Daily Breakfast 552 - Lang May Yer Lum Reek
In this show: Football and soccer; Scottish sayings; Star Wars on TV; Fringe and the Seal of Confession; Google and the Catholic Church.
About the Author
Choose an SQPN Show!
Recent Comments
- Catholic:Under The Hood #174 - A Spanish Thanksgiving
- Deborah Father, good episode. I go to St. Augustine Florida at least once a year and love to hang out at the Mission...
- iPadre #133 - Watch!
- Tina Lewis Just this morning I opened my December issue of Magnificat and turned past the pages to their monthly...
- Daily Breakfast 578 - Star Trek Pajamas
- Fr. Roderick The Dutch podcasts are here: www.katholiekleven.nl
- Koen Just one question; where can I find the dutch versions of your podcasts? Hope to hear form you soon. Thankx...
- Catholic Family #103: Happy New Year!
- Mary Soukup what was the name of the book?
Support SQPN with your purchase at Amazon
Sponsored Links
SQPN Archives
Copyright © -2008 SQPN. Powered by WordPress.
Options theme by Justin Tadlock
Podcast Powered by podPress (v8.8)
Interesting about the discourse on gay marriage. In our parrish there is an older male couple who have been active in our community for years. They have been together for about thirty years and serve on the parrish council, involved with the youth group, teach CCE, read the liturgy during Mass and are always volunteering their time and piles of money for just about every parrish event. They are a perfect example of ‘perfect marriage’.
However, the contradiction that I have a difficult time explaining to my teenage daughter is how they can live together as ‘husband and wife’. Being called to marriage is not exclusivly to create children. If that were the case, then why isn’t a fertility test required during marriage preperation? Shouldn’t marriage transcend procreation?
Thank you for listening to my two cents. In today’s secular world, it is so hard to raise a teenager!!
Hi, Fr.,
I can understand the seal of confession and know it is necessary.
My question is: Can someone “confess” a sin they haven’t committed yet? And if so, how could that be forgiven when it hasn’t even occurred yet? Would it then be truly against the seal of confession to warn someone else of an impending serious offense?
Could you warn the confessant (it that a word?) that if they tell you something they are planning on doing (not what they have done)and it seriously endangers someone you would have to tell someone else? I realize that it may open up a problem with what is considered a serious offense, but would like to hear your views on this if you have time.
Thanks for all you do!
Bonita
I also think star wars is awesome, and i’m waiting for the clone wars to show up on the itunes shop. I can’t see the series on cartoon network either because i live in the netherlands too
BTW how do you acces hulu from the netherlands? Do you have a great proxy or something like that? All the proxy’s I find on the internet are either really slow or aren’t free. Anyway, thanks for the show, Richard
Father Roderick;
I have decided to respond to your questions about American College Football in writing rather than a call, since it can get complicated.
Essentially you asked whether someone from, say, Ohio, would root for a New York team, namely Syracuse University, or are they obliged to root for the home team. The quick answer is yes, you are obliged to root for the home team due to simply local pressure by the team’s fans. However, within that board answer, there are many complicated real life examples of just the opposite.
First, you have some schools that almost wholly represent a state: Ohio State University is perhaps the very best example of this. The University of Texas may also fall into this category. As a result, it is more common that people in these states will be fans of those schools.
More often, however, due to the size of the U.S. states, you have two or more schools within a state, and those two schools battle for supremacy in the state. Examples of this would be the state of Alabama, which has a year long war between fans of Auburn University and the University of Alabama. The state of Michigan also falls into this category, with a long rivalry between the University of Michigan and Michigan State University. Likewise, Florida is split in three, between the University of Miami, Florida State and the University of Florida. In these states, you may be obliged to pick one of those two or three teams, but which one?
With states like California, which are so large, you can have four major programs: Stanford and California in Northern California and UCLA and USC in Southern California. With these schools, however, it’s less supremacy over a state, than it is supremacy over a city. USC and UCLA battle for Los Angeles while Cal and Stanford battle for the Bay Area. These schools, unlike the schools in Texas, for instance, have fan bases that are far less rabid or interested in the games.
Then you have national schools. The best example of this is Notre Dame, the team I root for and the school Paul Camarata’s daughter attends. This Northern Indiana school also may best answer your question about fans being obliged to root for the home team. There are simply other reasons why someone may root for a college football team: where they grew up, where they attended, and then there are the schools that just became a part of our lives for reasons we’re not quite sure of.
Because of Notre Dame’s Catholic history, it has fans all over the country. Generally these fans are call Sub-Alums, or Subway-Alums. Back when being Catholic in America was a “difficult” thing, due to prejudices, etc., Notre Dame’s football success was a point of pride for many immigrants. This pride in Notre Dame was passed down throughout the family. As a result, you have a huge number of Notre Dame fans that are Notre Dame fans for reasons they’re not quite sure of. Notre Dame is not the local team, or the school that they attended. They’re simply the schools that have been weaved into the fabric of their life from the very beginning.
Lastly, due to the transient society that America has become, an Ohio State University grad may move to New York City. A USC grad may more to Chicago. I know that many University of Florida graduates move to the Virginia area. As a result, the fandom of these schools spreads throughout the country, is passed down to children and so on.
I think some schools will always be “local”. The rivalry between Alabama and Auburn is almost universally ignored outside of Alabama, for instance. In addition, people from Alabama tend to stay in Alabama. But other schools’ graduates and fans move around and make that school’s fandom less localized.
So, no, a person living in or even growing up in Ohio is not obliged to be a fan of Ohio State University. They often are, and may face “trouble” if they are not, but they are not obliged, and any “trouble” would just be good fun teasing. A more difficult question may be what causes a young person to become a fan of a team. How did I become a fan of Notre Dame, being that I was born in California, raised in New Jersey and was an atheist? (I converted) Well, being from the Bay Area, I was a San Francisco 49ers fan, the NFL pro team in San Francisco, California. The starting quarterback when I was a kid was Joe Montana. I read in a magazine that Joe Montana went to Notre Dame. Well, that was it. I decided right then, as a 9-year-old boy, that I was a Notre Dame fan. And it hasn’t changed in 21-years, even though everything else in my life has.
Well, Father Roderick, I hope that shed some light on America’s peculiar passion for college football.
@James, Fr. Roderick, Pat and Joe,
James, Enjoyed your explantion of “fandom” in the U.S and the way you wrote it! Thanks.
And thanks, Fr. Roderick, for your quick but clear, concise info about the Church and marriage. I have been researching it more too which is what I should have done BEFORE making my suggestions regarding same-sex unions! My wanting to help keep legal unions and marriage separate was foremost in my mind, but I see I overstepped and watered down the reality of our nature as human beings - just trying to keep the peace. This happens so much now in the secular world and there I fell right into that trap! NO this is not a confession, but I’m just expressing an “AH-HA” experience: Legalizing anything that is counter-natural would of course be detrimental to all of us. Recognition of same-sex partners is present on our society so I guess the conflict will continue. I see we do not condemn, fear or discriminate against the same-sex-prefering persons-which I don’t-but I also see the folly in legalizing the union. Also, I suppose if 3 men wanted to live together for 30 years, they could want equal rights…or 3 woman and 1 man…on and on. I’m now wondering, is the word “right” being used for that which is really “privelege”?
OH MY! I just went to a dictionary cite to check my spelling of “heterosexual” and the first thing printed is bisexual cites. On another dictionary cite, the examples of how to use the word “heterosexual” seems HOMOsexually slanted: Eg: Use as an objective modifier: “The bill denies same-sex partners the same pension rights as married heterosexuals.” Use as modifiying another word: “Thus a significant proportion of any workforce is not exclusively heterosexual.” For heterosexual quotes they have one quote: “There is probably no sensitive heterosexual alive who is not preoccupied with his latent homosexuality.” Hummmm. Do your dictionary cites read the same, or is this a regional California thing, or am I reading too mucn into it since we’ve been talking about this subject?
Everybody understands that Jesus, in his own culture, was notorious and persecuted for consorting with outcasts. When Jesus said all are welcome at the table, I think he really meant all.
With those truths said, maybe it is somewhat interesting to listen to the debate on the political efforts in California for a ban on so called gay marraige. However as a heterosexual political independent person of faith and a follower of Jesus I find that most of this debate is taking on far far too much importance with barely any relevance to most peoples everyday lives than it should be. This is especially true compared to the overwhelming relevance to everyone of the most important life issues like the economy, jobs, education, squandering of precious blood & treasure on baseless wars(i.e.- swords into plowshares etc.), widespread poverty, widespread hunger & malnutrition, widespread homelessness, lack of health care, gross incompedence & corruption of public officials from the top down, widespread war profiteering(halliburton etc.), widespread financial system greed that victimizes far too many working people & the middle class(remember Jesus taking on the moneychangers?) and so many more that are so much more relevant to regular people than this debate & issue is.
I am saddened that so many have blown this issue so far out of proportion and have forgotten to put in their lives what Jesus said and taught on the most important relevant issues like I listed above that he actually said something about(i.e.-> beatitudes) and that were directly connected to everyones lives on a daily basis.
Peace, tolerance & may God bless us all as the flawed human beings we all are,
Michael
If any of you were born gay and were told by the Church you loved that if you had sex with a willing partner of the same sex, you were no longer welcome in the Church, would you feel discriminated against? And then if you were told, well you can only have sex if you are married, but you can’t get married…would you then feel discriminated against? If you were told that your choice is to pretend you are straight and marry someone(which is perpetuating a lie and has the potential to ruin many lives), or go thru your entire life celibate…would you then feel discriminated against?
The Church’s answers to this issue are lacking in insight and compassion, in my opinion. The Church needs to take a long hard look at the facts as quoted below:
“In the last three elections, the Voter News Service exit poll registered the gay vote between 4 percent and 5 percent. While concluding that the Census 2000 undercounted the total number of gay or lesbian households, for the purposes of this study, we estimate the gay and lesbian population at 5 percent of the total U.S. population over 18 years of age, (209,128,094). This results in an estimated total gay and lesbian population of 10,456,405. A recent study of gay and lesbian voting habits conducted by Harris Interactive determined that 30 percent of gay and lesbian people are living in a committed relationship in the same residence. Using that figure, we suggest that 3,136,921 gay or lesbian people are living in the United States in committed relationships in the same residence.”
To Peter in Houston:You wrote
I certainly understand the struggle of raising teenage daughters. I have one myself. Sexuality is can be a difficult issue to consider, especially with the misinformation being taught.
Marriage is not only for procreation. God ordered marriage to procreation such that it is a constitutive element of marriage as its primary end. This means that the God-given purpose of marriage and the conjugal act is the having and educating of children. The union of the couple is part of it but only within the procreative aspect. Thus, a homosexual couple cannot be married because, obviously, their relationship is closed to procreation.
From Humanae Vitae:
I included one article from the Catechism below. It might help you to read Articles 2357-2372. Here is a great explanation of why sterile couples can still marry while strictly impotent couples cannot: http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/05/impotence_vs_in.html
Marriage shouldn’t (and can’t) transcend procreation because it is in the fruitful married love of a man a woman where they realize God’s desire that the two would become one flesh. As Humanae Vitae explains, marriage only retains its sense of true mutual love when it is ordered to children.
The greatest coup pulled off by homosexual activists is to convince America that theirs is a civil rights struggle no different from racial activism. Let’s cut this right off at the base: They are NOT the same.
“Born gay”? Show me the money. I am Filipino. I was BORN Filipino–absolutely no doubt about that. Were homosexuals ever denied the use of a water fountain, or the front seat of a bus, simply because of the color of their skin or the way they talk?
What about Anne Heche? Oh, you respond, she’s “bisexual.” Well, how convenient.
You may think me intolerant. One thing I find difficult to tolerate is excessive political correctness. Even Christ said to the woman caught in adultery, “Go now, and do not commit this sin any more.”
@Pat, Celebacy is good. It’s fulfilling in that one can offer one’s whole life to God and reap holiness for oneself and others. We’re hear to help one another get closer to our maker. If I have a tendency - by birth - to become an alcoholic it doesn’t make sense to just become one, even if it feels great. We try to do better in life with the bent gene as best we can. Life is difficult to all and I guess that’s why I want to try to peacefully get us all together and figure something out that will help us all.
There is, of course, an evolutionary bias against homosexuality, because homosexual relations naturally cannot lead to procreation. Yet it persists in many species, not just homo sapiens.
In what sense did you mean that it is not natural? It is part of God’s creation.
as for the seal of confession — if a murder is confessed, can the priest assist in the investigation without breaking the seal ?
@Christopher, I guess you are addressing the question to me as I mentioned “counter-natural.” It is difficult to write what is in my heart, what is in the Church doctrine from God, etc., but see John Paul II “Theology of the Body” for great info. As far as my understanding goes, nature does procreate as its basic function, otherwise there is a problem if it doesn’t and in some cases, it doesn’t. Yes, that is acceptable, tolerable, etc., but in no way can it be said to be natural. Well, one can say it is natural that this problem will arise (in this fallen world) but the basic function of non-procreation is not “natural”. Procreation is basic but what else is involved is another additional part of the whole enchilada. The drive to connect was gifted to us by our Maker. It’s like pushing us to enjoy the union of the two humans…but all pointing to the fantastic event of allowing for another life to arrive. Infertility is not “natural” but it happens. A lot happens. These are our challenges. We have to meet them together with love.
OOPPS again, I messed up the my email address so now I’m trying to correct it.
I’m not sure if this comment will be repeated as I messed up in sending it. Anyway @ Christopher, Maybe you were partly addressing me since I mentioned “counter-natural”. It’s hard to express what is in my heart and what is in Church doctrine, etc., but John Paul II’s “Theology or the Body” has great info. As far as I understand it all, nature’s basic function is procreation. One can say that it is “natural” in this fallen world that non-procreation (is that a word?) does happen. But non-procreation is not “natural” in itself, although it is accepted, tolerated, and we even try to fix it to reverse it, etc. What all else is involved is part of the whole enchilada. The attraction to one another is a gift from our Maker, like pushing us to connect with one another…but all directed to the fantastic event of bringing another life into the world. Like a good means to a good end. Infertility is not natural, but it happens. A lot happens. These are our challenges. We need to meet them together with love. It can be done. All is possible when approached with love. (These are my understandings but I’m often way off but want to keep increasing my understanding of the truth. I’m hoping Fr. Roderick will shed more light in the next Daily Breakfast.)
@Mary, I was actually addressing Fr. Roderick, who described homosexuality as unnatural. Perhaps his reasoning is along the lines you give. Perhaps he will get around to addressing it in the Daily Breakfast. However, the Church teaches us that sex is not solely for procreation, but is a physical expression of the love between two people. Sex is not proscribed in cases where it cannot possibly lead to conception, such as married heterosexual couples beyond reproductive age, so the incapacity of homosexual sex to yield offspring cannot be the reason it is not accepted.
Perhaps Fr. Roderick will also some day address the question I raised about the assertion he made in DB 534 that the pope does not have the power to permit women to be priests, although he is able to accept married men as priests.
And now for something completely different: http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=3137
Yes, born gay.
For much of the 20th century, the dominant thinking connected homosexuality to upbringing. Freud, for instance, speculated that overprotective mothers and distant fathers helped make boys gay. It took the American Psychiatric Association until 1973 to remove “homosexuality” from its manual of mental disorders.
Then, in 1991, a neuroscientist in San Diego named Simon LeVay told the world he had found a key difference between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men he studied. LeVay showed that a tiny clump of neurons of the anterior hypothalamus - which is believed to control sexual behavior - was, on average, more than twice the size in heterosexual men as in homosexual men. LeVay’s findings did not speak directly to the nature-vs.-nurture debate - the clumps could, theoretically, have changed size because of homosexual behavior. But that seemed unlikely, and the study ended up jump-starting the effort to prove a biological basis for homosexuality.
Later that same year, Boston University psychiatrist Richard Pillard and Northwestern University psychologist J. Michael Bailey announced the results of their study of male twins. They found that, in identical twins, if one twin was gay, the other had about a 50 percent chance of also being gay. For fraternal twins, the rate was about 20 percent. Because identical twins share their entire genetic makeup while fraternal twins share about half, genes were believed to explain the difference. Most reputable studies find the rate of homosexuality in the general population to be 2 to 4 percent, rather than the popular “1 in 10″ estimate.
In 1993 came the biggest news: Dean Hamer’s discovery of the “gay gene.” In fact, Hamer, a Harvard-trained researcher at the National Cancer Institute, hadn’t quite put it that boldly or imprecisely. He found that gay brothers shared a specific region of the X chromosome, called Xq28, at a higher rate than gay men shared with their straight brothers. Hamer and others suggested this finding would eventually transform our understanding of sexual orientation.
@Paul S. and Pat: Hahahaha,I don’t know, Paul, it seems easier to talk about the sex stuff, doesn’t it?! OK, OK. I’ll get off it and I’m sorry to go on and on. It’s in my blood cuz I had two brothers and couldn’t ever get a word in edgewise - I have longer arms than most people too from reaching for the food before those hungry guys got it all!
Anyway it’s been good to talk with you Pat. And thanks for the facts and information, you did your research! It does show there is something different going on inside. What is going on deep inside, like in the soul? That is what really interests me. Gays have always in my mind been ones with an almost insurmountable challenge. Makes me feel God is calling them for something extremely special because He appears to give hard times to those He trusts will come thru for Him at some point. Look at the Saints…many or probably most had hardships, pain, suffering that most of us don’t even know about. But Pat it was through their love and submission to God’s Great Will that made them Saints. Can’t we do that too in this day of so much un-Godliness? Yee Gads, our little life span is less than a blip in eternity.
Well, anyway I wish you the best. My last suggestion: (Sorry, I’m almost through Paul) Ask God for the Truth, no matter what it is, and ask for the strength to accept it. Keep reading His Word. Take the discrimination you spoke of on the chin, suffer it and offer it up for whomever God needs help with (like me!). Show your friends and everyone your aim to do what God wants of you. Everything is possible with Love…and we know God is Love. I’ll be praying for you.
Paul, don’t be put off if we come back to this at a later date…hahaha just a teaser like they do in sequels! (Pat, take the last word and really set him off..God Bless.)
@Christopher, Thanks for the clarification. Well, I can’t leave without another comment, can I? No. So…I don’t think the Church means “two people” I think all is relating to a man with a woman and not two of the same sex. Right? Hey, don’t forget about the elderly woman in the Bible who conceived in that old age…I remember one even had a little laugh about it. My friend’s parents had her brother, named Henry, when they were really old…thought they were way passed the age of popping a child but there he came. He gave them a gift he made in grade school and unknowingly signed it “Hanky-Pank”. True story.
@Christopher
The argument that because some homosexual-type behavior is found in other species justifies it in human behavior leads to absurd conclusions. With that reasoning, we can justify adultery, polygamy, polyandry, and eating our young and spouses. In fact, we are rational animals that are live according to reason rather than instinct. You answer your own question. “There is, of course, an evolutionary bias against homosexuality, because homosexual relations naturally cannot lead to procreation.” Which, of course, means it is not natural. It is not natural, meaning according to human nature, to engage in homosexual acts. It is circumscribed in human nature, thus a part of natural law, that marriage and the conjugal act is reserved to male and female open to generation of life. Marriage and the act that most deeply expresses its essence is a procreative union and act. That means that both marriage and its act are for the sake of procreation. Here are relevant texts from Humanae Vitae.
From Humanae Vitae:
You rightly cite the unitive aspect of marriage. However, one can never separate the unitive and procreative qualities of marriage. A coin has a heads and a tails. It is impossible to separate heads from tails and still have a coin. Just so, one can never separate the unitive and procreative ends of the marital act and still have a morally licit act. The reason homosexual acts are proscribed by the Church:
Homosexual acts are sterile, thus cannot be the basis for a union that has procreation as its primary defining and necessary element. Homosexuality may be part of God’s creation as a privation of the good (the good here being a properly ordered sexuality, i.e., chaste heterosexuality) but one could never assert that God intended people to be homosexuals or engage in homosexual acts precisely because they are contrary to human nature. We are all called to chastity according to our state in life.
@Pat and Mary from SoCal
It is very important to understand that any genetic components to same sex attraction do not make homosexual acts morally licit. To say that since one is “born this way” that they can then morally engage in homosexual acts is wrong. For the same reason you would still condemn the adulterous man who claims he is genetically disposed to many mates, one condemns the one committing homosexual acts. It is by our free will that we act not our genes over and above any “predispositions” we might have. Ultimately, these difficult issues come down to the fact that God is God and we are not. Thus, we must obey the one who created us and loves us.
@Christopher Murray
About women priests:
Sorry, I am not Father Roderick, but I hope this might help answer your question.
The Pope is a servant of the Truth. He does have the power through his office as Pope to declare teachings concerning faith and morals infallibly (without error). The ordination of women fits into this category. However, since the truth is the truth, the Pope can’t change previously defined doctrine because those doctrines have already been determined as the truth. For example, the Pope could never declare that Jesus is not God for that is against truth revealed by God. The exclusion of women from ordination belongs to this group of defined (thus infallible) doctrines of the Church. It has already been infallibly determined that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women to Holy Orders.
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful. (Pope John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis #4, emphasis mine)
In response to this precise act of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, explicitly addressed to the entire Catholic Church, all members of the faithful are required to give their assent to the teaching stated therein. To this end, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of the Holy Father, has given an official Reply on the nature. of this assent: it is a matter of full definitive assent, that is to say, irrevocable, to a doctrine taught infallibly by the Church. In fact, as the Reply explains, the definitive nature of this assent derives from the truth of the doctrine itself, since, founded on the written Word of God, and constantly held and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary universal Magisterium (cf. , n. 25). Thus, the Reply specifies that this doctrine belongs to the deposit of the faith of the Church…In this case, an act of the ordinary papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church. (Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Reflections on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, emphasis mine)
As you can see the Church declares this infallibly, thus the Pope could never change it. Married men are different because the exclusion of married men from the priesthood is only a matter of Church discipline not a matter of doctrine. The Pope could allow married men to be priests just as he could change other administrative things as Pope. Of course, there,are married men currently serving in the Roman Rite that converted from the Anglican denomination. Also, the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, which are faithful to the Pope of Rome, allow married priests as a matter of course.
If you want further reading, I would suggest Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and Inter Insigniores.
I hope this helps…
Oooops. Somehow all the html get stripped out. Anyway, here are the links to the documents I cited:
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
Inter Insigniores
Reflections on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
@fatherroderick Thanks for illuminating the official views of Church in this regard. Even though I struggle to follow the argumentation on vatican.ca and in the commentary it can be helpful to contrast my view with a body that views itself as a moral authority.
In DB552 you say the lifestyle of homosexual partners hurts to their well being and doubt they can be really happy.
These statements and ideas can be investigated by reason. Which to me means social science, gender studies and just plain observing homosexual partners. Homosexual people can and do form long term happy relationships, psychometrics finds no significant differences in the quality of long term between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. A theory can be consistent and well thought out, as long as Popper’s black swans are swimming around there are issues to be “illuminated”.
I wasn’t trying to make anyone shut up…I just thought the Scrappleface piece was funny and related to the economics that Father Roderick was talking about.
@Paul S.and Michael and Pat: Paul,It really was funny! And it brought things into perspective..it was like, chill out, as they say. And made me try to be a little comical too…also from my brothers.
Michael, you are awesome!! Thanks! And thanks to you all. Hey, life gets too heavy for me too at times. Going thru chemo and radiation but coming out OK so far! Thank God. Maybe this brush with the “mortality reminder” has thrown me into the depts of life! I think of Pat’s dilemma and want to help ease the pain although I know there is plenty of happiness there too as there is in every precious life. Got some big projects at hand so I’ll sign off for a while. Bye, y’all.
I just gotta print all this out! This has been incredible. Bye.
Thank you all for your viewpoints and opinions. They make for some interesting reading. We know that God creates tremendously wide variety of life that is naturally diverse in so many ways. Part of the wonderful mystery of faith is that in our time on earth there are parts of life we don’t know the answers to.
A very knowledgable observant person of faith said something interesting to me:
“If someone(i.e.- a noble respected celibate unmarried man) in a position of high position makes a statement about an specific area of human sociology that they have absolutely no experience or direct knowledge in, are they really qualified to make an absolute declaration regarding that area”?
In this modern communication age I feel that if Jesus was here among use that some people in the church would heavily criticize him and try to persecute him for preaching tolerance & love for all mankind & consorting with “outcasts”.
I would again ask all of us to never forget that Jesus said “ALL” are welcome at the table and to always keep in mind that he really meant “All People”.
Peace, tolerance & may God bless us all,
Michael
@ Michael C
Jesus was a “noble respected celibate unmarried man in a high position”. He certainly taught about marriage and lust and sin. He also gave the authority to those men to teach in his Name. He was speaking to the Apostles when he said, “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Lk 10:16) Again, he was speaking to them (Peter first and then the Twelve) when he gave them authority on earth to “bind and loose” (Mt 16:19, Mt 18:18).
I am a convert. I was and am a sinner, an “outcast”. The Lord loves us all and welcomes all of us. However, this welcoming includes living in God’s truth. Jesus came preaching repentance (The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel. (Mk 1:15)); the turning from sin, and the turning to God in righteousness. Jesus didn’t tolerate sin. It cost him the very last drop of his blood in order to reconcile us to the Father. He called every “outcast” from their life of sin to the abundant life of holiness in his Sacred Heart precisely because he loves us and wants us united to the Trinity. He said that if we love him, we will keep his commandments (Jn 14:15)
Thank you for the reminder. I pray that we all will be one in Jesus’ Holy Name.
May God bless you.
“all are welcome at his table”. Of course, everybody not in state of mortal sin can receive the Eucharist regardless of sexual orientation. But there wasn’t anyone denying that, right?
@Pat - As a psychologist I have to say that removing ‘homosexuality’ from the DSM wasn’t because it is not regarded as a disease anymore. It was removed after years and years of extensive lobbying from gay/lesbian organizations, who in the same time managed to swing public opinion. So the fact there is not reference anymore has to do with politics/diplomacy not with new scientific insights.
Why are people gay? Psychologists don’t really know.
The Church calls everybody to live a life in chastity and there is no such thing as affirmative action or so for gay people. The same rules apply to everyone. It’s not discrimination, because there are also heterosexuals who cannot marry in the Church and therefore cannot have sex.
So accusing the Church of discriminating is very unfair, you can say a lot about it, but not that she uses two standards for gay and straight people. The definition of a marriage, as it comes to us from the Scriptures, states explicitly that this is between man and woman. The Church cannot change the Scriptures…
It’s not that the Church does not want to change anything, is that she doesn’t have the authority to change this, AFAIK.
Xq28 does not guarantee homosexuality any more than BRCA guarantees breast cancer. There are people with the gene who do not have the disorder, just as there are people without the gene who have the disorder.
Again, as I said–NOT the same as race. So, no–not born gay.
@Taquoriaan
I don’t think there is any definition of marriage in the bible. Marriage began as a legal union.”Marriage dates back several thousand years, emerging as a civil arrangement at the same time as the emergence of private property. Far from fulfilling any religious purpose to unite one man and one woman, anthropologists theorize that most primitive marriages were polygamous. Marriages were entered into in order to expand the land or material goods base of a clan, either through the receipt of a dowry or the merger of two clans’ assets. Religious guidelines around marriage are not thought to have developed until the practice was several hundred years old, and were first used as a means of preventing different religious groups from losing wealthy followers by restricting them from marrying into other religions.”
But, as I wrote in the very beginning of this discussion, and I continue to believe, the Church has every right to say who can and cannot receive the sacrament of marriage. The legal union of same sex individuals is not under their jurisdiction.
Whether you agree that the Church treats homosexuals and lesbians badly or not, you cannot deny the pain of thousands of us who cannot practice our religion because by doing so we have to deny a large part of who we are. That is real pain that is not fixed with platitudes.
@ Jeff, you may think that your sexuality isn’t as important as your race, but in reality, no person should be asked to deny or give up either one. And it may not have been proved, yet, beyond doubt, that people are born gay, but it is very clear that people do not choose to be gay. Why would anyone? Because it’s such a carefree life. That is very naive.
Enough, I’m sorry for having upset everyone with a discussion that I know we probably shouldn’t be having here, but I never give up hope that some day attitudes will evolve.
Thank you for your patience.
There’s a definition in the Bible of marriage in the same way there’s a definition of the Trinity, and Christ’s Two Natures: divine and human.
If you read the Scriptures in it’s context you see marriage is always between man and woman… And that’s just the way it is.
Forgot this: legal unions, civil marriages only exist after Napoleon’s Code Civil. That’s in the 1800s. Before that you married in the realm of the Church.
What a lot to absorb in this discussion thread!
To summarise what Michael is using very legal language to explain:
Women priests:
The reason the pope cannot allow the ordination of women is because an earlier pope determined that the limited scriptural references on the subject imply that women cannot be ordained, and that he believed the evidence supporting this interpretation to be so incontrovertible that he invoked papal infallibility to make that interpretation irrevocable.
On the other hand, the rule of priestly celibacy is simply an administrative matter which can be varied to suit the needs of the church.
Is that a correct understanding?
Homosexuality:
While homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, expressing it in homosexual acts violates natural law because that can never lead to the creation of new life.
Is that also correct?
The reasoning behind this view is rather esoteric. If we take the alternative all-encompassing commandment given by Jesus (”Love thy neighbour”), nothing should be considered wrong if it is done with love and does not harm anybody. That would rule out things like cannibalism and pederasty and some, but not all, homosexual acts.
Michael C made the important point that love and tolerance are important qualities demonstrated by Jesus. If any of my children conclude that they are homosexual, they already know that I will continue to love and support them.
Getting back to same-sex marriage, I agree that the Church should continue to recognise marriage only when between two persons open to the possibility of procreative union. Even civil marriage is not allowed in some jurisdictions if one or both parties is not at least open to the possibility; a marriage can be annulled in its absence.
I also believe unions between any two persons (irrespective of gender or sexuality) should be recognised by the civil authorities, to avoid discrimination. I would even extend this to non-sexual unions, such as between cohabiting siblings, so that nobody need lose rights under the law.
Jim’s comment for DB 551 is worth consideration; that marriage should be solely a religious institution.
@Christopher Murray, you write
In The Netherlands same-sex civil unions have the same status as marriage, which means that all the rules for marriage also apply to these unions. Therefore, unions between siblings, even if they are non-sexual are explicitly forbidden.
In my eyes, civil authorities do everything they legally can to erase the differences between a civil union and a ‘marriage’. Which is a kick in the stomach to me, as a Catholic. I don’t want to sound too ‘neo’ but that’s the way how I feel. I personally think it’s an attempt to undermine religious values deliberately, especially here in The Netherlands, one of the most secularized countries in Europe.
I just listened to the above podcast, and I have to say the discussion sounds hateful to me concerning Gay marriage.
I just read all the discussions about gay marriage. I just wanted to state that tolerance is not a Christian virtue but love is. We are to love one another as Christ loves us. That does not mean that we are to condone one another in sin. For what ever reason God gave us our sexual tendencies towards one another is almost besides the point. We all need to form our conscience to the truth and the best way is through the Church that Christ established, the Catholic Church. If we base our conscience on feelings, some could find reason to murder which is why abortion is legal. Although feelings are good, we can’t trust our feelings by itself. If we base our conscience on chemistry or biology alone, we may find ourselves exploding and thus divorce is ramped and we find excuses for polygamy or even what this topic is all about. Please my brothers and sisters in Christ, trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not in your own understanding (Proverbs 3:5)
@Christopher, Loving thy neighbor is not engaging in sin with them. Homosexual acts are condemned by the Church, that is, by God.
That ain’t ever going to change, Chris.
If it feels OK doesn’t always make it OK. Mutual consent is not the santifying element. Being an adult doesn’t mean we can freely do whatsoever we please.
There are taboos - homosexuality is one of the taboos of society, as is incest, etc. How to fit homosexuality into the structure of society is extremely difficult because it really doesn’t fit there. The Word of God -Who created us - is no longer known or followed by large numbers of people so it is really difficult to get the True message across. So we, as I see it, are trying to live at least side by side until there is that breakthrough to the Truth of the situation. This will happen in God’s time and our prayers will help.
As it has been said, we are all precious lives with restless hearts until we rest in God.
The Love of Neighbor is: genuine caring for the precious life of the gay person, showing them our love and caring and helping them from where THEY are standing, not from where WE are standing. Otherwise it is just “my will against yours, my rule against yours.”
If you take the “Y” or “Why” out of the word “YOUR”, funny enough you get “OUR”.
EACH has to find “Why” the other acts as he/she does, understand that and then we can get down to discussing how to live together in society with Truth and Love and not Falsehood. We already know we CANNOT live just as each one of us wants to command. But do we want to live as the State commands? Remember that the State can take away any rights they give out.
But the Truth given in God’s commands is everlasting and no one can take it away. Let’s get together and find the Truth. None of us wants to live a lie. We all have to go to the Word of God for info. We need to learn state laws also. Let’s start exploring the road to truth, hand in hand.
I’m sure this sounds so Pollyanna to many because it is so alien to try to work together in this competitive, money-before-everything, my-needs-come-first world. I think we’re tired of that way of trying to live.
Interesting discussion thread here.
I hope and pray that we can all learn a little and put Jesus’s personal examples of love, tolerance & social justice into our everyday lives.
I know that Leviticus wrote his hellfire & brimstone view but a very important thing to remember is that you will look in vain for anything that Jesus said in hateful condemnation of gays. Surely if this was an issue of importance, Jesus would have said something about it but he never did.
Jesus silence on this indicates that “what he did talk about”(i.e.- beatitudes/sermon on the mount & others) were what was really important in his and his father’s eyes.
As I recall, premarital sex, contraception, and masturbation are proscribed in the same breath as homosexuality in the catechism, aren’t they? All of them forbidden because they remove the possibility of procreation within marriage from an intimate act. Why are the first three, particularly the first, getting so little attention and outcry when they are practiced with far more frequency than the last? I am recalling this from reading a Catholic Q & A book at Barnes and Noble a few years ago.
Premarital sex does not de facto separate sex from procreation.
I personally am VERY concerned that Catholic hospitals are being forced to provide contraception for their employees.
And masturbation (yes, along with internet porn) is a bigger problem that Christian groups are just starting to tackle in earnest.
A prime reason for the difference: My children are not (potentially) being indoctrinated (in an in-your-face, shove down your throat manner) by society that any of the above are morally acceptable. They don’t have “Fornicator Days” at Disney World…and you don’t see headlines like “Masturbators demand recognition in St. Patrick’s Day parade.”
@Michael C -
Check out the first chapter of Romans. It was St. Paul, not Jesus, who provided that text, but it still provides evidence of God’s displeasure with homosexual, as well as other impure, acts:
“Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.“
Seems quite concise, does it not?
Well Greg, yes it is pretty concise, but I think he’s condemning sex for the sake of sex rather than sex for the sake of love. “dishonorable passions”.
Keep in mind that the Catholic Church does NOT condemn homosexuals, but rather, the ACT. It calls the the tendency “disordered”, but that is not to say that homosexuals cannot be good Catholics, assuming they are not ACTING on their orientation.
If you read the commentary on this chapter you see (NAB translation)
“In this passage Paul uses themes and rhetoric common in Jewish-Hellenistic mission proclamation (cf Wisdom 13:1-14:31) to indict especially the non-Jewish world. The close association of idolatry and immorality is basic, but the generalization needs in all fairness to be balanced against the fact that non-Jewish Christian society on many levels displayed moral attitudes and performance whose quality would challenge much of contemporary Christian culture. Romans themselves expressed abhorrence over devotion accorded to animals in Egypt. Paul’s main point is that the wrath of God does not await the end of the world but goes into action at each present moment in humanity’s history when misdirected piety serves as a facade for self-interest.”
@Michael C., Blessed are the pure in spirit? Or in some Bibles, Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God? This is the message of Jesus about purity which is sinlessness. The pure and clean of heart are those free from sin. He made that a beatitude because of its importance. Homosexual acts were and still are seen as sin by God and therefore by His Children. Is there anywhere to point to where it says it is OK, or go for it, or God is for those acts?
I forgot, @Eamonn, dishonorable defines the passion of man for man and woman for woman, which immediately follows in the text. It doesn’t say, “it’s OK if the passion is honorable” because that passion toward the same sex is not considered honorable. Maybe if there were an idea of “it’s all OK if you really love one another” then it likely would have been definitely spelled out right there. Doesn’t that seem reasonable?
@Eamonn - I never implied that the Catholic Church condemns homosexuals. I fully agree that it is homosexual acts, as well as improper heterosexual acts, which are explicitly condemned.
Not sure where your commentary is coming from, but in the Ignatius Study Bible, the commentary for this passage (Romans 1:27) states that “Homosexual activity is expressly condemned in the Old Testament (Lev 18:22; 20:13) as well as the New Testament (1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10). It is a grave disorder that victimizes both men and women and turns them away from each other and their natural complementarity. For Paul, sexual rebellion against nature (1:26) is the fallout of spiritual rebellion against God (CCC 2357-59).”
@Fr. Roderick:
Lang may yer lum reek: “Long may your chimney smoke” I think was your translation, Fr. Roderick. The chimney continues to smoke here in this very interesting and informative discussion of a very important topic. THANKS for giving a format for our coming together to peek into each other’s heart and mind and share what we find there and what we find in society and in the Word of God. Great differences start to disappear as we try to understand each other.
Hello Mary and others,
I have found this a fascinating and often moving discussion on the Church’s teaching on this sensitive topic.
It was much more important than the sayings on the tea towel I sent t o Fr Roderick. However, to you all, recession or no recession ” lang may yer lum reek” Jim Gordon. Dundee
Hi there, Jim “Dundee”, thanks for your well wishes. It looks more likr a big crash than a recession right now. Well, the news reports try to make you think that anyway. So keep sending up your prayers for us “straights and gays” alike so that we get everything going in the right direction in our lives: passion, spirituality, health, money, education and the like. Looks like America needs a re-conversion. I’m hanging on to what John Paul II said to us: “Do not be afraid”.
Some interesting opinions here
Seems like Michael C hit on what would Jesus think and do or not do as an example for the rest of us. We know that he did not make any statement on this issue at all. He concentrated on much more important issues and was not concerned about something that according to natural scientists occurs in nature approximately 5% to 6& of the time
We should understand that bibical scholars say that the culture of the time was very diverse with a wide variety of viewpoints, especially among the early Christians. Of course there was Paul and Leviticus voicing some of the strongest minority views of their times but it is important to note that they were only two out of many. We did not hear from the other apostles on this issue or from Jesus and there was no commandment addressing this. If God saw this as important he definitely would have put it in his commandments.
Taking extremely selective quotes out of context out of the bible and putting forth ones own interpretation without quoting what Jesus said about loving everyone and everyone having a place at the table is at best disengenous.
I think we should take our lesson from Jesus and refrain from the condemnation/castigation of others to take a step back because he did say something very important about ourselves if we do that judging of others.
God bless one & all,
Jonathan
@ Jonathan e., Jesus doesn’t specifically address many of our problems. That was not his mission, was it? And what commandment specifically addresses incest? But it is all in the commandments and in Jesus’ messages if we look openly enough. There is also tradition which has been passed down. Not all that Jesus did and said is in the Bible alone. The Early Church Fathers, found at ewtn.com, is a good resource to look into.
No one is judging cuz we are all sinners and we are able to love each other because of Christ’s love for us as we are. But we are not told to STAY sinners as we are. We are all called to perfection.
Discernment is a blessing and is good to cultivate through discussions and such.
For me, it is too difficult even to print any thought of Jesus discussing much of our human activities, like what is being discussed here, but I can understand the great need of someone who is experiencing heavy pain and suffering - even heavy self-indulgence arising out of the need to try to figure this problematic way of living - to ignore the Truth of His coming and try to find an “as is” acceptance.
He does accept, but He calls for more and we are either going up or down as I believe it has been said that there is no safe middle ground.
Yes, He accepted the sinners, weaklings, sick, rich, dead and dying, etc., and admonished at times too, but He asks for conversion.
There is always diversity in people. Paul’s many letters reflect how hard he had to work at times trying to keep the Christians on the right track…it is very easy to stray from the narrow Way.
I say we all give our problems to Jesus and take His light yolk as He desires. The challenge is to give, unconditionally and totally, our problems to Him and then it is for us to do the accepting of His light yolk whatever it may be. If one can do that, it really works out fine.
Hey, if we want to continue with this interesting subject, should someone start a website for it? I’m feeling like we are taking up some kind of Cyberspace room from the Daily Breakfast and ESPN. I don’t know that side of computers. (I helped develop animation software only by testing and suggesting…not the tech side of it.)
I am a Christian, not a Catholic. I feel blessed to be part of a church that is accepting and loving and affirming. I have gay christian friends and would not be part of a church that excluded them. Above all we are called to be Christ-like.
Blessings to all.
@Melissa,
Just a clarification (one I used to need, so please don’t be offended): Catholics ARE Christians.
Also, people who identify as gay are certainly welcome in the Catholic Church. Never been otherwise. It’s just that those people have an extra challenge in living up to the sexual standards of the Church. \
I’m not sure when the idea of warning people of the sinfulness of a course of action became “hateful,” but it’s a false impression. Is it hateful to tell a smoker smoking is harmimg them?
Please go to http://couragerc.net/ and try to see a new perspective.
@Naomi
I am very aware that Catholics are Christians. My point was simply that I am not a Catholic. Thought this was worth pointing out as I was reponding to a Catholic podcast.