Church teaching on homosexuality

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thank you for bringing up the subject of definitions. The American Left has been redefining words for years to help push their agenda. Words like "gay" and "choice". The Left has now defined "hatred" as disagreement with their views. "Violence" as expressing such disagreements. A higher standard? I simply use my Webster’s. I would strongly suggest you purchase one. The paperbacks are quite inexpensive. Go here: www. amazon.com That hardly constitutes "hatred and violence". You must be so proud of yourself having a higher standard of hatred and violence.

You must be a member of the Catholic League.

Response:

Thank you for bringing up the subject of definitions. The American Left has been redefining words for years to help push their agenda. Words like "gay" and "choice". The Left has now defined "hatred" as disagreement with their views. "Violence" as expressing such disagreements. A higher standard? I simply use my Webster’s. I would strongly suggest you purchase one. The paperbacks are quite inexpensive. Go here: www. amazon.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – That hardly constitutes "hatred and violence". You must be so proud of yourself having a higher standard of hatred and violence.

Response:

That hardly constitutes "hatred and violence".

You must be so proud of yourself having a higher standard of hatred and violence.

Response:

You have been PC for far to long, my friend. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : : : : : "Hatred and violence", eh? Another fine example of muddled politically correct : : thinking. : : It would appear that you are illiterate. : : : : In "Newspeak" perhaps. : That can scarcely be the case. You’re defending the church that invented propaganda. I’ve shown everyone here that your church engages in the kind of tortured dialectical reasoning that would make any Communist party hack blush. : : : : : : : Care to give any examples? : : : : : : : You had to ask: : : : : Below is a letter written in July 1992 with the authority and : : approval of Pope John Paul II by the CDF and Cardinal Ratzinger. The : : intended audience of the letter was the National Conference of Catholic : : Bishops of the United States. It was leaked to the US press in 1992 : : by New Ways Ministries. News of this letter was carried by newspapers : : in most major American cities and on network television affiliates. : : : : The letter begins as an apparent defense of the civil rights : : of gay and lesbian people, but asserts that these rights are not : : absolute. From this point, the letter becomes a position paper : : for the justification of discrimination against gay and lesbian : : people. : : : : Point 12 does justify discrimination against gay people for : : "objectively disordered external conduct," whatever than means. : : It goes on to medicalize the undefined phrase "objective disorder," : : saying that abridging the rights of sick people is sometimes legitimate. : : Indeed, the CDF is not a medical authority and is trying to substitute : : scientistic rhetoric for legitimate moral arguments. : : : : The phrase "objectively disordered external conduct" is left undefined : : until point 14. Nevertheless, point 14 makes it clear that saying : : "I’m gay" is sufficient conduct to justify discrimination according : : to the CDF. In the eyes of the CDF, this honesty is "objectively : : disordered conduct" which ought to lead to discrimination in : : employment, housing, adoption, military service, etc. : : : : WRT gay-bashing, the CDF deplores violence against anyone. Yet, : : the CDF asserts that gay people as a group bring such violence on : : themselves: : : : : …neither the Church nor society at large should be : : surprised when other distorted notions and practices : : gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions : : increase… (point 7) : : : : Most victims of gay bashing do nothing to bring this violence on themselves. : : Many are not even gay but are merely perceived as gay. Others are often : : attacked while walking alone in a gay neighborhood. Usually, there is no : : external cause in gay bashing. There is typically no real evidence of : : identity, much less of activity. Since the CDF states that the : : mere acknowledgement of being gay is evidence of "distorted notions" : : if not "practices," then the CDF is ultimately blaming gay bashing : : on the acknowledgement of homosexuality in the society at large. : : : : Nevertheless, there are those who may agree with the CDF about : : the notion that sexual orientation is not an aspect of identity : : because it is not inherited. Well, one must then acknowledge the : : fact that religion, a chosen status, is the most protected status : : under US law. Indeed, this protection has been essential to the : : success of Catholics in the US, given their persecution in the : : past. Certainly, who one loves is as much a part of identity : : as the particulars of one’s faith. : : : : Finally, gay and lesbian people, regardless of the : : way that they live their lives are led to the conclusion : : that while not _sinful_ in the eyes of the Church, their : : status is a _crime_ in the eyes of the Church. While the : : Church fairly and accurately portrays itself as liberating : : much of the world from the tyrannies and duplicities of : : Communism, the Church has indulged in the most fundamental : : tyranny, the criminalization of identity. : : : : : : Some Considerations Concerning the Catholic Response : : to Legislative Proposals on the : : Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons : : : : : : Foreword : : : : Recently, legislation had been proposed in some American : : states which would make discrimination on the basis of sexual : : orientation illegal. In some Italian cities, municipal : : authorities have made public housing available to homosexual (and : : unmarried heterosexual) couples. Such initiatives, even where : : they seem more directed toward support of basic civil rights than : : condonement of homosexual activity or a homosexual lifestyle, may : : in fact have a negative impact on the family and society. Such : : things as the adoption of children, the hiring and firing of : : teachers, the housing needs of genuine families, landlords’ : : legitimate concerns in screening potential tenants, for example, : : are often implicated. : : While it would be impossible to foresee and respond to every : : eventuality in respect to legislative proposals in this area, : : these observations will try to identify some principles and : : distinctions of a general nature which should be taken into : : consideration by the conscientious Catholic legislator, voter, or : : Church authority who is confronted with such issues. : : The first section will recall relevant passages from the : : Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s “Letter to the : : Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual : : Person” of 1986. The second section will deal with the : : applications. : : : : I. Relevant Passages from the CDF’s “Letter” : : : : 1. The Letter recalls that the CDF’s “Declaration on Certain : : Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of 1975 “took note of the : : distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or : : tendency and individual homosexual actions,” the latter which : : are “intrinsically disordered” and “in no case to be approved : : of” (no. 3). : : : : 2. Since “[i]n the discussion which followed the publication of : : the (above-mentioned) Declaration …, an overly benign : : interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some : : going so far as to call it neutral, or even good,” the Letter : : goes on to clarify: “Although the particular inclination of the : : homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong : : tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the : : inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. : : Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be : : directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led : : to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual : : activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not” (no. 3). : : : : 3. “As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents : : one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the : : creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous : : opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather : : defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and : : authentically understood” (no. 7). : : : : 4. In reference to the homosexual movement, the Letter states: : : “One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or : : reservations about homosexual people, their activity and : : lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination” : : (no. 9). : : : : 5. “There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the : : Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her : : pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws. This is : : done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that : : homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an : : entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality : : may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number : : of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider : : the magnitude of the risks involved” (no. 9). : : : : 6. “She (the Church) is also aware that the view that : : homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the : : sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on : : society’s understanding of the nature and rights of the family : : and puts them in jeopardy” (no. 9). : : : : 7. “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are : : the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such : : treatment deserves condemnation

Response:

: : : : : "Hatred and violence", eh? Another fine example of muddled politically correct : : thinking. : : It would appear that you are illiterate. : : : : In "Newspeak" perhaps. : That can scarcely be the case. You’re defending the church that invented propaganda. I’ve shown everyone here that your church engages in the kind of tortured dialectical reasoning that would make any Communist party hack blush. : : : : : : : Care to give any examples? : : : : : : : You had to ask: : : : : Below is a letter written in July 1992 with the authority and : : approval of Pope John Paul II by the CDF and Cardinal Ratzinger. The : : intended audience of the letter was the National Conference of Catholic : : Bishops of the United States. It was leaked to the US press in 1992 : : by New Ways Ministries. News of this letter was carried by newspapers : : in most major American cities and on network television affiliates. : : : : The letter begins as an apparent defense of the civil rights : : of gay and lesbian people, but asserts that these rights are not : : absolute. From this point, the letter becomes a position paper : : for the justification of discrimination against gay and lesbian : : people. : : : : Point 12 does justify discrimination against gay people for : : "objectively disordered external conduct," whatever than means. : : It goes on to medicalize the undefined phrase "objective disorder," : : saying that abridging the rights of sick people is sometimes legitimate. : : Indeed, the CDF is not a medical authority and is trying to substitute : : scientistic rhetoric for legitimate moral arguments. : : : : The phrase "objectively disordered external conduct" is left undefined : : until point 14. Nevertheless, point 14 makes it clear that saying : : "I’m gay" is sufficient conduct to justify discrimination according : : to the CDF. In the eyes of the CDF, this honesty is "objectively : : disordered conduct" which ought to lead to discrimination in : : employment, housing, adoption, military service, etc. : : : : WRT gay-bashing, the CDF deplores violence against anyone. Yet, : : the CDF asserts that gay people as a group bring such violence on : : themselves: : : : : …neither the Church nor society at large should be : : surprised when other distorted notions and practices : : gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions : : increase… (point 7) : : : : Most victims of gay bashing do nothing to bring this violence on themselves. : : Many are not even gay but are merely perceived as gay. Others are often : : attacked while walking alone in a gay neighborhood. Usually, there is no : : external cause in gay bashing. There is typically no real evidence of : : identity, much less of activity. Since the CDF states that the : : mere acknowledgement of being gay is evidence of "distorted notions" : : if not "practices," then the CDF is ultimately blaming gay bashing : : on the acknowledgement of homosexuality in the society at large. : : : : Nevertheless, there are those who may agree with the CDF about : : the notion that sexual orientation is not an aspect of identity : : because it is not inherited. Well, one must then acknowledge the : : fact that religion, a chosen status, is the most protected status : : under US law. Indeed, this protection has been essential to the : : success of Catholics in the US, given their persecution in the : : past. Certainly, who one loves is as much a part of identity : : as the particulars of one’s faith. : : : : Finally, gay and lesbian people, regardless of the : : way that they live their lives are led to the conclusion : : that while not _sinful_ in the eyes of the Church, their : : status is a _crime_ in the eyes of the Church. While the : : Church fairly and accurately portrays itself as liberating : : much of the world from the tyrannies and duplicities of : : Communism, the Church has indulged in the most fundamental : : tyranny, the criminalization of identity. : : : : : : Some Considerations Concerning the Catholic Response : : to Legislative Proposals on the : : Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons : : : : : : Foreword : : : : Recently, legislation had been proposed in some American : : states which would make discrimination on the basis of sexual : : orientation illegal. In some Italian cities, municipal : : authorities have made public housing available to homosexual (and : : unmarried heterosexual) couples. Such initiatives, even where : : they seem more directed toward support of basic civil rights than : : condonement of homosexual activity or a homosexual lifestyle, may : : in fact have a negative impact on the family and society. Such : : things as the adoption of children, the hiring and firing of : : teachers, the housing needs of genuine families, landlords’ : : legitimate concerns in screening potential tenants, for example, : : are often implicated. : : While it would be impossible to foresee and respond to every : : eventuality in respect to legislative proposals in this area, : : these observations will try to identify some principles and : : distinctions of a general nature which should be taken into : : consideration by the conscientious Catholic legislator, voter, or : : Church authority who is confronted with such issues. : : The first section will recall relevant passages from the : : Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s “Letter to the : : Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual : : Person” of 1986. The second section will deal with the : : applications. : : : : I. Relevant Passages from the CDF’s “Letter” : : : : 1. The Letter recalls that the CDF’s “Declaration on Certain : : Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of 1975 “took note of the : : distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or : : tendency and individual homosexual actions,” the latter which : : are “intrinsically disordered” and “in no case to be approved : : of” (no. 3). : : : : 2. Since “[i]n the discussion which followed the publication of : : the (above-mentioned) Declaration …, an overly benign : : interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some : : going so far as to call it neutral, or even good,” the Letter : : goes on to clarify: “Although the particular inclination of the : : homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong : : tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the : : inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. : : Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be : : directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led : : to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual : : activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not” (no. 3). : : : : 3. “As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents : : one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the : : creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous : : opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather : : defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and : : authentically understood” (no. 7). : : : : 4. In reference to the homosexual movement, the Letter states: : : “One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or : : reservations about homosexual people, their activity and : : lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination” : : (no. 9). : : : : 5. “There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the : : Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her : : pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws. This is : : done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that : : homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an : : entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality : : may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number : : of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider : : the magnitude of the risks involved” (no. 9). : : : : 6. “She (the Church) is also aware that the view that : : homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the : : sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on : : society’s understanding of the nature and rights of the family : : and puts them in jeopardy” (no. 9). : : : : 7. “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are : : the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such : : treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors : : wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others : : which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy : : society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be : : respected in word, in action and in law. : : But the proper reaction to crimes committed against : : homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual : : … read more »

Response:

: "Hatred and violence", eh? Another fine example of muddled politically correct : thinking. It would appear that you are illiterate. :

In "Newspeak" perhaps. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : : : Care to give any examples? : : : : You had to ask: : : Below is a letter written in July 1992 with the authority and : approval of Pope John Paul II by the CDF and Cardinal Ratzinger. The : intended audience of the letter was the National Conference of Catholic : Bishops of the United States. It was leaked to the US press in 1992 : by New Ways Ministries. News of this letter was carried by newspapers : in most major American cities and on network television affiliates. : : The letter begins as an apparent defense of the civil rights : of gay and lesbian people, but asserts that these rights are not : absolute. From this point, the letter becomes a position paper : for the justification of discrimination against gay and lesbian : people. : : Point 12 does justify discrimination against gay people for : "objectively disordered external conduct," whatever than means. : It goes on to medicalize the undefined phrase "objective disorder," : saying that abridging the rights of sick people is sometimes legitimate. : Indeed, the CDF is not a medical authority and is trying to substitute : scientistic rhetoric for legitimate moral arguments. : : The phrase "objectively disordered external conduct" is left undefined : until point 14. Nevertheless, point 14 makes it clear that saying : "I’m gay" is sufficient conduct to justify discrimination according : to the CDF. In the eyes of the CDF, this honesty is "objectively : disordered conduct" which ought to lead to discrimination in : employment, housing, adoption, military service, etc. : : WRT gay-bashing, the CDF deplores violence against anyone. Yet, : the CDF asserts that gay people as a group bring such violence on : themselves: : : …neither the Church nor society at large should be : surprised when other distorted notions and practices : gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions : increase… (point 7) : : Most victims of gay bashing do nothing to bring this violence on themselves. : Many are not even gay but are merely perceived as gay. Others are often : attacked while walking alone in a gay neighborhood. Usually, there is no : external cause in gay bashing. There is typically no real evidence of : identity, much less of activity. Since the CDF states that the : mere acknowledgement of being gay is evidence of "distorted notions" : if not "practices," then the CDF is ultimately blaming gay bashing : on the acknowledgement of homosexuality in the society at large. : : Nevertheless, there are those who may agree with the CDF about : the notion that sexual orientation is not an aspect of identity : because it is not inherited. Well, one must then acknowledge the : fact that religion, a chosen status, is the most protected status : under US law. Indeed, this protection has been essential to the : success of Catholics in the US, given their persecution in the : past. Certainly, who one loves is as much a part of identity : as the particulars of one’s faith. : : Finally, gay and lesbian people, regardless of the : way that they live their lives are led to the conclusion : that while not _sinful_ in the eyes of the Church, their : status is a _crime_ in the eyes of the Church. While the : Church fairly and accurately portrays itself as liberating : much of the world from the tyrannies and duplicities of : Communism, the Church has indulged in the most fundamental : tyranny, the criminalization of identity. : : : Some Considerations Concerning the Catholic Response : to Legislative Proposals on the : Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons : : : Foreword : : Recently, legislation had been proposed in some American : states which would make discrimination on the basis of sexual : orientation illegal. In some Italian cities, municipal : authorities have made public housing available to homosexual (and : unmarried heterosexual) couples. Such initiatives, even where : they seem more directed toward support of basic civil rights than : condonement of homosexual activity or a homosexual lifestyle, may : in fact have a negative impact on the family and society. Such : things as the adoption of children, the hiring and firing of : teachers, the housing needs of genuine families, landlords’ : legitimate concerns in screening potential tenants, for example, : are often implicated. : While it would be impossible to foresee and respond to every : eventuality in respect to legislative proposals in this area, : these observations will try to identify some principles and : distinctions of a general nature which should be taken into : consideration by the conscientious Catholic legislator, voter, or : Church authority who is confronted with such issues. : The first section will recall relevant passages from the : Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s “Letter to the : Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual : Person” of 1986. The second section will deal with the : applications. : : I. Relevant Passages from the CDF’s “Letter” : : 1. The Letter recalls that the CDF’s “Declaration on Certain : Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of 1975 “took note of the : distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or : tendency and individual homosexual actions,” the latter which : are “intrinsically disordered” and “in no case to be approved : of” (no. 3). : : 2. Since “[i]n the discussion which followed the publication of : the (above-mentioned) Declaration …, an overly benign : interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some : going so far as to call it neutral, or even good,” the Letter : goes on to clarify: “Although the particular inclination of the : homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong : tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the : inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. : Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be : directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led : to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual : activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not” (no. 3). : : 3. “As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents : one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the : creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous : opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather : defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and : authentically understood” (no. 7). : : 4. In reference to the homosexual movement, the Letter states: : “One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or : reservations about homosexual people, their activity and : lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination” : (no. 9). : : 5. “There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the : Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her : pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws. This is : done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that : homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an : entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality : may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number : of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider : the magnitude of the risks involved” (no. 9). : : 6. “She (the Church) is also aware that the view that : homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the : sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on : society’s understanding of the nature and rights of the family : and puts them in jeopardy” (no. 9). : : 7. “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are : the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such : treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors : wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others : which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy : society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be : respected in word, in action and in law. : But the proper reaction to crimes committed against : homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual : condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when : homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil : legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one as : any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large : should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices : gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase” : (no. 10). : : 8. “What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and : demeaning assumption that the sexual behavior of homosexual : persons is always and totally compulsive and

Response:

: "Hatred and violence", eh? Another fine example of muddled politically correct : thinking. It would appear that you are illiterate. : : : : Care to give any examples? : : : : You had to ask: : : Below is a letter written in July 1992 with the authority and : approval of Pope John Paul II by the CDF and Cardinal Ratzinger. The : intended audience of the letter was the National Conference of Catholic : Bishops of the United States. It was leaked to the US press in 1992 : by New Ways Ministries. News of this letter was carried by newspapers : in most major American cities and on network television affiliates. : : The letter begins as an apparent defense of the civil rights : of gay and lesbian people, but asserts that these rights are not : absolute. From this point, the letter becomes a position paper : for the justification of discrimination against gay and lesbian : people. : : Point 12 does justify discrimination against gay people for : "objectively disordered external conduct," whatever than means. : It goes on to medicalize the undefined phrase "objective disorder," : saying that abridging the rights of sick people is sometimes legitimate. : Indeed, the CDF is not a medical authority and is trying to substitute : scientistic rhetoric for legitimate moral arguments. : : The phrase "objectively disordered external conduct" is left undefined : until point 14. Nevertheless, point 14 makes it clear that saying : "I’m gay" is sufficient conduct to justify discrimination according : to the CDF. In the eyes of the CDF, this honesty is "objectively : disordered conduct" which ought to lead to discrimination in : employment, housing, adoption, military service, etc. : : WRT gay-bashing, the CDF deplores violence against anyone. Yet, : the CDF asserts that gay people as a group bring such violence on : themselves: : : …neither the Church nor society at large should be : surprised when other distorted notions and practices : gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions : increase… (point 7) : : Most victims of gay bashing do nothing to bring this violence on themselves. : Many are not even gay but are merely perceived as gay. Others are often : attacked while walking alone in a gay neighborhood. Usually, there is no : external cause in gay bashing. There is typically no real evidence of : identity, much less of activity. Since the CDF states that the : mere acknowledgement of being gay is evidence of "distorted notions" : if not "practices," then the CDF is ultimately blaming gay bashing : on the acknowledgement of homosexuality in the society at large. : : Nevertheless, there are those who may agree with the CDF about : the notion that sexual orientation is not an aspect of identity : because it is not inherited. Well, one must then acknowledge the : fact that religion, a chosen status, is the most protected status : under US law. Indeed, this protection has been essential to the : success of Catholics in the US, given their persecution in the : past. Certainly, who one loves is as much a part of identity : as the particulars of one’s faith. : : Finally, gay and lesbian people, regardless of the : way that they live their lives are led to the conclusion : that while not _sinful_ in the eyes of the Church, their : status is a _crime_ in the eyes of the Church. While the : Church fairly and accurately portrays itself as liberating : much of the world from the tyrannies and duplicities of : Communism, the Church has indulged in the most fundamental : tyranny, the criminalization of identity. : : : Some Considerations Concerning the Catholic Response : to Legislative Proposals on the : Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons : : : Foreword : : Recently, legislation had been proposed in some American : states which would make discrimination on the basis of sexual : orientation illegal. In some Italian cities, municipal : authorities have made public housing available to homosexual (and : unmarried heterosexual) couples. Such initiatives, even where : they seem more directed toward support of basic civil rights than : condonement of homosexual activity or a homosexual lifestyle, may : in fact have a negative impact on the family and society. Such : things as the adoption of children, the hiring and firing of : teachers, the housing needs of genuine families, landlords’ : legitimate concerns in screening potential tenants, for example, : are often implicated. : While it would be impossible to foresee and respond to every : eventuality in respect to legislative proposals in this area, : these observations will try to identify some principles and : distinctions of a general nature which should be taken into : consideration by the conscientious Catholic legislator, voter, or : Church authority who is confronted with such issues. : The first section will recall relevant passages from the : Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s “Letter to the : Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual : Person” of 1986. The second section will deal with the : applications. : : I. Relevant Passages from the CDF’s “Letter” : : 1. The Letter recalls that the CDF’s “Declaration on Certain : Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of 1975 “took note of the : distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or : tendency and individual homosexual actions,” the latter which : are “intrinsically disordered” and “in no case to be approved : of” (no. 3). : : 2. Since “[i]n the discussion which followed the publication of : the (above-mentioned) Declaration …, an overly benign : interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some : going so far as to call it neutral, or even good,” the Letter : goes on to clarify: “Although the particular inclination of the : homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong : tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the : inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. : Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be : directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led : to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual : activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not” (no. 3). : : 3. “As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents : one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the : creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous : opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather : defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and : authentically understood” (no. 7). : : 4. In reference to the homosexual movement, the Letter states: : “One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or : reservations about homosexual people, their activity and : lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination” : (no. 9). : : 5. “There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the : Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her : pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws. This is : done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that : homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an : entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality : may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number : of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider : the magnitude of the risks involved” (no. 9). : : 6. “She (the Church) is also aware that the view that : homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the : sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on : society’s understanding of the nature and rights of the family : and puts them in jeopardy” (no. 9). : : 7. “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are : the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such : treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors : wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others : which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy : society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be : respected in word, in action and in law. : But the proper reaction to crimes committed against : homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual : condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when : homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil : legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one as : any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large : should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices : gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase” : (no. 10). : : 8. “What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and : demeaning assumption that the sexual behavior of homosexual : persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. : What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which : characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be : recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well” : (no. 11). : : 9. “In assessing proposed legislation, the Bishops should keep : as their uppermost concern the responsibility to defend and : promote family life” (no. 17). : :

Response:

That hardly constitutes "hatred and violence".

Tell that to someone sick, whose own Church is lobbying to take away their healthcare to save the institution of marraige. Before you buy.

Response:

"Hatred and violence", eh? Another fine example of muddled politically correct thinking. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : Care to give any examples? : You had to ask: Below is a letter written in July 1992 with the authority and approval of Pope John Paul II by the CDF and Cardinal Ratzinger. The intended audience of the letter was the National Conference of Catholic Bishops of the United States. It was leaked to the US press in 1992 by New Ways Ministries. News of this letter was carried by newspapers in most major American cities and on network television affiliates. The letter begins as an apparent defense of the civil rights of gay and lesbian people, but asserts that these rights are not absolute. From this point, the letter becomes a position paper for the justification of discrimination against gay and lesbian people. Point 12 does justify discrimination against gay people for "objectively disordered external conduct," whatever than means. It goes on to medicalize the undefined phrase "objective disorder," saying that abridging the rights of sick people is sometimes legitimate. Indeed, the CDF is not a medical authority and is trying to substitute scientistic rhetoric for legitimate moral arguments. The phrase "objectively disordered external conduct" is left undefined until point 14. Nevertheless, point 14 makes it clear that saying "I’m gay" is sufficient conduct to justify discrimination according to the CDF. In the eyes of the CDF, this honesty is "objectively disordered conduct" which ought to lead to discrimination in employment, housing, adoption, military service, etc. WRT gay-bashing, the CDF deplores violence against anyone. Yet, the CDF asserts that gay people as a group bring such violence on themselves: …neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase… (point 7) Most victims of gay bashing do nothing to bring this violence on themselves. Many are not even gay but are merely perceived as gay. Others are often attacked while walking alone in a gay neighborhood. Usually, there is no external cause in gay bashing. There is typically no real evidence of identity, much less of activity. Since the CDF states that the mere acknowledgement of being gay is evidence of "distorted notions" if not "practices," then the CDF is ultimately blaming gay bashing on the acknowledgement of homosexuality in the society at large. Nevertheless, there are those who may agree with the CDF about the notion that sexual orientation is not an aspect of identity because it is not inherited. Well, one must then acknowledge the fact that religion, a chosen status, is the most protected status under US law. Indeed, this protection has been essential to the success of Catholics in the US, given their persecution in the past. Certainly, who one loves is as much a part of identity as the particulars of one’s faith. Finally, gay and lesbian people, regardless of the way that they live their lives are led to the conclusion that while not _sinful_ in the eyes of the Church, their status is a _crime_ in the eyes of the Church. While the Church fairly and accurately portrays itself as liberating much of the world from the tyrannies and duplicities of Communism, the Church has indulged in the most fundamental tyranny, the criminalization of identity. Some Considerations Concerning the Catholic Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons Foreword Recently, legislation had been proposed in some American states which would make discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal. In some Italian cities, municipal authorities have made public housing available to homosexual (and unmarried heterosexual) couples. Such initiatives, even where they seem more directed toward support of basic civil rights than condonement of homosexual activity or a homosexual lifestyle, may in fact have a negative impact on the family and society. Such things as the adoption of children, the hiring and firing of teachers, the housing needs of genuine families, landlords’ legitimate concerns in screening potential tenants, for example, are often implicated. While it would be impossible to foresee and respond to every eventuality in respect to legislative proposals in this area, these observations will try to identify some principles and distinctions of a general nature which should be taken into consideration by the conscientious Catholic legislator, voter, or Church authority who is confronted with such issues. The first section will recall relevant passages from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Person” of 1986. The second section will deal with the applications. I. Relevant Passages from the CDF’s “Letter” 1. The Letter recalls that the CDF’s “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of 1975 “took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions,” the latter which are “intrinsically disordered” and “in no case to be approved of” (no. 3). 2. Since “[i]n the discussion which followed the publication of the (above-mentioned) Declaration …, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good,” the Letter goes on to clarify: “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not” (no. 3). 3. “As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood” (no. 7). 4. In reference to the homosexual movement, the Letter states: “One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination” (no. 9). 5. “There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved” (no. 9). 6. “She (the Church) is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society’s understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy” (no. 9). 7. “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law. But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one as any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase” (no. 10). 8. “What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behavior of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well” (no. 11). 9. “In assessing proposed legislation, the Bishops should keep as their uppermost concern the responsibility to defend and promote family life” (no. 17). II. Applications 10. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non- discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. “Letter,” no. 3). 11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the consignment of children to adoption or foster care, in

Response:

That hardly constitutes "hatred and violence". The responses are just what I suspected. Narrow-minded politically correct hyperbole. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Care to give any examples? Montgomery County Mayland has adopted a policy to extend health care benifits to same sex couples. The Church is Lobbying against this decision saying it will hurt Marriage. Basically the Church is trying to take away peoples health care benifits……yea thats a progressive stand. An apparent hypocrisy. Divorce and remarriage is condemned much harsher by the Holy Scripture than homosexuality. Which is worse for the institution of marriage, a divorce involving children or two guys or two girls living together and sharing health care benefits. Why is the Church not protesting that the government allows people who divorce and remarry to extend health benefits to these partners, partners not recognized by God says the Church? Why is the Church not protesting all the other entitlements coming from a government sanctioned union, which is condemned by God? Heck why aren’t they protesting the legalization of divorce? Before you buy.

Response:

Care to give any examples?

Montgomery County Mayland has adopted a policy to extend health care benifits to same sex couples. The Church is Lobbying against this decision saying it will hurt Marriage. Basically the Church is trying to take away peoples health care benifits……yea thats a progressive stand. An apparent hypocrisy. Divorce and remarriage is condemned much harsher by the Holy Scripture than homosexuality. Which is worse for the institution of marriage, a divorce involving children or two guys or two girls living together and sharing health care benefits. Why is the Church not protesting that the government allows people who divorce and remarry to extend health benefits to these partners, partners not recognized by God says the Church? Why is the Church not protesting all the other entitlements coming from a government sanctioned union, which is condemned by God? Heck why aren’t they protesting the legalization of divorce? Before you buy.

Response:

: Care to give any examples? : You had to ask: Below is a letter written in July 1992 with the authority and approval of Pope John Paul II by the CDF and Cardinal Ratzinger. The intended audience of the letter was the National Conference of Catholic Bishops of the United States. It was leaked to the US press in 1992 by New Ways Ministries. News of this letter was carried by newspapers in most major American cities and on network television affiliates. The letter begins as an apparent defense of the civil rights of gay and lesbian people, but asserts that these rights are not absolute. From this point, the letter becomes a position paper for the justification of discrimination against gay and lesbian people. Point 12 does justify discrimination against gay people for "objectively disordered external conduct," whatever than means. It goes on to medicalize the undefined phrase "objective disorder," saying that abridging the rights of sick people is sometimes legitimate. Indeed, the CDF is not a medical authority and is trying to substitute scientistic rhetoric for legitimate moral arguments. The phrase "objectively disordered external conduct" is left undefined until point 14. Nevertheless, point 14 makes it clear that saying "I’m gay" is sufficient conduct to justify discrimination according to the CDF. In the eyes of the CDF, this honesty is "objectively disordered conduct" which ought to lead to discrimination in employment, housing, adoption, military service, etc. WRT gay-bashing, the CDF deplores violence against anyone. Yet, the CDF asserts that gay people as a group bring such violence on themselves: …neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase… (point 7) Most victims of gay bashing do nothing to bring this violence on themselves. Many are not even gay but are merely perceived as gay. Others are often attacked while walking alone in a gay neighborhood. Usually, there is no external cause in gay bashing. There is typically no real evidence of identity, much less of activity. Since the CDF states that the mere acknowledgement of being gay is evidence of "distorted notions" if not "practices," then the CDF is ultimately blaming gay bashing on the acknowledgement of homosexuality in the society at large. Nevertheless, there are those who may agree with the CDF about the notion that sexual orientation is not an aspect of identity because it is not inherited. Well, one must then acknowledge the fact that religion, a chosen status, is the most protected status under US law. Indeed, this protection has been essential to the success of Catholics in the US, given their persecution in the past. Certainly, who one loves is as much a part of identity as the particulars of one’s faith. Finally, gay and lesbian people, regardless of the way that they live their lives are led to the conclusion that while not _sinful_ in the eyes of the Church, their status is a _crime_ in the eyes of the Church. While the Church fairly and accurately portrays itself as liberating much of the world from the tyrannies and duplicities of Communism, the Church has indulged in the most fundamental tyranny, the criminalization of identity. Some Considerations Concerning the Catholic Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons Foreword Recently, legislation had been proposed in some American states which would make discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal. In some Italian cities, municipal authorities have made public housing available to homosexual (and unmarried heterosexual) couples. Such initiatives, even where they seem more directed toward support of basic civil rights than condonement of homosexual activity or a homosexual lifestyle, may in fact have a negative impact on the family and society. Such things as the adoption of children, the hiring and firing of teachers, the housing needs of genuine families, landlords’ legitimate concerns in screening potential tenants, for example, are often implicated. While it would be impossible to foresee and respond to every eventuality in respect to legislative proposals in this area, these observations will try to identify some principles and distinctions of a general nature which should be taken into consideration by the conscientious Catholic legislator, voter, or Church authority who is confronted with such issues. The first section will recall relevant passages from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Person” of 1986. The second section will deal with the applications. I. Relevant Passages from the CDF’s “Letter” 1. The Letter recalls that the CDF’s “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of 1975 “took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions,” the latter which are “intrinsically disordered” and “in no case to be approved of” (no. 3). 2. Since “[i]n the discussion which followed the publication of the (above-mentioned) Declaration …, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good,” the Letter goes on to clarify: “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not” (no. 3). 3. “As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood” (no. 7). 4. In reference to the homosexual movement, the Letter states: “One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination” (no. 9). 5. “There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved” (no. 9). 6. “She (the Church) is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society’s understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy” (no. 9). 7. “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law. But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one as any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase” (no. 10). 8. “What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behavior of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well” (no. 11). 9. “In assessing proposed legislation, the Bishops should keep as their uppermost concern the responsibility to defend and promote family life” (no. 17). II. Applications 10. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non- discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. “Letter,” no. 3). 11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the consignment of children to adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or coaches, and in military recruitment. 12. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including that of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. no. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of … read more »

Response:

Although the Catholic Church has declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered," the Church certainly does not refuse to accept homosexuals themselves. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 2358 reads, in part, as follows: "They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." The following article in the CCC further states that: "Homosexual persons are called to chasity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."

Response:

Care to give any examples? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Although the Catholic Church has declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered," the Church certainly does not refuse to accept homosexuals themselves. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 2358 reads, in part, as follows: "They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." The following article in the CCC further states that: "Homosexual persons are called to chasity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection." In spite of the Church’s doublespeak on homosexuality, she spews much hatred and violence towards homosexuals.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Although the Catholic Church has declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered," the Church certainly does not refuse to accept homosexuals themselves. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 2358 reads, in part, as follows: "They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." The following article in the CCC further states that: "Homosexual persons are called to chasity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."

In spite of the Church’s doublespeak on homosexuality, she spews much hatred and violence towards homosexuals.

Response:

Filed under: Lobbying

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism