www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Those violent gays, eyh?

Daniel, I tend to agree. My brother runs a VA group home in Lousiana attached to the Alexandria VA, you can certainly ask him directly, but we have discussed this issue.

With the exception of two older men who are Korean vets in his home all of the rest of his men are Vietnam vets.

Their complaints are not with how they were treated by any one member of the public when they came home, but rather their complaints center almost entirely on how they were treated by the U.S. government they served.

Christians are well within their rights to protest against as parades by homosexuals demanding special rights for behavior that is evil. Violence, however, is totally unacceptable. The rule of charity must always prevail.

The �condemn the sin but not the sinner� rule applies. The Church and her Scriptures teach us that we must adhere to and witness what is morally right while gently and fraternally correcting someone who has fallen into sin.

Christians are certainly well within their rights to protest against anything which we believe to be immoral or otherwise objectionable, particular if a parade is being held in support of such a phenomenon (e.g. - while I've never heard of a parade being held to demand the "right" to divorce, there could be no question that those who regard divorce as a social evil have also a right to be heard). The question is how to accomplish this in such a way as to change people's opinions.

This is not done by throwing eggs, screaming obscenities, threatening or even perpetrating violence, etc. One should also consider carefully which occasions are the most likely to succeed.

So what to do? Well, it is quite possible to call a meeting or rally open to the public, with speakers who know how to deliver a public address that is both truthful and courteous. A leaflet distribution at the appropriate venue might be a good thing.

If it has happened - and especially if it has happened more than once in the same place - that any place of worship has been profaned and/or abused, particular in the course of a public worship service, one can properly invoke the protection of the law. It is unacceptable for people to be intimidated or threatened while they are entering or leaving a place of worship, and scattering condoms on an altar is unspeakable - and illegal; there is no reason to tolerate such misconduct. There is also no reason to descend to such a level. Since this is criminal behavior, I would want chapter and verse before I would be prepared to believe it. But I don't exclude the possibility.

One can also organize a public debate; there are surely people on both sides - or several sides - of almost any such issue who can present their arguments without becoming abusive in the process. Just remember: if you lose your cool the other side wins by default.

Incognitus

In today's western culture, this whole story is such a non-issue that one is forced to question the motives of the poster in posting it.

Christians in northern europe have been jailed recently simply for preaching from the bible about the sinful nature of sodomy. Christians in Canada are persecuted and fined and prosecuted continually for any negative comments regarding sodomy.

Before long, we in the USA will be subject to hate speech laws giving civil protection to sodomists.

This story is now the exception, it is certainly not the rule.

And sodomists are far more violent to each other than any outside protest groups are towards them.

Doc Brian,

Right you are and thank you for writing it. There's some funny business going on when so many sodomites get protection and support from so many Catholics.

Dan L

Parading - which launched the discusion picked up in this thread - is not a special right. Anyone may protest it, but success is unlikely and would probably require repeal of certain portions of the bill of rights.

I do and will support their right to parade. What's so funny about that? Do you actually think that being a good Catholic really requires opposition to our experiment in liberty - our manner of governing the US?

I've asked this question some time ago, about judges (when it was more popular to talk about candidates for legislative and executive office.) With the nomination of Judge Roberts for SCOTUS, this has become a lively topic at mirrorofjustice. I hope that Judge gets asked his thoughts on the question in his confirmation hearing. And maybe some bishops will weigh in as well.

Ingonitus:

Do you own a house and a car?

Do I own a house and a car? How soon do you need to know? Are such possessions required to legitimize my theological, liturgical, canonical, disciplinary, culinary, musical or other opinions? MYOB!

Incognitus

djs,

"I do and will support their right to parade. What's so funny about that? Do you actually think that being a good Catholic really requires opposition to our experiment in liberty - our manner of governing the US?"

Do you still beat your wife?

Dan Lauffer

In Catholic thought, Freedom means the right to pursue Truth. Licence is not the same as Freedom. Licence is "freedom" only in that it allows or is used with irresponsibility; it is a disregard for standards of personal conduct. It certainly is NOT a right in the moral sense, even if perverted modern definitions of 'freedom" claim otherwise.

You are confusing Freedom and Licence.

Catholicism supports and encourages true Freedom, but it is never morally licit to support licentiousness.

Gay pride parades are licentious. They are not an expression of "freedom" but an expression of revolt and slavery to sin.

No Catholic who understands the Faith can in good conscience "support" a gay pride parade.

Dan,

I would love to hear, then, just what is the funny business. And if I am on the wrong track about what's funny, and am therefore begging in my question, it is not for want of trying to ask about and sort out this question.

I know that some folks here would prefer a theocracy. But I don't think that that preference is required to be a good Catholic. If not, then what - as a citizen is permitted? Is defending the rights of all people to march OK, or only those who adhere to Catholic, or some homogneized Christian principles. Does defending speech and assembly rights for sinners in some serious way entail cooperation with evil? What would a Catholic judge be permitted in deciding an injunction on the Nazis marching in Skokie?

And if this is the wrong track, then what, exactly, is the funny business?

Campion's Law was created on www.freerepublic.com [freerepublic.com] to be a corollary to the widely recognized Goodwin\'s Law [google.com] :


Campion's Law: "As a FR discussion lengthens, the probability of a libertarian or atheist FReeper comparing a Christian FReeper to al Qaeda or a Talibanic theocrat approaches one. Any FReeper who compares their opponent to al Queda or declares their oppenent an advocate of a "theocracy" has automatically lost that point of debate.

It is fair to say that at the St. Patrick's day parade in Boston, when I lived in the area, there was considerable licentiousness - mainly in public drunkeness and disorderliness. It was, in fact, a disgrace to many, many people in Irish community. It would be a stretch, however, to say that that parade or any parade "is" licentious. But, as incognitus already mentioned, there are remedies that already exist against unlawful behavior.

I am not sure about your words, exactly. Especially when the key word in in quotes. I support the right of all people in this country to assemble to speak, and to parade. I do this independent of agenda, and with no implication of support for any unlawful behavior.

Now, if you mean that no Catholic who understands the faith can do this (show me this from the magesterium), then you invite disqualification of Catholics (who understand the faith) from any office in which they must swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the US, wherein people in error still have rights. And tha problem is a timely one.

Doc:

You are relatively new here. Had you been here longer you would be more likely to know that I am alluding to specific comments made by specific posters here (and on other forums at which they post). And the model theocrats in question may be Taliban or such over at FR, but here they would be Byzantine emperors, or holy Czars, or maybe Maria-Therese.

ps is there a similar law, somewhere, about the a-word?

If the errors of our secular government "disqualify" Catholics from office, that is the price to be paid for following Christ. Our Pope made this explicitly clear recently, regarding advancement of the sodomists' agenda: