www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Bush Wants Homosexuals Out of Marriage

Dear Administrator,

Thank you for your support and clarification for my statement in response to another's posting.

I truly appreciate it.

Steve

Dear Administrator,

Thanks for your quick and thorough and thoughtful response.

I have just a comment or two in what I hope to make my last posting in this thread.

You asked this:

"Can you please share the specifics of how you believe Christians should treat homosexual individuals? And contrast it with how we should treat individuals who engage in other forms of undesired behavior?"

I'd have to write a tome just to contain the responses of some friends to this question!

Let me say this. If eachtime one had to remind a teen that the Church teaches that homosexuality is sinful, the teacher/priest/ parent/ would simply begin by telling

"a teen with homosexual tendencies that that he (or she) is was wonderfully created by God, that God loves him, that we love him;"

that would be a major step forward.

That is the focus of love and of validation of self value. Most Catholics, I think, don't realize that that is what the bishops have urged parents and others to do when they approach gay children of all ages.

I think that it works with all kinds of people who committ all kinds of sins.

If we could find it in ourselves to deal from this focus and speak from this focus to gay teens, we would not continue an all too prevelent cycle in home, school, and church. That focus tends to say that what's important bout you is that you're gay and gayness is a sin. It teaches teens that gays are bad because of who they are; that you're gay, you're bad and reprehensible, that you're gay so get thee gone from here!

I do not mean that that is the official teaching of the Church. It is all too common among Christians including Catholics in our daily dealing with gay people. Imagine a closeted gay child who hears his people, parents teachers and even religious leaders who curse gay people. It happens quite frequently and its results are documented in the statistics cited by Johan in his posting.

I think that Dr. John is quite on the mark when he says that we must apply the law of Love to our dealings with gay people. We have to ask if we are treating them as we would have others treat us. The answers might surprise us!

Lest, I inadvertantly start a new round;

I am not saying that we do not have a duty to fraternal correction. I am saying that when and how we do that should be modified in the light of the Law of Love.

Putting the focus on things that you said to do for teens to tell "a teen with homosexual tendencies that that he (or she) is was wonderfully created by God, that God loves him, that we love him," is a great first step.

Shouldn't that apply to adults, too? If so, we might then find it easier to invite them to join us as we sinners together work together to become more like Christ (in Latin terms?) and move forward together on the road of theosis.

The longest journey begins with a single step we're told (sometimes ad nauseam). Wouldn't this change of focus be a great first step?

Given the fact that homosexuals have felt rejection so strongly even in their churches that they've formed their own church, I think that this focus would mark us as different from those who are not Christians?

Imagine each poster saying about homosexuals before we post about them:

You are wonderfully created by God.

God loves you.

We love you.

We reach out to touch you with the love of Christ.

We want to work with you so that you can be strong and follow the law of Christ and we need you to work with us so that we can be strong and follow the law of Christ, too.

Some homosexuals might not want to hear the latter. But can we not attract them with the love anyhow. Make them part of our families and our communities?

Perhaps I am way off the mark. But I wonder if the tone of some of the threads on the issue might not be different. Certainly the message and tone of some particular postings would be quite different, in my opinion.

I suspect that homosexuals would begin to notice how Christians love them. Disagree with some of their behavior, yes. But LOVE THEM.

I think that they could then point to the way that Chritians treat them is different from how others treat them.

Please forgive my moralizing, but you asked....

Then you taught! You taught quite beautifully, I think.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

Steve,

You have summarized exactly what I have been trying to say, only much more briefly!

There are only a few further points I wish to make. You mentioned: �We have to ask if we are treating them as we would have others treat us. The answers might surprise us!� I can state that I am very grateful to those people in my life who step in and challenge me when they see me on a potentially wrong path. They have been my salvation.

Regarding the tone of some of these threads, it is difficult, sometimes, to determine what posters actually mean. I do believe that some of the participants (not you) have argued for a Christian acceptance for homosexual sexual activity. Such a challenge demands a response. I think it would benefit all individuals who participate in these discussions to firmly acknowledge that they embrace Church Teaching on the matter each time this or any moral issue is raised and then go on to make their point about how we may best minister to the homosexual community.

Admin

Steve is absolutely correct when he states that we should treat gays with love. What the Christian must "aim" for is to combine mercy and justice regarding this whole issue.

This may be a poor analogy, but when I had a drug and alcohol problem many years ago, I DID NOT respond to those who were giving up on me. Many made statements like "you're never going to change"; "you're worthless"; you'll never amount to anything"; "you coward"; etc., you get the point.

But I DID respond to the message of a loving and forgiving God who loved me so much He sent His Son to die for me and give me the opportunity for spiritual rebirth and another chance at life.

Any evangelizing we do MUST be backed up with a consistent walk with our Lord.

Question:
How does one approach a co-worker that is openly gay?

A friend at work and I were discussing today that we feel guilty not saying anything of correction to this gentleman who has a "life-partner". He is one of the kindest nurse's aides. I know he says the Rosary every night.

But, how does one begin a conversation?
denise

Since he prays the Rosary, why don't you invite him to pray with you sometimes? Then if he's open to discussing the subject, let *him* be the one who brings it up.

If you approach him with a lecture, he will probably go on the defensive and at best, you will have lost the opportunity. (and at worst - especially in these litigious times - you could lose your job!)

Dear TheistGal

thanks for your quick reply

We don't attend the same parish.

And I should have mentioned that he frequently says his family has always accepted him. His mother and even grandmother.

And the other day he said he wanted to give the Pope a piece of his mind. We were in a group, and I was rather taken aback at his comment, and so missed a chance to say something.

Yes, I think he would be defensive.
Hmmmmmmm.
denise

Hi Denise - -
Yeah, it sounds like he's already aware of the truth but just isn't ready/willing to face its implications. I've been there myself, haven't you?

The best thing would be just to keep praying for him. Leave room for God's grace.

The first point seems to a matter of secular legal theory which, given that I am not an attorney much less a constitutional scholar, I'll set aside or seek out a legal theory forum to discuss.

From a religious standpoint, it seems to me to assert that the people of Texas have the (moral) right to lock up people as authorized by the law in question, suggests that one thinks such laws to be just. If one asserts such laws to be just, then one is asserting that it is just to take phyiscal acts (under law) in such circumstances.

Some would argue that the law has nothing to do with justice, but I don't think Christians are of that school.

"Applied fairly" can certainly mean after a fair trial before a court of law and with the possibility for judicial descretion. I would guess it does not mean that a law in question, generally applied, is unjust in itself and therefore needs to be applied in a much more restricted form than its plain meaning in order to be just.

And I don't think you have. If you followed the rest of my post I clearly make the point that I assume you do not so pretend.

I know. I explicted commended you for that. My question was not to individuals taking phyiscal actions against homosexuals, but the justice of the State doing such.

And they would not be unjust in exercizing that right?

This is not a theorhetical. We had an actual Texas law with actual penalties calling for physical acts against those found to violate the law. The question is as to the justice of this law.

Axios

Two days ago, our local news noted that it was 30 years ago this week that the Virginia law prohibiting and declaring invalid a marriage between an African-American and a Euro-American was declared unconstitutional.

It was one of those things that was just considered "right". And, if I remember correctly, there was a lot of nastiness about the declaration of the Federal Court. And the more fundamentalist Baptist (and other) communities were screaming that this was violating God's law and lots of folks were condemned to hell for violating God's law. Is there anybody around who still believes this?

Blessings!

Discrimination against people for who they are (black, white, etc.) is unjust discrimination. Discrimination against people for the actions they choose to engage in is just discrimination. There is a huge difference. The homosexual activists purposely blur the distinction to demand respect for immoral activity. Christians should understand the difference and respond appropriately. Too many Christians do not properly understand this.

Most of our laws are based either directly or indirectly on Common Law, which is itself based in the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments. If you reduce the discussion of the rightness or wrongness of homosexual activity to secular legal theory (which is where this country is going) then one must also reduce all laws to secular legal theory. Murder, then, can not be wrong because God said so. One must re-examine it from the perspective of secular legal theory. Abortion, which is a form of murder, must also be re-examined from a secular perspective. One could easily argue that since there is a constitutional right to abortion then there should be a constitutional right to any activity, whether it harms another individual or not.

Correct. Of course, if one approaches this issue (or any issue) from a purely secular perspective then one can successfully argue for constitutional rights to engage in any behavior whatsoever. If there is no standard of right and wrong then there is no action that can really be considered wrong. One generation could choose to embrace homosexual activity as a constitutionally protected and another generation could choose to condemn this activity and persecute those who engage in it.

�Applied fairly� means that law itself is applied equally to all people in all situations (or as close to a uniform application as is possible). That is not a commentary upon the specific law itself. The people of Texas should have the right to regulate immoral behavior. As I have stated numerous times, one can argue that whether the law in question was an appropriate response to immoral behavior. There is a difference between the right to regulate behavior and the specific law regulating behavior. If one believed the penalties to be inappropriate the correct response is to change the penalties, not to create a constitutional right for immoral behavior.

AMDG
I reiterate what I said to Dr John earlier on this thread:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LatinTrad:
[QB] AMDG
Dear Dr. John,

Brother, in all charity, I am afraid that your arguments on this and other threads have abandoned the sure path of God's revelation, as enshrined in Scripture & Tradition and taught by the Church.

Religious celibates reserve themselves for God, wholly. St. Paul himself said "it is better not to touch a woman." The Pauline teaching on marriage is also clear: "Each husband should have his wife, and each wife her husband." Christ taught in Mat. 19: "Have you not heard that in the beginning, He created them male and female? and therefore a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife and the two become one flesh?"

Marriage is the state to which sexual union belongs. Sexual union in marriage is the expression of the spiritual covenant that was wrought before the altar of God.

Homosexual actions do destroy the polis. Ask any of the ancient philosophers, ask any of the prophets of the Old Testament, ask Christ himself, if the hand or the arm can be sick and not affect the whole body. Society's organic reality will have its revenge, no matter how much we try to retreat into a Lockean/Hobbesian fantasy world of artificial social compacts.

In Jesus and Mary,
LatinTrad