www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall How the homosexual activist movement has targeted America's children

A couple more articles which point out the pervasiveness of the attempts to destroy the Church's efforts to correct the problems at many of our seminaries.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/jul/02070206.html

And another:

http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/25/144448.shtml

Dan Lauffer

As a good antidote to Dan's articles, you might try Garry Will's article in the New York Review of Books of June 13, 2002 detailing the Bishop's efforts to palm off their failures to discipline pedophile priests by accusing gay people

www.nybooks.com/articles/15462 [nybooks.com]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by byzanTN:
[QB]It would appear, that in the current climate of political correctness, the only remaining sins are murder (except abortion), and telling a racist joke.

Well, I often see the accusation of "politcal correctness" as an attempt to end debate especially if one comes from a left of center perspective. Often all this "political correctness" consists of is a trying to be more just to people who have suffered injustice such as black peoples, Jewish people and yes, gay people who DO experience daily prejudice apart from havens such as the New York and the West Coast.

The article is irrelavent to my position. Yes, I've read it. There are two points: 1. Homosexual sexual activity is unnatural and in the words of Scripture, "An abomination". 2. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. A third point could be made that priests who are celibate break their vows by participating in sexual activity at all.

The Church's primary concern is not whether a male has some effeminate characteristics. This should not be called "homosexual" anyway. Nor is She principally concerned with whether a female as some masculine characteristics. What the Church is primarily concerned with is behavior. The rest is not particularly important for this discussion.

Dan Lauffer

It is interesting that the Rector of the American College in Louvain hsa denounced Rose's book in very strong terms and the conservative Nartional Cathlic Register has done the same. I'll post these of the moderator doesn't mind the space it would take up.

The title of this thread is unjust, and I will demonstrate how. First, it is unjust to simply bandy about words without any precision, in the same way shooting a gun in self-defense is only just if every possible care is taken that it hits the target and not just in the general direction.

The chosen phrase is "homosexual activist". So we are down to a subset of gay people. I would be open to any reasonable defination of what class of gay people are activists.

With that established, (and I really don't like doing this, but since this thread title has been allowed for some time and others have raised this issue, I will) a simple fact emerges. From what we know for sure, Catholic priests are a greater danger to abusing America's children than gay activists. We have hundreds of Catholic priests now known to have abused children of both genders. We do not have hundreds (or even scores) of gay activists known to have abused a child. we know these priest's leaders -- the bishops -- by their own admission did not provide adequate safeguarsd to protect children. The same cannot be proven of any of the leadership organizations or persons in the gay activist movement.

Side issues, extensions, etc, exist tagentily related to this, but no honest person can say on the direct issue any of this is inaccurate.

I am NOT saying the Catholic Church hsa targeted America's children for abuse. That would be unfair and unjust. Just as the title of this thread is.

I would hope this closes this matter.

Your argument is quickly dispensed. The gay activists among the clergy are the criminals in this scenario. Those who promote the normalization of same sex sexual content are activists. That is not imprecise nor unjust. That is what they do.

Dan Lauffer

I do not have files on all of the hundreds of Catholic priests who have abused children. From the press reports, these men, including a Professor at Stuebenville, a Tridentinist (if that's the word), a counselor to the late Cardinal O'Connor, etc, etc, none of them have every been found to utter a word in favor of gay rights.

The one priest in a class by himself is Father Shanley, who was denounced by the gay activist leadership and praised by Cardinal Law.

Case still closed unless you can start citing even a handful of these abusing priests who ever promoted same sex relations.

[ 07-04-2002: Message edited by: Axios ]

Brian, the use of the term "political correctness" is not an attempt to end debate. I don't deny that mistreatment of others exists. It has existed as long as people have been around. This is not a just world and, if my understanding of Christ's teachings is correct, it will not be until He returns. However, sin is still sin. That hasn't changed, nor will it. The teachings of the Church haven't changed, either. There is within political correctness a view that we should never make judgements as to whether most acts are evil or not - murder and racist jokes excepted In that view, evil is in the eye of the beholder. I don't subscribe to that view, and I don't believe the Church does either.

I don't agree with moral relativism either but i also don't agree with bigotry against gay people among other minorities. That is NOT Christian.

Dear ByzanTN,

Would you not agree that the Catholic Church responds to actual movements and not vague and undefinable catch phrases like "political correctness"? I know our Orthodox tradition is to respond to propositions of actual groups(Iconoclasm, Monophysitism, etc.).

As far as I can tell, no "Committee for Political Correctness" exists, no "Twelve Point Platform" adopted by the XXIIth Congress of Practictioners of Political Correctness" exists either.

Similiar to the "AmChurch" matter once discussed here, I think terms applied by adversaries to vaugue and undefined elements is not proper to Christian discussion and reflection.

If one wants to say: the American Library Association, the National Catholic Reporter, Commonweal, Call to Action, SNAP, Bishop Gumbleton, Pax Christi, Orthodox Peace Fellowship, Planned Parenthood, ACLU, Peggy Steinfels, E.J. Dionne, or any such objective person, organization or publication, had this or that shortcoming, lack of merit, error or failing, I think that would be an interesting discussion.


Axios

[ 07-04-2002: Message edited by: Axios ]

Axios,

Though I suspect this won't make any difference to you it doesn't matter what political cause one proposes. If a male buggers another male it is homosexual. Nothing else matters.

Dan Lauffer

And yet once again an infallible pronouncement from his holiness Dan Lauffer...Dan locuta, causa finita. It is interesting...any time you can't answer or rebut a post you don't agree with, you always try saying something cutting and catty. Why not just let it pass, the only thing you are proving is your own ignorance and hatred. Moe

I get uncomfortable when a person's interpersonal relationships are reduced to intimacy/sexuality. It's like saying that marriage is mere legalized sex. How absurd.

If one believes in the existence of the human soul, then to reduce an individual to his/her sexuality without considering the entire person is to lack the true pastoral service/concern that all of us baptized are required to have towards each other and to the non-baptized.

(This concern should also be expressed towards those few clergy who have not lived up to their responsiblities. We need to forgive them but also provide protection to any other potential victims.)

What is this fetish-like preoccupation with sex and sexuality? Is not a person more than that?

Blessings!

Your arguments are nonsensical. Nothing else matters regarding the Church's standard and so nothing else matters in this issue than this: The homosexual tendancy is unnatural and lying with a person of the same sex is an abomination to God.

Sinful inclinations, no matter what they are, do not define us. That is what John and Moe are arguing for. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Moe, you can mock me all you wish. John, you can try to shift ground all you wish. When the smoke clears you cannot say with any degree of honesty that my position dehumanizes anyone. The bottom line is this: the homosexual inclination is unnatural, just as is the inclination to be dependent upon drinking. They both are impulses that need to be surrendered to God. If we surrender to them we commit sin. Sin's are forgiveable, but they are not natural to human existence.

Last Saturday my mother died in part because she tried to drown her depression in alcohol. The booze was a soothing balm to her but it shut her off from others. It was not until she nearly killed herself three times and we children had to put her in a nursing home in 1998 that she finally stopped drinking. She then surrendered to God through patient counsel and prayer. Sadly, the years of drinking had taken their toll and she after a series of strokes and a massive heart attack, died.

A few years ago I visited with a young man who died of Aids which he contracted from homosexual sex. Through loving and patient counsel he was brought to a loving relationship with His Lord and he died at peace. His "friends" spoke at his funeral and all they spoke about was how sexy he was. They shared a good deal more about their relationships than anyone wished to know. I felt sorry for his family and I pitied the lost state these lustful people were in.

What we call original sin is not a gift of God but it is a disease from our fallen state. It is not natural. Succumbing to temptations engendered by our sin sick state does not bring us salvation but mires us deeper in our illness. Humanity is made for God not for sin.

This is the position of the Church of Jesus Christ. This is my position. This is the only position that honors what God has made.

Call me names. Make fun of the Church's position. Mock the truth. Do whatever you wish. What possible difference will it make?

Dan Lauffer

[ 07-04-2002: Message edited by: Dan Lauffer ]

Brothers,

May I please make a suggestion?

Regardless of Dan's invitation, I counsel all members of the forum to avoid name calling. This is a very important discussion. I hope we will be able to avoid dismissing one another, with unworthy comments.

Rather, let us address the issues, and debate the question at hand.

with apologies...

Elias