The following comes from a September 5 Catholic Voice article by Michele Jurich:
Theology on Tap — or, in this case, served in frosty mugs of margaritas — drew an audience that filled a banquet room set for 60 at a Pittsburg restaurant on a hot July evening for a gathering entitled, “Who Am I to Judge: Catholics and Homosexuality.”
The program, geared to adults ranging in age from 21 to 40, did not turn away others, who ranged from 10 months to the 80s.
Speakers were Father Stephan Kappler, who is both pastor of St. Jarlath Parish in Oakland and a licensed clinical psychologist at Kairos Psychology Group, and Rilene Simpson, of Courage a ministry offering international ministries, support groups for men and women who experience same-sex attraction. The story of her return to the Catholic faith is told in the film “Desire of the Everlasting Hills.”
Father Kappler said he would be speaking “as a pastor and as a psychologist.” The talk began with a discussion of human sexuality.
“The gift of sexuality is a gift that is given to each and every one of us,” Father Kappler said. “We are sexual beings, at all times, throughout our adult life. That’s not going to change, regardless of our state in life, regardless of how we decide to live that gift of sexuality.”
“It’s a gift that’s been given to all of us. Our task as faithful Catholics is to receive that gift gratefully, to understand it as much as we can, to live it responsibly and to live it faithfully.”
Our sexual orientation is one part of our identity as a person, Father Kappler said. Catholic teaching about sexual orientation is simple and straightforward, he said.
“Homosexuality, a sexual orientation, is not a sin. It is not a choice. As you know, sin always involves choice,” he said.
The church also says homosexual persons need to be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity, Father Kappler said.
“The Catholic view of sexuality and sexual activity is clearly ordered in the conjugal bond between husband and wife,” he said. “The place for human sexuality is in the conjugal bond, the marriage bond between husband and wife.”
As a Catholic community, as a very diverse family of people, Father Kappler said, “we need to be very clear to welcome and include LGBT Catholics in our parishes.”‘
Sexual identity is just one part of a person’s overall identity, he said. “I think we need to be careful not to reduce people to just their sexual orientation.”
“We need to ask is that person living their life visiting the sick, working for peace and justice? Is that person looking out for the poor, is that person living with a sense of mercy and compassion? Is that person living their faith?”
Simpson began her talk by passing around the room a framed photo of herself and her female partner, taken at their commitment celebration they had in the late ’90s to commemorate 15 years together. “We were committed to each other for life,” she said.
“For 25 years we were very happy,” she said, “living the good life as far as you could tell.”
With Proposition 8 on the horizon, the possibility that the window for same-sex marriage in California was closing loomed. Her partner said, “I think it’s time to get married.”
Although she had committed to her partner, “turning that into a marriage didn’t fit my understanding of what marriage is,” Simpson said.
“It had nothing to do with the Catholic Church,” she said. “I was an atheist. It came from inside my soul. I said, ‘I can’t marry you.'”
By the fall, they went their separate ways.
“Do you believe in God?” her therapist asked one day, which was “the last thing I expected to hear from a secular therapist,” Simpson said.
Thirty-five years of atheism, with a sprinkle of new age somewhere in there, did not stop her from answering in the affirmative.
“On July 4, 2009, after 35 years, I went to confession,” she said. She said she was grateful to find that the Church hadn’t changed its teaching “like so many in the world had.”
She heard about Courage on a Catholic radio program.
“Courage is an apostolate of the church that helps people who want to live chaste lives, through a support group structure. You have to want to be there,” she said. “It’s warm, inviting and welcoming,” she said.
Okay, but the Church does not teach that homosexuality is a sexual orientation; it teaches that it is an intrinsically disordered tendency. Nor does the church teach that sexual orientation is part of our identity as persons; it teaches that maleness or femaleness is part of our identity as persons.
To classify homosexuality as a “sexual orientation” and to speak with that as a reference point instead of speaking in terms of male and female is to commit an error that plays into the hands of LGBTs who want to persuade people that the homosexual tendency is neutral or good, merely part of the “rich diversity” of human sexual variations; but that view is wrong.
God created them male and female, and on that basis there is only one…
Sawyer, you are right! That is the Church’s true, traditional teaching! Our earthly maleness and femaleness, is a part of our identity– but in Heaven, our soul is not “male” nor “female,” it is only a soul in union with Christ! There is no procreation, in Heaven! And homosexual tendencies are a disorder, an illness! When a soul goes to Heaven, it is neither male nor female– and has no procreative ability! There is no such thing— as a “gay soul!”
Dear Linda maria – The Church does NOT teach that homosexuality is an illness. If you find some reference that says otherwise, please let me know.
YFC– Read the Catechism! You should know this, already! Of course– our SOUL has NO SEXUAL ATTRIBUTES AT ALL, AND OUR SOUL DOES NOT PROCREATE, EITHER!! And GOD does not see our SOULS as we do, according to illness, age, gender, income level, disability, race, culture, sin and virtue, or any other category, of the temporal, passing world! In CHRIST, someday, in ETERNITY– we all shall be TOTALLY HAPPY, and FREE FROM SUFFERING!! So– our sufferings are a chance to GROW IN GRACE– and PREPARE FOR HEAVEN!! “OFFER IT UP!!”
Quibbling over which term to use is one thing, YFC, but whichever term is used, there can be no rational denial of the fact that persons with homosexual tendencies have something wrong with them, and what is wrong with them is precisely their desire for the same sex. Homosexuality is a deviancy. That true conclusion can be known independent of Church teaching because all it requires is an elementary understanding of male and female complementarity, in which sexual reproduction naturally orders each sex toward its opposite, and of the intrinsic finality of sex, according to which same-sex acts or couplings cannot fulfill the purpose of sex.
There are a few problems that needs fine-tuning in Sawyer’s comments here:
1) The Church does speak of “homosexual orientation,” namely in the 1986 CDF Letter to Bishops “On the Care of Homosexual Persons.” This word is used in paragraphs 3, 11, and 16 (with 16 referring to orientation in general). The Church’s use of this word is not associated with any LGBT agenda, as Sawyer is wont to point out. It’s merely a reference to the homosexual inclination, calling it “orientation”. And it makes sense to use “orientation” vis-a-vis to homosexualtiy, as it is “oriented” to the opposites of the goods of marriage.
2) The Church’s phrase “intrinsic disorder” is not reserved to homosexuality alone. Any sinful…
inclination is a deviancy! In fact, Catechism 1755 teaches that FORNICATION (a sin between opposite genders) is a disorder! Catechism 1753 teaches that lying and calumny are intrinsically disordered! Catechism 2352 judges that masturbation (regardless of what gender is the mental focus of the sinner) is disordered! To reserve “intrinsic disorder” and deviancy to homosexuality alone IS WRONG! And then associating the Church word “disorder” with mental illness/disorder IS DOUBLY WRONG!
Catechism 2332 teaches that our sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. And the purpose for our sexuality is revealed in the complementarity and fecundity of the genders: in the nuptial meaning of…
the body as JP2 pointed out.
jon, the reason the Church doesn’t use “orientation” in reference to homosexuality anymore is precisely because that term has become associated with the LGBT agenda of promoting the false idea that homosexuality is a neutral or good variation of human sexuality. In 1986 the term hadn’t acquired such ideological baggage, but today it has. Although the CDF used the term thirty years ago, the Church shies away from that term today and does not teach that homosexuality is an orientation; it is an intrinsically disordered tendency, which is what was implied before by the term “homosexual orientation”; i.e., a directedness away from ordered sexual desires.
Nobody reserves “intrinsic disorder” for homosexuality, but it is one type of such disorder.
It is also a mental disorder, as can easily be known by reason.
Thank you Jon, for your points.
Sawyer, words do matter. Otherwise, why use any at all? I will say it again: The Church never says that homosexuality is an illness, not in the Catechsim, not in the various documents written over the years. Nowhere.
YFC, you say that to use it as a hammer against a faithful Catholic poster and to distract from the truth that homosexuality is a deviancy. You have said you believe that homosexuality is merely a healthy variation of human sexuality, which is at odds with the Church’s teaching. So, while insisting that another poster not use the term illness because the Church doesn’t teach that, you claim that it is a healthy variant, but the Church doesn’t teach that either. So be consistent or stop quibbling with the words other people choose to use. If you want others to adhere to Church teaching, then do so yourself.
Sawyer’s point is ludicrous and nonsense. The Church has not shied away from the use of this neutral term sexual orientation.
In fact Pope Francis used the word “orientation” twice in reference to sexuality in his Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia.” The American bishops referred to “orientation” in their 2006 document “Ministry To Persons with a Homosexual Inclination.”
Although it is true that for the Church the term “sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc., in respect to nondiscrimination, the phrase continues to be used, most notably by the Pope himself and the American bishops. The term is neutral in the eyes of the Church.
Sigh… jon, the USCCB text only uses “sexual orientation” to quote a 14 year-old text, from the era in which that term hadn’t yet accumulated LGBT baggage. Pope Francis’ exhortation is theologically dubious and a departure from Church Tradition in some significant respects, so it cannot be used as a reliable example of the mind of the Church.
The Church is shying away from using the term because it is associated with an ideology that is contrary to Church doctrine and natural law. No responsible and informed theologian or prelate would use the term because it risks implying that there is more than one good sexual orientation. It is not in the CCC.
You think doing word searches proves anything? How about intelligent analysis? You…
If it weren’t for Pope Francis’ theologically and pastorally flawed exhortation (and therefore not a reliable source), you have to go back to 1992 in your “examples” to find an original use of the term “sexual orientation” by a committee affiliated with the Church and having some degree of authority.
Try to argue in terms better than a seventh-grader who searches for words and says, “Aha!” Try to be intelligent. Gee whiz.
I’m sure that you’ll be busy at your computer searching for the phrase to find other examples. Good luck.
A person making a claim is obligated to prove it. Sawyer claims:
“[Homosexuality] is also a mental disorder, as can easily be known by reason.” Sawyer will have to prove this claim that homosexuality is a mental illness/disorder, but he must do so in an honest way intellectually meaning without recourse to any philosophical or theological concepts used by the Church (such as teleology), because the Church does NOT make any mental health diagnosis. As the diagnosis of a mental illness is within the province of the behavioral sciences, Sawyer will have to employ the behavioral sciences to prove his point.
jon knows he’s wrong, and in the post above he attempts to stack the deck in his favor so that his opponent who is outwitting him in debate is prohibited from making his point. The metaphysical concept of teleology existed well before Christianity; the ancient Greek philosophers used it and considered it necessary for understanding the truth about the natures of things. Therefore relying on teleology to understand the nature of sex in no way relies on Christian concepts. He is defeated, despite attempting to cheat in the argument.
An overview of my argument, because I am intellectually honest:
1) The teleology of sex reveals that male and female are complementary, ordered toward their opposites for procreation and union.
2) Desires are mental states.
3) Sexual desires are a type of mental state.
4) Sexual desires for the opposite sex accord with the teleology of sex and are ordered desires.
5) Sexual desires contrary to the teleology of sex are disordered desires.
6) Disordered desires are disordered mental states.
7) A disordered mental state is a mental disorder.
Q.E.D. known by reason alone.
Sawyer: Just in the face of it the mere fact that the Holy Father and the American bishops even used the word “orientation” AT ALL renders wrong your original point that the Church “does not teach that homosexuality is a sexual orientation.” Evidently it does and so patently you are wrong and have been proven so! Even the 2006 document from the US bishops does not apologize for, nor did it disavow the the use of the term, though it would have been fitting to do so IN THAT DOCUMENT given the context in which the word was being used. You stand corrected. The Church sees NOTHING AMISS in the use of this neutral word.
In your own supposed defense, you are creating new problems for yourself, namely by stating that Holy Father’s…
latest Exhortation cannot be used as a reliable example of the mind of the Church. Until the Magisterium disavows the document, what you had said right there is DISSENT and DISOBEDIENCE. Moreover the problem that a few people have with the document DOES NOT EVEN TOUCH UPON the Pope’s use of the word “orientation.” Your explanations here are disingenuous, further entrenching the impression in many minds that you are intellectually dishonest and are all bunk. BUNK!
jon, it is well known that Pope Francis didn’t write Amoris Laetitia. It was largely written by Victor Manuel Fernandez, author of — I kid you not — “Heal me with your mouth, the art of kissing”.
Fernandez is a poor theologian, whose deliberate ambiguity in AL is intended to open a crack for promoting sexual sin in the Church. His word choices reflect sympathy for normalizing sin in pastoral counseling, so it’s no surprise that “orientation” resurfaced in AL, of all texts, after a long absence in magisterial texts.
And more than a few people have problems with AL; there is a growing chorus of distinguished bishops and theologians asking for clarity about what it means and demanding that it be clarified to be in harmony with…
But wait, jon, how can the Church teach that homosexuality is a sexual orientation? That’s a judgment for the behavioral sciences, you claim, and you have maintained that the Church has no competence in that realm. So why are you now defending what you have said the Church has no competence to pronounce on? Contradict yourself much, do you? Yes, you do. That’s what happens when you don’t argue having truth as the objective, instead merely wanting to contradict posters you are jealous of because they have shown you up so many times. You are so desperate to hang your hat on something, but you fail every time.
And here is insight into jon the pious’ feeble mind: he says that AL, even if wrong, must be obeyed and believed unless and until it is disavowed by the magisterium. According to that mindless approach to faith, all you have to do is accept and believe what is currently in vogue with the pope. Nevermind such a concept as Truth, nevermind consistency with Tradition, nevermind studying theology. Whatever is the latest statement must be accepted, and if it’s disavowed later, well then that reversal becomes the new standard that must be accepted. Illogical and stupid, as an inferior mind would produce. jon’s religion is papolatry, not Catholicism.
Ladies and gentlemen: the irresponsible redefinition of the term “disorder” is the glaring fault in Sawyer’s deficient “syllogism” up there. It’s no surprise: if he can misdefine “may”, he can misdefine and misapply “disorder.”
Sawyer has not proven his point for he has not employed responsibly the discipline of the behavioral science to prove his assertion.
The Church itself DOES NOT prove his point, for the Church does not use the term “disorder” as Sawyer falsely claims.
jon, I’m running circles around you and you can’t keep up so you’re making careless errors. You claim that the Church does not use the term “disorder”? It clearly does: homosexuality is objectively disordered, as CCC 2358 explicitly states.
I have never claimed that the Church teaches that homosexuality is a mental disorder. You continue to lie about me that way. I do claim it is a mental disorder, but I don’t attribute that to the Church; it can be known by reason alone, as I prove above.
Tsk, tsk, making so many careless errors, contradicting yourself, lying about your debate opponents. You just can’t keep up. My work here is done. This is my last post in this story.
Regardless of Sawyer’s rant about “Amoris Laetitia” which he uses only to mask his pathetic ERROR, his original point has been PROVEN WRONG for the Church in fact still uses the word “orientation”. I mean, the American bishops in 2006 could have chosen not to quote an earlier document mentioning the said word, but made a point of using it anyway. Then Francis used it. Just by these facts alone, Sawyer is proven wrong!
Note people that the dispute about “Amoris Laetitia” is NOT about Francis’ use of the word in question. Note as well that the dispute about the Exhortation pertains to several paragraphs in the Eighth Chapter, and at least one footnote. THE REST IS UNDISPUTED! Therefore to say that as a whole the…
Exhortation is not in accord with the mind of the Church is false!
Concerning Sawyer’s points above:
1) The Church’s use of the word disorder has been misinterpreted by Sawyer. The evidence for this is multiple and verifiable, the latest one is his own “syllogism” above there. Look at syllogisms #6 and #7: note that in these syllogisms he has erroneously shifted the definition for the word—from the philosophical with which he began and then shifting to the behavioral sciences. This is irresponsible and WRONG!
2) Moreover, his employment of philosophical terms such as “teleology” in order to posit that homosexuality is a mental illness is intellectually dishonest, irresponsible, and inaccurate. This sort of thing is NOT done between disciplines unless one has mastered both fields…
3) Of course the Church uses the term “disorder.” My point is that the Church doesn’t use it in the manner that Sawyer is claiming to use it in the behavioral sciences.
4) Sawyer says that he never claimed that the Church teaches that homosexuality is a mental disorder. YET he employs words that the Church’s theologians use such as “teleology” to make his erroneous point. VERY DISINGENUOUS.
Folks, Sawyer was asked to prove his claim. And he has FAILED to do so.
The virtue of Chastity is very important in the practice of our Faith! We all must learn to see Christ in all others– never to see another person, as a “sex object!” Too bad that the Vatican does not care to promote the LGBT group, “Courage,” worldwide, as this is so needed! Catholic parents are worried sick, because the Vatican is promoting a horrific, new sex-ed program, in Catholic schools! Our bodies belong to Christ, and are a temple, in which to worship God! Our bodies, minds, hearts, and souls, all together need to be consecrated to God, and serve Him, under His Divine love, protection, and guidance! The Sacrament of Matrimony, and child-bearing, are HOLY– but only in Christ’s Name!
Without loving devotion to God, to learn well, and daily practice the virtue of Chastity– our Salvation will be lost! “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God!” (Beatitudes, Sermon on the Mount)
Consecration to Our Lady, and daily recitation of her Rosary, is one of the best ways to seek and obtain necessary graces, to see Christ in others, with a pure and chaste heart!
Where is my BARF BAG ? Sexuality is a gift ? Then when will the local day care, school bus garage ect ect allow for child raping/murdering pieces of garbage into there establishments ? Why even have prisons and jails and what about these “same sex attracted, GAY MEN” who raped alter boys, I’m sorry, servers, be accepted back into there Catholic Communities ? Liberal not Catholic teachings is all this is.
Amen, Sawyer: “nor does the Church teach that sexually orientation is part of our identity. ” Or. As Aquinas puts it in De Anima, “Sexus non est in anima.” “Sex is not in the soul. ”
Our Lord, of course as you know, instructed us that the heavenly life is completely “other”, tho with a glorified body, as he told the Sadducees, “You have no understanding…[at the resurrection] they are neither married nor given in marriage.”(Mt. 22:30). In fact he says we will be (should we merit the state, by God’s grace) “like angels.”
Sexus non est in anima.
Well, Steve, to be more complete and precise, sex is not in the soul but it is in the body. Since human nature is a composition of soul and body, bodily sex is now and will remain in eternal life an integral aspect of each person’s identity; we will not cease being human nor the individuals we are in eternal life.
If you are implying that glorified, resurrected bodies will be asexual, I must disagree with you.
The Blessed Mother exists body and soul in heaven right now, and she is referred to in the liturgy and elsewhere in Tradition as a woman and mother and with the feminine pronoun “she”. Mary is female in heaven because she was female on earth.
Bless you, Sawyer! Christ and Our Lady have been known to appear in many different forms, in apparitions to saintly souls, around the world! The historical Jesus was not exactly the same, as the Resurrected Christ! Our bodies, male and female, are separated from God, and we suffer. The purified Saints all had very little physical needs. In Heaven, we have no need to eat nor procreate. We will no longer be separated from God, and we will no longer suffer. The purified Saints, rapt in Divine ecstasy, adored God on earth, as well as in Heaven! I think the truth is, that gender is an earthly thing. That is what I recall being taught, as a child.
Sawyer– the subject gets worse, as all the monks and nuns, prior to the modern, Vatican II era– sought to get beyond gender, and beyond personality, too– into a state beyond death, as the monastic life was really not of this world– it was a purification, and a prelude, to Heaven! Every Catholic child was taught, that to become a Saint, was the very greatest thing you could do! And Christ’s humanity was taught– but He was worshiped–as GOD!! And monks and nuns were taught to REJECT human tendencies, needs, and warmth, for something higher– union with GOD!! Maybe you can research this, and give your views!
Maybe in my above post— a clearer idea of the monks and nuns of old, rejecting human things– is better stated, that they were taught not to be attached to anything created, nor anything of this earth! Their rejection was really a rejection of being attached! A very hard spiritual life, and very much admired, as some became Saints! At Vatican II, all of this was turned upside down!
Sawyer, what a big question– what will the glorified, resurrected body be like? Everyone would like to know! Well, I am not sure, I only know what I was taught! I will say, that I think the Church refers to Christ and Our Lady, by their earthly definitions and genders, because we are on earth, and to learn about their earthly lives, is the best way for us to follow them! We have very little clues, as to their lives, in Heaven! Christ gave us a definite way of life on earth, so we may hope to someday attain Heaven! I guess when we get there, hopefully, we will find out the answer to these big mysteries!
Sawyer— I have often wondered, when seeing brain-injured people, or elderly priests, nuns, and devout Catholic laymen, with dementia (or Alzheimer’s) — and also, babies born with mental handicaps (such as Sen. Rick Santorum’s little girl, Bella)—— how wonderful, to have a good BRAIN!! Yet, if our brain is injured– then how can one learn about God, and worship God?? And at death– we obviously no longer have the need of a brain, to process information, and to express ourselves! We see God directly, and understand things directly, similar to the angels!! Well– so many things one cannot know, in this life!
Linda Maria, the Roman Catechism has a helpful section about the resurrection of the body:
But the members especially, because they belong to the integrity of human nature, shall all be restored at once. The blind from nature or disease, the lame, the maimed and the paralyzed in any of their members shall rise again with entire and perfect bodies. Otherwise the desires of the soul, which so strongly incline it to a union with the body, would be far from satisfied; but we are convinced that in the resurrection these desires will be fully realized.
continuing from the Roman Catechism:
These observations are not to be restricted to the bodies of the martyrs, of whom St. Augustine says: As the mutilation which they suffered would prove a deformity, they shall rise with all their members; otherwise those who were beheaded would rise without a head. The scars, however, which they received shall remain, shining like the wounds of Christ, with a brilliance far more resplendent than that of gold and of precious stones.
Aquinas, regarding the resurrected life, explains his position that the soul, the principle of the body, in its essential glorified state, will be sexually differentiated, but there will remain no sexual instinct nor innate need to regenerate:
“Wherefore just as men will rise again of different stature, so will they rise again of different sex. And, although there be difference of sex, there will be no shame in seeing one another, since there will no lust to invite them to shameful deeds which are the cause of shame. ” (Summa T., Q. 81: Art 3)
That perhaps explains more fully his famous adage, “Sexus non est in anima.” (ST, Supplement 39, A.1)
Or, what we DONT believe is what one fine Franciscan asserted in a homily some time ago:
“What do you think of it, that some people will be homosexual, and they will be in heaven, and some of us Catholics may not be..”
Friar Tuck’s position was that one retained one’s orientation and one’s sexual inclinations (and proclivities) into the next life. And it was all good.
Don’t think so.
Steve, Friar Tuck was indeed wrong if he was implying that the homosexual tendency would persist in heaven. Homosexuality is a disordered inclination. In heaven the blessed will not suffer from any disordered inclinations because human nature will be brought to its perfection and raised to the supernatural perfection made possible by grace. Therefore in heaven there will be no persons with homosexual tendencies, for that would be an imperfection.
It has bothered me, to occasionally attend a funeral Mass, and to find out, that the beloved deceased– has been cremated!! I know that the Church has now allowed this practice, since the 1960s, somehow reconciling the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, with cremation. But I have never liked or agreed with this form of burial! I also do not like columbariums in Catholic churches- such as the one in St. Dominic’s, in San Francisco. Anyway– this form of burial is cheaper, and attractive to many of today’s Catholics! How sad, for poorer Catholic families!! What do others think, I wonder??
Sawyer, it is interesting to me, that St. Therese of Lisieux’s father became a great Saint, along with her mother– and yet, he had dementia in his later years, and had to be placed for awhile, in an asylum! A younger sister of St. Therese cared for him also, at home. He became a Saint of the Church– and yet, he lost his mind, too! How can one be directed in the pathway of sanctity, holiness– without a normally-working BRAIN?? Only by the grace of God, I guess! A mystery!
Steve Phoenix and Sawyer– I appreciate all of your posts, very much! Thanks! I, too, have known all of this material, about the resurrected body, since an early age! But I think it is a mystery, as to how it all will occur, and what it will be like— in the twinkling of an eye!
Steve Phoenix, thanks for your excellent post! The Catholic Church, until Vatican II, used to teach exactly as you described! And this is the truth! Silly post-1960’s “psychobabble,” about earthly “gifts,” is from a decadent, pagan, atheist culture, that loves to think of things that are pleasing to human beings, as “gifts.” God does not see it that way– humans made that up! God made many earthly pleasures, that are lawful to enjoy, under proper circumstances– and not to be abused! But the true gift– is Christ! And the greatest gift of all— is union with Christ, in Heaven! The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, when correctly lived, in Christ — is a pathway of purification, to Heaven!
To know and to love God, to dwell in union with Divine Love, like the angels of Heaven– is the highest gift, and the greatest joy and pleasure, for which we all were created!
The Bible speaks often about gifts. It’s not Vatican II psychobabble. Also, At every Eucharist, the priest asks us “Let us give thanks to the Lord our God”. The “thanks” is the “gift”. We have an offertory of gifts, and the sacrifice is itself a gift to God the Father.
I really wish you would learn your catholicism better.
YFC, straining the gnat while swallowing the camel.
YFC– you are wasting your time, with this post! Silly! Everyone knows- that the highest and truest GIFT, in all the world– is, precisely: GOD!! Only the pagans of the 1960s, love to glorify earthly things constantly, calling every little thing they like, to be a “gift,” “hippie-style,” with NO REFERENCE TO GOD, Who is the True Giver– of ALL GIFT!S! I have even heard lunatic “Catholic” politicians say, that they think evils like radical feminism, birth control, abortion, gay sex, gay “marriage,” euthanasia, etc.– are “gifts!” LUNACY!!
Addressing Sexuality:
a) The Courage organization is great. Not perfect, but moving in the right direction.
b) Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered.
c) People who have these tendencies need to be treated with respect and dignity, they suffer. Some desensitize themselves so they can live with the disorder.
d) Our society is trying to force everyone to believe that it’s OK to be homosexual. Because homosexuality is a sin and a dis-ordered appetite it will never be able to be satisfied. Even the most strident person with homosexual tendencies who wants to be accepted will never find relief in denying the reality of this sin and trying to make it whole. The greatest balm or cure is turning toward God and surrendering…
Wheels – I’m thankful that your points a-c stick to what the Church teaches and doesn’t venture past it. You did, perhaps innocently, go over your skies in paragraph d, however. The Church does not teach that homosexuality is a sin. Perhaps you meant to say that homosexual sex is a sin?
I would advise Catholic not to attend “Theology” on Tap. They only thing on tap is heresy. Recently at my parish, a priest was speaking on the topic of Heaven and Hell and he denied the existance of Hell, and even worse, called the Holy Eucharist a symbol and not really the Body and Blood of Christ. A tip off of what wass discussed can be seen in the accompanying photo of Fr. Kappler seen without his collar. Not wearing priestly attire is usually a sign the priest does not want to be seen as Alter Christus, but rather as a non judgemental buddy that will not say anything to hurt your feelings.
‘Lets get lit on margaritas and teach theology.’
However could that go wrong, lol, …
Townhall Columnist Mike Adams has captured the Gaystapo Thought Police reality in a short telling essay.
SEE
“Rape Wins – by Mike Adams”
https://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2016/08/18/rape-wins-n2206755 “
Many Germans Confronted in Public by a stiff arm ‘heil’ salute (like in the movie ‘The Sound of Music’) took the easy way out and safely replied in kind.
Later they turned a blind eye to railroad cars full of dissenters (Catholic, Jew, Gypsy…) heading for the political re-education camps, where “Tolerance Macht Frei”
Adams has spoiled the end of the movie for us all, and now nobody can look away pretending they don’t know its final solution:
O come on! Why can’t a priest have a bit of a varied wardrobe, especially when at an event where all in attendance know he’s a priest. What if an Episcopal priest showed up in his collar?
So the Catholic priest should wear his collar at the Sunday afternoon golf game? Ever try swinging a golf club in a dress shirt with the collar closed?
Yes, there places where the collar is required. But I think there are some every day places a collar is out of place. Theology on tap may may well be one where no collar reuired.
A Catholic priest refusing to dress appropriately, in his Roman collar?? Does he really expect others to take him seriously, as a grown man– and respect his sacred profession?? He lives and speaks– as an “Alter Christus”– for CHRIST!! Through his holy hands alone– God gives us the precious Sacraments! Who is this priest kidding?? What is he running from?? And WHOM– is he denying??
No comment on this particular session of Theology on Tap – but –
the movie “Desire of the Everlasting Hills” is edifying IMHO.