all...."
<like the one excludes the OTHER?? Like, there's a CHOICE, here??
HE-llo??> Events like the one the other night are a statement that the
one does NOT necessarily exclude the other! AND WE DID IT, IN OUR
CHURCH!! :D
Forgive me, but I am going to indulge myself in a <hopefully rare>
moment of parochial pride:
I am so proud of my church today.
<|:)
Why don't you come for next year's celebration? That would be
supercool.
james_...@my-deja.com
Stephanie Rendino <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
> RobinOak wrote:
>
> > Oscar Whitman wrote:
> >
> > > RobinOak wrote:
> > []
> >
TINKSTER!"
> > > > campaign. Poor little Tink. The next thing you know, they'll be
> > > > Barney-Bashing, too....)
> > >
> > > He appeared at gay pride parades everywhere this summer. I guess
that thing
> > > with Falwell spurred him into action. And we *still* don't know
if he's
> > > really gay!
> > >
> >
He's
> > a nice little purple dinosaur....
>
cannot
> support at all. Most of the others foster imagination and
individualism, but
> Barney is all about being a member of a group, and following a
leader.
Sounds like a fine metaphor for the Catholic church, to me :-)
>The one
> episode that tore it for me was Barney and his friends talking about
things to
> do. Each kid would suggest an activity, then Barney would choose HOW
they would
> do it. If a kid wanted to sing a song, Barney said what song they'd
sing. If
> one of them wanted to play dress-up, Barney said what clothes.
Finally, they all
> did a puzzle and Barney was in the centre of the puzzle. Creeped me
out to no
> end. At least when the voice trumpets give the Teletubbies orders,
they run
> away!
Hm. The concept behind Teletubbies is that it introduces the *very*
young (like, pre speaking and walking young) to technology in a cute,
fuzzy sort of way. Not so sure about the concept - I want technology
to be unnatural to my kids (as in, technology is not reality). All
three of my kids seem to like the show.
Barney's appeal, at least to my kids, is that it stars kids who can
sing and dance. Kids admire that. He's big on using your
imagination. The trouble is, watching a TV show that urges you to use
your imagination is like watching mass on TV - it's not quite the same
as doing it for real.
Now, Blue's Clues - THAT'S a kiddie show :-)
Jim
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Jim Hynes
RobinOak <robi...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:37A4EA8E...@mindspring.com...
[]
> And it's a far cry from what I recall from 20 years ago, when I was in
> high school... had a bunch of gay friends, and one damn near killed
> himself rather than have his dad find out......
And since the Church regards all human life as very precious and sacred, it
should make sure that nobody is feels themselves to be in such a position.
> But with the bishops supporting acceptance of people ("Always Our
> Children"), and with 14 celebrants there on the altar....
That is a big public sign of acceptance. Good for your bishops and your
parish.
> My Southern Baptist neighbor, when he found out where I was going last
> night <dressed in a purple mu-mu no less>, thought the world had ended
> and I'd finally gone off the deep end, when I told him where I was
> going, why, and so forth. The eyes BOGGLED right out of the head. <I
> think he may have had more tolerance for the fullmoon drumming circles
> in the backyard, than for *this*>.
Well, at least in that situation any *shenanigans* would probably have been
*heterosexual* shenanigans! ;-)
> I left him in a swirl of purple
> batik, while throwing over my shoulder some attempted witticism about
> 'oh well you know we *Crazy Catholics*.... always rubbing oil on people
> and throwing salt around.... and drinking wine....> <g>
Heavens! Drinkin' too!!
> His church wouldn't do this kind of thing. Not *hardly*. I heard the
> same person once describe a public figure, who's suspected of being gay,
> this way: "He probably isn't. He's a *good Christian*, and all...."
> <like the one excludes the OTHER?? Like, there's a CHOICE, here??
In his eyes, I suppose there must be.
> HE-llo??> Events like the one the other night are a statement that the
> one does NOT necessarily exclude the other! AND WE DID IT, IN OUR
> CHURCH!! :D
>
> Forgive me, but I am going to indulge myself in a <hopefully rare>
> moment of parochial pride:
You are right to.
I remember somebody mentioned "Always Our Children" as a statement issued by
the American Bishops Conference, I think? I know that even when Bishops say
good things like that, parishes often ignore the statements, or else think
that they apply to "somebody else" and not to themselves. So it is a
generous and courageous thing for your parish to do to actually BE OBEDIENT
TO THEIR BISHOPS over such a matter.
> I am so proud of my church today.
Not always so bad, is it?
> <|:)
>
> Why don't you come for next year's celebration? That would be
> supercool.
I'd love to!
Jim
Robert Pindell
mauritiu...@hotmail.com (Alan Craft) wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 17:36:06 -0400, RobinOak <robi...@mindspring.com> emanated:
>
>>
>>Stephanie Rendino wrote:
>>[]
>>
>>> >
>>> > Actually Barney's sex life doesn't concern me. Barney is cool. :) He's
>>> > a nice little purple dinosaur....
>>>
>>> Aaieee! How can you SAY that?
>>
>>
>>Uh.... <gulp> Because I don't watch Barney, and never have??
>
> DIE, BARNEY, DIE!!! :)
I am going to have to watch this thread with Stephanie, Oscar, Robin and Alan it is
got to take some wild turns. (And drive some of the other locals right up a wall.)
Bob
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
RobinOak
>
> RobinOak <robi...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:37A4EA8E...@mindspring.com...
>
> []
>
> > And it's a far cry from what I recall from 20 years ago, when I was in
> > high school... had a bunch of gay friends, and one damn near killed
> > himself rather than have his dad find out......
>
> And since the Church regards all human life as very precious and sacred, it
> should make sure that nobody is feels themselves to be in such a position.
Consistency: Always a Good Thing.....
>
> > But with the bishops supporting acceptance of people ("Always Our
> > Children"), and with 14 celebrants there on the altar....
>
> That is a big public sign of acceptance. Good for your bishops and your
> parish.
I really enjoyed it. And the music & everything really was "fabulous".
<smile> <right down to the lavender tablecloths afterwards....
therefore, the purple mu-mu. Moo-moo. Mumu. However you spell it....>
> > My Southern Baptist neighbor, when he found out where I was going last
> > night <dressed in a purple mu-mu no less>, thought the world had ended
> > and I'd finally gone off the deep end, when I told him where I was
> > going, why, and so forth. The eyes BOGGLED right out of the head. <I
> > think he may have had more tolerance for the fullmoon drumming circles
> > in the backyard, than for *this*>.
>
> Well, at least in that situation any *shenanigans* would probably have been
> *heterosexual* shenanigans! ;-)
A-HEM!! <g>
There have never been Shenanigans of that sort at my circles. My set
doesn't care for Shenanigans. Drumming, yes. Circling, yes. Invoking the
Great Gawdess Who Shall Not Be Mocked, yes. But no shenanigans.
> > I left him in a swirl of purple
> > batik, while throwing over my shoulder some attempted witticism about
> > 'oh well you know we *Crazy Catholics*.... always rubbing oil on people
> > and throwing salt around.... and drinking wine....> <g>
>
> Heavens! Drinkin' too!!
Yes, but not drinkin' with the goal of getting drunk.
<another difference>
> > His church wouldn't do this kind of thing. Not *hardly*. I heard the
> > same person once describe a public figure, who's suspected of being gay,
> > this way: "He probably isn't. He's a *good Christian*, and all...."
> > <like the one excludes the OTHER?? Like, there's a CHOICE, here??
>
> In his eyes, I suppose there must be.
That was the remark that really confused me. The implication was that
gays choose to be gay. <??> Who would choose something that is going to
provide all sorts of hassles, obstacles, and pain? <unless you're a
masochist, that is>
>
> > HE-llo??> Events like the one the other night are a statement that the
> > one does NOT necessarily exclude the other! AND WE DID IT, IN OUR
> > CHURCH!! :D
> >
> > Forgive me, but I am going to indulge myself in a <hopefully rare>
> > moment of parochial pride:
>
> You are right to.
>
> I remember somebody mentioned "Always Our Children" as a statement issued by
> the American Bishops Conference, I think? I know that even when Bishops say
> good things like that, parishes often ignore the statements, or else think
> that they apply to "somebody else" and not to themselves. So it is a
> generous and courageous thing for your parish to do to actually BE OBEDIENT
> TO THEIR BISHOPS over such a matter.
Yup.
<.....Wait till you hear what's cookin' for the jubilee year....again,
in *obedience* to the bishops.... a J&P extravaganza.....>
> > I am so proud of my church today.
>
> Not always so bad, is it?
Particularly since next year the Pope is going to apologize for the
Inquisition and the Crusades, et al.
Which includes the witchhunts & burnings <part of the Inquisition, no?
At least at times>
'Bout time. But, better late than never.
> > <|:)
Long live the pointy-hatted Catholic Witches!!!! LOL
> >
> > Why don't you come for next year's celebration? That would be
> > supercool.
>
> I'd love to!
"C'mon down to the South, honey!"
;-)
Stephen Patten
Oscar Whitman <dream...@wonderfulworld.net> wrote in message
news:37A38D40...@wonderfulworld.net...
> RobinOak wrote:
>
> []
>
> > Also wonderful was seeing gay people in church together with their
> > parents. That was more than fabulous.
>
> I agree. That kind of church community is what will eventually turn the
tide away
> from ostracizing gays. I'm sure my own family would join such a
celebration,
> with a little encouragement, perhaps. Once they saw all the other
families in
> the pews, they wouldn't feel so hesitant about it. The PFLAG (Parents and
Friends
> of Lesbians and Gays) contingent in our local Pride parade always gets the
> strongest support and gratitude from the crowds. It's a real lift for
everyone
> involved.
>
>
> Oscar
>
The Church is for sinners, so what is so special about one type of sinner
from another?
I hope this doesn't sound uncharitable, but I'm intrigued. Why does the
presence of gays make you proud? Is it because they've come to seek
forgiveness, like the rest of us, and strive to be more Christ like?
I can think of at least a dozen other categories of sinners that aren't
indulged as much as homosexuals -
I'm awaiting the pastoral letters aksing us to show tolerance and
understanding to murderers, racists and members of the World Bank/IMF.
Will I have to wait long?
Stephen Patten ( whose hoping that the members of Church will be charitable
to all sinners not jus the politically correct ones)
RoadPoet
rages.
Maybe it's because I'm from a big city that I have the tolerance for
people who are differnet than me or maybe it's this Christain thing
that is manifesting itself into my daily life. I don't know.
I will draw the line in condemning anyone outside my faith, sex, race,
etc. until I have concrete proof that I and my kind are indeed better
and more correct than everyone else.
Peace
Oscar Whitman
I don't believe that homosexuality is, in and of itself, a sin, anymore than I
would believe that heterosexuality is, in and of itself, a sin. That's where
your judgment stumbles.
Gay people in the church (and outside of the church) -- as evidenced by your own
response -- are among the most hated, misunderstood, ostracized and harrassed
people on the planet. In the topsy-turvy tradition of the gospel, it will
eventually come to pass and be known that the church was wrong about its bias
and gay people will take their place at the table. I'm grateful now for those
communities who are already shadowing that new reality in their own communities.
In other words, we're going to win. And it will be a win-win situation.
OW
Stephen Patten
Oscar Whitman <dream...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:37AC566C...@worldnet.att.net...
I suspected as much. Sadly it is not my judgment, stumbling or not, that
it important. It is the judgment of the Church that should concern you.
>
> Gay people in the church (and outside of the church) -- as evidenced by
your own
> response -- are among the most hated, misunderstood, ostracized and
harrassed
> people on the planet.
In the topsy-turvy tradition of the gospel, it will
> eventually come to pass and be known that the church was wrong about its
bias
> and gay people will take their place at the table. I'm grateful now for
those
> communities who are already shadowing that new reality in their own
communities.
>
> In other words, we're going to win. And it will be a win-win situation.
In what sense do you mean win? How can those who fall into mortal sin and
deny the sinfulness of their acts be considered winners? Luckily, or by
the grace of God, the sins I commit are still considered such. Hence,
mindful of my fallen state I can seek forgiveness. How does it benefit
those who indulge in homosexual acts to deny that what they are doing is
wrong?
Those in the Church that lead sinners to think their actions are perfectly
alright are doing their flock a huge dis-service. It is uncharitable in
the extreme.
Stephen Patten
>
> OW
>
>
>
>
>
Mark Johnson
>I don't believe that homosexuality is, in and of itself, a sin,
Neither is the temptation to drink, itself, but not so the sin,
violence and mayhem which follow someone unable to resist that
temptation.
>Gay people in the church (and outside of the church) -- as evidenced by your own
>response -- are among the most hated, misunderstood, ostracized and harrassed
>people on the planet.
You've GOT to be kidding. They are the most embraced, coddled,
encouraged people in 'changing church'. The feminism, the communism,
the diabolism, all go together with the indifference to and promotion
of homosexual behavior. It's all the "smoke of Satan", as a pontiff
once phrased it. If you mean The Church, the traditional Catholic
churches, monasteries, homes, and so on, I can't believe you have any
interest in these. And if you did, you'd find not that you were
ostracized, but that any idea of promoting the 'life' would not be met
with indifference or superficial praise. People would suggest, maybe
not so directly as myself, that you basically - repent, convert. But
that's only what The Baptist, and then Our Lord, Himself, are reported
to have urged.
>In the topsy-turvy tradition of the gospel, it will
>eventually come to pass and be known that the church was wrong about its bias
>and gay people will take their place at the table. I'm grateful now for those
>communities who are already shadowing that new reality in their own communities.
Well, it's like I said above. And you do contradict yourself. But it's
only to argue that because a bunch of junkies tend to hang out, that
the local church should find a way to get them clean needles, and no
more, or that because the local gangs decided to knock off a police
substation, that the local church find a way to get them silencers at
bulk discount, or something. Some behaviors should NOT be encouraged.
People need help in the meanwhile. But you see nothing wrong in the
first place with what you promote, here on UseNet, and likely with the
local trendy parishes.
>In other words, we're going to win. And it will be a win-win situation.
For evil. Sure. And such is what we see in the world, and have for
centuries, and what pilgrims, and the despised, and the outcast, and
so on have offered in The Church, and in their desire to live
according to the law of The Church, has been ridiculed by the same
'men of business', 'social activists', 'nation engineers' and the
whole bunch of neerdowell self-made monsters. It's a win in the short
term, and you already _have_ your 'changing church', with the
imbecilic cant of 'worthshipping in the gathering place of
communitiness with our separated brethren of the sphere', or just what
have you. But _you_ don't win in the long run, neither do your fellow
religionists. The devil offers you despair, and accusation, failure
and vice. It's only pretty painted with velvet and warm milk and
cookies. The cross of Our Lord seems silly to men of the world, even
threatening, and ultimately insane. It should to them. If the real
Napoleon were to have confronted a madman thinking himself the great
masonic warrior, during the 19th century, it's the madman who would
have thought Bonaparte insane.
Peace.
----------------------------------------
jul...@cco.caltech.edu
Theorem: All numbers are equal.
Choose arbitrary a and b, and let t = a + b.
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb
a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb
a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4
(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
Oscar Whitman
> Those in the Church that lead sinners to think their actions are perfectly
> alright are doing their flock a huge dis-service. It is uncharitable in
> the extreme.
Rather, those in the Church who engage in ignorant and flagrant discrimination
against gay people are doing their flock a huge disservice. Gay people have a
whole different perspective on experiences which are "uncharitable in the
extreme"; I'm sure it doesn't coincide with your perpective, and neither it does
it sound like you're in the least bit interested in learning about what that
might mean.
OW
RobinOak
is responding to me, but maybe not. Oh well. So much for Ariadne....
Stephen Patten wrote:
>
> Oscar Whitman <dream...@wonderfulworld.net> wrote in message
> news:37A38D40...@wonderfulworld.net...
> > RobinOak wrote:
> >
> > []
> >
> > > Also wonderful was seeing gay people in church together with their
> > > parents. That was more than fabulous.
> >
> > I agree. That kind of church community is what will eventually turn the
> tide away
> > from ostracizing gays. I'm sure my own family would join such a
> celebration,
> > with a little encouragement, perhaps. Once they saw all the other
> families in
> > the pews, they wouldn't feel so hesitant about it. The PFLAG (Parents and
> Friends
> > of Lesbians and Gays) contingent in our local Pride parade always gets the
> > strongest support and gratitude from the crowds. It's a real lift for
> everyone
> > involved.
> >
> > Thanks, RO.
> >
> > Oscar
> >
> The Church is for sinners, so what is so special about one type of sinner
> from another?
Steve, that is EXACTLY the point!! EXACTLY!!!!
There IS no difference between one kind of sinner and another, and we
ALL fit the bill!
So why are the gays ostracized? There's a witchhunt <shudder!> right
now against gays in this country.
People are getting shot in their beds.
They are ridiculed to the point of brutality in the workplace <TRUST
ME!! I hear this crap alllll day long.....'fag this, homo that' etc ad
nauseum>
I don't know how rough-spoken your workplace is. But a lot of them are
very rough-spoken. Imagine how it would feel.....
If you were Brand X -- let's say, Catholic! I just saw a movie not long
ago called "December Bride", set in 19th century Ireland. The leading
lady's character just about SPAT and threatened Dire Consequences if her
husband "allowed a dirty PAPIST in my mother's house!" <clearly, the
main characters were Protestant>
Substitute gays. I am not saying anything about *what* they may or may
not do; I am talking about the people, not their actions, or what may or
may not occur in their boudoirs.
And as far as that goes, the church would also have all of us popping
kids out just about every 18 months. The same reasoning is applied to
gay sex as is applied to straight birth control: sex w/o a procreative
dimension. The documents use that argument. Might I suggest that anyone
<cleary, not you, Steve!!!> who is using artificial birth control yet
still has a problem with the gay issue.... isn't being exactly
consistent?
The Church itself says, it is NOT a choice, not a decision people make.
It's a 'born-with' orientation. They are still saying what they've
always said, regarding sexual practice: NO. That's the official line,
that gays are called to chastity <as we all are, actually>
> I hope this doesn't sound uncharitable, but I'm intrigued. Why does the
> presence of gays make you proud? Is it because they've come to seek
> forgiveness, like the rest of us, and strive to be more Christ like?
Sure. But forgiveness for what? For being gay? Uh-huh. No way. I can't
agree with that.
I think I was the one who used the word 'proud', as in, "I'm so proud of
my church" I'm bursting, something like that. Why am I proud? I'll tell
ya...
Because this here is the infamous US Bible Belt, where we are.
And my church has enough Christian guts to **stick its neck out**, and
stick its neck out BIGTIME. I am SURE that we are castigated on a
regular basis from some of the more right-wing Protestant bible
churches. I'm sure of that. We have a rep for being a tad wacky <well,
it figures *I'd* join this particular parish, doesn't it.....>
It is also a parish that is very involved in all sorts of J&P work, not
only with the ministry to gays. Last Sunday a homeless woman fell
asleep after the 5pm mass.... one of the priests, who is in his 80s, and
three women helped the homeless woman <who stank, btw> find a bed for
the night. And in this HEAT. That elderly priest, in all that black
serge and the collar, traipsing around in the heat for the sake of this
poor waif. One of the women is following up with her relatives.
That homeless person, filthy as she was, was the face of Christ. So are
the gay brothers and sisters.
Gays right now are under siege. They are being attacked from every
angle.
They are the face of Christ. They're like the person left dying on the
side of the road: nobody wants to touch them.
> I can think of at least a dozen other categories of sinners that aren't
> indulged as much as homosexuals -
> I'm awaiting the pastoral letters aksing us to show tolerance and
> understanding to murderers, racists and members of the World Bank/IMF.
> Will I have to wait long?
Well, actually.... <smile>
We're also very active in trying to get rid of the death penalty.
Since you mentioned murderers.
And also, we're trying to promote a 'just wage' agenda in our city. As
per the bishops' letter on the same topic <the title escapes me, but it
was the bishops of some of the Southern US dioceses who sent a letter on
that very topic, of the just wage and economic justice, etc.
It isn't just the gays, that's the thing. And the other thing is, why
is this particular lifestyle being singled out as especially bad by
everyone else?
> Stephen Patten ( whose hoping that the members of Church will be
> charitable to all sinners not jus the politically correct ones)
Agreed.
I dunno.
I am trying to examine my own conscience a bit more these days. It's
easy for me to be sympathetic to racial minorities, gays, homeless
people, even death row inmates. Why, I don't know. Those things come
easy. For me.
I am now trying to determine who it is that I have the most trouble
being tolerant of, of feeling compassion for. I don't think it's in
terms of a group or category.
Probably more like certain individuals in my personal history.
I need to think about this..... and pray about it......
Anyhow, a big big part of my deciding to hop off my broom and go back to
the church was seeing their gay ministry, and hearing stories from some
of their gay members.
Because after one speech, by a gay parish member, I went outside to have
a cigarette in the parking lot.
I looked up at the stars.
And I prayed: "Oh Great Mother: if there is a place in this church for
gays, can there be a place for women too......?"
You can laugh at that if you want, you guys. I heard somebody <probly
Mark> whining about the word "sisters" in the liturgy the other day.
<shrug> You guys can ridicule all you want.
But it's TRUE. Whether it's "politically correct" or not, there are
large groups of human beings who aren't male/straight/white who have
felt extremely 'othered', extremely isolated, and just *not important*,
in our time. Unloved, like outcastes.
Like that homeless woman who fell asleep in the pew last Sunday.
WWJD?
frank w elliott jr
:
: jul...@cco.caltech.edu
: Theorem: All numbers are equal.
:
: Choose arbitrary a and b, and let t = a + b.
:
: (a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
: a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb
: a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb
: a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4
: (a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2
: a - t/2 = b - t/2
Non sequitur. (a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2 implies that
a-t/2 = b-t/2 _or_ a-t/2 = -(b-t/2). By choosing the
former, you are tacitly assuming the proposition you're
trying to prove.
: a = b
No. This is false. Ex falsum quodlibet.
This is mathematics, not Catholic theology.
Do try to pay attention.
Frank
Mark Johnson
Peace.
----------------------------------------
Theorem: All numbers are equal.
Choose arbitrary a and b, and let t = a + b.
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb
a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb
a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4
(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
Mitch
Johnson) enlightened us all with:
>Neither is the temptation to drink, itself, but not so the sin,
>violence and mayhem which follow someone unable to resist that
>temptation.
Why doesn't it surprise me that you consider alcoholism in relation to
sin not in relation to an illness?
--
Mitch
Stephen Patten
I'm not so well informed about events in the US but in England there are
plenty of reasons, I can think of, as to why some folk keep away from
them.
A few years back a bill went through our Parliament which would make it
legal for men to have sex with boys of sixteen or so. It was voted down.
Outside of Parliament their was a riot by homosexual activists. Why? Why
was it so important to them that sexual activity with a young boy was legal?
What was even more disturbing was some of the 'gay activists' pushing for
this legislation
had also argued for the lowering of the age to 14!!
Clearly, the answer is because they wanted to indulge in these activities.
Tony Blair's 'New Labour' government, with at least four homosexuals in the
cabinet, made sexual activity between men and sixteen year old boys legal.
It gets worse, the government now plans to remove prohibitions on schools
teaching that homosexuality and heterosexuality can be equated as no more
than 'life-style' choices of equal value.
Both moves have negligible public support, yet our government feels that it
must push these through.
But homosexual 'rights' don't stop there, some small Caribbean islands,
remnants of our past empire, have legislation that outlaws homosexual
activity. Britain has put these islands under intense pressure to repeal
this legislation or forfit government aid.
I can, but choose not to, switch on terrestial tv and watch at least three
or four programmes a week designed by gays for gays, there's even a sitcom
at 9.30 pm on BBC TV about a homosexual who 'cruises for rough-trade' to
quote the main character.
Now, does all the above sound like homosexuals are being oppressed and
persecuted? I'm afraid that too many have fallen for the oldest agitprop
trick in the book; the screams of oppression and persecution are just a
mask for even more favourable legislation
> People are getting shot in their beds.
>
> They are ridiculed to the point of brutality in the workplace <TRUST
> ME!! I hear this crap alllll day long.....'fag this, homo that' etc ad
> nauseum>
Depends on the work place. I'd hazard a guess that in the world of the
arts, media, and such dubious industries as advertizing and PR it would be
the person who though homosexuality unnatural who'd experience the ridicule.
>
> I don't know how rough-spoken your workplace is. But a lot of them are
> very rough-spoken. Imagine how it would feel.....
> If you were Brand X -- let's say, Catholic! I just saw a movie not long
> ago called "December Bride", set in 19th century Ireland. The leading
> lady's character just about SPAT and threatened Dire Consequences if her
> husband "allowed a dirty PAPIST in my mother's house!" <clearly, the
> main characters were Protestant>
>
> Substitute gays. I am not saying anything about *what* they may or may
> not do; I am talking about the people, not their actions, or what may or
> may not occur in their boudoirs.
> And as far as that goes, the church would also have all of us popping
> kids out just about every 18 months. The same reasoning is applied to
> gay sex as is applied to straight birth control: sex w/o a procreative
> dimension. The documents use that argument. Might I suggest that anyone
> <cleary, not you, Steve!!!> who is using artificial birth control yet
> still has a problem with the gay issue.... isn't being exactly
> consistent?
>
> The Church itself says, it is NOT a choice, not a decision people make.
> It's a 'born-with' orientation. They are still saying what they've
> always said, regarding sexual practice: NO. That's the official line,
> that gays are called to chastity <as we all are, actually>
>
The Church does not say this. This one of my biggest worries about the
whole issue. The Church, whilst conceding that *SOME * may have 'deep seated
orientations' nowhere, I repeat nowhere,states that ALL homosexuals are born
with a predisposition to desire sexual activitiy with members of their own
sex.
Now let us be frank here. Why do so many homosexuals flaunt their
sexuality? Why
do they go on, and on, about what they do, using it as a device to describe
what they are? Do any other sinners so loudly proclaim themsevles?
I don't want to know what they get up to in their bedroom. I don't want to
know what a persons son or daughter does either.
I'm sorry Robin, but I think there is an agenda here. And it is quite
straight forward. Homosexuals want the Church to drop its opposition to
homosexual activity. Either by lobbying for a change in teachings, or, and
it is in this area that they have been most successful, by browbeating the
weaker members of the Church into silence. The saddest, most pitiful,
consequence of this it that so many are being allowed to remain in a state
of mortal sin, and also that so many well meaning members of the Church are
sharing in these sins by their silence - remember the teaching about how we
either cause or share the guilt of another's sin by silence?
I hope this doesn't sound uncharitable, but I'm intrigued. Why does the
> > presence of gays make you proud? Is it because they've come to seek
> > forgiveness, like the rest of us, and strive to be more Christ like?
>
> Sure. But forgiveness for what? For being gay? Uh-huh. No way. I can't
> agree with that.
>
> I think I was the one who used the word 'proud', as in, "I'm so proud of
> my church" I'm bursting, something like that. Why am I proud? I'll tell
> ya...
>
> Because this here is the infamous US Bible Belt, where we are.
>
> And my church has enough Christian guts to **stick its neck out**, and
> stick its neck out BIGTIME. I am SURE that we are castigated on a
> regular basis from some of the more right-wing Protestant bible
> churches. I'm sure of that. We have a rep for being a tad wacky <well,
> it figures *I'd* join this particular parish, doesn't it.....>
Glad to here you joined in again :). Funny old thing ecumenism though,
what is you parish doing to bring such 'right-wing' Protestants back into
the True Church?
Every member of the Church is an outcast, one who has chosen to be outcast
of the world and its concerns.
I'm sorry to have to break your illusion but even us males, espeicallly
orthodox ones in the West, feel (or have felt until they find a parish where
the priest is loyal to Rome) isolated. Homosexuals and women do not have a
monopoly on isolation, not nowadays. I know of a young man teaching in a
Catholic school who daily is ridiculed and questioned for his orthodox views
on such matters as female ordination, celibacy and even such social
teachings as the harmfulness of contraception and abortion; and that's from
chaplains and visiting clergy. The other staff at the school are even more
unorthodox!
I'm sorry if I've gone on a bit, but I must just question one more thing.
When you talk about accepting gays into the Church what do you mean? And
why is it necessary to mention it? The Church has always accepted gays,
fornicators, adulterers, thieves, and all manner of other sinners. It
offers Salvation to ALL men and women. It always has. The only people
excluded are those that exclude themselves by refusing to TRY to mend their
ways. When you talk about acceptance are you talking about acceptance of
them as sinners, or acceptance of their sin?
Stephen Patten
Mark Johnson
So drunkenness is not wrong, and getting drunk is always a case of
someone doing so against their will? Every man or woman who gets drunk
is a hopeless addict, unable to resist such temptation? When in the
drunken state, much mayhem may follow. This too, I'm sure, you
consider not to be their responsibility - perhaps, it's society's
fault. Perhaps MADD should encourage laws against drunk driving to
carry not a jail sentence, but a little rehab time, exclusively? It's
a 'co-dependency addiction', the result of having a real bad day, or
the like, but it's not a sin - Heaven's no.
Who _is_ responsible for the acts of those drunk, in public, if not
the drunk?
Peace.
------------------------------------------------------------
* When one finds nothing more to say to God,
* but just knows He is there --
* that, in itself, is the best of prayers.
[Fr. John Vianney, priest of Ars township, France, 1859]
Mitch
Johnson) enlightened us all with:
>Who _is_ responsible for the acts of those drunk, in public, if not
>the drunk?
If you think that alcoholics look and/or act drunk in public or in
private, you really are woefully misinformed. But, as I said before, why
should that surprise me?
--
Mitch
Mark Johnson
Oh, I'm sure many look and act drunk in public, when they go out in
public. It's because they are. Maybe it shouldn't surprize _me_ that
you would not understand something so obv.
But I'm glad you think all people are the same, that all confirmed
alcoholics behave identically, and all are cured in the same way, and
according to the same schedule, by AA. What a nice world that must be.
And before you call that a straw man, tell me you don't see the world
in such neat, black and white terms.
Peace.
Mark Johnson
jr) wrote:
>Mark Johnson (1023...@compuserve.com) wrote:
>: Theorem: All numbers are equal.
>: Choose arbitrary a and b, and let t = a + b.
>: (a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
>: a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb
>: a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb
>: a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4
>: (a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2
>: a - t/2 = b - t/2
>Non sequitur. (a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2 implies that
>a-t/2 = b-t/2 _or_ a-t/2 = -(b-t/2).
>former, you are tacitly assuming the proposition you're
>trying to prove.
>: a = b
>No. This is false.
Of course the conclusion is false. Anyway, far be it from me to
quarrel with Cal Tech. I suppose you would wonder where the syntax
errors might be in Alice in Wonderland, or more properly, where the
sense might be in the sort of thing I guess you tend to write, even if
there's a sort of logic in how you get there.
Peace.
btw, just remembered:
---------------------------------------
Michael_...@h2.maus.de
Theorem: 4=3
Suppose:
a + b = c
Then:
4a - 3a + 4b - 3b = 4c - 3c
4a + 4b - 4c = 3a + 3b - 3c
4 * (a+b-c) = 3 * (a+b-c)
4 = 3
Mitch
Johnson) enlightened us all with:
>Oh, I'm sure many look and act drunk in public, when they go out in
>public. It's because they are. Maybe it shouldn't surprize _me_ that
>you would not understand something so obv.
Mark, laddy, I do understand very well. I *am* an alcoholic! I suggest,
therefore, that you take the trouble to learn some very basic facts.
Not everyone who is drunk is an alcoholic.
The vast majority of alcoholics *never* look drunk.
The use of alcohol as an escape route is often a symptom of another
illnees such as depression.
--
Mitch
RobinOak
[]
> > So why are the gays ostracized? There's a witchhunt <shudder!> right
> > now against gays in this country.
>
> I'm not so well informed about events in the US but in England there are
> plenty of reasons, I can think of, as to why some folk keep away from
> them.
I keep forgetting that.
You write like an American. (?) I can't remember now if you are
American, and just living over there, or what. Oh well. In any case, the
conditions where you are are different from those here.
> A few years back a bill went through our Parliament which would make it
> legal for men to have sex with boys of sixteen or so. It was voted down.
> Outside of Parliament their was a riot by homosexual activists. Why? Why
> was it so important to them that sexual activity with a young boy was legal?
> What was even more disturbing was some of the 'gay activists' pushing for
> this legislation
> had also argued for the lowering of the age to 14!!
That's weird. REALLY weird. I can't imagine that here, though. Here
we're still trying to keep them from getting shot in their beds and
beaten up on the street.
> Clearly, the answer is because they wanted to indulge in these activities.
> Tony Blair's 'New Labour' government, with at least four homosexuals in the
> cabinet, made sexual activity between men and sixteen year old boys legal.
<dryly>
....that would certainly have helped a few priests here in the States
.... <which is why we need a MARRIED CLERGY. To be able to
draw from a much larger pool of applicants!>
> It gets worse, the government now plans to remove prohibitions on schools
> teaching that homosexuality and heterosexuality can be equated as no more
> than 'life-style' choices of equal value.
I'm not sure that's bad, though I would disagree that it is a CHOICE.
In many ways, my life would be much easier if I could CHOOSE to be
lesbian. However, the Goddess made me pretty much straight as an arrow.
....which means that for the rest of my life, I will continue to have to
put that @#$# toilet seat DOWN <and constantly clean around the outside
base!! Don't your fathers teach you all target practice???> And all
that, no matter where I live or which male person I may live with.....
> Both moves have negligible public support, yet our government feels that it
> must push these through.
>
> But homosexual 'rights' don't stop there, some small Caribbean islands,
> remnants of our past empire, have legislation that outlaws homosexual
> activity. Britain has put these islands under intense pressure to repeal
> this legislation or forfit government aid.
I'd have to agree with that. Those laws are like the laws against
fornication and adultery. What are we going to do, lock people up or put
them in the stocks again? These things need to be a matter of personal
morality and conscience. The state doesn't belong in the bedrooms of
consenting *adults* <note the word "adults", NOT 16 or 14-year olds!>
> I can, but choose not to, switch on terrestial tv and watch at least three
> or four programmes a week designed by gays for gays, there's even a sitcom
> at 9.30 pm on BBC TV about a homosexual who 'cruises for rough-trade' to
> quote the main character.
<hands on hips, stern Mammy-like look>: How many times have I told you,
don't watch TV!! It is poisoning our brains, Legatus Amicus!!!!
> Now, does all the above sound like homosexuals are being oppressed and
> persecuted? I'm afraid that too many have fallen for the oldest agitprop
> trick in the book; the screams of oppression and persecution are just a
> mask for even more favourable legislation
I was thinking of the US, sorry. They are hardly coddled here, that's
for sure.
>
> > People are getting shot in their beds.
> >
> > They are ridiculed to the point of brutality in the workplace <TRUST
> > ME!! I hear this crap alllll day long.....'fag this, homo that' etc ad
> > nauseum>
>
> Depends on the work place. I'd hazard a guess that in the world of the
> arts, media, and such dubious industries as advertizing and PR it would be
> the person who though homosexuality unnatural who'd experience the ridicule.
?
> > I don't know how rough-spoken your workplace is. But a lot of them are
> > very rough-spoken. Imagine how it would feel.....
>
> > If you were Brand X -- let's say, Catholic! I just saw a movie not long
> > ago called "December Bride", set in 19th century Ireland. The leading
> > lady's character just about SPAT and threatened Dire Consequences if her
> > husband "allowed a dirty PAPIST in my mother's house!" <clearly, the
> > main characters were Protestant>
> >
> > Substitute gays. I am not saying anything about *what* they may or may
> > not do; I am talking about the people, not their actions, or what may or
> > may not occur in their boudoirs.
>
> > And as far as that goes, the church would also have all of us popping
> > kids out just about every 18 months. The same reasoning is applied to
> > gay sex as is applied to straight birth control: sex w/o a procreative
> > dimension. The documents use that argument. Might I suggest that anyone
> > <clearly, not you, Steve!!!> who is using artificial birth control yet
> > still has a problem with the gay issue.... isn't being exactly
> > consistent?
> >
>
> > The Church itself says, it is NOT a choice, not a decision people make.
> > It's a 'born-with' orientation. They are still saying what they've
> > always said, regarding sexual practice: NO. That's the official line,
> > that gays are called to chastity <as we all are, actually>
> >
> The Church does not say this.
yesyesyesyes, does too does too!! <g> No, really, it's in the exerpt I
have from the Catechism. Says it's not considered a 'choice'. Really
truly and honest.
> This one of my biggest worries about the
> whole issue. The Church, whilst conceding that *SOME * may have 'deep seated
> orientations' nowhere, I repeat nowhere,states that ALL homosexuals are born
> with a predisposition to desire sexual activitiy with members of their own
> sex.
But who can TELL?? And really... if a person is straight, why oh WHY
would that person CHOOSE to sleep or fall in love with one of the same
sex??? It ... I don't think it can even be DONE! And *why*??
Maybe I'm naive, I dunno.....
> Now let us be frank here. Why do so many homosexuals flaunt their
> sexuality? Why
> do they go on, and on, about what they do, using it as a device to describe
> what they are? Do any other sinners so loudly proclaim themsevles?
> I don't want to know what they get up to in their bedroom. I don't want to
> know what a persons son or daughter does either.
It seems that the straight world is doing that just as much, if not
more. All day LONG, you hear, in schools and in some workplaces, an
almost constant diatribe about fag this fag that, homo this, & that. All
from people who claim to be straight, and consider straightness almost
like a religion.
So who's really drawing the attention to the differences, the gays or
the straights?
And their spiritual needs are not being met. They feel
excluded from the table. <do you want me to tell you how many gay Pagans
I've met? Tons. And tons.> And why are they Pagan? Because the
Christians won't accept them, that's why. Now, it may suit them and
their spiritual needs, neopaganism. Maybe. Mileage varies, as always.
But a lot of them really would prefer to be Christian, but feel they
can't. Feel that the Christian God hates them. To listen to a lot of
people in the churches, I think that's a fair assessment.
> I'm sorry Robin, but I think there is an agenda here.
Of course there's an agenda! Who ever said there wasn't?
> And it is quite
> straight forward. Homosexuals want the Church to drop its opposition to
> homosexual activity. Either by lobbying for a change in teachings, or, and
> it is in this area that they have been most successful, by browbeating the
> weaker members of the Church into silence.
Again, your mileage may vary. But I live in the US Bible Belt.
Trust me, it's not the straight people here who are the 'weaker members'
of the church. It's the outsiders.
Maybe there is where you are, in the political realm. Could very well
be, I dunno. What I am seeing from where I sit, is some few in the
church saying, "Come in, and be welcome at our table, like any other
baptized Catholic. God loves you **just the way you are**." The sermon
we heard at that mass was all about chastity.
> The saddest, most pitiful,
> consequence of this it that so many are being allowed to remain in a state
> of mortal sin, and also that so many well meaning members of the Church are
> sharing in these sins by their silence - remember the teaching about how we
> either cause or share the guilt of another's sin by silence?
Hang on, hang on -- why should I presume about the state of someone
else's soul on the basis of their sexual orientation? Are we presuming
that there's some dirty stuff going on behind the scenes? Don't straight
people bump tweeters when they shouldn't, too?? <g>
> I hope this doesn't sound uncharitable, but I'm intrigued. Why does the
> > > presence of gays make you proud? Is it because they've come to seek
> > > forgiveness, like the rest of us, and strive to be more Christ like?
> >
> > Sure. But forgiveness for what? For being gay? Uh-huh. No way. I can't
> > agree with that.
> >
> > I think I was the one who used the word 'proud', as in, "I'm so proud of
> > my church" I'm bursting, something like that. Why am I proud? I'll tell
> > ya...
> >
> > Because this here is the infamous US Bible Belt, where we are.
> >
> > And my church has enough Christian guts to **stick its neck out**, and
> > stick its neck out BIGTIME. I am SURE that we are castigated on a
> > regular basis from some of the more right-wing Protestant bible
> > churches. I'm sure of that. We have a rep for being a tad wacky <well,
> > it figures *I'd* join this particular parish, doesn't it.....>
>
> Glad to here you joined in again :). Funny old thing ecumenism though,
> what is you parish doing to bring such 'right-wing' Protestants back into
> the True Church?
ME, a 'right-wing Protestant'????? STEVE, were you DREAMING??? <| :O
Surely, you had me confused with some other bird! <|:)
No, dahlink, I was in De Wuds for 20 years wid Saint Fran, and dee
leetle behrdies dat Gott our mudder has made... and dee bunny rabbits <I
saw one of those tonight! Little baby one, too>..... and barefoot....
with drums....
[]
If you want me to say that I think homosexual sex between consenting
adults, particularly when said adults are in a committed monogamous
relationship....
You won't hear me say it. Now that's NOT what the Church teaches, it's
my own personal opinion. But that, like any sexual activity at all, is a
matter for the person's own moral conscience. It's not for us to presume
that others are in mortal sin. You sound as though you're eager to pin
the 'sin' label on the gays, and I just don't agree, sorry Steve....
<shrug> They really can't go into church and pray that God makes them
straight. <well, they CAN, but it generally doesn't work>. God made some
of us gay, some of straight. <it may even be a natural, built-in form
of population control.....who knows...>
It's weird... this idea that people can choose to be gay or straight.
Trust me, I'm so disgusted with men at this point, IF ONLY!!! <g> Just
think, a life-partner who keeps the seat down. And whose clothes I could
borrow. And so on. <smile> But I CAN'T! I am just not built that way,
and I can't 'choose' that orientation any more than I can choose to
change the color of my eyes <without those fancy new eyeball-changing
contact things, that is>.
It's really too bad <and too weird> about the bills in your country,
before Parliment, regarding boys & men, and so on. If the stuff you
mentioned is representative, the climate in England is way different
from here. Here people are really not being coddled at all. We just had
a case not long ago where two young lunks tied a gay kid to a fence,
beat him to a pulp, and then left him there to die. They more or less
crucified him, in fact. Only because he was 'a fag'. And Real Men Hate
Fags, as we all know. <sigh> (If they were REALLY Real Men, they would
be secure enough in themselves not to feel that way, but so it goes, so
it goes.....>
I'm proud of my church because despite public disapproval, they are
sticking their neck out to make this part of society more acceptable.
And if that happens, maybe we'll see fewer kids being tied to fences and
left to die.
Nibiru12
planet for a long time, and Cain mounted Abel. Listen, I deal with gay men
like I deal with a fat ugly women. "thank you for the complement but, no".
And anyone who looks to force thier oppion on me get's the same violence no
matter if they are gay or straight. The reason for the changes you are
seeing concerning gays is, many people in powerful positions son's and
daughters are gay. No one said you had to go on a date with one of them.
You sound like your scared. Fight, protect your booty if one of them tries
to take it.
RobinOak <robi...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:37AEB0E3...@mindspring.com...
frank w elliott jr
: On Mon, 09 Aug 1999 05:35:09 GMT, 1023...@compuserve.com (Mark
: Johnson) enlightened us all with:
:
:
: >public. It's because they are. Maybe it shouldn't surprize _me_ that
: >you would not understand something so obv.
:
: Mark, laddy, I do understand very well. I *am* an alcoholic! I suggest,
: therefore, that you take the trouble to learn some very basic facts.
:
: Not everyone who is drunk is an alcoholic.
: The vast majority of alcoholics *never* look drunk.
: The use of alcohol as an escape route is often a symptom of another
: illnees such as depression.
Mitch,
You're asking Mark Johnson to learn something. Is that ever likely to
happen? He's still posting moronic "proofs" that indicate he can't
comprehend basic algebra.
WRT your alcoholism, what would you think if the Vatican published
a letter requiring alcoholics to remain silent about their own
alcoholism as proof of their good intentions and as the primary
means of avoiding discrimination? What would you think if your fellow
Catholics said nothing and angrily defended the Vatican when
questioned on the subject?
Frank
D.M. Bruyns
>
> Stephen Patten wrote:
>
> > It gets worse, the government now plans to remove prohibitions on schools
> > teaching that homosexuality and heterosexuality can be equated as no more
> > than 'life-style' choices of equal value.
>
> I'm not sure that's bad, though I would disagree that it is a CHOICE.
>
> In many ways, my life would be much easier if I could CHOOSE to be
> lesbian. However, the Goddess made me pretty much straight as an arrow.
Goddess? Catholics worship God. The Church condemns belief in and
worship
of goddesses. I think you are aware of that. Doesn't seem to bother you
though.
>
> >
> > Depends on the work place. I'd hazard a guess that in the world of the
> > arts, media, and such dubious industries as advertizing and PR it would be
> > the person who though homosexuality unnatural who'd experience the ridicule.
>
> ?
Read 'thought' for 'though'.
>
> > > The Church itself says, it is NOT a choice, not a decision people make.
> > > It's a 'born-with' orientation.
That is not dogma, Robin. And also science has not proven it is a
'born-with'
orientation.
> They are still saying what they've
> > > always said, regarding sexual practice: NO. That's the official line,
> > > that gays are called to chastity <as we all are, actually>
We are all called to chastity. True. The official line. We don't
worship any goddesses either. What's your view of the official line
in this instance?
> > >
> > The Church does not say this.
>
> yesyesyesyes, does too does too!! <g> No, really, it's in the exerpt I
> have from the Catechism. Says it's not considered a 'choice'. Really
> truly and honest.
Typical... You are ready enough with the Catechism when a part of its
contents suits you. Where does it teach you to worship a goddess?
Catholics don't worship a goddess.
> What I am seeing from where I sit, is some few in the
> church saying, "Come in, and be welcome at our table, like any other
> baptized Catholic. God loves you **just the way you are**." The sermon
> we heard at that mass was all about chastity.
Good subject for a homily. As is 'repentance'. Repent of your sins,
confess them and receive absolution. But surely you know this?
>
> > The saddest, most pitiful,
> > consequence of this it that so many are being allowed to remain in a state
> > of mortal sin, and also that so many well meaning members of the Church are
> > sharing in these sins by their silence - remember the teaching about how we
> > either cause or share the guilt of another's sin by silence?
>
> Hang on, hang on -- why should I presume about the state of someone
> else's soul on the basis of their sexual orientation? Are we presuming
> that there's some dirty stuff going on behind the scenes? Don't straight
> people bump tweeters when they shouldn't, too?? <g>
Sure you're not edging around the issue here?
>
>
> > I hope this doesn't sound uncharitable, but I'm intrigued. Why does the
> > > > presence of gays make you proud? Is it because they've come to seek
> > > > forgiveness, like the rest of us, and strive to be more Christ like?
> > >
> > > Sure. But forgiveness for what? For being gay? Uh-huh. No way. I can't
> > > agree with that.
> > >
> > > I think I was the one who used the word 'proud', as in, "I'm so proud of
> > > my church" I'm bursting, something like that. Why am I proud? I'll tell
> > > ya...
> > >
> > > Because this here is the infamous US Bible Belt, where we are.
> > >
> > > And my church has enough Christian guts to **stick its neck out**, and
> > > stick its neck out BIGTIME. I am SURE that we are castigated on a
> > > regular basis from some of the more right-wing Protestant bible
> > > churches.
Try telling them to repent of their heresy.
> > > I'm sure of that. We have a rep for being a tad wacky <well,
> > > it figures *I'd* join this particular parish, doesn't it.....>
Doesn't matter if you're a bit wacky. As long as you follow Catholic
teaching... Worth a try, I'd say. The real thing's better than the fake.
> >
> > Glad to here you joined in again :). Funny old thing ecumenism though,
> > what is you parish doing to bring such 'right-wing' Protestants back into
> > the True Church?
>
>
> ME, a 'right-wing Protestant'????? STEVE, were you DREAMING??? <| :O
>
> Surely, you had me confused with some other bird! <|:)
>
> Saint Fran, and dee
> leetle behrdies dat Gott our mudder has made...
More of your 'Catholicism'?
>
> []
>
> > > You can laugh at that if you want, you guys. I heard somebody <probly
> > > Mark> whining about the word "sisters" in the liturgy the other day.
> > > <shrug> You guys can ridicule all you want.
> > >
> > > But it's TRUE. Whether it's "politically correct" or not, there are
> > > large groups of human beings who aren't male/straight/white who have
> > > felt extremely 'othered', extremely isolated, and just *not important*,
> > > in our time. Unloved, like outcastes.
> >
> > Every member of the Church is an outcast, one who has chosen to be outcast
> > of the world and its concerns.
> > I'm sorry to have to break your illusion but even us males, espeicallly
> > orthodox ones in the West, feel (or have felt until they find a parish where
> > the priest is loyal to Rome) isolated. Homosexuals and women do not have a
> > monopoly on isolation, not nowadays. I know of a young man teaching in a
> > Catholic school who daily is ridiculed and questioned for his orthodox views
> > on such matters as female ordination, celibacy and even such social
> > teachings as the harmfulness of contraception and abortion; and that's from
> > chaplains and visiting clergy. The other staff at the school are even more
> > unorthodox!
> >
> > I'm sorry if I've gone on a bit, but I must just question one more thing.
> > When you talk about accepting gays into the Church what do you mean?
What's wrong with acceptance on the same basis as every other Catholic?
Just that. Goes for you; goes for me; goes for your correspondent here;
goes for the converts from 'right-wing' Protestantism, Buddhism, or any
other
direction.
> > And
> > why is it necessary to mention it?
Because it's what we call an 'issue'. Because some people are trying to
take the matter further than Catholic teaching is allowed to (on either
side of the divide, that is). Is this really such a secret to you?
> > The Church has always accepted gays,
> > fornicators, adulterers, thieves, and all manner of other sinners. It
> > offers Salvation to ALL men and women. It always has. The only people
> > excluded are those that exclude themselves by refusing to TRY to mend their
> > ways.
That is rather deceptive. A Catholic has to believe certain teachings
which
the Church cannot but teach, and reject certain others. Not optional.
You
k n o w this. For instance, the Church doesn't teach us to worship a
goddess,
Quite the opposite. But you just don't seem to be bothered about that
one at
all; about the fact that God, the Church, and your supposed brothers and
sisters
in Christ find that offensive. There is no goddess, Robin. As I asked
before, why
pretend to be such a Catholic if you reject essential Catholic
teachings.
> I'm proud of my church because despite public disapproval, they are
> sticking their neck out to make this part of society more acceptable.
That's an assumption of course. The Church just teaches what is right -
and
you should, if you are a Catholic, follow its teaching. No? And that
means
it is right to oppose gay-bashing, and also right to reject belief in a
goddess.
You seem to just pick and choose.
>
> And if that happens, maybe we'll see fewer kids being tied to fences and
> left to die.
You'd see less of that sort of thing if people just followed orthodox
teaching,
Robin, that one it has nothing to do with making homosexuality
'acceptable'.
Mitch
>Mitch,
>
>You're asking Mark Johnson to learn something. Is that ever likely to
>happen? He's still posting moronic "proofs" that indicate he can't
>comprehend basic algebra.
>
>WRT your alcoholism, what would you think if the Vatican published
>a letter requiring alcoholics to remain silent about their own
>alcoholism as proof of their good intentions and as the primary
>means of avoiding discrimination? What would you think if your fellow
>Catholics said nothing and angrily defended the Vatican when
>questioned on the subject?
Frank, you are preaching to the converted ...
If you remember any of my other posts on the subject, you should know
that I strongly disagree with the official position on homosexuality. I
can'r do anything about that official position. All I can do is support,
defend and help folk that I meet.
BUT, as my own position is held under the *primacy of conscience'
description, I also fight for fellow Catholics to be able to state their
own position.
I do however apologise for *any* posting from any fellow Catholic who
allows themselves to get so hungup on *my church, right or wrong* that
they forget that they follow one who loved all.
--
Mitch
Mitch
enlightened us all with:
>Goddess? Catholics worship God. The Church condemns belief in and
>worship
>of goddesses. I think you are aware of that. Doesn't seem to bother you
>though.
The church also condemns any attempt to genderize the Almighty. So
whether you use God or Goddess can be seen as irrelevant. I suggest you
read some of the early Church Fathers one the subject.
--
Mitch
kzabell
will say she is the way she is because she is not attracted to men but she
is sexually attracted to women and the male homosexual will say that he is
not sexuallly attracted to women but is attracted to men.
Then why does the Lesbian go out and link up with a woman who looks, talks,
and acts just like a man. And why do Homosexual men act so femine that you
can spot them in a minute. Now, I am sure this is not the case in every
instance but it certainly is overwhelmingly true. Most male homosexuals act
more feminine than most women.
If lesbians find men so repulsive, why do they do their best to look and act
like men?
Maybe this question doesn't belong on this newsgroup but there seems to be
homosexuals posting here so I thought I would ask. I don't mean to tick
anyone off, this is a legitamate question for me.
Oscar Whitman
> Something that I have always wondered about Homosexual actions. A lesbian
> will say she is the way she is because she is not attracted to men but she
> is sexually attracted to women and the male homosexual will say that he is
> not sexuallly attracted to women but is attracted to men.
>
> Then why does the Lesbian go out and link up with a woman who looks, talks,
> and acts just like a man.
You're generalizing too much here. There is so much more to sexual orientation
and attraction than how one's partner looks, talks and acts -- I mean, there
*is* a full human being behind one's outward appearance. A person's gender
identity can be very complex, as is the issue of gender roles which are
artificially or culturally assigned to biological males or females. Gender roles
have become confused with sexual orientation; they shouldn't be equated.
Yes, some lesbians are attracted to "masculine" or "butch" women. Some aren't.
Some very macho gay men are attracted to very "feminine" men. Some are not.
Some people might find they are attracted to either or both. There is no single
blueprint for sexual attraction.
> And why do Homosexual men act so femine that you
> can spot them in a minute. Now, I am sure this is not the case in every
> instance but it certainly is overwhelmingly true.
It is not overwhelmingly true. You've made that assumption partly based on the
fact that when you see a man who behaves in a "feminine" manner, you
automatically assume they are gay (I do that, too, but I've been mistaken more
than once). You probably wouldn't even suspect more macho men as being gay, so
you're assuming they don't exist. You're caught up in an illusion of gender
roles. But I would venture that the great majority of gay men do, in fact,
"pass" on the street as what most people would assume to be straight.
> Maybe this question doesn't belong on this newsgroup but there seems to be
> homosexuals posting here so I thought I would ask. I don't mean to tick
> anyone off, this is a legitamate question for me.
It is a legitimate question. You're genuinely curious, and there's nothing
offensive about that at all.
Oscar Whitman
Mark Johnson
>On Mon, 09 Aug 1999 13:58:04 GMT,
>elliott@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nyu.edu (frank w elliott jr)
>enlightened us all with:
>>You're asking Mark Johnson to learn something. Is that ever likely to
>>happen? He's still posting moronic "proofs" that indicate he can't
>>comprehend basic algebra.
But really, isn't 4=3, especially if there exists a 'formal proof'?
Maybe you're just not getting these messages. That's it, right Frank?
Or maybe the whole point of such 'proofs' is just lost on you. Frank
Elliot, math genius at large. (hey, I found a bunch more - maybe I'll
post 'em)
>>WRT your alcoholism, what would you think if the Vatican published
>>a letter requiring alcoholics to remain silent about their own
>>alcoholism as proof of their good intentions and as the primary
>>means of avoiding discrimination?
What _are_ you babbling on about, Frank? What victimology, what
conspiracy, cant have you prepared for us, today?
>What would you think if your fellow
>>Catholics said nothing and angrily defended the Vatican when
>>questioned on the subject?
>Frank, you are preaching to the converted ...
That's not quite the word I'd use. But then we speak two entirely
different languages. It was like watching the libral media fawn over
the latest 'dead Kennedy' by pretty much ignoring him, and just
reliving the 'glory days' of coverage and trivia of Jack and Bobby.
Yeahhh, I remember when. Those were _good_ times. And Jackie always
looked so 'presidential'. It was practically ghoulish. 7 days of
lionization. Ted Kennedy as the 'most effective' Senator in decades.
America's most wanted 'royalty'. Those people live in a world all
their own. And I'm fairly certain it's the same with any libral -
'changing church' 'catholics' incl. You can't foster fantasy, you
can't maintain illusion, you can't pump out the propaganda, in the
face of simple reality, if you mix with those who differ from you, if
you search out news and information potentially damaging to 'the
cause', and so on. You must confine yourself to a PC network of
'friends' and comrades, unthinkingly condemn any possible criticism of
the libral 'faith' in reactionary fashion, wonder aloud if 'those
people' just can't be gotten rid of, and so on. It's really all the
same, beneath whatever trivial, superficial differences, down through
history. Tyranny is tyranny. And ultimately, it's just a violent and
socially destructive joke. 'Changing churchmen', out there - get a
clue.
>If you remember any of my other posts on the subject, you should know
>that I strongly disagree with the official position on homosexuality. I
>can'r do anything about that official position. All I can do is support,
>defend and help folk that I meet.
Of course, you disagree with The Church when it condemns vice, the sin
but not the sinner. You would promote vice. That is 'changing church'
in a nutshell (no pun intended).
>BUT, as my own position is held under the *primacy of conscience'
The Church is that which defends conscience. What you support isn't
conscience, but confusion - not things as God intended, but
exclusively as they appear to fallen Man.
>description, I also fight for fellow Catholics to be able to state their
>own position.
Sure ya do.
>I do however apologise for *any* posting from any fellow Catholic who
>allows themselves to get so hungup on *my church, right or wrong* that
>they forget that they follow one who loved all.
It's not exactly a show of charity, Mitch, to just with the swipe of
the hand relegate those who confess The Church and orthodox Catholic
belief to the rank of the uncharitable for doing so. In fact, it's the
very inversion of truth. It's diabolic. That's where such inversions
come from. Bad is good. Right is wrong. And so on.
But you know that.
Peace.
Here's one for Frank, 'math genius':
----------------------------------------
jul...@cco.caltech.edu
Theorem: All numbers are equal.
Choose arbitrary a and b, and let t = a + b.
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb
a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb
a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4
(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
RobinOak
>
> Stephen Patten <hei...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7ok8e2$j3q$1...@gxsn.com...
>
> []
>
> > A few years back a bill went through our Parliament which would make it
> > legal for men to have sex with boys of sixteen or so.
>
>
> Is that OK?
Eeek, NO! Why?? If we're talking about 2 sixteen-year olds together,
then it's different. The problem is, what if the girl is 16 and the
'man' is 18? Or so. Hardly the same thing as the man = 35 or 45 and the
girl = 16. The interval is important, I think.
Dion Fortune <may her name be forever blessed> once said that the state
of psychological sexual hygiene in the British Isles was comparable to
the state of medieval sanitation. For that reason, she dedicated "The
Sea Priestess" to 'the goddess Cloicina'.
Patronness of the Roman sewers!! <G>
Which solves the mystery of where the word 'clo' comes from....
>
> []
>
> > It gets worse, the government now plans to remove prohibitions on schools
> > teaching that homosexuality and heterosexuality can be equated as no more
> > than 'life-style' choices of equal value.
> >
> > Both moves have negligible public support, yet our government feels that
> it
> > must push these through.
>
> I disagree that it has negligible public support. I think that most people
> are happy to equalise the Age of Consent at 16 for both hetero- and
> homosexual activity.
>
> []
>
> Jim Hynes
James Hynes
[]
> A few years back a bill went through our Parliament which would make it
> legal for men to have sex with boys of sixteen or so.
At the moment it is legal for men to have sex with girls of 16.
Is that OK?
[]
> It gets worse, the government now plans to remove prohibitions on schools
> teaching that homosexuality and heterosexuality can be equated as no more
> than 'life-style' choices of equal value.
>
> Both moves have negligible public support, yet our government feels that
it
> must push these through.
I disagree that it has negligible public support. I think that most people
James T. Savidge
RobinOak wrote:
> Stephen Patten wrote:
>
> > It gets worse, the government now plans to remove prohibitions on schools
> > teaching that homosexuality and heterosexuality can be equated as no more
> > than 'life-style' choices of equal value.
>
> I'm not sure that's bad, though I would disagree that it is a CHOICE.
>
> In many ways, my life would be much easier if I could CHOOSE to be
> lesbian. However, the Goddess made me pretty much straight as an arrow.
>
> ....which means that for the rest of my life, I will continue to have to
> put that @#$# toilet seat DOWN <and constantly clean around the outside
> base!! Don't your fathers teach you all target practice???> And all
> that, no matter where I live or which male person I may live with.....
<rant>
<rant>
If bathrooms in residences had urinals then there would be less of a mess to
clean up!
Not only that, but it would be easier to conserve water. A urinal takes 1/4 to
1/10 the water to flush as a toilet does.
Some people say that they are ugly but I say that they are no uglier than a
toilet. If anyone really has a problem with the way they look, there are
versions that can be installed that slide back into the wall after use.
If you ever get the chance to have a house custom built, then do everyone a
favor, (including yourself,) and let the interior designer put one in.
As for accuracy thing, we didn't design the things. If we did have the chance to
design them, then we would most assuredly would make them more accurate.
</rant>
</rant>
Aaaahhhhhh!
I can think so much clearer after I've ranted.;-)
May God lead us to a fuller understanding of His truth and may His peace go with
you.
James T. Savidge, <tsav...@fastlane.net>, Tuesday, August 10, 1999
--
1 Peter 3:8-15
[8] Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a
tender heart and a humble mind. [9] Do not return evil for evil or reviling for
reviling; but on the contrary bless, for to this you have been called, that you
may obtain a blessing. [10] For "He that would love life and see good days, let
him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking guile; [11] let him turn
away from evil and do right; let him seek peace and pursue it. [12] For the eyes
of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer. But
the face of the Lord is against those that do evil." [13] Now who is there to
harm you if you are zealous for what is right? [14] But even if you do suffer for
righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,
[15] but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a
defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do
it with gentleness and reverence;
Mark Johnson
jr) wrote:
>Mark Johnson (1023...@compuserve.com) wrote:
>: Theorem: All numbers are equal.
>: Choose arbitrary a and b, and let t = a + b.
>: (a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
>: a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb
>: a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb
>: a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4
>: (a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2
>: a - t/2 = b - t/2
>Non sequitur. (a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2 implies that
James Hynes
> James Hynes wrote:
> >
> > Stephen Patten <hei...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:7ok8e2$j3q$1...@gxsn.com...
> >
> > []
> >
> > > it legal for men to have sex with boys of sixteen or so.
> >
> >
> > Is that OK?
>
> then it's different. The problem is, what if the girl is 16 and the
> 'man' is 18? Or so. Hardly the same thing as the man = 35 or 45 and the
> girl = 16. The interval is important, I think.
Indeed it is, but the *Law* in England and Wales is that the Age of Consent
for both women and men for heterosexual sex is 16. So if anybody has sex
with somebody below that age it is a criminal offence.
If the age gap is more than a year or two, it could well be a dangerous or
exploitative situation, but it is not per se illegal.
The point I am trying to make is that some people seem to think that 16 year
old boys need protection from older men, but 16 year old girls don't.
Personally I think that any 16 year olds partaking in sex are putting
themselves at risk, and are probably not mature enough to handle the
situation, but I still argue that the Age of Consent should not be different
for homo- or hetero- sex.
BTW the "Age of Consent" concept does not mean that sex is a good idea or
obligatory at that age, it just means that it is not a criminal offence in
every case by reason of age alone.
> Dion Fortune <may her name be forever blessed> once said that the state
> of psychological sexual hygiene in the British Isles was comparable to
> the state of medieval sanitation. For that reason, she dedicated "The
> Sea Priestess" to 'the goddess Cloicina'.
>
> Patroness of the Roman sewers!! <G>
>
> Which solves the mystery of where the word 'clo' comes from....
Does it? I have never heard of the word 'clo'.
I have just looked it up in Webster's and the closest I can find is 'cloaca'
which is a "sewer, sink, privy; a general receptacle or repository for
filth" (hey! That last bit sounds like Usenet!) said to come from the Latin
for a drain.
So that ties in with what you said.
I didn't know there was a Patroness of the Roman sewers. She sounds like the
sort of deity that Terry Pratchett would dream up in "Small Gods" or
"Hogfather".
I wonder if the same word has anything to do with the term "cloak-room", a
style of room in which I have never seen any cloaks!
Jim Hynes
Stephen Patten
James Hynes <jimh...@bromage.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7onuli$3g3$1...@nclient13-gui.server.virgin.net...
> > legal for men to have sex with boys of sixteen or so.
>
>
> Is that OK?
>
>
> > It gets worse, the government now plans to remove prohibitions on
schools
> > teaching that homosexuality and heterosexuality can be equated as no
more
> > than 'life-style' choices of equal value.
> >
> > Both moves have negligible public support, yet our government feels that
> it
> > must push these through.
>
> are happy to equalise the Age of Consent at 16 for both hetero- and
> homosexual activity.
Most people? C'mon now. The opinion polls I've seen suggest otherwise.
I know anecdotal evidence means little, but most of the people I've worked
with in the army or the building trade or spoken to in the dives I drink in
are far from happy that homosexuality and heterosexuality are being equated.
Maybe I move in different circles to you, or did anyway.
Do you really think the working class (an old fashioned term I know) are as
liberal as that? If our government, or any other, come to think of it, put
the issue to a referendum you know they'd lose. Look what happened when
the French socialist (like, just, our own) government tried last year to
give homosexual unions the same status as the marriage of a man and women.
The scandolous thing was that it was the laity in France that spearheaded
the protest, not the hierarchy. Funny how such a popular cause as 'gay
rights' could lead to Jews, Moslems and members of the Front Nationale all
appearing in the same protest march.
Stephen Patten
>
> []
>
> Jim Hynes
>
>
Stephen Patten
James Hynes <jimh...@bromage.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7onuli$3g3$1...@nclient13-gui.server.virgin.net...
>
> Stephen Patten <hei...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7ok8e2$j3q$1...@gxsn.com...
>
> []
>
> > legal for men to have sex with boys of sixteen or so.
>
>
> Is that OK?
>
I guess the whole debate boils down to whether one believes the 'Sin of
Sodom' is a greater sin than fornication - and please, no one bring up that
old canard about Sodom's crime being its refusal to welcome strangers.
Stephen Patten
Stephen Patten
> Stephen Patten wrote:
>
> []
>
>
> > > So why are the gays ostracized? There's a witchhunt <shudder!> right
> > > now against gays in this country.
> >
> > I'm not so well informed about events in the US but in England there are
> > plenty of reasons, I can think of, as to why some folk keep away from
> > them.
>
> I keep forgetting that.
>
> You write like an American. (?) I can't remember now if you are
> American, and just living over there, or what. Oh well. In any case, the
> conditions where you are are different from those here.
Is that a compliment or some comment about my poor grammar and spelling? :)
>
>
> > A few years back a bill went through our Parliament which would make it
> > legal for men to have sex with boys of sixteen or so. It was voted
down.
> > Outside of Parliament their was a riot by homosexual activists. Why?
Why
> > was it so important to them that sexual activity with a young boy was
legal?
> > What was even more disturbing was some of the 'gay activists' pushing
for
> > this legislation
> > had also argued for the lowering of the age to 14!!
>
>
> That's weird. REALLY weird. I can't imagine that here, though. Here
> we're still trying to keep them from getting shot in their beds and
> beaten up on the street.
>
>
> > Clearly, the answer is because they wanted to indulge in these
activities.
> > Tony Blair's 'New Labour' government, with at least four homosexuals in
the
> > cabinet, made sexual activity between men and sixteen year old boys
legal.
>
> <dryly>
>
> ....that would certainly have helped a few priests here in the States
> .... <which is why we need a MARRIED CLERGY. To be able to
> draw from a much larger pool of applicants!>
I'm sorry but your conclusion doesn't follow, necessarily, the premise. A
decade or so ago the press, before it targeted the Catholic Church, was
always reporting stories about Anglican vicars and choirboys. No, what the
Church needs is more priests that really love Christ, are prepared to take
up the Cross and to be Christ like. It doesn't matter how large the pool
is if few love Christ enough.
>
>
> > It gets worse, the government now plans to remove prohibitions on
schools
> > teaching that homosexuality and heterosexuality can be equated as no
more
> > than 'life-style' choices of equal value.
>
>
> I'm not sure that's bad, though I would disagree that it is a CHOICE.
Ah! There's the crux of the whole issue. Is it a choice or not?
>
> In many ways, my life would be much easier if I could CHOOSE to be
> lesbian. However, the Goddess made me pretty much straight as an arrow.
>
> ....which means that for the rest of my life, I will continue to have to
> put that @#$# toilet seat DOWN <and constantly clean around the outside
> base!! Don't your fathers teach you all target practice???> And all
> that, no matter where I live or which male person I may live with.....
Consider it from the male point of view: your dying for a leak, rush into
the toilet only to find the seat DOWN. Can cause problems, especially if
timing is critical!!!
>
>
> > Both moves have negligible public support, yet our government feels that
it
> > must push these through.
> >
> > But homosexual 'rights' don't stop there, some small Caribbean
islands,
> > remnants of our past empire, have legislation that outlaws homosexual
> > activity. Britain has put these islands under intense pressure to
repeal
> > this legislation or forfit government aid.
>
> I'd have to agree with that. Those laws are like the laws against
> fornication and adultery. What are we going to do, lock people up or put
> them in the stocks again? These things need to be a matter of personal
> morality and conscience. The state doesn't belong in the bedrooms of
> consenting *adults* <note the word "adults", NOT 16 or 14-year olds!>
You think it is right for the Old World to use its financial muscle to
influence to legislation of Third World countries? Enforcing **Our**
immorality on them is okay? Funnily enough, most West Indians and other
Caribbeans I've come across are violently opposed to homosexuality.
>
>
> > I can, but choose not to, switch on terrestial tv and watch at least
three
> > or four programmes a week designed by gays for gays, there's even a
sitcom
> > at 9.30 pm on BBC TV about a homosexual who 'cruises for rough-trade' to
> > quote the main character.
>
> <hands on hips, stern Mammy-like look>: How many times have I told you,
> don't watch TV!! It is poisoning our brains, Legatus Amicus!!!!
Agreed! However, I'm on an economy binge. Doesn't matter what drivel is on
as long as it keeps me away from the pub I'll watch it. Mind you....some
of the trash that is on British TV is enough to drive anyone to drink. Oh
for the glory days of Morecambe and Wise, Dad's Army, the Onedin Line,
Poldark.... (will mean nothing to those the wrong side of the Atlantic, or
Channel).
You claim you can. You're the one saying no one chooses the lifestyle.
And really... if a person is straight, why oh WHY
> would that person CHOOSE to sleep or fall in love with one of the same
> sex??? It ... I don't think it can even be DONE! And *why*??
Well, why would someone steal, or beat their wife, or commit any manner of
sin? Are they all predisposed to these? Is no one guilty of any wrongdoing?
Are we all victims of our genes and environment?
>
> Maybe I'm naive, I dunno.....
>
>
> > Now let us be frank here. Why do so many homosexuals flaunt their
> > sexuality? Why
> > do they go on, and on, about what they do, using it as a device to
describe
> > what they are? Do any other sinners so loudly proclaim themsevles?
> > I don't want to know what they get up to in their bedroom. I don't want
to
> > know what a persons son or daughter does either.
>
> It seems that the straight world is doing that just as much, if not
> more. All day LONG, you hear, in schools and in some workplaces, an
> almost constant diatribe about fag this fag that, homo this, & that. All
> from people who claim to be straight, and consider straightness almost
> like a religion.
>
> So who's really drawing the attention to the differences, the gays or
> the straights?
>
>
> And their spiritual needs are not being met. They feel
> excluded from the table. <do you want me to tell you how many gay Pagans
> I've met? Tons. And tons.>
I know lots of drunken atheists, adulterous atheists, etc. The only pagans
I've ever met were violent racists? So what? Like the homosexuals, the
reason they've left the Church is because She asks them to change their
ways. They choose not to. Wouldn't we all just love it if our particular
vice was endorsed by the Church.
And why are they Pagan? Because the
> Christians won't accept them, that's why. Now, it may suit them and
> their spiritual needs, neopaganism. Maybe. Mileage varies, as always.
> But a lot of them really would prefer to be Christian, but feel they
> can't. Feel that the Christian God hates them. To listen to a lot of
> people in the churches, I think that's a fair assessment.
>
Rubbish! They know full well that they can worship Christ. They also
know that God doesn't hate them, he only hates what they choose to do. Even
in little old England there are organisations ministering to homosexuals.
The ones that enjoy the Church's full blessings are those that exhort their
members to live a life of 'heroic' chastity. Though why it should be
considered more heroic than the call for heterosexuals to be chaste defeats
me.
>
> > I'm sorry Robin, but I think there is an agenda here.
>
> Of course there's an agenda! Who ever said there wasn't?
>
>
> > And it is quite
> > straight forward. Homosexuals want the Church to drop its opposition to
> > homosexual activity. Either by lobbying for a change in teachings, or,
and
> > it is in this area that they have been most successful, by browbeating
the
> > weaker members of the Church into silence.
>
> Again, your mileage may vary. But I live in the US Bible Belt.
>
> Trust me, it's not the straight people here who are the 'weaker members'
> of the church. It's the outsiders.
>
> Maybe there is where you are, in the political realm. Could very well
> be, I dunno. What I am seeing from where I sit, is some few in the
> church saying, "Come in, and be welcome at our table, like any other
> baptized Catholic. God loves you **just the way you are**." The sermon
> we heard at that mass was all about chastity.
But God doesn't like me 'just the way I am'. He definitely doesn't share
the prejudices of Stephen Patten - if He did the world would be a terrible
thing. Yet I know this, that's why I TRY (escape clause time) to change.
The sermon sounds brave. As were those homosexuals who came to listen. I
hope to God they've found inspiration. I hope to God I find inspiration...
>
> > The saddest, most pitiful,
> > consequence of this it that so many are being allowed to remain in a
state
> > of mortal sin, and also that so many well meaning members of the Church
are
> > sharing in these sins by their silence - remember the teaching about
how we
> > either cause or share the guilt of another's sin by silence?
>
> Hang on, hang on -- why should I presume about the state of someone
> else's soul on the basis of their sexual orientation? Are we presuming
> that there's some dirty stuff going on behind the scenes? Don't straight
> people bump tweeters when they shouldn't, too?? <g>
>
I dunno what mileage there is in such debates, which begs the question as to
why there are such things as newsgroups, but I'll try to word this
intelligibly. How can one be a homosexual unless one has engaged in
homosexual activity? Or does the term homosexual extend to all those
who've even fleetingly wondered what sex would be like with a member of
their own sex , or found themselves confused by their feelings towards a
member of the same sex? I know it is a generalization but are not the
majority of those that call themselves homosexual practicing? Therein lies
the problem. No one has called them homosexual, it is a label the person
has chosen for themselves, a label that describes, in the main, what they
do, not just what they feel.
Perhaps this might make the point, I know of no one that goes around wearing
badges, attending marches, demanding legislation etc, who has only just
thought about, rather than commiting, a burglary, or adultery or murder or
what have you. I'm sorry, but the whole notion that a sizeable proportion
of self-proclaimed homosexuals are just fantasists just doesn't wash. I
don't, or try at least not to, judge others, but if they proclaim their
state as sinners then surely this is a different matter. Afterall, if
someone was to attend mass with a badge saying 'Parents of Shoplifters' am I
to think that the person sporting the badge is the mother or father of
someone who has only ever dreamed or planned, rather than carry out, a
shoplifting spree?
Must be the American way I write. No, the question I was asking was how
much your parish does to reach out to those separated brethren you label as
'right-wing Protestants'. I'll wager (free with my money aint I) they do a
lot less than REAl ecumenism demands . Or am I wrong?
Even though I ask old Cardinal Newman to pray for me each night, I just
can't help feeling that this 'primacy of conscience' thing is the perfect
vehicle for backsliding. If everybody is the arbiter of their own actions,
and can use the 'well I don't think it is wrong' argument than what on earth
is punishable and unpunishable. I mean, I'm dang sure Stalin, Mao and Pol
Pot thought what they were doing was right. So what? There are things
that are objectively wrong, and things that are not. Sex of any kind
outside of marriage is wrong. Homosexual acts doubly so.
It's not for us to presume
> that others are in mortal sin. You sound as though you're eager to pin
> the 'sin' label on the gays, and I just don't agree, sorry Steve....
> <shrug>
Sorry, but I'm not the one doing the pinning, I just read the 'badges'.
They really can't go into church and pray that God makes them
> straight. <well, they CAN, but it generally doesn't work>. God made some
> of us gay, some of straight. <it may even be a natural, built-in form
> of population control.....who knows...>
Ah well, we are all doomed then. Clearly if their desire to sin is beyond
the help of God, then I guess all my desires are uncontrollable as well.
Gosh, I didn't know I was wasting my time when I asked for God's grace to
help me live a more Christlike life. I mean, I shouldn't have bothered
should I? I was made that way, made to commit those sins I've committed,
it was beyond my control wasn't it?
>
> It's weird... this idea that people can choose to be gay or straight.
> Trust me, I'm so disgusted with men at this point, IF ONLY!!! <g> Just
> think, a life-partner who keeps the seat down. And whose clothes I could
> borrow. And so on. <smile> But I CAN'T! I am just not built that way,
> and I can't 'choose' that orientation any more than I can choose to
> change the color of my eyes <without those fancy new eyeball-changing
> contact things, that is>.
Egads! Why would anyone choose to be so? I don't share your opinion that
it is 'life-style' that is forced on someone. Call me old fashioned, but I
still believe there is such a thing as free-will. I'll meet you half-way
and concede that some may, as a result of genetic (possilby) or
environmental factors (definitely), have a greater temptation towards
certains vices than others.
>
>
> It's really too bad <and too weird> about the bills in your country,
> before Parliment, regarding boys & men, and so on. If the stuff you
> mentioned is representative, the climate in England is way different
> from here. Here people are really not being coddled at all. We just had
> a case not long ago where two young lunks tied a gay kid to a fence,
> beat him to a pulp, and then left him there to die. They more or less
> crucified him, in fact. Only because he was 'a fag'. And Real Men Hate
> Fags, as we all know. <sigh> (If they were REALLY Real Men, they would
> be secure enough in themselves not to feel that way, but so it goes, so
> it goes.....>
I think you are being a bit economical with the facts here. Wasn't there
more to the case than what you've outlined? Didn't the young man whose
become a liberal martyr 'come on' to one of his murderers? Of course this
doesn't in any way justify murder, though it might explain the murderers'
anger. Which leads on to another point .... How, by your logic that people
are born a certain way, can one cricize those men that called the young lad?
Maybe they were born with a predisposition to murder homosexuals. Victims
of their genes and environment. You can't have it both ways, either man
has freewill or he is a slave to his passions, and blameless with it.
>
> I'm proud of my church because despite public disapproval, they are
> sticking their neck out to make this part of society more acceptable.
Disapproval from who? From the establishment elite or us oinks down below?
Stephen Patten
P.S. Even though we're probably miles apart on this topic I'd just like to
go on record and say that your posts, on whatever issues, are the most
polite, unbigoted and enjoyable of any that I've come across on a religious
NG - apart, perhaps, from the blessed janets, of memory <g>. (On re-reading
this I had to reach for the sick bag, but I'll leave it in anyway - you only
type once ?!?)
Oscar Whitman
[]
> You think it is right for the Old World to use its financial muscle to
> influence to legislation of Third World countries? Enforcing **Our**
> immorality on them is okay? Funnily enough, most West Indians and other
> Caribbeans I've come across are violently opposed to homosexuality.
"Violent opposition to homosexuality" *is* immoral. That kind of opposition is
what gets nice young men hung on fences.
[]
> Wouldn't we all just love it if our particular
> vice was endorsed by the Church.
What about yours and the Church's nasty habit of abusing, demeaning and
humiliating gay people? There's a vice that's heartily endorsed by the official
Church.
[]
> How can one be a homosexual unless one has engaged in
> homosexual activity?
Please, that is so offensive. Don't heterosexual people still have a
heterosexual orientation even if you have never had heterosexual sex?
[]
> Or does the term homosexual extend to all those
> who've even fleetingly wondered what sex would be like with a member of
> their own sex , or found themselves confused by their feelings towards a
> member of the same sex? I know it is a generalization but are not the
> majority of those that call themselves homosexual practicing? Therein lies
> the problem. No one has called them homosexual, it is a label the person
> has chosen for themselves, a label that describes, in the main, what they
> do, not just what they feel.
You are wrong. There are many gay or lesbian people (who have strong homosexual
feelings yet are faithful to their spouse) who are or have been heterosexually
married. A man whose most common and most emotionally fulfilling sexual
attraction is for other men is a homosexual man, regardless of whether or not
they've *ever* actually been with a man. They might have been heterosexually
married their whole life, and they may have "normal" sexual relations with their
spouse, but they still have a homosexual orientation. Likewise, a longtime
celibate priest may have never been with a man, but if he is primarily
sexually/emotionally attracted to other men, he is homosexual. I personally am
not even capable of playing that game (either game, that is: heterosexual
marriage or longtime celibacy).
[]
> Perhaps this might make the point, I know of no one that goes around wearing
> badges, attending marches, demanding legislation etc, who has only just
> thought about, rather than commiting, a burglary, or adultery or murder or
> what have you. I'm sorry, but the whole notion that a sizeable proportion
> of self-proclaimed homosexuals are just fantasists just doesn't wash. I
> don't, or try at least not to, judge others, but if they proclaim their
> state as sinners then surely this is a different matter. Afterall, if
> someone was to attend mass with a badge saying 'Parents of Shoplifters' am I
> to think that the person sporting the badge is the mother or father of
> someone who has only ever dreamed or planned, rather than carry out, a
> shoplifting spree?
Jeez, how much more offensive can you be? You take it for granted that all
expressions of homosexuality are sinful. Healthy homosexual people do not.
Therefore, they don't have to hide or be shameful. I live with my partner in a
ordinary suburban middle-class neighborhood. I guess my entire life is a
proclamation that I am gay, because my neighbors certainly don't think this man
is my brother -- nor would I let them think that. I choose to have personal
integrity is as much as it is possible for me.
[]
> Even though I ask old Cardinal Newman to pray for me each night, I just
> can't help feeling that this 'primacy of conscience' thing is the perfect
> vehicle for backsliding. If everybody is the arbiter of their own actions,
> and can use the 'well I don't think it is wrong' argument than what on earth
> is punishable and unpunishable.
Children behave this way or that so that they can avoid punishment; a healthy
adult lives (responsibly) by their own conscience and is not guided by the
treats of "punishment". Morality is more complex than reward and punishment.
[]
> Egads! Why would anyone choose to be so? I don't share your opinion that
> it is 'life-style' that is forced on someone. Call me old fashioned, but I
> still believe there is such a thing as free-will.
<my hundredth sigh> When did you choose to be heterosexual? I want the date and
the time. Was there a point in your life where you could have easily gone either
way but you selected heterosexuality? Malevolent ignorance, on the other hand,
*is* a choice.
[]
> I think you are being a bit economical with the facts here. Wasn't there
> more to the case than what you've outlined? Didn't the young man whose
> become a liberal martyr 'come on' to one of his murderers? Of course this
> doesn't in any way justify murder, though it might explain the murderers'
> anger.
OK, that takes the cake. Why in God's name would a pass "explain the murderers'
anger"? As a gay man, I don't have any anger toward women who want to date me!
You are suffering from homophobia, the very same homophobia with which those
murderers were infected.
[]
> I'd just like to
> go on record and say that your posts, on whatever issues, are the most
> polite, unbigoted and enjoyable of any that I've come across on a religious
> NG
If only your eyes were more open. Your beliefs about homosexuals are impolite,
bigoted and definitely unenjoyable.
And people wonder why I'm so grouchy?
Oscar Whitman
UticaCW
>Jeez, how much more offensive can you be?
Better toughen up, Oscar. Americans are naturally tolerant, but they loathe
special pleading. The PC movement, e.g., made one special plea too many, and
the great tide of history raised up a wave of indignant reaction to sweep it
away. The gains of the gay-rights movement can vanish just as quickly if you
whine too much and too loudly about the sort of "unfair" lumps that everyone
else has to suffer in silence.
Dave
Oscar Whitman
> Oscar Whitman wrote:
>
> >Jeez, how much more offensive can you be?
>
> Better toughen up, Oscar. Americans are naturally tolerant, but they loathe
> special pleading.
Why do you address me as if I come from Mars? I'm an American, too, remember? I'm
not just GAY. Nobody is just GAY.
Only 10 of 50 U.S. states forbid discrimination against gay people in employment
and housing. You call that "tolerant"? Do you consider the right to housing and
employment "special"? And neither did gay people get what we *do* have by
begging. We got what we got because 1) we earned it all by ourselves, and 2) it
was the right thing to do (instead of caving into the special pleadings of
bigots).
> The PC movement, e.g., made one special plea too many, and
> the great tide of history raised up a wave of indignant reaction to sweep it
> away. The gains of the gay-rights movement can vanish just as quickly if you
> whine too much and too loudly about the sort of "unfair" lumps that everyone
> else has to suffer in silence.
Your true colors are showing, and you're the one who seems to be whining. Well,
stick it up your special pleading ass, Dave. You speak of gay people as if we are
dogs, waiting for scraps to be thrown from your table. We're not begging; we're
seated right next to you and we're partaking.
Oscar Whitman
Mitch
all with:
>Better toughen up, Oscar. Americans are naturally tolerant, but they loathe
>special pleading.
I don't think that either of our countries can claim to be very
tolerant. The Supreme Court had to step in to legislate on behalf of
your black countrymen.
As for my lot, your country was founded by refugees from out
intolerance.
--
Mitch
Mitch
<dream...@worldnet.att.net> enlightened us all with:
>"Violent opposition to homosexuality" *is* immoral. That kind of opposition is
>what gets nice young men hung on fences.
Or gay pubs in Soho bombed ..
>What about yours and the Church's nasty habit of abusing, demeaning and
>humiliating gay people? There's a vice that's heartily endorsed by the official
>Church.
Oscar, you do love shooting yourself in the foot!
--
Mitch
James Hynes
>
> James Hynes <jimh...@bromage.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7onuli$3g3$1...@nclient13-gui.server.virgin.net...
> >
> > Stephen Patten <hei...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:7ok8e2$j3q$1...@gxsn.com...
> >
> > []
> >
> > > it legal for men to have sex with boys of sixteen or so.
> >
> >
> > Is that OK?
> >
> Is it better or worse? Do you see no difference between the two?
No, not really. I think it is always a bad situation if there is a big age
gap, for example between a 25 year old man and a 16 year old girl, or a 16
year old boy. In both cases there could be exploitation or coercion. I think
that is the issue rather than if it is between people of the same or
opposite sex.
I said in another post that I think it is unwise generally speaking 16 year
olds to be having sex, but I still think it should not be illegal.
> I guess the whole debate boils down to whether one believes the 'Sin of
> Sodom' is a greater sin than fornication - and please, no one bring up
that
> old canard about Sodom's crime being its refusal to welcome strangers.
What happened in Sodom was rape. Read the story and you will see that it was
a violent assault - not in any sense to be equated with a consensual
relationship.
So the "sin of Sodom" was a variety of violent assault.
Jim Hynes
James Hynes
Oscar Whitman <dream...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:37B0C505...@worldnet.att.net...
> Stephen Patten wrote:
>
> []
>
> > You think it is right for the Old World to use its financial muscle to
> > influence to legislation of Third World countries? Enforcing **Our**
> > immorality on them is okay? Funnily enough, most West Indians and
> > other Caribbeans I've come across are violently opposed to
> > homosexuality.
>
> "Violent opposition to homosexuality" *is* immoral. That kind of
> opposition is what gets nice young men hung on fences.
It is also condemned by the Catholic Church.
> []
>
> > Wouldn't we all just love it if our particular
> > vice was endorsed by the Church.
>
> What about yours and the Church's nasty habit of abusing, demeaning and
> humiliating gay people? There's a vice that's heartily endorsed by the
> official Church.
Not it isn't, actually. Many people behave abusively, but it is not
officially endorsed - far from it.
For example, from the document issued by the Pontifical Council for the
Family in 1995, "The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality":
n.104 "Persons in this situation must be accepted with respect, dignity and
delicacy, and all forms of unjust discrimination must be avoided."
Also: "For most homosexual persons, this condition constitutes a trial. They
must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of
unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n.2333, "Everyone...should
acknowledge and accept his sexual identity."
And some helpful quotations from the document "Always Our Children" issued
by the American Catholic Bishops Conference, Committee on Marriage and
Family:
"There seems to be no single cause of a homosexual orientation. A common
opinion of experts is that there are multiple factors -- genetic, hormonal,
psychological -- that may give rise to it. Generally, homosexual orientation
is experienced as a given, not as something freely chosen. By itself,
therefore, a homosexual orientation cannot be considered sinful, for
morality presumes the freedom to choose."
Again:
"Respect for the God-given dignity of all persons means the recognition of
human rights and responsibilities. The teaching of the Church makes it clear
that the fundamental human rights of homosexual persons must be defended and
that all of us must strive to eliminate any form of injustice, oppression,
or violence against them (cf. The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, 1986,
n.10).
It is not sufficient only to avoid unjust discrimination. Homosexual persons
"must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity" (Catechism of
the Catholic Church, #2358). They, as is true of every human being, need to
be nourished at many different levels simultaneously.
This includes friendship, which is a way of loving and is essential to
healthy human development, as well as one of the richest possible human
experiences. Friendship can and does thrive outside of genital sexual
involvement.
The Christian community should offer its homosexual sisters and brothers
understanding and pastoral care. More than twenty years ago we bishops
stated that "Homosexuals...should have an active role in the Christian
community" (National Conference of Catholic Bishops, To Live in Christ
Jesus: A Pastoral Reflection on the Moral Life, 1976, p.19). What does this
mean in practice? It means that all homosexual persons have a right to be
welcomed into the community, to hear the word of God, and to receive
pastoral care. Homosexual persons who are living chaste lives should have
opportunities to lead and serve the community. However, the Church has the
right to deny public roles of service and leadership to persons, whether
homosexual or heterosexual, whose public behavior openly violates its
teachings."
Again:
"Nothing in the Bible or in Catholic teaching can be used to justify
prejudicial or discriminatory attitudes and behaviors. We reiterate here
what we said in an earlier statement:
"We call on all Christians and citizens of good will to confront their own
fears about homosexuality and to curb the humor and discrimination that
offend homosexual persons. We understand that having a homosexual
orientation brings with it enough anxiety, pain and issues related to
self-acceptance without society bringing additional prejudicial treatment
(Human Sexuality: A Catholic Perspective for Education and Lifelong
Learning, 1991, p.55)."
And finally, from the section of the document on pastoral guidance to Church
ministers:
"Welcome homosexual persons into the faith community. Seek out those on the
margins. Avoid stereotyping and condemnations. Strive first to listen. Do
not presume that all homosexual persons are sexually active."
This discussion began when RobinOak told us what her home parish was doing.
They seem to be following the guidance of their Bishops in this matter.
Those who deserve criticism - in the light of Church teaching - are not
those who attempt to minister to homosexual people in this way, but those
who are indifferent or hostile.
Jim Hynes
Oscar Whitman
> On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 19:34:13 -0500, Oscar Whitman
> <dream...@worldnet.att.net> enlightened us all with:
>
> >"Violent opposition to homosexuality" *is* immoral. That kind of opposition is
> >what gets nice young men hung on fences.
>
> Or gay pubs in Soho bombed ..
>
> >What about yours and the Church's nasty habit of abusing, demeaning and
> >humiliating gay people? There's a vice that's heartily endorsed by the official
> >Church.
>
> Oscar, you do love shooting yourself in the foot!
>
> --
> Mitch
I just looked down and my foot *seems* OK, and I've never shot a gun, nor do I plan
to...but did I miss something?
Oscar
UticaCW
>Why do you address me as if I come from Mars?
Earth to Oscar ... Earth to Oscar ... come in Oscar ... lighten-up dude.
>Only 10 of 50 U.S. states forbid discrimination against gay people in
>employment
>and housing. You call that "tolerant"?
Tolerance and enacting legislation are NOT the same thing. Insisting on
legislation that RESTRICTS the actions of one person (say, a landlord) is not
exactly tolerant; rather, it is a case of .... SPECIAL PLEADING.
I am a landlord, and I hate the idea of ANY NEW LEGAL restrictions on the way I
do business.
>> The PC movement, e.g., made one special plea too many, and
>> the great tide of history raised up a wave of indignant reaction to sweep
>it
>> away. The gains of the gay-rights movement can vanish just as quickly if
>you
>> whine too much and too loudly about the sort of "unfair" lumps that
>everyone
>> else has to suffer in silence.
>
>Your true colors are showing, and you're the one who seems to be whining.
Rather ... I'm GLOATING.
>Well,
>stick it up your special pleading ass, Dave. You speak of gay people as if we
>are
>dogs, waiting for scraps to be thrown from your table.
That is simply untrue, Oscar. You're being prickly again.
Dave
UticaCW
>I don't think that either of our countries can claim to be very
>tolerant.
I disagree. I see the evidence of extreme tolerance, by historical standards,
with my own eyes. Then there is the sociological data ... eg that BU prof's
recent book ... I think Alan Wolfe is his name?
Now, we may be intolerant by the utopic standard of some chimerical,
pie-in-the-sky liberal vision of society that you may or may not hold dearly.
But, odd to say, it is my own rich experience that "liberal Catholics" are
among the most intolerant people I've met. Nowhere do find anyone quicker to
wield the tools of the censor than in liberal circles.
>The Supreme Court had to step in to legislate on behalf of
>your black countrymen.
Hmmm ... the Supreme Curt legislating. Either you are a Rush Limbaugh fan, or
they don't teach US Constitutional theory up Oxford way. At any rate, like all
things social, the idea of tolerance is evolutionary in its nature.
>As for my lot, your country was founded by refugees from out
>intolerance.
Well, by and large, the Puritans were far more intolerant than the milieu from
which they emerged. Problem was, in England they were in the minority, and
hence couldn't make their own intolerant views stick. Not to say they didn't
try, though.
Dave
Oscar Whitman
> Oscar Whitman <dream...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:37B0C505...@worldnet.att.net...
> > Stephen Patten wrote:
> >
> > []
> >
> > > You think it is right for the Old World to use its financial muscle to
> > > influence to legislation of Third World countries? Enforcing **Our**
> > > immorality on them is okay? Funnily enough, most West Indians and
> > > other Caribbeans I've come across are violently opposed to
> > > homosexuality.
> >
> > "Violent opposition to homosexuality" *is* immoral. That kind of
> > opposition is what gets nice young men hung on fences.
>
> It is also condemned by the Catholic Church.
Yet practiced in spirit by the official Church. The Church lends plenty of fuel
to the fires of hatred and opposition. Actually, the Church is responsible for
inventing the fires of hatred and opposition against gay people!
> from the document issued by the Pontifical Council for the
> Family in 1995, "The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality":
>
> n.104 "Persons in this situation must be accepted with respect, dignity and
> delicacy, and all forms of unjust discrimination must be avoided."
Yet the Church has fired gay teachers and pastors, alienated gays everywhere,
refused to ordain them, lobbied against gay-rights legislation and, overall,
denied their full humanity. It is neither respectful, dignified or delicate.
> Also: "For most homosexual persons, this condition constitutes a trial.
That was written by a self-hating closeted gay man projecting his own misery
onto the page. The real trial is the messages which come from the church about
gay people, and from having to deal with a church teaching and church practice
which demeans people. That is the trial for the great majority of gay people in
the church and outside of the church.
> From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n.2333, "Everyone...should
> acknowledge and accept his sexual identity."
And Church officials have the right to ask yet a gay person risks all in the
church to tell.
Pastoral efforts like those in RobinOak's community are few and far between.
Generally, what the church teaches pastorally about gay people is miles beyond
what it practices.
Oscar Whitman
frank w elliott jr
: enlightened us all with:
:
: >Mitch,
: >
: >You're asking Mark Johnson to learn something. Is that ever likely to
: >happen? He's still posting moronic "proofs" that indicate he can't
: >comprehend basic algebra.
: >WRT your alcoholism, what would you think if the Vatican published
: >a letter requiring alcoholics to remain silent about their own
: >alcoholism as proof of their good intentions and as the primary
: >Catholics said nothing and angrily defended the Vatican when
: >questioned on the subject?
:
: Frank, you are preaching to the converted ...
: If you remember any of my other posts on the subject, you should know
: that I strongly disagree with the official position on homosexuality. I
: can'r do anything about that official position. All I can do is support,
: defend and help folk that I meet.
Glad to hear it, but that really was not what I was asking about in
this post. I didn't express myself well.
I was intersted in whether you think it's harmful for you to keep
your alcoholism a secret. I imagine that it would be. I also believe
that forcing alcoholics to keep such a secret would have negative
consequences with regard to their health. Alcoholics need the
support of their friends and family, and alcoholics also need to
defend themselves against false generalizations by ignorant people.
:
: BUT, as my own position is held under the *primacy of conscience'
: description, I also fight for fellow Catholics to be able to state their
: own position.
As would I for political reasons. My political ideals require me to
defend freedom of speech even for those who would deny it to me.
I'm 38; I've been involved with this issue since I was 13. For the first 18
of 25 years I kept silent, not criticizing other Catholics for their expressed
opinion on this subject. I obeyed the Church, and I listened. Then the
Vatican has said that my silence should be the price of my safety. That's
extortion. I'm neither patient nor polite with those who condone this
extortion, as some on this newsgroup do. If I seem to lack forbearance,
please consider whether my opponents have listened for 18 years or more
before giving their opinions, by which they demand that I should abide.
:
: I do however apologise for *any* posting from any fellow Catholic who
: allows themselves to get so hungup on *my church, right or wrong* that
: they forget that they follow one who loved all.
Mitch, it's nice of you to apologize, but you're not responsible for them.
I'm sorry if I've given you the impression that I believe you are.
:
: --
: Mitch
JohnInDC
you use to be able to fire a man or deny him housing because of the color of
his skin, that was wrong, and would not have changed without legislation.
Today, August 1999, it is perfectly legal to fire someone on the spot, or
deny them housing if they simply state I am a man who dates men. That won't
change without legislation, and it is wrong.
Any one who disagrees cannot have Christ in his or her heart, is it ok to
fire adulterers, people who have premarital sex, people who masturbate,
witches, Muslims, atheists, people that have abortions, so on and so forth?
No, but say the words, 'I am Gay', and you can be legally unemployed that
day. It is irrational.
UticaCW
>Today, August 1999, it is perfectly legal to fire someone on the spot, or
>deny them housing if they simply state I am a man who dates men. That won't
>change without legislation, and it is wrong.
I disagree. But then I believe firmly that:
1.) Sexual behavior is best left, in a truly tolerant society, a private and
not a public matter.
2.) Sexual behavior, in a society that strives to exist on the extant religious
base, remains however a matter of morality and immorality based on our
Judeo-Christian heritage.
3.) In a free-market society, an employer should ... must ... have the right to
set the tone of the PUBLIC MORALITY of his or her company and workplace. If
someone choses to make their private business a matter of public business, then
their business is also the business of their employer.
>Any one who disagrees cannot have Christ in his or her heart,
I disagree with this, JohninDC. If one takes the traditional Judeo-Christian
sexual morality to heart, then is it Christ-like to shut your eyes tightly
whilst our society slips and slides its way down the slippery slope of
relativism into utter immorality and chaos? If one takes the traditional
Judeo-Christian sexual morality to heart, then is it Christ-like to pretend
that, on the ethical and moral level, anything goes in the bedroom between
consenting adults, even if such leads inexorably to the brink of perdition?
As usual, it all comes back to the question of how one receives the sexual
morality that is promulgated in the New Testament writings and by the Church.
Dave
UticaCW
>and, overall,
>denied their full humanity.
Let us not lose sight of the fact that the Church teaches that gay sex is
sinful. From this POV, advocating the acceptance of one's full humanity comes
precisely from the call to renounce sin and "put on Christ". This is the
prophetic mission of the Church, and we all know that prophets are seldom
popular.
Dave
Mitch
>I was intersted in whether you think it's harmful for you to keep
>your alcoholism a secret. I imagine that it would be. I also believe
>that forcing alcoholics to keep such a secret would have negative
>consequences with regard to their health. Alcoholics need the
>support of their friends and family, and alcoholics also need to
>defend themselves against false generalizations by ignorant people.
I suspect that this is probably the first time I have had the courage to
mention it on one of the alt newsgroups, though anyone who subscribes to
uk.religion.christian (a moderated group) will already know.
But the parallel you are trying to draw between alcoholism and
homosexuality is, IMHO, a false one. I don't think the latter is
either a disease or something to be feared. I happen to be an alcoholic
who doesn't drink. How I got that way is irrelevant here, but the Good
Lord did not create me that way.
Where the two have a parallel is in having to "defend themselves against
false generalizations by ignorant people". I'm afraid that the majority
of the folk who post uncharitable, bigoted remarks here have a mindset
which cannot see beyond "my church right or wrong." I have always found
it very saddening that there is not one whit of difference between the
tone of the trolls and the tone of those who rush to deliver (what they
see as) a defence of the Church's position.
[]
>I'm 38; I've been involved with this issue since I was 13. For the first 18
>of 25 years I kept silent, not criticizing other Catholics for their expressed
>opinion on this subject. I obeyed the Church, and I listened. Then the
>Vatican has said that my silence should be the price of my safety. That's
>extortion. I'm neither patient nor polite with those who condone this
>extortion, as some on this newsgroup do. If I seem to lack forbearance,
>please consider whether my opponents have listened for 18 years or more
>before giving their opinions, by which they demand that I should abide.
I'm not sure whether this is an age thing or a cultural thing, but I try
very hard not to post anything which I would not say to somebody's face.
I can't see the point in answering insult with insult. It saddens me to
read some of the things posted by my fellow Catholics.
I suspect, however, that an awful lot of my sensitivity on the subject
of politeness and courtesy is to do with the fact that I have two sons
in their mid teens. If I cannot curb my tongue and let the love of Jesus
show through my words, how in the hell can I ask my sons to do so?
<rueful grin>
These posts, composed off-line, tend to be more moderate than my verbal
speech. You ought to read the ones that I bin!
--
Mitch
JohnInDC
the person engaged in "homosexual activity." So it is your contention,
that a "good" gay Catholic or bible thumping protester, who does not
"practice," and remains celibate, should still be able to be legally fired
on the spot if his employer finds out that he is "Gay?" Perhaps he is
overheard talking to a friend on a pay phone during lunch, or an underling
'outed' him because they wanted a promotion, or some similar injustice.
I am assuming of course you are not still clinging to the silly 'choice'
point of view, that even the Pope has abandoned, and no rational person
could subscribe to.
>1.) Sexual behavior is best left, in a truly tolerant society, a private
and
>not a public matter.
Agreed, as long as its between consenting adults. [ Got a picture of you
wife on your desk in the office? But if my (gay) brother puts up a picture
of his __?___( don't know the correct PC term these days ) he can be fired?]
>2.) Sexual behavior, in a society that strives to exist on the extant
religious
>base, remains however a matter of morality and immorality based on our
>Judeo-Christian heritage.
True, that is reality of our society, but that is why we have a Supreme
Court to protect the individual from the Mob.
>3.) In a free-market society, an employer should ... must ... have the
right to
>set the tone of the PUBLIC MORALITY of his or her company and workplace.
If
>someone chooses to make their private business a matter of public business,
then
>their business is also the business of their employer.
You got me sorta in a corner, in that I am a libertarian, and hate
government interference in business, and my life. However, if you can fire
someone for being gay, you should be able to fire them for their religion,
their political affiliation, or if they wear boxers or briefs, but our
society has declared that kind of discrimination wrong. ( I avoided saying
that you could fire them for race, hair cut, too much makeup, earrings,
beards...etc. because you would have said they were not private matters made
public ).
One more try, to be consistent, you would have to agree that it would be ok
to fire someone if they subscribed to Hustler or Playboy. Pornography is
immoral, the employer does not approve, someone in the office saw you pull
it out of your mail box, your fired.
You really think it is ok to fire someone for being gay? Think of the
witchunts, I don't like my boss, my employee, I just gotta find evidence
that he is gay and get him fired. I don't like my neighbors, If I can get a
receipt for them renting a gay movie out of their trash, the land lord will
evict em.
I reiterate, It ain't right, human rights are human rights, and all
Christians should support equal human rights for all, regardless of
philosophical or religious differences.
JohnInDC
to agree that on your employment application, it would be ok to ask
are you gay?
are you christian?
are you living with someone out of wedlock?
do you use birth control?
have you had an abortion?
--------------------------------
and of course the next step is
are you black?
are you a jew?
and we know where that leads.
Stephen Patten
>
> Stephen Patten <hei...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7oq9bl$sn6$3...@gxsn.com...
> >
> > James Hynes <jimh...@bromage.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:7onuli$3g3$1...@nclient13-gui.server.virgin.net...
> > >
> > > Stephen Patten <hei...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:7ok8e2$j3q$1...@gxsn.com...
> > >
> > > []
> > >
> > > > A few years back a bill went through our Parliament which would make
> > > > it legal for men to have sex with boys of sixteen or so.
> > >
> > > At the moment it is legal for men to have sex with girls of 16.
> > >
> > > Is that OK?
> > >
> > Is it better or worse? Do you see no difference between the two?
>
> No, not really. I think it is always a bad situation if there is a big age
> gap, for example between a 25 year old man and a 16 year old girl, or a 16
> year old boy. In both cases there could be exploitation or coercion. I
think
> that is the issue rather than if it is between people of the same or
> opposite sex.
Really, whilst I agree with you that 16 is too young (contrary to popular
belief young people are not growing up quicker; older people are growing up
slower, might more accurately describe things) I find it incredible that you
see no difference between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity.
This is not what the Church teaches (see below).
>
> I said in another post that I think it is unwise generally speaking 16
year
> olds to be having sex, but I still think it should not be illegal.
Why?
>
> > I guess the whole debate boils down to whether one believes the 'Sin of
> > Sodom' is a greater sin than fornication - and please, no one bring up
> that
> > old canard about Sodom's crime being its refusal to welcome strangers.
>
> What happened in Sodom was rape. Read the story and you will see that it
was
> a violent assault - not in any sense to be equated with a consensual
> relationship.
>
> So the "sin of Sodom" was a variety of violent assault.
That is not what my version of the Jerusalem Bible says, the footnote
referring to an unnatural vice condemned by the Israelites, though the
modern commentators try to introduce the crime of inhospitality. But what
has been the traditional understanding of the "sin of [the] Sodom[ites] ", "
a crime crying out for vengeance from Heaven"? A couple of decades ago the
sin referred to seemed clearly to be sodomy, why the confusion now?
Homosexual acts, as the Catechism clearly sets out, are "**intrinsically**
disordered". This is not so with regard to heterosexual acts. Some further
conditions are necessary before such acts are sinful - purpose of the act,
willingness of parties, marital status of the participants etc. Just to
clarify the Church's teaching about homosexual activity, as opposed to
homosexuality, the Catechism adds, "Under no circumstances can they be
approved".
I hope I'm wrong, but Jim, do you think such acts can ever be approved of?
Stephen Patten
>
> Jim Hynes
>
>
Stephen Patten
>
> Oscar Whitman <dream...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:37B0C505...@worldnet.att.net...
> > Stephen Patten wrote:
> >
> > []
> >
> > humiliating gay people? There's a vice that's heartily endorsed by the
> > official Church.
>
> Not it isn't, actually. Many people behave abusively, but it is not
> officially endorsed - far from it.
You miss Oscar's point. Oscar feels that any criticsm of homosexual
activity is an abuse. Clearly with that mindset the Church is guilty, in
his mind, of 'abusing, demeaning and humiliating gay people'.
Our Lord was abusive when he encountered the traders in His Father's Temple.
He was also, according to Oscar's logic, abusive when He told the harlot to
go away and 'sin no more'.
[]
> From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n.2333, "Everyone...should
> acknowledge and accept his sexual identity."
Naughty, naughty! The section of the Catechism you quote from deals with a
person's identity as a man or women. It is not referring to sexuality
(whatever that means).
>
[]
Again:
>
> "Nothing in the Bible or in Catholic teaching can be used to justify
> prejudicial or discriminatory attitudes and behaviors. We reiterate here
> what we said in an earlier statement:
Well here the Amerian bishops and the Catechism part company. The Catechism
infers that just discrimination need not be avoided. I wonder how, and why,
the US bishops went from 'unjust discrimination' to '[all] discrimination'?
>
> "We call on all Christians and citizens of good will to confront their own
> fears about homosexuality and to curb the humor and discrimination that
> offend homosexual persons. We understand that having a homosexual
> orientation brings with it enough anxiety, pain and issues related to
> self-acceptance without society bringing additional prejudicial treatment
> (Human Sexuality: A Catholic Perspective for Education and Lifelong
> Learning, 1991, p.55)."
You're joking, surely? Have some within the Church really asked us to
'curb the humor' that offends homosexual persons (no comment about whether
it is designed intentionally to offend or how many need be offended I note)?
Who published the above? Is 'Are You Being Served' and other sitcoms of
that ilk on a banned list?
Gosh!
Why stop at homosexuals? Why not extend the humour ban to cover everyone?
I always suspected those monks in Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose" were
ahead of their time.
I must know is this official Church teaching or some foolery dreamed up the
PC clergy of the US?
And finally, from the section of the document on pastoral guidance to
Church
> ministers:
>
> "Welcome homosexual persons into the faith community. Seek out those on
the
> margins. Avoid stereotyping and condemnations. Strive first to listen. Do
> not presume that all homosexual persons are sexually active."
Fair enough!
> This discussion began when RobinOak told us what her home parish was
doing.
> They seem to be following the guidance of their Bishops in this matter.
>
> Those who deserve criticism - in the light of Church teaching - are not
> those who attempt to minister to homosexual people in this way, but those
> who are indifferent or hostile.
I've nothing against ministering to homosexuals or any other section of
mankind. Far from it, I don't think the Church does enough to 'teach all
nations'. What I am dubious about is the form such ministry often takes:
contrast the ministry of such organisations as 'Courage' with that of the
recently suspended priest and nun (sister?) in New York.
Stephen Patten
m Hynes
>
>
STSVA
someone based on that person's membership in a group or participation in
certain practices, and whether it is wrong to take such actions. These are
not necessarily the same thing at all. It may or may not be legal,
depending on many factors, including where the action (such as firing) is
taking place, the identity and status of the employer, the group to which
the fired person belongs (some groups receive more legal protection than
others), the contractual relationship between the parties, and the practice,
if any, that is the basis for the firing. Additionally, there often is a
difference between firing someone based on their membership in a group or
based on some specific practice in which they have engaged. All of this, of
course, leaves open the question of whether it is morally wrong to fire
someone simply because they are homosexual.
JohnInDC wrote in message <7os4eb$5m3$1...@news.nist.gov>...
>I will throw in my two cents again, come on now, the analogy is two
perfect,
>you use to be able to fire a man or deny him housing because of the color
of
>his skin, that was wrong, and would not have changed without legislation.
>
>Today, August 1999, it is perfectly legal to fire someone on the spot, or
>deny them housing if they simply state I am a man who dates men. That
won't
>change without legislation, and it is wrong.
>
STSVA
UticaCW wrote in message <19990811103835...@ng-da1.aol.com>...
>Mitch wrote:
>
[snipped]
>>The Supreme Court had to step in to legislate on behalf of
>>your black countrymen.
>
>Hmmm ... the Supreme Curt legislating. Either you are a Rush Limbaugh fan,
or
>they don't teach US Constitutional theory up Oxford way. At any rate, like
all
>things social, the idea of tolerance is evolutionary in its nature.
>
[snipped]
>Dave
>
Perhaps if he had said "functional equivalent of legislating without
practical possibility of democratic reversal" he would have been closer to
the actual role the Court has often played in recent history. Consider, for
example, Roe v. Wade.
Oscar Whitman
> JohnInDC wrote:
>
> >Today, August 1999, it is perfectly legal to fire someone on the spot, or
> >deny them housing if they simply state I am a man who dates men. That won't
> >change without legislation, and it is wrong.
>
> I disagree. But then I believe firmly that:
>
> 1.) Sexual behavior is best left, in a truly tolerant society, a private and
> not a public matter.
Then we should expect for all married couples, especially the ones living at the
White House, to refrain from appearing as a couple anywhere they go, or in rooming
together, because that becomes a very public matter. Separate quarters will be
necessary. Neither will married couples be allowed to marry publicly or express any
sort of affection whatsoever in public, and that goes for heterosexual expression
of any sort by any one. Because we're a truly tolerant society, you see.
> 2.) Sexual behavior, in a society that strives to exist on the extant religious
> base, remains however a matter of morality and immorality based on our
> Judeo-Christian heritage.
BS. This country is not and never has been a theocracy, and not everyone who lives
here has a "Judeo-Christian" heritage.
> 3.) In a free-market society, an employer should ... must ... have the right to
> set the tone of the PUBLIC MORALITY of his or her company and workplace. If
> someone choses to make their private business a matter of public business, then
> their business is also the business of their employer.
How is my homosexual orientation a matter of PUBLIC MORALITY? I'm not employed so
that I may have homosexual sex in my workplace. If my partner comes to my office
and I introduce him as such (as any heterosexual couple wouldn't hesitate to do),
how have I affected the manner in which I perform my job?
You've got the immorality thing backwards. I think treating people the way you
would like to treat them is the real immorality.
> >Any one who disagrees cannot have Christ in his or her heart,
>
> I disagree with this, JohninDC. If one takes the traditional Judeo-Christian
You really should stop using that term "Judeo-Christian". There has been no such
thing since the first couple of centuries. It is not accurate to link the practice
of Judaism, especially modern Judaism, with Christianity. In 1999, they are
separate religious traditions, and have separate traditions of morality and social
action, in particular. Modern Judaism has a strong positive social action
tradition -- a more "liberal" one -- which I seriously doubt you'd want to
identify with.
Oscar Whitman
Oscar Whitman
> Oscar Whitman wrote:
>
> >and, overall,
> >denied their full humanity.
>
> Let us not lose sight of the fact that the Church teaches that gay sex is
> sinful.
Oh, I almost forgot that, even though I've been reminded of that every day for the
past forty years.
> From this POV, advocating the acceptance of one's full humanity comes
> precisely from the call to renounce sin and "put on Christ".
Here's what's inhumane: telling an entire class of people that their homosexual
orientation is fine -- yet thay cannot ever have a personal, fulfilling
relationship which includes expression of their sexuality.
> This is the
> prophetic mission of the Church, and we all know that prophets are seldom
> popular.
...especially when said "prophets" are just plain stupid and/or cruel.
Oscar Whitman
Oscar Whitman
> Oscar feels that any criticsm of homosexual
> activity is an abuse.
Wrong. That is not my viewpoint. There are many things about gay culture and
about certain ways of behaving sexually I will readily criticize. You spread
lies when you write that every gay man wants to have sex with 16-year-olds. The
Church provides no authentic sexual ethic for homosexuals (outside of prescribed
celibacy), so we homosexuals who can't marry or can't live celibately have to
live by our consciences.
> Clearly with that mindset the Church is guilty, in
> his mind, of 'abusing, demeaning and humiliating gay people'.
As I have written elsewhere, I believe the Church's teaching on homosexuality is
an affront to the basic humanity of homosexual persons. And I'm certainly not
alone. I find it abusive, demeaning and humiliating -- so you shouldn't be
surprised that gay people might angrily respond to this by dishing it back to
them.
Oscar Whitman
Mark Johnson
>I suspect, however, that an awful lot of my sensitivity on the subject
>of politeness and courtesy
What _are_ you kidding, Mitch?
>is to do with the fact that I have two sons
>in their mid teens. If I cannot curb my tongue and let the love of Jesus
>show through my words,
When you ever manage even a little bit of charity in the things you
write, then you can pat yourself on the back. Till then . . .
Peace.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nations wandered blindly, and unceasingly proclaimed
that their aimless circlings and uneasy spiralings
meant progress, while materially and morally they meant
only incessant change of direction. . . history shows
that a nation that barters its soul for material ideals
is a nation that is doomed.
[Lockington, The Soul of Ireland,
http://abbey.apana.org.au/Other/Ireland/Ireland.txt ]
RobinOak
"James T. Savidge" wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> RobinOak wrote:
>
> > Stephen Patten wrote:
> >
> > > It gets worse, the government now plans to remove prohibitions on schools
> > > teaching that homosexuality and heterosexuality can be equated as no more
> > > than 'life-style' choices of equal value.
> >
> > I'm not sure that's bad, though I would disagree that it is a CHOICE.
> >
> > In many ways, my life would be much easier if I could CHOOSE to be
> > lesbian. However, the Goddess made me pretty much straight as an arrow.
> >
> > ....which means that for the rest of my life, I will continue to have to
> > put that @#$# toilet seat DOWN <and constantly clean around the outside
> > base!! Don't your fathers teach you all target practice???> And all
> > that, no matter where I live or which male person I may live with.....
>
> <rant>
> <rant>
>
> If bathrooms in residences had urinals then there would be less of a mess to
> clean up!
>
<The way this discussion is going, it's just as well we are DRIFTING
MADLY....> :>
Urinals??? URINALS??? In my powder room? YIIIICK!
> Not only that, but it would be easier to conserve water. A urinal takes 1/4 to
> 1/10 the water to flush as a toilet does.
Oh. But still!
James, it simply does NOT go with my decor!
> Some people say that they are ugly but I say that they are no uglier than a
> toilet.
Not if you put frilly pink fluffy foo-foo covers on the seat.... try
putting THAT on a urinal!
Why can't you guys just SIT DOWN when you pee?? Wouldn't that make it
easier?? <plus, more relaxing> :)
> If anyone really has a problem with the way they look, there are
> versions that can be installed that slide back into the wall after use.
Expensive....sounding..... <just SIT!! As in, "Anathema, SIT!">
>
> If you ever get the chance to have a house custom built, then do everyone a
> favor, (including yourself,) and let the interior designer put one in.
>
> As for accuracy thing, we didn't design the things. If we did have the chance to
> design them, then we would most assuredly would make them more accurate.
LOL
I say, where are the Dads when these boys are learning! If they can
teach you how to write your name in the SNOW, they should be able to
teach you how not to MISS!
<.....can anyone tell this is currently a sore topic with me. At the
moment I have three, count 'em, three male housemates. Sigh. could
somebody please pass the Lysol.....>
>
> </rant>
> </rant>
>
> Aaaahhhhhh!
EEEEEEeeeeyoooooou!
<anyone else care to scream with us? Go on, it's fun!>
> I can think so much clearer after I've ranted.;-)
>
> May God lead us to a fuller understanding of His truth and may His peace go with
> you.
....and may the bluebird of happiness never go doo-doo on your head
while you are cutting the grass. :)
Ah, well. At least the kitchen stays cleaner.
.... because I'm the only one who cooks..... <*sigh*>
RobinOak
> >
> > Stephen Patten <hei...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:7ok8e2$j3q$1...@gxsn.com...
> >
> > []
> >
> > > A few years back a bill went through our Parliament which would make it
> > > legal for men to have sex with boys of sixteen or so.
> >
> > At the moment it is legal for men to have sex with girls of 16.
> >
> > Is that OK?
> >
> Is it better or worse? Do you see no difference between the two?
>
> Sodom' is a greater sin than fornication - and please, no one bring up that
> old canard about Sodom's crime being its refusal to welcome strangers.
>
I had this discussion at work recently.
When I mentioned that Lot had offered to send out all of his young,
virgin daughters to 'feed' the raging crowd instead, I got no answer.
But that part of the story gets left out. All we want to think about
and get upset over is the business about the homosexuality implied in
the story. But it was more than that - it was a story about RAPE, about
RAPE, whether of males or young girls.
I can't imagine that any decent father today would find Lot's solution
acceptable.
Which tells us something.... it tells us that Lot's *culture* and time,
were way different from our own. Way different.
Which itself has other implications.
RobinOak
[]
up
> slower, might more accurately describe things) I find it incredible that you
> see no difference between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity.
> This is not what the Church teaches (see below).
>
> >
> > I said in another post that I think it is unwise generally speaking 16
> year
> > olds to be having sex, but I still think it should not be illegal.
>
> Why?
>
> >
> > > I guess the whole debate boils down to whether one believes the 'Sin of
> > > Sodom' is a greater sin than fornication - and please, no one bring up
> > that
> > > old canard about Sodom's crime being its refusal to welcome strangers.
> >
> > What happened in Sodom was rape. Read the story and you will see that it
> was
> > a violent assault - not in any sense to be equated with a consensual
> > relationship.
> >
> > So the "sin of Sodom" was a variety of violent assault.
>
> That is not what my version of the Jerusalem Bible says, the footnote
> referring to an unnatural vice condemned by the Israelites, though the
> modern commentators try to introduce the crime of inhospitality. But what
> has been the traditional understanding of the "sin of [the] Sodom[ites] ", "
> a crime crying out for vengeance from Heaven"? A couple of decades ago the
> sin referred to seemed clearly to be sodomy, why the confusion now?
Let's say for the sake of argument, that the Israelites condemned
homosexuality. Or, 'homosex' <activity>. We'll skip over the
anthropological argument that holds that a beleagured tribe surrounded
by hostile neighbors wanted to survive as a separate culture, therefore,
reproduction within the group was the Prime Directive.
So let's say they condemned homosexual acts.
Did they also condemn violent assault?
In your own view, which is worse: consensual homosex, or violent
assault?
Drawing upon the old 'mortal/venial' sin model, tell me what you think.
RobinOak
Stephen Patten wrote:
>
> RobinOak <robi...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > I'm not sure that's bad, though I would disagree that it is a CHOICE.
>
> Ah! There's the crux of the whole issue. Is it a choice or not?
>
> >
> > In many ways, my life would be much easier if I could CHOOSE to be
> > lesbian. However, the Goddess made me pretty much straight as an arrow.
[snip ongoing target practice discussion & other stuff] <g>
> > > This one of my biggest worries about the
> > > whole issue. The Church, whilst conceding that *SOME * may have 'deep
> seated
> > > orientations' nowhere, I repeat nowhere,states that ALL homosexuals are
> born
> > > with a predisposition to desire sexual activitiy with members of their
> own
> > > sex.
> >
> > But who can TELL??
> You claim you can. You're the one saying no one chooses the lifestyle.
This is the section of the discussion I would like to focus on....
You're right, I may have overstated, if I said 'no one'. Some MAY
choose. Maybe bisexuals can choose. Now, there's an interesing
implication here.... let's go on ....
>
> And really... if a person is straight, why oh WHY
> > would that person CHOOSE to sleep or fall in love with one of the same
> > sex??? It ... I don't think it can even be DONE! And *why*??
I'd said that. Spoken like a True Heterosexual.
Although I also believe that most of us have some _degree_ of homosexual
inclination, I really don't think I have a whole lot. <shrug> It just
worked out that way, dunno why. I like men. In fact, I LOVE men. <g> I
like men not only as lovers, but until very recently I preferred them as
friends, too.
Because I just don't *see* what could possibly be so *attractive* about
sleeping with another woman. I can't imagine myself having any pleasure
in it.
Which is why I feel it would almost have to be a predisposition.
And that's what I find so interesting......
It makes me wonder, when people get sooooOOOOooo Upset over this whole
discussion revolving on 'nature/nurture/choice'.... Myself, I can't see
that it COULD be a choice. Because in my own mind, I don't "choose" to
be hetero. I just AM hetero. I was born this way. I can't 'choose' to
be het. And I can't understand how sleeping with a woman might be
pleasurable. Boring, would be my response. <"hey, I got just what you
got... now what....?"> <g>
"It Does Not Compute", as the robot used to say....
Now Steve, the following is not directed at you alone. Please don't
think I'm trying to corner you... I'm trying to work out a line of
reasoning here....
How is it that the people who insist that it's <at least sometimes> a
choice, can *understand* that?
Can you imagine that sleeping with someone of the same sex just *might*
be pleasurable? And therefore, it's a 'choice' that some make, albeit a
sinful one? <according to that POV>
A lot of us believe that everyone's really bi. Just a question of
degree. Some are 99.99999% one way or the other. Most of us are mostly
straight. Most of the time.
But what I find curious is this notion that people can 'choose'.
My own 99.999999....% straight mind cannot COMPREHEND that. <"like...
WHY????">
I am beginning to wonder whether the 'choice' people are less straight
than they might think. Because if that reasoning makes sense to them,
they must have *some* concept of how homosex might be pleasurable.
Did that or did that not make any sense.
<trying to work this out as I go along....>
>
> Well, why would someone steal, or beat their wife, or commit any manner of
> sin? Are they all predisposed to these? Is no one guilty of any wrongdoing?
> Are we all victims of our genes and environment?
Now, those things, I can understand. I can understand how someone might
be driven to steal, or even beat up on his/her spouse. <you get driven
crazy enough by a person, you might be tempted to slap him/her around a
bit....>
And yes, those things are still choices. I have a frame of reference,
and if I look honestly enough into myself, I CAN understand those
things. I can choose to steal. <hides pencil taken from work
'accidentally'> I can choose to give Ol' Stick in the Mud <the
archetypal spouse> a smack on the arm. Or whatever. Those things I can
understand, and can choose to do or not to do them, because I know I
have the propensity for those things.
But I can't 'get it' in terms of trying to understand what's in
someone's head or heart, where homosex is concerned. I don't think I
choose to be straight.
Because I'm pretty sure I was born this way, and I can't fit the right
shoe onto the left foot, and choose to have sex with a woman. I just
don't WANNA, you know?? <g>
I am *not* trying to suggest that you, Steve, may have any homosexual
inclinations yourself. This goes for everyone who espouses the 'choice'
argument. Talking about it with you just made me kinda want to follow
the line of reasoning out a bit further.
<must snip, must cook, must do chores!>
<oy vey, I gotta do the laundry and housework & stuff now, and I read
down to where you gave me a nice compliment, but I don't deserve it
because I just called Bam-Bam a 'triumphalist old coot' the other
day..... beating breast, beating breast......> :>
"La plus ca change, la plus ca la meme chose." <|:)
RobinOak
>
> Mitch wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 19:34:13 -0500, Oscar Whitman
> > <dream...@worldnet.att.net> enlightened us all with:
> >
> > >what gets nice young men hung on fences.
> >
> >
> > >humiliating gay people? There's a vice that's heartily endorsed by the official
> > >Church.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mitch
>
> I just looked down and my foot *seems* OK, and I've never shot a gun, nor do I plan
> to...but did I miss something?
>
> Oscar
Dang, Oscar, I sure HOPE you missed something!
Oh wait.
That's right.
You don't *need* it.........
<giggling outta control, and still wondering what life would be like if
I *did* have a thingamajig, whachacallit, a penis, yeah, that's it....>
--from Robin, who is supposed to be doing housework right now....
Oscar Whitman
> Oscar Whitman <dream...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:37B1F9A8...@worldnet.att.net...
> > Stephen Patten wrote:
> >
> > > Oscar feels that any criticsm of homosexual
> > > activity is an abuse.
> >
> > Wrong. That is not my viewpoint. There are many things about gay culture
> and
> > about certain ways of behaving sexually I will readily criticize. You
> spread
> > lies when you write that every gay man wants to have sex with
> 16-year-olds.
>
> Pray tell *WHERE* did I write this? The only mention of 16 year old boys
> was when I described the disgraceful scences outside Parliament in 1996(?)
> when homosexual activists rioted because the Conservative MPs voted down
> lowering the age of homosexual consent to 16.
Your implication was that those homosexual activists represented all
homosexuals; it sure sounded that way to me.
> If it is any consolation (which I doubt) I'd quickly like to add that there
> is much I'd criticize about the sexual morality of many 'straights'.
Thank you! You just earned back five OscarPoints.
> > As I have written elsewhere, I believe the Church's teaching on
> homosexuality is
> > an affront to the basic humanity of homosexual persons.
>
> So it isn't really about whether people are welcoming to homosexuals or not,
> is it? It is about the Church's teachings, yes? It isn't how it is
> couched that offends you, it is the very message itself.
Yes, it is the message and the implementation of the message, neither of which I
would ever consider as "welcoming".
> And a person's basic humanity, according to you, is defined by what sexual
> activities they engage in, yes?
Uh, no.
> For if this was not the case than how could
> the Church's teachings on sexual activity be an affront to homosexuals?
It would help immensely for you to understand this if you were homosexual. The
Church tells me that because I have this "intrinsically disordered" sexual
orientation, I cannot ever have a relationship which would involve physical
intimacy. Neither am I allowed something approximating marriage (to a man, that
is). Sexuality is a part of us that doesn't simply involve the genitals. It
includes the ways that human beings connect with one another lovingly and
deeply, intimating our intimacy with God. To take that away from a person is
ethically, spiritually and morally criminal. There is a understandable reason
why homosexual children are driven to suicide -- they internalize these negative
messages.
> > And I'm certainly not
> > alone. I find it abusive, demeaning and humiliating -- so you shouldn't be
> > surprised that gay people might angrily respond to this by dishing it back
> to
> > them.
>
> Well I don't think you being abusive, demeaning or humiliating, a bit
> confused perhaps, but not abusive.
Confused? I used to be deeply confused about this issue. It is perhaps the one
thing I'm no longer confused at all about.
Oscar Whitman
Stephen Patten
Oscar Whitman <dream...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:37B1F9A8...@worldnet.att.net...
> Stephen Patten wrote:
>
> > Oscar feels that any criticsm of homosexual
> > activity is an abuse.
>
> Wrong. That is not my viewpoint. There are many things about gay culture
and
> about certain ways of behaving sexually I will readily criticize. You
spread
> lies when you write that every gay man wants to have sex with
16-year-olds.
Pray tell *WHERE* did I write this? The only mention of 16 year old boys
was when I described the disgraceful scences outside Parliament in 1996(?)
when homosexual activists rioted because the Conservative MPs voted down
lowering the age of homosexual consent to 16.
If it is any consolation (which I doubt) I'd quickly like to add that there
is much I'd criticize about the sexual morality of many 'straights'.
The
> Church provides no authentic sexual ethic for homosexuals (outside of
prescribed
> celibacy), so we homosexuals who can't marry or can't live celibately have
to
> live by our consciences.
>
> > Clearly with that mindset the Church is guilty, in
> > his mind, of 'abusing, demeaning and humiliating gay people'.
>
> As I have written elsewhere, I believe the Church's teaching on
homosexuality is
> an affront to the basic humanity of homosexual persons.
So it isn't really about whether people are welcoming to homosexuals or not,
is it? It is about the Church's teachings, yes? It isn't how it is
couched that offends you, it is the very message itself.
And a person's basic humanity, according to you, is defined by what sexual
activities they engage in, yes? For if this was not the case than how could
the Church's teachings on sexual activity be an affront to homosexuals?
But I thought it was you that took offense with the definition of a
homosexual as someone that indulged in homosexual activity? You can't have
it both ways you know!
And I'm certainly not
> alone. I find it abusive, demeaning and humiliating -- so you shouldn't be
> surprised that gay people might angrily respond to this by dishing it back
to
> them.
Well I don't think you being abusive, demeaning or humiliating, a bit
confused perhaps, but not abusive.
You're not alone in disliking Church teachings on sex and its proper place.
Maybe if the sublime goal of being a Christian and the dangers of becoming
obsessed with the fleeting cares of this world were stressed a bit more
there would be less confusion; who knows?
Stephen
>
> Oscar Whitman
>
UticaCW
>practical possibility of democratic reversal" he would have been closer to
>the actual role the Court has often played in recent history. Consider, for
>example, Roe v. Wade.
Indeed. Given the exagerrated powers of the Judiciary, we have a rather SLOWED
DOWN democracy; now we have to wait years and years to pack the courts. It's
like planting the seeds of a harvest that our children will reap.
Dave
James Hynes
[]
> > > "Violent opposition to homosexuality" *is* immoral. That kind of
> > > opposition is what gets nice young men hung on fences.
> >
> > It is also condemned by the Catholic Church.
>
> Yet practised in spirit by the official Church.
True. It is not very good at practising what it preaches, but at least (in
theory) it condemns "violent opposition to homosexuality". That is a welcome
step forward.
> The Church lends plenty of fuel to the fires of hatred and opposition.
> Actually, the Church is responsible for
> inventing the fires of hatred and opposition against gay people!
Do you mean solely responsible? that (for example) the police, the military,
the courts, government, the media etc., were all gay-friendly until the
nasty Church made them otherwise?
> > from the document issued by the Pontifical Council for the
> > Family in 1995, "The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality":
> >
> > n.104 "Persons in this situation must be accepted with respect, dignity
and
> > delicacy, and all forms of unjust discrimination must be avoided."
>
> Yet the Church has fired gay teachers and pastors, alienated gays
> everywhere, refused to ordain them,
???????
A *very* high proportion of clergy are gay. If the Church refused to ordain
gay men the number of priests would drop by half if not more.
> lobbied against gay-rights legislation and, overall, denied their full
> humanity. It is neither respectful, dignified or delicate.
That is true. Its practice often contradicts its formal teaching.
> > Also: "For most homosexual persons, this condition constitutes a trial.
>
> That was written by a self-hating closeted gay man projecting his own
> misery onto the page.
That may be true, but surely he is right, because it must be a trial to bear
the "hatred and opposition" which gay people suffer.
> The real trial is the messages which come from the church about
> gay people, and from having to deal with a church teaching and church
> practice which demeans people. That is the trial for the great majority of
> gay people in the church and outside of the church.
That is also true, but at least there are moves in the right direction to
remedy that. I hoped you would welcome those.
> > From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n.2333, "Everyone...should
> > acknowledge and accept his sexual identity."
>
> And Church officials have the right to ask yet a gay person risks all in
the
> church to tell.
That may not be so.
When I was in the seminary it was made plain to the students that it did not
matter if we were gay or heterosexual, but both were expected to be
celibate. Celibacy is another issue, but the expectation was applied
even-handedly.
Being gay was not a bar to ordination; being sexually active (gay or
straight) was.
> Pastoral efforts like those in RobinOak's community are few and far
> between.
True, but her community was *obeying Church teaching*. Those who are hostile
or indifferent are the ones who are *disobeying Church teaching*.
> Generally, what the church teaches pastorally about gay people is miles
> beyond what it practices.
We agree on that.
Jim Hynes
James Hynes
If anybody expects this post has *anything* to do with liturgy, or is in
possession of a Sensitive Nature, do NOT read any further!
RobinOak <robi...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:37B1FE32...@mindspring.com...
>
>
> "James T. Savidge" wrote:
[]
> Urinals??? URINALS??? In my powder room? YIIIICK!
>
>
> > Not only that, but it would be easier to conserve water. A urinal takes
> > 1/4 to 1/10 the water to flush as a toilet does.
>
> Oh. But still!
>
> James, it simply does NOT go with my decor!
>
> > Some people say that they are ugly but I say that they are no uglier
than a
> > toilet.
>
> Not if you put frilly pink fluffy foo-foo covers on the seat.... try
> putting THAT on a urinal!
That is the most HORRIFYING picture I can imagine!
Is nothing SACRED??!!???
> Why can't you guys just SIT DOWN when you pee?? Wouldn't that make it
> easier?? <plus, more relaxing> :)
Good question actually.
Answer Number One is that standing is quicker ...
Answer Number Two is that standing is what guys are taught ....
Answer Number Three is that sitting is regarded as a "girlie" thing to do
(though it is necessary at other times, for Other Bodily Functions, I
admit).
I remember seeing an American movie or TV show once in which one man was
insulted by another who said "that guy has to sit down to pee."
[]
> > As for accuracy thing, we didn't design the things. If we did have the
> > chance to design them, then we would most assuredly would make them
> > more accurate.
>
> LOL
>
> I say, where are the Dads when these boys are learning! If they can
> teach you how to write your name in the SNOW, they should be able to
> teach you how not to MISS!
My Dad never taught me THAT!
We never had enough snow!
However, when I was about 5 or 6 years old, the boys in school had a
competition to see who could pee highest up the wall in the Boys Toilet.
I won! (It was my "15 minutes of fame".)
It is amazing how the British Educational System equips children with the
skills and aptitudes they need to meet the challenges of adult life.
Jim Hynes
Oscar Whitman
> Oscar Whitman <dream...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>
> > Generally, what the church teaches pastorally about gay people is miles
> > beyond what it practices.
>
> We agree on that.
Jim, if you are going to insist on agreeing with me on so many things, then how
are we ever going to have a good fight? ;-)
OW
Stephen Patten
> > > Stephen Patten wrote:
> > >
> >
> > So it isn't really about whether people are welcoming to homosexuals or
not,
> > is it? It is about the Church's teachings, yes? It isn't how it is
> > couched that offends you, it is the very message itself.
>
which I
> would ever consider as "welcoming".
>
sexual
> > activities they engage in, yes?
>
>
> > For if this was not the case than how could
> > the Church's teachings on sexual activity be an affront to homosexuals?
>
Well I'm not, but I'll try... to understand, that is!!
The
> Church tells me that because I have this "intrinsically disordered" sexual
> orientation,
She does not say that. She says the acts are 'intrinsically
ordered', Her teachings with regard to 'orientation', like all Her
teachings about persons, are charity itself.
I cannot ever have a relationship which would involve physical
> intimacy.
True! But the Church teaches this for the same reason She teaches that
fornication is wrong: it is spiritually, and more often than not in other
ways, harmful.
Neither am I allowed something approximating marriage (to a man, that
> is). Sexuality is a part of us that doesn't simply involve the genitals.
It
> includes the ways that human beings connect with one another lovingly and
> deeply, intimating our intimacy with God.
Er..., this runs the risk of being offensive, I assure you it is not the
intent, but if one's 'sexuality' isn't simply about genitals and that the
Church teaching you find offensive is about acts involving genitals, then
where is the problem?
Why the impossibiliy of loving someone without having
sex with them? There are lots of examples of very close male friendships
that today would definitely cause whispers, but they, as far as we know,
didn't involve sexual acts.
Loving someone is not about getting your own way,
nor about letting them get their own way, It is about wishing the very best
possible for them; which, of course, is that they attain Heaven.
Lest I sound a bit 'holier than thou', I should quickly add that this is the
ideal we should never lose sight of, however much you and I <sigh> fail in
this respect.
To take that away from a person is
> ethically, spiritually and morally criminal.
I think you and I will part company here. To alow a person to harm their
soul, to turn away from God is the criminal act. And God's Church, the
Divine Institute He founded, says, quite clearly, that homosexual acts are
wrong. Afterall, the Church is a Divine Institute, so She should know.
Slightly off topic, but this is what I can't understand about those that
pick and choose Church teachings. How can one question a Divine
Institution, guided by the Holy Spirit? It isn't a case that all orthodox
Catholics love every single one of the Church's teachings, far from it. No,
the reason they are forced, in conscience, to accept Her words is that they
believe, as She knows, that God created, and maintains, Her. To paraphrase
another poster, it is not 'my church right or wrong', but 'Church right, me
wrong'.
There is a understandable reason
> why homosexual children are driven to suicide -- they internalize these
negative
> messages.
This thread is getting pretty long as it is, but I think the idea that there
is such a thing as a 'homosexual' child is very, very debatable.
>
> > > And I'm certainly not
> > > alone. I find it abusive, demeaning and humiliating -- so you
shouldn't be
> > > surprised that gay people might angrily respond to this by dishing it
back
> > to
> > > them.
> >
> > Well I don't think you being abusive, demeaning or humiliating, a bit
> > confused perhaps, but not abusive.
>
> Confused? I used to be deeply confused about this issue. It is perhaps the
one
> thing I'm no longer confused at all about.
I wish you were confused about those things you now say you are certain of.
Stephen
>
> Oscar Whitman
>
>
>
Stephen Patten
Yes, we would do well to leave such nonsense alone. If I recall correctly,
in the centuries or so before Our Lord's birth the city state of Athens
found herself pretty well beleagured and surrounded by Sparta and her
enemies; I can't recall any prohibitions on 'homosex', apart from the
curious condemnation of 'bearded men and bearded men'...er... yes... we'll
definitely skip over this one.
>
> So let's say they condemned homosexual acts.
> Did they also condemn violent assault?
> In your own view, which is worse: consensual homosex, or violent
> assault?
>
> Drawing upon the old 'mortal/venial' sin model, tell me what you
think.Hasn't every culture? So what?
It doesn't really matter what *my* view is. It isn't this that counts. It
is God's view, made known to us by His Holy Church that is important.
(Rather than dodge your question I'll e-mail my reply, with reasons.
There's a real danger that my clumsy prose could be misundertood by others )
Stephen
Stephen Patten
<gingerly entering the realm of amateur psychology; is there any other
type?>
But what were the causes of this predisposition? Genetic or environmental?
More importantly, is this disposition unchangeable? The evidence seems to
suggest that it is.
>
> And that's what I find so interesting......
>
> It makes me wonder, when people get sooooOOOOooo Upset over this whole
> discussion revolving on 'nature/nurture/choice'.... Myself, I can't see
> that it COULD be a choice. Because in my own mind, I don't "choose" to
> be hetero. I just AM hetero. I was born this way. I can't 'choose' to
> be het. And I can't understand how sleeping with a woman might be
> pleasurable. Boring, would be my response. <"hey, I got just what you
> got... now what....?"> <g>
>
> "It Does Not Compute", as the robot used to say....
>
> Now Steve, the following is not directed at you alone. Please don't
> think I'm trying to corner you... I'm trying to work out a line of
> reasoning here....
>
> How is it that the people who insist that it's <at least sometimes> a
> choice, can *understand* that?
>
> Can you imagine that sleeping with someone of the same sex just *might*
> be pleasurable? And therefore, it's a 'choice' that some make, albeit a
> sinful one? <according to that POV>
Er.. no..quite the opposite, Gott sei Dank! However, Satan sure has got me
cornered with a whole lot of other sins that tempt me.
>
> A lot of us believe that everyone's really bi. Just a question of
> degree. Some are 99.99999% one way or the other. Most of us are mostly
> straight. Most of the time.
'A lot of us believe ...?' Not over here they don't. Well not in the
proleterian circles I move in. Mind you, I'm not so sure about the folk
that live in the big houses, who earn lots without getting their hands
dirty, and vote New Labour. Now that is a sin, New Labour that is. A
perfectly decent working class party infiltrated and taken over by the
middle classes...using our votes to push through their agendas.... <goes off
into rant mode>....
>
> But what I find curious is this notion that people can 'choose'.
Everyone can choose. The choice is not just whether to do, but also the
choice not to do - if you get my drift (that's how the Americans say it,
yes?)
>
> My own 99.999999....% straight mind cannot COMPREHEND that. <"like...
> WHY????">
>
> I am beginning to wonder whether the 'choice' people are less straight
> than they might think. Because if that reasoning makes sense to them,
> they must have *some* concept of how homosex might be pleasurable.
They could equally hold the 'choice' line with a general understanding of
how many sinful actions are pleasurable, knowing the specific pleasure is
un-necessary.
I know that I have chosen to drink heavily in the past because of its
pleasure, mind you the romanticization of heavy drinking/alcoholism in such
films as "The Lost Weekend" doesn't help. ( to a certain sort of perverse
type Ray Milland's dillemma was 'romantic', that quote describing his
drunken day-dream of "Sailing down the Nile with Cleopatra" accurately
captures the pleasure of a certain type of drunkeness, IMDO)
However, my teetotal aunty (this is hypothetical now!) doesn't need to have
touched a drop to realise both that
a) Drunkeness is wrong,
b) That her nephew must obviously enjoy it, otherwise why would he keep on
wasting most of his money and time down the pub? Unless he has a
dependency - which is a different matter.
Er... Does this make sense?
>
> Did that or did that not make any sense.
>
> <trying to work this out as I go along....>
>
> >
> > Well, why would someone steal, or beat their wife, or commit any manner
of
> > sin? Are they all predisposed to these? Is no one guilty of any
wrongdoing?
> > Are we all victims of our genes and environment?
>
> Now, those things, I can understand. I can understand how someone might
> be driven to steal, or even beat up on his/her spouse. <you get driven
> crazy enough by a person, you might be tempted to slap him/her around a
> bit....>
>
> And yes, those things are still choices. I have a frame of reference,
> and if I look honestly enough into myself, I CAN understand those
> things. I can choose to steal. <hides pencil taken from work
> 'accidentally'> I can choose to give Ol' Stick in the Mud <the
> archetypal spouse> a smack on the arm. Or whatever. Those things I can
> understand, and can choose to do or not to do them, because I know I
> have the propensity for those things.
Ah! But people have different propensities, there are different levels of
motivation. And it behoves us to take these, charitably, into account when
discussing (not judging, no, never judging!) the actions of others.
But the bottom line is that everyone can, though the degree of self-control
varies, choose not to do something.
>
> But I can't 'get it' in terms of trying to understand what's in
> someone's head or heart, where homosex is concerned. I don't think I
> choose to be straight.
>
> Because I'm pretty sure I was born this way, and I can't fit the right
> shoe onto the left foot, and choose to have sex with a woman. I just
> don't WANNA, you know?? <g>
This 'born this way' argument is deceptive. Yes, people are born with lots
of different propensities, but no one is born with such a propensity that it
is not in theory possible to control. The tragedy is that the phrase 'born
this way' is used to cover almost every aspect of human behaviour, nowadays.
Apart, I note, racial hatred. I can't recall any charitable statement that
those 'ol red necks' running around in white robes are slaves of their
genes/environment. Seems they, alone of all sinners, are guilty by choice,
irrespective of their upbringing, education, etc.
>
> I am *not* trying to suggest that you, Steve, may have any homosexual
> inclinations yourself. This goes for everyone who espouses the 'choice'
> argument. Talking about it with you just made me kinda want to follow
> the line of reasoning out a bit further.
Look, I don't get any pleasure in watching boring old US Football, that
doesn't stop me assuming that some find it pleasureable, they I can't on
earth think why (I was going to make some crack about the beautiful game of
cricket and its universal pleasures, but after having watched the recent
England team's performances against New Zealand I find it difficult, at the
moment, to equate enjoyment and cricket).
Stephen
UticaCW
>Here's what's inhumane: telling an entire class of people that their
>homosexual
>orientation is fine -- yet thay cannot ever have a personal, fulfilling
>relationship which includes expression of their sexuality.
It seems to me, Oscar, that modern Catholic "popular" opinion has dropped the
ball entirely on the subject of sexuality and the sacred. Maybe it's a
post-60's sort of moral hang-over thing that will pass as the baby-boomers
fade, one by one, into oblivion; maybe it's your long awaited reconfiguration
of the Church into a utopic, nay, downright Joachite Age of the (holy) Spirit.
>
>...especially when said "prophets" are just plain stupid and/or cruel.
>
You keep telling me that, and my own eyes keep telling me that the truth lies
closer to the opposite point of the compass.
Dave
UticaCW
>So it is your contention,
>that a "good" gay Catholic or bible thumping protester, who does not
>"practice," and remains celibate, should still be able to be legally fired
Now you've gone and allowed pragmatic reality to impose itself upon an
otherwise fine theoretical assertion. We have too many moral imperatives in
play now ...
So let me simplify the equation by proposing a scenario ... there exists a
entourage of performers and preachers of a specifically Religious orientation.
Let's call it the Amy and Elmer show. They go about the country preaching some
brand of conservative Christianity and repentance, and singing religious songs,
etc., with perhaps a few sundry healings thrown in for good effect. In such a
scenario, I would say that, yes, a performer could rightly be fired for any of
the items that you raised in your intial list, and more: adultery, paedophilia,
pre-marital sex, gay sex, masturbation, bestiality, theft, cursing or otherwise
vulgar and coarse language, drinking, playing cards, dancing, etc.,.
My only point ... moral and economic spheres always overlap, though sometimes
more fully and clearly than at other times. The correct and most just response
is not always clear.
>I am assuming of course you are not still clinging to the silly 'choice'
>point of view, that even the Pope has abandoned, and no rational person
>could subscribe to.
I actually prefer not to "cling" to any scientific pov in such matters of
morality, for two reasons:
1.) In the longer duree, scientists change points of view like I change
underwear. Today's scientific truth is tomorrow's laughable myth. Those in
the religion business must take science with a grain of salt.
2.) In many cases, the softer sciences are nearly as prone to special pleading
and ideological influence as politicians. Witness the scientific pandering
that goes on in courts of law as "expert" povs refute each the other.
>
>True, that is reality of our society, but that is why we have a Supreme
>Court to protect the individual from the Mob.
But again, the question for me is what is the correct Christian response to the
pressures and realities of society?
>you should be able to fire them for their religion,
I am not up on the law in this regard. I know there are clear exceptions (eg,
the Pastor at your church [how fast would a Baptist churchlette fire their
pastor if he converted to Catholicism?], teachers in religious schools, etc).
But is this a blanket federal statute? Or does it apply only to situations
involving federal funds?
>One more try, to be consistent, you would have to agree that it would be ok
>to fire someone if they subscribed to Hustler or Playboy.
Yes, certainly from the Amy and Elmer show.
>Pornography is
>immoral, the employer does not approve, someone in the office saw you pull
>it out of your mail box, your fired.
>
Actually, are not people being fired now for hitting porno sites from the
computer at work? John, I'm convinced that there is much, much more firing for
moral reasons going on in the workplace than you let on. Come to think of it,
I know a girl who got fired for having an affair at work.
>You really think it is ok to fire someone for being gay?
I did not ~originally~ say ~that~, did I? I said, if I recall, that I am not
in favor of the creation of an infinity of protected classes of being.
Especially behavior-based classes of being. That will be a can of worms that
America will regret. It will become impossible to fire anyone.
I also said that I am in favor of allowing owners (employers, landlords,
investors) to set the moral tone governing the use of the property that they
own. To put it bluntly, I view those pleading for special consideration as
back-door socialists.
>I reiterate, It ain't right, human rights are human rights,
And what, exactly, are those inalienable rights of man? The idea is a given
... but the specific listings have changed a lot over time. And even given the
list at hand, the rights of men are always overlapping ... eg my right to use
my property as I see fit versus another's right to decent housing.
>Christians should support equal human rights for all, regardless of
>philosophical or religious differences.
But now we are in a gray zone. I for one do not count what are essentially
lifestyle choices as inalienable human rights. I certainly do believe that
Christians should prioritize "spiritual" goods over secular political agenda.
Again, the question really becomes, how does a Christian translate his beliefs
into political views and agenda. I for one do not believe that a Christian
should check his beliefs at the door to the polling place.
Dave
UticaCW
>One more augument, to remain consistant with you philosopy
which is? I'm dying to know, since I'm still trying to figure these issues out
for myself.
>you would have
>to agree that on your employment application, it would be ok to ask
>
>are you gay?
>
>are you christian?
>
>are you living with someone out of wedlock?
>
>do you use birth control?
>
>have you had an abortion?
>
In the Amy and Elmer show? Most certainly.
Dave
UticaCW
>, and not everyone who lives
>here has a "Judeo-Christian" heritage.
That is a challenge of living in a multicultural society. Of course, just a
century ago, the mission societies in each and every Christian Church would be
busy setting out to rectify that problem. Here's a point, I for one am a big
fan of cultural homogenity. A growing Muslim presence in the country? Great.
Welcome to the US, now let's start talking about RCIA classes...
>How is my homosexual orientation a matter of PUBLIC MORALITY?
Other than the fact that you have chosen to make it such? At least in this ng.
> It is not accurate to link the practice
>of Judaism, especially modern Judaism, with Christianity.
This is problematic, for the US at least. For decades, the trend has been to
focus on points of unity, rather than of departure. Probably has something to
do with reactions to that Holocaust thingie.
>Modern Judaism has a strong positive social action
>tradition
~Which~ modern Judaism? There are more than one, and some are like night and
day. Nothing like the spectacle of different Jewish sects telling each the
other that they're really not Jewish. Kinda like me telling a Baptist that he
ain't Christian...
Dave
JohnInDC
> In the Amy and Elmer show? Most certainly.
>
Correct, but in any secular setting. No. Including the military.