ResIpsaLoquitor, may I just say thank you for your reasoned explanation.
I have a wildly opposing viewpoint and background to yours, but it is nonetheless extremely fulfilling to hear someone explain their motivations so thoughtfully.
Interesting thread.
I’m neither a Catholic nor a homosexual and I can’t really subscribe to either position here. (Hm…is homosexuality a position? I guess it is.) Nonetheless, I applaud Res’ honesty and the fact that his obvious frustration is founded on the complete wankerhood of a wicked fairy who’s just being obnoxious.
I can’t say I have any gay friends (that I know of), nor do I feel any particular need to cultivate any. I guess what they do in bed is their business as long as they don’t start recruiting. I’m quite sure, though, that most gay people are respectful of other people’s beliefs, feelings and rights. Why wouldn’t they be? Liss is doing the community he claims to represent a disservice.
Stick around, Res.
- PW
ResIpsaLoquitor, may I e-mail you?
I have a question, and I am not good with words and do not want to offend anyone.
And in a way it’s a hijack, but not really.
Res, would anything anyone on this board (not your church) could argue or prove or say to you that would make you change your stance on homosexuality?
Is there any single speck of nonexistent evidence, any kind of proof, anything at ALL that would change your viewpoint without the church telling you to?
If not, then I’m sorry if this sounds offensive but, I think that’s pretty sad.
You say even theological proof wouldn’t convince you not to go the road of adoption, and this is really sad to hear. Do you really mean that you follow your church for everything in your life like this? Why do you let the church make your decisions for you?
[once again, I’m sorry if I sound harsh, I really don’t understand how you can follow the church this … far.]
Since when does “doesn’t condone/agree with/understand homosexuALITY” = homophobe?
This is a painful heart wrenching subject for some folks. For many, their faith tells them that this is a sin. But, in life, they have loved ones and friends who are, in fact gay or lesbian.
It’s hard enough to deal with the realities of that situation and the conflict, doubt and pain that that brings without having “homophobe” hurled in one’s face.
Those faced with this painful situation can only, in this day and age just shut up and do the best they can. If they voice their doubts, discomforts and/or questions about this subject in any way, frequently they’re simply all lumped under the name “homophobe”. For a lot of people, especially those with strong ties to their religious faith, this is a painful emotional issue. I don’t think that makes them “homophobes”.
I was under the impression that the term “phobe” meant to be afraid of, NOT to “disagree with” or otherwise, not understand, condone etc. Seems like some of the worst offenders who actually ARE “homophobes” act in ways (such as killing gay people) which really aren’t fear-based, but anger and hatred based.
hijack…
What’s wrong with Starship Troopers? Reasonably entertaining movie (though a little gory).
Very camp. Silly and over the top “we don’t take ourselves AT ALL seriously”.
Dang, do all movies have to be some Cecil DeMille Megamovie fantastic? Or some Dark Thought Inducing “meaningful” movie?
The problem was it was based on a book that was pretty good (but not Heinlein’s best), and the movie was the worst adaptation ever, including the porn version of Forrest Gump (Forrest Hump)
The first post in this thread seems to indicate that if ResIpsaLoquitor was satisified that the Church’s stance on a certain issue was wrong, then he would no longer consider himself to be Catholic.
The OP’s second post would seem to show that if he found himself convinced that the Church is in error on an issue, then he would petition for change from within.
I don’t think either of these explanations should be taken to mean that the OP will never change his views unless the Church tells him to.
Further, I think ResIpsaLoquitor is to be congratulated for leading a pursuit for the truth – a truth, rather – which may or may not be compatible with his faith.
Again, I’ll stress the fact that (almost by necessity!) I disagree with the Catholic Church’s stance on most matters concerning human sexuality. That doesn’t prevent me from appreciating ResIpsaLoquitor’s point of view.
Jervoise
Bravo Airman Doors!
Don’t despair. I, at least, rather enjoy your posts. You strike me as being a class act.
I appreciate this position. As long as someone attempts to see both sides of the issue and admits the possibility that their views might need some revision, well, that’s all we can ask. Further, I feel that people must be encouraged to change their views, not shamed into it. The combative technique only creates more combatants, IMO.
So very true Spooje - so very true.
On that note, I’m pretty sure it was a philosophy of Dale Carnegie’s, wasn’t it?, (you know… the guy who wrote “How To Win Friends and Influence People”) who said that the best way to get somebody to do something for you is try and make them see that they should want to do it for their own benefit. I know that sounds a little bit artsy fartsy, but gee it’s an idea which doesn’t exactly lack in merit I rather think.
Obviously you have put a lot of thought into this.
However I would challenge the above.
When the Church declared Galileo wrong and forced him to recant, were they ‘infallible’?
I believe they have since reversed their position. How does that affect their authority?
Why would you refuse to kill people if the Pope commanded you to? He is God’s representative. If you would disagree with the Church on this (presumably you would have been horrified by some of the excesses on the Crusades), why is it a problem to disagree on homosexuality?
Res
Actually, the passages you quoted do seem to support that position already: “They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial.” (Emphasis mine.) If the Church leaders did not know of the evidence previously, then it speaks well of their ability to empathize with their brothers and sisters in Christ.
It also speaks well of them that they condemn outright any sort of reprisal, retribution, or ill-treatment of gays. They even forbid “unjust discrimination”, which I presume means discrimination that is based solely on sexual orientation. And they require that homosexuals be treated with respect and compassion.
That said, there is a basic flaw in their definition of homosexuality: “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.” (Emphasis mine.) Obviously, this precludes relations between men or between women who do NOT experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward person of the same sex from being homosexual.
Before claiming a foul for semantics, please consider that it is to be assumed that, as you’ve suggested, great thought and care was given to the statement of the position. No grammatical Nazism is required to understand the implications of the clause that they have attached. In fact, it is typical in the production process of such proclamations that swarms of people — in this case, learned scholars with a keen proficiency in language — closely inspect every aspect of what they’ve written before approving it for final release. We have to assume they meant what they said.
In defining it the way they did, they have excluded all but those with a predominate or exclusive attraction for the same sex. In other words, they have included only those who they themselves admit were created with the attraction intrinsic and intact.
Homosexuality would not include relations of convenience, such as those in prison, or in same sex academies, or in military barracks, and so on. While their relations might violate some other Church doctrine (such as adultery), it does not violate this one.
It is noteworthy that they do not condemn the attraction per se, but only the action, and then only when the action is accompanied by the attraction. In fact, they state explicitly that homosexuals, as they define them, “can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection”.
But the condition upon which they say that homosexuals, as they define them, can approach Christian perfection is by complete and total sexual abstinence — or as they say, chastity.
Unfortunately, that caveat flies in the face of the teachings of Jesus. He Himself placed no such requirement on anyone. In fact, He proclaimed that whoever believes in Him will be saved. [John 3:16] Peter might be the rock upon which the Church is built, but Jesus is the earth that holds up the rock. Remove Him, and the whole Church falls down.
It isn’t that they are ignorant. The Church explicitly states that it understands that homosexuals, as they are defined, undergo a “trial”. That means that the Church leaders are aware of the burden that rests upon the shoulders of homosexuals. And recognition of that burden, while piling on another, is where the position of the Church is antithetical to the teachings of Christ yet again.
Jesus called on all of us to take upon ourselves His yoke. He said that His burden is light and easy to bear. [Matthew 11:30] He vehemently dressed down the Pharisees explicitly for placing heavy burdens on the shoulders of other men. [Luke 11:46]
Jesus came to liberate men from burdens, not to place extra burdens on top of the burdens they already bear. Nothing is required of anyone to be free, other than to accept Him as their lord and savior. The Church cannot set men free. But if Jesus sets men free, then they are truly free no matter what the Church has said. [John 8:36]
Please consider your user name. The thing speaks for itself. It is not the Church that saves the souls of homosexuals; it is Jesus who does this. And whoever places heavy burdens upon the shoulders of men while Jesus Himself is trying to lighten their burdens is — wittingly or unwittingly — the enemy of God.
Jesus said, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.” [Matthew 12:30]
You said that if the Church is wrong on this, you would work for internal change. What I have to say to you is this: you have your work cut out for you. Do not delay.
If you read lissener’s review, he seems to regard it as, in your own words “some Dark Thought Inducing “meaningful” movie”.
I thought it ws meaningful. I found a great deal of meaning in the co-ed shower scene. I don’t know what you guys are talking about…
ResIpsa’s quote clearly says, “…the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra…”
The Pope never made an ex cathedra announcement claiming Galileo’s position wrong.
This is an important distinction to make, and its one that comes up time and again on these boards. If the Pope announces that life will be found on Mars, that covalent bonding is a fiction, or that Mass henceforth will be celebrated by priests wearing a tuxedo, top hat, and tails, none of those pronouncements are infalliably correct. The first is a prediction, the second a misunderstanding of established fact, and the third an exercise of his administrative authority. I suppose the third case is at least true, in that the Pope certainly has the authority to make such a change, but by the same token a future pontiff could change back to vestments. In no case does the Church proclaim any of those acts unchangeable or infalliable.
- Rick
This is complete and utter bullshit. If you were really trying to explore new things and challenge your fauth, you wouldn’t believe that shit very long.
lissener does have a bit of a chip on his shoulder, doesn’t he?
Lissener, keep it in Cafe Society; movies are important, homophobes are not. Movies are important, homophobes are not. Movies are important, homophobes are not.
Since lissener went off the deep end. He is currently thrashing around the thread claiming I am dishonest for quoting his OP back at him.
ResIpsaLoquitor, that has to be one of the most moderate and thoughtful Pittings I have read on the SDMB. What, are you trying to give us a bad name? 
Try something like this:
See? Much better.
Seriously, try not to be put off by our more hysterical Dopers. The signal-to-noise ration on these boards is not negligible, but it is lower than for most others. And we can always use another thoughtful poster.
Regards,
Shodan
Res-
Thank you for an interesting post. See, I grew up not as a Catholic, but went to Catholic schools for the majority of my formative years. I am an avowed atheist, and I think that the Catholic doctrine on this, and many other things is pretty much bunk. I have a lot of problems with Catholicism, and organized religion in general, and I personally can’t understand worshipping a god designed as the one in the Bible, and I cannot for the life of me understand why a loving god would create people with a homosexual orientation, and then forbid them to love those whom they love.
That having been said, I completely understand and respect your argument, and your logic. If you’re gonna be a Catholic, as I understand it, then there’s something to be said for being a Catholic. I have many, many friends who pick and choose what parts of Catholicism they adhere to. I love my friends, but their approach seems intellectually dishonest to me.
Your position is a far cry from being a mindless follower of the Catholic doctrine. You’ve attempted to analyze it, and have concluded that Catholicism is the correct religion for you, and are willing to follow all of the dictates of that religion.
I think you’re wrong, but I admire the manner in which you came to your conclusion.
blanx
I wrote a long, passionate reply that was devoured by the hamsters, so I’m going to keep this short.
Res wrote,
It looks to me that you and Lissener are in agreement that your views will not change, so what is the purpose of this thread?
While Lissener can be a bit shrill, he’s not acting out of a vacuum. While the majority of Christians here tend to be thoughtful and compassionate, a cursory survey of the Pizza Parlor, RaptureReady, or Christianity.com will reveal the depth of the contempt and hate spewed by Christians against gay people. If you are hostile to us and seek to repeal legal protections for us and to ban gay marriage, why the hell should we not reciprocate?
Moreover, even if I viewed religion as anything more than primitive tribal superstition, the gross hypocrisy evinced in the Church’s teachings would turn me off.
Aside fromt he condescending tone (“difficulties they may encounter from their condition”), the idea that hetero folks may touch, and love, and be intimate, and that gay people must not is utter garbage. My relationship is no less complex, no less loving, no less important than any of yours, period.
And, sorry, Res, but the spectacle of an institution that for decades systematically shielded pedophiles from the consequences of their crimes posturing as a moral authority deserves nothing but a derisive guffaw.