www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall At Notre Dame, gay film fest

Do you think it would be too risky for the religious department at a Catholic campus to suggest it? Geez! Wait till they get to Romans 1:18-32. This one becomes a nasty surprise for those who promote alternative lifestyles in others which are nothing but the depravity of man.

Do you think anyone would understand this? :

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (Rom 1:26,27)

Does Paul divorce the acts from the people who "happen to be" ...?

Joe Thur

Duh, gee! I never thought of that!

Honestly Joe, I agree with you.

I am in a very sarcastic mood lately, and I apologize to everyone for the tone of my posts. Including the silly alarmist sarcasm of post #1.

Michael, that worst of sinners

Joe, I believe those comments refer to people who identify themselves as homosexuals. Unlike the examples you gave, (murder, etc.) it is presumably easy for someone to be aware of being tempted toward that sin. They may identify themselves as homosexual, and struggle with it, while remaining celibate however. There is the distinction.

It is my opinion, however, that in such a case, that might not be the correct approach to take. Doctors caution patients against identifying themselves AS their disease..."I am a diabetic" has different psychological weight than "I have diabetes". In the one, you ARE the illness... in the other, you have the illness, it is a part of life...but controllable...not controlling you.

Although not beset by the sin of homosexuality, I think if I were, and remaining celibate, I could not choose to label myself homosexual, and identify my life and lifestyle with the sin I was trying to avoid. It would be a constant label of self as failure, rather than hope of self as member of Christ's Church.

A Gay Film Festival make no sense. Courses on ministering to homosexuals within the Church make sense. Anything else encourages a lifestyle contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Of course! What would you call a person that is sexually attracted to children?

Sorry for being a little busy and a little late, but someone told me to check out this thread re: the contraception stuff, and I felt like weighing in, so here goes:

Anyway, the Catholic position is that the act of contraception is intrinsically contrary to the purpose of human sexuality. It is contrary to the law of nature, written on the hearts of men.

Thus, the "reasons why" one contracepts are irrelevant. The moral object is intrinsically evil, and cannot therefore be sanctioned on account of circumstances, or the "end". The end does NOT justify the means.

Daniel's (Iconophile's) argument before was that if contraception is morally legitimate, then sex does not necessarily have anything to do with procreation. In that case, it becomes difficult to condemn other sexual sins like sodomy or masturbation. I think he is right. I do not think he meant to imply that the Orthodox countenance homosexuality.

A note on NFP: Strategic, periodic abstinence to avoid conception is only allowed under grave circumstances. It is not supposed to be the norm for Christian marriage and it is not by any means superior to having a large family. Famine, disease, physical problems, etc., constitute grave circumstances--NOT "we both want careers" or "we need to get that flat-screen TV!"

A note on "not everyone's called to have large families":

God will not give you more than you can handle. Couples who open themselves up to Divine Providence always, in my knowledge, find that God takes care of them. He feeds men just as He feeds the sparrows. I think we must be careful about letting our own fear and our own limitations stand in the way of God's call to further generosity.

In Christ,

LatinTrad

Thanks for the support. However I think there are reasons outside of the extreme circumstances you mention for using NFP [I don't mean getting that widescreen TV or the big promotion]. Not that I am tempted; my bride and I took a class and it just seemed so, I don't know, unromantic...

Other issues came into play in God's natural plan for spacing children that me have disregarded: Women tend to conceive less often when nursing...but women selsom nurse infants anymore, or only for the briefest of times.

Gaudior,

What happened in this thread is, sadly, not uncommon on this board:

1) A non-Orthodox poster makes claims regarding Orthodoxy or an Orthodox Church.

2) An Orthodox Christian speaks up to address the issue.

3) If the non-Orthodox is asked to substantiate anything it is not done. No matter how many Orthodox say otherwise, including priests, the claim of the non-Orthodox holds. (This has happened in other threads.)

If this were reversed there would be outrage. It shows a lack of concern for the truth and is harmful. It is not appropriate for Lent or any other time. Things that are anectodal should be reported as such, things that are labled "official" should be substantiated.

Tony

Time out!

There is a parallel thread developing between Daniel the Iconophile and Tony of Crestwood (I too had a little part in this). I will invite Tony and Daniel to open a new topic, if they desire. This is certainly moving away from the original thread "At Notre Dame, gay film fest".

Tony,

I am a little confused by your last post. I'm not sure what you mean when you write, "If the non-Orthodox is asked to substantiate anything it is not done. No matter how many Orthodox say otherwise, including priests, the claim of the non-Orthodox holds." How do you determine that an unsubstantiated claim "holds" in this instance. This seems to be a discussion primarily between yourself and Daniel. Don't assume silence by others is acceptance. They probably see this topic outside the original and will not reply.

Deacon John,

I don't assume silence by others (others includes moderators) is consent (although that is the ancient maxim). The third post on this thread made allegations that have yet been substantiated. Indeed, those (which I did not make) were outside the scope of the initial post but they seemed quickly to become an integral part of the thread.

Tony

Your pardon, Tony.

As a newcomer to this board, it was my assumption that a post should be answered from the perspective of Christian love and charity. It was also my understanding that as the board has many denominations and jurisdictions, it may be helpful, though not required, to perhaps state in ones post that the UGCC position is, or the RC position is, or the OCA position is...IF one is able to substantiate that as you did, with links to the official Church website.

This may alleviate confusion between new members who may happily be unaware of personal animosities between members...or of biases, and allow each post to stand on its own academic merits, as it were.

To assert as you do that the forum is biased against Orthodox Christians represents a tilt I have not noticed in any official capacity. Those who have identified themselves as Orthodox have their opinions and views well respected when they express them courteously...at least in the brief time I have been on the Forum, and reading back posts. The same holds true for Roman Catholics and others. Perhaps if one might make the smallest suggestion that if one begins a conversation expecting to be misunderstood, that is usually what does happen. Allowances on a multi-faith board must be made for other faiths not speaking your church's language, or having read incorrect information on other websites. If you are in a position to courteously do so, guiding someone to the truth, in love and kindness, not by throwing proof at them of the justness of your position, is the best way to handle such corrections.

Nothing is harder for those who love their Church to see their views attacked, whether through ignorance, or through malice. But when one frustrates the urge to rage back at those who SEEM to do so, one frustrates the devil.

I post this rather than PM it, because it is, in my opinion, a message that all could read going into the Great Fast. I will use it to remind myself also. Your pardon, Deacon John, for getting off-topic.

Gaudior, in humility

Well, frankly Deacon John, I am glad it drifted from the original topic. I am a bit wary of topics which seem to be excuses to bash gay people. That should be a matter of concern as well.

Gaudior,

You're right on all count.

I beg the board's forgiveness.

Tony

Dear Friends,

Well, I've noticed an effort by some to want to "kick" Orthodox or others on the basis not of "Catholic law" but on the basis of Patristic teaching on the subject of birth control.

The fact that a majority of RC's don't follow their Church's teaching on this matter, well, what can one do?

The question had really little to do with "Catholic vs Orthodox" but with the extent to which Orthodox Churches today adhere to Patristic teaching on birth control.

Does contemporary Orthodoxy follow that teaching in its official pronouncements and directives to Orthodox couples?

If that is the question, then it surely belongs on another thread.

And hopefully it can be discussed without either RC's or Orthodox getting their backs up against the wall.

What is the Orthodox teaching on artificial birth control? I would like to know myself.

And if it is at variance with what the Fathers taught - then how is that justified by contemporary Orthodox moral theology?

Good questions all - but another thread would be in order.

We know what the RC Church teaches on divorce and birth control.

But RC's should never feel too exalted in affirming what their Church teaches - given what we know about how RC laity fulfill that teaching.

Alex

Gaudior wrote:


If you don't want to read a rant, skip the rest.

Perhaps this is outside the realm of the major thrust of the thread, but personally, I find this to be an outrageous statement for a number of reasons. First, it isn't true - well over 60% of women begin to breastfeed their infants - and second, because the major reason women give it up is because they tend to get ABSOLUTELY NO USEFUL SUPPORT if they choose to continue. Nonetheless, breastfeeding rates continue to increase, even in the sex-obsessed US.

-Doctors in the United states get virtually NO TRAINING in breastfeeding, and routinely give out the most horrendously incorrect information and advice, in TOTAL contravention of the stated policies of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Practice, the United Nations and the World Health Organization.

-Hospitals in the United States routinely hand out formula "gift packs" in contravention of the UN charter.

-Most insurance policies will not pay for the services of an Internationally Board Certified Lactation Consultant.

-Many hospitals still routinely give formula, sugar water or pacifiers, do not encourage rooming-in, and well over 90% of births in this sorry nation are medicated, which can lead to breastfeeding issues (that an IBCLC can help get past) and about 50% of births are medically unnecessary C-sections - another cause of some problems.

-Moms with babies in Neonatal ICUs are RARELY encouraged or facilitated to pump milk for their needy neonates. There have been several deaths in NICUS in the past several years from contaminated formula too. Donated milk? There are only 4 functioning milk banks in this country, and getting milk can cost about $3.50 per ounce for those fortunate few who can get it. (That's why there's a small but flourishing mom-to-mom network, to which I have donated about 500 lbs of milk so far.)

-Women are still hassled for nursing in public, no matter how discreetly, and God help you if your baby is "older" - like say, over 2 months!

-Most states have absolutely NO laws protecting a woman's right to express milk at work ON HER BREAKS in a clean, safe environment. Note: This does NOT include bathrooms. If you wouldn't make your lunch in a bathroom, you shouldn't expect a mom to prepare her baby's lunch in a bathroom either. Oh - That's ME on the freeway next to your car, with the bottles sticking out of my shirt, hanging from my hands-free rig, because SOMEONE at my office object to human breasts being used for anything except to sell cars, booze or to tittilate. I live in Ohio, and I have absolutely no rights in the workplace in this regard.

-There's no regulation on breast pumps. A very few are worth the money - too many on the market qualify as JUNK - too little power, no adjustment, no durability, or suction so strong as to injure.

I am far from alone in my commitment to give MY kids the best start in life. In geologic time, the time I've spent breastfeeding is infinitesimal, but so far it adds up to over 11 years for 3 kids. And breastfeeding TENDS to delay the return of fertility in MOST women, but it is by no means anywhere as reliable as NFP, which the Church teaches may be used for SERIOUS reasons, not just GRAVE ones.

If you want more women to nurse their babies for longer, work to make it possible.

Sharon
Working mother, Nursing mother, cantor, & sinner